• Home
  • News
  • Eight Mayer Brown Associates Take $100K-Plus Pay Cut to Work In-house

Law Firms

Eight Mayer Brown Associates Take $100K-Plus Pay Cut to Work In-house

Posted Jun 2, 2009 6:17 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Mayer Brown has reduced the pay of eight associates by at least $100,000 and sent them to work for a year in the offices of law firm clients.

The associates—whose prior pay ranged from $160,000 to $200,000—are being paid $60,000 plus benefits to work in-house, with no guarantee of employment after the year is up, the Chicago Tribune reports. The deal may sound bad, but it’s an alternative to unemployment, the story says.

Chicago legal recruiter Art Gunther called the plan "a creative idea." Mayer Brown made the offer after cutting 45 lawyer jobs in April and 33 in November.

"These are young lawyers, and they are not going to find another $160,000 job out there," Gunther told the Tribune.

Companies taking on the Mayer Brown lawyers are United Airlines parent UAL Corp., Kraft Foods Inc., Fortune Brands Inc., Baxter International Inc. and W.W. Grainger Inc., the story says.

UAL senior vice president and general counsel Paul Lovejoy said two Mayer Brown lawyers are working in his legal department. "These are well-qualified people," Lovejoy told the Tribune. "If they stay with us, we have the advantage of a nice, long tryout."

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Jun 2, 2009 6:55 AM CST

So, he actually does understand that nobody else is going to pay these newly minted attorneys the $160,000 Mayer Brown was going to squander.  The coffee must be taking effect.

Flag this comment

2.

Hmm
Jun 2, 2009 9:46 AM CST

He’s stringing these attorneys along though. There is no guarantee of continued employment after the first year, but he’s making it sound like they do have a $160k a year job. So, the real question is, is it worth it to these attorneys to gamble on $60k a year and then making $160k a year after that, or would they be better off getting a position paying $100k. If that was me, I would probably take the $100k a year rather than $60k and hope for the best.

Flag this comment

3.

Greg Knapp
Jun 2, 2009 9:51 AM CST

Of course, poster Hmm assumes that there are available $100K jobs out there to be had.

Flag this comment

4.

JN
Jun 2, 2009 12:52 PM CST

Yeah, I believe #2 may be assuming they are entertaining other employment offers from big law firms. $60k now versus the possibility of $160k later, with newly minted JDs entering every 12 months, makes some sense.

Flag this comment

5.

Proletarian
Jun 2, 2009 4:37 PM CST

The little aristo-wannabes should consider themselves fortunate to be getting $60,000 - at least that figure is a lot closer to what they are really worth to an employer.  Gee, could it be that the smarmy prestige contests engaged in by White Shoe law firms are going to become a thing of the past?  One can only hope.

Flag this comment

6.

Dave
Jun 5, 2009 6:33 AM CST

Best thing that could happen to some of the involved lawyers.  Maybe they will avoid the big firm and see what it is like to make a decision instead of merely analyze so someone else can decide.  Of course, if they are one of those who fretted over every close multi state question, then they are in real trouble now.analize

Flag this comment

7.

Big Law
Jun 5, 2009 7:08 AM CST

I hate to break to all you guys, but as soon as this economy improves again, things at Big Law will go right back to the way it used to be.  There were a lot of layoffs and pay cuts during the 91’ recession too, but then things got better and the Big Law firms expanded and the high pay got even higher.  Outside of a rare excpetion, very biggest clients that have kept Big Law in business will not defect for simply a cheaper rate even in this economy.

Flag this comment

8.

hahaha
Jun 5, 2009 7:31 AM CST

So the company wins again…these people do realize that although they were being overpaid at the firm, they are being seriously underpaid to work at a major F100 or F200 company…

Flag this comment

9.

Tony
Jun 5, 2009 7:43 AM CST

Proletarian, newly minted lawyers are only worth $60K a year?

I wish someone had told me that before I accrued $120K in law school debt. I could have made $60K a year with my undegraduate degree (science / engineering degree).  Not all of us had useless degrees.

Maybe we expect a lot of money, but that’s because we have to pay sooo much every month for our student loans.  The problem isn’t new attorneys, but law schools which charge to much (and lie to get people in the door) and student loan companies (which loan too much because the government guarantees everything).

Flag this comment

10.

B. McLeod
Jun 5, 2009 8:01 AM CST

#7, it depends on how bad this downturn gets.  The people I know who lived through the depression of 1929 do not squander money, period.  It doesn’t matter how much they have, or that they only have a short span of years left to cover.  The residual fear from the awful want of those years never quite goes away.  Big Law, in fact, could not have reached its present excesses until most of the depression survivors retired from business.  If this recession reprises the 1930s, it will similarly be many decades before business people will return to stupidly wasting money for the sake of image.  (And in such a case, BigLaw will not be able to return to the conspicuous waste model).

Flag this comment

11.

Big Law
Jun 5, 2009 8:31 AM CST

#10, I agree that if we went through another Great Depression than all bets are off.  However, by all accounts we’ve already seen the worst of this recession and correspondingly the worst of the layoffs by Big Law.  Hence, serious changes in Big Law are not going to happen.

Flag this comment

12.

