Update (3:30 PM): Please note that this post has been revised in various respects since its original publication. The situation is fluid and we are investigating further. Thanks.

It's moving day. Time for the elite firms to separate themselves from everybody else.

Multiple tipsters inform us that O'Melveny & Myers associates, in California and in Washington, DC, received voicemails today confirming that first year associate bonuses would be... $27,500. The bonus scale for OMM, in CA and DC, is believed to look like this:

2007 - 27,500
2006 - 30,000
2005 - 32,500
2004 - 35,000
2003 - 37,500
2002 - 40,000
2001 and 2000 - 45,000

A tipster adds, "Everyone is also eligible for additional bonus amounts on top of that based on hours and performance."

We understand that OMM traditionally makes these announcements over voicemail. Bonuses will be paid on December 31st, with an official memo following in January. Oh, and just for good measure, class appropriate pay raises will proceed as planned. Eat your heart out, Latham.

Update (3:30 PM): It appears that these California and D.C. bonus levels are subject to a minimum hours requirement of 1950. In addition, it seems that O'Melveny's New York office is on the Cravath scale.

Update (3:45 PM): Associate editor Kashmir Hill just spoke by phone with an O'Melveny spokesperson. The spokesperson confirmed that OMM's California and DC offices are paying bonuses to associates that are higher than OMM in New York.

"For some time, we have set bonus levels at a competitive rate for local markets," she said. And as ATL readers know, this year the local market in New York is weak in terms of bonuses. The OMM rep pointed out that last year New York bonuses were higher than non-NYC bonuses.

In addition, the spokesperson added, the California and DC bonus scales are subject to a minimum hours requirement of 1950. Bonuses in New York are not subject to such a minimum (although "hours and merit are taken into account," according to OMM).

More after the jump.

If the photos of this week's contestants look a little stiff, please understand that it's because the NYT didn't run pictures of any lawyer weddings this week, forcing us to Photoshop them from the attorneys' firm bios. You're welcome. And Happy Thanksgiving!

Here are this week's Legal Eagle Wedding Watch finalists:

1. Elizabeth Raizes and Kayvan Sadeghi

2. Amy Stutius and Adam Slutsky

3. Sara Rubenstein and Yariv Ben-Ari

Read our assessment of these couples, after the jump.

More bad news, this time from the Los Angeles market.

We've received word that O'Melveny & Myers has cut ties with five associates from their L.A. office. A tipster reports:

There were at least 5 associates let go today in the OMM Los Angeles office. Ranging from first years to mid-level associates. I'm not sure if they are being called performance related or if they are admitting they are layoffs.

OMM is calling them performance related. A firm spokesperson told us:

There have been no economic layoffs of associates at O'Melveny & Myers and there are no plans to conduct such layoffs. We are in the midst of our annual associate evaluation process, which began as scheduled in September, and some associates, as is always the case, are receiving less than satisfactory performance reviews.

More on O'Melveny after the jump.

Last week we told you that Jenner & Block held a firm-wide pep talk to assure associates that everything was going great.

Apparently, this is the new trend. Terrified associates are being told that they have nothing to fear, for now.

Last week Ropes & Gray's chairman Brad Malt sent out this email:

We're living in extraordinary times, and I know many of you are concerned about what the current turmoil in the financial markets might mean to us here at Ropes & Gray. I'd like to offer some thoughts on why we are well positioned to weather the turbulence in the marketplace.

Our firm is over 140 years old, in no small part because we always build for the long term. We have weathered many recessions, starting with the Panic of 1873, and we have always emerged stronger. Today, we possess many competitive advantages, including diversified practice offerings and a diverse client base. Thankfully, we do not depend for our bread and butter on the kinds of companies or markets that are most troubled right now. While recent events have felt unsettling for many people, nothing that is happening should distract us from continuing to execute our strategic plan and deliver excellent client service.

