We’ve decided that rather than limit the treasure of our response to just one person, we’ll from time to time share the question and our answers with everyone. We’re generous like that.

Today, we have a three parter:

Do you think small law firms are less ethical?  My reasoning is that the large law firms have decentralized management.  So recourse seems more possible (by calling someone at a different office) and the threat of it is more of a deterrent.  Do you think that smaller law firms are managed less ethically than bigger ones?  Also, do you think affairs are common at law firms?  I’ve seen attractive women promoted rapidly.

Our answers after the jump.

Do we think small firms are less ethical? No, we don’t think firms are ethical at all.

People behave ethically (or not). In small firms, unethical people comprise a far greater percentage of the firm, so it’s easier to attribute one miscreant’s behavior to the whole. See, for example, Scott Rothstein.

The same problem happens when the unethical person is the public face of a firm. See, for example, Marc Dreier.

Unethical behavior abounds in large firms as well. See, for example, Mark McCombs at Greenberg Traurig. We don’t know whether the behavior is more or less common in large firms than in the general public.

You could argue it either way. Small-firm lawyers have less supervision, so their behavior can go unchecked. On the other hand, large-firm lawyers may feel so alienated and insignificant that they think no one will notice.

Management is a little clearer. There may be small firms that are managed by unethical people, in which case the management is dominated by that person. Large firms may have unethical people in management roles, but they tend to not last long and they certainly don’t have the ability to take control of a large firm. We know douchebags, jerks, and all sorts of other unsavory types who are in management roles at large firms, but in our experience we’ve never come across a big firm that we’d say was either unethical as a whole or managed unethically.

Affairs? Yes, they’re common. At some firms it ranges from rampant to occasional (and even within firms, different practice groups’ partaking vary), but on the whole, it’s common. We know partners who have married multiple secretaries, associates, paralegals, HR staff, and other partners. Associates marry each other all the time. If people are going to cheat, the fact that they’re lawyers who did it where they work doesn’t make them any different from any other segment of society.

It’s like summer camp. You’ve got hordes of similarly situated people locked up together with little opportunity to enjoy outside entertainment. What do you expect to happen? And they’re all consenting adults, so who cares?

Your last comment wasn’t a question, but we’ll respond anyway. Yes, attractive women do well in the workforce. Law firms are no different. Penelope Trunk writes about this stuff all the time, even calling plastic surgery the next must-have career tool.

Readers, what do you think?

Related posts:

1. The Firms Behind the Dear Investor Letters?

If there’s anything you’d like included, make sure to submit it through Blawg Review.

Other than submissions, which should go through Blawg Review, feel free to put any requests in the comments below.

Related posts:

1. Quick Shucks – 10/27/09
2. Deal Professor’s Year in Review
3. Get Ready, Here She Comes

None of them are from major firms, but they can all trace their success to two big firms that paved the way.

A quick recap of the BigLaw connection to sports history after the jump.

Major League Baseball free agency came first.  It resulted from a line of cases beginning with [St. Louis outfielder Curt] Flood v. [Commissioner Bowie] Kuhn.  That case went to the Supreme Court, where it was (unsuccessfully) argued by the late Arthur Goldberg, a former Supreme Court justice who was then at Paul Weiss.  The public backlash and spine-stiffening among players opened the door and free agency came rushing in shortly thereafter.

Then Weil Gotshal got into the business.  If there’s one firm responsible for free agency (whether you think that’s a good thing or not), they’re it.

A Weil team led by James Quinn (Notre Dame BA ‘67, Fordham LLB ‘71) represented Oscar Robertson in a suit against the NBA that got rid of its antitrust immunity.  Seven years later, in 1983, he negotiated basketball’s first collective bargaining agreement.  Shortly thereafter, Quinn led the team that won McNeil v. NFL, which opened the door for NFL free agency.

Quinn’s right-hand man was Jeffrey Kessler (Columbia BA ‘75, JD ‘77), who has since gone on to Dewey & LeBoeuf.

Between Quinn and Kessler, they’ve effectively put free agency into place in the NBA, NFL, and arena football, as well as significant groundwork in soccer, hockey, and other sports.

So while these agents are highfiving their superstar clients and making the cover of Sports Illustrated, don’t forget it was BigLaw that paved their way.

There are plenty of athletes and celebrities represented by lawyers at major firms, do you know of any interesting ones?

Related posts:

1. DC Trivia Contest
2. BigLaw on Sale of Dolphins
3. BigLaw on the Delaware Bench

Pic: U. Chicago

First-time jobless claims dropped last week, and the overall unemployment rate (U-3) held steady at 9.7% in February.

