Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Top firms who have remained silent have to go above Milbank. To do otherwise would be absurd at this point given the length of the delay. Otherwise, what was the point of the delay? To just dick us around? A simple match would be a serious slap in the face.

lol a SLAP in the FACE! quell horreur

most biglaw partners would literally slap associates in the face if they could rearrange the world to make it socially acceptable; the fact that the delay in being given a raise irks associates seen by many of them as overentitled is likely a feature as much as a bug

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Yeah dude median students at TTTs kill it in biglaw

[Anonymous User]

Top firms who have remained silent have to go above Milbank. To do otherwise would be absurd at this point given the length of the delay. Otherwise, what was the point of the delay? To just dick us around? A simple match would be a serious slap in the face.

lol a SLAP in the FACE! quell horreur

most biglaw partners would literally slap associates in the face if they could rearrange the world to make it socially acceptable; the fact that the delay in being given a raise irks associates seen by many of them as overentitled is likely a feature as much as a bug

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

This take is way off. Probably mostly so with regard to lit, but way off as a general matter.

[Anonymous User]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

[Anonymous User]

Top firms who have remained silent have to go above Milbank. To do otherwise would be absurd at this point given the length of the delay. Otherwise, what was the point of the delay? To just dick us around? A simple match would be a serious slap in the face.

lol a SLAP in the FACE! quell horreur

most biglaw partners would literally slap associates in the face if they could rearrange the world to make it socially acceptable; the fact that the delay in being given a raise irks associates seen by many of them as overentitled is likely a feature as much as a bug

the sesationalistic portrayal of partners on TLS is ridiculous and dumb. I don't disagree that many of them probably don't feel strongly in favor of associates receiving a raise. Even agree that they would perceive these comments as entitled. Yet the suggestion that social convention is the only thing keeping them from slapping associates is stupid.

It's sensationalistic and hyperbole I admit. And partners would agree with you and they hold the same social conventions so it's all effectively unthinkable for basically everyone involved. Fair points and I walk back my statement.

But consider the fact that biologically indistinguishable humans throughout most of history have used physical discipline as a means of labor management at all levels of society, so it's a little difficult to see what there is besides social convention making consumers of laboring power behave differently now. The relevant point being that, when something offends some laborers in a way that society would in general be fine with (i.e., not giving a raise to people making 3x their country's median household income), describing the offense as a slap in the face misses the point that many partners would say "if you are offended by making 205k instead of 215k when you have no discernible skills besides raw talent and laboring power, you deserve to be offended"

[Anonymous User]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

Tell PW we say hi

[ExpOriental]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

Oh right the super novel phenomenon of clients complaining about rates, that makes total sense.

Unfortunately your mentor seems to have accurately appraised your gullibility.

Yes, they will match, but the notion that the delay has anything to do with optics (besides just not wanting to re-match if someone else raises) is facially nonsensical.

[Anonymous User]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

This was said about covid bonuses too. Lame excuse. It's division of the pie, not asking for another slice.

[Anonymous User]

lol a SLAP in the FACE! quell horreur

most biglaw partners would literally slap associates in the face if they could rearrange the world to make it socially acceptable; the fact that the delay in being given a raise irks associates seen by many of them as overentitled is likely a feature as much as a bug

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Yeah dude median students at TTTs kill it in biglaw

I know everyone here is t14 NYC/DC but t75 isn't TTT. It's Loyola University Chicago. And it was hyperbole, but I guarantee those median students would be happy as hell to step in to the nameless cog that is big law. Sure, big law wants to hire the best they can within reason, but if the top applicants just boycotted it, the difference in product isn't going to be high enough to matter. 1-2nd year associates are quite literally write offs for how little they are of use. But sure, they deserve a piece of the pie that the partner can take with them wherever they want.

[Anonymous User]

. double post

[Anonymous User]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

This was said about covid bonuses too. Lame excuse. It's division of the pie, not asking for another slice.

