Last week, we tangentially touched on the issue of California's Proposition 8, which is titled: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The issue touched off a firestorm of comments, with many strong opinions for and against the measure.

Apparently, senior attorneys at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe also hold strong opinions about Prop. 8. Political divisions at the firm came to a head when Dean Criddle, a tax partner in the San Francisco office, made a $5,000 contribution to the Yes On 8 campaign. Upon learning of Criddle's contribution, his colleague in the tax department and San Francisco office, of counsel Cameron Wolfe, sent out this email:

Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:57 PM

To: SF ALL ATTORNEYS; SV ALL ATTORNEYS; SC ALL ATTORNEYS

Subject: Orrick and the Proposition 8 Campaign

The publicity attendant to the $5,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 Campaign by an Orrick partner damages the reputation of Orrick as a progressive law firm supportive of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. This can adversely impact the firm in many ways, including hurting our ability to attract gay and lesbian recruits; turning off clients, existing and potential, that support equal rights for homosexuals; and making our current gay and lesbian work force feel like second class citizens.

Chief justice George's eloquent exposition of the reasons why same sex marriage is a right that should be guaranteed to all gay and lesbian people need not be elaborated upon here. Obviously, the partner who made the $5,000 contribution had a right to believe the Chief Justice to be wrong and to make the contribution he did. It can be debated whether he should have foreseen that this action could damage Orrick. What can't be debated is that we should try to counteract the damage that has occurred.

One thing that we as individuals working at the Orrick firm can do is to make personal contributions to the No on 8 Campaign. If enough of us do so, that may be newsworthy enough to generate positive publicity offsetting the present negative impression in the community on this important issue.

I urge each of you to make a contribution to No on 8, which can be sent as follows:

No on 8
Equality California
2370 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94114

And be sure to indicate your affiliation with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

Thanks for your help.

Cameron Wolfe, Jr.

We can argue about whether gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution, but isn't it a little bit odd to be advocating one right while trying to step on a separate Constitutional protection?

Another Orrick lawyer weighs in, after the jump.

Last month we reported on merger talks between Heller Ehrman and Mayer Brown. Those talks have now been called off, as reported earlier today by Am Law Daily. This leaves the San Francisco-based Heller with another failed romance.

From an email sent out today on behalf of Mayer Brown chairman James Holzhauer:

As you are aware, the firm has been exploring the possibility of a merger with Heller Ehrman. After careful consideration, we have decided not to pursue that course.

Heller Ehrman is a fine firm with outstanding lawyers. Like us, they have a long heritage of excellence in their work and service to clients. A merger with them would have offered potential benefits for both firms and our clients. In the end, however, various issues, including client and practice conflicts, could not be resolved, and we have ended our discussions.

Jim

Speculation has now turned to which other firms might be in the market for Heller. Orrick? Covington? Check out the comment threads for the latest and wildest rumors.

The only thing we do know for sure is that Heller has once again been jilted. We'll bring you all of the new suitors as soon as they reveal themselves.

Mayer Brown Calls Off Merger Talks With Heller Ehrman [Law.com]

Earlier: Law Firm Merger Mania: Heller Ehrman Is At It Again

With the U.S. economy in the toilet, third tier or otherwise, law firms are building up their bankruptcy practices. They're eagerly scooping up lateral associates in the field -- and partners, too. From the American Lawyer:

A rough 18 months for Mayer Brown got a little worse on Monday, when San Francisco's Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe announced that Raniero "Ron" D'Aversa Jr., the co-chair of Mayer's restructuring and bankruptcy practice, would join Orrick immediately.

Considered a rising star of the bankruptcy bar, the 44-year-old D'Aversa -- whose book of business is said to exceed $5 million by sources familiar with his work and reputation -- will be based out of the New York office of Orrick. The firm placed 27th in this year's Am Law 100 rankings with gross revenues of $772,000 and profits per equity partner of $1.7 million.

Will D'Aversa be taking clients with him? There's disagreement on that score. Roger Frankel, the (kinda scary-looking) chair of Orrick's bankruptcy practice, said that "it's clear that there will be significant clients moving with him." But Mayer issued a statement claiming that "no disruption of any client relationships is expected."

