NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Realistically, what firm will not match 210k? It will crush retention and recruiting. Let's not pretend law firms have a choice

[Anonymous User]

Alot of v200 wouldn't match

[Anonymous User]

Realistically, what firm will not match 210k? It will crush retention and recruiting. Let's not pretend law firms have a choice

You guys actually think firms from v100-v20 would match 210k? Seems like a massive jump, I have my doubts any firm would try to match that. Could see even the v10 saying fuck it, we're sticking to 190 and Cravath can have the dozen or so summers that'd have gone to firm X otherwise

[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?

It should be pretty difficult to get busted for solicitation of prostitution as a lawyer: 1) sex is legal and 2) giving someone money is legal. Just don't draw a direct line between the two and you're fine. Honestly, a lawyer should be able to navigate a conversation with an undercover cop he mistakes for a prostitute without giving them solid case (although you may very likely be arrested anyway, but the charges hopefully wont stick). You're paying for time and companionship, and what happens between consenting adults during that time is what it is.

Not to mention law enforcement doesn't care a wit about the high-class escort world. They are much more concerned with busting street walkers and actual brothels/agencies.

Long-story short, if you have any idea what you're doing, know what to look for, etc., you are very unlikely to get arrested/ in any legal trouble, which isn't to say that there aren't other substantial risks. But, what do I know, I'm not speaking from experience, this just one of my many, purely academic interests.

[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?

It should be pretty difficult to get busted for solicitation of prostitution as a lawyer: 1) sex is legal and 2) giving someone money is legal. Just don't draw a direct line between the two and you're fine. Honestly, a lawyer should be able to navigate a conversation with an undercover cop he mistakes for a prostitute without giving them solid case (although you may very likely be arrested anyway, but the charges hopefully wont stick). You're paying for time and companionship, and what happens between consenting adults during that time is what it is.

Not to mention law enforcement doesn't care a wit about the high-class escort world. They are much more concerned with busting street walkers and actual brothels/agencies.

Long-story short, if you have any idea what you're doing, know what to look for, etc., you are very unlikely to get arrested/ in any legal trouble, which isn't to say that there aren't other substantial risks. But, what do I know, I'm not speaking from experience, this just one of my many, purely academic interests.

Also kind of funny to see so much concern about this when you hear so many stories about recreational drug use among attorneys.

[Anonymous User]

Guys this discussion isn't making us look very sympathetic. Get back to the bleeding heart diversity chat.

[Anonymous User]

Dear Cravath,

[Anonymous User]

In 2008, Skadden announced bonuses first, Cravath announced a much smaller bonus after that, and the whole market followed Cravath. Obviously base salary isn’t the same as bonuses, and Skadden isnt the same as Milbank and Winston. But I’ll admit that one data point has me nervous.

[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.

I’m a senior associate, and I think I’m competent (I make hours every year, have good reviews, and clients say nice things about me to the bosses). Looking at who makes partner at my v20, though, I realistically have zero chance. But I grew up poor, so I still think “OMG 380k a year is an amazing amount of money, and my *dream job* that I’d leave for pays like $90k. So I think I’ll make this work for another year.” Maybe I’m being a spineless bootlicker.

[Anonymous User]

Realistically, what firm will not match 210k? It will crush retention and recruiting. Let's not pretend law firms have a choice

You guys actually think firms from v100-v20 would match 210k? Seems like a massive jump, I have my doubts any firm would try to match that. Could see even the v10 saying fuck it, we're sticking to 190 and Cravath can have the dozen or so summers that'd have gone to firm X otherwise

I think each firm above 1.5m PPP will match 210k. Otherwise there is just no argument for keeping your midlevels, especially in an economy like this muchless trying to bring in law students.

[Right2BearArms]

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

It says Asians (who do not get affirmative action) were 10% of summer associates in 2007-2008 and 2% of new partners in 2016.
White men were 40% of summer associates in 2007--2008 and 65% of new partners in 2016. This is smoking gun evidence that the partnership track is white privileged. By paying partners more and paying associates less, you're also paying white biglawyers more and minority biglawyers less.

