“Earlier this fall, when elite firms were falling over themselves to match the Davis Polk special bonus scale, others were in no rush, instead simply committing to make sure that associates would be properly compensated in the future. That’s what Goodwin Procter did back in early October. Lo and behold, today, the morning after Cravath announced that it would fall in line to match those generous pandemic bonuses, Goodwin has announced that it will be handing out special bonuses on the DPW scale,” reports Staci Zaretsky in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“But, there’s a catch. While the DPW special bonuses merely required associates to be in ‘good standing,’ Goodwin’s special bonuses are hours-based by class year.”

Read the article.

“Which Biglaw firm is the true gold standard of Biglaw compensation? … Cravath is sorta the default answer, even though they aren’t, strictly speaking, the top of the market. And that reputation took a further hit this year when Cooley started the COVID fall bonus trend followed by Davis Polk coming over the top of that scale, while Cravath opted to wait until the end of the year. Now year-end bonuses at Cravath have been announced, and while their associates will get full market scale, it’s clear they’re not about making any waves this year,” writes Kathryn Rubino in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“But there’s another firm that’s been making their pitch to be the compensation leader. Milbank’s the firm that brought about the $190K salary scale, and last year, they were the first to move on year-end bonuses. So they’ve definitely proven they have what it takes to set the standard in Biglaw compensation. Now they’ve released their year-end bonuses…”

Read the article.

“Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP is pleased to announce that the attorneys, directors, and advisors from Redgrave LLP will join the firm’s Encompass practice, establishing Encompass Redgrave as the nation’s largest and most comprehensive information and discovery law practice. In this field, both firms already top the market in scale and scope of experience and resources, and the combined team will offer clients unparalleled depth of legal experience along with best-in-class technological capabilities to address the most complex and high-risk litigation, government investigation, and data governance challenges,” posted the company on Encompass’ News.

“Encompass Redgrave will be co-led by John Martin and Jonathan Redgrave. Martin, who has led the Encompass practice at Nelson Mullins since its inception more than a decade ago, said.”

Read the article.

“It’s been almost one week since Baker McKenzie unexpectedly kicked off Biglaw’s 2020 bonus season, and the announcement has been met with crickets. To be honest, no one thought Baker of all firms would be the one to make the first move, and based on associates’ responses to our annual bonus and billable hours survey, no one really thought this year’s bonus scale would be announced as early as it was due to the ongoing pandemic. Thirty-four percent of our respondents think a big bonus announcement will drop sometime this week, while 33 percent think it will come next week. As a reminder, last year, bonuses were announced on November 7, and the year before that, bonuses were announced just before Thanksgiving, in the second to last week of November,” reports Staci Zaretsky in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

Read the article.

“Schiff Hardin, a firm that brought in $186,437,000 gross revenue in 2019, ranking 158th on the Am Law 200. If you recall, back in April, the firm instituted some of the largest associate pay cuts we’d heard about during the coronavirus crisis. While the majority of attorneys saw a 15 percent compensation cut, certain practice areas took an astonishing 50 percent hit. Staff making $100,000+ were also subject to up to a 15 percent cut, and the firm also laid off some staff members,” reports Staci Zaretsky in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“After months of suffering, all of this bad news is finally coming to and end.”

Read the article.

“Another day, another Biglaw firm that’s reversing its COVID-19 austerity measures,” reports Staci Zaretsky in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“This time, the good news is coming from Taft Law (formerly known as Taft Stettinius & Hollister). If you recall, back in April, the firm decided to reduce partner draws by 25 percent, leaving compensation for staff, associates, and of counsel attorneys intact. At the same time, the firm laid off 1.4 percent of its attorneys and 3.5 percent of its staff. We’ve been told that the firm’s partners received a treat for Halloween instead of a trick, because all of their pay was restored in full in October.”

Read the article.

“For the past seven months, the coronavirus crisis has ravaged the legal profession, leading to salary cuts, furloughs, and in some cases, layoffs. But some firms seem to have remained completely unscathed by the global economic turmoil that’s been caused by COVID-19,” writes Staci Zaretsky in Above The Law’s Biglaw.

“Take Greenberg Traurig, a firm that brought in $1,641,790,000 in gross revenue last year, earning it 14th place in the latest Am Law 100 ranking, for example. Back in April, we reported that the firm had offered “a good deal of transparency about [its] financial position” and assured attorneys that there would be no layoffs. At that time, there had been no word of salary cuts at the firm, and to our knowledge, throughout the pandemic, no such cuts were made. The firm made it quite far without having to take any major cost-cutting measures, but sources have told us that GT has now decided to roll out a voluntary separation program for full-time staff.”

Read the article.

