SAs only need a couple of months. At this point, I don't think any of them are counting on taking a permanent job at Dewey.

If the article below is to believed (which I have no reason to doubt, given how well-researched it seems), Citi's loans are secured by receivables. Assuming they're fully secured or close, they don't have a big financial incentive to renegotiate, since they'll face a relatively minor loss (if any) in a dissolution. I'm sure there are reputational consequences to consider (Citi lends to other law firms and they might dislike Citi yanking the carpet out from under Dewey), but I wouldn't take it as a forgone conclusion that they'll renegotiate.

I've heard that at least one offer to a 3L who summered at Dewey last summer has been pulled. I don't know if they've pulled offers to all 3L's or if this is an isolated incident.

Should be on above the law if true

I'm going to go ahead and hulk smash this rumor without at least some additional information (like school or practice group). I'm a 3L who summered there last year and this would've made it's way into our information stream if true.

I'll PM you if you feel comfortable releasing your username. Or, make a throwaway email addy and I can email you.

wtfdeweydo@hotmail.com - Which I guess others with questions can probably use as well.

Confirmed?

Nah - it's just a rumor. Just asked.

12 more (and an entire office) gone today: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... w-law-firm

Edit: Make that 15 - http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... op+Stories

This type of anonymous post is retarded and hopefully a troll, otherwise just very clueless. The three more partners were already reported as having left yesterday on the 17th and were included in running counts ont hat day. The other 12 in Russia have not left and until they left they aren't "gone today."

To add: quit messing with potential Dewey SA's. Calling an office looking to move as "gone today" is just stupid, even if it is a foregone conclusion.

Thumbs up.

Hope? http://www.thelawyer.com/dewey-moots-re ... 44.article

For the partners maybe. To the best of my knowledge boutique firms don't run very high leverage so a lot of associates and staff are going to be shed before this is over. If this is the best case scenario it is not very good.

It prob shouldn't be anon, but don't get so butthurt. He/she's just adding to the discourse here, and there's no indication that the post was meant to "mess with" potential Dewey SAs. This is a pretty big deal, and we're not going to stop talking about this objectively just because it might stress some people out.

That being said, if the anon above was lying about incoming Dewey associates, that is REALLY uncool.

Besides Fish & Richardson going back to being an IP boutique, has this strategy ever worked before? Also, is this a huge blinking neon sign to any litigation people at Dewey to start packing?

I don't think there is a need to be anonymous to post links to articles anyone could find. If you don't want your name out there, then let someone else post links. I'm sure anyone interested in Dewey has google alerts set up.

I’m not butt hurt at all. I just don’t get what kind of person gets off on anonymously posting something and exaggerating to make it sound worse than it is (which he/she obviously did). Like I just don't see the purpose of recharacterizing it to make it sound worse for people reading. Even Helen Keller could read that article and figure out that the Moscow office wasn’t immediately folding.

Man, is there any real difference between the office jumping ship right now and the office being pretty much guaranteed to have jumped ship by the time the firm is deciding whether it's going to hire SAs who might be reading this?

Yes, would you call someone who got diagnosed with a terminal disease as “dead today”? The difference is exactly as you mentioned and it’s in the words “pretty much”.

No, but I also wouldn't refer to a law office with the same reverence that I'd give a dying person and I wouldn't take offense over the distinction between someone saying the office was out vs. the office is headed out. This isn't a person and there's no sentimentality to be had over a law office spending 6 more months with loved ones. For that matter, I definitely wouldn't give that level of respect when the subject is an office that's merely looking to switch firms, not closing. My rhetorical question was closer to "is there a substantive difference" than "are they literally gone." My main point is that people are generally talking about the long run of the firm. I doubt that they care whether this particular office is going to pay its next 2 months worth of receivables to Dewey or DLA Piper if it is in all likelihood going to be gone in a shorter time frame than said long run.

In all fairness though, I probably would have specified that they were actively seeking an escape route rather than saying that they already had jumped ship. Either way, this isn't adding any useful information so on this note I'm out.

Thacher Proffitt basically did this with about 100 lawyers all jumping ship at once to SNR and then the firm folding immediately after. The other big firm collapses I've read about (Heller, Brobeck, Howrey) have all been caused by a slow bleed that picks up and then dissolution with a lot of lawyers left holding the bag at the end.

Right, but I'm talking about firms that survived as going concerns after downsizing into a niche boutique.

The only people that should be posting anonymous ITT are Dewey SAs, former ones, and attorneys. What else do you have to lose?

Otherwise, GTFO or sack up brah.