Also, don't rate increase notices to clients go out around December/January? That's the only "optics" clients care about, and they know those things are annual. If a month after receiving the rate increase they happen to read some news stories that literally every law firm is increasing associate pay, I doubt that will even register.

[Anonymous User]

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Yeah dude median students at TTTs kill it in biglaw

I know everyone here is t14 NYC/DC but t75 isn't TTT. It's Loyola University Chicago. And it was hyperbole, but I guarantee those median students would be happy as hell to step in to the nameless cog that is big law. Sure, big law wants to hire the best they can within reason, but if the top applicants just boycotted it, the difference in product isn't going to be high enough to matter. 1-2nd year associates are quite literally write offs for how little they are of use. But sure, they deserve a piece of the pie that the partner can take with them wherever they want.

Maybe this is just a thing in transactional groups (not trying to throw shade, just saying maybe that's where you're coming from since I don't know that world), but at least in my lit group we regularly see median students at t14s come in and straight up suck, adding no value to what we do. A lot of the law is not as complicated as some like to think it is, but a lot of it actually is that complicated, and you do actually need bright talent to handle some of the issues that come across your desk. It's not always just a need for nameless cogs.

That being said, even those nameless cogs deserve a piece of the pie at the rate they get billed out at.

[nealric]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

I know there's some journalists who've gleefully reported sound bytes about clients complaining about associate salaries, and perhaps there's some partners who actually believe them in good faith, but the truth is that clients couldn't care less about associate salaries. We don't care about the firm's secretary salaries, marketing department, or office lease costs either. A firm's cost structure is none of our concern. What we care about is what it's going to cost us, not which pocket the bill will line. There can actually be pretty massive cost differences to clients for the same work even among market-paying firms.

[Anonymous User]

I know everyone here is t14 NYC/DC but t75 isn't TTT. It's Loyola University Chicago. And it was hyperbole, but I guarantee those median students would be happy as hell to step in to the nameless cog that is big law. Sure, big law wants to hire the best they can within reason, but if the top applicants just boycotted it, the difference in product isn't going to be high enough to matter. 1-2nd year associates are quite literally write offs for how little they are of use. But sure, they deserve a piece of the pie that the partner can take with them wherever they want.

Okay but firms risk losing their midlevels and seniors to competitors if they don't match, and those are very difficult and expensive to replace.

Also the below is absolutely true for transactional groups too. When I was at a V50, I regularly had just terrible junior associates (including T6 students who presumably had bad grades). People would fight over the few really good junior associates. I'm now at a V10 and the junior quality is just way better (there are still some duds, but much less common). So no...junior associates aren't just nameless, interchangeable cogs.

Maybe this is just a thing in transactional groups (not trying to throw shade, just saying maybe that's where you're coming from since I don't know that world), but at least in my lit group we regularly see median students at t14s come in and straight up suck, adding no value to what we do. A lot of the law is not as complicated as some like to think it is, but a lot of it actually is that complicated, and you do actually need bright talent to handle some of the issues that come across your desk. It's not always just a need for nameless cogs.

[NoLongerALurker]

Top firms who have remained silent have to go above Milbank. To do otherwise would be absurd at this point given the length of the delay. Otherwise, what was the point of the delay? To just dick us around? A simple match would be a serious slap in the face.

lol a SLAP in the FACE! quell horreur

most biglaw partners would literally slap associates in the face if they could rearrange the world to make it socially acceptable; the fact that the delay in being given a raise irks associates seen by many of them as overentitled is likely a feature as much as a bug

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Very strong agree with this analysis. I too have seen juniors suck, so they aren’t fungible, but the difference isn’t raw intelligence. It’s just grind. I am convinced that outside of tax, and certainly for almost all corporate level work for 4th years and below, the intellectual bar is real (a random high schooler can’t do this job), but it just isn’t very high (a median student at a median law school absolutely could, from an intellectual perspective, do it). I think the same grind that gets someone a 175 instead of a 160 on an LSAT is the difference in grind levels you see from a TTT associate and a T14 associate. People like to attribute it to intelligence, but with few exceptions (again—tax, appellate lit, etc), it just isn’t intelligence that’s making the difference. It’s grind.

