A Supplement to

TOP LATERAL HIRES

table of contents

February 2010

The Group at Cozen O’Conor. Photo Caption on page 10.

TL2Looking at the Lateral Partner Market in

2010

TL3What Associates Need to Know About

Lateral Moves

TL4Our Top Lateral Hires List

TL6And the Runners Up Are...

Photo by Nanette Kardaszeski

TL2 • Top Latera l s t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 February 2010

Looking at the Lateral Partner Market in 2010By roBert B. nourianSpecial to the Legal, PLW

As the business and law firm communi-ties breathe a sigh of relief as the books are closed on 2009, the focus has been

turning squarely on the game plan for 2010. Law firm leaders are hopeful that they have the intensive period of crisis management behind them and a period of growth and investment ahead. A significant component of the growth and investment plan for most firms involves targeted lateral partner hiring.

Before looking at the lateral partner market in 2010, however, it’s useful to summarize 2009 for context. In 2009, with the large law firm world experiencing a decline in revenues, cli-ents positioning themselves for survival, and major peer firms dissolving, many partners with a significant client base were asking the follow-ing questions:

• Is my law firm financially healthy and is it positioned well enough to survive a sustained downturn or a new financial shock to the economy?

• Does it know where it’s going? If so, does it have the right strategy, the financial resources and the right management to get it there?

• If it does get there (wherever that is), is that likely to be a place where my practice fits? Or will the firm structure and resources either be too much or too little for the needs of my prac-tice and clients?

Although they were asking questions and having legitimate concerns, many partners were sitting tight in 2009, unwilling to seri-

ously consider making a move. The thresholds for lateral partner movement were higher on both ends: the individual partner’s end and the incoming firm’s end.

In the 2009 climate of high risk and uncer-tainty around the country’s economic health and, on a micro basis, the stability and health of a partner’s primary clients, many partners were reluctant to layer on the added risk (no matter how slight) of making a move to a new firm, despite the benefits it may have provided. On the law firm side, with mandates to rein in overhead and associate costs and trim back unproductive partners, it was politically unfea-sible for most firms to take any chances on incoming lateral partners. That meant not making investments that weren’t virtual sure things. As a result, only partners with large and highly predictable practices were being seri-

ously considered by firms.So what changes lay ahead in 2010? Will the

lateral market loosen up? If firms are hiring, what will they be looking for in incoming part-ners?

I think, for one, the market will loosen up, albeit marginally. While the business and legal communities often have short memories, they aren’t so short that law firms have forgotten the recent pain of having to quickly cut overhead, lay off lawyers and have very unpleasant con-versations with underperforming partners. Recently going through this retrenchment period will certainly temper enthusiasm for any new spending.

And while profits may not look too bad when reviewing 2009 results, those numbers largely derive from having made large cost cuts, not from increased work. The challenge for 2010 is to increase revenue, since there isn’t much, if any, excess cost remaining in the system.

As clients are working to limit outside legal expenses, including by resisting rate increases and forcing alternative fee arrangements, law firms need to grow their top line fees. They can do this by organically adding new clients (a day-to-day struggle) or adding revenue by taking on new partners and groups who come with a significant fee base and new client relation-ships.

So for 2010, most large firms will be actively seeking to add partners with practices that are deemed complementary to the firm’s existing practices and clients that can hopefully provide cross marketing opportunities.

Key hot areas for 2010 will include the fol-

lowing:• Regulatory-focused practices: These

include antitrust and competition, health care, and financial services. With regulations con-tinuing to increase and enforcement now on the rise, lawyers with regulatory expertise are increasingly in demand to help keep clients out of trouble.

• White-collar defense: This area will also remain very active, with clients continuing to get in trouble as a result of robust and increas-ing government enforcement. With the current federal administration, there seems to already be an uptick in investigations and enforcement actions. A high-ranking Department of Justice official recently said that “[c]ombating health care fraud is a top priority of the Department of Justice.” They’ve been backing that up with additional investigations. And with more state-ments of enforcement intent and clear activity in the foreign corrupt practices area and other areas, it seems very clear that there will be a constant and growing need for highly compe-tent white-collar defense lawyers.

