As we get back to the Vault rankings, we encounter more firms that have engaged in stealth layoffs. And a firm that conducts mass transit layoffs.

To refresh your memory, here’s the next group:

61. Cooley Godward
62. Pillsbury
63. Sonnenschein
64. Cahill
65. Holland & Knight
66. K&L Gates
67. Nixon Peabody
68. Foley & Lardner
69. Kaye Scholer
70. Steptoe & Johnson

The penalty for having a partner announce layoffs on a train was six spots according to Vault. There have been other Pillsbury cutbacks. But the Acela incident happened when associates had Vault surveys sitting on their desks.

After the jump, let’s take a look at some of the other firms in this group.

No, readers, we didn’t learn this on the Caltrain. From Sara Randazzo of the Daily Journal (subscription):

It’s going to be California dreaming for second-year law students hoping to work in the Golden State next summer. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman became the latest firm to curtail summer hiring, confirming Thursday it likely won’t host any summer associates in its West Coast offices in 2010.

Pillsbury was recently named a top law firm for women. But if you’re a woman in the class of 2011, getting a job at Pillsbury just got a lot harder.

The move wasn’t a surprise to some. Earlier this week, an ATL reader who bid on Pillsbury for OCI received this message from career services:

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP is now focusing their recruiting on their East Coast offices and would like to know if you are interested in the NY or DC offices. In fact, it now looks like they may not have any summer programs in California. If you are considering the east coast, please email me immediately and specify the location(s) of interest (NY &/or DC).

According to the Daily Journal, Pillsbury plans to hire 15 to 17 summer associates to work in its New York, Washington, and Houston offices. This is a sharp drop from the 50 summer associates it hosted nationwide in 2009. (As for those summer associates, they’ll be hearing about offers by the end of August.)

So what’s behind the sharp reduction in summer associates?

If you’re leaving Biglaw and moving to New England to innkeep is not your thing, maybe you should consider moving to Los Angeles to promote music.

The American Lawyer has an interesting piece on a laid-off first-year associate, Brandon Dorsky. He was among the batch of Pillsbury Winthrop associates whose departures were inadvertently leaked by a garrulous partner on the train from D.C. to New York.

Dorsky was doing IP work in Pillsbury’s Los Angeles office. The Ohio native had moved to California with the intent to get into the entertainment industry and so he seized the opportunity provided by being laid off:

After leaving Pillsbury, Dorsky decided to build a practice geared to entertainment clients, while also managing musical acts. He e-mailed friends and business contacts looking for leads. Just three days after leaving the firm, he landed his first client, TRG Sports and Entertainment. A friend from the University of Michigan recommended him to the management company, which was looking for a lawyer to draft a recording contract….

“I’m out most nights,” Dorsky says. “I see five concerts a week. I’m out there looking for new clients and looking for opportunities for existing clients.”

Dorsky’s tale might provide inspiration for other laid-off first years. In addition to working with bands, he’s drafting recording contracts and doing trademark work. Read more about the secret to Dorsky’s success and the importance of being a “hustler” at the American Lawyer.

After the Layoffs [American Lawyer]

Earlier: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to New York
(Or: Pillsbury associates, brace yourselves.)

Back in May, we reported that Pillsbury Winthrop wanted some of its incoming first year associates to defer until January 2010, some to defer until 2011, and others to take $60,000 to go away entirely.

The firm couched all of these options as “voluntary.” But notwithstanding the firm’s choice of language, we reported that Pillsbury needed at least 22 of its incoming class of 54 associates to take the go away money, or defer for a year.

Pillsbury said that it would announce which associates were starting in January 2010 on June 26th. That was Friday.

But according to my iPhone “date and time” application (how people did anything before the iPhone, I do not know) it is Monday, June 29th. And there is still no word from Pillsbury. Here’s one tipster’s report:

As of this AM, still no news from the firm. Yet again, evidence they can’t be trusted - or don’t care about incoming associates. Their written letters to us said we would know by by Friday. I hope this is not how the firm conducts business with clients.

Should Pillsbury associates expect the firm to actually tell them when they can start? Or should they just start hanging out on the Acela and hope to catch a clue on the wind?

More reactions after the jump.

On Tuesday, we reported that Pillsbury cut associate salaries based on the utilization rate of its associates. Am Law Daily reported this nugget:

The extent of the cuts isn’t clear; the 716-lawyer firm said reports on Above the Law that the cuts ranged between 10 and 20 percent aren’t “entirely accurate,” which isn’t exactly an outright denial.

