Salaries, perks, and bad times
In How to Choose a Firm (The Magic Number) Wild, Wild Law has posted a comparison of hourly pay at local law firms, using a formula based on the published starting associate salaries and minimum billing expectation. It’s an interesting comparison, showing a range of $37 to $71 per hour.
Without info about bonuses, the dollar amount isn’t really accurate. But the range of 1800 to 2160 expected billable hours probably gives a clue about lifestyles at the various firms. Those who focus primarily on dollars and perks need to look at the fine print, as noted in Law Firm Perks Are Nice, but What's the Catch?
Wild, Wild’s comparison shows the increasing number of local firms that have pushed their starting salaries closer to the mid six figures resulting from salary wars from the national’s biggest firms last year. It makes me wonder - have any local firms adopted another trend – in house career counseling?
As Law.com reports in Sometimes Law Firm's Counselors Advise Getting Out, a few firms have placed a career counselor on staff. The idea behind this is to help with associates with career development, such as building their practice or finding their niche. However, as the headline indicates, sometimes the advice helps the associate just get out of an unhappy situation.
Career advice may be a good idea, especially for firms with unnaturally bloated salaries. For example, the number two firm on Wild, Wild’s list has frozen the salaries of its staff, as Wild, Wild reported in Support staff feeling the (economic) burn).
Too many headlines from the past weeks have announced the effects on law firms of the slow down in the economy. Here’s a small sampling:
Associate layoffs start in the US
Thacher Proffitt Warns of Associate Layoffs
Greenberg Traurig's CEO Announces Plan to Freeze Some Salaries
Of course, the warning came long ago – With Dip in Economy, Are Associate Layoffs on the Horizon?
The Pitfalls of Taking a Sabbatical
Nevada made the ABA Journal’s website again, this time for Glen Lerner’s failure to appear on the first day of a murder trial in which he represented the defendant. The story, Lawyer Misses Client’s Murder Trial, Says He’s on Sabbatical links to yesterday’s R-J article by Robert Kihara, RISKING SANCTIONS: 'Heavy Hitter' in tough spot . Both articles quote UNLV Prof. Martin Geer’s description of Lerner’s actions as outrageous.
The ABA article also references some of Lerner’s colorful ads, including one with space aliens asking him for advice. I’m kinda I missed that one.
Lerner is reportedly writing a book. No mention of what kind of book. I am guessing fiction.
Docking pay for unmet billables?
Last year, salary wars were big in the news, with New York firms offering starting salaries for newly graduated attorneys at as high as $160,000. This year, the story is those wars will cool off, especially with the downturn in the economy. Even bonuses might decrease. Billable hour expectations, however, likely will not.
But those kinds of stories (and salaries) are for the national big boys. Things are different locally.
Especially at a well known local firm that is reportedly taking drastic measures to deal with unmet expectations for billable hours. Reportedly concerned because only four associates made a 2000 hour billable requirement last year, the firm has taken to requiring 80 billable hours in each two week period. If the requirement isn’t met, the associate’s paycheck will be less. On the other hand, associates now get additional pay for each hour over 80. See Will, Wild Law for more details here and here and here.
Paying employees hourly wages is nothing new, of course, although it is atypical for associates in respectable law firms. The risk of bill padding exists in any billable hour scheme, as Scott Turow point out in The Billable Hour Must Die. But surely the risk seems even greater when you imagine a young associate, burdened with student loans and a mortgage with a sky-rocketing ARM, facing a dock in pay because he chose to work on a pro bono case or attend a CLE.
I suspect hiring partners from other firms have received a slew of resumes from associates from this firm.
Judges speak out on effective written advocacy
Last Friday I had the pleasure of moderating a CLE on Effective Written Advocacy. The panel considered of Judge Stewart Bell; Judge Jackie Glass, Judge Kenneth Cory, Judge David Wall and Judge Elissa Cadish, all from the Eighth Judicial District. This is the busiest court in the country, with the most burdened judges in terms of caseload.
I can’t say it was much of a surprise to me to hear that what judges would really like to see in written advocacy is a concise explanation of what the writer wants, and why the writer should receive it. Nor was I surprised to hear that they are unimpressed by slurs and sneers against opposing counsel. (But judges – sometimes it just feels good to write those things!)
I was somewhat surprised to hear that judges don't mind having counsel take the opportunity for a preliminary procedural issue to ‘educate” the judge about the entire factual dispute underlying the merits of the case.
As for the ever popular citations in the text or in footnotes argument, these judges prefer them in the text, finding that method easier to read. I concur!
All in all, the CLE was a nice opportunity to hear from judges about what is really important to them.
Congrats to all who passed the July 2007 Nevada bar exam!
Unofficial bar results were published yesterday. The (unofficial) pass rate was 66%, the same as last year, but higher than the February 2007.
