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

[abl]

I'm probably just naive and don't really know anything about anything but considering how much firms have scaled back on summer programs and summer class sizes and the fact that there is a dearth of midlevels as is and the fact that lots of firms pulled in record profits as of last year I'm not really worried about widespread layoffs.

(says the law student)

Don't really think salaries are going up any time soon either though of course.

Yeah I think most firms are stable/fine. There are always exceptions but that's unrelated to the broader market. But the first year salary increase is a solution in search of a problem if we're being honest. People saying that COL has gone up are missing the point. There are no better paying options, and nothing even close to biglaw.

I think law firms should raise base salaries to continue attracting people to go to law school at all. Isn't enrollment at law schools much lower this year? And in SF or NY, getting a 110-120k starting position right out of college isn't uncommon, at least at tech or startup companies. Factor in not having law school debt and the extra 3 years of pay, and law school doesn't seem so enticing when your supposedly super high pay in biglaw isn't that much higher than what you can make in other jobs.

Any individual law firm's interest in encouraging college seniors to take the LSAT is ludicrously attenuated. There is no way anyone in a position to increase salaries is thinking about inducing people to attend law school.

There is definitely pressure from other industries w/r/t junior retention and recruitment yields at elite firms. Encouraging credentialed people to choose law is a struggle even after law school matriculation.

Wait - to what other industries do Paul Hastings and other similar firms lose junior associates?

[fats provolone]

the funerary industry, indirectly

[smaug]

I'm probably just naive and don't really know anything about anything but considering how much firms have scaled back on summer programs and summer class sizes and the fact that there is a dearth of midlevels as is and the fact that lots of firms pulled in record profits as of last year I'm not really worried about widespread layoffs.

(says the law student)

Don't really think salaries are going up any time soon either though of course.

Yeah I think most firms are stable/fine. There are always exceptions but that's unrelated to the broader market. But the first year salary increase is a solution in search of a problem if we're being honest. People saying that COL has gone up are missing the point. There are no better paying options, and nothing even close to biglaw.

I think law firms should raise base salaries to continue attracting people to go to law school at all. Isn't enrollment at law schools much lower this year? And in SF or NY, getting a 110-120k starting position right out of college isn't uncommon, at least at tech or startup companies. Factor in not having law school debt and the extra 3 years of pay, and law school doesn't seem so enticing when your supposedly super high pay in biglaw isn't that much higher than what you can make in other jobs.

The law firms who drive the salary raises aren't the law firms who are really hurting from the talent drain. If anything, as the bottom has fallen out, the difference between elite graduates and non-elite graduates has grown wider--which actually provides the most elite law firms with a relative competitive advantage. 5-10 years ago, the top law schools and top law firms could have filled their entire class with folks that they rejected and seen reasonably little difference. That's not as much of the case anymore. If anyone in private practice is really feeling the heat from this right now, it's the lower T100 firms--firms that may be at market now, but aren't going to be driving any increase in market rate.

I think a much more sensible justification for a market rate increase is if top firms are losing out on candidates to less elite firms in lower COL locations who also pay market (which I think is unlikely to be happening much more now than it did ~5 years ago) or if top firms are struggling with retention (which I think is likely). The problem is that if retention is the issue, what's the point in raising first year salary? It'd make sense to increase lockstep (or bonuses), but for second- or third-years--or at whatever levels that retention starts to come into play.

same


(Actually, no, not same, this is an incredibly bad post.)

[20160810]

the funerary industry, indirectly

Pall Hastings

[jkpolk]

even if true, there is zero chance any law firm comp committee is thinking about encouraging 0Ls to go to law school by raising salaries

Oh ya for sure. 0Ls aren't helping us here. 0L's, don't go to law school.

[Big Shrimpin]

the funerary industry, indirectly

Pall Hastings

[Anonymous User]

Gloomy in here...

Well today my v15 firm's chairman shared two things with associates:

1) Simpson doc was bunk (and seemed a bit taken aback by how the figures would work out)

2) He expects something to move before the year is out (we'll follow at the top, but not lead)

NYC to [190]?

[fats provolone]

Gloomy in here...

Well today my v15 firm's chairman shared two things with associates:

1) Simpson doc was bunk (and seemed a bit taken aback by how the figures would work out)

2) He expects something to move before the year is out (we'll follow at the top, but not lead)

NYC to [190]?

describe the quantity of cheese provided after this announcement

[Anonymous User]

Gloomy in here...

Well today my v15 firm's chairman shared two things with associates:

1) Simpson doc was bunk (and seemed a bit taken aback by how the figures would work out)

2) He expects something to move before the year is out (we'll follow at the top, but not lead)

NYC to [190]?

describe the quantity of cheese provided after this announcement

Lots of cheese. We ate Italian.

[Anonymous User]

Does the V15's chairman's name rhyme with Schrad Scharp?

[Mamba1991]

Gloomy in here...

Well today my v15 firm's chairman shared two things with associates:

1) Simpson doc was bunk (and seemed a bit taken aback by how the figures would work out)

2) He expects something to move before the year is out (we'll follow at the top, but not lead)

NYC to [190]?

Can you give more detail on this "gloomy" encounter? He seemed taken aback by the STB figures, but expects salaries to go up by year end?

[Jakobe]

Gloomy in here...