Mayer Brown Loses Restructuring Chief to Orrick [American Lawyer]
Ron D'Aversa bio [Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe]
Raniero D'Aversa, Jr. bio [Mayer Brown via Google Cache]

Earlier: Job of the Week: Bankruptcy Can Be Good

Welcome to another post in the 2009 Vault 100 open thread series. You all seem to like having the law firms listed in groups of ten, so we'll keep it up. Here are the thirty-something firms from the Vault 100, with prestige scores in parentheses:

31. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (6.461)
32. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (6.327)
33. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (6.313)
34. Winston & Strawn LLP (6.275)
35. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP (6.235)
36. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (6.174)
37. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (6.173)
38. Allen & Overy LLP (6.147)
39. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (6.131)
40. Proskauer Rose LLP (6.102)

Fried Frank and Cadwalader have been on the ATL radar of late. We broke news of staff layoffs at Fried Frank earlier this week, and news of the attorney bloodletting at Cadwalader last month. As noted in Cadwalader's notable perks: "ouch, layoffs." (Speaking of, in going through the Vault 100 list, we've discovered that Vault's definition of "perk" is very different from ours.)

In the comments, the curious can pose questions, and the insiders can share insights. More threads to come.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads - 2009

The 2007 bonus season ended some time ago, even for firms on the late side. We're almost halfway through 2008, and you know what that means: time to look ahead to the next bonus cycle.

In the 2007 bonus cycle, the top New York-based firms generally still paid lockstep bonuses, both year-end and "special," at the market levels set by Cravath as first mover. We called this a "true match" of Cravath.

Beyond that small group of firms, however, there was a trend towards squishiness greater customization and tailoring. Firms already winded by the nationwide sprint to a $160,000 starting salary were understandably not eager to pay everyone, star performers and laggards alike, Cravath-sized bonuses. Instead, they paid individualized bonuses, tailored to factors such as the specific associate's billable hours and quality of work. Some firms tried to make it appear as if they had matched the Cravath bonuses, even if they hadn't (e.g., by pasting the Cravath numerical table into their own bonus memo, but then saying they paid bonuses "up to" the listed amounts, or to associates "in good standing," or to associates who met a certain hours threshold).

Anyway, enough about 2007 -- on to 2008. Most firms don't announce bonus levels in advance. But some firms do, and prominent among them is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

Orrick, you will recall, is the firm that took $160K beyond Gotham. A little over a year ago, in May 2007, Orrick raised its California offices (except Sacramento) to a $160,000 starting salary. That pay raise then rippled out across the country, to Washington, Chicago, and other major legal markets.

(So if you blame the latest associate pay raise for causing the latest associate layoffs, blame Orrick. They fired the first shot in that battle.)

Orrick just released its 2008 bonus memo. We didn't receive the text of the memo, but we're guessing it's similar to last year's memo.

We did, however, receive the numerical table of Orrick bonus ranges. The good news: the numbers are the same as last year. The bad news: the numbers are the same as last year.

Of course, in these dreary economic times, stasis should be considered good news. If you're curious -- maybe you're at a peer firm to Orrick, and curious about what your counterparts' "standard" and "discretionary" bonuses -- the table appears after the jump.

Here are this morning's firms (in Vault 100 order, prestige scores in parentheses):

36. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (6.308)
37. Linklaters (6.301)
38. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe (6.244)
39. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (6.204)
40. Proskauer Rose LLP (6.195)

You'll note that one of these firms is Linklaters, which we recently wrote about. We reprint two emails from Linklaters sources, taking issue with our prior coverage, after the jump.

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

Confirmed news of two more firms raising their clerkship bonus amounts:

1. Williams & Connolly: From $25K to $35K.

2. Orrick: From $15K to $40K.

If you get wind of clerkship bonus news, please send it our way (subject line: "Clerkship Bonus"). Thanks.

Here is a memo that some of you have been waiting for, with an eagerness more typical of teenage boys expecting Spiderman 3. It's an outline of the associate bonus program for Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, in all of its complex glory.

The memo is rather lengthy. We thought about taking screenshots of each page, but that would have been too time-consuming. So we just cut and pasted the text instead.

Some of the formatting was lost as a result (as well as the pretty green "O" at the top of each page in the original). But the substance of the memo is all there.

If you're interested, you can check it out after the jump

As noted by several commenters, and as this article in Monday's Recorder will report, Morrison & Foerster has announced a firm-wide increase in associate base salaries. This follows on the heels of pay raise news from two other California-based (or California-originating) firms, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and O'Melveny & Myers.