• Commercial litigation: While clients have been keeping a pretty tight lid on “discretion-ary” litigation, there are some claims and dis-putes that were deferred over the past 12 to 18 months that clients may revisit in a new, more stable economic climate. Some of these claims may be deemed good investments and worth the cost to pursue. This, along with simmering recession-born disputes, should help drive addi-tional commercial litigation.

While litigation will likely be more active,

roBert B. nourian is manag-ing principal of Coleman Nourian, a legal search and staffing firm founded in 1985. Along with his man-agement responsibilities, he maintains an active search practice focused on partner level search and high-level in-house search. He also

works with small law firms seeking appropriate merger opportunities with larger firms. Prior to entering the recruiting profession, Nourian practiced law as a cor-porate attorney for major New York City and Philadelphia law firms. He can be contacted at rnou-rian@cnlegalsearch.com.

Partners continues on tL7

February 2010 t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 Top Latera l s • TL3

What Associates Need to Know About Lateral MovesBy frank michaeL d’amoreSpecial to the Legal, PLW

The recession has turned associate career paths upside down. Legions of associates unfortunately lost

their jobs, and countless others who were eager to start their careers were deferred and shunted toward short-term positions they never envisioned. Even those whose jobs were spared were impacted, as com-pensation systems in many firms were over-hauled to better fit the new world order.

There will be quite a few long-term effects from these changes, most of which, in this writer’s opinion, will be beneficial for associates. This is not meant to trivialize the pain caused by a job loss or the effect of having compensation decreased, both of which can have serious consequences. Examining all those effects is outside the scope of this article.

However, there is one that is directly tied to career paths and it may be the most important one of all. This entails under-standing that an associate must take charge of his career the day he starts, as he cannot blindly assume that his firm or others will protect him forever.

It is an interesting phenomenon that most junior lawyers enjoy the comfort of being treated equally. This starts in law school, where students recoil from overt competition, especially in their first year, and eschew separation among them. Some schools institutionalize this by forgoing numerical grades and class rank. This has

traditionally carried over to life as an asso-ciate, especially in big firms, as young law-yers were neatly put into classes, where base compensation and bonuses were in tight ranges that barely caused significant differentiation.

This methodology created a false sense of security. Associates worked quite hard, but many did not take the extra time to consider what lay ahead for them or to prepare for it. This is partially understand-able, as work continued to be put in front of them and their pay continued to increase — so why should they worry, especially if their reviews were good?

What these lawyers didn’t appreciate is that associates have a shelf life — the pro-tective bubble in which they worked was going to pop at some point, whether that was seven, eight or nine years down the line. Although some emerged from that cocoon as lawyers who had matured into partnership material, many others, despite

being good lawyers, simply could not make that transition. Despite all their contribu-tions, more junior lawyers — who cost a firm less money — were coming up from behind to replace them, which is a harsh reality that they didn’t understand until it hit.

As such, if this recession teaches associ-ates anything, it is the value of looking ahead and not just blissfully plugging along. Engaging in firm citizenship, being a team player and collaborating with others remains important, but those essentials should not obscure the need to also focus on where one’s career is going and how to best improve it.

This will now confront associates head-on if they venture into the lateral market. Those who think they don’t need not worry about this should think again, as the odds of anyone starting and finishing his career in one firm are infinitesimal in this era. Employment data show that most profes-sionals change jobs every four and a half years, which, after this recession shakes out, is a number that is likely to go down even further.

In the short term, a lateral associate can-didate is much less likely to be evaluated in the “check the box” manner of the past: school, graduation year, quality of existing firm and experience. Rather, scrutiny will be heightened, as the hiring firm (and its clients, who are really the driving force as they are providing the fees to pay an associ-ate’s salary) will be looking for someone who can immediately contribute and add

value. This means that associate candidates will

need to point to specific experience that meshes with a firm’s need, as opposed to just generalized exposure to certain aspects of a practice. Moreover, in a market glutted with unemployed associates, firms clearly have the upper hand and thus can hold out for true stars. As such, doing well and hav-ing experience are likely not to be enough to lateral as an associate.

Associates should be able to cite accom-plishments that unmistakably separate them from others who are vying for the same opportunity. This actually is valuable for associates, since the examination is much the same as what they will face in making a lateral partner move later in their career (although a book of business will also be important then).

