By Robert Chapski 
I recently came upon an interesting article from the AmLaw Daily. http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/02/official-latham-to-cut-190-associates-250-staff-.html
Latham & Watkins just cut 190 associates and 250 staff. The headline is not the interesting part. What I found interesting was that the firm is apparently offering the 2009 class of incoming associates each $75,000 to defer their job until October 2010. (To give this some perspective, a person with an adjusted income of over approximately $64,000 is in the top 25 percent of taxpayers in the United States.) Wow. An anonymous "in house" lawyer who commented on the article characterized this as $75,000 "vacation."
This story reminded me somewhat of the newly signed Boston Celtics guard, Stephon Marbury. Prior to signing with the Celtics, Marbury sat on the bench all year in New York enjoying his 20.8 million dollar contract. Heck of a deal. Now, law firms are paying lawyers just to "sit on the bench" as well for a year. If true, is this the right message to send to clients and new lawyers? Has the firm considered whether the money (and time) could be put to better use?
Perhaps, as a condition of accepting the $75,000, the prospective new lawyers should be required to undergo a certain number of training hours during the interim period (e.g., tail partners at depositions and hearings, observe the mediation process, sit in on deals, etc.). Perhaps the new lawyers should be required to volunteer and accept cases at a local legal aid clinic and get some real face time in the courtroom. There is without question a considerable learning curve from law school to law practice. Yet, instead of simply gifting graduating law students sums of cash to stay away from work, it would make sense to me to encourage/require these students to develop some real skills for which the firm does not have to charge its clients. (As an aside, I attended a deposition training seminar years ago where at least one or two participants indicated that, as what I would characterize as seven or eight year "senior" associates, they had never taken a single deposition. Inexcusable.) Both the firm and the newly-minted lawyers would be better off in the long run.