New associate banter

(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
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:55 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Same anon as above with the high-paying paralegals, my firm is a V10.


Then something is drastically off in your firm. No paralegal makes double what a first-year does in a big firm. Let alone more than a senior associate. At least not in base pay...I could see some making $$$ with overtime if they are also billing like 3,000 hours. But even then, they'd have to be really really valuable for a firm to just not hire more paralegals.


Yeah, nothing's "drastically off in [my] firm." Not all paralegals here make that. And most of the paralegals make below $100,000 (though some top ones still close to it when you include overtime). I was talking about our most senior paralegals.


Even still. The numbers I can find suggest that the very top paralegals at top firms in DC/NYC max out at $130-140K in base salary. And you're claiming they are making double that? Even with overtime that just doesn't add up. If they're doubling their salary, its cheaper to hire another paralegal in the long run to take the OT pressure off. No paralegal, no matter their skills, would economically justify a salary that high. The market just wouldn't demand it when the other top paralegals at top firms aren't making that much.

I'm not saying firms haven't made this choice before. However, AFAIK all those firms have imploded or folded due to mismanagement of their capital. I just can't see a V10 being that stupid.
Last edited by Joe Quincy on Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:59 am

Joe Quincy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Same anon as above with the high-paying paralegals, my firm is a V10.


Then something is drastically off in your firm. No paralegal makes double what a first-year does in a big firm. Let alone more than a senior associate. At least not in base pay...I could see some making $$$ with overtime if they are also billing like 3,000 hours. But even then, they'd have to be really really valuable for a firm to just not hire more paralegals.


Yeah, nothing's "drastically off in [my] firm." Not all paralegals here make that. And most of the paralegals make below $100,000 (though some top ones still close to it when you include overtime). I was talking about our most senior paralegals.


Even still. The numbers I can find suggest that the very top paralegals at top firms in DC/NYC max out at $130-140K in base salary. And you're claiming they are making double that? Even with overtime that just doesn't add up. If you're doubling your salary, its cheaper to hire another paralegal in the long run to take the OT pressure off.


I'm getting really tired of this. Obviously there is a disconnect between what "[you] can find" and what I personally know is happening at my firm (and we all know that salary info other than biglaw is notoriously difficult to pin down on google), unless you're super connected and know more than most people here. Getting a little worried since I didn't realize this was that unusual, so this might be outable info.

Still, look at your most senior paralegals at your firm... the ones who have been there for 20+ years. They make bank. And I'm not necessarily talking about litigation paralegals.

However, AFAIK all those firms have imploded or folded due to mismanagement of their capital. I just can't see a V10 being that stupid.


LOL, we're doing just fine bro. I hope the cushion in your armchair is nice, warm and plush.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
I'm getting really tired of this. Obviously there is a disconnect between the "[you] can find" and what I personally know is happening at my firm, unless you're super connected and know more than most people here. Getting a little worried since I didn't realize this was that unusual, so this might be outable info.

Still, look at your most senior paralegals at your firm... the ones who have been there for 20+ years. They make bank. And I'm not necessarily talking about litigation paralegals.


They still don't double a first-year's salary. Even the ones that are technically paralegals but with substantial side responsibilities don't top a senior associate.

Its possible there is a disconnect. Its also possible what you think you know isn't accurate. If its true, I'm just saying be careful...that sounds like a firm being mismanaged.

Edit: To put your claims in perspective, the average paralegal salary at Wachtell is less than $60K without overtime. I actually know someone who is a senior paralegal there (over 20 years), with additional management responsibilities, and she doesn't break $225K WITH overtime.
Last edited by Joe Quincy on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:07 pm

Its possible there is a disconnect. Its also possible what you think you know isn't accurate. If its true, I'm just saying be careful...that sounds like a firm being mismanaged.


Thank you for your sentiment. I'll be sure to convey that to our managing partner.

But seriously, we are probably the healthiest firm out there short of Wachtell. And I am extremely confident that management runs a very tight ship. That's why I chose the firm.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:09 pm

No offense but I'm calling BS. Either you're lying or mistaken.
Last edited by Joe Quincy on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ragelion
Posts: 2302
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:14 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby ragelion » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:09 pm

This argument is fucking stupid.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:10 pm

Joe Quincy wrote:No offense but I'm calling BS. Either you're lying or mistaken.


See below:

ragelion wrote:This argument is fucking stupid.


Thank you.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:11 pm

ragelion wrote:This argument is fucking stupid.


Yeah, you're right. I don't know why it riles me up so much when people spout economically impossible information.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:13 pm

Joe Quincy wrote:
ragelion wrote:This argument is fucking stupid.


Yeah, you're right. I don't know why it riles me up so much when people spout economically impossible information.


You get laid much?

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:15 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:
ragelion wrote:This argument is fucking stupid.


Yeah, you're right. I don't know why it riles me up so much when people spout economically impossible information.


You get laid much?


This morning actually, thanks.

User avatar
TatteredDignity
Posts: 1520
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:06 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby TatteredDignity » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:16 pm

It doesn't have to make economic sense. The paralegal making 300k has dick pics of the managing partner, obviously.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:17 pm

TatteredDignity wrote:It doesn't have to make economic sense. The paralegal making 300k has dick picks of the managing partner, obviously.


LOL, true. More likely the whole compensation committee.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:19 pm

Joe Quincy wrote:
TatteredDignity wrote:It doesn't have to make economic sense. The paralegal making 300k has dick picks of the managing partner, obviously.


LOL, true. More likely the whole compensation committee.


I like how you conceded that this argument is stupid, but you continue to try to push your point in the most obnoxious ways.

Give it a rest and try taking the high ground.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:
TatteredDignity wrote:It doesn't have to make economic sense. The paralegal making 300k has dick picks of the managing partner, obviously.


