NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

There is no shortage of clients more than willing to pay V10 rates for V10 work, which is more than enough for a raise to 210k. If some V70 clients aren't willing to pay those rates or those firms can't match those raises, so be it. The associate market place will finally be a little more efficient.

Exactly, this is pure noise. Each firm spends a lot of time and money determining the optimal pricing level to set billing rates. In theory, associate salaries play zero part in that analysis. And certainly they play no practical part in the pricing decisions of the mega-profitable firms.

[Anonymous User]

Count me in as thinking Cravath (or maybe DPW, KE, whoever) is deciding whether it's better to cause real stratification in associate salaries and leave some firms behind by going over the top of Milbank - and if they can do that at 200 or if that would require 210 - or if matching at 190 and maintaining the status quo is best. The top firms know that if they go over the top of Milbank there will be some 180 firms who don't come with them.

[Dr. Nefario]

And when David Lat posts. Otherwise it is useless.

Nah he sucks. Patrice is ok

second.

Patrice published the Milbank podcast. He's just another clickbaiter. They all suck.

[Anonymous User]

Count me in as thinking Cravath (or maybe DPW, KE, whoever) is deciding whether it's better to cause real stratification in associate salaries and leave some firms behind by going over the top of Milbank - and if they can do that at 200 or if that would require 210 - or if matching at 190 and maintaining the status quo is best. The top firms know that if they go over the top of Milbank there will be some 180 firms who don't come with them.

This is plausible. If they were merely going to match, they could have done so in 24-48 hours, as they did with the last raises. The supposed concern about matching then getting passed up seems overblown. That's no worse than doing nothing at all.

[Anonymous User]

When are OCI bid lists due? That's a meaningful deadline that firms should have in mind.

[Anonymous User]

Count me in as thinking Cravath (or maybe DPW, KE, whoever) is deciding whether it's better to cause real stratification in associate salaries and leave some firms behind by going over the top of Milbank - and if they can do that at 200 or if that would require 210 - or if matching at 190 and maintaining the status quo is best. The top firms know that if they go over the top of Milbank there will be some 180 firms who don't come with them.

This is plausible. If they were merely going to match, they could have done so in 24-48 hours, as they did with the last raises. The supposed concern about matching then getting passed up seems overblown. That's no worse than doing nothing at all.

The two theories aren't mutually exclusive.

This theory applies to firms like Cravath and other potential market leaders.

The concern about matching then getting passed up applies to all the other firms that haven't matched yet.

[Anonymous User]

Is it true that clients are whining about the milbank raises ?

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

The real tone-deafness is claiming that they want firms to "bill based on value" when really all they want is lower rates because who the f knows what "value" is when it comes to legal services. Certainly clients don't. And they can always find lower rates by hiring firms with lower rates; it's not like second-rate lawyers are hard to find...

Also, the person who made the "tone-deafness" comment goes on to say something even more "tone deaf" from my perspective:

"The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first year associates $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice."

[minnbills]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

[Cobretti]

Is it true that clients are whining about the milbank raises ?

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

The real tone-deafness is claiming that they want firms to "bill based on value" when really all they want is lower rates because who the f knows what "value" is when it comes to legal services. Certainly clients don't. And they can always find lower rates by hiring firms with lower rates; it's not like second-rate lawyers are hard to find...

Also, the person who made the "tone-deafness" comment goes on to say something even more "tone deaf" from my perspective:

"The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first year associates $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice."

lol jesus christ. trump voting shitboomer outed

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

Bitter they probably never even made associate

[Anonymous User]

Is it true that clients are whining about the milbank raises ?

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

The real tone-deafness is claiming that they want firms to "bill based on value" when really all they want is lower rates because who the f knows what "value" is when it comes to legal services. Certainly clients don't. And they can always find lower rates by hiring firms with lower rates; it's not like second-rate lawyers are hard to find...

Also, the person who made the "tone-deafness" comment goes on to say something even more "tone deaf" from my perspective:

"The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first year associates $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice."

LOL this guy might be the one getting fired

[romanticegotist]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

Highly relevant

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

Highly relevant

Then again, if junior associates are not valuable, as in-house counsel says, shouldn’t the value go to senior and mid level associates? In other words, are more senior associates subsidizing the junior associates because the salaries don’t go up that much by year?

[malibustacy]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

Highly relevant

Then again, if junior associates are not valuable, as in-house counsel says, shouldn’t the value go to senior and mid level associates? In other words, are more senior associates subsidizing the junior associates because the salaries don’t go up that much by year?

The value does go to senior and mid level associates. The increases are much greater for subsequent classes.

[Anonymous User]

Is it true that clients are whining about the milbank raises ?

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

The real tone-deafness is claiming that they want firms to "bill based on value" when really all they want is lower rates because who the f knows what "value" is when it comes to legal services. Certainly clients don't. And they can always find lower rates by hiring firms with lower rates; it's not like second-rate lawyers are hard to find...