Here's the new MoFo pay scale:

1 - $160,000 (2006)
2 - $170,000 (2005)
3 - $185,000 (2004)
4 - $210,000 (2003)
5 - $230,000 (2002)
6 - $250,000 (2001)
7 - $265,000 (2000)
8 - $280,000 (1999)

As reflected in the base salary table above, all of MoFo's offices are now on what might be called a "New York" or "$160K" pay scale. The same is true of O'Melveny, but not of Orrick (which raised starting salaries in its Sacramento and Pacific Northwest offices, but not all the way to $160,000 -- just to $145,000).

With respect to the MoFo news, there's a catch (which the Recorder fails to mention). As noted by this comment:

MOFO eliminated the "contribution bonus" payable upon hitting 1950 [hours]. More or less took the 1950 bonus, which almost everyone earns, plus a few grand more and spread that over a 12 month period. NY lawyers still get bonuses like all other NY attorneys.

Or this one (from commenter "Screwed"):

MoFo announced that it's matching OMM and Orrick, but then anounced that it's rescinding its previously-announced hours-based bonus that kicks in at 1950 hours. The salary increase, pro-rated over 8 months, is essentially of equal value as the now-rescinded bonus. In other words, the only real difference for people meeting their minimum hours requirement is that they get that portion of their bonus up-front. Is OMM or Orrick also playing the "give with one hand while taking with the other" move to "increase" salaries?

Your responses to this question are welcome in the comments.

More Calif. Firms Follow Orrick's Move to $160K Associate Pay [The Recorder]

We have confirmed, with sources at the firm, the news that O'Melveny & Myers has raised associate base salaries in its California offices. The firm's California and New York offices are now on the same salary scale.

The O'Melveny & MYers news was conveyed through a firm-wide voice-mail. The message said: "Over the past 24 hours, we've detected a movement in the associate and counsel compensation marketplace."

(The "movement" referred to in the voicemail is presumably the bump in California salaries that was just announced by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.)

So here's the new OMM pay scale:

Effective May 1, for all US offices (includes all CA offices and the DC office, and obviously NY):

2006: $160K
2005: $170K
2004: $185K
2003: $210K
2002: $230K
2001: $250K
2000: $265K
1999: $280K

Also, in case you question yesterday's news about Orrick's pay raise, today's Recorder provides confirmation of what we previously reported. You can check out their article, which includes comment from Orrick chairman Ralph Baxter, by clicking here.

Orrick Ups Calif. Associates' Pay to $160,000 [The Recorder]

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Orrick Raises California Salaries

Some happy news for Golden State associates of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. A source at the firm tells us:

"Orrick just matched New York salaries on the West Coast. We received a memo and videocast from [firm chairman] Ralph Baxter this morning."

"All offices start at $160,000, except for Sacramento and Pacific Northwest."

According to this comment, which has been verified by our source at the firm, the Orrick pay scale now looks like this:

2007 ASSOCIATE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

Washington DC, Los Angeles, New York,
Orange County, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley

Level Salary

1 (2006) $160,000
2 (2005) $170,000
3 (2004) $185,000
4 (2003) $210,000
5 (2002) $230,000
6 (2001) $250,000
7 (2000) $265,000
8+ (1999+) $280,000

Good stuff. Any guesses as to whether (and when) any of the other big California shops -- e.g., Gibson, Latham, O'Melveny -- will follow suit?

Truth be told, we find the stock options backdating story a little boring. But every now and then, it results in mildly interesting news.

From the Recorder:

A fourth-year associate at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe inadvertently disclosed a sensitive document about stock option backdating that the firm has spent the last five months fighting to keep under seal.

The document -- a complaint in a shareholder derivative action against former executives of Mercury Interactive Corp. -- contains explosive allegations against the executives and quotes extensively from e-mails in which the executives allegedly discuss backdating their own stock options....

The complaint, Morillo v. Abrams, 1:05-cv-50710, had been filed under seal on Sept. 22 as part of a confidentiality agreement with the executives' lawyers -- but without judicial approval. The Recorder and two other news organizations have been trying since then to unseal the complaint and its supporting exhibits.

But a Dow Jones News Service reporter discovered Friday that Orrick associate M. Todd Scott had inadvertently filed the complaint publicly with a motion to stay the derivative action in October. The Wall Street Journal posted the complaint on its Web site over the weekend and wrote a story about it on page A-4 of Tuesday's print edition.

