Anyone in biglaw get a pay cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I don’t think any summer associates who were slated to start in the Fall will be joining us.

Deferrals like in '09 or just cutting them loose?

[Anonymous]

At my firm, they just notified that they would be instituting a 10% reduction in partners draws and comp, and also starting lay-offs based on performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tough one to predict. I could see how firms with robust employment law practices would be swamped. When the alarm bell rang from clients asking wtf do we do, those are the attorneys who got the call.

Employment isn’t where the big money is made though.

No, but last month's hours were off the charts, so they better have some love for us now.

That’s not how it will work. They have been carrying the rest of the time because at most firms your work can’t command the same rates and yet you are paid, at least as an associate, the same as others in more profitable practice areas.

Not an employment lawyer but you're missing the point that law firms have employment groups for a reason. The clients that we do bet-the-firm litigation or mergers or restructuring for expect us to be able to handle their employment concerns too. It's a matter of client support and loyalty, and cross-selling; it's not the case that management looks at employment as a drag or charity case.

There will be tons and tons of employment/labor lawsuits from this virus situation, including high stakes racial discrimination and related litigation that will potentially pose existential challenges to companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tough one to predict. I could see how firms with robust employment law practices would be swamped. When the alarm bell rang from clients asking wtf do we do, those are the attorneys who got the call.

Employment isn’t where the big money is made though.

No, but last month's hours were off the charts, so they better have some love for us now.

That’s not how it will work. They have been carrying the rest of the time because at most firms your work can’t command the same rates and yet you are paid, at least as an associate, the same as others in more profitable practice areas.

Not an employment lawyer but you're missing the point that law firms have employment groups for a reason. The clients that we do bet-the-firm litigation or mergers or restructuring for expect us to be able to handle their employment concerns too. It's a matter of client support and loyalty, and cross-selling; it's not the case that management looks at employment as a drag or charity case.

Right. The posts on here about bet-the-firm / M & A / transactional attorneys being rock stars and employment law attorneys being low-dollar drains on the firm are laughable and short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

I read on Law 360 that one firm (possibly Hogan) is offering associates that opportunity to cross-train with the bankruptcy teams. I think that's great that they will have the chance to develop some skills in another practice area.

[Anonymous]

https://www.law360.com/articles/1261679/wave-of-biglaw-pay-cuts-furloughs-hits-at-least-10-firms?nl_pk=28d4cc6b-19a8-4a6c-848e-b2b858682db1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=special

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.law360.com/articles/1261679/wave-of-biglaw-pay-cuts-furloughs-hits-at-least-10-firms?nl_pk=28d4cc6b-19a8-4a6c-848e-b2b858682db1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=special

Saw that too. For those without a subscription:

Among the firms that have made announcements that became public Wednesday are Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, DLA Piper, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Nixon Peabody LLP, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ice Miller LLP, Eversheds Sutherland, Linklaters LLP, Lowenstein Sandler LLP and Taylor Wessing LLP.

[Anonymous]

OP here. so far, we are just doing cost reductions (firm identified $17 million in savings here). no pay cuts or layoffs yet, but it sounds like they could happen next month.

[Anonymous]

I think this will permanently change the profession. The scale of the financial disaster is so extreme. Companies are simply not going to tolerate law bloat going forward (unless we reopen the economy which seems unlikely).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm at a mid-sized law firm in Northern CA. We've been having firm-wide meetings (separated into section leaders, COVID Team, partners, staff) via Webex almost once a week.

Things are changing multiple times a day, and we keep changing policy to adjust. Nobody has been laid off, and there have been no pay-cuts. Right now, only our coffee attendants and some of the copy room has been furloughed.

This is gross.

The money is there, pay your staff.

Same poster adding that this will get out and it will cost you clients.

This is truly disgusting. This whole situation is disgusting. Law partners sitting in mansions on zoom waiting for instacart while poor people wait in miles-long lines for food banks. But save the rich grandpa's over all else. Let them eat cake.

I am sure big law partners have a different perspective than yours and believe theirs are right.

It isn't cheap to maintain a mansion.

