Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

I criticize the firm on plenty of things, but to be (marginally) fair to Kirkland here, NSP compensation has always been tied to a February 1 date, meaning that your compensation is always moved up on February 1. I can only surmise what the back-end payroll and tax issues are for this. It is a short of about $4,000 for most NSPs versus if they had gone retroactive to January 1 but I'm just saying there's a reasonable basis for this it isn't like they pulled the February 1 date out of their ass.

At what point do these sort of points become petty vs. "I'm getting every goddamn dollar I'm owed" ... not sure. I understand both sides of it. But I'm personally not upset by this.

[Anonymous User]

Cringe (ATL is reporting on it: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/03/kirkland-re-raises-22/)

This, mixed with the garbage multipliers this year sounds like the death of K&E's "market leading" comp. I guess the new rebranding comes at a cost.

NSPs get hammered when it comes to comp, not surprised. As a first year NSP (7th year) you will make significantly less than you made as a 6th year. You pay non-resident income tax, unsubsidized health insurance, and other tax obligations that you don't think about (like having to pay the employer portion of social security). I haven't done the exact math, but my take home first year NSP (after I subtracted what I needed for taxes) was significantly lower than it was the year before (might be similar to what I made as a 5th year, but not sure).

What about your bonus tho? I hear that’s where the difference is really made up.

Not sure if this is a joke given recent bonus news, but no. Difference is not made up in bonus (even with the multiples).

Correct. NSP comp at Kirkland is below market relative to what senior associates make at other firms. It actually surprises me that firm gets away with it; of course, it is easier to do so when they do things like they are doing here (I.e., send misleading comp memos about associate pay that they know will be made public, while sending individual memos to NSPs to obfuscate what they’re paying to those who are essentially senior associates).

What is base pay for the average 1st year as an NSP on the grid? Is it just the same as Cravath scale for class of 2015?

1st and 2nd year NSPs is just Cravath scale base salary, correct. Of which you pay taxes as a Partner, health insurance as a partner, etc.

That’s pretty remarkable given what someone posted in the counsel comp thread about other income partners at different V10 firms averaging $1M+. Do NSPs ever get up to that level? If so, how long does it take to get there?

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

The gall!

Seriously though that does not surprise me at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if CovingTTTon and Hogan followed suit. DC is just so *special*.

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

arnold & POORter

[Anonymous User]

You're the one who picked Troutman (or whoever I was responding to). "I don't know if Troutman" will match in Atlanta. There's your answer, Troutman will match in Atlanta if they match in Boston.

I never used the term tier. The question is which markets pay Cravath. Boston does. Atlanta does. Believe that Charlotte does as well so no argument there. Seattle for eg does not.

We can agree to disagree. Yes, some firms pay market in Charlotte (Winston and Cadwalader). But the Charlotte firms do not. No point arguing this in this thread anyway since we are both probably at firms that have yet to match Cravath

For posterity's sake, Charlotte is absolutely at full market with respect to Biglaw firms and there are probably a dozen firms with meaningful presence (say, 25+ attorneys) who will match Cravath.

Not sure what exactly the above poster means in that the Charlotte firms don't pay market. AFAIK McGuireWoods is the only firm that's even vaguely Biglaw who doesn't. If he means that MVA and Robinson Bradshaw aren't, then sure, but no one was ever confusing them for Biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

McGuire is an outlier nationally so I don’t think I’d use them as the barometer. The firm doesn’t do market in larger cities (Chicago, NY, etc.)

There are other firms paying market in its own HQ town (Richmond, which is significantly smaller than Charlotte too) but they are content to do their own thing.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on if Florida (non-Miami) V100s will match? Holland & Knight, BakerHostetler, and Foley were at market before the most recent raises, so I'm curious to know if people think that will continue.

[Anonymous User]

NSPs get hammered when it comes to comp, not surprised. As a first year NSP (7th year) you will make significantly less than you made as a 6th year. You pay non-resident income tax, unsubsidized health insurance, and other tax obligations that you don't think about (like having to pay the employer portion of social security). I haven't done the exact math, but my take home first year NSP (after I subtracted what I needed for taxes) was significantly lower than it was the year before (might be similar to what I made as a 5th year, but not sure).

