NYC to 200k Forum

[smokeylarue]

This is false at almost all firms.

Almost every firm that has a requirement has it (like Skadden) at 2000, with 1800 billable and up to 200 pro bono. And at almost every one of these firms many if not most of the first and second years fail to hit these numbers. I have third-year friends at the "busy" groups at Cravath, DPW, etc and they have yet to break 2000 (luckily for them there is no billable requirement).

What? Is this legitimately a concern? In talking to most of my first year friends at major firms, from V5s to V50s, I have yet to hear a someone worry about hitting hours - in fact, anything that I hear from them is usually a matter of way too many hours (i.e. consistently billing 200+ a month).

There a tons of associates that don't hit hours. I doubt it's the majority like the anon poster was saying but it's fairly common. At my old V50, the target was 2000 hrs and the average of all associates firmwide was in the high 1900's. So yes, not hitting your hours is very possible.

[Anonymous User]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I am well aware of Milbank's profitability. I also work at one of the firms in question, and I know that the partners do not consider Milbank a peer, or even relevant to the conversation of peer firms ("debatable" peers to them are places like Debevoise and Latham). Whether that's a fair assessment of Milbank or not is totally irrelevant; the partners don't think it's a peer firm.

There are other firms in that zone as well: Cahill and Schulte probably the two most obvious. They're very profitable and well run and strong at what they do (one important caveat here is that they're strong generally in only a few standout practices rather than broadly across the board), but no one, including no partners, at Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW thinks of them as potential peer firms.

[Anonymous User]

I'm near top of class at HYS

striations

i don’t understand these references

you don’t talk about the movement of glaciers enough that striation isn’t in your autocorrect?

Though I doubt I'm as aristocratic as original anon above, I'm also at HYS, and also accepted an offer at V50ish firm over much "prestigier" options. Making it easier to spurn the prestige was homogeneity of pay across all firms (homogeneity isn't as blue bloddy as striation, right??). If that changes so does my calculus.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, hours not being tied to bonus is huge. For example, as it stands right now, Skadden's all in first-year salary is 180 (majority of first years do not make bonus) and Milbank's is 205 (no billable requirement).

Skadden's billable requirement is 1800 and there is no limit on pro bono hours counting. The vast majority of people easily hit that.

This is false at almost all firms.

Almost every firm that has a requirement has it (like Skadden) at 2000, with 1800 billable and up to 200 pro bono. And at almost every one of these firms many if not most of the first and second years fail to hit these numbers. I have third-year friends at the "busy" groups at Cravath, DPW, etc and they have yet to break 2000 (luckily for them there is no billable requirement).

It certainly varies by firm. I'm a senior associate that has worked at a firm without a billable requirement but am now at a firm with a billable requirement of 2000 hours.

The important thing is to do your due diligence. I cannot stress this enough. Talk to as many people as possible and get as many specifics as possible. Once you have an offer, get coffee with multiple associates at different levels. A lot of people will parrot back firm selling points when speaking in generalities, but not many people will outright lie to you when asked specific questions. How many hours did you bill last year? How many of that was billable hours versus pro bono hours? How many nonbillable busdev, recruiting, etc. hours were on top of that? Was that a normal year for you? Is that normal for your group? For your class year? For the firm? Do you know anybody or have you heard of anybody who didn't get a bonus because they missed the hours requirement? If so, was it purely that person's fault, due to reasons outside of their control, or a mix of both?

Even at Kirkland, which does not have a minimum-hours requirement and gives most people above-market bonuses, there are still a handful of people who get below-class ratings and, accordingly, get bonuses substantially below market. It's important to know why they got those ratings and to internalize the risk — no matter how small — that you could be in that category at some point.

It would be silly to do otherwise considering that bonuses are such a huge part of your salary. I only moved to the firm I'm at now because I got comfortable with my chances (very high) of hitting the requirement — every partner and associate I talked to confirmed that no associate had ever missed out on a bonus due to failing to hit minimum hours. That being said, I would of course prefer if my firm didn't have this policy. It was probably the biggest factor in the "con" column when making my decision — unsurprising considering my years of practice imagining the downside in every possible scenario — although the "pro"s obviously won.

There is no way an associate at Kirkland will admit to a below-class rating unless they are already going out the door and don't give a damn anymore

I do agree that our bonus structure is bullshit and I wish I had known more though.

[Anonymous User]

I have friends in biglaw and they say hours are completely tied to your practice. If you're in a Chambers top-ranked practice you'll have enough work to easily hit your hours. If you're not it'll be harder.

[Anonymous User]

Associate at Skadden here.

Skadden's minimum billable to make bonus is 1,800 with unlimited pro bono hours. It's comfortably easy to hit that, but it is not guaranteed (especially if you're not taking on at least one consistent pro bono matter at all times). I had about 3-4 Skadden associate friends who miss bonus each year. A few years ago, the minimum was 1,600 hours, which was much easier to hit. I've made bonus every year at Skadden billing approximately 1,900 each year.

