Earlier this month, there was some discussion in the comments about law firms possibly cutting associate salaries to cope with the economic downturn. The scenario sounded far-fetched -- but maybe it's not as far-fetched as some might have hoped.

Look, we aren't saying that the sky is falling. There's a world of difference between a law firm based in Fort Lauderdale, with 128 lawyers and extensive exposure to Florida real estate, and the giants of Biglaw, with hundreds of millions (or even billions) in revenue, profits per partner well into the seven figures, and diversified practices.

But still, nobody would call this good news. From the Daily Business Review:

Attorneys at Becker & Poliakoff are being hit with a 12 percent pay cut for the foreseeable future to help the real estate-dominated firm deal with a drop in profitability and delays in collections.

Becker & Poliakoff is the first major South Florida firm to turn to its lawyers to make cuts to help it deal with the economic slowdown and real estate downturn. Other firms have trimmed staff jobs, including paralegals and secretaries, and cut back on other expenses to help cope with the economic landscape.

Alan Becker, the firm's managing shareholder, informed attorneys and support staff about the pay deferment plan via podcast Wednesday. The cut took effect Thursday and affects only lawyers. No layoffs are expected.

So that's the silver lining to the proverbial cloud. You've suffered a 12 percent haircut on your salary, but at least your job is secure.

We don't know what the Becker & Poliakoff pay scale is, but we're guessing it's well below the $160K scale. Back in 2003, it looks like their starting salaries were in the $63K-$70K range.

But just out of curiosity, what would Biglaw salaries look like if they were trimmed in this manner? If a 12 percent reduction were applied to the first three steps of the standard New York pay scale, salaries would go from 160-170-185 to 141-150-163.

More discussion, after the jump.

For the second installment of the Asia Chronicles, we're going interactive. Please click on this Youtube link, minimize, and read on.

Come with us, won't you, to a world of your imagination. Imagine that you're an associate at a major U.S. law firm in Asia, paid the same salary and bonus as your colleagues back home. Imagine further that $87,500 of your salary is excluded from federal income tax. Imagine that your firm pays your rent, and, even though this would normally be considered taxable income, it is excluded from taxation as well.

One of the ACLs who lived in this "world that defies explanation" paid off his entire $120K+ law school debt in one year and is on track to put away over a quarter million during the next two years. How? With extra salary and a much lower tax burden, he takes home approximately 15% more cash than he would in the U.S. He has no car or other transportation expenses (walks 10 minutes from home to office), usually works late enough to expense his dinners, and pays no rent. He takes so many business trips that frequent flier miles and hotel points take care of most of his vacation expenses. At least 80% of his paycheck goes straight into his 401K and other investments. The rest goes to magnums of Cristal (he admits he could do better).

Before we jump into the details, let's set out some assumptions:

Assumption #1: There are tons of U.S. firms in Asia; some pay less, some pay more. A sizable group of firms pays competitive packages (yes, we said "packages") at or near the top of the market. This entire discussion focuses on that group because, let's be honest, for most of us "the law" isn't our calling. We don't sit up at night thinking about Section 4(2) of the U.S. Securities Act or wonder about the components of a conversion formula in a share purchase agreement (wait, maybe someti... ok, no ... never). So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume that it's mostly (almost entirely) about the Benjamins. (Or Maos? Lees?)

Assumption #2: There are U.S. lawyers in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. But, to borrow from XOXO/Greedy Associates lingo, this discussion focuses on "BIGLAW" in the major Asian markets (i.e., Tokyo, Singapore and the greater China region) at "Vault"-listed firms. HTH.

