Why aren't the firms us tier 2 grads have to work at included in your survey? There are thousands and thousands of firms paying far less than $160k. How do you know where to draw the line?

Loyola 2L,

This is your chance - anyone who can will be leaving Seyfarth Shaw asap!

Has fingers crossed. I already sent them my resume this year. When can I re-send it without seeming like I'm sending it to them too often?

So did they match the bump in NYC, DC, and other locations? That part of the memo is a bit vague... "We made salary scale adjustment...."

L2L, yes there are thousands of firms paying less than $160k. In fact, there are thousands of firms paying less than six figures. But the firms the Skaddenfreude thread has addressed were BigLaw-only. Call it that AmLaw 100 or 200, if that makes it easier. By definition, there're only 200 firms listed, not thousands.

what a bunch of mealy-mouthed garbage.

that memo really is a delight to read, assuming one doesn't work at seyfarth, i suppose

L2L, yes there are thousands of firms paying less than $160k. In fact, there are thousands of firms paying less than six figures. But the firms the Skaddenfreude thread has addressed were BigLaw-only. Call it that AmLaw 100 or 200, if that makes it easier. By definition, there're only 200 firms listed, not thousands.

Loyola 2L...quit your f***ing bitching...

wah wah wah, you didn't get a job b/c you went to a 2 tier LS ...

WRONG....

you didn't get a job b/c you sucked at being a law student at a 2nd tier LS...I went to a top 2nd tier and doing just fine, thank you...so shut the hell up. Maybe if you had spent as much time studying as you do on this board, we wouldn't have to hear you whine so damn much.

I have some friends that went to Loyola, and they did fine job-wise...you must have been shit there...sad...maybe go tell someone who cares

Loyola 2L...quit your f***ing bitching...

wah wah wah, you didn't get a job b/c you went to a 2 tier LS ...

WRONG....

you didn't get a job b/c you sucked at being a law student at a 2nd tier LS...I went to a top 2nd tier and doing just fine, thank you...so shut the hell up. Maybe if you had spent as much time studying as you do on this board, we wouldn't have to hear you whine so damn much.

I have some friends that went to Loyola, and they did fine job-wise...you must have been shit there...sad...maybe go tell someone who cares

They just fixed the compression (not up to "old" market) after 3rd year in those cities. They did not raise to 160.

Well... after reading that memo, the term Skaddenfreude FINALLY makes sense.

no reason for them to raise. they are 2nd tier.

I was top 25%. Since when is top 10% the definitin of good student?

L2L, go work at some reputable, regional plaintiffs' firm for a few years, get some experience, and then leverage that into a BigLaw job if you want one so badly. Just stop your damn whining on this board.

So, I wonder if the Seyfarth memo marks the start of the creation of a class of "lifestyle" national, full-service law firms. Its not necessarily a bad thing to give people otions. But I'm a bit skeptical that the hours at any large firm are that dramatically different. Rather, its a softer way of saying "we don't have the kind of market differentiation, depth of talent, client base, etc." necessary to raise rates any higher.

Why is posting about tier 2 unemployment and hoping for a job whining, where as posting about making $145k instead of $160 not whining?

I can't decide which is more annoying - L2L's posts or the people who further cludder up this board by replying to him.

So, I wonder if the Seyfarth memo marks the start of the creation of a class of "lifestyle" national, full-service law firms. Its not necessarily a bad thing to give people otions. But I'm a bit skeptical that the hours at any large firm are that dramatically different. Rather, its a softer way of saying "we don't have the kind of market differentiation, depth of talent, client base, etc." necessary to raise rates any higher.

Because the $145 v. $160 posts are by people already employed in the industry curious as to market trends or why their particular firm hasn't yet matched. They are not an open invitation for every whining baby to come out of the woodwork and complain that Skadden just ISN'T hiring Tier 2 grads in the bottom half of the class. THAT IS NOT NEWS.

So, I wonder if the Seyfarth memo marks the start of the creation of a class of "lifestyle" national, full-service law firms. Its not necessarily a bad thing to give people options. But I'm a bit skeptical that the hours at any large firm are that dramatically different. Rather, its a softer way of saying "we don't have the kind of market differentiation, depth of talent, client base, etc." necessary to raise rates any higher.

2:34 makes a good point. This is the first firm avowedly drawing a line in the sand and saying "Sorry, we can't match the big guns."

This is terrifying to anyone at a firm that thinks it can put itself into a niche category, or wants to emphasize work/life balance over compensation.

Seyfarth is not as much as a lifestyle firm as it claims itself to be.

There's already a tier of firms that don't match the big guns. Its hard to identify rankings-wise, but everyone is well aware that there are many NYC firms that match the "market" base pay but then don't pay the 30k+ bonuses that so many of you think are typical. These tend to be branch offices of firms based elsewhere, but that's just a generality.

Also, take it from someone who's worked at two different top 100 firms (separated by about 50-70 ranking points though): the lifestyle at two top 100 firms can be very different. And the lower-ranked one is going to be slow to match any pay raise because they know their associates are happier with everything else besides salary.

Sorry one quick follow up to the point above: managing partners of many of these "List of Shame" firms, including Seyfarth, would be doing their jobs poorly if they grant pay raises that will yield only marginally better recruits. The same recruit who cares about the extra 15k is also the same person who's going to go to a bigger name firm for the "prestige" anyway. So why waste your money.

If they were smart they would hire more hard working, loyol and appreciative tier 2 grads.

I am truly miffed. 25K difference between my counterparts at other shops. This blows. I don't know whether I will stay. This tells me that either my firm doesn't want to pay me or it is a sinking ship. No good way to look at this.

Where does Seyfarth recruit? Top law schools or T2 like Loyola?

It's a sinking ship. Jump overboard.

A few have made the point, which is a good one to at least consider, that increased salaries can also come from profits, not just through higher rates or longer hours. So, the question is why not? I'm curious whether what's really been going on is that associate salaries in general nationally have been below market. It would in part explain the explosive growth of PPP across a wider range of firms, and articles have been written over the past few weeks suggesting that associate salary is at a low mark when compared to the today's high PPP across a wide range of firms. So firms that really can't afford to pay top associate salary have benefitted because the rates have been kept lower. This has given the Seyfarth Shaws of the world the best of both worlds -- better recruits and better PPP. But the market is catching up now. And those firms have become spoiled with high PPP and the effect that's had on these firms: attracting better lateral partner candidates, higher prestige, etc. Now they don't want to give it up even though in the long run the brain drain at the bottom caused by lower salary/less-talented recruits will hurt those firms. Just some general ramblings.

