NY to 200k?! Forum

[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.

I think the program is new-ish, perhaps in response to that issue. If you hit your billables (2000) for 2 consecutive years, the extra bonus is $25k. Year 3: $37,500. Year 4: $50k. And this is on top of normal market bonus.

[whats an updog]

I would forego a raise for 3 weeks uninterrupted vacation this year.

The burn out is real.

The raise is the equivalent of a few days of midlevel billables.

[Anonymous User]

Basically one day given current hours and billable rates.

[Anonymous User]

Basically one day given current hours and billable rates.

Yup. 6th year at V5. Billing rate is $1100. So 13.6 hours -- or an average (tbh below average) Tuesday.

[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?

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.

I agree with your last point wholeheartedly--thats probably why. But, I can't help but feel like if associates were more vocal about the desire for billable vacation time (which many of my colleagues across various firms in NYC are beginning to grumble about) I think it would be just as incentivizing for firms to match and correspondingly become another thing that recruiters email about and that press would cover. ATL definitely let's us know when firms increase billable vacation hours - like Wilson Sonsini - no one just cares to match it. I wish they would start.

[njdevils2626]

I don't understand the benefit of billable vacation time. My issue with taking vacation has literally never been whether or not I would meet billables, rather it's the sheer amount of work that needs to be done that prohibits me from taking time away. Let's say I take a weeklong vacation, what difference is it at the end of the year if that vacation is billable and takes me to 2550 instead of 2500?

[Lubberlubber]

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.

I agree with your last point wholeheartedly--thats probably why. But, I can't help but feel like if associates were more vocal about the desire for billable vacation time (which many of my colleagues across various firms in NYC are beginning to grumble about) I think it would be just as incentivizing for firms to match and correspondingly become another thing that recruiters email about and that press would cover. ATL definitely let's us know when firms increase billable vacation hours - like Wilson Sonsini - no one just cares to match it. I wish they would start.

Sorry--out of the loop here. What is billable vacation time?? Is that where vacation hours count towards minimum hours? How does this cost firms? Do you mean that if Firm A has 2000 hour billable requirement and allows associates to bill 200 hours of vacation time, that means it effectively has an 1800 requirement?

Would this be the same as just lowering the billable requirement?

[Lubberlubber]

I don't understand the benefit of billable vacation time. My issue with taking vacation has literally never been whether or not I would meet billables, rather it's the sheer amount of work that needs to be done that prohibits me from taking time away. Let's say I take a weeklong vacation, what difference is it at the end of the year if that vacation is billable and takes me to 2550 instead of 2500?

Beat me to it--this was exactly my point. Associates don't control their hours with that level of precision anyway. It's very difficult to bill exactly the minimum requirement and not one hour more, unless you were seriously padding.

[Anonymous User]

It may depend on what type of shop you are at. For example, if you're at a firm that doesn't have billable hour requirements, then you definitely have no interest in having it.

But if you're at a shop that can give you top ups and you can get a few 10s of thousands on top of the market bonus, then you're less likely to take your "unlimited" vacation hours. Let's say thats about 20 days of vacations (like at normal jobs). If you're billing 8 hour days on average, thats ~160 hours of additional hours. At some firms that can be 10-20k on top of normal bonus. Not nothing. For firms that have top ups above market it sometimes can feel really hard to want to take time off because every hour counts.

[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?

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.

I agree with your last point wholeheartedly--thats probably why. But, I can't help but feel like if associates were more vocal about the desire for billable vacation time (which many of my colleagues across various firms in NYC are beginning to grumble about) I think it would be just as incentivizing for firms to match and correspondingly become another thing that recruiters email about and that press would cover. ATL definitely let's us know when firms increase billable vacation hours - like Wilson Sonsini - no one just cares to match it. I wish they would start.

Sorry--out of the loop here. What is billable vacation time?? Is that where vacation hours count towards minimum hours? How does this cost firms? Do you mean that if Firm A has 2000 hour billable requirement and allows associates to bill 200 hours of vacation time, that means it effectively has an 1800 requirement?

Would this be the same as just lowering the billable requirement?

Vacation hours can count towards your bonus-eligible hours. See https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/wilson- ... bonus-2021.

[legalpotato]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

[okaygo]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Same. It's cute but 15k isn't going to stop firms from hemorrhaging mids who have low partnership prospects.

[jotarokujo]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Same. It's cute but 15k isn't going to stop firms from hemorrhaging mids who have low partnership prospects.

are there any hard numbers supporting the idea that corporate attorneys have more leverage and litigation ones and there actually are significantly fewer biglaw attorneys these days?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Counterpoint: It's much easier to lie about having a "work/life balance" than it is to lie about salaries.

I will once again take this opportunity to plug my idea that a firm who pays people by the hour would crush it in recruiting. You just sign up for matters as you go, no hours expectations at all since you get no base (although there could be some sort of downside guarantee). Say you start at like $100/billed hour and get a raise every 2000 hours. It would ultimately be cheaper for firms and half the lawyers I know would do it.

[Anonymous User]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Perhaps a greater disparity between BigLaw market standard and various alternatives will put pressure on those alternatives to increase pay as well. For example, it's easier to pay someone $120k for lower hours when BigLaw pays $160k, but harder when BigLaw is at $200k (or $215k or whatever we hope DPW will raise it to).

[Anonymous User]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Counterpoint: It's much easier to lie about having a "work/life balance" than it is to lie about salaries.

