NYC to 200k Forum

[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 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.

By now most firms have almost certainly already reached a decision either (i) not to match at all or (ii) to match whatever the market ends up being (up to a certain amount) to be announced only after the market rate is definitively settled. These memos are likely drafted with bracketed dollar amounts to be plugged in just before firm-wide dissemination.

Everyone is just waiting on the V5 to adopt the STB approach or to top it. For firms that aren't historical first-movers, they can easily explain increased rates to clients by simply saying: "We are a top-tier firm that will always pay the market rate, but we don't proactively set the market rate. This is just a cost increase that we have to eat to attract the best talent."

This is TLS, so speculation will continue all weekend (interspersed with random vitriol) but I don't think anything more needs to be said on this until late Monday morning.

[Anonymous User]

why be anon when you have such a reasonable, logical point of view

[alphagamma]

why be anon when you have such a reasonable, logical point of view

Probably the same reason you're posting anonymously.

[Cobretti]

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.

There is a very particular person who would find a causal relationship between the #MeToo movement and law firms charging too much. I would bet a very large sum of money that the quoted individual is in fact an older white male that voted for trump.

[Anonymous User]

Not much of a stretch to guess that a GC would be old white and conservative

[Anonymous User]

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.

There is a very particular person who would find a causal relationship between the #MeToo movement and law firms charging too much. I would bet a very large sum of money that the quoted individual is in fact an older white male that voted for trump.

The causal relationship likely comes from lumping the two in with the "millennial mentality" – which encompasses both a feeling of entitlement (re associate raises) + overly sensitive politically correct culture (re #MeToo)

Don't need to be a trump supporter, or even conservative to make that connection

[bruinfan10]

After returning to this thread for an update after 24 hours, ten pages later, i've concluded that we do not deserve a raise and actually should all be fired for sheer assheadedness.

[Anonymous User]

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.

There is a very particular person who would find a causal relationship between the #MeToo movement and law firms charging too much. I would bet a very large sum of money that the quoted individual is in fact an older white male that voted for trump.

I actually think the person quoted is talking about the game of law firms matching one another, and using the trending hashtag about a very real and sensitive social issue to do it. In essence the source is saying one law firm raises to 190 and the others shout "Me too". It's pretty insensitive and, dare i say, tone-deaf, regardless.

[Anonymous User]

Revenue is up, PPP is up, hours are stagnant or up, class year billable rates are up, other costs are stagnant. We deserve more money. We aren't entitled, this is expected.

[Anonymous User]

The causal relationship likely comes from lumping the two in with the "millennial mentality" – which encompasses both a feeling of entitlement (re associate raises) + overly sensitive politically correct culture (re #MeToo)

Don't need to be a trump supporter, or even conservative to make that connection

Edit: not even worth it

[Anonymous User]

The causal relationship likely comes from lumping the two in with the "millennial mentality" – which encompasses both a feeling of entitlement (re associate raises) + overly sensitive politically correct culture (re #MeToo)

Don't need to be a trump supporter, or even conservative to make that connection

Jesus fucking christ. This is why we can't have anonymous posting

...Says the anonymous user.

And I'm not expressing my own beliefs here, just a perception that's very prevalent among people age 40+ whether or not they're conservative.

Lumping everyone who isn't as progressive as you are into the trump supporter camp is dumb.

[ughbugchugplug]

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.

Correct, you just need to be a reactionary dumbass who thinks it’s more important that firms fix their pricing models than that they root out and fire sexual predators in their company

[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 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.

By now most firms have almost certainly already reached a decision either (i) not to match at all or (ii) to match whatever the market ends up being (up to a certain amount) to be announced only after the market rate is definitively settled. These memos are likely drafted with bracketed dollar amounts to be plugged in just before firm-wide dissemination.

Everyone is just waiting on the V5 to adopt the STB approach or to top it. For firms that aren't historical first-movers, they can easily explain increased rates to clients by simply saying: "We are a top-tier firm that will always pay the market rate, but we don't proactively set the market rate. This is just a cost increase that we have to eat to attract the best talent."

