Bay Area Backslide
 

Buy a fixer-upper on the Peninsula?

Bay Area Backslide
 

Man, your descent into the dark side of partnership was fast, padawan. Seductive the dark side, is.

Fine, I'd blow $400K on Pisco Sours and pedicures, are you happy now?

Bay Area Backslide
 

Now, let's not be cynical. It's $2.9M a year, not $2.9M in cash. Even at a 50% effective tax rate on the entire sum, and with a .40 qualifying ratio, that still leaves $48,333 a month for PITI after income taxes --- not a princely sum, I admit, but it should get you into San Carlos or maybe some up-and-coming areas of Menlo Park. And you'll have $72,500 in monthly after-tax income with which you can fix up that house, by, say, moving it across the border into Palo Alto.

At the end of the FY, you should have enough left over to gild the swimming pool, or stock the menagerie with this season's color of tigers. (Sidd tells me white is so 2002.)

Bay Area Backslide
 

You're not the first person to say something along those lines.

I think the first was the GA I slapped for doing pro bono work.

Sidd(you're not volunteering YOUR time, you're volunteering MY money!)Finch

Bay Area Backslide
 

Easy enough to dump those hungry mouths when work is thin, too. After all - YOU - are the one bringing in the work, so YOU deserve to fill your plate first.

Right?

(might as well include some reverse stealth layoffs - dumping the deadwood under guise of harsh economic times)

Bay Area Backslide
 

I do hope you realize that my tongue is firmly in my fingers when I type my "greedy GP" posts.

Bay Area Backslide
 

No worries, dearie.

I'm an outcast from Biglaw anyway - not an associate and not a partner. Sort of an "of counsel" position. Decent hours and money, but no chance for bringing in more than I can bill.

Keeping client relationships and a flow of work coming in for one person isn't easy, so I don't envy the partners that have to keep a group happy.

Fenwick closing DC office?
 

Recently Fenwick has been exploring the possibility of closing its DC office. It states however that the rest of the firm is doing well.

"Fenwick & West is looking at closing its 17-year-old Washington, D.C., outpost as the firm struggles to maneuver the continuing downturn in corporate work.

Just days after the firm announced a salary freeze for most of its 250 staff members, Mountain View-based Fenwick is mulling whether to pull the plug on its capital outpost. "

Subscription required article from law.com http://www.law.com/jsp/pubarticleCA...d=1056139931252


Our thoughts are with the 14 attorneys in the DC Fenwick office as well as the staff that works there. Don't hesitate to post here for help or to PM one of the Admins if you would like us to post something on your behalf.

(Also posted on the DC board)

Article in the San Francisco Business Times about firms building nanotechnology practices.

Law firms think small, bet big with nanotech
Eric Young

An increasing number of corporate attorneys are betting they will enjoy big business from some exceedingly small particles.

Two law firms with a significant Bay Area presence have set up practice groups focusing on nanotechnology, the science of developing materials at the atomic and molecular level in order to give them special electrical and chemical properties. The two firms -- Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP and Pillsbury Winthrop LLP -- join a number of others in the Bay Area, including Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Fenwick & West LLP and Townsend & Townsend & Crew LLP, whose counselors focus increasingly on deals stemming from this emerging scientific field.

What sets these nanotechnology practice groups apart from most other practice groups at large law firms is the high standard placed not only on legal knowledge but scientific acuity as well. Law firms seek attorneys with science backgrounds -- including physics, electrical engineering, biochemistry and chemistry -- which help give counselors a full grasp of the issues surrounding development and protection of nanotechnology-related issues.

. . . .

It's a Good Week for Bad News
 

Arter & Hadden is toast.

Altheimer & Gray is also toast.

And Fenwick & West has a worrisome case of the collywobbles.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue . . . .

It's a Good Week for Bad News
 

According to the Recorder, a new firm, Tucker Ellis & West, is set to rise like a phoenix from the ashes of Arter & Hadden. Former SF Managing Partner Kim West will be a name partner. Good news for the folks there, I'm sure.

It's a Good Week for Bad News
 

Saw something about Ropers Majeski losing some senior partners. That isn't a huge firm though far as I know.

Tap Tap Tap....
 

Helllllooooooo!!!!!!!


Is this thing on????



