We received about 600 responses to this week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on associate reviews, and there were some interesting twists.
First, while most firms, 60%, only conduct reviews once a year, a growing number, 35%, are providing six-month reviews as well.
A handful of firms split the difference, conducting six-month reviews for laterals and first-year associates, but then defaulting back to once a year. Others are conducting mid-year reviews for “underperforming” associates only, which doesn’t appear to be a great recipe for great press.
Of course, not many associates think that they’re underperforming:
* Almost 90% of respondents said that their reviews were “positive” (29%) or “very positive” (57%).
* Only 6% of respondents said that their reviews were “negative,” and only one percent thought they were “very negative.”
* The remaining 7% thought their reviews were simply “neutral.”
But even though almost 90% of respondents thought their reviews went well, that doesn’t mean they thought the reviews were fair. In fact, about a quarter of associates who thought their reviews were positive still said that they were actually more likely to look for a new job in light of those reviews.
Find out more about how associates reviewed their reviews, after the jump.
We received about 600 responses to this week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey on associate reviews, and there were some interesting twists.
A tipster pointed out that NYU has revamped their website.
According to the tipster, “It’s hilariously awful and probably can indicate to the Violet alumni [at ATL] just how uncool the student body has become.”
This new web presence can only be understood as a direct challenge to former NYU students to find and pummel current NYU students. It’s about honor at this point.
If you don’t believe us, we invite you to click on Ping-Pong Man. If you do, you will learn that NYU students now are advised to make ping-pong play dates, that the game of ping-pong loosely resembles the Socratic method, and that Richard Posner has been called out.
There is also a student that informs us that her favorite NYC coffee shop still sells coffee “by the cup.” Great tip! So many New Yorkers still must suck their coffee out of a hose.
We think ping-pong man and cup girl should merge their interests and hang out where real NYU students spend their free time. Luckily, organizing beer-pong (or Beirut … discuss) is still easy enough to do over at Off the Wagon.
In honor of the new Vault rankings, we’re doing a series of open threads on the 100 most prominent law firms. We invite you to compare and contrast the firms in the comments. In the last open thread on Vault firms 6-10, there was an animated discussion about litigation at Cleary and which Kirkland office is best to work for.
Moving on down the Vault 100 list, here’s the next bunch up for discussion, with prestige scores in parentheses:
11. Covington & Burling LLP (7.428)
12. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (7.417)
13. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (7.290)
14. Williams & Connolly LLP (7.238)
15. Sidley Austin LLP (7.201)
The oddest language in the “notable perks” in this bunch is at Williams & Connolly: “Fancy bunch of smarties.” Well-dressed intelligent lawyers, or a big basket of the tart candy?
Please discuss the work, perks, and lifestyle at these firms in the comments. More threads to come.
Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads- 2009
* College presidents around the country join campaign to lower the national drinking age to 18. [Associated Press]
* Post-September 11 laws have allowed the federal government to track the movement of U.S. citizens across land borders, with the data to be kept on record for 15 years. Is anyone really surprised? [Washington Post]
* Another judicial setback for the Bush administration, in the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on EPA emissions rules. [New York Times]
* New York settles suit with antiwar activists for
$20 $2 million. [New York Times]
* Apparently, corporal punishment in schools is still legal in 21 states, and practiced in 13. [CNN]
* Lawyers shouldn’t screw over their clients. And definitely shouldn’t screw their clients’ wives. It’s going to cost one Mississippi lawyer $1.5 million. [ABA Journal]
* Lawyers are making out well in the Britney Spears custody battle. [CNN]
The law firm of Reed Smith — which, as its Google listing reminds us, is “[o]ne of the 15 largest law firms in the world” — has been in the news a lot lately. Here’s a quick recap.
Some of the news has been good, and some not-so-good. Let’s get the bad news over with first.
Last month, a Pennsylvania state court judge gave the green light to an overbilling lawsuit brought by a former Reed Smith client — a non-profit organization, no less. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
A Lawrence County Common Pleas Court judge rejected four of five objections by the Downtown law firm Reed Smith, which was sued by a youth foster-care foundation in a dispute over fees.
