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 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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

How do you take into account firms that have income partners vs firms that don't?

[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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

How do you take into account firms that have income partners vs firms that don't?

There's no easy way to break out non-equity partners unfortunately, so in the model above there are only two categories: equity partners and everyone else (what I called "associates"). This arrangement forces the assumption that non-equity partners also get a 25k raise.

[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.

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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

How do you take into account firms that have income partners vs firms that don't?

There's no easy way to break out non-equity partners unfortunately, so in the model above there are only two categories: equity partners and everyone else (what I called "associates"). This arrangement forces the assumption that non-equity partners also get a 25k raise.

AmLaw breaks out equity and non-equity partners. Do income partners see any raises here orbjust the associates?

[Anonymous User]

AmLaw breaks out equity and non-equity partners. Do income partners see any raises here orbjust the associates?

I forgot that AmLaw breaks out nonequity partners. Good point. I'll go back and fix that in a few hours. Getting on a plane now.

As the model stands right now, everyone who isn't an equity partner is getting a $25k raise. It's a rough estimate, one that I'll tweak by breaking out nonequity partners in a few hours. Anyone can feel free to do so on a new tab if inclined. I locked down portions of the spreadsheet because someone already messed it up.

[Anonymous User]

Baker Botts

[Anonymous User]

AmLaw breaks out equity and non-equity partners. Do income partners see any raises here orbjust the associates?

I forgot that AmLaw breaks out nonequity partners. Good point. I'll go back and fix that in a few hours. Getting on a plane now.

As the model stands right now, everyone who isn't an equity partner is getting a $25k raise. It's a rough estimate, one that I'll tweak by breaking out nonequity partners in a few hours. Anyone can feel free to do so on a new tab if inclined. I locked down portions of the spreadsheet because someone already messed it up.

It's also going to have issues because of US attys vs. not US attys. I think it overcounts the number of associates at my firm by almost 100% (i.e. you're saying there are twice as many US associates as there are).

[Anonymous User]

Baker Botts

Congrats TX, still remarkable TX is moving before DC.

NY>CA/CHI/TX>DC>Boston

[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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

How do you take into account firms that have income partners vs firms that don't?

There's no easy way to break out non-equity partners unfortunately, so in the model above there are only two categories: equity partners and everyone else (what I called "associates"). This arrangement forces the assumption that non-equity partners also get a 25k raise.

Chart seems off at least in terms of attorney numbers. Pretty sure Kramer Levin doesn't have 1700 attorneys.

[Anonymous User]

AmLaw breaks out equity and non-equity partners. Do income partners see any raises here orbjust the associates?

I forgot that AmLaw breaks out nonequity partners. Good point. I'll go back and fix that in a few hours. Getting on a plane now.

As the model stands right now, everyone who isn't an equity partner is getting a $25k raise. It's a rough estimate, one that I'll tweak by breaking out nonequity partners in a few hours. Anyone can feel free to do so on a new tab if inclined. I locked down portions of the spreadsheet because someone already messed it up.

It's also going to have issues because of US attys vs. not US attys. I think it overcounts the number of associates at my firm by almost 100% (i.e. you're saying there are twice as many US associates as there are).

yup. I know that Cleary looks crazy leveraged but I'm pretty sure a lot of that comes from its foreign offices, which have more associates per partner and pay them less.

[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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Cool of you to make this, but there are some mistakes. There's no way Boies has over 1200 attorneys.

[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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

You switched the number of attorneys and the leverage of Boies and Gibson Dunn. You also switched the numbers for Paul Weiss and Cahill. I'm assuming there was a mistake when copying things over and then sorting.

[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.

I made an editable spreadsheet that shows which firms would be hit hardest in PPP by matching the new pay scale. I estimated that every associate gets $25k, then compared how the 2015 PPP would decrease as a result (PPP Hit). You can keep it updated with which firms match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

How do you take into account firms that have income partners vs firms that don't?

There's no easy way to break out non-equity partners unfortunately, so in the model above there are only two categories: equity partners and everyone else (what I called "associates"). This arrangement forces the assumption that non-equity partners also get a 25k raise.

also not sure where you got the leverage numbers from but that should be based off an equation not a hard-code

[Anonymous User]

AmLaw breaks out equity and non-equity partners. Do income partners see any raises here orbjust the associates?

One firm's memo said that non-equity partners will be contacted individually about their raises.

[Anonymous User]

go nuts, kids

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1157360069

[Anonymous User]

Baker Botts

All U.S. associates and SAs

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/saturday ... he-market/

Someone else can confirm, but I think ATL is wrong to say BB base pay tops out at $305k. That's your initial base for Level 4 but I believe you'll get a raise within Level 4.

[Anonymous User]

Come on rest of the V50...

[Anonymous User]

Akin Gump NY person here starting to panic...

[Anonymous User]

Interested to see what happens at places like DLA, Morgan Lewis, and Dechert. All have a handful of offices that pay 160k, but also pay 160k in Philly, which is already significantly above the market rate there, from what I understand.

Can anyone confirm whether any of the firms that have announced so far have a Philly office?

[Anonymous User]

Interested to see what happens at places like DLA, Morgan Lewis, and Dechert. All have a handful of offices that pay 160k, but also pay 160k in Philly, which is already significantly above the market rate there, from what I understand.

Can anyone confirm whether any of the firms that have announced so far have a Philly office?

None have. And honestly, don't expect it.

[Anonymous User]

Interested to see what happens at places like DLA, Morgan Lewis, and Dechert. All have a handful of offices that pay 160k, but also pay 160k in Philly, which is already significantly above the market rate there, from what I understand.

Can anyone confirm whether any of the firms that have announced so far have a Philly office?

None have. And honestly, don't expect it.

But what do you think they'll do for other offices? I agree a Philly pay increase is unlikely and probably unjustifiable, but then will they bump all that are non-Philly?

[Anonymous User]

go nuts, kids

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1157360069

Where are these numbers sourced from?

Some partnership numbers appear off or maybe I've been assuming they were larger than they actually were.

[Anonymous User]

Interested to see what happens at places like DLA, Morgan Lewis, and Dechert. All have a handful of offices that pay 160k, but also pay 160k in Philly, which is already significantly above the market rate there, from what I understand.

Can anyone confirm whether any of the firms that have announced so far have a Philly office?

None have. And honestly, don't expect it.

But what do you think they'll do for other offices? I agree a Philly pay increase is unlikely and probably unjustifiable, but then will they bump all that are non-Philly?

Yeah, this is what I'm wondering for DC firms as well.

[Anonymous User]

You switched the number of attorneys and the leverage of Boies and Gibson Dunn. You also switched the numbers for Paul Weiss and Cahill. I'm assuming there was a mistake when copying things over and then sorting.

Thanks for the catch. There were actually a lot of mistakes from the copying process. Tied firms had their numbers all flipped.

Spreadsheet is fixed and simplified thanks to Capitol_Idea's comment.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, this is what I'm wondering for DC firms as well.

Like half of the Vault top 25 list for DC has already matched. They're firms that are headquartered elsewhere, but where a firm is headquartered isn't really important anymore. The phenomenon of DC-headquartered firms trying to resist the market is really just a leftover attitude from an era when the vast majority of biglaw jobs in DC were with a handful of firms that were headquartered there. That isn't the case anymore, so they won't be able to resist the market.

I suspect that a lot of the firms that haven't announced anything yet aren't actually deciding whether to match in major markets, but whether they need to match in minor markets too. A lot of the firms that have announced thus far only have offices in major markets, so it was an easier call for them. For firms with offices in Denver and Philly and whatnot, they have more to figure out before they can announce I think.