Cravath's Spawn - the Wave of Copycats - RUNNING TALLY Forum

[jmh1]

Keker & Van Nest just matched

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/top-bout ... h-cravath/

Who? Added anyways.

apparently a west coast litigation boutique

[trbrny]

Wilkie is verified, all offices- http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... lary-bump/

Covington still needs to be shifted to the TTT list.

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

[soj]

.

[nate3869]

Wilkie is verified, all offices- http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... lary-bump/

Covington still needs to be shifted to the TTT list.

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

You could call it "The Covington List"

[Anonymous User]

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

At present, anyways, they have not said that they are matching anywhere. All they have said is that they are not matching outside NY. I'd say that at least until we have confirmation that they are matching on NY, they should be on the TTT list.

[Anonymous User]

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

Or they could be on both lists. You could put them on the TTT list for now, with an asterisk saying it applies to non-NY offices. Then if they match in NY, add them to that list as well with an asterisk saying that it is NY only.

I do think it is important to denote their shame.

[jbagelboy]

Wilkie is verified, all offices- http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... lary-bump/

Covington still needs to be shifted to the TTT list.

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

You could call it "The Covington List"

I will help make #TheCovingtonList a shorthand for shit tier across this industry

[Anonymous User]

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

Or they could be on both lists. You could put them on the TTT list for now, with an asterisk saying it applies to non-NY offices. Then if they match in NY, add them to that list as well with an asterisk saying that it is NY only.

I do think it is important to denote their shame.

Agreed. Any firm that proactively releases a statement explicitly tempering expectations, with the ulterior motive of affecting the broader market, should be noted and shamed. If you won't/can't raise salaries, then firms should remain silent. There's no reason to tell the your associates and the world that you don't want to raise.

[trbrny]

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

Or they could be on both lists. You could put them on the TTT list for now, with an asterisk saying it applies to non-NY offices. Then if they match in NY, add them to that list as well with an asterisk saying that it is NY only.

I do think it is important to denote their shame.

Agreed. Any firm that proactively releases a statement explicitly tempering expectations, with the ulterior motive of affecting the broader market, should be noted and shamed. If you won't/can't raise salaries, then firms should remain silent. There's no reason to tell the your associates and the world that you don't want to raise.

Does the devil smiley do the trick? See the update.

[Anonymous User]

I don't want it to become confusing, will be hard to have those firms that have not raised and those that have raised in some offices on the TTT list. Open to suggestions about how best to denote Covington's shame.

Or they could be on both lists. You could put them on the TTT list for now, with an asterisk saying it applies to non-NY offices. Then if they match in NY, add them to that list as well with an asterisk saying that it is NY only.

I do think it is important to denote their shame.

Agreed. Any firm that proactively releases a statement explicitly tempering expectations, with the ulterior motive of affecting the broader market, should be noted and shamed. If you won't/can't raise salaries, then firms should remain silent. There's no reason to tell the your associates and the world that you don't want to raise.

Does the devil smiley do the trick? See the update.

Lord's work being done here

[jbagelboy]

I like it OP.

[trbrny]

I like it OP.

Sweet.

[UnicornHunter]

Have they actually verified NY to 180 though? Or have they just said that they don't want to move DC to 180?

[FoxyBoi]

No verification yet, just kind of implied that NY would get the raise.

[jmh1]

Greenberg Gross sent out a memo

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/litigati ... i=30437544

[trbrny]

Have they actually verified NY to 180 though? Or have they just said that they don't want to move DC to 180?

No. Hence the asterisk. Reading is helpful.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like V&E matched.

[blagar]

Gunderson:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/powerhou ... ssociates/

[glitched]

Wilkie is spelled Willkie

[Anonymous User]

Looks like V&E matched.

ATL: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/branch-o ... atch-180k/

[Anonymous User]

Looks like V&E matched.

ATL: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/branch-o ... atch-180k/

Your move, Baker Botts.

[trbrny]

u/d with latest matches.

[blagar]

u/d with latest matches.

I think the dates on lines 20-24 are wrong. They should be today.

[Huluba]

Why is Kelley Drye on the list at all. Don't they pay 1st years 145k anyway?

[Anonymous User]

Looks like V&E matched.

ATL: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/branch-o ... atch-180k/

180k in Texas - this is amazing.