On to the main event. Salaries. Three words: New York levels. Bonuses. Three words: New York levels. That's right. When you guys over in New York rejoice over the raises, so do we. But, there's more. A few years ago, there was this evil little SOB of a concept called "tax equalization" whereby firms, for whatever reason (well, we know the reason; you do the math), decided to pay their overseas U.S. associates an amount in salary that was equal, after tax, to what an associate in New York would be paid. Yes, that means poor little Billy in Asia was "theoretically" paying New York city and state tax. Firms have since moved away from this model. In a low-tax region like Singapore or Hong Kong, this means associates can take advantage of the low tax rates. What's that, you say? The U.S. taxes on worldwide income? Fear not. Certain provisions in the tax code are geared towards providing tax breaks for U.S. citizens working worldwide. Bottom line, associates in Asia at U.S. law firms also pay less in taxes each year.

Ohhh, and it doesn't stop there. Remember the reference we made to "packages" above? Firms in Asia (except in, only God knows why, Singapore ) foot the bill for their associates' housing expenses. Many firms pay this housing allowance in cash each month, some pay the rent directly to the landlord. Many firms then let associates keep the difference between the rent and the allowance. The word on the street is that a certain Wall Street law firm whose name begins with an S and ends with a T pays top of the market at about $80,000 a year. So, if you're an associate at this unnamed Wall Street firm that rhymes with Pimpson Cratcher and your rent is $40,000 each year, you're pocketing an extra $40,000. It's the "special bonus" that never stops giving.

According to Evan Jowers of Kinney Recruiting (who has eyeballed perhaps more offer letters from the major US and British firms in Hong Kong / China than any other person in the industry), "The housing / expat packages at the top U.S. and British firms in Asia are likely to go higher in the next year or two. Many of these firms have substantially raised their packages in only the past 6 months, with there now being many more firms in the what I consider to be competitive housing allowance range in Hong Kong, $65,000 to $80,000, than a year ago. In fact, the number of firms with housing packages over $70,000 in Hong Kong has more than doubled in the past six months."

More delicious details, after the jump.

Time for a shout-out to this writer's home state. Over in New York, Biglaw lawyers tend to look down upon their cousins across the river. Dismissive jokes about "Jersey firms" are commonplace.

But large-firm lawyers in New Jersey are doing just fine, thank you very much. From a tipster:

As a Jersey guy, you may find this interesting: According to the NJ Law Journal, Lowenstein Sandler just became the first NJ firm with profits per partner in the seven figures: $1,102,700. Average compensation per partner is not far behind, at $977,500.

And it's not just Lowenstein Sandler that had a good year. Although New Jersey firms slowed their hiring and trimmed equity partner ranks in 2007, showing signs of being affected by the dire economic times, they still did pretty well. From the New Jersey Law Journal (subscription):

Growth in total revenues and net profits [among the New Jersey Top 20 firms] thus slowed in 2007. Revenue rose by 7.67 percent to $1.53 billion from $1.42 billion in 2006, compared with a 9.6 percent hike in last year's survey.

Profit growth was even slower, up only 5.62 percent to $519.3 million from $491.6 million, compared with a 9.9 percent bump the prior year.

When fewer lawyers produce more revenue, it means each is working harder. Indeed, revenue per lawyer showed a pronounced spike: up 5 percent to $517,650, more than three times the 1.4 percent rise to $493,000 reported last year.

Likewise, since there were fewer equity partners sharing the bottom line, profits per partner growth enjoyed an eight-fold increase, rising 6.62 percent to $594,100, compared with a sluggish 0.8 percent to $557,200 in last year's survey.

By New York standards, PPP of $600K is small potatoes. But it's still a handsome income -- and grows more appealing if the hours, cost of living, taxes, and partnership prospects are better over in Jersey. [FN1]

Time for New Yorkers to think about jumping to the other side of the Hudson? Or time for another round of pay raises for Garden State associates?

[FN1] These matters are open to debate, of course. Some New Jersey firms, such as the super-profitable Lowenstein, have reputations as sweatshops for demanding a lot of their associates.

