Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Well it's after 5pm ET... see y'all back here on Monday.

I refuse to accept that yet another week has gone by.

[Anonymous User]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Original post by VentureMBA no less . Tbf, this type of MBA student is emblematic of the type of JD-MBAs at my t14.

Michigan?

[Anonymous User]

Another week and I’m still getting paid more than Cravath and DPW associates.

[ChairmanKaga]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

[Anonymous User]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Now do Arnold & Porter

[Anonymous User]

Another week and I’m still getting paid more than Cravath and DPW associates.

Even better, it's payday at my non-elite, matching v50. Going to cry to the bank wishing my LinkedIn profile oozed a little more prestige.

[Anonymous User]

.

[NoLongerALurker]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

[ChairmanKaga]

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

Is your point that counsel/SA are paid less than non-equity partners and therefore PEP would increase by moving people into the counsel/SA bracket and paying them less? Is it true generally that counsel/SA are paid less than non-equity partners (genuine question)? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.

[Anonymous User]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

I hope you're trying to say nothing happens to the PPP whatever you call them (counsel/nsp/nep/SA).

[Anonymous User]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

I hope you're trying to say nothing happens to the PPP whatever you call them (counsel/nsp/nep/SA).

I think they’re trying to say the exact opposite, because they don’t understand how math works lol

[Anonymous User]

How does having only equity partners make PPP lower?

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

I hope you're trying to say nothing happens to the PPP whatever you call them (counsel/nsp/nep/SA).

I think they’re trying to say the exact opposite, because they don’t understand how math works lol

Haven't read through the thread but maybe someone needs to tell them that the denominator in PPP is the number of equity partners and, therefore, how you label the NSPs or how many tiers of partnership the firm has doesn't affect the PPP.

[Anonymous User]

I would effectively take a pay cut to become a NSP (higher state tax, no health insurance subsidy, etc.)

[NoLongerALurker]

Just sayin to those following another thread here, this is why lawyers aren't coders at FAANGS.

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

I hope you're trying to say nothing happens to the PPP whatever you call them (counsel/nsp/nep/SA).

I think they’re trying to say the exact opposite, because they don’t understand how math works lol

Haven't read through the thread but maybe someone needs to tell them that the denominator in PPP is the number of equity partners and, therefore, how you label the NSPs or how many tiers of partnership the firm has doesn't affect the PPP.

Ah, I always figured (not that I’ve ever looked into it) that reported PPP figures included NSPs in the denominator. I stand corrected I guess.

[Anonymous User]

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

I hope you're trying to say nothing happens to the PPP whatever you call them (counsel/nsp/nep/SA).

I think they’re trying to say the exact opposite, because they don’t understand how math works lol

Haven't read through the thread but maybe someone needs to tell them that the denominator in PPP is the number of equity partners and, therefore, how you label the NSPs or how many tiers of partnership the firm has doesn't affect the PPP.

Ah, I always figured (not that I’ve ever looked into it) that reported PPP figures included NSPs in the denominator. I stand corrected I guess.

Always figured

Never looked into it

Commented anyway

Classic TLS commentator

Only difference is you acknowledged it, so you’ve got that going for you.

[NoLongerALurker]

Not the original person quoted here, but I think you may have missed the point? Having only equity partners doesn't impact PEP. Having fewer equity partners as a proportion of your overall headcount (i.e. having higher leverage) does impact PEP.

Compare these:
- Freshfields: 390 equity, 0 non-equity, 2800 lawyers (14% equity)
- Cleary: 169 equity, 0 non-equity, 1151 lawyers (15% equity)
- Paul Weiss: 160 equity, 0 non-equity, 1017 lawyers (16% equity)
- DPW: 156 equity, 0 non-equity, 982 lawyers (16% equity)
- Cravath: 90 equity, 0 non-equity, 518 lawyers (17% equity)

With these:
- K&E: 476 equity, 687 non-equity, 2749 lawyers (17% equity)
- Akin: 172 equity, 156 non-equity, 907 lawyers (19% equity)
- Goodwin: 250 equity, 167 non-equity, 1187 lawyers (21% equity)
- Proskaur: 163 equity, 81 non-equity, 731 lawyers (22% equity)
- Baker Botts: 165 equity, 119 non-equity, 719 lawyers (23% equity)

Sure, but now move 119 NEPs at BB into counsel or senior associate status and keep everything else fixed and see what happens to their PPP?

