We’ve devoted a lot of coverage to the few firms that are moving away from a lockstep compensation system. One consistent theme has been that the move away from lockstep appears to be an attempt to reduce overall associate compensation.

Not so at Bingham McCutchen. The firm just released its new compensation plan. Calling it a hybrid approach, Bingham is keeping lockstep compensation for base compensation but make bonuses heavily merit based. Our sources tell us that while nothing has yet been finalized, the firm’s intention is to hold the line on base compensation.

“Merit Lockstep” Base Salary Structure

After significant review, we have decided to modify our current associate base compensation lockstep structure slightly, moving to what we are calling a “merit lockstep” approach. We intend to retain a salary class level system. All salary class levels will remain subject, as always, to future market changes as well as our own internal determinations.

I’ve been critical of firms that announce they are moving to a merit-based system, without actually explaining what merit-based means. But at Bingham the firm seems to have a concrete plan for its new merit bonuses.

Details and a reader poll after the jump.

Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks. Law Shucks has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

For a while there it would look like the first consecutive weeks without layoffs since this time last year (by our reckoning, you have to go back to the weeks ending October 9 and October 2, 2008). Alas, one firm did come through with staff layoffs, about which more after the jump.

As usual, we begin with the US macroeconomic picture, and as usual, it ain’t pretty. For the week, the S&P 500 was down about 2%. That was the second straight week of losses, and the DJIA had its biggest weekly decline in three months. 263,000 net jobs were lost in September and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, despite perhaps the technical end of the recession. As with the stock market, bad results are one thing, but results worse than expectations are another, and that was the case here. Consensus estimates were net losses of 175,000, so the actual results were way short. August’s revised numbers were slightly better than original reports, though.

The poor results are creating pessimism around when things will start to turn around:

[T]he report also buttressed fears that economic expansion would be weak and hesitant, with scarce paychecks and economic anxiety remaining prominent features of American life well into next year.

“This is a weak report,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “The rate of job loss has tapered off, but we still haven’t reached the point where businesses are willing to hire.”

Could this create political difficulties for the president?

Are billing disputes between law firms and their clients on the rise in the recession? We feel like we’ve seen a lot of them lately.

The most recent disagreement involves Bingham McCutchen. A Boston-area investment company, Tuckerbrook Alternative Investments, has sued Bingham, claiming it was overcharged for legal services provided in connection with preparing an SEC registration statement.

The case isn’t that exciting — it seems like a garden-variety fee dispute — but this aspect struck us as interesting. From Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (subscription):

The Sept. 16 complaint accuses Bingham of stacking the case with young associates who had “inadequate” experience. “The billing statements reflect that these junior lawyers in essence were enjoying the benefits of on-the-job-training at Tuckerbrook’s expense,” the complaint states.

So the allegation is that young lawyers were being trained on the client’s dime. But is that an indictment of Bingham McCutchen, or of the billable hour?

Grumpy in-house lawyers regularly complain about paying for the training of Biglaw’s junior associates. This is why some corporate counsel explicitly refuse to pay for first- and second-year associates (and provide for that in their retainer agreements; presumably Tuckerbrook could have done that here).

More news about Bingham, including its summer associate offer rate and its real estate needs in New York, after the jump.

I’m sure you all remember the Stepford Secretary. She is the secretary that praised lawyers at her firm for their CHARACTER. She was fired, and then she lawyered up.

But the President’s speech on health care last night inspired her. Well, at least it inspired her to email Above the Law:

In his speech tonight the President made reference to the “character of our Country.” I chuckled and said “Watch it, Mr. President, using the word character got me fired.”

Tonight after sitting and watching the President’s address I thought it would be time to give you an update.

I went to [my firm] asking graciously for six months severance (approximately two weeks salary for each of my ten years there). The firm’s decision to terminate me for an attempt (albeit, poor judgment) at giving certain props to colleagues was not persecution enough. They denied my request (shocking) and offered a twisted view of both me and the reasons for my termination. Sadly, there is no hope of taking these well educated, uncouth individuals to Court. I just do not have the bank roll or emotional tolerance for the extended crap they will surely put me through. I know that my original statement came from a place of despair. For now, there is just a file containing numerous accounts of misconduct on the part of the company, and the facade continues.

Stepford

You lie!

Seriously though, emotional bankroll is something that a lot of people are losing during the recession.