If your main thing is “I’m smart,” you made a mistake with law. And I think most lawyers regard smart as their main attribute, which is also why most lawyers hate their job.

[Kikero]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

I know there's some journalists who've gleefully reported sound bytes about clients complaining about associate salaries, and perhaps there's some partners who actually believe them in good faith, but the truth is that clients couldn't care less about associate salaries. We don't care about the firm's secretary salaries, marketing department, or office lease costs either. A firm's cost structure is none of our concern. What we care about is what it's going to cost us, not which pocket the bill will line. There can actually be pretty massive cost differences to clients for the same work even among market-paying firms.

Exactly. Partners should be more embarrassed about their obscene PPP numbers being reported shortly after raising rates than about giving poor associates a few more crumbs.

[Anonymous User]

That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

This doesn't make sense. I would expect nepotism to, on average, be a worse way to select for "grinders" than law school grades. I also haven't really seen much (any?) nepotism at either biglaw firm I've worked for.

[nealric]

I know everyone here is t14 NYC/DC but t75 isn't TTT. It's Loyola University Chicago. And it was hyperbole, but I guarantee those median students would be happy as hell to step in to the nameless cog that is big law. Sure, big law wants to hire the best they can within reason, but if the top applicants just boycotted it, the difference in product isn't going to be high enough to matter. 1-2nd year associates are quite literally write offs for how little they are of use. But sure, they deserve a piece of the pie that the partner can take with them wherever they want.

Okay but firms risk losing their midlevels and seniors to competitors if they don't match, and those are very difficult and expensive to replace.

Also the below is absolutely true for transactional groups too. When I was at a V50, I regularly had just terrible junior associates (including T6 students who presumably had bad grades). People would fight over the few really good junior associates. I'm now at a V10 and the junior quality is just way better (there are still some duds, but much less common). So no...junior associates aren't just nameless, interchangeable cogs.

Maybe this is just a thing in transactional groups (not trying to throw shade, just saying maybe that's where you're coming from since I don't know that world), but at least in my lit group we regularly see median students at t14s come in and straight up suck, adding no value to what we do. A lot of the law is not as complicated as some like to think it is, but a lot of it actually is that complicated, and you do actually need bright talent to handle some of the issues that come across your desk. It's not always just a need for nameless cogs.

Agree that the idea that associates are "nameless interchangeable cogs" is simply wrong. Many of the tasks biglaw associates do are pretty menial, but the difference between a good and bad associate is that the good one can get a totally ambiguous assignment on a matter they have no background in and just figure out what needs to be done and do it.

If it were really so simple, firms would just hire a bunch of 4th tier grads for $50k a year in some low COL area and dispense with trying to wine and dine T14 students. Some firms have actually tried that (like doc review centers in West Virginia), but those firms are still recruiting T14 students for actual associate roles. They aren't doing that out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Chrstgtr]

I see all these stories in other threads about how close some of y'all claim to be with the partners at your V10s. SPs even.

So where the hell y'all at? Ask them about where our money is.

Met with a partner mentor from my old V10 (not DPW) yesterday. There’s a concern with the optics of raising salaries when clients are complaining about rising junior billable rates given juniors aren’t really worth it from a client perspective. Partner said match to market will happen no matter what eventually, but they are looking at the optics of the timing of the match too.

I know there's some journalists who've gleefully reported sound bytes about clients complaining about associate salaries, and perhaps there's some partners who actually believe them in good faith, but the truth is that clients couldn't care less about associate salaries. We don't care about the firm's secretary salaries, marketing department, or office lease costs either. A firm's cost structure is none of our concern. What we care about is what it's going to cost us, not which pocket the bill will line. There can actually be pretty massive cost differences to clients for the same work even among market-paying firms.

