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: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:00 pm

Reed Smith’s decision to freeze salary rates at last year’s level—but not halt associates’ progression—follows its recent efforts to broaden opportunities for its associates.


Reed Smith partners generously allowing their associates the opportunity to be a poor

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


Yeah no way Sheppard matches. They couldn't afford the last round.


Uh their revenue went up 10.5% last year and their PPP went up 14.5% last year. How does that equate to not being able to afford salary raises?

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:04 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


^This. I had an offer from Reed Smith in a major market office but turned them down in part because their compensation is TTT.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


^This. I had an offer from Reed Smith in a major market office but turned them down in part because their compensation is TTT.
\

hes not talking about reed smith

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


^This. I had an offer from Reed Smith in a major market office but turned them down in part because their compensation is TTT.
\

hes not talking about reed smith


Doesn't matter. Let's just acknowledge that Reed SmiTTTh is LOL

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:10 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


Huh. I thought they did pay market. Second part sucks if true.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:10 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


Huh. I thought they did pay market. Second part sucks if true.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:10 pm

If Reed Smith is going to cite client interests as the reason to lag behind other firms in associate salaries, they should comment on billing rates. I suspect that rates have gone up significantly more than associate compensation over the last decade.

Reed Smith is likely in for a poor recruiting season and laterals from associates who can move to firms that pay more for the same work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:12 pm

Have never heard of anyone at Sheppard or MoFo getting held back a class year. Can someone confirm thats even true?

User avatar
nealric

Moderator
Posts: 2886
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby nealric » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Reed Smith, Citing 'Interests of Clients,' Won't Increase Associate Salaries


I bet they think long and hard about client interests before setting partner comp too :roll:

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:13 pm

nealric wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Reed Smith, Citing 'Interests of Clients,' Won't Increase Associate Salaries


I bet they think long and hard about client interests before setting partner comp too :roll:


Exactly. Reed Smith associates everywhere are returning the Bugattis they bought prematurely.

User avatar
NakedPowerOrgan

Bronze
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:24 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby NakedPowerOrgan » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:25 pm

NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Wall of Shame for Firms Yet to Announce:

    Fried Frank
    1. Latham ($3.25MM PPP, 24.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    2. Paul Hastings ($2.91MM PPP, 28.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    3. Akin Gump ($2.39MM PPP, 35.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    4. King & Spalding ($2.61MM PPP, 23.8% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Vinson & Elkins
    5. Shearman & Sterling ($2.32MM PPP, 34.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    6. Gibson Dunn ($3.24MM PPP, 13.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    6. Dechert ($2.68MM PPP, 21.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    8. Wilmer ($2.12MM PPP, 31.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    9. Schulte ($2.56MM PPP, 17.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cooley
    10. Kramer Levin ($2.15MM PPP, 22.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    10. Baker Botts ($1.84MM PPP, 26.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    12. Alston & Bird ($1.93MM PPP, 11.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    13. Sheppard Mullin ($1.71MM PPP, 26.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    14. McDermott ($1.71MM PPP, 14.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)


Latham, et al.: https://i.imgur.com/Cx3PZzT.jpg

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:28 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


Doesn't Sidley also prevent you from progressing class years if you don't hit hours? At least they still pay market though.

(In before people point out that Sidley is also a TTT firm.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:29 pm

do firms generally have policies on this? i have no idea if my firm does

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:30 pm

What is a Kramer Levin

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:30 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


They do pay market

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:32 pm

Kramer Levin just matched w bonus

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


They do pay market


This is correct. They used to have a lame bonus policy but changed it to full market bonus for associates who bill 2000.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Kramer Levin just matched w bonus


The Wall of Shame clearly works. Please re-post hourly.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Have never heard of anyone at Sheppard or MoFo getting held back a class year. Can someone confirm thats even true?


Can personally confirm that this is true at Sheppard and that the practice is widespread. (And that it hurts morale tremendously and pushes people out, which may be the intended effect.)

User avatar
LaLiLuLeLo

Silver
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby LaLiLuLeLo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


They do pay market


Only in theory. But they don’t pay by class year. They have some weird tiered system (Associate 1-3, Managing Associate 1-3, etc). In real terms they don’t pay market because this system.

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:42 pm

That's terrible of firms to squeeze associates by holding them back like that while revenue, billing rates, and profits all rise.

How bad do your hours have to be to get held back? What if your group just had a few show months?

Do they still bump up your billing rate?

Anonymous User
Posts: 324827
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:44 pm

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
LaLiLuLeLo wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:California firms need to get going. OMM, Orrick, Fenwick, MoFo, Sheppard Mullin. C’mon guys.


LOLZ at them matching or included in this group.


MoFo's PPP was 1.736m.
Orrick's was 1.863m
Fenwick's was 1.513m

Sheppard Mullin's was $1.71m

So enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be on this list.


Bc they already don’t pay market and they don’t let you progress class years if you don’t hit hours. TTT moves by a TTT firm.


They do pay market


Only in theory. But they don’t pay by class year. They have some weird tiered system (Associate 1-3, Managing Associate 1-3, etc). In real terms they don’t pay market because this system.


Fair enough. If people are being held back from advancing levels then they would not be getting paid market for the year they graduated.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.