That memo is priceless. It is definately the most elequent of any salary related memo we have seen. I love the reference to the "cultural impact" and "all issues, including increased levels of productivity"

2:43 is right, they have drawn a line in the sand - if you like beach metaphors, they are on the crappy, rocky public beach side with tons of annoying kids running around kicking sand on you and the really fat ladies reading danielle steel while sunning themselves, the other firms are on the nicer "private beach" side.

As for the "lifestyle" firm question at 2:34. I think there are plenty of firms that have matched at 160 or 145 (or at least departments within some of those firms) that are pleasant enough places to work and would be considered by many to be "lifestyle" firms, so I seriously doubt that places like Seyfarth are trying to be "lifestyle" firms, especially when they threaten to raise your hours in the process!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, I am glad I am not at Seyfarth today. That is not a happy memo. As I posted the other day, the change between 125k in 2001 and 160k in 2007 is only 4.25% (barely inflation). The money for this raise should have come for increases in billing rates between 2001 and 2007, not future increases. Either Seyfarth is 1) hording PPP (meaning it went up while associate pay was basically flat between 2001 and 2007), 2) the partners mismanaged growing the firm's business and billing rates between 2001 and 2007, or 3) the partners let overhead grow too much between 2001 and 2007. Anyone have any thoughts on which it is?

Suffice it to say I won't apply to Seyfarth if I need to lateral out of my firm if they try to pull the same thing.

L2L, give it a few months then resend your materials to Seyfarth. By then they will be starting to lose their better associates. They'll be despirate for anyone with a pulse (which based on your attitude is all you can offer to a Biglaw firm).

Don't be fooled/3:00 - I disagree with your implication that the lower part of the top 100 should assume that their people are happy with everything but salary. I have also worked at two top 100 firms and the lower ranked one was MISERABLE in terms of "lifestyle" compared to the higher ranked firm I am at now.

Also, interestingly, my former firm (the lower-ranked top 100) has not raised salaries, while my new firm (the higher ranked top 100) has raised salaries. Overall, I'm much happier in both the lifestyle and the compensation department at the new place....

3:11, if you don't see the lifestyle they claim in their memo I'd look to get out. I don't know what year you are (and I won't ask for your privacy), but if you are relatively junior, get out and build a great reputation at a new home. Its one of the 3 bad things I mentioned in my 3:21 post that caused this memo to be circulated.

L2L is killing this message board.

Harvard - Best in Asia

Harvard - Best in Asia

What is Seyfarth paying in NY/DC/Chicago/LA these days? Are they stuck on $125k? If so, I hope the billables are below 1700.

I done with this blog for good. L2L, and those of you who can't help but constantly respond to him, have ruined it.

I'm not sure Seyfarth is even at 125K in Chicago. When I interviewed there for a summer gig in fall 2002, they were at 110 or 115, and sold it as a lifestyle choice.

Don't be fooled - Your claim that partners would be doing their jobs poorly if raising pay yielded only marginally better recruits is valid only if the firms with which they are associated are not making concerted efforts to obtain such recruits. And the reality is that NOT raising salaries represents another prestige "ding" that firms who profess to only want the cream of the crop can ill afford. A single, 25 year old tier one grad generally cares about only two things: (1) salary (2) location. QOL only comes into play for them after they get their asses handed to them during the first year.

Make no mistake. Those so-called "top tier" firms on the list of shame will either have to raise if they want top tier talent or settle for what they can get.

3:57 - And suffer the consequences of losing their best experienced associates to other firms (a good associate should easily be able lateral out and excel at another firm).

Has anyone considered that firms like Seyfarth aren't so interested in this neverending, chest-pounding chase for "top tier talent" and just want associates who can get the work done?

If I was a partner at a law firm - or actually, an owner of ANY business - I'd be more likely to base my pay on what I need rather than look around to see who pays the most and try to match it.

Has anyone considered that firms like Seyfarth aren't so interested in this neverending, chest-pounding chase for "top tier talent" and just want associates who can get the work done?

If I was a partner at a law firm - or actually, an owner of ANY business - I'd be more likely to base my pay on what I need rather than look around to see who pays the most and try to match it.

I think first years should make less. And there should be bigger jumps at the "better" firms based on talent and experience. If you're at a firm that pays 135 and you're good enough to go somewhere else, then leave, but if there were big differences, the competition would be very fierce. Now it's just a free-for-all. Everyone pays the same, again, it accomplished absolutely nothing.

That being said. I put an order in for a new BMW. Thank you raise for no good reason.

Everybody keeps talking about the difference in salary increase among associates and the increase in PPP. Associate salaries are not keeping up because of the explosion of non-equity partners since 2000. Go to the blog Adam Smith Esq. Bruce has a good little write-up about it.

4:29 - That's all well and good, but you can't talk out of both sides of your neck i.e. you can't be a firm that claims to want only the cream of the crop talent and then balk at paying market salaries for cream of the crop talent. Either pay for the privilege of skimming the cream off the top or fall back, stick to your guns on salary, and be prepared to expand your recruiting pool. And there's nothing wrong with that second strategy BTW. Some firms may just have to come to grips with the fact that they aren't as "major" as they think they are.

All of you looking at the list of shame should know that at Seyfarth we haven't even received our bonuses yet. That's what the March 15 reference in the memo was. Nor have we received our regular class-year raise.

5:23 - Are they financially unsound or greedy? Any feel from the inside?

I agree with 3:51. After years of reading this and UTR, I'm out of here for a while. It's only salary and Charney info, pseudo-racist posts on SYC, it's not funny, and L2L seems to ruin everything. Lat, I'll check back in a week or so to see if you have this place under control.

5:33, my guess is his web hits are at an all time high, so good riddance.

