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: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:54 pm

Greenberg Traurig and Reed Smith should be but in bold, underlined, on the shame list as capital shamers

User avatar
NakedPowerOrgan

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

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby NakedPowerOrgan » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:54 pm

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?


Not the OP, but as an example, suppose Firm A and Firm B both have PPP of $1.5MM, however Firm A has 4 associates for every equity partner and Firm B has 1.5 associates for every equity partner. Assuming that the average cost of raises and bonuses this year are $35K/associate, and leaving all else constant, partners in Firm A will see their PPP decline by $140,000 to approx. $1.36MM but partners in Firm B will see their PP decline by only $52,500 to approx. $1.45MM.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:56 pm

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.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:57 pm

Only explanation: Latham waits until everyone matches Cravath then goes to 200K and the world burns.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:58 pm

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?



If a firm has 6 associates for every partner, every partner will have to trim probably around $180k from PPP (if rates don’t go up) (assuming the average bonus is 15 and the average raise is 15).

If a firm has 1 associate for every partner, each partner on average will have to fork over like $30k.

This is being simplistic but essentially why leverage matters

Anonymous User
Posts: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:58 pm

i think skadden has more attorneys in DC than Williams & Connolly

Wacked Wombat

New
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:05 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Wacked Wombat » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:00 pm

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?


If you are highly levered (i.e. more associates per equity partner) the cost to each individual equity partner is higher than it is for lower levered firms.

E.g. Assume that the average cost per associate for this round is $35k. If a firm has a 1:1 Associate:Partner Ratio, then each partner has $35k (on average) taken out of their profits. If a firm has a 3:1 Associate:Partner Ratio, then each partner has a $105k (on average) taken out of their profits.

Makes it more expensive per partner for these raises.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:00 pm

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?


This has to be a troll. Whatever. Leverage is the ratio between partners and associates. At a high level, leverage shows you how many people on salary are supporting each partner that gets to share in the profits. If firm A has a revenue per lawyer of $1 million with a leverage ratio of 3 associates per partner and firm B has a revenue per lawyer of $1 million with a leverage ratio of 2 associates per partner, a partner at firm A is going to make a lot more money than a lawyer at firm B because they get to share profits from 3 associates rather than from just 2.

This comes into play here because, when you have to raise salaries and pay bonuses, partner's pockets get hit much harder for firms with high leverage ratios. If it costs $30k per associate to raise salaries and give summer bonuses (ballpark), then each partner at firm A loses $90k in profits because there's 3 associates per partner that will be getting a raise. A partner at firm B only loses $60k because there's only 2 associates per partner.

If that's not clear enough, think of it this way. Partners want as much money as they get, so they are going to be hesitant to pay a lot of money for raising associate salaries. But we can't just look at how much partners make (PPP) to determine how much they will lose out on. We also have to look at leverage ratio. Let's say firm C has leverage of 6 and PPP of $1.5 million, whereas firm D has leverage of 2 and PPP of $1.4 million. Riasing salaries to the tune of $30k per associate is going to have a much larger effect on partners at firm C. In fact, in this example, firm C will see PPP go from $1.5 million to $1.32 million. Firm D, however, will only go from $1.4 million to $1.34 million. Not only do partners at firm C end up with lower PPP now than their peers at firm D, but they lost a larger percentage of their cut (12% vs. 4%). Partners at firm C are going to be much more reluctant to move, even though they have similar PPP to firm D.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316648
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:12 pm

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.

User avatar
hoos89

Gold
Posts: 2054
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 2054
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: 354
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: 319
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 316648
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: 2054
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: 316648
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/



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.