Today's issue of Fat Friday contains these articles:
Eamon Wall, Let's Not Forget Android's Advantage In The GPS Navigation World
Stephen Seldin, The Truth About The Scansnap S1500 Series Plus PDF Software
William Henderson, A Conundrum: Flat Fees For Litigation
Question Of The Week: Please Share Your Top Technology Tip
Don't miss this issue — or any future issues.
How to Receive Fat Friday
Our most serendipitous offering, Fat Friday consists of unsolicited contributions by TechnoLawyer members. You'll no doubt enjoy it because of its mix of interesting topics and genuinely useful knowledge, including brutally honest product reviews and informative how-tos. The Fat Friday newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Coming today to BlawgWorld: Our editorial team has selected and linked to 105 articles from the past week worthy of your attention, including our Post of the Week. Here's a sample:
How to Receive BlawgWorld
Our newsletters provide the most comprehensive coverage of legal technology, practice management, and law firm marketing, but not the only coverage. To stay on top of all the noteworthy articles published in blogs and other online publications you could either hire a research assistant or simply subscribe to BlawgWorld. The BlawgWorld newsletter has received rave reviews and is free. Please subscribe now.
Coming today to BlawgWorld: Our editorial team has selected and linked to 107 articles from the past week worthy of your attention, including our Post of the Week. Here's a sample:
This issue also contains links to every article in the January 2012 issue of Law Practice Today. Don't miss this issue or future issues.
How to Receive BlawgWorld
Our newsletters provide the most comprehensive coverage of legal technology, practice management, and law firm marketing, but not the only coverage. To stay on top of all the noteworthy articles published in blogs and other online publications you could either hire a research assistant or simply subscribe to BlawgWorld. The BlawgWorld newsletter has received rave reviews and is free. Please subscribe now.
Originally published on September 6, 2011 in our free SmallLaw newsletter. Instead of reading SmallLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
I have a confession to make. Since covering the 2011 ABA
TechShow for TechnoFeature,
I've been wrestling with a vexing question …
Who the hell is Jay Shepherd and how will he earn a
living?
Let me explain. On the eve of TechShow, a veritable Who's
Who of legal pundits took the stage at Ignite Law 2011: Tom
Mighell, Dennis Kennedy, Kevin O'Keefe, Carolyn Elefant,
Marc Lauritsen, Jim Calloway, and of course Jay
Shepherd. Wait a minute! Jay who?
Well whoever he was, he considered it appropriate to
announce during his six minutes on stage that he would close
his employment law practice to start Prefix, a consulting firm to
help law firms abandon the billable hour.
My first thought was: Who cares? My next were: Too much
imbibing at the cash bar? An attempt at free advertising? A
cry for help? Still, I let go of the issue and chalked it up
to a lawyer's ego (plenty of that to go around). So imagine
my surprise when none other than the
ABA Journal covered Jay's announcement.
Whoa. This guy's career move was national news? The whole
episode got me wondering — why would anyone abandon a
successful law practice to become a consultant? Not that
it's unheard of. After all, a few years ago I did just that,
only to be drawn back to the law once and for all.
While this SmallLaw
column might arrive too late for Jay, let me explain to
those of you still managing small law firms what will likely
happen to Jay since I have traveled this path.
Commanding Attention Versus Begging for It
…
Not long after I slipped the surly bonds of law practice in
2006 to live the jet-setting life of a legal practice
consultant, I found out that lawyers don't think they need
advice, and certainly won't pay for it.
Even free advice was of no interest to most lawyers. After
all, if they had to change anything to make the advice work
then it really wasn't "free" was it? Change is hard, new
hardware and software costs money, and clients hire people,
not technology. To the vast majority of lawyers, one good
afternoon on the links and a vintage IBM PC (circa 1999) was
more important than all the consulting in the world.
Of course, sometimes I would get a prospect to agree to a
meeting. Inevitably however, I found myself talking to
someone from IT with no grasp of the legal process, or
explaining things to a partner who had already decided to
cut out the middle man and have his teenage kids throw
together a Facebook page. Ultimately, the process was more
like selling encyclopedias than delivering professional
services. And at no time did I feel as if I were selling
"knowledge," a recurring theme in Jay Shepherd's promotional
materials. On the contrary, I frequently had to beg for
attention instead of command it, as I had when I was a
lawyer.