To tell you the truth, as an experienced software engineer finishing law school, the salary at the big firm is just "pretty good". I'm leaving the software industry for law because I like the intellectual challenge while at the same time having upward mobility - something largely not available to engineers. It seems to me that these raises are due. Software engineer salaries have continued increasing since 2000, while legal salaries had been stuck at 125K for 4 or 5 years. When I started law school (part time) 125K looked like a lot of money. Now that I'm graduating, 135K looks merely o.k. 145K looks pretty good and 160K looks about right-that is given the descrepency in salaries when I started. As for hours, the legal profession and Big Law don't have a monopoly on long hours. There are plenty of other professions with long hour requirements and far less rewards. This is definitely true for accountants and can be true for software engineers as well.

The weird thing to me is that hte Bay area firms are lagging the NYC firms, while some firms are putting D.C. salaries in line with NYC. That makes the Bay area look pretty unattractive if you are looking to settle down (e.g. housing! not that NYC looks great) but D.C. is looking like a pretty good place to be assuming you can get in to one of these top paying firms. After all, 15K differential is pretty large + VA tax versus CA tax + VA housing versus SV/SF housing. If I were once again a 2L I would be trying to find away to go to D.C. this summer.

5:42 - you want:
1. intellectually challenging work
2. that you enjoy doing
3. for long hours
4. with upward mobility.
have you found a firm that offers that?

I never intended to ruin this board for anyone. I will stop posting.

5:47 :
4) not long hours, but good compensation in light of the hours; talk to a big 4 accountant making 60K to work 80hrs a week.

5) Good $$$ too, kids cost $$$.

As for your question, I admit I cannot answer that. I know that the lawyers I've talked to who work in the field I am going to work in seem happy with their work.

5:29 -- that's just the pace of bonuses at Seyfarth. They have always been behind in announcing bonuses and raises.

5:58 - so do you expect the class raise to keep your compensation at Seyfarth consistent with the market? Is the lifestyle better? Just trying to get a feel for the market so I know if what I have(or have not) gotten is fair.

The existing "adjustments" at Seyfarth don't affect Atlanta, Boston and Chicago. I don't think the regular class raise, absent more, will change things on an already compressed salary scale. We'll have to see what effect the larger bonus pool has. Whether or not Seyfarth steps up by way of base or bonus remains to be seen.

The most management-friendly reading of the memo is "wait and see what we decide". Or at least wait until you get your bonus check before turning in your notice.

I certainly wouldn't turn in notice until the bonus check clears. Then I'd do some thinking.

ok Reed Smith, you have me worried. Its time to step up and show me the money ...

As a former associate at Seyfarth, I had to laugh out loud when someone on this board suggested that Seyfarth might be paying less because it is trying to become (or is) a "lifestyle firm." I worked there for more than 4 years. It was hell. Seyfarth assigns its associates 16 cases - often putting only one associate on multiple class actions - and basically tries to work you into the ground for as little money as possible. People have been leaving round the clock, and yet they still manage to spin it into "it's a great place to work" blah blah blah. It is NOT a great place to work. All you have to do is take a look at the revolving door, which has been spitting people out in droves. The partners want their associates to work as hard as the top firms, and pay less - simple as that.

Reed Smith better show me the $ too!

i agree with formerseyfarthian's comments. unfortunately i am still an associate at seyfarth trying to find something else. pretty much everyone that i know has left with a few exceptions, and those of us that are still here are looking. it is not a lifestyle firm. it is also not a firm that really gives a crap about its associates. it does try to portray it that way, but being here makes it clear that its NOT that way. there are a few crappy partners that slam associates in review process for no good reason. it's not constructive criticism, its just intentionally mean. the partners that do this are the same ones year in and year out. they are allowed to treat the associates like crap. if you complain, the response is always oh we're working on it we're hiring more people things will be better. they never get better. we are overworked and underpaid and it sucks

i would gladly trade the $15K bump for less hours if that were an option. who really cares about $145K v. $160K when its difference b/w having a life and not. the marginal benefit of the $15K at this point is hardly enough is balance out the detriment to quality of life.

SEYFARTH IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A LIFESTYYLE FIRM. ANY PARTNER THERE WILL TELL YOU THAT. THEY GET ANGRY WHEN PEOLPLE EVEN SAY THAT. THE MEMO THEY SSENT OUT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TRYING TO BECOME A LIFESTYLE FIRM. JUST THE OPPOSITE. THEY ARE STAYING EXACTLY WAHT THEY ARE - A FIRM THAT WORKS ITS ASSOCIATES LIKE DOGS AND MAKES LIFE THE PITTS

i would gladly trade the $15K bump for less hours if that were an option. who really cares about $145K v. $160K when its difference b/w having a life and not. the marginal benefit of the $15K at this point is hardly enough is balance out the detriment to quality of life.

i agree with anon. i would choose less hours over the money if i could. but thats not an option here. people who leave and go p/t end up quitting b/c its impossible. thats not what they want.

I have to agree with formerseyfarthian. I too worked at Seyfarth for almost four years and was worked to the bone. At my worst moment, I was assigned 15 cases and was the only associate staffed on several class actions. When I asked for assistance, I was told that no one was available to help - - because everyone else carried the same ridiculous case load. Even better, on one occasion a partner told me that I should not take on any more cases because I already had too many, and then the next week that same partner dumped yet another case on me. The best, however, is that when I interviewed at Seyfarth, I was told by several of my interviewers that Seyfarth was a "lifestyle" firm, unlike the "big" firm I was coming from.

I have to agree with formerseyfarthian. I too worked at Seyfarth for almost four years and was worked to the bone. At my worst moment, I was assigned 15 cases and was the only associate staffed on several class actions. When I asked for assistance, I was told that no one was available to help - - because everyone else carried the same ridiculous case load. Even better, on one occasion a partner told me that I should not take on any more cases because I already had too many, and then the next week that same partner dumped yet another case on me. The best, however, is that when I interviewed at Seyfarth, I was told by several of my interviewers that Seyfarth was a "lifestyle" firm, unlike the "big" firm I was coming from.

If your idea of a lifestyle is praying on a daily basis that you will be struck with some temporary (but not disfiguring) illness or malady, then Seyfarth is the place for you. Otherwise, you are better off sticking with a top tier firm and not falling for their "lifestyle" (yes, they tell you in interviews that it is a "lifestyle firm" and then look at you as if you have grown a new head if you mention "lifestyle" during their employ) schtick.