The recent turmoil in the financial markets has also presented the firm with important opportunities to advise clients, including some of the companies affected by recent events. Among the many examples, we obtained a temporary restraining order for our broker-dealer client, Ameriprise Financial Services, in the first case involving a money market fund to “break the buck.†An extraordinary cross-disciplinary and cross-office team reached a multi-billion dollar agreement to purchase Neuberger Berman’s investment management business and Lehman Brother’s fixed income and alternative asset businesses. We are representing various senior officers of major financial institutions in investigations of sub-prime lending activities and related class action lawsuits. And we have advised numerous hedge funds, CDO funds, mutual funds and other clients on other aspects of the market situation, including analysis of distressed securities, advice about credit default swap counterparties, advice about the new short-sale restrictions, and bankruptcy rules.

In the longer term, we are very well positioned to take advantage of opportunities that will arise from the changing market environment, and we continue to invest in lawyers and staff to help us do so. We were delighted recently to welcome our associate Class of 2008, and we actively continue to hire for summer 2009 and beyond.

To be clear, we are not immune to what's happening in the wider world. However, I believe the strengths we have built in our firm, our proven agility in addressing changing market landscapes, and the dedication and high caliber of you, our people, will enable us to withstand the short-term market challenges. As always, we are grateful for your continuing hard work and commitment.

This letter reads somewhat like DPW and Debevoise emails where those firms touted their post-meltdown successes.

O'Melveny & Myers shows firms how to send a spooky reassurance email after the jump.

Arthur Culvahouse, chairman of O'Melveny & Myers, was in charge of vetting Sarah Palin and has been taking some heat.

But Culvahouse has more to worry about than the National Enquirer. Culvahouse is locked in a high stakes political battle to keep his chairmanship at O'Melveny. O'Melveny's policy committee, which recommends the chairperson subject to ratification by the full partnership, failed to select a clear winner over the past few weeks.

[O]ther candidates are former San Francisco Managing Partner Darin Snyder; Los Angeles partner Robert Siegel, the chairman of the adversarial department; Newport Beach, Calif., partner Gary Singer, a co-chairman of the firm's transactions department; and Washington, D.C., partner John Beisner, chairman of the class actions, mass torts and aggregated litigation practice.

Culvahouse has been the chairman since 2000. His current battle for re-election (which was thought to be a lock) probably has less to do with his prominent role in the McCain campaign, and more to do with the traditional metrics of cash money.

Between 2005 and 2007, O'Melveny's profit per equity partner increased from $1.5 million to $1.6 million. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher saw an increase from $1.6 million to $1.9 million. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker's profits jumped to $1.9 million from $1.2 million, while Latham's soared from $1.4 million to $2.3 million.

Slow growth knows no party.

Are there OMM associates with an opinion on Culvahouse's stewardship? This might be the time to weigh in.

O'Melveny Closes In on Chairmanship Election Results [Law.com]

In connection with on-campus interviewing season, we're giving you a chance to assess the firms that made this year's Vault 100 list of most prestigious law firms. The previous open threads listed firms in groups of five, but to up the pace, we'll list them by ten from here on out. Here's the next group, with prestige scores in parentheses:

21. O'Melveny & Myers LLP (6.815)
22. Clifford Chance LLP (6.772)
23. Jones Day (6.763)
24. Morrison & Foerster LLP (6.657)
25. Hogan & Hartson LLP (6.579)
26. Linklaters (6.574)
27. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (6.512)
28. Ropes & Gray LLP (6.501)
29. Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP (6.494)
30. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (6.481)

We note Magic Circle firm Linklaters making a big leap from the high 30s in the 2008 list to #26 this year -- perhaps because its "notable perks" include group retreats to Europe, a drinks trolley, and an on-site doctor and dentist.

Compare. Contrast. Discuss. Thanks.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads - 2009

Earlier today, a reader emailed us:

Google Trends has O'Melveny & Meyers listed as "spicy" today. Any idea why?

Here's a screenshot. It's impressive that, on April 14, OMM is right behind "tax extension" and actually ahead of "irs extension form":

So what could be driving OMM's fame? Its involvement in the high-profile Harry Potter copyright case, in which it's representing Warner Bros. and author J.K. Rowling?

