Another sign that ITE is almost over

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:07 pm

alumniguy wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:How do taxes/expenses change if you live in, say, Brooklyn? I'm guessing not that much.

alumniguy, thanks for the insight, dood...much appreciated.

No savings for Brooklyn (you're still in New York City county). I think there may be some savings if you live in NJ or CT, but haven't done the research.

"New York City county"?

Brooklyn is Kings County. It's a borough of the city, but it's not in the same county. That said, there are some affordable and quite nice places to live there, at least relative to most of Manhattan. Some are even convenient to the express lines into "the city".

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby Kohinoor » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:50 pm

alumniguy wrote:I mean I agree and I disagree. People who don't live in NYC know that it is expensive, but they don't realize just how expensive it really is. As NYC has gentrified since the 80's it has gotten increasingly more expensive. Living here for almost 3 years now, I think to myself man this just isn't sustainable. Yet, I'm shocked that the prices just continue to go up. As a bit of an example. I live within walking distance (10/15 minutes) to several grocery stores. Excluding the Trader Joes, the next cheapest grocery store is a Whole Foods - yea, I go to Whole Foods to get the cheapest food!

But, NYC is unlike any other city I've been to and have lived in. It is great. It's dynamic, always changing. There is a reason why it is getting increasingly more expensive and that is because it is desirable. If you can make enough money to take advantage of what the city has to offer, I don't think another city in the U.S. even comes close to competing with NYC.

Also citing costs in deciding to teach in Charlottesville vs. NYC seems a bit much to me. I mean if we were talking NYC and Chicago or NYC and D.C. it would be one thing. But I can't imagine that someone drawn to living in an urban area such as NYC would move to Charlottesville (admittedly I have no idea what life is like there) simply because of the high cost of living in NYC. Just doesn't seem rational to me. You either see NYC as something special that doesn't exist in any other U.S. city and you're willing to make financial sacrifices or you don't. If you don't you quickly realize that you can get much more for you buck in many other desirable cities in the U.S.

Move to Jamaica or Bed Stuy. Affordable groceries at the bodega of your choice and you have my personal guarantee that they will never build a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby Attorney » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:11 am

alumniguy wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:How do taxes/expenses change if you live in, say, Brooklyn? I'm guessing not that much.

alumniguy, thanks for the insight, dood...much appreciated.


No savings for Brooklyn (you're still in New York City county). I think there may be some savings if you live in NJ or CT, but haven't done the research.

Having lived the dream of residing in Jersey and working in Manhattan, I can tell you that you make more money if you don't live in NYC. You have to pay New York State income taxes if you work there, no matter what state you live in. But you only have to pay New York City income taxes if you actually reside in the City. Long Island, Westchester County, Jersey, and Connecticut all save you back about 3.6% of your income that you would have had to pay had you lived in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

At a $160,000 starting salary that is $5,500 or $6,000 more that you can pay toward student loans each year if you live outside the City.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby alumniguy » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:15 am

Kohinoor wrote: Move to Jamaica or Bed Stuy. Affordable groceries at the bodega of your choice and you have my personal guarantee that they will never build a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.


Hmm, yea I think I'll pass. But thanks for the recommendation though!

Sup Kid
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:49 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby Sup Kid » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:39 am

Attorney wrote:
alumniguy wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:How do taxes/expenses change if you live in, say, Brooklyn? I'm guessing not that much.

alumniguy, thanks for the insight, dood...much appreciated.


No savings for Brooklyn (you're still in New York City county). I think there may be some savings if you live in NJ or CT, but haven't done the research.

Having lived the dream of residing in Jersey and working in Manhattan, I can tell you that you make more money if you don't live in NYC. You have to pay New York State income taxes if you work there, no matter what state you live in. But you only have to pay New York City income taxes if you actually reside in the City. Long Island, Westchester County, Jersey, and Connecticut all save you back about 3.6% of your income that you would have had to pay had you lived in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

At a $160,000 starting salary that is $5,500 or $6,000 more that you can pay toward student loans each year if you live outside the City.

Just something to remember though is that if you live in NJ/LI/Conn monthly train passes are going to run you at least $3500/year.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby swc65 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:47 am

Sup Kid wrote:Just something to remember though is that if you live in NJ/LI/Conn monthly train passes are going to run you at least $3500/year.



