Pillsbury Restructuring

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone talk about Pillsbury generally (culture, hours, compensation, etc.) or their restructuring group specifically?

There are some older threads that mention financial concerns but those are several years old. Recent AmLaw rankings seem to show solid revenue. The fact that they've temporarily cut salaries isn't concerning to me so long as it was done as a precautionary measure and not in desperation.

[jarofsoup]

Why would you go to a restructuring group that cut salaries?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. From what I’ve seen, a lot of firms are doing this as a precautionary measure. My current firm has temporarily cut equity partner draws by 25% and income partners 10%. Our finances are fine but no one knows how this is going to pan out in the long run. Frankly, temporarily cutting salaries right now (if it’s being done as a precaution and not because they have to to keep the lights on) tells me that the firm is being financially responsible and I appreciate that.

[ghostoftraynor]

Nobody is doing this as a precautionary measure. They are trying to deal with significant, unexpected restraints on liquidity.

[jigiwo1898jupiter]

OP here. From what I’ve seen, a lot of firms are doing this as a precautionary measure. My current firm has temporarily cut equity partner draws by 25% and income partners 10%. Our finances are fine but no one knows how this is going to pan out in the long run. Frankly, temporarily cutting salaries right now (if it’s being done as a precaution and not because they have to to keep the lights on) tells me that the firm is being financially responsible and I appreciate that.

Financially responsible would mean being able to weather this, at least at this stage, without having to cut salaries... any firm cutting salaries is desperate.

[Anonymous User]

I disagree but I appreciate all of the above input/perspectives.

If anyone has any Pillsbury-specific knowledge, that would be helpful.

[tyrant_flycatcher]

OP here. From what I’ve seen, a lot of firms are doing this as a precautionary measure. My current firm has temporarily cut equity partner draws by 25% and income partners 10%. Our finances are fine but no one knows how this is going to pan out in the long run. Frankly, temporarily cutting salaries right now (if it’s being done as a precaution and not because they have to to keep the lights on) tells me that the firm is being financially responsible and I appreciate that.

Financially responsible would mean being able to weather this, at least at this stage, without having to cut salaries... any firm cutting salaries is desperate.

It is possible to be both financially prudent and desperate.

[Anonymous User]

I work at K&E/Weil, and I have NEVER encountered Pillsbury in any matter, in any capacity whatsoever--not as creditors' counsel, agent's counsel, landlords' counsel, etc.

Take that FWIW.

[sms18]

OP here. From what I’ve seen, a lot of firms are doing this as a precautionary measure. My current firm has temporarily cut equity partner draws by 25% and income partners 10%. Our finances are fine but no one knows how this is going to pan out in the long run. Frankly, temporarily cutting salaries right now (if it’s being done as a precaution and not because they have to to keep the lights on) tells me that the firm is being financially responsible and I appreciate that.

If your firm is cutting associate salaries just as a precautionary measure, is it going to make associates whole by the end of the year if it turns out it didn't really need to cut salaries in the first place (since its financials are fine)?

Some people don't seem to get that cutting partner draws is not at all the same as cutting associate salaries because partners can just draw more later if they aren't able to draw to their full satisfaction now (in other words, they can make themselves whole later on if there is sufficient cash - no such assurance has been provided to any of the associates, to my knowledge, at the firms where associate salaries have been cut).

[Anonymous User]

I work at K&E/Weil, and I have NEVER encountered Pillsbury in any matter, in any capacity whatsoever--not as creditors' counsel, agent's counsel, landlords' counsel, etc.

Take that FWIW.

Pillsbury is counsel to the non-consenting states' group in the Purdue bankruptcy. And was NY's counsel in the Insys bankruptcy.

[jarofsoup]

I don’t know what the group is like or the culture. It’s not a huge practice like Weil or Kirkland. Which, depending on your personality type, may be a good thing.

I don’t know if any nightmare personalities that work there.

[decimalsanddollars]

Pillsbury restructuring is not a major player; the group is a couple dozen lawyers, mostly in NYC, SF, and Houston, and no more than 10 attorneys in each office do that work.

[Anonymous User]

I disagree but I appreciate all of the above input/perspectives.

If anyone has any Pillsbury-specific knowledge, that would be helpful.

Former Pillsbury associate in a secondary market, albeit not in restructuring. It's a bit of a weird, staid firm. They have a few niche practices they excel in but otherwise seem to be middling overall. Working dynamics are also not like they are at other firms since they utterly lack leverage, so there often isn't a division between you and the partners and most matters tend to be rather lean in terms of staffing. Barely knew that the restructuring group existed while I was there. They're also a bit cheap (they don't pay scale unless you make hours and pretty sure the bonuses are below-market as you get higher up). All that said, I definitely got a more relaxed, non-hectic vibe from working there as opposed to my current locale that's higher up the Vault/Chambers list both generally and for my particular practice -- sophistication of matters is very different as well.