Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

National jobless news seems to be business as usual. First-time jobless claims fell by 6,000 last week to 462,000.

That contributed to a net gain of 37,000, to 4.56 million people included in the "continuing claims" total. Above those receiving regular benefits, there are also 5.69 million people receiving extended benefits, an increase of about 175,000 for the week.

That becomes particularly relevant, because the Senate voted 62-36 to extend benefits (both unemployment insurance and health-insurance premium subsidies) through the end of the year. Traditionally, benefits lasted up to 26 weeks; under the new law, some people will receive up to 99 weeks’ benefits. Republicans made noise about adding $140 billion to the $12.5 trillion deficit, but were pretty much powerless to stop it.

Layoff news in the law-firm sector was not nearly so good this week. Details after the jump.

After more than two weeks without a layoff, three firms laid people off this week, as many as had reported layoffs in all of February.

The big news for the week was Howrey, which will be losing 10% of its partnership. The firm also laid off a large number of associates and staff last month.

Howrey posted a 35% drop in partner profits during 2009, falling from $1.3m (£876,000) in 2008 to $846,000 (£564,000) last year. Revenues also saw a double digit dip, dropping 16% from $573m (£382m) to $480m (£320m) in 2009.

Robert Ruyak, Howrey’s managing partner and chief executive, said: “After an internal assessment we decided that we need to tighten up and be strong by focusing on our core areas. We added a number of partners laterally during the last part of 2009 and thus far in 2010, while a similar number are departing for firms and practices that should be a better fit for them. We do not expect the partnership to be substantially different in size by the end of the year to what it is now.”

This is an interesting one. Ruyak is saying that the firm is cutting entire practices in an effort to return to its focus as a litigation-only shop. Patent and trademark prosecution, environmental, and insurance recovery are all on their way out.

Less forthright was McDermott Will & Emery, which has been accused of the vile practice of stealth layoffs. Frankly, we’re surprised that there aren’t more reports of stealth layoffs these days.

We made the decision last year not to include firm dissolutions as layoffs, so Darby & Darby’s breakup doesn’t count in the totals (neither do Thelen’s, Heller Ehrman’s or any of the other recently departeds’). Still, that puts the IP boutique’s 62 lawyers (19 of which are partners) and more than 100 staff out of work.

In non-layoff news, Katten Muchin was chided last week for not providing timely salary information. This week, they’re getting berated for the actual salary information they finally got around to providing. To be fair, a lot of the complaining is around the firm’s process and the lack of visibility associates had into the decisionmaking, rather than the salary cuts themselves.

Sonnenschein also took its time getting compensation information out. The firm is going back to $160k base for first years, but 12-15% of that will be retained and paid out as a "base bonus" in 2011 as the firm transitions to a more performance-based structure.

King & Spalding lawyers got slightly better news for their long wait. The firm paid bonuses, although the vague reference to the "2008 scale" wasn’t helpful. We added them to the Law Shuck Bonus Tracker, but numbers from back then are hard to find (part of the reason we started the tracker in the first place). On the salary side, it’s the same small-market blues that Chicago lawyers were suffering through a few weeks ago. There’s always that one local firm that is supposed to be a peer but outdoes your firm. Down in Atlanta, that means Alston & Bird, which pays a few thousand dollars more in most classes.

Of course, having a job at all is a nice thing these days, and the graduating class of 2010 is waiting with bated breath to find out when they’ll start (warning: link is to ATL comments, although they’re not particularly bad in this case). Nothing too surprising right now, with dates reportedly ranging from on time (Sep/Oct ‘10) at firms like Sullivan & Cromwell and Cleary, to Jan ‘11 at Milbank and Sidley.

In news that we found absolutely not surprising at all, there’s a culture gap between deferred associates doing public-interest work, and those who do it as a career. As far as we’re concerned, it’s further proof that this guy hasn’t a clue.

And while we’re at it, don’t be like this guy, either.

Just do what Hiring Partner says: accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.

The running tallies for the week, month, and year in the conclusion of the article on Law Shucks.

Law – Services – Lawyers & Law Firms – Law Shucks – Howrey

Ed. note: ATL has teamed up with the 10th Justice to predict how the Supreme Court may decide upcoming cases. CNN has called FantasySCOTUS the “hottest new fantasy-league game.”

