Top Law Schools

and as Many as Five BigLaw Dissolutions.

No idea what to make of this. What do you guys think?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iglaw_diss

chimp wrote:and as Many as Five BigLaw Dissolutions.

No idea what to make of this. What do you guys think?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iglaw_diss

[Citation needed]

Arbiter213 wrote:

chimp wrote:and as Many as Five BigLaw Dissolutions.

No idea what to make of this. What do you guys think?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iglaw_diss

[Citation needed]

Yea I agree. Sounds like this is just some douchebag's opinion.

God, to be a consultant! He doesn't even really say anything. He says that firms need to cut "chronic under performers" and "get lean." He predicts several firms will fold if they don't "get lean." There is no standard against which to verify his prediction. If no firms fold, then they must have "gotten lean."

This is not to say that layoffs won't happen. It's just that there is absolutely nothing added to the discussion beyond what I can sit here and guess based on no inside information whatsoever.

rayiner wrote:God, to be a consultant! He doesn't even really say anything. He says that firms need to cut "chronic under performers" and "get lean." He predicts several firms will fold if they don't "get lean." There is no standard against which to verify his prediction. If no firms fold, then they must have "gotten lean."

This is not to say that layoffs won't happen. It's just that there is absolutely nothing added to the discussion beyond what I can sit here and guess based on no inside information whatsoever.

I wonder if it's too late for MBB recruiting?

How does one even become a law firm "consultant" anyway? I had no idea law firm-specific consultants existed, but apparently they do.

I think firms should move to the suburbs, at least most of their people, maybe keep a floor downtown for meeting clients. Save a ton of money that way.

This consultant is reacting to the Citibank report we talked about a while ago. It seems expenses are up and demand is down coupled with increasing pressures from clients to reduce fees. Of course if expenses, of which salaries are a huge part at law firms, are increSing over revenue, the main way to cut expenses is to fire people.

This pressure from expenses is the reason that firms didn't give spring bonuses.

I don't think this consultant is adding anything new. Maybe he has more direct access to law firm financials?

Desert Fox wrote:I think firms should move to the suburbs, at least most of their people, maybe keep a floor downtown for meeting clients. Save a ton of money that way.

They should just start moving their offices to foreclosed mansions.

chimp wrote:

Arbiter213 wrote:

chimp wrote:and as Many as Five BigLaw Dissolutions.

No idea what to make of this. What do you guys think?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iglaw_diss

[Citation needed]

Yea I agree. Sounds like this is just some douchebag's opinion.

+1

spleenworship wrote:

chimp wrote:

Arbiter213 wrote:

chimp wrote:and as Many as Five BigLaw Dissolutions.

No idea what to make of this. What do you guys think?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iglaw_diss

[Citation needed]

Yea I agree. Sounds like this is just some douchebag's opinion.

+1

Did you guys read the Citibank report? Just curious of what you think.

chimp wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I think firms should move to the suburbs, at least most of their people, maybe keep a floor downtown for meeting clients. Save a ton of money that way.

They should just start moving their offices to foreclosed mansions.

Since we are already partners bitches, they can just set up a desk in their basements.

sunynp wrote: Did you guys read the Citibank report? Just curious of what you think.

Nah. Link?

sunynp wrote:
Did you guys read the Citibank report? Just curious of what you think.

I think minor changes in profitability should be absorbed by the multi-millinoaire partners, rather than result in the dissolution of a still 9-figure revenue business.

Arbiter213 wrote:

sunynp wrote:
Did you guys read the Citibank report? Just curious of what you think.

I think minor changes in profitability should be absorbed by the multi-millinoaire partners, rather than result in the dissolution of a still 9-figure revenue business.

I don't think Citibank mentions dissolution. The consultant came up with that idea. I don't see where increased expenses means dissolution, but I do see layoffs as a result.

I'm not sure why firms don't start going to a system like this:

80K base, with 10% of your billed hour as bonus (paid monthly), 15% over 2000 hours.

That way, when times are tough, they have automatic cuts in salary, and in boom times, there is real incentive to bill more.

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not sure why firms don't start going to a system like this:

80K base, with 10% of your billed hour as bonus (paid monthly), 15% over 2000 hours.

That way, when times are tough, they have automatic cuts in salary, and in boom times, there is real incentive to bill more.

sounds pretty LEAN to me

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not sure why firms don't start going to a system like this:

80K base, with 10% of your billed hour as bonus (paid monthly), 15% over 2000 hours.