From an associate’s perspective, making the move is also more complicated. In the past, firms had very clear identities — international, national, regional, local, etc. Now, many of those lines are blurred, which requires a candidate to probe more carefully about the firm and where it fits.

Similarly, compensation was also easier to evaluate in years past, as class years and bonus triggers provided relatively clear demarcations among lawyers and criteria by which one could determine how one was likely to fare. Today, those neatly defined categories are still in flux, as quite a few firms are moving toward more

frank michaeL d’amore is the found-er of Attorney Career Catalysts, www.attycareers.com, a Pennsylvania-based legal recruiting and consult-ing firm that focuses on law firm mergers and partner placements. He is a former partner in an AmLaw 200 firm, general counsel in pri-

vately held and publicly traded companies, and vice president of business development. He can be reached at fdamore@attycareers.com.

Associates continues on tL7

TL4 • Top Latera l s t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 February 2010

By Gina PassareLLaOf the Legal Staff

Last year isn’t going to be remembered for its plethora of traditional lateral hires as firms did more cutting than adding to

their head counts. But few will forget 2009 was the year Wolf Block closed its doors, putting several quality candidates on the market, albeit under atypical circumstances.

It was the firms that made aggressive moves to capture the bulk of that talent that top our Top Lateral Hires of 2009 list — a list that is otherwise noticeably shorter than in years past.

As always, we should mention this list is far from scientific. It takes into account the effect the departure had on the former firm, the gain a lateral addition represented for his or her new firm, and the general buzz created in the market at word of the switch. Insights from those in the industry as well as historical background from our own archives also play a role in determining who makes the list.

While the list was shorter this year, the line of Wolf Block laterals that joined both Cozen O’Connor and Duane Morris was long. The two firms acquired the most Wolf Block attor-neys by far, and by many accounts some of the biggest names and books of business went to those two firms. The practice areas were differ-ent and the offices were mixed, but a general consensus put one of these firms as the clear winner in the Wolf Block talent game.

the WoLf BLocK GrouP to cozeN

No matter who we spoke to, Cozen O’Connor came out on top when looking at which firm saw the biggest impact from acquiring Wolf Block lawyers.

Cozen O’Connor added more than 65 Wolf Block attorneys across its Philadelphia, New York and Delaware offices. The firm had been in merger discussions with Wolf Block a few years prior and already had an idea of who made sense for their practice.

It was who Cozen O’Connor picked up in Philadelphia and the overall depth the Wolf Block additions brought to the firm that made

it stand out above Duane Morris.Many firms “salivated” over Tom Gallagher’s

tax group, one person said. Wolf Block’s vener-able private client services group, a wealth management practice with well known partners like Robert Friedman and Lester E. Lipschutz, was also highly sought after. Though some of the group’s attorneys joined as of counsel rather than partners, the practice is said to be deep.

While bringing on real estate and corporate attorneys may not seem at first glance to be the best decision in a year when those practices suf-fered greatly, they add a depth to Cozen O’Connor that can help better position the firm coming out of the economic downturn. And even though it was hit hard by the economy, Wolf Block’s real estate practice, led by Herman Fala, was known as one of the best in the city.

Cozen O’Connor also picked up some big names within Wolf Block, including vice-presi-dent of its executive committee, Bernard Lee, and the firm’s longtime chairman, Mark Alderman, who will focus on growing the gov-ernment relations practice.

the WoLf BLocK GrouP to DuANe Morris

Duane Morris was a close runner-up in terms of adding top talent from Wolf Block, with some in the community saying the firm picked up the biggest individual stars of the bunch. The firm also added depth to some hot practice areas — labor and employment and litigation. In total, Duane Morris added 53 Wolf Block law-yers to its roster in 2009.

There was definitely citywide interest in the labor and employment group, particularly its leaders, Jonathan Segal and James Redeker. The team was 16 attorneys deep, including Segal and Redeker. One person said Segal may have been the biggest catch of all in terms of stature and future potential.

Segal headed up Wolf Block’s wholly owned employment services subsidiary The Wolf Institute and now does the same for Duane Morris under the banner of the Duane Morris Institute.

Duane Morris also got big names in the gov-ernment relations and litigation world, includ-

ing Alan Kessler and Wolf Block litigation chairwoman Dana Klinges. Wolf Block’s for-mer general counsel and member of its wind-down committee, Patrick Matusky, also made the switch.