Streamlining for Austere Times [New Jersey Law Journal (subscription)]

Starting salaries for new associates in the London offices of U.S.-based firms can be quite generous. They often exceed the New York going rate of $160,000, approaching $200,000 at top shops. See here (noting that Weil and Cleary pay newly-qualified lawyers the equivalent of $180K, and Latham pays NQs the equivalent of $190K, in London). [FN1]

But top U.K. firms, known collectively as the "Magic Circle," aren't quite as generous to their London associates. From the ABA Journal:

[W]hile some magic circle firms may up the ante at least a little this year, some partners are complaining that junior lawyers already are overpaid.... Says an unnamed Clifford Chance partner: “People should be grateful for having jobs in the current market. I could easily see the rises not happening now and being deferred until later in the year.”

Currently, starting lawyers at leading London firms reportedly make between 63,500 pounds and 65,000 pounds. That translates to a range of about $125,000 to $128,000 in U.S. dollars.

Additional detail, from Legal Week:

Partners with City giants including Linklaters and Clifford Chance (CC) - normally early movers - told Legal Week they are not expecting to see significant increases this year, as they feel the impact of the credit crunch.

Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Allen & Overy (A&O) are all in the process of reviewing their salary bands, with partners conceding substantial rises are unlikely. Increases at the junior end are thought to be particularly unlikely.

Insofar as the market for legal services is becoming increasingly global -- London has been gaining on New York as a global financial capital, and competing with it for talent -- pay stasis in London is bad news for those seeking pay raises in New York.

NY to 190? As the Brits like to say, "Not bloody likely."

[FN1] These figures are generated by converting pounds to dollars. But yes, we know that London is even more insanely expensive than New York.

Firms to hold off on major pay hikes after crunch [Legal Week]
London Partners to Associates: At $125K, We’re Paying You Too Much [ABA Journal]

The Brokeback Lawfirm scandal folded its pup tent months ago. But there's still stuff to cover at one of ATL's favorite firms, the venerable Sullivan & Cromwell.

Here are two items. First, from a tipster:

If I recall correctly, Sullivan & Cromwell sent out a memo in December or January saying that even though they paid the "special bonuses" in December, they still intended to pay additional profit-sharing bonuses in February. [February is over] and as far as I know, not a word from S&C. Can you guys please make a big deal over this?

The tipster's memory is slightly off. From chairman H. Rodgin Cohen's earlier bonus memo:

[T]he Firm will pay senior associates compensation in addition to salary and bonus through our new Senior Associate Supplemental Bonus Plan ("the Plan"). We have decided to accelerate payments under this new Plan to result in the following [market-matching bonuses] being paid on December 14 to our senior associates, with final supplemental payments to be made in the Spring of '08.

We are now officially into spring 2008. So ATL hereby "make[s] a big deal over this." Has S&C paid the supplemental bonuses to its senior associates? If so, can someone please give us the skinny?

Second, here's an interesting rumor of a partner departure from S&C, from a different tipster:

Carlos Spinelli-Noseda is a partner at S&C (do a Google search and check the cached website). At this point, however, you can't find him on the firm's external or internal website anymore. No idea what's up with him, but apparently he [was] involved in a firm event about 10 days ago...

We're intrigued. Partner departures are more common farther down the Am Law 100, but they're rare at a place like Sullivan & Cromwell.

We did some preliminary poking around, but didn't learn anything. A firm spokesperson didn't respond to multiple telephone and email messages. The usual news sources have no stories about his defection to another firm. On LinkedIn, he's still listed as an S&C partner (although it's true, as noted by the tipster, that his bio is gone from the S&C website).

We tried contacting Mr. Spinelli-Noseda directly. Our email didn't bounce back, but we didn't get a response either. When we dialed his direct extension, a receptionist answered the telephone with the firm name, not his name. When we asked to speak with him, the secretary asked us -- in a vaguely hostile tone -- who we were and why we were calling. She took down our contact info, but did not offer to put us into voice-mail, and we never received a return call.

