Dewey faces challenge to steady ship as cutbacks prompt unrest in the City
"The fact that there are at least 15 Dewey CVs currently circulating in the City speaks for itself," says one London recruiter. "We are anticipating a handful of senior departures in the coming weeks..."
March 15, 2012 at 08:03 PM
6 minute read
US firm's cost-cutting drive raises questions as talk of partner discontent surfaces. Friederike Heine reports
News that top 25 US firm Dewey & LeBoeuf has kicked off a wave of aggressive cost-cutting measures expected to result in 5% of its lawyers and 6% of staff leaving the firm around the world marks a stark contrast to the ambitious expansion plans executed by the firm in recent years.
The news, confirmed earlier this month (2 March) by chairman Steven Davis, ended weeks of speculation on websites such as Above The Law about the state of the firm, with Davis confirming that, in addition to the redundancies, a number of partners would be leaving after seeing their merit-based pay slashed. And, while Davis may not have admitted as much in the memo to the partnership, other partners have been explicitly asked to go.
In total more than 50 lawyers are expected to leave globally as a result of the cuts, in addition to partners. London alone has seen two partners and eight associates being asked to leave since the beginning of the year, with others expected to follow, including some of whom will be a loss to the office.
"The fact that there are at least 15 Dewey CVs currently circulating in the City speaks for itself," says one London recruiter. "We are anticipating a handful of senior departures in the coming weeks, with some coming as an unintended consequence of the cultural and financial unrest since the merger."
According to a spokesperson for Dewey, the cost-cutting measures, which also include a freeze on lateral recruitment in 2012 other than in exceptional circumstances, come as part of efforts to rebalance the firm's finances in the wake of more than 35 landmark lateral hires in 2011 alone – many of whom were brought in on large guarantees.
In the US these hires include a team of lawyers led by securities partner Michael Fitzgerald from Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, intellectual property litigators from now defunct firm Howrey, patent litigator Craig Allison from Dechert, and energy partners Karl Hopkins and Steven Otillar from Baker & McKenzie.
Meanwhile, in London 2011 saw the firm bring in a restructuring team from Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe headed by Mark Fennessy, as well as private equity partners Mark Davis and Russell van Praagh from Taylor Wessing.
London managing partner Peter Sharp (pictured) says: "After our extensive growth exercise in 2011, we are focusing this year on integration and expense control. The firm has absorbed some significant costs, which is not unusual for a firm that has attracted such high-profile laterals over the past year."
He adds: "We are encouraged by strong progress so far in 2012 in London and the US, and the partnership is more productive than ever."
Even before the firm was created in 2007 through the merger of Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & MacRae, there was a significant disparity in earnings between those at the top and those at the bottom of the firms' equity, and this has not changed post-merger, resulting in what many see as a two-tier partnership.
While star performers have been well-rewarded (according to Legal Week affiliate The Am Law Daily, Dewey reserves around 15% of earnings to fund discretionary bonuses), swathes of partners making up the firm's junior and mid-tier ranks have seen compensation cut in recent years.
Indeed, according to Am Law, in 2011 the firm's 115 non-equity partners saw average compensation plunge by 23% to $499,000 (£319,000), while equity partners took home an average of $1.8m (£1.2m), with those at the top thought to make at least 10 times more than those at the bottom of the scale.
And on top of this, the firm has faced rumours that not all of its partners have been receiving their full profit entitlement. While a spokesperson confirmed that star performers had been receiving both their monthly drawings and their full profit share, the firm did not deny that at least some mid-tier partners failed to receive their full profit share in 2011, leading to further dissatisfaction at the firm.
"People have doubted several US firms' profits per equity partner (PEP) numbers for years, but my understanding is that Dewey's are even more meaningless than most because they are so inflated by the rainmakers' pay packets," says one recruiter.
Though Dewey posted an overall increase in revenues and PEP for 2011, there is no denying that its finances have suffered as a result both of its aggressive lateral recruitment and the costs of the merger itself, including a lengthy consultation with McKinsey & Company.
Legacy LeBoeuf partners began expressing their discontent when the firm deferred a promised merger bonus in early 2008 intended to even up the fact that Dewey Ballantine had a significant unfunded pension liability, with the firm subsequently cutting compensation in early 2009 for 66 of its then 350 partners, with this process continuing in 2010.
High levels of debt at both legacy firms also resulted in the firm taking the unusual step of refinancing through a $125m (£82m) bond offering in 2010. It has loan agreements with banks including Citi and, though the firm denies taking out any additional debt since the merger, the consensus remains that Citi leans on the firm's management decisions.
With firms such as DLA Piper and Hogan Lovells among those circling teams of disenchanted partners in both the US and the UK, there is no doubt that Dewey faces a swathe of partner exits, not all of which will be of the firm's choosing.
With US legal history littered with cautionary tales, Dewey now has to ensure it holds onto the right partners or risk losing what it has built up in the UK and elsewhere.
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
© 2025 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 AllInternational Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York Court of Appeals Blocks Trump Attempt to Stay Friday Sentencing
- 2'Self-Diagnosed Nickel Allergy' Fails to Find Success in Med-Mal Suit, 8th Circuit Rules
- 3Eversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
- 4Balancing Judicial Authority: Understanding Sanctions, Severance, and Interferences
- 5Up in the Air: Boeing’s Deferred Prosecution Saga Continues
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