In order to assess the accuracy of our league, we will revisit five recent opinions, and compare the predicted outcomes with the actual outcomes. We have selected cases that did not necessarily fall along ideological lines to test the capability of our league to detect nuance in judgments. In this week’s 10th Justice, we will take a look at Hemi Group, Briscoe, Powell, Hertz Corp, and Shatzer, all of which were decided at the end of January and February. We also consider how cheating impacted the results.

For each case, we have recorded our outcome statistics and SMRs (standard majority ratio). The SMR provides a method to test whether or not users perceive the Court as dominated by conservative ideology.

In Hemi Group v. City of New York, the Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit’s decision that the non-payment of taxes was an injury flowing from a third party’s actions for the purpose of the RICO Act. Overall, only 39% of total predictions found that the Supreme Court would reverse, and the confidence interval was 10.25% (at the 95% level), indicating that the results were a decently accurate representation of predictions about the case (and their general incorrectness). As for the specific split, 18 users guessed that the outcome would have less than 9 Justices voting. These members were astute, as Sotomayor recusing herself from an opinion involving the Second Circuit should have been expected. But only half of those predictions, 10% of total predictions, were reverse predictions. No member correctly predicted the votes of each Justice. The SMRs indicate that most predictions were counting on liberal Justices joining the majority, since Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer all have SMRs above one at a statistically significant level. Of course, this could also be representative of a complex case or issue, as Kennedy was in the minority for this case. This fact would also explain how the majority of predictions got the general outcome wrong.

In Briscoe v. Virginia, the Supreme Court reversed the Virginia Supreme Court’s. The Court held that a Defendant does not waive his 6th Amendment rights to the confrontation of forensic analysts who prepared forensic evident used in court by failing to call them as witnesses. 63% of predictions correctly guessed that the Supreme Court would reverse. The results were statistically significant at a 99% confidence level, with a confidence interval of 11.86. For the specific split, only 3 users, 4.6% of total predictions, predicted a unanimous outcome. These members probably correctly assumed a per curiam reversal would be issued in light of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. The SMRs further support this conclusion since the “liberal minority” all had SMRs above 1 at a statistically significant level. Sotomayor’s SMR of 2.17 indicated that she was highly likely to join in a majority decisions, and Ginsburg’s SMR of 1.71 was also a solid indicator. Overall, it is interesting to note that while predictions produced a statistically sound correct outcome, a smaller proportion of users predicted the correct split than in Hemi.

In Florida v. Powell, the Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court decision that held that informing a defendant that they had a right to “talk to an attorney” was insufficient to inform them they had a right to have counsel present. Overall, 51% of members predicted that the Court would reverse, but with such a tight margin, the results were not statistically significant. Only three users, approximately 2% of total predictions, predicted the correct split, while only one user predicted the correct votes. In conjunction with the indeterminate nature of the general outcome predictions, the SMRs did not reveal any additional information since all Justices had SMRs that were not significantly different from 1. This indicates that predictions mainly sorted along ideological lines.

But how did the FantasySCOTUS cheaters affect the results? This installment of the 10th Justice continues at JoshBlackman.com, after the jump.

Supreme Court – United States – Government – Law – Judicial Branch

Ed. note: Due to technical difficulties, for which we apologize, this post may not have appeared for some readers until after 11 a.m.

* Snowball fight = criminal possession of a weapon? [Daily News]

* To attack detainee lawyers or not: that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of liberals, or take arms against a sea of troubles. [New York Times]

* David Letterman thanks the D.A.’s office. [ABC: Good Morning America]

* Just because you are advertising your services on hot dog carts doesn’t mean you’re chopped liver. [Simple Justice]

* It’s been two years since Eliot Spitzer was exposed as a local john. [Huffington Post]

* If you are my age, you’ll understand why I have to say: R.I.P. Corey Haim. [Los Angeles Times]

Eliot Spitzer – United States – California – Los Angeles – Counties

BURBANK, Calif. — Willie Davis, a speedy center fielder who collected two World Series rings, three Gold Gloves and was a two-time All-Star during his 14 seasons with the Los Angeles Dodgers, has died. He was 69.

Davis was found dead Tu…

[Ed. note: This post is authored by Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting, sponsor of the Asia Chronicles. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years. You can reach them by email: asia at kinneyrecruiting dot com.]

