These aren't the best of times for Biglaw, in case you hadn't noticed. The most recent evidence: staff and lawyer layoffs at Sonnenschein, news that we broke last night (and might write more about, so feel free to email us with info).

But here is a tiny sliver of good news. In response to our open call for information about delayed start dates for incoming associates, which some law firms have been using to reduce expenses, we received very little.

First, we learned that DLA Piper has instituted a nationwide start date of October 1. This isn't terribly exciting, since October 1 isn't that late. Other firms that have announced delayed start dates have gone for late October or even January.

The change also doesn't appear to be economically motivated. From DLA spokesperson Jason Costa:

The changes were made to provide a uniform start date across all our offices. The new collective date allows us to have a uniform orientation process. We think it will also be good for the associates, since the shared start date will probably lead to a tighter knit class.

Our tipsters mentioned the availability of pay advances if needed, which Costa confirmed: "We are more than happy to give pay advances to any incoming associates who had planned to start earlier than October, and who may need the extra cash."

Second, we received more details about Pillsbury Winthrop, which previously said it was spacing out start dates "over several months."

Read the rest, after the jump.

I previously wrote (here and here) about Oscar Pistorius, the Olympic hopeful who was ruled ineligible to compete in the Beijing Games by the International Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF") because he uses Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetic legs. With help from Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) as his pro bono counsel, Pistorius recently challenged the IAAF's ruling in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

On Friday, a three-person arbitration panel ruled in Pistorius's favor, finding that Pistorius's prosthetics do not provide him with "an overall net advantage" in violation of IAAF Rule 144.2(e). This opens the door for Pistorius to compete in South Africa's Olympic trials using his prosthetics. The panel reserved the right to change its ruling if new scientific evidence emerges.

With this matter resolved for now, let's take a look at the big winners and losers from the litigation:

Big Winners

Oscar Pistorius: Finally eligible for South Africa's Olympic trials, the Blade Runner is a step closer to competing against the world's finest. In addition, he is also a step closer to earning the kind of endorsement dollars that would make even Dan & Dave envious.

Ossur HF Company: The Iceland-headquartered supplier of the Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetics is gaining all kinds of free publicity. Most of us have now heard of the Cheetah Flex-Foot. Can anybody name a competitor prosthetic? I didn't think so.

Dewey & LeBoeuf: Forget the goodwill that comes with pro bono representation. By winning this case, Dewey & LeBoeuf has expanded its sports-law footprint across the Atlantic Ocean, as well as opened the door to secure new business in international sports arbitration.

Debevoise & Plimpton: Real kudos goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for their gutsy and articulate 18-page decision that does not pull its punches with the IAAF. David W. Rivkin, a partner in the New York and London offices of Debevoise & Plimpton, was one of the three named arbitrators in this dispute. His work could only look good for the firm.

Read the rest, after the jump.

If the economy keeps getting worse -- check out today's stock market meltdown and Bear Stearns debacle, discussed over at Dealbreaker -- law firms will need to replace the dried-up revenue streams from transactional practice. And this time around, it looks like the usual countercyclical practices -- e.g., litigation, bankruptcy -- aren't picking up the slack.

Fortunately, there's a growing cottage industry for Biglaw: renting out offices to film and television production companies. This message recently went out to everyone in the Washington office of DLA Piper:

Subject: Fox Pilot Shoot This Weekend

Please be advised that Fox Television Network will be filming a TV pilot shoot on Saturday, March 15, and Sunday, March 16, from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., in our office space. They have been authorized to take photographs and shoot scenes of the interior and/or exterior of the building.

The areas to be filmed, include office locations 6050 and 6052, the hallway outside these 2 offices, the atrium, 7 Red, and the dining area of the cafe. 7 White will be used to store equipment and other items needed during the shoot.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

Thanks.

[xxxx]

And, no, they don't need any "extras" :)

Sorry, DLA Pipers. Your best shot at fame is still reality television.

