Dead Pool - Law firms

Cravath's announced bonuses are a lot lower than the pre-bust bonuses. they range from $7.5K to $30K. bonuses at the end of 2007 were 45K to 110K. but still any bonus is better than no bonus.

fuzzyjza, i agree. but they're about the same as last year's, except at the lower levels. and that $7500 is for the class of '08 i believe i read, which is pretty bad.

Boy did that turn out to be a mistake. They have a lot of leverage: it's almost worth making noises about going under to renegotiate the lease, but who knows how many clients they would lose in the process.

Didn't I mention the Cravath lease at the last meet and greet thing? Yeah, they can always renegotiate.

7500 is BAD, they must be trying get people to leave

Re bonuses - only bad compared to what they used to be. Associates are still compensated pretty well (perhaps not well enough for the amt of stress/work, but...). If Cravath wants someone to leave, they aren't going to give them a $7500 bonus ;)

i don't know, 10023, but they can try, and if you mentioned it i was rudely not attending. there are some freakish deals getting done.

30yrs, can you imagine, though? trying to present that notion to the partnership, or the firm's executive committee? i'd pay to be present.

uwsmom, bonuses were higher 10 years ago, but salaries of course were not. i agree it won't be much of a factor in movement. doubt anyone (except Wachtell, maybe) will top it, and there's very little mobility for junior associates. it may encourage a few associates to find cheaper rentals, though.

I can't believe no one took lovells. dibs on that

aboutready
about 3 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse i don't know, 10023, but they can try, and if you mentioned it i was rudely not attending. there are some freakish deals getting done.

30yrs, can you imagine, though? trying to present that notion to the partnership, or the firm's executive committee? i'd pay to be present.
-
Wait, YOU would pay to be present? You mean with your husband's money who is managing partner of another firm, you would use his money to sit in on a competitive firm's executive committee to hear about their business?

Toilet lady, why don't you get a job?

no response from aboutready who has never found a law related thread she didn't pontificate about?

and don't be too impressed by all that managing partner stuff. she throws it around like he's a big swinging dick but he's a pretty junior partner in a big firm. the job is probably much more administratrive partner than managing if you think managing menas being everyones boss including much more senior partners. they probably give the managing partner title to a solid young partner who everyone likes and who has future in the firm. then he can do all the admin BS as "managing partner" of the office that the more seniro guys don't want to be bothered with

why don't you bring snotty into the discussion as well. then the three of you can talk to yourself. odd.

rumors are swirling about massive firings this coming month at my firm and a bunch of others. What a great time to be a lawyer :)

sorry to hear that...hope it all works out for you. if its any consolation, its not just lawyers.

How could that possibly be a consolation? Only by some "misery loves company theory". You'd know that theory well, right?

my sister in-law is a state attorney and was just laid off last week. cc is right though, it's not just lawyers. times are rocky.

So Above the Law has a law firm dead pool going. Only about 2 years after 30yrs started this one, but whatever.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/06/inside-straight-dewey-know-whos-next/
I’ve watched Dewey’s collapse only from a distance, as have most lawyers. And I’m no student of law firm finances or management. But this struck me as I read the news:

Dewey: 2012.
Howrey: 2011.
Thelen: 2009.
Heller: 2008.
Coudert: 2006.
Brobeck: 2003.

And I’m probably overlooking other recent collapses of prominent firms, since I cobbled together that list from the names that came to mind unprompted.

This history suggests that another large, well-respected firm will collapse next year, and it’s a near certainty that a firm will collapse within the next two years. Who will it be?

...

Well, those willing to make predictions 2 yrs ago were...how shall i say it...totally wrong.

Big firms have always come and gone.

There're more than 21,000 Manhattan lawyers with the top 100 firms, plus hundreds more with US/NYS/NYC government.

Of the 476 at Dewey, those worth picking up will get picked up. It's just a blip in the annual movement.

