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: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:43 pm

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


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


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


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


My firm pays out bonuses and bumps pay the last check of February but that check includes what you would have earned from January 1st at the increased pay. So, they're not underpaying associated despite the later increase and bonus pay date. It's inconsequential of the associate except to the extent that they want to leave the firm and have to stick around for that much longer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:11 am

DLA Piper matched bonuses but you need to be on track to hit 2100, which is above the "minimum"

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:31 am

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


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


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


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


My firm pays out bonuses and bumps pay the last check of February but that check includes what you would have earned from January 1st at the increased pay. So, they're not underpaying associated despite the later increase and bonus pay date. It's inconsequential of the associate except to the extent that they want to leave the firm and have to stick around for that much longer.


It's tax-disadvantageous to have the bonus paid after December 31.

Postponing the pay increase to second paycheck and grossing up is pretty standard. I'm not quite sure of the reason for it, though; perhaps there's some accounting advantage.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:54 am

FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:01 am

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.


Name the firm. You're anonymous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:32 am

What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.


K&S and A&B both raised while Mcguirewoods specifically said they weren't raising. It's just Kilpatrick and Troutman that haven't responded yet, both of whom hover around the same PPP as Mcguirewoods.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.


Name the firm. You're anonymous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.

Anonymous User wrote:K&S and A&B both raised while Mcguirewoods specifically said they weren't raising. It's just Kilpatrick and Troutman that haven't responded yet, both of whom hover around the same PPP as Mcguirewoods.

Yeah K&S and A&B are so obviously the #1 and #2 firms respectively in the ATL market that the other firms don't really have much to gain by spending more in an effort to attract top students, most of whom are going to go to K&S/A&B anyway.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:21 am

anyone have an update on progress at BSF?

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:41 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.

Anonymous User wrote:K&S and A&B both raised while Mcguirewoods specifically said they weren't raising. It's just Kilpatrick and Troutman that haven't responded yet, both of whom hover around the same PPP as Mcguirewoods.

Yeah K&S and A&B are so obviously the #1 and #2 firms respectively in the ATL market that the other firms don't really have much to gain by spending more in an effort to attract top students, most of whom are going to go to K&S/A&B anyway.


What about Eversheds? Any word?

User avatar
NakedPowerOrgan

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

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby NakedPowerOrgan » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:46 pm

Now that we’re less than a week away from some paychecks starting to reflect raises, the refreshed Wall of Shame:

NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Confirmation that David Boies spent all the firm's money paying Mossad agents to run covert, international spy operations to suppress women raped by Harvey Weinstein.....(ALLEGEDLY):

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

    Kirkland ($4.70MM PPP, 44.7% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Davis Polk ($3.70MM PPP, 50.7% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Weil ($3.64MM PPP, 63.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Irell ($3.08MM PPP, 98.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    - NO BONUS MATCH
    Paul Weiss ($4.56MM PPP, 36.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Fried Frank ($2.94MM PPP, 123.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Milbank ($3.46MM PPP, 41.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Simpson ($3.68MM PPP, 38.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Skadden ($3.47MM PPP, 32.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Willkie ($2.97MM PPP, 43.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    SullCrom ($4.27MM PPP, 23.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Paul Hastings ($2.91MM PPP, 39.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Akin Gump ($2.39MM PPP, 54.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Choate Hall ($2.31MM PPP, 56.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Vinson & Elkins ($2.36MM PPP, 60.6% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Latham ($3.25MM PPP, 33.0% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Shearman ($2.32MM PPP, 52.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    1. Boies ($3.27MM PPP, 20.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    2. BuckleySandler ($2.48MM PPP, 37.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    King & Spalding ($2.61MM PPP, 31.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Quinn ($4.74MM PPP, 6.8% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Ropes ($2.32MM PPP, 46.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cravath ($4.00MM PPP, 14.2% L5Y PPP growth, 4.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    3. Kobre & Kim ($2.49MM PPP, 29.0% L1Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage

    Goodwin ($2.15MM PPP, 42.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    WilmerHale ($2.12MM PPP, 44.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Gibson Dunn ($3.24MM PPP, 15.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Schulte ($2.56MM PPP, 21.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Dechert ($2.68MM PPP, 27.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Winston ($2.16MM PPP, 44.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Proskauer ($2.37MM PPP, 27.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Debevoise ($2.83MM PPP, 36.2% L5Y PPP growth, 5.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cahill ($3.69MM PPP, 3.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cooley ($2.08MM PPP, 39.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Wilson Sonsini ($2.21MM PPP, 34.4% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cleary ($3.07MM PPP, 17.3% L5Y PPP growth, 3.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    White & Case ($2.26MM PPP, 32.9% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Sidley ($2.26MM PPP, 25.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Baker Botts ($1.84MM PPP, 35.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Kramer Levin ($2.15MM PPP, 28.5% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Sheppard ($1.71MM PPP, 35.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Alston & Bird ($1.93MM PPP, 12.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Lowenstein Sandler ($1.75MM PPP, 21.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Mayer Brown ($1.58MM PPP, 37.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    4. Holland & Knight ($1.36MM PPP, 43.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    DLA Piper ($1.76MM PPP, 34.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Hogan Lovells ($1.28MM PPP, 17.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    5. Fragomen ($1.98MM PPP, 31.4% L5Y PPP growth, 4.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Stroock ($1.60MM PPP, 32.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    McDermott ($1.71MM PPP, 17.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    6. Nelson Mullins ($1.09MM PPP, 60.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Cadwalader ($2.51MM PPP, 5.3% L5Y PPP decline, 4.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    7. Jeffer Mangels ($1.67MM PPP, 7.5% L5Y PPP growth, .9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    8. Robins Kaplan ($1.15MM PPP, 42.4% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Katten ($1.57MM PPP, 19.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Covington ($1.54MM PPP, 22.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    MoFo ($1.74MM PPP, 18.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    9. Greenberg ($1.63MM PPP, 20.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    10. Troutman Sanders ($1.06MM PPP, 51.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    11. Kasowitz ($1.92MM PPP, 13.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Fenwick ($1.51MM PPP, 31.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    12. Fish & Richardson ($1.63MM PPP, 9.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    13. Nixon Peabody ($1.11MM PPP, 43.4% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    14. Venable ($1.13MM PPP, 34.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    O'Melveny ($2.01MM PPP, 2.5% L5Y PPP decline, 3.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Munger ($1.63MM PPP, 4.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Orrick ($1.86MM PPP, 14.3% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    15. Winstead ($1.12MM PPP, 33.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    16. Loeb & Loeb ($1.68MM PPP, 11.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Patterson Belknap ($1.66MM PPP, 9.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    17. Mintz Levin ($1.29MM PPP, 32.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    18. Morris Manning ($1.17MM PPP, 31.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    19. Pillsbury ($1.28MM PPP, 15.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    20. Honigman Miller ($1.01MM PPP, 29.9% L5Y PPP growth, 0.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    21. Arent Fox ($1.07MM PPP, 25.5% L5Y PPP growth, 1.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    22. Manatt Phelps ($1.32MM PPP, 5.6% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    23. Finnegan ($1.28MM PPP, 9.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    24. Crowell & Moring ($1.12MM PPP, 20.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Jenner ($1.42MM PPP, 4.9% L5Y PPP decline, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Baker McKenzie ($1.30MM PPP, 19.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Morgan Lewis ($1.37MM PPP, 11.7% L5Y PPP decline, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    25. Foley & Lardner ($1.17MM PPP, 22.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    27. Foley Hoag ($1.20MM PPP, 16.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Perkins Coie ($1.17MM PPP, 15.6% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    26. Bracewell ($1.31MM PPP, 10.0% L5Y PPP decline, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Brown Rudnick ($1.26MM PPP, 7.4% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    27. Chapman & Cutler ($1.11MM PPP, 4.8% L5Y PPP growth, 0.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    28. Hunton Andrews Kurth (approx. $1.13MM PPP, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    29. Wiley Rein ($1.16MM PPP, 2.8% L5Y PPP decline, 0.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    30. Reed Smith ($1.18MM PPP, 9.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage) - ANNOUNCED NO RAISES


    Arnold & Porter ($1.19MM PPP, 16.4% L5Y PPP decline, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Jones Day ($1.01MM PPP, 10.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    31. Hughes Hubbard ($1.12MM PPP, 35.1% L5Y PPP decline, 3.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    32. Kilpatrick Townsend ($1.01MM PPP, 17.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    33. McGuireWoods ($1.02MM PPP, 7.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage) - ANNOUNCED NO RAISES
    34. Curtis Mallet ($1.08MM PPP, 31.4% L5Y PPP decline, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    35. Baker & Hostetler ($1.00MM PPP, 7.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)


Legend:
New York
California
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Texas
Boston
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Florida
Other

User avatar
NakedPowerOrgan

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

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby NakedPowerOrgan » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Based on this rationale, it seems HB has no chance of matching...
Haynes Boone (approx. $0.957M PPP, 1.84 EP:Assoc. leverage)

Anonymous User wrote:
NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Some fun facts, maybe useful to law students during OCI:

$1.4 million PPP seems to be around the sweet spot for where it becomes likely that you'll at least see a raise when the market moves. 90 percent of firms in the AmLaw 200 with over $1.36 million PPP have matched salary raises. 85 percent of AmLaw 200 firms at or below that mark have not announced salary matches or have announced they will not match. Zero firms below $1.28 million PPP have announced salary raises and bonuses.

