NYC to 200k Forum

[Wild Card]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

This has been covered endlessly OTT. Firms were concerned that CSM would hit $200k, and they would be forced to do a second match. Regardless of whether you think that would actually be embarrassing (or whether clients would care), this seems to have been a factor relevant to some firms.

Alternatively, if the market didn't really move, even if Milbank had the best pay, it might not be a total game changer for recruitment. Anecdotally I turned down a firm that paid above market during the $160k years because I didn't like the firm. Presumably if there's just a handful of firms paying $190 people might do the same. And most people would be expecting at $180k job anyway since that would still be market.

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

How are you confused? They were waiting for exactly what just happened: Cravath increased salaries above the Milbank scale.

So, those firms were waiting in case that happened, and now they can raise salaries just once, to match the Cravath scale.

[sener212]

Cravath raises the same day Trump meets with Kim Jong Un. COINCIDENCE, I THINK NOT

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

Uhh, what? I chose one of those firms over Cravath, and I know plenty of others who did too, especially S&C and DPW (less so STB). Not to sound too arrogant (I know someone's gonna call me out on this anyway, so what the hell), but people who have options among the ~V5 don't just go with CSM automatically. At this level, perceived "prestige" isn't the only thing that matters -- practice areas, lifestyle, firm culture (yes, this is a real thing that exists), all matter.

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

Uhh, what? I chose one of those firms over Cravath, and I know plenty of others who did too, especially S&C and DPW (less so STB). Not to sound too arrogant (I know someone's gonna call me out on this anyway, so what the hell), but people who have options among the ~V5 don't just go with CSM automatically. At this level, perceived "prestige" isn't the only thing that matters -- practice areas, lifestyle, firm culture (yes, this is a real thing that exists), all matter.

Bruh, that wasn't serious.

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

Uhh, what? I chose one of those firms over Cravath, and I know plenty of others who did too, especially S&C and DPW (less so STB). Not to sound too arrogant (I know someone's gonna call me out on this anyway, so what the hell), but people who have options among the ~V5 don't just go with CSM automatically. At this level, perceived "prestige" isn't the only thing that matters -- practice areas, lifestyle, firm culture (yes, this is a real thing that exists), all matter.

Yeah that was clearly sarcastic

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

Uhh, what? I chose one of those firms over Cravath, and I know plenty of others who did too, especially S&C and DPW (less so STB). Not to sound too arrogant (I know someone's gonna call me out on this anyway, so what the hell), but people who have options among the ~V5 don't just go with CSM automatically. At this level, perceived "prestige" isn't the only thing that matters -- practice areas, lifestyle, firm culture (yes, this is a real thing that exists), all matter.

Yeah that was clearly sarcastic

There are tons of reasons to choose firms over CSM, but I can't imagine ankle monitor DPW has a better firm culture than CSM.

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

Uhh, what? I chose one of those firms over Cravath, and I know plenty of others who did too, especially S&C and DPW (less so STB). Not to sound too arrogant (I know someone's gonna call me out on this anyway, so what the hell), but people who have options among the ~V5 don't just go with CSM automatically. At this level, perceived "prestige" isn't the only thing that matters -- practice areas, lifestyle, firm culture (yes, this is a real thing that exists), all matter.

Wow. You sound way too arrogant.

[Anonymous User]

It would be amusing if none of the V5 matched, because Cravath is "peerless" so there's no point in matching, because no one would choose DPW or S&C over CSM anyway.

But I'm surprised none of Milbank's true peers, besides Proskauer, have matched. Maybe they really can't afford it.

Uhh, what? I chose one of those firms over Cravath, and I know plenty of others who did too, especially S&C and DPW (less so STB). Not to sound too arrogant (I know someone's gonna call me out on this anyway, so what the hell), but people who have options among the ~V5 don't just go with CSM automatically. At this level, perceived "prestige" isn't the only thing that matters -- practice areas, lifestyle, firm culture (yes, this is a real thing that exists), all matter.

Yeah that was clearly sarcastic

Not really. I know all kinds of people who went to sub-T6 schools and because basically nobody from those schools ends up in elite biglaw, they don't know anyone there and think that CSM is more desirable an outcome than DPW/S&C/Cleary/Skadden/STB/Debevoise/Paul Weiss due to Vault. Taking any one of those firms over CSM is a defensible decision, and especially DPW/Cleary/S&C. I would say that DPW and Cleary in particular are generally considered more desirable than CSM/S&C at NYU, while the inverse is usually true at Columbia. But all four are considered truly excellent (but still accessible unlike WLRK/W&C) at both schools, and more or less interchangeable based on personal preferences.

