NYC to 200k Forum

[rahulg91]

ATL trying to keep alive the drama

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

Why is everyone anon now lol.

But I don't see K&E outpacing Cravath here, they might give a bigger summer bonus but that's probably it.

[thelastlaugh]

ATL is annoying, but I do think there is something to be said for the sentiment shared earlier in this thread: K&E is happy being a salary follower and attracting talent with out-sized bonuses. This has worked for them for a while, so why change it?

Is group consensus that the STB or Cravath summer bonuses are market, or will there be a split that is firm-by-firm?

[Anonymous User]

While ATL is more than happy to vilify big law pay, often using snippets from in-house counsel, it seems to have absolutely no problem with partner pay. An increase in salary from 160 to 180 is a fraction of the PPP increases the last decade. Hell I would even be curious to see salary trends for in-house counsels. And from what I am reading, it seems like associates work longer hours than their predecessors from 10-20 years ago.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody bored enough to find OCI bid deadlines for all T14s to see when the pressure increases for firms to move?

[Anonymous User]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

Another day with a useless scorecard. At least we know someone that doesn't deserve a raise...

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

That's bullshit. Here are the two charts from the blog. Starts out 2/5 white male, ends up 4/5 white male, and the other 20% are mostly white females. You telling me 3/5 of the starting class got "affirmative action." Bull shit.

. . .

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

Here is a login I just made to the site (user toplawschools@tls.com, pw nyto200k). Pick Kirkland Ellis (O'Melveny is not a peer firm so let's stop discussing them) and then select "New partners promoted from associate or counsel rank" and compare it to the "summer associate" data and you'll see the same trend. I can't upload the picture here because the forum only lets you show pictures you have a link to.

http://mcca.vault.com

It says Asians (who do not get affirmative action) were 10% of summer associates in 2007-2008 and 2% of new partners in 2016.
White men were 40% of summer associates in 2007--2008 and 65% of new partners in 2016. This is smoking gun evidence that the partnership track is white privileged. By paying partners more and paying associates less, you're also paying white biglawyers more and minority biglawyers less.

Someone needs a lesson in causation vs. correlation.

Also, we need more raise news, this thread is getting (more) absurd.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the entitled white folk demanding 'mo money.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the entitled white folk demanding 'mo money.

Please go away

[Anonymous User]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

Another day with a useless scorecard. At least we know someone that doesn't deserve a raise...

Above the Law is a comically bad website. Bonus/Comp memos are like 80% of their page views but their content is just "Guess which firm did something 10 years ago" or a useless scorecard. You would think there would be some hustle to actually produce content people want to read around the issues that drive their page views (i.e. analysis of which firms will match, asking managing partners for comments, keeping a scorecard up to date) but it's literally just posting memos and garbage clickbait. Glad Cravath leak their memo to WSJ first...

[bruinfan10]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

Another day with a useless scorecard. At least we know someone that doesn't deserve a raise...

Above the Law is a comically bad website. Bonus/Comp memos are like 80% of their page views but their content is just "Guess which firm did something 10 years ago" or a useless scorecard. You would think there would be some hustle to actually produce content people want to read around the issues that drive their page views (i.e. analysis of which firms will match, asking managing partners for comments, keeping a scorecard up to date) but it's literally just posting memos and garbage clickbait. Glad Cravath leak their memo to WSJ first...

you're not exactly "breaking the news" that ATL is a dumpster fire. but welcome to the legal world, anonymous 0L.

[Right2BearArms]

. . .

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

Here is a login I just made to the site (user toplawschools@tls.com, pw nyto200k). Pick Kirkland Ellis (O'Melveny is not a peer firm so let's stop discussing them) and then select "New partners promoted from associate or counsel rank" and compare it to the "summer associate" data and you'll see the same trend. I can't upload the picture here because the forum only lets you show pictures you have a link to.

http://mcca.vault.com

It says Asians (who do not get affirmative action) were 10% of summer associates in 2007-2008 and 2% of new partners in 2016.
White men were 40% of summer associates in 2007--2008 and 65% of new partners in 2016. This is smoking gun evidence that the partnership track is white privileged. By paying partners more and paying associates less, you're also paying white biglawyers more and minority biglawyers less.

Someone needs a lesson in causation vs. correlation.

Also, we need more raise news, this thread is getting (more) absurd.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the entitled white folk demanding 'mo money.

Useful comment and brave use of Annon. Please feel free and try and refute what I said. The split you highlight might be demonstrable of many things, but it is far from "smoking gun evidence that the partnership track is white privileged".

[Anonymous User]

.

[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.

Are you dumb? I'm saying no one was ever arguing with you, the poster above was sarcastic when they said CSM is "peerless". Stop having an argument that no one is opposing.

[Anonymous User]

settle down kids

[Anonymous User]

https://m.imgur.com/a/OgHBlDE

[Anonymous User]

No news yet today I guess?

[Anonymous User]

No news yet today I guess?

Yeah Kirkland went to 250 but we figured we’d just keep whining at each other about white privilege

[Anonymous User]

No news yet today I guess?

[Anonymous User]

columbia/yale

[Anonymous User]

Do you all think of yourselves as being in the middle or upper-middle class?

[Anonymous User]

Cravath raised the Milbank scale despite bleeding partners and plummeting revenues. If Kirkland doesn't beat them, I'll be disappointed.

[nealric]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/salary- ... ises-2018/

Another day with a useless scorecard. At least we know someone that doesn't deserve a raise...

Above the Law is a comically bad website. Bonus/Comp memos are like 80% of their page views but their content is just "Guess which firm did something 10 years ago" or a useless scorecard. You would think there would be some hustle to actually produce content people want to read around the issues that drive their page views (i.e. analysis of which firms will match, asking managing partners for comments, keeping a scorecard up to date) but it's literally just posting memos and garbage clickbait. Glad Cravath leak their memo to WSJ first...

10 years ago Above the Law had some pretty good content. I actually found out I passed the bar when ATL leaked the bar results early. Then Lat left, they turned off comments, and decided to cash in with sponsor content.

[estefanchanning]

From Lat's wiki page:

As Above the Law's readership and network of informers grew, Lat and his staff began to exercise substantial influence on the legal industry.[citation needed] One of their biggest scoops came in 2012, when Lat "broke the news that one of most prestigious law firms in the world, Dewey & LeBoeuf, which employed more than 1,300 attorneys in 12 countries in 2007, was on the verge of imploding.".[13] Business Insider named Lat one of the 20 biggest legal stars on Twitter, calling his Twitter feed a "treasure trove of law firm gossip, employment trends, stupid law student antics, and pretty much anything else concerning the legal industry."[14]

Lmao

[Anonymous User]

Do you all think of yourselves as being in the middle or upper-middle class?

Is this even a question? Obviously STB Houston is upper class and DPW is working class. Next question.

[Anonymous User]

Do you all think of yourselves as being in the middle or upper-middle class?

Is this even a question? Obviously STB Houston is upper class and DPW is working class. Next question.

This isn’t far wrong. I definitely don’t feel upper class living in SF on a mid level salary and stepping over human feces on my walk from the train to the office.

[Anonymous User]

human feces are a part of sf for everyone