Yes, that’s right. In its New York office, Ropes & Gray has upped its clerkship bonus to $50,000 (and $35,000 in its other offices). If you have two years of clerkship experience, you’ll get $70,000 — no matter what office you’re in.
From the firm website:
Our annual salary for first-year associates, in all of our offices, is $160,000. Associates joining Ropes & Gray from one or two years of clerking are treated as members of their law school class for compensation purposes. Associates joining our New York office receive a bonus of $50,000 if they clerked for one year and $70,000 for two years of clerking; associates joining our other offices receive a bonus of $35,000 if they clerked for one year and $70,000 for two years of clerking.
We haven’t heard much clerkship bonus news lately. If you know of a move that we haven’t previously reported on, please email us. Thanks. Compensation & Benefits [Ropes & Gray]
The latest Biglaw combination brings together more “L”s than you can shake a stick at. From the Texas Lawyer:
Locke Liddell & Sapp, based in Houston and Dallas, and Chicago-based Lord, Bissell & Brook have agreed to merge, and will form a 700-lawyer firm named Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell.
Hmm, that’s a mouthful — the marketing people might want to rethink things. The alliteration and internal rhyme make the firm name far too “busy.” Correction: Based on the comments, it appears that we’re wrong about the internal rhyme. But we still think the new firm name is unwieldy.
Some reactions to more substantive aspects of the deal, after the jump.
Do we exaggerate therivalry between Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times’s veteran Supreme Court correspondent, and comely up-and-comer Jan Crawford Greenburg, who covers the Court for ABC News?
Maybe. We have a weakness for the dramatic, in case you haven’t noticed. But even if exaggerated, there’s no denying the tension between these two formidable female journalists.
Linda Greenhouse recently spoke at a litigation department luncheon at Willkie Farr in New York. And in her remarks, she threw down the gauntlet before Jan Crawford Greenburg.
Here’s what La Greenhouse had to say about Supreme Conflict, the bestselling book penned by her young rival (emphasis added):
“In her book, Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote, I think quite improbably and without any evidence, that Justice Thomas is the ideological heavyweight anchoring the conservative side of the court…”
“Jan Crawford Greenburg got a lot of mileage out of that statement in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but I just don’t think it’s true.”
WOW. What did Willkie Farr feed Greenhouse for lunch? Fancy Feast?
An interesting account of the rest of Greenhouse’s remarks, from an ATL reader who was there, after the jump.
We recently were sent this pay raise announcement, which we reprint with the permission of the sender:
I will pay my first year associate $175,000.
I just need to generate the income to hire someone at that pay level. Frank M. Feibelman
Attorney at Law
5206 Markel Road
Richmond, VA 23230
Okay, here’s Mr. Feibelman’s real point, which is a fair one: “Bear in mind that not all of your readers are Big Law lawyers; some are sole practitioners.”
And here is one other thing to keep in mind. Biglaw attorneys, be thankful for your deep-pocketed clients, who allow you to practice law without too many cost considerations.
To be sure, even big corporate clients are becoming more cost-conscious — and complaining about high fees. But they’re still not as cheap cost-conscious as small businesses and individuals, the typical clients of sole practitioners, who freak out over legal bills when they reach into the five figures.
P.S. Speaking of solo practitioners — how much does the typical one earn? Their incomes can vary widely, but we’d be interested in a random sampling. If you’re a sole practitioner, please describe the nature of your practice and how much you earn, by posting in the comments. Thanks. Frank M. Feibelman: Attorney at Law [official website] Associate Salary Wars: The GCs Strike Back [WSJ Law Blog]
Or even in chambers, for that matter. But open court is worse. From a tipster:
In a bankruptcy case here in the Southern District of Florida, William P. Smith — a partner at McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago), and the head of its bankruptcy department — actually told a judge she was “a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal.”
Literally. In open court. Amazing.
Don’t believe us? Check out the transcript:
In fairness to Bill Smith, please note that he let fly this insult “with respect.” Nice touch, counsel.
Alas, Judge Isicoff didn’t take kindly to a lawyer questioning the completeness of her “Happy Meal.”
Find out how she responded, after the jump.
* Slate wrap-up of Goodling testimony. [Slate]
* You’ve heard of custody disputes becoming a dog fight… [ABA e-Journal]
* Vegas City Council pushes dealer on huge flag issue. [CNN]
* Developments in Barbri class action. [WSJ Law Blog]
* DC Madam and her attorney host Q&A in Georgetown. [BLT]
He’s not a judge yet, so we can’t bestow our coveted Judge of the Day award upon him. But he has secured the Democratic nomination for a judgeship, in Philadelphia — which means he has a decent shot of being elected.
Then again, whether Willie Singletary gets elected to the bench may depend upon how much the electorate appreciates irony. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Willie Singletary won a Democratic nomination for Traffic Court last week despite being a scofflaw of major proportions.
As of primary day, Singletary, 26, owed $11,427.50 for 55 violations, including reckless driving, driving without a license, careless driving, driving without registration, and driving without insurance.