That way, when times are tough, they have automatic cuts in salary, and in boom times, there is real incentive to bill more.

i interviewed at a firm with no base salary. the associates essentially "bill" the partners they're doing work for. the partners pay the associates immediately, and then collect from the client (and may split with other partner(s) based on who originated the work, who managed it, etc).

sounded fucking crazy to me.

fatduck wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not sure why firms don't start going to a system like this:

80K base, with 10% of your billed hour as bonus (paid monthly), 15% over 2000 hours.

That way, when times are tough, they have automatic cuts in salary, and in boom times, there is real incentive to bill more.

i interviewed at a firm with no base salary. the associates essentially "bill" the partners they're doing work for. the partners pay the associates immediately, and then collect from the client (and may split with other partner(s) based on who originated the work, who managed it, etc).

sounded fucking crazy to me.

Jesus. That sounds like it would create an insanely stressful work environment.

chimp wrote:

fatduck wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not sure why firms don't start going to a system like this:

80K base, with 10% of your billed hour as bonus (paid monthly), 15% over 2000 hours.

That way, when times are tough, they have automatic cuts in salary, and in boom times, there is real incentive to bill more.

i interviewed at a firm with no base salary. the associates essentially "bill" the partners they're doing work for. the partners pay the associates immediately, and then collect from the client (and may split with other partner(s) based on who originated the work, who managed it, etc).

sounded fucking crazy to me.

Jesus. That sounds like it would create an insanely stressful work environment.

Sounds like (high end) contract attorney to me.

bk187 wrote:

chimp wrote:

fatduck wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:I'm not sure why firms don't start going to a system like this:

80K base, with 10% of your billed hour as bonus (paid monthly), 15% over 2000 hours.

That way, when times are tough, they have automatic cuts in salary, and in boom times, there is real incentive to bill more.

i interviewed at a firm with no base salary. the associates essentially "bill" the partners they're doing work for. the partners pay the associates immediately, and then collect from the client (and may split with other partner(s) based on who originated the work, who managed it, etc).

sounded fucking crazy to me.

Jesus. That sounds like it would create an insanely stressful work environment.

Sounds like (high end) contract attorney to me.

well, anyone can bring in work and bill it out, theoretically (either as originator or manager). as far as i could tell, the title "partner" was pretty nominal. so if you're an optimist, i guess it means everyone's a partner.

fatduck wrote:

bk187 wrote:

chimp wrote:

fatduck wrote:
i interviewed at a firm with no base salary. the associates essentially "bill" the partners they're doing work for. the partners pay the associates immediately, and then collect from the client (and may split with other partner(s) based on who originated the work, who managed it, etc).

sounded fucking crazy to me.

Jesus. That sounds like it would create an insanely stressful work environment.

Sounds like (high end) contract attorney to me.

well, anyone can bring in work and bill it out, theoretically (either as originator or manager). as far as i could tell, the title "partner" was pretty nominal. so if you're an optimist, i guess it means everyone's a partner.

This sounds awesome. Entrepreneurial. What did you perceive the downsides to be?

run26.2 wrote:This sounds awesome. Entrepreneurial. What did you perceive the downsides to be?

This eat what you kill mentality seems like it would foster an unhealthy level of competition (because nobody is guaranteed anything). Also, the attorneys at a firm like that would probably burn out super quickly because, not only do you have to worry about doing your work well for clients, you would have to worry about bringing in a lot of your own work as a junior attorney. To me it sounds like a free-market system on steroids without any of the perks.

chimp wrote:

run26.2 wrote:This sounds awesome. Entrepreneurial. What did you perceive the downsides to be?

This eat what you kill mentality seems like it would foster an unhealthy level of competition (because nobody is guaranteed anything). Also, the attorneys at a firm like that would probably burn out super quickly because, not only do you have to worry about doing your work well for clients, you would have to worry about bringing in a lot of your own work as a junior attorney. To me it sounds like a free-market system on steroids without any of the perks.

i should say that this is a midlaw firm, it's located in the suburbs, hours expectations are relatively low. their costs and rates are super low (for obvious reasons) so they have a pretty good amount of somewhat unsexy, low-margin work. it actually seemed like a decent place if you're super entrepreneurial and want to have a ton of flexibility (i mean, you're basically an hourly worker, so lol @ face time).