Quite possibly. But there may be an additional (and less fortunate) reason for said "spiciness." From a different reader:

O'Melveny & Myers appears to have been hacked, with their name being listed on some Form AO-088 subpoenas being sent around. I wonder how many people have received these e-mails. They contain a link to click to download the entire subpoena. Is this the first case of a law firm being used to spread a virus?

Actually, that's not entirely true. Although OMM's name appears on fake "subpoenas" making the rounds in cyberspace, it was NOT the firm whose computers were inflitrated. Rather, it was the federal court system whose computers were hacked (which may not be surprising -- government can't afford the same level of cyber-protection as a private law firm).

We learned this after contacting an O'Melveny spokesperson. She helpfully put us in touch with Marty Metz, Director of Information Technology for the firm, who explained the situation:

"The emails come from a uscourts dot gov address. They include a reference to a subpoena in a case that has been long since over, and [some] even misspell O'Melveny's name. It's an internet hoax, a spam attack."

More details, after the jump.

The latest departures from OMM (1) involve partners and (2) appear to be voluntary. From the Legal Pad:

Legal Pad is still chasing information about O'Melveny & Myers' early retirement program.... Details are dribbling out, but the firm is officially pretty tight-lipped so far.

“It’s strictly voluntary,” the firm said in a statement today. “We’ve implemented this type of program in the past and this is nothing new for our firm or law firms in general.”

The temporary option was offered for a window of time — how long isn’t clear to us yet, but we hear the window’s closed now — to all partners over age 50 who met certain requirements, such as length of tenure at the firm, according to a source close to O’Melveny management.

And maybe profitability? From an earlier post at Legal Pad:

[One departing partner] didn’t want to go into too much detail about the retirement buyout, but he did say it’s temporary and available to partners age 50 and up. We’re wondering whether there are any other conditions on the offer, how many people are taking it, when it went into effect, and whether yet another year of flat partner profits motivated it.

One knowledgeable but anonymous observer familiar with how L.A. law firms’ finances work speculated that the firm probably took a look its profitability curve and “maybe found out that the older guys aren’t sprinting, but trotting.”

This O'Melveny makeover reminds us of Cadwalader's Project Rightsize. Hopefully it will have a happier ending.

More On O'Melveny's Early Retirement Offers [Legal Pad / Cal Law]
O'Melveny Paying Older Partners to Leave [Legal Pad / Cal Law]

Earlier this month, we passed along a rumor that O'Melveny & Myers was conducting a "witch hunt" for ATL tipsters and commenters. For the record, OMM has denied the rumor (not to us, but at internal meetings).

Back in our prior post, we tossed out this hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

We concluded: "Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us?"

And enlighten us they have. One of the blog's editors, Professor Paul Secunda, kindly sent us a wonderfully detailed analysis. After all the conflicting opinions in the hundreds of comments to our post, it was nice to receive some clarity.

Read Professor Secunda's response, the model answer to our law school exam hypothetical, after the jump.

We previously reported on rumors of associate layoffs at O'Melveny & Myers. We've conducted some further investigation, and it's pretty clear to us that OMM is doing more than just performance-based pruning.

We'll issue a more detailed report sometime soon, perhaps early next week. If you have information to share, please email us (from your home computer, just to be on the safe side; see here).

For the time being, we'll stick to discussion of what has been reported elsewhere. The firm has never responded to our many requests for comment (and we're no longer going to bother trying to contact them; guys, you know where to reach us). But OMM did speak earlier this week to TheLawyer.com:

The managing partner of O'Melveny & Myers' New York office denies that the credit crunch has precipitated the layoffs of up to 15 associates.

O'Melveny tax partner and New York head Brad Okun confirms that a number of associates are leaving, but insists that the exits are all based on individual performance and are a result of O'Melveny's annual associate appraisal process.

"Every year we re-evaluate our associates and counsel to see how they're performing," Okun says. "Every year some fall below our expectations and therefore some are asked to leave. This year is no different from other years."

One of our OMM sources disagrees: "Complete baloney."

And a source who spoke to The Lawyer also begs to differ. Read more, 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.

