NY GOES TO 180k! IT HAPPENED!!!! (CovingTTTon does a 180! Holder wept.) Forum

[Johann]

Cobretti,

Why would firms raise fixed compensation 30K when they just raised variable compensation only 5k?

You have to believe 175k or 170k is coming not 190 right? You really think they are gonna go 18% raise?

[UnicornHunter]

I don't think Tiago's point is that they'd be doing it primarily to attract first years, just that they'd probably also raise first year salary for whatever reason.

look at how they did the bonuses this year. First through third still sucks.

Back in the day they made it rain for first years.

Your point? They still raised bonuses for every year.

Also, you've literally been wrong 100% of the time when it comes to law firm compensation

How has he been wrong?

An even remotely rational market would see a dramatic downward shift in first year comp.

[bearsfan23]

I don't think Tiago's point is that they'd be doing it primarily to attract first years, just that they'd probably also raise first year salary for whatever reason.

look at how they did the bonuses this year. First through third still sucks.

Back in the day they made it rain for first years.

Your point? They still raised bonuses for every year.

Also, you've literally been wrong 100% of the time when it comes to law firm compensation

How has he been wrong?

An even remotely rational market would see a dramatic downward shift in first year comp.

Aren't you a Chicago 2L? You probably weren't a SA this summer

The elite BigLaw firms make a ridculous profit billing out even 1st years. Maybe you'll learn about a "remotely rational market" this year

[Cobretti]

Cobretti,

Why would firms raise fixed compensation 30K when they just raised variable compensation only 5k?

You have to believe 175k or 170k is coming not 190 right? You really think they are gonna go 18% raise?

We have argued this enough that you know I'm not wedded to 190 or even that it will come in terms of base comp. My point is df and his acolytes are comically off base when they argue there is no pressure to raise 1st year comp.

[UnicornHunter]

I don't think Tiago's point is that they'd be doing it primarily to attract first years, just that they'd probably also raise first year salary for whatever reason.

look at how they did the bonuses this year. First through third still sucks.

Back in the day they made it rain for first years.

Your point? They still raised bonuses for every year.

Also, you've literally been wrong 100% of the time when it comes to law firm compensation

How has he been wrong?

An even remotely rational market would see a dramatic downward shift in first year comp.

Aren't you a Chicago 2L? You probably weren't a SA this summer

The elite BigLaw firms make a ridculous profit billing out even 1st years. Maybe you'll learn about a "remotely rational market" this year

A: I'm sure they're writing off more hours than you think. I'm pretty sure a first year isn't privy to any information regarding law firm's finances that a financially literate 2l isnt.

B: it's not like the amount of work a firm's generating has anything to do with its associates. In a rational market, salaries shoild only move when firms have trouble attracting enough talent to do the work. I'm pretty sure that's not even close to an accurate description of the BigLaw market.

C: any windfalls that firms are collecting and that they do want to pass on to junior associates can be passed with less risk through bonuses. Why raise your base salary when you can get all of the benefits with none of the downside by cultivating a reputation for industry leading bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Tiago's point is that they'd be doing it primarily to attract first years, just that they'd probably also raise first year salary for whatever reason.

look at how they did the bonuses this year. First through third still sucks.

Back in the day they made it rain for first years.

Your point? They still raised bonuses for every year.

Also, you've literally been wrong 100% of the time when it comes to law firm compensation

How has he been wrong?

An even remotely rational market would see a dramatic downward shift in first year comp.

Aren't you a Chicago 2L? You probably weren't a SA this summer

The elite BigLaw firms make a ridculous profit billing out even 1st years. Maybe you'll learn about a "remotely rational market" this year

A: I'm sure they're writing off more hours than you think. I'm pretty sure a first year isn't privy to any information regarding law firm's finances that a financially literate 2l isnt.

B: it's not like the amount of work a firm's generating has anything to do with its associates. In a rational market, salaries shoild only move when firms have trouble attracting enough talent to do the work. I'm pretty sure that's not even close to an accurate description of the BigLaw market.