Today, we have more news about the salary cuts going on at Pillsbury. It now appears that the cuts range between 5% and 20%.

So, that’s marginally better, if you are close to making your hours.

What are those hours cutoffs? We have more details after the jump.

In these tough economic times, I’m sure many people have been tempted to sightly exaggerate their credentials, experience, and competence.

But you shouldn’t lie exaggerate to clients. At least not if you want to be a member of the bar in good standing. The National Law Journal reports that a former Pillsbury associate is getting his law license pulled for 60 days:

A former Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman associate who told clients that he was senior counsel at the law firm will have his license pulled for 60 days.

A District of Columbia attorney disciplinary committee has recommended that Garland H. Stillwell hand over his license for misrepresenting his employment status at the Washington firm.

But there were other aggravating circumstances to Stillwell’s case:

The committee also found that Stillwell charged personal expenses to Pillsbury Winthrop’s pro bono accounts and represented a client in a matter that created a potential conflict of interest within the firm without disclosing it or seeking a waiver.

Stillwell is not at Pillsbury anymore. That’s hardly surprising.

But he is still employed at a law firm. Let’s check-in after the jump.

This news has been percolating around for over a week, but Above the Law is now able to report that Pillsbury Winthrop has in fact cut associate salaries.

We don’t have the official memo, but multiple sources at the firm confirm that salaries have been cut 10% - 20% based on associate utilization rates. A tipster reports:

[T]he pay cut is between 10-20% depending on current hours. The memo gave associates ranges of hours and the paycut percentage if you fell in that range. The problem [is] that no one knows how much of their pro bono (which most associates have been turning to during slow times) will count as billable so many associates are unclear what their paycut will be. The Firm looked at hours from Jan through May to make its cuts.

Other tipster report that if your utilization rates were at 90% or higher — essentially, if you are close to hitting your target hours — you received no pay cut. So, to get hit with the 20% pay cut, you had to be particularly slow.

Of course, some people were particularly slow. More details after the jump.

* Musical Chairs: Kirkland & Ellis loses the majority of its West Coast bankruptcy and restructuring team to Jones Day. Six L.A. lawyers and one N.Y. associate are making the Jones Day jump. [American Lawyer]

* A personal injury firm in Connecticut has sued Google for selling its name to a competing firm. Stratton Faxon is also trying to get an injunction to prevent Google from selling law firm names as adwords at all. Note that this firm specializes in personal injuries and not IP law. [Connecticut Law Tribune]

* SCOTUS lifts restrictions on questioning suspects without their lawyers present. [Seattle Times]

* A transcript of a conversation between Roland Burris and the brother of Rod Blagojevich proves that Burris likes Titanic quotes. The Senate Ethics Committee and a state attorney get to decide if it also proves Burris made improper offers in exchange for Obama’s vacated seat in the Senate. [Courthouse News Service]

* A 53-year-old martial arts instructor in Texas is quite the middle-aged ladies’ man. He has his hair, a flat stomach, a Corvette, and a French accent. Unfortunately, he also has AIDS and has been convicted of six counts of sexual assault for knowingly infecting his partners. [Dallas Morning News via ABA Journal]

* Back in her Yale days, SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor had a nasty OCI with the firm formerly known as Shaw Pittman, now Pillsbury. [Los Angeles Times]

Back in February — after the Acela fiasco, before the layoffs — Pillsbury offered a voluntary departure program to its associates. The program didn’t really work, and the firm ended up laying off 55 associates (155 employees in all), in March.

Undaunted, Pillsbury is offering another “voluntary” program, this time directed at its incoming first year associates. The firm has already delayed start dates for all of its incoming first year associates to January 2010. But now the firm is offering a cash payment to associates to go away entirely. Multiple sources report that Pillsbury is offering $60,000 to incoming first years to voluntarily quit the firm.

At the beginning of May, Stroock offered $75,000 to encourage people to fall on their own sword. If my math is right, Pillsbury is offering significantly less money for the same option.

What happens to people if they don’t take Pillsbury up on its offer? We have additional details after the jump.

We have extensively covered the comings and goings at Pillsbury Winthrop. Last Thursday, we told you that 14% of the firm’s associates has left — either voluntary or involuntarily.

Unlike many of the firms that have laid off people this month, Pillsbury left open the question of what would happen with its incoming first years. It’s been over a week now, and still no word from the firm. A tipster reports:

Last week when the layoffs happened, PWSP had a town hall meeting … a few associates asked what they would be doing about incoming first years. They said they weren’t sure. The associates said it would probably be nice if they let us know, so we can plan our lives, apply for other work, higher education etc.