Even if Jay manages to avoid such obstacles and get hired,
how will his new business compare to his old business? We
lawyers adhere to a simple principal — clients pay to
cure pain, ward off fear, or have us deal with
unpleasantness. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the law is
utterly opaque, attorneys and courts have little patience
for lay people, and the legislature and courts throttle
competition from out-of-jurisdiction lawyers while keeping
the barriers to entry high for recent law school graduates.
All in all, you might say that clients have to hire us to
get anything done.
By comparison, being a consultant is like playing Vegas. The
field is clogged because any mope can call himself a
consultant. Even when consultants get hired payment is still
at the customer's mercy. Worst of all, consultants must span
the credibility gap with prospects by selling themselves
around the clock. That doesn't leave much time in which to
sell knowledge — or help lawyers sell knowledge
instead of hours.
Room for One More?
So, is there room for one more practice consultant in an
unregulated field crowded with tireless self-promoters?
After my experience a few years ago, I recommend that Jay
keep one toe in the legal practice tide pool for now. And
for all we know, that might be his game plan. When Jay
also used his Above the Law column to announce his plans, one
commenter sarcastically quipped that: "he said he was
closing his law business, not necessarily quitting law
practice. I expect that he will work out of his (mom's?)
basement … as a solo practitioner doing legal work for
several of his existing clients, but without having to carry
the risks and costs of employees."
But practice consultants who try to wear both hats are often
lousy lawyers. What's more, skills become dull surprisingly
quickly, learning new tricks is never easy, and having the
confidence of courts, colleagues, and clients is as
important as making a good argument. Being a lawyer is as
much about relationships as anything else, and those
relationships rely on seeing and being seen by the right
people every day.
What's a would-be consultant to do when he's too busy
selling himself to be at the closing table, in the office,
or in court? Does Jay understand what he's getting himself
into?
Here's a lawyer about my age and experience level, with an
established practice in a major metropolitan area, strong
academic and peer credentials, several blogs and a popular
column who experienced his share of wins and notoriety, and
who by all accounts could have continued to practice.
Why the sudden zeal to fix our industry's broken billing
model? Is it because he's a fellow at the Verasage Institute, an
organization so inscrutable its name isn't even a real word?
Or is it because the Institute taught him to "bury the
billable hour and timesheets" as it boasts on its web site?
Or is it because, as Jay writes in his biography on the
Verasage web site, he is on a "mission to save the world
from lawyers, and to save lawyers (and other professionals)
from themselves"?
Or Has Jay Simply Painted Himself Into a Corner?
I guess what I'm saying is that Jay Shepherd might want to take a lesson from my experience, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He might also want to refrain from predicting the future at national events just in case things don't work out. And in the unlikely event that he's forced to take up law practice again, he might want to keep certain skills honed so he doesn't have to re-learn how to maintain credibility with his peers, acquire clients, try cases, hire good employees, and most importantly, fire bad ones.
I mean, look at me. As critical
as I am of our profession and its broken systems, I
still practice law and keep track of hours, expenses, and
other business minutiae. Why? Because to paraphrase
Churchill (and channel Tocqueville), the legal business is
terrible … but consulting is far worse.
How to Receive SmallLaw
Small firm, big dreams. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, SmallLaw provides you with a mix of practical advice that you can use today, and insight about what it will take for small law firms like yours to thrive in the future. The SmallLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Originally published on October 18, 2011 in our free BigLaw newsletter. Instead of reading BigLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
Law firms, lawyers, and recruiters all expect the best in any lateral move. The firms expect a superstar with a massive portable book. The lawyers expect a better platform — broader footprint (better technology, stronger cross-selling, etc.) on which to display their talent. Recruiters expect fat commissions, usually in the neighborhood of 25% of the moving lawyer's projected total annual compensation.
But sometimes lateral moves don't work according to plan. This month, we thought we'd catch up on recent lateral moves gone awry. And to make this task more challenging, we've avoided the low-hanging fruit. Suits over placement commissions are a dime a dozen. The stories below address some of the more-novel aspects of lateral moves gone wrong.
Look Before You Leap
Chris Gilbert's career was going swimmingly at K&L Gates, but he was happy to field a cold call from recruiter Diane Caldwell who told him he needed to escape from K&L Gates' lockstep compensation structure and move to a firm where his skills would truly be appreciated. According to Gilbert, she spun a tale of becoming a practice leader and making more money. According to Caldwell, he was a big boy — a partner no less — capable of making his own decisions.
