NYC to 200k Forum

[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.

Baker and GT have higher leverage too, so it means more money per partner. Baker’s RPL is worse than most amlaw 200 firms.

[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.

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

Williams and Connolly is kind of a weird case. They’re not like most biglaw. Everyone I know lined up to go there is like, a crazy smart northeast blue blood type with family money, and some excellent clerkships. Hard to put a finger on it but it appeals less to the “gotta get money, I heard WAchtell is the best” kind of gunner and more of the “my great grandfather, grandfather and both parents were lawyers and I am predestined to be a part of the DC scene so here I go”. And so the fact that they pay an outsize base salary and no bonuses probably seems very dignified for a couple of years.

[Npret]

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.

Value is based on the overall cost of the deal or litigation and the skill of the partners involved. The recession changed law firm billing because clients wanted to drastically cut costs and law firms agreed to basically stay in business. Clients still want discounted fee arrangements not bills based on an hourly fee.

That comment as to value just echoes what people have been saying for 10 years.

[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.

Baker and GT have higher leverage too, so it means more money per partner. Baker’s RPL is worse than most amlaw 200 firms.

an overwhelming majority of those associates are overseas and dont get salary increases/bill 2000 hours a year. bakers amlaw numbers are deceptive. its not a prestigious firm but partners easily make more than jones day there.

[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.

Baker and GT have higher leverage too, so it means more money per partner. Baker’s RPL is worse than most amlaw 200 firms.

an overwhelming majority of those associates are overseas and dont get salary increases/bill 2000 hours a year. bakers amlaw numbers are deceptive. its not a prestigious firm but partners easily make more than jones day there.

Jones day isn’t increasing your salary if you already work there

[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.

Baker and GT have higher leverage too, so it means more money per partner. Baker’s RPL is worse than most amlaw 200 firms.

an overwhelming majority of those associates are overseas and dont get salary increases/bill 2000 hours a year. bakers amlaw numbers are deceptive. its not a prestigious firm but partners easily make more than jones day there.

True. For instance Baker has a decent China practice (which is actually generally revenue for them) and, unlike other U.S. firms, they never pay U.S. rates to their local associates.

[Anonymous User]

Baker's profit per lawyer is a hair over 180k. For comparsion, Milbank's is over 600k. GT's is in the mid 200k's. If Baker McKenzie tried to give raises, they're going to have to make some serious cuts somewhere. They're "Amlaw 3" but their profit per lawyer is almost 1/10 of Kirkland's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... prov=sfla1

And I don't see how Baker paying overseas associates less than other US firms is any indication that they'll give these raises.

These raises are definitely gonna cause stratification in the law firm compensation model, which is fine.

[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.

Not sure where your non-T6-students-don't-get-T5-offers bullshit comes from but my buddy at the bodega down the street says otherwise. And he would know. He went to GULC.

In all seriousness I'm a non-T6 T14 guy who chose not to go to T6 school, and then chose not to go to V5 firm. I know plenty of people at my non-T6 law school that not only turned down CSM for other V5 firms, but also turned down V5 firms for other firms elsewhere in the rankings.

[Npret]

People choose where to work based on Vault? That’s a meme right.

[Anonymous User]

In all seriousness I'm a non-T6 T14 guy who chose not to go to T6 school, and then chose not to go to V5 firm. I know plenty of people at my non-T6 law school that not only turned down CSM for other V5 firms, but also turned down V5 firms for other firms elsewhere in the rankings.

Lol

[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.

Cleary? Why?

[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.

Not sure where your non-T6-students-don't-get-T5-offers bullshit comes from but my buddy at the bodega down the street says otherwise. And he would know. He went to GULC.

In all seriousness I'm a non-T6 T14 guy who chose not to go to T6 school, and then chose not to go to V5 firm. I know plenty of people at my non-T6 law school that not only turned down CSM for other V5 firms, but also turned down V5 firms for other firms elsewhere in the rankings.

Just to build on this, I went to a T3 school and didn’t even consider Cravath (or several other firms for that matter) because I didn’t believe that my values were consistent with the expectations that would be placed on me. I’m practicing in biglaw now but my priority was never going to the most “elite” firm—imagine that.

[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.

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

Williams and Connolly is kind of a weird case. They’re not like most biglaw. Everyone I know lined up to go there is like, a crazy smart northeast blue blood type with family money, and some excellent clerkships. Hard to put a finger on it but it appeals less to the “gotta get money, I heard WAchtell is the best” kind of gunner and more of the “my great grandfather, grandfather and both parents were lawyers and I am predestined to be a part of the DC scene so here I go”. And so the fact that they pay an outsize base salary and no bonuses probably seems very dignified for a couple of years.