Someone needs a lesson in causation vs. correlation.

Also, we need more raise news, this thread is getting (more) absurd.

[Anonymous User]

Realistically, what firm will not match 210k? It will crush retention and recruiting. Let's not pretend law firms have a choice

You guys actually think firms from v100-v20 would match 210k? Seems like a massive jump, I have my doubts any firm would try to match that. Could see even the v10 saying fuck it, we're sticking to 190 and Cravath can have the dozen or so summers that'd have gone to firm X otherwise

I think each firm above 1.5m PPP will match 210k. Otherwise there is just no argument for keeping your midlevels, especially in an economy like this muchless trying to bring in law students.

Yes, it’s less a matter of Vault raises and more a matter of financials and the markets the firm is in.You’ll have matches from what AmLaw calls the “Super Rich”- the large New York firms with high PPP (DPW, S+C, Skadden, Cleary, but also firms like Milbank, Schulte, Deb, Cahill, Willkie, FF), and firms based in other cities but are elite national firms with strong NYC presences (Kirkland, Latham, Sidley). I think a national firm that does not have a large presence in the high COL cities is going to be hard pressed to justify salary raises when there are many partners who would not be making that much more than the senior associates.

[Anonymous User]

Double post

[Anonymous User]

double post

[MillllerTime]

So what I've gathered is that all white male mid-levels at V20 firms will be receiving raises today. Paid in blowjobs apparently.

[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.

I’m a senior associate, and I think I’m competent (I make hours every year, have good reviews, and clients say nice things about me to the bosses). Looking at who makes partner at my v20, though, I realistically have zero chance. But I grew up poor, so I still think “OMG 380k a year is an amazing amount of money, and my *dream job* that I’d leave for pays like $90k. So I think I’ll make this work for another year.” Maybe I’m being a spineless bootlicker.

Not the anon above, but I’m a senior associate and have the opposite view. I used to think I would do anything for this job and this amount of money. It was more money than I’d ever dreamed of. But now 6 years in (and some personal events that have happened) and seeing what the lives of the junior partners are like, and I’d need a six-figure bonus upfront, minimum, to stay even another year. The work itself is fine, but the hours are so bad that you can make more money on an hourly basis going in-house or working for a firm that has a better fee structure unless you make partner, and as you point out, the chances of making partner are essentially nil. And even if you make partner, you really don’t make fuck you money unless you have your own clients, which, since most of these firms are really focused on institutional blue chip clients, doesn’t really happen until you are in your mid-40s.

My views might be different if I was in a lower COL city making biglaw money, though. In those cities, the supersenior career path is a legitimate way to set yourself up for early retirement or at least a transition to a different lifestyle.

[Anonymous User]

TODAY MAY BE THE DAY

[Anonymous User]

TODAY MAY BE THE DAY

Today IS gonna be the day




That they're gonna throw it back to you

[Anonymous User]

The senior associates above are precisely why a raise above Milbank for mid levels and senior associates makes sense. There are a lot of very productive mid level and senior associates who see partnership as unrealistic and don't want to work big law hours for years to come if they aren't making partner. A raise can keep them around and billing, and it can keep morale up. It changes the calculus on whether or not these associates jump to in house positions with much better hours and pay that isn't that much worse. Like one of the posters above said, some of these in house jobs pay more per hour worked than the current big law scale.

[Anonymous User]

WHERE'S THE MONEY PEOPLE?! #GIMMEDAT

[Anonymous User]

[Anonymous User]

[Anonymous User]

Walked past the room where “the partnership” meets; there were Manila folders at everyone’s seat.

225k confirmed.

[Clearly]

Anyone know what time this meeting is?

[Anonymous User]

Walked past the room where “the partnership” meets; there were Manila folders at everyone’s seat.

225k confirmed.

Maybe each folder has a copy of this entire thread. They need something to laugh about before ending the meeting early with no action taken.