biglaw to 200k??

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:33 pm

when are salaries gonna go to 190k or 200k? according to associates at my v20 firm, the management committee had decided they would agree to raise starting salaries higher than the 180k but then when cravath moved they decided to obviously follow that. anyone predict when the next raise will come?

lurklaw
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby lurklaw » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:39 pm

2026

jd20132013
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:when are salaries gonna go to 190k or 200k? according to associates at my v20 firm, the management committee had decided they would agree to raise starting salaries higher than the 180k but then when cravath moved they decided to obviously follow that. anyone predict when the next raise will come?


This sounds like bullshit leaked by the mgmt committee to get the retention benefits of a soon-coming raise without planning to raise. If u are in biglaw now I wouldn't make any plans on it during your likely tenure

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby jkpolk » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:45 pm

IT'S HAPPENING!!!!

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:54 pm

My firm is still one of the 2-3 of the v100 at 160k in NYC :(. I just want 180k. Please.

jd20132013
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby jd20132013 » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:55 am

Anonymous User wrote:My firm is still one of the 2-3 of the v100 at 160k in NYC :(. I just want 180k. Please.


u should leave

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:50 am

Lol firmwide email this morning as it displayed in my inbox :

Re: NYC SALARY

(Open the rest of the email to see that the email is actually from HR and titled NYC SALARY HISTORY LAW)

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:30 pm

Yeah I got something along the lines of “YOUR BONUS THIS YEAR” but it was from Thompson Reuters.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:50 pm

Are people really thinking we could see a raise this year? Either in salary or bonus, or both?
Is there any particular reason this thread is popping up now, like would firms actually consider a raise during the holidays?

And is this something that you think would be specific to NY, or all Biglaw offices on the NY scale that match Cravath (or whoever would set the new scale)?

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:when are salaries gonna go to 190k or 200k? according to associates at my v20 firm, the management committee had decided they would agree to raise starting salaries higher than the 180k but then when cravath moved they decided to obviously follow that. anyone predict when the next raise will come?


TBH it would be better to slow-cook this flame over a period of several months rather than just shooting your whole wad now.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:06 pm

jd20132013 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My firm is still one of the 2-3 of the v100 at 160k in NYC :(. I just want 180k. Please.


u should leave


I agree, but this was the only offer I got at OCI and didn't get bites during 3L oci. As a junior, I dont want to rock the boat and just be locked out of biglaw completely.

FascinatedWanderer
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby FascinatedWanderer » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:11 pm

I don't know if it will happen, but there should definitely be a premium for NYC salaries. There's no reason associates in any other market should get paid as much as NYC lawyers.

In those markets that have similar high costs (really only SF) associates work fewer hours on average. NYC has the most brutal combination of high costs and rough hours. There's no reason for associates in random markets like Chicago to be on the same scale.

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:17 pm

FascinatedWanderer wrote:I don't know if it will happen, but there should definitely be a premium for NYC salaries. There's no reason associates in any other market should get paid as much as NYC lawyers.

In those markets that have similar high costs (really only SF) associates work fewer hours on average. NYC has the most brutal combination of high costs and rough hours. There's no reason for associates in random markets like Chicago to be on the same scale.


If associates are billed out at the same rate they should be paid the same. Not our fault you suckers decided to work in NYC while we were chilling at the beach billing 1800 a year.

Veil of Ignorance
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:22 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Veil of Ignorance » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:18 pm

I'll bet on 2027. I think firms went to 160k from 145k in 2007, which is all my evidence.

PorscheFanatic
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby PorscheFanatic » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:52 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:I don't know if it will happen, but there should definitely be a premium for NYC salaries. There's no reason associates in any other market should get paid as much as NYC lawyers.

In those markets that have similar high costs (really only SF) associates work fewer hours on average. NYC has the most brutal combination of high costs and rough hours. There's no reason for associates in random markets like Chicago to be on the same scale.


If associates are billed out at the same rate they should be paid the same. Not our fault you suckers decided to work in NYC while we were chilling at the beach billing 1800 a year.


^. One could also argue that NY associates have other benefits, specifically thinking of lateraling/exit options down the road. I don't have experience with this as a junior, but when I was going through OCI it seemed to be the consensus that if you started in NY, you could someday lateral out to any other market, since NY is still viewed as the "best" training by some/many. The flip side isn't true or at least is not as easily done, in that it is super hard to lateral into NY from another market.

KijiStewart
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:00 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby KijiStewart » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:24 pm

I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.