And though this supplement doesn’t include lateral moves outside of Pennsylvania, we would be remiss not to mention that Duane Morris picked up litigator Hersh Kozlov from Wolf Block’s Cherry Hill, N.J. office, who was said by many to have one of the largest books of busi-ness at the firm. He brought with him more than 20 attorneys and gave Duane Morris a South Jersey presence.

the roN schiLLer GrouPRonald P. Schiller headed up the litigation

practice of DLA Piper’s Philadelphia office. In July, he left the largest firm in the world for a litigation boutique in the city, bringing five other attorneys with him. Schiller, Daniel J. Layden and Nicole Rosenblum joined Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin as shareholders, and Jennifer L. Corry, Jacqueline R. Dungee and Michael R. Carlson joined as associates.

Of counsel Jay I. Morstein left DLA Piper along with Schiller’s group and officially joined Hangley Aronchick at the start of 2010.

Their departure brought the DLA Piper office, once at more than 55 attorneys, to about 35 lawyers. Their addition brought Hangley Aronchick to 56 lawyers.

Schiller was said to have the largest book of business out of any of the laterals in 2009, save for maybe some of the Wolf Block groups.

He was with DLA Piper-predecessors for 18 years, having helped open the Piper Marbury office in Philadelphia when he left Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis. Schiller said he was excited to move to Hangley Aronchick, which he had said he views as the pre-eminent firm for litigation work in the city.

Schiller said that while moving to a more nimble firm with less procedure and adminis-tration was “sort of cool,” he knew how to navi-gate the larger environment at DLA Piper. It was really the opportunity at Hangley Aronchick and the number of connections he had at the firm that resulted in the move, he said.

DAviD GirArD-DicArLoFormer U.S. ambassador to Austria David

Girard-diCarlo joins the Top Lateral list not only for what he brings to his new firm, but for where he didn’t end up.

Girard-diCarlo left Blank Rome, the firm

But for Wolf Block Break-up, Lateral Lethargy Marked 2009

froM Left: seGAL, KLiNGes, MAtusKy AND KessLer. iNsert: KozLov AND reDeKer.

froM Left: MorsteiN, schiLLer, DuNGee, corry, roseNBLuM, LAyDeN AND cArLsoN.

All photos by Nanette Kardaszeski

February 2010 t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 Top Latera l s • TL5

where he spent his entire career, to serve as ambassador to Austria under President George W. Bush. When Bush’s term ended, Girard-diCarlo resigned and began exploring his options.

He had served as managing partner and chairman of Blank Rome for several years, and many assumed he might return to the firm he joined stright out of law school. Instead, he joined the fast-growing Cozen O’Connor in April.

“I was disappointed and somewhat sur-prised that I wasn’t going to return to Blank Rome, but I don’t think it’s constructive or useful for me to go into any aspects of that,” Girard-diCarlo said at the time. “I have moved on.”

He brought to Cozen O’Connor political connections on the Republican side of the aisle at the federal level, teaming up with Mark Alderman and Stephen Cozen, who have ties to the Democratic party. They all work on the firm’s government relations practice and are involved in its new govern-ment relations subsidiary.

While he doesn’t have day-to-day manage-ment responsibilities anymore, Girard-diCarlo is taking his leadership experience and helping advise his new firm on strategy.

the DAviD MANDeLBAuM GrouPEnvironmental lawyer David Mandelbaum

and four other attorneys left Ballard Spahr last October to join the Philadelphia office of Greenberg Traurig.

Mandelbaum headed up Ballard Spahr’s environmental law practice and had been with the firm for 22 years. He brought with him to Greenberg Traurig partner Monique M. Mooney, of counsel Marc Davies and associates Sabrina Mizrachi and Caleb J. Holmes. Mandelbaum, Mooney and Davies joined Greenberg Traurig as shareholders and Mizrachi and Holmes as associates.

Mandelbaum took some clients with him, including one pretty significant piece of litiga-tion — Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co. — which, shortly after his move, saw a summary judgment motion in favor of his clients.

Not only was the business he brought with him notable, but the addition of five lawyers at once is a rarity in the local Greenberg Traurig office where such a large group hasn’t joined since the office opened over ten years ago. The five attorneys that joined in October brought the office to 36 lawyers.