On the one hand, after the firm’s infamous Acela gaffe, it makes sense if Pillsbury gets all of its ducks in a row before it tells first years when (if ever) they can start.

But with associates at Latham, Orrick, a host of other firms, and maybe even Skadden already
competing for the public interest jobs, it would be good if Pillsbury could share some more information with its incoming associates.

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Pillsbury’s Voluntary Departure Numbers

As we told you yesterday, Pillsbury management had booked a few conference rooms today to let people know the state of the firm’s layoff plans. The firm promised to release the numbers of associates who took the voluntary departure program.

It doesn’t look like the firm has released the splits (between voluntary and involuntary) but we do know the overall number of people Pillsbury is looking to lay off:

55 associates, 10 paralegals, 90 staffers.

Once again, it looks like all of the partners, even the loud ones, have been spared.

We understand that 55 associates represent about 14% of Pillsbury’s total associate complement.

Again, the firm has not yet released the breakdown between associates that will be laid off involuntarily, versus the associates that accepted the voluntary departure offer. Of course, a tipster tells us:

I don’t know of any attorneys that took it.

Neither do we.

Update (12:17): After the jump, we have the full text of Pillsbury’s layoff memo.

Earlier: Pillsbury: Attorneys Brace For ‘Involuntary’ Departure Program
Pillsbury’s ‘Voluntary Departure’ Plan
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to New York (Or: Pillsbury associates, brace yourselves.)

A week ago, we brought you news about Pillsbury’s “Voluntary Departure Program.” The firm adopted the program after partner Robert Robbins announced the firm’s impending layoffs on the Acela last month.

On Tuesday, Pillsbury informed associates who requested voluntary departure if they had been accepted. We don’t yet have the numbers for how many people decided to go quietly.

But we do have the official Pillsbury FAQ for people who inquired about the program. The seven page document contains some very interesting nuggets. Below, we paste the top line points:

Shouldn’t everybody who was employed throughout 2008 receive the 2008 bonus, regardless of what happens to them in 2009?

In any event, it looks like Pillsbury is moving full speed ahead with the “involuntary” part of the plan. All aboard after the jump.

Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

ATL —

I’m a third year associate (in M&A) at one of the firms that is offering a voluntary severance package to those associates willing to take it. As you guys reported, there are layoffs in store anyway, but the firm will not divulge the amount of severance they will be paying for those who they are planning to lay off. My hours are as high as they can be given the work available and I don’t have any sense one way or another from the partners if they’re planning to can me. Do you have an opinion on whether I should take the voluntary severance?

Dead Man Walking

Dear Dead Man Walking,

For the sake of argument, I’m going to assume you’re referring to Pillsbury’s lofty-sounding Voluntary Departure Plan. Somewhere along the line it appears that Pillsbury got confused as to whether it was asking associates for their necks or running an elite Masonic Lodge, because under the terms of the program, you can’t just tell Pillsbury that you’ll take their three months offer and scram. Instead, interested attorneys must “express interest” and then “state their desire to be included,” by rapping thrice on the door to HR and uttering the phrase: “A Man, A Plan, A Canal: Panama.” High-ranking firm members will then confirm or nullify the applications for membership.

No doubt your firm believes that giving associates a illusory “choice” is a glorious act of munificence, but the choice they’re posing is really no different than those posed by the Inquisitors to the Cathars or by the English to William Wallace: convert or be killed, confess or die, quit or be fired. If you take the buyout, you might not have been fired otherwise. If you don’t take the buyout, you may be fired anyway and get less severance. And the worst possible scenario: you may apply for the buyout, GET REJECTED, and then have to explain to colleagues that that you were fired from being fired.

Based on the limited facts, I would take the money and run. Third-years in corporate are like lambs for the slaughter. Plus, this whole ridiculous “program” sounds like a convenient excuse to provide garbage severance to laid off associates under the guise of “but we offered you a buyout!”

Only you know all the factors: your work quality, your hours, your horoscope. In the words of Anton Chigurh, “You need to call it. I can’t call it for you. It wouldn’t be fair.”

Good luck.

Your friend,

Marin

Elie plays the role of Marius Pontmercy in tonight’s performance, after the jump.

Readers of Above the Law, as well as travelers on the Acela, learned last week that Pillsbury plans to conduct attorney layoffs. Today, the firm released more information to its employees about the firm’s impending “force reduction.”

