If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. From our sister site, Going Concern:

[A] judge in Seattle has allowed a revised lawsuit to proceed that lists “Washington Mutual officers and directors, underwriters, and the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche” as defendants.

The revised lawsuit was trimmed down to a “concise” 267 pages from the original 388 that the judge described as “verbose” and “disorganized”.

“Verbose” and “disorganized” would also describe many lawyers we know. On the defense side, though, it’s an all-star cast. From Am Law Litigation Daily:

The lineup for the defendants includes Simpson Thacher & Bartlett attorneys Barry Ostrager and Rob Pfister for former WaMu officers; Ronald Berenstain of Perkins Coie for former WaMu outside directors; Barry Kaplan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati for former WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger; Peter Wald of Latham & Watkins for Deloitte; and Jonathan Dickey of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher for the underwriters.

Read more about this lawsuit, and comment, over at Going Concern.

Lawsuit Against Deloitte Gets New Life [Going Concern]

It’s been a while since we’ve had any news about how legal secretaries and staffs are weathering the recession. Well, at least no news that pertains to secretaries who are potty trained and don’t care about CHARACTER. To the extent that firms are still looking to make cuts, it feels like they are more focused on more long term moves.

But that doesn’t mean that the domain of the legal secretary is drenched in milk and honey. Yesterday, Wilson Sonsini informed its staff that it was instituting a salary freeze:

To: Staff Employees From: [Wilson Sonsini] Date: September 22, 2009 Re: Staff Salaries

Earlier this year, in the midst of an uncertain global economic situation, the firm implemented a salary freeze for associates. The firm always has managed expenses carefully, and we’ve taken an even more cautious approach during the current downturn to ensure that our business remains strong and well positioned for the future. While there are early signs that the recession may be easing, it’s also clear that economic recovery will take some time. Given these factors, it is important to continue our fiscally conservative approach, and therefore the firm is extending the salary freeze to staff at this time.

Thank you for your understanding, and for your continued commitment to the firm.

Wait, Wilson Sonsini hadn’t frozen staff salaries already? Tipsters weigh in after the jump.

We’re now into the back half of the brand new Vault law firm rankings. Just like last year, we worry about a proliferation of “TTT” accusations in the comment threads. But such terms of art can miss the positives of many of the firms in this section of the Vault rankings. Here’s the list:

51. Fulbright & Jaworski
52. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
53. Morgan Lewis & Bockius
54. McDermott Will & Emery
55. Alston & Bird
56. Bingham McCutchen
57. Fish & Richardson
58. Dechert
59. Greenberg Traurig
60. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft

We have already extensively talked about the Morgan Lewis situation. Let’s move on to other firms after the jump.

Today, the Minority Law Journal published its new Diversity Rankings. There was a big change in the publication’s methodology, and that resulted in significant upheaval in the rankings:

All this churn comes courtesy of a new ranking formula adopted after we found ourselves wondering whether our traditional approach to measuring diversity—calculating the overall percentage of minorities within a firm—ignored something significant. Did it really make sense to treat all lawyers of color as essentially equivalent in stature? Should a firm get the same kind of credit for a minority associate as it does for a minority partner? We decided that it was time to start giving more credit to firms that have increased the racial diversity of their partnership ranks. Under our revised formula, we add each responding firm’s percentage of minority lawyers to its percentage of minority partners to come up with a diversity score. This number is a truer gauge, we believe, of what kind of progress a firm is making in hiring lawyers of color at every level, with an emphasis on those at the most senior levels. (Click here for a fuller explanation of our methodology, and a list of firms that did not respond.)

The change knocked Cleary Gottlieb off its long standing perch in the top spot. In its place, Wilson Sonsini claims number one status.

After the jump, additional details from well known firms.

As we noted in yesterday’s Morning Docket, even the New York Times has taken note of the salary freeze trend at law firms. The Times reached out to Above The Law’s own David Lat for the story:

Although many associates are angry about the freezes, others are relieved, said David Lat, founding editor of AboveTheLaw.com, a blog about law firms and the profession.

“There is this sense that firms didn’t act prudently during the boom and now they are getting religion, and that it’s better late than never,” Mr. Lat said. “Many associates we have spoken to think the freeze probably saved jobs.”

At the beginning of the month, we did a round-up of firms that have frozen 2009 salary rates at 2008 levels. That list was 16 firms long. Since then, quite a few other firms have announced freezes. Due to frequent requests, we’re updating the round-up list since the number of firms with freezes (that we know of) has more than doubled, to 33 32. Check out the as-comprehensive-as-we-can-make-it list, after the jump.