C: any windfalls that firms are collecting and that they do want to pass on to junior associates can be passed with less risk through bonuses. Why raise your base salary when you can get all of the benefits with none of the downside by cultivating a reputation for industry leading bonuses.

1st year corporate at a V5.

I can see every hour that they bill me out for. I can see every hour they write off. I can see whether the client is being billed hourly or on a transactional basis. Not to mention that associates are asked to help put together billing estimates and such.

If you think a 2L is privy to the same information as a first year, you're clueless.

[Johann]

1st year corporate at a V5.

I can see every hour that they bill me out for. I can see every hour they write off. I can see whether the client is being billed hourly or on a transactional basis. Not to mention that associates are asked to help put together billing estimates and such.

If you think a 2L is privy to the same information as a first year, you're clueless.

Do you realize that your one data point is essentially meaningless compared to much more important things like revenue growth year to year, collections, utilization, major client matters coming down the pipeline, etc. The 2L/1st year's access to most of this information doesn't really differ.

If you are just trying to brag, you're a douche. If you think NYC to 190k, you're an idiot, so either way who cares what you say.

[jbagelboy]

1st year corporate at a V5.

I can see every hour that they bill me out for. I can see every hour they write off. I can see whether the client is being billed hourly or on a transactional basis. Not to mention that associates are asked to help put together billing estimates and such.

If you think a 2L is privy to the same information as a first year, you're clueless.

Do you realize that your one data point is essentially meaningless compared to much more important things like revenue growth year to year, collections, utilization, major client matters coming down the pipeline, etc. The 2L/1st year's access to most of this information doesn't really differ.

If you are just trying to brag, you're a douche. If you think NYC to 190k, you're an idiot, so either way who cares what you say.NYC to 190. We did it.

[jbagelboy]

Previous discussions of NY to 190 possibilities:

2009: http://blackbooklegal.blogspot.com/2009 ... -190k.html

2011: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/11/new-york ... bout-time/

But magically 2015 will be when it happens? I doubt it. Why do that when they can raise pay via bonuses? Can't back away from 190, but you can scale back bonuses. NYC to 190. We did it.

[MCFC]

Does anyone unironically believe in NY to 190! on top-law-schools.com/forums?

Do people unironically believe in the laws of gravity? Do people unironically believe the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?

Some things are just facts.

[onionz]

1st year corporate at a V5.

I can see every hour that they bill me out for. I can see every hour they write off. I can see whether the client is being billed hourly or on a transactional basis. Not to mention that associates are asked to help put together billing estimates and such.

If you think a 2L is privy to the same information as a first year, you're clueless.

I can see everything they've billed me at/written me off of this summer. It's the same time-keeping system after all.

[lawalum]

You realize that many clients will not pay for first year time?

[yomisterd]

so, once NYC to 190 happens, what happens to law school tuition?

Seems to me, admins will be like TUITION TO 70K

[Cobretti]

so, once NYC to 190 happens, what happens to law school tuition?

Seems to me, admins will be like TUITION TO 70K

lol you're giving them too much credit thinking they aren't going there either way.

[Anonymous User]

This may be a dumb question, but why didn't other biglaw firms follow Wachtell, Boies and W&C to their higher than 160K base for 1st years? Why would a move by Paul Weiss, DPW or another be different and spark a biglaw wide upgrade?

[yomisterd]

This may be a dumb question, but why didn't other biglaw firms follow Wachtell, Boies and W&C to their higher than 160K base for 1st years? Why would a move by Paul Weiss, DPW or another be different and spark a biglaw wide upgrade?

less entry level associates at first firms. pw, dpw, etc. have larger associate classes and thus are standard bearers.

if what i've seen/been told is correct anyways

[dixiecupdrinking]

Cobretti,

Why would firms raise fixed compensation 30K when they just raised variable compensation only 5k?

You have to believe 175k or 170k is coming not 190 right? You really think they are gonna go 18% raise?