What about your bonus tho? I hear that’s where the difference is really made up.

Not sure if this is a joke given recent bonus news, but no. Difference is not made up in bonus (even with the multiples).

Correct. NSP comp at Kirkland is below market relative to what senior associates make at other firms. It actually surprises me that firm gets away with it; of course, it is easier to do so when they do things like they are doing here (I.e., send misleading comp memos about associate pay that they know will be made public, while sending individual memos to NSPs to obfuscate what they’re paying to those who are essentially senior associates).

What is base pay for the average 1st year as an NSP on the grid? Is it just the same as Cravath scale for class of 2015?

1st and 2nd year NSPs is just Cravath scale base salary, correct. Of which you pay taxes as a Partner, health insurance as a partner, etc.

That’s pretty remarkable given what someone posted in the counsel comp thread about other income partners at different V10 firms averaging $1M+. Do NSPs ever get up to that level? If so, how long does it take to get there?

You have to distinguish between your standard "NSP" vs. someone who is an NSP but is the equivalent of a 16thyear income partner at Latham or whatever. Most "NSPs" at Kirkland are 7th-12th year attorneys--super senior associates. Those sort of NSPs aren't making $1m+. To be clear, the firm will also treat more senior attorneys as NSPs (in a way that you would have instead been an "of counsel" title ten years ago) and there may very well be people like that making $1m-$2m. But again, that's not the image of what people think when they think of a typical NSP here.

The younger NSPs are kept on a sort-of Cravath style grid where their compensation is rising more or less at market pace as they remain in the hunt for shares. That said, it's not quite clear to me what the firm does to e.g., someone in their 15th year when it becomes clear they're not going to get shares but on the other hand they don't want them to quit either. Ostensibly they'll offer them a "permanent NSP" slot (they've stated this position exists) but compensation for those sort of positions is very vague to people outside a small group. I guess in theory some of those attorneys get the offer of $1.3m per year to match what's being said about other V10s, but it's an opaque process.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on if Florida (non-Miami) V100s will match? Holland & Knight, BakerHostetler, and Foley were at market before the most recent raises, so I'm curious to know if people think that will continue.

Pretty sure these are all "market", ie with compression. So likely to raise to 215 just to be able to say market, but black box after?

[glitched]

We should start/pin a Kirkland megathread. Any time a discussion about Kirkland starts, it should move immediately to that thread.

[Anonymous User]

We should start/pin a Kirkland megathread. Any time a discussion about Kirkland starts, it should move immediately to that thread.

top-law-schools.com

[Anonymous User]

Lol Arnold & PorTTTer.

[Anonymous User]

What about your bonus tho? I hear that’s where the difference is really made up.

Not sure if this is a joke given recent bonus news, but no. Difference is not made up in bonus (even with the multiples).

Correct. NSP comp at Kirkland is below market relative to what senior associates make at other firms. It actually surprises me that firm gets away with it; of course, it is easier to do so when they do things like they are doing here (I.e., send misleading comp memos about associate pay that they know will be made public, while sending individual memos to NSPs to obfuscate what they’re paying to those who are essentially senior associates).

What is base pay for the average 1st year as an NSP on the grid? Is it just the same as Cravath scale for class of 2015?

1st and 2nd year NSPs is just Cravath scale base salary, correct. Of which you pay taxes as a Partner, health insurance as a partner, etc.

That’s pretty remarkable given what someone posted in the counsel comp thread about other income partners at different V10 firms averaging $1M+. Do NSPs ever get up to that level? If so, how long does it take to get there?

You have to distinguish between your standard "NSP" vs. someone who is an NSP but is the equivalent of a 16thyear income partner at Latham or whatever. Most "NSPs" at Kirkland are 7th-12th year attorneys--super senior associates. Those sort of NSPs aren't making $1m+. To be clear, the firm will also treat more senior attorneys as NSPs (in a way that you would have instead been an "of counsel" title ten years ago) and there may very well be people like that making $1m-$2m. But again, that's not the image of what people think when they think of a typical NSP here.