Sidd(suddenly, Johnny felt very alone in the world)Finch

It's a Good Week for Bad News
 

Ropers is famous for having bloodless coups every five years or so, when the compensation structure changes. A group of mid-level partners feels like they're getting screwed and leaves. The only person who always seems unscathed is Gene Majeski, who is as old as the hills but considerably shorter.

For the life of me, I cannot figure how that firm can make any money whatsoever at insurance defense rates.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

Perhaps someone could post the Fenwick article from today's Recorder, and see if that defribillates this board.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

Don't have online access, but read it in its paper form.

Every time a BIGLAW managing partner tells a newspaper that making gobs of money isn't the reason people come to or stay at em's firm, an angel gets his wings.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

Your wish is my command.

The tech player says it's doing just fine, but is the future so certain?

Renee Deger
The Recorder
07-21-2003
Fenwick & West

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers: 271

Partners: 82

2002 revenue: $142 million

2002 profits per partner: $650,000

Offices: Mountain View, San Francisco

Major clients: Apple Computer Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Intuit Inc., Verisign Inc.




Gordon Davidson isn't ready to hit the panic button just yet -- even though Fenwick & West is showing all of the standard signs of trouble for a law firm.

In recent months, Fenwick has closed its Washington, D.C., office, frozen staff salaries and seen a cadre of high-profile partners exit. Plus, the 271-lawyer Mountain View mainstay is a corporate player that depends on technology companies for much of its work, and that has not been a reliable revenue generator in recent years.

But Davidson, the firm's chairman and chief cheerleader, contends Fenwick is weathering the stormy economy and that the recent moves to shutter its office in D.C. and freeze salaries are simply smart business decisions. The defections, he said, have nothing to do with the firm's finances, but were governed by the partners' personal circumstances.

In other words, Fenwick is most certainly not going to end up in the law firm graveyard like its recently departed tech law competitor Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison.

"People who know us know our practice is strong and our partners are committed," Davidson said. "We have found a steady increase in our business since the fall [of 2002]."

Not all agree with Davidson's rosy assessment. Valley competitors believe that Fenwick faces some real challenges. It's a not a big firm; it's corporate driven; and it no longer operates in a market largely ignored by large East Coast and Midwestern firms. In the past year in particular, larger national firms have taken advantage of the economic downturn to move into Silicon Valley at bargain prices.

"It's a great firm, and it has some great lawyers," said R. Todd Johnson, who runs the Silicon Valley office of Cleveland's 1,700-lawyer Jones Day, "but over time you have to wonder whether the go-it-alone model for a firm like that is sustainable."

Fenwick is in a tight spot, Johnson said. The firm is too big and too concentrated in the Bay Area to be an attractive merger candidate, he said. And it's those qualities, plus a limited array of practice specialties, that he says make it vulnerable to poaching by larger firms looking to lure away clients or lawyers.

"When the economy comes back, the competition is going to be fierce," Johnson said.

Not surprisingly, Davidson sees it in a more positive light. The firm's concentration in the Bay Area and on emerging growth companies is evidence of focus, he said. Besides, the firm isn't interested in a merger.

"Ten years from now, we could easily be a strong, independent firm or we could possibly merge," Davidson said. "But that's not the goal of the partners who are here today."

He predicts competition from out-of-towners will wane as the larger firms aim for bigger clients or areas where the firms have a traditional emphasis, like investment banking work. And he's confident that his firm measures up against local players.

"All of the legal issues our clients face are similar," to what they were up against in the pre-tech boom days, Davidson said. "What's different now is us; we're a lot stronger and we have much more depth."

ACCURATE FORECASTS

So far, Davidson's predictions have come true for Fenwick. In 1993, Davidson -- who has helmed the firm since 1995 -- lobbied his partners to lease the handful of floors they didn't already occupy at Two Palo Alto Square in Palo Alto. Davidson was convinced the firm would grow from its 100-plus lawyers.

It did. The firm brought aboard lawyers to take on the influx of corporate work that came when the Internet boom hit. Fenwick swelled to a 2001 peak of 301 lawyers -- outgrowing the original space and the additional floors in Palo Alto. In December, the firm moved to larger, more modern digs in nearby Mountain View.

The larger cast of lawyers during the boom helped Fenwick into the upper echelons of major Bay Area firms. In 2000, Fenwick logged $800,000 in profits per partner, making the firm's partners the fourth-highest paid in the region, behind Brobeck, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Cooley Godward.

Still, the firm was a much smaller player. It grossed $148 million in 2000 -- less than half what Cooley did that year. And it had half as many lawyers, as well.

