SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS Forum

[keg411]

What are the partnership prospects at Sulcrom compared to KE. Is Sulcrom one of those firms that doesn't lateral in partners? That might be a consideration.

S&C's SA classes are like 130 people. I doubt "partnership prospect" are a good reason to pick them over K&E. Also, I can't imagine the type of person who goes to S&C is going to play well in a free market system (and as opposed to what I said about the free market system in the other thread, trust me when I say this is *very* positive about the K&E personalities as opposed to the S&C personalities).

[keg411]

There needs to be a TLS forum for people with V10 offers. The lack of prestige in this thread is killing me.

I guess I should take my ball and my TTT V100 and go home .

[run26.2]

What are the partnership prospects at Sulcrom compared to KE. Is Sulcrom one of those firms that doesn't lateral in partners? That might be a consideration.

The expectation at SulCrom is that you will leave after 3-4 years. Making partner is extremely difficult, from what I have heard. They really help their alumni get jobs elsewhere, though.

At K&E, you make non-equity almost automatically, but equity is significantly harder. But still not as hard as S&C, if I had to guess.

[angrybird]

There needs to be a TLS forum for people with V10 offers. The lack of prestige in this thread is killing me.

I guess I should take my ball and my TTT V100 and go home .

shut the fuck up, goft

[Anonymous User]

VERY interested in seeing how much Quinn Emanuel will pull out (as spring bonuses were confirmed).

[Anonymous User]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

[dixiecupdrinking]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

Enjoy that 3x market $3,000.

[ruski]

this is just proof lawyers make the worst business managers. yes these bonuses might save a few extra bucks for partners, but eventually these lawyers are going to leave, and having to keep training new lawyers is costly and pretty inefficient. yes the legal market is crap, but lawyers at S&C can get a pretty sweet in-house gig. and considering that in-house pay has been rising (not by much, but has at least been keeping up with inflation) while biglaw pay has not (pretty much the same salary 10 years ago), the marginal benefit of staying in biglaw is decreasing each year. can S&C replace lawyers who want to leave? sure, but this reduces efficiency (training, etc) and increases costs as well, as well as lowers moral, and just makes for a pretty shitty business model. this analysis may not work for all firms, but at places like S&C where lateraling is absolutely no problem i wonder how long they can get away with this.

[turbotong]

Cravath will beat this in a few days as revenge for S&C beating Cravath's Christmas bonuses.
They might even have the balls to "double" the S&C scale.

[run26.2]

this is just proof lawyers make the worst business managers. yes these bonuses might save a few extra bucks for partners, but eventually these lawyers are going to leave, and having to keep training new lawyers is costly and pretty inefficient. yes the legal market is crap, but lawyers at S&C can get a pretty sweet in-house gig. and considering that in-house pay has been rising (not by much, but has at least been keeping up with inflation) while biglaw pay has not (pretty much the same salary 10 years ago), the marginal benefit of staying in biglaw is decreasing each year. can S&C replace lawyers who want to leave? sure, but this reduces efficiency (training, etc) and increases costs as well, as well as lowers moral, and just makes for a pretty shitty business model. this analysis may not work for all firms, but at places like S&C where lateraling is absolutely no problem i wonder how long they can get away with this.

This is proof?

Seems like the better proof is the ROI on a law degree. Many people, if they worked at business as hard as they do at law, would have much more money. Furthermore, the upside would be more or less unlimited. I guess you could argue that's true of the practice of law too, but not until you have been out many years, and still, good business people make much more than good lawyers.

[run26.2]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

How does lateraling in affect one's chances for equity partnership in relation to a home-grown associate?

[sunynp]

Law360, New York (April 26, 2012, 9:57 PM ET) -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has announced spring bonuses of up to $5,000 for associates starting from the class of 2006, a roughly 60 percent drop for that class from their 2011 spring bonus payout, according to news reports Thursday.

Associates from the class of 2011 and 2010 will receive $1,000, while those from the classes of 2009, 2008 and 2007 will receive $2,500, and associates from the class of 2006 will get $5,000, legal blog Above The Law reported.