We have argued this enough that you know I'm not wedded to 190 or even that it will come in terms of base comp. My point is df and his acolytes are comically off base when they argue there is no pressure to raise 1st year comp.

There isn't though. The proof is the dozens of law students who will come traipsing through my office looking for jobs in the next month and a half, and at a hundred firms like mine, and the hundreds (thousands?) of law students who tried and failed even to get that far. Law students are almost completely fungible and everyone knows it, which is why recruiting is based on such a random clusterfuck of subjective impressions. And if you think there aren't enough law students to fill entry level jobs at $160,000....

[Desert Fox]

[Cobretti]

Cobretti,

Why would firms raise fixed compensation 30K when they just raised variable compensation only 5k?

You have to believe 175k or 170k is coming not 190 right? You really think they are gonna go 18% raise?

We have argued this enough that you know I'm not wedded to 190 or even that it will come in terms of base comp. My point is df and his acolytes are comically off base when they argue there is no pressure to raise 1st year comp.

There isn't though. The proof is the dozens of law students who will come traipsing through my office looking for jobs in the next month and a half, and at a hundred firms like mine, and the hundreds (thousands?) of law students who tried and failed even to get that far. Law students are almost completely fungible and everyone knows it, which is why recruiting is based on such a random clusterfuck of subjective impressions. And if you think there aren't enough law students to fill entry level jobs at $160,000....

If law students were viewed as fungible by firms they would be paying 70k a year and hiring whoever accepted at whatever school with any GPA.

The fact that there are people that want these jobs doesn't mean there is an infinite supply of candidates that firms view as qualified. If you really think the fact that there are more applicants than jobs is proof of no supply side pressure you don't understand the argument.

[Desert Fox]

[Cobretti]

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of essentially equal replacements, but there are enough that you don't need to raise salaries to get people.

Plus, everyone knows that any move would be met by everyone. so why do it.

Because companies that do billions in revenue a year plan more than 3 years into the future and care about long term recruitment vis a vis attracting the right people to the profession.

[Desert Fox]

[bearsfan23]

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of essentially equal replacements, but there are enough that you don't need to raise salaries to get people.

Plus, everyone knows that any move would be met by everyone. so why do it.

Honestly, I think this is a major reason why salaries would be raised. If everyone has to match, it essentially squeezes out and puts more pressure on firms with lower PPP.

It's one thing for a V9 + Deb firm to afford salary increases, it's another for a V100 firm that is barely scraping by to do so

[Cobretti]

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of essentially equal replacements, but there are enough that you don't need to raise salaries to get people.

Plus, everyone knows that any move would be met by everyone. so why do it.

Because companies that do billions in revenue a year plan more than 3 years into the future and care about long term recruitment vis a vis attracting the right people to the profession.

lol no fucking way. My firm only recently started talking to 1st years (and only for IP because Finnegan poaches all teh EE's as 1Ls). I've never heard an attorney, let alone one with say, ever talk about attracting OL talent to the field.

Hell a lot of firms dont even give a shit about hiring juniors, they are happy to just take laterals when they need them.

1) you don't work at a compensation setting firm

2) you are Junior and have zero input or insight into long term strategic vision

3) any anecdotal evidence you could possibly have isn't enough to show the billion dollar legal industry is an irrational economic actor, which it would have to be for anything you argue to be true.

[Tiago Splitter]

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of essentially equal replacements, but there are enough that you don't need to raise salaries to get people.

Plus, everyone knows that any move would be met by everyone. so why do it.

Honestly, I think this is a major reason why salaries would be raised. If everyone has to match, it essentially squeezes out and puts more pressure on firms with lower PPP.

It's one thing for a V9 + Deb firm to afford salary increases, it's another for a V100 firm that is barely scraping by to do so

If they were gonna do that it would have worked a lot better back in 2011 when things looked dicey for a lot of mid-Vault firms. Now though everyone will just match. And even if everyone wouldn't match the top Vault firms aren't losing anyone to V90's so they don't care that much.