Last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey asked, "If you knew then what you know today, would you still choose to join your current firm?"

We received 540 responses, and, overall 68% of you said yes. But the gruntlement (i.e., satisfaction) varied quite a bit from market to market:

  • Atlanta - 50%
  • Boston - 74%
  • Bay Area - 79%
  • Chicago - 70%
  • Dallas - 80%
  • Houston - 82%
  • Los Angeles - 71%
  • New York - 71%
  • Philadelphia - 75%
  • Washington, DC - 68%

Apparently, "everything is bigger in Texas" includes job satisfaction, and the Bay Area is close behind, followed by Philadelphia. Meanwhile, firms in Boston have managed to produce slightly happier associates than firms in New York, notwithstanding the city's often lamented bagels and challenging pizza scene -- a challenge Chicago offices, hampered by quiche deep dish pizza, have been unable to surmount. Washington, DC lags a bit behind, and Atlanta clearly needs a hug.

Associates at a few firms were particularly likely to say they'd make the same choice today. Find out which firms have especially happy campers, after the jump.

Pity the poor partners of McDermott Will & Emery. Sure, their firm is highly regarded and highly profitable. But when they head off to try cases in far-off places, they often get benchslapped silly.

You may recall the case of bankruptcy partner William Smith, who found himself in the deep-fat fryer after telling a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." Although the judge was upset, in the end Smith got a slap on the wrist.

Things didn't end as happily for Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson, MWE partners based in Silicon Valley. Judge Richard P. Matsch -- the tough, well-regarded trial judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing case -- sanctioned McMahon and Elson for "cavalier and abusive" misconduct and a "what can I get away with?" attitude during trial. From the Denver Post:

A federal judge recently got so infuriated by the conduct of two highly regarded trial attorneys that he overturned a jury's $51 million verdict, then ordered the lawyers to pay the fees and costs of the opposing lawyers, a sum that could total several million dollars.

Ouch. So is that coming out of their partnership draws?

Or maybe the firm will find other ways to cut costs. Read more, after the jump.

Update: Please note that this post has been corrected since it was first published. The correction appears after the jump.

In last month's ATL / Lateral Link survey we asked you which holidays you worked on, or expected to work on, during 2007. About half of you reported that you had worked on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Last week, we asked you how you fared this year. Did you take the day off to honor a champion of civil rights, or did you make it a "day on"?

We received just under 1,300 responses, and 44% of you reported that you took the day off. Associates in New York, Los Angeles and Boston were most likely to celebrate the holiday, while associates in Chicago, Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Texas were most likely to be working. (Respondents in the Bay Area were also most likely to work over Christmas and New Year's. Is it time for them to get New York bonuses?)

How did it break down on a firm by firm basis? DLA Piper, Milbank, Sidley & Austin, Dechert, Hunton & Williams, Jones Day, Latham, Mayer Brown, McDermott, Hughes Hubbard, McGuire Woods, Morgan Lewis, Nixon Peabody, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell each had multiple happy associates who reported that they had taken the day off. Kirkland & Ellis, Baker Botts, Dewey & LeBoeuf, O'Melveny & Myers, Weil, and Winston & Strawn each had mixed responses. Associates at Skadden, however, uniformly reported that they had worked the holiday, as Martin Luther King Jr. day is a "floating" holiday for the firm.

Of those who spent the day at the office, about 54% reported that they weren't actually asked to work the holiday, but had things they needed to get done. About a quarter reported that their offices were open. Another quarter said that partners told them to work on the holiday. About 8% were asked to work by clients. A surprising number of respondents wrote in that other associates had told them to work on the holiday.

A little over a third of respondents who worked on the holiday thought that the work did not justify the sacrifice.

As we mentioned last week, McDermott Will & Emery was planning to hold a meeting with associates today about compensation matters. The meeting is over; here's a brief report:

The MWE associate compensation committee had a videoconference with all associates this morning, where they ate crow about their bonus structure for 2007. They basically said, "we missed the market, we're sorry, and we're fixing it."

They are meeting on January 23rd to set the rate for supplemental bonuses, which will be announced at the end of this month. Apparently the risk of losing all their top billers and having it smeared all over ATL was more than our delicate leadership could handle.

So no numbers yet; expect them near the end of this month. We'll keep you posted.

Bonus season is still with us, although it's winding down. Announcements continue to trickle in, but at a reduced pace. Going forward, we will combine bonus info into omnibus posts that will go up periodically, depending on whether we have a critical mass of tips.

Here is today's compilation of associate bonus news -- plus a tantalizing email, from Allen & Overy, that raises the possibility of an associate pay raise.

1. Thacher Proffitt & Wood: TPW has been hit hard by the credit crisis. As we reported back in November, they may be laying off associates this month. But at least they're still paying out bonuses to the folks who are still around:

TPW paid bonuses year end. No standard memo to all, so information is hard to come by. They paid market bonus ($35,000 for class of 2006) with an hours requirement.

