Lat -- Where is Seyfarth Shaw?

NEW NAME: Bingham McClutch'em.

How about doing a "What's Up With Townsend and Townsend and Crew?"
Maybe it will be enough of a bug to get the memo out.

finally, the douche that writes "Ahoy Maties" can be sunk.

DC Mid-Tier Firms
(The Firms Formerly Known as the DC Vault of Shame)

(same as before, since Sonnenchein has not been confirmed)

17. William & Connolly
36. King & Spalding
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
61. Sonnenchein
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable

The ship, she is saved! Yar!

NOW WALK THE PLANK

Three of the top 6 firms on the list of shame are Texas based firms - Baker Botts, V&E, Fulbright. Does anyone know whether these firms are considering raising? Is it possible they are deciding what to do for their home-base associates in Texas?

Dude, Sonnenschein is confirmed. Memo posted. Done deal.

Is Bingham really going to pay $160 scale in Portland, Maine? Now that's total insanity. Of course, their website says there's only one associate and 3 partners in that office...

Very creative of Bingham!

DC Mid-Tier Firms
(The Firms Formerly Known as the DC Vault of Shame)

(Shortened list; it's always a pleasure to see quality firms moving to the top drawer.)

17. William & Connolly
36. King & Spalding
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable

10:02 -- That's not unheard of. Boies Schiller has a small office in Hanover, NH that pays top of the market.

10:16 -- someone should compile a list of grossly out-of-whack offices. Like the 160 firms in Denver (50k over the locals).

Are there any other big firms that are slow enough in litigation to offer buyouts with the stock market going like crazy?

If so, I haven't heard about them. I'm a mid-level litigator and get HH calls almost every freaking day. So, WTF is up with Bingham? Is it just the SF office, a couple of low-billers who were tricked into believing that firms gave a damn about pro bono or a firm-wide litigation issue?

I don't follow the logic of buying an arsenal of litigators in LA and then a month later laying off your established litigators in SF because of the ebbs and flows of the market in litigation. Something smells fishy. Again.

Does anyone know the size of the Bingham buy-out?

What happened to all the promised dirt on Jenner?

King and Spalding's absolute lack of response in any of its markets but NYC is disappointing. Wanna play with the big boys, have to pay with the big boys.

Why offer buyouts? What happened to the good ole days of something called "firing".

Very true 10:33.

There are 3 ATL firms on the DC Mid-Tier list.

Define "buyout." How much $$?

Is the over/under on severance six months salary?

King and Spalding's absolute lack of response in any of its markets but NYC is disappointing. Wanna play with the big boys, have to pay with the big boys.

K&S' comp philosophy is more along the lines of "you'll get nothing and like it."

I too am waiting for promised dirt on Jenner

K&S and A&B look silly. You know you're goin to 160 in DC and at least 145 in Atlanta. Send the damn memo. and stop embarassing yourself and insulting your associates.

CHICAGO LIST OF SHAME:

Bell Boyd
Brinks Hofer
Chapman & Cutler
Drinker Biddle
Foley
Greenberg Traurig
Goldberg Kohn
Holland & Knight
Jones Day
Kaye Scholler
Lock Lord Bissel Lidell
McGuire Woods
Neal Gerber
Perkins Coie
Seyfarth
Vedder Price
Wildman Harrold

Where have you gone "Campaign to end Lock Step Salaries?" We miss the comic relief.

Can we see the Atlanta list of shame again? Compare it with the DC list of second-tier pretenders. Hummmm. I see some firms trying to get away with paying below market everywhere--even as they ascend the AmLw 100 list. Bad policy.

HARTFORD:

160k
Bingham McCutchen

145k
Dechert
Brown Rudnick

130K
Axinn, Veltrop
Edwards Angel

115k
Jorden Brut

105K
Thelen Reed

100K
LeBoeuf Lamb
Day Pitney

95K
Murtha Cullina
Robinson & Cole
Shipman & Goodwin
Wiggin & Dana

Jenner should be listed on the Chicago list of shame and I would also like to hear the dirt. But I have heard (but can not confirm) that litigation is slow there too (and litigation is there biggest practice area). Hmmm, Lat go and get us some dirt!!! I would like to hear more about these Bingham buyouts too!

Lockstep should be ended. Bottom line, as someone on this board put it at bonus time - we're so scared of being screwed, we screw ourselves with lockstep

Anyone have a Charlotte list?

CHICAGO LIST OF SHAME:

Jenner
Bell Boyd
Brinks Hofer
Chapman & Cutler
Drinker Biddle
Foley
Greenberg Traurig
Goldberg Kohn
Holland & Knight
Jones Day
Kaye Scholler
Lock Lord Bissel Lidell
McGuire Woods
Neal Gerber
Perkins Coie
Seyfarth
Vedder Price
Wildman Harrold

Lat,

Here's another one asking for a CLT thread.