Your reading of gossip blogs -- well, at least those relating to your profession (so Perez Hilton probably doesn't count, unless you're in showbiz) -- has just been blessed. From an article entitled "Gossip Is Information By Another Name," in the New York Times:

Q. The office sometimes feels like one big water cooler, with colleagues gossiping about one another and about management. It’s hard to resist joining in, but it feels subversive to spread information this way. Is it?

A. Not necessarily. Most gossip is just communication, a way that people form networks of trusting relationships.

The word “gossip” has a negative connotation, but you could also call it strategic information sharing, counseling or mentoring, said Michael Morris, a research psychologist and professor of organizational behavior at Columbia Business School who studies social cognition.

So feel free to bill your reading of ATL to "professional development," "office admin," or something similar. If you get asked about it, say you were gathering and sharing "strategic information," or "mentoring" younger lawyers.

As long as the information you’re spreading is not intended to hurt another person, it can actually be good for the company. Especially during times of major change, like downsizing or layoffs, gossip can be cathartic for employees, Professor Morris said.

See, e.g., Friday's O'Melveny & Myers thread (250+ comments).

A little more discussion, after the jump.

We respectfully submit that the powers-that-be at O'Melveny & Myers need to "chill" (as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) recently told former President Bill Clinton).

The folks at OMM apparently have some totalitarian tendencies. We heard they no-offered a summer associate from last year based on this individual's personal blogging about the summer associate experience (which didn't even mention the firm by name). And now we hear this rumor (by phone and by email, from multiple sources):

[T]he firm is furious about (true) comments sent to ATL about the firm's poor performance and underhanded layoffs. Apparently, the fire rages so much so that OMM is dead set on a witch hunt to find the associate(s) who leaked the goings on to ATL.

Both the firm's tech department and outside techies have been enlisted to figure out which associate's computer the comments were sent from. OMM associates are now scared to even check your site while at work (though of course are keeping in the loop through home computers).

We contacted the firm for comment. We haven't heard back from them as of the time of this posting.

We know next to nothing about labor and employment law. But to the labor lawyers among you, here's a hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us. Or if you're a labor and employment lawyer, feel free to opine in the comments.

P.S. We're experiencing mysterious technical difficulties this afternoon, so this may be our last post in a while. Maybe OMM is hacking ATL?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of O'Melveny & Myers (scroll down)

We bring you an addendum to Monday's post about the latest in Supreme Court clerk hiring. And we're pleasantly surprised to see that we have this news before Wikipedia.

Recently hired to clerk for Justice Stephen G. Breyer in October Term 2008: Brianne Gorod, currently in the D.C. office of O'Melveny & Myers. Gorod is a 2005 Yale Law grad and a former clerk to the judicial tag team of Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) and Robert A. Katzmann (2d Cir.).

Those who obsessively follows SCOTUS clerk hiring know that Judges Rakoff and Katzmann have jointly sent clerks to the Court before. But contrary to some rumors, they're not always a "package deal" when it comes to hiring (although there is a significant degree of overlap among their current and former clerks).

Judge Katzmann prefers to hire individuals who have clerked on the district court (or have some other kind of post-law school work experience), so he regularly turns to Judge Rakoff, for whom he has a great deal of respect, as a source of clerkly talent. Judge Katzmann sometimes also helps promising applicants to his own chambers to secure interviews with Judge Rakoff. Conversely, Judge Rakoff also refers and sends clerks to Judge Katzmann, as well as to other Second Circuit judges, and he has also hired some clerks after Second Circuit clerkships. In short, both judges think it's valuable for people to have both district and circuit clerkship experiences, and they try to help make that happen for their clerks. But they don't hire 100 percent of their clerks jointly.

The current tally of OT 2008 SCOTUS clerks, with Brianne Gorod added, appears after the jump.

Something weird, that's what. We are not prepared to declare associate layoffs (because we try to be cautious about making such calls). But odd things are afoot at OMM, and the environment is one of Kremlin-esque anxiety and paranoia.

We contacted O'Melveny & Myers last week, to see if they had any comment on rumors of associate layoffs. They never got back to us. So this report does not reflect any information provided by the firm itself.

(Other firms that have been the subject of layoff rumors have been more cooperative, opening their kimonos and persuading us of the falsity of the layoff rumors about them. OMM did not avail itself of this opportunity.)

