It’s nice to see a firm maintaining its commitment to diversity despite tough economic times. Changing the culture of Biglaw is a hard thing to do, but it starts at the top.

It looks like the partners at McGuireWoods understand that. But a McGuireWoods tipster reports that you can’t just force terrified and busy associates to embrace every diversity initiative the firm has to offer:

I am an associate at McGuire Woods and we got this email this morning from the managing partner of the Chicago office and a lot of us are disgusted. He sent it to all attorneys in the Chicago office.

Is this really the way to get us interested in diversity? Maybe they should question their commitment to associates in this time of financial distress. This was an optional event where they sent an invitation once to remind us of its occurrence.

A managing partner calling out his office for a lack of commitment to diversity? That is just not something you see everyday.

Let’s take a look a the pro-diversity email that angered a bunch of Chicago associates, after the jump.

Although November is just around the corner, some 2009 summer associates are still learning about their fates. As one might expect given how late it is in the recruiting season, the news that comes around now isn’t always the happiest.

Above the Law has received reports that summer associates from McGuireWoods are now hearing back about offers. The interesting part is that the firm has apparently decided to make offers in waves, i.e., on a rolling basis.

One tipster tells us that approximately 11 out of 48 summers have received offers of full-time employment — thus far. The rest haven’t been rejected; rather, they’ve been placed on what amounts to a waitlist. Depending on how things unfold over the coming weeks and months, they might get offers — or they might not.

This “hiring in waves” approach is effectively what Dechert did. The firm made offers to about half of its summer class, but told the other half that they’d hear about offers in January 2010.

Comment from a source at the firm, after the jump.

Williams Mullen, the large and prominent Virginia-based law firm, announced yesterday that it will be cutting associate salaries by 7.5 percent, effective in January 2010. The new starting salary for associates will be $117,000 (in all offices other than D.C.).

A firm spokesperson described this as “a business decision,” made to remain competitive in a rapidly changing market. She added that the Williams Mullen cut was comparable to steps taken by similar firms, including Hunton & Williams and McGuire Woods (which cut starting salaries for associates by 10 percent). [FN1]

“Our clients are saying, ‘You better do this,’” the Williams Mullen spokesperson said. “This is a market adjustment just like any other adjustment, just like any other business adjusting the cost of its product.” If the firm were to keep associate salaries the same in this economic environment, “our clients would look at us and say, ‘You’re no longer competitive.” She added that equity partners would also see a decline in their incomes due to market realities.

As for whether this cut might be revisited at a later date, the spokesperson noted that matching the market goes both ways. “You can adjust down, and you can adjust up,” she said. “When things start to get better, we’ll look at ways to adjust accordingly.”

[FN1] UPDATE: A point of clarification about McGuireWoods: although the firm did cut starting salaries, incoming associates at the firm are still earning more than $117,000. New hires are making $144,000 in Northern Virginia, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, while new hires in Richmond, Charlotte and Atlanta are making $130,500.

Earlier: Prior coverage of associate pay cuts

We suppose it’s fitting that on Yom Kippur, when our Jewish friends are fasting at home, today’s Legal Eagle Wedding Watch is a total WASP-fest. (Last weekend was Rosh Hashanah, which explains the unusual dearth of Jewish nuptials in the NYT announcements.) We look forward to receiving plenty of tasteful feedback about how there are “too many gentiles” this week.

Here are your six finalists — all Biglaw associates, as it happens:

1. Elisabeth Madden and Wesley Mullen

2. Ann Parker and Robert McKeehan

3. Emily Harris and Matthew Mauney

Read all about these couples and evaluate their credentials, after the jump.

We are so close to the end of the Vault open threads that I’m starting to get my second wind. I don’t know much about the firms on this part of the list, but you guys do. You know a lot. You’re so smart, you probably don’t even need this quick recap of the next group of firms. But I’ll go through it anyway:

81. Katten Muchin Rosenman
82. McGuireWoods
83. Baker & Hostetler
84. Dickstein Shapiro
85. Venable
86. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell
87. Bracewell & Giuliani
88. Dorsey & Whitney
89. Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner
90. Hughes Hubbard & Reed

Locke Lord is in the house. The firm moved up ten spots from last year.