Starry eyed, he left K&L Gates for Patton Boggs, but it didn't work out. Gilbert doesn't provide too much detail in his complaint of what went wrong, but the relationship didn't last long. He's now at Bryan Cave and has sued Caldwell for fraud, negligence, breach of contract, etc. She denies any responsibility.
Runaway Bride
Sometimes taking that extra day to think about a move causes a sea change in expectations. Much like a runaway bride, Stephen Kon just couldn't make that walk down the aisle. The SJ Berwin EU and competition boss was all set to move to Milbank Tweed, but at the last minute, he and partner Cameron Firth called the whole thing off. Kon and Firth were pretty well down the path, having tendered their resignations and been voted into the Milbank Tweed partnership.
SJ Berwin has a pretty good reputation, and is well within the top 20 UK firms, but Milbank Tweed is a global behemoth, which would have been quite the culture shock. Kon, as one of the founding partners of SJ Berwin, probably had more of an emotional attachment to the firm — although he was also one of the leads in the aborted merger discussions with Proskauer Rose. Kon is now likely one of the strongest contenders to take over as senior managing partner in the spring elections.
You Can't (Usually) Take It With You
Lawyers, perhaps because we write the rules, enjoy some unique benefits in our mobility. Unlike other professions where non-competes of various strictness may be enforced, lawyers have largely unfettered rights to take their files with them, all under the guise that the client's right to counsel of her choice shouldn't be restricted.
Some limits exist though, so departing lawyers have to make sure they're playing by the rules. Not surprisingly, spurned firms already feel insecure, which can cause them to react angrily when the files, and fees, walk out the door. Just ask Hunter Shkolnik who was sued by his former firm, Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold & McCartney.
Even more rare than seeking a TRO for the return of files as Rheingold Valet sought is an injunction against a lawyer's practicing for a period of time. Philadelphia personal-injury firm Kline & Specter recently sought one against an associate, claiming he had failed to give the required notice. An associate's departure might be one of the few cases in which a court could convince itself that the client still had access to the partners, although this case certainly seemed like a close call.
Making Them Pay
While we can't restrict our clients' access to the counsel of choice (notwithstanding the cases above), firms have figured out one way to keep wanderlusting lawyers around — cutting their retirement benefits. That's what Stroock & Stroock & Lavan did to Michael Perlis, a 20-year partner. Just weeks after taking his securities litigation team to Locke Lord, he sued for the retirement benefits the partnership agreement purported to cause him to forfeit.
Conclusion
Other than personal bonds and loyalty, both of which are apparently in short supply at many law firms these days, very few tools exist to keep a partnership together. It's no surprise that firms like Stroock have created contractual attempts to prevent departures.
Partner departures individually tend to have very little effect on large firms, but they are often early indicators of firms in trouble, and can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Looking back, early departures from firms like Brobeck and Howrey signaled something wrong beneath the surface. Then, people started connecting the dots and speculating. Partners started looking at their own options, worried they'd be left holding the bag, which kicked off the vicious cycle that led to the demise of these firms. One of the benefits of this BigLaw column and the Lateral Tracker is that they enable you to spot these trends early.
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Answering this question requires digging up some dirt, but we do with the best of intentions. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw analyzes the business practices, marketing strategies, and technologies used by the country's biggest law firms in an effort to unearth best and worst practices. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Originally published on September 20, 2011 in our free BigLaw newsletter. Instead of reading BigLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
August is usually a quiet month for large firm laterals, but this year it was hot, hot, hot. We'll highlight two trends — law firms entering new markets overseas and beefing up their talent in hot practice areas.
Kirkland's Hong Kong Coup and More International Expansions
The four big UK Magic Circle firms (e.g., Slaughter & May) and American firms like Baker & McKenzie and White & Case have long believed in having local presences around the world. We may be seeing a renaissance in that mindset as firms look at opportunities. And they're not necessarily playing nice about it.
The headline move for August was certainly Kirkland's grand entry into Hong Kong. In one fell swoop, Kirkland rounded up three corporate partners from Skadden (leaving eight), three from Latham, and one from Allen & Overy (along with a senior associate who is joining as a partner). Kirkland's bold move instantly gives the firm a significant presence in the market.
Kirkland immediately caused ripples as Skadden turned around and lured banking lawyer Clive Rough out of his recent retirement from Freshfields and moved in M&A partner John Adebiyi from London. Skadden has stated that it remains committed to the Hong Kong market, so additional moves should not surprise anyone. But as we noted last month, associates who aren't taken along with their departing partners need to be on layoff alert.