There seem to be four tiers: 2100 hours = full bonus, 2000 hours = half bonus, 1900 hours = somewhere between a third and a fourth ($10,000 for class of 2006 associates), and below 1900 hours = no bonus.

2. McDermott Will & Emery. Here's a follow-up to our prior post on MWE:

They are having a videoconference on the 15th with all associates to discuss compensation. In the meantime, they allegedly are continuing to monitor market data. It appears as if they will try and fix their initial misread of the market, but no one knows when, how or by how much. In some cities, peer firms' bonuses [were] 3, 4 or 5 times MWE's bonuses.

3. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel: We previously wrote about the Kramer Levin bonus announcement. Now comes this caveat:

Sneaky to state that everyone gets the special bonus at 2000 hours, but it's not market. For example, a fourth-year will either get 80k for 2150 or 38k for 2000-2149.

The Kramer Levin memo appears after the jump.

4. Allen & Overy: This is not bonus news, but over at Allen & Overy -- or should that be Allen & Oy-vey-ry? -- an email went out before the new year telling associates that the firm probably "will not be able to announce associate/senior counsel salaries for 2008 before the year begins." One source wonders:

Have any other firms mentioned something like this? Do you think management knows something about a pending raise? Why wait, unless they have information about a possible raise?

Intriguing. We'll keep you posted.

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.

Yes, yes, LEWW has been a tad neglectful of our wedding-watching duties. Our full-time job has been, well -- full-time. And then there are all our fabulous society engagements.

Anyway, let's face it: High wedding season ended in mid-October. You know people aren't focusing on weddings when the Times hauls out the perennial "Is the Bride Changing her Name?" article. Yawn. But fear not -- while you're focusing on Christmas shopping and year-end bonuses, LEWW will be watching the weddings.

And here's the latest bunch:

1.) Matthew Morningstar and Alan Van Capelle

2.) Elizabeth Hack and Richard Larach

3.) Allison Hersh and Daniel London

4.) Hayley Lattman and Ryan Geftman

More about these couples, after the jump.

McDermott, Will & Emery has come up with a more creative way to deal with soaring associate salaries. The firm has announced that it will be creating a "second tier" of associates to deal solely with low-level tasks like, e.g., document review.

As Cal Law points out, hiring cheaper lawyers to do this type of work is nothing new; this type of stuff is the staple of contract attorneys in most biglaw firms these days. The new part is making these contract attorneys a lower class of associates, essentially making them "permanent contract attorneys", as Cal Law puts it:

While some firms quietly turn to contract attorneys, or even ship grunt work overseas, McDermott, Will & Emery plans to create a new tier of attorneys — think of them as permanent contract associates — to handle lower-end tasks at lower billing rates.

...

First-year associates at big firms now earn $160,000. Meanwhile, electronic discovery has dramatically increased the amount of basic work that usually goes to those high-priced associates.

"This is a topic of great importance, since the cost of document review has become intolerable for everyone," said David Balabanian, the head of Bingham McCutchen's litigation group.

While hiring contract attorneys is nothing new, creating a second class of full-timers is.

[The Recorder via Cal Law]

Is this a good or bad thing? On the one hand, it increases the competition even more for the "real associate" positions and institutionalizes to an even greater extent the law school tier system into biglaw law firms.

On the other hand, it may be beneficial to those attorneys now doing the contract work. It will establish them as associates in the firm, even if not on the same level as the top tier associates. They will likely receive things like benefits. The top tier associates will likely do more substantive work sooner. And the clients won't find themselves paying top tier prices for stuff like document review, as still occasionally happens.

So what do you guys think? Will other firms adopt this model? Once again, it makes sense to us.

And hey, L2L, maybe you should apply.

Related:
Firm to Fill Cheap Seats [The Recorder via Cal Law]
McDermott To Create a New Class of BigLaw Attorneys [WSJ Law Blog]

Prior to the Cravath bonus announcement, McDermott Will & Emery said it would be announcing bonuses later than usual this year. But now that Biglaw bonus season has been kicked off early, will they stick to their previously announced timetable?

For those of you who are interested, the MWE announcement -- which was made on October 11, well before the CSM news -- appears after the jump.

We're surprised that the firms in this latest group of Vault 100 law firms aren't ranked more highly. Some of them are quite profitable (Dechert),* prestigious (Munger), or high-profile (Boies Schiller, home of legendary litigator David Boies).

But who are we to argue? For communal discussion, here is this morning's batch of Biglaws:

46. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (6.026)
47. Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (6.004)
48. Dechert LLP (5.973)
49. Irell & Manella LLP (5.952)
50. McDermott, Will & Emery (5.946)

Please trade thoughts on these firms in the comments. Thanks.

