Seyfarth Shaw is set to become the latest firm to flip its incoming associates the Bird. A very angry tipster reports:

[Seyfarth] just deferred all incoming associates to October 2010 with only $2000/month as a stipend beginning on our former start date of January 19, 2010! It’s a joke … we know for a fact that they were busy and could have afforded us. It is a firm managed by horrible, greedy, selfish individuals … This is amusing, in light of the fact that the firm turned a profit last year …

We would like to warn anyone considering accepting an offer from the firm to STAY AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is particularly disconcerting for those of us who turned down offers from Biglaw in favor of a firm that apparently “cared soooo much” about us. Go Vault or go home.

Whoa, tell us what you really think. You have to wonder if these deferred incoming associates will come up with any fun banners about their would-be employer.

As angry as the deferred incoming associates appear to be, it is not at all clear that Seyfarth could have afforded to bring on a new class of people at this time. In addition to telling the incoming associates to wait for almost another year, today the firm announced that it was cutting first year associate salaries.

Details and a statement from Seyfarth, after the jump.

Earlier this month, we asked you if holiday parties were still on this year. Many people said that they were, albeit more subdued than the halcyon days of yore.

But one deferred associate had this question:

Aside from the question of which firms may be abandoning their holiday parties this year, it would be interesting to see which firms are inviting their deferred associates. As of now I don’t think the firm that deferred me is …

You know, it never occurred to me that firms would invite deferred associates the holiday party. At first blush, the idea sounds ludicrous. Why would they invite people who are not employees to the employee party?

I’m willing to bet that it never occurred to most firms either. But remember, deferring incoming associates is a completely new thing. There are no rules for this stuff; the legal industry is making it up as it goes along.

So, as long as we are setting new standards here, why shouldn’t a firm invite deferred associates to the party?

A discussion and a reader poll after the jump.

Last week, we asked you if deferral stipends for incoming associates are too small. The reaction was mixed. Some people felt that incoming associates should be thankful for every penny they get. Others noted that it was extremely difficult to make loan repayments off of the deferral stipend.

But many people felt that deferred associates should just go out and get a job, any job.

I had assumed that most deferred associates were already actively engaged in the process of looking for work. Not just to defray the costs of their deferment, but for a long term position in case their firm never actually allows them to start working. But then this question came into the ATL inbox:

I am emailing because I think it would be useful to deferred associates to dialogue on how we should react to the situation we are in. I have an offer at a law firm that had initially deferred incoming associates until January 2010. Now incoming associates are being deferred until later in 2010. Are incoming associates (to all firms) being foolhardy for continuing to rely on these offers? What if we are deferred again, or worse, what if our offers are rescinded? Will we look back and question why we did not look for another job sooner? Will potential other employers think we were naive for relying on the offers for so long, making our chances of finding another job less likely? Is it enough that we received job offers from prestigious, competitive firms, but in the end it did not work out; will that get us another job? These are all questions we have to ask ourselves, but it is hard to come to any answers without the benefit of knowing the future…obviously. I think it would be useful to get the industry perspective, because in the end, it the industry perspective that will dictate how our decision to wait around or not wait around is viewed.

Let’s discuss and take a reader poll after the jump.

We receive a lot of interesting emails here at Above the Law. Once law firms started deferring their deferred incoming associates for a second time, we started getting emails like the one below. Since I don’t really know how to respond to the people who have been asking this type of question, I figured I’d throw it out to you guys for your expert advice:

Can you do a story about the size of deferral stipends? Particularly, breaking down the math of expenses showing that some firm’s stipends are too small. For instance, [Redacted] is paying deferred first years only $3300 per month before taxes. After taxes this only comes out to like $2600 per month. Most law students went to expensive schools with $150,000 debt (not to mention undergrad debt), and have $1,000 per month loan payments starting this month even if you select the maximum 30 year repayment plan. Under the 10 year payment plan, loan payments are $1500 per month. When you consider that rent in New York, DC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco is at least $1,200 (being very very conservative), that leaves no money to pay for things like food or utilities. They expect us to basically spend more than we make for 3, 6, 9, 12+ months? This is practically a layoff. I don’t have the finances or rich parents to go 6+ months with no money. Firms like [Redacted] need to pay at least the market $5,000 per month so that the deferred first years have enough to live on. Especially when our original offer letter promised us “market compensation.”