[Anonymous User]

This whole CravaTTTTh thing made me think, that this legal market is so fragmented, not a single firm can capitalize its so-called "prestige" by offering a lower salary and still attract talents, like GS in banking or McK in consulting.

[Anonymous User]

Not really. I know all kinds of people who went to sub-T6 schools and because basically nobody from those schools ends up in elite biglaw, they don't know anyone there and think that CSM is more desirable an outcome than DPW/S&C/Cleary/Skadden/STB/Debevoise/Paul Weiss due to Vault. Taking any one of those firms over CSM is a defensible decision, and especially DPW/Cleary/S&C. I would say that DPW and Cleary in particular are generally considered more desirable than CSM/S&C at NYU, while the inverse is usually true at Columbia. But all four are considered truly excellent (but still accessible unlike WLRK/W&C) at both schools, and more or less interchangeable based on personal preferences.

If this is really the case, then someone should seriously tell them that the Cravath summer blows, their rotation system is outdated and bad for your exit options, and that you are going to be working more hours for the same pay. Poor schmucks.

[Anonymous User]

Don't u have to wear suits all the time and shit like that too?

[Anonymous User]

You'd think the other NYC firms with high PPP would have had a pre-drafted email in response to Cravath

[MillllerTime]

You'd think the other NYC firms with high PPP would have had a pre-drafted email in response to Cravath

I’m sure many did, but it’s been like .6 Business Hours since Cravath announced. I think we’ll see a lot of matches in the next 2 days.

[ithrowds]

You'd think the other NYC firms with high PPP would have had a pre-drafted email in response to Cravath

I’m sure many did, but it’s been like .6 Business Hours since Cravath announced. I think we’ll see a lot of matches in the next 2 days.

Yeah firms usually don't match right away because they also don't want it to look like they're literally just following Cravath (even though its obviously what they're doing)

[Anonymous User]

Alright guys....what's the scoop on Baker McKenzie?
We're not all at V5s and V10s here....

[Anonymous User]

Alright guys....what's the scoop on Baker McKenzie?
We're not all at V5s and V10s here....

Follower firms (or holdouts) won't be determined until all the potential undercutters fall in line

[Anonymous User]

I find it unfathomable that not just one but many law firms believe that a first-year associate coming out of law school would command such a high starting salary.

The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first-year associate $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/the-ton ... cale/?rf=1

Welp

[cfcm]

Alright guys....what's the scoop on Baker McKenzie?
We're not all at V5s and V10s here....

Isn’t what happened with bonuses a pretty good indication of where things are headed here?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=287015

[Anonymous User]

double post

[Anonymous User]

This is what constitutes new raise fun for you young'ins? Back in the 80's when we heard of raises, well . . . just listen to these two songs for the gist of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXv9F4BXpcc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzxW4eu9heY

[Anonymous User]

I find it unfathomable that not just one but many law firms believe that a first-year associate coming out of law school would command such a high starting salary.

The tone deafness is astounding. We as purchaser of legal services keep asking our firms to bill based on value because that is what we want to buy, not hours. They respond by raising rates across the board. It is no wonder that the largest-growing segment in the legal industry over the past few years has been the role of in-house counsel. You can keep living in your ‘reality distortion field’ and pay a first-year associate $190,000. You certainly will attract lawyers to come work for you but we are firing you everyday, you’re just too busy playing #metoo to notice.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/the-ton ... cale/?rf=1

Welp

No idea what dude means by “value”. I guess it’s whatever Greenberg
And Ole Rudy are selling. Hope it suits them.

[Anonymous User]

Alright guys....what's the scoop on Baker McKenzie?
We're not all at V5s and V10s here....

It isn't looking good. Their Profit Per Equity Partner is $1.3 million and their Revenue Per Lawyer is $566,000. As a comparison, Proskauer's numbers are $2.4 million and $1.22 million, relatively. That plus the insane size of Baker McKenzie (3000 associates vs. 400 for Proskauer) means that any movement on compensation would be an exponentially more devastating move for Baker's numbers than most other firms in the V50. Hell, Greenberg Traurig has a higher PPP and RPL and they are already raging against the salary increase. I don't see Baker matching.

[JusticeJackson]

This whole CravaTTTTh thing made me think, that this legal market is so fragmented, not a single firm can capitalize its so-called "prestige" by offering a lower salary and still attract talents, like GS in banking or McK in consulting.

Isn’t Williams and Connolly technically below market? And they can attract top notch talent.