Here we are. The end of the Vault 100.

To be on the Vault 100 is to be a well-known firm. Sure, maybe not well-known to law students or junior associates who can’t see past the mountain of doc review boxes in their windowless conference rooms. But known to partners … and clients. Look down your nose at these firms if you wish, but remember the old African proverb: “The smallest elephant can still crush your Lexus.”

Here is the final batch of top law firms for discussion:

91. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
92. Blank Rome
93. Seyfarth Shaw
94. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
95. Manatt Phelps & Phillips
96. Squire Sanders & Dempsey
97. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
98. Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
99. Wiley Rein
100. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo

What say you about these fine firms? Some final thoughts after the jump.

As we follow the sun through its appointed circuit, we’ve learned that additional layoffs have occurred today out west. Manatt, Phelps has laid off 25 people today: 17 lawyers and 8 staff.

Here’s the statement the firm provided to Above the Law:

The broad economic slowdown continues to present challenges to businesses in every industry. The quality and breadth our national practice, as well as initiatives to improve resource utilization and reduce expenses, have positioned us to meet these challenges. Responsible stewardship, however, requires ongoing evaluation and appropriate alignment of staffing levels with client needs.

With this in mind, we have made the extremely difficult decision to reduce our lawyer ranks by 17 and our staff ranks by 8. Due to the nature and timing of these actions, we have provided those affected with financial and other assistance to help with their transitions.

We understand that the layoffs took place in the finance, tax, and advertising practice groups.

This is the second round of cuts for Manatt. We reported earlier that Manatt has already laid off 47 people since October, 2008.

A tipster also informs us that Manatt first years will be taking a pay cut:

Bill Quicksilver announced … that first year salaries would be reduced to $145K starting April 1. And no on campus recruiting.

Is this the new trend, lay people off while cutting salaries? It certainly appears that firms are trying to finish off this round of cuts before Passover and Easter.

Update (4:48): Additional details about severance after the jump.

Over the past few months, we’ve received a few tips about layoffs at Manatt. But over the past few days the overall numbers started coming into focus. It turns out that a relatively low number of layoffs have been taking place at Manatt over the past couple of months, and the firm is now ready to confirm the news.

A Manatt spokesperson issued the following statement to Above the Law:

Since October 2008, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP has made a total of 47 lay offs across our offices nationwide, including 12 attorneys, 3 paralegals, and 32 administrative staff.

These adjustments to our headcount were made due to the broad economic slowdown and our ongoing initiatives to improve resources utilization and reduce expenses.

We regret the need to take these actions, but recognize that they have become a necessity in this climate.

Our sources indicate that Manatt’s L.A. office has been the hardest hit by these moves.

We hope other firms take note of the way Manatt is handling this situation. Like many firms that have conducted “stealth” layoffs but stayed off of our radar, it appears that Manatt has been laying off a few people in small numbers for months. However, instead of suggesting that the 47 former employees were terrible at their jobs, Manatt is acknowledging that the economy is the real driver behind these cuts.

Good luck to the recently — and not so recently — unemployed.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of law firm layoffs

Should summer associates get married? We don’t mean at all (though it’s an intriguing thought) — just while they’re summers. On the one hand, summers aren’t doing much real work, and those fat paychecks will help contribute nicely to the honeymoon fund (unless you’re already hitting your guests up for that). On the other hand, last-minute wedding preparations could interfere with all those social events. And do you really want to remind the firm that you might one day procreate?

We’re pondering these questions because one of our three brides this week is currently a summer associate. We think it’s a gutsy move, and we wish her the best of luck with her marriage and her offer. On to our three contestant couples:

1.) Cecilia Silver and Jason Lichter

2.) Amanda Sharp and Kristoffer Hinson

3.) Anne O’Hagen and John Karl

Read more about these couples, after the jump.

We hope you enjoyed the Labor Day holiday and long weekend. Alas, now it’s back to work — for you and for us.

We’re still digging ourselves out from an email avalanche, as well as trying to figure out what’s going in the world (and what we should write about today). This may take us a little while, so please be patient.

