Pre-OCI Reception at Jenner & Block Chicago Forum

[D-hops]

Hopefully their SA class goes up a bit next year. It was a little surprising that it remained at 16 according to NALP for this summer when some of the other bigger Chicago firms (especially Sidley and K&E) made a jump back close to or above 09 levels.

Seems unlikely, Jenner is not very diversified (at least not as much as Kirkland and Sidley) and relies strongly on litigation. Chicago firms that have been able to increase hiring have done so through an expansion of their transactional practices. Jenner does have some transactional work, but I am not sure it is significant enough to expand hiring.

[seriouslyinformative]

To say that Sidley is diversified is to cause the noise of a million laughs being stifled.

[D-hops]

To say that Sidley is diversified is to cause the noise of a million laughs being stifled.

It is more than Jenner, but point taken.

[Anonymous User]

Work-life balance at Jenner seems like the real deal--at least for a firm (where "balance" means something very different than in most other career paths). Most people have cleared out of the office by 5:30-6, and although I imagine many do some work from home, I don't think most do more than another hour or two (and it seems typical to show up at the office between 8:30-9). People generally do not seem to work on weekends, although obviously you would if a big trial was coming up (or if it was your first year, at least sometimes). People seem happy with the amount of work they have, but not overwhelmed. hth

[Anonymous User]

Work-life balance at Jenner seems like the real deal--at least for a firm (where "balance" means something very different than in most other career paths). Most people have cleared out of the office by 5:30-6, and although I imagine many do some work from home, I don't think most do more than another hour or two (and it seems typical to show up at the office between 8:30-9). People generally do not seem to work on weekends, although obviously you would if a big trial was coming up (or if it was your first year, at least sometimes). People seem happy with the amount of work they have, but not overwhelmed. hth

Well that sounds very nice.

[Anonymous User]

So no firsthand experience with Jenner? Worklife?

Of the Chicago Big 5 (Kirkland, Sidley, Winston, Mayer, Jenner), Jenner is the one to avoid at all costs.

Why?

1. Non-lockstep, non-market salaries past the first year.
2. Non-market bonuses.
3. Stealthed people even in the good times.
4. Unstable (Just went through a round of deequitization)

[alumniguy]

So no firsthand experience with Jenner? Worklife?

Of the Chicago Big 5 (Kirkland, Sidley, Winston, Mayer, Jenner), Jenner is the one to avoid at all costs.

Why?

1. Non-lockstep, non-market salaries past the first year.
2. Non-market bonuses.
3. Stealthed people even in the good times.
4. Unstable (Just went through a round of deequitization)

Interesting. As a transactional associate in NY, I have absolutely no experience with Jenner, plenty with Kirkland and some with the remainder. But it seems that Winston and Mayer are also not faring particularly well in this economy (or MWE for that matter). Are these firms reputations in Chicago holding up better than in NY?

[Anonymous User]

Interesting. As a transactional associate in NY, I have absolutely no experience with Jenner, plenty with Kirkland and some with the remainder. But it seems that Winston and Mayer are also not faring particularly well in this economy (or MWE for that matter). Are these firms reputations in Chicago holding up better than in NY?

Their reputations definitely hold up better in Chicago, but I doubt they're in good financial health either way.

Thoughts on your dealings with K&E? Seems like the only serious New York office of a Chicago law firm.

[alumniguy]

Interesting. As a transactional associate in NY, I have absolutely no experience with Jenner, plenty with Kirkland and some with the remainder. But it seems that Winston and Mayer are also not faring particularly well in this economy (or MWE for that matter). Are these firms reputations in Chicago holding up better than in NY?

Their reputations definitely hold up better in Chicago, but I doubt they're in good financial health either way.

Thoughts on your dealings with K&E? Seems like the only serious New York office of a Chicago law firm.

Only a third year here, so certainly not an expert. But, K&E is definitely the most prominent of the Chicago firms for New York; however, I've worked opposite Sidley on some transactions and they have a decent presence as well. Interactions have been mainly on the junior/midlevel range and I'd say the dealing with both K&E and Sidley have been comparable. Of course, the fact of the matter is that lawyers are rocket scientists and the stuff isn't all that difficult to comprehend.

I see little to no deals with Winston, Mayer and Jenner.

[Anonymous User]

...pretty sure both Mayer and Winston are on worse financial footing than Jenner.

[bjsesq]

...pretty sure both Mayer and Winston are on worse financial footing than Jenner.

Ellipses are great for building suspense and little else. Could you flesh out what leads you to this conclusion?