Jersey City is on stop from downtown (1.13 each way). AND the COL is a lot lower (the trump building has apts for less than the same apt would sell in battery park. You are right, though, that the calculus changes once you get so far out you're on a commuter rail, but some firms will pay for it.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby Attorney » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:29 pm

swc65 wrote:
Sup Kid wrote:Just something to remember though is that if you live in NJ/LI/Conn monthly train passes are going to run you at least $3500/year.



Jersey City is on stop from downtown (1.13 each way). AND the COL is a lot lower (the trump building has apts for less than the same apt would sell in battery park. You are right, though, that the calculus changes once you get so far out you're on a commuter rail, but some firms will pay for it.

Yep, live in PATH territory and it becomes a lot cheaper than train territory. $3 a day ($1.5 each way) in marginal cost over living in Manhattan, and in most cases it is just as close as Brooklyn... though probably not as exciting or fun. $600 per annum in PATH Quickcards to gain $6000 a year in post-tax income.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby alumniguy » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:38 pm

Attorney wrote:Jersey City is on stop from downtown (1.13 each way). AND the COL is a lot lower (the trump building has apts for less than the same apt would sell in battery park. You are right, though, that the calculus changes once you get so far out you're on a commuter rail, but some firms will pay for it.

Yep, live in PATH territory and it becomes a lot cheaper than train territory. $3 a day ($1.5 each way) in marginal cost over living in Manhattan, and in most cases it is just as close as Brooklyn... though probably not as exciting or fun. $600 per annum in PATH Quickcards to gain $6000 a year in post-tax income.[/quote]

What do you do when you get called in to work on the weekends? The PATH/MTA schedule on the weekends is horrific! How much are you paying for cab fare in a year? Certainly NOT $5500, but I just can't imagine how the commute works on the weekend, seems like you'd be wasting a lot of time getting to/from the office.

User avatar
Attorney
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby Attorney » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:48 pm

alumniguy wrote:What do you do when you get called in to work on the weekends? The PATH/MTA schedule on the weekends is horrific! How much are you paying for cab fare in a year? Certainly NOT $5500, but I just can't imagine how the commute works on the weekend, seems like you'd be wasting a lot of time getting to/from the office.

PATH isn't all THAT ridiculous on weekends. But if I absolutely had to be in the office every single weekend, I'd probably re-consider the monetary benefits vs. the time drag.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby romothesavior » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:49 pm

BruceWayne wrote:Frankly many (most?) people who don't live in NYC understand it.

This. I get it, and so do most of my Midwesterner friends. 100k in St. Louis is well over 200k in NYC, and I don't have to deal with the traffic and the overcrowding here. All things being equal, I would not want to move to NYC at all. And yeah, I get that there is a lot to do in NYC, but I am of the mindset that people are what make a city, not places. And since most people I've ever met from NYC/Jersey are assholes, I think I'd go nuts there.

User avatar
FlanAl
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby FlanAl » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:57 pm

romothesavior wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:Frankly many (most?) people who don't live in NYC understand it.

This. I get it, and so do most of my Midwesterner friends. 100k in St. Louis is well over 200k in NYC, and I don't have to deal with the traffic and the overcrowding here. All things being equal, I would not want to move to NYC at all. And yeah, I get that there is a lot to do in NYC, but I am of the mindset that people are what make a city, not places. And since most people I've ever met from NYC/Jersey are assholes, I think I'd go nuts there.


why do they always have to act like they are so much better than us? Seriously though I haven't ever met a single person born and raised from these areas that I liked. And transplant NYU undergrad types are even worse!

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby keg411 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:34 pm

Attorney wrote:
alumniguy wrote:What do you do when you get called in to work on the weekends? The PATH/MTA schedule on the weekends is horrific! How much are you paying for cab fare in a year? Certainly NOT $5500, but I just can't imagine how the commute works on the weekend, seems like you'd be wasting a lot of time getting to/from the office.

PATH isn't all THAT ridiculous on weekends. But if I absolutely had to be in the office every single weekend, I'd probably re-consider the monetary benefits vs. the time drag.


