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

[2013]

To the Brickell vs. Queens people in this NYC vs. Miami CoL "debate" -

Correct on the taxes (and I include RE taxes in this if you're a homeowner), but LOL at some fool making a statement that Brickell is cheaper than "many parts of Queens" as if that proves anything - most of Queens is a shit hole outside of a few nice areas, and so is Brickell so your comparison is moronic or ignorant unless you're comparing the best of one to the worst of the other. As a Brooklyn native who's spent approximately half their adult lives living in Miami vs. NYC, is over 40, and owns properties in both NYC and Miami, I speak from a lot of experience. Non-rent/home-ownership costs (groceries, eating out, entertainment, etc.) of someone living a typical upper-middle or upper class lifestyle (all of this should be in the context of the average privileged biglaw associate) have now risen to NYC prices, and both rent and home ownership costs are catching up. If you're relying on some calculator like on CNN Money to compute the CoL difference you clearly have little grasp of economic and finance as well, since those generalized CoL comparisons are based on a number of erroneous underlying assumptions and there's a lot of variables involved here, obviously. Again, I'm talking about someone living the same quality of life in each location with similar expenditures. Sure, you could move out to the outskirts of Brickell on the southern side and (incorrectly) compare that to Astoria/Ridewood/etc....again that's only rent/owning a home which is one piece of the puzzle...but that's a flawed analysis obviously, and I could do it in reverse for a better area of Brickell (or Miami, if you think Brickell is the nicest and most expensive area of Miami you know less than I thought). So going back to your original comparison of Brickell vs. "many parts of Queens" being cheaper is absurd unless you are comparing the absolute shit holes of Brickell to the nicest part of Queens. Again, any decent CoL comparison needs to keep the underlying QoL variables consistent.

The best parts of brickell are cheaper than the best parts of Queens, which are significantly cheaper than the best parts of Manhattan. That’s what I was getting at. I’m not saying Miami is cheap (it’s like the fifth most expensive city in the US to rent behind NY, SF, Boston and LA or DC). But to say that it’s not significantly cheaper to live there than Manhattan is just dumb. You can rent a nice studio in brickell for around $3000. That’s around the same price as a nice studio in LIC. A nice studio in Manhattan is probably closer to $5000. $2000 a month AFTER TAX is a huge difference.

In your post, you mentioned “typical upper-middle or upper class lifestyle” to describe associates in biglaw. An associate making $350-500k in Manhattan isn’t living some upper class lifestyle, even if that associate has no family. This shows how warped your opinion is.

[Anonymous User]

^ The poster above who notes the incorrect Brickell vs. Queens (or Miami vs. NYC) comparisons. Again, agree to disagree. Idk what kind of terrible real estate deals you're getting or looking at but I had a 750+ sq foot 1bd/1ba 3years ago in Midtown for just under $3500, before I ended up buying. It was a newly constructed luxury apartment building. Now they're going for $400-$600 more with a quick check of that building and the surrounding luxury apartment buildings of comparable quality. I'm not saying that's peanuts, but for the best 1bd/1ba rental in Brickell you are looking at the $4000s as well. So no, your comparison doesn't check out unless we have very different views on what constitutes a nice 1bd/1ba (I chose to compare similar sized 1ba/1ba apartments in new or fairly recently constructed buildings, objectively what people living in each place would consider to be the best buildings). And your comment about making over $300k (even if you're living in Manhattan and living solo or, presumably, with a SO but splitting costs) not being upper-middle class shows you know nothing about the privileged position that's in. But you know what, you do you, it's clear I'm debating people who don't know what they're talking about and would rather get back to biglaw market compensation-related topics, so sure, you win .

[Anonymous User]

You know what I stand corrected on your incorrectness...you said $350k-$500k is not somehow upper middle class at a minimum. Even for Manhattan, what a ridiculous thing to say LOL. Anyways back to comp news done debating such ridiculous claims and comments.

[Anonymous User]

Cooley match.

[2013]

^ The poster above who notes the incorrect Brickell vs. Queens (or Miami vs. NYC) comparisons. Again, agree to disagree. Idk what kind of terrible real estate deals you're getting or looking at but I had a 750+ sq foot 1bd/1ba 3years ago in Midtown for just under $3500, before I ended up buying. It was a newly constructed luxury apartment building. Now they're going for $400-$600 more with a quick check of that building and the surrounding luxury apartment buildings of comparable quality. I'm not saying that's peanuts, but for the best 1bd/1ba rental in Brickell you are looking at the $4000s as well. So no, your comparison doesn't check out unless we have very different views on what constitutes a nice 1bd/1ba (I chose to compare similar sized 1ba/1ba apartments in new or fairly recently constructed buildings, objectively what people living in each place would consider to be the best buildings). And your comment about making over $300k (even if you're living in Manhattan and living solo or, presumably, with a SO but splitting costs) not being upper-middle class shows you know nothing about the privileged position that's in. But you know what, you do you, it's clear I'm debating people who don't know what they're talking about and would rather get back to biglaw market compensation-related topics, so sure, you win .