But you won’t call that “good news” if you know what’s good for you.

Ross Todd at the American Lawyer spared us some typing:

The news for the legal services sector is one of the more hopeful signs of late. Only 100 jobs were lost in the legal sector in February, the second month in a row that has seen a substantial drop-off in job losses. According to seasonally adjusted BLS data, the legal sector lost 1,100 jobs in January compared to 2,100 in December, 2,900 in November, and 5,800 in October. Since February of last year, the sector has shed 37,100 positions.

Coincidentally, that lines up very closely with the 110 jobs we reported lost from major law firms in “The Month in Layoffs” for February. (BLS reports net numbers, we’re just tallying layoffs at major firms)

But layoffs aren’t firms’ only costcutting measure, and in fact they seem to be falling out of favor quickly. After the jump, what the firms have been up to this week.

First off, we’re happy to note that no layoffs have been reported for the second week in a row. That hasn’t happened since the December holidays.

This is no time to start feeling all secure and go crazy, though. As Hiring Partner just wrote, it’s still important to cover your ass.

One reason for fewer layoffs going forward is simply that hiring is falling off a cliff. People who summered in 2008 got offers at almost a 90% clip. Last summer, the rate dropped below 70%. Of course, those ‘08 summers were the ‘09 grads who had their offers rescinded or their start dates deferred, so it’s kind of a pick-your-poison situation. Get screwed early or get screwed late, either way, both classes got screwed.

Not that it’s likely to matter to the recent graduates and junior associates, but corporate law departments are supposedly getting ready to hire. Even that is bad news for firms, though, because it’s part of an effort to reduce spend by reducing reliance on outside counsel.

For firms that have already laid off staff and associates, lowered salaries, reduced bonuses, and curtailed hiring, what’s left when clients won’t accept rate hikes? Cutting partners, at least according to Hildebrandt and Citi.

Even among the gainfully employed, “morale is very low” at Reed Smith, where they’ve just announced salaries for 2010 and the effects of leaving lockstep are finally hitting wallets and purses. Is it finally settling in? Not all of you are in the top 10%? For that matter, not all of you are not even in the top half.

OK, maybe it’s a little early for that, but we are curious to see how the averages in non-lockstep firm compare to their lockstep counterparts. We’re firmly in the camp of not using abandoning lockstep as cover for salary cuts.

That’s nothing compared to the dissension being sown by two members of the most recent summer class at Mayer Brown. Ahh spring is just around the corner and we have green shoots of thoughts turning to collective action. Part of the problem with the misery of 2009 was that we missed out on the perennial cries for unionization of BigLaw associates. Perhaps the summers and law students can lead the way?

Frankly, this is just an opportunity to use a quote from a previous round of Marxist agitating:

I can just see it now as an associate in an Armani suit holds up a sign reading Union in the middle of the law firm cafeteria  . . . and is carried away screaming by security thugs.

Well said, Prof. Secunda.

Amazingly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to have gotten what they wanted – word came from the firm that Mayer Brown has been prodded into realizing that they’re six months overdue in making a decision and has just now begun to contemplate the situation.

Is there something about Chicago that is retarding the decisionmaking process? Katten Muchin hasn’t set salaries yet, despite indicating back in January that it would be done by March 1. Maybe KMZ lawyers are better off waiting. Just a few weeks ago we wrote about rampant jealousy in the Second City.

Major firms have laid off

• nobody this week (again) or month!
• 246 people this year (91 lawyers, 155 staff)
• 14,457 people since January 2008 (5,677 lawyers, 8,780 staff)

Related posts:

1. This Week in Layoffs – 2/26/10
2. This Week in Layoffs – 4/3/09
3. This Week in Layoffs – 2/6/09

February 2010 may be the harbinger that the tide has receded and firms are no longer resorting to mass layoffs to reduce expenses.

After the jump, details on February’s layoffs and a look back to put it in context.

Only three firms were reported to have laid people off in February, down from five in January. That’s the fewest since August, but is consistent with the last seven months, during which only a handful of firms have had reported layoffs.

[Note: click to embiggen any chart]

The number of people laid off by major law firms also dropped in February, to 110, down from January’s 136. Take out the lull for the December holidays, and that’s the fewest people laid off in any month since September 2008.

The number of associates laid off was flat, though – 45 in February, 46 in January. Still, it’s not likely that attorney layoffs will ever catch up to the staff cuts at this point. Attorneys account for just under 40% of the 14,457 layoffs tracked to date.

