DF Thread Forum

[Old Gregg]

Pre-ITE, plenty of associates were hired at banks, MBB, startups, etc. hiring in those sectors continues to improve as well. I love they you use the word "ever" in caps. It's not like Goldman Sachs recruits at law schools or anything. That would be absurd.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that attrition will drive raises in compensation. My firm, like most, are bleeding mid-levels quicker than they want to. It is becoming a real concern and I anticipate firms will at least raise mid-level comp soon, or at least my firm will. I can't speak for other firms but most mid-levels at my firm are not leaving for other firms. They leave for in-house opportunities. Could I and other associates get more comp at other firms? Probably. But, it is not worth the small bump in pay. Most people would rather take the devil they know if they are willing to stay at a firm. If in-house is only paying slightly less than a firm, it's a no-brainer. If there is a large disparity in comp, then people will stay at law firms longer. It is pretty straight-forward.

Are you purely speculating that your firm will be raising mid-level compensation soon, or is there some legitimate talk of it?

They are talking about it and have been for the past year. Mid-level attrition is a real problem that has been repeatedly brought up, but they haven't really done a whole lot to prevent it yet. My guess is that they won't raise comp enough to make a difference.

[FSK]

Maybe they've realized that they don't have a reason to. As long as they can promote ~10 good partners a year (at the biggest firms), and grind lateral midlevels into the ground, they can get good work done & maintain client relations.

[Old Gregg]

Yeah, it's just about finding the right balance between docile, entrepreneurialness and intelligence. I've seen many instances where associates were passed up for partnership because they were too smart and entrepreneurial. Management likes to consolidate power, so junior partners are typically more docile than talented, and are willing to pay outrageous capital contributions just to be a part of the club (first year comp for a junior partner, as a result, tends to be not that much different from senior associate comp).

Big law firms in this economy are not about long term thinking. It really is a truly special partnership these days that grooms senior associates for key client relationships and let's these relationships flow through and pass down. And that's said, because what's special about this used to be typical before the economic crisis.

Biglaw firms are now like public companies: chasing after short term metrics at the expense of long-term thinking in order to please your shareholders.

More to the point of this thread, most big law firms don't care about retaining associates. We are all interchangeable. The idea that associates should stay so that a culture is strengthened and that morale remains high is an anachronistic. If there's a body willing to do the hours for x pay, no problem at all.

[Desert Fox]

Yeah, it's just about finding the right balance between docile, entrepreneurialness and intelligence. I've seen many instances where associates were passed up for partnership because they were too smart and entrepreneurial. Management likes to consolidate power, so junior partners are typically more docile than talented, and are willing to pay outrageous capital contributions just to be a part of the club (first year comp for a junior partner, as a result, tends to be not that much different from senior associate comp).

Big law firms in this economy are not about long term thinking. It really is a truly special partnership these days that grooms senior associates for key client relationships and let's these relationships flow through and pass down. And that's said, because what's special about this used to be typical before the economic crisis.

Biglaw firms are now like public companies: chasing after short term metrics at the expense of long-term thinking in order to please your shareholders.

A lot of firms are essentially not even making people partner. Just stick them as an of counsel or income partner, and let that be that.

[FSK]

I wouldn't give a shit, if every in house position didn't want 3-5 years of preftigious firm experience.

[FSK]

More to the point of this thread, most big law firms don't care about retaining associates. We are all interchangeable. The idea that associates should stay so that a culture is strengthened and that morale remains high is an anachronistic. If there's a body willing to do the hours for x pay, no problem at all.

It doesn't seem like more credentialed lawyers actually get better outcomes, especially once you cross a certain minimum ability threshold.

[Old Gregg]

I wouldn't give a shit, if every in house position didn't want 3-5 years of preftigious firm experience.

Doesn't have to be very prestigious. Skills are more important.

[Old Gregg]

More to the point of this thread, most big law firms don't care about retaining associates. We are all interchangeable. The idea that associates should stay so that a culture is strengthened and that morale remains high is an anachronistic. If there's a body willing to do the hours for x pay, no problem at all.

It doesn't seem like more credentialed lawyers actually get better outcomes, especially once you cross a certain minimum ability threshold.

With the exception of super cream of the crop.

