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

[TLSModBot]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, squire patton boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

[star fox]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

Can you post the list of PPP by firm from the most recent year?

[PeanutsNJam]

yeah I don't think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to figure out that profit per lawyer is a substantially better metric than ppp

[bearsfan23]

I don't understand what Capitol is trying to show with his "research".

You're seriously calling PW a "doomsday" firm but saying this is loose change for Chapman & Cutler? That's just wrong. Firms like PW and Cleary are in a far better position to much than literally every one of your 36 firms. You can spin data to show anything, so I'm guessing that's what you were doing here

[Anonymous User]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

PW partners/associates/recruiting have been talking a big game -- in particular that they have plenty of $$$ to increase base pay, but don't want to anger clients by being the first firm to do it . . . so anything less than a quick match would be embarrassing.

[lowdmouse]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and take back what I snarked about PPP v. PPL. You clearly have a better handle on this than I do. Thanks for this!

Edit to add: I realize these states are PPP. Just getting at the overall point.

[ek5dn]

Crossing my fingers for DC to match

+1

[TLSModBot]

I don't understand what Capitol is trying to show with his "research".

You're seriously calling PW a "doomsday" firm but saying this is loose change for Chapman & Cutler? That's just wrong. Firms like PW and Cleary are in a far better position to much than literally every one of your 36 firms. You can spin data to show anything, so I'm guessing that's what you were doing here

I am literally just showing data and not drawing conclusions. The parentheticals after each line were jokes, duder.

Loving the constant hostility though.

[TLSModBot]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

Can you post the list of PPP by firm from the most recent year?

Not sure what you're asking - I used PPP from the most recent AmLaw data (so for 2015).

[NJPitcher]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

I can think of a couple large international firms with small US offices that would fall into that <1 category.

[wiz]

OP could we get a list going of the firms matching CSM?

Seconded

Does someone want to volunteer to be op to do this?

Current op is anon isn't a very active user.

Eta: scooped by soj

I nom Capitol.

[TLSModBot]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

I can think of a couple large international firms with small US offices that would fall into that <1 category.

(It's Wachtell. It was always Wachtell).

[wiz]

I don't understand what Capitol is trying to show with his "research".

You're seriously calling PW a "doomsday" firm but saying this is loose change for Chapman & Cutler? That's just wrong. Firms like PW and Cleary are in a far better position to much than literally every one of your 36 firms. You can spin data to show anything, so I'm guessing that's what you were doing here

I am literally just showing data and not drawing conclusions. The parentheticals after each line were jokes, duder.

Loving the constant hostility though.

YOU'RE BIASED AND LYING MASSAGING THE DATA JUST TO MAKE YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN FIRM LOOK GOOD I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON YOUR EXTRA 20K.

[TLSModBot]

OP could we get a list going of the firms matching CSM?

Seconded

Does someone want to volunteer to be op to do this?

Current op is anon isn't a very active user.

Eta: scooped by soj

I nom Capitol.

No I'm going to sleep.

[wiz]

OP could we get a list going of the firms matching CSM?

Seconded

Does someone want to volunteer to be op to do this?

Current op is anon isn't a very active user.

Eta: scooped by soj

I nom Capitol.

No I'm going to sleep.

All the more reason you should lead us.

E: And are you planning on hibernating for the next 3 months? Doubt anything is happening tonight.

[NJPitcher]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

I can think of a couple large international firms with small US offices that would fall into that <1 category.

(It's Wachtell. It was always Wachtell).

I know which American firm you meant, I just was pointing out that they are not the only firm for whom this raise will hardly affect PPP, because the Amlaw ignores international firms. Still a great breakdown for most of the relevant firms, it's just not exhaustive. Clifford Chance, other magic circle firms for instance have so few US attorneys and such massive annual profits that it's well under 1% of profits for them.

[Anonymous User]

Now do it as a percentage of their PPP. Even that is understating it. Someone like Paul Weiss might get hit harder cause of leverage, but they have a high PPP already.

The real doomsday firms are the ones with medium to high leverage, but who also under-perform PPP already. I'd say firms with under 1.5mil PPP are the ones who have to worry.

Paul wiess can give away 100k PPP. Nixon Peabody can't.

As % of PPP:

25% or more - 1 firm (this Curtis Mallet whoever firm)
10-25% - 4 firms (K&L Gates, Squire Patton Boggs, and 2 nobody firms)
7-10% - 10 firms (DLA, Baker & McKenzie, and Cadwalader among them)
5-7% - 34 firms (these are your Reed Smith and Crowells)
3-5% - 83 firms (Weil, Cleary, Jones Day, etc. - some big players, some mid-range, few low ranked nobody firms)
1-3% - 59 firms (Simpson, Cravath, Latham, Skadden - mostly the big boys here)
<1 - 1 firm (take a wild fucking guess)

care to mention where sheppard mullin is on this list?

[Tiago Splitter]

Can someone tell me whether any matching has happened I'm way behind here.

[El Pollito]

what if firms only match in real markets? NOW WHAT CAPITOL?

[MCFC]

Can someone tell me whether any matching has happened I'm way behind here.

Heuston Hennigan.

John Quinn told the WSJ they are matching.

[TLSModBot]

what if firms only match in real markets? NOW WHAT CAPITOL?

I'm actually struggling how to address this. I *could* go firm by firm with NALP data to get office-specific headcounts but lol at spending that kind of time. This isn't important stuff like making animated gifs, chicken.

[Emma.]

Can someone tell me whether any matching has happened I'm way behind here.

Heuston Hennigan.

John Quinn told the WSJ they are matching.

S&C is on board as well, apparently.

[5ky]

says who?

[UnicornHunter]

Aren't firms just gonna increase their billing rate? For the sake of round numbers, $10 more per hour x 2k hours a year makes up for the 20k bonus.

But also, what a time to be a law student. Apply while app numbers are at their lowest, do OCI in a booming economy. Graduate with a pay raise.

Sure, you can increase billing rates. But for every $5 extra you bill, the client demands $6 in discounts.

See this report (pages 5-6) for more info on collection rates vs. billing rates.

Yeah, I mean if firms had a free money machine at their disposal they would have pulled the lever on it long before this.

[tebowtime23]

Any chance some of the big Philly firms match this? There's a few at 160 already and many at 145. Seems like they've tried to stay competitive salary-wise with NY on the whole.