LOL, true. More likely the whole compensation committee.


I like how you conceded that this argument is stupid, but you continue to try to push your point in the most obnoxious ways.

Give it a rest and try taking the high ground.


I wasn't trying to push anything. I think its you who needs to give it a rest. I've moved on.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:22 pm

Joe Quincy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:
TatteredDignity wrote:It doesn't have to make economic sense. The paralegal making 300k has dick picks of the managing partner, obviously.


LOL, true. More likely the whole compensation committee.


I like how you conceded that this argument is stupid, but you continue to try to push your point in the most obnoxious ways.

Give it a rest and try taking the high ground.


I wasn't trying to push anything. I think its you who needs to give it a rest. I've moved on.


Joe Quincy wrote:
TatteredDignity wrote:It doesn't have to make economic sense. The paralegal making 300k has dick picks of the managing partner, obviously.


LOL, true. More likely the whole compensation committee.
Joe Quincy wrote:
ragelion wrote:This argument is fucking stupid.


Yeah, you're right. I don't know why it riles me up so much when people spout economically impossible information.


Just stop posting.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:24 pm

How does posting my post where I said it was stupid....then my post saying I wasn't pushing anything prove anything? I've moved on. Agreeing with someone making a joke out of the situation isn't continuing the argument. Jesus.

I agreed we were BOTH stupid for arguing. Somehow you've taken that as you have the morally superior ground.

You can stop posting whenever you like. I'll stop when I like. kthx.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:26 pm

Joe Quincy wrote:How does posting my post where I said it was stupid....then my post saying I wasn't pushing anything prove anything? I've moved on. Agreeing with someone making a joke out of the situation isn't continuing the argument. Jesus.

I agreed we were BOTH stupid for arguing. Somehow you've taken that as you have the morally superior ground.

You can stop posting whenever you like. I'll stop when I like. kthx.


Just trying to help you take the high ground. Handing you an olive branch.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:How does posting my post where I said it was stupid....then my post saying I wasn't pushing anything prove anything? I've moved on. Agreeing with someone making a joke out of the situation isn't continuing the argument. Jesus.

I agreed we were BOTH stupid for arguing. Somehow you've taken that as you have the morally superior ground.

You can stop posting whenever you like. I'll stop when I like. kthx.


Just trying to help you take the high ground. Handing you an olive branch.


Really? Because it seems more like you're still trying to win the argument after I've conceded it isn't worth arguing over. Which is a really dick move.

I'm done with you altogether...I apologize to the rest of the people ITT.

NotMyRealName09
Posts: 1396
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby NotMyRealName09 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:34 pm

Joe Quincy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Joe Quincy wrote:How does posting my post where I said it was stupid....then my post saying I wasn't pushing anything prove anything? I've moved on. Agreeing with someone making a joke out of the situation isn't continuing the argument. Jesus.

I agreed we were BOTH stupid for arguing. Somehow you've taken that as you have the morally superior ground.

You can stop posting whenever you like. I'll stop when I like. kthx.


Just trying to help you take the high ground. Handing you an olive branch.


Really? Because it seems more like you're still trying to win the argument after I've conceded it isn't worth arguing over. Which is a really dick move.

I'm done with you altogether...I apologize to the rest of the people ITT.


You two should just fuck and get it over with already.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Joe Quincy » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:35 pm

NotMyRealName09 wrote:You two should just fuck and get it over with already.


I'm not sure my wife would agree with this plan.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby thesealocust » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:36 pm

lawhigh school never ends.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:38 pm

I really hate for this to spill over and continue things, but if it's any help, here's some stuff from publicly verifiable information--a bankruptcy filing by Davis Polk showing their legal fees:

--LinkRemoved--

If you look at page 12, legal assistants (I assume those are paralegals) are going at a rate of $363 an hour. If they billed 2,000 hours a year, they would generate about $726,000 a year. I don't think it's that impossible to conceive of a firm paying an arm and a leg to these folks.

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Stanford4Me » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:39 pm

Where is para when you need her?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273601
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: New associate banter

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:47 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:I really hate for this to spill over and continue things, but if it's any help, here's some stuff from publicly verifiable information--a bankruptcy filing by Davis Polk showing their legal fees:

--LinkRemoved--

If you look at page 12, legal assistants (I assume those are paralegals) are going at a rate of $363 an hour. If they billed 2,000 hours a year, they would generate about $726,000 a year. I don't think it's that impossible to conceive of a firm paying an arm and a leg to these folks.


Our new hire legal assistants (that is our term for paralegals) get very modest salaries, something like $40K / year plus time an a half overtime after 40 hours/week billed.

Not at all sure how that progresses though... and not planning to ask :lol:

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: New associate banter

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:I really hate for this to spill over and continue things, but if it's any help, here's some stuff from publicly verifiable information--a bankruptcy filing by Davis Polk showing their legal fees:

--LinkRemoved--

If you look at page 12, legal assistants (I assume those are paralegals) are going at a rate of $363 an hour. If they billed 2,000 hours a year, they would generate about $726,000 a year. I don't think it's that impossible to conceive of a firm paying an arm and a leg to these folks.


Our new hire legal assistants (that is our term for paralegals) get very modest salaries, something like $40K / year plus time an a half overtime after 40 hours/week billed.

Not at all sure how that progresses though... and not planning to ask :lol:


Yeah, I think that's roughly in line with what new hire paralegals make at any big firm.

I will say (and can only say so much publicly), that it's pretty stark how much firms make off of support staff and attorneys. I have a lot of friends who left big law to start their own firm, and it doesn't take much for them to start earning more than they were as associates simply because they're getting a much higher cut of the money they bill per hour (despite the fact that their hourly rate is substantially lower).




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.