As tech has lost its luster, Fenwick has seen profits and revenues sag. From 2001 to 2002, Fenwick's profits per partner dived 10 percent. Only two other major California-based firms suffered larger losses -- Brobeck and Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich. Per-partner profits now stand at $650,000, 19 percent below their 2000 peak.

Lawyer headcount is also down by 10 percent from its tech-boom heights. Davidson, however, said the firm has reached an optimal size. It's small enough for the partners to interact and make quick decisions but large enough to service clients no matter how large they become.

"I think we have enough lawyers to do what we need to do for our clients, and our clients include very big companies," Davidson said.

He offered as evidence the decision by technology bellwether Cisco Systems Inc. to select Fenwick as its primary outside counsel after Brobeck dissolved earlier this year.

Legal recruiter Avis Caravello said Fenwick's practice offerings, including a big-ticket patent litigation group, make it more diverse than many corporate firms. "I think it's going to allow them to weather these difficult times better than other technology-oriented firms in the Valley," Caravello said.

In the past five years, the firm has roughly doubled its litigation group to 85 lawyers. While second in size to the corporate group, litigation generated one-third of the firm's revenue last year. The 92-lawyer corporate group kicked in 31 percent of revenue, the firm said.

Intellectual property, with 74 lawyers, generated 26 percent of the revenue while the 20-lawyer tax group, which specializes in premium, high-stakes tax disputes, kicked in 10 percent.

Davidson said the firm continues to hire partners, most recently Mark Stevens, who left Fenwick in 1999 to work for now-bankrupt client Excite At Home Corp. Davidson credited Stevens with scoring a handful of new clients in his first month back with the firm.

However, since December, Fenwick has lost four senior litigators. Fenwick partners downplay the departures, chalking them up to a series of unrelated life changes. One departing partner became a judge, and one changed his practice specialty and joined a firm aligned with his interests.

But two others left to practice with other firms. The most recent, and most visible, was rainmaker Claude Stern, who left last month to join litigation shop Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges.

For his part, Stern said that Fenwick's falling profits weren't a factor in his leaving, and it's not likely to be an issue for the other partners, he said. The firm's partners are bound by a strong fabric, which will hold them together through the downturn.

"It's a place where people have stuck together, and that will serve them very well as it faces the challenges it has," Stern said, adding the leading challenge is the depressed technology sector.

"It's hard for any organization to make the hard choices, and to the extent that Fenwick is making them, I applaud them," Stern said. "It shows a real commitment to the people of the firm."

LAGGING REVENUES

Firm managers say the measures to hold the line on costs by closing in D.C. and freezing salaries are simply prudent management decisions.

John McNelis, the firm's co-managing partner, said the firm evaluates its staff salaries annually. This year, he said, the firm found it was paying some staff more than other firms. But despite the freeze, about 50 staff members got raises after all, because their pay was below market, he said.

As for Washington, D.C., Davidson said the firm had laid out a strategic plan for the office in 2000 to tap into the local telecommunications industry. But telecom has suffered as much as the Internet sector, and Fenwick's strategy failed. The firm announced it was pulling the plug earlier this month.

The firm is letting its D.C. lease run out in November, though it is considering keeping a skeleton crew on hand to maintain some sort of presence in the capital.

But Davidson says the firm overall has been exceeding its budget targets each month. In June, for example, the firm's associates billed enough hours to put them at an average of 1,950 for the year, he said.

Still, business is down. Corporate work has lagged for most of the year, and Davidson said he expects annual revenues will be off slightly from 2002.

The firm is also expecting a bite in the profits because of its lease at Two Palo Alto Square. The firm moved into its new Mountain View building while still paying rent on its old space.

Although a revenue decline -- even a modest one -- puts the firm one step further from its peak, Davidson said he isn't worried that it will make his partners ripe for plucking by competing firms.

"We have a group of partners who chose to be here because they enjoy practicing law here," Davidson said. "If making the absolute most money were their goal, they wouldn't have chosen this practice."



Fenwick & West Chairman Gordon Davidson
image: Jason Doiy/The Recorder

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

This guy is either a great cheerleader or just doesn't get it. Firms that cannot compete in the PPP race will not survive in their current form - to think otherwise, you have to believe that GPs are in it for the love of the practice, not for $.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

But Sarge, didn't you read the last paragraph? Fenwick has a group of partners* who choose to be there because they enjoy practicing law there. If making the absolute most money were their goal, they wouldn't have chosen that practice. You can't possibly doubt the veracity of what a managing partner tells Renee Deger!