Congratulations to KKBRF associates Jordan Pinjuv, Eric Willis and Michael Schwartzer, each of whose names appear on the list! Way to go, guys!
The admission ceremonies are as follows:
Reno Ceremony
Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
Lawlor Events Center
Silver & Blue Room
1664 N. Virginia Street
Las Vegas Ceremony
Friday, November 2, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
Cashman Center
Auditorium
850 N. Las Vegas Blvd.
Halverson expresses antipathy toward judicial merit selection
Today, in “Don't show her 'Missouri Plan,'” the Sun reports on Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s interaction with last week’s CCBA monthly luncheon speaker Doreen Dodson, chair woman of the American Bar Association 's Judicial Independence Committee.
I was present at the CCBA luncheon and thought Judge Halverson’s participation added greatly to the presention. Before taking questions, Ms. Dodson specifically addressed strategies to deal with hostile questions. Judge Halverson provided her with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate those skills.
Lest there be any doubt, I am an unabashed supporter of merit selection for judges. The plan approved by the Nevada Legislature this past session is, save for the 55% retention vote requirement, very like that used with much success in Colorado for some decades. The Nevada version, like Colorado’s, includes performance reviews by a Judicial Performance Commission, which insures voters have relevant information available in making a retention decision. I urged the adoption of just such a plan in my October 2006 Communiqué article, “Selecting Judges: Making Informed Choices.” Kudos to the legislature for taking the first step toward helping Nevada’s judges maintain their independence of big money interests.
Nevada U.S. Attorneys's office to add staff
Local papers report on the U.S. Attorney’s office to add seven attorneys, plus additional staff, positions that had been unfunded.
Senator Ensign stated that he had muted criticism of AG Alberto Gonzales over the firing of former Nevada U.S. Attorney Dan Bogden while trying to get the staffing needed. Apparently unconscious of the political trade his muted criticism constituted, Ensign stated "I wanted to make sure that instead of playing politics, we were solving a problem. . . .”
See the report in the R-J: U.S. attorney's office to add staff in Nevada, Ensign says
Some criminal law bills pass; others languish
The regularly session of the legislature is coming to a close, with adjournment scheduled for June 4. Working on the holiday, the Nevada legislature yesterday approved a bill authorizing DNA collection for all felons. Current DNA collection had been limited to those convicted of violent or other serious felonies. AB92 expands collection to all, including non-violent property crimes. See the R-J’s report at "Collection of DNA from all felons wins OK ."
Meanwhile, prison and parole reform measures are less certain, as the R-J reports in "Lawmakers consider package of criminal justice reforms."
NBC Today Show reports on Gibbons/Trepp allegations.
This morning, Meredith Viera of the Today show introduced a piece entitled “"NBC News Investigates: Nevada Governor Under Fire" by saying it offered “new allegations on an old theme: political corruption.” The news piece focus on the allegations made by Dennis Montgomery that his former partner, Warren Trepp, provided lavish accommodations and more than $100,000 in cash and casino chips to Gibbons and his family.
Most of the report about Montgomery’s claims is old news to Nevadans, but national focus on the allegations has obviously heightened.
State Assembly unanimously supports intermediate appellate court
In these partisan times, unanimous votes aren’t all that common in any legislature, including the Nevada State Assembly. But the vote in favor of amending the Nevada Constitution to create an intermediate court of appeals received just such unanimous support yesterday. If SJR9 is approved again in the 2009 legislative session, the issue will be presented to the voters.
Similar efforts to create an intermediate court have failed before. However, the population, and with it, the number of cases filed in the Supreme Court (consistent with the vast increase in district court filings) has also risen to a degree that greatly burdens that court, and further delays a final disposition for all litigants. Nevada needs an intermediate court to help with the increased cases. It is heartening to see the legislature put aside partisan differences for the sake of an issue fully deserving of unanimous support.
See the report in the R-J.
What Tomorrow's Voters Think About Criminal Justice
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of participating in the National Law Day celebrations by leading a Dialogue about juvenile justice at Ms. Sharon Heflin’s U.S. Government class at Basic High School in Henderson. Every year, the Community Service Committee of CCBA, in conjunction with the State Bar of Nevada and the Clark County School District, facilitates this program. These dialogues were designed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy after 9/11 to increase student awareness of American freedoms.
This year’s topic was officially “Liberty Under Law: Empowering Youth, Assuring Democracy.” As a speaker, I received a packet of materials offering suggested topics according to age groups. For high school students, the topic was our system of juvenile justice. In preparation for my visit, Ms. Heflin had discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault with the students. In case you don’t recall (as I had not, assuming I had ever known) In Re Gault held that juveniles are entitled to certain basic civil rights, such as the right to representation and the right to knowledge of the charges.