“More likely than not, an attorney joining Greenberg Traurig in Philadelphia would have

a national practice rather than a regional one, though there are always exceptions,” regional managing partner Michael Lehr said at the time of Mandelbaum’s addition.

MArK GottLieB AND MichAeL coNLey

When a good chunk of Anderson Kill & Olick’s Philadelphia office moved to Reed Smith in 2008, the local community was definitely won-dering whether partners Mark E. Gottlieb and Michael Conley were part of the group that made the switch. They weren’t. Instead, the two took over as co-managing shareholders at Anderson Kill.

But in October 2009, they ultimately decided to leave the firm and brought four other attor-neys with them to the Philadelphia office of Maryland-based Offit Kurman.

Anderson Kill shareholder Frederick A. Pettit and associate Darin J. McMullen are also now principals at Offit Kurman and former Anderson Kill associates William H. Pillsbury and Meghan K. Finnerty joined the firm as associates.

Their addition brought the relatively new Pennsylvania office of Offit Kurman to 21 attor-neys and brought Anderson Kill’s Philadelphia presence to just four lawyers after nine went to Reed Smith and the six joined Offit Kurman.

Conley and Gottlieb also brought to their new firm an insurance recovery practice, which Conley now heads. Conley said at the time that one of the advantages of joining a full-service firm compared to an insurance boutique like Anderson Kill was that they could cross-sell their practices.

Top Laterals continues on tL7

froM Left: MooNey, hoLMes, MizrAchi, DAvies AND MANDeLBAuM.

GirArD-DicArLo froM Left: McMuLLeN, PiLLsBury, coNLey, fiNNerty, GottLieB AND Pettit.

TL6 • Top Latera l s t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 February 2010

And the runners up Are...By zack needLesOf the Legal Staff

While the recession made for a relatively sluggish lateral mar-ket overall in 2009, it also may

have been the single biggest contributor to the moves that were made last year.

There is perhaps no greater example of this than the implosion of Wolf Block last March following a string of credit woes and failed mergers.

When the Philadelphia institution closed its doors less than four months into 2009, it instantly flooded the mar-ket with eligible attorneys who regularly cropped up in lateral deals throughout the rest of the year.

But while the name Wolf Block was on a lot of lateral hires’ resumes last year, some of the lawyers who made moves in 2009 came from sources other than law firms, such as the federal bench and the corporate sector.

DAviD GitLiNDavid Gitlin was

a member of Wolf Block’s execu-tive committee and chairman of its cor-porate and securi-ties practice. In the months leading up to the firm’s dis-solution, Gitl in was installed as the firm’s finance partner and worked along-side chairman Mark Alderman to cut mil-lions from the firm’s budget.

But following the firm’s breakup, Gitlin quickly found a new home at Blank Rome. He joined the firm as a partner in its mergers and acquisitions and private equity group last April.

Gitlin’s practice has an international bent and is focused on corporate acqui-sitions and divestitures, venture capital and technology development and corpo-rate finance work. Many of his clients are foreign companies involved in the purchase or sale of U.S. businesses. He is admitted to the bars of Pennsylvania, New York and Israel. Two associates from Wolf Block’s New York office joined Gitlin at Blank Rome.

At the time of the move, Blank Rome managing partner Carl Buchholz said Gitlin’s practice complemented the firm’s existing merger and acquisition and private equity practice extremely well and added to the international work the firm was already doing.

the M. NorMAN GoLDBerGer GrouP

After only nine months at Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, which M. Norman Goldberger said he joined from Wolf Block because he wanted a smaller firm environment, the prominent litiga-tor moved to the larger firm of Ballard Spahr last January.

Goldberger made the move with trade secrets attorney Matthew A. White and patent lawyer Laura E. Krabill, who were share-holders at Hangley Aronchick and be-came partners in the litigation de-partment of Ballard Spahr. Associate Robyn D. Levitan, who left Wolf Block for Hangley Aronchick shortly after Goldberger and his group made the jump, joined Ballard Spahr as of counsel.

Recruiter Michael Coleman of Coleman Nourian, who assisted in the deal, said at the time that Goldberger would also be adding a list of “impressive” clients to the firm’s roster.

the WoLf BLocK fAMiLy LAW GrouP

The last of Wolf Block’s major prac-tice groups to find a new home following the firm’s dissolu-tion was the family law practice.

