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: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can't believe I didn't know Cooley paid above market bonuses. WTF Fenwick/WSGR...?


I wouldn’t count on the above-market thing. Seems like Gunderson or WSGR is the place to bid, rising 2Ls!


Let's make above-market market again

User avatar
5ky

Diamond
Posts: 10827
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby 5ky » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:09 pm

didn't NRF lose a huge chunk of attorneys/partners like a month or two ago?

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:24 pm

Any ideas of when raises will trickle down to the AmLaw 50-100 based off of the timing of the 2016 raises? Few more weeks?

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:41 pm

Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?

User avatar
hoos89

Gold
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby hoos89 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_parallelism

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:11 pm

hoos89 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_parallelism


one of my favorite features on this site is when non-Antitrust attorneys try to sound smart

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?


Since when does employee compensation raise antitrust concerns?

User avatar
hoos89

Gold
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby hoos89 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
hoos89 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_parallelism


one of my favorite features on this site is when non-Antitrust attorneys try to sound smart


Brave anon. Didn't realize that only antitrust attorneys can be smart, my apologies. Please explain what the correct answer is, then.

cocobyrum

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby cocobyrum » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:17 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?


Since when does employee compensation raise antitrust concerns?


Since it could be an agreement among competitors to fix prices. See, e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Te ... Litigation.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why all these firms moving in concert doesn't raise antitrust concerns?


When Pepsi sees Coke raise prices it does the same. Firms are expected to respond to market moves.

If Pepsi knows Coke is going to raise prices (from sources other than collusion) and does it at the same, it is still just responding to market pressures, albeit anticipated pressures.

If Pepsi calls up Coke and discusses the price increase, it might still not be an antitrust violation but it starts to look a lot worse.

An antitrust violation occurs when Pepsi and Coke work together to raise (or lower, for that matter) prices to benefit themselves to the detriment of consumers or competitors.

Delicious, refreshing Milbank is Pepsi, raising the price it pays for labor responding to the anticipated market pressure of Cravath, the stale old Coke of this analogy.


But please, any super smart anonymous antitrust attorneys feel free to jump in and correct me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:PPP isn't the relevant metric. Elite boutiques like W&C (because yes, it is elite) have lower PPP because they aren't heavily leveraged.

Example: Paul, Weiss might have a very high PPP but when leverage is like 6 associates to 1 partner, increasing every $10k increase is a $60k hit to a partner. At an elite boutique where there the ratio is 1:1, a $10k increase is only a $10k hit to the partner.

Also, Boies probably has more unprestigious resumes (UCLA, GW, arguably Berkeley) than prestigious ones (HYSCCN). This is not true with elite boutiques like Susman, KVN, MTO, which are truly selective.


I’m so not following the PPP bit. If Paul Weiss partners take a $60k hit for raising associates’ salaries by $10k wouldn’t their PPP be more greatly affected by raises than the elite boutiques?


Yes, that's the point the other poster is making. Even though W&C has a lower PPP, he is suggesting they will be less affected by a raise, so if PW can raise, W&C certainly can. (not my words, just explaining to you)


not sure "unprestigious" is the correct word choice there


What is obviously missing here is what city we're discussing. In NYC, for example, W&C, KVN, MTO, and Bartlitt Beck don't have NY offices. Susman does, and has to be the toughest boutique offer with only 14 associates, all with unreal feeder (or SCOTUS clerk) resumes. Boies NY has to be second. There are only 30 NY associates, most with HYSCCN CoA/D.C. clerkship resumes. Boies has some weird office locations though (Ft. Lauderdale, Vegas, & Hollywood, FL), which might by why above poster says Boies gathers some middling UCLA/GW ppl.


Where are the lit boutiques y’all??

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:11 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Associates at Cooley--a firm with profits per partner over $2 million--should be very unhappy about this, not least because of the disingenuous language attempting to justify or excuse it.

Now that so many firms have matched the raise (or adjustment to keep pace with inflation) and bonus, talented and hard working associates at Cooley don't need to look far to see many peers at many peer firms making more than them. Those firms place greater value on their associate attorneys. Simple as that.

Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and everywhere else should consider this in weighing whether or not to interview at a firm like Cooley at OCI. Sure, Cooley matched the salary adjustment. Next time there is a bonus at peer firms, however, do you expect Cooley to match it?

