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.
User avatar
hoos89

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

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby hoos89 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think we're going to see some market separation on this one. No way Jenner raises. Maybe not Mayer Brown either, given their leverage and the fact that they are already a third fiddle to Kirkland and Sidley in their home market anyway. O'Melveny is over $2ppp but has high leverage. Fenwick's leverage is almost as high and profits are a lot lower. Covingttton is Covingttton. While it's confusing that firms like Gibson and Latham haven't announced yet, the delay on this may indicate that a lot of firms have finally at least for now hit their ceiling.


Can you explain "leverage" and how that factors into this?


the more associates per partner, the more each partner has to pay for a raise. e.g. if its 1:1, each partner pays the raise for 1 associate; if its 1:3, each partner pays for 3 associates.


Ahhh. Well, surely they recognize that it is because of their leverage that they are able to post those PPP in the first place, so stiffing associates is both short sighted and extremely selfish.


Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think we're going to see some market separation on this one. No way Jenner raises. Maybe not Mayer Brown either, given their leverage and the fact that they are already a third fiddle to Kirkland and Sidley in their home market anyway. O'Melveny is over $2ppp but has high leverage. Fenwick's leverage is almost as high and profits are a lot lower. Covingttton is Covingttton. While it's confusing that firms like Gibson and Latham haven't announced yet, the delay on this may indicate that a lot of firms have finally at least for now hit their ceiling.


Can you explain "leverage" and how that factors into this?


the more associates per partner, the more each partner has to pay for a raise. e.g. if its 1:1, each partner pays the raise for 1 associate; if its 1:3, each partner pays for 3 associates.


Ahhh. Well, surely they recognize that it is because of their leverage that they are able to post those PPP in the first place, so stiffing associates is both short sighted and extremely selfish.


Firms with large PPP are going to match. But there's going to be a lot grumbling about it, and that takes time. For firms on the margin, though, this is tougher, because they are obviously lacking in high value work as evidenced by their need for high leverage to keep pace with PPP. We're hoping not to see market bifurcation here, but it may happen especially because the last round of raises did produce some of that.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Is DC just staying at 180?


There is no longer such a thing as a "DC market," or any other city market. There hasn't been a a generation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of DC associates at Simpson, Sidley, Morgan Lewis, etc are on the new scale and will soon get the bonuses they earned.

The firms that have raised compete for summers and laterals with the firms that haven't, even firms in their home market. The associates already at "DC firms" or "Boston firms" or what have you see their law school classmates at what they had thought were peer firms suddenly and inexplicably earning more than them, and they see no reason for their firms not to match.


Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." Its where the kids at FIP are actually trying to go while throw backup bids at Paul Weiss and Cravath. Some satellites matter more: Skadden, Kirkland, and Cleary for example, create market pressure. Others don't; what the handful of Davis Polk associates in the DC office are making is not important. Comp has never taken center stage in DC: Williams & Connolly is still the top prize despite substantial below-market comp, and Boies DC associates have been making more than other DC firms for years, but its rarely a top choice over Covington or Wilmer.

I strongly suspect all the DC firms will match by July 1. But its telling that none of that core set have moved on the new scale. Never forget that CovingTTTTon displayed this very logic in 2016 when it tried to hold DC salaries steady while offering its New York office a raise--and it only relented after its true "peer" shops went to 180.


Yeah, I couldn't get a job at Boies either.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:49 pm

wtf is taking so long shearman & sTTTerling. cmon

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:55 pm

hoos89 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I think we're going to see some market separation on this one. No way Jenner raises. Maybe not Mayer Brown either, given their leverage and the fact that they are already a third fiddle to Kirkland and Sidley in their home market anyway. O'Melveny is over $2ppp but has high leverage. Fenwick's leverage is almost as high and profits are a lot lower. Covingttton is Covingttton. While it's confusing that firms like Gibson and Latham haven't announced yet, the delay on this may indicate that a lot of firms have finally at least for now hit their ceiling.


Can you explain "leverage" and how that factors into this?


the more associates per partner, the more each partner has to pay for a raise. e.g. if its 1:1, each partner pays the raise for 1 associate; if its 1:3, each partner pays for 3 associates.


Ahhh. Well, surely they recognize that it is because of their leverage that they are able to post those PPP in the first place, so stiffing associates is both short sighted and extremely selfish.


Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.


Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." .

Small point, but GDC is headquartered in LA.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
hoos89 wrote:Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.


Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?


A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." .

Small point, but GDC is headquartered in LA.

another small point: Williams & Connolly, post-NYC's move to 180k but prior to the recent move to 190k was above-market for I want to say first-through-fourth years w/r/t to the 180k-scale, including when NYC bonuses were factored in. W&C moved last year and just refused to confirm it to ATL.

