Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw-ling: Getting Too Far in Front of the Story?
UPDATE / CORRECTION: The premise of this post -- that Mayer Brown intentionally tried to "get out in front of" this story -- is incorrect. Our facts were correct, but our interpretation of them was erroneous.
It is factually accurate to state that the Chicago Tribune story hit the web before Mayer Brown sent out the announcement email to its associates. It is also true that Mayer Brown representatives spoke with the Chicago Tribune about this news before the firm-wide email went out.
But there's a backstory here that needs to be explained. We'll have more to add in a subsequent post.
FURTHER UPDATE: The subsequent post describing what actually happened appears here.
********************************
One of the rules of so-called "crisis management" is to "get out in front of" bad news. The reasoning is that if you try to cover up bad news, you'll just make matters worse. So you should just announce the bad news, take your lumps, and try to move on as quickly as possible.
Mayer Brown tried to get out in front of the news that it was axing 45 equity partners, which it announced earlier this afternoon -- a Friday afternoon, which is when such things get announced. It apparently told the Chicago Tribune about the news before making a firm-wide announcement to its associates.
This may have taken "getting out in front of bad news" too far. It can be demoralizing for your employees to hear about something that affects them after (or even through?) the news media.
But this was clearly an announcement that was made with the media in mind. The internal memo that was sent around at Mayer Brown even included contact information for the firm's communications team.
If Mayer Brown was going to be so forthright about this news, and basically throw open its kimono, why didn't it just "go all the way" -- and post a news story or press release on its website?
You handed a bunch of unprofitable geezers their walking papers. So what? That's the way the Biglaw works in this day and age. You don't attain profits per partner in excess of a million by coddling the useless.
Own it, people -- own it!!!
Mayer Brown cuts 45 partners in restructuring [Chicago Tribune]
Mayer Brown Purging 45 Partners [WSJ Law Blog]
Earlier: Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw-ling: Firm Drops Ax on 45 Equity Partners
Comments
I couldn't agree more. What piss poor PR.
Lat, that is the most intelligent thing you've said in days....
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:14 PM
Please leave this fine firm alone. Since when can't an employer let fourty-five non-contributing employees go without having the media hound them?
Posted by: Loyola 2L | March 2, 2007 04:19 PM
Lat,
this is the perfect kind of story for you. you've got to get some stats on the axed partners. then you need to start rumors about a possible EEOC suit. c'mon: you've milked shanetta for all she's worth and ABC v. S&C is boring everybody to death. this is your best shot for a little life around here.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:30 PM
I guess up and out applies to partners, too. What a fucking rat race.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:32 PM
4:30 is right. I want names and "cached" links to their web profiles
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:34 PM
good point w/r/t the web profiles: even without an inside contact i bet some careful google sleuthing could net you all their identities over the next few months.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:41 PM
Timing aside, it's actually a smart move by the firm. When partners were leaving before, everyone thought Mayer Brown was "losing" them. Now everyone will think MB is kicking their asses out. Who knows where the truth lies.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:51 PM
a better title would be "mayer brown rowe and maw-mawing."
Posted by: anon | March 2, 2007 04:53 PM
I'm so glad I didn't accept and offer from Mayer, Brown...
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 04:56 PM
If you're at a firm where partner profits are $1M per, what is the expected book of business per partner? $1M? $2M?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 05:00 PM
Does Mayer have a one or two tier partnership? I'm assuming the former, otherwise they could have continued to milk the non-producers for the billable hours and increase the equity partners' profits.
Anon 5:00 -- at my similarly situated biglaw firm, you won't typically become an equity partner without $1 m in business. And that's just entry to the pship; the average is higher (though skewed a great deal by a handful of partners with over $10 m).
Posted by: 5L Bob | March 2, 2007 05:17 PM
OK, the fake web page pic? Is hilarious. Thanks, David.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 05:31 PM
What's the expected book of business for an equity partner with a law firm that has PPP of $1M?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 05:36 PM
Who needs "Playboy" when there's "Private Equity Magazine"?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 05:57 PM
Mayer Brown has a 2-tier partnership, which was set up several years ago to prevent having to de-equitize a lot of the non-producing partners in Chicago (they operate on a different leverage model). Apparently it didn't work.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2007 06:56 PM
Interesting correction. Sounds the Trib found out the news earlier and forced Mayer Brown's hand.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 3, 2007 11:46 AM
who are the partners? what are the practice groups?
Posted by: anon | March 3, 2007 05:14 PM
who are the partners? what are the practice groups?
Posted by: anon | March 3, 2007 05:14 PM
Morale at Mayer Brown's NY office is nosediving. Forget the 45 partners that were dumped. Lack of focus and no plan is what has people jumping ship left and right. Each week there is a new meeting by the "new" partners in charge trying to tell everyone that everything is A ok. It's not. Run!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2007 02:40 PM