26
Sager Award for the Mid-Atlantic region in recognition of its commitment to promoting diversity in the workplace. Howrey’s demise had an immediate impact on dozens
of women and minority partners, who, like most Howrey lawyers, realized that as the fi rm entered a death spiral in early 2011 they had to fi nd new places to practice law. And it had an impact on the national legal community as a whole, which lost a fi rm that had been a trailblazer in the diversity area. “T is was an area where Howrey was a leader, and it
is too bad that it dissolved,” says a woman who formerly served in a leadership position at the fi rm and declines to be identifi ed by name for this article. “T e transparency issues and fi nancial issues that led to the downward spiral had nothing to do with diversity, of course, and in fact, if anything, Howrey’s record on diversity made it stronger in the face of other issues.”
THE EXODUS T e problems at Howrey had started more than a year before, when CEO Robert Ruyak told partners that the fi rm would fall far short of its fi nancial goals. Partners began to complain about the lack of communication with top management, declining productivity, insuffi cient super-
DIVERSITY & THE BAR® JULY/AUGUST 2011
vision of client billing arrangements, and other problems. As the calendar turned from 2010 to 2011, the exodus
of attorneys, which had begun in the fi rm’s European and other smaller offi ces, began to involve Howrey’s core prac- tice areas, its largest offi ces, and its major rainmakers. As T e Washington Post reported on Feb. 7, 2011, “T e
steady drip of attorneys leaving the law fi rm Howrey over the past year was at fi rst characterized as a strategic restruc- turing, part of a larger eff ort to reset operations after a diffi cult fi nancial year. But in recent weeks, that trickle has swelled into a wave of departures. Howrey’s vice chair- man and managing partner of its San Francisco offi ce, the managing partner of its Chicago offi ce, the co-chairman of its white-collar group, the leader of its class-action litigation practice and more than a dozen others have left for com- petitors, leaving some industry watchers to wonder if the venerable Washington fi rm can stem the tide.” For a few weeks, the Chicago fi rm of Winston &
Strawn engaged in furious merger talks with Howrey, but those stalled over client confl ict issues, and Winston & Strawn ended up making job off ers to a small percentage of Howrey lawyers. But even as fi rm leaders attempted to make a deal for a
big chunk of the partners to stay together as a group as part
MCCA.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52