Evan here, writing from back home in Miami after returning from recent trips to Russia (that market is about six to 9 months away from US associate lateral hiring surge in our estimation) and Asia. I am looking forward to being home for a few weeks before heading back to Hong Kong and Shanghai. Moscow, with its biggest snowfall in its history happening while Robert Kinney, Daniel O’Rourke and I were visiting Yuliya Vinokurova (our resident Russia recruiter) there, was fun but exhausting.

We have had a very impressive run of placements so far this year in HK / China. I personally have made 13 US associate placements in HK / China during the first 9 weeks of ‘10. Further, Alexis Lamb (our resident HK recruiter) has made 2 US associate placements thus far in ‘10. Here is a very basic, non-specific of course, breakdown of these 15 US associates placed, so our readers can get an idea of who is landing in HK / China at present (it is likely 80% or more of the total number of US associate lateral moves in HK / China thus far in ‘10 at top US or UK firms, so a great sample to consider):

‘05 fund formation associate (native Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 5 US firm in NYC

‘05 fund formation associate (native Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 30 US firm on East Coast

‘07 cap markets associate (fluent Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 5 US firm in HK

***More after the jump.

‘07 cap markets associate (native Mandarin), placed in BJ, coming from top 10 US firm in BJ

‘02 M&A associate (fluent Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 10 US firm in NYC

‘06 M&A associate (fluent Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 15 US firm in NYC

‘07 general corporate associate (fluent Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 3 US firm in NYC

‘05 M&A associate (fluent Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 3 US firm in NYC

‘08 general corporate associate (native Mandarin), placed in BJ, coming from top 5 US firm in NYC

‘06 cap markets associate (native Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 10 US firm in NYC

‘07 cap markets associate (native Korean), placed in HK, coming from top 5 US firm in NYC

‘02 M&A / cap markets associate (native Korean), placed in HK, coming from top 3 US firm in NYC

‘05 cap markets associate (native Mandarin), placed in SHG, coming from top 20 US firm in NYC

‘06 cap markets associate (native Mandarin), placed in BJ, coming from top 10 US firm in NYC

‘06 fund formation associate (fluent Mandarin), placed in HK, coming from top 10 UK firm in London

We are in the process of making a number of additional placements in HK / China this month and we are also assisting partners with new searches. As we expect to be the case for all of ‘10, the strongest need for lateral US associates is native Mandarin speakers with cap markets background coming from top US firms in both US and HK / China. The IPO market continues to boom, while M&A has been sporadic. We are also seeing at any given time (and expect to continue throughout ‘10) one or two openings for junior to mid-level native Korean US associates and junior to mid-level fund formation associates. Senior associate / counsel / non-equity partner level hires are going to continue at a handful of firms that have such strategic needs. M&A and cap markets are running even on those type of strategic hires because M&A, while not being a very busy area of the market now across the board, is a major area of planned growth at many top US and UK firms in SE Asia. Although IP openings are rare, we are working on two senior associate IP openings now. The pace of first interview to offer letter will continue to be relatively slow in ‘10, as firms are still dealing needing permission from global management to make hires (come off hiring freeze in some cases) and even the best candidates are not typically having multiple offers quickly, keeping timing leverage with firms for now.

Hong Kong – Asia – China – NYC – HK / China

Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

First-time jobless claims dropped last week, and the overall unemployment rate (U-3) held steady at 9.7% in February.

But you won’t call that "good news" if you know what’s good for you.

Ross Todd at the American Lawyer spared us some typing:

The news for the legal services sector is one of the more hopeful signs of late. Only 100 jobs were lost in the legal sector in February, the second month in a row that has seen a substantial drop-off in job losses. According to seasonally adjusted BLS data, the legal sector lost 1,100 jobs in January compared to 2,100 in December, 2,900 in November, and 5,800 in October. Since February of last year, the sector has shed 37,100 positions.

Coincidentally, that lines up very closely with the 110 jobs we reported lost from major law firms in "The Month in Layoffs" for February. (BLS reports net numbers, we’re just tallying layoffs at major firms).

But layoffs aren’t firms’ only costcutting measure, and in fact they seem to be falling out of favor quickly. After the jump, what the firms have been up to this week.

First off, we’re happy to note that no layoffs have been reported for the second week in a row. That hasn’t happened since the December holidays.

This is no time to start feeling all secure and go crazy, though. As Hiring Partner just wrote, it’s still important to cover your ass.