Before it turns to firing people, Pillsbury is offering attorneys and staff “voluntary departure.” From a firm-wide email:

As you were advised last week, Pillsbury is planning to implement a reduction in workforce that will affect attorneys and staff…. As part of this reduction process, the Firm is offering a voluntary departure plan to associates, senior associates and counsel.

Can you really fall on your sword when somebody has a gun to your head?

Details on Pillsbury’s Faustian bargain voluntary departure plan, after the jump.

Last week, Pillsbury was busy throwing mama from the train. But underneath the layoff news, the firm instituted other cost cutting measures. On Tuesday, Pillsbury decided to freeze salaries.

Pillsbury is one of the firms with a two tiered associate payscale. A tipster reports that a number of Pillsbury associates were already receiving below market pay, before last week’s freeze:

[I]n June of 2007, Pillsbury decided to meet the Biglaw salary raises that occurred at the time (albeit they were a later mover on the raise issue). However, they also said in June 2007 that new requirements were tied to the salary increases. Departing with prior firm practice, any associate who did not meet a minimum of 1800 billable hours for 2007 would be advanced in class year, and would be advanced in their billing rate, but would be “held back” in salary step increases.

The 2007 policy was made less onerous because there was an easy way for associates to make that money back in 2008:

If the associate that was “held back” in pay for their 2007 numbers billed 1950 hours or above in 2008, they would (a) be advanced in class and salary to become equal again to their actual class year, and (b) would be given a “true up” bonus for 2008 whereby they would be paid the difference in salary they were supposed to be making during 2008, but did not because they were held back in terms of pay.

Pay plans made in 2007 are about as relevant as Adrien Brody standing on the same stage as Robert DeNiro and Anthony Hopkins. It’s nice for context, but painfully out of place given current standards.

After the jump, we look at what Pillsbury is doing now.

Time for a brief follow-up to our earlier post about Biglaw partner Robert Robbins, head of the corporate practice of Pillsbury Winthrop, and how he spoke — a little too loudly, on a crowded Acela train — about the firm’s planned layoffs. You may have already seen it in the comments, but in case it got lost in the shuffle, the firm has confirmed the gaffe (and the layoffs).

After getting its act together — the Pillsbury website was down for a while today, which some commenters attributed to web traffic resulting from the mini-scandal — the firm issued a statement to The Recorder (via Legal Pad):

It is an unfortunate fact in today’s economy that no business or law firm can rule out adjustments to their overall workforce levels. This includes Pillsbury, and, among other cost cutting measures, we will be implementing reductions to ensure that our resources are aligned with our business needs. We apologize for the unfortunate manner in which our deliberations about reductions have become public.

We reiterate our earlier advice: Pillsbury associates, start your engines laser printers, and crank out those résumés. It’s time to move on. Bob Robbins is coming for you.

We’ve collected selected links to coverage by other outlets — heck, it even made Gawker — of the “unfortunate” incident. Enjoy.

Update: And Instapundit, too.

Pillsbury Confirms Loudmouth’s Layoff Gaffe [Legal Pad / The Recorder]
Pillsbury Accidentally Announces Layoffs on Train [Am Law Daily]
Pillsbury Layoffs Leaked By Partner on Train [The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times]
Doughy Pillsbury Lawyer Demonstrates Why You Should Shut Up on Your Cell Phone [Gawker]
Message to Law Partners [Instapundit]

Earlier: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to New York
(Or: Pillsbury associates, brace yourselves.)

Law firm partners need to watch more Gossip Girl. If they did, they’d learn the perils of talking about private matters in public places. In the age of BlackBerrys, texting, and cameraphones, it’s ridiculously easy for tipsters to leak details of overheard conversations and not-so-secret rendezvous to their favorite online gossip girl (or boy — XOXO, Lat).

Last year, we wrote about a Thelen partner who was overheard discussing her firm’s layoffs on the subway. Last night, we received this information, from a law student traveling from D.C. to New York:

This afternoon I boarded a train from Washington bound for Penn Station…. I, along with all of the other passengers, were sitting quietly when the man directly behind me decided to make a phone call using his bluetooth. He was talking so loudly that I think most people in the car were able to hear him.

His conversation, though he stressed how necessary it was to be kept secret (ah, the irony), detailed the current plans of Pillsbury to lay off somewhere in the range of 15-20 attorneys from four offices by the end of March, including a few senior associates with low billable hours and two or three first-year associates. I wouldn’t have believed it except for the fact that he identified himself to the call as Bob Robbins, who I learned is the leader of the firm’s Corporate & Securities practice section, and was talking to Rick Donaldson, who I learned was COO. What’s more, he was NAMING NAMES over the phone!

