Biglaw Salaries going up?

(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
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What do we think about how this will affect tertiary markets with satellite V100 offices?

My guess is not much, if any, at all. But I guess we can hope.


Well 190 isn't happening, but I doubt it would affect tertiary markets for a while. The rise in work has been almost entirely corporate work, which isn't huge outside of NYC. It wouldn't surprise me if Chicago and DC wouldn't even follow a move.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:55 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What do we think about how this will affect tertiary markets with satellite V100 offices?

My guess is not much, if any, at all. But I guess we can hope.


Well 190 isn't happening, but I doubt it would affect tertiary markets for a while. The rise in work has been almost entirely corporate work, which isn't huge outside of NYC. It wouldn't surprise me if Chicago and DC wouldn't even follow a move.

Hmm, you really don't think that Chicago / DC would try to stay competitive in this hypo?

Otherwise, ty for the response. You may be totally right.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What do we think about how this will affect tertiary markets with satellite V100 offices?

My guess is not much, if any, at all. But I guess we can hope.


Well 190 isn't happening, but I doubt it would affect tertiary markets for a while. The rise in work has been almost entirely corporate work, which isn't huge outside of NYC. It wouldn't surprise me if Chicago and DC wouldn't even follow a move.

Hmm, you really don't think that Chicago / DC would try to stay competitive in this hypo?

Otherwise, ty for the response. You may be totally right.


In the past they lagged a bit and even today an awful lot of DC and Chicago firms aren't really lockstep with cravath. Some of chicago is really at 145 and some is 160k but with black box raises. In DC some firms have a 160k, but only after you bill 1900 hours set up.

DC and Chicago based firms tend to have smaller RPL and smaller PPP. 4th years already make 275k under cravath + bonus. That is a large chunk of their RPL.

A&P- a DC powerhouse just released half DPW bonuses for non-NYC offices.

KM2016
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:20 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby KM2016 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
utahraptor wrote:Everybody to 190

Everybody to the limit!


The limit does not exist.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:41 am

My mentor, a partner at a V10, said that he discussed topic with managing partner of the entire firm. Managing partner said that top firms are having legitmate conversations about raising salaries, and that our firm would have no problem matching but wouldn't be the one that leads.

From everyone I've talked to (law school friends, opposing counsel), it sounds like top firms are struggling to keep mid-level and senior associates from going in-house since the pay is pretty similiar and lifestyle is much better.

At the same time, no shortage of qualified T14 students coming out of law schools, even if applications are down for law schools nationwide.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby utahraptor » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:42 am

Anonymous User wrote:legitmate conversations


the conversations are legitimate

NY to 190 = confirmed

bravos89
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby bravos89 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:38 am

utahraptor wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:legitmate conversations


the conversations are legitimate

NY to 190 = confirmed


2 Legit 2 Quit

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby fats provolone » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:21 am

if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of profirmed?

User avatar
UnicornHunter
Posts: 13507
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby UnicornHunter » Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:45 am

I don't know if this article was posted ITT or not (it's a month old), but it seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... nus-babies

TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.

User avatar
cookiejar1
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby cookiejar1 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:06 am

utahraptor wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:legitmate conversations


the conversations are legitimate

NY to 190 = confirmed


this. the post directly above me is trash. ny to 190 confirmed. ljl @ the economist - we're talking about legitimate conversations at a v10 here.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby 2014 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:41 am

TheUnicornHunter wrote:I don't know if this article was posted ITT or not (it's a month old), but it seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... nus-babies

TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.

I heard the article has been redacted by the author, just a lag by IT getting it taken down. Raise to 190k confirmed as early as this week.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby utahraptor » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:08 am

TheUnicornHunter wrote:I don't know if this article was posted ITT or not (it's a month old), but it seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... nus-babies

TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.

Image


ETA: NY TO 190!!

User avatar
Yardbird
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:45 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Yardbird » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:56 am

utahraptor wrote:ETA: NY TO 190!!
Image

FTFY.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby utahraptor » Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:37 pm

that's exactly what I didn't want, you dullard

WhirledWorld
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby WhirledWorld » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:33 pm

.
Last edited by WhirledWorld on Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cookiejar1
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby cookiejar1 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:03 pm

WhirledWorld wrote:It's a vicious cycle. Midlevels leave because they're busy as fuck. This results in more and more work being piled on the remaining midlevels. Who then leave because they're busy as fuck.

You know what would be a legit way to keep us around? Retirement bennies. My secretary, legal assistant, that dude in IT -- they all get matching for like 5% of their base pay into their 401K. Counsels get it too. So why shaft the associates? It's tax advantaged, it could easily bump us up to 190k, and it sends a message that's not "this is obviously for the super short term.