Other movers and shakers after the jump.

The number of law firms canceling their 2010 summer associate programs continues to climb. Here are the latest additions to the growing list:

1. McCarter & English: Managing partner Eric Wiechmann confirmed to ATL that the firm will not be holding a summer associate program in 2010. In addition, he confirmed that incoming associates won’t be starting until December 1, 2009 (which, all things considered, is pretty good).

(Before some of you say you’ve never heard of McCarter, please note that it’s one of the largest firms in New Jersey — a sizable legal market. In addition to its main office in Newark, the firm also has offices in Boston, Hartford, Stamford, New York City, Philadelphia and Wilmington. Recently it made news by hiring Harley Lewin, a leading IP lawyer and trademark guardian, from Greenberg Traurig.)

2. McGuire Woods: This is a firm that needs no introduction. It’s quite sizable, with 900 lawyers across 18 offices worldwide, and it’s #61 on the Am Law 100 list.

A spokesperson for McGuire Woods confirmed what we’ve heard from various law student tipsters: the firm is “likely to reduce the number of offices in which we have our summer programs.” It has not, however, made a final decision on which offices won’t be hosting summers. (One reader predicts the firm won’t have summer associates outside of Richmond, Charlotte, and Chicago.)

But there’s some additional interesting backstory here.

Jeez, it’s like “we love the Queen” day over here.

We’ve got some law firm expansion to report on. McGuire Woods is planning to acquire the London-based firm of Grundberg Mocatta Rakison. The move will add 36 attorneys to the McGuire roster. According to the firm press release:

Today’s announcement greatly enhances McGuireWoods’ international capabilities, and allows the firm to better serve clients with matters requiring an international presence, including corporate and financial transactional work, as well as litigation and wealth management matters. In addition, this combination will allow the firm to offer GMR’s existing international client base its capabilities to handle matters throughout the United States and in the other countries where McGuireWoods has offices. McGuireWoods’ clients will also have access to GMR’s international network.

A tipster reports:

Maybe they’re trying to get some of that $1,440 an hour advising work.

The ABA Journal reported this morning that U.K. regulatory lawyers bill out for as much as 1,000 pounds a day.

McGuire Woods Chairman Richard Cullen explains why the firm wanted to expand during the recession, after the jump.

Admit it, you knew this was coming. We’ve got a firm capitulating to the market realities and cutting first-year associate salaries.

McGuire Woods chairman Richard Cullen left a voice mail (!) to his attorneys last night. He let everybody know that the firm was cutting 10% off of first-year salaries, from $160K to $144K.

UPDATE: There is some variation in starting salaries by office. New hires are making $144,000 in Northern Virginia, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, while new hires in Richmond, Charlotte and Atlanta are making $130,500.

But that is not the only cut future McGuire Woods juniors can expect. Cullen also told the firm that the 2009 summer program is being scaled back to an eight-week affair.

Salaries for all the other associates at the firm have been frozen at 2008 levels.

But, and this is important, no layoffs at McGuire Woods.

Richard Cullen did not respond to an immediate request for comment.

For weeks, the ATL commenters have been claiming that “no first-year attorney is worth $160,000!!!!!!!!!!” At McGuire Woods, that is now true. And there are a lot of laid off first years who would gladly take a $144,000 a year job.

We’ve seen a lot of contraction in the legal industry. But now we could start to see serious deflation in the industry.

Our Vault 100 series is winding down. We hope that the insiders have enjoyed the opportunity to brag (or to vent) about their firms. And that the curious have appreciated insights into life at various firms in the top 100.

Here is the next bunch up for discussion (with their prestige scores in parentheses):

81. Crowell & Moring LLP (4.763)
82. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (4.754)
83. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (4.735)
84. Arent Fox PLLC (4.726)
85. McGuireWoods LLP (4.697)
86. Venable LLP (4.676)
87. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (4.575)
88. Dickstein Shapiro LLP (4.554)
89. Baker & Hostetler (4.531)
90. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P (4.503)

Are the following statements true or false?