Reed Smith is desperate to break the $1M PPP barrier so they can merge with a prestige firm in NYC and get the Hong Kong folks on board, so expect them to be very cheap (as usual). But they also wouldnt think of being "second tier" in their rush for respectability, in my opinion. I predict they go to market in NYC, DC, LA, and SF, but don't make it retroactive and only have it apply to associates who made their hours. That would save some greenbacks. They could save further by not raising quite as high in Oakland - why should they make SF money? And of course Pittsburgh and Philly will get small jumps if any. Thing is, the firm can raise but not take much of a $$ hit since the two biggest offices are in Pittsburgh and London.
As for Chicago, what happens to the new folks joining this month?

Just out of curiosity . . . what do people mean when they say these firms better match if they want top-tier talent? Surely not everyone who works at biglaw consider themselves "top tier" talent, do they? In reality, only a few firms will really attract the cream of the crop that these salaries are supposedly intended to attract. Then, aren't all the other firms left with paying top dollar for non-top talent? I'm a 2L who'll be summering at one of these firms in NYC - so don't get me wrong, if they want to give me 160K, I'll take it. But in all honesty, I don't think my firm is paying all that money to attract the likes of me. I'm kind of new to the business/economic market of firms . . . I'm just wondering what really drives all these firms to match one another.

depends what you consider top tier talent ... if you mean the top 10% from the top 14 law schools ..., then you are right, the very top firms (Vault 10) will get their picks most years. but if you mean top students from top tier schools, then there are many to go around so everyone can get their share. I work for a firm at the bottom 15 of the Vault 100, and we get our share of Georgetown, George Washington, Washington & Lee, etc.

Isn't "top tier talent" entirely based off what you can sell to clients when justifying your hourly rate for an associate?

i think the problem is that the lines between the firms are fluid enough that the top firms pressure everybody to raise their salaries. It works like this:

So lets say that when Simpson raised their salaries, we can count on all the other Vault 10 firms to do so. However, the Vault 11-20 firms are not really recruiting a totally different caliber of student. They sometimes compete for the same students. A person who is interested in litigation, for instance, might choose Paul Weiss over Cleary, and a lot of people would be willing to go for a slightly lower ranked firm if they like the atmosphere. But that goes out the window if there is a pay differential. So 11-20 raise. That, of course, puts pressure on 21-30 to raise for the same reason that the top 10 put pressure on the second 10.

The problem is that people don't just pick on salary. I know that there are plenty of high end yale, harvard, columbia and nyu grads around here that work for firms you've probably never heard of because of the location and the fact that there are very low billables. There are plenty of top students. I will take a raise to 250 if they want. But the fact remains. Half the kids going to those firms are from non top 10 schools. Some are out of the top 10% of their class at non top 25 schools, speaking from experience. It just means they're paying more, for the exam same kids they were going to get in the first place without any of the raises. But once one goes, they all go, and now where at the same place, just with a higher salary.

Such a big fuss about Seyfarth. A few facts from my experience there:

As stated by someone on this thread, the raises and bonus announcements at Seyfarth always occur in March. Has been that way for many years. This is simply the timing the firm employs. The review committees and the firm management go through a deliberative process of reviewing, rating and assigning bonuses and raises to associates. (Your mileage may vary as to whether you think the delay is worth it, but it is the same process year after year.) This memo is a normal part of that deliberative process and thus was expected (similarly, the failure to consider the impact of the memo may be symptomatic of the firm's lack of caring for transitory perception issues).

The market adjustments mentioned in the memo were designed to bring the stated offices up to the market that existed at the end of 2006 - before the increase in NY to 160. The offices not receiving stated raises didn't need raises because they were already at market (at least for first years - at senior levels market was not usually paid even after bonuses). When Seyfarth's executive committee next meets, I believe they will decide to match market in most offices that have seen an increase in January. Some offices may lag for a year or two. But as evidenced by recent years, this is not unusual for Seyfarth.

The experiences described by some former Seyfarthians may be more common in the labor and employment group, but it is not a common experience in non employment law practice groups (nor do I think it is the experience outside of the Chicago office).

Seyfarth is a successful firm (not a sinking ship). Chart its progress through the AmLaw rankings to see that. Yes some PPP growth has occurred from the growth of non equity partners, but that is common at all sizable firms. One poster suggested 3 possible reasons for Seyfarth's memo. I'm not sure any of the 3 apply, but probably hording PPP would be the closest but I think that Seyfarth's PPP increase is probably in line, by ratio to average associate comp growth, with most other similar firms. A recent study at law.com or some like publication charted this in relation to starting salaries (but didn't include associate bonuses in the analysis, which have grown dramatically over the last 6-7 years at NY and large national firms).

Just my thoughts.

11:21 is definitely the managing partner at SS

Did anyone else go to the Seyfarth website and notice they also have Shanetta Cutler modelling on the "about" the firm" section? Clearly positioning a diva on the website is why the firm has risen to its stellar position as the 100th firm on the Vault list.

Regarding 11:21 being the managing partner, I'd like to meet the managing partner who will admit that his/her firm (a) isn't really paying at market for senior levels, (b) takes a year or two to get to market after some (most?) other firms, (c) may have disfunctional work assignment systems in its core practice group at its home office, (d) fails to anticipate associate, recruit and market perceptions, (e) questions whether the "deliberative" (you can interpret that word how you want) process employed by the firm is worth it to many associates, and (f) would waste his/her time posting on a chat board at 11:21pm.

Serious though, I pointed you to measurable stats (AmLaw, studies) and actual facts at the firm which the former Seyfarthians should be able to verify as accurate.

I would 100% prefer to be paid my bonus in January and given my raise in January, knowing I would always be right on market with my friends at other firms. I'd also prefer not to have to go through a couple months of anxiety waiting for the firm to announce it is raising salaries to match the next market increase (and also not have memos produced that leave more questions than answers for guidance). For me though, each year the firm has generally done right by me (and I usually have my eye squarely on the movements of the market), and for that I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for a reasonable period while they go through the deliberations that usually yield a decent result.

As noted, your mileage may vary.

Dear 11:21, a.k.a. 11:44,
When do you find out if you made partner?

