Latest Stories

Skaddenfreude: The Covington & Burling Memo

By

If you’re trying to figure out what the new standard salaries are going to be in DC, it’s hard to ignore Covington & Burling. Covington is regarded by many as the archetypal Washington law firm.
As previously noted in the comments, we have confirmed pay raises for Covington associates. We thank the multiple sources who sent us this memo (in various forms):
Covington Burling CB pay raise associate base salary memo.JPG
Our tipsters draw our attention to these highlights:

“Covington DC salaries are same as Hogan, but 7th and 8th years (1999 and 2000 classes) at Covington will be paid $5,000 less than at Hogan & Hartson (assuming billables of 1950 or more). No explanation provided for why senior associate salaries are now less at Covington than at Hogan.”

“Brussels is still being evaluated.”

Because, you know, it’s all about Brussels.

53 Comments

Justice Ginsburg to Justice O’Connor: “Girl I’m Gonna Miss You”

By

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2 cheerleader beauty queen Little Miss Sunshine.JPGOr actually, “I’m missing you already.” Supreme Court justices have feelings too, y’know.
The former cheerleader and current Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader “Kiki” Ginsburg, misses having a “wing-woman” when she visits the highest ladies’ room in the land. Per Joan Biskupic of USA Today:

It’s been a year since Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the Supreme Court after a quarter-century tenure and left Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the lone woman on the nine-member court. Although it’s unclear how O’Connor’s departure will affect the law, this much is certain: Ginsburg misses her friend, and worries about the message court visitors get when they see only one woman on the bench.

“The word I would use to describe my position on the bench is lonely,” Ginsburg, 73, said in an interview with USA TODAY.

“This is how it was for Sandra’s first 12 years,” she said, citing the time from O’Connor’s appointment in 1981 to Ginsburg’s arrival in 1993. “Neither of us ever thought this would happen again. I didn’t realize how much I would miss her until she was gone.”

Awww…. Isn’t that cute? Who knew that someone who spent 13+ years dealing with admin law could be so sentimental?
(We aren’t joking about the supreme judicial ladies room. As indicated here by Jan Crawford Greenburg, aka the Eve Harrington of One First Street, the justices’ robing room has a women’s bathroom — even though it didn’t back when Justice O’Connor first joined the Court.)
Ginsburg ‘Lonely’ Without O’Connor [USA Today]
Madame Justice [Legalities via How Appealing]

2 Comments

Skaddenfreude: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGWe have confirmed pay raises in the New York and Los Angeles offices of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Our understanding is that the information was communicated in meetings, so there’s no memo or other official documentation.
We have verified the following pay scales with sources in Stroock’s NY and LA offices:
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN
New York:
Class of 2006 – $160,000
Class of 2005 – $170,000
Class of 2004 – $185,000
Class of 2003 – $210,000
Class of 2002 – $230,000
Class of 2001 – $250,000
Class of 2000 – $265,000
Class of 1999 – $280,000
Class of 1998 – $290,000
Los Angeles:
Class of 2006 – $150,000
Class of 2005 – $160,000
Class of 2004 – $175,000
Class of 2003 – $185,000
Class of 2002 – $200,000
As for Stroock L.A. associates in more senior classes, we’re told that raises are “discretionary.” If you can clarify that opacity, please drop us a line.
Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

12 Comments

Morning Docket: 01.29.07

By

typewriter typewriting keyboard Above the Law.jpg* With tax law, the sky’s the limit. Seriously. [CNN; TaxProf Blog]
* Slow… Typist… Sues… His… Law… School. Must have taken forever to type the complaint (especially with a last name like “Zachariasewycz”). [WSJ Law Blog]
* ACLU seeks disclosure on NSA wiretaps in the Sixth Circuit. [SCOTUSblog]
* Vote Roberts for Chief Justice! [SCOTUSblog]

