Pro B'Oh No! Making Sense of the Kaye Scholer Move

[WSJ_law_blog]

The carnage has definitely slowed. According to LawShucks, which has done bangup work tracking law-firm layoffs throughout the months, October 2009 has, been a relatively mild month, with reported BigLaw lawyer layoffs hitting only Foley & Lardner and Drinker Biddle (click here and here for posts from Above the Law on each).

That said, that the chopping is slowing probably comes as cold comfort to those affected. And firms are still tweaking at the margins, deferring start dates, cutting salaries, and the like.

Which brings us to our current topic: the recent move by Kaye Scholer (reported first here by ATL) that the incoming crop of associates will be split into two groups, one to come in and do full-time work at $160,000 per year, the other to come in and do pro-bono work, at $60,000.

Over at ATL, Elie Mystal talked to managing partner Barry Wilner, who, candidly, it seems “acknowledged that the demand for legal services isn’t what it used to be.” Fair enough, it seems.

But what about the timing of the move? We received several emails articulating why what Kaye Scholer has done is more troubling and more unfair than deferrals that other firms made, largely because the firm is giving the associates a scant two months or so to get used to what amounts to a $100,000 pay cut.

Wrote one disgruntled incoming associate:

[O]ur peers at other firms who faced prolonged deferrals were told long ago; whereas Kaye has deliberately kept us in the dark at every step of the way (we were not given the January start date until just weeks before graduation in May). This leaves us in a position of being in debt to the firm after over a year of reliance on a job offer that is, for all intents and purposes, no longer there. They are counting on this fact, as well as the bad job market . . . to force us to work for them on unconscionable terms. A classic bait-and-switch.

. . .

No matter how you spin it, and whether or not these quasi-first-years are going to be working exclusively on pro bono projects (or, let’s face it, on whatever work they can pick up), it is no more or less than a thinly-veiled attempt either to get rid of part of their incoming associate class while appearing to conform to peer firm practices and/or pick up associates at secretary salaries. The way they are framing it merely adds insult to injury, and reveals a disdain for their employees that is chilling, even for Biglaw.

We checked in with Kaye Scholer on the timing issue. Responded Wilner, via email:

There was no precipitating event in making this decision. We have been monitoring the workload and demand for our various practice areas for some time. Work levels have increased so that half the class will be busy on client billable matters. We recognize that there are insufficient public service and pro bono opportunities outside the firm. Therefore, we have worked hard to identify public service opportunities to ensure that all of the associates are working on meaningful assignments.

LBers, any thoughts? We can see both sides. On the one hand, Kaye Scholer didn’t rescind any offers. On the other, it is giving these incomers an incredibly steep pay-cut just as many of them have either already or are gearing up to move to New York. Let us know.

A royal rip-off!