The numbers are a steep decline from its spring bonus awards in 2011, when it reportedly handed out $10,000 for associates in the class of 2007, $12,500 for the class of 2006, $15,000 for the class of 2005, $17,500 for the class of 2004, and $20,000 to associates who joined in 2002 or earlier.

...

Sullivan & Cromwell had kicked off a trend of generous spring bonuses in 2011, when firms including Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP hewed to its scale, while others including Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP handed out $20,000 to associates who began working at the firm between 2004 and 2006, while offering $15,000 to associates from the 2007 class and between $2,500 and $10,000 to those who started later.

....

Sullivan & Cromwell’s spring bonus payout this year follows its 2011 end-of-year payout, which had topped out at roughly $42,500 to the class of 2003 and earlier, in a scale reportedly followed by firms including Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Cleary Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Clifford Chance LLP.

[rayiner]

this is just proof lawyers make the worst business managers. yes these bonuses might save a few extra bucks for partners, but eventually these lawyers are going to leave, and having to keep training new lawyers is costly and pretty inefficient. yes the legal market is crap, but lawyers at S&C can get a pretty sweet in-house gig. and considering that in-house pay has been rising (not by much, but has at least been keeping up with inflation) while biglaw pay has not (pretty much the same salary 10 years ago), the marginal benefit of staying in biglaw is decreasing each year. can S&C replace lawyers who want to leave? sure, but this reduces efficiency (training, etc) and increases costs as well, as well as lowers moral, and just makes for a pretty shitty business model. this analysis may not work for all firms, but at places like S&C where lateraling is absolutely no problem i wonder how long they can get away with this.

This is proof?

Seems like the better proof is the ROI on a law degree. Many people, if they worked at business as hard as they do at law, would have much more money. Furthermore, the upside would be more or less unlimited. I guess you could argue that's true of the practice of law too, but not until you have been out many years, and still, good business people make much more than good lawyers.

This is nonsensical. You're comparing two completely different industries. Law is an industry of limited leverage, both by law and by nature. Say a guy makes really good ice cream. He can make $50,000 a year making and selling ice cream. If he builds a factory and hires a couple of hundred people, he can make $50 million or more selling ice cream. Ice cream is by nature a good you can make in bulk with low-skilled labor, and the corporate legal framework allows the original ice cream maker to own the proceeds of the labor of hundreds of people. Compare this to law. Where a business might law a leverage of 1000x, a law firm partner might have a leverage of 10x. The expectations of clients and the highly individualized and one-off nature of legal services means a partner has a very low practical limit of how much he can multiply the revenue from each hour of his labor. On top of that, legal ethical restrictions prevent corporate structures that funnel profits to a handful of owners.

You're wrong that the average person will make more in business. Law firms are extremely flat in comparison to corporations in terms of compensation. At a place like S&C the spread of partner compensation is like 4:1. That means a high-ranking partner might make $4 million to a junior partner's $1 million. That means the high ranking partner is making a paltry 25x as much as an entry-level associate. That's like the CEO of Intel making $1.5 million rather than $15 million.

Google's revenue per employee is double the revenue per employee at a V5 firm, yet your average Google employee makes less than your average law firm associate. The reason is that compensation at corporations skews high--the top executives are compensated a lot more than Partners At Law firms, but rank-and-file workers are compensated a lot less than associates at law firms.

[run26.2]

This is proof?

Seems like the better proof is the ROI on a law degree. Many people, if they worked at business as hard as they do at law, would have much more money. Furthermore, the upside would be more or less unlimited. I guess you could argue that's true of the practice of law too, but not until you have been out many years, and still, good business people make much more than good lawyers.

This is nonsensical. You're comparing two completely different industries. Law is an industry of limited leverage, both by law and by nature. Say a guy makes really good ice cream. He can make $50,000 a year making and selling ice cream. If he builds a factory and hires a couple of hundred people, he can make $50 million or more selling ice cream. Ice cream is by nature a good you can make in bulk with low-skilled labor, and the corporate legal framework allows the original ice cream maker to own the proceeds of the labor of hundreds of people. Compare this to law. Where a business might law a leverage of 1000x, a law firm partner might have a leverage of 10x. The expectations of clients and the highly individualized and one-off nature of legal services means a partner has a very low practical limit of how much he can multiply the revenue from each hour of his labor. On top of that, legal ethical restrictions prevent corporate structures that funnel profits to a handful of owners.