Also, the person who made the "tone-deafness" comment goes on to say something even more "tone deaf" from my perspective:

"The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first year associates $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice."

lol jesus christ. trump voting shitboomer outed

You're an idiot if you think only Trump supporters have sympathy for that sentiment. Moreover, if you think "I'm in the right, everyone who disagrees is an old white male Trump voter who will soon die and be obsolete," you're in for a rude surprise. People can think for themselves and don't fall into oversimplified little boxes that you can label and dismiss b/c it makes you feel better at night about your own blindspots and prejudices.

[Anonymous User]

The "leapfrogging" concern makes no sense unless you're one of the top three firms that wants fake compensation leader points, which can't possibly influence any sane person's decisions about where to work or whether to stay. My firm will match no matter what and I don't know a single person here who would think that matching and then matching the re-raise would look bad. And would anyone in law school really think "Oh, wow, I better not go there. They pay exactly the same, but they matched and then had to match a re-raise! How embarrassing!" It's the most meaningless consideration I can think of.

The top firms should pay way more than they pay. They will then have an easier time with retention, they'll attract the most qualified students, laterals, clerks, etc. As it stands, there is literally no difference between CSM and v-whatever-with-same-pay for at least 50% of associates who think that QOL trumps every consideration for equal pay. The prestige glow fades for basically everyone except the super gunners. Make it harder for the small ball firms to compete with comp and you'll make the rest of us sweat, instead of auto-bailing as mid-levels for QOL improvement and near-identical or identical comp. Tippy top firms should exercise more control over who stays, and just tell more 5th years who suck to get lost.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

Highly relevant

Then again, if junior associates are not valuable, as in-house counsel says, shouldn’t the value go to senior and mid level associates? In other words, are more senior associates subsidizing the junior associates because the salaries don’t go up that much by year?

The value does go to senior and mid level associates. The increases are much greater for subsequent classes.

Right, but the suggestion is that juniors are overvalued and seniors are undervalued. So why not start juniors at say, $150 and then have it increase by $40K or more per year? Then midlevels get paid more and juniors get paid less.

[Anonymous User]

lol jesus christ. trump voting shitboomer outed

You're an idiot if you think only Trump supporters have sympathy for that sentiment. Moreover, if you think "I'm in the right, everyone who disagrees is an old white male Trump voter who will soon die and be obsolete," you're in for a rude surprise. People can think for themselves and don't fall into oversimplified little boxes that you can label and dismiss b/c it makes you feel better at night about your own blindspots and prejudices.

lol jesus christ. trump voting shitboomer outed

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone else read that article and get the sense some of those in-house lawyers are just bitter they didn't make partner?

Highly relevant

Then again, if junior associates are not valuable, as in-house counsel says, shouldn’t the value go to senior and mid level associates? In other words, are more senior associates subsidizing the junior associates because the salaries don’t go up that much by year?

The value does go to senior and mid level associates. The increases are much greater for subsequent classes.

Hardly "much greater"

Anyway if clients don't like juniors, they may consider have their in house people push fewer boring admin tasks onto law firms.

[Anonymous User]

The "leapfrogging" concern makes no sense unless you're one of the top three firms that wants fake compensation leader points, which can't possibly influence any sane person's decisions about where to work or whether to stay. My firm will match no matter what and I don't know a single person here who would think that matching and then matching the re-raise would look bad. And would anyone in law school really think "Oh, wow, I better not go there. They pay exactly the same, but they matched and then had to match a re-raise! How embarrassing!" It's the most meaningless consideration I can think of.

hold my beer...

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

"If you know anything about big law, you would understand partners at law firms HATE to appear like they can't read the landscape and appear reactionary. Which is what it looks like if you raise to match more than once. This is not a difficult concept to understand"

"everyone is a follower but doesn't want to look like a follower. Matching twice would feel more like playing catch up where as matching once feels like the market moving at once."

"They would like to avoid looking cheap and indecisive. And a second raise implies they don't believe the associates initially deserved/should get that incremental amount, but they're forced to provide it because other firms think they do..."

"Because if they match 190 and Cravath leapfrogs to 200, they'll have to raise again to 200 immediately afterwards. Not really a good look."

[Anonymous User]

Is it true that clients are whining about the milbank raises ?

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

The real tone-deafness is claiming that they want firms to "bill based on value" when really all they want is lower rates because who the f knows what "value" is when it comes to legal services. Certainly clients don't. And they can always find lower rates by hiring firms with lower rates; it's not like second-rate lawyers are hard to find...

Also, the person who made the "tone-deafness" comment goes on to say something even more "tone deaf" from my perspective:

"The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first year associates $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice."

lol jesus christ. trump voting shitboomer outed

You're an idiot if you think only Trump supporters have sympathy for that sentiment. Moreover, if you think "I'm in the right, everyone who disagrees is an old white male Trump voter who will soon die and be obsolete," you're in for a rude surprise. People can think for themselves and don't fall into oversimplified little boxes that you can label and dismiss b/c it makes you feel better at night about your own blindspots and prejudices.

"People can think for themselves" is a generally true statement, except when it comes to Trump voters, who have repeatedly exemplified behavior suggesting the opposite generalization is true. In the case of Trump voters, they more often than not can be put into oversimplified little, labeled boxes, and they most assuredly should be dismissed with prejudice.