“After a routine compliance review by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Locke Lord LLP – a federal contractor formerly known as Edwards Wildman – voluntarily entered into a conciliation agreement to resolve allegations of pay discrimination at its Providence, Rhode Island, office,” released the U.S. Department of Labor’s News Releases.

“In January 2015, Locke Lord LLP acquired Edwards Wildman. In fiscal years 2016 through 2020, Locke Lord LLP received payments totaling $4,915,638 due to federal contracts.”

“After a routine compliance evaluation, OFCCP alleged that Locke Lord LLP discriminated in its practice of issuing bonuses to 22 female associates. While not admitting the allegations, Locke Lord LLP agreed to provide relief for the affected associates totaling $150,000 in lost bonuses and interest, as well as assuring that all employees are afforded equal employment opportunities.”

Read the article.

Lyons & Simmons, LLP has a hard-earned reputation for obtaining big results in important personal injury and wrongful death cases. The trial firm’s custom-tailored, client-focused approach has yielded remarkable results, leading to selection by readers of Texas Lawyer magazine as the top personal injury firm in Dallas in the “Best of 2020” survey of the Texas legal market.

The firm – led by founders Michael Lyons and Christopher Simmons – has garnered an impressive recent string of victories without a loss on its scorecard. That nearly unprecedented success has not gone unnoticed, either by clients or peers. In addition to recognition as the Best PI Firm in Dallas, Lyons and Simmons were recently named individually in The Best Lawyers in America, while trial lawyer Stephen Higdon was honored among Best Lawyer’s Ones to Watch.

The attorneys of Lyons & Simmons are truly warriors for their clients’ cases and causes, and it is a responsibility they take very seriously. Their tenacity, ingenuity and innovation have become hallmarks of the firm, and something that clients have come to expect and opponents respect.

Devoted to representing people who have the deck stacked against them, the firm has developed a national reputation for getting remarkable results in big, high-exposure disputes. Michael Lyons and Christopher Simmons’ recent results look more like career-spanning highlights than a 22-month snapshot.

In 2019, the pair represented the family of Parker Waldridge, one of five victims of the worst oilfield incident in Oklahoma history (and the deadliest in the U.S. since the 2010 Macondo Deepwater Horizon blowout). Waldridge was burned alive trying to escape a well fire sparked by a blowout that occurred while workers were performing drilling operations. The fire was so intense that it could be seen on satellite images. Lyons and Simmons have noted that the human tragedy from this case is one that still haunts them, as the circumstances that led to the blowout should never have happened.

Shortly before the start of that trial, the firm obtained a settlement with the last remaining defendant. The combined settlements in the case resulted in one of the largest recoveries for a wrongful death claimant in Oklahoma history. But for the attorneys of Lyons & Simmons, financial restitution is simply not enough in cases such as this. Through their investigative work, the partners were able to demonstrate the circumstances and practices that led to the tragedy, which will help to change the culture that allowed it to occur.

Such efforts to institute change are a recurring theme in the firm’s work.

“Our clients’ problems are our problems. I literally lose sleep at night thinking about how they have been wronged and how I intend to fix it,” says Lyons. “We are always ready to go into battle for our clients.”

Emblematic of their commitment to change was a particularly unsettling sexual assault case. The client, who suffered from dementia, was sexually assaulted in her own home by a cable installer. The team’s investigation would ultimately uncover a blind spot in the hiring practices of communications companies, which allowed dangerous predators to be employed. Lyons and Simmons were in the middle of depositions with corporate representatives when it became obvious that the “ball had been dropped” during the employment screening process. After shining a light on these negligent practices, the company was finally ready to take responsibility for its shortcomings.

“Most of our cases are David vs. Goliath stories,” says Simmons. “It is usually us against some giant institution represented by a team of big-firm lawyers whose strategy is to outspend and outflank you. We are not going to be intimidated. We just say, ‘Bring it on.’ We will be ready.”

Learn more.

“Good news continues to trickle in for associates who’ve hitched themselves to the right law firms or practices, as more firms either end pandemic pay cuts or pile special bonuses on top of lawyers’ regular earnings,” reports David Thomas in Thomas Reuters Westlaw Today.

“In the case of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, starting Oct. 1 the firm is completely scrapping pay cuts it enacted earlier for associates, of counsel and staff.”

Read the article.

“Law.com recently published its latest edition of the Global 100, a ranking of the world’s 100 largest law firms by total revenue,” reports Staci Zaretsky in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“Overall, the Global 100’s gross revenue grew by 4.7 percent, bringing the collective earnings of these firms up to $119.6 billion. Of course, this is nowhere near the heights reached in 2018, when gross revenue for the Global 100 increased by 8.1 percent, but when Biglaw is up by $5.4 billion, there’s not much room for complaints. The United States continues to dominate the list, and this time around, 50 firms had more than $1 billion in revenue — and the vast majority of those firms are based in the U.S.”