You're wrong that the average person will make more in business. Law firms are extremely flat in comparison to corporations in terms of compensation. At a place like S&C the spread of partner compensation is like 4:1. That means a high-ranking partner might make $4 million to a junior partner's $1 million. That means the high ranking partner is making a paltry 25x as much as an entry-level associate. That's like the CEO of Intel making $1.5 million rather than $15 million.

Google's revenue per employee is double the revenue per employee at a V5 firm, yet your average Google employee makes less than your average law firm associate. The reason is that compensation at corporations skews high--the top executives are compensated a lot more than partners at law firms, but rank-and-file workers are compensated a lot less than associates at law firms.

Granted they are two different industries. But your first paragraph bolsters the point I was making, which is that the upside is much higher in business.

As to the point about the average compensation in business, I was envisioning someone willing to start their own business. You would either have to do that or get a second job if you were going to work as many hours as an associate. I should have made that clear. My take is that if you put the same amount of time into your own business that you put in to an associate position, you would make more money on the business side.

Admittedly, I should have been more clear. The comment I was responding to, IMO, did not demonstrate how "lawyers make the worst business managers." While I agree that law firms are not well run businesses, my comment was a bit glib based on my read of the previous statement.

[rayiner]

Granted they are two different industries. But your first paragraph bolsters the point I was making, which is that the upside is much higher in business.

As to the point about the average compensation in business, I was envisioning someone willing to start their own business. You would either have to do that or get a second job if you were going to work as many hours as an associate. I should have made that clear. My take is that if you put the same amount of time into your own business that you put in to an associate position, you would make more money on the business side.

Admittedly, I should have been more clear. The comment I was responding to, IMO, did not demonstrate how "lawyers make the worst business managers." While I agree that law firms are not well run businesses, my comment was a bit glib based on my read of the previous statement.

You claimed that the fact that the potential upside is lower in law proves that lawyers are bad at managing firms. My point is that the potential upside is lower in law is the product of the nature of the business itself. Every service professions where you're doing individualized work has a structural limit on potential upside. The Big-4 accounting firms, for example, have revenues per employee 1/4 of the V10 law firms. Medicine is mostly the same way. Some doctors make $1 million a year because of artificially limited supply, but entrepreneurial doctors don't go out and make $100 million a year by selling medical services in bulk.

As for starting a business--most businesses fail and the ones that fail don't make much money. Adjusted for expected value, you're not going to make very much. And entrepreneurs work far harder than lawyers. I worked at a startup company and my boss was putting in 100 hour weeks years after starting the business.

[run26.2]

Granted they are two different industries. But your first paragraph bolsters the point I was making, which is that the upside is much higher in business.

As to the point about the average compensation in business, I was envisioning someone willing to start their own business. You would either have to do that or get a second job if you were going to work as many hours as an associate. I should have made that clear. My take is that if you put the same amount of time into your own business that you put in to an associate position, you would make more money on the business side.

Admittedly, I should have been more clear. The comment I was responding to, IMO, did not demonstrate how "lawyers make the worst business managers." While I agree that law firms are not well run businesses, my comment was a bit glib based on my read of the previous statement.

You claimed that the fact that the potential upside is lower in law proves that lawyers are bad at managing firms. My point is that the potential upside is lower in law is the product of the nature of the business itself. Every service professions where you're doing individualized work has a structural limit on potential upside. The Big-4 accounting firms, for example, have revenues per employee 1/4 of the V10 law firms. Medicine is mostly the same way. Some doctors make $1 million a year because of artificially limited supply, but entrepreneurial doctors don't go out and make $100 million a year by selling medical services in bulk.

As for starting a business--most businesses fail and the ones that fail don't make much money. Adjusted for expected value, you're not going to make very much. And entrepreneurs work far harder than lawyers. I worked at a startup company and my boss was putting in 100 hour weeks years after starting the business.

I understand both of your points. I think that for a person that is as smart and as hardworking a person as one that goes to law school, the expected value in business (in terms of hourly wage) is higher in business. I could be wrong.

But also, the point I was responding to was that the poster above stated that this proved that lawyers are "the worst business managers." That's something of an overstatement. My point was that there is other evidence that they may not have the best business sense (assuming the expected value would be higher for them in business - a big if) since they could make more money doing something else.

