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

[Anonymous User]

From the V50, besides JD the highest other firm that hasn't match if I am not mistaken is Perkins. They usually do different scales for different markets, but it is taken them way too long.

W&C also, but like JD it's well known they don't follow market.

[Anonymous User]

From the V50, besides JD the highest other firm that hasn't match if I am not mistaken is Perkins. They usually do different scales for different markets, but it is taken them way too long.

W&C also, but like JD it's well known they don't follow market.

Also WSGR hasn't matched either... wtf

[Anonymous User]

Vault rankings reward firms that are more known nationally. Tons of prominent NY firms have limited visibility in the rest of the country so lawyers there just don't rank them. JD has a lot of visibility and in many markets is the biggest player in town. Baker MacKenzie is another below market firm (compression) that is ranked higher than it should be simply by being huge and known.

This is also why WLRK is #2 not #1, why boutiques that pay market or above languish in the lower half of the V100, why Kirkland and Latham are v5/6.

Just curious, wasn't Latham a V30-40 ten years ago?? How did it manage to boost its ranking so quickly?

I've also been curious about Latham's associate perception success because over the last two decades Latham has rarely been in the top ten of PPP or RPL for large firms.

However, in this anonymous poster's opinion, Latham "deserves" the perception that it's at the top. I think they are like Covington - not the most profitable firm, but they are the best at their slightly lower profitability practice areas and maybe markets.

Latham has by far the most Chambers 1 and 2 rankings of any US firm (about 90 rankings. The other closest firm are Skadden and Kirkland at about 70 band 1 and 2 rankings). But many of the top rankings are in practices like Environment, Telecom, Climate Change, Media & Entertainment, Appellate, and Retail. Those areas do have the pound-for-pound profitability of M&A, Capital Markets, etc., and so firms that have a narrower focus will have higher profitability.

Also agree with the other posters that a large national footprint plays a strong role in associate rankings.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t forget Greenberg TTTraurig. Not a surprise no match, but they deserve just as much shame as JD, etc. being an Am Law 20 by revenue yet still being insanely cheap. Surprised they’re not bottom 25 Vault yet, and that they don’t get as much bad press as other firms over comp.

[Anonymous User]

Vault rankings reward firms that are more known nationally. Tons of prominent NY firms have limited visibility in the rest of the country so lawyers there just don't rank them. JD has a lot of visibility and in many markets is the biggest player in town. Baker MacKenzie is another below market firm (compression) that is ranked higher than it should be simply by being huge and known.

This is also why WLRK is #2 not #1, why boutiques that pay market or above languish in the lower half of the V100, why Kirkland and Latham are v5/6.

Just curious, wasn't Latham a V30-40 ten years ago?? How did it manage to boost its ranking so quickly?

I've also been curious about Latham's associate perception success because over the last two decades Latham has rarely been in the top ten of PPP or RPL for large firms.

However, in this anonymous poster's opinion, Latham "deserves" the perception that it's at the top. I think they are like Covington - not the most profitable firm, but they are the best at their slightly lower profitability practice areas and maybe markets.

Latham has by far the most Chambers 1 and 2 rankings of any US firm (about 90 rankings. The other closest firm are Skadden and Kirkland at about 70 band 1 and 2 rankings). But many of the top rankings are in practices like Environment, Telecom, Climate Change, Media & Entertainment, Appellate, and Retail. Those areas do have the pound-for-pound profitability of M&A, Capital Markets, etc., and so firms that have a narrower focus will have higher profitability.

Also agree with the other posters that a large national footprint plays a strong role in associate rankings.

In what world is Latham, the #2 ranked firm in total revenue not a profitable firm. Even by PPEP, they are still the 11th most profitable firm, higher than Skadden Cleary and Gibson.

[Anonymous User]

Vault rankings reward firms that are more known nationally. Tons of prominent NY firms have limited visibility in the rest of the country so lawyers there just don't rank them. JD has a lot of visibility and in many markets is the biggest player in town. Baker MacKenzie is another below market firm (compression) that is ranked higher than it should be simply by being huge and known.

This is also why WLRK is #2 not #1, why boutiques that pay market or above languish in the lower half of the V100, why Kirkland and Latham are v5/6.

Oh no you didn't. Brace yourselves, KE bootlickers are coming.

Hahaha. Look, it's a good firm (culture aside). But it's not inherently better than say DPW or any other V10, maybe even V15-20.

