BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

(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.
vizio24
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 12:48 am

BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby vizio24 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:57 pm

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

User avatar
crazycanuck
Posts: 3049
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby crazycanuck » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:07 pm

vizio24 wrote:http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.


Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273574
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:35 pm

crazycanuck wrote:
vizio24 wrote:http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.


Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.


I can't freakin' wait.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby HeavenWood » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:05 pm

IB NY2190!

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:50 am

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby clintonius » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:08 pm

crazycanuck wrote:
vizio24 wrote:http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.


Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Almost as incredible as the fact that law schools, without even teaching you everything you need to know to pass the Bar, will charge you $150k for your degree.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby IAFG » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:13 pm

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

User avatar
crazycanuck
Posts: 3049
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby crazycanuck » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:27 pm

clintonius wrote:
crazycanuck wrote:
vizio24 wrote:http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.


Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Almost as incredible as the fact that law schools, without even teaching you everything you need to know to pass the Bar, will charge you $150k for your degree.


Are some of those TTT really law schools?

wjs98
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby wjs98 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:28 pm

IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.


I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.

Pokemon
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby Pokemon » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:35 pm

crazycanuck wrote:
clintonius wrote:
crazycanuck wrote:
vizio24 wrote:http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.


Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Almost as incredible as the fact that law schools, without even teaching you everything you need to know to pass the Bar, will charge you $150k for your degree.


Are some of those TTT really law schools?


The TTT probably do a better job teaching you for the bar. People there have to memorize things often, whereas at T-14 the exams are open book where memorization of the law will not get you far.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby HeavenWood » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:03 pm

Pokemon wrote:The TTT probably do a better job teaching you for the bar. People there have to memorize things often, whereas at T-14 the exams are open book where memorization of the law will not get you far.

LOL

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby androstan » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:11 pm

wjs98 wrote:
IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.


I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.


Probably would be better for law graduates as a whole.
Last edited by androstan on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby HeavenWood » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:21 pm

androstan wrote:
wjs98 wrote:
IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.


I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.


Says ppl w/o offers.

You're a cunt.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:27 pm

IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

Yeah, I think you nailed it. The overall median salary can go down without any individual employer lowering its salary, if lower-paying employers start hiring more relative to higher-paying ones. Of course, that's beyond the comprehension of the legal tabloid industry.

Edit: And, of course, that is a GOOD THING because it may mean the median salary of all law grads is increasing, even if the median salary among that subset of law grads going into law firms is decreasing. Maybe not, but hell if anyone can tell based on this data.
Last edited by dixiecupdrinking on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby rad lulz » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:28 pm

androstan wrote:
wjs98 wrote:
IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.


I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.


Says ppl w/o offers.

I hope you get AIDS.

joojoo123
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby joojoo123 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:31 pm

androstan wrote:
wjs98 wrote:
IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.


I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.


Says ppl w/o offers.



Says one of the few people a MOD should ban....

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2699
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby androstan » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:35 pm

I apologize everyone, I was being an insensitive jerkoff.

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

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby 09042014 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:54 pm

androstan wrote:I apologize everyone, I was being an insensitive jerkoff.


Don't apologize. IP TO 180K

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby sunynp » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:25 pm

IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

The $145,00 data is only for firms with over 700 attorneys.

From the NALP press release on the report:
Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

$160,000 Still the Norm at Largest Firms, Though Prevalence Erodes

To be sure, in many markets, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, first-year salaries of $160,000 are still the norm at the largest firms, though they are not as widespread as they were just a few years ago. For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2012 only about two-thirds did so. Overall in firms of more than 700 lawyers salaries of $160,000 accounted for 46% of reported first-year salaries, compared with 54% in 2011, 58% in 2010, and 65% in 2009.

In firms of 251-700 in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, although some firms still pay first-year associates $160,000, most do not, resulting in medians in the $135,000-145,000 range. The median in San Francisco for firms of 251 or more lawyers remains at $145,000 having reached $160,000 only in 2009. Only in New York is the $160,000 starting salary still dominant, with 75% of firms with 251 or more lawyers paying that amount and 87% of firms with 701 or more lawyers reporting that as the first-year associate salary.Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.


http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

You are probably right that medians went up in the intervening years because the proportion of hires by biglaw big market firm went up as biglaw firms in other markets cut hiring to a lower proportion of the whole. Everyone hired fewer people, they are looking at the total nationwide of firms with over 700 to get the median.
Last edited by sunynp on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby IAFG » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:32 pm

sunynp wrote:
IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

The $145,00 data is only for firms with over 700 attorneys.

