NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

S&C matched

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/sulliva ... -we-think/

[minnbills]

First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.

Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.

Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.

Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.

What is wrong with you? Chill tfo

[Helmholtz]

First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.

Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.

Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.

Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.

What is wrong with you? Chill tfo

Yeah I think somebody hit a nerve with the Jones Day crowd, jeez.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

First, they could easily figure out a way to fire people for talking about comp with "firing them for talking about comp." They certainly are aware of their compensation statistics, guard them with intense care, only give access to a very very select few, and have defenses prepped and ready to go in the unlikely scenario that numbers leak. They have had to invent ways to defend Donald Trump, so no doubt they have creative arguments teed up and ready to go for salary discrimination.

Glad you accurately use "could" here, rather than just assuming that "could" means "does." Step in the right direction. But sad face to the following arguments: (1) Obligatory Trump association evidencing an ethical problem across the firm. Please hate on defenders of death row inmates too. (2) This has really escalated from a "they probably have bias in their pay without evidence" story to a "there's a conspiracy in which they are actively concealing their implicit bias" story. Love that you're really going for it. (3) Coming back to the use of "could" - still loving the "they could therefore they must be doing it" argument regarding firing people. Come back when you find an example.

Second, I have accused no other firm of being a deceitful, malicious shithole like Jones Day is when it comes to associate compensation. Because I can't think of any other firm that sinks to Jones Day's level. In comparison, Kirkland has individualized bonuses but gives their associates median bonus numbers to compare across classes and among their peers, and there is no ridiculous policy or "culture" that prevents attorneys from discussion compensation among themselves. Think to yourself whom Jones Day's secrecy benefits -- it's certainly not the associates, even if the firm conditions some associates to instinctively defend the firm's compensation mysteries.

Sorry, I played in too much. You're right that I shouldn't assume that you're accusing everybody. Just Jones Day. Please just confirm that you've never made a similar accusation about actual bias or even discriminatory impact for which you had no tangible evidence. Oh wait... I assumed again.

Third, whether it's an official written policy or mandated "culture," it's made clear to all associates that if they discussion compensation numbers with other associates, repercussions will come.

Dare I say show me the memo or it didn't happen? Again you're going to need more proof than your hunches. Though I'm sure in your learned experience your hunches are always accurate.

Seriously wouldn't it just be easier for you to argue that this might enable discrimination and ask that they change their policy to ensure that they don't do that? It would make you seem way more reasonable than someone who says "JD must be hiding a discrimination conspiracy because they are evil (I mean because they can)." See my point on tailoring arguments to your audience in the previous post.

Sup shitbag Jones Day apologist.

[Anonymous User]

Sup shitbag Jones Day apologist.

Wow, so we hate on the people who stand for evidence-based accusations rather than people who just go around mouthing off on our colleagues? I don't even work there or have an interest in JD. Strange when our values are so skewed that we let our distaste for Jones Day blind us to baseless accusations of systematic discrimination.

Excuse me while I continue to hold the right people accountable.

[Helmholtz]

Sup shitbag Jones Day apologist.

Wow, so we hate on the people who stand for evidence-based accusations rather than people who just go around mouthing off on our colleagues? I don't even work there or have an interest in JD. Strange when our values are so skewed that we let our distaste for Jones Day blind us to baseless accusations of systematic discrimination.

Excuse me while I continue to hold the right people accountable.

Nah dude, you're definitely super smart and doing your part in protecting the little man (Jones Day leadership). I'm sure you killing it at moot court.

This is a troll though right? I wasn't sure when you compared defending Donald Trump with defending death-row inmates but that theory's making more sense now.

[Anonymous User]

When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?

[Anonymous User]

Who cares let them be happy wearing suits and getting underpaid

Edit: Jones day, not KE

[Anonymous User]

When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?

Agreed. KIRKLAND GIVE ME MONEY

[Anonymous User]

When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?

Relative TLS nub here. Can someone explain this Columbia/Yale meme? I keep seeing this...

[minnbills]

When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?

Relative TLS nub here. Can someone explain this Columbia/Yale meme? I keep seeing this...