Since I have made negative assertions about the firm in a public forum, it would be best for me not to disclose when I'm up for partner. (Admittedly, I've also said positive things about the firm which I believe to be true, but the last thing I want discussed when I'm being considered for partner is whether I said enough positive things on the internet message board about the firm to outweigh the negative things I said.)

I am very familiar with how Seyfarth works on the West Coast and the people who have worked there over the last decade. I know less about the other offices, so none of these comments are expressly directed at those offices (except the ones about the possibility for advancement to partnership).

Here is the reality for anyone who is actually interested in considering whether to work in Seyfarth on the West Coast as opposed to simply wanting to whine and moan and make snarky comments:

(1) Although years ago Seyfarth may have touted itself as a "lifestyle firm" that stopped years and years ago. At least on the West Coast, Seyfarth touts itself as a premier place to practice employment law and promises that, although people will have to work hard, the work is interesting and the opportunities to rise from within are better than most firms that pay a higher salary;

(2) Although not a "lifestyle firm" Seyfarth does have lower billable hour requirements than many of the top paying firms. As a full time lawyer (there are alternative work arrangements for lower pay) you need 1950 hours to get an annual raise, 2000 to earn a bonus, and probably need to average around 2000-2100 for a few years if you are really interested in making partner. While not a cakewalk by any stretch, it is entirely possible to meet these hours and have a decent "lifestyle."

(3) Being a firm of Midwestern origin with Midwestern sensibilities, Seyfarth has never gone out on a limb to match the top tier firm salaries. Its practice mix and billing rates wouldn't allow it to do so in any event, but its philosophy has alway been to pay "a little behind market" if market means similarly sized "full service firms". If that offends you, then you shouldn't work there.

(4) Seyfarth pay rates are comparable to similarly situated firms. They pay more than the Littlers and Jackson Lewises but not as much as the Paul Hastings and Morgan Lewises. The upside over the higher paying firms is that a good number of associates are promoted to partner at Seyfarth, something that is much less true for PH and ML. ML has made 1 employment law partner in California in the last 10 years; Seyfarth has promoted more than a dozen California L&E associates to partner during the same period). If you make partner at Seyfarth, and ultimately can generate some business (which the Seyfarth name facilitates), you can indeed make serious bucks (and you will have earned it).

(5) The associate who claims he/she worked for 4 years, had work dumped on them constantly and received no help, is, to put it mildly, exaggerating. The grain of truth is that people who like to take on responsibility tend to thrive at Seyfarth and people who need handholding and to be told exactly how to do every task tend to drop off. I believe the person who is complaining worked a lot with a partner who delegates a lot of responsibility. While several people have thrived under this management style, others have hated it.

(6) Seyfarth's West Coast employment practice has been doing a lot of wage/hour class action work, and that is not everyone's cup of tea. The facts tend to be a little drier, although the law is developing and raises a lot if interesting legal issues. From a business perspective, it is a lucrative practice however, as it faces less of the rate pressures that traditional L&E work faces from the insurancization of the practice. If you are interested in wage/hour class actions, I challenge you to name a better place in California to make your practice.

(7) The biggest whiners I have known at Seyfarth about how hard they have to work, are the same people who clock in at or below the 1950 minimum, do the minimum of promotional work, and don't really enjoy the practice of law. I wish all of those people the best of luck in other endeavors, but I am not sorry when they leave. The hardest working, best attorneys in the office tend to complain the least.

For those who disagree with the above, please take your best shot at telling me what I have said above that is untrue.

For 11:21/11:44

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.

The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive.

I left my DSM or PDR (or whatever magic books doctors use to tell them all they know) at the office, so I'm just guessing - are you (H&K at 12:11) saying it is a bad thing for a lawyer to see both sides of an argument, or to recognize bad facts while speaking of good facts?

I'm going to go ahead and agree with the Seyfarth partner's post above. The firm has taken a lot of beating on this board today, but most of it has been highly exaggerated. Not getting a market bump is a bummer, but people here aren't that surprised and for the most part aren't so devastated. The vast majority of associates are lateral hires who came from more "prestigious" firms. I don't think many of them are calling their old firms right now. They're happy where they are. In fact, for all the associates who've left over the past several years, I can't remember the last one who left to go to a higher-paying firm (despite plenty of offers). That said, the firm is going to have to figure out a way to improve its economics so that it can pay closer to market--otherwise they will find it harder and harder to attract and maintain good talent. But in the meantime, it remains one of the best non-CA-based firms for associate development and advancement, and although it is not really a "lifestyle" firm, it is one of the few that legitimately does not expect more than 2K hours out of its associates.

Seyfarth is a tier 2 firm. stop attacking them, they're just not that good in the first place.

To SeyfarthWestCoastTruth:

I didn't realize that Seyfarth's California offices are plagued by similarly dissatisfied associates. Thank you for enlightening us on what appears to be a firm-wide issue.

To Anotherformerseyfarthian:

I don't know how it could be the case that you were working on "several class actions" if you didn't work in one of the California offices.

The only other office in which your description could conceivably be true, would have to be Chicago about 5 years ago. I can't speak to life there though I am shocked that any associate in any office is handling 15 cases at once (I never did as an associate, and I typically billed 2100 hours per year).

Posted by: SeyfarthWestCoastTruth | February 14, 2007 12:08 AM; Comments thereto generally [IN CAPS]:

I am very familiar with how Seyfarth works on the West Coast [I PREPARE THE KOOL-AID] and the people who have worked there over the last decade. I know less about the other offices, so none of these comments are expressly directed at those offices (except the ones about the possibility for advancement to partnership).

