NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

damn I excitedly checked back in on the thread hoping for another juicy bowl of prostitution stories but instead I got a stale carton of leftover social justice soundbites

This isn't social justice it's hard numbers. Why were Asians 10% of summer associates in 2007/8 but only 2% of new partners in 2016? Why were white men only 40% of summers in 2007/8 but 65% of new partners in 2016. I checked the numbers on that site. It's not affirmative action. It's not 40-year term white partners who haven't left. Biglaw is racist. You don't see this in other professions like medicine.

Biglaw isn’t racist. People are racist. You can’t change that.

If a client is an old white dude, he will probably get along with another white dude. He will get business.

You can’t just become partner because you work hard. You need to generate business. And people like working with people who they can relate to.

That’s why a lot of these high powered Asian partners are partners - they have clients like Samsung and other large Asian brands.

If that's true, then pay associates a little more and partners a little less to remedy this (a tiny bit.)

[Anonymous User]

How many sexings you guys think I could get with an extra 10k? 20k?

Do you really risk your law license by hiring hookers? Dude I know it's rare but not worth it.

[Anonymous User]

to say an extra 10k per year would help to rectify systemic racism cheapens the whole argument quite a bit

[Anonymous User]

How many sexings you guys think I could get with an extra 10k? 20k?

Do you really risk your law license by hiring hookers? Dude I know it's rare but not worth it.

i assumed they were legal in ny. i get them from my bodega . . .

[Anonymous User]

to say an extra 10k per year would help to rectify systemic racism cheapens the whole argument quite a bit

Better than "how many sexings can I get with an extra 10k" or "give me because I want it."

[Anonymous User]

How many sexings you guys think I could get with an extra 10k? 20k?

Do you really risk your law license by hiring hookers? Dude I know it's rare but not worth it.

Pretty fucked you could lose your license for that – what're they worried that you'll start asking your clients to be paid in blowjobs?

[Anonymous User]

to say an extra 10k per year would help to rectify systemic racism cheapens the whole argument quite a bit

Better than "how many sexings can I get with an extra 10k" or "give me because I want it."

not really. most associates are white and therefore most of any raise would go to white people.

[Anonymous User]

How many sexings you guys think I could get with an extra 10k? 20k?

Do you really risk your law license by hiring hookers? Dude I know it's rare but not worth it.

Pretty fucked you could lose your license for that – what're they worried that you'll start asking your clients to be paid in blowjobs?

If you get arrested for it you have to report it to the bar, which starts an awful process that could lead to suspension or loss of license.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

That's bullshit. Here are the two charts from the blog. Starts out 2/5 white male, ends up 4/5 white male, and the other 20% are mostly white females. You telling me 3/5 of the starting class got "affirmative action." Bull shit.

. . .

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

Here is a login I just made to the site (user toplawschools@tls.com, pw nyto200k). Pick Kirkland Ellis (O'Melveny is not a peer firm so let's stop discussing them) and then select "New partners promoted from associate or counsel rank" and compare it to the "summer associate" data and you'll see the same trend. I can't upload the picture here because the forum only lets you show pictures you have a link to.

http://mcca.vault.com

You have to use imgur.

[Anonymous User]

Last night, I hung out with a fairly new partner at a V30 firm. He said his firm hadn't called any special partner meeting to discuss raises, and there hadn't been any partnership-wide emails about them. He said partners had been discussing the raises informally and that his firm will almost certainly match soon. He said matching 190 and the rest of the new scale will be no big deal given the firm's ever-increasing revenue. He also said he knew the raises were effectively just cost of living adjustments.

I told him about the speculation that Cravath, Kirkland, or a top firm like that will top the Milbank raises and go to 200 or 210. He was skeptical that a firm would top Milbank, and he said his firm probably wouldn't match the bigger raise if some firms stayed at the new Milbank scale and only some topped it. He also said 195 was a wall firms likely would not cross now for first years, even if they go over the Milbank scale for mid levels and senior associates.