With the exception of Wachtell, which firm can be said to be definitely better than others in the V10 or V20? They are all on the same deals and pay the same. In terms of selectivity, a 3.7 from American University Law School is going to get an offer from DPW just as he is with Baker McKenzie and Skadden. It’s a laughable notion that the non-wachtell ny firms have a little hierarchy among themselves

[2013]

Don’t forget Greenberg TTTraurig. Not a surprise no match, but they deserve just as much shame as JD, etc. being an Am Law 20 by revenue yet still being insanely cheap. Surprised they’re not bottom 25 Vault yet, and that they don’t get as much bad press as other firms over comp.

Greenberg is not a highly profitable firm. It only has like 300 equity partners out of more than 2000 attorneys and that’s why it has a reasonable PPP. A basic analysis of the firm’s metrics shows you it probably can’t afford to pay Cravath nationwide. I’d be surprised if most nonequity partners (the 700+) make more than senior associates at market paying firms.

[Anonymous User]

Vault rankings reward firms that are more known nationally. Tons of prominent NY firms have limited visibility in the rest of the country so lawyers there just don't rank them. JD has a lot of visibility and in many markets is the biggest player in town. Baker MacKenzie is another below market firm (compression) that is ranked higher than it should be simply by being huge and known.

This is also why WLRK is #2 not #1, why boutiques that pay market or above languish in the lower half of the V100, why Kirkland and Latham are v5/6.

Just curious, wasn't Latham a V30-40 ten years ago?? How did it manage to boost its ranking so quickly?

I've also been curious about Latham's associate perception success because over the last two decades Latham has rarely been in the top ten of PPP or RPL for large firms.

However, in this anonymous poster's opinion, Latham "deserves" the perception that it's at the top. I think they are like Covington - not the most profitable firm, but they are the best at their slightly lower profitability practice areas and maybe markets.

Latham has by far the most Chambers 1 and 2 rankings of any US firm (about 90 rankings. The other closest firm are Skadden and Kirkland at about 70 band 1 and 2 rankings). But many of the top rankings are in practices like Environment, Telecom, Climate Change, Media & Entertainment, Appellate, and Retail. Those areas do have the pound-for-pound profitability of M&A, Capital Markets, etc., and so firms that have a narrower focus will have higher profitability.

Also agree with the other posters that a large national footprint plays a strong role in associate rankings.

Skadden’s revenue and PPP are both less than Latham’s. It’s less grade selective at my T6. It’s not a white shoe either. Its ranking is even more inflated. It’s a mega firm like Latham but not doing as well. Wonder why Latham gets shit on more than skadden

[Anonymous User]

Profits per equity partner at GT were $1.91 million for a 6.1% increase...in 2020. That's far higher than a number of market-paying firms such as Arnold & Porter. And the numbers only went up from there in 2021 and 2022 is projected to be higher than 2021 based on what was presented internally. And yes, NEPs get paid more than senior associates, there are more than 300 full equity partners firm-wide, and it's fairly easy to become a "500 share partner" which is basically half-equity (GT uses a 3-tier partnership system) - I've never seen someone make NEP and not make 500 share 2 years later, maximum. Now, it is definitely much harder to make full equity partner at Greenberg, and there are definitely fewer of them % wise than comparable firms, but other than these two facts it's clear the above poster doesn't know anything about GT they didn't quickly skim from Google . I don't love the firm, and actually lateraled elsewhere, but people who know nothing about something yet post about it anyways annoy the heck out of me.

[Anonymous User]

I think this debate could use more of a framework. Can GT afford to pay market? Absolutely. But as many have pointed out there are lots of reasons why the partnership will not want to based on relatively easy to discern facts that differentiate GT from other firms like A&P.

Front and center are that (1) GT has relatively low RPL ($800k) and (2) high leverage (roughly 1:7 EP to non-partner). That means that GT earns its nearly $2.0 PPP on the backs of leverage, rather than high RPL. Comparisons to firms like A&P are completely unfair since A&P has much higher RPL (nearly $1.1m) and lower leverage (roughly 1:2.5). High leverage means salary raises cost each EP more. If you raise associates' salaries by an average of $20k across the board, GT partners each lose $140k in profits to A&P partners' $50k. That's to say, every time GT thinks about raising, EPs see a lot more $$$ walking out the door than most peer firms with ~$2m PPP, and even firms with much lower PPP like A&P.

The previous poster pointed out that GT had higher PPP and growth than A&P, but that misses why GT partners think they can't afford to pay raises. Also, partners have expectations, and if you significantly underperform those expectations partners start to think about walking. Thus, just because GT partners make more than A&P partners, it does not follow that they should pay associates more, or are even in a position to do so. And theoretically, if partners abandoned those expectations, GT would be incapable of keeping up with other high RPL firms - leverage only helps to a point.

