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

[Johann]

I think it would be haves and have nots for at least a few years. Obviously all major firms would eventually match, but NY would go bimodal for a bit and I imagine other markets with a few firm exceptions would lag behind at 160.

I doubt Chicago or Texas would match 190k ever. Maybe Kirkland and Skadden. They might go up to liek 170k, but if NYC associates start getting paid like they should (more billables and higher rates), then Chicago firms would have a tough time matching.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

I have a friend at Patterson Belknap, and apparently they took the summers aside and said that the 1st year salary may go to $205k next year. Hopefully this proves true.

[rahulg91]

I think it would be haves and have nots for at least a few years. Obviously all major firms would eventually match, but NY would go bimodal for a bit and I imagine other markets with a few firm exceptions would lag behind at 160.

I doubt Chicago or Texas would match 190k ever. Maybe Kirkland and Skadden. They might go up to liek 170k, but if NYC associates start getting paid like they should (more billables and higher rates), then Chicago firms would have a tough time matching.

I mean there would certainly be a lag, but they'd have to match eventually or lose out on top students.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Johann]

I think it would be haves and have nots for at least a few years. Obviously all major firms would eventually match, but NY would go bimodal for a bit and I imagine other markets with a few firm exceptions would lag behind at 160.

I doubt Chicago or Texas would match 190k ever. Maybe Kirkland and Skadden. They might go up to liek 170k, but if NYC associates start getting paid like they should (more billables and higher rates), then Chicago firms would have a tough time matching.

I mean there would certainly be a lag, but they'd have to match eventually or lose out on top students.

not really. you can use lower cost of living and lower billables at most firms to continue to draw top talent from UC and Northwestern. I don't really see a way firms like Mayer, McDermott, and Baker in the V30-V50 range would keep up with the Davis Polks. Don't get me wrong, I want NYC to 190k, but realistically the Chicago and Texas markets may never match if NYC goes drastic enough with the raise. I think they would match 170k, just not 190.

[trebekismyhero]

I think it would be haves and have nots for at least a few years. Obviously all major firms would eventually match, but NY would go bimodal for a bit and I imagine other markets with a few firm exceptions would lag behind at 160.

I doubt Chicago or Texas would match 190k ever. Maybe Kirkland and Skadden. They might go up to liek 170k, but if NYC associates start getting paid like they should (more billables and higher rates), then Chicago firms would have a tough time matching.

I mean there would certainly be a lag, but they'd have to match eventually or lose out on top students.

not really. you can use lower cost of living and lower billables at most firms to continue to draw top talent from UC and Northwestern. I don't really see a way firms like Mayer, McDermott, and Baker in the V30-V50 range would keep up with the Davis Polks. Don't get me wrong, I want NYC to 190k, but realistically the Chicago and Texas markets may never match if NYC goes drastic enough with the raise. I think they would match 170k, just not 190.

I think that firms like Kirkland, Sidley, Winston, Mayer that also have large NYC offices would have to match at some point. They might lag for a bit, but there's no way that they could pay their NYC office 190 and keep their main office at 160 or 170

[smaug]

I have a friend at Patterson Belknap, and apparently they took the summers aside and said that the 1st year salary may go to $205k next year. Hopefully this proves true.

Only because you're a real on topic poster will I respond to this—

this, if not flame, probably wouldn't change much because Patterson only hires post clerkship now, right? Pretty much would be the same as having a higher clerkship bonus.

I don't think it would put pressure on anyone, especially because similar lit shops already pay above market. (well, Boies does)

[smaug]

I also don't get why the flame this time is saying that lit heavy firms will push comp. up. Were it to move, it would pretty much have to be STB as the mover again, yeah?

That said,

flame we can believe in

flame for the future

NYC to 190!!!!

[Desert Fox]

[juzam_djinn]

NY to $100k would make more sense, tbh

Yeah, $160K starting is a little excessive. It is really the price of law school that needs to decrease.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

NYC TO 190K.