I said it’s not upper class.

[Anonymous User]

To the Brickell vs. Queens people in this NYC vs. Miami CoL "debate" -

Correct on the taxes (and I include RE taxes in this if you're a homeowner), but LOL at some fool making a statement that Brickell is cheaper than "many parts of Queens" as if that proves anything - most of Queens is a shit hole outside of a few nice areas, and so is Brickell so your comparison is moronic or ignorant unless you're comparing the best of one to the worst of the other. As a Brooklyn native who's spent approximately half their adult lives living in Miami vs. NYC, is over 40, and owns properties in both NYC and Miami, I speak from a lot of experience. Non-rent/home-ownership costs (groceries, eating out, entertainment, etc.) of someone living a typical upper-middle or upper class lifestyle (all of this should be in the context of the average privileged biglaw associate) have now risen to NYC prices, and both rent and home ownership costs are catching up. If you're relying on some calculator like on CNN Money to compute the CoL difference you clearly have little grasp of economic and finance as well, since those generalized CoL comparisons are based on a number of erroneous underlying assumptions and there's a lot of variables involved here, obviously. Again, I'm talking about someone living the same quality of life in each location with similar expenditures. Sure, you could move out to the outskirts of Brickell on the southern side and (incorrectly) compare that to Astoria/Ridewood/etc....again that's only rent/owning a home which is one piece of the puzzle...but that's a flawed analysis obviously, and I could do it in reverse for a better area of Brickell (or Miami, if you think Brickell is the nicest and most expensive area of Miami you know less than I thought). So going back to your original comparison of Brickell vs. "many parts of Queens" being cheaper is absurd unless you are comparing the absolute shit holes of Brickell to the nicest part of Queens. Again, any decent CoL comparison needs to keep the underlying QoL variables consistent.

Thank you for your TED Talk

[Anonymous User]

Cooley match.

After being last in the first round of Milbank raises, and having Goodwin, Fenwick, Gunderson and now Cooley match.... moral of the story, WSGR is cheap AF.

[Anonymous User]

Someone should start a spring bonuses thread including encouraging those that get secret bonuses to say something

[Anonymous User]

I reneged on a SA offer with a $10k signing bonus to work at S&C instead and now I’m about to get my 4th consecutive below-market paycheck

[Anonymous User]

I reneged on a SA offer with a $10k signing bonus to work at S&C instead and now I’m about to get my 4th consecutive below-market paycheck

Do people in the office think they'll match soon?

[Anonymous User]

Someone should start a spring bonuses thread including encouraging those that get secret bonuses to say something

On this point, does anybody think that the Desmarais spring bonus announcement is a good omen for the rest of the market? Or do they historically do their own thing?

[Anonymous User]

Someone should start a spring bonuses thread including encouraging those that get secret bonuses to say something

Ask and you shall receive:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=312141

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

The latter. Biglaw corporate is certainly more profitable, but associates are viewed mostly as replaceable chattel with mediocre credentials, so no real reason to start overpaying them. Lit boutiques actually care about IQ and credentials, so need to pay a premium to get that.

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

The latter. Biglaw corporate is certainly more profitable, but associates are viewed mostly as replaceable chattel with mediocre credentials, so no real reason to start overpaying them. Lit boutiques actually care about IQ and credentials, so need to pay a premium to get that.

Some lit boutiques take contingency-fee cases (not the PI cases, think patent lit) so their pay day is not tied to hours. This gives them the ability to afford paying associates more.

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

The latter. Biglaw corporate is certainly more profitable, but associates are viewed mostly as replaceable chattel with mediocre credentials, so no real reason to start overpaying them. Lit boutiques actually care about IQ and credentials, so need to pay a premium to get that.

But associates generally have the same credentials (unless you don't mean school/grades/clerkships) as the partners they're working for.

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

The latter. Biglaw corporate is certainly more profitable, but associates are viewed mostly as replaceable chattel with mediocre credentials, so no real reason to start overpaying them. Lit boutiques actually care about IQ and credentials, so need to pay a premium to get that.

But associates generally have the same credentials (unless you don't mean school/grades/clerkships) as the partners they're working for.