I hope you're trying to say nothing happens to the PPP whatever you call them (counsel/nsp/nep/SA).

I think they’re trying to say the exact opposite, because they don’t understand how math works lol

Haven't read through the thread but maybe someone needs to tell them that the denominator in PPP is the number of equity partners and, therefore, how you label the NSPs or how many tiers of partnership the firm has doesn't affect the PPP.

Ah, I always figured (not that I’ve ever looked into it) that reported PPP figures included NSPs in the denominator. I stand corrected I guess.

Always figured

Never looked into it

Commented anyway

Classic TLS commentator

Only difference is you acknowledged it, so you’ve got that going for you.

I was also vague enough so as to never actually asserted anything, so really I wasn’t even wrong. Win win.

[Anonymous User]

I'm getting smashed and SHOULD be having a good Friday night but all I can think about is that Neil won't raise my goddamn salary

[Anonymous User]

I'm getting smashed and SHOULD be having a good Friday night but all I can think about is that Neil won't raise my goddamn salary

We all feel like this. I'm up writing a brief right now at my TTT non-peer non-market V10 firm. DPW should have announced a match + spring / fall bonuses within a week of Milbank.

[Anonymous User]

I'm getting smashed and SHOULD be having a good Friday night but all I can think about is that Neil won't raise my goddamn salary

We all feel like this. I'm up writing a brief right now at my TTT non-peer non-market V10 firm. DPW should have announced a match + spring / fall bonuses within a week of Milbank.

I’m sitting here depressed because the escort just snorted the last of my cocaine and I wanted to do another bump off her ass but now I can’t afford more and also I wanted to have two escorts but the second one needs to dress as Thomas the Tank Engine and that costs extra and I can’t afford it because I’m a Broke Boy because Neil won’t give me a raise.

WHY ARE YOU FORCING ME TO SLEEP WITH ONLY ONE ESCORT AND RUN OUT OF COKE, NEIL?!

[Prudent_Jurist]

I'm getting smashed and SHOULD be having a good Friday night but all I can think about is that Neil won't raise my goddamn salary

We all feel like this. I'm up writing a brief right now at my TTT non-peer non-market V10 firm. DPW should have announced a match + spring / fall bonuses within a week of Milbank.

I’m sitting here depressed because the escort just snorted the last of my cocaine and I wanted to do another bump off her ass but now I can’t afford more and also I wanted to have two escorts but the second one needs to dress as Thomas the Tank Engine and that costs extra and I can’t afford it because I’m a Broke Boy because Neil won’t give me a raise.

WHY ARE YOU FORCING ME TO SLEEP WITH ONLY ONE ESCORT AND RUN OUT OF COKE, NEIL?!

What the fuck were you actually doing when you typed this?

[Anonymous User]

I'm getting smashed and SHOULD be having a good Friday night but all I can think about is that Neil won't raise my goddamn salary

We all feel like this. I'm up writing a brief right now at my TTT non-peer non-market V10 firm. DPW should have announced a match + spring / fall bonuses within a week of Milbank.

I’m sitting here depressed because the escort just snorted the last of my cocaine and I wanted to do another bump off her ass but now I can’t afford more and also I wanted to have two escorts but the second one needs to dress as Thomas the Tank Engine and that costs extra and I can’t afford it because I’m a Broke Boy because Neil won’t give me a raise.

WHY ARE YOU FORCING ME TO SLEEP WITH ONLY ONE ESCORT AND RUN OUT OF COKE, NEIL?!

What the fuck were you actually doing when you typed this?

Running redlines for Neil.

[Anonymous User]

Where the F is my raise.

[objctnyrhnr]

Another week and I’m still getting paid more than Cravath and DPW associates.

Even better, it's payday at my non-elite, matching v50. Going to cry to the bank wishing my LinkedIn profile oozed a little more prestige.

Literally this

-senior associate with decent qol and great creds sitting very content at my fast-matching v30

[Anonymous User]

TODAY IS THE DAY

[Anonymous User]

TODAY IS THE DAY

Snoop is going to announce the DPW special bonuses in the middle of the half time show tonight. You heard it here first!