What the Kids Think
The discussion was spirited, with students expressing a wide range of opinions about both the juvenile justice system, and our criminal justice system in general. A discussion of this type leads fairly easily into something near and dear to this former prof who taught crim law in college and law school settings: the age old debate over whether the primary purpose of criminal justice should be punishment, rehabilitation, or deterrence.
I found the passionately held opinions of 17 and 18 year high school seniors fascinating. In this diverse classroom, various students argued for each of these traditional justifications of criminal law. One student urged retribution as stringent as that found in medieval times, arguing for both the use of extreme measures such as delimbing as punishment for theft, as well as the immediate execution of death sentences. More than once, the phrase “an eye for an eye” was uttered by classmates. Another student, shy despite her obvious faith in her opinions, almost whispered her belief that rehabilitation is a more appropriate goal. And while some agreed that the example of harsh sentences might deter crime, one student pointed out that violent criminals probably aren’t engaged in serious reflection of the potential consequences while committing the crime.
In short, this single classroom was a microcosm of the diversity of opinion on the larger debate that exists throughout our society. What was particularly interesting to me was that such variety exited within a classroom where many volunteered their close hand knowledge of the criminal justice system through the experiences of family and friends. In a state with the most rapidly growing prison population in the country, the views of these future voters are important.
Thanks for the Memories!
Many thanks to Ms. Heflin and her students for inviting me. I’d offer pictures, but two problems arose: 1) school rules don’t allow publication of photos of students without their parents’ permission and 2) without realizing it, I had my camera on video, instead of whatever setting takes still shots. The IT guy I sleep with (my husband) is checking into options to resolving the second problem, but these kids may graduate before permission slips can be rounded up.
PS- Ms. Heflin has a very cool classroom, filled with thought provoking quotes, bumper stickers, and posters, in addition to books and other scholarly materials. My favorites were the series of posters of smug-looking, affluent types proclaiming:
“Don’t Vote – We like things the way they are.”
What, Us Worry?
The R-J today has a story entitled "Court decision to review ads worries some Nevada lawyers."
I'll worry only if every blog post has to be submitted within 15 days.
First Smoking Ban Suit in Southern Nevada
The R-J today has a story entitled Enforcing the State Smoking Ban: Public health v. free speech. The Southern Nevada Health District has filed it first law suit seeking to enforce the smoking ban enacted through a ballot initiative against Bilbo’s Bar & Grill. Bilbo’s responds that its advertising use of matches and ashtrays is its first amendment right. The Health District seeks a preliminary injunction to force the bar to cease is display ofthe ashtrays. A hearing is set for June 6.
Assembly Panel Votes for Intermediate Appellate Court
The Assembly Judicial Panel voted unanimously today in favor of SJR 9, which seeks a constitutional amendment to create an intermediate appellate court in Nevada. The Nevada Appeal reports on the vote here.
Defense Attorneys Accuse Former Justice Becker of Conflict
The Las Vegas Sun reports that the attorneys from the Special Public Defender's Office have filed motions on three cases decided by the Court en banc, with former Supreme Court Justice Becker a member of the panel. The motions assert that Becker should have recused herself as she was negotiating with the Clark County District Attorney’s Office for what the Sun calls “a high paying, high ranking job” at the time the opinions were issued.
The opinions in Johnson v. State, Thomas v. State, and Summers v. State were issued on December 28, 2006, after Becker had failed to win reelection to the Supreme Court. Each of the cases raised an issue of whether the defendant’s right to confront witnesses had been violated by the use of hearsay in the sentencing phase of the trial. The convictions were affirmed, with Justice Becker siding with the majority in each of the 4-3 decisions. However, the minority opinion in each was a concurrence in the result, with the minority justices expressing the view that in future cases, objections to the use of hearsay in the sentencing portion of a death penalty case should be permitted.
Family Court Patrons Largely Satisfied
The R-J today reports on the results of a survey of users of Clark County's Family Court. Participants in the survey were nearly expressed satisfaction when asked about the building safety and ease of use, but satisfaction levels decreased sharply when the topic was efficiency. Still, even for that topic, more than 65% declared satisfaction.
One participant was clearly less than satisfied with the survey itself. That respondent "strongly disagreed" with the penciled-in survey statement: "Parking was easy."
Nevada Fails in Providing Legal Representation to Children
The R-J today reports Nevada’s failing grade in legal representation of abused and neglected children. A report by First Star, a Washington-based child advocacy group, issued the failing grade to Nevada and fourteen other states that do not require representation for children in dependency and neglect proceedings.
Clark County Legal Services makes valiant efforts to provide such representation. Attorneys interested in acting pro bono to represent these children can do so through CCLS’s Children’s Attorney Project.
