2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

(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.

Bonuses will be _____ from last year

Up
62
61%
Unchanged
34
33%
Down
6
6%
 
Total votes: 102

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Cobretti » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:39 pm

sweeteavodka wrote:
cookiejar1 wrote:
B.B. Homemaker wrote:I was gonna ask what the deal was with $190. Why is that the magic number?


Would you rather the number be 180? Get with the program.

NYC to 190!


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NYC to 190, but that just seems highly unlikely. It's way beyond the rate of inflation, which would put us just over 170. I'm with DF: I think 175 is possible (provided the economy stays strong), with 180 being the upper bound.

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.

ETA: NU as an example. 06/07 tuition was 40k, its 56k now.
Last edited by Cobretti on Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Mal Reynolds » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:41 pm

NYC TO 230!!!

mvp99
Posts: 1384
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby mvp99 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:42 pm

Cobretti wrote:
sweeteavodka wrote:
cookiejar1 wrote:
B.B. Homemaker wrote:I was gonna ask what the deal was with $190. Why is that the magic number?


Would you rather the number be 180? Get with the program.

NYC to 190!


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NYC to 190, but that just seems highly unlikely. It's way beyond the rate of inflation, which would put us just over 170. I'm with DF: I think 175 is possible (provided the economy stays strong), with 180 being the upper bound.

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.


NYC to $183,220.38!

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14408
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:44 pm

230k is right if you are going to keep up with tution raises.

sweeteavodka
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:11 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby sweeteavodka » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:45 pm

Cobretti wrote:
sweeteavodka wrote:
cookiejar1 wrote:
B.B. Homemaker wrote:I was gonna ask what the deal was with $190. Why is that the magic number?


Would you rather the number be 180? Get with the program.

NYC to 190!


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NYC to 190, but that just seems highly unlikely. It's way beyond the rate of inflation, which would put us just over 170. I'm with DF: I think 175 is possible (provided the economy stays strong), with 180 being the upper bound.

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.


This:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.


The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.
Last edited by sweeteavodka on Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15482
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:46 pm

There are "NYC to 190k" posts from 2010 around here. Not sure where that number comes from but I like it.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Cobretti » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:49 pm

sweeteavodka wrote:
Cobretti wrote:I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.


This:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.


The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity recruitment efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.

sweeteavodka
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:11 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby sweeteavodka » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:54 pm

Cobretti wrote:
sweeteavodka wrote:
Cobretti wrote:I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.


This:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.


The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.


It's absolutely a factor, I would agree with that. But when supply is still outstripping demand with enrollment drops and salaries sticky at $160k, it's hard to see how that concern gets you anywhere significant for juniors.

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:54 pm

Cobretti wrote:
sweeteavodka wrote:
Cobretti wrote:I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.


This:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.


The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity recruitment efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.


Dude, no. No one in biglaw, and especially not the partners, gives a fuck about how expensive tuition is. It has nothing at all to do with salaries or bonuses.

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:55 pm

I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Mal Reynolds » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:56 pm

I enjoy when law students speculate on law firm inner workings.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby 2014 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:56 pm

Maybe whichever firm does jack it up might want to go a little too high to try and stop lower ranked competitors from matching though. Most firms at 160 would probably be fine going to 170, but if you jump it straight to 190 it's more likely you create two mainstream tiers of pay within major markets (and maybe the more prestigious firms want this)

User avatar
B.B. Homemaker
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:00 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby B.B. Homemaker » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:05 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:I enjoy when law students speculate on law firm inner workings.

I hear Cravath is switching to Charmin soon, so idk, that could shake things up. I know for a fact that White & Case uses Scott.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Mal Reynolds » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:07 pm

The cream doesn't wipe their bholes with one-ply.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Cobretti » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:08 pm

sweeteavodka wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
sweeteavodka wrote:The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.


It's absolutely a factor, I would agree with that. But when supply is still outstripping demand with enrollment drops and salaries sticky at $160k, it's hard to see how that concern gets you anywhere significant for juniors.

I'm not saying it by itself is going to get us a pay raise, I'm saying when they are determining what to raise it to they will consider it because as much as we like to joke about lawyers being bad at math they aren't morons.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Mal Reynolds » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:10 pm

Cobretti wrote:I'm not saying this is pure speculation, but this is pure speculation.

User avatar
B.B. Homemaker
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:00 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby B.B. Homemaker » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:12 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
Cobretti wrote:I'm not saying this is pure speculation, but this is pure speculation.

Speculative mind-reading got Nino a seat on the bench. Don't hate.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15482
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Tiago Splitter » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:14 pm

2014 wrote:Maybe whichever firm does jack it up might want to go a little too high to try and stop lower ranked competitors from matching though. Most firms at 160 would probably be fine going to 170, but if you jump it straight to 190 it's more likely you create two mainstream tiers of pay within major markets (and maybe the more prestigious firms want this)

The big dogs could have done this at any time, and it might have worked around 2011 when they were doing better and things looked really dicey for firms below the top tier. But I just don't think the top firms care at all about competing with lower ranked firms. Until Cravath starts losing people to Hughes Hubbard it doesn't need to.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14408
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:23 pm

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.


A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby thelawyler » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:25 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.


A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.


But but remember we're the entitled generation.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14408
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:30 pm

(is boomer partner)

(payed 30k total for tution at local TTT)

(makes 2 million a year)

You millenials shouldn't make so much money!

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Cobretti » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:31 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.


A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

I'm saying it would be irrational for the recruitment and compensation committees to not be aware of these facts, and it seems ignorant to assume they're so out of touch that it wouldn't be a factor. I don't know why anyone not on those committees would care though.

PinkRevolver
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:56 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby PinkRevolver » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:52 pm

Cobretti wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.


A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

I'm saying it would be irrational for the recruitment and compensation committees to not be aware of these facts, and it seems ignorant to assume they're so out of touch that it wouldn't be a factor. I don't know why anyone not on those committees would care though.



A partner on the recruitment committee asked me about school tuition this summer during my SA (V50). When I told him the cost of sticker he was absolutely bewildered and said he would never have taken the chance at law in this job market climate. He thought we were crazy for being in school even though we had an SA because you don't even know if after you pass the hurdle of getting an SA if you'll get an offer afterwards (thank God I did). I don't really think tuition is something they keep up with or take into account when determining salary/bonuses.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Cobretti » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:02 am

PinkRevolver wrote:
Cobretti wrote:I'm saying it would be irrational for the recruitment and compensation committees at compensation leading firms to not be aware of these facts, and it seems ignorant to assume they're so out of touch that it wouldn't be a factor. I don't know why anyone not on those committees would care though.



A partner on the recruitment committee asked me about school tuition this summer during my SA (V50). When I told him the cost of sticker he was absolutely bewildered and said he would never have taken the chance at law in this job market climate. He thought we were crazy for being in school even though we had an SA because you don't even know if after you pass the hurdle of getting an SA if you'll get an offer afterwards (thank God I did). I don't really think tuition is something they keep up with or take into account when determining salary/bonuses.

Sorry, fixed. The point is there are people who are in a position to realistically change base compensation that are aware of the market conditions of their pool of applicants, and will consider it because it would be irrational not to.

User avatar
Actus Reus
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: 2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread

Postby Actus Reus » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:04 am

Law firms are pretty poor at finances in most cases anyways. The fact that law firms still use the billable hour, incentivizing themselves to work more and then charging clients is example 1. That's why alternative shit is so popular these days.

Every single client now essentially asks for a capped fee




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.