This. If a client cares about associate salaries then they are really dumb. The increase in cost is literally a rounding error on PEP from 5.9 to 5.8 million. Meanwhile PEP are rising by 10% every year. If firms don’t share the wealth then it is simply partner greed to blame.

[nealric]

That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

This doesn't make sense. I would expect nepotism to, on average, be a worse way to select for "grinders" than law school grades. I also haven't really seen much (any?) nepotism at either biglaw firm I've worked for.

The nepotism tends to be the softer sort. This isn't a case of someone's uncle hiring their nephew. But there's a decent bit of running in the same social circles as the incoming associate "knowing the family" or the incoming associate having a connection with a client. There's also a LOT of just cultural nepotism- hiring people who look/sound/act like you.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place.

This is where you're wrong

It's an especially idiotic take in this market, where literal first years are getting signing bonuses.

Ok guys. Focus. Back to making predictions based on arbitrary criteria on when DPW will finally say something. My vote is 4:35 PM tomorrow.

There's gotta be someone familiar enough with the legal market to game out how this could trickle up from Cooley to DPW. As in, Cooley is a peer of A in X market, so A will need to match. Then A is a peer of B in Y market, so B will match. Then B is a peer of [insert V5], so that V5 will need to match, which will finally put gears in motion for the rest of us.

Goodwin, WilmerHale, and Choate are competitors to Kirkland in Boston, and kinda Cooley too.

Ropes is "conservative" about $$$ decisions but I cannot imagine a world where they're ok with Goodwin, Wilmer, Choate, and Cooley paying more than them. They'd be a joke in their "home" market. So pencil in Ropes for an inevitable, if probably delayed, match.

[dabboyexpress]

I know everyone here is t14 NYC/DC but t75 isn't TTT. It's Loyola University Chicago. And it was hyperbole, but I guarantee those median students would be happy as hell to step in to the nameless cog that is big law. Sure, big law wants to hire the best they can within reason, but if the top applicants just boycotted it, the difference in product isn't going to be high enough to matter. 1-2nd year associates are quite literally write offs for how little they are of use. But sure, they deserve a piece of the pie that the partner can take with them wherever they want.

Okay but firms risk losing their midlevels and seniors to competitors if they don't match, and those are very difficult and expensive to replace.

Also the below is absolutely true for transactional groups too. When I was at a V50, I regularly had just terrible junior associates (including T6 students who presumably had bad grades). People would fight over the few really good junior associates. I'm now at a V10 and the junior quality is just way better (there are still some duds, but much less common). So no...junior associates aren't just nameless, interchangeable cogs.

Maybe this is just a thing in transactional groups (not trying to throw shade, just saying maybe that's where you're coming from since I don't know that world), but at least in my lit group we regularly see median students at t14s come in and straight up suck, adding no value to what we do. A lot of the law is not as complicated as some like to think it is, but a lot of it actually is that complicated, and you do actually need bright talent to handle some of the issues that come across your desk. It's not always just a need for nameless cogs.

Interesting all around. I was at a smaller V75 before - we recruited from all over, but mainly were looking at below-median at T14s and the usual NYC suspects (with a smattering of TTTs there). In my corporate group, the juniors were all pretty good. We started in a sub-group (M&A, funds, etc.) on our first day. As a result, juniors got roped into deals pretty quickly. We also did more middle market work, so it was more a volume business. As a result, though, juniors got reps pretty quickly and knew exactly what was their responsibility. While there were better and worse juniors, I was always pretty confident that whoever was staffed on my deal could hit the ground running.

I lateraled to a V10 as a midlevel, and the juniors were just kind of meh. At the time, they were unassigned across the corporate groups, so there wasn't really much accountability. While the deals are "bigger", they don't get as much substantive experience up front and fewer reps in. They've changed the assigning system, but I still end up doing a lot more handholding here. Interestingly, the midlevels and up here tend to be laterals.

