Working Mother Magazine Names Second Annual “50 Best Law Firms for Women”

The second-annual list of the best law firms for women, published by Working Mother magazine and Flex-Time Lawyers, highlights fewer Pennsylvania-based firms this year.

The unranked list of the 50 best firms in the nation named Fox Rothschild and Morgan Lewis & Bockius as some of the best law firms for women based on several criteria. Other firms with local offices that made list were Gibbons, Hogan & Hartson and Littler Mendelson.

In the inaugural listing, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, K&L Gates, Reed Smith, Duane Morris, DLA Piper and Gibbons were firms with local offices that made the list.

To Morgan Lewis’ credit, the publication pointed to its elevating part-time or flex-time women to partner positions in the past few years and allowing its attorneys to telecommute. The firm also has 450 female attorneys who have signed up as mentors or mentees to work on business development. Last fall, Morgan Lewis’ entire annual partners’ meeting was devoted to diversity and issues facing working mothers, according to Working Mother.

In looking at Fox Rothschild, the magazine said the firm is well-positioned to bring on and promote more female attorneys given its hiring and professional advancement committees are headed by women.

Fox Rothschild has an internal group that meets to discuss the “joys of having it all” and the firm offers flex-scheduling for those coming back from maternity leave and technology for those who want to telecommute. Many of the firm’s women serve on charitable boards or law-related forums. Fox Rothschild started a pilot business-development training program last year that will continue through 2008.

Firms filled out extensive applications and were scored based on their workforce profile, family-friendly benefits and policies, flexibility, leadership, compensation, advancement of women and retention of women, among other factors. Firms with at least 50 attorneys were eligible to apply, and surveys were scored based on an algorithm that weighted the categories differently.

The “50 Best Law Firms for Women” listing is a collaboration between the magazine and Deborah Epstein Henry, founder of Flex-Time Lawyers and of counsel with Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis.

–Gina Passarella, Senior Staff Reporter

N.J. Division of Consumer Affairs Acting Director Rejoins Stradley Ronon

Stephen B. Nolan left Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in 2005 to serve as the deputy director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. He was named acting director less than a year later and now rejoins Stradley Ronon as a partner in the firm’s Cherry Hill, N.J. office.

Nolan will serve in the firm’s litigation group with a focus on insurance and complex commercial disputes. He will also handle government affairs matters.

At the Division of Consumer Affairs, Nolan oversaw the investigation and prosecution of violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. The division also oversees securities brokers and other businesses, and regulates more than 80 professions within the state.

“Our clients will benefit tremendously from Steve’s unique combination of experience, as a decision maker in New Jersey government and as a savvy litigator who has represented clients in various commercial and insurance disputes,” Stradley Ronon Chairman William R. Sasso said in a statement.

Nolan rejoined the firm in late September.

~Gina Passarella, Staff Reporter

Schnader Harrison Changes Up Litigation Group Leadership

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis will have representation from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh offices among the litigation group’s leadership. Philadelphia partner J. Denny Shupe was appointed chairman of the litigation services department and Pittsburgh partner John K. Gisleson was appointed vice-chairman.

They replace Samuel Silver and Jennifer DuFault James, respectively. Silver will focus instead on his new role on the firm’s executive committee. Silver and James led the department for the past four years.

The litigation group is the firm’s largest department with over 100 attorneys.

“I am excited to be able to work with John and continue to build upon [Silver’s and James’] foundation of growth and success, while also bringing a fresh vision, energy, and strategic direction to the department,” Shupe said in a statement. “Schnader is known for excellence in trial and appellate courtrooms, and that core strength positions us well for the future.”

Gisleson started out in Schnader Harrison’s Philadelphia office and has previously served as the co-chairman of the business litigation group.

~Gina Passarella, Staff Reporter

Rumor: Akin Gump’s Philly IP Group Leaving

Word in the legal community is that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is parting ways with its Philadelphia intellectual property group. According to several sources, the IP group, which was formed when Ronald L. Panitch merged his 28-attorney intellectual property boutique, Panitch Schwarze Jacobs & Nadel with Akin Gump in 1999, is leaving, with at least some of the lawyers forming a reconstituted Panitch Schwarze.

It was impossible to confirm the rumors at press time. Calls to Panitch and Akin Gump’s media office were unsuccessful at press time.

A check of Akin Gump’s Web site showed that Panitch was still listed as the partner-in-charge of the firm’s Philadelphia office as of Wednesday night.

One source said it was not clear if all the IP attorneys were going to the new firm. The source said word of the IP group leaving first started hitting the streets Monday. There was supposedly a meeting in which attorneys and staff were made aware of the decision and that there would be a press release on the matter, a source said.

One source said that was how word got out: staff people started calling around looking for jobs.

“They’re looking for a job, and a job with Akin Gump pay, not boutique pay,” one source said.