Earlier: Stepford Secretary Responds to Above the Law
Stepford Secretary Lawyers Up
Bingham McCutchen’s ‘Stepford Secretary’ Has Left The Building

We’re now into the back half of the brand new Vault law firm rankings. Just like last year, we worry about a proliferation of “TTT” accusations in the comment threads. But such terms of art can miss the positives of many of the firms in this section of the Vault rankings. Here’s the list:

51. Fulbright & Jaworski
52. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
53. Morgan Lewis & Bockius
54. McDermott Will & Emery
55. Alston & Bird
56. Bingham McCutchen
57. Fish & Richardson
58. Dechert
59. Greenberg Traurig
60. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft

We have already extensively talked about the Morgan Lewis situation. Let’s move on to other firms after the jump.

We already mentioned the Erin Andrews situation this morning. The ESPN anchor was spied on through a peephole at a hotel. Andrews is considering her actions, and she has retained counsel. Bingham McCutchen will be taking on this high-profile case.

Here is the statement from Bingham’s Marshall B. Grossman:

While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similarly violated in the future. Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material. We request respect of Erin’s privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities.

One of these days, the people who snap this kind of footage and the publishers who make it available are going to get smacked down, hard.

We like to highlight examples of Biglaw associates who get to do especially interesting or high-profile work. E.g., Lindsay Harrison, the Jenner & Block associate who argued a case — and won — before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most lawyers tuned in to Congress yesterday were listening to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings (even if day 4 was less than thrilling). But over on the House side, one young lawyer was talking rather than listening. Jason Pinney (pictured), a (rather handsome) sixth-year associate at Bingham McCutchen, got to testify before lawmakers.

Pinney addressed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight. He spoke about his work as part of a Bingham legal team representing a group of Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Bingham lawyers obtained the release of two Uighurs in 2006 and four more Uighurs last month.

(As explained by the AP, “[t]he Uighurs, a Turkic minority from China’s far west, were sent to the U.S. facility in Cuba after their capture in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001. The Pentagon determined last year that they were not enemy combatants.” Oops!)

Congrats to the Bingham lawyers on their successful representation of their clients — and to Pinney on his congressional testimony. To download a copy of the testimony, click here.

Today in Congress: July 16, 2009 [Washington Post]
Lawmakers want investigation into Uighurs at Gitmo [AP]
Jason S. Pinney [Bingham McCutchen]
Pinney Testimony [PDF]

Bingham McCutchen has found a way to expand during the recession. Just weeks after losing 11 lawyers (5 partners and 6 associates) to Morgan Lewis, Bingham McCutchen has acquired McKee Nelson. The American Lawyer reports:

After enduring a rough few years caused by the collapse of the structured finance market, the elite specialty firm of McKee Nelson has agreed to be acquired by the larger Bingham McCutchen.

Partners at both firms were informed Monday morning of the merger, which is scheduled to take effect August 1. The combined firm will be called Bingham McCutchen, and will include all of McKee Nelson’s lawyers.

No word on whether the McKee attorneys have the CHARACTER to become Bingham attorneys. But the merger looks good on paper:

McKee Nelson, which is known as one of the pre-eminent firms for tax planning and tax litigation, was viewed by Bingham as an attractive addition. “It’s really rare to find a firm that is this size that has three market-leading practices,” says Bingham chairman Jay Zimmerman, referring to McKee’s expertise in tax, financial institution litigation, and capital markets-structured finance. Structured finance might be moribund now, but Zimmerman sees it as an area worth investing in. “It will be part of our longterm strategy for serving the financial institution industry.”

How does this work on the McKee side of the ledger? We check in after the jump.

The Moor is back — and we’re not talking Othello. From Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly:

Three months after the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed her complaint, a former Bingham McCutchen associate has fired back with a gender-discrimination suit against the Boston firm she left in 2008.

In a highly charged complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court on June 23, Michelle A. Moor, who now works at Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, alleges that she was involuntarily drugged with a “roofie” during a Dec. 14, 2007, firm-sponsored holiday party….

In a written statement, Bingham’s senior communications manager, Claire Papanastasiou, said the firm acted sensitively, responsibly and fairly at all times.

“We are disappointed that [Moor] persists in pursuing baseless claims against the firm, particularly in light of the [MCAD’s] April 9 dismissal of her complaint for lack of probable cause,” she wrote.

Will Moor v. Bingham McCutchen LLP provide endless entertainment, a la Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell? Or will it fizzle out fast, a la Young v. Covington & Burling? Stay tuned.