Setting aside issues of differences in amount in pay, there are advantages to W&C's pay scale. Your comp is not tied to an hours target or arbitrary/whimsical requirements imposed by the firm. Also, earning it out throughout the year means you don't have to stay until a particular date to get a large chunk of your income and you can begin putting your money to work for you earlier.

[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.

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

Williams and Connolly is kind of a weird case. They’re not like most biglaw. Everyone I know lined up to go there is like, a crazy smart northeast blue blood type with family money, and some excellent clerkships. Hard to put a finger on it but it appeals less to the “gotta get money, I heard WAchtell is the best” kind of gunner and more of the “my great grandfather, grandfather and both parents were lawyers and I am predestined to be a part of the DC scene so here I go”. And so the fact that they pay an outsize base salary and no bonuses probably seems very dignified for a couple of years.

There are advantages to W&C's pay scale. Your comp is not tied to an hours target or arbitrary/whimsical requirements imposed by the firm. Also, earning it out throughout the year means you don't have to stay until a particular date to get a large chunk of your income and you can begin putting your money to work for you earlier.

True. But with another wave of salary bumps across the leading firms, W&C probably should consider raising too. Those advantages are nice (especially for a mid-level) but students at OCI may not appreciate it.

At this point, it's just simple math. 200 at W&C versus 190 + 5k "special summer bonus" + the usual 10k December bonus means you are making more money at most other major firms, even as a first year. And from what I understand, the gap grows even greater every year thereafter.

It's hard to spin that at OCI even if the firm has other big advantages.

[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.

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

Williams and Connolly is kind of a weird case. They’re not like most biglaw. Everyone I know lined up to go there is like, a crazy smart northeast blue blood type with family money, and some excellent clerkships. Hard to put a finger on it but it appeals less to the “gotta get money, I heard WAchtell is the best” kind of gunner and more of the “my great grandfather, grandfather and both parents were lawyers and I am predestined to be a part of the DC scene so here I go”. And so the fact that they pay an outsize base salary and no bonuses probably seems very dignified for a couple of years.

There are advantages to W&C's pay scale. Your comp is not tied to an hours target or arbitrary/whimsical requirements imposed by the firm. Also, earning it out throughout the year means you don't have to stay until a particular date to get a large chunk of your income and you can begin putting your money to work for you earlier.

True. But with another wave of salary bumps across the leading firms, W&C probably should consider raising too. Those advantages are nice (especially for a mid-level) but students at OCI may not appreciate it.

At this point, it's just simple math. 200 at W&C versus 190 + 5k "special summer bonus" + the usual 10k December bonus means you are making more money at most other major firms, even as a first year. And from what I understand, the gap grows even greater every year thereafter.

It's hard to spin that at OCI even if the firm has other big advantages.

You think so? I don't see judge having to spin the significantly lower pay for a clerkship... Law students should be able to ascertain the advantages of W&C over an extra $5k for their 1 year before jumping ship to gov't/clerkships. I think W&C may have to raise for midlevels, but I'm not certain this argument applies to summers/first years.

[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.

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

Williams and Connolly is kind of a weird case. They’re not like most biglaw. Everyone I know lined up to go there is like, a crazy smart northeast blue blood type with family money, and some excellent clerkships. Hard to put a finger on it but it appeals less to the “gotta get money, I heard WAchtell is the best” kind of gunner and more of the “my great grandfather, grandfather and both parents were lawyers and I am predestined to be a part of the DC scene so here I go”. And so the fact that they pay an outsize base salary and no bonuses probably seems very dignified for a couple of years.

There are advantages to W&C's pay scale. Your comp is not tied to an hours target or arbitrary/whimsical requirements imposed by the firm. Also, earning it out throughout the year means you don't have to stay until a particular date to get a large chunk of your income and you can begin putting your money to work for you earlier.

True. But with another wave of salary bumps across the leading firms, W&C probably should consider raising too. Those advantages are nice (especially for a mid-level) but students at OCI may not appreciate it.

At this point, it's just simple math. 200 at W&C versus 190 + 5k "special summer bonus" + the usual 10k December bonus means you are making more money at most other major firms, even as a first year. And from what I understand, the gap grows even greater every year thereafter.

It's hard to spin that at OCI even if the firm has other big advantages.