This is TLS, so speculation will continue all weekend (interspersed with random vitriol) but I don't think anything more needs to be said on this until late Monday morning.

On Monday everybody be like

[Anonymous User]

Yep, can't wait for Monday...

[Anonymous User]

...Says the anonymous user.

And I'm not expressing my own beliefs here, just a perception that's very prevalent among people age 40+ whether or not they're conservative.

Lumping everyone who isn't as progressive as you are into the trump supporter camp is dumb.

I see. Fair enough, idk or care much if he's a Trump supporter though I would bet my entire bonus at 50/50 odds he is.

Separately, good to know a large amount of 40+ people are more ok with higher rates as long as they line the PPP of other 40+. Tho I doubt most care which is why first years are billed at $540/hr and partners at only $1300

[Anonymous User]

Monday is going to be a great day...

[Anonymous User]

This is the first time in my life I can't wait for the weekend to be over

[Anonymous User]

You gotta believe it...

[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.

This. Midlevels are jumping like crazy from my NY-centric AmLaw 20 firm right now. We've lost half a dozen in the last 2 weeks. They aren't going down the street to a lower ranked firm. They are heading west and south for firms that pay way better on a COL adjusted basis and where you don't have to deal with the insane workaholics in NYC. The only way to stem this tide would be for my firm to seriously raise comp for fifth years and above such that it justifies spending another couple of the most productive years of your life slaving away at what is for most people a temp job.

[Anonymous User]

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.

There is a very particular person who would find a causal relationship between the #MeToo movement and law firms charging too much. I would bet a very large sum of money that the quoted individual is in fact an older white male that voted for trump.

The causal relationship likely comes from lumping the two in with the "millennial mentality" – which encompasses both a feeling of entitlement (re associate raises) + overly sensitive politically correct culture (re #MeToo)

Don't need to be a trump supporter, or even conservative to make that connection

i miss the simple days when it was all about dpw taking their yale/columbia associates for lunch at the bodega down the street.

[Anonymous User]

This. Midlevels are jumping like crazy from my NY-centric AmLaw 20 firm right now. We've lost half a dozen in the last 2 weeks. They aren't going down the street to a lower ranked firm. They are heading west and south for firms that pay way better on a COL adjusted basis and where you don't have to deal with the insane workaholics in NYC. The only way to stem this tide would be for my firm to seriously raise comp for fifth years and above such that it justifies spending another couple of the most productive years of your life slaving away at what is for most people a temp job.

Bro...that was uncalled for. NY to 200k or we all become bartenders and playwrights

[Dw686]

...Says the anonymous user.

And I'm not expressing my own beliefs here, just a perception that's very prevalent among people age 40+ whether or not they're conservative.

Lumping everyone who isn't as progressive as you are into the trump supporter camp is dumb.

I see. Fair enough, idk or care much if he's a Trump supporter though I would bet my entire bonus at 50/50 odds he is.

Separately, good to know a large amount of 40+ people are more ok with higher rates as long as they line the PPP of other 40+. Tho I doubt most care which is why first years are billed at $540/hr and partners at only $1300

Betting whether someone is a Trump supporter at "50/50 odds" suggests you aren't very confident. That is only a hair better odds than what we would expect from the popular vote.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath went to 180 on a Monday in 2016 after their partner lunch. The most likely outcome IMO is Cravath announces a 190 match of Milbank on Monday afternoon and a flood of firms match within the next couple days. All the big players will be there by this time next week.

Hope I'm wrong and somebody goes to 200...

[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.

Holy shit did anyone read the blog? This dude has insane balls. Makes me feel like staging a strike for $200k.

[Anonymous User]

Revenue is up, PPP is up, hours are stagnant or up, class year billable rates are up, other costs are stagnant. We deserve more money. We aren't entitled, this is expected.

That’s not how capitalism works in the real world.