Is there anything useful we can tell this person (and the other incoming associates in the same position)? Let’s try after the jump.

Katten Muchin is using every tool in the box when it comes to figuring out what to do with its incoming associates. If there is a plan for dealing with soon-to-be first years that has been discussed on Above the Law, Katten is using it.

A tipster reports that Katten has broken up its first year class into three groups:

Katten Muchin Rosenman rescinded several offers to 2008 summer associates today. From what I’ve heard about 1/3 were rescinded, 1/3 were re-deferred to October, and 1/3 will start in February as scheduled.

Essentially, Katten just turned itself into Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross: “As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you’re fired.”

Let’s talk some more about the third prize after the jump.

So far, firms that have deferred their 2009 summer associates to 2011 have been noncommittal about whether they will be giving a deferral stipend. Many class of 2009 graduates received money from firms for the year long wait. It’s not clear that class of 2010 graduates will be as lucky.

With the market still up in the air, Shearman & Sterling is giving its incoming class of 2010 the same offer it gave to its incoming class of 2009. A tipster reports:

Shearman NY has announced deferral stipends of $65k.

After the jump, we compare Shearman to itself.

The big news out of Sidley Austin today involves Brian Schroeder, a 2009 Harvard Law School graduate who recently turned himself in for setting fire to a chapel housing the remains of 9/11 victims. Earlier today, the firm told ATL it was rescinding Schroeder’s job offer.

But there are other developments at Sidley too. Regarding start dates for class of 2010 graduates, a source reports:

Sidley Austin sent out letters regarding their deferral program. The details are a January 2012 start date, not optional. Health insurance coverage starting June 1, 2010 (thank goodness), and a stipend of $5000 / month starting January 2011. As usual, no stipend if we work for another law firm, and they reserve the right to call us back early if hell freezes over work picks up.

Sidley declined to comment on its deferral program.

On the subject of being summoned to work before 2011, we’d tell the tipster: hey, it might happen. As you may recall, some Sidley D.C. incoming associates were contacted over the summer and asked to start early.

A year and a half is a long time to be deferred. Hopefully members of the class of 2010 won’t get into as much trouble as Brian Schroeder during their time off.

CORRECTION: As noted in the comments, and confirmed by emails sent to us directly, Sidley is splitting up the class of 2010. Some are starting in January 2012 and some in January 2011 (which is apparently the earliest start date).

Speaking of Brian Schroeder, we wanted to draw your attention to one reader comment that struck us as funny, as well as yet yet another testimonial about him (to add to the prior ones).

Check them out after the jump.

Plenty of law schools talk about producing attorneys who are able to serve their community. But a new program at the University of Miami School of Law actually puts a little bit of money behind the commitment to public service.

Time magazine featured the school’s new Foreclosure Defense Fellowship this weekend (gavel bang: ABA Journal). The article highlights Miami’s attempts to get recent graduates into the business of serving one of the constituencies that actually needs more attorneys.

Unlike similar legal fields such as bankruptcy, foreclosure is rarely a full-time practice and is often handled by real estate attorneys or legal aid services agencies. Still, more than 3 million property foreclosures were filed in the U.S. last year; South Florida is expected to see more than 150,000 this year compared to fewer than 25,000 three years ago. And while mortgage modifications had been on the upswing in recent months, the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center reported this week that many large banks and other mortgage servicers have decided it’s cheaper to foreclose than to offer more affordable loan terms. Making matters even worse, as many as 86% of foreclosure victims in hard-hit areas didn’t have legal counsel last year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, which released a report earlier this month.

Miami Law has given eight recent graduates a $10,000 fellowship to do this important work. Obviously, $10K isn’t enough to live on. But instead of raising tuition and bemoaning the lack of public interest lawyers, Miami’s fellowship program is giving its graduates a little bit of help in their efforts to give back to the community.

Above the Law corresponded with Miami law professor Michael Froomkin, who founded the program. More details about it, after the jump.

As many of you know, public interest organizations around the country benefited from the recession’s effects on Biglaw. There are many talented graduates of top law schools working in public interest — and being paid by the firms who have no work for them.

