Well 190 isn't happening, but I doubt it would affect tertiary markets for a while. The rise in work has been almost entirely corporate work, which isn't huge outside of NYC. It wouldn't surprise me if Chicago and DC wouldn't even follow a move.Anonymous User wrote:What do we think about how this will affect tertiary markets with satellite V100 offices?
My guess is not much, if any, at all. But I guess we can hope.
Biglaw Salaries going up? Forum
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 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.
- Desert Fox
- Posts: 18283
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 432501
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
Hmm, you really don't think that Chicago / DC would try to stay competitive in this hypo?Desert Fox wrote:Well 190 isn't happening, but I doubt it would affect tertiary markets for a while. The rise in work has been almost entirely corporate work, which isn't huge outside of NYC. It wouldn't surprise me if Chicago and DC wouldn't even follow a move.Anonymous User wrote:What do we think about how this will affect tertiary markets with satellite V100 offices?
My guess is not much, if any, at all. But I guess we can hope.
Otherwise, ty for the response. You may be totally right.
- Desert Fox
- Posts: 18283
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
In the past they lagged a bit and even today an awful lot of DC and Chicago firms aren't really lockstep with cravath. Some of chicago is really at 145 and some is 160k but with black box raises. In DC some firms have a 160k, but only after you bill 1900 hours set up.Anonymous User wrote:Hmm, you really don't think that Chicago / DC would try to stay competitive in this hypo?Desert Fox wrote:Well 190 isn't happening, but I doubt it would affect tertiary markets for a while. The rise in work has been almost entirely corporate work, which isn't huge outside of NYC. It wouldn't surprise me if Chicago and DC wouldn't even follow a move.Anonymous User wrote:What do we think about how this will affect tertiary markets with satellite V100 offices?
My guess is not much, if any, at all. But I guess we can hope.
Otherwise, ty for the response. You may be totally right.
DC and Chicago based firms tend to have smaller RPL and smaller PPP. 4th years already make 275k under cravath + bonus. That is a large chunk of their RPL.
A&P- a DC powerhouse just released half DPW bonuses for non-NYC offices.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:20 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
The limit does not exist.Anonymous User wrote:Everybody to the limit!utahraptor wrote:Everybody to 190
-
- Posts: 432501
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
My mentor, a partner at a V10, said that he discussed topic with managing partner of the entire firm. Managing partner said that top firms are having legitmate conversations about raising salaries, and that our firm would have no problem matching but wouldn't be the one that leads.
From everyone I've talked to (law school friends, opposing counsel), it sounds like top firms are struggling to keep mid-level and senior associates from going in-house since the pay is pretty similiar and lifestyle is much better.
At the same time, no shortage of qualified T14 students coming out of law schools, even if applications are down for law schools nationwide.
From everyone I've talked to (law school friends, opposing counsel), it sounds like top firms are struggling to keep mid-level and senior associates from going in-house since the pay is pretty similiar and lifestyle is much better.
At the same time, no shortage of qualified T14 students coming out of law schools, even if applications are down for law schools nationwide.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- utahraptor
- Posts: 3439
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
the conversations are legitimateAnonymous User wrote:legitmate conversations
NY to 190 = confirmed
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
2 Legit 2 Quitutahraptor wrote:the conversations are legitimateAnonymous User wrote:legitmate conversations
NY to 190 = confirmed
- fats provolone
- Posts: 7125
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of profirmed?
- UnicornHunter
- Posts: 13507
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
I don't know if this article was posted ITT or not (it's a month old), but it seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... nus-babies
TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.
TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.
- cookiejar1
- Posts: 867
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
this. the post directly above me is trash. ny to 190 confirmed. ljl @ the economist - we're talking about legitimate conversations at a v10 here.utahraptor wrote:the conversations are legitimateAnonymous User wrote:legitmate conversations
NY to 190 = confirmed
- 2014
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
I heard the article has been redacted by the author, just a lag by IT getting it taken down. Raise to 190k confirmed as early as this week.TheUnicornHunter wrote:I don't know if this article was posted ITT or not (it's a month old), but it seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... nus-babies
TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.
- utahraptor
- Posts: 3439
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
TheUnicornHunter wrote:I don't know if this article was posted ITT or not (it's a month old), but it seems relevant: http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... nus-babies
TL;DR: base salary isn't likely to go up anytime soon, easier for firms to give bigger bonuses when they can because it's a lot easier to lower bonus levels than to cut salary. Practical effect is to shift risk from partners to associates.

ETA: NY TO 190!!
- Yardbird
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:45 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
utahraptor wrote:ETA: NY TO 190!!

FTFY.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- utahraptor
- Posts: 3439
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
that's exactly what I didn't want, you dullard
- WhirledWorld
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:04 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
.
Last edited by WhirledWorld on Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
- cookiejar1
- Posts: 867
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
WhirledWorld wrote:It's a vicious cycle. Midlevels leave because they're busy as fuck. This results in more and more work being piled on the remaining midlevels. Who then leave because they're busy as fuck.
