Home at last?
 

Geesh -- we have moved more times than a Brobeck attorney in March. Good to be here. Exactly how is this format different? Looks pretty similar to me.

Difference
 

It has cookies so you can easily find the last posts you read. Has more dynamic stuff on the backend which makes it possible to use web links and other things.

A lot is different on the backend in terms of stability, ease of running that sort of a thing.

In a few months?weeks? Not sure, there will be an upgrade, which has an index.

This time, I don't want to move for a while.
 

It all looks pretty cool to me.

Re: This time, I don't want to move for a while.
 

we're here to stay

(now make a donation)

prosecutor fired for outing cops
 

According to the SF Chronicle, a New Mexico prosecutor was fired for pointing out under-cover police officers to fellow antiwar protesters:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...246EST0593.DTL

Hard to imagine this happening in SF (someone in Hallinan's office firing her, not the rest of the story).

more from the Chronicle
 

Critical Mass figures to be especially raucous tonight:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8/MN273532.DTL

Might be a good evening to leave downtown early. Or stay late, drinking. Unless you like that sort of thing.

Re: Re: This time, I don't want to move for a while.
 

Jeez, I just unpacked. This time I'm leaving everything in the boxes and eating off of paper plates until 3 months have passed. I miss the x-rated emoticons, but I like the look, good work people!

Flinty

Re: Re: Re: This time, I don't want to move for a while.
 

Flinty, love your avatar. :-)


C(gonna try to beat the critical mass melee home)deuced

Re: Re: Re: Re: This time, I don't want to move for a while.
 

Thanks deuced, I couldn't figure out how to transfer my old monkey avatar, and I've always been a sucker for Calvin & Hobbes. What happened to that cartoonist (bill watterson?)--he just up and quit like Berkeley Breathed (Bloom County). Must be nice to be extremely wealthy and completely anonymous.....

Hope you got out of dodge unscathed, and are now enjoying a well-deserved margarita...

Flinty

Re: Re: Re: Re: This time, I don't want to move for a while.
 

"Mother Hen" eh? That's unacceptably modest, Ms. Deuced. You can do better than that.

And since when have kangaroos made clucking noises? Or have chickens evolved into marsupials?

-pc

I like kangaroos. Sue me.
 

Thank you for your thoughts. I will be sure to incorporate your very helpful criticism into my cyber identity.

C(not)deuced

Re: Flinty's Avatar
 

Leagl:

Jesus, you rock. How you manage keep things running, have a real job and still find time to help lowlifes like me feel comfortable, I'll never know, but I gladly appreciate it. Thanks! The monkey is back!

c2d, unfortunately, Hobbes has to go, the monkey is more "me". Actually, a .gif of Timmy from South Park is more me, but that's splitting hairs.

Have a great day all.

Flinty

Sheesh, I go away for a few days and we move again? From now on, I'm staying put.

Re: Re: Flinty's Avatar
 

Oh well... the monkey is cute, too. And happier than the pensive Hobbes. Always good to have someone around to bring up the morale in the office.

C(free to be you and me)deuced

Welcome back, Sidd. Now be a good partner and rustle up some work for us GAs.:)

Did someone say work?
 

Now that all of the junior people have been laid off, work is crazy and there are no underlings to take up the slack. But we all worry so much about slow times that no one here wants to hire again. Better to do a lot of hours now than risk overstaffing.

Re: Did someone say work?
 

Man, is that true. I've been getting hammered the last few months, but no calvary of associates is expected. I won't complain, other than to say, more work, less friends/associates = sucks. But better than the alternative, I know.

Flinty

re: did someone say work?
 

Heh, if you can hook me up w/ a job, I'd love to be the cavalry. :D

anyways, is there any substance to the rumor that COOLEY and WILSON are doing due diligence on each other? (its on the GA bd)

Re: re: did someone say work?
 

There's a thread on this board about that subject, but I think you're not going to find any substance to that rumor anywhere.

Re: re: did someone say work?
 

Believe me Acoustic, I'd be glad for your help. But there are a lot of people ahead of you in line, as you can imagine...and the line isn't moving, unfortunately. I can't say that I blame the powers that be, better safe than sorry, although I think a lot of money is being left on the table as current staffing often can't meet the demand...

Flinty

Re: Cooley moving to Death Star?
 

Yeah, the cat's pretty much out of the bag on this one; we're expecting an announcement tomorrow. Apparently, diligence was pretty brief and the conflicts look surmountable. (There will have to be a pretty sizable divestiture/spin-off in one litigation department as a first step.)

Apparently the potential deal-breaker is which agency does the HSR pre-merger clearance. Perception is that the agreement would get by the FTC but probably get a second request from the Antitrust Division. (Based on a combination of recent actions and strength of contacts at the firms.) A second request would probably cause serious defections.