Other firms targeting international expansion include:
Bird & Bird may or may not have been actively looking to expand in Germany, but the opportunity to pick up the Hogan Lovells Hamburg media team couldn't be passed up. That firm has been hemorrhaging lawyers in certain markets since last year's merger.
Another firm that saw an opportunity it couldn't resist was Linklaters, which made its first Paris lateral hire in four years, picking up a capital markets partner from Gide Loyrette Nouel. As we saw last month with Cravath's hire of Christine Varney, even the firms that have traditionally avoided lateral hires have reconsidered that strategy.
Serendipitously, LegalWeek just published a retrospective on Proskauer's foray into the London market, which highlights just how difficult it can be to break into a developed market (subscription required).
The Patent War Results in a Talent War
The HogLove merger was more opportunistic than anything, but Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility in August demonstrates why firms constantly seek partners in big-ticket practice areas.
Only Google knows all the reasons for its acquisition, but patents certainly played a role. As Bloomberg noted, when companies spend that much money on patents, smart law firms spend big bucks on patent lawyers.
Unfortunately, these firms must also compete with the technology giants' inhouse legal departments, which can offer options, better working conditions, and the opportunity to boss around former colleagues. Apple recently created a position for a head of IP litigation, which it filled with a former Sun lawyer. Apple also hired a new chief patent counsel from HP.
The Ghost of Ma Bell
Getting closed out of deals has always been a compelling reason to change firms — or, as David Boies most notably did, start your own. Rather than share fat telecom-deal fees, Carl Northrop decided to hang his own shingle, along with some of his former Paul Hastings partners, creating Telecommunications Law Professionals.
Much like Boies' frustration with Time Warner keeping him out of doing a deal for the Yankees, Northrop and company were none too happy about not being able to go up against the $39 billion AT&T/T-Mobile merger, which is spewing off tons of antitrust work now that it's been opposed (the FCC hired Renata Hesse from Wilson Sonsini in May to oversee the matter).
Low Margin Practice Areas and the Super-Boutique
On the flip side, once in a while a firm decides that it has a practice area it no longer wants to support. Not surprisingly, it's never M&A, IP, regulatory, or the like. It's always something far more plebeian and lower margin. CMS Cameron McKenna is exiting the immigration business, jettisoning 15 lawyers to Fragomen "an international firm specializing in immigration law." If you missed the link in BlawgWorld, read Jordan Furlong's take on this move, which he dubs the "rise of the super-boutique."
We've always felt that large firms only maintained immigration and similar practices as favors for high-net-worth individuals and major international corporate clients. These folks have finally realized that the help they need shouldn't be at the rates they're forced to pay.
Conclusion
Large firm moves aren't always about interpersonal relationships. They're often about the same economic drivers that motivate the business world — seeking out untapped markets, be it geographic or new services. This profit-driven model of law firms is also driving similar attitudes in partners, as they're constantly on the prowl for the BBD (Bigger, Better, Deal). This business first mindset results in a lot of churn as firms and partners try to maximize their profits with little long-term commitment.
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Answering this question requires digging up some dirt, but we do with the best of intentions. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw analyzes the business practices, marketing strategies, and technologies used by the country's biggest law firms in an effort to unearth best and worst practices. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Originally published on August 23, 2011 in our free BigLaw newsletter. Instead of reading BigLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
Two major stories rocked the large firm lateral market in July — O'Melveny & Myers, and layoffs related to rainmaker departures. It's always interesting to see how the mainstream media explains our world to the outside world. Peter Lattman wrote in the New York Times' Deal Book about the increasing activity and high stakes involved, placing a spotlight on the machinations behind Irving Picard's almost-move from Baker Hostetler.
O'Melveny & Myers: Bump in the Road or Road to Ruin?
Above the Law put it simply enough, "What's Going on at O'Melveny & Myers?" At the beginning of June, the firm had lost at least 22 partners, and then a handful more in July. Not surprisingly, these departures were attributed to a host of innocuous factors — high-profile jobs at clients, which could lead to future work; government service, which would promote the firm's brand; or a polished spin on sour grapes — that the departures were not undesirable thanks to a bad fit or low productivity.
However, observers felt something nefarious was afoot. When Bradley Butwin was appointed chair to succeed A.B. Culvahouse, AmLaw Daily reported that the firm's revenues had dropped last year, although profits per partner were up — due in no small part to reductions in the equity ranks.