We've walked past the DLA Piper offices here in D.C. many a time -- they're very well-located, in the delightful Penn Quarter neighborhood -- and we've been impressed. The building is sleek, ultra-modern, and so well-lit that you can practically see the titles of the books on the shelves (yes, we've tried). It's not hard to imagine a movie or TV show being filmed on the premises.

But we have to ask: Fox? Is this damaging the DLA brand? Consider the following hierarchy of law firms and the productions they've hosted:

Oscar-winning feature film, starring George Clooney: Dewey Ballantine (with shared credit to Davis Polk).

Feature film, starring Cameron Diaz: Cadwalader.

Fox TV pilot: DLA Piper.

Well, hey, it could be worse. E.g., Skinemax.

Update: A DLA Piper source confirmed the accuracy of, and asked us to highlight, this comment:

DLA Piper's Baltimore office was a filming location for Syriana. Also an Oscar-winning feature film starring George Clooney.

So please don't associate DLA Piper exclusively with the folks responsible for making Paula Abdul a household name once again. Thanks.

DLA Piper moves to new office space in Washington D.C.’s Penn Quarter [DLA Piper]

Some minor email amusement, in the spirit of Skadden Arps and Pepper Hamilton, courtesy of the Chicago office of DLA Piper:

This is a pretty cool goof by Bill Rudnick, the new head of DLA Piper's Chicago office. A group of partners just came over from Locke Lord Bissell, and apparently one of them went back to Locke Lord within a week.

Around 8:30 p.m. last Wednesday, three messages went out to the Chicago office all within a couple minutes. The first e-mail below went out first, followed by a "recall" message, and then the last message below.

Read the emails, after the jump.

Today brings us bonus and salary news from DLA Piper, the biggest of all Biglaws. Back in November, the firm was crowned by the National Law Journal as the nation's largest law firm (with a whopping 3,623 attorneys).

DLA Piper may be the biggest -- but not when it comes to bonuses. From a disgruntled tipster:

It's official: no special bonuses for DLA Piper's New York office. But first year associates in our secondary offices got raise to a $160,000 start. I attach the chart. [Ed. note: It's after the jump.]

The firm did it in a very slimy way with no official announcement, just individual notices of bonuses. Pretty funny after last year's heralded promises to stay with the New York market... I guess Frank and Lee thought: "never mind."

So was DLA Piper managing expectations when it issued a somewhat gloomy email earlier in the month? From a few weeks ago (around January 8):

I'm an associate at DLA Piper and we got a firmwide email discussing the firm's 2007 finances and applauding us all on a job well done. They exceeded expectations and last year's totals. However, the email closes with this paragraph:

"While we are pleased with the results for 2007, we approach 2008 with caution, given the uncertain economic outlook. We intend to be conservative in both our budgeting for 2008 and in our financial management."

It may be nothing... but I feel like they are bracing us for something, whether it's crappy bonuses or no pay increase. Good times!

Today's bonus and salary memo, plus the firm-wide salary chart, after the jump.

* A PSA for Blackberry Pearl users on the T-Mobile network. Also, Theresa sounds deliciously evil. [PrawfsBlawg]

* "Senator Obama, we knew Jack Kennedy, and you, Senator, are--well, dude, you were two-years-old...." [What About Clients?]

* "Lessons from Mary-Kategate: Why Lawyers Should Not Engage in Media Relations." And we agree wholeheartedly with this statement: "the ability to get under powerful people’s skin. If ever there was a talent valued among tabloid journalists, that’s got to be it." [Starkman & Associates]

* DLA Piper to launch an in-house version of Facebook. But can you play Scrabulous on it? [Legal Blog Watch]

* It's hard out here in a courtroom for a pimp, proceeding pro se. [11Alive.com]

* Oregon Supreme Court puts kibosh on unkindest cut. [Blogonaut]

* Blawg Review #144, with a Lord of the Rings theme. [Cyberlaw Central via Blawg Review]

In our column for this week's New York Observer, we help you plan an imaginary dinner party. A dinner party, of course, is only as good as the guest list. So we review which colorful characters of the legal world, who made headlines in 2007, should be invited to your festivities.