The younger NSPs are kept on a sort-of Cravath style grid where their compensation is rising more or less at market pace as they remain in the hunt for shares. That said, it's not quite clear to me what the firm does to e.g., someone in their 15th year when it becomes clear they're not going to get shares but on the other hand they don't want them to quit either. Ostensibly they'll offer them a "permanent NSP" slot (they've stated this position exists) but compensation for those sort of positions is very vague to people outside a small group. I guess in theory some of those attorneys get the offer of $1.3m per year to match what's being said about other V10s, but it's an opaque process.

Junior NSPs (equivalent to 7th or 8th year associates) basically make market, but they pay more in taxes etc., although the rockstars make it up and then some on the back end with above-market bonuses. But if you are a replacement level, median 7th/8th year, you will make less at Kirkland than at any market paying firm. The trade off - which matters more to people than I would have thought - is that you get the title of "partner" on your resume and I guess you can tell friends and family that you're "partner." People really like the title, even though they know they don't own any of the firm.

Once you get to 9th year and up I think comp differs more from scale as you will find out if you have shares potential or not. If not, you'll still make market while the firm is going to give you time to GTFO.

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

Are they tone deaf? Might as well not match, that looks so bad

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if this is a joke given recent bonus news, but no. Difference is not made up in bonus (even with the multiples).

Correct. NSP comp at Kirkland is below market relative to what senior associates make at other firms. It actually surprises me that firm gets away with it; of course, it is easier to do so when they do things like they are doing here (I.e., send misleading comp memos about associate pay that they know will be made public, while sending individual memos to NSPs to obfuscate what they’re paying to those who are essentially senior associates).

What is base pay for the average 1st year as an NSP on the grid? Is it just the same as Cravath scale for class of 2015?

1st and 2nd year NSPs is just Cravath scale base salary, correct. Of which you pay taxes as a Partner, health insurance as a partner, etc.

That’s pretty remarkable given what someone posted in the counsel comp thread about other income partners at different V10 firms averaging $1M+. Do NSPs ever get up to that level? If so, how long does it take to get there?

You have to distinguish between your standard "NSP" vs. someone who is an NSP but is the equivalent of a 16thyear income partner at Latham or whatever. Most "NSPs" at Kirkland are 7th-12th year attorneys--super senior associates. Those sort of NSPs aren't making $1m+. To be clear, the firm will also treat more senior attorneys as NSPs (in a way that you would have instead been an "of counsel" title ten years ago) and there may very well be people like that making $1m-$2m. But again, that's not the image of what people think when they think of a typical NSP here.

The younger NSPs are kept on a sort-of Cravath style grid where their compensation is rising more or less at market pace as they remain in the hunt for shares. That said, it's not quite clear to me what the firm does to e.g., someone in their 15th year when it becomes clear they're not going to get shares but on the other hand they don't want them to quit either. Ostensibly they'll offer them a "permanent NSP" slot (they've stated this position exists) but compensation for those sort of positions is very vague to people outside a small group. I guess in theory some of those attorneys get the offer of $1.3m per year to match what's being said about other V10s, but it's an opaque process.

Junior NSPs (equivalent to 7th or 8th year associates) basically make market, but they pay more in taxes etc., although the rockstars make it up and then some on the back end with above-market bonuses. But if you are a replacement level, median 7th/8th year, you will make less at Kirkland than at any market paying firm. The trade off - which matters more to people than I would have thought - is that you get the title of "partner" on your resume and I guess you can tell friends and family that you're "partner." People really like the title, even though they know they don't own any of the firm.

Once you get to 9th year and up I think comp differs more from scale as you will find out if you have shares potential or not. If not, you'll still make market while the firm is going to give you time to GTFO.

My understanding is that 7-8 years cannot get better than a 3 rating, and thus do not get a bonus based on merit. Is that not true?

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on if Florida (non-Miami) V100s will match? Holland & Knight, BakerHostetler, and Foley were at market before the most recent raises, so I'm curious to know if people think that will continue.

Pretty sure these are all "market", ie with compression. So likely to raise to 215 just to be able to say market, but black box after?

H&K was full market in June
BH was never market
Foley is only market for like 3 years

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

Are they tone deaf? Might as well not match, that looks so bad

Ummmmm if I were an AP associate I'd rather a DPW match than no match. And sure it's not CravaTTTh, but it's still thousands more than those pathetic, tight-fisted bastards at Milbank were trying to get away with a couple months ago.