Here is the reality for anyone who is actually interested in considering whether to work in Seyfarth on the West Coast as opposed to simply wanting to whine and moan and make snarky comments [BECAUSE THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVE FROM A CURRENT PARTNER IS MUCH MORE RELIABLE THAN THE WHINING, MOANING, AND SNARKY COMMENTS FROM CURRENT AND FORMER ASSOCIATES]:

(1) Although years ago Seyfarth may have touted itself as a "lifestyle firm" that stopped years and years ago [ON THE PLANET MERCURY, A YEAR IS 88 DAYS, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE IF WE GO BY MERCURIAN YEARS]. At least on the West Coast, Seyfarth touts itself [WELL, SOMEONE HAS TO] as a premier place to practice employment law and promises that, although people will have to work hard, the work is interesting and the opportunities to rise from within [FOR MEN, AND WOMEN WHO DO NOT INTEND TO GET MARRIED AND/OR HAVE CHILDREN] are better than most firms that pay a higher salary;

(2) Although not a "lifestyle firm" Seyfarth does have lower billable hour requirements than many of the top paying firms. As a full time lawyer (there are alternative work arrangements for lower pay) you need 1950 hours to get an annual raise, 2000 to earn a bonus, and probably need to average around 2000-2100 for a few years if you are [A MAN] really interested in making partner. While not a cakewalk by any stretch, it is entirely possible to meet these hours and have a decent "lifestyle."

(3) Being a firm of Midwestern origin with Midwestern sensibilities [NOTE: JONES DAY IS NOT ON ATL'S LIST OF SHAME http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/skaddenfreude_tuesday_list_of.php], Seyfarth has never gone out on a limb to match the top tier firm salaries. Its practice mix and billing rates wouldn't allow it to do so in any event, but its philosophy has alway been to pay "a little behind market" [AND TELL CANDIDATES THAT IT'S A "LIFESTYLE FIRM"] if market means similarly sized "full service firms". If that offends you, then you shouldn't work there [HERE].

(4) Seyfarth pay rates are comparable to similarly situated firms. They pay more than the Littlers and Jackson Lewises but not as much as the Paul Hastings and Morgan Lewises. The upside over the higher paying firms is that a good number of associates are promoted to partner at Seyfarth, something that is much less true for PH and ML. ML has made 1 employment law partner in California in the last 10 years; Seyfarth has promoted more than a dozen California L&E associates to partner during the same period [HOW MANY OF THESE DOZEN+ "ASSOCIATES TO PARTNERS" ARE WOMEN; WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A FEMALE ASSOCIATE MADE PARTNER?]). If you make partner at Seyfarth, and ultimately can generate some business (which the Seyfarth name facilitates), you can indeed make serious bucks (and you will have earned it).

(5) The associate who claims he/she worked for 4 years, had work dumped on them constantly and received no help, is, to put it mildly, exaggerating. [REALLY, "AT WORST MOMENT" + "ON ONE OCCASION" = "CONSTANTLY"? NOW WHO'S EXAGGERATING? NOTE TO FORMER SEYFARTHIANS: CARE TO WEIGH IN ON IF YOU WERE IN THE CHICAGO, CALIFORNIA, OR SOME OTHER (NYC, PERHAPS?) OFFICE(S)? I GUESS IT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE IF IT'S BEING ADDRESSED BY SEYFARTHWESTCOASTTRUTH -- YOU MUST HAVE HIT A NERVE BECAUSE WE HAVE A BLEEDER ...] The grain of truth is that people who like to take on responsibility [15 CASES, INCLUDING A FEW CLASS ACTIONS] tend to thrive at Seyfarth and people who need handholding and to be told exactly how to do every task [CF. "there are a few crappy partners that slam associates in review process for no good reason. it's not constructive criticism, its just intentionally mean" -- Anonymous associate, 2/13, 8:18 p.m.] tend to drop off. I believe the person who is complaining worked a lot with a partner who delegates a lot of responsibility [THAT'S ONE WAY TO PUT IT]. While several people have thrived under this management style, others [WHO FAILED TO DRINK THE KOOL-AID] have hated it.

(6) Seyfarth's West Coast employment practice has been doing a lot of wage/hour class action work, and that is not everyone's cup of tea [KOOL-AID]. The facts tend to be a little drier, although the law is developing and raises a lot if [SIC] interesting [YES, "INTERESTING"] legal issues. From a business perspective, it is a lucrative [CASH COW] practice however, as it faces less of the rate pressures that traditional L&E work faces from the insurancization of the practice [NO WORRIES, THERE'S STILL ENOUGH INSURANCE WORK TO GO AROUND]. If you are interested in wage/hour class actions, I challenge you to name a better place in California to make your practice [PH, ML, GDC, OMM ...].

(7) The biggest whiners I have known at Seyfarth [DID NOT DRINK THE KOOL-AID] about how hard they have to work, are the same people who [FELL -- HA HA -- FOR THE LIFESTYLE FIRM LINE THAT WE STOPPED FEEDING TO PEOPLE YEARS AND MERCURIAN YEARS AGO AND] clock in at or below the 1950 minimum, do the minimum of promotional work [BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE 12-16 ACTIVE CASES, YOUR PRIORITY IS ALL THAT PROMOTIONAL WORK], and don't really enjoy the practice of law [THE KOOL-AID AND SELF-CONGRATULATORY BACK-PATTING HELPS]. I wish all of those people the best of luck in other endeavors, but I am not sorry when they leave [NOTE TO SELF: THE REVOLVING DOOR NEEDS A LITTLE WD-40 -- THE SQUEAKY NOISE IS DRIVING ME CRAZY]. The hardest working, best attorneys in the office tend to complain the least [AND DRINK LOTS OF THE KOOL-AID].

For those who disagree with the above, please take your best shot at telling me what I have said above that is untrue. [I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY OF THE COMMENTS ON THIS BOARD HAVE NECESSARILY BEEN DIRECTED AT SEYFARTH'S WEST COAST PRACTICE, BUT I AM SURE THE LAW STUDENTS AND ATTORNEYS ON THIS BOARD APPRECIATE THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU HAVE TAKEN TO RESPOND TO THESE OBSERVATIONS. WOULDN'T YOUR TIME, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT FIGURING OUT HOW TO ADDRESS CURRENT MORALE ISSUES INSTEAD OF DOING YOUR "HARD PROMO"?]

All things being equal, if you are planning to work your butt off, as I am, as big firms go, why not go to the one that (a) pays the best and (b) has people you feel comfortable with(especially the partners in your practice area).

Therefore, aren't the firms that don't match the market sending a message that they are ok with not having the best recruits they can get.

What message does that send to clients ?

12:05 hints at a relevent observation.

It's not that a law student or and potential lateral will evaluate every single firm in a market or practice area of interest, and then rule out the ones that didn't respond quickly or fully to compensation market changes. No one has that time.