The five-lawyer group, headed by partner Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin, joined Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby effective May 1, giv-ing the firm a new office location in Norristown, Pa.

It also gave Weber Gallagher a new practice area, given the litigation-fo-cused firm hadn’t handled family law in the past.

Gold-Bikin joined as head of the prac-tice and her partner, Daniel J. Clifford, serves as the managing partner of the Norristown office. They were joined by the three family law associates at Wolf Block — Christian Badali, Jonathan Hoffman and Andrew Taylor.

Weber Gallagher management commit-tee member Paul Fires said at the time that the firm had previously referred out any legal services “of a more personal nature.”

Fires said the firm had been thinking about adding a family law component and when Wolf Block dissolved, the op-portunity presented itself.

the WoLf BLocK hArrisBurG GrouP

Twelve law-yers from Wolf Block’s 13-attorney Harrisburg office joined Pittsburgh-based Ecke r t Seamans Cherin & Mellott in April.

There were 10 partners and three associates in the

Harrisburg office. They practice in the areas of energy, telecommunications and utility regulation, employment services, litigation, health care law, tax and real estate.

Daniel Clearfield, the managing part-ner of Wolf Block’s Harrisburg office, joined Eckert Seamans along with part-ners Mark Fontana, Robert Hoffman, Alan Kohler, Michael McAuliffe Miller, Renee Mattei Myers, Dino Ross and Mark Stewart. Associates Kevin Moody, Deanne O’Dell, Carl Schultz and G. Edward Schweikert also moved to Eckert Seamans.

All of the partners joined Eckert Seamans as members, as did Moody. O’Dell, Schultz and Schweikert joined as associates.

The one attorney that did not make the move was tax and real estate partner Dan Schulder, who joined other Wolf Block colleagues at Cozen O’Connor.

Eckert Seamans Managing Partner Timothy Ryan said the Wolf Block group added a utility regulation practice to the firm, expanded its labor and employment and gaming and energy practices, as well as brought a health law and bankruptcy component.

tiMothy e. hoeffNerTimothy E .

Hoeffner left an international New York firm after 15 years to join Saul Ewing and lead its corporate gover-nance group.

A few years later, he headed back to an international model and his New York ties.

Last February, Hoeffner joined DLA Piper’s litigation group, where he now spends time in both the firm’s Philadelphia and New York offices. Prior to joining Saul Ewing in 2003, Hoeffner practiced for 15 years in the business and securities litigation department at Weil Gotshal & Manges in New York.

Hoeffner concentrates his practice in securities and business litigation, and also counsels corporations and their boards on corporate governance issues. His clients have included Enron and Sotheby’s, along with individual direc-tors and corporate officers involved in securities class action and shareholder derivative litigation.

He also represents clients before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice and other regulatory agencies and some-times serves as an investigator in in-ternal corporate and special committee investigations.

“Tim’s significant experience in high profile corporate governance litigation and investigations strengthens our se-curities litigation practice,” Robert J. Mathias, joint global leader and U.S.

chairman of DLA Piper’s litigation prac-tice, said in a statement.

Bruce W. KAuffMANSenior District Judge

Bruce W. Kauffman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stepped down from the bench July 20 to join Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski as a shareholder and co-chairman of the firm’s executive committee..

The former chairman of Dilworth Paxson rejoined the private sector after 11 years on the federal bench to service clients in the areas of litigation, white-collar internal investigations and me-diation regarding financial and business disputes.

With Kauffman’s addition to the firm’s Philadelphia office, Elliott Greenleaf co-located its headquarters between the existing headquarters in Blue Bell, Pa., and Two Liberty Place in Philadelphia.

“He has very extensive experience not only as a prominent member of the judi-ciary but as one of the most well known and experienced litigators in the coun-try,” said Elliott Greenleaf Chairman John M. Elliott at the time.

JosePh W. MArshALLIn November

2009, Joseph W. “Chip” Marshall joined Stevens & Lee to serve as vice chairman of both the law firm and its affiliated invest-ment bank, Griffin Financial Group.

Marshall came into the position from his roles in the health care industry, which was a prac-tice area Stevens & Lee was hoping to grow when it brought him on board. Marshall previously served as the chair-man and chief executive officer of Temple University Health System and as the director of Health Partners, a pro-vider-owned Medicaid/Medicare health maintenance organization.