Read the article.

“Five former Nixon Peabody partners allege that their former law firm tried to punish them for jumping to DLA Piper by trying to claw back bonuses and withholding money in support of the effort,” summarizes Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Law Firms.

“Their mediation petition, filed Tuesday in New York state court, claims that Nixon Peabody’s bonus clawback provision restricts partners from practicing law where they choose. As a result, the provision is unenforceable under New York law, the petition says.”

“The partners resigned from Nixon Peabody in June 2019, the same month their bonuses for fiscal year 2018 were paid in full, the petition says. The partners each were awarded a bonus of $100,000 or more for fiscal year 2018, which ended Jan. 31, 2019. Nixon Peabody did not allow the partners to begin work at their new firm until July 16, 2019, according to the petition.”

Read the article.

“Davis Polk & Wardwell is changing to a more flexible compensation system, allowing it to pay more money to retain and attract rainmaking partners,” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Daily News.

“Davis Polk has paid partners based on seniority under a lockstep compensation model. The law firm is changing to a modified lockstep system.”

“Only a few elite New York firms retain a strict lockstep pay structure, according to Bloomberg Law. Other firms that have used a lockstep system include Cravath Swaine & Moore, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, and Debevoise & Plimpton. Those firms typically were most profitable, enabling high partner compensation.”

Read the article.

“A 32-year-old woman suspected since July of running an unlawful law practice in Uptown Dallas has been arrested in Boston, and police are asking anyone who may have been victimized to speak up,” reports Marc Ramirez in The Dallas Morning News’ Crime.

“Massachusetts state police detained Camilia Shene Johnson at Logan International Airport on Sept. 5 as she tried to board a flight to Istanbul, Turkey. Johnson, a convicted felon, also goes by the name Camilia Johnson Ibrahim.”

“Authorities had been looking into Johnson’s conduct since mid-July, when a skeptical DeSoto resident alerted police to say that a number of legal actions being proposed to them by the suspect were in fact not the law.”

Read the article.

“An Illinois lawyer, who reportedly lied and said he had cancer—when he did not—and instead was looking for discovery deadline extensions, is facing potential suspension from the practice of law. He also allegedly lied about having cancer on his University of Chicago Law School application,” reports Stephanie Francis Ward in ABA Journal’s News.

“In 2015, Vincenzo Field reportedly asked an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Illinois for additional discovery time because he would be out of the office for four months.”

Read the article.

“The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy liquidation of Richmond law firm LeClairRyan is starting to dig a little deeper,” reports Michael Schwartz in Richmond Bizsense.

“Lynn Tavenner, who has led the hunt for assets for creditors since the once mighty firm collapsed last year, will question and gather information from a lengthy list of LeClairRyan’s former attorneys, management and others it did business with over the years.”

“Tavenner sought and received court approval last month to begin the so-called 2004 examination process, which would give her the ability to push for the turning over of documents and conducting of depositions, including via subpoena if necessary.”

Read the article.

“Baker McKenzie is laying off 6% of its workforce in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Those laid off include lawyers, other timekeepers and business professionals,” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s News.

“Davis Wright is laying off 39 staff members who had been furloughed. The staff members were in office services, legal assistance and other administrative positions.”

“Venable is laying off some furloughed employees, as well as some other professional staff members. The firm did not disclose numbers.”

Read the article.

Improving rate management to optimize cost-effectiveness of your legal department operations.

By Kris Satkunas, director of strategic consulting of LexisNexis CounselLink

As businesses of all sizes scramble to cut costs and reformulate budgets during today’s economic uncertainty, corporate legal departments are under immense pressure to smartly manage outside legal spend. In turn, this pressure is prompting inside counsel to examine the rates they pay outside counsel and raising questions about what rates are justified. But to properly determine rates they should pay outside counsel, corporate legal departments must use their enterprise legal management (ELM) systems to mine data, analyze it, and make wise decisions.

How do you optimize ELM data to get the answers to your business questions? Below are six essential steps to take.

Step 1: Choose Your Metrics
Consider the questions you need to answer to choose the best metrics. In this case, the goal is to identify where the greatest opportunities are to negotiate lower rates. What metrics will help you best? I’d suggest three are highly relevant:

• Current year timekeeper billed rates – for obvious reasons. This is the current state.
• Change (increase) in timekeeper rates over the last two years – Firms that have increased rates more significantly are likely ones where there is greater leverage to negotiate. Evaluating the percentage change over a two-year period will help to normalize for firms that may have increased rates by a significantly higher amount in one year, but minimally or not at all in another.
• Two-year hours billed – It’s important to focus analytic efforts on areas likely to yield the greatest results. There may be a partner that bills $2,000/hour, but only is engaged on your matters for a couple of hours per year. Bringing a volume metric into this analysis helps keep the focus on what’s most relevant.

