NYC 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: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:32 pm

Firms are raking in the paper and the top firms are busy as hell. Is this the summer we jump to 200k?

Rumors/thoughts/analysis in this thread.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:32 pm

no

Anonymous User
Posts: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:32 pm

Considering that several firms have been secretly cutting junior/mid-level attorneys instead, I'd say no.

albanach

Silver
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby albanach » Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:08 pm

With all the lifestyle complaints, maybe associates should be campaigning to get NY closer to 2,000 billable hours rather than more $$$?

oblig.lawl.ref

Bronze
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby oblig.lawl.ref » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:51 pm

albanach wrote:With all the lifestyle complaints, maybe associates should be campaigning to get NY closer to 2,000 billable hours rather than more $$$?


Hell ya buddy

gaddockteeg

Bronze
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:33 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby gaddockteeg » Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:32 pm

albanach wrote:With all the lifestyle complaints, maybe associates should be campaigning to get NY closer to 2,000 billable hours rather than more $$$?


I like you.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Considering that several firms have been secretly cutting junior/mid-level attorneys instead, I'd say no.


Has that been happening again recently? Or are you referencing the firms that did this after the last pay jump?

Love With The Coco

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Love With The Coco » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:12 pm

He's referring to firms that are not raking in the dough like the 10 firms that are at all relevant in this conversation. The top firms set market and that's all the matters for this convo.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:54 pm

If Kirkland goes to 200k, the other top players will follow. The other 95% will just give up trying to keep up.

But with cheaper legal options popping up regularly now, I don’t see it being that sustainable. At the end of the day, partners care more about their bottom lines than about associate happiness.

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2859
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby nealric » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:17 am

Anonymous User wrote:If Kirkland goes to 200k, the other top players will follow. The other 95% will just give up trying to keep up.

But with cheaper legal options popping up regularly now, I don’t see it being that sustainable. At the end of the day, partners care more about their bottom lines than about associate happiness.


The top 10-25 players (ish) are able to regularly attract work where cost is effectively no object. The next 75-100 or so firms on the list occasionally attract such work, but have to fill their dockets with lower margin stuff. They are getting squeezed by lower-cost options and an increased reliance on in-house staff by large corporate players.

Frankly, it was sort of crazy that the firms outside the very top have tried to play the "Cravath Scale" salary game at all. Problem was that once one firm did it, they felt like they had to or else be judged as "second tier." It's worth noting that a lot of them advertise the big-bold first year starting salary, but then dive below that scale in senior ranks or are considerably more stingy about bonuses (maybe not headline numbers, but in restricting the number of associates actually receiving market bonus).

Anonymous User
Posts: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Considering that several firms have been secretly cutting junior/mid-level attorneys instead, I'd say no.


Has that been happening again recently? Or are you referencing the firms that did this after the last pay jump?


Which firms have been doing this?

Love With The Coco

New
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Love With The Coco » Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Considering that several firms have been secretly cutting junior/mid-level attorneys instead, I'd say no.


Has that been happening again recently? Or are you referencing the firms that did this after the last pay jump?


Which firms have been doing this?


None of the 3-4 firms that might move us to 200k.

Anonymous User
Posts: 321672
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:34 am

Nearing the 2 year mark and the V5 is wildly profitable yet bleeding midlevels. Feeling like summer 18 will be good to us.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby jd20132013 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:47 am

at what point are firms going to accept that they bleed midlevels because they give them too much work to do in a humane fashion and not because they aren’t making 50k more

MillllerTime

New
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:02 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby MillllerTime » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:23 am

jd20132013 wrote:at what point are firms going to accept that they bleed midlevels because they give them too much work to do in a humane fashion and not because they aren’t making 50k more


Mostly true, but every man has his price. Raising salaries probably doesn't help much against the in house moves, but I don't think many midlevels at a v10 (or whatever silly metric you want to use) would jump to a v100 firm if they pay cut were substantial. The quality of life just isn't that different (on average), so you might as well take the money.

It seems like the logic behind pay increases from Cravath et al is to separate themselves from the middle tier of firms that cannot afford to pay as much. It almost worked with the raise to 180k - another 20k would almost certainly separate a handful of firms from the pack.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby jd20132013 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:37 am

MillllerTime wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:at what point are firms going to accept that they bleed midlevels because they give them too much work to do in a humane fashion and not because they aren’t making 50k more


Mostly true, but every man has his price. Raising salaries probably doesn't help much against the in house moves, but I don't think many midlevels at a v10 (or whatever silly metric you want to use) would jump to a v100 firm if they pay cut were substantial. The quality of life just isn't that different (on average), so you might as well take the money.

It seems like the logic behind pay increases from Cravath et al is to separate themselves from the middle tier of firms that cannot afford to pay as much. It almost worked with the raise to 180k - another 20k would almost certainly separate a handful of firms from the pack.


Fair point, I was thinking more about midlevels leaving biglaw altogether more than laterals “down.” I guess it would make a bigger difference for a midlevel who wants to stay in big law.

User avatar
smokeylarue

Silver
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby smokeylarue » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:52 am

MillllerTime wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:at what point are firms going to accept that they bleed midlevels because they give them too much work to do in a humane fashion and not because they aren’t making 50k more


Mostly true, but every man has his price. Raising salaries probably doesn't help much against the in house moves, but I don't think many midlevels at a v10 (or whatever silly metric you want to use) would jump to a v100 firm if they pay cut were substantial. The quality of life just isn't that different (on average), so you might as well take the money.

