Ahead of Merger, Troutman Makes Pay Cuts, Firms Defer First Years
Troutman's pay cuts follow a similar move by Pepper earlier in May and mark the latest internal adjustments ahead of the July 1 merger.
May 26, 2020 at 04:20 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Troutman Sanders confirmed it is cutting pay firmwide for lawyers and staff, effective June 1, following an announcement of similar compensation cuts by its merger partner, Pepper Hamilton, earlier this month.
Both firms also said on Friday that they will defer the start date of their combined first-year associate class from the fall to next January.
The moves represent the latest internal adjustments and preparations just ahead of the July 1 merger, which will form Troutman Pepper. The merger, initially scheduled for April 1, was announced last year to much fanfare, as it may create a new Am Law 50 firm. But, due to the novel coronavirus pandemic, Atlanta-based Troutman and Philadelphia-based Pepper pushed it back to July.
The merger is still on track, Troutman said in a Friday statement.
Troutman is implementing the firmwide pay cuts because of the uncertain economic environment amid the coronavirus pandemic, it said in the statement. The pay reductions for lawyers and staff will range from 2% to 18.5% on an annualized basis, and the duration depends "on the overall global economy and firm performance," it said.
"Troutman Sanders is in a strong financial position, with record financial performance through year-to-date 2020," the statement said. But it is reducing expenses because "the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on our clients, and, therefore on our business, remains impossible to predict."
According to Above the Law, which first reported the pay reductions, equity partners are taking the deepest cuts. On an annualized basis, equity partners will take an 18.5% cut, non-equity partners will take a 14% cut and associates will take an 11.7% cut.
If the salary reductions continue through the end of the year, then, going forward, that works out to a 32% cut for equity partners, a 24% cut for nonequity partners and a 20% cut for associates from their pay for the remaining seven months of the year.
Pepper Hamilton said May 8 that it was cutting pay for attorneys and staff. At that time, Pepper said it was reducing distributions for partners by an unspecified amount and reducing salaries for all other attorneys by what would amount to under 12% on an annualized basis. It also reduced salaries for staff making $60,000 or more, ranging from 9% to 3% on an annualized basis.
In deferring their combined first-year associate class, Pepper and Troutman said they will provide financial assistance to defray living expenses and the cost of preparing for the bar exam. The incoming associates also will be able to enroll in the health insurance plan.
The firms had already announced April 10 that they were suspending their summer associate programs and that they would instead make job offers to the rising 3Ls to join the combined firm, Troutman Pepper, as associates in the fall of 2021. They gave rising 2Ls offers to return as summer associates next year.
Troutman had also announced in mid-April that it was offering some staff the option of a voluntary leave of absence, starting May 1. The firm offered those who participated full coverage of health insurance premiums and a weekly stipend in addition to state and federal unemployment benefits.
Troutman reported healthy gains in revenue and profits last year. In 2019, Troutman's revenue increased 5.4% to $549.6 million and net income increased 6.2% to $207.7 million. Profits per equity partner jumped 8.4% to $1.164 million.
Meanwhile, Pepper saw gross revenue grow 4.5% in 2019 to $349.4 million, after three years of declines. Revenue per lawyer was up 3.7%, at $818,000. The firm saw a 13.6% jump in profits per equity partner to $943,000.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute read‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250