[Anonymous User]

Yes Jenner deequitized, but in doing so seems to have pumped up to some pretty good numbers. True, they are skewed by the Lehman and GM matters. Does anyone know anything else about them?


http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... enner.html

March 8, 2011 11:34 AM

The Am Law 100: Jenner Profits Per Partner Jump 29 PercentPosted by Susan Beck
In a year where its gross revenue increased just 3 percent, Jenner & Block still managed to boost 2010 profits-per-equity partner by 29 percent, to $1.4 million, setting a record for the firm. The Chicago-based firm accomplished this, in part, by reducing the number of equity partners, from 132 to 117 (an 11 percent drop). The firm also cut expenses by nearly $10 million.
(Editor's note: Following a change in our methodology for the 2011 Am Law 200, the firm's 2009 numbers have been recalculated to reflect a full-year head count. All year-on-year percentage changes are based on those recalculated numbers.)

"We had a very good year last year," said Jenner's managing partner, Susan Levy, in a conversation with The Am Law Daily. "We were busy in all our offices, and we had several high-profile matters, including the Lehman examiner's report," she said. (The firm earned $58 million for its highly praised investigation and report.) Jenner was also counsel to General Motors in its initial public offering. The firm's gross revenue in 2010 rose to $379 million, and revenue per lawyer increased 2 percent to $865,000.

"We were very, very focused on managing costs," said Levy, who said the firm came in under budget on costs in nearly every category. Levy, however, declined to provide specifics.

When asked if the firm deequitized any partners, Levy said the firm "didn't do anything out of the normal course." The firm's lateral partner ranks rose from 60 to 72. Levy said the firm has been doing a lot of lateral hiring, and those partners typically join as nonequity partners, as do associates who have just made partner.

[seriouslyinformative]

Yes Jenner deequitized, but in doing so seems to have pumped up to some pretty good numbers. True, they are skewed by the Lehman and GM matters.

Move is good in the short term, questionable for the long.

[Anonymous User]

Ellipses can also be used to indicate an omission--in this case, the first part of the sentence.

My comment was based on the chatter I've heard in the Chicago legal world. I'm sorry to say I don't have anything more specific than that, but I welcome others summering at one of those firms in Chicago to chime in (I've heard partners and associates at several non-Jenner non-Mayer non-Winston Chicago biglaw firms make similar comments).

[alumniguy]

Yes Jenner deequitized, but in doing so seems to have pumped up to some pretty good numbers. True, they are skewed by the Lehman and GM matters. Does anyone know anything else about them?


http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... enner.html

March 8, 2011 11:34 AM

The Am Law 100: Jenner Profits Per Partner Jump 29 PercentPosted by Susan Beck
In a year where its gross revenue increased just 3 percent, Jenner & Block still managed to boost 2010 profits-per-equity partner by 29 percent, to $1.4 million, setting a record for the firm. The Chicago-based firm accomplished this, in part, by reducing the number of equity partners, from 132 to 117 (an 11 percent drop). The firm also cut expenses by nearly $10 million.
(Editor's note: Following a change in our methodology for the 2011 Am Law 200, the firm's 2009 numbers have been recalculated to reflect a full-year head count. All year-on-year percentage changes are based on those recalculated numbers.)

"We had a very good year last year," said Jenner's managing partner, Susan Levy, in a conversation with The Am Law Daily. "We were busy in all our offices, and we had several high-profile matters, including the Lehman examiner's report," she said. (The firm earned $58 million for its highly praised investigation and report.) Jenner was also counsel to General Motors in its initial public offering. The firm's gross revenue in 2010 rose to $379 million, and revenue per lawyer increased 2 percent to $865,000.

"We were very, very focused on managing costs," said Levy, who said the firm came in under budget on costs in nearly every category. Levy, however, declined to provide specifics.

When asked if the firm deequitized any partners, Levy said the firm "didn't do anything out of the normal course." The firm's lateral partner ranks rose from 60 to 72. Levy said the firm has been doing a lot of lateral hiring, and those partners typically join as nonequity partners, as do associates who have just made partner.

Here, I think the focus should be on revenues versus PPP. The high % increase in PPP did NOT result from an influx of business, but rather something else (the de-equitization and cost cutting). This doesn't really shed any light on the "health" of the firm other than as an indication that partners are not dis-satisfied economically speaking. I think a 3% rise in revenues is decent ITE, but focusing solely on PPP numbers/increases can lead to a skewed perspective, especially if you are an associate and not a partner.

What these numbers tell me is that the firm overall had a good year, the equity partner's profits are probably at an all-time high (or very close to peak levels) and most likely, associates aren't *sharing* in the firm's successes. I completely understand that bonuses are not tied to economic successes like at an investment bank, but any company that *values* its employees should realize that paying your staff at recession-level salaries while owners are making profits at pre-recession levels can't even begin to say that it values its staff. I guess my point here is that when you really get down to it, most if not all firms view associates in the exact same regard - as easily dispensable staff.

[westbayguy]

I guess my point here is that when you really get down to it, most if not all firms view associates in the exact same regard - as easily dispensable staff.

TITCR

[Anonymous User]

...pretty sure both Mayer and Winston are on worse financial footing than Jenner.

This is strongly in contrast to what I've heard from a few partners a biglaw firms.

[Anonymous User]

Mayer is doing well enough to be starting its class of 2011 on time this fall and is bringing people in off deferral early.