Marshall said he was really struck by the integrated platform Stevens & Lee had created along with its other business enterprises.

“The more I looked at it, the more it seemed like they represent the new para-digm in business matters going forward,” he said.

Joseph M. Harenza, the non-executive chairman of Stevens & Lee who spends most of his time as the CEO and senior managing director of Griffin, said in a statement at the time that Marshall would allow the investment bank to bet-ter help clients operating in the health care and related industries. •

Other Big Lateral Moves in 2009

GitLiN

GoLDBerGer

GoLD-BiKiN

cLeArfieLD

hoeffNer

MArshALL

KAuffMAN

The Legal Intelligencer Renew Your Subscription TODAY! 877-ALM-CIRC

February 2010 t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 Top Latera l s • TL7

PeDro rAMos AND NorA DoWD eiseNhoWer

Former Philadelphia city solicitor and man-aging director, Pedro Ramos, and the imme-diate past secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Nora Dowd Eisenhower, joined a five-lawyer litigation shop in June that, though small, has long been involved in Philadelphia’s political workings.

Ramos and Eisenhower’s addition, however, made the political connections of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards more concrete as the two helped open the firm’s government rela-tions subsidiary, OnPoint Public & Private Solutions.

Ramos is a well-known name in the legal community. He left Blank Rome to help start up the subsidiary and will also work in Trujillo Rodriguez’s legal practice.

While OnPoint will focus on the members’ regional ties, Kenneth Trujillo, a former city solicitor himself, said the firm will have a national component. He said the firm will leverage its strong connection to Latino elect-ed officials across the country in furthering its national efforts.

Ramos said at the time of the move that he has built up relationships in the education, business and government sectors, and the size of Trujillo Rodriguez gives him the flexibility

to represent clients in all of those areas with-out running into too many conflicts. Both Trujillo Rodriguez and Blank Rome said at the time they would continue a working rela-tionship.

MArK shePPArDWhite-collar defense attorney Mark B.

Sheppard left Sprague & Sprague in March to join Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads.

The firm was looking to grow its govern-ment investigations and white-collar crime

practice. Perhaps the busiest partner in that practice, Richard L. Scheff, had recently been named chairman of the firm. It was Sheppard’s relationship with Scheff and white-collar defense partner Ellen Brotman that brought the litigator to Montgomery McCracken.

In recent years, Sheppard has been involved in some of the highest profile public corrup-tion cases the state has seen. Before he left Sprague & Sprague, and before the firm parted ways with the client, Sheppard was on the team representing former state Sen. Vincent Fumo in Philadelphia federal court.

Sheppard brought with him another high-profile case from Sprague & Sprague when he moved to Montgomery McCracken. He represents attorney Robert Powell, who has said he was forced by two Luzerne County Common Pleas judges to give kickbacks for their sending juveniles to a detention center that Powell at one point co-owned.

For the past few years, Sheppard’s practice has been focused on representing individuals rather than corporations, and he said at the time of his move that he was looking to expand to represent both groups. •

performance-oriented compensation sys-tems. This means that many associates really won’t know how much they may make until they have been in the firm for at least one year.

There are several steps that you, as asso-ciates, can take to best prepare for an even-tual move, all of which will be helpful even if your present firms are the ones you stay with until retirement. First, do not take the easy route by doing work that has no chal-lenge or risk associated with it. An associ-ate’s attractiveness on the market, and to clients and partners in the evaluating firm, will largely be driven by the complexity of work and how well that work is performed. It thus behooves associates to volunteer to

actually try a case (even if it is a “smaller” one that is more equipped for an associate), or take a more active role in a deal. Taking that initiative and performing well will separate you from your peers.

Second, no matter how busy you are, find the time to build a network. Keep in touch with college and law school class-mates, in-house counsel (even if you haven’t had a matter with them for quite some time), and general business contacts (even if they are not lawyers). This is the founda-tion from which you will get work and also is an important group of contacts who can help you in making a move.

Third, keep copies (both hard and digi-tal) of all those articles, blog posts, news-letter pieces and other writings that you do for your firm. It is easy to remember these when you have just started, but, as time passes, you surely will forget about them as

the pile grows. In this regard, it helps to periodically “Google” yourself, as this may produce some surprises as to where your contributions have appeared.