"Well, those willing to make predictions 2 yrs ago were...how shall i say it...totally wrong."

Huh? Sidelinesitter had Dewey on his short list.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/04/dewey-bankruptcy-docket-report-next-up-stephen-dicarmine/
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/dewey-have-underfunded-pension-plans-feds-say-yes-stepping-in-to-pay-the-shortfall/2/

"The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation will take responsibility for three pension plans that cover nearly 1,800 people sponsored by Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, a law firm based in New York City. ... PBGC will pay guaranteed benefits up to about $56,000 a year for a 65-year-old retiree."

Wondering, are those pensions taxable? Does the $56k limit represents a big cut for most retirees? Cause maybe they weren't getting close to $56k anyway. The biggest cut might be that it's not inflation-adjusted and health care benefits are gone.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204571404577258082978298056.html

At some of the country's top firms, younger lawyers will foot the bill for deluxe pension plans that could drag down their own earnings for years to come.

These pensions are largely unfunded: there is no money saved to pay retirees. Instead, most law firms with such plans pay the benefits as they go, using a portion of their current profits.

Partners at some elite firms are often entitled to between 20% to 30% of their peak pay after retirement—in many cases, for life, according to partners and law firm consultants. For the most profitable firms, that could mean payments of $400,000 to $600,000 a year per retired lawyer.

For instance, some blamed the 2009 collapse of the Philadelphia firm Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP—which followed a failed merger attempt in 2008—in part on its leadership's refusal to scale back their unfunded pension plan.

At Gibson Dunn, partners who serve there for 20 years get a retirement benefit at age 60 that pays out 20% of their top compensation. At current profits, that could amount to $500,000 a year for eight years or life—whichever is longer. Surviving spouses would get the remaining benefit should a partner die before the eight years are up.

Top firms with unfunded pensions include Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, according to data compiled by the American Lawyer magazine. Those firms declined to comment.

According to one estimate by law firm consultant Peter Giuliani, the current pension liability at a typical large New York firm with an unfunded plan could amount to $200 million—if the firm had to make the total payout today.

======================================================

Poor young lawyers! They not only have the SS ponzi through wages. Their own company also makes them victims of another pay-as-you go unsustainable system. Meanwhile, they are basically on their own for their retirement as both will be in shambles when they hit 65 themselves. Add to that much more expensive tuition, housing and healthcare than those they are working for (the already retired) had to face. Not cute!

Wouldn't it be optimal for the best of the young to opt for a law firm that doesn't have these liabilities? Like the car companies, the best go to work for Toyota or Honda, not for the big 3 cause the pension burden makes their own jobs unstable. It's not only about the hit to their wages, but higher chances of being fired.

law firms are the least needed job on earth. they don't do any good to the society and people, just keep wasting all possible resource, and harming the world.

go green, get rid off all lawyers!

See the movie Interstate 60.
It's a cute metaphysical comedy that includes Gary Oldman, Christopher Lloyd, and Amy Smart.

There's a section of the movie where the lead character ends up in a town called Morlaw. Every citizen of the town is a lawyer, and every traveler to the town ends up a defendant in one way or another and does every other municipal job the town needs to pay off their legal fees. It's over the top and comedic manner doesn't dilute the glaring undercurrent of the legal world we actually live in.

> See the movie Interstate 60.

i will!!!

it's free for those w/ amazon prime in case anybody is interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Interstate-60-James-Marsden/dp/B0000AOX0J

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-29/big-law-firms-are-in-crisis-retired-lawyer-says
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/howreys-bankruptcy-and-big-law-firms-small-future - Business Week Cover, "What do you call 176,000 lawyers lying at the bottom of the ocean?"