* Dechert's 2006 profits per partner clocked in at just under $2 million. But it should be noted that the firm has multiple partnership tiers and only 169 equity partners (out of 898 lawyers).

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

We have a ruling in the HappyMealGate case (prior coverage here, here, and here of Wiliam P. Smith, the McDermott Will & Emery partner who told Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal"). And it's surprisingly lenient.

Judge Isicoff basically gave Smith a stern talking to:

“There is no jurisdiction in the U.S. — including the district where Mr. Smith regularly practices — where the expression and tone Mr. Smith used on May 7 would fall in the bounds of acceptable behavior,” a solemn Isicoff said from the bench in front of a packed courtroom.

and ordered him to take an online professionalism course administered by the Florida Bar.

Smith brought McDermott chairman Harvey Freishtat with him to beg and plead for mercy from Isicoff. Apparently it worked.

Isicoff said she accepted the apologies of both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery chairman Harvey Freishtat, the head of the Chicago-based, 1,000-lawyer firm, who also appeared in front of her to beg her pardon.

Looks like the fry guy got off relatively easy, and we've all learned something: don't stoop to middle-school insults while arguing in front of a federal judge, especially if you're appearing pro hac vice.

Surely you all recall William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department -- who recently told a Miami bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal." We broke the story here (with follow-up here).

The "Happy Meal" comment royally pissed off Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff (and not 'cause she's a Burger King partisan). She benchslapped Bill Smith via an Order to Show Cause, directing the Fry Guy to explain why he shouldn't be suspended from practice in her court.

The firm has now filed a motion in response to the OSC. From the Daily Business Review:

Chicago attorney William P. Smith says he’s very, very, very sorry for telling U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff she was “a few French fries short of a Happy Meal” during a May 7 court hearing in Miami.

The chairman of McDermott Will & Emery, the Chicago-based firm whose bankruptcy practice Smith heads, is ready to prostrate himself before the judge as well.

According to a recent motion filed by the law firm, Harvey Freishtat, who heads the 1,000-lawyer firm, plans to fly to Miami for a hearing on Smith’s comment. The motion states Freishtat will personally express “on behalf of the entire firm, to this court, to the other lawyers in this case, and to the other honorable judges of this District Court, [his firm’s] sincere and deepest apology for the words used by Mr. Smith.”

And would Her Honor like a side of fries with that?

More discussion after the jump.

Earlier this month, we wrote about how William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and head of its bankruptcy department -- landed himself in the deep-fat fryer. Smith unwisely told a bankruptcy judge, in open court, that she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

Well, Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff didn't respond so well to that colorful statement. She issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause, directing William Smith (hereinafter "the Fry Guy") to explain why he shouldn't be suspended from practicing in her court.

Several tipsters have directed our attention to this delightful article, from the Daily Business Review, about the Fry Guy's "super-sized gaffe." It describes the fallout, for both Smith and McDermott Will & Emery, from L'Affaire Happy Meal -- and includes a shout-out to Above the Law.

Excerpts and discussion, after the jump.

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.

Or even in chambers, for that matter. But open court is worse. From a tipster:

In a bankruptcy case here in the Southern District of Florida, William P. Smith -- a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and the head of its bankruptcy department -- actually told a judge she was "a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

Literally. In open court. Amazing.

Don't believe us? Check out the transcript:

In fairness to Bill Smith, please note that he let fly this insult "with respect." Nice touch, counsel.

Alas, Judge Isicoff didn't take kindly to a lawyer questioning the completeness of her "Happy Meal."

Find out how she responded, after the jump.

Sorry, we have nothing new to report concerning either associate pay raises or clerkship bonuses. The best we can offer is yet another non-announcement announcement (like these two).

Today's email, which actually made the rounds earlier in the week, comes from McDermott Will & Emery:

As you are probably aware, over the last two weeks there have been a number of developments in various of our markets in the US with respect to associate salaries. It is very clear, for example that the market in California has increased to a level of $160,000 for first year associates with commensurate increases in more senior classes.

The Firm intends to continue our practice of paying competitive compensation in all of our markets. Rather than taking action on a serial basis, we are continuing to monitor the relevant developments and plan to make a final decision by May 30 with retroactive effect back to May 1.

Thank you for your patience in the interim.

Dawna Butala for Donald A. Goldman, Esq.
McDermott Will & Emery LLP

One source's gloss on this: "A likely bump for the california offices, but looking grim for Chicago, Boston and D.C."

We have to step away from the computer for a little while. Please discuss compensation issues, and post the text of any new announcements, in the comments. Thanks.

Some notable moves within the legal profession:

Government to Private Sector:

* Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, to LeBoeuf Lamb in DC. Last November, Steele lost his bid to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate.