Yes, but in corporate biglaw the partners control the client relationships, and it doesn't really matter how stupid or uncharismatic they are, as long as they can get the work done and make the client happy. All they need from associates is warm bodies to grind out basic work, and IQ is hardly that important. Litigation boutiques operate in a very different market, where clients care a lot about how smart and well credentialed the associates are (and the same for the partners), and masses of mediocre warm bodies don't have much value. The nature of grindy M&A and high-end litigation is just vastly different - litigators need to be able to write sharp and coherent briefs, M&A associates need to be able to stay up all night over and over again to put together mind-numbing diligence memos that a trained monkey could do.

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

The latter. Biglaw corporate is certainly more profitable, but associates are viewed mostly as replaceable chattel with mediocre credentials, so no real reason to start overpaying them. Lit boutiques actually care about IQ and credentials, so need to pay a premium to get that.

But associates generally have the same credentials (unless you don't mean school/grades/clerkships) as the partners they're working for.

Yes, but in corporate biglaw the partners control the client relationships, and it doesn't really matter how stupid or uncharismatic they are, as long as they can get the work done and make the client happy. All they need from associates is warm bodies to grind out basic work, and IQ is hardly that important. Litigation boutiques operate in a very different market, where clients care a lot about how smart and well credentialed the associates are (and the same for the partners), and masses of mediocre warm bodies don't have much value. The nature of grindy M&A and high-end litigation is just vastly different - litigators need to be able to write sharp and coherent briefs, M&A associates need to be able to stay up all night over and over again to put together mind-numbing diligence memos that a trained monkey could do.

Have you ever read a merger agreement? Your characterization that all M&A work is simple is totally off--sure some of it is at the junior levels, but at the mid and senior associate and partner levels it is absolutely intellectually challenging and super complicated.

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

The latter. Biglaw corporate is certainly more profitable, but associates are viewed mostly as replaceable chattel with mediocre credentials, so no real reason to start overpaying them. Lit boutiques actually care about IQ and credentials, so need to pay a premium to get that.

But associates generally have the same credentials (unless you don't mean school/grades/clerkships) as the partners they're working for.

Yes, but in corporate biglaw the partners control the client relationships, and it doesn't really matter how stupid or uncharismatic they are, as long as they can get the work done and make the client happy. All they need from associates is warm bodies to grind out basic work, and IQ is hardly that important. Litigation boutiques operate in a very different market, where clients care a lot about how smart and well credentialed the associates are (and the same for the partners), and masses of mediocre warm bodies don't have much value. The nature of grindy M&A and high-end litigation is just vastly different - litigators need to be able to write sharp and coherent briefs, M&A associates need to be able to stay up all night over and over again to put together mind-numbing diligence memos that a trained monkey could do.

Have you ever read a merger agreement? Your characterization that all M&A work is simple is totally off--sure some of it is at the junior levels, but at the mid and senior associate and partner levels it is absolutely intellectually challenging and super complicated.

As a V20 5th year M&A associate, I confirm drafting work is intellectually challenging and complicated, but not so much as you described. A lot of it still copying and pasting. So not so simple as that other poster described, but not so challenging as you described either. I still think a high school graduate with good IQ and work ethic can be trained to be a good corporate associate.

I think the poster that talked about the "grindy M&A" is either a litigation associate or M&A junior associate that has no idea what he or she's talking about.

[Anonymous User]

A lot of litigation is copy paste too, we can settle down lol. It is true that boutiques are super snobby, but it's comical to me that despite the preftige they are actually less profitable.

[johndonne]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

One factor may also be that lit boutiques tend to have a lower ratio of associates to partners, so it doesn’t cost the partners as much (relatively speaking) to pay the associates more. (Then again, they also aren’t bringing in as much revenue for the same reason.)

[Anonymous User]

Are lit boutiques really more profitable than corporate practices? Seems doubtful, considering that lit is the weakest practice in biglaw, and biglaw litigators are no slouches. Or are above market boutiques just more comfortable with sharing the wealth with associates in the name of prestige?

One factor may also be that lit boutiques tend to have a lower ratio of associates to partners, so it doesn’t cost the partners as much (relatively speaking) to pay the associates more. (Then again, they also aren’t bringing in as much revenue for the same reason.)

But this goes to the same point; the lower ratio is because more people make partner, because that's the business model. You bring prestigious resume, you get above market pay and higher chances of partnership. And yet, it's not supported by the profitability.

[Anonymous User]

Has Milbank still not yet re-matched the Cravath scale?

[Anonymous User]

Has Milbank still not yet re-matched the Cravath scale?

I don’t think so. S&C has not matched yet, either.

[Anonymous User]

Has Milbank still not yet re-matched the Cravath scale?

I don’t think so. S&C has not matched yet, either.

If Milbank doesn't match by the end of this week, I suspect they could be planning to re-raise or match with a special bonus. S&C and a few other firms, knowing that could happen, are remaining silent I think.