In that vein, he said his firm, like many others, had plenty of work to go around and is well staffed with promising junior associates. However, he said they are very understaffed when it comes to mid-level and senior associates. He said they didn't hire enough of them
5-8 years ago for the amount of work the firm has now, and too many have been lateralling to smaller firms or taking jobs in government or in house. He said raises above the Milbank scale for fourth through eighth years seemed more plausible than raises to 200 or 210 for first years.

Thanks for sharing. Did he mention the special bonus STB is paying?

His guess was that his firm won't pay the bonus, but he said they absolutely will if their peer firms do.

[Anonymous User]

How many sexings you guys think I could get with an extra 10k? 20k?

Do you really risk your law license by hiring hookers? Dude I know it's rare but not worth it.

Pretty fucked you could lose your license for that – what're they worried that you'll start asking your clients to be paid in blowjobs?

If you get arrested for it you have to report it to the bar, which starts an awful process that could lead to suspension or loss of license.

It's just not worth it in NYC. Too expensive and illegal. Why would you hire hookers when there are so many dating apps?

[Anonymous User]

Considering that several firms have been secretly cutting junior/mid-level attorneys instead, I'd say no.

Has that been happening again recently? Or are you referencing the firms that did this after the last pay jump?

Which firms have been doing this?

Also curious. My firm (NYC V30) has not only been retaining mid levels but is actively taking steps to retain them.

What steps is your firm taking to retain mid levels? My firm is a nice place to work as far as firms go, but I can't think of anything they do to keep mid levels or seniors around, other than paying lockstep salaries (which dozens of other firms pay, too).

[Anonymous User]

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

It's not manipulative at all. By comparing to the overall equity partner diversity, you factor in partner attrition.

If a firm promotes 2 minority partners and 8 white partners, and then pushes out 2 other minority partners, resulting in no improvement in overall partner diversity, they shouldn't get credit for those two promotion.

[Anonymous User]

What steps is your firm taking to retain mid levels? My firm is a nice place to work as far as firms go, but I can't think of anything they do to keep mid levels or seniors around, other than paying lockstep salaries (which dozens of other firms pay, too).

No competent midlevel will stay in biglaw hell without credible promises of partnership. Once those promises ring hollow they leave, bitterly. I knew a midlevel who generated millions of business and consistently worked 70 hours a week and when they screwed him on the partnership (you'll get it next year!) he quit two months later. Another $20,000 would not have made a difference.

[Anonymous User]

In that vein, he said his firm, like many others, had plenty of work to go around and is well staffed with promising junior associates. However, he said they are very understaffed when it comes to mid-level and senior associates. He said they didn't hire enough of them
5-8 years ago for the amount of work the firm has now, and too many have been lateralling to smaller firms or taking jobs in government or in house. He said raises above the Milbank scale for fourth through eighth years seemed more plausible than raises to 200 or 210 for first years.

I completely agree with this. Midlevels and up should be paid more to slow down attrition.

Absolutely. Mid-level and senior associate run huge parts of the day-to-day work on deals and in cases. Salaries keep going up at smaller firms, for in-house jobs (especially with stock options), and even for government positions. Meanwhile big law has had only one raise to associate salaries since George Bush was president. It's no wonder mid levels and senior associates aren't sticking around.

[Anonymous User]

What steps is your firm taking to retain mid levels? My firm is a nice place to work as far as firms go, but I can't think of anything they do to keep mid levels or seniors around, other than paying lockstep salaries (which dozens of other firms pay, too).

No competent midlevel will stay in biglaw hell without credible promises of partnership. Once those promises ring hollow they leave, bitterly. I knew a midlevel who generated millions of business and consistently worked 70 hours a week and when they screwed him on the partnership (you'll get it next year!) he quit two months later. Another $20,000 would not have made a difference.

