NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

This has been the sad truth of being a very good but not excellent/partnership-quality biglaw associate at a top firm from a top law school. You can go to a V5 rather than a V100, but what do you have to show for it at the end of the day other than "prestige." What about the thousands of extra hours of effort that you put in in high school/college (because, in all likelihood, you went to an Ivy), in law school (went to a T14), etc.? Exit ops, partnership prospects, etc. are not guaranteed and are highly dependent on being at the right place at the right time. At the end of the day, the Yale/Columbia Law top 20% associate at a V5 who does not make partner and goes in-house has, twelve years out of high school, not made a penny more than the Hofstra/GW top 40% lawyer who went to a V100 and does the same.

Let's keep out fingers crossed that this changes today.

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

[Anonymous User]

These v5ish firms should all move to $250k for first years. The reason they get premium work is because their clients expect the tippy top quality of work, which would be impossible without the associates. It's a crime that their associates make what a V100 associates make. No explanation but greed.

I've never understood this argument. Of course it's greed. It's the same reason they charge $700 an hour for someone who just got admitted to the bar. Firms do what the market will bear, both when deciding how much to charge their clients and how much to pay their employees. If there's a mismatch between the cost of their inputs, associates, and the cost of their outputs, 3am emails from and conference calls with said associates, then partners collect it.

[Anonymous User]

I've never understood this argument. Of course it's greed. It's the same reason they charge $700 an hour for someone who just got admitted to the bar. Firms do what the market will bear, both when deciding how much to charge their clients and how much to pay their employees. If there's a mismatch between the cost of their inputs, associates, and the cost of their outputs, 3am emails from and conference calls with said associates, then partners collect it.

Yup. Sigh.

[Anonymous User]

Doubt it was a coincidence that Milbank released the salary hike right after Cravath’s weekly partner meeting- likely buying them at least a week.

On the flipside, maybe it gives the partnership more time to think about going to 250k, because.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

[Anonymous User]

any associates heard from cravath, davis polk, skadden, sullcrom etc?

[Anonymous User]

any associates heard from cravath, davis polk, skadden, sullcrom etc?

nothing at skadden

[TheoO]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

Ever been to a Michelin star kitchen? Besides the chef, the kitchen staff is largely poorly comped, overworked, undocumented immigrants.

[Anonymous User]

Kitchen staff would be like the building maintenance crew and mail room.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

I am almost certain that this is Schlute Roth. And yes, they're going to match.

[Anonymous User]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

This has been the sad truth of being a very good but not excellent/partnership-quality biglaw associate at a top firm from a top law school. You can go to a V5 rather than a V100, but what do you have to show for it at the end of the day other than "prestige." What about the thousands of extra hours of effort that you put in in high school/college (because, in all likelihood, you went to an Ivy), in law school (went to a T14), etc.? Exit ops, partnership prospects, etc. are not guaranteed and are highly dependent on being at the right place at the right time. At the end of the day, the Yale/Columbia Law top 20% associate at a V5 who does not make partner and goes in-house has, twelve years out of high school, not made a penny more than the Hofstra/GW top 40% lawyer who went to a V100 and does the same.

Let's keep out fingers crossed that this changes today.

Triggered v5 associates ITT.

Kirkland's associates don't make more than the v50-100 associates because they aren't any more qualified than the v50-100 associates at being a lawyer. They got marginally better grades in a professional school that does nothing to prepare you for the profession.

You knew what you were getting yourself into from the get go and did it anyway because it made you feel better than everyone else. Joke's on you.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

I'm also at a firm with a billable requirement and this is absolutely correct. If you have very 2 slow months because the firm is slow, you may miss the bonus which gets 50-100k from third year on. Considering most firms with billable requirements will openly tell you that only half of all associates make bonus every year, that effectively means you have a 50% chance of missing bonus every year. That means the real compensation of associates at firms will billable requirements are lower, even if they occasionally make "above market" (5 to 10k extra) once in a while because missing out on 80k once will kill anything extra you might have gotten.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

I am almost certain that this is Schlute Roth. And yes, they're going to match.

Schulte is one of the "underrated" firms in Vault that can definitely afford to match anyway. Not quite as underrated as Milbank and Cahill, but Schulte is also a winner from any salary increase from a recruiting perspective because the have the PPP, RPL and billing rates to keep up while the other firms in the same Vault range generally can't (or at least will have to think about it long and hard as something to balance with partner retention).

[Anonymous User]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

I am almost certain that this is Schlute Roth. And yes, they're going to match.

What makes you so sure?

