NY to 200k?! Forum

[Anonymous User]

Not really sure I follow your logic here at all. If you bill your associates out more, you're more incentived to retain them not less, and raises are less costly to you as a portion of profitability, not more. The firms that don't want to move salaries are the high leverage/low margin ones, not the S&Cs of the world.

[Anonymous User]

RE: question about Kirkland...

My theory is that they don't feel materially higher salaries are going alter the quality of the incoming associates. Other than screening via schools which themselves screen via LSATs, current model of using resume, face-to-face interview, and GPA really doesn't help you screen the stars out. Save your bullets for people with more of a track record to project future performance on.

Also, I think the real winners are going to be firms that translate very high / elite level status to a work-from home, reduced hours model. People would jump ship in a heartbeat for work at an elite firm for 40-45 hours a week (*actual*, not promised), even assuming prorated reduction in salary.

[Anonymous User]

*delete dupulicate*

[Anonymous User]

I think that throwing your money around to squeeze less profitable competitors is a great strategy. Like bullying people as the big stack in poker. I've always wondered why Kirkland never seems to be the one pushing these things, since they're clearly willing to do it for laterals and partners. They have more than enough cash and aggression to lay claim to market-setting status and hold it, but never seem to bother trying. Maybe they're content with just being ever-so-slightly-above whatever market happens to be?

That's why, Kirkland is trying to win the lateral war, not the hiring war. They don't care where you start, they will steal you away and squeeze the money out of you when you are a ripe midlevel. They don't want retention, they want churn.

[Anonymous User]

I think that throwing your money around to squeeze less profitable competitors is a great strategy. Like bullying people as the big stack in poker. I've always wondered why Kirkland never seems to be the one pushing these things, since they're clearly willing to do it for laterals and partners. They have more than enough cash and aggression to lay claim to market-setting status and hold it, but never seem to bother trying. Maybe they're content with just being ever-so-slightly-above whatever market happens to be?

The economics of this proposal don't work, that's why.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

What? Why would you think having high billing rates (and consequently making a ton of money) would *decrease* your incentive to raise salaries?

Because profits of the super rich firms is a function of the Delta between salary and average billing rate * average billable hours worked (roughly speaking)



Basically the current system with flat salary scale across the board is most beneficial to the super rich like DPW- those firms can bill at rates significantly higher than the lower V100 but pay associates the exact same



No incentive to rock the boat to come over the top of Milbank and risk creating a stratified salary scale unless really desperate for talent

This comment makes zero sense.

Profits of *every* firm are basically average billing rate times hours worked minus salaries and overhead. The higher your RPL is, the less a standard industry raise affects your profit margin.

Suppose associates made $100 on a standard scale for working 10 hours a year, and Firm A bills them at $60/hr, and Firm B bills them at $20/hr. If that associate salary goes to $150, Firm A is losing 10% of its profit, but Firm B is losing 50%. Firm A is way more likely to agree to match the new salary than Firm B. The lower the firm's billing rate, the less likely it is to match. When your profit margins are already low, each standardized increase has a bigger impact.

I agree that there may be little incentive for *any* firm to do anything but match the prevailing scale if any raise is just going to be matched by others. But if anyone were to do it, it's way less of a big deal for the S&Cs and DPWs of the world than for a Pillsbury or a Sheppard Mullin.

[Anonymous User]

I think that throwing your money around to squeeze less profitable competitors is a great strategy. Like bullying people as the big stack in poker. I've always wondered why Kirkland never seems to be the one pushing these things, since they're clearly willing to do it for laterals and partners. They have more than enough cash and aggression to lay claim to market-setting status and hold it, but never seem to bother trying. Maybe they're content with just being ever-so-slightly-above whatever market happens to be?

That's why, Kirkland is trying to win the lateral war, not the hiring war. They don't care where you start, they will steal you away and squeeze the money out of you when you are a ripe midlevel. They don't want retention, they want churn.