Realistically though, AP will eventually have to match Cravath once the other DC firms do, or else their entire midlevel team will be poached by other woefully understaffed firms that are paying market.

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

Are they tone deaf? Might as well not match, that looks so bad

Ummmmm if I were an AP associate I'd rather a DPW match than no match. And sure it's not CravaTTTh, but it's still thousands more than those pathetic, tight-fisted bastards at Milbank were trying to get away with a couple months ago.

Realistically though, AP will eventually have to match Cravath once the other DC firms do, or else their entire midlevel team will be poached by other woefully understaffed firms that are paying market.

A DPW match after Cravath raise is saying they will not match Cravath. Firms that haven't matched yet at all will eventually match Cravath.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure if I missed it, but Ropes matched earlier today.

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

Are they tone deaf? Might as well not match, that looks so bad

Ummmmm if I were an AP associate I'd rather a DPW match than no match. And sure it's not CravaTTTh, but it's still thousands more than those pathetic, tight-fisted bastards at Milbank were trying to get away with a couple months ago.

Realistically though, AP will eventually have to match Cravath once the other DC firms do, or else their entire midlevel team will be poached by other woefully understaffed firms that are paying market.

A DPW match after Cravath raise is saying they will not match Cravath. Firms that haven't matched yet at all will eventually match Cravath.

It's them trying to set the market for the legacy DC firms and create a DC/NYC split. But if Covington and Hogan match Cravath now, which they likely will, AP will have to relent. A major unforced error. They should've just waited for Covington like they always do. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous User]

Waiting on Milbank to SHATTER the Cravath scale by raising years 1-4 by 10k each.

[Anonymous User]

FUCK ARNOLD AND PORTER. They just matched the DAVIS POLK scale--NOT CRAVATH. With that, I am logging off for the day. Fuck this cheap ass firm.

Are they tone deaf? Might as well not match, that looks so bad

Ummmmm if I were an AP associate I'd rather a DPW match than no match. And sure it's not CravaTTTh, but it's still thousands more than those pathetic, tight-fisted bastards at Milbank were trying to get away with a couple months ago.

Realistically though, AP will eventually have to match Cravath once the other DC firms do, or else their entire midlevel team will be poached by other woefully understaffed firms that are paying market.

A DPW match after Cravath raise is saying they will not match Cravath. Firms that haven't matched yet at all will eventually match Cravath.

It's them trying to set the market for the legacy DC firms and create a DC/NYC split. But if Covington and Hogan match Cravath now, which they likely will, AP will have to relent. A major unforced error. They should've just waited for Covington like they always do. Embarrassing.

There are too many non-DC firms in DC for this to work. And they still try this every single time.

Wilmer and Gibson will match, not to mention the big DC outposts like Skadden and Kirkland. Cov/Hogan (and eventually AP) will be forced to keep up.

[Anonymous User]

Waiting on Milbank to SHATTER the Cravath scale by raising years 1-4 by 10k each.

Wet blanket time: I don't think that'll happen. People need to remember biglaw is fundamentally a pyramid structure. Meaning there are many, many more attorneys in years 1, 2, and 3 than there are in years, 6, 7, 8 (let alone beyond) (though the pyramid widens a bit again at the equity partner level because people who get equity tend to stick around).

Meaning a 10k move for 1st year or 2nd year salaries is much more impactful on the firm's bottom line than even a 25k, 30k, 40k move for senior attorneys. It's one of the reasons you've seen salaries for junior associates stick to the Milbank raise through two more rounds of re-raises. It's also, I suspect, one of the reasons (besides retention) that firms seem more eager to increase salaries farther into the seniority structure--they get to produce these eye-popping numbers when in reality it's only a relatively small % of attorneys who are getting them.

[Anonymous User]

Gotta admit that Cravath played this round perfectly. They waited until there was no more risk of being reupped, then set the scale. We may grumble here but bottom line it's the Cravath Scale™ again. And with global uncertainty, possibly for at least several years.

For all the debate over why DPW waited so long, the most likely reason is they had a guess Cravath was gonna raise and wanted the last word. Game of chicken. They blinked first.