NY GOES TO 180k! IT HAPPENED!!!! (CovingTTTon does a 180! Holder wept.) Forum

[EzraFitz]

This is a bizarrely over sensitive response. GULC sucks and 70% of their graduates would be lucky to get NYC biglaw. That said, NYC is crazy expensive and that's a shame.

right but like half of us commenting in here go to GULC and we're not just gonna admit that our school sucks without spinning it hard. cmon now

Back-up is here, thank god.
//
Everyone knows most GULC grads self-select out of big law because of public interest, guys. This is why our stats look so dismal. If people actually tried we'd easily have 65% big law + clerkships

I still think the key is to find a shop that matches salaries across all offices, and then hunker down in a satellite with enough people for security, and enjoy the NYC rates.

Barring someone wanting to work in NYC because they like the city itself, I agree this is a pretty good option. Especially if said shop has a big NYC office which is not its head office, and will match salaries without exporting the toxic work culture along with it.

Yeah, no one really wants clerkships either cause... reasons.

[TLSModBot]

Fellow classmates defending my trash school is worse than the attacks.

Embrace TTT status friends. If you get Biglaw anyway then it doesn't matter. If you don't, then maybe the detractors are right about GULC's failings.

[Br3v]

eh, you're right. i edited mine, though it probably too late.

to shift things back in the right direction: how long til the money train hits DC, and what are the odds that they retroactively boost all our SA salaries?

DC salaries will likely be tied to NY (or very closely follow) - people want dat DC preftige but they'd go to NY in a heartbeat if the money was better.

Retroactive SA pay isn't a thing but your enhanced first year salaries (plus bonuses!) will make you feel better

ehh, DC isn't really a market follower anymore.

Its 2015 Associate Salary Survey says the median pay for first-year associates at large firms in Washington remains $160,000. But that is the case at about 60 percent of D.C. firms this year. In 2009, about 90 percent of firms with more than 700 lawyers reported first-year salaries of $160,000.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/b ... aries.html

It's like Chicago - obviously the big dogs would move but outside the truly top of the top, doubtful.

I think the "big dogs" covers most of the big law market though. All of the big DC-centric biglaw shops and the V-whatevers with smaller DC offices. I guess it's little more than my gut, but people in like the Dallas outpost would seem to get if you don't match what their fellow NY associates are getting right away, but DC?

[Internetdan]

The last 3 pages of this thread are not valuable.

Is Cravath going over 200k this summer or not?

[TLSModBot]

The last 3 pages of this thread are not valuable.

Is Cravath going over 200k this summer or not?

If you include first year bonuses, yes of course

[Internetdan]

Good. Obama out.

[Johann]

@Johann, I think it depends on what you mean by "midlaw" or a "boutique."

Obviously a real boutique is a better job. If by "midlaw" you mean "biglaw hours for less pay" I don't understand what you're talking about, and don't understand why that makes sense long term.

I think that if you're making a rational pay/work/experience argument, obviously there are places in Chicago and Texas that make way more sense than NYC.

Once you move to secondary markets you're going to need to do some pushing for me to agree with you. I think a lot of this is difficult because it's super abstract.

Are you better off at K&L Gates or Cadwalader in Charlotte, NC than you are at DPW? If you want to do public M&A does it make sense for you to work in Chicago?

Too many variables being thrown around.

K&L Gates is a shithole that I'd consider shitbiglaw, so that's basically the worst possible outcome. I'm talking about maybe a 100 person firm like http://www.varnumlaw.com/careers/law-st ... -benefits/ in Grand Rapids. Make 120k for 1700 billables. There's way less pressure of being forced out. I just mean you're making functionally the same salary in these midlaw boutique places, in a more sustained business model that you can spend an entire career in without having to do another job hunt in 2 years, buy property etc. So financially, I think these end up being washes for the most part and for the most common career path of NYC biglaw to some other place midlaw, this shortcuts the middleman and gets you there instantly.

I guess people have grandiose delusions of DPW partner though which gets in the way until they try NYC biglaw.

[Johann]

eh, you're right. i edited mine, though it probably too late.

to shift things back in the right direction: how long til the money train hits DC, and what are the odds that they retroactively boost all our SA salaries?

