Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: Locke ‘n Loaded
Here is an update / correction to last week’s post about associate compensation at Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell. From Tex Parte Blog (via Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog):
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell wants to make it clear that the firm has a single associate pay system, says Jerry Clements [pictured], chairwoman of the 721-lawyer firm that formed with the October 2007 merger of Texas’ Locke Liddell & Sapp and Chicago-based Lord, Bissell & Brook. Clements says she did send a 2008 compensation memo to former Locke Liddell associates on Feb. 5, but she also had sent one in late December 2007 to former Lord, Bissell associates.“There is clearly one structure that applies to everybody,” she says, noting that the firm’s management is in the process of integrating the two associate compensation systems. “The thought that folks would think that we would have two different compensation structures within one firm would be a little bit amazing to me,” says Clements, a partner in Austin.
Clements says the firm sent two memos because Lord, Bissell associates were accustomed to receiving a salary memo in December, and Locke Liddell associates usually received one by early February. Clements says the February memo addressed to “Legacy LLS associates” was more detailed, however, because management had settled on a new deferred-compensation component by then. “What’s causing the blog upset is that the Lord memo did not include the deferred compensation piece because we had not decided on it yet,” says Clements, referring to a Feb. 12 posting on the Above the Law blog. Since Feb. 5, management has been tweaking the associate compensation system, Clements says. The firm sent an updated compensation memo to all 285 associates on Feb. 14, spokeswoman Julie Gilbert says. She declines to provide a copy, saying it’s confidential.
If you have a copy, send it our way, and we’ll post it. Thanks.
Locke Lord clarifies it is indeed a big tent [Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog]
One for all [Tex Parte Blog]
(15) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
NYC to One(90k) for all!
8 incredibly well liked and respected young partners bailed out of the Chicago office yesterday for DLA. As for the memos, why do firms forget all of the basic things like keeping associates happy when they merge? Add it all up with the failure to create a working website and it suggests an absence of effective management.
11:53, where did they go?
ditto on the crappy website, 11:53. how long have they known about this merger? how long has it been since they merged? their website looks like they entrusted it to a bunch of fifth graders using "HTML for dummies"
i hope that their work product is slightly better.
12:02 - As I said, they went to DLA.
11:53-I wouldn't call all of those partners "young"-unless, of course, you consider mid to late 50's to be young. I do agree, however, that they were well liked and respected. 12:02-I understand that 7 went to DLA and one went in-house.
Come on Lock associates, give up the memo!
"the 721-lawyer firm" minus "all 285 associates" = 436 partners? Really? A 2 to 1 Parnter to Associate ratio?
No dumb ass 285 Lord attorneys, the remainder were Locke Liddell attorneys. Add that together and you get 721. Please tell me you are not a lawyer. Surely you can't be working in NYC.
the dumb ass must be the reporter, as 1:11's description of what the article says is accurate
Two of the partners that left were in their sixties - near retirement. None of them were especially young.
11:53 - two of the "young" attorneys who left were approximately 64 and 66.
Four of the partners were under 45. All eight had substantial books. Three were practice group leaders (antitrust, bankruptcy and litigation). Two other partners (who also had books) departed last week bringing the total to ten in less than a week. Moral is low in Chicago and continues to sink lower. Many more top attorneys plan to depart in the coming weeks. Management held a meeting with Chicago associates yesterday but made the situation worse by refusing to address the reality of the situation and not addressing the lingering questions of work flow, associate compensation and moral.
John Galt needs to get his facts straight. What constitutes a substantial book? Was it business that they developed themselves? Or were most of them just service partners? Methinks that Galt is a very junior associate who doesn't know as much as he represents he does. He needs to either get his resume together and get out or get back to work. Either way he should stop whining.
Methinks that 10:33 is a worried partner watching the firm fall apart.