Appalled
Jun 5, 2009 8:33 AM CST

Tony:  The problem is the law schools and loan companies?  Perhaps if you went to law school because you wanted to practice law—instead of looking for the big payday—you wouldn’t be having misgivings about racking up the loans.  Perhaps if you had worked your way through law school, even part time, you wouldn’t have racked up so much debt.  I don’t get the connection between your expectations and the debt you decided to undertake.  If you went into law school only for the money and racked up debt on a false expectation that someone was going to hand you a huge salary at the end of it just because you finished—there’s a disconnect here.  It appears that YOU choose to do something based on dubious motives, false assumptions, unrealistic expectations, and apparently, the need to blame others because you took on something that only provides opportunity, but never held any guarantees, and like anything, subject to supply and demand and the whims of the economy.  Clearly, many did not see the recession coming and many are finding the need to adjust their expectations.  Life throws you the unexpected.  Blaming others gets you nowhere.  If you have sooo much to pay - where is your part in deciding to do that?

Flag this comment

13.

In H
Jun 5, 2009 8:35 AM CST

#9 - the problem isn’t the law schools or student loan companies.  The problem is law students who didn’t do any research on what they were getting themselve into with respect to post-graduation employment or the cost of law school.

Also, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you can get a very high quality legal education for a whole lot less than $120k.

Flag this comment

14.

JD
Jun 5, 2009 8:39 AM CST

#9, the problem is not law schools that charge too much and student loan companies. The problem is unrealistic, often ignorant, law students who do not properly assess the risk/reward of paying $120,000 to attend a private law school.  It is a wonder how many students who are considered so “bright” seem to display little common sense when it comes to the law school investment.

Many private law schools would not exist if it were not for ignorant students (and often their ignorant parents) paying exorbitant amounts of money to the schools.  Any school ranked outside the Top 100 that is private should not exist. Period. Students should stop paying to attend these schools. Period. IAnd that is being generous to some Top 100 schools. f you can’t get into a Top 100 school or lower tier public school, then wait a year and re-apply.

Flag this comment

15.

Hansen
Jun 5, 2009 9:14 AM CST

Everyone here has some good points, including #9. Up until this year, research could be done into law school and you would have the picture that, hey I could make a lot of money. Schools are very deceitful, and there are very few people that will tell you the truth. At the same time as another poster said you really shouldn’t be here just for the expectation of the money. #9 is an IP guy, like myself, and it is a little frustrating thinking that you progressing in life when maybe in fact you’re going backward. Schools definitely charge too much and one should be able to get a legal education in two years. Law schools are businesses and everyone needs to know that.

Flag this comment

16.

luke
Jun 5, 2009 9:35 AM CST

If attorneys are only worth 60K why are pharmacists paid 90-120k for counting pills?

Flag this comment

17.

Diamond Jim
Jun 5, 2009 9:48 AM CST

or why do veterarians make 200k a year for cleaning anal glands on small dogs and cats? Is comparable worth making comeback?

Flag this comment

18.

barbara res
Jun 5, 2009 9:54 AM CST

Goodness, goodness.  You are all crepe-hangers.  The sky is falling, the sky is falling cried chicken little.  We are not back in 1929.

But Hey,
Hiring someone for 200,000 and then cutting them to 60,000 - that is just horrendous.

Power rules and firms can get away with anything.

It starts out with too high starting salaries.  And too high partner salaries.

So a client says, OK I’ll pay you, big guy, but I ain’t paying no kid $300.00 and hour.  Big guy says put him on the payroll, and let him do the same work for 1/3 his salary.

Greed and arrogance on top of greed and arrogance on top of greed and stupidity.

Every one should be a solo.  We should have law cooperatives.

Flag this comment

19.

Jim
Jun 5, 2009 9:55 AM CST

I agree with BigLaw.  After a long hiatus, I’ve recently started getting calls from headhunters again.  Things are beginning to turn around.

Mayer Brown obviously doesn’t think much of these associates.  Considering the cost of living in Chicago and the size of these companies, half the paralegals at these companies will be making more than $60K.

Flag this comment

20.

In-House
Jun 5, 2009 10:41 AM CST

The thought of loosing 2/3 of your pay to work just as hard is frightening.  Some may say that having a job at $60k is better than no job at all.  I’m not so sure.  Perhaps these folks might be better off hanging out their own shingle.  To those hammering #9, not every person who enters law school has an opportunity to pursue their degree at a public institution.  Many only have an opportunity at a private school.  Additionally, not everyone can work while going to school.  Repaying those loans (mines at $800/month) is quite daunting and generally requires a big salary to pay back.

Flag this comment

21.

joe
Jun 5, 2009 11:26 AM CST

#7.  We are a small firm and these week alone we got 2 new clients that canned their Big Law.  CFO’s both said they couldn’t justify paying those rates anymore. 

Anything over $500 an hour and the CFO can’t justify to his shareholders why he is pissing away that money down the drain.

Flag this comment

22.

appalled
Jun 5, 2009 2:34 PM CST

#20: Not as frightening as someone who speaks of “loosing” his pay, tells us that “mines” at $800, and turns up his or her nose at $60k and thinks having no job might be better. 

If #9 couldn’t get into a public school - so what -why does that permit Tony to blithely rack up huge private school costs based on a misplaced notion of “entitlement” to a big salary at the end of the day to pay for it?  And if you can’t work while going to school (not at all? not summers?) then maybe work BEFORE going and save some money up.  Is it so insane to expect someone to do what they can afford or defer it until they can afford it?  What you you ‘require” and what you can get are two different things these days.

Flag this comment

23.

thatsreality
Jun 11, 2009 10:00 AM CST

So funny reading the musings of whining wannabees on this site about “overpaid” lawyers. They are not over paid when the client gets the results they want .  Someone is willing to pay them and someone else is making a profit on them.  Socialists need to get over it either A: get a better job or B: blame your self for not doing better in school or C: stop whining about other people making money.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.