I will once again take this opportunity to plug my idea that a firm who pays people by the hour would crush it in recruiting. You just sign up for matters as you go, no hours expectations at all since you get no base (although there could be some sort of downside guarantee). Say you start at like $100/billed hour and get a raise every 2000 hours. It would ultimately be cheaper for firms and half the lawyers I know would do it.

My firm has this option. 1 person has taken it. They take your salary, divide it by 2k and then you get paid by the hour (it's one of our reduced pace options). There is a minimum expectation of something like 1000 or 1200 hours in a year. I should add this person really likes it and says its wayyyy better than going at 65% or 75% or whatever.

For what it's worth, I've seen more than one person happy with reduced pace. I think more folks should think about a reduced pace schedule.

[Anonymous User]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Counterpoint: It's much easier to lie about having a "work/life balance" than it is to lie about salaries.

I will once again take this opportunity to plug my idea that a firm who pays people by the hour would crush it in recruiting. You just sign up for matters as you go, no hours expectations at all since you get no base (although there could be some sort of downside guarantee). Say you start at like $100/billed hour and get a raise every 2000 hours. It would ultimately be cheaper for firms and half the lawyers I know would do it.

My firm has this option. 1 person has taken it. They take your salary, divide it by 2k and then you get paid by the hour (it's one of our reduced pace options). There is a minimum expectation of something like 1000 or 1200 hours in a year. I should add this person really likes it and says its wayyyy better than going at 65% or 75% or whatever.

For what it's worth, I've seen more than one person happy with reduced pace. I think more folks should think about a reduced pace schedule.

Firm? That sounds amazing. Also, was that person someone super specialized that is hard to replace or something like a generic mid-level corp/lit associate

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Counterpoint: It's much easier to lie about having a "work/life balance" than it is to lie about salaries.

I will once again take this opportunity to plug my idea that a firm who pays people by the hour would crush it in recruiting. You just sign up for matters as you go, no hours expectations at all since you get no base (although there could be some sort of downside guarantee). Say you start at like $100/billed hour and get a raise every 2000 hours. It would ultimately be cheaper for firms and half the lawyers I know would do it.

My firm has this option. 1 person has taken it. They take your salary, divide it by 2k and then you get paid by the hour (it's one of our reduced pace options). There is a minimum expectation of something like 1000 or 1200 hours in a year. I should add this person really likes it and says its wayyyy better than going at 65% or 75% or whatever.

For what it's worth, I've seen more than one person happy with reduced pace. I think more folks should think about a reduced pace schedule.

I have seen plenty of firms with like 1600 tracks where you take a 40% cut or some ridiculous bullshit like that. Mine has done fully prorated but it's "at their discretion considering circumstances" and I've never seen it given to anyone except for new moms.

If your firm's option is available to everyone, send me an application bro.

[dyemond]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Same. It's cute but 15k isn't going to stop firms from hemorrhaging mids who have low partnership prospects.

are there any hard numbers supporting the idea that corporate attorneys have more leverage and litigation ones and there actually are significantly fewer biglaw attorneys these days?

I am sure litigation is busy but it's corporate work that is driving the compensation wars.

[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.

Billing rates vary widely over the V100 but compensation is mostly flat, which is an oddity of the legal industry.

Result of this system is that the top ∼30 most profitable firms are each granted a money printer because they can get away with paying only the 190k scale when they bill out associates at more than double the rates of other firms.

That's a very profitable system that firms like Sullcrom/DPW/Cravath want to preserve.

If comp is pushed too high, less profitable firms may not be able to match and the nice flat system of comp where all V100 pay equivalent salaries may break down.

If that happens, compensation will become a differentiating factor between different firms, and thus firms will have to compete with each other more on the basis of compensation.

All of that cuts into the Yacht fund, which is why none of the super rich have any incentive to raise compensation over the market.

[Anonymous User]

TBH would much prefer a commitment to be humane in terms of work load/hours over additional $$

Same. It's cute but 15k isn't going to stop firms from hemorrhaging mids who have low partnership prospects.

are there any hard numbers supporting the idea that corporate attorneys have more leverage and litigation ones and there actually are significantly fewer biglaw attorneys these days?

I am sure litigation is busy but it's corporate work that is driving the compensation wars.

I know this is off-topic, but how is the work flow in nyc biglaw litigation nowadays?

[Anonymous User]

Any word on whether Texas biglaw and lit boutiques will match? In 2018 I remember Yetter Coleman and a bunch of other firms matched.

[JusticeJackson]

All of that cuts into the Yacht fund, which is why none of the super rich have any incentive to raise compensation over the market.

I agree with this. But why would Milbank folks make this move? They know everyone they compete with will match, so they don’t get any recruiting traction. I’m genuinely curious.

[Moneytrees]

All of that cuts into the Yacht fund, which is why none of the super rich have any incentive to raise compensation over the market.

I agree with this. But why would Milbank folks make this move? They know everyone they compete with will match, so they don’t get any recruiting traction. I’m genuinely curious.

Last time they raised salaries, they jumped like 15-20 spots in the next edition of Vault's rankings. A lot of young associates see them as the market leader, at least to some degree, and we all know much law firms care about prestige.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on whether Texas biglaw and lit boutiques will match? In 2018 I remember Yetter Coleman and a bunch of other firms matched.

Texas has to match because of Kirkland