Page 1 of 2

biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:33 pm
by Anonymous User
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?

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:39 pm
by lurklaw
2026

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:40 pm
by jd20132013
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

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:45 pm
by jkpolk
IT'S HAPPENING!!!!

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:54 pm
by Anonymous User
My firm is still one of the 2-3 of the v100 at 160k in NYC :(. I just want 180k. Please.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:55 am
by jd20132013
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

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:50 am
by Anonymous User
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)

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:30 pm
by Anonymous User
Yeah I got something along the lines of “YOUR BONUS THIS YEAR” but it was from Thompson Reuters.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:50 pm
by Anonymous User
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)?

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:55 pm
by Monochromatic Oeuvre
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:06 pm
by Anonymous User
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:11 pm
by FascinatedWanderer
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:17 pm
by LaLiLuLeLo
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:18 pm
by Veil of Ignorance
I'll bet on 2027. I think firms went to 160k from 145k in 2007, which is all my evidence.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:52 pm
by PorscheFanatic
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:24 pm
by KijiStewart
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:32 pm
by FascinatedWanderer
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...

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:23 pm
by RaceJudicata
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:36 pm
by UVA2B
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:02 pm
by oblig.lawl.ref
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!

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:03 pm
by UVA2B
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:07 pm
by oblig.lawl.ref
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."

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:14 pm
by UVA2B
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:45 am
by Anonymous User
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.

Re: biglaw to 200k??

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:24 pm
by PorscheFanatic
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).