The PATH isn't bad on weekends, and worse case you spend the extra few $ and take NJT on the weekends, which runs regularly.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby 09042014 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:42 pm

FlanAl wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:Frankly many (most?) people who don't live in NYC understand it.

This. I get it, and so do most of my Midwesterner friends. 100k in St. Louis is well over 200k in NYC, and I don't have to deal with the traffic and the overcrowding here. All things being equal, I would not want to move to NYC at all. And yeah, I get that there is a lot to do in NYC, but I am of the mindset that people are what make a city, not places. And since most people I've ever met from NYC/Jersey are assholes, I think I'd go nuts there.


why do they always have to act like they are so much better than us? Seriously though I haven't ever met a single person born and raised from these areas that I liked. And transplant NYU undergrad types are even worse!


They think that living in NYC makes them prestigious. Not sure why, literally anyone can move there.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby run26.2 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:02 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
alumniguy wrote:First, finding "a" job in most metropolitan areas is NOT difficult. Sure, you'll be making $10/$15 an hour, but you'll be able to live frugally on that amount. The alternative is to go to law school and most likely incur serious levels of debt.

Frankly, kids just out of college have NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS TO SERVICE DEBT. I certainly didn't when I applied for law school. I've mentioned this on other threads as well, so bear with me if you've ran across this but I am in biglaw as we speak - nyc market. I make market salary and that leaves me with about $7k/month after taxes. My rent is $2k (which is a pretty good deal here and I don't know too many people who are paying less than I do unless they have roommates), my debt service on $150k in loans is about $2k a month - THAT IS THE MINIMUM PAYMENT - which leaves about $4k of discretionary spending. Sure I've been making more than the minimum,s but I am still at about $100k in debt after 2.5 years in biglaw. While I am financially fine at the moment, if/when I leave biglaw I am going to have to find another well paid job (which may be a problem) and/or drastically alter my lifestyle.

I hope that ALL 0Ls realize that most biglaw associates don't make it past 3-4 years in a firm. Firms are built and run on a pyramid scheme. Whether it is self-selection out or forced out, the statistics don't lie. To incur $100k+ in debt for a few years making a handsome salary probably isn't worth it -- especially in today's legal environment. Once you leave biglaw, your salary typically takes a drastic pay cut (sure there will be exceptions, but you shouldn't make your decisions always thinking that you are that exception).

Also, even if you are "interested in law" that doesn't translate to "interested in biglaw/corporate work." Law school is unlike the practice of biglaw. Biglaw is all about being deep in the weeds on most issues and as a junior associate, is mostly research and somewhat mindless drafting of form documents.


wow at $160k, you only take in ~$7k a month after taxes but pre-debt and housing? nyc is insane lol


I don't know why people on here talk about it as if it's so great, and I've been saying it for years, but NYC biglaw is NOT a good deal if you have serious debt. The insane COL, the insane tax rate, and the high hours all add up to a pretty bad deal. But people on here talk as if landing a "V10" or "V5" job is the holy grail of post law school employment and a sign of great success.

That + fact that it is insanely hard to make partner at nearly all of those firms. My guess is it will get harder, too, post-ITE, if partners decide to stay on and try to recoup financial losses. That's a guess, tho.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby alumniguy » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:57 pm

run26.2 wrote:That + fact that it is insanely hard to make partner at nearly all of those firms. My guess is it will get harder, too, post-ITE, if partners decide to stay on and try to recoup financial losses. That's a guess, tho.


My thoughts are a bit divergent on this topic. First off, very few associates have any idea how the partnership operates. It is a black box. You as an associate are an employee of their business. The only way we figure out anything about the partnership is when they tell us about it. It is very difficult to find out any information on how partnerships actually are run (e.g., pay bands within the equity ranks).

I think that ITE is going to re-introduce a more meaningful hierarchy of firms than what we have now. Right now, all of the firms pay the same salaries, mostly offer the same benefits, mostly offer the same career trajectory, etc. From an associate's perspective, there is little to distinguish a V10 from a V25 or a V50. You working on similar types of deals (albeit at different levels of sophistication), you have many of the same clients and you have many of the same exit opportunities (and I do appreciate that the V10 offers slightly *better* opportunities than say a V40 firm, but for the most part, I think they pretty minimal). In my opinion, I think the parity of biglaw shops resulted from the unprecedented level of legal demand during the bubble.