Firms that had reports of layoffs in February:

• Ashursts (9, all lawyers – partners, in fact)
• Drinker Biddle (7, all lawyers)
• Howrey (94, 29 lawyers/65 staff)

More detail about the layoffs and the other cost-cutting measures firms have embraced can be found in the weekly analyses:

• This Week in Layoffs – 2/26/10
• This Week in Layoffs – 2/20/10
• This Week in Layoffs – 2/12/10
• This Week in Layoffs – 2/5/10

What do you think, is that the end of an awful era?

Related posts:

1. The Month in Layoffs – Feb 09
2. The Month in Layoffs – January 10
3. The Month in Layoffs – October 09

David Alper, the hedge fund manager on the left, looks like he’s about to jump out of a moving cab.

Adam Gehrie, the corporate lawyer on the right, is covering his shame with his coffee cup.

It doesn’t look like either of them is actually interested in networking with another finance guy who can’t afford his own cab.

More on that and the other big-firm lawyer sharing a cab (and looking for love) after the jump.

Gehrie (Amherst BA ‘01, Georgetown JD ‘04) is actually a hedge fund guy at Dechert.  So Adam, if you’re reading this, some free advice.

THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE:

“We should get together,” Alper suggested as the two exited their ride at 42nd and Park, the farthest the discounted rides will take up to four passengers.

YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE SUGGESTING A GET-TOGETHER.  Seriously, this is a golden opportunity.  The guy is a potential client and he’s right in your wheelhouse!

If you ever want to make it to Minder, let alone Finder, you’re going to have to learn to seize these chances.

Another corporate lawyer was sharing a ride and far more alert to opportunity.

Sarah Hewitt, a corporate lawyer, and Alexandra Winterfeldt, who works at Sony Music, both admitted they were supposed to be at work at 9:30 a.m., even though they were still en route at 9:45.

Hewitt, who’s single, also quipped that she hoped to find “a cute guy” some day in one of the shared rides.

Sorry for outing your tardiness, Sarah (Williams BA ‘79, Cornell JD ‘82), but since you’re a partner at Blank Rome, there are fewer people keeping tabs on your comings and goings.This isn’t the first time Hewitt has been in the paper, either.  The Times wrote about her purchase of a place in Sag Harbor a few years ago.

Related posts:

1. Lawyers Don’t Fare Well on Fortune Gunners List
2. WSJ Wanders Around 1 Bowling Green, Finds Lawyers
3. Tracking Down the Lawyers from the Lehman Diaspora

This week’s topic complements last week’s post on looking out for yourself and not expecting the firm to be your friend.

After the jump, HP explains how to look out for #1 without stepping in #2.

Part of looking out for yourself includes the recognition that your fellow partners/associates may tell you one thing on Monday, then say they said something different come Friday, or they may actually mess up and try to blame you for it.

My motto is “if I screw up, I take the fall, but I am CERTAINLY NOT taking the fall for someone else’s screw up.  This is an important point and I have seen it a million times.

You are a lawyer, you document other things.  Document to save your a**.

This point also applies to clients.  Some time ago, I had a heavily accented client asking me a question about the legalities of doing something.  I really wasn’t sure I even understood him.  I asked him to please send me an email so I could review the full scenario.  When he did, I concluded something different than if I had just given quick advice on the phone.

Or, client tells you something, you act, then client says it was something else, and now there’s a problem.  I usually start memoranda or even emails with what my understanding of the situation is…something like “We understand that X operates at ___ business in the following states.  X provides __ but does not provide __. You have inquired whether —-….I know that most of us do this when we are doing formal memos but don’t let email trip you up.

Cover your ass.

I hate to say it, but some colleagues will at some point, attempt to screw you over.

Why?  Well, they are trying to save their own asses of course.

In these uncertain law firm times, who wants to admit they made a mistake?

Classic example:  one Friday, I had to leave early for a family matter.  While I am out, I get an email from partner Harry saying wasn’t something supposed to get on file the day before, and have I missed a deadline.  My heart sunk (and why do these messages always come when you are not in the office?).  But I gathered my thoughts — because I know I am quite crazed about deadlines — and I kind of knew that this was not on my watch.

I went back to my emails and searched.  Sure enough, I had an email from Harry some weeks back where I told him about the deadline, and asked if he needed help. He replied very clearly “no, I will take care of it.”  So.. now I had my CYA documentation. I forwarded it to Harry and said, something like, actually, as indicated in the attached, you said you were taking care of it.  End of story.  As I said, don’t take the fall for someone else’s screw up and have the evidence to support your side.