Think of it as a "year in review" piece, aimed primarily at people who don't read ATL (since most of the names mentioned in the article will be familiar to regular visitors to this site). The potential guests under consideration: Charlene Morisseau, the sassy ex-associate who sued DLA Piper; Aaron Charney, who made S&C "bend over"; and internet celebrity Loyola 2L.

ATL bonus content: Due to space considerations, our write-up of Elana Glatt (née Elana Elbogen) wound up on the cutting room floor. But if you'd like to read it, we've reprinted it after the jump.

Culture of Complaint Spreads Through Law Firms [New York Observer]

We've heard complaints from numerous associates claiming that their law firms are using vague bonus policies to lowball them on bonuses. While we understand why these associates are upset, we can't say we're surprised. The whole point of a bonus policy that contains an element of discretion is the ability to pay some associates less than others -- for whatever reason, justified or not.

This is why we regard only a lockstep, non-hours-based match of the Cravath year-end and special bonuses as a "true match." If a firm reserves the right to tailor associate bonuses -- based on billable hours, quality of performance, or any other factor -- expect the firm to exercise it.

So we don't expect to write much about how firms are using slippery bonus memos to pay low bonuses (although we will bring you the results of yesterday's bonus survey). The intricacies of an individual law firm's bonus policy tend to be of interest only to people at that particular firm.

We are, however, interested in bright-line distinctions. For example, what firms have rejected special bonuses entirely? It turns out there are a few of them. Last week we received this info:

DLA Piper litigation associates in New York just left a "Coffee Meeting" with Joe Finnerty III, head of New York litigation. He "unofficially" announced that the bonus structure and amount will be exactly the same as last year and that there will be no market "special bonuses."

Hmm. Did the firm not get paid enough for the Mitchell Report?

And today we received this info:

I'm an associate at McDermott, Will & Emery in the Boston office. We have all just heard through department heads that not only will the firm not issue special bonuses this year, but bonuses this year will be less than half of years past and well well below market.

For example, a 6th year associate (class of 2001) billing between 2000 and 2100 hours will get approximately $5,000. eedless to say, this is less than a first-year associate gets for simply showing up at any other firm. There is not a large or probably even a midsize firm in Boston whose bonuses are anywhere near this low.

We're guessing that DLA Piper and McDermott, Will & Emery are not alone in nixing special bonuses. Many of the firms that have remained mum until now probably have no plans of paying special bonuses, a la Cravath.

And to be perfectly (and brutally) honest, does it make sense for firms with profits per partner that are a fraction of Cravath's to pay bonuses at Cravath levels? Of course associates want bigger bonuses. But they also want jobs.

Nevertheless, we have no doubt that many of you are unhappy about your firm's bonus policy. Feel free to engage in bonus bitchery in the comments. Thanks.

Former DLA Piper associate Charlene Morisseau isn't just our Lawyer of the Day. This high-powered litigatrix -- a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review -- should be hailed as a heroine by Biglaw associates everywhere.

From a most engaging article by Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:

A Manhattan federal judge has thrown out a race discrimination suit brought against DLA Piper by a former associate who claimed the firm's New York office was a hostile work environment.

Charlene Morisseau, a 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a law review editor, joined DLA Piper as a litigation associate in April 2003 but was asked to leave less than a year later. In a lawsuit filed last year, Ms. Morisseau, who is black, claimed her firing was retaliation for complaints she had made about discriminatory treatment.

She requested almost $250 million in damages from the firm and the 11 partners she individually named in the suit.

Now, we're all in favor of giving associates more money. But $250 million may be a bit much, even for a Harvard Law grad. It's about 90 percent of DLA Piper's total firm profits for 2006 ($280 million).