WhirledWorld wrote:it could easily bump us up to 190k,


WhirledWorld wrote:up to 190k


WhirledWorld wrote:190k

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:08 pm

WhirledWorld wrote:It's a vicious cycle. Midlevels leave because they're busy as fuck. This results in more and more work being piled on the remaining midlevels. Who then leave because they're busy as fuck.

You know what would be a legit way to keep us around? Retirement bennies. My secretary, legal assistant, that dude in IT -- they all get matching for like 5% of their base pay into their 401K. Counsels get it too. So why shaft the associates? It's tax advantaged, it could easily bump us up to 190k, and it sends a message that's not "this is obviously for the super short term.

My firm does 4%. Not matched, they just put it in whether you participate or not. Pretty sure it's so the partners can satisfy Safe Harbor Plan requirements.

The vesting schedule where I worked before school was 5 years @ 20% per year and the pension vesting schedule was 5 years (no vested value at all before 5 years). So maybe in order to keep folks around they could have an end-weighted vesting schedule on matching contributions?

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

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby mvp99 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:19 pm

New scale from a legitimate source:

190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby fats provolone » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:20 pm

how legitimate?

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

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Cobretti » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:34 pm

fats provolone wrote:how legitimate?

too legitimate... source outed as mc hammer

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby rpupkin » Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:34 pm

mvp99 wrote:New scale from a legitimate source:

190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310

Confirmed.

KM2016
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:20 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby KM2016 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:20 pm

rpupkin wrote:
mvp99 wrote:New scale from a legitimate source:

190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310

Confirmed.


This is too good to be true, right?

anonnymouse
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby anonnymouse » Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:09 pm

KM2016 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
mvp99 wrote:New scale from a legitimate source:

190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310

Confirmed.


This is too good to be true, right?

Good lord the millennials have turned this bort to SPS.

NYC to 190, Texas to 4000 sq ft wife and a new (not CPO) lexis.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
WhirledWorld wrote:It's a vicious cycle. Midlevels leave because they're busy as fuck. This results in more and more work being piled on the remaining midlevels. Who then leave because they're busy as fuck.

You know what would be a legit way to keep us around? Retirement bennies. My secretary, legal assistant, that dude in IT -- they all get matching for like 5% of their base pay into their 401K. Counsels get it too. So why shaft the associates? It's tax advantaged, it could easily bump us up to 190k, and it sends a message that's not "this is obviously for the super short term.

My firm does 4%. Not matched, they just put it in whether you participate or not. Pretty sure it's so the partners can satisfy Safe Harbor Plan requirements.

The vesting schedule where I worked before school was 5 years @ 20% per year and the pension vesting schedule was 5 years (no vested value at all before 5 years). So maybe in order to keep folks around they could have an end-weighted vesting schedule on matching contributions?


Associates (paid at the market scale, or even below market down to the mid-low 100s) are HCEs, so this can't be the reason. This is why the retirement plans at most firms are separated between staff-partners and associates, though. Adding in the associates to the staff-partner might cause there to be too many HCEs participating (though of course they could get around this by automatically contributing some amount on behalf of staff--it's really to screw the associates).

Never heard of a firm doing mandatory contributions. Is it mandatory, or just opt-out? Are you at biglaw (NYC?) or a smaller firm?

Also, heard a rumor at my firm that we're going to 210 next week. We're going to skip 190 entirely. Sorry, bros.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273560
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Associates (paid at the market scale, or even below market down to the mid-low 100s) are HCEs, so this can't be the reason. This is why the retirement plans at most firms are separated between staff-partners and associates, though. Adding in the associates to the staff-partner might cause there to be too many HCEs participating (though of course they could get around this by automatically contributing some amount on behalf of staff--it's really to screw the associates).

Never heard of a firm doing mandatory contributions. Is it mandatory, or just opt-out? Are you at biglaw (NYC?) or a smaller firm?

Also, heard a rumor at my firm that we're going to 210 next week. We're going to skip 190 entirely. Sorry, bros.

1. I don't think all associates are necessarily HCEs because they'd also have to be in the Top-Paid Group (top 20%).

2. It's not really mandatory contributions in the sense of taking from top-line salary. For example, ignoring taxes and bonus, if your annual salary was $160k, you still grossed $160k for the year but the partners add in $6400 to your 401k whether you contribute or not. So, in that sense, it's neither mandatory nor opt-out. Or I guess you could think of it as having annual salary of $166,400 with mandatory $6,400 contribution.

3. NYC boutique that pays above market, plus a few other benefits (e.g. the 401k contribution).




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.