*Wanna take bets on how large that idealistic "group of partners" is, God love 'em? I'll bet it ain't the whole banana.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

Dollars to doughnuts its the partners with no books.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

What's so hard to believe about that? Money isn't everything. There are plenty of other pleasures in this job. The smile on the summer associate's face when you say "good work, what's-your-name." The crisp new-paper smell of a freshly served complaint (especially one that will require a full-bore defense). The caring camarederie of your colleagues, particularly in the wee hours of the morning. The warm and mushy feeling you get when answering your client's questions about a bill. The sound of your child's voice over the speaker phone as you multi-task to wish him goodnight while taking a meeting.

So, enough with the cynicism.

Thump thump thump..... Clear!!!! BZZZZZTTTT!!!!
 

Sidd, I must admit this brought a smile to my face and a tear to my eye.

SF Protest
 

Does anybody know what is being protested today?

SF Protest
 

The ones in my 'hood were wearing SEIU t-shirts, so I'd guess it's a picket, or rally, or whatever labor unions do nowadays. They might have a shared opinion about Uday Hussein, John Lee Malvo, or the recall election, so ymmv.

Protest
 

It's the downtown janitors' union protesting the lack of a contract. The fight is over whether the janitors will pay for a percentage of their health care benefits. Get ready to empty your own trashcans.

Rutan & Tucker
 

According to the Recorder, Rutan & Tucker, at 130-lawyers the largest shop in Orange County, is opening an outpost in San Jose, its first.

Recorder article
 

Can someone please post the "Fenwick chairman: 'the worst is already over'" from the Recorder?

An article in SF Business Times talks about advertising campaigns at Farella, Pillsbury and Orrick touting individual lawyers. Shocking! What won't they think of next?

Janitor strike
 

Question,
Did the janitors vote to strike yet? Will I be taking my own garbage out?

Janitor strike
 

Yes, they voted to strike, but it doesn't affect all companies and buildings. The strike begins tonight. Your building management or janitorial service company will probably let you know whether you're affected.

Janitor strike
 

Sons of bitches. It's bad enough that they never ever dust, and now I'm sure there'll be stinking piles of garbage everywhere.

Janitor strike
 

Do you mean to tell us that your firm doesn't have vermicomposting facilities? For shame.

Janitor strike
 

No, but we do have a nice worm bin.

Janitor strike
 

Now, now, it isn't nice to talk about partners that way.

Patent Malpractice
 

For any of you that don't get the Daily Journal - the headline yesterday is a preliminary judgement of $30M against Fish & Richardson (and attorney John Land) for missing a PCT filing deadline. The firm failed to timely file an international application, then argued that even though it was their mistake, the application wouldn't have been worth anything, anyway.

Ouch. I wonder if all our malpractice rates will go up?

Patent Malpractice
 

Ouch indeed.

The amateur futurist inside me is whispering that the stakes of various individual transactions have gotten so high that corporate attorneys and insurers will soon be looking to the legislatures for relief from malpractice burdens. Think "cap," a la med-mal. Congress won't give it, but state legislatures, which are about 80% lawyers anyway, will be sympathetic. Since potential tort claimants make a horrible lobby, and the trial lawyer lobby has been lukewarm to the idea of suing lawyers anyway, the idea will pass in a majority of states.

This will happen in a five-year window. Mark my inner futurist's words.

Patent Malpractice
 

Other famous words from Atticus Grinch's inner futurist:

5/7/84: "Dudes! As soon as I get out of school, I'm starting a band and becoming a rock star."

3/14/92: "Dude, like Hootie kicks ass! These guys will be around forever!"

6/30/93: "They like totally tested Property on last year's bar, no way they put on this year's test. I'm totally skipping it."

3/2/2000: "Dude, if they like totally don't match the RMSC*, I am so out of here. Shit, Brobeck is hiring like mad dude."


:poke:

I don't know why, but when I think of AG talking, it comes out like totally like that dude.


*Revised Model Salary Code of 2000, sigh

Patent Malpractice
 

You're way off on a couple of those dates, dude.

Patent Malpractice
 

Patent Malpractice
 

I don't have a link, but if you send me your email by PM I can send you a PDF scan of the article.