Whoops! There goes five months' worth of legal battles.

Our personal view is that filing under seal is greatly overused, even abused. But if you're going to file under seal, then file under seal.

(We do feel bad, however, for Mr. Scott. We're guessing he was operating under inadequate sleep. And when associates are exhausted and overworked, mistakes will get made.)

Oops! Orrick Associate Lets Slip Mercury Backdating Document [The Recorder via Law.com]

Here's the lunchtime open thread for discussion of associate salary developments. In the morning thread, there are rumors about various announcement that allegedly have (or have not) been made. Please send us whatever info you have, so we can verify and post.

After the jump, the Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe announcement, which made the rounds on Friday.

* Last Tuesday, a civil action captioned Aaron Brett Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP was filed in New York Supreme Court -- and the world of Biglaw has never been the same ever since. Click here to access the complete archives of our Aaron Charney coverage.

* Of course, Sullivan & Cromwell partners aren't the only bosses who are jerks challenging (allegedly).

* Don't forget the Divine Miss C, Shanetta Cutlar, whose delicious reign continues over at the Justice Department's Special Litigation Section.

Compared to Aaron Charney and Shanetta Cutlar, other topics pale by comparison. But here are other highlights from the past week in legal news:

* Charles "Cully" Stimson apologizes for ranking on Gitmo lawyers.

* In New Orleans, trials get rescheduled for football.

* Barry Ostrager of Simpson Thacher, the renowned business litigator, has poor bathroom manners (or aim).

* The justices of the Michigan Supreme Court just can't stop squabbling.

* Now we know the real reason -- or rather, the 25 million reasons -- that the Dewey Ballantine / Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe merger was scuttled.

* Third Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell, who also serves as the First Lady of Pennsylvania, sings a duet with Jon Bon Jovi. We don't know whether to be delighted or frightened.

After the much ballyhooed merger between Dewey Ballantine and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe fell apart, many theories were bandied about as to why the deal disintegrated. See, e.g., here.

Now, from a British legal publication, The Lawyer, we get this fascinating report:

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe chairman Ralph Baxter demanded a guaranteed $25m (£12.92m) payout over five years, had the proposed merger with Dewey Ballantine gone through, The Lawyer can reveal.

Orrick's management drafted an employment agreement for Baxter and Dewey chairman Mort Pierce to sign, which would have committed both partners to the newly merged firm for five years.

Pierce is understood to have refused to sign, prompted by the dissatisfaction of a number of Dewey partners with the terms of the agreement.

The significant remuneration for a non-fee-earning chairman is thought to have contributed to Dewey's decision to walk away from the merger with Orrick.

Pierce is known to be the highest earner at Dewey, earning an extra $3m (£1.54m) in one year in bonuses alone. But he is also the highest biller, averaging more than 3,000 chargeable hours a year.

Balking at Ralph Baxter's rich demand is understandable. But in hindsight, one can't help wonder whether Dewey shouldn't have just bent over and grabbed its proverbial socks. The DB partners who have walked out the door in the past few weeks probably took with them books of business totalling well over Baxter's concededly greedy demand.

But the $25 million wasn't the end of it. Check this out:

For Dewey, the combination of Baxter's personal demands, which also included unlimited first-class air travel for himself and at least one family member, and the perceived imbalance in terms of post-merger management were the final straw in scuppering a deal that could have produced a $1bn (£514.5m)-turnover firm, which could have been in the global top 10.

Quips an amused tipster: "I laughed when I saw Baxter's personal demand of unlimited first class travel for him + 1.
Seriously, does he think he's Gnarls Barkley or what?"

Revealed: Baxter killed Dewey-Orrick merger [TheLawyer.com]

Last week was short, thanks to the New Year's holiday; but it sure was busy. Here are some highlights from a very momentous week:

* No more jokes about Harriet Miers: the ill-fated ex-SCOTUS nominee has resigned as White House counsel. Speculation about her successor abounds.

* No more jokes about the Dewy Orifice: the ill-fated merger between Dewey Ballantine and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe has been called off.

* Turns out that Chief Justice Rehnquist was a painkiller junkie. Once, while suffering withdrawal symptoms, he tried to bust out of a hospital in his PJs.

* Chief Judge David Levi, of the Eastern District of California, will be the new Dean of Duke Law School.