Nearly all firms (approx. 90 percent) above $2.0 million PPP have announced matches to both bonuses and raises. Boies not announcing yet and Cooley denying summer bonuses are the two most prominent exceptions in that group.

Roughly $1.4 million to $2 million PPP seems to be where it gets interesting. Around 75 percent of firms in that range have matched salaries but around half of those firms have refused to supplement those raises with bonuses.


This is a very useful post.


TK has below 1.28M PPP and announced full salary match and bonuses (though bonuses were tied to hours/productivity). Will be interested to see how HB responds. In Texas, if V&E does something, BB has to respond. But then after that, it seems like HB, TK, Fulbright, Bracewell, Locke and Hunton/AK are sort of in the same group in that they don't necessarily have to do what V&E/BB do, but if a majority of that group does something, it seems like the rest have to fall in line. So now that Fulbright and TK have taken very different approaches, will be interesting to see how the respond.


I should have clarified. I only looked at AmLaw 200 firms with PPP above $1MM, so while there have been no AmLaw 200 firms with PPP between $1MM and $1.28MM to match raises and bonuses, there may be firms not in the AmLaw 200 or firms in the AmLaw 200 but with PPP lower than $1MM (like TK) that have matched.

Good for TK for matching salaries for all U.S. associates and giving summer bonuses, when the same can’t be said for cheapskate firms like Cooley, Alston & Bird, and Sheppard Mullin, which each have almost double TK’s PPP.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:52 pm

NakedPowerOrgan wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Based on this rationale, it seems HB has no chance of matching...
Haynes Boone (approx. $0.957M PPP, 1.84 EP:Assoc. leverage)

Anonymous User wrote:
NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Some fun facts, maybe useful to law students during OCI:

$1.4 million PPP seems to be around the sweet spot for where it becomes likely that you'll at least see a raise when the market moves. 90 percent of firms in the AmLaw 200 with over $1.36 million PPP have matched salary raises. 85 percent of AmLaw 200 firms at or below that mark have not announced salary matches or have announced they will not match. Zero firms below $1.28 million PPP have announced salary raises and bonuses.

Nearly all firms (approx. 90 percent) above $2.0 million PPP have announced matches to both bonuses and raises. Boies not announcing yet and Cooley denying summer bonuses are the two most prominent exceptions in that group.

Roughly $1.4 million to $2 million PPP seems to be where it gets interesting. Around 75 percent of firms in that range have matched salaries but around half of those firms have refused to supplement those raises with bonuses.


This is a very useful post.


TK has below 1.28M PPP and announced full salary match and bonuses (though bonuses were tied to hours/productivity). Will be interested to see how HB responds. In Texas, if V&E does something, BB has to respond. But then after that, it seems like HB, TK, Fulbright, Bracewell, Locke and Hunton/AK are sort of in the same group in that they don't necessarily have to do what V&E/BB do, but if a majority of that group does something, it seems like the rest have to fall in line. So now that Fulbright and TK have taken very different approaches, will be interesting to see how the respond.


I should have clarified. I only looked at AmLaw 200 firms with PPP above $1MM, so while there have been no AmLaw 200 firms with PPP between $1MM and $1.28MM to match raises and bonuses, there may be firms not in the AmLaw 200 or firms in the AmLaw 200 but with PPP lower than $1MM (like TK) that have matched.

Good for TK for matching salaries for all U.S. associates and giving summer bonuses, when the same can’t be said for cheapskate firms like Cooley, Alston & Bird, and Sheppard Mullin, which each have almost double TK’s PPP.


You are doing God's work, sir. Also, Atlanta firms need to get it together.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:02 am

Anonymous User wrote:anyone have an update on progress at BSF?


bump

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:52 pm

So Kasowitz upping the scale by $5k for all class years...

Do they typically pay above market? I assume they will just sit as an outlier above market, and their raise will not actually affect the Milbank/STB/Cravath scale.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:So Kasowitz upping the scale by $5k for all class years...

Do they typically pay above market? I assume they will just sit as an outlier above market, and their raise will not actually affect the Milbank/STB/Cravath scale.


No. They didn't pay bonuses so total comp will be less this year. That said, I think base salary is an issue that looms larger in recruiting (outside of firms who have established a track record of above-market bonuses), so I highly doubt Kasowitz will sit at the top of the pile for long.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So Kasowitz upping the scale by $5k for all class years...

Do they typically pay above market? I assume they will just sit as an outlier above market, and their raise will not actually affect the Milbank/STB/Cravath scale.


No. They didn't pay bonuses so total comp will be less this year. That said, I think base salary is an issue that looms larger in recruiting (outside of firms who have established a track record of above-market bonuses), so I highly doubt Kasowitz will sit at the top of the pile for long.