Limited time means that the same student/potential lateral will identify the *best* firms that would likely give 'em an offer and focus on those firms. Non-responsive firms, or laggards just won't get considered.

So it doesn't matter whether Sy-Farth and its ilk are "sinking ships" or "lifestyle firms." Consistent Sy-Farthian behavior over time will simply cause a firm to be unconsidered - at least until the desirable firms have said "no thank you."

Boies should not have been removed from the list. They do not pay market, as their bonus structure is contingent on billables. Associate bonuses vary wildly, sometimes zeroing out. Moreover, it's unfair to the other firms on the list to remove a firm on the basis of hearsay from some dude with a friend who's a partner. You should require confirmation from an associate at the firm (and they'll tell you that it just ain't so) or the Boies letter (and there ain't one).

To It's pronounced Sy-farth:

Actually, roughly half the West Coast L&E Associates promoted to partner in the last decade have been women. To show that I am presenting facts rather than "drinking Kool Aid" (your hackneyed metaphor), I'll name names:

Diana Tabacopolous ('96)
Patricia Kinaga ('96)
Lorraine O'Hara ('98)
Laura Shelby ('99)
Barbara Fitzgerald ('01)
Ann Fromholz ('04)
Catherine Dacre ('05)
Dana Peterson ('05)

This list does not include one or two people in SF who made partner and then left in the early part of this decade, whose names escape me now. It also does not include the several female partners in both LA and SF who lateralled in within the last decade (e.g., Ann Kotlarski, Janine Simerle, Patsy Cullison, and Maria Rodriguez).

I would note that your attempt to "fisk" my posting showed many of the traits I associate with bad legal writing such as repetitiveness, failure to cite facts to support conclusions, unnecessary ad hominem, hysterical tone, and weak attempts at humor. If you did work as an associate at Seyfarth, I am not at all surprised that you failed in the endeavor. It is OK though. Not everyone is cut out to be a practicing lawyer at a major law firm.

To SeyfathWestCoastTruth:

It's admirable how you defend the firm, but the only Seyfarth Truth, regardless of coast, is that they haven't matched market.

Posted by: SeyfarthWestCoastTruth | February 14, 2007 03:36 PM: "I would note that your attempt to 'fisk' my posting showed many of the traits I associate with bad legal writing such as repetitiveness, failure to cite facts to support conclusions, unnecessary ad hominem, hysterical tone, and weak attempts at humor. If you did work as an associate at Seyfarth, I am not at all surprised that you failed in the endeavor. It is OK though. Not everyone is cut out to be a practicing lawyer at a major law firm."

Is this part of the "coaching, feedback and development," or the "redoubled efforts" to make the Firm "a great place to work" that one can expect as an associate? Please, don't everyone line up at once.

I reserve the positive coaching, feedback and development for the current employees :)

On the west coast, Seyfarth may have made a few female partners, but how about NY? You'll notice a few there now, but outside of Lorie, which ones were associates in the NY office before being made partner?

None.

Perhaps that has something to do with the sex discrimination claim the NY office settled a few years ago. And I'm not talking about the one filed against Mike either - that was another suit (and I believe the claim was sexual harassment, not discrimination). Nor am I talking about the ones that could have been filed against Eric.

What kind of firm allows that in one of its offices? Some of the partners involved in those issues are gone, others are still there. I wonder if new associates still read the Posner decision about the Chicago office...

I, too, worked at Seyfarth. After the first month, I averaged in the neighborhood of fifteen cases, some more active than others. I never had less than two class actions at a time, and at one point made it up to five. The standard practice at Seyfarth is to assign one associate and one partner to each case, regardless of size (certain partners have the clout to ignore this standard practice).

In my experience, the people who thrive at Seyfarth are the people who develop a strong working relationship with one a short list of partners. Certain partners excel at protecting their favored associates, and work hard to ensure these associats succeed. Other partners seem to have little interest in seeing associates succeed, treating them as fungible resources to be used up and tossed aside. By developing the right relationships, even a mediocre lawyer can do well. Fail to develop those relationships, and even the best lawyer will find it hard going.

As with most workplaces, your experience can vary hugely depending on the kinds of relationships you develop starting out. I suspect that is at least part of the difference between SeyfarthWestCoastTruth and the posters who had a less positive experience at the firm.

Who "outside of Lorie" is a female partner in NY

Lorie Almon is the managing partner of the entire NY office for gosh sakes (at age 39). If you want to see the other female partners names, go to the website, which lists about half a dozen more:

http://www.seyfarth.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/attorney.attorney_search/location/f986b7cc-b4c5-4ca9-a0e8-8f4ff08d1c10/attorneys.cfm

And in LA, since I started, there have been more female L&E attorneys made equity partner than males (6 v. 3)

Whatever criticism you want to make about the firm non-matching Skadden rates, you have no valid basis to accuse the firm of refusing to allow women to become partners or holding women to a higher standard then men.

SeyfarthWestCoastTruth:

First, please let me say how much I heartily have enjoyed your continued presence on this board. It has provided amusement not only for me, but numerous others, I suspect. Please, don't take my sunshine away.

Now, on to other matters. I believe that Yet another former Seyfarther asked about female associates (other than Lorie) who made partner in NYC. Your failure to pay attention to the entire question posed, i.e., the issue, is reminiscent of the style of management I have come to associate with Seyfarth ...

Just an observation. I have to get back to work, but your continued attention to this matter is appreciated.

I think you missed my point. Frankly, I don't know how many Seyfarth associates in NY became partner, since I am on the West Coast. I do know that NY has grown hugely by acquisition and is now the least L&E-heavy office we have. I am curious how many partners came from within at all (I would be only a handful, although that includes Lorie Almon).

My point was that you cannot seriously accuse Seyfarth NY of being an old boys club that refuses to promote women from within when the highest ranking person in the entire office (who is drawing a salary several times my humble salary) is a woman. And a relatively young woman at that. How many other major firms have a 39 year old female running a (roughly) 100-person office.

I should take comfort in the fact that this is the best nit you all can pick.

Thumbs up to SeyfarthWestCoastTruth for a truly amusing discourse. It is no wonder that Seyfarth associates are overworked when partners devote so much time and energy to a law student/associate chat board.