All that to say - I think there absolutely is baseline intelligence required in this job, but for juniors, the more reps you get in, the better. Once those tasks start becoming automatic, it leaves more time to learn the next set of skills (walk before running and all that). If I need to chase you as a second/third year to update checklists and learn basic opinion diligence, it's just less time I have to spend with you walking through the substance.

[Anonymous User]

lol a SLAP in the FACE! quell horreur

most biglaw partners would literally slap associates in the face if they could rearrange the world to make it socially acceptable; the fact that the delay in being given a raise irks associates seen by many of them as overentitled is likely a feature as much as a bug

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Very strong agree with this analysis. I too have seen juniors suck, so they aren’t fungible, but the difference isn’t raw intelligence. It’s just grind. I am convinced that outside of tax, and certainly for almost all corporate level work for 4th years and below, the intellectual bar is real (a random high schooler can’t do this job), but it just isn’t very high (a median student at a median law school absolutely could, from an intellectual perspective, do it). I think the same grind that gets someone a 175 instead of a 160 on an LSAT is the difference in grind levels you see from a TTT associate and a T14 associate. People like to attribute it to intelligence, but with few exceptions (again—tax, appellate lit, etc), it just isn’t intelligence that’s making the difference. It’s grind.

If your main thing is “I’m smart,” you made a mistake with law. And I think most lawyers regard smart as their main attribute, which is also why most lawyers hate their job.

Thank you. That was exactly my point. People keep saying they've seen shitty juniors, but how many of those shitty juniors worked 4+ years in some big law job, making the firms millions? The firm was happy to have them suck and bill clients. And yes, of course there are some that are so bad that they cost the firm money due to writeoffs etc. And I'm not saying there is literally 0 intelligence required. In fact, I said the opposite in my original post.

There is a bar, it's just not a high one. A mediocre junior billing 2700 hours because they take forever to get anything done is more valuable than a god-tier junior billing 2100. People talking about hiring TTTTs to do stuff are missing the point. The point is that at a law school that places 25% into big law has students that whiffed that are functionally identical to those who got jobs.

The last paragraph in your post is perfectly put. If your thing is being smart, you picked the wrong profession.

[Anonymous User]

Overentitled? We're overworked and it's not like we just want to money to buy those sneakers with the wheels in them and vbucks.

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Very strong agree with this analysis. I too have seen juniors suck, so they aren’t fungible, but the difference isn’t raw intelligence. It’s just grind. I am convinced that outside of tax, and certainly for almost all corporate level work for 4th years and below, the intellectual bar is real (a random high schooler can’t do this job), but it just isn’t very high (a median student at a median law school absolutely could, from an intellectual perspective, do it). I think the same grind that gets someone a 175 instead of a 160 on an LSAT is the difference in grind levels you see from a TTT associate and a T14 associate. People like to attribute it to intelligence, but with few exceptions (again—tax, appellate lit, etc), it just isn’t intelligence that’s making the difference. It’s grind.

If your main thing is “I’m smart,” you made a mistake with law. And I think most lawyers regard smart as their main attribute, which is also why most lawyers hate their job.

Thank you. That was exactly my point. People keep saying they've seen shitty juniors, but how many of those shitty juniors worked 4+ years in some big law job, making the firms millions? The firm was happy to have them suck and bill clients. And yes, of course there are some that are so bad that they cost the firm money due to writeoffs etc. And I'm not saying there is literally 0 intelligence required. In fact, I said the opposite in my original post.

There is a bar, it's just not a high one. A mediocre junior billing 2700 hours because they take forever to get anything done is more valuable than a god-tier junior billing 2100. People talking about hiring TTTTs to do stuff are missing the point. The point is that at a law school that places 25% into big law has students that whiffed that are functionally identical to those who got jobs.

The last paragraph in your post is perfectly put. If your thing is being smart, you picked the wrong profession.

mediocre jr’s who take forever to get anything done make everyone’s life miserable and will have their work given to a god-tier jr on track to bill 2100. This is not a real world scenario. The god-tier jr is more valuable.

