Remember James Sandman? Oh no, you don't? Well, surely you remember the Arnold & Porter partner's infamous essay, The High Price of Escalating Associate Salaries, which he wrote while president of the D.C. bar.

Jim Sandman's article, dishing out harsh criticism of law firm associate pay raises, did not endear him to ATL readers. In a near comments clusterf**k, he was condemned as the greediest of greedy Biglaw partners (along with other epithets not fit for printing here).

Well, maybe Sandman has gotten a bad rap. After all, he was public-spirited enough to serve as president of the D.C. bar. When we met him at this party, one of many charitable functions he attends, he didn't have horns growing out of his head.

And now we hear that he's leaving his lucrative partnership, to toil in the considerably less profitable precincts of the D.C. public school system. He's accepted a position as General Counsel for the District of Columbia Public Schools, and he'll also be a member of Chancellor Michelle Rhee's senior leadership team to the DC School Board.

Read the A&P memo announcing Sandman's departure, from firm chairman Thomas Milch, after the jump.

It's a busy morning, right before the big Memorial Day holiday weekend. There's breaking news of associate pay raises from Sidley Austin, Arnold & Porter (hi James Sandman!!!), and Brown Rudnick.

The Sidley Austin memo appears after the jump. The raise to the $160K scale covers Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington. It's retroactive to May 1.

The Arnold & Porter news was reported by The BLT: Blog of Legal Times. If you have the A&P memo, please email it to us.

We learned of the Brown Rudnick raise by email. We don't have the memo, but our source sent us a salary table, which also appears below the fold.

Discuss.

Wow. Late Friday afternoon, we briefly discussed an article by D.C. bar president James J. Sandman, a partner at Arnold & Porter in Washington, bemoaning the recent associate pay raises. The article generated a strong reaction, judging from the avalanche of reader comments (75 and counting; mostly insightful, and mostly disagreeing with Sandman).

We emailed James Sandman, offering him space in ATL to offer a further defense of his article. We haven't heard back from him yet; but if we do, we'll let you know.

In the meantime, here's an American Lawyer article that raises similar concerns. It's a news rather than opinion piece, but the partners quoted in it voice sentiments similar to Sandman's. Some excerpts:

A partner at Greenberg Traurig was meeting with attorneys from five law firms when he learned that Simpson Thacher & Bartlett had raised associate salaries across the board.

"Every BlackBerry in the room started flashing," he recalls.

It was 4:30 p.m. on Jan. 22. At least five firms matched the next day, and by the end of the week, the sticker price for a new associate in the New York market was up for the second time in a little more than a year -- to $160,000.

The raise surprised competitors and legal consultants alike and caused many to question whether another pay increase makes sense. They point out that pay isn't associates' main gripe (uncertain partnership prospects and grueling hours top this list). Robert Link Jr., managing partner of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, goes even further. If improving associate morale was Simpson's goal, says Link, the raise may do more harm than good.

A higher salary "puts more pressure on productivity and hours," says Link, exacerbating precisely the quality-of-life issues that make junior lawyers unhappy.

"I don't know what Simpson was thinking," he adds.

It's similar to Sandman's comment:

"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."

So, what WAS Simpson thinking? Discussion continues 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.