2 Comments

Musical Chairs: Cadwalader Antitrust Moves to Skadden

By

Steven Sunshine Stephen Sunshine antitrust lawyer Above the Law.jpgBlind items: they’re not just about adulterous tycoons and drug-addicted celebrities.
Sometimes they’re about antitrust lawyers at large law firms. Here’s a blind item from, of all places, Antitrust Review:

We hear that the entire antitrust group of a major firm is moving to an even more major New York firm, effective Monday Jan 29 (all partners, special counsels and associates, both in the NY office and in the DC office). The group has been at the current firm only for a relatively short time and is now moving again. And this time, none of the group are staying behind.

Keep your eyes peeled on Monday, this move will be big news, we’ll post more detail once the story hits the papers.

The story has now hit the papers, including the Wall Street Journal. It’s the antitrust group of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, which just left for Skadden Arps.
The group is led by Steven Sunshine (above right), a former DOJ antitrust official who is based in Washington, and Jess Biggio and Matthew Hendrickson, who practice out of New York. Sunshine and Biggio are coming onboard as partners; Hendrickson is joining Skadden as counsel.
Major Antitrust Group Moves [Antitrust Review]
Skadden Adds Sunshine To Its Antitrust Practice [Wall Street Journal via WSJ Law Blog]

0 Comments

Skaddenfreude: The Kramer Levin Memo

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGWe have a bit of a backlog of law firm associate pay raise announcements. We’ll be clearing that backlog over the course of the day today, as well as publishing any new memos and emails that we receive (interspersed with our non-compensation coverage).
Here is the Kramer Levin email announcing increases in base salaries for its associates, which went out on Friday afternoon:
Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel associate base salary pay raise memorandum memo.JPG
Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

6 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 01.26.07

By

[Ed. note: These Non-Sequiturs from Stella Q should have been published on Friday the 26th, but as you may have noticed, we were experiencing technical difficulties at the time.]
* Paris Hilton again? We too are complicit in the current state of our nation. But we would at least have recognized Ruth Ginsburg. If you’re not STILL preoccupied with Biglaw salary raises, you should be outraged right now. [New York Post]
* Regardless of who wins or loses, it’s free publicity for both. Perhaps the entire point of Ms Millenia “No Racial Profiling” Black? [Overlawyered]
* If you spot anything new in this dialogue, then let me know. [New York Times]
* I don’t know if Lat is rubbing off on me or what, but I think I will pick this book up this weekend. Enough with the hipster fiction already. (But the less self-conscious, less post-modern fiction, I’ll keep.) [Legal History Blog]
* Rap Label sues, er, Condoleeza Rice and, er, Canada. And people say Canadians are irrelevant. [JD2B]

0 Comments

Skaddenfreude: End of Day Open Thread

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGYou know what to do, people. Gossip away in the comments to this post.
As for solid confirmations received since our round-up, we have Fish & Richardson and Cravath (PDF to be posted shortly, but upshot is: all numbers the same as Simpson, through Class of 2000).
Many other rumors are floating around. We’re following up on a bunch of them, including Kramer Levin and Stroock.
If you can provide confirmation, please email us. Thanks.
P.S. If you’re not comfortable with providing us substantive information by email, then send us a message asking for our phone number and/or AIM screen name. We’ll reply with the requested contact info, and you can follow up with us by whatever means you prefer.

106 Comments

ATL Reader Poll: We Know How Much You Make. But How Hard Do You Work?

By

We love reader polls; it’s interesting to take the pulse of an informed electorate. We have two polls currently running, both about the celebrated case of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. To vote in those polls (or to change your vote if you previously voted), click here and here.
Now we bring you a third poll, related to the other big story in Biglaw: associate pay raises. A reader sent this message to us:

Would you consider a poll asking how many hours people at the biglaw firms who just received salary comps are working? I’m at a second-tier biglaw firm (am law 100 with nyc, dc, cali offices + regional markets) that’s considering what to do with compensation.