Bair Foundation, New Wilmington, Lawrence County, sued Reed Smith in November for billing it nearly $1 million — in contrast to the firm’s early estimate of $112,000 in legal costs — to defend the foundation in an employment discrimination lawsuit, according to the complaint.
The $112,000 was a revised estimate; the original estimate, according to the complaint, was $50,000. And Reed Smith’s client ended up losing in the underlying lawsuit.
According to Am Law Daily, “[t]he matter has turned into something of a public relations nightmare for Reed Smith…. The complaint paints a picture of a billing machine run amok.” For its part, the firm denies the allegations and claims that it “will prevail.”
More Reed Smith news, after the jump.
[Ed. note: This is the farewell post of FROLIC & DETOUR, who was recently eliminated from ATL Idol, the "reality blogging" competition that picked ATL's new editor. It is marked with F&D's avatar (at right).]
I’ve speculated about whether Sophist and I know each other. Well, we do. We wrote the HLS Parody together. Now I know that Shawn Johnson wasn’t BSing when she said she was thrilled that her team finished 1-2 in the all-around. I got the silver, but they’re playing my
Shortly after Elie won his job, I accepted an offer I’d been hoping for. As soon as I wind things up at the firm, I’ll be starting a new job in the law school world. Gold on beam! I think this worked out the right way for everyone. Thanks for the ride.
Last week we covered some goings-on — or non-goings-on, to those of you who found them boring — at Shearman & Sterling. Here’s a quick update.
We reported that, according to the firm, there have been no staff layoffs. One source writes:
I’d like to know how they define administrative staff, as they laid off their entire word processing / document production center (i.e legal word processors, proofreaders, EDGAR operators, and supervisors) in February 2007. It has since been disastrously outsourced….
Outsourcing from a year and a half ago isn’t what we had in mind when we asked about recent layoffs. But we pass that along, for what it’s worth; we do aim to be accurate.
In the comments, there were some rumors about start dates for 2009 associates. We’re looking into the rumors and will report back. If you can confirm, please email us.
Update: We’re still waiting for official word from the firm, but one Shearman offeree confirms that yes, start dates for incoming associates next year will be no earlier than November 30, 2009.
Finally, we wondered whether there might be an interesting story surrounding the one out of 140 summer associates who didn’t get an offer. It turns out that there is.
Find out what it takes to get no-offered by Shearman these days, after the jump.
A recent bar passer sent this query into Freakonomics:
I recently passed the bar and am currently applying for jobs. My main concern is bringing out the most charitable result. Should I work in the nonprofit section where my services are passed directly along to the most needy, or should I get the high-paying firm job and donate the difference in my salary to charity?
A certain Harvard Law School grad might say, “Do the right thing at every moment” — and avoid the Big Bad Law Firm. But Freakonomics blogger Stephen Dubner seems more skeptical of public interest work:
I am not so convinced that working for a nonprofit means that one’s “services are passed directly along to the most needy.” Here’s one reason why.
One Freakonomics commenter’s response to the question of “public interest v. Biglaw”: neither.
If you want to make the most “charitable result”, you’re too late. Lawyers rarely add any value to the economy (after all, this IS an economics blog). Lawyers don’t make anything but they consume large amounts of capital, both human and financial. Had you wanted to be a net contributor to society, an MBA or engineering degree or medical degree or some such would have been the way to go or even just start a small business. This would allow you to actually produce something of value. A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy….
Scrap the law degree, start a company, get rich, buy a big house and a big boat, give generously when you can and do what Buffett and Gates are doing, give it all away when you’re finished. Nothing wrong with that at all. That would be a life well lived.
ATL readers, what do you advise?
Our Daily Bleg: How Can You Maximize Your Charity? [Freakonomics / NYT]
Earlier: Working in Biglaw = Killing Babies?
My name is ELIE YING MYSTAL, f/k/a SOPHIST, and it looks like I will be taking over day-to-day editorial responsibilities here at Above the Law.
I would like to thank everybody who read anything that I’ve written over the past three weeks. I’ve always found writing to be a deeply personal experience and so I truly appreciate it when somebody bothers to read my work. Whether any of you actually liked it is a different question entirely, but one that we can work on together.