It’s a pretty sweet deal for cash-strapped public interest organizations. Some of them don’t want the good times to end. The ABA Journal reports:

Some lawyers are suggesting that sending new lawyers into the field is such a good idea that it shouldn’t be dropped when the recession ends. One of them is Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The programs were “a creative response by the firms to what was a very ugly crisis,” Arnwine told AP. “My wish going forward is that what you can do in bad times you can do in good times.”

My wish going forward is that the sea people come and “take me away from this crappy goddamn planet full of hippies.” I think my wish will come true before Barbara Arnwine’s.

Don’t get me wrong, it would be awesome if there were some sort of training ground where new attorneys could learn some basic lawyering skills. If the training were really good, I bet young attorneys would even pay for the opportunity to be educated. Too bad we don’t have any kind of system of schools that can competently prepare people entering into the legal profession.

Public Interest Lawyer Says Loaned Associates Should Be Permanent Program [ABA Journal]

As regular Above the Law readers know, there are a few firms that are offering “go away” money to their incoming associates. The deal, like ones at Stroock and Pillsbury, is that the firm will give incoming associates a large payment instead of a job, and the incoming associate will quietly go peruse other employment options.

We haven’t really gotten a sense of how many would-be associates would actually consider this offer — until now. Fenwick & West offered its incoming associates $60,000 to stay away. According to our sources, around 40 percent of Fenwick’s 2009 class took the money.

But there is a catch; there’s always a catch.

Details after the jump.

We have done a lot of reporting on firms that have deferred their incoming class, and then extended the deferral period. At some firms, it has been an indefinite deferral extension.

So give Arent Fox a little bit of credit. Instead of continuing to string the class of 2009 along, the firm has cried “no más” and just revoked offers to several of its incoming associates.

Arent Fox has confirmed to Above the Law that it has decided to revoke offers to some 2009 graduates who have not yet started at the firm. The firm is giving them $20,000 for the inconvenience of believing they had already successfully secured post-graduate employment.

Maybe Arent Fox read Morning Docket today. We linked to a story in the Atlantic that asked why firms were doing deferrals instead of revoking offers outright.

There has been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by would-be Arent Fox first years on Facebook this morning. But we think this comment on a status update captures the general feeling:

I just sent them an envelope with powder in it. Don’t worry, I wore a ski mask when I walked to the mailbox so they can’t trace me.

Please, Arent Fox friends, do not blow your $20K on terrorist activities. Instead stock up on Ramen and a buy a good sleeping bag. It’s going to be a long winter.

UPDATE: We assume the Facebook commenter was joking. Clearly. The wearing a ski mask to the mailbox line is clear parody.

FURTHER UPDATE: Arent Fox Chairman Marc Fleischaker shared some numbers with the BLT:

In all, Fleischaker said, about 12 incoming associates were affected. Washington, which has the firm’s largest office, had “about eight,” New York had “between two and three,” and Los Angeles had one, Fleischaker said. The news was first reported on Above the Law.

Read Arent Fox’s full statement after the jump.

Way back in June, Above the Law heard rumblings about issues regarding the incoming first-year class at Baker & McKenzie. The class had already been deferred until January 2010, but in June some tipsters reported that Baker was “rescinding” offers. Others claimed that the firm was simply “strongly encouraging” incoming associates to consider alternatives.

Still, some associates poised to start at Baker hadn’t heard anything at all. At the time, we brought these reports to the attention of Baker & McKenzie management. In June, the firm said:

As we’ve already communicated, we have had to make some difficult decisions in a difficult economy. But we haven’t taken the actions you suggest, and our start dates remain January (and, in some cases, earlier).

But that was back in the heady days of early summer. Now, as autumn approaches, Baker seems to be preparing its incoming class for economic reality. This morning, tipsters reported that deferral extensions — or worse — were coming down on at least some members of Baker’s would-be incoming class:

Last night at 10:30, we received an email from the [redacted] simpleton, asking to set up a phone call for this morning. Phone call from hiring partner was as follows:

Economy blah blah blah limited amount of work blah blah blah majority of you will not be starting in January. Starting in January, 5k stipend plus benefits for up to six months. at ANY time during six months, MAY get a call from b&m, have 1-2 weeks to report to work, but absent a major bump in work, not likely to happen. If after June, no call from b&m, “the relationship will end.”

Twelve of 18 incoming associates got this lovely treatment

“The relationship will end” does not sound promising. After the jump, Baker responds to these reports.