Finally, begin to keep a journal or other type of record of your key accomplish-ments. It may surprise you, but as your career progresses, you will also forget about many of these, so keep a log of them while the memories are fresh. These accomplishments will be essential not only in talking to a prospective firm, but in cli-ent pitches and in making your case inside of your firm when compensation review time arrives.

When you are ready to make the move, your evaluation today is not as simple as looking at a firm’s size and pay scale. Rather, some of the questions you should raise, with the firm or for yourself, include the following:

• What type of experience are you likely to get?

• What type of commitment can the firm make that you will have a position (assum-ing you perform well) over the next few years?

• Do associates get business develop-ment support (and, if so, what type)?

• If your ultimate goal is to go in-house, just how well will this firm prepare you? Has the firm served as a springboard for others who made the move in house?

This last point often cannot be asked of the prospective firm, but can be evaluated through due diligence of your own.

In many respects, the key going forward is to begin thinking like a partner. This will better prepare you for the future, will help you to become a better lawyer, and will make you much more valuable to your firm and clients. •

Associatescontinued from TL3

top Lateralscontinued from TL5

shePPArD

clients will increasingly be providing input on how large cases should be managed and staffed. For example, there is an increasing trend toward clients requiring, for cost reasons, their outside counsel to use contract attorneys to take the first cut at reviewing the thousands of pages of discovery documents that typically exist in major cases. There is also more empha-sis on case budgeting and monitoring. This will put a premium on lateral partner prospects that have experience managing large cases with alternative staffing models. These are the cases that large firms want to attract. Having partners with experience handling these sorts of major cases will help attract similar matters.

• Mergers and acquisitions: Coming off a terrible year, merger and acquisition activity

may finally experience a meaningful comeback in 2010. The biggest obstacles to deal making in 2009 were tight credit issues that kept buyers in check and low valuations that kept sellers on the sidelines. As we get further into 2010, credit has finally been easing, and valuations, following the public markets, are starting to creep back up. This should lead to some more M&A activity by both strategic and financial buyers.

There has already been some noticeable increase in strategic transactions, and many M&A partners have been voicing cautious optimism about private equity clients putting some cash to work. In 2010, some firms feel that productive corporate partners, a constant desire of acquisitive firms, may be more willing to consider options while embarking on a comeback year.

• Real Estate: The big overhang on com-mercial real estate remains weak occupancy

rates and high leverage, along with pending loan expirations that need to be refinanced. There are a lot of well-capitalized real estate buyers waiting to pounce in the next 24 months on, what they hope, will be “fire sales” of dis-tressed prime commercial properties. If that happens, there should be some increased real estate deal activity to help pull the law firm commercial real estate departments out of the worst downturn they’ve experienced since the late 1980s-early ’90s real estate bust.

• Intellectual Property/Clean Technology: Finally, with companies and governments get-ting back to investing for the future, there will be continued interest in intellectual property and clean technology, some hot areas over the past few years that should get back on track.

Partners with significant practices, especially those in some of the substantive areas men-tioned above, should be in high demand in 2010. From the partner’s perspective, assuming

continued economic stability and recovery, partners who were asking questions in 2009, may feel more comfortable seriously exploring options in 2010.

The key criteria from the firm standpoint will be: does the partner have a recent history of generating revenues that both keep him or her fully busy and also provide hours to other attor-neys? And is the practice area one that is com-plementary to the other practices of the firm in terms of substance and rates? Looked at as a whole, assuming the partner is a good cultural fit, will his or her addition be accretive and not dilutive to the profitability of the firm?

Law firms are always in the market for top lawyer talent and clients. Having too much of one without enough of the other is untenable in the long run. By attracting and integrating high quality lawyers with significant client rela-tionships, law firms accomplish both goals. That’s the law firm game plan for 2010. •

Partnerscontinued from TL2

cover cAPtioN: froM Left: fALA, siLverMAN, ALDerMAN, frieDMAN AND LiPschutz. Not PictureD: thoMAs GALLAGher AND BerNArD Lee.

eiseNhoWer AND rAMos

TL8 • Top Latera l s t u e s d a y, f e b r u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 February 2010