[Anonymous User]

Is it true that clients are whining about the milbank raises ?

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

The real tone-deafness is claiming that they want firms to "bill based on value" when really all they want is lower rates because who the f knows what "value" is when it comes to legal services. Certainly clients don't. And they can always find lower rates by hiring firms with lower rates; it's not like second-rate lawyers are hard to find...

Also, the person who made the "tone-deafness" comment goes on to say something even more "tone deaf" from my perspective:

"The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first year associates $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice."

lol jesus christ. trump voting shitboomer outed

You're an idiot if you think only Trump supporters have sympathy for that sentiment. Moreover, if you think "I'm in the right, everyone who disagrees is an old white male Trump voter who will soon die and be obsolete," you're in for a rude surprise. People can think for themselves and don't fall into oversimplified little boxes that you can label and dismiss b/c it makes you feel better at night about your own blindspots and prejudices.

"People can think for themselves" is a generally true statement, except when it comes to Trump voters, who have repeatedly exemplified behavior suggesting the opposite generalization is true. In the case of Trump voters, they more often than not can be put into oversimplified little, labeled boxes, and they most assuredly should be dismissed with prejudice.

This kinda misses the mark, the dude's whole point is that you don't need to be a trump voter to express the sentiment in the article.

[NakedPowerOrgan]

the longer it goes on, makes 200k more likely right?

or am i delusional

A toss-up.

Less likely, because if a firm wanted to set the market at $200K, it probably would have done it shortly after the STB announcement for maximum “STB and Milbank are a bunch of broke-ass pussies” effect.

Right now, I think it’s a bunch of nervous firms that don’t want to raise to $200K but also don’t want to match $190K and be embarrassed later. (Maybe a small handful of firms think it’s moving to at least $200K and are planning to raise to that level but are worried that another firm would turn around and make them look cheap by raising to $205K+, but this seems unlikely.) So, in a sense, more likely because if firms were confident that nobody would raise to $200K, the most-profitable firms would have raised to $190K and been done with it.

Then again, it could be that firms think there’s just a very small possibility that another firm would raise to $200K, but they’re not losing much by taking the low-risk approach and waiting a while to see if it happens. As far as I know, nobody at Milbank, STB, etc. are getting paid above market $190K salaries until July 1, so other firms can afford to wait and see with minimal downside.

[Anonymous User]

the longer it goes on, makes 200k more likely right?

or am i delusional

A toss-up.

Less likely, because if a firm wanted to set the market at $200K, it probably would have done it shortly after the STB announcement for maximum “STB and Milbank are a bunch of broke-ass pussies” effect.

Right now, I think it’s a bunch of nervous firms that don’t want to raise to $200K but also don’t want to match $190K and be embarrassed later. (Maybe a small handful of firms think it’s moving to at least $200K and are planning to raise to that level but are worried that MILBANK would turn around and make them look cheap by raising to $205K+, and this seems likely.) So, in a sense, more likely because if firms were confident that nobody would raise to $200K, the most-profitable firms would have raised to $190K and been done with it.

Then again, it could be that firms think there’s just a very small possibility that another firm would raise to $200K, but they’re not losing much by taking the low-risk approach and waiting a while to see if it happens. As far as I know, nobody at Milbank, STB, etc. are getting paid above market $190K salaries until July 1, so other firms can afford to wait and see with minimal downside.

FTFY.

[Anonymous User]

So is OMM confirmed?

The firm you trashed me for talking about? No not yet. rofl I was wondering why you were so triggered by this earlier post.

Sorry to whoever is annoyed but biglaw is not prestigious. Let's review Loyola 2L's experience

1. Worked for a lawyer who favored torture.
2. Overheard partners fighting over money.
3. Firm tried to threaten him after he wrote the blog. Failed badly.
4. The firm tells associates to lie to vault.
5. The firm threatened a girl raped by Harvey Weinstein.
6. The firm messed up in a child sex abuse matter and works on these disgusting matters. Also works on "It's no secret that O'Melveny works on a certain type of case. The Exxon Valdez oil spill. Enron. Trump University. Drug manufacturers accused of causing terrible injuries or birth defects. Mass torts, toxic torts and catastrophic torts. Healthcare fraud. Sexual assault, sexual harassment and employment discrimination. Workers deprived of overtime pay. Mass foreclosures. Banks defrauding customers, discriminating against customers or nickel-and-diming customers . . . I could go on and on."
7. Judge Reinhardt hated working there.

Biglaw isn't prestige. It's gutter trash. You folks and your $10,000 raise are another example. Don't ever bring up biglaw and prestige again.

http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... gspot.com/

I'm literally laughing at my desk.

+1. O'Melveny and Cadwalader fell like a lead weight. I'd go to DLA Piper before those dumps. Get a new firm JohnnieSockran, you poser.

Vault is misguided on Cadwalader it's underrated.

Columbia/Yale > Debevoise associates GUFFAWING at Cadwalader and their law center pedigree.

This is what I find when I search for my firm? Joke's on you. It's Friday 6pm and 4 firms have matches. You're all Cadwaladers now.