Can GT raise like A&P and other firms can? Yes. Should GT raise if they want to be competitive for talent? Yes. But don't mix the reasons for those up - different facts impact the "can" and "should."

[ExpOriental]

Profits per equity partner at GT were $1.91 million for a 6.1% increase...in 2020. That's far higher than a number of market-paying firms such as Arnold & Porter. And the numbers only went up from there in 2021 and 2022 is projected to be higher than 2021 based on what was presented internally. And yes, NEPs get paid more than senior associates, there are more than 300 full equity partners firm-wide, and it's fairly easy to become a "500 share partner" which is basically half-equity (GT uses a 3-tier partnership system) - I've never seen someone make NEP and not make 500 share 2 years later, maximum. Now, it is definitely much harder to make full equity partner at Greenberg, and there are definitely fewer of them % wise than comparable firms, but other than these two facts it's clear the above poster doesn't know anything about GT they didn't quickly skim from Google . I don't love the firm, and actually lateraled elsewhere, but people who know nothing about something yet post about it anyways annoy the heck out of me.

As the other poster pointed out, leverage and RPL are the key metrics in this discussion, not PPEP. That's not to say GT partners aren't as greedy as any other, but what a firm can "afford" and what a partnership can absorb without risking defections are not the same thing.

In the words of a wise anon, "people who know nothing about something yet post about it anyways annoy the heck out of me."

[Anonymous User]

From the V50, besides JD the highest other firm that hasn't match if I am not mistaken is Perkins. They usually do different scales for different markets, but it is taken them way too long.

Can confirm PC still has not matched. We matched really quickly last time so not sure what the hold up is!

[parkslope]

Vault rankings reward firms that are more known nationally. Tons of prominent NY firms have limited visibility in the rest of the country so lawyers there just don't rank them. JD has a lot of visibility and in many markets is the biggest player in town. Baker MacKenzie is another below market firm (compression) that is ranked higher than it should be simply by being huge and known.

This is also why WLRK is #2 not #1, why boutiques that pay market or above languish in the lower half of the V100, why Kirkland and Latham are v5/6.

Just curious, wasn't Latham a V30-40 ten years ago?? How did it manage to boost its ranking so quickly?

I've also been curious about Latham's associate perception success because over the last two decades Latham has rarely been in the top ten of PPP or RPL for large firms.

However, in this anonymous poster's opinion, Latham "deserves" the perception that it's at the top. I think they are like Covington - not the most profitable firm, but they are the best at their slightly lower profitability practice areas and maybe markets.

Latham has by far the most Chambers 1 and 2 rankings of any US firm (about 90 rankings. The other closest firm are Skadden and Kirkland at about 70 band 1 and 2 rankings). But many of the top rankings are in practices like Environment, Telecom, Climate Change, Media & Entertainment, Appellate, and Retail. Those areas do have the pound-for-pound profitability of M&A, Capital Markets, etc., and so firms that have a narrower focus will have higher profitability.

Also agree with the other posters that a large national footprint plays a strong role in associate rankings.

Skadden’s revenue and PPP are both less than Latham’s. It’s less grade selective at my T6. It’s not a white shoe either. Its ranking is even more inflated. It’s a mega firm like Latham but not doing as well. Wonder why Latham gets shit on more than skadden

Doesn't Skadden have a higher RPL than Latham?

[Anonymous User]

Vault rankings reward firms that are more known nationally. Tons of prominent NY firms have limited visibility in the rest of the country so lawyers there just don't rank them. JD has a lot of visibility and in many markets is the biggest player in town. Baker MacKenzie is another below market firm (compression) that is ranked higher than it should be simply by being huge and known.

This is also why WLRK is #2 not #1, why boutiques that pay market or above languish in the lower half of the V100, why Kirkland and Latham are v5/6.

Just curious, wasn't Latham a V30-40 ten years ago?? How did it manage to boost its ranking so quickly?

I've also been curious about Latham's associate perception success because over the last two decades Latham has rarely been in the top ten of PPP or RPL for large firms.

However, in this anonymous poster's opinion, Latham "deserves" the perception that it's at the top. I think they are like Covington - not the most profitable firm, but they are the best at their slightly lower profitability practice areas and maybe markets.

Latham has by far the most Chambers 1 and 2 rankings of any US firm (about 90 rankings. The other closest firm are Skadden and Kirkland at about 70 band 1 and 2 rankings). But many of the top rankings are in practices like Environment, Telecom, Climate Change, Media & Entertainment, Appellate, and Retail. Those areas do have the pound-for-pound profitability of M&A, Capital Markets, etc., and so firms that have a narrower focus will have higher profitability.