[TheoO]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

I'm also at a firm with a billable requirement and this is absolutely correct. If you have very 2 slow months because the firm is slow, you may miss the bonus which gets 50-100k from third year on. Considering most firms with billable requirements will openly tell you that only half of all associates make bonus every year, that effectively means you have a 50% chance of missing bonus every year. That means the real compensation of associates at firms will billable requirements are lower, even if they occasionally make "above market" (5 to 10k extra) once in a while because missing out on 80k once will kill anything extra you might have gotten.

Don't your chances of making bonus also increase as you gain seniority since you can hog up more work? I'm at a firm with billable requirements, and we were told many first years may not make it, but that seems to be the case far less with higher ups.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

This has been the sad truth of being a very good but not excellent/partnership-quality biglaw associate at a top firm from a top law school. You can go to a V5 rather than a V100, but what do you have to show for it at the end of the day other than "prestige." What about the thousands of extra hours of effort that you put in in high school/college (because, in all likelihood, you went to an Ivy), in law school (went to a T14), etc.? Exit ops, partnership prospects, etc. are not guaranteed and are highly dependent on being at the right place at the right time. At the end of the day, the Yale/Columbia Law top 20% associate at a V5 who does not make partner and goes in-house has, twelve years out of high school, not made a penny more than the Hofstra/GW top 40% lawyer who went to a V100 and does the same.

Let's keep out fingers crossed that this changes today.

Triggered v5 associates ITT.

Kirkland's associates don't make more than the v50-100 associates because they aren't any more qualified than the v50-100 associates at being a lawyer. They got marginally better grades in a professional school that does nothing to prepare you for the profession.

You knew what you were getting yourself into from the get go and did it anyway because it made you feel better than everyone else. Joke's on you.

FYI Kirkland is not V5. Regardless, the V100 is not going to be able to keep up with 190K. Texas associates are going to be shafted.

[Anonymous User]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

This has been the sad truth of being a very good but not excellent/partnership-quality biglaw associate at a top firm from a top law school. You can go to a V5 rather than a V100, but what do you have to show for it at the end of the day other than "prestige." What about the thousands of extra hours of effort that you put in in high school/college (because, in all likelihood, you went to an Ivy), in law school (went to a T14), etc.? Exit ops, partnership prospects, etc. are not guaranteed and are highly dependent on being at the right place at the right time. At the end of the day, the Yale/Columbia Law top 20% associate at a V5 who does not make partner and goes in-house has, twelve years out of high school, not made a penny more than the Hofstra/GW top 40% lawyer who went to a V100 and does the same.

Let's keep out fingers crossed that this changes today.

Triggered v5 associates ITT.

Kirkland's associates don't make more than the v50-100 associates because they aren't any more qualified than the v50-100 associates at being a lawyer. They got marginally better grades in a professional school that does nothing to prepare you for the profession.

You knew what you were getting yourself into from the get go and did it anyway because it made you feel better than everyone else. Joke's on you.

Poor reading comprehension. The post is about a top 10% associate at Cravath or Davis Polk, who has in all likelihood led a lifetime of achievement but due to various factors isn't making partner. There is a chasm of difference in the intelligence, culture, sophistication, polish and refinement of a highly regarded V5 double-Ivy associate and a mediocre V100 associate. If this is not immediately obvious to you, it's because you've never met a person of that quality. It is remarkably unjust that there may very well be no monetary benefit to being an almost-partner candidate at a top law firm with a resume dripping with prestige and a mediocre biglaw lawyer at a mediocre shop.

Also, Kirkland isn't V5. And their associates do get paid more than other law firm associates because their bonuses are materially above market. And the delta in the bonuses has not, to date, been enough to justify leaving the rarefied air of an elite New York firm for Kirkland. The fact that high revenue STB/Cravath partners only did so after extracting guaranteed compensation from Kirkland that appears to be almost twice of their previous compensation ($11MM vs $5MM) should tell you how hard it is to get anyone to leave for even a slightly lesser firm.

[TheoO]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

This has been the sad truth of being a very good but not excellent/partnership-quality biglaw associate at a top firm from a top law school. You can go to a V5 rather than a V100, but what do you have to show for it at the end of the day other than "prestige." What about the thousands of extra hours of effort that you put in in high school/college (because, in all likelihood, you went to an Ivy), in law school (went to a T14), etc.? Exit ops, partnership prospects, etc. are not guaranteed and are highly dependent on being at the right place at the right time. At the end of the day, the Yale/Columbia Law top 20% associate at a V5 who does not make partner and goes in-house has, twelve years out of high school, not made a penny more than the Hofstra/GW top 40% lawyer who went to a V100 and does the same.

Let's keep out fingers crossed that this changes today.

Triggered v5 associates ITT.

