Tracking COVID-19's effect on V100 associate pay/layoffs Forum

[Anonymous User]

If BB were to raise salaries, they probably have to let associates know today. Or is the plan to make the decision in August?

The paycheck on ~7/31 is for July 15-31 so they don't need to make the decision until early August.

So its a shut up get back to work type of Friday that is what you are saying.

[nixy]

Wait, I missed why anyone thinks BB is going to raise salaries?

[EminentDumain]

Wait, I missed why anyone thinks BB is going to raise salaries?

Because when the cuts were announced, BB said they were only supposed to run until 7/31. By "raised" I think everyone means from the cut level back to the normal level.

[nixy]

Wait, I missed why anyone thinks BB is going to raise salaries?

Because when the cuts were announced, BB said they were only supposed to run until 7/31. By "raised" I think everyone means from the cut level back to the normal level.

Ah, got it. Thanks for indulging my disinclination to google.

[Anonymous User]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

[abcdoremi]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

[Anonymous User]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

Ex-Cad Associate here (left over a year ago).
The firm has been notorious for layoffs in the past, has one of the highest associate-to-partner ratios (making it less stable than most firms), had significant financial issues during one of the most profitable periods, very much overly focused on structured finance (CLOs/CMBS, etc.), without much diversification (and structured fin absolutely sucks as work--so much rote changing of forms). There's enough stuff on this forum that this can easily searched. It's also just has a general low reputation among "elite" schools (so heavy reliance on lower-tier schools, take that fwiw, not commenting on whether good/bad, just is), summer class has been shrinking repeatedly over the past few years. The firm has kept its finances up by generally pushing people out (see above associate-partner ratio), making the firm look more profitable than it really was.

Things have supposed to have been turned around. But the mere fact that they were one of the first to cut pay is telling (but entirely unsurprising).

That said: I was there, stayed a while, left. QoL not great; not terrible, and enjoyed the people I worked with (have close friends there/from there still). Nonetheless, stability was my concern and Cad can be lacking there a bit. Didnt deal with screamers (think those left), but how much it has improved from the past practices is questionable. It's a bottom line place moreso than others. Was, is, and probably will be.

[Anon115523]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

You could look at the way they've treated their incoming associates. They've treated them significantly worse than their peers. Incoming associates got a measly $5k salary advance for the 3-4 months they'll be unemployed, which is an absolute joke.

[abcdoremi]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

Ex-Cad Associate here (left over a year ago).
The firm has been notorious for layoffs in the past, has one of the highest associate-to-partner ratios (making it less stable than most firms), had significant financial issues during one of the most profitable periods, very much overly focused on structured finance (CLOs/CMBS, etc.), without much diversification (and structured fin absolutely sucks as work--so much rote changing of forms). There's enough stuff on this forum that this can easily searched. It's also just has a general low reputation among "elite" schools (so heavy reliance on lower-tier schools, take that fwiw, not commenting on whether good/bad, just is), summer class has been shrinking repeatedly over the past few years. The firm has kept its finances up by generally pushing people out (see above associate-partner ratio), making the firm look more profitable than it really was.

Things have supposed to have been turned around. But the mere fact that they were one of the first to cut pay is telling (but entirely unsurprising).

That said: I was there, stayed a while, left. QoL not great; not terrible, and enjoyed the people I worked with (have close friends there/from there still). Nonetheless, stability was my concern and Cad can be lacking there a bit. Didnt deal with screamers (think those left), but how much it has improved from the past practices is questionable. It's a bottom line place moreso than others. Was, is, and probably will be.

Thank you, this makes sense! RPL is always a better metric than PPP, although CWT's RPL seems pretty solid. The large number of firms that are deferring first-years without salary is egregious, and I want to make clear that my point was not that Cadwalader is doing the best, it was just that a whole bunch of firms are doing similar things (look at what S&C is doing to its summers or at STB also delaying first-years without a stipend). This is great info!