[Anonymous]

I still remember Milbank's massive cuts, three decades later.

[Anonymous]

My DH was laid off from biglaw in January '09. That same year his firm posted their highest ever PPP.

Whatever the partners do in the short term, I guarantee they will make it up to themselves in the long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tough one to predict. I could see how firms with robust employment law practices would be swamped. When the alarm bell rang from clients asking wtf do we do, those are the attorneys who got the call.

Employment isn’t where the big money is made though.

No, but last month's hours were off the charts, so they better have some love for us now.

That’s not how it will work. They have been carrying the rest of the time because at most firms your work can’t command the same rates and yet you are paid, at least as an associate, the same as others in more profitable practice areas.

Not an employment lawyer but you're missing the point that law firms have employment groups for a reason. The clients that we do bet-the-firm litigation or mergers or restructuring for expect us to be able to handle their employment concerns too. It's a matter of client support and loyalty, and cross-selling; it's not the case that management looks at employment as a drag or charity case.

Right. The posts on here about bet-the-firm / M & A / transactional attorneys being rock stars and employment law attorneys being low-dollar drains on the firm are laughable and short-sighted.

But that is how it works most of the time. Are employment lawyers safer for the moment? Sure. But the poster saying that firms “better have some love” for employment lawyers now is delusional if he thinks employment lawyers will be spared from otherwise across the board compensation cuts. If the cuts are based on hours, which appears not to be how firms are doing it right now, they might avoid it. Otherwise, they will share in the pain. Which is only fair because they shared in the book times, which were more to do with groups like M&A than the employment lawyers, who play a supporting role on deals and can command a lower rate for bread and butter employment work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tough one to predict. I could see how firms with robust employment law practices would be swamped. When the alarm bell rang from clients asking wtf do we do, those are the attorneys who got the call.

Employment isn’t where the big money is made though.

No, but last month's hours were off the charts, so they better have some love for us now.

That’s not how it will work. They have been carrying the rest of the time because at most firms your work can’t command the same rates and yet you are paid, at least as an associate, the same as others in more profitable practice areas.

Not an employment lawyer but you're missing the point that law firms have employment groups for a reason. The clients that we do bet-the-firm litigation or mergers or restructuring for expect us to be able to handle their employment concerns too. It's a matter of client support and loyalty, and cross-selling; it's not the case that management looks at employment as a drag or charity case.

My point in no way suggested there wasn’t a reason firms have employment groups. As a former employment law associate in Biglaw I know exactly why our group existed and will still exist. I also know, however, that we were much less of a profit center than other groups and could generally command lower rates.

Therefore, the pp I responded to, who seemed to expect the “love” because his group is finally playing a more central role, is going to very disappointed. He’s probably safer from being laid off because his work is needed, but I wouldn’t expect further love than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tough one to predict. I could see how firms with robust employment law practices would be swamped. When the alarm bell rang from clients asking wtf do we do, those are the attorneys who got the call.

Employment isn’t where the big money is made though.

No, but last month's hours were off the charts, so they better have some love for us now.

That’s not how it will work. They have been carrying the rest of the time because at most firms your work can’t command the same rates and yet you are paid, at least as an associate, the same as others in more profitable practice areas.

Not an employment lawyer but you're missing the point that law firms have employment groups for a reason. The clients that we do bet-the-firm litigation or mergers or restructuring for expect us to be able to handle their employment concerns too. It's a matter of client support and loyalty, and cross-selling; it's not the case that management looks at employment as a drag or charity case.

My point in no way suggested there wasn’t a reason firms have employment groups. As a former employment law associate in Biglaw I know exactly why our group existed and will still exist. I also know, however, that we were much less of a profit center than other groups and could generally command lower rates.

Therefore, the pp I responded to, who seemed to expect the “love” because his group is finally playing a more central role, is going to very disappointed. He’s probably safer from being laid off because his work is needed, but I wouldn’t expect further love than that.

OK. But the tone of "we are the important lawyers, not the employment lawyers, and always will be, even if we get laid off," doesn't really seem that great. Just sayin'.