After we expressed skepticism over this wild story, including the tipster’s ability to catch the names of both Robbins and Donaldson, we received this response:

I agree it’s pretty wild. I wasn’t trying to overhear, but I had no choice because of the proximity. The name “Robbins” I remembered because he said it so damn loud. I went to their website, and the picture [at right] was an exact match. He was big enough to fit almost two chairs.

“Donaldson” I didn’t remember as clearly. I remembered that it began with a “Do” and thought it was “Dotson,” but there was no “Dotson” on the site — just “Donaldson.” Also, he called him “Rick” a few times.

Says our source, in explaining the decision to tip off ATL:

Before today, I have never even considered posting on this website, but I was so mortified by my experience…. I’ve heard of attorneys being reprimanded for discussing client matters in an elevator. Where does airing your own firm’s dirty laundry on an express train fit on the list? I don’t know if there is a way that you can independently verify this, but if so, please do.

Partial verification, after the jump.

Every year, the National Law Journal names individual people and firms that have done outstanding pro bono work. This year perhaps more than others, it is especially important to recognize those that gave their time to charity. With the economy crumbling, there is a huge need for free legal services.

The NLJ has recognized the work done by Proskauer Rose, Holland & Knight, and Mayer Brown towards resettling Iraqi refugees:

Eric Blinderman, international legal counsel to Proskauer Rose, had gone to Iraq in March 2004 as an associate general counsel for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Later, he served as chief legal counsel and associate deputy to the Regime Crimes Liaison. In 2007, Blinderman’s firm officially became a part of The List: Project to Resettle Iraqi Refugees, a nonprofit organization founded that year to help resettle Iraqis in danger because of their affiliation with the United States. Holland & Knight had already been collaborating with the project, and Mayer Brown signed on this year.

The other big firm winner was Pillsbury Winthrop for its efforts during the election:

Firms nationwide were inspired by the historic 2008 presidential election to devote pro bono time to protecting access to the voting booth. Lawyers went to court in several states on voter access issues, most frequently to prevent a voting reform law, the Help America Vote Act, from becoming a barrier to the ballot. The law required states to match voter rolls with another database, usually the registry of driver licenses, to create a more accurate list of voters.

Read the full list of winners here. And please share your stories about other great pro bono acts in the comments.

2008 NLJ PRO BONO AWARDS [National Law Journal]

I don’t believe everything I read on ATL’s comment boards, but often accurate information is posted by our readers. Monday, we told you that Pillsbury had acquired Thelen’s China practice group. One reader said:

Look for construction partners to start jumping ship by next week. You heard it here first.

The only thing wrong about that statement was the timing. Pillsbury released the following statement announcing additional new hires:

Michael Evan Jaffe and Ronan J. McHugh, two construction litigators from Thelen LLP, have joined Pillsbury’s Washington, DC office as partner and counsel respectively, advancing the firm’s ongoing expansion of its national litigation and international dispute practices.

In fact, Pillsbury seems quite proud about scavenging Thelen:

Jaffe and McHugh are the latest attorneys from Thelen to join Pillsbury’s litigation team. Earlier this week, it was announced that Shanghai litigation partner Meg Utterback, was joining the firm as part of Pillsbury’s acquisition of Thelen’s China practice.

How many cherries can Thelen lose before somebody chops them down for firewood?

Other (potentially prescient) commenters weigh in after the jump.

* President Bush wants lawmakers to hurry up and pass the $700 billion bailout plan. Sounds like taxpayers are going to be paying back those $600 economy stimulation rebates and then some. The Dems agree to drop the provision giving greater authority to bankruptcy judges. [New York Times]

* Democrats sue in Washington to force “G.O.P.” gubernatorial candidate to embrace his “Republican” identity. [New York Times]

* Guantanamo prosecutor quits, citing ethical concerns. [Washington Post]

* Kudos to these four law firms. Covington, Arnold & Porter, Katten, and Pillsbury make Working Mother magazine’s best employers list. [National Law Journal]

* Who would have thought a gas mask would be needed for a DUI arrest? [WSAZ]

* Gibson Dunn’s Ted Olson will appear before SCOTUS for the 50th time this fall. One secret to his success: St. Michael the Archangel. [Legal Times (subscription req.)]

* ATL’s former bling-bling lawyer of the day, Gabriel Schwartz, was robbed of property worth only $63,000, by his random-lady-friend-turned-thief. [Associated Press]