FascinatedWanderer
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:12 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby FascinatedWanderer » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:32 pm

KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.



Well, if you've posted about it several times...

RaceJudicata
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby RaceJudicata » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:23 pm

KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.


dude, you just went through OCI.

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby UVA2B » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:36 pm

KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.


Seriously, you posted several times about it, and you got a pretty uniform answer. NYC generally has a more intense workload, but a better work-life balance isn't guaranteed in another market. If you can't understand when people joke about having it easier because they're not doing that NYC life (even if there is a kernel of truth to it), then you should focus on understanding nuance. Generally speaking, LA is less intense than NYC, but it'd be stupid to think LA=easy life. Same goes for Houston, or Miami, or Denver, or...you get the idea. Especially when dealing with national and international firms, you also have to remember that while office cultures will differ, the overall firm culture will still affect your work flow and work-life balance. Just because you're at Skadden DE doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're not an associate at Skadden. It just means you have a marginal shot at having less demanding hours.

You shouldn't get into this job for work-life balance, at least in the private big firm. Stop lamenting it.

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:02 pm

UVA2B wrote:
KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.


Seriously, you posted several times about it, and you got a pretty uniform answer. NYC generally has a more intense workload, but a better work-life balance isn't guaranteed in another market. If you can't understand when people joke about having it easier because they're not doing that NYC life (even if there is a kernel of truth to it), then you should focus on understanding nuance. Generally speaking, LA is less intense than NYC, but it'd be stupid to think LA=easy life. Same goes for Houston, or Miami, or Denver, or...you get the idea. Especially when dealing with national and international firms, you also have to remember that while office cultures will differ, the overall firm culture will still affect your work flow and work-life balance. Just because you're at Skadden DE doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're not an associate at Skadden. It just means you have a marginal shot at having less demanding hours.

You shouldn't get into this job for work-life balance, at least in the private big firm. Stop lamenting it.


I'm gonna recommend you guys head on over to the "how many hours is too many" thread where we're crowdsourcing some very interesting info on this at this v moment!

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby UVA2B » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:03 pm

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.


Seriously, you posted several times about it, and you got a pretty uniform answer. NYC generally has a more intense workload, but a better work-life balance isn't guaranteed in another market. If you can't understand when people joke about having it easier because they're not doing that NYC life (even if there is a kernel of truth to it), then you should focus on understanding nuance. Generally speaking, LA is less intense than NYC, but it'd be stupid to think LA=easy life. Same goes for Houston, or Miami, or Denver, or...you get the idea. Especially when dealing with national and international firms, you also have to remember that while office cultures will differ, the overall firm culture will still affect your work flow and work-life balance. Just because you're at Skadden DE doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're not an associate at Skadden. It just means you have a marginal shot at having less demanding hours.

You shouldn't get into this job for work-life balance, at least in the private big firm. Stop lamenting it.


I'm gonna recommend you guys head on over to the "how many hours is too many" thread where we're crowdsourcing some very interesting info on this at this v moment!


I'm fully aware, but thanks for proving the point I already made.

oblig.lawl.ref
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:07 pm

UVA2B wrote:
oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.


Seriously, you posted several times about it, and you got a pretty uniform answer. NYC generally has a more intense workload, but a better work-life balance isn't guaranteed in another market. If you can't understand when people joke about having it easier because they're not doing that NYC life (even if there is a kernel of truth to it), then you should focus on understanding nuance. Generally speaking, LA is less intense than NYC, but it'd be stupid to think LA=easy life. Same goes for Houston, or Miami, or Denver, or...you get the idea. Especially when dealing with national and international firms, you also have to remember that while office cultures will differ, the overall firm culture will still affect your work flow and work-life balance. Just because you're at Skadden DE doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're not an associate at Skadden. It just means you have a marginal shot at having less demanding hours.

You shouldn't get into this job for work-life balance, at least in the private big firm. Stop lamenting it.


I'm gonna recommend you guys head on over to the "how many hours is too many" thread where we're crowdsourcing some very interesting info on this at this v moment!


I'm fully aware, but thanks for proving the point I already made.


You seem like a neat person. Not sure that that thread really "proves" any "point" you made. That may be a tad of a "reach."

User avatar
UVA2B
Posts: 2936
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby UVA2B » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:14 pm

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
oblig.lawl.ref wrote:
UVA2B wrote:
KijiStewart wrote:I've posted the issue of NY v. Non-NY hours several times on TLS, and the consensus was that the idea of a better work-like balance outside NY is far from guaranteed, and if it is better, then only marginally.