[patogordo]

More to the point of this thread, most big law firms don't care about retaining associates. We are all interchangeable. The idea that associates should stay so that a culture is strengthened and that morale remains high is an anachronistic. If there's a body willing to do the hours for x pay, no problem at all.

It doesn't seem like more credentialed lawyers actually get better outcomes, especially once you cross a certain minimum ability threshold.

With the exception of super cream of the crop.

so i get to keep my special snowflake syndrome going into legal practice? -every 0L

[Anonymous User]

what is this " cream of the crop"?

[FSK]

what is this " cream of the crop"?

They're not at White & Case

[run26.2]

Some firms are paying less in certain cities.

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/10/ny-to-19 ... -the-norm/

Does anyone have experience as to how this has affected salaries at your firm? If a firm lowers first year salaries in an office, it seems like it would probably also alter the scale for current associates, perhaps by keeping them at their current salary for more than a year.

ETA press release from NALP
http://www.nalp.org/associate_salaries_2014

[Desert Fox]

Who are these firms that don't pay 160k in DC?

[Old Gregg]

what is this " cream of the crop"?

Wachtell associates, W&C associates, MTO associates, former SCOTUS clerks, you get the idea.

[FSK]

Who are these firms that don't pay 160k in DC?

Nixon Peabody, Reed Smith come to mind.

[Old Gregg]

Who are these firms that don't pay 160k in DC?

Wiley Rein pays less if you elect for a lower billable track. Does Venable pay less? Maybe they're counting Tyson's Corner biglaw?

I'm pretty sure Dickstein starts at $145.

[patogordo]

what is this " cream of the crop"?

Wachtell associates, W&C associates, MTO associates, former SCOTUS clerks, you get the idea.

people who use anon to ask whether they're the cream

[sinfiery]

ETA press release from NALP
http://www.nalp.org/associate_salaries_2014

For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2014 only about 40% did so, resulting in medians of $145,000 and $150,000 in those cities, respectively.

Wow; they are actually dropping

Information reported by firms concerning their anticipated base pay for incoming class of 2014 associates (lawyers who will start work in fall 2014 and whose first-year salaries will be measured in 2015) suggests that while $160,000 will remain the single most common starting salary in firms of more than 700 lawyers, it will be the starting salary for just one-quarter of these firms, resulting in a median of $130,000 for these firms, compared with the $147,500 anticipated salary that was reported last year for the class of 2013.

[patogordo]

NY TO 145

[Desert Fox]

Who are these firms that don't pay 160k in DC?

Wiley Rein pays less if you elect for a lower billable track. Does Venable pay less? Maybe they're counting Tyson's Corner biglaw?

I'm pretty sure Dickstein starts at $145.

Wiley Rein is a bit shady about it. They pretend you "elect" a lower track, but they just start you at the lower track and pay up if you hit the elevated level. /notbittertheycalledmebackandnevergavemeananswer

[baal hadad]

Who are these firms that don't pay 160k in DC?

Wiley Rein pays less if you elect for a lower billable track. Does Venable pay less? Maybe they're counting Tyson's Corner biglaw?

I'm pretty sure Dickstein starts at $145.

Wiley Rein is a bit shady about it. They pretend you "elect" a lower track, but they just start you at the lower track and pay up if you hit the elevated level. /notbittertheycalledmebackandnevergavemeananswer

That's quite shady

[FSK]

Shitboomers gonna boom, short story.

[dixiecupdrinking]

This whole business of trying to predict if firms will throw us a few crumbs is kind of making me sad. Another $5,000 or whatever isn't going to change anyone's life at this level. Seems like what everyone really wants is recognition/respect but fat chance of that, so we'll argue over whatever token amount that might come our way and be embittered when it doesn't happen. I guess I'd rather just take my paycheck and not think about the rest of this.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This whole business of trying to predict if firms will throw us a few crumbs is kind of making me sad. Another $5,000 or whatever isn't going to change anyone's life at this level. Seems like what everyone really wants is recognition/respect but fat chance of that, so we'll argue over whatever token amount that might come our way and be embittered when it doesn't happen. I guess I'd rather just take my paycheck and not think about the rest of this.

Based on this post, I can definitively say you should not be a lawyer.