From the NALP press release on the report:
Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

$160,000 Still the Norm at Largest Firms, Though Prevalence Erodes

To be sure, in many markets, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, first-year salaries of $160,000 are still the norm at the largest firms, though they are not as widespread as they were just a few years ago. For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2012 only about two-thirds did so. Overall in firms of more than 700 lawyers salaries of $160,000 accounted for 46% of reported first-year salaries, compared with 54% in 2011, 58% in 2010, and 65% in 2009.

In firms of 251-700 in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, although some firms still pay first-year associates $160,000, most do not, resulting in medians in the $135,000-145,000 range. The median in San Francisco for firms of 251 or more lawyers remains at $145,000 having reached $160,000 only in 2009. Only in New York is the $160,000 starting salary still dominant, with 75% of firms with 251 or more lawyers paying that amount and 87% of firms with 701 or more lawyers reporting that as the first-year associate salary.Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.


http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

It is still not very meaningful without a head count.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28282
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby Kronk » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:34 pm

SOLID uses of anonymous in this thread.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby sunynp » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:40 pm

IAFG wrote:
sunynp wrote:
IAFG wrote:Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

The $145,00 data is only for firms with over 700 attorneys.

From the NALP press release on the report:
Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

$160,000 Still the Norm at Largest Firms, Though Prevalence Erodes

To be sure, in many markets, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, first-year salaries of $160,000 are still the norm at the largest firms, though they are not as widespread as they were just a few years ago. For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2012 only about two-thirds did so. Overall in firms of more than 700 lawyers salaries of $160,000 accounted for 46% of reported first-year salaries, compared with 54% in 2011, 58% in 2010, and 65% in 2009.

In firms of 251-700 in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, although some firms still pay first-year associates $160,000, most do not, resulting in medians in the $135,000-145,000 range. The median in San Francisco for firms of 251 or more lawyers remains at $145,000 having reached $160,000 only in 2009. Only in New York is the $160,000 starting salary still dominant, with 75% of firms with 251 or more lawyers paying that amount and 87% of firms with 701 or more lawyers reporting that as the first-year associate salary.Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.


http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

It is still not very meaningful without a head count.


Yeah you probably have to buy the report. The only thing they say is that 2/3 of LA and Washington DC biglaw firms are paying $160,000 and in 2009 90% of them were paying $160,000.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby rayiner » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:47 pm

Big law median salary was always right on the cusp of $160k. E.g. at NU, median salary dropped from $160k to $145k for C/O 2011, because it went from 55% at $160k to like 47% at $160k.

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

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby 09042014 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:50 pm

145K for firms over 700? That's barely the top 50 firms. So places like DLA Piper, Baker McKensey, Squire Sanders, Morgan Lewis, McGuireWoods, Hutnon Williams, etc etc. count.

But Arnold Porter, Devoise, Quinn, Cravath, Fried Frank, & DPW don't count.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby IAFG » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:52 pm

sunynp wrote:
Yeah you probably have to buy the report. The only thing they say is that 2/3 of LA and Washington DC biglaw firms are paying $160,000 and in 2009 90% of them were paying $160,000.

2/3s of firms were paying 160 or 2/3s of associates were making 160?

If, during the recession, a few V50s were the only firms hiring in LA, accounting for 90% of hiring, and they all paid $160k, then of course the median is going to rise to $160k. If large firms that only ever paid $145k in LA (Holland & Knight, for example, paying $145k in LA with 700+ lawyers nationally) are finally recovering enough to resume hiring in larger numbers, they're going to bring the median down, obviously without decreasing the number of $160k jobs.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K

Postby IAFG » Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:59 pm

Desert Fox wrote:145K for firms over 700? That's barely the top 50 firms. So places like DLA Piper, Baker McKensey, Squire Sanders, Morgan Lewis, McGuireWoods, Hutnon Williams, etc etc. count.

But Arnold Porter, Devoise, Quinn, Cravath, Fried Frank, & DPW don't count.

It's 55 firms, and if any of them dropped base salary last year, I didn't hear about it. Seems like the most likely explanation is that the firms that pay $145k in secondaries picked up their hiring in those markets.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.