Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

It was pretty hard to miss this week’s big news: unemployment crashed through the 10% barrier, hitting 10.2% in October - the highest level since 1983 (and, of course, worse than predicted). Underemployment also hit record levels, with the number of self-reported disenfranchised and under-utilized people reaching 17.5%.

Republicans jumped on the numbers as a sign that Obama’s package has failed, and the White House countered that it has saved almost 700,000 jobs. But that claim doesn’t even come close to addressing the original estimates and is completely unmeasurable. Still, the administration is reconsidering ideas it had previously rejected, like a highway bill and a business tax credit for new hires, even as they ask for two versions of a budget: one with flat spending and another with a 5% cut.

Law firms got their place in the MSM sun this week, as Bloomberg used a former law-firm employee as an example of increased migration to areas perceived as having jobs:

Some people are pulling up stakes and moving to where they think the job prospects may be brighter. Beth Rubin, 41, lost her position as a receptionist at the law firm Goldstein Bershad & Fried, PC in Southfield, Michigan, in October. The resident of Ferndale, a Detroit suburb, is now selling her furniture and moving to Georgia. “I’m looking to get a job in Georgia, and I don’t know about the job market there, but I can tell you Michigan is horrible,” Rubin said in a telephone interview.

Of course, anything has to be better than Detroit.

More on the highs and lows in the legal sector, after the jump.

It’s been a tough day at Goodwin Procter. Multiple tipsters report that the firm is laying off both attorneys and staff today. One source reported on the human toll of losing your job:

[L]awyers were just laid off this morning at Goodwin Procter in Boston. There are both men and women crying in the halls.

It’s not clear what triggered the tears, since Goodwin handled the dismissals professionally, appropriately, and in a manner similar to other top firms. Are Goodwin guys just more sensitive?

Goodwin has laid off 21 attorneys and 34 staff. Here is the critical part from the firm-wide memo Goodwin Procter just sent out to its associates:

In anticipation of a slow economic recovery, we took a number of actions during the year to manage our staffing model, secretarial ratios and discretionary expenses. The end result was that while we were largely successful in realigning resources to meet client needs and market demand, there remains some overcapacity within the firm.

After careful deliberation, we have made the difficult decision to reduce our associate ranks by 21 people and our professional staff ranks by 34 people.

Most of the attorneys who were cut were second-year associates in the firm’s Business Law Department, out of its Boston office.

Read the full memo, after the jump.

Ed. note: Welcome to the latest installment of “Notes from the Breadline,” a column by a laid-off lawyer in New York. Prior columns are collected here. You can reach Roxana St. Thomas by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.

This column is a continuation from last week’s, which you should read first if you haven’t done so already.

After the group members have finished their elevator speeches and turned their attention to the fun meals before them, Rhonda comes over and sits beside me at the kids’ table. “So,” she says, leaning in, “have you made your one connection yet?” Her voice has the same solicitous tone one might use to ask a child whether she brushed her teeth like a good girl, or made wee-wee in the potty chair.

“Not yet!” I say, mustering perkiness, “but the night is young!”
“Well,” she says, undeterred, “I am so glad you could come. These meetings are such a great opportunity to network, even if the group members are not in your exact field. Don’t you think?”

I tell her that I, too, am glad I could come, that I am excited to meet people and do some networking, and that I am fairly certain that connections — especially those formed at networking events! — transcend professions. Although I feel like I am reading from a cue card, the group seems to have its own lexicon, and I realize that I am unconsciously translating conversational English into network parlance. Despite my efforts, however, I slip up a moment later, when I use the words “unemployed” and “laid off” in the same sentence. “Eh eh,” she says, cutting me off. “In transition.” She pronounces the words carefully, as if to ensure comprehension.

We are interrupted by Jason, a member of the group who is leaving early and has come over to say goodbye to Rhonda and Mitch (who is also seated at the kids’ table). Jason talks for a few minutes about some of the “great connections” he has made since the last networking event. “There are some great possible opportunities there,” he says hopefully. “So, we’ll see …” his voice trails off.

“How long have you been unem—in transition?” I ask tactlessly.

“Eight months,” he says, arranging a broad smile. His bravery sounds forced. “But I’m not worried about it. As long as I keep networking, coming to events like this one, staying active on Linked In … I’m sure something will come up.”