The reluctance to matching [the $160K payscale] is expressed as “associates at those firms just bill more hours than our associates do.” An empirical — though not necessarily scientific — survey would be helpful to confirm or debunk that position.

We like this idea. So, if you’re now on what we’ll dub the “$160,000 Simpson Thacher pay scale,” please take the poll that appears below. Three caveats/comments:

1. We realize there are divergences in salary at higher levels. We’re going to ignore them for now. If you’re on some variant of the “$160K, $170K, etc.” pay scale, you’re eligible to vote.

2. If you are NOT on the $160K payscale, please do NOT vote — even if you just got a pay raise (e.g., from $135K to $145K). One goal of this poll is to determine how hard a “$160,000 Associate” works (and whether she works that much harder than, say, a “$145,000 Associate”). That goal would be frustrated by participation of non-$160K associates.

3. Our standard caveat about our polls: We realize that “ineligible” voters might vote, that this poll is highly unscientific, etc. That’s okay; nothing turns on this poll. It’s just for the proverbial “s**ts and giggles.”

Without further ado, here’s the poll:


Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

27 Comments

Attention Boy Associates: Here’s How To Piss Away Your Pay Raise

By

We’ve been providing salary news updates in the comments because, due to technical difficulties, it’s more reliable than trying to do so here on the main page. For your reference, here are links to the latest announcements:
1. Allen & Overy: Confirmed. Memo is here.
2. Debevoise & Plimpton: Confirmed. Memo is here.
3. McKee Nelson: Confirmed. Memo is here.
(We will spare you the details of the boring debate over whether they should be considered a DC firm with a very large New York office, which is the obvious preference of McKee Nelson’s media relations people, or a firm that’s roughly split between the two cities. How many D.C. associates can dance on the head of a pin?)
4. Schulte Roth & Zabel: Confirmed. Transmittal email for PDF memo is here.
****************************
Paging Biglaw boys: Is the retroactive portion of your pay burning a whole in your pocket? Are you trying to figure out how to spend $1,000 in found money?
Fret not. Have we got an idea for you:
urinal urine urination pee pee wee wee.jpg
For the High-End Bathroom, Something Unexpected [New York Times]

35 Comments

Almost as Much Fun as Gitmo: ‘Docket Review’ With Shanetta Cutlar

By

Shanetta Cutlar 2 Shanetta Y Cutlar Shanetta Brown Cutlar DOJ SPL Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division.jpg[Ed. note: It seems to be pure luck as to why we've been allowed to access this post through Movable Type, even though we can't access other ones or create new posts. So please refrain from asking us why we're publishing this rather than more salary coverage. Thanks.]
For those of you who have no interest in Biglaw pay raises, here’s a bit of counterprogramming about Shanetta Cutlar.
In case you’re not familiar with her, Shanetta Y. Cutlar is the Chief of the Special Litigation Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. She’s a high-ranking DOJ official, and she’s a colorful boss. Click here for a summary of her managerial quirks.
Ever since we started writing about her, lawyers who used to work under her have been emerging from the woodwork. They’ve been sending us a steady stream of stories about their time working for “SYC.” Here’s the latest, concerning a Shanetta Cutlar institution called “Docket Review”:

Has anyone told you yet about “Docket Review” — or rather, the Spanish Inquisition, which was probably less painless? Dear God, thinking back on it makes me cringe.

When you first arrive in the office, everyone warns you about it. Never, EVER miss Docket Review; be AT YOUR DESK when summoned for your meeting, or face the wrath of Shanetta; and NEVER tell her you don’t know the answer to a question. It’s nothing short of terrorizing.

Docket Review happens four times a year. During this time period, everyone is stressed out, and nobody gets any work done. In short, the entire Section is in an uproar — for days.

The process begins when an email goes around about DR scheduling. This immediately triggers a stampede of people going to the staff assistant’s office to sign up — it’s insane.