An extra 20k or 25k per year would make a big difference in mid level and senior associate retention. Everyone at big firms knows the partnership promotion numbers. The number of new associates and laterals firms hire every year is 5 or 10 times (or even 20 times for some firms) the number of new partners they make. Given that only a small fraction of associates will be promoted to partner--and the associates know that--a raise will keep more people around for longer.

[Anonymous User]

An extra 20k or 25k per year would make a big difference in mid level and senior associate retention. Everyone at big firms knows the partnership promotion numbers. The number of new associates and laterals firms hire every year is 5 or 10 times (or even 20 times for some firms) the number of new partners they make. Given that only a small fraction of associates will be promoted to partner--and the associates know that--a raise will keep more people around for longer.

Let me say it another way.
1. If you're going to make partner, they will keep you around by giving you bonuses, treating you well and promising you partnership.
2. If you're not going to make partner, they will give you every incentive to leave.
By asking for an across the board 25k raise for all midlevels you're forcing firms to give raises to people they don't want to stay. Why would they do that?

[Anonymous User]

An extra 20k or 25k per year would make a big difference in mid level and senior associate retention. Everyone at big firms knows the partnership promotion numbers. The number of new associates and laterals firms hire every year is 5 or 10 times (or even 20 times for some firms) the number of new partners they make. Given that only a small fraction of associates will be promoted to partner--and the associates know that--a raise will keep more people around for longer.

Let me say it another way.
1. If you're going to make partner, they will keep you around by giving you bonuses, treating you well and promising you partnership.
2. If you're not going to make partner, they will give you every incentive to leave.
By asking for an across the board 25k raise for all midlevels you're forcing firms to give raises to people they don't want to stay. Why would they do that?

Unless you're an equity partner yourself or at least a midlevel who's seen people go through this, I suspect #2 is flame

Firms probably need competent lieutenants even if they aren't going to make all of them real partners

[Anonymous User]

Sure, but they have the power to keep the ones they want with extra bonuses don't they? Why give everyone a raise?

[Anonymous User]

Sure, but they have the power to keep the ones they want with extra bonuses don't they? Why give everyone a raise?

My point is that you just said they would give you every incentive to leave unless you're making partner. Which is totally false. If you're not defending that position and are now just saying they can give bonuses to people they want to stay longer, then yes ofc they can.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, but they have the power to keep the ones they want with extra bonuses don't they? Why give everyone a raise?

My point is that you just said they would give you every incentive to leave unless you're making partner. Which is totally false. If you're not defending that position and are now just saying they can give bonuses to people they want to stay longer, then yes ofc they can.

I’ve never seen associates that make it to midlevel/senior get pushed out. I think firms are moving more and more towards careers associates (people who stay senior associates for like 10+ years).

[Anonymous User]

Sure, but they have the power to keep the ones they want with extra bonuses don't they? Why give everyone a raise?

My point is that you just said they would give you every incentive to leave unless you're making partner. Which is totally false. If you're not defending that position and are now just saying they can give bonuses to people they want to stay longer, then yes ofc they can.

I’ve never seen associates that make it to midlevel/senior get pushed out. I think firms are moving more and more towards careers associates (people who stay senior associates for like 10+ years).

Exactly. Mid-level and senior associates, even those unlikely to make partner, can still be very valuable to their firms. A $20,000 raise to keep them from going in house or to a less demanding firm could be well worth it.

[Anonymous User]

If a sixth year associate bills 2000 hours a year at $700 an hour, that's $1.4 million a year. If a firm needs to pay her an extra $2000 a month so she doesn't take a job somewhere else, it's money well spent.

[Anonymous User]

What if she's not making partner, and there isn't an infinite amount of work, so they need to give her hours to up and coming partner material?

[Anonymous User]

What if she's not making partner, and there isn't an infinite amount of work, so they need to give her hours to up and coming partner material?

Right now, at a lot of firms, there is more than enough work to go around. My firm has plenty of work and is hiring laterals. Quinn's founding partner said they were "very short" on associates.