But it looks like Morisseau won't be seeing a dime:

Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan granted summary judgment to the firm Monday, finding that DLA Piper had put forth a "legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination."

"Here, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not perform in a manner satisfactory to Piper notwithstanding her academic credentials," the judge wrote. "She was a confrontational, stubborn, and insubordinate employee in an environment in which professional personal relations, flexibility and a willingness to accept supervision were essential."

Now we've reached the good part. Here's why Charlene Morisseau should be every associate's idol:

[I]n court filings, DLA Piper denied treating Ms. Morisseau differently and said the firm had taken action because the ex-associate had exhibited a pattern of unacceptable behavior, including yelling at partners and throwing one out of her office.

The firm said Ms. Morisseau ordered former partner Marilla Ochis to "back up" out of her office after Ms. Ochis had come to discuss an e-mail exchange Ms. Morisseau had apparently taken offense to.

Have you ever fantasized about telling off your partner oppressors? Well, Charlene Morisseau has lived your dream -- and then some.

Read the rest, after the jump.

Guess what's at the top of the New York Times Most Emailed Articles list today? A piece entitled For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle, by Lynnley Browning.

We're pleasantly surprised that an article about law firm perks, a niche topic that we cover obsessively around here, is so popular with readers of a general-interest publication. Or is it just that lawyers are the only poor saps at work today?

Among the more notable perks mentioned in the article:

1. Milkshakes and candied apples -- yum! (Perkins Coie) [FN1]
2. Mortgage guarantees for the first $100,000 of associate mortgages (Sullivan & Cromwell)
3. Reimbursements for associates who buy a hybrid car or a certain brand of car (DLA Piper; Fulbright & Jaworski)
4. On-site yoga classes (O’Melveny & Myers)

It's an interesting article; read the whole thing here. There's additional commentary on the piece over at the WSJ Law Blog, by Jamie Heller (filling in for Peter Lattman, who is on his honeymoon).

P.S. Looks like an NYT correction may be in order, due to a slip-up concerning the amount of year-end bonuses:

The perks come on top of higher salaries and larger bonuses — this year, the top-offs have been doubled at some practices. At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to their year-end bonuses up to $35,000.

Our suggested rewording: "At the New York office of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, an old-line firm, some associates will receive special payouts of $10,000 to $50,000, in addition to year-end bonuses up to $60,000." (The word "some" is needed before the word "associates," because class of 2007 or "stub year" associates don't get special bonuses.)

[FN1] The Perkins Coie milkshakes come from Potbelly Sandwich Works. Coincidentally, we enjoyed a PSW milkshake for the first time on Wednesday. It was Oreo, and it was delicious!

Update: One of you sent us this great comment, by email:

I thought the most poignant perk was Fried Frank's: they offer psychotherapy (through what sounds suspiciously like a bulk discount deal) to help associates deal with stress, anxiety, depression, and divorce. I love it!

I can imagine the therapist's notes: "Patient distressed re: possibility of negative performance review. Says he has not seen wife or child since, "let's see ... when was that holiday with the fireworks?" Is in constant pain from chronic papercuts and verbal caning associated with ongoing case. Patient noted gratefully that firm is paying for therapy. Possible diagnoses: Stockholm syndrome?"

For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle [New York Times]
Law Job Perks v. Law Job Woes [WSJ Law Blog]

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Arar v. Ashcroft, a high-profile lawsuit arising out of the U.S. government's rendition of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria.

We interviewed DLA Piper partner Joshua Sohn (at right), co-counsel to Mr. Arar along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, about this interesting case and his firm's work on it.

For readers who aren't familiar with the case, what's it all about?