Step 2: Organize Your Data
Legal departments pay widely disparate rates for different types of legal work, e.g. work that is largely commoditized vs. work that is unique or requires specialized legal skills. Therefore, when comparing rates paid to multiple firms, it’s critical to look at comparable types of legal work. Most organizations classify legal work by matter type, which will help with this step of segmentation.

Additionally, it’s worth considering whether particular matters have greater strategic value or a larger potential impact on the organization. You may decide that you’re willing to pay premium rates for this type of work, so you want the ability to filter them in/out of your data set and look at them independently.

Step 3: Filter
The matter segmentation referenced in step 2 is one important way to filter data. Additionally, for a billable rate analysis, it’s going to be important to filter data based on timekeeper title (eg. distinguishing between rates paid to partners versus various levels of associates).

Step 4: Analyze & Visualize
In this stage, you’ll evaluate the data you’ve collected to look for the stories it tells. The analytic process typically starts at a higher, aggregate level and then drills down to lower levels of detail to identify patterns vs. outliers. It can be very helpful to have a business intelligence tool that supports data visualization to perform such analysis.

A bubble chart is a useful type of visualization to show the interrelationship of three metrics. In this example, the X-axis represents the two-year percentage increase in rates, the Y-axis represents the hourly rate billed, and the size of each circle represents the volume of hours billed. At an aggregate level, this analysis might start by comparing law firms. Each circle is plotting the weighted average hourly rate (weighted on hours billed) of partners billing from different firms.

Using a chart like this clearly paints the story that the law firm handling the highest volume (the largest bubble) has increased partner rates the most, and bills average rates that are materially higher than the firm handling the second highest level of volume (the mid-sized bubble). This firm may be a good candidate for rate negotiation.

A subsequent natural step would be to drill to the individual timekeeper level where each bubble would represent an individual partner, colored by law firm. Remember, start at the aggregate level for analytic purposes, and gradually peel back the onion to probe more deeply. Starting at a more granular level can lead to losing sight of the big picture.

Step 5: Benchmark
The analysis up until now has been based on a given corporation’s legal data. Bringing in external benchmarks at this stage will enrich the analysis and potentially help to validate the conclusions drawn from internal data. ELMs such as CounselLink incorporate benchmarking modules into their platforms for just this purpose.

When leveraging benchmark data, it is critical to be discerning in the filtering process so that external data is as comparable to your legal work as possible. The two most important filters to apply to benchmark data are matter type and law firm size. These are the most highly correlated attributes to hourly rates. For example, if in Step 2 when you organized your own data, one of your material buckets of legal work was immigration-related employment matters, you want to look at benchmarks of what other companies pay for immigration work, not the broader bucket of employment work. Further, if you are using mid-size, regional firms to handle immigration matters, make sure that’s what your benchmark data represents as well. There is a tendency to gravitate toward geographic filters when benchmarking rates billed by law firm, but size of firm has a greater correlation to rates than does geography.

Step 6: Leverage
Once you have categorized, filtered, and analyzed your data from your ELM, it’s time to leverage the output to answer the original question – “Where are the greatest opportunities to negotiate lower hourly rates?” Rather than taking a scattershot approach, you’re now armed with data to target firms with the greatest savings opportunities.

These six steps will set you well on your way to determining what your legal department should be paying, and which vendors will help you meet your budget goals. Remember, it all starts with the right questions. Your data will give you the answers, it’s just a matter of tapping into your ELM in the smartest way.

“An overbilling lawsuit filed against K&L Gates on Monday alleges the law firm used multiple techniques to increase its fees fraudulently while representing a company in a suit over a failed lease agreement,” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s  News.

“The Aug. 24 suit, filed in the District of Utah’s Central Division, says K&L Gates billed $1.6 million in legal fees between May 2016 and October 2016, even though it was not hired to be the primary law firm in the representation.”

“The suit was filed by Chicora Life Center and its owner, Chicora Garden Holdings. Chicora Life Center’s manager is lawyer and developer Douglas Durbano, who announced a congressional run in January but failed to get on the primary ballot, the Deseret News reported in May.”

Read the article.

“Social distancing and stay-at-home measures enacted in the wake of COVID-19 have forced many businesses to significantly change the way they operate and communicate. Nowhere is this change more noticeable than in the world of negotiations, which have moved almost entirely to digital platforms,” discusses a post in Davis Wright Tremaine’s Corporate and Business Transactions Blog.

“Businesses that are quick to adjust and adapt have an advantage over those which lag behind.”

This post provides “some tips on how to effectively conduct virtual negotiations—where communications involve the ability to hear and see (at least a headshot of) the other parties.”

Read the article.