c3pO4 wrote:ToTransferOrNot wrote:All of this rabblerabblerabble is just that. Cravath lawyers (and biglaw lawyers in general) are sophisticated folks. If they think they're being undercompensated, they should go elsewhere. If they can't go elsewhere and get better compensation (including starting their own firm), guess what: they're not being undercompensated. If they aren't willing to take on a lot of risk for the possibility of a higher payday: they're still not being undercompensated (lack of risk is an aspect of compensation).
I don't understand why biglaw firms continue to pay even the base salaries they do, aside from the nagging fear that the market won't follow a drop in salary (see: Howrey, lol). To be sure, higher pay attracts the "top of the top" (see Wachtel, Bartlit, Susman, etc.) (or at least the real stars that are interested in certain practice areas - most of the above-market firms are lit boutiques, Wachtel is the only corporate one I'm aware of), but biglaw in general could drop to 120k/year with no bonus tomorrow and still get extremely qualified people.
no way. even if you are right about bonuses you are wrong about dropping base compensation. nobody can pay off their loans at 120k. does cravath want its associates slangin' on the side to make that 2500/month loan payment?
"No one" can pay off their loans at 120k? And by "no one", I assume you mean the overwhelming majority of law grads who would sell a kidney for a shot at a $120k job, right? Why would Cravath give a darn about how quickly its associates can pay off their loans? Obviously there is a level of pay where you start losing people to lower-paying options with lower hours, but I'm not sure that $120k is that level. You can start getting into morale arguments, but morale isn't terribly good at any biglaw firm, and bad morale only matters if people have another option and so the morale leads to issues with work.