* Michele Hirshman, who served as Eliot Spitzer's top deputy at the Attorney General’s office before he became Governor, is joining Paul Weiss, as a litigation partner. Described by the New York Times as "very smart, very tough and rather short," she sounds perfectly diva-licious.

Lateral Moves:

* Antitrust superstar Charles "Rick" Rule, to Cadwalader, from Fried Frank. This truly IS like musical chairs: Cadwalader, Rule's new home, recently lost its antitrust group to Skadden.

* Celebrated criminal defense lawyer Abbe Lowell -- who did an excellent job defending Hamlet against murder charges -- is moving from Chadbourne & Parke to McDermott Will & Emery.

* Mark Holscher and Jeffrey Sinek are joining the Los Angeles office of Kirkland & Ellis. They're coming from O’Melveny & Myers and Thelen Reid, respectively. From the Law Blog:

Holscher and Sinek are best friends. They were roommates when they served as federal prosecutors in Los Angeles. Holscher, 44, served as an assistant U.S. Attorney from 1989-1995; Sinek, 46, served from 1989 to 1994. Sinek was the best man at Holscher’s wedding; Holscher was a groomsman in Sinek’s. Both graduated from Boalt Hall law school. Holscher told the Law Blog they’ve always wanted to work together.

Such ambiguously gay commentary led an anonymous reader to quip: "Hope that Alexandra Korry doesn’t read about this…"

On The Move: Charles “Rick” Rule [Antitrust Review]
Kirkland Beefs Up West Coast White-Collar Practice [WSJ Law Blog]
Abbe Lowell to Join McDermott from Chadbourne [WSJ Law Blog]
Former Maryland Pol Michael Steele Joins LeBoeuf Lamb [WSJ Law Blog]
Spitzer’s Longtime No. 2 Michele Hirshman to Join Paul Weiss [WSJ Law Blog]

This will probably be our last salary-related post of the day, so you can treat it as the end-of-day open thread. We'll post any memos we receive later today sometime tomorrow morning (unless they're extraordinary for some reason).

Here's a good short item about D.C. pay developments, by Nate Carlile of the Legal Times. According to Carlile, the firms that have raised to $145,000 for first-year in Washington are as follows:

1. Akin Gump
2. Arnold & Porter
3. Covington & Burling
4. Gibson Dunn
5. Hogan & Hartson
6. Latham & Watkins
7. O’Melveny & Myers
8. Patton Boggs
9. Sidley Austin
10. Steptoe & Johnson
11. WilmerHale

After the jump, confirmed pay raise announcements from Bingham McCutchen and McDermott Will & Emery.

From government to academia:

* The brilliant Michelle Boardman is returning to teach at George Mason University School of Law. Professor Boardman had been on leave, serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel.

From government to private practice:

* Sue Ellen Wooldridge, assistant attorney general for environment and natural resources, resigned from the Justice Department earlier this week, stating that she plans to return to the private sector.

(Interestingly enough, her alleged beau, J. Steven Griles -- a former deputy secretary of the interior, who Interior Department sources say has been dating Wooldridge -- has been notified that he's a target in the Jack Abramoff corruption investigation.)

* Bankruptcy Chief Judge Melanie Cyganowski (E.D.N.Y.) is resigning to become chair of the bankruptcy litigation practice of Greenberg Traurig (NY).

From private practice to government:

* Steven M. Cohen, a partner at Cooley Godward Kronish, has been selected by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as his new chief of staff.

Lateral moves:

* White-collar defense lawyers John Moscow and Jack Blum, to Baker Hostetler (NY), from New York boutique Rosner Moscow & Napierala. Moscow and Blum are gurus of the law of money laundering.

* Litigators Michael Armstrong, Paul Rooney, and William Purcell, to the newly opened New York office of Howrey. They come from, respectively, Cooley Godward Kronish, solo practice, and K&L Gates.

* Five litigators, to the new Houston office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, from litigation boutique Edwards, Burns & Krider. Names here.

* Intellectual property litigator Richard Pettus, to King & Spalding (NY), from McDermott, Will & Emery (NY).

* Corporate lawyer Michael Nissim, to Vedder Price (NY), from McDermott, Will & Emery (NY).

Links after the jump.

Nothing huge today, like yesterday's news about Harriet Miers's departure; but a few interesting moves. The two most noteworthy ones involve transitions between the public and private sectors:

From politics to private practice:

* Asa Hutchinson has rejoined Venable's Washington office. Hutchinson -- a former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Republican congressman, and chief of the DEA -- left the firm in March 2006, to run (unsuccessfully) for Arkansas governor.

From private sector to government:

* New York's brand-new Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, snags another former federal prosecutor for his "dream team." Henry Greenberg is leaving the Albany office of Greenberg Traurig to serve as Cuomo's counsel.

Law firm news, after the jump.