* All About Jan? Just as the aging Margo Channing's reign over Broadway was threatened by the comely Eve Harrington, the aging Linda Greenhouse's reign over One First Street is being threatened by the comely Jan Crawford Greenburg.

* Who knew? Law professors and legal bloggers sure know how to party! Photos of drunken legal academics available here and here.

* Cravath partner John Beerbower has enjoyed some amazing apartments over the years. Cravath partnership + Wealthy wife = $20 million, Park Avenue pad.

* Who's your favorite First Circuit judge? Cast your vote here.

* If you're a right-winger hoping that Justice Stevens will step down soon, don't hold your breath.

* Today's D.C. Circuit: Despite the occasional catfight, it's not as bitchy as it used to be. Sigh.

* Oppressed law clerks, your Devil Wears Prada is on its way. Coming soon to a bookstore near you: Chambermaid, by former Third Circuit clerk Saira Rao.

Why did the merger between Dewey Ballantine and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe die on the vine?

Traditional theory: Dewey's loss of key partners, such as M&A stars Michael Aiello and Jack Bodner, made it a much less attractive merger partner. Why buy a cow after the milk has dried up? See here.

Revisionist theory: It was that godawful nickname, "Dewy Orifice" -- a clear sign that the gods did not look favorably upon this union. See here.

We got our hands on the email that went around at Dewey Ballantine this afternoon, announcing the death of this combination. You can check it out after the jump.

Via the WSJ Law Blog, here's the text of the two firms' joint statement:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP have jointly decided to end merger discussions. Both firms are successful, global firms that saw great potential in a combination. However, a combination of this size and scope posed significant challenges. While both firms tried their best to work through these challenges, we were unable to bring the merger to completion. No one issue led us to this point, and each firm leaves this process with great respect for the leaders and partners of the other.

This is very bad news for Dewey. Uncertainty in the wake of the merger caused several of their top partners, including leading M&A lawyers, to leave for other firms. So Dewey is now worse off than it was before the announcement of the merger -- and now without a merger partner.

At first we thought: Orrick is like a Lothario who seduced Dewey, gave her a loathsome disease, and then dumped her.

But then a Dewey tipster told us:

The word is that Orrick is unhappy with the M&A partners who have left. Mort [Pierce] asked [Ralph] Baxter to come up with a counter proposal, but Baxter [didn't produce an adequate alternative].

So now we think: Orrick is like a Lothario who seduced Dewey, gave her a loathsome disease, and then dumped her. When Dewey asked Orrick, "Why are you dumping me?", Orrick responded: "Why would I want you? You're damaged goods. And you have a loathsome disease!"

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Dewey-Orrick merger (scroll down)

The planned merger between Dewey Ballantine and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe has been called off. Last month, the troubled transaction was indefinitely postponed -- not a good sign.

Given the unfortunate nickname that was bestowed upon the new entity, the disintegration of this deal may be just as well.

We hear that an internal email just went around at Dewey. If so, can someone please forward it to us -- or post its text in the comments?

If you have tips or further details about the scuttling of this deal, please email us.

Update (12:45 PM): Orrick chairman Ralph Baxter Jr. has confirmed the news to the WSJ Law Blog.

P.S. No, we couldn't bring ourselves to make a joke about "withdrawal from the Dewy Orifice."

Dewey, Orrick Merger Is Off [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Prior coverage of the Dewey-Orrick merger (scroll down)

The indefinitely delayed, potentially troubled merger between Dewey Ballantine and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe isn't being well-received by Dewey support staff.

From a Dewey Ballantine tipster:

As far we non-attorney types go, it seems like more of a hostile takeover than a merger. So far, Orrick management is calling the shots on all the administrative areas of the merger. In the meetings I have been in or have heard about, Orrick is having their way with us.

Many in Payroll, Finance and IT [information technology] have already been given hard end dates. Many others are actively looking for other positions. Orrick has their IT department in Wheeling, West Virginia, whereas Dewey's IT department is in New York. Having met some of the Orrick IT types and, I believe that the merged firm is going to lose out in that area.

In this merger, Dewey is looking like the receptive partner -- the one getting f***ed.

Update: In the meantime, Dewey continues to hemorrhage key lawyers. The WSJ Law Blog just reported that Michael Aiello, who had been one of Dewey's top M&A partners, has left the firm for Weil Gotshal & Manges.

Top Dewey M&A Partner Decamps to Weil [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Dewy Orifice (scroll down)