You know what would be a legit way to keep us around? Retirement bennies. My secretary, legal assistant, that dude in IT -- they all get matching for like 5% of their base pay into their 401K. Counsels get it too. So why shaft the associates? It's tax advantaged,it could easily bump us up to 190k,and it sends a message that's not "this is obviously for the super short term.
WhirledWorld wrote:it could easily bump us up to 190k,
WhirledWorld wrote:up to 190k
WhirledWorld wrote:190k
-
- Posts: 432501
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
My firm does 4%. Not matched, they just put it in whether you participate or not. Pretty sure it's so the partners can satisfy Safe Harbor Plan requirements.WhirledWorld wrote:It's a vicious cycle. Midlevels leave because they're busy as fuck. This results in more and more work being piled on the remaining midlevels. Who then leave because they're busy as fuck.
You know what would be a legit way to keep us around? Retirement bennies. My secretary, legal assistant, that dude in IT -- they all get matching for like 5% of their base pay into their 401K. Counsels get it too. So why shaft the associates? It's tax advantaged, it could easily bump us up to 190k, and it sends a message that's not "this is obviously for the super short term.
The vesting schedule where I worked before school was 5 years @ 20% per year and the pension vesting schedule was 5 years (no vested value at all before 5 years). So maybe in order to keep folks around they could have an end-weighted vesting schedule on matching contributions?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
New scale from a legitimate source:
190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310
190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310
- fats provolone
- Posts: 7125
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
how legitimate?
- Cobretti
- Posts: 2593
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
too legitimate... source outed as mc hammerfats provolone wrote:how legitimate?
- rpupkin
- Posts: 5653
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
Confirmed.mvp99 wrote:New scale from a legitimate source:
190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:20 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
This is too good to be true, right?rpupkin wrote:Confirmed.mvp99 wrote:New scale from a legitimate source:
190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310
-
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:52 pm
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
Good lord the millennials have turned this bort to SPS.KM2016 wrote:This is too good to be true, right?rpupkin wrote:Confirmed.mvp99 wrote:New scale from a legitimate source:
190
200
210
245
265
275
290
310
NYC to 190, Texas to 4000 sq ft wife and a new (not CPO) lexis.
-
- Posts: 432501
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
Associates (paid at the market scale, or even below market down to the mid-low 100s) are HCEs, so this can't be the reason. This is why the retirement plans at most firms are separated between staff-partners and associates, though. Adding in the associates to the staff-partner might cause there to be too many HCEs participating (though of course they could get around this by automatically contributing some amount on behalf of staff--it's really to screw the associates).Anonymous User wrote:My firm does 4%. Not matched, they just put it in whether you participate or not. Pretty sure it's so the partners can satisfy Safe Harbor Plan requirements.WhirledWorld wrote:It's a vicious cycle. Midlevels leave because they're busy as fuck. This results in more and more work being piled on the remaining midlevels. Who then leave because they're busy as fuck.
You know what would be a legit way to keep us around? Retirement bennies. My secretary, legal assistant, that dude in IT -- they all get matching for like 5% of their base pay into their 401K. Counsels get it too. So why shaft the associates? It's tax advantaged, it could easily bump us up to 190k, and it sends a message that's not "this is obviously for the super short term.
The vesting schedule where I worked before school was 5 years @ 20% per year and the pension vesting schedule was 5 years (no vested value at all before 5 years). So maybe in order to keep folks around they could have an end-weighted vesting schedule on matching contributions?
Never heard of a firm doing mandatory contributions. Is it mandatory, or just opt-out? Are you at biglaw (NYC?) or a smaller firm?
Also, heard a rumor at my firm that we're going to 210 next week. We're going to skip 190 entirely. Sorry, bros.
-
- Posts: 432501
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Biglaw Salaries going up?
1. I don't think all associates are necessarily HCEs because they'd also have to be in the Top-Paid Group (top 20%).Anonymous User wrote: Associates (paid at the market scale, or even below market down to the mid-low 100s) are HCEs, so this can't be the reason. This is why the retirement plans at most firms are separated between staff-partners and associates, though. Adding in the associates to the staff-partner might cause there to be too many HCEs participating (though of course they could get around this by automatically contributing some amount on behalf of staff--it's really to screw the associates).
Never heard of a firm doing mandatory contributions. Is it mandatory, or just opt-out? Are you at biglaw (NYC?) or a smaller firm?
Also, heard a rumor at my firm that we're going to 210 next week. We're going to skip 190 entirely. Sorry, bros.
2. It's not really mandatory contributions in the sense of taking from top-line salary. For example, ignoring taxes and bonus, if your annual salary was $160k, you still grossed $160k for the year but the partners add in $6400 to your 401k whether you contribute or not. So, in that sense, it's neither mandatory nor opt-out. Or I guess you could think of it as having annual salary of $166,400 with mandatory $6,400 contribution.
3. NYC boutique that pays above market, plus a few other benefits (e.g. the 401k contribution).
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login