User avatar
hoos89

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

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby hoos89 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?


Because leverage inflates PPP. It's like cutting a pizza into fewer slices...the size of the pizza doesn't change. Revenue per lawyer is a better metric for assessing financial strength of a firm, I think.

And yeah I'd probably be a bit more leary of a higher leveraged firm: 1) they're probably going to have more problems in a downturn and need to let more people go, 2) (to the extent you care) partnership prospects are essentially zero, 3) they're less likely to be able to support future raises than firms with comparable PPP as it results in a higher % hit to their bottom line, and 4) there's probably a higher concentration of work generated by a small number of partners, which means if one rainmaker leaves it could have a massive effect on the firm's profitability.

hlsperson1111

Bronze
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby hlsperson1111 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:17 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.


I can't speak for all of their locations, but the associates at Boies Fort Lauderdale (all 8 of them) seem to be very well-credentialed as a whole.

PMan99

Bronze
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:21 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby PMan99 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
hoos89 wrote:Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.


Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?


A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.


It means they have partners who can bring in enough business to sustain a ton of associates. Very, very few big law firms (or biglaw firms) are going to be turning down work just to keep headcount/leverage down.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:47 pm

PMan99 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
hoos89 wrote:Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.


Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?


A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.


It means they have partners who can bring in enough business to sustain a ton of associates. Very, very few big law firms (or biglaw firms) are going to be turning down work just to keep headcount/leverage down.


It sounds like you're taking the perspective that if a firm is highly leveraged then business must be good. But what happens if that changes? There's lots of dead weight that they'll surely be quick to cut.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
PMan99 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
hoos89 wrote:Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.


Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?


A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.


It means they have partners who can bring in enough business to sustain a ton of associates. Very, very few big law firms (or biglaw firms) are going to be turning down work just to keep headcount/leverage down.


It sounds like you're taking the perspective that if a firm is highly leveraged then business must be good. But what happens if that changes? There's lots of dead weight that they'll surely be quick to cut.


Also returning to the original point we're comparing firms with similar PPP but different leverage. So sure, one partner is bringing in a bunch of business, but it's probably lower value business. This tends to sink out during hard times, whereas bet the company matters are going to keep coming.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:13 pm

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

User avatar
hoos89

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

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby hoos89 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).


It's not like those are even super low COL areas: they're just lower than NYC. I'd rather have $190k in Chicago even.

How far above market are the bonuses for 2400+? It's not like there aren't other firms that pay more for high billers (some of which start lower than 2400).

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:48 pm

Jones day defender from a few pages back here... I'm just going to shut up now https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/jones-day-hit-with-explosive-gender-discrimination-case/

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:48 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Is DC just staying at 180?


There is no longer such a thing as a "DC market," or any other city market. There hasn't been a a generation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of DC associates at Simpson, Sidley, Morgan Lewis, etc are on the new scale and will soon get the bonuses they earned.

The firms that have raised compete for summers and laterals with the firms that haven't, even firms in their home market. The associates already at "DC firms" or "Boston firms" or what have you see their law school classmates at what they had thought were peer firms suddenly and inexplicably earning more than them, and they see no reason for their firms not to match.


Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." Its where the kids at FIP are actually trying to go while throw backup bids at Paul Weiss and Cravath. Some satellites matter more: Skadden, Kirkland, and Cleary for example, create market pressure. Others don't; what the handful of Davis Polk associates in the DC office are making is not important. Comp has never taken center stage in DC: Williams & Connolly is still the top prize despite substantial below-market comp, and Boies DC associates have been making more than other DC firms for years, but its rarely a top choice over Covington or Wilmer.


Gibson's inclusion on this list strikes me as strange when (1) Gibson isn't a DC firm and (2) in DC, the size difference between Gibson and Skadden/Kirkland/Cleary is negligible.

Quick website searches show 218 for Gibson, 205 for Kirkland, and 181 for Cleary in the District. I couldn't narrow the count down so easily for Skadden, but I think it would be the largest of those four in DC. Gibson doesn't really belong in the cabal of the core DC firms.

In my experience, Williams & Connolly and Covington have a special "DC elite" aura among 2Ls, and Wilmer, Hogan, and Arnold & Porter are next up for the really DC-or-bust people as they're thought of as truly "DC firms." (That's not to say that Gibson or Wilmer don't rank ahead of them for other types - I'm just talking about the "DC clique" as you called it and how "DC firms" play into that.)