There was also speculation of a rift between, depending on whom you asked, the firm's litigation and transactional departments or the legacy OMM partners (mostly litigation) and the lawyers acquired from the O'Sullivan Graev & Karabell merger (mostly corporate) a decade ago. Butwin's appointment should alleviate both of these fears. He's a litigator from OGK.
The real question is whether OMM's departures (around 60 over the past two years, according to one Above the Law commenter) represent the first sign of a troubled firm — another Howrey.
We're not convinced. These shifts seem more in line with Cadwalader in 2009 and White & Case in 2010, both of which suffered massive defections, some more intentional than others.
In 2009, Cadwalader's year got off to a horrible start. Profits per partner fell, the firm basically kicked off the layoff trend, and lots of notable partners left, including Bruce Zirinsky and John Bae for Greenberg Traurig, and John Busillo and Alan Lawrence for Arnold & Porter. But within a year, the ship had been righted and the money train was back on track.
Last year, Latham & Watkins raided White & Case for more than a dozen partners, and many more than that left over the year. Latham was specifically targeting the firm's #2 client, Saudi Aramco, but White & Case has held on after promoting a number of associates, flying in partners from other offices, and slowly rebuilding its ranks.
Similarly, keep an eye on where the Apollo work ends up. Seven of the OMM partners who serviced that huge client decamped to Paul Weiss with two others landing at Weil Gotshal.
Unlike Howrey, where it was clear early on that partners were jumping off a sinking ship (even though the firm, in an utterly classless move, tried to claim many had been pushed overboard), we would bet that OMM is just experiencing a bump in the road. The firm is much bigger and more diversified, geographically and by practice area. We don't anticipate adding it to the Dead Pool anytime soon.
Layoffs and Laterals
Layoffs and laterals sometimes go hand-in-hand — yet another underreported source of layoffs.
When partners leave, they may take a few key associates with them, but certainly not all. Those left behind find themselves in a difficult position, depending on how much work they did for the folks who left, or how niche their practice area was and whether it is something their firms will continue to support.
Rara Aves: Cravath's Laterals, and Skadden's Ex-Retiree
They say three's a trend, so what else can we say but that there is a trend of lateral hiring at Cravath? The firm went 62 years without a lateral, but then brought in tax lawyer Andrew Needham from Willkie in 2005, and Richard Levin from Skadden in 2007 to start a bankruptcy practice. We liken these two Cravath laterals to the Yangtze River Dolphin — a species on the verge of extinction but at least with the possibility of reproducing in the future, unlike poor Lonesome George, the last of the Pinta Island tortoises.
Now there's a third Cravath lateral hire, with Christine Varney joining from the Department of Justice. She previously worked at Hogan & Hartson before she joined the DOJ, and was one of the people we thought was notably absent from the National Law Journal's list of the decade's most-influential antitrust lawyers. We suspect she'll make it the next time around.
Less rare, Skadden lured Sheli Rosenberg out of retirement. This was an interesting play for client development, diversity (age and gender), and mentoring.
Conclusion
As Lattman pointed out in Deal Book, lateral activity is on the rise, and the stakes are growing astronomical with $5 million+ signing bonuses becoming increasingly common. Stay ahead of the information curve with the Law Shucks Lateral Tracker.
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Answering this question requires digging up some dirt, but we do with the best of intentions. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw analyzes the business practices, marketing strategies, and technologies used by the country's biggest law firms in an effort to unearth best and worst practices. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Originally published on September 6, 2011 in our free BigLaw newsletter. Instead of reading BigLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
I recently received an assignment from BigLaw editor Neil Squillante: "The recent volatility of the stock market may prove a harbinger of another recession. In fact, some pundits think a recession has already begun. How will large law firms handle a double dip?"
Have large law firms learned from Great Bloodletting of 2009-2010? Are they better equipped to handle another downturn? Or will they again resort to the scorched-earth layoff strategy that resulted in 10,000 or so top-of-class law school graduates becoming a lost generation?
Well, who better to pose these questions to than Bruce MacEwen, a master of law firm economics and the erudite thinker behind Adam Smith, Esq. and JDMatch? Like a Federal Reserve chairman, MacEwen takes a measured view of the situation.