[Lawl Shcool]

Granted they are two different industries. But your first paragraph bolsters the point I was making, which is that the upside is much higher in business.

As to the point about the average compensation in business, I was envisioning someone willing to start their own business. You would either have to do that or get a second job if you were going to work as many hours as an associate. I should have made that clear. My take is that if you put the same amount of time into your own business that you put in to an associate position, you would make more money on the business side.

Admittedly, I should have been more clear. The comment I was responding to, IMO, did not demonstrate how "lawyers make the worst business managers." While I agree that law firms are not well run businesses, my comment was a bit glib based on my read of the previous statement.

You claimed that the fact that the potential upside is lower in law proves that lawyers are bad at managing firms. My point is that the potential upside is lower in law is the product of the nature of the business itself. Every service professions where you're doing individualized work has a structural limit on potential upside. The Big-4 accounting firms, for example, have revenues per employee 1/4 of the V10 law firms. Medicine is mostly the same way. Some doctors make $1 million a year because of artificially limited supply, but entrepreneurial doctors don't go out and make $100 million a year by selling medical services in bulk.

As for starting a business--most businesses fail and the ones that fail don't make much money. Adjusted for expected value, you're not going to make very much. And entrepreneurs work far harder than lawyers. I worked at a startup company and my boss was putting in 100 hour weeks years after starting the business.

I understand both of your points. I think that for a person that is as smart and as hardworking a person as one that goes to law school, the expected value in business (in terms of hourly wage) is higher in business. I could be wrong.

But also, the point I was responding to was that the poster above stated that this proved that lawyers are "the worst business managers." That's something of an overstatement. My point was that there is other evidence that they may not have the best business sense (assuming the expected value would be higher for them in business - a big if) since they could make more money doing something else.

Who cares about potential upside? I think everyone here agrees that if you start the next facebook, ya you are going to make a lot of money. On the flip side, your next facebook could be a total dud and you could lose it all and make nothing. Law is desirable because you can make a really high salary and have very low risk. It isn't that hard to get into a firm, work hard, and make 6 figures your whole career. It is really hard to start a successful company and there are a lot more factors out of your control in you failing. Whereas, to get a firm job you need to perform well for 1 year of law school. Lawyers are trading that potential upside for job security and a consistent salary. There is a psychological safety net in knowing that the worst partner is making close to $1 mil in big firms.

All jobs in all professions require hard work to be successful. In law, you trade the hard work for a lower upside but bigger safety net. That is a great deal for people starting families or don't like a lot of risk. In a business, you trade the hard work for a bigger potential upside, but that also comes with a much bigger chance of failure.

Different strokes for different folks eh?

[Anonymous User]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

Enjoy that 3x market $3,000.

More like $24,000+.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath will beat this in a few days as revenge for S&C beating Cravath's Christmas bonuses.
They might even have the balls to "double" the S&C scale.

LOL. What? No way. Cravath is doing worse than S&C. And right now they're breathing a sigh of relief.

[Anonymous User]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

How does lateraling in affect one's chances for equity partnership in relation to a home-grown associate?

About equal.

[sunynp]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

Enjoy that 3x market $3,000.

More like $24,000+.

Was that this spring? I didn't see that reported on ATL, but I haven't been looking.

[NinerFan]

Glad I chose K&E. Still made 3x the market lol.

Re: Partnership: A lot easier to make nonshare at K&E than to make equity partnership at S&C. Shares are significantly harder to get, but I'd say marginally easier than S&C.

And yes, it's not hard to lateral into K&E from another V10. We already get a significant number of resumes from those firms around this time of year

Enjoy that 3x market $3,000.

More like $24,000+.

Was that this spring? I didn't see that reported on ATL, but I haven't been looking.

Guessing that was the winter bonus, intended to cover both the regular winter bonus and any spring bonus that other firms might do.

[wiseowl]

$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours:

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you

[Anonymous User]

Guessing that was the winter bonus, intended to cover both the regular winter bonus and any spring bonus that other firms might do.

Yup. You guessed right.

[Anonymous User]

Edit: Never mind. Not Worth it.