Recently announced salary freezes include “solid ice freezes” at Blank Rome and Townsend and Townsend and Crew; and “Slurpee freezes” at Bingham McCutchen, Fish & Richardson, and Texan firm Andrews Kurth.

Memorandums, as well as a new list of all firms with “solid ice” and “Slurpee” freezes, after the jump.

Major news coming out of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. The firm just announced that 45 attorneys and 68 staff were laid off:

[I]t is with regret that we announce that the firm will be downsizing our associate, legal support, and administrative ranks, with 45 attorneys and 68 staff directly affected. Members and staff managers will meet with their teams today and tomorrow to inform them of the details of this decision. Please know that the firm is extremely grateful to all of the affected employees for their contributions, and we will work with them and provide resources to ease their transitions.

In light of that news, the salary freeze and bonus news for those who are left doesn’t really sting that much:

[W]e will not be making associate step salary increases this year, but we will be paying out bonuses based on the criteria and structure developed by the Associate Bonus Program Steering Committee and announced last fall (additional details to follow shortly). Legal support and administrative staff will not receive merit bonuses in January, but the firm will be making profit-sharing contributions in the spring to all eligible plan participants equal to 9.5 percent of their eligible compensation, as we have in previous years.

Best of luck to the 113 people suddenly out of work. Keep your heads up.

Check out the full firm statement, after the jump.

Here is just one small indication that law firms everywhere are feeling the pinch. As is customary at many firms, a firm-wide email went around Wilson Sonsini today congratulating all of the associates who passed the July 2008 bar exam.

The happy message reads as follows:

Congratulations to our attorneys who passed the July 2008 state bar exams! Please make sure to reach out and congratulate them. This is a big accomplishment!

Well, “!” I say. Everybody enjoys knowing that their accomplishments are recognized.

But last year’s WSGR recognition was a little more remarkable. Last year, this was the happy message that was sent around the firm:

Congratulations to our associates who have recently passed state bar exams!

To celebrate their success, we will be sending a bottle of champagne to our newest bar passers shortly! Please make sure to reach out and give them your personal congratulations. This is a big accomplishment!

Can you spot the extra sentence?

Firms cannot afford to be frivolous during these tough times, but would a $40 bottle of mediocre champagne really break WSGR’s financial back? According to the firm’s list 53, associates passed the July 2008 bar. That’s just over $2,000 in alcoholic costs.

Even if Wilson Sonsini had done the same thing this year that they did last year, the firm would have still saved some money. 72 people passed last year’s exam.

It’s pretty funny to see all the ways firms are trying to stretch a dollar. I hope the recession doesn’t get any worse, or else firms will have to start eliminating “complimentary” bathroom soap.

We have of course heard of other cost saving maneuvers happening at WSGR. If you know what we’re talking about, send us a tip.

Earlier: More Shock Doctrine: Wilmer Hale ‘Clarifies’ Late Night Meals Policy

It is still way too early to get hard numbers on what Biglaw bonuses will look like for 2008. But because of the economic downturn, we expect it will be a rocky bonus season.

As readers of The Shock Doctrine will note, it is important to be aware of fundamental changes to the way bonuses are paid out. You don’t want something to slip in under the guise of a (massive) market correction.

Yesterday, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati announced that 50% of their bonuses would be paid out based on performance evaluations. According to the firm, the change was made in response to associates’ concerns:

To: All Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Associates, Of Counsel, Special Counsel, and Staff Attorneys
From: John Roos
Date: September 25, 2008
Re: FY09 Associate Bonus Program

As always, the firm is committed to providing a competitive compensation package to our associates. We also are committed to listening to feedback from our associates and making adjustments to our approach to compensation as appropriate. Recently, the firm’s associates have voiced concerns about the bonus program’s heavy emphasis on billable hours. In response to those concerns and after a long and careful review of the associate bonus program, we’re pleased to announce a new component to the bonus program focused on qualitative performance factors.

[Redacted] will be sending out a memo shortly with more details on the changes, but I’d like to give you a brief rundown on the changes, as well as the process that led to them. In essence, the total bonus opportunity will consist of three independent components:

— a basic level of bonus paid at 1,900 hours;
— an adder paid at 2,100 hours; and
— a variable bonus based on work quality and overall contribution to the firm.

You’ll note that the new bonus program allows us to continue to reward high-billing associates for their hard work—a factor that many associates pressed us to maintain—but it also allows us to reward those who are exceptional performers in other ways.

More from the memo, including explanation of the qualitative bonus component, after the jump.

We’re back with another installment in our series of open threads on the Vault 100. This is an opportunity for insiders to sound off on their firms for the benefit of wannabe potential first-year and lateral associates.