Kirkland's associates don't make more than the v50-100 associates because they aren't any more qualified than the v50-100 associates at being a lawyer. They got marginally better grades in a professional school that does nothing to prepare you for the profession.

You knew what you were getting yourself into from the get go and did it anyway because it made you feel better than everyone else. Joke's on you.

Poor reading comprehension. The post is about a top 10% associate at Cravath or Davis Polk, who has in all likelihood led a lifetime of achievement but due to various factors isn't making partner. There is a chasm of difference in the intelligence, culture, sophistication, polish and refinement of a highly regarded V5 double-Ivy associate and a mediocre V100 associate. If this is not immediately obvious to you, it's because you've never met a person of that quality. It is remarkably unjust that there may very well be no monetary benefit to being an almost-partner candidate at a top law firm with a resume dripping with prestige and a mediocre biglaw lawyer at a mediocre shop.

Also, Kirkland isn't V5. And their associates do get paid more than other law firm associates because their bonuses are materially above market.

Very often it comes down to having a generation or two of lawyers/partners in your family there to prep you for the profession. Also, you're talking about a "highly-regarded" vs. "mediocre". Isn't that the real distinction? What about two mediocre associates in the respective firms? Or two highly regarded?

[Stillblade]

There is a chasm of difference in the intelligence, culture, sophistication, polish and refinement of a highly regarded V5 double-Ivy associate and a mediocre V100 associate. If this is not immediately obvious to you, it's because you've never met a person of that quality.

Holy shit do I hate this profession.

[lawposeidon]

There is a chasm of difference in the intelligence, culture, sophistication, polish and refinement of a highly regarded V5 double-Ivy associate and a mediocre V100 associate. If this is not immediately obvious to you, it's because you've never met a person of that quality.

Holy shit do I hate this profession.

Read Loyola 2L's blog about biglaw! Knocks them down a peg. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... gspot.com/

[Vexed]

Imagine the plethora of CCN median students attempting to lateral into the V5 every single day if this happens. Associates will be billing 3000 hours and still looking over their shoulders.

2.5m+ PPP firm here and I would rather die than work at a V5 but if they pay even 10k/more a year, that probably changes.

What makes you think they could?

It's not hard. We've had two associates go to V5 in the last month and they haven't even been here 2 years. Three others to the V10, so five total, in two months. We aren't a huge firm and are largely only NYC. In this market, it would be very possible. All these people leaving is also why I'm fairly confident my firm will match near any scale.

If your job security rests on, "what makes you think they could", I worry for you

For what its worth, I'll be starting soon at (what is I think is) the firm anon mentioned above. If they don't match I would lateral in a heartbeat. It's not just the 10K. What no one's mentioning is that many of these firms (including the firm referenced above) have a billable requirement to be eligible for a bonus. Thus lateraling to most of the v10 (or even Milbank for that matter) where there is no billable requirement would net 25K for a first or second year. That's a huge gap.

lol, people are not lateraling to the V10 as juniors for the ability to miss hours and make bonus. Most of the V100 is still going to give people that junior a bonus (to a lesser extent as a second-year) whether they hit 2k or not.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It's true toast. Kirkland's PPP is 4x a v50-100's because they get more profitable work. Part of the reason they get that is the partners, but another huge part is the associates. Why would Kirkland's partners make more than the v50-100's but not the associates? That would be like opening a michelin star restuarant and paying your junior cooks what a McDonalds EE makes. It's a complete ripoff.

This has been the sad truth of being a very good but not excellent/partnership-quality biglaw associate at a top firm from a top law school. You can go to a V5 rather than a V100, but what do you have to show for it at the end of the day other than "prestige." What about the thousands of extra hours of effort that you put in in high school/college (because, in all likelihood, you went to an Ivy), in law school (went to a T14), etc.? Exit ops, partnership prospects, etc. are not guaranteed and are highly dependent on being at the right place at the right time. At the end of the day, the Yale/Columbia Law top 20% associate at a V5 who does not make partner and goes in-house has, twelve years out of high school, not made a penny more than the Hofstra/GW top 40% lawyer who went to a V100 and does the same.

Let's keep out fingers crossed that this changes today.

A trained monkey could do the work of a junior associate.

If any junior feels like they're worth $250k, they're welcome to find any employer in any industry who agrees. Until then, they're gonna piss and moan until the next "new proxy fight--u have time?" email comes flying in.

For as smart as you seem to think HLS/Cravath makes someone, you sure are detailed about how dumb their plans usually are.

[Anonymous User]

Texas associates are going to be shafted.

Some Texas associates may get shafted, but the larger Texas firms will match. They are capable of doing so, and they are highly concerned with being equal comp (not just "equal" after COL adjustment).