One reason for fewer layoffs going forward is simply that hiring is falling off a cliff. People who summered in 2008 got offers at almost a 90% clip. Last summer, the rate dropped below 70%. Of course, those ‘08 summers were the ‘09 grads who had their offers rescinded or their start dates deferred, so it’s kind of a pick-your-poison situation. Get screwed early or get screwed late, either way, both classes got screwed.

Not that it’s likely to matter to the recent graduates and junior associates, but corporate law departments are supposedly getting ready to hire. Even that is bad news for firms, though, because it’s part of an effort to reduce spend by reducing reliance on outside counsel.

For firms that have already laid off staff and associates, lowered salaries, reduced bonuses, and curtailed hiring, what’s left when clients won’t accept rate hikes? Cutting partners, at least according to Hildebrandt and Citi.

Even among the gainfully employed, "morale is very low" at Reed Smith, where they’ve just announced salaries for 2010 and the effects of leaving lockstep are finally hitting wallets and purses. Is it finally settling in? Not all of you are in the top 10%? For that matter, not all of you are not even in the top half.

OK, maybe it’s a little early for that, but we are curious to see how the averages in non-lockstep firm compare to their lockstep counterparts. We’re firmly in the camp of not using abandoning lockstep as cover for salary cuts.

That’s nothing compared to the dissension being sown by two members of the most recent summer class at Mayer Brown. Ahh spring is just around the corner and we have green shoots of thoughts turning to collective action. Part of the problem with the misery of 2009 was that we missed out on the perennial cries for unionization of BigLaw associates. Perhaps the summers and law students can lead the way?

Frankly, this is just an opportunity to use a quote from a previous round of Marxist agitating:

I can just see it now as an associate in an Armani suit holds up a sign reading Union in the middle of the law firm cafeteria . . . and is carried away screaming by security thugs.

Well said, Prof. Secunda.

Amazingly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to have gotten what they wanted – word came from the firm that Mayer Brown has been prodded into realizing that they’re six months overdue in making a decision and has just now begun to contemplate the situation.

Is there something about Chicago that is retarding the decisionmaking process? Katten Muchin hasn’t set salaries yet, despite indicating back in January that it would be done by March 1. Maybe KMZ lawyers are better off waiting. Just a few weeks ago we wrote about rampant jealousy in the Second City.

They haven’t changed, but the running tallies for the week, month, and year are available in the conclusion of the article on Law Shucks.

Law – Employment – Services – Law Shucks – Law Practice Support

Monday on The Ed Show Tom Harkin expressed pessism about the public option’s chances:

SCHULTZ: But why do I sense a “yes” out of you? If it were to come to the floor, you would vote yes for the public option, would you not?

HARKIN: Ed, I’ll tell you this straightforward. Not if it meant that it would sink the whole health care reform bill.

There’s a lot of other stuff in there I care very deeply about — getting rid of all of these pre-existing conditions, insurance rescinding these things, covering 30 million people, giving tax credits to low income so they can buy insurance, getting more competition out there. These are very important things to have for our country, and so I have to weigh all of that.

And if we have a bill sent to us from the House, a reconciliation bill that does not have the public option in there, then if we were to do that, if we were to add it here, that would sink the whole bill. And I don’t want to sink this bill. I want to get this bill passed. I want it on Obama’s desk and have him sign it.

SCHULTZ: Yes. We all do, Senator. But if it were just a single issue and a single reconciliation attempt at a public option, you would vote for that, wouldn’t you?

HARKIN: Ed, not if it doomed the entire bill.

Meanwhile, Tuesday on Countdown Kent Conrad left the door cracked open:

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Senator Conrad, I want to start by asking you about the public option. It’s now up to 34 senators supporting it. Is that something you could support if it was included in the reconciliation bill?

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND), SENATE BUDGET CMTE. CHAIRMAN: It would depend entirely how it’s constructed. And, you know, I wouldn’t sign a blank check for any provision. I’d want to know the details.

So Tom Harkin is now a big public option pessimist, and Kent Conrad has cracked the door open. Obviously, Harkin didn’t completely rule the public option out, nor did Kent Conrad deliver a ringing endorsement of it. And Harkin also still says he supports the public option, whereas Conrad is equivocal at best. Still, compare what they are now saying is possible to what they were saying was possible just a few months ago:

It’s an interesting shift in tone — from both of them.

Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

Dear ATL,

Like many 2009 grads, I’m jobless, but not workless. I started an unpaid internship for a local government in January. They’ve been giving me a full caseload (as much as they give other employed attorneys), but no indication that they’re ready to hire me. At what point should I take a stand? And what should I say?