Lat - NJ please!

First thing is first. CLT is already at 145 and looking toward 160. Meanwhile, Atlanta is stuck at 130 and the big two have their heads burried in the sand.

Lat, give your HOTlanta supporters some love and do an Atlanta thread.

I can't believe the law.com article published the names of the associates that were bought out. Talk about putting a target on their backs. Those poor people are probably still interviewing!

Bingham booted and demoted people with Harvard JDs. No one is safe.

The Recorder article refers to the buy-out amounts as "top dollar".

"No one would say how much severance was offered."

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1181034334372

I want a buyout! $ $ $

My friends,

It is true...Bingham has let us down.

But, a few firms have taken micro-steps, so we wait for Jones Day and Reed Smith to continue to chip away at the evil that is lock step salaries.

Maybe some enlightened firm we don't know yet is going to come and surprise everyone.

I believe firmly that lock step salaries are the cause of all that is wrong with the biglaw world and am going to continue to advocate against lock step salaries.

It seems that at least I'm able to provide some comic relief ;-).

The article is somewhat misleading. The buy-outs were genuinely associate-led. They were not layoffs, although it is true, litigation has been slow in SF.

11:14 is so right. Lockstep just works as a wage ceiling.

12:49
Exactly, why else would the FIRMS be doing it, if not for THEIR advantage?

Hey "Campaign to end lock step":

Jones Day and Reed Smith have abandoned the lock-step scheme.

Is it only a coincidence that both Jones Day and Reed Smith are also the two larger firms that are screwing the asssociates? Jones Day Chicago hasnt raised to the 160k mark and Reed Smith is waiting until 2008.

I propose that the reason they abandoned the lock-step scheme is because they could not afford it.

12:53, you're so right. My firm is a national firm that doesn't pay lockstep and it freely admitted it was because it couldn't afford it, but they made up for it with lower billable requirements. The compression between 1st and 7th years is sickening - sometimes only a 5K raise per year, barely able to catch up with inflation. Also, because we aren't on lockstep and our managing partner plays favorites, I knew of associates in the same class who were making different amounts - horrible for morale.

Big firms are all politics. If you get rid of lockstep, politics will take over, and morale will die. That is why bonuses are generally only based on hours, with a small kicker for "merit", which translates to "favorities."

remember, many of these firms with lockstep bonuses and associate salaries also have partnership draws that are tantamount to lockstep with little variation. In those cases, the firms are being consistent with salary across the board for partners and associates.

We need more discussion of clerkship bonuses. No one has paid attention to me in quite a while, and I'm feeling neglected. PAY ATTENTION TO ME!

12:46 is right. These were initiated by associates who wanted off the SS Bingham. Litigation has been slow there for a while.

1:05 is dead on. When you have no idea how much any of your peers makes, you have absolutely no bargaining power. Lockstep allows you to point to market and say, "we want that." You can do that as an individual, sure, but good luck. And more importantly, if you're doing that as an individual, then you're no further ahead than if you were lockstep anyway.
Information is power, and lockstep gives you information. Then differentiate yourself by bonus.

Does anyone know what the buyout amount was? Was it the same for all associates?

It was about four months' salary.

it wasn't the same for all associates.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the buyouts at Bingham SF were completely associate driven. They wanted the hell out of that damn firm.

Also, the "reclassified" associates stuck around just to work on one particular pro bono case - because they wanted to, not because they were downgraded.

What is this "unique culture" of which Bingham speaks?

Bingham SF has been taken over by the evil hands of those in the Boston office. Just wait, so many more people are going to be jumping ship this summer. Why would anyone work there instead of another reputable firm that doesn't have all this east coast baggage.

If the bought-out associates wanted to leave, why didn't they lateral. Now, they have a huge black mark on their resumes, some of which were previously very distinguished.

Why buy-outs? Aren't they at-will employees?

2:21, of course. But the buyouts allowed the firm to downsize without having to fire anyone.

Are we trained attorneys really so weak that we need lock step salaries to get what we are worth? Oh...and we don't even set what we are worth, we let the firms tell us. How pathetic.

Even accountants with only a B.A. seem to be able to negotiate their own salaries. If you can't even negotiate a fair wage for yourself, why should you be able to negotiate more important things, like your client's matters?

I think it is clear that those in favor of lock step salaries are afraid they will get less without. They probably would. Maybe it is these skill-less associates, who are too weak to even negotiate their own salary, who GC's mind paying $330/h for. Heck, I wouldn't pay such weaklings that amount either.

Those of us against lock step know that we would get more...or we would go somewhere else. We would get more, by negotiating based on our own skills and the firm's needs. (That more, btw, does not have to be money, it could also be a combination of fewer hours/less money.)

Bottom line...lock step salaries must go!