Interesting - SWCT doesn't even mention the lawsuits and claims filed against the NY office. Especially the one for refusing to put a female associate up for partner (i.e. the NY partners refused to) when the chicago partnership had indicated that she would in fact make partner. I don't know all the details, as I wasn't a partner at the time, but from what I understand, a partner in your home office must submit you for partnership before the partnership as a whole can vote on your status. The all male partnership in NY refused as a group to do so. My understanding was that if even one of them had done so, she would have likely made partner. Their universal refusal to do so may have cost them a pretty penny, althogh the amount is a secret :)

Lorie is absolutely qualified to run the NY office - but you also have to take into account the NY office at the time she was made managing partner. The office had just finished an era where attrition among associates was approaching and at times over 100%, the office had reportedly settled several gender related suits and claims, and leadership was hard to find.

David, the former managing partner, was manifestly clueless and didn't know most of the associates' names. Of course, with turnover that high, what was the point?

Mike (before he left) was universally hated by the associates and his skill at bringing in clients was only matched by his ability to drive them away. Asshat.

Eric had so many problems working with women that he went through secretaries like tissues, when he wasn't flinging books at their heads. Or did he throw the book at a female associate's head? I forget. He just didn't like women, and women didn't like him, except for those who think a sharp dressed man wears searsucker suits all the time. In NY. Even in the winter. In which case, they liked the clothes, but not the man.

The old guy near the corner was so old that... well, he always seemed nice so I won't say anything nasty about him, but he was pretty damn old

Bill was clearly uninterested in leading the office, and a pool was actually in existance over when he and the rest of the group he came in with would leave for yet another firm (he's still there)

Gary was part of the same group and the firm was clearly not going to make someone into a managing partner who would then immediately leave

Bob - see Bill and Gary

Peter was the de facto managing partner as David was apparantly uninterested in anything that involved people. Peter actually created the atmosphere that was so toxic in the first place, from my perspective. Basically, if you weren't Chris or Lori (Meyers), well, you were SOL.

Which left Lorie, who was young, enthusiastic, liked by the remaining and new associates, and very good at lawyering. So they made her managing partner - and they made a great choice - but there weren't really any other options either. And she was only still there, as far as anyone could tell, because she had been sheltered by Ed (who left right around the time she made partner) and she didn't really have to work with the rest of the office. She worked so closely with Ed that there was talk that she would leave to join him at his new firm - so making her managing partner may have been the carrot used to get her to stay. But that is just idle speculation.

And even now, the NY office has 29 male partners and 6 female partners (the same number of women made *equity* partner in LA since SWCT started).

Congrats to those female partners in LA - 6 of the 7 female partners in LA were apparantly made equity partner since SWCT started. Is the seventh a pre-existing equity partner, or is there something wrong with her? It is nice to see that Seyfarth is so free with the equity partnerships. Some firms are so stingy with them, and keep many of the partners at non-equity status.

See? I said something nice about Seyfarth.

FYI -- I believe that the equity/non-equity distinction did not come about until 2002 or 2003, so many of the six were already equity partners at the time the non-equity status was introduced.

Also interesting that three of the female Seyfarth partners (all from LA) on the above list are no longer with the firm. Two have even moved on to competing firms.

Ok, this has been fun and all, but now that posting has slowed to the same three people posting, I think my work is largely done after this post.

Yes, two Seyfarth equity partners in LA left to join other firms, and one income partner decided to go to an in house job. I encourage you to call any of the three and ask them why. I can tell you that they will not say it was rampant sexism or that they couldn't have a proper work life balance.

There are five female L&E partners currently in SF, including 3 equity partners. The two income partners there made partner in the last two years from the associate ranks. One in particular is well situated to rise to equity partner quickly because she has a good niche practice in wage and hour class actions that she can easily grow.

I have no idea if what you are saying about NY is true or whether it was a horrible or great place to work. Early in my tenure with Seyfarth it was a relatively small office, primarily with L&E lawyers, and it didn't grow much. In the last few years, it has changed dramatically to an office with a major corporate and real estate practice that appears (from my vantage 3000 miles away) to be thriving. They are actually moving into a bigger building.

As my final thought to you former Seyfarthers who post here. I happen to think very highly of Seyfarth as a place to work as I have devoted the better part of my career to working there. I am sorry if it wasn't a good fit for you or if you had a bad experience. I just wish you wouldn't paint with such a broad brush about all the offices if you happened to have a negative experience in one office.

Have fun with your board!

If NY is thriving so much, then why is the office so har back in market pay. Seyfarth NY is at 135K compared to 160K starting. 25K difference does not equal thriving.

True BigLaw would pay the new market. Seyfarth isn't in the big leagues. SeyfarthWestCoastTruth, you may like it there, but you're liking the minor leagues. Either they don't think their associates deserve the new market rate or the ship is sinking. Simple as that. There are several firms with less impressive economics that are choosing to go market.

I hear what WestCoast is saying and I hear what others are saying about Seyfarth. From my dealing with Seyfarth and talking with friends there, it seems that it isn't so lifestyle anymore. I think lots of those kids work hard (not just the 8:30 to 6 pm some are claiming). If those associates are working very hard, what is the incentive to bill one hour more than the bare minimum?

It is a big firm. Offices on both coasts and more than 650 attorneys. Not going to at least 145K is ri-donkey-lous. If I were in NY right now, I'd be taking those recruiter calls. I'm guessing their associates are getting tons of 'em now.

I am an associate in a mid-sized labor and employment firm in the NY metro area. I recently submitted a resume to Seyfarth's New York office and am hoping for an interview, because I would like to work for a national law firm. I know people at Seyfarth and am well aware of the issues in the New York office. The managing partner in the L&E group is just awful. She treats associates like dirt and will throw them under the bus if it means saving her neck. She is disliked by the majority of the associates and the morale is at an all time low. With that said, I would still accept an offer of employment there. It is a well reputed L&E firm and I would be willing to take the abuse to advance my career. And I'm probably not the only one. The fact is firms that of Seyfarth's ilk can pay associates whatever they want and treat them in any manner they see fit. Associates who are vying for positions in Seyfarth are generally not from top-tier law schools and, therefore, do not have the luxury of being picky. At least, that's how I feel.