Next week, we will cover the “Me File.”  It sort of goes hand in hand with CYA.  The bottom line of all this is looking out for YOU and protecting your “brand” in the market.  You do it for clients, treat yourself just like you would treat the biggest client.

Related posts:

1. Day One
2. Lateral Hiring Doubles in London
3. You Will Screw Up

Law Review’s Business Insider thinks that may be the next trend.  They’ve connected two recent pieces from The New York Times:

Sunday’s Real Estate section featured Covington associate Mary [sic- it's Mari] Bonthuis’ search for an apartment with enough closet space.

Today’s Home & Garden gives us a peak at the fashionably-styled financial district apartment of Paul Weiss junior associate Colin Kelly. Kelly got a little help form decorators, who made it work on his $8,000 budget, which, the NYT helpfully points out, is “the exact amount of the 2009 first-time homebuyer’s tax credit.”

One more and it’s officially a trend.

More on the advocates and their abodes after the jump.

Bonthuis (St. Olaf Ba ‘99, NYU JD ‘05) is a litigator.  Her parents bought her first place for her while she was in law school.  Two years ago she bought them out for the $250,000 they paid in ‘03.  She was able to sell that for $370,000 and moved to Chelsea Gardens, the west-side behemoth (pictured).  She tells the Times:

Ms. Bonthuis now has a quick commute to work — the subway trip is “two songs on my iPod,” she said — though the walk up Eighth Avenue, among liquor stores and porn shops, is less than compelling.

Covington is in the fancy new The New York Times Building, on Eighth between 40th & 41st, which just opened a couple years ago.  The place is chock full o’ lawyers.  In addition to Covington, Osler Hoskin, Pepper Hamilton, Seyfarth Shaw, Goodwin Procter, and Buchanan Ingersoll are all in the building.

Kelly, a 2008 graduate of Columbia has the sparsest profile we’ve seen [Ed: we don't like to associates' profiles] – we only know his law school year because it’s in the Times article.  His profile only lists his schools (Harvard undergrad) without years, nor is there a practice area or anything.  Shouldn’t first years be assigned by now?

Anyway, it seems he still has some bad hygiene habits from college:

Mr. Kelly invited his girlfriend, Zahava Blumenthal, to attend the meeting and to participate in the makeover, and when the designers arrived, the two welcomed them into the living room and invited them to take a seat.

Mr. Stuart headed for an ottoman but changed his mind after noticing a big dark stain. “What’s that?” he asked.

“I think that is a burrito that fell,” Mr. Kelly said, drawing laughter from his guests. “I’m sufficiently embarrassed.”

How are you living?  Does it stack up against these digs?

Related posts:

1. Former Associate Claims Fried Frank Anti-Gay
2. Former BigLaw Associate Promoted to CEO
3. Fenwick Associate Wins Domain for Google’s Newest Project

She’s not rejoining Wilmer Hale, where she was a partner before going off on her inhouse career.  That’s exactly the same kind of switcheroo her successor, Thomas Russo made. He was a Cadwalader partner, went inhouse and when his run at the head of Lehman’s legal function was over, joined Patton Boggs.

Another thing they have in common is that Russo went to Patton Boggs as senior counsel, rather than partner.  Kelly, who is only 60, is coming in to DLA Piper as of counsel.

Related posts:

1. Patton Boggs Reels In Big Fish
2. Tracking Down the Lawyers from the Lehman Diaspora
3. AIG Turns to Lehman to Fill Abandoned GC Post

Pilkington (Nottingham LLB ‘95, LSE LLM ‘03) joined Skadden in ‘04 from a Magic Circle firm (let us know which) and was promoted to senior counsel in May ‘08.

According to the Law Shucks Lateral Tracker, White & Case has lost 24 partners since Marc Ackerman left in October, 14 of whom have gone to Latham.  In that time, only projects lawyer Brenda Dieck has joined the firm.

London has been particularly hard hit, losing nine partners since October, most notably including: Jonathan Bloom, who went to Ropes & Gray, joining former W&C partners Mike Goetz and Maurice Allen, where they’re already picking up new work; Greg Hammond, a securities partner who went to Akin Gump; and Chris Kandel, who was co-head of bank finance and brought three other partners with him to Latham.

The text of Pilkington’s Skadden bio after the jump (‘ere it’s lost).

Christian Pilkington Counsel Corporate Restructuring

Related posts:

1. W&C Scrambling in Wake of L&W Raid
2. Ropes Snags $1.1bn LBO from K&E
3. W&C, PH Get Poached