It seems like the logic behind pay increases from Cravath et al is to separate themselves from the middle tier of firms that cannot afford to pay as much. It almost worked with the raise to 180k - another 20k would almost certainly separate a handful of firms from the pack.


If that was the goal, it didn't "almost work", didn't work at all lol. Nearly everyone followed the move to 180k, even firms outside the national Vault100 firms.

User avatar
rahulg91

Bronze
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:30 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby rahulg91 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:28 pm

smokeylarue wrote:
MillllerTime wrote:
jd20132013 wrote:at what point are firms going to accept that they bleed midlevels because they give them too much work to do in a humane fashion and not because they aren’t making 50k more


Mostly true, but every man has his price. Raising salaries probably doesn't help much against the in house moves, but I don't think many midlevels at a v10 (or whatever silly metric you want to use) would jump to a v100 firm if they pay cut were substantial. The quality of life just isn't that different (on average), so you might as well take the money.

It seems like the logic behind pay increases from Cravath et al is to separate themselves from the middle tier of firms that cannot afford to pay as much. It almost worked with the raise to 180k - another 20k would almost certainly separate a handful of firms from the pack.


If that was the goal, it didn't "almost work", didn't work at all lol. Nearly everyone followed the move to 180k, even firms outside the national Vault100 firms.


It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.

User avatar
smokeylarue

Silver
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby smokeylarue » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:20 pm

rahulg91 wrote: It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.


Really not true at all. The point is, for the most part, the dude at Cravath is still making the same amount as the dude at a firm like Schulte Roth Zabel. Whatever firms lagging in compensation were already lagging before the 180k jump.

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:16 pm

smokeylarue wrote:
rahulg91 wrote: It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.


Really not true at all. The point is, for the most part, the dude at Cravath is still making the same amount as the dude at a firm like Schulte Roth Zabel. Whatever firms lagging in compensation were already lagging before the 180k jump.


I'm not going to go back-and-forth with you. Look around the ATL bonus updates. There's a noticeable uptick in below-market bonus and Jones Day "black boxes" where associates get screwed out of bonuses. More firms are requiring a certain number of hours or some other barrier to bonus. Look at Baker McKenzie as the most obvious example of a firm trying to get out of paying market compensation (most likely because its poor financial health) https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/facing- ... ssociates/.

It's pretty clear. Deny it if you want. NY to 200k.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10263
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:18 pm

smokeylarue wrote:
rahulg91 wrote: It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.


Really not true at all. The point is, for the most part, the dude at Cravath is still making the same amount as the dude at a firm like Schulte Roth Zabel. Whatever firms lagging in compensation were already lagging before the 180k jump.


All of my friends who arent at top flight firms like davis polk/cravath/quinn/ect. have seen weird shit happen with their comp structures. Usually this means cutting some associates out of a bonus for hours or staggering bonuses so they are no longer market, but I am familiar with several V50 firms that have not increased associate pay in lock step beyond the 180k starting. And even if firms are not literally underpaying associates in base or bonus, they are playing accounting tricks by fudging payout dates (march instead of december for bonus, starting the salary jump two months late, ect.).

thisismytlsuername

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:22 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby thisismytlsuername » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:51 pm

jbagelboy wrote:All of my friends who arent at top flight firms like davis polk/cravath/quinn/ect. have seen weird shit happen with their comp structures. Usually this means cutting some associates out of a bonus for hours or staggering bonuses so they are no longer market, but I am familiar with several V50 firms that have not increased associate pay in lock step beyond the 180k starting. And even if firms are not literally underpaying associates in base or bonus, they are playing accounting tricks by fudging payout dates (march instead of december for bonus, starting the salary jump two months late, ect.).


Subtle Quinn trolling.

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:29 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:
rahulg91 wrote: It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.


Really not true at all. The point is, for the most part, the dude at Cravath is still making the same amount as the dude at a firm like Schulte Roth Zabel. Whatever firms lagging in compensation were already lagging before the 180k jump.


All of my friends who arent at top flight firms like davis polk/cravath/quinn/ect. have seen weird shit happen with their comp structures. Usually this means cutting some associates out of a bonus for hours or staggering bonuses so they are no longer market, but I am familiar with several V50 firms that have not increased associate pay in lock step beyond the 180k starting. And even if firms are not literally underpaying associates in base or bonus, they are playing accounting tricks by fudging payout dates (march instead of december for bonus, starting the salary jump two months late, ect.).


+1. Firms are trying to keep up with the Joneses and failing. They're covering it up by screwing associates wherever possible.

User avatar
cfcm

Silver
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:30 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby cfcm » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:07 pm

Stipulating that it worked, what exactly has the benefit been to Cravath? I’ve never really understood the separation theory.

2013

New
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:29 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby 2013 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:20 pm

I understand this separation theory comment, but did Cravath ever consider any non-v10 firm competition? Very few people would have turned down Cravath, etc. to go to Nixon Peabody or something.

The only firms Cravath is concerned about all are capable of paying first year associates 200+ if they so choose to.

Also, to the person above who mentioned the dearth of senior associates, how does raising first year salary help with that? The only way to fix that problem is to give massive bonuses to senior associates (50% like these boutiques are doing).



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.