If you know what's going on, please email us. Thanks.

The rumor making the rounds of lawyer and staff layoffs at Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner is true. We just spoke to Thelen's co-chair, Stephen V. O'Neal, who provided confirmation and details.

The firm is in the process of laying off 26 associates and 85 staff members, on a firm-wide basis, "in response to recessionary pressures." (Unlike President Bush, Mr. O'Neal was not afraid to use the "r" word.) Thelen has approximately 600 lawyers, per its website, so the cuts amount to roughly 4 percent of total headcount.

With respect to the location of the affected lawyers, the cuts affected all major offices. With respect to seniority -- one source told us that some first- and second-year associates were fired -- Mr. O'Neal said that "some were fairly junior, and some more senior."

In terms of practice areas, Mr. O'Neal said the layoffs were spread out among groups, but with "some areas more impacted than others," including certain parts of capital markets and cap-markets-related real estate work. He noted that other practice areas are "thriving and increasing in scope," including renewable energy, cross-border M&A, China practice, litigation, and workouts / bankruptcy.

With respect to staff layoffs, Mr. O'Neal explained that they are due in part to the economic climate, but in part due to post-merger staff redundancies. The merger of Thelen Reid and Brown Raysman took place in late 2006, making the consolidated firm a little over a year old. But the firm did not do much cutting of staff in 2007.

Last year "was not a year when we tried to make deep cutbacks in anything, even though we had combined two good-sized firms," explained Mr. O'Neal. "It was a year of building, coordinating, and consolidating. We wanted to understand how best to organize this new entity." Now that the firm has a better understanding of its staffing needs, and is in the process of consolidating multiple offices in the same cities (e.g., New York), it is reducing staff redundancies.

As for associate severance packages, Mr. O'Neal stated that firm provided a "market-level" package. We floated three to four months as our understanding of market, and he said that the firm is "in that ballpark."

"We are anticipating a profitable 2008," said Mr. O'Neal. "We are being prudent businesspeople, and when you are dealing with recessionary pressures, you adjust your business so you will have -- and maintain -- a strong level of profitability, notwithstanding those pressures."

We thank the firm for the information and candor with respect to the layoffs (i.e., not casting these departures as "performance-based"). If you have more information, feel free to email us.

Updates: A few additional nuggets:

1. As noted in the comments, total headcount includes partners and counsel, so the percentage of associates laid off is higher than 4 percent. Some of you suggest it's around 10 percent.

2. We're a little annoyed at Legal Pad for the lack of an ATL shout-out -- in both the blogosphere and the MSM, it's proper form to credit and/or link to the source that breaks a story first (even if you were working on the same story too) -- but we'll link to them anyway.

They have more on the Thelen layoffs here. Much of the info in their post appeared previously in ours, but they do add that the firm "is also trimming its summer program from eleven to eight weeks and is pushing the start date for first-years from September to January."

3. A source at the firm tells us that the severance packages were in the two- to three-month range.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of layoffs (scroll down)

Ed. note: Yesterday's guest post about how Barack Obama's tax plan might affect Biglaw associates, authored by Ted Frank, generated a record number of comments on ATL: 564 (and counting). It also generated lots of reaction throughout the blogosphere (links collected below). So we thought we'd invite Ted to do a follow-up.

Here it is. Ted wrote it in response to the following reader email, which makes many of the arguments that surfaced in the 564+ comments. From an Obama defender:

I'm sorry, but you are losing your credibility by posting this false propaganda on Obama. Look at Obama's website. It clearly states, "Asked About Raising the Cap, Obama said, 'You Might Have the Equivalent of a Doughnut Hole'--NOT That He Would Completely Remove the Cap." Obama "has stated in various venues that ‘his inclination... has been for a 'donut' where the uncapping would take place above some threshold income level -- probably around $200,000 or $250,000' his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an email. A donut would protect a certain portion of income (e.g., between $100,000 and $200,000) from the payroll tax and could be phased in over decades."

