Cravath's Spawn - the Wave of Copycats - RUNNING TALLY Forum

[Anonymous User]

Consdidering adding a laggard/get your act together list. Thoughts? Would it make the opening post too long? What criteria would we use to decide who goes on there?

Like it. Check out the other thread: perhaps Am Law PPP or RPL top 50/75 from the most recent Am Law 100.

Agreed. If your firm is doing great in PPP and hasn't raised, well, I guess we all know how your firm keeps PPP so high.

I propose we call it the "Cheap fucks' list.

[Anonymous User]

Any speculation/rumors regarding GDC? Looks like back in 2007 it took them until May to match the bump to 160 that occurred in January. But I assumed firms would want to make the call before July, when OCI bidding cranks up.

[Anonymous User]

You're not going to get a better verification on O'Melveny, they do their compensation announcement by voicemail. Enough people tipped ATL that they posted a story, so I'd consider it verified. I called my buddy at OMM when I first saw it posted on the other thread, and he confirmed the voicemail had gone out 10 minutes before.

[Anonymous User]

Consdidering adding a laggard/get your act together list. Thoughts? Would it make the opening post too long? What criteria would we use to decide who goes on there?

Like it. Check out the other thread: perhaps Am Law PPP or RPL top 50/75 from the most recent Am Law 100.

Agreed. If your firm is doing great in PPP and hasn't raised, well, I guess we all know how your firm keeps PPP so high.

Come on Schulte

[Anonymous User]

Consdidering adding a laggard/get your act together list. Thoughts? Would it make the opening post too long? What criteria would we use to decide who goes on there?

Like it. Check out the other thread: perhaps Am Law PPP or RPL top 50/75 from the most recent Am Law 100.

Agreed. If your firm is doing great in PPP and hasn't raised, well, I guess we all know how your firm keeps PPP so high.

Come on Schulte

their ppp is fake. they cannot afford this.

[TLSModBot]

Consdidering adding a laggard/get your act together list. Thoughts? Would it make the opening post too long? What criteria would we use to decide who goes on there?

Like it. Check out the other thread: perhaps Am Law PPP or RPL top 50/75 from the most recent Am Law 100.

Agreed. If your firm is doing great in PPP and hasn't raised, well, I guess we all know how your firm keeps PPP so high.

Come on Schulte

their ppp is fake. they cannot afford this.

Not so sure about this. Their gross revenue for 2015 was $405M. Their partner payouts total out to $198.5M, and given the number of associates they have, their salary and bonus costs likely run them under $100M (starting class of 34, so numbers at or around that level per class, with slight bulge in the midlevels and lower numbers for the upper senior class). Since salaries are the largest part of law firm expenditures (usually 60-70%), it's easily plausible that their remaining expenses only cost another $100M (bringing the total roughly up to their $405M revenue numbers).

[Anonymous User]

Any speculation/rumors regarding GDC? Looks like back in 2007 it took them until May to match the bump to 160 that occurred in January. But I assumed firms would want to make the call before July, when OCI bidding cranks up.

They waited, but once Latham/OMM moved, they immediately matched.

I'd be shocked if they haven't moved by the end of next week, if not by this afternoon. They obviously will match eventually, so I think it's probably just a matter of scheduling a partner meeting or waiting for a vote or something.

[Anonymous User]

its already on ATL, but Susman godfrey matched/exceeded to 190.

Maybe we could have a notation (like the opposite of the covingTTTTon shame-face) for above market firms that have notified

[dailygrind]

Any speculation/rumors regarding GDC? Looks like back in 2007 it took them until May to match the bump to 160 that occurred in January. But I assumed firms would want to make the call before July, when OCI bidding cranks up.

They waited, but once Latham/OMM moved, they immediately matched.

I'd be shocked if they haven't moved by the end of next week, if not by this afternoon. They obviously will match eventually, so I think it's probably just a matter of scheduling a partner meeting or waiting for a vote or something.

I think they have to move pretty soon, and it's gotta include DC to 180. I'm actually hoping that they're what makes DC fall in line behind 180.

[trbrny]

its already on ATL, but Susman godfrey matched/exceeded to 190.

Maybe we could have a notation (like the opposite of the covingTTTTon shame-face) for above market firms that have notified

Credited. Check out the update.

[Anonymous User]

its already on ATL, but Susman godfrey matched/exceeded to 190.

Maybe we could have a notation (like the opposite of the covingTTTTon shame-face) for above market firms that have notified

Credited. Check out the update.

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

[jbagelboy]

its already on ATL, but Susman godfrey matched/exceeded to 190.