[Anonymous User]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

As a CWT associate, I’d second the earlier responses to this. CWT has made aggressive and steep salary cuts, and based on this I think they’re in a weaker financial position than their peer firms. I would add we have a screamer and a thrower in my group. Personally, I do not enjoy most of the people I work with, and despise working with about a quarter of my group. About a quarter of my group is ok, but there are only a few people I enjoy working with.

[hereforcovid]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

As a CWT associate, I’d second the earlier responses to this. CWT has made aggressive and steep salary cuts, and based on this I think they’re in a weaker financial position than their peer firms. I would add we have a screamer and a thrower in my group. Personally, I do not enjoy most of the people I work with, and despise working with about a quarter of my group. About a quarter of my group is ok, but there are only a few people I enjoy working with.

Are you in capital markets or a finance group? Because I've heard horror stories about transactional groups but good things about litigation at Cad and that its really growing. Is there any truth to this/how feudal is Cadwalader?

[Anonymous User]

Are you in capital markets or a finance group? Because I've heard horror stories about transactional groups but good things about litigation at Cad and that its really growing. Is there any truth to this/how feudal is Cadwalader?

I considered lateraling to CWT a year or two ago.

From what I've heard, CWT does still have some screamers and bad culture problems. While other firms might have similar problems, CWT is a much smaller firm and there are far fewer places to go run and hide. The partner interviews I had were also particularly toxic. I don't want to get into details, because it could be identifying, but they were very unpleasant. I was offered and declined.

As far as litigation growing, I don't know, but I find that hard to believe. CWT's headcount hasn't been this low since 2000. I find it hard to believe that any group is really "growing" when you're at a twenty year headcount low.

[Anonymous User]

Different CWT associate here (and have been here for a while). Will try to answer some of the earlier questions and can answer other questions if they come up.

On headcount, I don't know if our headcount is less than it was a few years ago, but I don't think it is has changed much. CWT is one of the smallest big law firms headcount-wise. For looking back many years, I would say that the firm was previously even more staffed up with additional attorneys in practice areas that just don't need that level of support in today's environment post financial crisis (particularly in the securitization and related practices), so I don't think it is a great criticism to look at headcount in a 20 year window. The firm's model isn't based on having an incredibly large number of offices or lawyers either (and don't think rates would support that in any event).

Litigation may be growing somewhat (again very marginally though and in the context of the firm being small in the first place). I wouldn't say that lit and the transactional groups work together much though and at the end of the day, the firm's transactional practices are the biggest groups and have most of the decision makers.

All in all, I think it is a fair criticism to say that it isn't one of the easiest big law firms to work for (more so due to not having anywhere to hide from work than due to screamers etc, though I'm sure there are bad partners to work for here and at other firms). I think it is also fair to criticize many of the transaction groups as having niche practices compared to similar firms (i.e. "capital markets" doing almost all securitization work, "corporate" being probably more heavily focused on shareholder defense / takeover than traditional M&A, "real estate" originating the loans to be securitized, etc) and that some of the above may be more susceptible in down turn scenarios. I do think it has been a good firm in terms of getting experience early on and working on complicated matters, but YMMV.

The return to normal on paycuts is definitely welcomed though and means that associates should come out ahead vs. other firms that had lower % cuts but made the cuts effective through year end. Finally, I know there is a lot of talk around summer recruiting / first year stipends etc, but I just don't think the firm really cares about that to begin with and isn't going to cater to first years / summers when they can fill a small class size anyway with similar middle of the road talent (since they aren't winning the summer class / first year battle vs. many other firms to begin with). Market Bonuses are available w/ 1900 billable and 100 hours of other stuff like CLEs (with an additional 20% on top for 2200 billable), which is a pretty good bonus policy in a normal year compared to similar firms too.

[Anonymous User]

Another form Cad associate here (haven't posted in this thread before). I summered a few years ago and came back as a first year.

Just wanted to add that the headcount is definitely getting lower. I've been keeping track along with other people in my class. From the time I was a first year until I left (11 months), the headcount went down about 80 lawyers. I'm sure that trajectory continued after I left. Almost no one from my summer class is still at the firm. CWT definitely has major attrition issues. Not sure if it's worse there or comparable to other firms in its league though.