Taxation without Representation

Dear Taxation Without Representation,

Nothing is more infuriating than when people expect you to do the job for which you were hired. When you accepted the unpaid internship two months ago, you sent SEVERAL telepathic messages indicating that you would accept the job on the condition that it would transform into a paid position in eight weeks or less. Even though you agreed to work for free in exchange for valuable resume-building experience, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be entitled to a salary, 20 vacation days and a lump sum gross-up for accrued hours to date.Your employer’s failure to acquiesce to these reasonable demands is outrageous and potentially illegal.

If you bring the payment issue up with your job head on, they’ll probably use underhanded tactics like citing to your “internship agreement” or your “eight weeks on the job.” Seasoned attorneys will recognize these as red herrings, but lawyers with less experience like you may fall prey to such specious arguments. Accordingly, your best bet is to drop subtle hints that you’d like to get paid. That may mean changing your name to a symbol and writing the word “slave” on your cheek or spending lunch hour singing chain gang work songs and pretending to dig a ditch by the vending machines. If you still fail to get the message across, you can quit and become a hero to all interns who resent the very nature of their engagements. Or, you can spend the rest of your internship being an intern.

Your friend,

Marin

Sure, listen to Marin. Play it safe, accept your limitations, remain beaten and cowardly. Hell, while your at it why not just buy ladies scented body wash and start watching Leno. I mean, if you listen to Marin, it won’t be long before life officially passes you by. Just make it obvious so people with important things to do don’t waste any of their precious time on you.

Look man, fortune favors the bold. Nobody is going to give you anything in this life, you have to stand up and take it. Reach down towards your crotch and see if there is anything dangling there. Are you solid? If so, I think it’s time you started to stake your own claim to this world. There’s a Guinness commercial about this.

Of course you should ask for the money. What’s the worse that can happen? They say “no”? Who cares? Only losers and Democrats are afraid of the word “no.” Winners understand that “no” is just a starting point; it’s the beginning of a negotiation, not the end.

Nobody wants to pay for anything these days. It makes perfect sense to me that government expects you to work for free. Obviously, you had to agree to those terms in order to get in the door. No matter how little you think you can live on, there’s always some competitor willing to do your job for just a little bit less. But now that you have your foot all up in the door, you should absolutely try to get some money out of it.

You don’t think you are worthless, do you? Of course not. I’d walk in there with nothing but my d*** in my hand and tell them to put the money on the table.

– The Confidence Man

Do you have a question for next week’s Pls Hndle Thx? Send it to advice@abovethelaw.com.

Earlier: Prior installments of pls hndle thx

Business – Employment – Job Search – United States – Opportunities

Ed. note: ATL has teamed up with the 10th Justice to predict how the Supreme Court may decide upcoming cases. CNN has called FantasySCOTUS the “hottest new fantasy-league game.”

In the four months since I launched FantasySCOTUS.net, nearly 4,000 people have signed up, and made nearly 8,000 predictions for the 81 cases currently pending before the Supreme Court. When designing the system, I decided to allow people to make predictions up until the moment a case is decided by the Supreme Court. On days when opinions are handed down, I lock down the voting once I see that the Court has issued an opinion for a specific case. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced Maryland v. Shatzer at 10:00 a.m. I did not lock down the votes until around 11:30 a.m. In this period, several members changed their votes to get more points.

Really? Cheating on a Fantasy League with no cash prizes? What would motivate someone to do this? And what should I do about it?

The league does not have any rules against cheating. When crafting this league, I thought it was pretty obvious that people should not cheat. In fact, I designed this league based on the honor system. On the Sign Up page, I wrote:

“I realize the danger of creating a Web Site aimed towards attorneys based on the Honor System, but I have faith in humanity. Further, I am a recent law school graduate earning a government salary with a significant amount of student debt who paid for this site out of my own pocket. Play fair.”

Apparently, people don’t play fair. Beyond the cheating on the predictions, I am also fairly certain that many people took advantage of the free registration for students and unemployed attorneys. It is probably not a good idea to use a law firm e-mail address when signing up for one of these gratis accounts.

With respect to the offending members, I confronted them, and they admitted their wrongs. After hearing their story, I banished them from the realms of FantasySCOTUS. No, I won’t out them, so don’t ask.

