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.

Do you remember the class of 2009? You know, the kids who should be gearing up to start work in a couple of weeks but are instead sitting around, waiting to get out of purgatory? Don’t look now, but a couple of firms have decided to extend the deferral period for these people, and that can’t be a good thing.

Proskauer Rose’s New York office kicked off the round of deferment extensions last week. A tipster from Proskauer in Los Angeles reported the news:

Proskauer just told incoming L.A. associates that [incoming associates] in New York are getting their start dates pushed back again. It’s all the way back to November now. They told us [in L.A.] before they told New York because they didn’t want us to “hear it on Above the Law first.” [Sheesh.]

The letters have now gone out to all the incoming New York associates informing them of the news. The new start date is November 2, 2010.

Proskauer had already pushed back the class of 2009 to March 2010. But Proskauer has also told the class of 2010 that the earliest they will be able to start is “fall” 2010.

So can we assume that rising 2Ls considering interviewing with Proskauer won’t be able to start until late 2012? For that matter, are incoming Proskauer associates confident that they will ever be able to start at the firm? We reached out to Proskauer, but the firm did not respond to our request for comment.

After the jump, Mintz Levin joins the deferment extension party.

Two weeks ago, Mintz Levin laid off 15 associates. But apparently those cuts were not deep enough. Above the Law has been able to confirm that Mintz Levin has cut associate salaries. A tipster explains it this way:

Salaries will be adjusted as follows (firm-wide, all departments) based on this 12-month period:

* Hours greater than 1635, salary reduced by 5%

* Hours between 1445-1635, salary reduced by 15%

* Hours between 1250-1444, salary reduced by 25%

* Hours less than 1250, salary reduced by 35%

Associates who were employed by the firm for the full fiscal years ended March 31, 2007 and 2008 and who met or exceeded target (i.e. 1925 hours) will have their salaries reduced by only 5%, regardless of their hours for the 12 month period (i.e. this safe harbor effectively only applies to 4th yr associates and above).

To make these cuts Mintz is looking at hours billed over the last 12 months. And we all know what has happened over the last 12 months:

[The cuts are] based on their utilization during the prior 12 months - August 1, 2008 through July 31, 2009. Why the arbitrary period? It’s a snapshot of the recession at its height.

But the firm will make people whole and return the money at the end of the fiscal year if their projections are wrong. For people on track to make their hours in FY 2009 who nonetheless fall below the threshold if you count the entire recession against them, they will have an opportunity to get some of their money back. So they should consider it simply loaning money to the firm right now at a 0% interest rate.

Feel better? More details, including a statement from Mintz Levin, after the jump.

A couple of layoffs, potential layoffs, and staff layoffs came in under the radar yesterday, so let’s get to it.

There was an all associates meeting a Mintz Levin Tuesday. The reports coming out of the meeting indicate that Mintz Levin management “admitted that they had been conducting stealth layoffs” over the past few months.

If you admit to stealth layoffs, are they still stealth?

While you ponder that metaphysical problem, our sources also reported the specific number of people that had been stealthily fired. But when we asked Mintz Levin spokespeople if stealth layoffs had occurred, we were told that our sources were incorrect. According to a Mintz Levin spokesperson:

The recent all associate meeting which happened on Tuesday is a regularly scheduled meeting that occurs after the end of the firm’s fiscal year, which occurred Saturday March 28th.

So maybe everything is okay over at Mintz.

After the jump, some confirmed layoff news.

This marks the end of our review of the firms in the Vault 100. This is the final bunch up for discussion (with prestige scores in parentheses):

91. Lovells (4.494)
92. Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP (4.489)
93. Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (4.478)
94. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (4.459)
95. Kilpatrick Stockton LLP (4.452)
96. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP (4.439)
97. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP (4.421)
98. Seyfarth Shaw (4.399)
99. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC (4.394)
100. Fenwick & West LLP (4.373)

Discuss. Dissect. Compare. Contrast. Most of all, enjoy.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads - 2009

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has a feature article that is particularly timely in light of this week’s firing debacle at Paul Hastings. The article, by Noah Schaffer, discusses cases filed by female attorneys in Massachusetts alleging pregnancy-related discrimination.

One recent complaint was filed against Mintz Levin in Boston. A female associate, Kamee Beth Verdrager, was offered a choice between termination or demotion shortly after returning from maternity leave. We discussed her case in more detail here.