I liked most of the people at CWT but have to agree with the other posters who were saying that the groups are too specialized. It's not economically stable and, as others have also mentioned, there are indeed screamers who are still there.

[Sackboy]

Another form Cad associate here (haven't posted in this thread before). I summered a few years ago and came back as a first year.

Just wanted to add that the headcount is definitely getting lower. I've been keeping track along with other people in my class. From the time I was a first year until I left (11 months), the headcount went down about 80 lawyers. I'm sure that trajectory continued after I left. Almost no one from my summer class is still at the firm. CWT definitely has major attrition issues. Not sure if it's worse there or comparable to other firms in its league though.

I liked most of the people at CWT but have to agree with the other posters who were saying that the groups are too specialized. It's not economically stable and, as others have also mentioned, there are indeed screamers who are still there.

Law.com seems to be a good source for headcount. It seems pretty accurate the CWT's headcount is near a 20-year low (2000 = 362, 2019 = 373, 2020 = 382).

2000: 362
2001: 461
2002: 502
2003: 552
2004: 544
2005: 565
2006: 629
2007: 721
2008: 610
2009: 513
2010: 485
2011: 481
2012: 464
2013: 435
2014: 437
2015: 452
2016: 448
2017: 438
2018: 438
2019: 373
2020: 382

[hereforcovid]

Another form Cad associate here (haven't posted in this thread before). I summered a few years ago and came back as a first year.

Just wanted to add that the headcount is definitely getting lower. I've been keeping track along with other people in my class. From the time I was a first year until I left (11 months), the headcount went down about 80 lawyers. I'm sure that trajectory continued after I left. Almost no one from my summer class is still at the firm. CWT definitely has major attrition issues. Not sure if it's worse there or comparable to other firms in its league though.

I liked most of the people at CWT but have to agree with the other posters who were saying that the groups are too specialized. It's not economically stable and, as others have also mentioned, there are indeed screamers who are still there.

Law.com seems to be a good source for headcount. It seems pretty accurate the CWT's headcount is near a 20-year low (2000 = 362, 2019 = 373, 2020 = 382).

2000: 362
2001: 461
2002: 502
2003: 552
2004: 544
2005: 565
2006: 629
2007: 721
2008: 610
2009: 513
2010: 485
2011: 481
2012: 464
2013: 435
2014: 437
2015: 452
2016: 448
2017: 438
2018: 438
2019: 373
2020: 382

Very helpful, thanks! Although it looks like in 2018 the headcount was 373, not 438. Which is why I had heard that litigation is growing--I had heard that in 2017 they closed some unprofitable transactional-focused offices, and that the growth that had occurred since occurred in litigation, though the litigation growing part had not been confirmed to me by anyone truly in the know and according to other posters that very well may be inaccurate. Although headcount is lower, it also seems that Revenue Per Lawyer is at a 20-year high, and I'm not sure how those factors balance each other out.

[Anonymous User]

Earlier current CWT associate that said headcount hasn't changed much - I still think that the data above is being overblown. In the last few years they closed an office in China and had a few ancillary teams leave (like an antitrust team and a healthcare team) that were either not in core practice areas (that didn't have clients willing to pay standard rates) or, like for antitrust, not as critical when it isn't supporting a traditional M&A heavy corporate practice. Those weren't heavy losses IMO. I do agree with the ex CWT associate in that summer / first year classes seem to leave quicker on average than other places (but they take in a good number of laterals). I think the home grown associates leaving is a function more so though of CWT working associates hard, so people either decide to leave big law altogether more quickly or, if they can stand it, then they have plenty of other options for firms to jump to. For profitability - I still think the firm is very profitable (and PPP supports that), but some of the practices are subject to more fluctuation in a down turn (especially when they have very heavy market share in those practices).