Former Bingham associate files Superior Court suit against firm [Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly]
Moor v. Bingham McCutchen LLP [PDF]

Earlier: Roofiegate Resolved: Bingham Prevails, Complaint Dismissed

Wait, there are people out there who want banking lawyers? Really? This is excellent news!

Morgan Lewis & Bockius announced today that it has acquired eleven people: five partners and six associates, from Bingham McCutchen’s Boston office. But the real shocker is that all of the lawyers are from Bingham’s Banking and Leveraged Finance Group:

Morgan Lewis today announced the addition of five partners and six associates from Bingham McCutchen’s Banking and Leveraged Finance Group—including a former co-chair of the practice—to its Business and Finance Practice, resident in the firm’s Boston office. Partners Robert A.J. Barry, Jonathan K. Bernstein, Sula R. Fiszman, Matthew F. Furlong, and Sandra J. Vrejan, will focus their practice on corporate finance, as well as restructuring. Their experience across a broad range of industries—including retail, manufacturing, food and beverage, energy, media, communications and sports—add to the depth of knowledge Morgan Lewis offers clients as they face today’s rapidly changing economic conditions. In addition, their arrival significantly increases the firm’s presence in Boston.

Isn’t it great to live in a world where law firms need corporate finance lawyers?

“Particularly in light of the difficult credit markets faced by both our lender and borrower clients, there is an ever-increasing need for us to be able to provide additional top-flight financing expertise across a multitude of industries” said Firm Chair Francis M. Milone. “This expansion reflects our continued commitment to providing clients with the kind of counsel they need to execute credit transactions in any business environment.”

It seems right to focus on “any” business environment, considering that the politicians seem to be making it up as they go along.

A statement from Bingham and the the Morgan Lewis press release after the jump.

The Bingham McCutchen “Stepford Secretary” has decided to speak out about her termination from Bingham and her decision to hire a lawyer.

In an email she sent to Above the Law, the Stepford Secretary describes her firm wide CHARACTER email as “totally harmless.” She also describes the way in which she was fired from Bingham:

I panicked prior to my termination. Bingham disconnected my computer, took my identification and escorted me out of the building.

She also explains why she hired a lawyer:

Why a possible lawsuit? Bingham terminated me for violation of policy. There is no written policy regarding NOT being able to send mass internal emails. It says to use discretion. I’m sure that policy has been or will quickly be updated.

Stepford claims that she always intended her email to be an internal communication with in the firm. She writes that she didn’t even know Above the Law existed before she sent her email.

She does now.

Read her full email after the jump. She has requested that we maintain her anonymity to the general public.

We’ve been following the trials and tribulations of the former Bingham McCutchen “Stepford Secretary” who sent out a mission statement to the firm about CHARACTER. After the email, the secretary was fired by Bingham.

Now, she’s lawyered-up. No complaint has been filed, but we understand that the secretary has hired an attorney and is considering her options.

What possible claims could she have?

We understand that the Stepford Secretary was let go for violating the firm’s email policy, and insubordination. But she had been with the firm for over ten years. According to some of our sources, the Stepford secretary doesn’t see her email as “insubordinate,” because the email didn’t disparage the firm. As one tipster puts it:

Bingham never bothered to ask why she sent the email or what provoked the cry for help.

Spokespeople for Bingham McCutchen declined to comment about Stepford Secretary.

But we’ll ask the question: Why did she send the email and what provoked the cry for help?

We’ve been trying to get in touch with the Stepford secretary to hear her side of the melodrama. In case you are wondering, the best way to reach us is at tips@abovethelaw.com.

Earlier: Bingham McCutchen Staffer Doesn’t Want to be a ‘Stepford’ Secretary
Bingham McCutchen’s ‘Stepford Secretary’ Has Left The Building

A couple of days ago, we brought you the story of a Bingham McCutchen secretary who believed that her firm had great “CHARACTER,” despite these tough economic times. She closed her remarks with this:

So, although I am grateful for my job and middle class life, I realize that living daily in fear and conforming to play a Stepford role will not ensure either. Besides, I value and respect too many of the people at Bingham. I’ll stick with good old CHARACTER.

As we — and many others — anticipated, that secretary is no longer employed at Bingham.

The firm would not comment about its internal decision, but multiple sources independently tell us that she has been let go. As we understand it, she was fired on Wednesday.