DC salaries will likely be tied to NY (or very closely follow) - people want dat DC preftige but they'd go to NY in a heartbeat if the money was better.

Retroactive SA pay isn't a thing but your enhanced first year salaries (plus bonuses!) will make you feel better

ehh, DC isn't really a market follower anymore.

Its 2015 Associate Salary Survey says the median pay for first-year associates at large firms in Washington remains $160,000. But that is the case at about 60 percent of D.C. firms this year. In 2009, about 90 percent of firms with more than 700 lawyers reported first-year salaries of $160,000.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/b ... aries.html

It's like Chicago - obviously the big dogs would move but outside the truly top of the top, doubtful.

I think the "big dogs" covers most of the big law market though. All of the big DC-centric biglaw shops and the V-whatevers with smaller DC offices. I guess it's little more than my gut, but people in like the Dallas outpost would seem to get if you don't match what their fellow NY associates are getting right away, but DC?

No. These are only 700+ firms, so it's all big dogs in the way yo uare thinking. V30 firms and below would not be moving unless they have some particularly strong tie to DC, that's my point. Dallas would not be moving either; you're correct there.

[Johann]

The last 3 pages of this thread are not valuable.

Is Cravath going over 200k this summer or not?

If you include first year bonuses, yes of course

and SA pay.

[smaug]

I think the stability of those places depends on the market. Maybe it's because I'm from MN (and the MN market is collapsing/has always been kinda brutal) but from what I hear those places aren't really that desirable there... maybe that changes in other markets.

Put another way, I know top students from the schools that typically are the source for associates at midlaw firms try hard not to end up at those firms and end up in Chicago or NY instead. Are they just dumb?

[EzraFitz]

Fellow classmates defending my trash school is worse than the attacks.

Embrace TTT status friends. If you get Biglaw anyway then it doesn't matter. If you don't, then maybe the detractors are right about GULC's failings.

Fwiw, I stand very neutral on the school altogether. I love the experience, and have enjoyed it, and have a good outcome, but I also understand all of the shortcomings and quite how lucky I've been. You can defend it with perspective still.

I think the stability of those places depends on the market. Maybe it's because I'm from MN (and the MN market is collapsing/has always been kinda brutal) but from what I hear those places aren't really that desirable there... maybe that changes in other markets.

Put another way, I know top students from the schools that typically are the source for associates at midlaw firms try hard not to end up at those firms and end up in Chicago or NY instead. Are they just dumb?

Yeah I definitely think it is market dependent. Well known tertiary markets with a lot of stability are a much different outcome than Rando LLP in No Name, State.

[kcdc1]

Its 2015 Associate Salary Survey says the median pay for first-year associates at large firms in Washington remains $160,000. But that is the case at about 60 percent of D.C. firms this year. In 2009, about 90 percent of firms with more than 700 lawyers reported first-year salaries of $160,000.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/b ... aries.html

How has this obviously fallacious blasphemy gone unchecked for 1.5 pages? The 60% number includes all firms. Has the 90% for 700+ changed at all? Reading that article, we don't know. What we do know is that the number of firms paying 160k is about to drop to zero as the bidding war for TALENT begins.

[Br3v]

eh, you're right. i edited mine, though it probably too late.

to shift things back in the right direction: how long til the money train hits DC, and what are the odds that they retroactively boost all our SA salaries?

DC salaries will likely be tied to NY (or very closely follow) - people want dat DC preftige but they'd go to NY in a heartbeat if the money was better.

Retroactive SA pay isn't a thing but your enhanced first year salaries (plus bonuses!) will make you feel better

ehh, DC isn't really a market follower anymore.

Its 2015 Associate Salary Survey says the median pay for first-year associates at large firms in Washington remains $160,000. But that is the case at about 60 percent of D.C. firms this year. In 2009, about 90 percent of firms with more than 700 lawyers reported first-year salaries of $160,000.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/b ... aries.html

It's like Chicago - obviously the big dogs would move but outside the truly top of the top, doubtful.

I think the "big dogs" covers most of the big law market though. All of the big DC-centric biglaw shops and the V-whatevers with smaller DC offices. I guess it's little more than my gut, but people in like the Dallas outpost would seem to get if you don't match what their fellow NY associates are getting right away, but DC?