There isn't much history to go on, because there aren't a lot of horizontal mergers among law firms with as much local share as WSGR and Cooley. The FTC has professional services under the 2002 MOA with Justice, but DOJ has been a little restive here. There was a turf skirmish last year when two law firms (Duben, Broma & Witz and Narr MacGuffin, in Charlotte) got cleared by the FTC but the DOJ demanded to review the deal.

CoWs
 

All this talk of Cooley-WSGR merger is interesting, but the cynic in me wonders what other great rumors might be spawned this April 1st. The clincher for me was the notion that anyone (outside of our community) would really care if Cooley-WSGR merged. Hey, maybe I will be proven wrong shortly . . .

SF PD's office
 

The Recorder reports today that Jeff Adachi has hired 11 lawyers since early January. Who knows if he's still hiring?

Re: Cooley moving to Death Star?
 

LOL. Wry sense of humor you got there, wish I worked with you.

Flinty

Davis Polk, Menlo Park (?)
 

Does anyone know anything about the Davis Polk Menlo Park office? Any news would be appreciated.

Pillsbury Settles With Frodo
 

Pillsbury Settles With Frode Jensen

Alexei Oreskovic
The Recorder
04-02-2003


Pillsbury Winthrop has settled a $45 million defamation suit brought against it by former partner Frode Jensen.

According to a statement released Tuesday by Stanley Arkin, a New York attorney representing Jensen, the two sides have agreed to settle litigation pending in Connecticut Superior Court. The terms of the deal, including any financial payments, are confidential.

The announcement also contained a four-sentence statement by Pillsbury Winthrop in which the firm recants its previous public statements regarding Jensen and calls him "one of the firm's most productive corporate partners." The announcement appeared to indicate that Pillsbury's apology was a condition of the settlement.

Ronald Van Buskirk, Pillsbury's general counsel, said the settlement was effective as of two days ago but he was unable to comment on the details. The four sentences by Pillsbury were the only statement that the parties agreed could be released, Van Buskirk said.

The settlement closes one of the most unpleasant chapters in Pillsbury Winthrop's recent history and eliminates the possibility of a public and potentially embarrassing trial.

In September, Pillsbury stunned the legal community when Chair Mary Cranston and managing partner Marina Park issued a press release disparaging Jensen, a corporate partner in the firm's Stamford, Conn., office who had moved to Latham & Watkins.

In the release, Cranston claimed that Jensen's departure came on the heels of sexual harassment allegations that involved him, and "a significant decline in his productivity." The release noted that Jensen had been largely absent from the firm's Stamford office for the past nine months.

"Our firm values respect and integrity above all else," said Cranston in the release. "We investigated the harassment claims, concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that harassment had occurred and responded with a variety of measures."

Jensen responded the following month with the $45 million defamation suit naming Pillsbury Winthrop, Cranston, Park and John Pritchard, the firm's vice chair. The 24-page complaint accused the defendants of character and commercial assassination, while offering readers a glimpse into the internal affairs of 640-attorney Pillsbury Winthrop. Among other things, the suit claimed that a number of Pillsbury partners had been accused of sexual harassment and had never had the allegations publicly disclosed by the firm.

In February, both sides filed a joint motion asking the court to stay the case while they pursued non-binding meditation. Tuesday's settlement announcement suggests that the mediation proved fruitful.

One managing partner at a large firm in San Francisco said he was not surprised that the case settled. "Pillsbury had to settle the case because of their exposure and because they didn't want to have this case tried," he said. "It's the time that it would take with regard to their personnel; it's the nature of the allegations that were made against Frode; and it's the distraction created by the lawsuit."

It's also unclear whether Pillsbury's insurance would have covered any punitive damages that might have been awarded had the case gone to trial.

The statement released Tuesday was in sharp contrast to the caustic words that characterized Pillsbury's initial release and Jensen's subsequent suit against the firm.

"Pillsbury Winthrop deeply regrets making its public statements regarding Frode Jensen," read the release. "Mr. Jensen was a valued and respected member of the firm and was one of the firm's most productive corporate partners.

"Mr. Jensen is an accomplished corporate transactional lawyer, and he made many important contributions during his tenure at the firm. Pillsbury wishes him well in all his future endeavors and employment opportunities."

Frodo's Quest
 

Damn -- I thought Frodo wasn't supposed to throw the ring into the fire until the return of the King.

Pillsbury Settles With Frodo
 

Oh, to know the secret number so we could know just how deeply PMS regrets their flapping lips.

Jobs
 

For any big law IP types - Piper Rudnick wants to hire associates and agents for the office they are opening in South San Francisco this June. Mainly biotech prosecution, and no doubt they want a few years experience. I don't have a contact (found out from a recruiter) but they should be easy to look up.