I agree with you that the bonuses not being paid out makes this less of a truly "above market" firm. But, if you're a 1st or 2nd year only making $5k-7.5k in summer bonus anyway, and will be at your firm for at least 2 more years, you probably still come out ahead on the Kasowitz scale, even factoring in time value of money.

Stay 3 years at the firm and you're safely ahead at Kasowitz, UNLESS firms continue to do summer bonuses (seems unlikely) and Kasowitz continues not to do summer bonuses.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So Kasowitz upping the scale by $5k for all class years...

Do they typically pay above market? I assume they will just sit as an outlier above market, and their raise will not actually affect the Milbank/STB/Cravath scale.


No. They didn't pay bonuses so total comp will be less this year. That said, I think base salary is an issue that looms larger in recruiting (outside of firms who have established a track record of above-market bonuses), so I highly doubt Kasowitz will sit at the top of the pile for long.


I agree with you that the bonuses not being paid out makes this less of a truly "above market" firm. But, if you're a 1st or 2nd year only making $5k-7.5k in summer bonus anyway, and will be at your firm for at least 2 more years, you probably still come out ahead on the Kasowitz scale, even factoring in time value of money.

Stay 3 years at the firm and you're safely ahead at Kasowitz, UNLESS firms continue to do summer bonuses (seems unlikely) and Kasowitz continues not to do summer bonuses.


Quoted Anon. I agree. That's why I was saying base comp is more important in recruiting. I meant to suggest that I believe firms will match. Sorry if unclear

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So Kasowitz upping the scale by $5k for all class years...

Do they typically pay above market? I assume they will just sit as an outlier above market, and their raise will not actually affect the Milbank/STB/Cravath scale.


No. They didn't pay bonuses so total comp will be less this year. That said, I think base salary is an issue that looms larger in recruiting (outside of firms who have established a track record of above-market bonuses), so I highly doubt Kasowitz will sit at the top of the pile for long.


I agree with you that the bonuses not being paid out makes this less of a truly "above market" firm. But, if you're a 1st or 2nd year only making $5k-7.5k in summer bonus anyway, and will be at your firm for at least 2 more years, you probably still come out ahead on the Kasowitz scale, even factoring in time value of money.

Stay 3 years at the firm and you're safely ahead at Kasowitz, UNLESS firms continue to do summer bonuses (seems unlikely) and Kasowitz continues not to do summer bonuses.


Lit is red hot right now. Kasowitz is reflecting that. Its also why I have some hope that Boies will (eventually, belatedly) boost salaries back above market

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:25 pm

I agree that this is a weird and interesting move by Kasowitz. Although I'd love for the rest to match, I tend to think that the way this plays out is everyone says, "If $3K post-tax tips you to Kasowitz over STB/DPW/CSM, fine, go." Then, over time, gradually Kasowitz starts paying under-market bonuses and says, "Hey, our bases are higher, so this is even." Note that it's only Kasowitz NY. I doubt this drives another round of matches.

Maybe if Boies matched Kasowitz nationally, we'd see another round of raises.

Would love for someone to tell me why I'm wrong, tho.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:20 pm

NYC TO 195!!! IT'S TIME TO RIOT FOLKS

Stop coming up with these TTT loser reasons why no one's going to match Kasowitz and start lobbying and dialing numbers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I agree that this is a weird and interesting move by Kasowitz. Although I'd love for the rest to match, I tend to think that the way this plays out is everyone says, "If $3K post-tax tips you to Kasowitz over STB/DPW/CSM, fine, go." Then, over time, gradually Kasowitz starts paying under-market bonuses and says, "Hey, our bases are higher, so this is even." Note that it's only Kasowitz NY. I doubt this drives another round of matches.

Maybe if Boies matched Kasowitz nationally, we'd see another round of raises.

Would love for someone to tell me why I'm wrong, tho.


would love for someone to explain how Boies hasn't raised yet

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:18 pm

What you're saying is obviously a possible outcome, but I have trouble imagining that's how it works out. Even if STB/DPW/CSM don't feel they have to compete, some firms will feel they have to, and that can cascade up the ladder. While firms might try to sell on total comp, absent a couple years of bonuses to go off of after this new pay structure, that would not go very far with me, particularly if i were a 2L going through OCI (and therefore unable to benefit from bonuses for at least a couple years), and particularly when plenty of Kasowitz's peers have hours requirements for bonuses. The guaranteed comp is king.

Anonymous User
Posts: 316663
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.


Name the firm. You're anonymous.


Not OP but Fenwick also does this, and its arbitrary tier/level system virtually guarantees some people get held back a year. Bonuses are often below market too, so total comp easily falls $50-70k or more below market for mid-levels.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.