My friends, we have a trend. Bryan Cave has become the third firm we know of to offer its incoming associates money to simply go away instead of starting at the firm.

Tipsters report that the firm is offering some associates $70,000 to “walk away” instead of showing up for work. That’s the carrot. This tipster reports the stick:

[A Bryan Cave letter] stated that they are unable to guarantee a start date at this time .. The letter [also] said was that they are unsure if they will need any first year associates before 2011. Shady, shady, shady…

Stroock — the first firm to offer incoming associates go away money — offered $75,000. Pillsbury offered $60,000. So Bryan Cave is keeping up with the market for these kinds of things.

After the jump, a reader poll, and Bryan Cave’s strategy for incoming associates.

Do you remember the class of 2009? You know, the kids who should be gearing up to start work in a couple of weeks but are instead sitting around, waiting to get out of purgatory? Don’t look now, but a couple of firms have decided to extend the deferral period for these people, and that can’t be a good thing.

Proskauer Rose’s New York office kicked off the round of deferment extensions last week. A tipster from Proskauer in Los Angeles reported the news:

Proskauer just told incoming L.A. associates that [incoming associates] in New York are getting their start dates pushed back again. It’s all the way back to November now. They told us [in L.A.] before they told New York because they didn’t want us to “hear it on Above the Law first.” [Sheesh.]

The letters have now gone out to all the incoming New York associates informing them of the news. The new start date is November 2, 2010.

Proskauer had already pushed back the class of 2009 to March 2010. But Proskauer has also told the class of 2010 that the earliest they will be able to start is “fall” 2010.

So can we assume that rising 2Ls considering interviewing with Proskauer won’t be able to start until late 2012? For that matter, are incoming Proskauer associates confident that they will ever be able to start at the firm? We reached out to Proskauer, but the firm did not respond to our request for comment.

After the jump, Mintz Levin joins the deferment extension party.

It seems like the summer associates just arrived, yet many are already packing up their Biglaw bags to head back to school. This may be due in part to shorter summer associate programs this year, but that’s besides the point.

Summer associates departing the offices of Ropes & Gray have big smiles plastered on their faces. The firm has delivered good news, say tipsters:

During the week or two leading up to the end of the summer program, the Partner in charge of the summers met with all the SAs for reviews. In these reviews, ALL SAs got offers. There is not even a buzz about anyone getting no-offered or cold offered!

We checked in with the firm. A spokesperson put a very slight damper on the excitement, but also delivered some good deferral stipend news for 2010 law grads, after the jump.

If you are an incoming first year at Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco or Silicon Valley office, you are probably on the final stretch of your CA bar exam preparations. If so, please stop reading this post right now. We don’t want to put any extra pressure on you guys.

For everybody else, you might be interested to know that Quinn Emanuel has deferred half of its incoming first year class in those two offices until January 2010.

As we understand it, the firm is not offering any kind of deferral stipend for the affected incoming associates.

Tipsters have been critical of the firm’s decision:

This is a double whammy. First, they hadn’t been deferred at all, were planning on starting in two months, so this is late notice. And second, telling people one week before the bar?!?!? that’s cold.

Well, it’s better than being told between the first and second day of the bar exam.

After the jump, Quinn Emanuel’s managing partner, John Quinn, explains the reason for this decision.

Big news from Weil Gotshal today. The firm previously deferred its incoming associates to January 2010, with the option of deferring until January 2011 (with a $75,000 stipend).

In recognition of the fact that it will have some of the class of 2009 starting in January 2011, the firm is offering current summers — i.e., the class of 2010 — the option of deferring until January 2012. Above the Law received the following statement from Weil Gotshal:

Earlier today, we informed our 2009 summer associates of the following:

* We are offering each summer associate who receives an offer of permanent employment at the conclusion of this year’s Summer Program the option of deferring his or her start date from January 2011 to January 2012.

* Each incoming associate electing to defer will receive a $75,000 stipend and health care benefits. In order to receive this stipend, the deferring associate must spend 1,000 hours during the deferral year performing some form of Firm-approved public service work in the US or abroad, including interning for a judge, or working for a Firm client.

* An incoming associate may decide to travel or take a paid position during the deferral year. The Firm will only pay the stipend to those people doing public service work. However, the Firm will provide health care benefits to all deferring associates.