Kirkland also has a huge number of associates so raising salaries across the board costs more than targeting busy groups with laterals and bonuses.

[Lesion of Doom]

Interested to see how the big NYC players react to this. DPW, Debevoise, Skadden, PW, Cleary, SC all had massive years last year; would not be surprised if one of them comes over the top

I'd like to see some creativity. One of the Boston firms has a stacking bonus based on consecutive years that's added to your regular bonus. If those bonuses were to get into the high 5 or 6 figure range, it would provide real incentive of associates to stick it out. Firms would be locked into extra high comp for certain associates, but if it's for your established people and keeps the recruiters at bay, maybe another way to approach it.

[Anonymous User]

Interested to see how the big NYC players react to this. DPW, Debevoise, Skadden, PW, Cleary, SC all had massive years last year; would not be surprised if one of them comes over the top

I'd like to see some creativity. One of the Boston firms has a stacking bonus based on consecutive years that's added to your regular bonus. If those bonuses were to get into the high 5 or 6 figure range, it would provide real incentive of associates to stick it out. Firms would be locked into extra high comp for certain associates, but if it's for your established people and keeps the recruiters at bay, maybe another way to approach it.

Yet they (Choate) have still lost a bunch of associates to Kirkland.

[Lesion of Doom]

Interested to see how the big NYC players react to this. DPW, Debevoise, Skadden, PW, Cleary, SC all had massive years last year; would not be surprised if one of them comes over the top

I'd like to see some creativity. One of the Boston firms has a stacking bonus based on consecutive years that's added to your regular bonus. If those bonuses were to get into the high 5 or 6 figure range, it would provide real incentive of associates to stick it out. Firms would be locked into extra high comp for certain associates, but if it's for your established people and keeps the recruiters at bay, maybe another way to approach it.

Yet they (Choate) have still lost a bunch of associates to Kirkland.

Signing bonuses? Not familiar with that market.

[objctnyrhnr]

Everybody knew the raise to 200k was coming. Why are there only a few firms who had an automatic match protocol in place, by this point?

We do this dance again and again. Why does it have to be run up the chain every single time, and more specifically why can’t those requisite steps be done in advance? We know 30 or whatever of these firms (at least) are all gonna match eventually. Why the song and dance?

[Anonymous User]

The raises aren’t done. The crappy firms like McDermott and Cadwalader see the writing on the wall and so are trying to fight the inevitable by making Milbank market by matching quickly and accepting this amount of loss. They are scared of what is likely to happen: a more profitable firm goes over the top, especially for mid level class years. That’s what all the tippy top firms are scared of and why nobody is a second mover.

It’s happening this time. Milbank does not rule the roost in Manhattan.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Everybody knew the raise to 200k was coming. Why are there only a few firms who had an automatic match protocol in place, by this point?

We do this dance again and again. Why does it have to be run up the chain every single time, and more specifically why can’t those requisite steps be done in advance? We know 30 or whatever of these firms (at least) are all gonna match eventually. Why the song and dance?

Every partner first has to call Fancy Yachts Inc. and tell them that number three is gonna have to wait until next year. As a result, wait times have gotten quite long. Schiff Hardin has been on hold for literal years, slowly going insane from repeating soft muzak, screaming "REPRESENTATIVE!" into a cracked iPhone 5.

[Anonymous User]

here is to hope that the firms with the highest ppp can beat the scale, aka KE DPW PW

[Anonymous User]

Everybody knew the raise to 200k was coming. Why are there only a few firms who had an automatic match protocol in place, by this point?

We do this dance again and again. Why does it have to be run up the chain every single time, and more specifically why can’t those requisite steps be done in advance? We know 30 or whatever of these firms (at least) are all gonna match eventually. Why the song and dance?