You think so? I don't see judge having to spin the significantly lower pay for a clerkship... Law students should be able to ascertain the advantages of W&C over an extra $5k for their 1 year before jumping ship to gov't/clerkships. I think W&C may have to raise for midlevels, but I'm not certain this argument applies to summers/first years.

Comparing lower comp at W&C to (albeit significantly) lower comp for clerkship is ridiculous. Get over yourself

[Anonymous User]

W&C pays less than the biglaw market and W&C also attracts top talent.

They don't attract that talent because people are happy about getting their money folded in with their salary so they can invest it earlier, though. They attract it because they're W&C. Whether that means 2Ls are making rational decisions about partnership prospects or exit options with W&C on the resume vs. A&P or Hogan, or whether it's because 2Ls entering OCI are single-mindedly prestige focused, is for you to decide.

[Anonymous User]

Exciting and important news from DPW management this morning:


some Arnold & Porter dude joining our NorCal office.

[MillllerTime]

Exciting and important news from DPW management this morning:


some Arnold & Porter dude joining our NorCal office.

Kirkland management has sent about 8 firmwide announcements emails since the original Milbank announcement. They’re toying with us.

[Anonymous User]

Comparing lower comp at W&C to (albeit significantly) lower comp for clerkship is ridiculous. Get over yourself

Comparing is different from calling them equivalent. All I'm saying is that 1Ls can take a $100k+ pay cut for perceived career boosts from clerkships. W&C might provide $5k worth of career boosts over other DC firms (or at least the semblance of that). I don't think it's that hard for W&C to sell $5k worth of intangible benefits to 1Ls.

[Anonymous User]

Comparing lower comp at W&C to (albeit significantly) lower comp for clerkship is ridiculous. Get over yourself

Comparing is different from calling them equivalent. All I'm saying is that 1Ls can take a $100k+ pay cut for perceived career boosts from clerkships. W&C might provide $5k worth of career boosts over other DC firms (or at least the semblance of that). I don't think it's that hard for W&C to sell $5k worth of intangible benefits to 1Ls.

Not to mention the tangible benefits of free lunch and healthcare. But W&C mid levels are getting increasingly below market comp.

[rahulg91]

Comparing lower comp at W&C to (albeit significantly) lower comp for clerkship is ridiculous. Get over yourself

Comparing is different from calling them equivalent. All I'm saying is that 1Ls can take a $100k+ pay cut for perceived career boosts from clerkships. W&C might provide $5k worth of career boosts over other DC firms (or at least the semblance of that). I don't think it's that hard for W&C to sell $5k worth of intangible benefits to 1Ls.

Not to mention the tangible benefits of free lunch and healthcare. But W&C mid levels are getting increasingly below market comp.

Whoa whoa whoa, free lunch and free healthcare? This is a thing?

[Anonymous User]

ATL trying to keep alive the drama

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/screw-c ... ing-to-do/

[Anonymous User]

W&C pays less than the biglaw market and W&C also attracts top talent.

They don't attract that talent because people are happy about getting their money folded in with their salary so they can invest it earlier, though. They attract it because they're W&C. Whether that means 2Ls are making rational decisions about partnership prospects or exit options with W&C on the resume vs. A&P or Hogan, or whether it's because 2Ls entering OCI are single-mindedly prestige focused, is for you to decide.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the W&C usual practice had been to be above market (even when factoring in the lack of a bonus) for the first 2-3 years. And that then you sacrifice higher pay at market firms as a mid level and above at W&C, for the other intangible benefits of W&C.

For instance, when the market was 160 for first years (with a 10k bonus), W&C was 180. When the market was 180 for first years (with a 10k bonus), W&C was 200. Always slightly above for the first/second/third (? I'm not sure) years before going solidly below market for mid-levels. But now not even that starting perk is true. That is why I would expect WC to raise.

[Anonymous User]

Comparing lower comp at W&C to (albeit significantly) lower comp for clerkship is ridiculous. Get over yourself

Comparing is different from calling them equivalent. All I'm saying is that 1Ls can take a $100k+ pay cut for perceived career boosts from clerkships. W&C might provide $5k worth of career boosts over other DC firms (or at least the semblance of that). I don't think it's that hard for W&C to sell $5k worth of intangible benefits to 1Ls.

Not to mention the tangible benefits of free lunch and healthcare. But W&C mid levels are getting increasingly below market comp.

Whoa whoa whoa, free lunch and free healthcare? This is a thing?

earlier in this thread someone said S&C gets free health insurance (not sure if true). some skadden offices have free lunch every day. im sure other firms/offices have perks like this.