“Oh, definitely,” Rhonda and Mitch murmur in unison, nodding emphatically. With automaton-like precision, Jason moves into a sales pitch, pulling out a sheaf of brochures and business cards. He tells us that his wife has started a catering business to bring in extra money. “I’m not just saying this because she’s my wife, heh heh,” he announces sincerely, “but she does a terrific job.” He encourages us to turn to her for our catering needs, and to tell our friends and “contacts” about her. Alas, I find myself thinking: though I’m sure his wife does, in fact, do a terrific job, being “in transition” is so rarely a catered affair.

Give Dickstein Shapiro credit. When the firm lays people off, it doesn’t hide behind any performance review rhetoric. When Dickstein laid people off back in January, firm chairman Michael Nannes had this to say:

These are purely economic decisions — this is a group of talented attorneys who have made valued contributions to our Firm.

Dickstein is going back to the layoff well today. Once again, Nannes has some frank language:

It is with heartfelt regret that I announce today that we are readjusting the size of our workforce to better align the firm with the current economic climate and emerging legal services model.

Well then. Business model layoffs.

Numbers and the full memo after the jump.

The signals seem mixed in terms of whether the legal profession is on the road to recovery. On the one hand, the pace of layoffs is certainly slowing. On the other hand, firms are taking other steps to keep headcount (and expenses) down. They are not yet in a mode where they need more hands on deck to handle all the work.

One of the popular approaches is deferral extension, i.e., pushing start dates for incoming associates back yet again. A number of firms have gone down this path. To view our prior coverage, click here and scroll down.

The latest firm to take this approach: Winston & Strawn. The firm’s incoming associates were previously scheduled to arrive on January 19, 2010. Now, according to a memo issued yesterday by hiring partner Joseph Torres, class of 2009 associates will be starting on one of three dates: February 1, 2010; June 1, 2010; or October 4, 2010.

Deferral extension details, including the full memo, plus other information about Winston — after the jump.

Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

Last week we wrote that jobless claims were higher than expected and that predicting anything with any degree of confidence seemed pointless. This week, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits was lower than expected, the lowest levels in seven months, and that was before announcement that benefits will be extended again. Still, the best that can be said is that the cuts are slowing:

Companies are cutting fewer jobs as they see more evidence of a recovery, helped by government stimulus efforts and less weakness in housing and manufacturing. While a separate report today showed the economy expanded for the first time in more than a year, a rebound in hiring may take longer to materialize

So while things bounced around unpredictably in the broader market, we had two notable announcements in law-firm innovations this week. We’ll cut right to them after the jump.

Back in May, Drinker Biddle came up with a radically different program for first years. For the first six months, first years at Drinker are more like apprentices than traditional first years. They get intensive training, but are only paid $105,000.

Despite those changes, the firm has still decided to lay off attorneys. Multiple tipsters report that 22 Drinker Biddle associates were laid off yesterday.

Drinker Biddle spokespeople did not comment about the news. But tipsters report that the significant cut to first year salary did not end up saving the jobs of more senior associates.

Details on departments and offices and an update after the jump.

Ed. note: Welcome to the latest installment of “Notes from the Breadline,” a column by a laid-off lawyer in New York. Prior columns are collected here. You can reach Roxana St. Thomas by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.

This column is a continuation from last week’s, which you should read first if you haven’t done so already.

Following my (somewhat graceless) entrance to the networking event, motion in the room stops for a moment. If, I imagine, this scene were taking place in a movie, it would be annotated by the sound of a needle being pulled violently across a record. A quick glance around the room confirms that the people in attendance are, for the most part, old enough to be able to identify this sound.

The facilitator (who, thanks to a large name tag, is clearly marked “Rhonda”) breaks the silence. “Oooh!” she exclaims, “Goody! You made it! We’re sooo glad you could come!” I feel a flicker of doubt. Networking is for people with a lexicon of excited utterances that includes words like “Oooh!” and “Goody!,” I think dubiously. Networking is for people who enjoy wearing nametags. Rhonda has probably embraced the networking incantation to “be proactive!” and sewn nametags onto her sweater sets and gym clothes. After all, she would probably point out, you never know when an opportunity to make connections will arise!

But, I realize, while I may not be a born networker, I am here, and my doubts are no match for Rhonda’s warmth. “Me too,” I finally say. “I’m happy to meet you all.”