[nealric]

Yeah not arguing that this is what partners actually think (including/especially the young ones who grew up on the stuck-at-160 salary scale), but lol at the idea that it's "entitlement" to think that we should get a 37% share of the hundreds of thousands of $$$ we net for the partnership instead of 35%.

Biglaw clients pay firms for the partners, the associates are just nameless cogs in the machine. If one disappears, there are ten others who can easily be hired to take his place. It is pretty outlandish to think that junior employees somehow deserve a piece of the profits of the firm. Should bank tellers get massive pay increases because Bank of America is making more money?

I like to think what biglaw attorneys do is at least marginally more demanding and complicated than giving grandma cash for her rolls of nickels

I disagree. I mean it is more complicated, but a 50th percentile tryhard from a t75 law school is going to be worth as much and maybe even more than a 75th percentile from a t20. Law requires a baseline of intelligence, and anything past that is worth less than someone who just grinds and bills hours. That baseline is not very high. That's why nepotism works so well in the industry. Because being smart doesn't really matter that much. A dumb grinder is worth more than a lazy genius because there's not enough unsolvable problems and high level work that the lazy genius can come in and be like "this is why you hired me."

The real problem is that we all picked a profession where intelligence is like the 5th most important thing behind charisma, work ethic, having no life, etc.

Very strong agree with this analysis. I too have seen juniors suck, so they aren’t fungible, but the difference isn’t raw intelligence. It’s just grind. I am convinced that outside of tax, and certainly for almost all corporate level work for 4th years and below, the intellectual bar is real (a random high schooler can’t do this job), but it just isn’t very high (a median student at a median law school absolutely could, from an intellectual perspective, do it). I think the same grind that gets someone a 175 instead of a 160 on an LSAT is the difference in grind levels you see from a TTT associate and a T14 associate. People like to attribute it to intelligence, but with few exceptions (again—tax, appellate lit, etc), it just isn’t intelligence that’s making the difference. It’s grind.

If your main thing is “I’m smart,” you made a mistake with law. And I think most lawyers regard smart as their main attribute, which is also why most lawyers hate their job.

Thank you. That was exactly my point. People keep saying they've seen shitty juniors, but how many of those shitty juniors worked 4+ years in some big law job, making the firms millions? The firm was happy to have them suck and bill clients. And yes, of course there are some that are so bad that they cost the firm money due to writeoffs etc. And I'm not saying there is literally 0 intelligence required. In fact, I said the opposite in my original post.

There is a bar, it's just not a high one. A mediocre junior billing 2700 hours because they take forever to get anything done is more valuable than a god-tier junior billing 2100. People talking about hiring TTTTs to do stuff are missing the point. The point is that at a law school that places 25% into big law has students that whiffed that are functionally identical to those who got jobs.

The last paragraph in your post is perfectly put. If your thing is being smart, you picked the wrong profession.

mediocre jr’s who take forever to get anything done make everyone’s life miserable and will have their work given to a god-tier jr on track to bill 2100. This is not a real world scenario. The god-tier jr is more valuable.

Yes. And the 2,700 of nonsense grinder is only valuable for a few years to most firms. Eventually they need to take more sophisticated tasks/responsibilities to justify their billing rates. I suppose a few firms can get away with senior associates and counsels billing $1,000+ an hour for diligence who are unable to talk or work with any sophistication on the deal's substance, but most can't. And mindless grinders are rarely serious partnership candidates. You might think that firms don't want to make partners, but firms do need new partners to backfill attrition, and homegrown partners are a lot cheaper (and generally safer) than hiring laterals.

[Anonymous User]

So as a first-year lit associate, how do I know if I suck? I'm pretty lazy--don't actively seek out work when perhaps I could--but I get things done on time, get along with everyone, and generally people seem to like my work?

Is it possible to coast but still be a "good junior"? Specifically asking about lit.