Howard P. Speicher, of the Boston firm of Davis, Malm & D’Agostine, discusses the building of a discrimination claim in a different case, brought against the firm of Wynn & Wynn:

Typically, he says, the discrimination is “an inference that you have to draw. In that case, we had these two female attorneys who were horrified when they heard this statement made by the managing partner of the firm at a meeting. The partner had implied that [plaintiff Jill Carmichael] was having babies instead of concentrating on the law.”

Such cases are usually much harder to prove, Speicher notes.

“It’s an evidence issue,” he says. “Usually, if a woman thinks she was fired because she’s pregnant, she’s not going to have anyone admitting that — like we had” in the Carmichael case. “Usually there is going to be the claim by the employer that it was for other reasons, like job performance.”

That leaves the employee with the difficult task of convincing a judge, jury or hearing officer to draw an inference based on evidence that might not be as obvious, he says.

We don’t know if this Paul Hastings associate plans to file a discrimination claim against the firm, but from the sounds of her e-mail, it seems likely. The Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly article says some firms settle discrimination claims “quickly and quietly to avoid negative publicity.” Um, too late for Paul Hastings.

[Employment attorney Ellen] J. Messing says pregnancy discrimination cases are actually easier to prove than other types of discrimination, such as age bias.

“There tends to be a before-and-after picture where people report that they are treated as professionals until it is known or evident that they are pregnant,” she says. “And then they are treated as bellies.”

Surprisingly, some of the firms that have been hit with claims are known for their “family-friendly” policies. In fact, Mintz Levin was named as one of Working Mother magazine’s best law firms for women attorneys.

Case in point. The diversity section of the PH website points out that they are “one of the top family-friendly firms in America.”

Pregnant Pauses: Women’s claims of bias persist despite family-friendly policies [Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly]

Earlier: ‘I suppose we have your honeymoon to blame for this?’
Breaking: A Dramatic Farewell Email (And proof of Paul Hastings layoffs.)

Can’t we all just get along? This is our second story today about an associate claiming discrimination by her law firm. No wonder Kirkland & Ellis has adopted a new mandatory arbitration policy.

From Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly:

An associate in the employment, labor and benefits section of the Boston firm of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo has filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination charging that colleagues discriminated against her because of her gender and status as a wife and mother.

Mintz, Levin associate Kamee Beth Verdrager also alleges in her MCAD filing against the firm and ML attorneys Robert M. Gault, Donald W. Schroeder and David Barmak that she was the target of retaliation when she complained about the treatment accorded her by certain members of the employment section and that she was subsequently demoted and placed on probation.

Commenting on behalf of the firm, Public Relations Director Gina Addis said that “the reality is from time to time allegations like these are made against all businesses, including law firms. Our firm has and will deal with any such allegations in the ordinary course and at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum.”

More discussion, including highlights from Verdrager’s complaint, 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

We’re a little tardy with this memo. It was issued on Wednesday, but we didn’t receive it until late yesterday.

Anyway, better late than never. The Mintz Levin pay raise announcement appears below the fold.

You know how losing the last five pounds is always the hardest? The same could be said for the last few firms on the LIST OF SHAME. Don’t count on these firms melting away anytime soon.

We still haven’t seen a Mintz Levin memo. But we’re taking them off the list, since (1) numerous commenters have insisted they’ve matched the market raises, and (2) nobody has disputed this.

So here’s the latest, official LIST OF SHAME (ranked by Vault 100 placement; AmLaw 100 placement indicated parenthetically):

43. Baker & McKenzie (3)
50. Fulbright & Jaworski (36)
77. Bryan Cave (56)
82. Reed Smith (33)
83. Dorsey & Whitney (68)
86. McGuireWoods (65)
90. Baker & Hostetler (73)
100. Seyfarth Shaw (66)

Fridays are big days for announcements. Perhaps some news will break later today?

If you see any errors in this list, please email us (with supporting documentation, if any). Thanks.

The ATL front page has no post about associate compensation developments. That’s unacceptable.

So here’s an open thread for you to discuss the latest firms to announce associate pay raises. If anyone drops off the LIST OF SHAME — or if any major legal news breaks while we’re gone — this is the place to mention it.

P.S. Can someone please take a screenshot of the rumored Mintz Levin memo, and send it to us? We will then remove the firm from the next LIST OF SHAME. Thanks.

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.