In the meantime, let’s conclude our series of open threads on Vault 100 law firms. Here are the firms to talk about today:

96. Dickstein Shapiro LLP (4.595)
97. Fenwick & West LLP (4.545)
98. Kilpatrick Stockton LLP (4.538)
99. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC (4.496)
100. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (4.459)

Please discuss these 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; Vault 51-55; Vault 56-60; Vault 61-65; Vault 66-70; Vault 71-75; Vault 76-80; Vault 81-85; Vault 86-90; Vault 91-95

It’s the Friday before a major holiday — and firms are scrambling to get their pay raise announcements out the door. It’s a nice way to send your bedraggled and overworked hardworking associates into a three-day weekend (assuming they don’t need to come in on Monday).

We’re about to sign off for the weekend, and we won’t be back until Wednesday. (Billy Merck, who has filled our shoes in the past, will be your guest editor on Tuesday.)

Before we go, here are the latest salary announcements that we’ve confirmed:

1. McDermott Will & Emery

2. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (Hat Tip: Lateral Link)

But the Manatt “raise” has a catch. Its effective date? January 1, 2008.

HA. That’s kind of funny, in a sick sort of way — provided you’re not at Manatt.

Memos appear after the jump. And we’re out the door. Have a great holiday weekend!

Update (2:50 PM): We’ve verified the Pillsbury Winthrop raise news. Memo below.

Update (3:25 PM): Jeez, you’re going to make us miss our flight to Las Vegas. Memo from the D.C. office of Winston & Strawn, added after the jump.

The interesting comment thread to our recent post about the Seyfarth Shaw memo — aka “We’re on the List of Shame, and We’re Telling You We’re Not Going” — reminded us of something we meant to link to earlier.

It’s an article, from this month’s ABA Journal, reporting the results of a survey of young lawyers. The survey focused on the trade-off between compensation and billable hours — in other words, money versus lifestyle. Here’s a summary of the results:

[I]f associates were given an opportunity to work—and earn—a little bit less, would they?

Yes, say an overwhelming number of young lawyers who participated in an unscientific online survey conducted by the ABA Journal in November. Respondents identified themselves as associates.

Of the 2,377 respondents who answered all or part of the survey, 84.2 percent indicated they would be willing to earn less money in exchange for lower billable-hour requirements.

A sizable minority of associates are looking for a big workload cut—31.9 percent of respondents favored a 20 percent reduction in billable hours. That was followed by a 10 percent cut in hours (chosen by 27.8 percent of respondents), a 15 percent cut (14.3 percent), a 25 percent reduction (13.5 percent) and a 5 percent cut (4.3 percent).

Heck, who wouldn’t want to work less? But the survey respondents were willing to put their money where their mouths are:

A majority of respondents—no matter how much less they wanted to work—were willing to accept a pay cut equal to the percentage reduction in their workload. (Though 15.1 percent of those looking for a 20 percent cut in billable hours would be willing to sacrifice 25 percent or 30 percent of their pay for less time at work.)

Could we see a significant rise in either true lifestyle firms, or lifestyle tracks at Biglaw firms — where associates work (and earn) less than the average Biglaw lawyer? It’s doubtful:

[P]artners and consultants say no to the idea, for the most part.

“I don’t think this would work if you want to have a very successful firm,” says Carl A. Leonard, former chairman of Morrison & Foerster. “The world has always been competitive, and it just gets more so.”

These sentiments are echoed by Paul Irving, chairman of Manatt Phelps & Phillips:

[L]owering billable-hour requirements for all his associates, [Irving] says, would not work. The firm has a starting annual salary of $145,000 and a billable-hours requirement of 2,000 hours a year.

“Our experience is that, for the most part, the people we recruit are looking for top compensation and a highly engaging work experience.”

Referring to billing 2,000+ hours, on things like document review or due diligence, as a “highly engaging work experience”? That takes the prize for our “Euphemism of the Day.”

(And that’s no mean feat. The Seyfarth Shaw memo is FULL of great doublespeak.)

The Ultimate Time-Money Trade-off [ABA Journal]

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Seyfarth Shaw Makes Itself At Home on the List of Shame

Lots of interesting moves, both actual and rumored, to report upon today.

Possible promotion:

* Elena Kagan, the popular (and hot) dean of Harvard Law School, is being considered for the presidency of Harvard University.