Also agree with the other posters that a large national footprint plays a strong role in associate rankings.

Skadden’s revenue and PPP are both less than Latham’s. It’s less grade selective at my T6. It’s not a white shoe either. Its ranking is even more inflated. It’s a mega firm like Latham but not doing as well. Wonder why Latham gets shit on more than skadden

Doesn't Skadden have a higher RPL than Latham?

It does by about $150k
https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?i ... tkins-LLP/
https://www.law.com/law-firm-profile/?i ... e=Skadden/

But I quibble with the bolded , not necessarily because I know anything about how Skaddy is doing, but rather because they only have like 2/3 the headcount. Sure, in 2008 Skadden was bigger, but the two firms have been on very different trajectories re: practice focus and footprint, and since then I wouldn't put Skadden in the same bucket as KE/Latham.

[Anonymous User]

S&C match

Is this confirmed?

[Anonymous User]

Profits per equity partner at GT were $1.91 million for a 6.1% increase...in 2020. That's far higher than a number of market-paying firms such as Arnold & Porter. And the numbers only went up from there in 2021 and 2022 is projected to be higher than 2021 based on what was presented internally. And yes, NEPs get paid more than senior associates, there are more than 300 full equity partners firm-wide, and it's fairly easy to become a "500 share partner" which is basically half-equity (GT uses a 3-tier partnership system) - I've never seen someone make NEP and not make 500 share 2 years later, maximum. Now, it is definitely much harder to make full equity partner at Greenberg, and there are definitely fewer of them % wise than comparable firms, but other than these two facts it's clear the above poster doesn't know anything about GT they didn't quickly skim from Google . I don't love the firm, and actually lateraled elsewhere, but people who know nothing about something yet post about it anyways annoy the heck out of me.

If you look at the data from prior years, I think the average nonequity partner (aka the 700 attorneys) have an average income in the mid-$400ks. You can calculate this number by multiplying the average partner salary for all partners, backing out the PPP x number of equity partners, and dividinf that by the number of nonequity partners. That means that the nonequity partners probably do make less than senior associates at market paying firms.

[Anonymous User]

S&C match

Is this confirmed?

S&C first year here, can offer confirmation that first-years are now on $215k. But S&C sends individual (year-specific) emails, so can't speak to other years.

[Anonymous User]

From the V50, besides JD the highest other firm that hasn't match if I am not mistaken is Perkins. They usually do different scales for different markets, but it is taken them way too long.

Can confirm PC still has not matched. We matched really quickly last time so not sure what the hold up is!

We matched during a firm-wide meeting today. Memo to come Tuesday.

[BrowsingTLS]

S&C match

Is this confirmed?

S&C first year here, can offer confirmation that first-years are now on $215k. But S&C sends individual (year-specific) emails, so can't speak to other years.

sus

[Anonymous User]

S&C match

Is this confirmed?

S&C first year here, can offer confirmation that first-years are now on $215k. But S&C sends individual (year-specific) emails, so can't speak to other years.

sus

explains why you never see them getting posted on those instagram accounts! but any concept of whether those would get retroactively applied to 2022 summers? I know a few firms have done this

[Anonymous User]

S&C match

Is this confirmed?

S&C first year here, can offer confirmation that first-years are now on $215k. But S&C sends individual (year-specific) emails, so can't speak to other years.

sus

I think a lack of transparency is just an endemic thing at S&C; they default towards a lack of transparency even when everything is in fact above board.

[Anonymous User]

It feels like firms are taking longer than usual to match. Is this a sign that less of the V100 than usual will match?

[Anonymous User]

It feels like firms are taking longer than usual to match. Is this a sign that less of the V100 than usual will match?

How many haven't yet that generally have?

[Anonymous User]

It feels like firms are taking longer than usual to match. Is this a sign that less of the V100 than usual will match?

How many haven't yet that generally have?

A pretty significant portion of the v100, especially if you count firms that do a partial match (for the first year, or for the first few years). Obviously these firms wouldn’t do a full match, but you’d think they’d at least continue their pattern of matching the first few years

For example, GT, Holland & Knight, BakerHostetler, Foley & Lardner

[Anonymous User]

Just to be clear since it’s apparently been a topic of conversation, GT pays the full old market scale across all class years for all of its US offices except small ones (Denver, etc.). So it’s not, and hasn’t been, a match for just the first few years (which is the case with many lower V100s). I suspect that is behind some of the angst here over Greenberg not matching but as others have pointed out the partners are greedy and the firm overall is over-leveraged and not super well-off financially.