Well today my v15 firm's chairman shared two things with associates:

1) Simpson doc was bunk (and seemed a bit taken aback by how the figures would work out)

2) He expects something to move before the year is out (we'll follow at the top, but not lead)

NYC to [190]?

Can you give more detail on this "gloomy" encounter? He seemed taken aback by the STB figures, but expects salaries to go up by year end?

He's saying this thread is gloomy, not necessarily the encounter.

[Anonymous User]

Question. When salaries are raised to 190k, will it have an immediate effect on in house compensation?

[LeDique]

Immediate. I am an in-house attorney and my contract specifies that I am to be paid a specific percentage of whatever NYC firms are paying to first-year associates.

[Anonymous User]

the DA is on our side http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exc ... -1.2423992 they obviously see 190k is happening and don't want to have the same compensation

[barkschool]

Question. When salaries are raised to 190k, will it have an immediate effect on in house compensation?

Why would a market that can keep its salaries lower, and still have incredible talent flock, need to raise their salaries?

In-house will be quick to match... inflation.... maybe

[Anonymous User]

Question. When salaries are raised to 190k, will it have an immediate effect on in house compensation?

Why would a market that can keep its salaries lower, and still have incredible talent flock, need to raise their salaries?

In-house will be quick to match... inflation.... maybe

I mean, I don't know if I'm "incredible talent"(most likely not) but I did turn down a v5 in NYC for a firm in a different market, simply because the other market allows me to pay down my debt faster. I also love NYC for some reason and I wanted to live here. I wasn't the only person in my class making that choice, and I'm guessing it's going to become a more and more common choice if other markets increase their pay

[Cobretti]

I'm probably just naive and don't really know anything about anything but considering how much firms have scaled back on summer programs and summer class sizes and the fact that there is a dearth of midlevels as is and the fact that lots of firms pulled in record profits as of last year I'm not really worried about widespread layoffs.

(says the law student)

Don't really think salaries are going up any time soon either though of course.

Yeah I think most firms are stable/fine. There are always exceptions but that's unrelated to the broader market. But the first year salary increase is a solution in search of a problem if we're being honest. People saying that COL has gone up are missing the point. There are no better paying options, and nothing even close to biglaw.

I think law firms should raise base salaries to continue attracting people to go to law school at all. Isn't enrollment at law schools much lower this year? And in SF or NY, getting a 110-120k starting position right out of college isn't uncommon, at least at tech or startup companies. Factor in not having law school debt and the extra 3 years of pay, and law school doesn't seem so enticing when your supposedly super high pay in biglaw isn't that much higher than what you can make in other jobs.

Any individual law firm's interest in encouraging college seniors to take the LSAT is ludicrously attenuated. There is no way anyone in a position to increase salaries is thinking about inducing people to attend law school.

Big law is egregiously scheming together to fix salaries and drive down competition, there is zero evidence that individual firms are the relevant decision makers here. Of course the industry is strongly motivated to keep their talent pool competitive, their long term health depends on it.

Also, I don't see where people are getting that the talent pool is the same at the top and therefore the top firms aren't being effected. The biggest drop in LSATs over the last few years has been elite scorers. I know we all want to think we aren't dumber than the class years ahead of us, but there is strong evidence that we are, on average.

[fats provolone]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

[Old Gregg]

lol at calling biglaw attorneys applying inhouse an "incredible pool of talent." yes, an incredible pool of talent at fixing commas and inserting signature pages. THANKS UR O SO SMART PLZ CUM INHOUSE

[Old Gregg]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

ding ding ding. the whole "zomg avg scores have dipped by 2 points therefore there's a talent squeeze" is a load of BS. 1 or 2 points doesnt make a difference, and u dont gotta be smart to succeed in biglaw. a follower's mentality with some personality to generate business is sufficient to have a good shot at partnership. just keep ur head down and grind out the hours. if ur too smart u might get fired.

[Clearly]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

ding ding ding. the whole "zomg avg scores have dipped by 2 points therefore there's a talent squeeze" is a load of BS. 1 or 2 points doesnt make a difference, and u dont gotta be smart to succeed in biglaw. a follower's mentality with some personality to generate business is sufficient to have a good shot at partnership. just keep ur head down and grind out the hours. if ur too smart u might get fired.

I mostly agree, but bar passage rates did drop in proportion to lsat scores on a 3 year delay...

[emkay625]

you can't really call the lsat a measure of intelligence when people regularly improve their scores drastically on this site just by studying old tests

ding ding ding. the whole "zomg avg scores have dipped by 2 points therefore there's a talent squeeze" is a load of BS. 1 or 2 points doesnt make a difference, and u dont gotta be smart to succeed in biglaw. a follower's mentality with some personality to generate business is sufficient to have a good shot at partnership. just keep ur head down and grind out the hours. if ur too smart u might get fired.

I mostly agree, but bar passage rates did drop in proportion to lsat scores on a 3 year delay...

But by and large, the folks failing the bar are not the same pool of people working big law in NYC.

[Old Gregg]

I mostly agree, but bar passage rates did drop in proportion to lsat scores on a 3 year delay...

so what? are big law firms hiring from cooley? no. passage rate are still plenty high at schools from which big law firms hire, so there's no shortage of candidates.

and also passage doesnt correlate with intelligence either, obviously.

come on. some more critical thinking here guys.

[TLSModBot]

I don't know who the trolls in this thread are anymore.