* As we did with the successful deferral program for the class of 2009 associates, we will assist those who elect to defer with identifying public service placements, clerkships, and client opportunities.

The earliest current summers can start at Weil is January 2011 (and that is of course dependent on whether they receive an offer from the firm). But the option to defer until 2012 is even more evidence that the class of 2010 could be worse off than the class of 2009.

Don’t even get me started on the class of 2011.

More details from the firm statement, after the jump.

If the class of 2009 is like the main cast on Lost, then the class of 2010 is starting to look like the Tailies. Ropes & Gray has decided to defer its current summer class until “Sometime, 2011.”

Here is the firm-wide memo that all Ropes & Gray associates received last week:

As we recently communicated to summer associates, we will be making offers to them according to the usual standards and in the same numbers as in the past. We have not set a definite start date for them, but it will be no earlier than January 2011. We are encouraging current summer associates to consider pursuing a clerkship or NAP fellowship.

Just like Cravath Skadden, Ropes is promising that its summer offer rate will be commensurate with past years. However, just like Cravath Skadden, Ropes makes no mention of any kind of incoming first-year deferral stipend that it intends to offer to the class of 2010.

UPDATE: We now know what kind of stipend Ropes will be giving to the class of 2010. See here.

In March, Ropes announced its New Alternatives plan, which deferred the class of 2009 to January 2010. Now the firm is encouraging its current summers (class of 2010) to seek a public interest fellowship between law school graduation and the new start date at the firm.

At least current Ropes summer associates should come out of this summer with offers in hand. There are a lot of Biglaw summers that would sign up for that, regardless of when they can actually start after graduation.

Read the full Ropes & Gray memo, after the jump.

Back in May, we reported that Pillsbury Winthrop wanted some of its incoming first year associates to defer until January 2010, some to defer until 2011, and others to take $60,000 to go away entirely.

The firm couched all of these options as “voluntary.” But notwithstanding the firm’s choice of language, we reported that Pillsbury needed at least 22 of its incoming class of 54 associates to take the go away money, or defer for a year.

Pillsbury said that it would announce which associates were starting in January 2010 on June 26th. That was Friday.

But according to my iPhone “date and time” application (how people did anything before the iPhone, I do not know) it is Monday, June 29th. And there is still no word from Pillsbury. Here’s one tipster’s report:

As of this AM, still no news from the firm. Yet again, evidence they can’t be trusted - or don’t care about incoming associates. Their written letters to us said we would know by by Friday. I hope this is not how the firm conducts business with clients.

Should Pillsbury associates expect the firm to actually tell them when they can start? Or should they just start hanging out on the Acela and hope to catch a clue on the wind?

More reactions after the jump.

Last week, the Massachusetts Trial Court got approval for a unique solution to address its budget shortfall, reported Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly:

The Supreme Judicial Court’s Committee on Judicial Ethics has approved a proposal by Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert A. Mulligan that would allow deferred law-firm associates to work for the Trial Court as “volunteer interns” while on the payroll of the firms that hired them.

Great for the court — it doesn’t have to pay for clerks. Great for deferred associates — they get valuable experience during their deferral year. Great for BigLaw — their incoming associates get clerkship experience. Everyone’s happy, right?

Well, not the 24 clerks who had been slotted to get those positions whose offers have been withdrawn. And not those troubled by the ethics of corporate-sponsored clerks in the courtroom. Though approving the arrangement, the Committee on Judicial Ethics admitted that there’s something a bit troubling about it:

The CJE acknowledged that allowing law firms to pay the salaries of clerks implicates portions of the Judicial Code of Conduct that require judges to avoid impropriety and appear unbiased. It also stated that the plan raises the issue of whether the volunteer interns are a “gift” or “favor” to the judges of the Trial Court from the law firms.

The CJE had a solution for that. Keep it all secret!

“Structuring the program in such a way that the law firms’ involvement is unknown not only to the public but also to the judges who will be ‘employing’ the volunteer interns will negate any impression that those law firms are in a special position to influence the judge,” the CJE panel wrote.

Members of the public might not be aware of the connection when they have a case before the court, but the general news-consuming public of Massachusetts knows about the plan now. It’s in the Boston Globe and is currently the newspaper’s number four most e-mailed story.

What do you think about the ethical hullabaloo? Vote in our poll, after the jump.