New Dean of HLS
 

While not really Bay Area news, I thought HLS's appointment of its first female Dean could be of interest:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04....ap/index.html


Goes to show that it's not always bad to not get a certain job - better things, relatively speaking, could be around the corner.

C(see, bitter Wilson rejects? Sometimes when a door closes, a window opens... no need to show hate to the Death Star...)deuced

Manatt Phelps Phillips
 

Does anyone know anything about this firm's south bay office? Is it busy? Anyone know if they are in the market for laterals? What is the compensation like? Any information is appreciated.

What killed Brobeck?
 

Not Tower Snow, unless you mean that he took lots of work with him when he left. The debt came under the new regime, apparently.

Brobeckonomics

Susan Beck
The American Lawyer
04-01-2003


While Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison's tangled affairs continue to be sorted out, many have assumed that its fatal attraction to debt triggered its downfall, and have pointed the finger at former chairman Tower Snow, Jr. But some internal documents provided to The American Lawyer show that Brobeck's borrowing increased dramatically under chairman Richard Odom, not under Snow. And what appeared to have doomed Brobeck was not so much its level of debt, but its sinking revenues.

At the end of 2001, when Snow stepped down as chairman, Brobeck was not saddled with massive debt. According to a memo to partners from Odom and managing partner Richard Parker dated Jan. 11, 2002, Brobeck had $43 million in term debt at the end of 2001. It also had an additional $12.8 million in letters of credit. (Letters of credit are contingent obligations that are often required by a landlord as a form of security.)

That level of debt, on a per-partner basis, was not extraordinary, according to confidential surveys done by Citibank, N.A. According to one survey, Brobeck's debt (including letters of credit) at the end of 2001 was $277,000 per equity partner. The average for so-called peer group firms in Silicon Valley (which weren't identified) was $272,000 per equity partner. And for a collection of unidentified New York firms, the number was $409,000.

Brobeck substantially increased its borrowing after Odom and Parker took over, their memo shows. Near the start of 2002 Brobeck signed a $40 million term loan to reimburse partners for capital expenses incurred the previous year. That included $11.8 million for tenant improvements to the new building in East Palo Alto, Calif., $9.9 million for San Francisco office renovations, and $9.4 million for technology improvements.

Snow's management team had funded these 2001 costs out of revenue, not debt, according to the memo. Odom and Parker decided to give partners the cash back for those expenses by borrowing the money. (The firm had followed that practice in some prior years, too.) The new $40 million loan almost doubled the firm's term debt, kicking it up to $83 million. Odom, now a partner with Philadelphia-based Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, did not return a call.

The memo also outlines partners' personal liability obligations and provides a page for them to sign to consent to that liability. (Since Brobeck was a limited liability partnership, the bank would need consent.) Average liability could be as much as $324,000 per partner in 2002, the memo says. By the end of the year, the firm owed an additional $10 million for revolving credit, bringing total debt up to $92 million.

As 2002 progressed, Brobeck fell woefully short of its revenue and profit projections. At the start of the year, the firm budgeted for revenue of $439 million, but by year's end it brought in only $352 million. Income dropped even more sharply. It had projected income of $159 million, but at the end of 2002 Brobeck could squeeze out only $87.5 million, more than 40 percent below its original projection.

The decline was likely due in part to the exodus of Snow and the 54 lawyers who followed him to Clifford Chance. But more significantly, billable hours for the remaining lawyers had plummeted. Brobeck had budgeted for 1,844 hours for each attorney in 2002. By September, the firm had downgraded its year-end projection to 1,519 hours, according to an internal document. It's not clear where the actual year-end number landed.

Citibank knew Brobeck needed help. Near the end of last year, bank officials started renegotiating Brobeck's debt, reducing its obligation to $56 million. That was accomplished in large part by Brobeck taking $26 million of the year's undistributed income that would normally have gone to partners and giving it to the bank.

Citibank was apparently as shocked as others to learn that Brobeck planned to dissolve. According to Stephen Snyder, the former Brobeck chairman who heads the firm's liquidation committee, bank officials weren't expecting Odom's stunning January 30 announcement. "They've said they were surprised," he says. That led to a "pretty tense" relationship between the firm and its lender in the following weeks, Snyder says. The bank declined to comment.

Snyder -- who has worked at Brobeck for his entire 31-year legal career and came out of semiretirement to wind up the firm's affairs -- faces an enormously difficult and heartbreaking task. He's one of only four partners who has committed to trying to tie up the loose ends. In early March they were focusing on collecting bills, liquidating assets, and paying debt. Says Snyder: "We're trying to keep our heads above water."

And where did Brobeck's clients go?
 

There's a chart at the bottom of the law.com article listing other firms which picked up big clients of Brobeck. They seem to be forgetting Clifford Chance. Actually, a few different things about the chart look suspicious.