In addition, that "$34,000 paycut" in the post title is misleading. Even if all your assumptions were correct (which they weren't), the after tax pay cut under Obama is < $20,000. I love your site, but please correct this ridiculous false article before you lose all credibility.

And now, without further ado, Ted Frank.

* * * * * * * * * *
First, as I show in the spreadsheet, a $20,000 tax increase is the equivalent of a $34,000 before-tax paycut for a New York City resident, which would have the same after-tax effect. The $34,000 figure is accurate: that's just math. The Obama tax plan would have the same effect on a NYC fifth-year associate being paid market as a $34,000 paycut.

Obama has never said he will have a doughnut-hole, only that his SS tax could include a doughnut-hole. When Hillary Clinton attacked Obama at the November 15 Nevada debate for wanting to eliminate the cap, Obama didn't say that the attack was incorrect; he defended the policy because eliminating the cap would only affect what he called the "upper class." The press has accurately reported that Obama has also proposed eliminating the cap; even Obama's own website links to a thinktank's analysis of the benefits of a cap elimination.

It would be really easy for Obama to promise to include a "doughnut-hole" or to not eliminate the SS-tax cap. He certainly hasn't been afraid to promise drastically expensive programs of new spending or even tax giveaways to large swaths of the population who aren't paying much tax now.

But when it comes to Social Security, Obama is suddenly vague; when he does discuss details, it is to cite examples (e.g., Warren Buffett) that could not be accomplished without eliminating the cap entirely. And the only reason a politician acts that way is because he supports the more drastic, politically unpopular plan, but doesn't want to get tagged with it before the election, and will say after the election "I only said I would 'consider' a doughnut-hole."

How Barack Obama's Tax Plan Will Affect You [Microsoft Excel file]

Additional discussion and links, after the jump.

[Ed. note: Today we bring you some "news you can use": a practical look at how political choices might affect your personal finances. This post is by Ted Frank, who blogs at Overlawyered.com and PointofLaw.com, and who has guest edited ATL in the past. Take it away, Ted.]

BigLaw lawyers love Obama. If one searches by law firm various databases on-line for campaign contributions, one sees an overwhelming sea of blue, and most of it to Obama.

But how will Obama affect BigLaw wallets? On Above the Law, we regularly see commenters threaten to abandon law firms for falling $5,000/year short of market. I therefore thought it worthwhile to examine the effects of Obama’s tax and spending plans on take-home pay.

We all know that Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts. That is a 3% bump across the board to the bad old days when associates faced a marginal federal tax rate of 36%.

But the real hidden tax is that Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap. Right now, you may notice, sometime during the summer or early fall, your take-home pay suddenly goes up because they stop deducting FICA. Current law caps social security taxes: in 2008, the cap is at $102,000. Obama proposes to abolish this. That mid-summer bump will be no more: add about several thousand dollars to your annual tax bill.

But social-security taxes are not only on employees. The government also charges 6.2% to employers that you never see on your W-2s. But rest assured the partners see this, and will notice that the expense of keeping an associate has risen several thousand dollars a year when FICA taxes double and triple. Will they swallow that additional expense, or take it out of your bonus?

Find out, after the jump (or click here).

The powers-that-be at Mayer Brown have made their decisions on bonus and salary adjustments, as announced in an email last night. And it appears that they've taken a page from the Dechert playbook, according to one associate:

"The second paragraph [of the memo] is a shock. We were never informed of financial ramifications for failing to enter our time."

It might be slightly annoying, but it's the growing trend. Expect more firms to adopt policies that tie compensation to timely time entry. Email exhortations without financial consequences don't seem to be very effective.

(And it's arguably not that big an imposition. You already slave away at the firm for ten or twelve hours a day -- so what's another five minutes at the end, to enter your time before heading home? It's just a matter of getting into the habit of doing it, instead of letting a backlog build up.)