We Do Not Control Our Destiny
"The kind of volatility we're seeing in the stock market is, I believe, perfectly rational" (he says professorially), given that "we're being buffeted by good news and bad news of great magnitude on what seems like an accelerating time-frame." That said, he adds, "I would not take whatever the stock market does any given week or any given month as meaning it has any unusual forecasting prowess. There doesn't seem to be a solid trend established and until that comes I think it's predicting nothing but uncertainty, which we're acutely aware of already."
As to whether disaster lurks around the bend, MacEwen delivers an informed maybe. "Six months ago I would have said a double-dip recession was extremely unlikely," he notes. "Now I think it's a 50/50 bet." Why? Well, among other things, lots of Americans are still underwater on their home mortgages, and unemployment is not only historically high, but appears poised to remain that way. We face perhaps a decade of 'supra-normal' unemployment," MacEwen says. "Many lost jobs are simply not ever going to come back."
What does this mean for law firms? According to MacEwen, "the most important thing to remember about our industry is that we do not control our destiny." Thus, "when consumers stop buying and businesses stop investing in growth and hiring, our clients are hurt," both by the decline in top-line revenues, and the simple reality of decreased workloads, which result in a decreased demand for legal services. And, of course, that also means that, if they go into a second recession, "we will inevitably go with them."
What About Large Firms Jobs?
Even if growth declines, we probably won't see "stealth layoffs," or the kind of bloodletting we saw a few years ago, right? Wrong according to MacEwen.
If a second recession comes our way, MacEwen believes, more layoffs are bound to follow. "Large firms are certainly better equipped to weather a recession now than in 2007," he opines, "but they have also learned the virtue of quickly paring capacity to match demand, and that's a lesson no one has forgotten." The pressure to maintain profits per partner is on, he points out, and law firms will do what they must to keep numbers up.
But doesn't that mean law firms are leaner, meaner, and better at staffing nowadays?
"Firms are as lean as I've ever seen them," MacEwen says. "Partly this was because the recession forced them to address deadwood which they had the luxury of letting accumulate in richer times. They won't be that undisciplined again, I predict." In addition, he notes, firms are configuring themselves to be more responsive to economic flux by exploring "all kinds of different career models" — beyond just outsourcing and the use of temporary attorneys.
MacEwen lists non-partner track associates, flex-time, and "onshoring" (the use of lawyers in inexpensive cities like Dayton, Fargo, and Wheeling) as staffing alternatives that many previously bloated firms now use to stay lean and nimble.
At the end of the day, however, MacEwen reminds us of the bleak truth. "Nothing will prevent layoffs on whatever scale it takes to get capacity in line with demand," he says. "We have lost our virginity on that score."
A Postscript Arrives at the Same Conclusion by Another Means
Apparently, my questions touched a nerve in MacEwen. After my interview and upon further reflection, he published an article — A Double Dip Recession? — in which he changed his analysis though not his conclusion. MacEwen now believes that although the last recession officially ended according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, other metrics suggest we're still in a recession. Thus, a double dip recession won't have any impact among large firms. In other words, welcome to the new normal — don't expect large firms to allow capacity to exceed demand even if that means layoffs, stealth or otherwise.
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Answering this question requires digging up some dirt, but we do with the best of intentions. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw analyzes the business practices, marketing strategies, and technologies used by the country's biggest law firms in an effort to unearth best and worst practices. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Coming today to TechnoFeature: Cats and dogs living together may sound like a bad idea, but Brookings Institution economist George Winston has come up with a doozy — the deregulation of lawyers. While having Walmart greeters handle the paperwork for structured finance deals may not sound as bad as having them analyze your MRI, lawyer Liz Kurtz doesn't like it all the same. In this issue of TechnoFeature, Liz discusses the fallout from Winston's recent op-ed piece in the New York Times. She then tackles the related issue of publicly-held law firms, which just became a reality across the pond in the UK. Remember dear subscribers, before you can defeat the enemy you must know the enemy.
How to Receive TechnoFeature
Our flagship newsletter never disappoints thanks to its in-depth reporting by leading legal technology and practice management experts, many of whom have become "household names" in the legal profession. As a result, TechnoFeature offers some of the most profound thoughts on law practice, and helpful advice about legal-specific products. The TechnoFeature newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
Originally published on July 26, 2011 in our free BigLaw newsletter. Instead of reading BigLaw here after the fact, sign up now to receive future issues in realtime.