Another fluff piece with little to no substance, no tie in by gd to NYC real estate, no analysis. Great. Meaningful.

aboutready
about 3 years ago
Posts: 15320
Member since: Oct 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
Is it just the most likely, or all of the most likely? If it's the most likely right now I favor White & Case. Then, in no particular order, Latham, DLA Piper, Cadwalader, Orrick, Mayer Brown, Baker & McKenzie, Morgan Lewis, Kirkland & Ellis, Millbank Tweed, Katten Muchen, Clifford Chance US, Sidley & Austin. Etc., etc.

Litigation is, or can be if there's any GD money in the system, countercyclical. The vast majority of large shops tilted heavily corporate over the last ten years. Some firms are doing just fine. The problem is that stink spreads quickly in a large firm. Which is why White & Case tops my list.

aboutready
about 3 years ago
Posts: 15320
Member since: Oct 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
30yrs, i totally forgot shea & gould. couldn't have happened to a more assholic firm. (OK, maybe cadwalader, but that's personal on my part. i interviewed there and i can honestly tell you i've never met nastier people at a large law firm in my life.)

So? I may have been wrong, but at least I engaged in cogent argument. Unlike you.

You WERE wrong. Your cogent arguments didn't amount to anything worthwhile.

You named 13 firms. Did a single one of them go out of business?

greensdale: Anybody who doesn't like her and wants nothing to do with her is: "nasty".

So what? None of us knew at the time what the fed would do. And the pp at a lot of the firms is not stellar. I wouldn't be surprised to see more problems in the future. You're not offering opinions. So you have no right to opine retrospectively on the opinions of others. But keep up the good relationship with "truth," that reflects well upon you.

No truth, you're the only nasty one.

>So what? None of us knew at the time what the fed would do.

That's your excuse?

>I wouldn't be surprised to see more problems in the future.

You've learned ... be more vague, this way you can't be proven so wrong.

as if aboutready isn't "nasty".
Go back years, before I started posting comments on se.
Her comments were beyond "nasty" and continued to get worse.
She's still on streeteasy, trolling for fights.

Her opinions of me including her opinion that I'm "nasty" is unimportant in the real world.
It's not even meaningful on streeteasy.

Go post another "Farewell".

greensdale: She's even envious of: "the good relationship with "truth", that reflects well upon you."

Envious? Delusional.

She's envious of everything about me.
She hates her life and tries to blame her lack of satisfaction on me.
Even her hatred of the weather in NYC ("It sucks.") and the fact that she "Can't wait to fucking leave").
That's her life and her problem -- not mine.

9:20pm EST.

^^^ ^^^

trouche....not as in touche, btw

I'm sorry but the last 6 posts provided no tie to NYC real estate and had no analysis. Not great. Not meaningful.

The weather in NYC was referenced ... that's certainly relevant to NYC real estate.

And she's working with her analyst on it, four days a week, plus two for her psychopharmacologist. How do you say "psychopharmacologist" in Italian?

No, actually "truth" had an irrelevant tie-in to NYC. For some reason she is overly irate that I don't like the weather here and want to retire elsewhere. Why that bothers her so much is a mystery (well, mental illness can wreck havoc on perspective).

Sadly, ah, it's clear she doesn't know.

I like the weather in NYC. I'm free to travel and live elsewhere, so that's what I do.
It's not my problem that aboutready doesn't like it and "can't wait..."
to retire elsewhere."

Being an alkie wrecks havoc on her life and perspective. She can't learn new skills and will never be able to drive a car. He options are limited. She's angry.
Still her problem -- not my problem.
She can depend on alanhart to be here for her -- he also does nothing and goes nowhere, except trolling on streeteast.

wbottom/yikes drops by with another "trouche" comment, which is something that aboutready and alanhart can look forward to.

any new risks in law firm land?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/jpmorgan-reported-third-quarter-loss-on-legal-costs/?_r=0

AR, your husband benefitting from JPM's woes?

You are really too preoccupied with the inconsequential details of my life. Get a grip.

Oh come on aboutready, it's entirely inconsequential. But I still care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html

any update?