Here are the next ten on the Vault list, with prestige scores in parentheses:

41. Baker Botts LLP (6.096)
42. King & Spalding LLP (6.066)
43. DLA Piper (6.039)
44. Baker & McKenzie (5.982)
45. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (5.976)
46. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (5.974)
47. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (5.941)
48. Dewey & LeBoeuf (5.924)
49. Fulbright & Jaworski LLP (5.906)
50. McDermott, Will & Emery (5.892)

The most interesting set of “notable perks” in this bunch can be found at Boies Schiller. On the upside, there is an annual trip to Jamaica for attorneys and their families — in December, no less — but on the downside, it’s a “sweatshop run by a genius.” This makes us think of David Boies as the legal profession’s Santa Claus — who likes to take the elves to Montego Bay.

We invite the curious to ask questions about these firms, and for those in-the-know to take pity.

Earlier: Vault 100 Open Threads - 2009

Last year, Viacom filed a $1 billion suit against Google-owned YouTube, asserting widespread copyright infringement. We predicted a smackdown, and that day has come.

Viacom filed an amended complaint [PDF] last month, saying it had found over 150,000 unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. In its answer [PDF], Google says YouTube responds properly when made aware of copyrighted content, and said Viacom’s suit threatens our way of life… pretty much. From the Associated Press:

A $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit challenging YouTube’s ability to keep copyrighted material off its popular video-sharing site threatens how hundreds of millions of people exchange all kinds of information on the Internet, YouTube owner Google Inc. said.

Google’s lawyers made the claim in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan as the company responded to Viacom Inc.’s latest lawsuit alleging that the Internet has led to “an explosion of copyright infringement” by YouTube and others.

The back-and-forth between the companies has intensified since Viacom brought its lawsuit last year, saying it was owed damages for the unauthorized viewing of its programming from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks, including such hits as “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”

It’s sad that MTV no longer has the spirit of rock-and-roll rebellion and has officially become The Man.

In Google’s corner are Wilson Sonsini, Mayer Brown, and Bartlit Beck. In Viacom’s corner are Jenner & Block and Shearman & Sterling.

Google vows not to settle, saying it will take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Let the law firms rejoice!

Google: Viacom’s YouTube suit threatens freedom [Associated Press]
Google’s Answer To Complaint [PDF] [IP Democracy via Paid Content]
Google vows to keep fighting Viacom [Business Week]
Google Case Spells Windfall For Lawyers [Forbes]

Earlier: Coming Attractions: Viacom - YouTube - Google Smackdown

Here are a few quick updates on the associate bonus front:

1. Wilson Sonsini: On Monday night, the firm issued a long and complicated memo, which we’ve posted in all its glory after the jump. Since we haven’t taken math since high school calculus, it went a bit over our head.

General reaction to the WSGR bonus news was less than positive. From one tipster: “My friends there are pretty pissed in light of Latham’s bonuses.” From another:

“Some constituent groups (those with low hours) are happy. Other groups (people who work for a living) are less happy. All associates outside of New York are upset that New York special bonuses were paid without a minimum hours requirement.”

Under the WSGR bonus system, in certain class years, a lawyer in New York who billed 500 hours less than her counterpart outside New York could wind up with a bigger bonus.

2. Akin Gump (Washington, DC): On rather short notice — the email went out at around 1 p.m., announcing a meeting at 5 p.m. — a meeting to talk about bonuses was held on Monday in the D.C. office of Akin Gump. Here’s the bottom line:

[T]he gist was that bonuses “ranged from $1,000 to 75,000,” which basically means that if you are a first year (or any associate who started in the fall) you got $1,000, and the most senior associates who are most valued got $75,000. Associates were also told that the average was $25,000. This was not broken down by class year, hours, or any other details that may tell you whether you’ll be compensated well or terribly.

Lovely. Guess they think transparency is overrated

3. Quinn Emanuel: At Quinn Emanuel, in contrast, management is fairly transparent, and communication is relatively open (at least by Biglaw standards). How many senior partners of major law firms write open letters to ATL, as John Quinn did recently?

Anyway, two pieces of news. First, yesterday QE gave supplemental bonuses today to laterals, recalculating how they pro-rated (a subject of prior controversy). Second, they provided some information — albeit not terribly specific information — about billable hours and 2008 bonuses. Memo after the jump.

Getting rejected by a law firm and having lots of your classmates learn about it: embarrassing.

Getting rejected by a firm you didn’t even apply to: priceless.