One of our commenters had this insightful response to the Stepford Secretary’s situation:

I think this and eekboy’s “rant” is a reflection of our times. Everyone thinks their opinion is important and should be heard. While I don’t doubt this secretary has a beef on her mind, I believe she and eekboy have no concept of boundaries. This is part of the facebook/twitter/blog phenomenon where everyone thinks they can say WHATEVER they want, WHENEVER they want, WHEREVER they want.

She should’ve sent that to close friends and peer colleagues. Sending it to the entire firm is just selfish and egotistical.

But it could be that the secretary had more to say.

Details after the jump.

Don’t call it a memo, call it a mission statement.

This afternoon, just before lunch, a secretary in the New York office of Bingham McCutchen decided to express her feelings about the recession to her law firm colleagues. All of them. All Bingham partners, counsel, associates, and staff, in every office, received this message to ponder over lunch:

Character

In recent times we read and talk primarily of those who have lost their jobs. Those of us that remain employed, specifically for this content, in the field of “Corporate America”, are clinging so tightly to the stability and familiarity of ones’ employment that we are losing, in my opinion, an already underrated quality, CHARACTER (for some that may be assuming that they had any in the first place, and likely they are clueless to who they are).

Many years have passed now since I joined the legal profession. I can remember meeting a first year associate, and sinking into my chair when I realized I was older than my assignment. I have been truly fortunate during my many years. I have worked with ground-breaking woman and bright young associates who eventually became partner. I have experienced co-workers get married, have babies, even cried with them over loss of dear friends (R.I.P. Howie, Mike and sadly several others).

As I look around lately, I see nail biting and unshowered attorneys (more driven than ever), which is another great concern - the lack of recognition for the importance of Quality of Life. But that’s another story). In conversation with colleagues I hear in whispers “well, we have our jobs”. Some of these people, now unrecognizable to me, I have known for countless years. It is as if their zest is gone, overshadowed by their fears, desperate to justify their worth to the company. These were some of the brightest and most innovative people I have ever professionally known.

Good. Good. Keep typing. I am unarmed. Keep writing this email and take the Quinn Emanuel associate’s place by my side.

Crack open a beer and watch the train wreck continue after the jump.

Yesterday, the Exquisite Rap Duo dropped a new album. What’s especially exquisite about the album is that it’s the work of Anthony McNamer, an IP attorney in Portland, Oregon.

McNamer is a ‘95 Stanford Law grad who has worked for Bingham McCutchen and for Davis Wright Tremaine, clerked in American Samoa, and founded his own small three-person firm, McNamer and Company, five years ago. The firm does IP work and media, entertainment, and sports law.

“I’m probably the biggest music lawyer in Portland… but that’s not saying much,” McNamer told us. He is also on the short list for most extreme athletes looking for a lawyer, he said, representing them when sponsorship deals go awry or in “right of publicity” cases.

McNamer sent us an e-mail last week to let us know about his “rap group” and debut album:

You don’t hear about many big firm lawyer to rap group transitions. Word.

Apparently, McNamer is unaware of his East Coast rival, Mekka Don, who went from being a Weil first year to being a self-proclaimed savior of hip hop. Word.

We surfed over to his website and listened to some of the songs. As for our favorite, we’re torn between the one about not being able to look tough on a BMX bike and “Best Friends with a Gay Dude” about his college best friend coming out after graduation, which McNamer informed us is 100% autobiographical. The latter includes samples from Cher’s “Believe.” If you haven’t guessed yet, McNamer’s rap has a funny side. But he doesn’t consider his work to be pure novelty. “I don’t want to be Weird Al,” said McNamer.

We also watched the music video for Calculator Watch; the humorous approach reminded us strongly of Law Revue videos. We followed that hunch and discovered during our interview that McNamer was once a lead writer for Stanford’s version of Law Revue. None of the songs on Nine Mile (We Go The Extra Mile) employ legal humor, though. “I know from doing [Stanford’s Law School Musical] that law stuff isn’t very funny,” said McNamer.

We spoke to McNamer yesterday about his music, founding his own law firm, and how his legal career will help boost his musical stylings. Check out his video and the beauty of having your own firm in Portland — HINT: his target for weekly billables is 15 hours — after the jump.

There are still firms that are just now announcing start dates, even though we’re nearing the end of April.

Kilpatrick Stockton has the most interesting news. Yesterday, incoming first years were informed that they would not be able to start until April 2010. It’s a mandatory deferral. Above the Law received this statement from co-managing partner Diane Prucino:

Kilpatrick Stockton announced today that it will delay the start date of the firm’s Fall 2009 entry associates class. Entry associates are scheduled to join the firm in April 2010. Firm departments will have flexibility to have their entry associates join their teams earlier, depending on work levels. All entry associates will be offered a two-month salary advance.

