Chicago-based Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal , which has an office in Dallas, is taking a big step away from lock-step pay and promotion with a new, three-tiered, merit-based “compensation and advancement” model for associates effective Jan. 1, 2010. Associates will be divided into three levels — associate, managing associate and senior managing associate — and they will advance from one level to another once they master skills required at each level, the firm announced in a press release Dec. 15. Associates can move through the levels at their own pace, so high-performing associates can earn higher compensation, including higher bonuses, than they would have under the current tenure-based compensation plan. Associate bonuses have been tied largely to billable hours, but under the new plan associates will earn bonuses based on how well they meet “parameters” at their level. Also, associates may be able to become partners earlier if they move quickly through the three levels, according to the release. “It’s a very good idea,” says Matthew Orwig , managing partner in Dallas. “This is the trend; this has been the trend; this will continue to be the trend. The good thing about it is the best lawyers can get paid more, and it really is merit-based, and it’s also . . . better value for the client because they know if someone is at a certain level, it’s based on core competencies and rigorous evaluation as opposed to just having been there another year.” Of the lawyers in Dallas, 18 of 34 are associates. A firmwide committee of partners and associates worked for several months to develop the new model for associate compensation and advancement. Natalie Spears , a partner in the firm’s Chicago office who headed the committee, writes in the release that the goal is to provide flexibility for associates. The firm, which has 13 offices in the United States and Europe, has about 230 associates.
Pregnant Probationers
The state is the victor in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ Dec. 16 ruling in the case of a female probationer who complained that the state punished her more severely for using drugs while she was pregnant than it does probationers who are not pregnant. The CCA held in Lovill v. State that the 13th Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Amber Lovill’s selective prosecution complaint was preserved by a specific and timely complaint at trial. Lovill’s complaint was not specific or timely under the requirements set by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, according to the majority opinion written by Judge Mike Keasler . The majority opinion provides the following background on the case: In January 2005, pursuant to a plea agreement, Lovill pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery, and the trial court placed her on probation for three years. The state twice filed motions to revoke Lovill’s probation for alleged violations of the terms and conditions of her probation, including using amphetamines. The trial judge extended the term of Lovill’s probation and ordered her to stay in Nueces County’s Substance Abuse Felony Prosecution Facility special needs unit for three to 12 months. In a motion for new trial, Lovill alleged that she was subjected to selective prosecution because of her pregnancy in violation of the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Texas Equal Rights Amendment. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. Lovill filed a motion to amend the conditions of her probation, which the trial court also denied. Lovill then filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that she had been selectively prosecuted because of her gender. After the trial court denied habeas corpus relief, Lovill appealed to the 13th Court in Corpus Christi, which ruled for Lovill. The state petitioned the CCA to review the case in March. CCA Judge Cheryl Johnson wrote in a concurring opinion that Lovill’s pregnancy was “incidental” to the motion to revoke her probation. “If her urine samples had been clear of drugs, if she had reported as required, and if she had fulfilled her financial obligations, it is doubtful that a motion to revoke would have been filed,” Johnson wrote. Brian Miller , Lovill’s attorney and of counsel at Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams in Corpus Christi, writes in an e-mail that he disagrees with the concurring opinion’s conclusion that Lovill’s pregnancy was merely “incidental” to the probation department’s decision to refer her for prosecution. “We are disappointed in the outcome and are evaluating options for further review,” Miller writes. Douglas Norman , the Nueces County assistant district attorney who petitioned the CCA to review Lovill , says he is happy with the court’s decision. Norman says he was concerned the court of appeals ruling would have a “chilling effect” on the probation department’s consideration of pregnancy if a female probationer is using drugs.