Rhonda tells me that the group has just started the process of introducing themselves. She explains that she has asked everyone to make a 30-second “elevator speech” about who they are, and to come up with a story or anecdote about a “networking experience.” “Have a seat!” she says, and everyone shuffles awkwardly, as though to make room. It is clear that, if I sit with the group, I will be perched on someone’s lap. “I’ll sit at the kids’ table,” I say quickly, making a beeline for an empty table. Rhonda looks distressed; I can tell that she values herd cohesiveness. “I’m okay!” I assure her, and settle into my peripheral vantage point.

Before the elevator speeches can continue, a waiter appears and hovers expectantly, pad in hand. “Hey gang?” Rhonda says, trying to reclaim the group’s attention. “We should order before we go back to introducing ourselves.” There is more shuffling; reading glasses are fished out, and the group members study their oversized menus diligently. I scan its voluminous contents, remembering the cardinal rule of professional feeding etiquette: avoid dining humiliation. Fajitas? Too messy. Soup? Too drippy. Salad? Too bovine; too many opportunities to be caught, mid-sentence, with greenery hanging from one’s mouth. Chopped salad? Perfect! I order and sit back, listening to snatches of banter from the other table.

Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

We took the week off last week, but you didn’t miss much. In fact, we had another run of almost two weeks without a layoff, before WilmerHale laid off 57 staff. But we’ll get back to the layoffs after our regular sojourn through the broader American economy.

If you’re a regular reader of this column, this should sound familiar: initial jobless claims were worse than expected. 49 states and territories reported increased unemployment, with four seeing improvement. To the extent you believe this is a recovery (and even if you do, whether you believe this is sustainable is another question entirely), it appears to be jobless at best, and job-losing more likely.

Companies are salvaging net income numbers almost entirely on the expense side, and the stimulus has done nothing to create job and nothing demonstrable to save jobs. Just ask the Republicans, who point out that President Obama claimed his stimulus would create 3.5 million jobs, when the actual result has been a loss of 2.7 million - a 6.2 million-job deficit.

Part of the frustration, of course, is the long-running treatment of disillusioned jobseekers and people whose benefits have run out as not being counted as unemployed. When minor improvements in unemployment numbers were being hyped a few months ago, it now appears that was almost entirely the result of people falling off the rolls, not actually finding gainful employment. Maddeningly, that means 7,000 people a day are no longer counted as unemployed.

As usual, law firms continue to muddle through. Their efforts, after the jump.

The Great Recession has been tough for many different types of firms — and that even includes intellectual property firms. During the past year, IP-focused shops have cut back on hiring, slashed salaries, and lost key partners to larger firms.

A few recent developments at Finnegan Henderson, the D.C.-based IP powerhouse, reflect the new realities. Multiple sources report the following:

1. Earlier this week, at an “all associates” meeting, the firm announced that it is freezing associate salaries.

2. At the same meeting, the firm announced that it is reducing first-year associate salaries from $160,000 to $145,000 (in all offices).

UPDATE: We understand that Finnegan has frozen support staff salaries as well.

Two additional items about Finnegan, after the jump.

There have been a number of firms that have cut associate salaries. But there have not been many firms that have needed to slash salaries twice this year. Allen Matkins associates appears to be in their own personal corner of sadness.

A tipster reports:

For the second time this year, Allen Matkins has laid off lawyers and cut salaries for those who still have a job. 2 lawyers were laid off in Los Angeles. I am not sure how many in other offices, but I know there were more. Salary cuts were also part of the package. Associates untouched by the last round of salary cuts were not so lucky this time. Cuts ranged between 15% and 30%. … This cut occurred Thursday October 15. Cuts are effective November 1, 2009. Nice holiday gift isn’t it.

Allen Matkins has not responded to our multiple requests for comment. In terms of layoffs, other tipsters have reported a few involuntary attorney departures. 2nd year associates seem to be the hardest hit.

Multiple tipsters are also reporting the salary cut news.

Following along with all of the Allen Matkins cuts is a little bit confusing; let me walk you through it after the jump.

Ed. note: Welcome to the latest installment of “Notes from the Breadline,” a column by a laid-off lawyer in New York. Prior columns are collected here. You can reach Roxana St. Thomas by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.

On an unseasonably chilly autumn day, Lat and I are sitting in his office, commiserating about the cold. “I’m freezing,” I say, rubbing my hands over the steam rising from the coffee fountain. “Shouldn’t we be enjoying Native American summer right now?”

“Yeah,” Lat responds absently, his eyes fixed on the computer screen in front of him. I wait for a proper response, but he seems absorbed in the task before him. After a few minutes, I get up and stand behind him, peering nosily over his shoulder.