The advantages conferred by that seem to be pretty meaningless once in practice. I don't think HL or A&P confers better gov exit options than GDC or KE or Skadden. There's definitely more of them, though, so it looks that way. And which has more "prestige"? Maybe the Hogan name carries more sway at a happy hour with some House legislative assistant you're trying to pick up. No clue. But the very DC centric firms carry much less sway outside of DC as compared to the bigger boys. To the extent that matters (and it doesn't, really, at all), it's a consideration if you ever think you'll leave the swamp.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).


A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=227896

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).


A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=227896


Ropes and Goodwin already matched. Wilmer was slow the last go-around too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).


A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=227896


Ropes and Goodwin already matched. Wilmer was slow the last go-around too.


Ropes - full match
WH - ___
Goodwin - full match
Choate - ___
Skadden - full match
Foley Hoag* - ___
Mintz - ___
Fish - ___
Latham - WTF BRO
Proskauer - Milbank only
Weil - full match
Goulston* - ___
Cooley - ___
Nutter* - ___
MLB - full match
JD - clusterfuck
Nixon* - ___
K&L (??) - ___
McDermott - match reported on TLS, not ATL confirmed
HK* - ___

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Is DC just staying at 180?


There is no longer such a thing as a "DC market," or any other city market. There hasn't been a a generation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of DC associates at Simpson, Sidley, Morgan Lewis, etc are on the new scale and will soon get the bonuses they earned.

The firms that have raised compete for summers and laterals with the firms that haven't, even firms in their home market. The associates already at "DC firms" or "Boston firms" or what have you see their law school classmates at what they had thought were peer firms suddenly and inexplicably earning more than them, and they see no reason for their firms not to match.


Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." Its where the kids at FIP are actually trying to go while throw backup bids at Paul Weiss and Cravath. Some satellites matter more: Skadden, Kirkland, and Cleary for example, create market pressure. Others don't; what the handful of Davis Polk associates in the DC office are making is not important. Comp has never taken center stage in DC: Williams & Connolly is still the top prize despite substantial below-market comp, and Boies DC associates have been making more than other DC firms for years, but its rarely a top choice over Covington or Wilmer.


Gibson's inclusion on this list strikes me as strange when (1) Gibson isn't a DC firm and (2) in DC, the size difference between Gibson and Skadden/Kirkland/Cleary is negligible.

Quick website searches show 218 for Gibson, 205 for Kirkland, and 181 for Cleary in the District. I couldn't narrow the count down so easily for Skadden, but I think it would be the largest of those four in DC. Gibson doesn't really belong in the cabal of the core DC firms.

In my experience, Williams & Connolly and Covington have a special "DC elite" aura among 2Ls, and Wilmer, Hogan, and Arnold & Porter are next up as they're thought of as truly "DC firms."

The advantages conferred by that seem to be pretty meaningless once in practice. I don't think HL or A&P confers better gov exit options than GDC or KE or Skadden. There's definitely more of them, though, so it looks that way. And which has more "prestige"? Maybe the Hogan name carries more sway at a happy hour with some House legislative assistant you're trying to pick up. No clue. But the very DC centric firms carry much less sway outside of DC as compared to the bigger boys. To the extent that matters (and it doesn't, really, at all), it's a consideration if you ever think you'll leave the swamp.


I went to one of the HYS schools and GDC in DC was regarded as equal to, if not slightly preferable to, A&P and Hogan. I've always understood the preftige pecking order to go W&C/Covington > GDC/Wilmer > A&P/Hogan [cutoff of the DC "clique" here]> major DC offices of non-DC firms (think like Skadden, Sidley, Akin Gump, JonesDay) > the lower native DC firms (Steptoe, Wiley Rein) and smaller satellites. This is especially true if you lean conservative as FedSoc types love them some GDC DC.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:19 pm

^Anon who you were responding to here, and I totally agree with that, with the exception of some of the big non-DC firms like Skadden or Kirkland outranking A&P and Hogan for the non DC-or-bust types. Gibson is usually more sought after from what I see (especially those FedSoc'ers) but it's just not in that DC core. This is probably a meaningless distinction. Anyway. Back to firms paying up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:^Anon who you were responding to here, and I totally agree with that, with the exception of some of the big non-DC firms like Skadden or Kirkland outranking A&P and Hogan for the non DC-or-bust types. Gibson is usually more sought after from what I see (especially those FedSoc'ers) but it's just not in that DC core. This is probably a meaningless distinction. Anyway. Back to firms paying up.


The real distinction should be firms that pay market >>>> firms that don't.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).


A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=227896


Brown Rudnick is as average as a firm gets and it matched. WTF.

Every form in the AmLaw 100 should be able to match now.

Anonymous User
Posts: 326575
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:39 pm

Is everyone here employed at prestigious top 50 firms? Any other fellow AmLaw 50-100 associates waiting patiently on the sidelines hoping we'll get some scraps thrown our way?



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.