Why would people cheat on a Fantasy Supreme Court league? What excuses did the cheaters provide? Is my faith in humanity rocked? And, is this as bad as stealing Oreos from a hotel minibar? 

More thoughts on the ethics of cheating on fantasy leagues, at JoshBlackman.com.

Quick Note for readers in Washington, D.C.. I will be giving a talk on McDonald v. Chicago, the upcoming Second Amendment incorporation case, at the George Mason Law School on March 1 at 12:00 p.m., and providing post-argument wrap up of McDonald at Georgetown University Law Center on March 2 at 3:30 p.m.. Details here.

Supreme Court – United States – Sports – Fantasy – Government

Guest post by Jeffrey ShallittJeffrey O. Shallitt is Professor of Mathematics in the School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario). He is the vice president and treasurer of Electronic Frontier Canada and the author of th…

[Ed. note: This post is authored by Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney of Kinney Recruiting, sponsor of the Asia Chronicles. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates and partners in Asia than any other firm in the past two years. You can reach them by email: asia at kinneyrecruiting dot com.]

Evan here, writing from the Miami airport, about to head off to London.

Happy Chinese New Year to all of our readers! Let’s hope the Year of the Tiger is a good one.

It has been a very busy few weeks, mainly due to a relatively hot lateral recruiting market in HK / China (also, my hometown Saints winning the Super Bowl here in Miami was quite a wonderful distraction). Robert and I were in Hong Kong earlier this month and we will be visiting our Moscow offices and making the rounds at our firm clients there (along with our colleagues, Yuliya Vinokurova, our resident Moscow recruiter, and Daniel O’Rourke) later this week for seven days. Robert was also in Shanghai earlier this month and I was in Tokyo and will be heading to Singapore from Moscow. Robert and I will be back in HK and SHG in March.

In Hong Kong, Robert, Alexis and I have been very much involved with the recent US firm rush to take on HK practices and that recruiting at the partner / group level has been fun, but quite intensive. Next week we will write about how this new important trend will affect US associate and counsel recruiting in HK in 2010.

The HK / China biglaw US attorney lateral hiring market has most definitely picked up to the highest levels we have seen since mid ‘08. For example, in the past week, Alexis Lamb, our resident recruiter in Hong Kong, made an associate placement in HK and I made two placements in HK, one associate and one counsel. In January and February, I have 12 new associate hires starting their new jobs in HK / China.

***More after the jump.

However, there are still far too many very qualified candidates on the market for the growing number of positions available. Thus, all major US and UK firms in HK / China can be extremely selective when filling openings. Also, there are still a handful of top US firms that remain on hiring freeze and a number of US and UK top firms in HK / China that are off hiring freeze but do not have the green light to hire for all their current needs. Firms falling into that latter category are typically focusing on cap markets hiring because of all the IPO deal flow that has been occurring in HK / China, although IPO work could fall off a little bit, temporarily, while the SHG and HK indexes have hit a snag recently.

We believe there will be a further up tick in US associate lateral hiring in HK / China for the next month or two, as many partners we talk to were waiting until after the Chinese New Year holidays to ramp up recruiting efforts.

Please do not be fooled though with what seems like a red hot lateral market in HK / China. It may seem the market is hotter than it really is because so many biglaw recruiters are trying to figure out how to break into the HK / China, the only hot biglaw lateral markets now. Surely, you have had a dramatic increase of cold calls recently, especially if you happen to be Chinese and / or have Mandarin fluency listed on your firm web bio. However, keep in mind that the biglaw deal flow in HK / China has been strong since last summer, especially in cap markets, and many firms have been understaffed by one or two associates for months. Now that most of these firms are relaxing their hiring freezes, at least somewhat, there is a spurt of hiring going on, due to pent up demand. I do not think this rate of hiring will continue for more than a few months before tapering off a bit.

Since last fall, most top US firms in HK / China have been following a pattern of coming off hiring freeze and within one month hiring 2 to 4 new US associates, but then slowing down hiring substantially. For example, I placed 4 associates at one US firm’s HK offices from July to September last year; made 3 placements at another US firm’s HK and BJ offices in November and December; and made 3 placements at another US firm’s HK and BJ offices from December and January. There are a few more firms that we predict will come off hiring freeze soon and make similar hiring runs.