Columbia grads think they're hot shit

[Anonymous User]

When will K&E SHATTER the Earth and put all these firms to shame?

2Ls from Columbia and Yale already rumored to have dropped K&E 10 spots in their Prestige calculations while 2Ls from Harvard now rank them below Jones Day. How long can they wait at this point?

Relative TLS nub here. Can someone explain this Columbia/Yale meme? I keep seeing this...

Some guy earlier in this thread used "Columbia/Yale" as shorthand for the best law schools, which everybody lol'd at, because clearly he went to Columbia and wants to equate it with Yale.

[1styearlateral]

The rampant anon abuse, done-to-death COL debates, and utterly worthless other tangents here vs the insufferable megapoasters on the other site is a race that is just too close to call.

The only saving grace here is the occasional 180 Yale/Columbia schtick and persistent exposure of the fraud that is Jones Day. Even the DPW clipboards meme got beat to death. Makes me long for the days of NOBONUS and Partner Emeritus (shudder).

Truth. An amusing aside every few hours for the past week, but yikes if you do this year round.

lol but posted anon.

The fuck you guys so scared about. Worried you might get outed at your firm for adding to this dumpster fire of a thread?

[Anonymous User]

Idk why ppl get all bent out of shape about Anon. What's difference if I'm posting anon or as like donkeydick69? Would that really lend me more credibility? If so, why would I even care?

[Anonymous User]

[Anonymous User]

Yes - Costco LLP to 200M...

[minnbills]

Idk why ppl get all bent out of shape about Anon. What's difference if I'm posting anon or as like donkeydick69? Would that really lend me more credibility? If so, why would I even care?

seriously

[Anonymous User]

Idk why ppl get all bent out of shape about Anon. What's difference if I'm posting anon or as like donkeydick69? Would that really lend me more credibility? If so, why would I even care?

seriously

It used to make sense because some TLS users had long post histories and a certain degree of credibility. But yes, now complaining about anon abuse is kind of silly.

[1styearlateral]

Idk why ppl get all bent out of shape about Anon. What's difference if I'm posting anon or as like donkeydick69? Would that really lend me more credibility? If so, why would I even care?

For one, it's hard to keep track of the morons and trolls, unless they have a specific flavor of autism that gives them away.

Second, it's a matter of principle. But leave it to a bunch of neurotic attorneys to abuse a feature meant for those who want to receive or give actual advice. People post as anon because they don't want to get called out for their bullshit, even if the alternative is to post with an online username.

[Anonymous User]

Idk why ppl get all bent out of shape about Anon. What's difference if I'm posting anon or as like donkeydick69? Would that really lend me more credibility? If so, why would I even care?

For one, it's hard to keep track of the morons and trolls, unless they have a specific flavor of autism that gives them away.

Second, it's a matter of principle. But leave it to a bunch of neurotic attorneys to abuse a feature meant for those who want to receive or give actual advice. People post as anon because they don't want to get called out for their bullshit, even if the alternative is to post with an online username.

OK Thx confirmed username pointless

[donkeydick69]

Cleary just went to 200 for all Yale/Columbia grads. Others remaining at 180.

[Wild Card]

do people seriously (i) worry about work monitoring their computer and (ii) not keep a laptop at work? seems completely idiotic . .

Listen, I know it's in your best interest to try and convince people to post screenshots, but it's never in the posters best interest. Yeah, it's a minimal risk, but it's a risk nonetheless. Maybe they accidentally leave some identifying info in the screenshot (happens all the time), who knows. All we know is the risk of posting a screenshot is non-zero, and the reward is zero. The fact that so many V100 lawyers run here and tell us the moment they get a memo is enough of a gift.

I don't really care, but the purpose was just to point out if people seriously think their firm is monitoring their computer, it's crazy not to keep a laptop in the office

At DPW you're required to submit your personal laptop to an afternoon and evening browser history check.

180

[Anonymous User]

If all you want is confirmed salary matches, just check ATL. Not sure why you'd be here if you didn't enjoy the wonderful discourse..

[Anonymous User]

[minnbills]

OK Thx confirmed autist.

Eh I'd rather be autistic than someone who uses autism as an insult