The Mayer Brown memo, after the jump.

We've confirmed the news, which surfaced previously in the comments, about the pay raise announcement by Seyfarth Shaw. Here's what one source told us:

The Chicago office had an all-associate meeting [yesterday]. First- and second-year associates will stay lockstep -- $145K for first years, $155K for second years -- while third- through eighth-years will get "market" base salary ranges. Not clear where anyone will fall in the ranges yet, since we don't find out until the week of March 3.

The bonus pool remains the same as last year, which means no "extraordinary" bonuses. (But there seems to be room to reward top performers one way or another.)

The managing partner of the office made a crack about sending him anonymous questions by posting them "on Wikipedia," so perhaps it's time for a higher profile for you.

Additional information, including ranges for selected classes, after the jump.

Last week we put up a post about associate compensation issues at Jones Day. It generated a torrent of comments. As always, some were negative, some positive.

A few readers were upset by the negative comments and came to their firm's defense. Here's what one wrote:

I am a third year lawyer at Jones Day. I enjoy my job and am paid well (and I mean darn well) above market. I hesitate to respond to such mudslinging by persons who are either disgruntled or misinformed, but as a current happy third year lawyer at Jones Day, I felt the need to set the record straight.

People who are unhappy with their compensation at Jones Day are in fact underperformers. Believe me, if I were in charge, I would fire those people rather than giving them a $160,000 "hint" that they aren't Jones Day material and should consider a career change. Because anyone who thinks that paying a third year lawyer the published salary of a first year lawyer is not a "message" about work quality is delusional. In no other profession do competent, mature people complain about being compensated based on their performance (or lack thereof).

To reiterate: I did not clerk. I have never billed more than 2100 hours. I have received bonuses despite billing slightly under 2000 hours. I have had many fantastic substantive opportunities (read: not two years of document review). I enjoy my job and colleagues. I am paid based on the quality (again, not quantity) of my work, which turns out to be more than most 4th year lawyers billing 2000-2100 hours at big firms in NY.

And the beauty of our confidential system is that other greedy jealous underperforming associates aren't blogging about my pay stub. Instead, those "lawyers" have gotten the Jones Day "hint," and are now spending their time at a new employer - not representing clients, but blogging about their ex-employer who figured out that they were worthless.

Ouch. That was way harsh, Tai.

But it's a fair point. Why shouldn't a firm pay associates what it thinks they're worth on an individual basis, and if the associates don't like it, they can leave? This is effectively what investment banks do with their personnel.

Additional commentary about JD, plus a photo of some of their paralegals at play, after the jump.

Our latest associate bonus news comes from Heller Ehrman. On Monday, we were alerted to their bonus meeting:

Heller has an all-associate video conference tomorrow (Tuesday, 9 a.m. PST) where, among other things, associate compensation will be discussed. Bonus checks are due on Friday, and no one knows what they'll get in advance. (You have an idea based on last year's grid, but that doesn't account for the discretionary bonus, if there is any.)

They've been very quiet, but at a retreat at the Claremont in the Bay Area this past weekend, the opening presentation was extremely negative (although 2008 looks very good so far). A test run?

I don't know if they've done it in the past, but this year associates were asked to justify the non-hours based portion of their bonus in a memo. I would not be surprised, given the recent Heller-related press, to see them go to a non-transparent bonus system.

Heller isn't the only firm where associates are called upon to justify their bonus love. See also Akin Gump (item #2; outside New York).

Oh yes, so the Heller videoconference took place yesterday. If you're interested in what transpired, it's described after the jump.

We have confirmed, with a reliable source at the firm, the rumor that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher now pays a $50,000 clerkship bonus, as of January 1 of this year. We don't know the firm's policy for multiple clerkships of years of clerking; if you happen to know, email us, and we'll update this post with the information once it's confirmed.

