Anyone in biglaw get a pay cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I do not understand your point. I do not like big law partners and sorry that your DH was laid off in 09. But if the partners in his firm got their highest ever PPP in the year after your DH was laid off, doesn't that mean the partners did the right thing (financially, not morally, of course) for themselves by laying associates/staff off? So, they would do the same now, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I do not understand your point. I do not like big law partners and sorry that your DH was laid off in 09. But if the partners in his firm got their highest ever PPP in the year after your DH was laid off, doesn't that mean the partners did the right thing (financially, not morally, of course) for themselves by laying associates/staff off? So, they would do the same now, right?

That’s exactly OP’s point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you please brush up on your grammar and also your condescending attitude?

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:

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'.

But that wasn’t my tone at all. First, there is no “we” important M&A lawyers. I made clear that I am but a humble employment lawyer. And it is about who is more “important.” It’s simply a fact that M&A and other practices tend to be much higher earners than employment and those groups tend to have greater power at most firms.

The fact that the tables might be turned, for a bit, and employment revenue becomes more important to a firm than they are in usual times, doesn’t mean that employment lawyers will be given the “love” as demanded in the post that started this tangent.

Employment associates are paid the same as M&A associates in good times, even though M&A attorneys and the group more generally, bring in more to the firm. So, it would be crazy for employment lawyers to now think they should be exempt from salary cuts that might be taking place firm wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

But that wasn’t my tone at all. First, there is no “we” important M&A lawyers. I made clear that I am but a humble employment lawyer. And it is about who is more “important.” It’s simply a fact that M&A and other practices tend to be much higher earners than employment and those groups tend to have greater power at most firms.

The fact that the tables might be turned, for a bit, and employment revenue becomes more important to a firm than they are in usual times, doesn’t mean that employment lawyers will be given the “love” as demanded in the post that started this tangent.

Employment associates are paid the same as M&A associates in good times, even though M&A attorneys and the group more generally, bring in more to the firm. So, it would be crazy for employment lawyers to now think they should be exempt from salary cuts that might be taking place firm wide.

Has anyone on this thread said that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

But that wasn’t my tone at all. First, there is no “we” important M&A lawyers. I made clear that I am but a humble employment lawyer. And it is about who is more “important.” It’s simply a fact that M&A and other practices tend to be much higher earners than employment and those groups tend to have greater power at most firms.

The fact that the tables might be turned, for a bit, and employment revenue becomes more important to a firm than they are in usual times, doesn’t mean that employment lawyers will be given the “love” as demanded in the post that started this tangent.

Employment associates are paid the same as M&A associates in good times, even though M&A attorneys and the group more generally, bring in more to the firm. So, it would be crazy for employment lawyers to now think they should be exempt from salary cuts that might be taking place firm wide.

Has anyone on this thread said that?

What do you think the pp who said employment lawyers better be “shown some love” given the current situation meant? That’s the comment that started all of this.

[Anonymous]

Serious question - if I am an associate at one of the law firms that cut salaries, should I begin looking for a new job? I have been busier than ever, but there is also a feeling that its time to start looking...

[Anonymous]

Orrick

They just cut people today, 4/9.
My law firm just announced the equity partners are taking a cut in profits.

[Anonymous]

Cut salaries or layoffs?

[Anonymous]

Goodwin Procter Laid off 50 staff members

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if I am an associate at one of the law firms that cut salaries, should I begin looking for a new job? I have been busier than ever, but there is also a feeling that its time to start looking...

Things are bad across the board. Normally I'd say that you should look, but I doubt other firms are hiring right now. I'd probably try and get work with the bankruptcy and employment groups in your firm, to the extent that is feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if I am an associate at one of the law firms that cut salaries, should I begin looking for a new job? I have been busier than ever, but there is also a feeling that its time to start looking...

. Yes. For two reasons. First, you could be laid-off. Second, even if you are not laid-off when they happen, you have seen how the firm treats associates, so anticipate more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if I am an associate at one of the law firms that cut salaries, should I begin looking for a new job? I have been busier than ever, but there is also a feeling that its time to start looking...

. Yes. For two reasons. First, you could be laid-off. Second, even if you are not laid-off when they happen, you have seen how the firm treats associates, so anticipate more of the same.

Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if I am an associate at one of the law firms that cut salaries, should I begin looking for a new job? I have been busier than ever, but there is also a feeling that its time to start looking...

. Yes. For two reasons. First, you could be laid-off. Second, even if you are not laid-off when they happen, you have seen how the firm treats associates, so anticipate more of the same.

Not a lawyer, but why would a firm lay off an associate in a busy practice area? Seems dumb. I like the idea of cross-training strong associates in dead areas though.

. You just give their work to other associates. The other associates just work more hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - if I am an associate at one of the law firms that cut salaries, should I begin looking for a new job? I have been busier than ever, but there is also a feeling that its time to start looking...

I would not jump ship just yet, but start looking so you have a "Plan B" if you're let go.