He is downloading a virtual fireplace to his desktop. After a few minutes of virtual tending, it begins to crackle gaily. “Ah,” he says, relaxing visibly. “There’s nothing like a nice fire on a cold fall day … and virtual fires are much eco-friendlier than their wood-burning facsimiles!” He leans back in his chair and arranges his feet on his desk. “Did I mention that I’m watching my carbon footprint?”

“I did notice that your carbon footprint was looking particularly svelte,” I tell him. I stare out at the window, where the trees are being battered by a cold wind. A wave of melancholy, sudden and bracing, washes over me. “The weather has gone as cold as the scent for job leads,” I say glumly.

Lat strokes his chin thoughtfully for a moment, and then begins to dig through a stack of papers on his desk. It teeters dangerously and then cascades onto the floor. “Sorry,” he mumbles. “Paper avalanche.” After a moment, he extracts a creased copy of the New York Times, which he brandishes triumphantly.

“I was just reading about these job clubs, where people ‘meet to mingle, resumes in tow,’” he says. “And I was thinking: maybe you should try going to one. It could be an excellent networking opportunity!”

Another swell of melancholy builds, gathers into a frothy whitecap, and crashes around me. “That’s what you said about that speed-dating event we went to last year,” I say, trying not to sound peevish, “and that was a total waste of time, in six-minute increments. Besides, I just … I hate those things,” I tell him. “They feel so … forced.”

Lat responds with stony silence, then leans over and minimizes the fireplace. “Get going, sister,” he says sternly. “Find a networking event, and then you can come back and tell me all about it. Until then, no merrily crackling fire for you!”

I sulk for a few minutes, and then relent. In truth, my job search has stalled, and nothing I have done lately in an attempt to jump-start it seems to work. Why not? I figure, trying to muster optimism. At this point, I have nothing to lose.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has a comically predictable pattern for his columns. He usually starts with a little anecdote from his humdrum life and then launches into a ground-shaking, earth-shattering revelation about global politics.

Sometimes we wonder if Friedman has created a custom Madlib for crafting his columns. This week, he opines on our poor education system being the reason for the Great Recession. In a spot in the column that called for a ‘noun for lawyers’, he decided to throw in “untouchables.”

No, he’s not talking about contract attorneys. See Friedman’s explanation for lawyer layoffs after the jump.

We don’t have all of the details, but multiple sources report that WilmerHale is laying off 57 staffers today (secretaries and paralegals). We understand that the staff is being informed right now.

We don’t have information about what (if any) severance package is being offered to the departed staff. Our sources report that the layoffs will affect staff in Boston, D.C., and New York offices.

Spokespeople for WilmerHale did not respond to an immediate request comment. But we hope to have more information as people are informed of their job situation.

Good luck, WilmerHale friends.

UPDATE More from our tipsters, and a statement from the firm, after the jump.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey already deferred its incoming class of 2009 to January 2010. Yesterday, the firm informed half of those incoming associates that they were getting the Bird — i.e., the firm indefinitely deferred half of its incoming class.

But before the firm decides what it will do with half of its incoming associates, Squire Sanders needs to make a decision about whether to keep its current associates. SSD’s chairman, James J. Maiwurm, told associates to expect layoffs over the next 45 days.

Above the Law has received the official Squire Sanders statement. Take a look after the jump.

In our last post about Winston & Strawn, we covered an “all associates” meeting at which the firm admitted conducting layoffs, but refused to divulge information about their scope. The firm said something along these lines: “Out of respect for the individuals involved, we won’t publicly disclose either future layoffs or past layoff numbers.”

Several commenters questioned that rationale. See, e.g., here:

WTF does that mean?! Are they dead [so] that W&S doesn’t want to speak (ill) of them?

I think I’ll try injecting that into my daily life. “Out of respect for the individuals involved, I won’t publicly disclose either future sexual affairs or past mistress numbers.” I like that… think it’ll work?

Commenters also requested estimates of the size of Winston’s layoffs.

We don’t have hard data ourselves. But we estimate — conservatively, we think — that Winston & Strawn has laid off at least 15 percent of its lawyers in 2009 to date.

So, how did we reach this number?