No. These are only 700+ firms, so it's all big dogs in the way yo uare thinking. V30 firms and below would not be moving unless they have some particularly strong tie to DC, that's my point. Dallas would not be moving either; you're correct there.

Please show math as to why V30 is cut off?

[cron1834]

This is a bizarrely over sensitive response. GULC sucks and 70% of their graduates would be lucky to get NYC biglaw. That said, NYC is crazy expensive and that's a shame.

right but like half of us commenting in here go to GULC and we're not just gonna admit that our school sucks without spinning it hard. cmon now

[84651846190]

Law center grads running shit ITT

[Mack.Hambleton]

dont bump this thread until 190 is confirmed

[Br3v]

dont bump this thread until 190 is confirmed

We did it!

[Anonymous User]

v5 partner once told me the only reason they increased compensation is fleeing midlevels so yall midlevels reading this know what you have to do

[Mack.Hambleton]

dont bump this thread until 190 is confirmed

We did it!

we eatin fam

[Desert Fox]

Covington DC didn't even start paying NYC market (considering bonuses) until march 2016. A&P same thing.

[Mr. Blackacre]

Covington DC didn't even start paying NYC market (considering bonuses) until march 2016. A&P same thing.

Neither did Wilmer for that matter. Black box starting year 4 until 2016. Oh, and W&C is basically below market starting year what, 3? That's all your DC powerhouses right there.

Come to think of it, DC really isn't that great of a compensation follower anymore. Good thing they'll get a chance to properly get back on the money train this summer when NY moves to 190.

[Desert Fox]

Covington DC didn't even start paying NYC market (considering bonuses) until march 2016. A&P same thing.

Neither did Wilmer for that matter. Black box starting year 4 until 2016. Oh, and W&C is basically below market starting year what, 3? That's all your DC powerhouses right there.

Come to think of it, DC really isn't that great of a compensation follower anymore. Good thing they'll get a chance to properly get back on the money train this summer when NY moves to 190.

s
And the only reason there is pressure is because NYC based firms tend to pay NYC market. If those firms figured out they could fuck their associates, DC would abandon following NYC even a little bit.

[PMan99]

Covington DC didn't even start paying NYC market (considering bonuses) until march 2016. A&P same thing.

Neither did Wilmer for that matter. Black box starting year 4 until 2016. Oh, and W&C is basically below market starting year what, 3? That's all your DC powerhouses right there.

Come to think of it, DC really isn't that great of a compensation follower anymore. Good thing they'll get a chance to properly get back on the money train this summer when NY moves to 190.

s
And the only reason there is pressure is because NYC based firms tend to pay NYC market. If those firms figured out they could fuck their associates, DC would abandon following NYC even a little bit.

TBF making decisions based on 5th year salary is foolish anyway. Most people won't be in biglaw by then, the vast majority won't be at the same firm they started at, and only a portion of those who are will make their bonus. For a large number of assiciates, following until 3-4 is all they need.

[Johann]

Its 2015 Associate Salary Survey says the median pay for first-year associates at large firms in Washington remains $160,000. But that is the case at about 60 percent of D.C. firms this year. In 2009, about 90 percent of firms with more than 700 lawyers reported first-year salaries of $160,000.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/b ... aries.html

How has this obviously fallacious blasphemy gone unchecked for 1.5 pages? The 60% number includes all firms. Has the 90% for 700+ changed at all? Reading that article, we don't know. What we do know is that the number of firms paying 160k is about to drop to zero as the bidding war for TALENT begins.

Wrong. 60% of 700+ firms.

[Tiago Splitter]

Its 2015 Associate Salary Survey says the median pay for first-year associates at large firms in Washington remains $160,000. But that is the case at about 60 percent of D.C. firms this year. In 2009, about 90 percent of firms with more than 700 lawyers reported first-year salaries of $160,000.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/b ... aries.html

How has this obviously fallacious blasphemy gone unchecked for 1.5 pages? The 60% number includes all firms. Has the 90% for 700+ changed at all? Reading that article, we don't know. What we do know is that the number of firms paying 160k is about to drop to zero as the bidding war for TALENT begins.

Wrong. 60% of 700+ firms.

You sure? It's written in kind of an ambiguous way.