Maybe we could have a notation (like the opposite of the covingTTTTon shame-face) for above market firms that have notified

Credited. Check out the update.

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

^this person is right, I apologize for my error.
I still think its strange that the memo refers to them as first years. It would clarify to say e.g. "Class of 2014", 190. Cause someone coming off two clerkships is not still "first year" standing, so it can't mean first yr with the firm

[jmh1]

White & Case

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... ssociates/

[Anonymous User]

White & Case

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... ssociates/

Only for offices already at 160K (can anyone at W&C can confirm which ones these are?)

[Anonymous User]

White & Case

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... ssociates/

Only for offices already at 160K (can anyone at W&C can confirm which ones these are?)

Looks like NY, DC, LA, Silicon Valley

http://uslawcareers.whitecase.com/nalpforms/

[Anonymous User]

White & Case

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... ssociates/

Only for offices already at 160K (can anyone at W&C can confirm which ones these are?)

Looks like NY, DC, LA, Silicon Valley

http://uslawcareers.whitecase.com/nalpforms/

They just opened their Boston office in April, so they only have one associate there. I wonder what he's getting paid.

[Anonymous User]

Shearman matched.

[Anonymous User]

White & Case

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/another- ... ssociates/

Only for offices already at 160K (can anyone at W&C can confirm which ones these are?)

literally every office except Miami (boston is a fake office)

RAGING rn

OP put them on the CovingTTTon list please until Miami office sacks up and pays up

[Anonymous User]

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

[rpupkin]

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

Are you sure? If that's right--if "First Year" in Susman's memo means "first year working at Susman Godfrey," then the firm actually pays below market to someone who did two clerkships. Given that many of their associates did a district court clerkship and a COA clerkship, that doesn't seem right.

[TLSModBot]

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

Are you sure? If that's right--if "First Year" in Susman's memo means "first year working at Susman Godfrey," then the firm actually pays below market to someone who did two clerkships. Given that many of their associates did a district court clerkship and a COA clerkship, that doesn't seem right.

They've been DOWNGRADED to Susman DemiGodfrey

[rpupkin]

its already on ATL, but Susman godfrey matched/exceeded to 190.

Maybe we could have a notation (like the opposite of the covingTTTTon shame-face) for above market firms that have notified

Credited. Check out the update.

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

^this person is right, I apologize for my error.
I still think its strange that the memo refers to them as first years. It would clarify to say e.g. "Class of 2014", 190. Cause someone coming off two clerkships is not still "first year" standing, so it can't mean first yr with the firm

Right. Someone coming off of one clerkship also is not "first year" standing. Most big law firms give you one year of credit for one clerkship and two years of credit for two clerkships.

[qlube]

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

Are you sure? If that's right--if "First Year" in Susman's memo means "first year working at Susman Godfrey," then the firm actually pays below market to someone who did two clerkships. Given that many of their associates did a district court clerkship and a COA clerkship, that doesn't seem right.

Susman literally does not hire first years. You have to do a clerkship. Their "first years" are really second years, and if you do a two year clerkship then you come in as a "second year" aka a third year.

[Anonymous User]

As I noted in the other thread, because Susman has no first years, it's a match, not above Cravath. A second year at Cravath is paid the same salary as a second year at Susman, etc.

Are you sure? If that's right--if "First Year" in Susman's memo means "first year working at Susman Godfrey," then the firm actually pays below market to someone who did two clerkships. Given that many of their associates did a district court clerkship and a COA clerkship, that doesn't seem right.

Susman literally does not hire first years. You have to do a clerkship. Their "first years" are really second years, and if you do a two year clerkship then you come in as a "second year" aka a third year.

This is OP. This is correct. Again, Susman paid market salaries before and was even behind on matching market increases in their Houston office until earlier this decade.

Susman is a VERY PR-friendly firm. If they were in fact paying above market ($35k above in some isntances), they would have made that clear in their press release. They didn't do so.

Also compare the two scales. If you take Susman's "first year" and compare it to the Cravath "second year," Susman's "second year" and Cravath's "third year," you'll see they match up perfectly. That's not a coincidence.

[Anonymous User]

Consdidering adding a laggard/get your act together list. Thoughts? Would it make the opening post too long? What criteria would we use to decide who goes on there?

Like it. Check out the other thread: perhaps Am Law PPP or RPL top 50/75 from the most recent Am Law 100.

Agreed. If your firm is doing great in PPP and hasn't raised, well, I guess we all know how your firm keeps PPP so high.

I think leverage is important to factor in as well if you want to see which firms can easily match. Between two firms with identical PPP, if one has 5x as many associates, then they might be harder pressed to match. A ranked metric of PPP/associate would should which firms can most easily match.