Last Friday, we reported on stealth layoffs at Nixon Peabody. We’ve previously discussed the difficulty of reporting stealth layoffs. If a firm lays people off slowly, over a long period of time, and refuses to admit it, sometimes the firm can keep the information from becoming public. In the Nixon Peabody case, the firm has still not confirmed the layoff news (unlike Foley & Lardner, which got around to confirming the layoffs we reported on last Friday just yesterday). But Nixon also hasn’t called us asking us to correct anything, which firms often do when they believe we’ve erred. The tipsters who have been laid off from Nixon continue to maintain that they were laid off from Nixon.

In any event, apparently some people think that reporting on people losing their jobs is more hype than substance. Tipsters sent in this post from 3 Geeks and a Law Blog:

Back in February, when the big round of layoffs were taking place, I took it upon myself to take a snapshot of most of the AmLaw 100 rosters via their websites. Nixon Peabody, of course, was one of these. So, I thought I’d dust off that list and compare it to today’s roster of employees. What I found was pretty interesting, but didn’t seem to be as dire as I’ve been reading in ATL or Law Shucks.

A firm’s website is only one part of the story, but let’s check out that part of the story, after the jump.

Ed. note: Welcome to the latest installment of Notes from the Breadline, a column by a laid-off lawyer in New York. Prior columns are collected here. You can reach Roxana St. Thomas by email (at roxanastthomas@gmail.com), follow her on Twitter, or find her on Facebook.

Last week, we brought you Scenes from the Breadline, in the form of my very own photo essay on unemployment. You may recall that, in the communitarian spirit of all Homework Assignments from the Breadline, I also asked you to submit photographs, drawings, or other images that depicted, reminded you of, or documented your experience of life in the breadline.

First, I extend my heartfelt thanks to those who sent their own pictures from the breadline. For what it’s worth, my empirical research indicates that you are strict constructionists: you construed the assignment narrowly, and responded almost universally with photographs, rather than pictures scrawled in crayon, found art, or collages made from your unemployment check receipts and Ramen soup labels. (I mention this not as a criticism, but as a reminder that I welcome any and all of your creative efforts on an ongoing basis. I like to hang them up on my refrigerator, so that I can be reminded — while making soup- - of the excellent company I keep here in the breadline.)

Second, while I love you all the same, I must note that the New Yorkers amongst you responded in force. Perhaps it is because we are intransigent overachievers, and take homework assignments seriously (no matter who doles them out). Perhaps it is because signs of the recession are so visible here, and so ubiquitous. Either way: thanks, home team! And thank you, friends and readers from every outpost of the breadline. As always, you did a fantastic job.

Without further delay, we bring you (more) Scenes from the Breadline.

It’s time for a quick follow-up on yesterday’s “all associates” meeting at Winston & Strawn. Alas, it was a bit anticlimactic. “Just a way for the firm to ruin everyone’s weekend,” quipped a tipster.

According to our sources at the firm, this is what associates were told:

1. Compensation at Winston will remain competitive; no salary cut will be imposed at this time. (The firm froze salaries earlier this year.)

2. Layoffs were necessary, and they have been conducted, but hopefully they’re a thing in the past (although nothing is guaranteed on this score).

So, exactly how many people have been laid off by Winston?

Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

Many people fear that this will be a "jobless recovery" and those people keep getting more justification for their concerns. Unfilled positions fell to the lowest level since the Department of Labor began tracking the statistic in 2000, falling to 2.39 million, which is less than half of the number of spots available at the peak just back in July 2007.

That’s the heart of the increasing schism between the fantastic run on the major US equity indices since March (when law-firm layoffs peaked) and increasing unemployment. Earnings have been improving due to cost reduction, not "real" growth, and that’s likely to continue.

The U.S. economy may grow at an average 2.8 percent pace annual pace in the second half of the year, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News this month. Consumer spending, after rebounding last quarter as auto sales jumped because of the government’s “cash-for-clunkers” plan, will probably decelerate in the last three months of the year as the jobless rate reaches 10 percent, the survey showed.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke last week said economic growth next year probably won’t be strong enough to “substantially” bring down unemployment. The jobless rate will “still probably be above 9 percent by the end of 2010,” Bernanke said.

Sadly, the factor that has done the most to keep the unemployment rate down seems to be the massive number of people whose benefits are expiring or have simply given up looking, and thus no longer count.

It wasn’t a particularly good news in the legal corner either. For the first time in a few months, four of the AmLaw Global 100 have had reported layoffs in the same week. (Law Shucks did a comprehensive analysis, complete with charts, of all the layoffs in the Global 100 last week.)

Details of those layoffs, plus other cost-cutting measures, after the jump.