They were not buyouts by definition because they were not initiated by the firm. The associates approached the firm to propose a deal because they wanted to leave. The higher-ups approved the deal because the office was slow, and then they were not happy with folks who got the deal. They were hoping to get out people they wanted out but got people who they wanted to stay accepting the deal.

2:24, so essentially, the firm gave the deals just so they wouldn't be known as the firm that lays off associates?

2:21, what happened is essentially what 2:25 said. The office was slow and the partners were trying to decide what to do about it -- ideally without having to lay off associates. Specific associates then suggested that the firm consider paying people to leave, and the partners thought that sounded like a good way to get the result they wanted.

The partners kind of got what they wanted but got burned because of the people who left. They were very surprised about the 6 people who decided to leave. That's what happens when you have your heads in your, excuse my French, asses thinking everything is great when it isn't.

"Specific associates then suggested that the firm consider paying people to leave, and the partners thought that sounded like a good way to get the result they wanted. "

I call BULLSHIT.

Sorry, 2:53. I was right here when it happened.

So let me get this straight: The associates (presumably through an associate's committee) presented a buyout option to the firm to "cut fat" while save face? And then the firm made a blunderbuss offer to all lit associates (as opposed to targeting specific associates they wanted out) and were surprised by those that took the option?

Another example of law firms not realizing that treating us like fungible billing units can (and sometimes does) bite them square in the ass.

Fucking partners.

2:24: since you were there, what did the partners say? He have to lay people off, what should we do?

yo 2:24: how long before they lay you off?

1:01 - do you work at Loeb? Sure sounds like it.

Guess what naysayers, life is complicated. So is business. What happened isn't a great sign for Bingham, but it did go down the way 2:24 said it did.

2:53 (and those like you), you're the one who's wrong. Sorry. But that doesn't change the fact that the office was slow for a long time, and there was general concern about overstaffing. Which is cause for concern. The hope is that the Altschuler merger, among other things, will make a big difference in the amount of work.

2:17, they didn't lateral because big firm life isn't what they want. The buyout gave them several months to think about what they actually want to do with their lives, rather than merely following the momentum created by on-campus interviews.

3:40: So making a lateral move to another attorney position is "merely following the momentum created by on-campus interviews"?

This coming from a person who defending his/her law firm? You are the sheep. Baaaaaaaa!

3:40: So making a lateral move to another attorney position is "merely following the momentum created by on-campus interviews"?

This coming from a person who defending his/her law firm for basically downsizing? You are the sheep. Baaaaaaaa!

What happened to all the associates who complain about working long hours? Where have you gone?

Sounds like being able to work part-time at a big law firm is a promotion. I am not sure if the part-time contract attorneys are paid on a salary basis or hourly, but have you people heard of overtime? Plus, imagine being able to work/bill (depends on the structure of their deal) 1000 - 1500 hours per year. What would you do with yourself. Maybe get a hobby or something so that you wouldn't have to lie on your match.com profile anymore about what an interesting person you are?

Anyway, whether buy-out or part-time, both sound like a good option for people who want out ...

I agree with 4:50. I bet a lot of us would jump at the opportunity presented by Bingham. The associates who took the deal appear to be smart people who have figured out that there is much more to life than working at a huge law firm. Bravo to them!

3:20 -- I never heard a partner explicitly say that they needed to lay people off. They said that they were looking at creative ways to deal with workflow issues. Make of that what you will...

3:21 -- soon, no doubt. I'm not defending what Bingham did here and I don't doubt that they *would* have fired people. I just think it sucks that the article implies that these associates were fired, when they weren't.

Why didn't Bingham hire less summers last year? How serious are these workflow issues?

Reiterating what 2:24 said: I have it from a solid source that the three people who appear to have been "demoted" to contract status were NOT demoted. They were people who took the firm's "buyout offer" but who the firm did NOT want to have leave. Once the offer was made and accepted, it could not be rescinded. Bingham wanted these people to at least continue working on matters they were already heavily involved in, and so offered to have them keep keep working on a "contract basis" for the time being.

This whole thing appears to be well intentioned, but a major SNAFU. It has unnecessarily tarnished the reputations of not only Bingham's SF office, but of the associates who are leaving and whose names were published.

I find the timing of the "irrelevant" postings on ATL conveniently distracting.

Seems the "carwash, sex, asian, etc." comments started after this site received attention in the more mainstream publications, thus helping associates be heard.

Reminds me of the same technique used by the executive branch.

5:43 is kind of correct. The people who are now contract attorneys stayed on to work on one specific pro bono matter that the firm is not currently restaffing. They requested to continue working on this case (not vice versa) and the firm agreed. They were not demoted. None of the attorneys listed in the article were laid-off or demoted. The three attorneys who are now contract attorneys did not stay because the firm wanted them (and not the others). They stayed because they wanted to work on their habeas case and it's arguably cheaper to pay some contract attorneys to do pro bono than to have your regular associates do it.