I’m afraid I must reject your rejection [TJ’s Double Play]

Earlier: Public Humiliation, Courtesy of Your Friends at Wilson Sonsini

Here’s an amusing anecdote from a West Coast reader:

Went to visit a dentist in Palo Alto for a routine cleaning the other day. When I told him I was an attorney, he quipped: “So, do you grind your teeth? Lawyers are notorious for grinding teeth.”

And then, unprompted and somewhat gratuitously, he added, “Especially those guys at Wilson Sonsini — they’re the worst.”

Granted, my dentist’s views could be somewhat skewed given WSGR’s major presence in Palo Alto. Nevertheless, I hope WSGR has a good dental plan.

And that recruiting has figured out how to use the bcc field.

Here’s a tale from the fall recruiting trenches, from a 2L at Columbia Law School:

I got my first rejection yesterday, from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. It was not through your typical form letter; it came via mass email.

And by “mass email,” I mean “the email address of everyone who got rejected is listed in the ‘to:’ field.”

CLASSY. Maybe WSGR wanted all the “rejects” to know each others’ identities, so they can from a support group?

To its credit, the firm realized that it screwed up:

They then left a voicemail apologizing and explaining that it was an “honest mistake,” and they hope it doesn’t affect my opinion of the firm. Personally, it doesn’t bother me — we all had lots of interviews, which lead to lots of rejections (and lots of callbacks).

But I can see why other people would be bothered by it, and I think the firm deserves some attention for (1) not putting in the effort to send actual rejection letters (this was even signed by “Attorney Recruiting Department”) and (2) not knowing the difference between “to:” and “bcc:.”

We concur. Hence this shout-out to Wilson Sonsini — and the reject-o-bots in its “Attorney Recruiting Department.”

Here are this morning’s firms (in Vault 100 order, prestige scores in parentheses):

36. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (6.308)
37. Linklaters (6.301)
38. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe (6.244)
39. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (6.204)
40. Proskauer Rose LLP (6.195)

You’ll note that one of these firms is Linklaters, which we recently wrote about. We reprint two emails from Linklaters sources, taking issue with our prior coverage, after the jump.

The Vault Top 100 Law Firms [Vault]

Earlier: Vault 1-5; Vault 6-10; Vault 11-15; Vault 16-20; Vault 21-25; Vault 26-30; Vault 31-35

This happened a few days ago, but we only found out about it just now. We pass along the information for your edification (see links below).

We won’t comment further. If you decide to comment, please do so responsibly. Thank you.

Accidental asphyxiation likely killed attorney [InsideBayArea.com]
Coroner investigating Daniel Weiser’s death [Palo Alto Online]
Daniel J. Weiser bio [Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati]

Along the lines of Heller Ehrman’s recent announcement, here’s another pseudo-raise from a West Coast firm. Earlier this afternoon, a source at Wilson Sonsini informed us:

A memo will be distributed later today with the details, but we received a VM a few minutes ago. Essentially, there will be “raises” to match market in places where there has been movement. This is defined as DC, CA, TX. NYC was already at $160k.

BUT the raise will be “mitigated” by an offset in the bonus structure. Also, Seattle and Salt Lake City are excluded from the “raise.”

The memo, which a second source at the firm verified for us, appears after the jump.

Earlier today, we published salary data for Wilson Sonsini. We quoted a poster who was disappointed that the raise was retroactive only to February 1st. We then received this clarification from a source at the firm:

Our raise was made retroactive to February 1 rather than January 1 because we have a February 1 fiscal year start. Compensation matters are always handled as of February 1.

In addition, bonuses were 15 percent higher this year because partner profits were up 15 percent. Staff bonuses were also 15 percent higher.

We are very busy at WSGR these days — cranking on all cylinders!

We also (finally) received confirmed information about Chadbourne & Parke. We reprint it after the jump.

We don’t have memos, but we can confirm associate pay raises at two large law firms:

(1) D.C. powerhouse Wiley Rein & Fielding, former home of the new White House counsel, Fred Fielding; and

(2) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, home of Silicon Valley legal god Larry Sonsini (although a god who, in the past year or so, has shown signs of being fallible).

More details, plus your comments, after the jump.

* Justice Scalia on judicial paychecks. [Associated Press]

And meanwhile…

* “It was just a matter of time before well-heeled business and other interests would expand their influence-peddling efforts, and begin pouring large amounts of money into previously sleepy judicial campaigns.” [TimesSelect (pass-through link) via How Appealing]

* No more melting coins for the value of the metals. [ABC]

* Natalee Holloway’s family files wrongful death suit in Aruba. [MSNBC]

* “Accuser in Duke lacrosse case about to give birth.” [SI.com]

* HP board terminates advisory relationship with Silicon Valley superlawyer Larry Sonsini. [New York Times via Dealbreaker; WSJ Law Blog]