Over the weekend, there was some discussion about a possible slowdown in terms of law firms hiring law clerks. Could sizable clerkship bonuses be contributing to this, by making law clerks more expensive for firms to hire?

Update: Two pieces of additional information. First, the $50,000 bonus is "flat"; it does not increase for multiple clerkships or years of clerking. Second:

I love Gibson Dunn, but don't be fooled. They just eliminated the bar stipend amount ($15,000), and then tell you that you are getting a $50,000 bonus for clerking. You can get $15,000 in the summer before you start your clerkship (like all of the other new associates) to help pay for the bar, but then your bonus really is only $35,000. So, they didn't really up their bonus, they just called your bar stipend something different.

Here's some recent associate pay raise news from Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell (the entity formed by the merger last year of Texas-based Locke Liddell & Sapp and Chicago-based Lord Bissell & Brook):

Attached is a memo from, purportedly, the Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell (the new combined firm) management regarding associate salary increases. Despite the fact that it is being issued from the new combined firm, the memo only relates to the Locke Liddell associates and is completely silent as to raises for the Lord Bissell associates. We found this unbelievable, especially considering the new firm's internal tag line is "One Firm, One Future."

To put it simply, the LLS side is getting salaries increased across the board, albeit on a deferred comp scale, and the LBB side is getting nothing....

Nothing like dual compensation policies (well, at least one comp policy) for associates at the same (purported) firm!!!! That will surely make already declining morale even better.

Update: This post is the subject of a correction. See here.

Check out the memo for yourself, after the jump.

We previously reported on bonuses in the New York office of Winston & Strawn. Now it's Washington's turn:

Winston & Strawn's DC associates recently received their bonuses. Associates received individualized bonus memos, so there is nothing that can be posted (this has been firm policy for years).

Bonuses were up significantly over previous years, and every associate seemed to be very happy with what they received. The general feeling is that the firm stepped up to the plate and is committed to paying market bonuses.

We do have one data point to pass along. One source (whose class year we won't reveal) received a bonus that was higher than the NYC market year-end bonus, but lower than the NYC market-plus-special bonus, for someone of their seniority. Pretty good (although this person did bill north of 2400 hours).

Speaking of Winston & Strawn in D.C., we hear that a very interesting meeting took place on Monday morning, concerning controversial remarks made by managing partner Tom Mills to the Wall Street Journal. We're working on a post. If you can enlighten us about what transpired, please drop us a line. Thanks.

How can law firm administrators get associates to enter their time on time? Here's one idea: link time entry to those beloved bonuses.

From a source at Dechert:

Attached is an email that all the attorneys at Dechert LLP received today regarding associate bonuses and potential penalties. According to the policy outlined below, an associate's bonus may be reduced by up to 10% due to the late submission of billable time over the past year. I thought this might be of some interest to your readers.

We agree. Might this become a Biglaw trend? Nagging emails about timely time entry are easily ignored. Slashing bonuses, on the other hand, tends to grab associates' attention.

In fairness to the firm, it's worth noting that the policy is not super-draconian. Most of the bonus reductions were under 5 percent, and delinquent associates have the opportunity to redeem themselves: "[E]very associate whose 2007 bonus is reduced will have the opportunity to earn the amount of bonus reduction back, if he or she remains in good standing and complies fully with our time-recording policy in 2008."

Check out the full memo, after the jump.

A number of you have requested, in comments and via email, a post to talk about compensation issues at Jones Day. So here you go.

We'll kick off the discussion with this message we received:

I have recently noticed a number of postings relating to Jones Day D.C.'s lack of a bonus and non-competitive / non-transparent salary scale. For what it's worth, a friend of mine left Jones Day as a third year associate. Compensation as a third year: $175k. My friend knew of others that were in the third year class making $175k; however, my friend knew of a few other associates making $170k, and even one third year associate that was making $160k. This was AFTER Jones Day D.C. made the move to $160k.

