The big day is almost here for many young lawyers. Recent law grads nestling up in their beds have visions of Blackberries dancing in their heads.

January 2010 will bring start dates for many bound for Biglaw firms. But some firms have had second thoughts. Winston Strawn and Nixon Peabody recently informed incoming associates of more deferrals.

This has made lots of young lawyers nervous. Brian Baxter at AmLaw Daily wants to help calm your nerves, so he surveyed over 40 top firms to ask whether their little associates can count on start dates coming down the chimney. Over half responded.

We’ve noticed that Paul Hastings-bound associates have been especially vociferous in our comments section. They can stop flipping out. According to a spokesman there, the firm plans to start them “on time” in January.

Given recent news and the AmLaw survey, we’ve decided to update our start date round-up. After the jump, we’ve got a new list of start dates at firms nationwide, sorted two ways: alphabetically by firm name and chronologically by start date.

Dear law firms:

It is December 15th. Christmas is ten days away. January 4th is a mere 20 days away.

I bring this up because some of you seem to be having trouble with the Gregorian calendar. Some of you have incoming associates that are set to start at your firm on January 4th or soon thereafter. These incoming associates have already been deferred by your firm.

Perhaps you have the desire to defer these people again? Sorry, but you missed your chance. It’s too late. You should have deferred them (again) sooner. To do so now is just cruel. A lot of these people have signed leases, bought plane tickets, and truncated holiday plans — as you would expect of good employees.

Evidently calendar mastery is not something that can be taught on the fly. So just take my word for it. It is too late to defer January starters again. It’s time to suck it up, clear out some office space, and get your pro bono partner on the ball. Trust me.

Your friend,

Common sense and basic decency.

The above message came too late to help incoming Nixon Peabody associates, but maybe we can teach other firms that mistreating incoming associates is wrong.

Details after the jump.

McDermott Will & Emery was supposed to have its incoming class start in January. But now that January is almost upon us, MWE is the latest firm to change its mind.

The news first broke on Facebook late last week, via status updates of unhappy incoming associates:

♫ “re-deferment in december. happy holidays.”

Yeah, there is a lot of that going around. It’s like the Biglaw version of the Lexus “December to Remember” ad campaign.

McDermott will be offering the (now standard) deferral extension stipend of $5,000/month. Given that the firm has been cost cutting for a while, incoming associates should probably be grateful for the stipend they will receive.

Additional details, plus a statement from the firm, after the jump.

Last Thursday, we asked you if deferred incoming associates were all set to start working. With a lot of associates scheduled to start in January, firms that extend the deferment in December might need a visit from Christmas ghosts.

Well, a few incoming associates received a large “bah, humbug” from Mayer Brown. The firm is asking people to “voluntarily” extend their deferral to October 2010.

On the positive side, the decision will only affect a few of Mayer Brown’s incoming class.

An explanation from the firm after the jump.

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.