I’d also like to applaud the other contestants for their efforts. The best writing and journalism is almost always a collaborative process. I was impressed with what the other contestants were able to produce without the editors and other colleagues available to most professional writers. I hope this contest has given you all additional confidence about your own skills and talents.
I intend to rely heavily on the structures already in place here at ATL during this transition and beyond. I will learn everything I can from David Lat short of going “Sylar” with his brain. I was ecstatic to learn that many of the regular contributors to this site will be staying on. I will read as many comments as time allows, and try to draw out the “constructive” aspects hidden among the criticism.
I want to get better at this, and I will take advice on how to accomplish that in whatever form it is available.
More about me after the jump.
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson is reducing administrative staff in New York and Washington. The reductions, which a firm spokeswoman said were less than 10% of the law firm’s 730 staffers firmwide, affect primarily floating secretaries, part-time assistants and paralegals and library personnel.
The layoffs, first reported on AboveTheLaw.com, resulted from the law firm’s review of its administrative resources and staffing requirements. The employees will receive severance packages based on years of service, the spokeswoman said.
Update / Correction: One source questions the claim that the layoffs affected “primarily” floaters and part-time assistants. According to this tipster, many of the laid off employees were full-time, senior secretaries — a number of them over 50, and some just a few months shy of getting their pensions. This source predicts that age discrimination lawsuits will be filed.
One tipster tells us the number of affected employees was in the range of 50 to 60, which would amount to under 10 percent of 730 staffers, and that severance amounted to one week of pay for every year of service. We also hear this:
Apparently, mail room, duplicating and facilities were told that their jobs were being outsourced by the end of the year. They could start looking for new jobs before getting laid off at the end of the year or apply with the outsourcing agencies (with no guarantees of a job or placement at Fried Frank).
New York staff were given “a few minutes to pack up and get out”; cars were provided to take people home (a nice touch — hopefully that will become “market”). One source claims that employees were laid off without regard to their seniority or their performance reviews, whether negative or positive.
What about attorneys? A spokesperson emphasized to us that Fried Frank “doesn’t do lawyer layoffs,” which was reiterated to associates by firm chair Valerie Ford Jacob at a meeting yesterday.
(Jacob also claimed that the firm has never laid off lawyers. But one source at FFHSJ begs to differ. This source claims that the firm laid off attorneys back in 1990, and then “suffered years of recruiting problems because of it,” which may explain its reluctance to go down that path today.)
More detail about the meeting, after the jump.
Former Supreme Court clerks, also known as the Elect, have no shortage of job opportunities. And a new development in state government is giving them even more. From the National Law Journal:
A trend among states in recent years to appoint a solicitor general has increased opportunities for young attorneys to get into court and ultimately return to private practice far from Washington, the traditional heart of the nation’s appellate bar.
In the past decade, a dozen states, including California, Florida and North Carolina, have added state solicitor generals [sic], many of whom oversee large staffs, said Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court counsel for the National Association of Attorneys General. Nationwide, 37 states have a solicitor general, he said.
“There are a lot more appellate positions that attract top-notch lawyers,” Schweitzer said.
There are shout-outs to several hot young lawyers whose names should be familiar to ATL readers.
Find out who, after the jump.
[Davis Polk & Wardwell] and [Sullivan & Cromwell] do very similar work. DPW has a stronger underwriters’ practice, Sullivan is marginally better on the issuer side. DPW is much stronger than anyone at converts. Sullivan does more edgy contested M&A while DPW excels at deals with cutting edge securities components.
Sullivan is a slightly better place to work than its reputation. DPW generally lives up to its strong rep as a good place to work.
Now on to the next five from Vault, with their prestige scores in parentheses:
6. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (7.985)
7. Latham & Watkins LLP (7.784)
8. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP (7.754)
9. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (7.623)
10. Kirkland & Ellis LLP (7.473)
The most notable of “notable perks” in this batch is at Kirkland, where NYC associates get a “$350 office art budget” (previously reported here). Can associates use the money to commission work from their toddlers?
Please compare and contrast the firms in the comments. We’ll continue to work our way down the Vault list in future threads.
The Top 100 Most Prestigious Law Firms [Vault]
Earlier: Fall Recruiting Open Thread: Vault 1-5 (2009)