Every partner first has to call Fancy Yachts Inc. and tell them that number three is gonna have to wait until next year. As a result, wait times have gotten quite long. Schiff Hardin has been on hold for literal years, slowly going insane from repeating soft muzak, screaming "REPRESENTATIVE!" into a cracked iPhone 5.

Joe Shenker just had to delay his tee time to take a call on this and YOU'RE MAKING JOKES!

[Anonymous User]

here is to hope that the firms with the highest ppp can beat the scale, aka KE DPW PW

Isn't Milbank a top 10 firm in terms of financials?

[ExpOriental]

The raises aren’t done. The crappy firms like McDermott and Cadwalader see the writing on the wall and so are trying to fight the inevitable by making Milbank market by matching quickly and accepting this amount of loss. They are scared of what is likely to happen: a more profitable firm goes over the top, especially for mid level class years. That’s what all the tippy top firms are scared of and why nobody is a second mover.

It’s happening this time. Milbank does not rule the roost in Manhattan.

Cadwalader, sure (though they're probably going to have a great 2021), but McDermott was a top performer in 2020. 18% increase in revenue, 26% increase in PPEP. And yes, I understand that you are at least partially trolling.

Everybody knew the raise to 200k was coming. Why are there only a few firms who had an automatic match protocol in place, by this point?

We do this dance again and again. Why does it have to be run up the chain every single time, and more specifically why can’t those requisite steps be done in advance? We know 30 or whatever of these firms (at least) are all gonna match eventually. Why the song and dance?

One of the great perks of being a partner is that you're entitled to an epic bitchfest any time you're forced to sweep some meager additional crumb to your underlings. Let them have this.

[ExpOriental]

here is to hope that the firms with the highest ppp can beat the scale, aka KE DPW PW

Isn't Milbank a top 10 firm in terms of financials?

It's more like top 15, but the difference between it and the very top firms (excluding Wachtell) is small enough that it can match anyone coming over the top without issue.

[Anonymous User]

The raises aren’t done. The crappy firms like McDermott and Cadwalader see the writing on the wall and so are trying to fight the inevitable by making Milbank market by matching quickly and accepting this amount of loss. They are scared of what is likely to happen: a more profitable firm goes over the top, especially for mid level class years. That’s what all the tippy top firms are scared of and why nobody is a second mover.

It’s happening this time. Milbank does not rule the roost in Manhattan.

Cadwalader, sure (though they're probably going to have a great 2021), but McDermott was a top performer in 2020. 18% increase in revenue, 26% increase in PPEP. And yes, I understand that you are at least partially trolling.

Agree with this. MWE has been stressing that it always wants to provide top compensation. There's no doubt that if the compensation raises again, they'll match it. As will Milbank. They just matched second to show that they could match easily, which is often preferable to firms who drag their feet to do so (even after the market determines what the new industry rate will be).

[Bear2019]

Mintz Levin matched. Posted on non equity partner

[Anonymous User]

Mintz Levin matched. Posted on non equity partner

I've never said this before, but YAAAASSSS. Every time a firm like Mintz matches, my similarly ranked firm loses a little more grip on its go-to excuse that market raises and bonuses are for New York banker firms.

[okaygo]

Tbh these raise are paltry at best. I'd rather have more billable/bonus eligible hours count as vacation time. Why can't firms concern themselves with matching that more?

[NoLongerALurker]

Tbh these raise are paltry at best. I'd rather have more billable/bonus eligible hours count as vacation time. Why can't firms concern themselves with matching that more?

hear hear

[Anonymous User]

Mintz Levin matched. Posted on non equity partner

There it is. Boston to $200k!

[Anonymous User]

Tbh these raise are paltry at best. I'd rather have more billable/bonus eligible hours count as vacation time. Why can't firms concern themselves with matching that more?

Doesn't get the press or attention a raise does. This thread is already 5 pages long, but there has been very little about billable vacation time. Recruiters email folks about signing bonuses, salaries, covid bonuses, etc (not billable vacation time). Also, it might cost them more than these very small raises.