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Very helpful, thanks! Although it looks like in 2018 the headcount was 373, not 438. Which is why I had heard that litigation is growing--I had heard that in 2017 they closed some unprofitable transactional-focused offices, and that the growth that had occurred since occurred in litigation, though the litigation growing part had not been confirmed to me by anyone truly in the know and according to other posters that very well may be inaccurate. Although headcount is lower, it also seems that Revenue Per Lawyer is at a 20-year high, and I'm not sure how those factors balance each other out.

Seeing as how rates grow ~5%, it would a very big red flag if your RPL was not constantly climbing. The large majority of firms would have had "record" RPLs in 2019.

Although RPL is one of the better singular measures of firm health (seeing as how it essentially measures how much blood you could squeeze from a given stone), it can still be misleading. Some firms chase revenue with expensive/unprofitable satellite offices. Others depend more heavily on senior associates, counsels and service partners, who of course bring in more revenue but are more expensive and harder to keep and replace.

Someone with a better knowledge of CWT's financials could correct me, but it was long reputed to be a place where ~20 rainmakers were responsible for an overwhelming chunk of the firm's business. And while every firm obviously wants rainmakers, that model isn't particularly stable and, from an institutional perspective, less preferable than paradigms where business is loyal to more than one person. In any event, it's clear they've been walking a tightrope where good PPP numbers disguised a highly leveraged and recession-prone business model. When you have a profit margin of ~25%, a 20% decline in business is a complete elimination of equity partner compensation unless they reduce expenses (read: you).

[TMJ2017]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

Ex-Cad Associate here (left over a year ago).
The firm has been notorious for layoffs in the past, has one of the highest associate-to-partner ratios (making it less stable than most firms), had significant financial issues during one of the most profitable periods, very much overly focused on structured finance (CLOs/CMBS, etc.), without much diversification (and structured fin absolutely sucks as work--so much rote changing of forms). There's enough stuff on this forum that this can easily searched. It's also just has a general low reputation among "elite" schools (so heavy reliance on lower-tier schools, take that fwiw, not commenting on whether good/bad, just is), summer class has been shrinking repeatedly over the past few years. The firm has kept its finances up by generally pushing people out (see above associate-partner ratio), making the firm look more profitable than it really was.

Things have supposed to have been turned around. But the mere fact that they were one of the first to cut pay is telling (but entirely unsurprising).

That said: I was there, stayed a while, left. QoL not great; not terrible, and enjoyed the people I worked with (have close friends there/from there still). Nonetheless, stability was my concern and Cad can be lacking there a bit. Didnt deal with screamers (think those left), but how much it has improved from the past practices is questionable. It's a bottom line place moreso than others. Was, is, and probably will be.

Agree with the general point here re: CWT's over-specialization on structured finance leading to high volatility in revenues and therefore instability. However, one minor quibble re: CWT having one of the "highest associate-to-partner ratios" : while CWT's ratio is not "low", it's not really particularly high anymore vs. other BigLaw firms. Chambers does a "partner-to-associate" ratio calculation for all firms, and on that metric CWT's is higher (i.e., their associate-to-partner ratio is lower) than Weil, Skadden, Milbank, S&C, Ropes, STB, Cleary, Paul Weiss and Davis Polk, among others. See: https://www.chambers-associate.com/law- ... e-leverage

[EminentDumain]

Wait, I missed why anyone thinks BB is going to raise salaries?

Because when the cuts were announced, BB said they were only supposed to run until 7/31. By "raised" I think everyone means from the cut level back to the normal level.

Ah, got it. Thanks for indulging my disinclination to google.

Per ATL, it looks like BB is reducing their paycut from 20% to 10% until the end of the year and offering bonuses for associates who have been high-billers.

Curious if the BB associate who was posting before could react to this.

[NoLongerALurker]

So how are people's hours these days? I'm at 1000 on the year (so, slow, I guess, but after billing a grand total of only 50 hours in Jan/Feb it's felt pretty busy since, including a couple of super-slammed weeks). Are people's hours generally lower or has everyone sort of recovered? Do we expect a huge slump around election season?

