Welcome to the real world kids. If you don't contribute you're out. There's a price to be paid for those $160k salaries!

meh, those partners weren't bringing in any business. I know a lot of firms that could benefit dramatically from cutting partners like that.

wowwwwwwwwwwwww

What happened was that each of those 45 partners had misrepresented where he/she had gone to law school when first starting at the firm. Once it came out that they had attended a tier 2, heads had to roll. This is what I have to look forward to...

Lat--You said it. Fridays are big days for announcements!

which other large law firms have done this?

Dear punk kids making $160k,
Do you know how to rain-make? If not expect to be pushed out, and far before you make partner. If you don't have the connections to rain-make you won't last more than a few years in a big law firm.
Reality

Most of them probably should never have been made partner in the first place.

This will happen more and more as the regional firms merge. When they try to compete with the New York firms, they can't keep all the people who rode up to become "partners" but don't bring in business on a big-firm level.

which other large law firms have done this?

These guys don't care. They worked in biglaw for two decades and are rich enough not to care about being downsized.

Only tier 2 lawyers, who have to live paycheck by paycheck, care about losing their jobs.

11% growth last year and 19% over the year before and they are still doing this? it will be interesting to see how much the PPP jumps next year.

3:18 - you really are dumb enough to go to Loyola. No one is rich enough not to care about being downsized.

So how long did these guys know? Did they have enough time to bow out gracefully and find other places to land? Were these mostly small-potatoes guys with small books of business or were there some old geezers in there just taking up offices?

They wouldn't want to make this happen quietly? Doesn't seem like smart PR to me. People will remember this for a while.

There must have been some real a**holes at the top driving this.

The first 2 paragraphs and the last paragraph are unnecessary and Spielvogelesque.

I would have preferred something more like this:

"Mayer Brown is a business. We're doing well these days, but we thought it would be in the best long-term interest of the firm to oust 10% of our partners by either asking them to leave or to remain at the firm in some capacity other than as an equity partner. We've tried to be fair and reasonable about it, and we'll take care of the people we've ousted. Other firms are doing the same thing, and it's really not a big deal."

So how long did these guys know? Did they have enough time to bow out gracefully and find other places to land? Were these mostly small-potatoes guys with small books of business or were there some old geezers in there just taking up offices?

They wouldn't want to make this happen quietly? Doesn't seem like smart PR to me. People will remember this for a while.

There must have been some real a**holes at the top driving this.

what a fucking profession. gives some credence to the sidley suit - partners are just employees

*feels schadenfreude*

I find it notable that Mayer stated their revenue as facts, but merely stated that "American Lawyer will report" PPP of more than $1 million. That sounds like a very nice hedge disclaiming responsibility if what American Lawyer reports turns out to be untrue (and given that AmLaw essentially reports information they are given by the firm, shouldn't Mayer be able to definitively report PPP, without relying on the magazine?).

Dear MBR&M hiring partners,
Great move. With the money you save by firing these useless old fart top school graduates, you can hire ten tier 2 graduates.
Once you do, you will be delightfully surprised to learn that tier 2 graduates actually work and contribute - unlike useless top school grads who feel entitled to their jobs.
Loyola 2L

I suspect that some of the "surviving" partners are happy that revenues had grown 11% because they wouldn't have survived had revenues grown only 10%.

The Sidley suit?!?!?!?!?!

That is the most obnoxious EEOC lawsuit ever fired. Every day hundreds of thousands of asians, mexicans, african americans, women and other minorities are discriminated against. Instead of helping them the EEOC brings suit on behalf of a bunch of rich old white men who claim they were discriminated against because of their age?

FUCK YOU!

You were fired because you weren't pulling your weight. It had nothing to do with your age. The people who made the decision to can your worthless asses ARE IN YOUR AGE GROUP!

The Sidley suit is one of the most despicable abuses of the court system ever.

Sounds like your dad was one of those old white guys whose PPP was threatened by the suit

Loyola is Tier 2? I'd have guessed it was Tier 8.

RULE: If you tell somebody the name of your school and there are half a dozen possible schools you could be talking about, your school is hot garbage.

The Sidley suit really does demonstrate the EEOC's having misplaced its priorities, especially given that it doesn't even appear that strong (and doesn't come close to the egregious discrimination that is out there). It claims age discrimination, but several of the partners were under 50 and at least one was under 30.

Ha! "Spielvogelesque" -- I love it.

People calling Charney's suit frivolous really do need to look into the Sidley suit.

fucking lawyers. i think the point of the earlier post about sidley was just the underlying concept of partners = employees.

This initiative needs a snappy name. How about, I don't know, Project Right Size. That has a nice ring to it.

Mayer is not doing well. 11% is at best the usual increase. Add rates increases, cost of living, etc., and you see right through that number. The unfortunate fact is that the number of partners leaving/let go should be higher. In time. If they cut associates, however, look out for the future of this firm.

Project Right Size has a nice ring to it. I agree.

Here are some less witty alternatives:

* "Dad, Where Do Rainmakers Go When They Can't Make Rain Anymore?" "Son, They're Called 'Of Counsel'"

* Into the 'Maw' of the Lateral Market

* Perestroika

* The Sound of Dead Weight Hitting the Floor

* Off to the Glue Factory

* Broke-Ass Law Firm

11% growth is very good for a law firm (and any business for that matter).

I would imagine it is hard to get rainmakers in NYC if your PPP is under a million. Why would any partner with a real serious book of business not jump to another firm?

PPP under a million doesn't mean no rainmakers, but it does mean there has to be a big spread between under performing and overperforming partners' compensation. If your partnership can handle that, it doesn't really matter whether your PPP is $1mm or $1.1 mm (which is the net effect of the MBR&M firings). Clearly the MBR&M partners couldn't handle it.

3:15, you have no idea what you're talking about. Associates at respectable new york law firms don't bring in business. They're profitable because they can be billed out at 3 times their salary.

7:12. After a few years pass you will have to start bringing in business or the firm will start subtly asking you to leave. Ignore these requests and they will push you out more forcefully.

I understand the UK office head (Paul Maher) was one of the people behind the cuts. Since Mayer Brown has a significant number of UK partners (over 100-none of which were terminated) that expect UK law firm wages, they were quite unhappy with the US profits per partner, which I understand were in the low 700s. The UK offices have pushed Mayer Brown's PPP number's up quite significantly because of the favorable exchange rates. When you start digging into Mayer Brown's US business, you see how bad the firm is really doing. I doubt that firing 10% of the partners will be sufficient to bring the US PPP numbers up.

Every line of comments for every article, regardless of what it is about, has something from Loyola 2L whining about his situation. Get over it.

Why is everyone so worried about the attorneys for? Of that 10%, I'll bet the bulk of them were secretaries. I heard a rumor that over 200 secretaries were let go.

I F***ing hate lawyers.