ITE, legal demand is down. Not only is it down, but most clients have become increasingly cost sensitive with respect to basic commodity work (e.g., garden variety leveraged debt deals, capital raises, etc.). However, not all work is created equal and clients are willing to continue to pay high rates for sophisticated legal work (e.g., bet the company litigation, M&A deals, IPOs, etc...). Many of the V10s (and even up into the V20s/V30s) are the go to firms with respect to this type of work. The majority of the V10s have had banner years. ITE is over for them at this point. These firms have revenue per lawyer back to $1m+ per associate.

Many of the V25s and above are not faring as well. There business improved this year over last, but many of them have lost market share (i.e., they had falls in revenue) and are unlikely to ramp up revenue to pre-2008 levels. For these firms, the only way that PPP can remain close to its 2008 highs is to limit equity partnership. I expect that many of these firms will continue to shrink their equity ranks so as to keep an illusion that they are doing well (and also because well, the influential partners want to keep the cash they bring into the firm and are going to kick out the under-performing partners or threaten to jump ship to a more profitable firm).

So, I think you may actually have a better shot at making partner at a V10 than V20s and up (provided you can actually get to a V10).

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby romothesavior » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:14 pm

I think run26's point was that it is far easier to make partner at a firm in a secondary market (or at least stick around for a while as an associate). In the secondary market I am in, the firms really try to hire people with the intention of making them partners, and most mid-level associates I have spoken with have confirmed that this is the case. Sure, there have been layoffs ITE and there is some natural attrition, but the entire hiring structure is a lot different. It isn't nearly the pyramid funnel that big cities embrace. The turnover is a lot lower, and a much higher percentage of people make it to partner than at an NYC biglaw firm, regardless of the Vault distinctions.

Maybe ITE will move NYC closer to this model, but as it is now, the average firm in a secondary market will provide a better opportunity at partnership than NYC/DC/etc.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby alumniguy » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:28 pm

romothesavior wrote:I think run26's point was that it is far easier to make partner at a firm in a secondary market (or at least stick around for a while as an associate). In the secondary market I am in, the firms really try to hire people with the intention of making them partners, and most mid-level associates I have spoken with have confirmed that this is the case. Sure, there have been layoffs ITE and there is some natural attrition, but the entire hiring structure is a lot different. It isn't nearly the pyramid funnel that big cities embrace. The turnover is a lot lower, and a much higher percentage of people make it to partner than at an NYC biglaw firm, regardless of the Vault distinctions.

Maybe ITE will move NYC closer to this model, but as it is now, the average firm in a secondary market will provide a better opportunity at partnership than NYC/DC/etc.


100% agreed. You shot at partner in secondary markets (assuming you are not at a branch office of a NYC based firm) is much better than NYC. Although, those partners aren't really pulling in the same salary as a partner at a NYC firm. More often then not, they are on par with counsel salaries. Although, I'd still put my money on making it to partnership in a secondary market than making counsel or partner at a NYC firm.

run26.2
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby run26.2 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:32 pm

My point was that it will be harder now to make partner than it was before because more partners will be sticking around, as opposed to retiring. If people had certain retirement goals in mind, they may have had a set back in achieving them that will keep them working longer. This is simply a supposition, though.

I don't know how that holds up in a v10 firm versus a v20 firm, but if what I said is true, I doubt the prestige level of the firm would make that much of a difference. Anyway, again, my comparison related to the relative difficulty of making partner pre- and post-ITE in the v10.

User avatar
ebeth
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:51 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby ebeth » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:38 pm

I've been looking for a relevant place to post this article, and it looks like this thread may be appropriate.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby alumniguy » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:41 pm

run26.2 wrote:My point was that it will be harder now to make partner than it was before because more partners will be sticking around, as opposed to retiring. If people had certain retirement goals in mind, they may have had a set back in achieving them that will keep them working longer. This is simply a supposition, though.

I don't know how that holds up in a v10 firm versus a v20 firm, but if what I said is true, I doubt the prestige level of the firm would make that much of a difference. Anyway, again, my comparison related to the relative difficulty of making partner pre- and post-ITE in the v10.