When signing up for Docket Review, there’s an elaborate strategy involved. Some people like to get it over with as soon as possible, so they sign up for the very first slot. The main concern is not to go immediately after certain people that you know will have a bad one, placing SYC in a foul mood. Another dreaded spot is the time slot right before lunch.

In advance of your Docket Review meeting, you have to write up a memo summarizing the status of your cases. This stupid memo must comply, to the letter, with certain SYC specifications. It must be uniform and perfect, down to the spacing and formatting, and completely free of typos — as if you were filing it in Court.

At the appointed hour, you are summoned to SYC’s conference room. This is, by the way, “her” conference room. No one else can ever use it, even if she’s not using it herself or even if she’s out of town.

When you enter the SYC conference room, Shanetta is seated at the far end. Her deputies are lined up on both sides of the table, and you’re on the other end. Surprisingly, there’s no spotlight, but you feel like one is glaring down on you anyway.

During the meeting, the deputies are COMPLETELY SILENT. They’re in the room, but they’re not permitted to talk. It’s just you and Shanetta.

Docket Review is a total game of “Gotcha.” SYC asks you a question she already knows the answer to, listens to your response, twists your words, and then somehow turns it all around on you — so you look like an incompetent fool.

Here I must begrudgingly give her credit. Making you look like you know absolutely nothing about your own cases, even though you’ve been toiling away on them for months, is a peculiar kind of art form. And Shanetta is a master of it.

Rarely does a Docket Review go well. As a matter of fact, going well is the exception, certainly not the rule. Some reviews have ended in screaming matches that carry on down the hall. After several confrontations with one particular attorney, he was quickly moved by the front office to a different section, out of open season.

Another attorney, who came up with the brilliant idea of telling Shanetta he was leaving the Section during his Docket Review, was escorted out of his office by the FBI a few days later.

(Admittedly, there may have been some cause for that. He had told Shanetta that he wished the Section was like “a cartoon world,” in which he could toss a bowling-ball shaped bomb into her office….)

Why do we suspect that he’s not the only person who has harbored that particular fantasy?
Earlier: Prior coverage of the Special Litigation Section under Shanetta Cutlar (scroll down)

44 Comments

Lawsuit of the Day: Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP

By

Harley Lewin Harley I Lewin Greenberg Traurig Above the Law.jpgCharney v. Sullivan & Cromwell isn’t the only discrimination lawsuit against a large law firm kicking around New York Supreme Court these days. Earlier this month, a complaint was filed in the case of Yasmin Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Meet Harley I. Lewin (at right), a shareholder (partner) in the New York office of Greenberg Traurig LLP. According to his firm bio, he’s the head of their trademarks and global brand strategies practice.
And according to allegations made by Yasmin Marinaro, a Latina female who previously worked as his administrative assistant, Harley Lewin:

– described her to two male clients, within her earshot, as a “hot tomato”;

– told these two clients that they should “check her out,” then called her into his office, “whereupon Lewin and his male guests ogled her”;

– referred to her by the nickname “Chiquita Banana”;

– ordered her into his office, “whereupon he would instruct her to view sexually explicit and inappropriate emails”;

“encourag[ed] her to gain weight so that she would be more sexually attractive”;

– attempted to intimidate her into not coming forward with her allegations by sending her an email entitled “Be Careful,” in which he urged her to “keep [her] own counsel”; and

– played a role in her allegedly retailatory firing from Greenberg Traurig.

Juicy allegations — and there’s more in the full Complaint.
Alas, we don’t have enough time to do it justice right now. But we’ll surely have more to say next week about the case of Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP. If you’d like to read the Complaint for yourself, we’ve provided a link below.
Yasmin Marinaro v. Greenberg Traurig LLP [New York Supreme Court (PDF)]
Harley Lewin bio [Greenberg Traurig]

41 Comments
Page 1353 of 14491...134913501351135213531354135513561357...1449