In government:

* New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is on a hiring spree (just like his successor as AG, Andrew Cuomo). Lloyd Constantine, who currently heads a 40-lawyer firm, will serve as a senior advisor to Spitzer. Debra Bachrach, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, will direct the state’s Medicaid program. Joseph Baker, bureau chief for health care under AG Spitzer, will take over as deputy secretary for health and human services.

“You’re Fired”:

* Former Apple in-house lawyer Wendy Howell was discreetly discharged, late last year, for her role in the options backdating fiasco.

Reunited and it feels so good:

* Structured finance lawyers William Cullen, Janet Barbiere and Bola Oloko, to Thacher Proffitt & Wood, from Sidley & Austin. The trio left Thacher Proffitt together in 1997 (back when Barbiere and Oloko were still associates; they were recently promoted to partnership at Sidley).

Other lateral moves:

* Bankruptcy lawyer Steven Wilamowsky, to Bingham McCutchen, from Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

Headhunters at Harvard May Pick a Woman [New York Times]
NY Bankruptcy Partner Switches Firms [NYLawyer.com]
NY Trio Returns to Firm They Left in the ’90s [NYLawyer.com]
Spitzer Taps Three NY Lawyers to Fill Key Positions [NYLawyer.com]
Apple Quietly Canned Lawyer Who Backdated [The Recorder via Law.com]

Some other noteworthy moves within the legal profession (besides Chief Judge David Levi’s selection as Dean of Duke Law School):

Within government:

* This is big news: the new Attorney General for New York, Andrew Cuomo, has hired Barbara D. Underwood as his solicitor general.

Underwood has a resume to die for. She has served as counsel to Eastern District U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, as chief assistant U.S. Attorney in the E.D.N.Y., and as principal deputy solicitor general over at the Justice Department (under President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno).

Surprise surprise: Barbara Underwood is among the Elect (OT 1970/Marshall). We hear that she beat out other former Supreme Court clerks to win the New York SG job.

The fact that so many high-powered people were vying for the gig shows that state solicitor general posts are acquiring more and more cachet. Being an ex-SCOTUS clerk is rapidly becoming a requirement for these jobs. E.g., Ted Cruz in Texas (OT 1996/Rehnquist); Kevin Newsom in Alabama (OT 2000/Souter).

The rest of today’s transitions, plus links, after the jump.

Welcome to the latest installment of Legal Fee Voyeurism, in which we dish about how much lawyers are getting paid for their labors.

Today’s subject: Amtrak, the federally subsidized passenger railroad that’s a perennial source of bad news. From the AP:

Amtrak cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary legal expenses, an independent investigator said Wednesday.

The legal department of the federally subsidized passenger railroad failed to properly manage its outside law firms, which charged $103 million from June 2002 through June 2005, according to a review by the Transportation Department’s inspector general.

We knew Amtrak was expensive. We didn’t know it was THAT expensive.*

Here are some of Amtrak’s infractions:

The report found that Amtrak didn’t review law firms’ bills, didn’t request budgets and didn’t scrutinize bills. The railroad also hired expensive big-city law firms without requiring them to compete for its business, the report said.

Now you’re wondering: Which major law firms had Amtrak bend over and grab its proverbial ankles?

Here’s what various top firms billed Amtrak in the period from June 2002 to June 2005 (from the WSJ Law Blog):

* Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford: $11,566.986.59
* Manatt, Phelps & Phillips: $7,381,430.82
* DLA Piper: $4,089,506.09
* Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata: $3,535,246.22
* Anderson, Rasor & Partners: $3,086,981.63
* Morgan, Lewis & Bockius: $2,847,354.21
* Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman: $2,710,145.07
* Jackson Lewis: $1,353,357.76
* Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz: $1,146,223.37

Forget about the Acela. It’s far more fun to ride the Amtrak Outside Counsel Gravy Train. ALL ABOARD!!!

* The high price of Amtrak tickets is one reason we risk life and limb by taking the Chinatown bus. It’s tough to beat a $35 round-trip ticket between Washington and New York.

The Amtrak Report: Trouble Among the Legal Dispatchers [WSJ Law Blog]
Report: Amtrak Cost Taxpayers Millions [Associated Press]

Earlier: Prior editions of Legal Fee Voyeurism (scoll down)