And for current associates considering a lateral market that is doing very well, why stay, when you could go to a firm that will compensate you for all of your efforts at the going market rate? What does it say about Cooley and the extent to which they value their associates that they won't match what most other big firms already have? Is their $2,000,000 in profits per partner not enough?


I tend to agree with most of this. At my firm meeting your hours = market bonus. If I wasn't hitting my annual rate, I'd know by now, and would be expecting the resulting lower (or no) bonus come year end. It's my own fault for missing the hours (or my practice group's, in which case I'd be more concerned about work drying up than bonuses), so missing the summer bonus isn't going to be a shocker. Other firms say "in good standing" and that's what I assume they mean. So their justification is flame.

I'm not, however, 100% with you on your recommendation to consider lateraling. If I had been doing well at the firm (read: above market bonuses) and was on track for more of the same this year, I would probably want to wait it out to see what my firm did. We'll know whether to trust Cooley in December/January.

With that being said, for those outside of Cooley (i.e., OCI bidders), you may want to take this into consideration. You won't know until later in the year where Cooley stands, at which point changing your summer firm will be futile. I'm not saying don't bid, but it's something to consider seriously when you're balancing your final list, callbacks, offers, etc.


Cooley hit 100-200% of Cravath bonus last year for people who hit minimum hours last year, 75-100% for people below

Short sighted not to pay separate summer bonuses this year though, because even if they beat the market again this year, it'll be taken with a grain of salt given that summer bonuses werent paid


Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.

User avatar
Emma.

Gold
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Emma. » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Associates at Cooley--a firm with profits per partner over $2 million--should be very unhappy about this, not least because of the disingenuous language attempting to justify or excuse it.

Now that so many firms have matched the raise (or adjustment to keep pace with inflation) and bonus, talented and hard working associates at Cooley don't need to look far to see many peers at many peer firms making more than them. Those firms place greater value on their associate attorneys. Simple as that.

Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and everywhere else should consider this in weighing whether or not to interview at a firm like Cooley at OCI. Sure, Cooley matched the salary adjustment. Next time there is a bonus at peer firms, however, do you expect Cooley to match it?

And for current associates considering a lateral market that is doing very well, why stay, when you could go to a firm that will compensate you for all of your efforts at the going market rate? What does it say about Cooley and the extent to which they value their associates that they won't match what most other big firms already have? Is their $2,000,000 in profits per partner not enough?


I tend to agree with most of this. At my firm meeting your hours = market bonus. If I wasn't hitting my annual rate, I'd know by now, and would be expecting the resulting lower (or no) bonus come year end. It's my own fault for missing the hours (or my practice group's, in which case I'd be more concerned about work drying up than bonuses), so missing the summer bonus isn't going to be a shocker. Other firms say "in good standing" and that's what I assume they mean. So their justification is flame.

I'm not, however, 100% with you on your recommendation to consider lateraling. If I had been doing well at the firm (read: above market bonuses) and was on track for more of the same this year, I would probably want to wait it out to see what my firm did. We'll know whether to trust Cooley in December/January.

With that being said, for those outside of Cooley (i.e., OCI bidders), you may want to take this into consideration. You won't know until later in the year where Cooley stands, at which point changing your summer firm will be futile. I'm not saying don't bid, but it's something to consider seriously when you're balancing your final list, callbacks, offers, etc.


Cooley hit 100-200% of Cravath bonus last year for people who hit minimum hours last year, 75-100% for people below

Short sighted not to pay separate summer bonuses this year though, because even if they beat the market again this year, it'll be taken with a grain of salt given that summer bonuses werent paid


Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.


If “high performers” means folks who exceeded their hours requirements, isn’t that basically just market bonuses? Many firms give substantial extra bonus money for folks who went substantially over their hours target.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:28 am

Pretty sure WSGR is pretty bad about paying any kind of above market bonuses, even for high performers and they also pay in Feb. Hell like 2-3 years ago I think they were still regularly paying below market bonuses. SV can be cheap compared to NYC. I'd say most people at WSGR were actually surprised we got the summer bonus. But sure lateral to us/Fenwick. We need both bodies too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:58 am

Emma. wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.


If “high performers” means folks who exceeded their hours requirements, isn’t that basically just market bonuses? Many firms give substantial extra bonus money for folks who went substantially over their hours target.


Do a lot of firms actually do this? I would kill for my firm to pay above market bonuses

Marshallian

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:22 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Marshallian » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:12 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.


If “high performers” means folks who exceeded their hours requirements, isn’t that basically just market bonuses? Many firms give substantial extra bonus money for folks who went substantially over their hours target.