[Anonymous User]

So how are people's hours these days? I'm at 1000 on the year (so, slow, I guess, but after billing a grand total of only 50 hours in Jan/Feb it's felt pretty busy since, including a couple of super-slammed weeks). Are people's hours generally lower or has everyone sort of recovered? Do we expect a huge slump around election season?

I'm under 900, so not good but probably not terrible given the circumstances.

[Anonymous User]

Has any firm that announced paycuts reversed them yet?

Cadwalader just announced that they are reversing their 25% paycut, effective August 1st. As a Cadwalader attorney, it gets a lot of well-deserved hate here, but I’m pleased that they restored salaries to normal.

Could you speak more as to the well-deserved hate? I know that they were the "market leaders" on salary cuts and are par for the course on biglaw cheapness, but I also get the sense that some of the ill will towards them occurs because they had screamer partners, huge layoffs, and generally poor morale circa the great recession and that they have markedly improved since then, especially in the past 5 years. What are some of the current bad aspects that make them deserve more hate than other firms with alleged reputational problems that are shit on a lot less (e.g., Jones Day, Paul Hastings, Goodwin Proctor)?

Ex-Cad Associate here (left over a year ago).
The firm has been notorious for layoffs in the past, has one of the highest associate-to-partner ratios (making it less stable than most firms), had significant financial issues during one of the most profitable periods, very much overly focused on structured finance (CLOs/CMBS, etc.), without much diversification (and structured fin absolutely sucks as work--so much rote changing of forms). There's enough stuff on this forum that this can easily searched. It's also just has a general low reputation among "elite" schools (so heavy reliance on lower-tier schools, take that fwiw, not commenting on whether good/bad, just is), summer class has been shrinking repeatedly over the past few years. The firm has kept its finances up by generally pushing people out (see above associate-partner ratio), making the firm look more profitable than it really was.

Things have supposed to have been turned around. But the mere fact that they were one of the first to cut pay is telling (but entirely unsurprising).

That said: I was there, stayed a while, left. QoL not great; not terrible, and enjoyed the people I worked with (have close friends there/from there still). Nonetheless, stability was my concern and Cad can be lacking there a bit. Didnt deal with screamers (think those left), but how much it has improved from the past practices is questionable. It's a bottom line place moreso than others. Was, is, and probably will be.

Agree with the general point here re: CWT's over-specialization on structured finance leading to high volatility in revenues and therefore instability. However, one minor quibble re: CWT having one of the "highest associate-to-partner ratios" : while CWT's ratio is not "low", it's not really particularly high anymore vs. other BigLaw firms. Chambers does a "partner-to-associate" ratio calculation for all firms, and on that metric CWT's is higher (i.e., their associate-to-partner ratio is lower) than Weil, Skadden, Milbank, S&C, Ropes, STB, Cleary, Paul Weiss and Davis Polk, among others. See: https://www.chambers-associate.com/law- ... e-leverage

Didnt look too closely but is that equity partners? CWT has like 55 equity and the rest are non. Also CWT is far less profitable than those firms, with significantly lower profit margins.

[Anonymous User]

So how are people's hours these days? I'm at 1000 on the year (so, slow, I guess, but after billing a grand total of only 50 hours in Jan/Feb it's felt pretty busy since, including a couple of super-slammed weeks). Are people's hours generally lower or has everyone sort of recovered? Do we expect a huge slump around election season?

I'm under 900, so not good but probably not terrible given the circumstances.

I think I'm closer to like 650 billable, with a bunch of non billable.

[Anonymous User]

So how are people's hours these days? I'm at 1000 on the year (so, slow, I guess, but after billing a grand total of only 50 hours in Jan/Feb it's felt pretty busy since, including a couple of super-slammed weeks). Are people's hours generally lower or has everyone sort of recovered? Do we expect a huge slump around election season?

I'm under 900, so not good but probably not terrible given the circumstances.

I think I'm closer to like 650 billable, with a bunch of non billable.

I'm at like 825 billable and like 60 pro bono - I'm senior and my reviews were really good last year so I think I'm safe for now, but starting to worry that I may end up laid off if my hours don't improve soon.