Okay, you know the drill.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads - 2009

It’s tough being a federal judicial nominee. Your entire legal career is gone over with a fine-toothed comb, and every mistake or misstep is brought to light, no matter how minor.

From the ABA Journal:

A lawyer nominated to a federal appeals court was lead attorney on an $8 million appeal that got tossed because the trial transcript was not filed by the deadline.

E. Duncan Getchell Jr. of McGuireWoods asked the Virginia Supreme Court to hear the appeal anyway, but the judges refused, the Virginian-Pilot reports. Getchell’s five-page brief did not explain the reason for the failure, except to say there was a “miscommunication or misunderstanding.”

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding about whether trial counsel or appellate counsel (Getchell) should have filed the transcript. From the Virginian-Pilot:

The fact that Getchell’s firm filed the post-trial motions three weeks after the verdict “kind of suggests the baton was passed,” said William S. Geimer, a professor emeritus at Washington and Lee University Law School who teaches civil procedure.

“It’s definitely the law firm’s responsibility,” Geimer said. “I don’t see any way for the law firm to escape responsibility if it was even partly or jointly responsible for the failure.”

Getchell did not return repeated calls to his office.

The Fourth Circuit has been shorthanded for a while now. And with the nomination of Duncan Getchell, that probably won’t be changing anytime soon.

(Not necessarily because of this procedural snafu, but because Getchell’s two home-state senators — John Warner (R) and Jim Webb (D) — don’t seem to be backing his nomination.)

Costly Error Linked to 4th Circuit Nominee [ABA Journal via Blogonaut]
Error in major case tied to federal judge nominee [Virginian-Pilot via How Appealing]
E. Duncan Getchell Jr. bio [McGuire Woods]

We reminded you on Friday, but we fear our post got lost in the shuffle. If you’re part of the plaintiff class in the Bar/Bri class action — and since you’re reading ATL, you probably are — then the deadline for filing your proof of claim is this Monday, September 17. So if you want your $125 or so, you need to act now.

Is the settlement a good deal? We largely agree with this commenter:

That settlement is a disgrace. The plaintiff class was sold up the river…. But I’ll take the money and run.

Just like most of you (see poll results), we filed a claim, knowing that we’re being undercompensated. And knowing that we’re acting against the advice of The Legal Diva — a named plaintiff in the case who now opposes the settlement. From The Recorder:

Loredana Nesci, a 2005 graduate of Quinnipiac College School of Law in Connecticut, said lead attorney Eliot Disner initially convinced her he’d built a strong case against BAR/BRI and would seek to break the company apart. “We were promised the moon and stars by Disner,” she said.

But Nesci said everything changed after Disner’s former firm — Los Angeles’ Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket — was acquired by McGuireWoods.

“After that merger, I think that McGuireWoods took Eliot, gagged him [and now] he’s in a basement in their firm, because I can’t find the guy,” said Nesci, now a practicing attorney based in Studio City.

It seems that the Legal Diva — er, Ms. Nesci — was right about Disner. Her “gagged in a basement” comment appeared in a February 2007 article. A few months later, in May 2007, Eliot Disner was fired by McGuireWoods (after he criticized the settlement).

For more on her Diva-ness, check out her website, which is a real trip. Her bio describes her past work as a police officer for the LAPD, explains how she earned the title of “Legal Diva,” and boasts of how she was “quickly gaining notoriety for being a colorful and cunning attorney.” It also mentions that she “enjoys working with feral cats,” which sounds apropos for a Legal Diva. MEOW!

(See especially the super-cute testimonials from her clients, including Doug Smith, at right. We don’t want to know what types of matters she handled for him….)

Bar/BRI Class Action Litigation [official website]
The Legal Diva: Loredana Nesci [official website]
$49M Disappoints Some in Lawyers’ Class [The Recorder]

Earlier: A Friendly Reminder: The BAR/BRI Proof of Claim Deadline Is Monday!

As you may recall (from yesterday’s Morning Docket), Eliot Disner is the McGuireWoods partner who criticized the settlement negotiated by his firm in an antitrust class action against Bar/Bri, the giant bar exam prep company.