The departure of the IP group would significantly reduce the size of Akin Gump’s Philadelphia office.

If the rumor is true, it would particularly interesting in light of Panitch’s previous comments to The Legal touting the benefits of merging an IP boutique with a large law firm.

Look for more on this story tomorrow on The Legal’s Web site.

–Hank Grezlak, Editor-in-Chief

Catching Up to The New Market for First-Year Salaries

Blank Rome was one of the first Philadelphia firms in 2007 to announce it would be increasing starting salaries for first-year associates to $135,000. The dominoes began to fall as other firms followed suit, with many surpassing the $135,00 mark and going to $145,000.Morgan Lewis & Bockius and Dechert had been at that rate and then Drinker Biddle & Reath and Pepper Hamilton matched it in September.

As the market shifted, Blank Rome decided recently to make another adjustment. Starting in January 2008, the firm will pay Philadelphia first-years $145,000, according to an Oct. 3 memo sent by firm management that was posted on Abovethelaw.com.

The firm confirmed the memo was accurate.

The New York and Washington, D.C., offices will also get an increase above the one they received earlier this year. New York first-years will earn $160,000 and Washington starting associates will be paid $150,000.

Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll increased its starting salary for a second time as well. The firm will move from the $135,000 it instituted this year to $145,000 as of January 2008, Chairman Arthur Makadon said. He said all associates in all offices would receive a $10,000 increase.

~Gina Passarella, Staff Reporter

Wolf Block Creates Government Law Practice

Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen formalized a government law practice, drawing on close to 30 attorneys within the firm to help service government clients from the local to national level.Partner Brian J. Preski, former chief of staff to Pennsylvania House Speaker John M. Perzel, will serve as chairman of the new practice group.

Preski joined the firm in January right from government work and said the idea was to eventually create a practice group like this.

There will be about 10 to 15 core attorneys in the government law practice with another 10 to 15 who will come in and out of the practice as their clients’ needs dictate, he said.

Preski said the firm was handling similar work in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Boston, but hadn’t had any official organization connecting the work throughout the offices.

If the new group can help other practices more easily make it through a client matter that requires government involvement, then it has done its job, Preski said.

One Wolf Block client is looking to build Home Depots and the firm’s environmental group helped get a number of permits to move that process along. When one of the permits was holding things up, the government law practice was able to step in and try to smooth the way, Preski said.

As the practice grows, it will bring in attorneys from all facets of the firm, he said.

~Gina Passarella, Staff Reporter

Survey Shows Most Attorneys Disagree with Mandatory Retirement – Do You?

When it comes to mandatory retirement policies, most lawyers aren’t looking to retire early and they don’t think anyone else should be forced to either – at least according one recent survey.According to a flash survey by Altman Weil on lawyer retirement, only 38 percent of the 521 respondents agreed with enforcement of mandatory retirement policies, but 50 percent said their firms currently have such policies.

“These findings may signal a change in retirement policy in U.S. law firms,” Altman Weil principal James D. Cotterman said in a statement.  “As the baby boom generation nears retirement, many have already had a change in perspective.  When younger, they knew that mandatory retirement was the right and proper way to manage the firm. Now that they are in their late fifties and early sixties many have come to see this as possibly not the best approach for the good of the firm.  This change in perspective is rational as their vested interests have changed, however, it may also serve the firm’s interests to retain the skills, wisdom and rolodexes of these veteran lawyers.”

Aside from the 38 percent who agreed with mandatory retirement provisions, 46 percent disagreed and 16 percent were not sure.

Of those who agreed with the policies, 41 percent thought 70 was the right age, 5 percent felt 65 was appropriate, 6 percent said 67 and 5 percent said 68.

In the firms where retirement was mandatory, 38 percent force retirement at age 65 and 36 percent say age 70. The smallest firms tend to use 70 as the retirement age while most other firms look to 65.

Twenty-seven percent of lawyers said they plan to retire early, generally meaning before their Social Security retirement age, whereas 29 percent plan to retire later than that age and 4 percent said they would never retire, the survey said.

The majority of respondents (61 percent) plan to continue working in some capacity after retirement.  Of those who continue to work, 48 percent will continue to practice law and 35 percent will pursue another line of work.  Seventy five percent will work part-time, according to the survey.

The survey, conducted in September 2007, includes responses from 521 lawyers in management positions in U.S. law firms, including 28 percent from firms with 50-99 lawyers, 35 percent from firms with 100-249 lawyers, 17 percent from firms with 250-499 lawyers and 20 percent from firms with 500 or more lawyers.

So what do you think? Does your firm have a mandatory retirement policy? What are the benefits or disadvantages? What’s the right age to retire? If you want to share any thoughts on the issue, either comment on the blog or e-mail me at gpassarella@alm.com.Look for an article on this issue in an upcoming edition of The Legal.~Gina Passarella, Staff Reporter