Talk about compression, $5k between a first year and third year. Maybe some of these Jones Day posters do have something to gripe about?

We don't really know, due to Jones Day's overall lack of transparency when it comes to associate compensation (beyond the first year). But let's try and find out what the deal is. If you have associate compensation information about Jones Day, including but not limited to the Washington D.C. office, please share what you know in the comments, or email us. Thanks.

Here's an open thread request we've received from multiple sources. A representative message:

I'm trying to gather more info about firms / offices that pay NYC salary + NYC bonus in secondary markets. For example, I believe that Weil and Skadden both do in Dallas and Houston, but none of the other firms in Texas do. I don't know if you've done a post about this before, but I think it might be interesting, because $205K goes really far in TX.

Skadden Wilmington is another possible example.

That's correct about Skadden in Wilmington. Another well-paying secondary market: Charlotte. A CLT tipster tells us: "Mayer Brown, Dechert, Dewey, and Cadwalader have all increased salaries to $160K here in Charlotte."

Hold on a sec -- Cadwalader? Didn't they just lay off 35 lawyers, including some in Charlotte?

Yes, they did -- but they also raised salaries for the survivors. More after the jump.

In last month's ATL / Lateral Link survey we asked you which holidays you worked on, or expected to work on, during 2007. About half of you reported that you had worked on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Last week, we asked you how you fared this year. Did you take the day off to honor a champion of civil rights, or did you make it a "day on"?

We received just under 1,300 responses, and 44% of you reported that you took the day off. Associates in New York, Los Angeles and Boston were most likely to celebrate the holiday, while associates in Chicago, Atlanta, the Bay Area, and Texas were most likely to be working. (Respondents in the Bay Area were also most likely to work over Christmas and New Year's. Is it time for them to get New York bonuses?)

How did it break down on a firm by firm basis? DLA Piper, Milbank, Sidley & Austin, Dechert, Hunton & Williams, Jones Day, Latham, Mayer Brown, McDermott, Hughes Hubbard, McGuire Woods, Morgan Lewis, Nixon Peabody, Paul Hastings, and Sullivan & Cromwell each had multiple happy associates who reported that they had taken the day off. Kirkland & Ellis, Baker Botts, Dewey & LeBoeuf, O'Melveny & Myers, Weil, and Winston & Strawn each had mixed responses. Associates at Skadden, however, uniformly reported that they had worked the holiday, as Martin Luther King Jr. day is a "floating" holiday for the firm.

Of those who spent the day at the office, about 54% reported that they weren't actually asked to work the holiday, but had things they needed to get done. About a quarter reported that their offices were open. Another quarter said that partners told them to work on the holiday. About 8% were asked to work by clients. A surprising number of respondents wrote in that other associates had told them to work on the holiday.

A little over a third of respondents who worked on the holiday thought that the work did not justify the sacrifice.

An article for the McClatchy newspapers, evaluating the truth of Senator Hillary Clinton's claim of "35 years of change," has some interesting background about her legal career at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas.

It does suggest, for those of you interested in political careers, that you might not want to cool your heels too long in Biglaw. It just doesn't lend itself well to rosy campaign-trail bios. If you do spend a lot of time at a firm, be sure to engage in lots of pro bono work. From the article:

Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.

Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail. Her campaign Web site biography devotes six paragraphs to her pro bono legal work for the poor but sums up the bulk of her experience in one sentence: "She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm."

Here's what we found most interesting:

Clinton did receive a smaller salary than most other Rose partners, topping out at about $200,000, in part because of her outside activities, according to several biographies.

So don't count Hillary Clinton among the ranks of seven-figure law firm partners. She's closer to an underpaid junior partner than a partner at Wachtell or Cravath.

But don't shed tears for HRC either. If you look at her partner pay in the context of Arkansas's legal market and low cost of living, and if you adjust it for the passage of time (Sen. Clinton practiced law many years ago), $200K looks better and better.

Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career [McClatchy]