Although O'Melveny had no official comment, we did hear from people who are at OMM or who know people over there. The (admittedly unhelpful) upshot: nobody seems to know what's going on; the firm is keeping people in the dark.

Read the full report, after the jump.

As you may recall, the reaction of ATL readers to the bonus announcement of O'Melveny & Myers was decidedly unfavorable. Now the Daily Journal (subscription) -- in an article entitled "O'Melveny & Myers' Below-Market Bonus Disappoints Associates," by Maya Meinert and Rebecca Cho -- has taken notice:

This week's bonus announcement from Los Angeles-based firm O'Melveny & Myers has caused much dismay among associates in the firm's California and Washington, D.C., offices - the law blog AboveTheLaw.com's post on the subject generated more than 200 comments - because the standard bonuses remain unchanged from last year and are well below what is considered "market," based on New York numbers.

Should other major players in California pay more, O'Melveny could feel the impact among its associate ranks, industry observers said.

According to a memo obtained by AboveTheLaw.com, O'Melveny's standard bonuses range from $27,500 for first-year associates to $45,000 for those in their seventh year and beyond. The bonuses are tied to a rating system based on the firm's expectations and a minimum billable-hour requirement of 1,950.

More excerpts and discussion, including the firm's reaction when contacted by the Daily Journal, appears after the jump.

O'Melveny & Myers just announced associate bonuses for its offices in California and Washington, DC. One of the tipsters who sent us the memo is not pleased:

Attached is the memo that O'Melveny & Myers associates just received. The figures for the "class bonus" appear to be far below the standard bonus at other comparable firms such as Gibson Dunn.

Memo after the jump.

Update: Based on the reactions thus far, this announcement is not going over very well. But maybe OMM is okay with that. Opines one commenter: "Expect a big exodus. It's probably what they are hoping for."

Maybe you can tell us. We heard that the associates' meeting for O'Melveny & Myers's New York office was muddled, with no clear answer or bright-line rules about the firm's bonus policy. What we have gathered, however, is that the firm did not do a "true match" of year-end and special bonuses. Associates will be eligible for a special bonus based on their evaluations and their hours, but we're not sure of the cutoffs for each.

Based on the bits and pieces that we've heard from secondhand sources, this comment seems to be basically accurate:

The "market" bonus will be determined in the usual fashion, basically a combination of your review and hours (including pro bono). There is no bright line on hours for this bonus.

The "special" bonus will be given to associates who get at least an average review (meeting expectations) and who hit a minimum billable hour requirement (also including pro bono). This number has not been finalized but will be no more than 1950. The billable hour requirement may change a little for different class years.

If you work at OMM and can provide us with a more definitive account or more details, please drop us a line. Thanks.

We're writing to correct two earlier items. We've appended corrections to both stories within each post, but we wanted to do a separate post, at the top of the main page, to draw attention to these errors. We are big believers in owning up to our mistakes around here; it's critical to maintaining our credibility.

1. Simpson Thacher "facetime requirements." On Friday, we summarily dismissed the rumor of new, firm-wide "facetime requirements" for associates at Simpson Thacher. Our rejection of the rumor was based, in part, upon the comment by partner James Cross that the rumor was "inaccurate."

The rumor was "inaccurate," insofar as it was not 100 percent true in all particulars. But neither was it completely false. It turns out that certain STB associates were in fact read the riot act about being in the office from 9:30 to 6:00, but it was a specific subset of associates: junior corporate associates in the New York office. (The sources we contacted for confirmation do not fall into this group, which is why they denied the rumor when we asked them.)

So the rumor, as we presented it to Mr. Cross for comment, was "inaccurate." But it was not completely devoid of truth. For more details, see the corrected version of our Friday post.

2. O'Melveny & Myers "special bonuses." Earlier today, based on what an OMM partner said at an associates' meeting in Washington, DC, we reported that OMM will not be matching the market-level special bonuses in New York. We got a lot of pushback on this item. Shortly after our post, the firm sent around this email in its New York office:

Please note that we are aware of the recent posting on abovethelaw.com and we want to assure everyone that it is NOT ACCURATE.

