Log in
     
Error
  • XML Parsing Error at 1:11320. Error 9: Invalid character
  • XML Parsing Error at 1:11320. Error 9: Invalid character
Dewey Strategy E-mail
Attention Readers: We are overwhelmed trying to post recent news topping this page dedicated to Dewey LeBoeuf's get rid of our senior partners "Strategy". Please refer to our "Connect The Dots" page for our newest insight, as well as our original "Viability" page where we will attempt to keep up with the defections, management shuffling, and media Zeitgeist.


When was the last time you heard a managing partner at a law firm claim that partnership defections was part of a strategic plan?


Does anyone recall when the Managing Partner of Howrey LLP tried to spin the large number of partner defections as being part of some cunning plan? Well if you don't remember, you can read about it under our site's growing The Departed section. And just in case you hadn't heard, Howrey has imploded. Which brings us to the B.S. Meter being tweaked by none other than Steven H. Davis, the Chairman of Dewey LeBoeuf. Davis penned a memo in response to the "internet blogs" that is reminiscent of Robert Ruyak's comically absurd spin on partner defections: Howrey boss: shedding 60 partners is all part of a cunning plan. Davis's homage to Ruyak features this gem:

"Some recent partner departures have been consistent with the firmís strategic planning for 2012, and we expect some additional partners to leave."

Apparently Baghdad Bob has landed work as a PR consultant specializing in "transitions" to at least a couple Big Law firms. Good for you Bob! Just make sure you're paid in cash, don't get stuck with a check. BankruptcyMisconduct is hip to this whole "conservation of strategic resources" paradigm, so we're recycling our graphic commemorating the implosion of Howrey to now honor Dewey LeBoeuf.

So exactly how do partner defections fit into "strategic planning"? It might make sense if they really meant "terminations" instead of "departures". Remember that whenever a firm operates in the zone of insolvency - the corporate doublespeak can flare up to aid the hope for plausible deniability, and such might be the case here. But the point which really tweaks our bullshit meter is that they expect more partners to leave. Really? Why don't you just tell us who, or at least how many and when? Do you expect any more rainmakers or department heads to leave?

Following the lead of Howrey, we have the head of Dewey & LeBoeuf trying to convince others that losing partners is a strategic, cunning, and even intelligent move. Well, Dewey & LeBoeuf are a private company - so they need not tell us the truth. And we've got a feeling that their remaining employees, and the non-terminated partners 'expected' to abandon ship, don't expect the truth either.

To be clear, our graphic does not imply that Dewey LeBoeuf is about to implode or anything. It's just that our artistic flair is an unbridled extension of our karmic sincerity, and so forth. Having said that, infer what you want after reading our Dewey LeBoeuf Viability piece, or perhaps more telling is the unquestionable focus on the "How many months will Dewey LeBoeuf continue to survive?" vote by our readers in our "Next Line Of Inquiry" poll. And while you're there, don't forget to cast your own vote.