In fact, a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest – a fact made public after the election by Bernard Strain, who lost in the Democratic primary for Traffic Court but who won a Republican nomination.
Well, maybe not quite. But we do find it interesting that, in the recent wave of publicity over Aaron Charney’s amended complaint, Sullivan & Cromwell’s public relations team at Sard Verbinnen reached out to us. They emailed the following statement to us:
“This is just a rehash of his original, now dismissed, complaint with the addition of some unsubstantiated allegations. We will continue to defend the Firm vigorously against these same baseless claims. Sullivan & Cromwell remains committed to fostering an inclusive workplace environment for all of its lawyers and staff and is proud of our track record of promoting diversity.”
It’s not a particularly exciting statement; but we were excited to receive it. Although they’ve been working extensively with the mainstream media over the past few months, Sard Verbinnen — which S&C hired specifically for L’Affaire Charney (a different media relations shop handles the firm’s general publicity) — had never contacted us before.
And we weren’t the only “new media” types to get the message. The PR gurus also emailed their statement to two leading Charneybloggers: Lavi Soloway and Professor Arthur Leonard.
Not to be outdone, Aaron Charney’s lawyers spoke to us on the phone. We had a quick conversation the other day with Dan Alterman, of Alterman & Boop, who had this to say:
“The amended complaint is a wonderful opportunity for us to get this case focused back on the main issues — especially the discrimination and retaliation claims.”
It’s been all over the comments, so it’s not exactly breaking news. But we have verified it with a source at the firm.
The DLA Piper memo, from your pals Larry, Moe and Curly Frank, Lee and Terry, appears after the jump.
P.S. We intend no disrespect to the work that Frank Burch, Lee Miller, and Terry O’Malley are doing as joint CEOs of DLA Piper. We just think the informality of signing memos as “Frank, Lee and Terry” is a bit forced.
C’mon, guys. You’re the heads of a major international law firm — not three guys we met down at the track.
* When the backdrops for crazy shootings tend to be God-forsaken backwaters (or suburbs), it’s reassuring to know that New York City is still home to plenty of wackjobs. [Gawker; Village Voice; Braunstein recap here]
* I love it when a guy makes good on the “You can’t make me!” threat. [QuizLaw; The Smoking Gun]
* Silly little lawsuits do not suit hip hop. Bring back the thuggery, I say. [All HipHop News]
* The CHiPs guys would never do this, but things are different down South. [Chicago Sun-Times]
* He’s short, a biter and, in all likelihood, soon to be single–single line, girls. [CNN]
We have to step away from our computer now, to go meet our running group. We are training for the New York City marathon. If you’d like to support our efforts with a tax-deductible donation to fund cancer research, which is almost as worthy a cause as the Monica Goodling Legal Defense Fund, please click here.
This means we’re going to miss the last ten minutes or so of Monica Goodling’s testimony. If anything insane happens, please note it in the comments, or email us.
Also, we’re not the only ones who were impressed by Goodling’s performance today. Distinguished legal analysts concur in our assessment that La Monica acquitted herself very well before the House Judiciary Committee.
By way of example, check out these posts at two leading law blogs:
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
We currently have a very exciting and rare type of in-house opening in China at one of the world’s leading internet and social media companies. Our client is looking for an IP Transactional / TMT / Licensing attorney with 2 to 6 years experience. The new hire will be based in Shenzhen or Shanghai. Mandarin is not required (deal documentation will be in English) but is preferred. A solid reason to be in China and a commitment to that market is required of course. This new hire will likely be US qualified (but could also be qualified in UK or other jurisdictions) and with experience and training at a top law firm’s IP transactional / TMT practice and could be currently at a law firm or in-house. Qualified candidates currently Asia based, Europe based or US based will be considered. The new hire’s supervisors in this technology transactions in-house team are very well regarded US trained IP transactional lawyers, with substantial experience at Silicon Valley firms. The culture and atmosphere in this in-house group and the company in general is entrepreneurial, team oriented, and the work is cutting edge, even for a cutting edge industry. The upside of being in an important strategic in-house position in this fast growing and world leading internet company is of the “sky is the limit” variety. Its a very exciting place to be in China for a rising IP transactional lawyer in our opinion, for many reasons beyond the basic info we can share here in this ad / post. This is a special A+ opportunity.
If your firm is in ‘go’ mode when it comes to recruiting lateral partners with loyal clients, then take this quiz to see how well you measure up. Keep track of your ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses.
1. Does your firm have a clearly defined strategy of practice groups that are priorities of growth for your office? Nothing gets done by random chance, but with a clear vision for the future. Identify the top practice areas for which you wish to add lateral partners. Seek input from practice group leaders and get specifics on needs, outcomes, and ideal target profiles.
2. In addition to clarifying your firm’s growth strategy, are you still open to the hire of a partner outside of your plan? I’ve made several placements that fit this category. The partner’s practice was not within the strategic growth plan of my client, but once the two parties started talking with each other, we all saw how it could indeed be a seamless fit. Be open to “Opportunistic Hires.” You never know where your next producing partner might come from, so you have to be open to it. I will be the first to admit that there is a quirky element of randomness in recruiting.
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!