And where did Brobeck's clients go?
 

It looks like American Lawyer just chose a few clients to put on this list, and for whatever reason didn't list those that went with Tower Snow's group to Clifford Chance for the work that Tower did for them.

The chart is misleading because it implies that (for instance), one firm does all the work for B of A, when B of A keeps a few firms on its rost. It makes it seem like, for another instance, they did all the work for Verizon Communications, which then went to Akin Gump, when the more likely scenario is that the Austin group did a lot of litigation (particularly IP litigation) for Verizon, and Zager took that book of business with him to Akin Gump when he finally left. Same with Dewey Ballantine, which acquired a bunch o' scriveners from Brobeck before the "dissolution" (and thus, likely the discrete chunk of work they had done for Intel and Broadcom while at Brobeck). In fact, from what I know of these clients and the firms listed, the only new land grab was Fenwick's of some of the Cisco work (and I think even then they just grabbed another piece - wasn't Fenwick already doing some of their stuff?).

C(what a mighty web they've weaved)deuced

What killed Brobeck?
 

Fascinating article. Those debt levels are stunning.

I wonder if borrowing money to repay partners for capital expenses was in part a desperation move, intended to keep even more partners from leaving the firm.

I found this paragraph scary:



Consider this: not only did projected hours/attorney drop, but the number of attorneys dropped -- by a few hundred, if I'm not mistaken.

Sidd(my, how our world here has changed)Finch

What killed Brobeck?
 

Sidd:

Nice to see you back. You must have either (i) gotten underwater on some cases; (ii) fell off the truck after the last move; or (iii) finally gotten tired of your JustForFun sock and put your "real" sock back on. Either way, I'm glad to read your posts.

I think we're all fascinated about what transpired at Brobeck. What I find most interesting about all of it are the reports that the decision to dissolve was an ultra vires (am I using that right?) act on the part of the Management Committee, which is somewhat confirmed by the article. I think the committee just decided to throw in the towel (to exploit the opportunity to get other jobs), and press released it before putting it to a vote of the partners. I'm not privy to the partnership agreement or whatever controlling internal document it is, but I would be surprised if it allowed dissolution without some majority vote of the partners. Do you think that the management committee could be exposed to additional lawsuits from creditors and partners for tanking the firm without proper authority--perhaps causing additional damage that it wouldn't have normally taken, such as the impairment of collecting on outstanding receivables, loss of additional revenue, that sort of crap? I'd be interested in hearing a litigator's thoughts.

Anyway, nice to see you.

Flinty (Brobeck....Approval? We don't need no stinking approval.) McFlint

Manatt Phelps Phillips
 

I merged the Manatt thread into this one because it wasn't getting any responses. If you know anything about Manatt or their South Bay office, please post it here. Or you can send me a PM (Private Message, using the button at the bottom of this post), or you can e-mail me (at doctorhilarious@yahoo.com, or by using the button at the bottom of this post).

Fenwick litigation
 

Just interviewed someone from Fenwick's litigation group. Em implied that the firm was no longer "stable" - not sure what em meant. Any truth there? Major defections lately? No work? Firm having trouble paying for that fancy new building?

Fenwick litigation
 

Alice,

It is wonderful seeing you here, that is, except for the fact that I cannot see you. But let me clue you in on something: they are nothing but a deck of cards! Though I still would not believe a word of the evidence given by that Knave of Hearts...

G3

What killed Brobeck?
 

Thanks for all the warm fuzzies. It's nice to see everyone again, now that I'm finished with my extended snipe hunt.

Without thinking this through much, or giving it much analysis, or allowing anyone to rely on this as advice.... (after all, if I wanted to do research or serious reflection before mouthing off, I would just work instead of coming to the boards), I would say this:

I'd be surprised if the Brobeck p-ship agreement allowed dissolution without a partner vote. OTOH, I'm surprised anyone would carry that much debt, so what do I know? Maybe the agreement allowed dissolution by the committee under extraordinary circumstances, i.e. being near-busted.

Assuming the committee exceeded its authority, they could be on the hook (maybe with insurance, maybe without). Probably not to creditors -- unlikely they have a duty to creditors, and the big creditors (Citibank, landlord) have personal guarantees anyway. But maybe to other partners. A tough and expensive claim to take all the way, I would guess (for a host of reasons I won't go into here), but one that might have some staying power (i.e., enough to get past summary judgment in SF Superior.

Overall, among the most interesting things to me is the number of lawsuits, workouts, etc. etc. etc. that are stemming from the Brobeck collapse, starting from the suits by and against Tower Snow. Lawyers throughout the Bay Area will be feeding off this carcass for some time to come.

In other words, Brobeck died so that others could live.