MORE MONEY IS ALWAYS BETTER. ALWAYS.

seriously, GTFO traitor

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

The major law firms have the best possible situation now in terms of the labor market: 1. compensation is fixed at 160k 2. NYC and other major markets (where it's more expensive to live) are also the only markets to expect 100% offer rate 3. very very few hires made during 3L or after graduation, so law students do not want to risk being no-offered by SAing in a smaller market

It seems to me that this situation is comparable to the allegations against airlines. The law firms are saying: our clients want to keep legal costs low, so we need to be very cautious on compensation. Everyone knows that this means not to raise 1st year compensation, because then everyone has to match to remain competitive, and everyone has to raise the lockstep for the other years. Every law firm is aware of what associates are paid at every other firm because the information is public. It seems to me that the only aspect of legal hiring where this breaks down is with laterals, because the market for 3-6th years who have experience is much tighter and also much more difficult to coordinate.

[84651846190]

No. I'm a summer at Paul Weiss. Nothing like this happened.

lolololol

[Anonymous User]

I disagree about Texas. The Houston market is absolutely booming. VE has been handing above market bonuses consistently (source: atl). It's not a stretch to say that Kirkland, Latham, VE, and BB would move in lockstep with the NY scale.

[Foghornleghorn]

Edit: above anon was me. Hit the wrong button.

[Johann]

Yeah, people would still choose Chicago and Texas over NYC if it's like 170 vs 190k. It's actually pretty crazy right now that cost of living is not built into the equation. My billable rate is pretty low compared to NYC rates.

It's the same reason why offices in Miami, Philly (historically), and other cities like that pay less. You can still get the talent you need at a Chicago firm without going to 190k to match NYC because of less headcount needed and COL/quality of life.

Finally, firms don't give a fuck about consistency between their offices in comp structure. Plenty of offices have way different bonus structures. It's not unheard of for Chicago offices to give 2x what the NYC office gives to associates that hit the same billables because the Chicago office translates that into more profits.

[Yea All Right]

And don't forget the no state income tax wonderlands that are Texas and Florida.

[Tiago Splitter]

Finally, firms don't give a fuck about consistency between their offices in comp structure. Plenty of offices have way different bonus structures. It's not unheard of for Chicago offices to give 2x what the NYC office gives to associates that hit the same billables because the Chicago office translates that into more profits.

But the lockstep firms tend to set the market and those firms will pay the same across every office. Which puts some pressure on the non-lockstep firms in those other cities. Chicago might be an exception because the big NYC locksteppers don't have offices there.

[Johann]

Finally, firms don't give a fuck about consistency between their offices in comp structure. Plenty of offices have way different bonus structures. It's not unheard of for Chicago offices to give 2x what the NYC office gives to associates that hit the same billables because the Chicago office translates that into more profits.

But the lockstep firms tend to set the market and those firms will pay the same across every office. Which puts some pressure on the non-lockstep firms in those other cities. Chicago might be an exception because the big NYC locksteppers don't have offices there.

Who are the big locksteppers? Basically, if comp moved to 170 or 175, I think a lot of firms in Chicago and Texas match because they can. But if Davis Polk or Cravath or a V10 NYC moves to 190, then no way Chicago firms outside of Kirkland and Skadden move to 190. Some V50 NYC offices may match the 190 in NYC because they can, but I think moving to 190 would set up a pretty big split in comp where you have some V50s in NYC paying 190 along with the locksteppers, and only the elite of the elite paying 190 in Chicago and Texas like Kirkland.

[Desert Fox]

[Johann]

The crazy part isn't that cost of living isn't factored in, because who cares supply and demand. But that NYC has much more demand than most cities. Chicago and LA aren't booming. NYC is. Yet they pay the same.

I was using COL as an amorphous term for an all inclusive for quality of life (billables) and rate the firm charges out because NYC services are just more expensive. Higher billable rates X higher associate hours = more money and should be more money for the associates.

[Desert Fox]

[Johann]

All of that is factored into supply demand picture. NYC having the most billables is synonomous with a high demand picture. The same with NYC having and needing the most associates. The same with NYC charging higher rates because there's more need for legal services and less price competition. I'm more just agreeing with you that that's why NYC should be alone to move to the increased salary without matches from other cities.

Other cities won't have to budge because they can still get top talent from those who factor in COL/lower billables, so they'll still have a supply of willing associates. And, non V 10 Chicago firms might not match regardless of supply demand due to not being able to afford it.

[trebekismyhero]

Johann and DF stop ruining this.

Chicago to 190!!!

[Johann]

Johann and DF stop ruining this.

Chicago to 190!!!

even DLA ?

[trebekismyhero]

Johann and DF stop ruining this.

Chicago to 190!!!

even DLA ?

Ok probably not DLA