Yea, I am not sure this is how it actually works. I believe that most V10s have mandatory retirement ages. Partners generally don't decide to leave the firm unless they are going to another firm or going to a prestigious in-house/government gig (and a lot of these partners eventually get back into firms).

So no, partners aren't going to be just sticking around longer than they would have been had the recession never happened. In the past 3 years, I don't think a single partner has left my firm and not gone on to another firm or a government gig. We've had a few partners be promoted to of counsel, but that is because they hit the mandatory retirement age.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby alumniguy » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:47 pm

ebeth wrote:I've been looking for a relevant place to post this article, and it looks like this thread may be appropriate.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... hbxlogin=1


Yes, relevant to post here, but unfortunately it doesn't mean anything. The extremely low offer rate of 67% was because firms had traditional size summer classes, but realized they couldn't hire all of those summers. So they couldn't give offers to all of them.

Last year, most firms slashed their summer class sizes - we're talking 100+ down to like 20/30. So yea, if you were a summer last year, you could count a job (as you normally would do when accepting a summer associate offer).

I guess in the sense of obtaining a job once you've been a summer associate things have improved, but year over year numbers from those two class years would undoubtedly reveal a smaller number of biglaw jobs going to the class year with the higher percentage of offer rates.

The bright side is that hiring is picking up from the lows in 2009. This year many firms will be at their new normals of summer associate hiring, which is down from the peak but up significantly from the 2009 summer class.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby romothesavior » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:58 pm

alumniguy wrote:
run26.2 wrote:My point was that it will be harder now to make partner than it was before because more partners will be sticking around, as opposed to retiring. If people had certain retirement goals in mind, they may have had a set back in achieving them that will keep them working longer. This is simply a supposition, though.

I don't know how that holds up in a v10 firm versus a v20 firm, but if what I said is true, I doubt the prestige level of the firm would make that much of a difference. Anyway, again, my comparison related to the relative difficulty of making partner pre- and post-ITE in the v10.


Yea, I am not sure this is how it actually works. I believe that most V10s have mandatory retirement ages. Partners generally don't decide to leave the firm unless they are going to another firm or going to a prestigious in-house/government gig (and a lot of these partners eventually get back into firms).

So no, partners aren't going to be just sticking around longer than they would have been had the recession never happened. In the past 3 years, I don't think a single partner has left my firm and not gone on to another firm or a government gig. We've had a few partners be promoted to of counsel, but that is because they hit the mandatory retirement age.

Also, even if they could stick around, I'm not sure run's point would hold because while employment has been atrocious, PPP has really jumped.

BlackSwan85
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby BlackSwan85 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:06 pm

Kohinoor wrote:ITE is almost over re PPP. ITE is in full swing re your employment prospects.


THIS. The 2007 biglaw wealth train won't be pulling into the station anytime soon.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby keg411 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:24 pm

BlackSwan85 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:ITE is almost over re PPP. ITE is in full swing re your employment prospects.


THIS. The 2007 biglaw wealth train won't be pulling into the station anytime soon.


I think DF's point is that 2007 was never normal and hiring will go back to somewhere around 2005(?)-ish levels. Which isn't "ITE" hiring, and isn't "boom" hiring; it's just regular hiring.

Also, I think it's more important to look at individual firms rather than Vault for which firms are doing well, versus which firms are struggling.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Another sign that ITE is almost over

Postby swc65 » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:15 pm

keg411 wrote:
BlackSwan85 wrote:
Kohinoor wrote:ITE is almost over re PPP. ITE is in full swing re your employment prospects.


THIS. The 2007 biglaw wealth train won't be pulling into the station anytime soon.


I think DF's point is that 2007 was never normal and hiring will go back to somewhere around 2005(?)-ish levels. Which isn't "ITE" hiring, and isn't "boom" hiring; it's just regular hiring.

Also, I think it's more important to look at individual firms rather than Vault for which firms are doing well, versus which firms are struggling.



Yeah it's all about baselines. A lot of people say we won't be back to '08 levels for years. WELL DUH!!! lol @ comparing the peak to the trough. you don't want peak level hiring cuz that means things are likely to bust soon! :)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.