• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    Here’s the thing, at firms like this, the prestige of being a partner at a firm that’s been around since 1792 is a primary reason for being there. The money is secondary. And being known as the partners that destroyed the oldest firm in NYC, is a dishonor none of them want to be known for. It’s what they’ll be remembered for, not anything else they’ve done.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      also the fact that some firms have a pipeline with law schools , it hurts them in other ways too if they have been reputation of brownosing for trump.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Two options really…

        1. Scared by Trump’s threats and not willing to fight like other firms.
        2. Support Trump.
      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Then why did they do it?

        That the question.

        Who wants that for such a law firm? Who wants to work for such a firm?

        They didn’t think ahead or the consequences of their action. Wildly lucrative institutions don’t sell themselves off to competitors.

        Any assumption that it was crazy lucrative is based on a need for things to make sense.

        • Triumph@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          No, no - the sale wasn’t crazy lucrative for the firm, it was crazy lucrative for the partners who sold it off.

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s not how law firms work and not how this merger is structured. This at best a lateral move, with increased earning potential in comparison to what was possible in a firm bleeding lawyers and client.

            There is nothing “crazy lucrative” about this. I don’t understand how you are coming to that beside mistaking this for something like a corporation selling itself for cash or stock.

            • Triumph@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Regardless of how it’s structured, the partners at Cadwalader have to be walking away with a lot of money from the deal.

              • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                A year ago that firm would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars, at the moment it’s a fire sale. They’re almost surely losing millions on the deal.

                They’re leaving basically with whatever they were already paid as a partner for the years they were there. Law firms don’t operate like or pay like traditional businesses. Partners at firms like this almost always have to be offered a partnership, and buy their way in. Some partnerships at prestigious firms can have buy-in fees upwards of a million dollars.

                The partners then are paid a percentage of the business, depending on seniority and managing status. If there is no business, there is no pay. If the firm goes under, or is bought out, there is little pay because the firm isn’t worth much, if anything.

                They’re basically leaving with what they’ve already squirreled away and not spent with potentially lavish lifestyles over the years.