For most, June in the large law firm world means the arrival and settling in of summer associates. But for partners, it is often the culmination of a quarter taken exploring opportunities and finalizing plans to move on. Client work tends to slow down slightly, partnership distribution checks have cleared, business plans for the year are finalized (and ready to be slapped into a headhunter's marketing package), so thoughts turn to moving on. Let's see who couldn't resist the spring wanderlust.
Staying in the Family
In our view, some of the most interesting moves are those within the large firm ambit. Two of June's finest intra-moves were Michael Fitzgerald bringing about a dozen corporate and securities lawyers from Milbank to Dewey & LeBoeuf, immediately providing the firm with the Latin America presence it has lacked. Dewey is about twice as big as Milbank, but Milbank had comparable profit-per-partner and probably a broader international footprint, albeit without the depth.
Of course, these moves don't always come down to money. Personal relationships are, in part, responsible for Fitzgerald's move to Dewey. The firm's former chairman, 92-year-old Leonard Joseph, is his father-in-law. Also, Fitzgerald's son, Reid, spent three years as a college intern at Dewey, and will attend Columbia Law School in the fall.
At the end of June in a trend that continued in July, O'Melveny lost three regulatory partners in DC to Allen & Overy, which was quite a surprise because Magic Circle firms have never been known for strong DC presences. The halls of power in our nation's capitol have traditionally been trod only by the whitest of shoes, so the addition of Charles Borden, Chris Salter, and Barbara Stettner shows some groundbreaking expansion.
Feeding Frenzy
When the large firm belly can't get fed by its own denizens, it goes searching farther afield for choice fare. Boutiques are plum targets these days for two types of acquirors — large firms looking to snag talent on the cheap or to shore up an underserved market (geographic location or a practice area), and small- to mid-sized firms trying to find safety in numbers.
Cozen O'Connor gutted IP litigation boutique Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane, taking 19 of the NY firm's 27 lawyers. Five former Cohen Pontani lawyers came aboard as partners: Thomas Langer, Lance Lieberman, Martin Pavane, Thomas Pontani, and Edward Weisz. No word on what happened to the eight men out, although the firm was expected to dissolve, and its Web site now redirects to Cozen O'Connor.
Saul Ewing is also in "go big or go home" mode. It acquired five partners and one associate from Boston's Dionne & Gass. Dana Lanzillo, Don Lussier, Sally Michael, Richard Gass and Joanne Robbins joined as partners. Even for a boutique, that seems unbelievably highly leveraged, so we'll keep an eye out for word of associates not included in the deal. The fate of those left behind is another trend that we'll hit next month for its tragic repercussions.
Greener Pastures
For some, a large firm is no longer the right fit. The classic move out is the Jump In(House). At partner levels it's either a top legal job or out of law entirely to the coveted investment-banking world, as Cleary's former managing partner, Mark Walker did last month, when he joined Lazard in Paris.
The newest trend shows that lawyers may not be as risk-averse as believed. Weil Gotshal IP studs Matthew Powers (despite some recent rough patches) and Steven Cherensky have decided to blaze their own path, leaving the security of the GM Building (yes, we know they didn't sit in NYC) for their own startup practice, Tensegrity Law Group. They'll focus on contingent-fee plaintiff work, although at some point they may go fully over to the dark side, a la John Desmarais, the former Kirkland & Ellis partner who last year founded his very own patent troll by buying a bloc of patents and selling covenants not to sue.
The Revolving Door of Government Work
Another macro trend to keep an eye on this quadrennium is the inflow/outflow of our brothers and sisters in public service. We're about a year out from another election cycle, so quite a few people will be leaving who don't plan to stick around for the next term. Six lawyers left government in June for partnerships at major firms, but we expect that number, and their profiles, to rise in coming months. And, of course, there are some earlybirds. Kathryn Ruemmler will join the administration from Latham & Watkins to serve as White House Counsel.
Another large firm alum who could have a significant impact on that election cycle is Anthony Herman, the Covington partner who was recently named GC of the Federal Election Commission.
Conclusion
As alluded to above, July has some alarming trends, which I'll report on soon here in BigLaw.
How to Receive BigLaw
Many large firms have good reputations for their work and bad reputations as places to work. Why? Answering this question requires digging up some dirt, but we do with the best of intentions. Published first via email newsletter and later here on our blog, BigLaw analyzes the business practices, marketing strategies, and technologies used by the country's biggest law firms in an effort to unearth best and worst practices. The BigLaw newsletter is free so don't miss the next issue. Please subscribe now.