Though the firm remains strong in this challenging and volatile business environment and had a solid financial year in 2008, this difficult decision is structured to further improve the long-term success of the firm and to enhance the achievement of our strategic goals through more efficient use of personnel and realignment of our expense structure. We, like other leading law firms, believe these measures are necessary to adapt to changes in the economy and to the demand for certain legal services. There is an intense commitment to enhancing the firm’s first-rate, innovative and cost-effective client service. With these goals in mind, Kilpatrick Stockton is dedicated to continuing to identify strategic growth opportunities to expand our world-class firm and improve our competitive position in the marketplace.

Kilpatrick’s deferral stipend isn’t very competitive compared to what other firms are offering for shorter deferment periods. As we understand it, Kilpatrick is only offering $17,000 to its incoming first years. It’s not even a deferral “stipend,” it is a deferral advance. Associates will have to pay the money back once they start at the firm.

Hopefully Kilpatrick Stockton won’t cut salaries over the next year on its incoming first years who suddenly have more debt.

News from Andrews Kurth, Bingham McCutchen, and Dechert after the jump.

As we’ve previously noted, when it comes to disputes between lawyers and their former firms, there are several sides to every story. For example, compare Yolanda Young’s claims against Covington & Burling with the firm’s response (PDF).

We try to cover both sides of these controversies. Having previously covered Roofiegate — aka Moor v. Bingham McCutchen, a complaint filed by ex-associate Michelle Moor against the firm, alleging that she was slipped a date rape drug at the firm’s holiday party — we now bring you this update.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has dismissed Michelle Moor’s complaint:

Based upon the Commission’s investigation, the Commission is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a violation of the statutes. This does not certify that the Respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this complaint.

Details, plus a link to the Commission’s ruling, after the jump.

Everybody has written a cover letter. The vast majority of people write the same cover letter, because there aren’t more than a couple of ways of doing it right. They’re boring to write, they’re excruciatingly boring to read, and really the only point is to prove that the person writing the letter is basically sane.

But, what if you are not sane? Maybe you started off sane, but the terrible job market has driven you to madness? What if you are at the point where you “just don’t give a f***?” What does that cover letter look like?

A few days ago, I received this email:

Frustrated by my failing job search, I decided to write a more unorthodox cover letter….

I sent it to Bingham McCutchen. I chose Bingham because they emphasize the importance of maintaining a sense of humor in the workplace. I emailed it to them and received a rejection letter in the mail within three days. It was one of my fastest rejections ever.

Well, I’ve read the cover letter, and I think that Bingham made a mistake. There is a true talent here and (if properly medicated) this person would have made an excellent addition to the firm.

Read the cover letter after the jump.

The layoff news keeps rolling in. The latest is from Bingham McCutchen. Unlike some of the recent cuts we’ve seen, the firm did not lay off a massive number of associates. That will be small consolation for the people let go today.

We’ve received word that Bingham is laying off 39 people today: 16 lawyers and 23 staffers. A tipster provided us with the firm wide email that just went out to all employees:

I want all of you to know that today we have conducted a reduction in force affecting 16 Corporate associates, counsel and of counsel (of our 1002 total lawyers) and 23 staff members (of our 1091 total staff members).

Bingham had already instituted a salary freeze for 2009, but apparently the cost savings from that move was not enough.

At the end of January, Bingham was ranked as the “best” paying law firm (among the top 100 companies that were rates “best places to work”) by Fortune.

Is any firm realistically going to escape the layoff bug?

Read the full memo after the jump.

Last week, Fortune released its annual list of the 100 best places to work. Shockingly, a number of law firms made the list.

Now Fortune wants to tell us about the 25 Best Paying Companies (from among the top 100 companies to work for), and once again I have no earthly clue what they are talking about.

Let’s start right at the top. The number one, best paying company that is also nice to work for, in the entire United States of America is … Bingham McCutchen. According to Fortune:

For the second year in a row, this law firm is the top-paying Best Company to Work For. Lawyers fresh out of school get starting salaries of $160,000 a year, topped off with fat bonuses.

Umm … okay. I mean, I think Skadden’s definition of “fat” is a little different than Fortune’s, but whatever.

More from Fortune after the jump.