It's about the federal government's extraordinary renditions program, which sends "people of interest" to sites around the world for indefinite detention and interrogation under harsh conditions -- in this case torture. Mr. Arar, who is a computer engineer, Canadian citizen, husband, and father of two young children, was pulled out of the immigration line at JFK when he was attempting to change planes, but not enter the United States. Mr. Arar was interrogated at the airport, detained and interrogated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and ultimately flown by private jet in the dead of night to Jordan and delivered to Syria. Mr. Arar was never charged with a crime, was not allowed to consult with an attorney for many days when he was first detained and both he and his attorney were lied to about what was going to happen to him and the fact that he was being sent to Syria.

Mr. Arar made plain to those holding him that he feared being tortured in Syria and that he wanted to be sent to Canada-where he lived and was a citizen. Those pleas were ignored and Mr. Arar was sent to Syria where he was tortured and kept in a grave-like cell for almost a year. This case seeks to hold the federal officials who are responsible for Mr. Arar's treatment, responsible.

Read the rest of the interview, after the jump.

After Sullivan & Cromwell announced its new bonus program for senior associates, we received a bunch of messages like this one:

Can you please do a thread to see if other NYC firms have matched or plan to match the S&C recent bonus pool system for senior associates? Seems like there's been no reaction to this by any other firms.

Does this mean the other firms no longer offer top-of-the-market compensation for senior associates?

We're not aware of any other New York firms matching the S&C move. But we hear that Skadden is... establishing a committee!

More after the jump.

Alston & Bird lost four partners from its Washington office to DLA Piper on Tuesday, according to this report from The Lawyer:

Alston & Bird’s Washington office was rocked yesterday (Tuesday 2 October) by the exit of four partners to DLA Piper, including DC co-managing partner and chair of the firm’s executive committee, Frank Rusty Conner.

The departing group also includes the former head of Alston’s legislative and public policy group, Tom Boyd. Boyd joins DLA Piper as co-head of the firm’s government affairs practice in Washington with Governor Jim Blanchard.

The exit of the four partners will be a significant blow to Alston’s corporate ambitions. Conner, at the firm for almost 30 years, was also co-head of its corporate group while the two other, as yet unnamed partners, are understood to be from the corporate group.

Alston lost a fifth partner to DLA Piper in September. If this was the NFL, Alston would be getting compensatory draft picks.

DLA Piper raids Alston for former chair and team [TheLawyer.com]

Sadly, the music-loving law firm of Nixon Peabody is not on this afternoon's list of five Vault 100 firms to talk about. And don't hold your breath -- we won't reach NP until we hit the 70's.

Here are the firms that are on the table:

51. Jenner & Block LLP (5.940)
52. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP (5.925)
53. Allen & Overy LLP (5.922)
54. DLA Piper (5.913)
55. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (5.913)

We note the presence of Cahill Gordon on this list. Even though Cahill routinely lands near the top of the profits per partner rankings of the American Lawyer -- in 2006, they were #6, with PPP of $2.575 million -- the firm's prestige seems to lag behind its profits. Any thoughts on why?

Please chatter away about these five firms in the comments. Thanks.

The Vault Top 100 Law Firms [Vault]

Earlier: Vault 1-5; Vault 6-10; Vault 11-15; Vault 16-20; Vault 21-25; Vault 26-30; Vault 31-35; Vault 36-40; Vault 41-45; Vault 46-50

It's a Friday afternoon. So of course we have associate pay raise news to report.

First, some West Coast developments, from the Legal Pad:

Add Morgan, Lewis & Bockius to the list of Cal Law 25 firms that now pay associates on the $160,000 scale.

The only real holdouts now are Bingham McCutchen and Reed Smith, both huge firms with big California presences and fairly high profits that could probably absorb the raise.

Firms lower on the list with lower profits per partner like Littler Mendelson and Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold likely won’t match.

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner and Townsend and Townsend and Crew are the only two firms that could seemingly go either way. Townsend had high profits last year, but the firm said that was due in large part to a big one-time contingency fee. Thelen’s profits per partner last year, $850,000, weren’t bad, but it would become the Cal Law 25 firm with the lowest PPP to raise associate salaries.

