Lowering the Bar; Clayton Utz Makes Junior “Senior” Associate

In the wake of the defection of 14 Clayton Utz partners to A&O earlier this year, we reported that a group of Clayton Utz lawyers met confidentially to discuss the demands they would place on the Clutz partnership to remain at the firm. At the time, we reckoned that many of the remaining lawyers were well placed to ask partners for an overdue pay rise. However, we never thought that the Clutz partnership would be so perturbed by the prospect of losing more lawyers that it would take the unprecedented step of awarding junior lawyers with senior associateship.

We received the following comments from anonymous Clayton Utz spies last week and over the weekend:

constructions lawyers have higher to jump

Dear Firmspy Yesterday I reported to you the seemingly *impossible* rumor circulating among polite circles that Clutz has promoted to SA a securitisation lawyer admitted December ’08. Yes, DECEMBER ’08! Well, Firmspy, as I tapped away at my computer, I could barely believe it myself. But I sent it anyway, with seemingly carefree abandon for the truth (you know what us Clutz lawyers are like!). But when I saw that you published it, I could feel the anticipation that your readers would now have not knowing if this was true. So I felt that I should try and find out more by way of details. So today I took it upon myself – between some value adding due diligence – to make some more enquiries and, to my sheer surprise and delight, it does appear that Clutz has its very own Australian idol. Our idol’s name is #######…. as A&O continues its ravenous bottom feeding on second tier (Clutz) finance lawyers, I am sure that you too are pondering this question – why didn’t our ####### join A&O. Is our ####### too good for A&O? You bet! Our ####### knows what fiduciary duties are (having learned about them at law school, rather than at Clutz) and is not one to sell himself to the highest bidder like some cheap hooker. This is not the last that you will hear of our ####### … Well done, you.

We then received this:

In answer to the posting on the CU promotions, yes it is true. Some of the new senior associates are 2 years PQE (the historical CU rule was 4 years minimum) and one of the new partners is 5 years PQE (it usually takes at least 8 to 10 years). The accelerated partner and lawyer promotions in Sydney were dominated by anyone who worked for the partners that left (i.e. those with negotiating leverage in Banking and Corporate). If you were just a hard working litigation or construction lawyer working 8 to 11 hours a day you did not quite have the same pull. I think I had better move to Banking and find a defecting partner to work for to get ahead!

And finally this:

As of 1 April 2010 a lawyer who was admitted in NSW on 10 October 2008 was promoted to Senior Associate at Clutz just because the remainder of his team (securitisation – structured capital markets) left to A&O (what a knuckle head, no pun intended!). With only 1 ½ years post admission experience and no prior law firm experience this lawyer has definitely done well for himself by remaining with Clutz. However, for the remaining Clutz Lawyers who in the recent promotions did not get promoted who have been with the firm for more than 4-5 years this is definitely unfair. Clutz did not reward this lawyer for his hard work, but rather are desperately trying to hold onto anything they can since the firms departures in that team to A&O.

Our anonymous sources neglect to mention that the junior lawyer in question may be exceptionally competent, and that this might warrant his incredible progression (but even then, we agree that it is unfair to more senior lawyers who haven’t been made up). However, from a client perspective, particularly in an area like securitisation where there is a whopping market surfeit of under-utilised  lawyers, would it be palatable to pay senior associate charge-out fees for someone with just over one year of post-qualification experience?

Does your firm ever lower the bar?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!


VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)