Do a lot of firms actually do this? I would kill for my firm to pay above market bonuses


Yes, though I wouldn't say "substantial extra." For example, if the market bonus hours requirement is 2000 hours, maybe they give you $10,000 extra for hitting 2500 hours. $20/hour for those extra 500-not bad, but I'd rather have the time. It's more just a recognition of people who were slammed with work rather than a target anyone strives for.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:34 am

Marshallian wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.


If “high performers” means folks who exceeded their hours requirements, isn’t that basically just market bonuses? Many firms give substantial extra bonus money for folks who went substantially over their hours target.


Do a lot of firms actually do this? I would kill for my firm to pay above market bonuses


Yes, though I wouldn't say "substantial extra." For example, if the market bonus hours requirement is 2000 hours, maybe they give you $10,000 extra for hitting 2500 hours. $20/hour for those extra 500-not bad, but I'd rather have the time. It's more just a recognition of people who were slammed with work rather than a target anyone strives for.


Some like QE are pretty explicit about how to get above market: https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/as-usual-going-above-and-beyond-for-bonuses-at-quinn-hardly-seems-worth-it/

Others like K&E just do an across the board bump for those that hit hours: https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/kirkland-ellis-comes-to-play-with-above-market-bonuses/

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:57 am

Marshallian wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.


If “high performers” means folks who exceeded their hours requirements, isn’t that basically just market bonuses? Many firms give substantial extra bonus money for folks who went substantially over their hours target.


Do a lot of firms actually do this? I would kill for my firm to pay above market bonuses


Yes, though I wouldn't say "substantial extra." For example, if the market bonus hours requirement is 2000 hours, maybe they give you $10,000 extra for hitting 2500 hours. $20/hour for those extra 500-not bad, but I'd rather have the time. It's more just a recognition of people who were slammed with work rather than a target anyone strives for.


Sure, but is 50% above market common? This guy is making it seem like it is. That's like Kirkland territory. I feel my v50 struggles to pay even market bonuses.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:02 am

"Consistent with prior years, our differentiated bonus payments will provide total annualized compensation for our top performers which materially exceeds the total compensation received by attorneys at other firms."


Wake up Jones Day

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:19 am

Anonymous User wrote:
"Consistent with prior years, our differentiated bonus payments will provide total annualized compensation for our top performers which materially exceeds the total compensation received by attorneys at other firms."


Wake up Jones Day


Wishful thinking

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:41 am

I'm at Milbank, and I overheard a conversation this morning between two associates. One said he's been explicitly told by a partner that the firm has already voted to match Cravath but just hasn't announced yet. Some wonky reasoning about timing.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:45 am

Marshallian wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Cooley paid up to 150% of Cravath last bonus season for high performers, not 200%. A lot of folks not happy about the bonus situation. It’s been a rough few months and with the hours I’m scheduled to hit this year, I’ll be disappointed if they don’t show up with the market summer bonus on top of the above market year end bonus. Plus because Cooley pays bonuses in February, we have to wait a good eight months before we see the money. No bueno.


If “high performers” means folks who exceeded their hours requirements, isn’t that basically just market bonuses? Many firms give substantial extra bonus money for folks who went substantially over their hours target.


Do a lot of firms actually do this? I would kill for my firm to pay above market bonuses


Yes, though I wouldn't say "substantial extra." For example, if the market bonus hours requirement is 2000 hours, maybe they give you $10,000 extra for hitting 2500 hours. $20/hour for those extra 500-not bad, but I'd rather have the time. It's more just a recognition of people who were slammed with work rather than a target anyone strives for.


My firm does but it's a couple thousand extra--think $5000 or less. Not actually worth exceeding your hours if you can help it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:46 am

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at Milbank, and I overheard a conversation this morning between two associates. One said he's been explicitly told by a partner that the firm has already voted to match Cravath but just hasn't announced yet. Some wonky reasoning about timing.


Oooh double hearsay, nice!

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at Milbank, and I overheard a conversation this morning between two associates. One said he's been explicitly told by a partner that the firm has already voted to match Cravath but just hasn't announced yet. Some wonky reasoning about timing.


Also at Milbank and there's 0% chance we don't match, but annoying we haven't announced yet given that we usually match the market within minutes.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326499
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:05 am

At King & Spalding, you get about $30-$40 per hour (depending on class, I believe) for each hour billed over 2,050 hours.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.