Actually, make that “former McGuireWoods partner.” From today’s New York Law Journal:

Mr. Disner, who was a partner in the Los Angeles office of McGuireWoods, said the firm fired him May 23. “I was terminated because [McGuireWoods] said that my work on the BAR/BRI case had hurt the [firm’s] reputation,” he said. His concerns about the proposed settlement with West Publishing Corp., which offers BAR/BRI bar review courses nationwide, surfaced in an objection to the class settlement that was filed last week by three lead plaintiffs (NYLJ, May 21)….

A hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real on whether the $49 million settlement will become final is scheduled for June 18. Mr. Disner’s brief, which was not supported by McGuireWoods, argues that the firm ought to press for at least $400 million from West Publishing, as well as for the breakup of BAR/BRI.

We titled an earlier post about the settlement You Are Probably $125 Richer Right Now. But if Eliot Disner is right, maybe another zero belongs on the end of that figure.

Study questions: Is the Bar/Bri settlement fair? Or has Bar/Bri screwed us yet again?

Law Firm Fires Partner Who Questioned BAR/BRI Settlement [New York Law Journal]
Bar/Bri Class-Action Objector is Fired [WSJ Law Blog]
The Intrigue Grows in Bar/Bri Class-Action [WSJ Law Blog]
Lawyer Who Sued BAR/BRI Now Questions the Settlement [American Lawyer]

There were a few salary-related comments appended to our administrative post from yesterday. E.g., these comments about McGuire Woods.

So we figure we might as well create an open thread for such discussion. If you have any information or comments about compensation-related matters, please note them here.

Also, rest assured, we have not forgotten about the promised update to our earlier special report on clerkship bonuses. We’re still waiting for a few pieces of information to come in (including verification of a rumor about Simpson Thacher). If you have anything to share, please email us (subject line: “Clerkship Bonus”). Thanks.

This news isn’t as exciting as a holiday bonus or a pay raise. But it does mean that if you took the Bar/Bri bar review course between 1997 and 2006 — hey, that includes us! — you can buy a round of $12 martinis for you and a few friends.

According to a tipster:

According to the Los Angeles Daily Journal, the Bar/Bri antitrust class action settled for $49 million, to be paid out to 290,000 clients. Each client will get $125.

Bar/Bri also agreed to terminate a “co-marketing” venture with Kaplan as part of the deal. Neither defendant (Bar/Bri or Kaplan) admitted wrongdoing.

The plaintiff class is represented by McGuire Woods.

The full article, as reprinted in the National Law Journal, can be accessed here.

Update (12:30 PM): Information about how to claim your share of the settlement will appear here. Here at ATL, we’re all about news you can use!

BAR/BRI monolopy class action settled for $49M [National Law Journal]
BAR/BRI Class Action Website [official site]

Remember Cristina Leeann Schultz, a.k.a. the Stanford Law escort? The federal government alleged that she “paid off more than $300,000 in student loans, [working] under the stage name of Brazil, a call girl who roamed the country to turn ‘high-priced hottie’ tricks.”*

Perhaps Brazil — er, Ms. Schultz — is inspiring future generations of female law students to explore, um, other professional opportunities. Check out our latest summer associate story:

[A] summer associate at McGuireWoods in Richmond apparently was feeling unfulfilled by her list of assignments for the summer. So she headed down to the Paper Moon strip club for Amateur Night. For anyone who hasn’t sampled Richmond’s professional nudie scene, it’s pretty terrible. I can only imagine the horror of amateur night.

Anyway, said summer associate — I believe she goes to school at [redacted] — got onstage, did her thing… and WON. Sadly, her secret remained safe through the end of the summer, and no one ever really found out.

Until now.

We congratulate this multi-talented law student. Any summer associate can throw on a pantsuit. But how many can throw one off?

So can you top that? We’re still on the prowl for more silly summer associate stories. You know where to reach us.

* What, pray tell, is a “high-priced hottie” trick? Is this a term of art within the world’s oldest profession?

Stanford Law Grad, U.S. Clash Over Cache of Cash [The Legal Reader]
Stanford Peers Empathize with Alleged Prostitute [The Stanford Daily Review]

Earlier: Low-Hanging Fruit: Summer Associate Stories, Please