Top Law Schools

I go to school only 3 hours from my SA city (Midwest) but will be in Florida for two weeks until I start the SA. Is it poor taste to seek reimbursement of the flight from florida to my SA city?

Anonymous User wrote:I go to school only 3 hours from my SA city (Midwest) but will be in Florida for two weeks until I start the SA. Is it poor taste to seek reimbursement of the flight from florida to my SA city?

Would you be taking a flight anyway? If so, perhaps ask if they will get you a flight from FL instead of your home city. Or, considering you are going to be paid several thousand dollars a week for doing nothing that adds value to anything, you could just not be cheap and pay for your own vacation.

If you have to ask, don't do it.

yes, extremely poor taste.

Is your permanent address in Florida? Then MAYBE. Probably don't do it, but maybe.

If you're just going to be on vacation in Florida or something... lol.

this is a tough one. It's pretty standard for SAs to pay for flights to the job. I would say email the pretty female they have listed as the recruiter and ask. Be completely honest and say you are fine covering it yourself but want to know if it's an option.

(I charged my SA for EVERYTHING so far - I want them to know I'm important - I drank a lot at the cocktail portion of the callback too - just how I handle my business)

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Is your permanent address in Florida? Then MAYBE. Probably don't do it, but maybe.

If you're just going to be on vacation in Florida or something... lol.

My parents live in florida, so yeah that's what i consider home - was going back to meet them. That being said i guess the general consensus is not to charge them. I was always planning on going home but i see the point. At the most it would be the miles from school to work (i'll be flying back to school before heading to the SA) but it's only 200 miles so not a big deal

my firms policy is from teh city ur school is to the firm and thats that.

Love OP trying to nickle and dime his firm as an SA when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

TheOnePercent wrote:Love OP trying to nickle and dime his firm as an SA when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

That statement is entirely a lie. More than half of associates leave by then and the firm is still massively profitable.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

And you probably pay back your recruiting, SA, bar, etc. etc. costs by end of year at the absolute latest.

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:Love OP trying to nickle and dime his firm as an SA when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

That statement is entirely a lie. More than half of associates leave by then and the firm is still massively profitable.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

And you probably pay back your recruiting, SA, bar, etc. etc. costs by end of year at the absolute latest.

Yeah I did the math once and if the firm realized half of my billables as a first year they'd almost certainly have covered my comp+overhead with room to spare. It's possible they wrote off literally everything I did, I guess.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:Love OP trying to nickle and dime his firm as an SA when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

That statement is entirely a lie. More than half of associates leave by then and the firm is still massively profitable.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

And you probably pay back your recruiting, SA, bar, etc. etc. costs by end of year at the absolute latest.

Yeah I did the math once and if the firm realized half of my billables as a first year they'd almost certainly have covered my comp+overhead with room to spare. It's possible they wrote off literally everything I did, I guess.

They don't really write off nearly everything. It's true that some clients won't pay for first years (or even juniors) but you just won't get staffed.

Thought the recruiting cost for an associate is a lot higher than you'd think. OCI and SA are very expensive and have to be divided by teh number of associates who actually start. It wouldn't surprise me if it was like over 100k per associate.

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

Conventional wisdom is associate profitability in three to five years, no?

TheOnePercent wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

Conventional wisdom is associate profitability in three to five years, no?

they are just repeating a meme.

I'll bill 850k this year. I'll take back about 195k in salary. Probably 300-400k with overhead.

TheOnePercent wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

Conventional wisdom is associate profitability in three to five years, no?

The biglaw firm I was at over the summer straight up said first years become profitable after 1400 billables. And this was in a presentation designed to make it seem like first years aren't very profitable. Real number is probably even lower.

I'll bill 850k this year. I'll take back about 195k in salary. Probably 300-400k with overhead.[/quote]

DF's office = http://www.3dhousedownload.com/wp-conte ... uarium.jpg

All you really need to do to debunk the notion though is look at the fact that the firms with the largest incoming classes year after year are among the most profitable in the world. Why would they keep themselves so bottom heavy if this was losing them money? It's not as if SC/DPW/STB et al. couldn't counter attrition by pulling laterals from other well regarded firms at will and let the other firms eat the losses for training juniors. Just imagine the salaries they could dangle in front of mid levels at if they were suddenly not losing money on 1/3rd of their attorneys every year.

Honestly, I bet some firms turn a profit off the time they bill from summer associates. Realization rates for some firms are pretty sickening.

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

TheOnePercent wrote:when he won't be a profitable associate until like his 4th year.

If I had to guess: you are cash flow positive the second you start getting actual work (day 1 for some or day 200 for others).

Conventional wisdom is associate profitability in three to five years, no?

they are just repeating a meme.

I'll bill 850k this year. I'll take back about 195k in salary. Probably 300-400k with overhead.

850k billable or realized? I feel like 850k billable would be pretty low for NYC Biglaw rates for someone who's 3-4th year. Isn't $470 for first years pretty common now? (though I've seen higher).

im only second year but i factored in what i think my realization rate is.

Desert Fox wrote:im only second year but i factored in what i think my realization rate is.

195 as a second year? Nice.

KidStuddi wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:im only second year but i factored in what i think my realization rate is.

195 as a second year? Nice.

That's big law market for a second year right now: 170K base + 25K bonus.

rpupkin wrote:

KidStuddi wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:im only second year but i factored in what i think my realization rate is.

195 as a second year? Nice.

That's big law market for a second year right now: 170K base + 25K bonus.

Oh, right. I guess I think of it differently because my firm bumps you in the fall. The bonus you get as a "second-year" comes from your first year, etc.

This would have been completely fine at my firm