Brad Okun will address the issue of the 2008 bonus structure at the ACAC lunch meeting this Wednesday.

See you all there.

Once again, note the use of the "not accurate" language. When dealing with lawyers, never read a statement for more than it's worth. Remember the logical reasoning section of the LSAT?

O'Melveny did not announce that it is, in fact, matching market-level special bonuses in its New York office (which it very easily could have done). Instead, it simply called the rumor "not accurate" -- without identifying the specific inaccuracies -- and offered a placeholder announcement: wait 'til Wednesday, where "the issue of the 2008 bonus structure" will be addressed.

As for what's really going on at OMM, this comment outlines one possible scenario:

[At today's meeting,] the DC partner misspoke. The email to NY associates is real. Lat reported what happened in DC, and his report was accurate. But the statement made in DC was not accurate. It is worth noting though that the DC partner made clear that his comments were based on "his knowledge," and were not meant to be authoritative. But thanks to the glorious blogs, it hit the wire and the shit hit the fan. The email in NY has hopefully calmed everyone down.

But see also this comment, which offers an alternate hypothesis:

All you OMM associates complaining about Lat's bad reporting should stop your whining. You should be thanking Lat. The DC partner probably didn't mis-speak, but reported what, at the time, was accurate information.

The pre-formal-announcement backlash, thanks to Lat's post, may just have saved the special bonus for the NY (and possibly other) OMM associates.

We are inclined to agree with the latter comment. Our guess is that OMM partners in all offices were informed of the firm's decisions with regard to bonus levels, including a non-match in New York, and the D.C. partner prematurely let the cat out of the bag.

Also, please note that we consider a "true match" to be payment of year-end and special bonuses, at the levels announced by Cravath (or Debevoise for the most senior classes [FN1]), to ALL associates, and WITHOUT a billable hours requirement. If OMM's "special bonuses" come with an hours requirement attached, we will consider our original report of a non-match vindicated.

At this point, there's nothing left to do but wait until that Wednesday meeting. We would be happy for our speculation to be proven wrong, and for OMM to announce a "true match" of market-level, New York special bonuses. But please don't shoot the messenger and get angry at us because we passed along inside information from a D.C. partner who spoke prematurely (but truthfully).

(By the way, we have reached out to Brad Okun, managing partner of O'Melveny's New York office, for comment. We will let you know if and when we hear back from him.)

[FN1] Because Cravath has such a short partnership track, its year-end bonuses top out at $60,000, for the Classes of 2001 and 2000. Many firms with longer partnership tracks pay a year-end bonus of $65,000 to the most senior classes.

Finally, some bonus news from one of the "Big Three" Los Angeles-based law firms. From a source at O'Melveny & Myers:

Per an associates' meeting today: OMM does NOT plan to match the "special bonus." Hours in the New York office were substantially lower than in those firms who paid the bonus (and lower than other offices of OMM).

They also made a bunch of NY partners on the transactional side.

Our condolences to the OMM associates; our congratulations to the newly minted partners.

(We don't have the new partners' names, but feel free to post a shout-out to them in the comments. Their identities will be made public soon enough, when the firm announces their promotions on its website.)

Update / Correction: We have verified, with multiple O'Melveny sources, the authenticity of the email posted in the comments, which went around OMM's New York office. It states as follows:

Please note that we are aware of the recent posting on abovethelaw.com and we want to assure everyone that it is NOT ACCURATE.

Brad Okun will address the issue of the 2008 bonus structure at the ACAC lunch meeting this Wednesday.

See you all there.

Now, we are not necessarily convinced that our prior report (from a reliable source of ours) was wrong. If OMM wanted to announce it was matching the market-level special bonuses in New York, why didn't it just announce it was matching the market-level special bonuses in New York? It would have taken five minutes to ctrl-C, ctrl-V the Cravath memo. Instead, the firm offered a placeholder announcement: wait 'til Wednesday, where "the issue of the 2008 bonus structure" will be addressed.

So let's wait and see what happens at that Wednesday meeting. We'll keep you posted.

Update: We've issued a subsequent post about this subject. You can access it by clicking here.