Even with all the hiring going on in HK / China, as long as the US and other Western markets continue to be very slow biglaw lateral markets, there will be too big of an influx of qualified candidates in the HK / China markets for the amount of openings that exist. Thus, while in ‘06, ‘07 and ‘08, we were placing in HK / China US associates from a big variety of top US firms, in ‘09 and thus far in ‘10, the vast majority of US associate placements have been those coming from top 15 firms (more than half from top 5 firms). Further, all of our placements in ‘09 and thus far in ‘10 have had fluency in Mandarin, Japanese or Korean (while in the previous four years we were placing numerous English only associates in HK / China).

Hong Kong – Asia – China – HK / China – Moscow

Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.

Here we are, a year after enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and still facing unemployment in the 10% range. That anniversary has brought to the fore once again debate over whether the stimulus bill has worked. President Obama is in the difficult position of trying to prove that things would have been worse had they not acted.

Those who have studied logic will recognize that as the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam – i.e., the plan must have worked simply because no one has proven that the economy would be worse otherwise.

Those who watch late-night television will just call it "truthiness" and move on. Some of just know with our hearts.

The Washington Post puts the results somewhere in the middle:

Nevertheless, at its core, the president’s argument is correct. Over the past year, the act has provided $119 billion in tax relief to households and firms; $147 billion in aid to states, unemployment benefits, food stamps and the like; and $31 billion for roads, energy efficiency and other projects. You cannot inject $300 billion — an amount equal to about 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product — into the economy without stimulating some short-run economic activity that would not have occurred otherwise.

Trying to show how many jobs were "saved or created" is a waste of time, they say; some must have been, contrary to Republican claims that "not one net job" has been created.

On the other hand, there’s plenty of room for criticizing the efficiency of the government’s actions.

And that’s what we’ve been saying about law firms’ behavior for a long time now. Their most-recent fiscal behavior, after the jump.

Back on the law-firm front, it’s a return to normal this week with a slight twist. Normal, in 2010, seems to mean that layoffs are reported at a single firm every week. If you take out Marks & Clerk, which laid off one person in connection with office consolidations, there has been one reported layoff (lawyers, staff, or both) every week this year: Cahill Gordon for the week ending January 8, Seyfarth Shaw for the week ending January 15, Wilson Sonsini for the week ending January 22, Morrison & Foerster for the week ending January 29, and Howrey for the week ending February 5.

Last week it was Drinker Biddle, which laid off seven lawyers in Chicago, although that announcement came after we had "gone to press."

This week, it was Ashursts, which cut "fewer than 10." Partners. That’s on top of a net decrease in headcount of 27 partners since May 1, although some of those 27 may also be due to retirement and voluntary withdrawals.

That should provide a fair bit of schadenfreude to associates who are fit to be tied with the outpouring of "revenue down profits up" reports as the American Lawyer prepares its 2009 lists (see, e.g., Sidley Austin, Latham & Watkins, and Greenberg Traurig).

Pleasure in the misery of others is hollow, though. Fortunately, there have been a few announcements of affirmative good news. The Law Shucks Bonus Tracker keeps getting new additions, despite the traditional season being long past.

Morrison & Foerster not only paid bonuses slightly above market, the firm also restored salaries back to $160k base.

That $160k level is apparently stirring up trouble over in London. Bingham apparently never heard of localizing salaries and is paying the NY market rate for "newly qualified" lawyers in London.

Latham & Watkins, Debevoise & Plimpton, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Kirkland & Ellis pay NQs £96,000, £94,250, £94,000, £92,000 and £90,000 respectively.

In contrast, magic circle NQ salaries range from £59,000 to £61,000.

Bingham only brings on one or two NQs a year, though. And besides, that salary would be worth a hell of a lot more if you got it in the firm’s Portland office (actually, they have a Hartford office, but that’s not nearly as nice a place to spend your money. Or time.)

They’re a little tight on the deferral stipend over in London, too. Herbert Smith is offering just £10,000 to incent volunteers for a six-month deferral.

And if you believe one GULC alum, people may be in no hurry to return from their deferrals.

We think he’s out of his mind and stuck in 2006.

The tallies for the week, month, and year in the conclusion of the article on Law Shucks.

Also, keep an eye out this week for a new series by Hiring Partner. She’ll be providing her perspective from the inside of big-firm decisionmaking.

Law – Services – Latham & Watkins – Lawyers & Law Firms – London

Terrific.

The New York Times had a very interesting Op-Ed Friday, which took an unusual approach to the concern that factory farms are inhumane. Adam Shriver, a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University,…