Seriously, you posted several times about it, and you got a pretty uniform answer. NYC generally has a more intense workload, but a better work-life balance isn't guaranteed in another market. If you can't understand when people joke about having it easier because they're not doing that NYC life (even if there is a kernel of truth to it), then you should focus on understanding nuance. Generally speaking, LA is less intense than NYC, but it'd be stupid to think LA=easy life. Same goes for Houston, or Miami, or Denver, or...you get the idea. Especially when dealing with national and international firms, you also have to remember that while office cultures will differ, the overall firm culture will still affect your work flow and work-life balance. Just because you're at Skadden DE doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're not an associate at Skadden. It just means you have a marginal shot at having less demanding hours.

You shouldn't get into this job for work-life balance, at least in the private big firm. Stop lamenting it.


I'm gonna recommend you guys head on over to the "how many hours is too many" thread where we're crowdsourcing some very interesting info on this at this v moment!


I'm fully aware, but thanks for proving the point I already made.


You seem like a neat person. Not sure that that thread really "proves" any "point" you made. That may be a tad of a "reach."


I'm sorry, are you saying the thread proves nothing at all, or that it proves a very different point than I've made? My point, if not clear, was that the types of hours required isn't strictly based on the market, but also involves firm & practice group, work flow in that year, and specific partners someone works with. That could happen in NYC (and probably does more often, FWIW, even if that can't be quantified), or it could happen in pretty much any market that is busier.

Maybe I'm objectively naive about how you're refuting what I've said, but so far I'm not seeing it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 301609
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:45 am

FascinatedWanderer wrote:I don't know if it will happen, but there should definitely be a premium for NYC salaries. There's no reason associates in any other market should get paid as much as NYC lawyers.

In those markets that have similar high costs (really only SF) associates work fewer hours on average. NYC has the most brutal combination of high costs and rough hours. There's no reason for associates in random markets like Chicago to be on the same scale.


This won’t happen until more people start turning down nyc firms for non-nyc firms.

2 of my friends chose nyc biglaw over Texas biglaw. Plenty others chose nyc over Chicago/DC/etc. Some of them prestige driven, some of the actually like nyc.

To be fair to nyc, it is a pretty fuckin bomb city. Believe it or not, lots of people want to be there and are willing to pay the premium. Enough so that nyc doesn’t need to raise salaries to compete with non-nyc firms/offices for new hires.

Also, the firms that need to “feel the pain” are the market leaders in nyc: cravath, etc. White & Case isn’t gonna be the first to hike to 200k because they have to hire more sub-median kids from Cornell. And cravath isn’t gonna be hurting for top candidates anytime soon.

PorscheFanatic
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Postby PorscheFanatic » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:24 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
FascinatedWanderer wrote:I don't know if it will happen, but there should definitely be a premium for NYC salaries. There's no reason associates in any other market should get paid as much as NYC lawyers.

In those markets that have similar high costs (really only SF) associates work fewer hours on average. NYC has the most brutal combination of high costs and rough hours. There's no reason for associates in random markets like Chicago to be on the same scale.


This won’t happen until more people start turning down nyc firms for non-nyc firms.

2 of my friends chose nyc biglaw over Texas biglaw. Plenty others chose nyc over Chicago/DC/etc. Some of them prestige driven, some of the actually like nyc.

To be fair to nyc, it is a pretty fuckin bomb city. Believe it or not, lots of people want to be there and are willing to pay the premium. Enough so that nyc doesn’t need to raise salaries to compete with non-nyc firms/offices for new hires.

Also, the firms that need to “feel the pain” are the market leaders in nyc: cravath, etc. White & Case isn’t gonna be the first to hike to 200k because they have to hire more sub-median kids from Cornell. And cravath isn’t gonna be hurting for top candidates anytime soon.


Pretty sure this hits the nail on the head. The compensation leaders aren't going to hurt for candidates, because most people are not turning down Cravath, WLRK, etc. to go to a smaller market with a shot at work-life balance. They'll put in their dues in these top firms, then someday lateral to a smaller market. And everyone else going to NY does so because they don't have ties to other markets and it's where all the jobs are, or they want the NY lifestyle/training/experience.

So, NY won't be getting a salary premium unless people start turning down the TOP firms for non-NY jobs (which won't happen, IMO). Also, to keep quality candidates coming to smaller markets, those markets need to offer something better than NY, such as equal income, better COL, to attract candidates away from NY (because it really is an awesome city and the mecca of legal work in many respects).




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.