Update: From a commenter: "The partnership at Bingham should be embarrassed; even the media is calling you out."

Second, some news from DLA Piper in Chicago. Memo, plus some commentary, after the jump.

It's been all over the comments, so it's not exactly breaking news. But we have verified it with a source at the firm.

The DLA Piper memo, from your pals Larry, Moe and Curly Frank, Lee and Terry, appears after the jump.

P.S. We intend no disrespect to the work that Frank Burch, Lee Miller, and Terry O'Malley are doing as joint CEOs of DLA Piper. We just think the informality of signing memos as "Frank, Lee and Terry" is a bit forced.

C'mon, guys. You're the heads of a major international law firm -- not three guys we met down at the track.

We now bring you... a pair of non-announcement announcements on the associate pay raise front. They're from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and DLA Piper.

As our tipster noted, Pillsbury Winthrop practically "threatens" its associates with a pay raise. Here's an excerpt from their memo (emphasis added):

We want to take the time to thoughtfully consider your views and take into account your concerns, which we share, regarding the need to stay competitive, together with the implicit work-life balance impact of additional salary increases.

In other words: "Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it."

The full text of the Pillsbury memo, plus a similar "hold your horses" memo from DLA Piper, after the jump.

We're all very familiar with the average profits-per-partner figures that are published as part of the AmLaw 100 law firm rankings. But since they're just averages, they do raise some obvious questions:

-- What's the average take-home pay for a typical Biglaw partner?

-- How much do newly minted, junior partners earn, compared to the most senior or most highly compensated partners of a large law firm?

-- How much can superstars with enormous books of business rake in?

Information that goes a significant way towards answering such questions appears in this fascinating article, by Andrew Longstreth for the American Lawyer. You should read the whole thing for yourself; it's socioeconomic voyeurism at its best.

A few excerpts, and some quick thoughts from us, appear after the jump.

We have to step away from the computer for a while. Here's an open thread about compensation issues to carry us through the weekend.

Three items for possible discussion (which some of you have already started talking about in a prior thread):

1. DLA Piper Singles Out Patent Litigators for Higher Pay [The Recorder]

This follows on the heels of Dechert's D.C. office announcing higher pay for associates in its financial services practice group. Is differential compensation -- a move away from lockstep -- a hot new Biglaw trend?

2. The High Price of Escalating Associate Salaries [DC Bar]

From DC bar president James J. Sandman (at right), a partner at Arnold & Porter, writing in the March 2007 issue of Washington Lawyer magazine:

[F]irst-year associate salaries at big firms have gotten to a level where increases are very bad. They are bad for the law firms that pay them, for the associates who receive them, for the clients who foot the bill for them, and for the society we serve.

Sandman takes a swipe at the firm that initiated the latest round of pay raises (Simpson Thacher, cough cough):

I don’t understand what causes a firm be the first to increase the salary of a brand-new lawyer from an already eye-popping $145,000 to $160,000. There is no competitive advantage in doing so. Other firms will surely follow suit, and the firm that led the market will quickly be indistinguishable from the rest of the pack.

To read Sandman's interesting and provocative argument against the recent raises, click here.

3. Finally, here's the latest departure from the LIST OF SHAME: Baker & Hostetler.

From a source at the firm:

Baker Hostetler announced raises yesterday effective March 1 (for its New York office only). First-year associates will be making $160K; the managing partner didn't say how much other classes would be making, but that associates would get letters about next week telling them what their new salary would be.

That leaves, as far as we know, just seven firms on the LIST OF SHAME.

Today was a little more interesting than yesterday. A few announcements were made -- or were finally brought to our attention and confirmed, if they were made previously.

After the jump, more information about DLA Piper, Katten Muchin Rosenman, King & Spalding, and Jones Day (Atlanta).

(And, of course, your comments.)