[Anonymous User]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I am well aware of Milbank's profitability. I also work at one of the firms in question, and I know that the partners do not consider Milbank a peer, or even relevant to the conversation of peer firms ("debatable" peers to them are places like Debevoise and Latham). Whether that's a fair assessment of Milbank or not is totally irrelevant; the partners don't think it's a peer firm.

More delusional attorneys.

[Anonymous User]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I think people here are a little too hung up on Vault rankings. Milbank's PPP last year was practically identical to Skadden's and easily topped "more prestigious" firms like GDC, Cleary, Sidley, Jones Day, Covington, Debovoise, Paul Hastings, Ropes & Gray, WilmerHale, and MoFo. Prestige doesn't pay the bills.

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer New Orleans associates making more than CravaTTTh NYC associates.

I do not think Proskauer will match in NOLA but they will probably raise in the office nonetheless. Is 135 or 140K in New Orleans better than 190K in NY when you account for cost of living?

Yes it is. I have a friend in NOLA big/midlaw making $130k whom I'm extremely jealous of.

[lawposeidon]

Associate at Skadden here.
A few years ago, the minimum was 1,600 hours, which was much easier to hit.

Why did Skadden just randomly raise the target? Dang at this greed. Crazy that they raised billable requirements without a raise.

[smokeylarue]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I am well aware of Milbank's profitability. I also work at one of the firms in question, and I know that the partners do not consider Milbank a peer, or even relevant to the conversation of peer firms ("debatable" peers to them are places like Debevoise and Latham). Whether that's a fair assessment of Milbank or not is totally irrelevant; the partners don't think it's a peer firm.

There are other firms in that zone as well: Cahill and Schulte probably the two most obvious. They're very profitable and strong at what they do (one important caveat here is that they're strong generally in only a few standout practices rather than broadly across the board), but no one, including no partners, at Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW corporate firms thinks of them as potential peer firms.

Debevoise associate confirmed

[Anonymous User]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I am well aware of Milbank's profitability. I also work at one of the firms in question, and I know that the partners do not consider Milbank a peer, or even relevant to the conversation of peer firms ("debatable" peers to them are places like Debevoise and Latham). Whether that's a fair assessment of Milbank or not is totally irrelevant; the partners don't think it's a peer firm.

More delusional attorneys.

https://abovethelaw.com/careers/2016-ra ... -pedigree/

The median lawyer at Davis Polk and Cravath attended Columbia Law School.

The median lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell attended New York University School of Law.

The median lawyer at Milbank went to GULC.

HTH.

[Anonymous User]

Associate at Skadden here.
A few years ago, the minimum was 1,600 hours, which was much easier to hit.

Why did Skadden just randomly raise the target? Dang at this greed. Crazy that they raised billable requirements without a raise.

I think a lot of firms made similar jumps or even 1,800-2,000 jumps in the years before $180k.

[JohnnieSockran]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I am well aware of Milbank's profitability. I also work at one of the firms in question, and I know that the partners do not consider Milbank a peer, or even relevant to the conversation of peer firms ("debatable" peers to them are places like Debevoise and Latham). Whether that's a fair assessment of Milbank or not is totally irrelevant; the partners don't think it's a peer firm.

There are other firms in that zone as well: Cahill and Schulte probably the two most obvious. They're very profitable and strong at what they do (one important caveat here is that they're strong generally in only a few standout practices rather than broadly across the board), but no one, including no partners, at Cravath/S&C/STB/DPW corporate firms thinks of them as potential peer firms.

Debevoise associate confirmed

Confirmed about the "who's really my peer" conversation or that Debevoise matched the $190k scale?

[Anonymous User]

It certainly varies by firm. I'm a senior associate that has worked at a firm without a billable requirement but am now at a firm with a billable requirement of 2000 hours.

The important thing is to do your due diligence. I cannot stress this enough. Talk to as many people as possible and get as many specifics as possible. Once you have an offer, get coffee with multiple associates at different levels. A lot of people will parrot back firm selling points when speaking in generalities, but not many people will outright lie to you when asked specific questions. How many hours did you bill last year? How many of that was billable hours versus pro bono hours? How many nonbillable busdev, recruiting, etc. hours were on top of that? Was that a normal year for you? Is that normal for your group? For your class year? For the firm? Do you know anybody or have you heard of anybody who didn't get a bonus because they missed the hours requirement? If so, was it purely that person's fault, due to reasons outside of their control, or a mix of both?

Even at Kirkland, which does not have a minimum-hours requirement and gives most people above-market bonuses, there are still a handful of people who get below-class ratings and, accordingly, get bonuses substantially below market. It's important to know why they got those ratings and to internalize the risk — no matter how small — that you could be in that category at some point.

It would be silly to do otherwise considering that bonuses are such a huge part of your salary. I only moved to the firm I'm at now because I got comfortable with my chances (very high) of hitting the requirement — every partner and associate I talked to confirmed that no associate had ever missed out on a bonus due to failing to hit minimum hours. That being said, I would of course prefer if my firm didn't have this policy. It was probably the biggest factor in the "con" column when making my decision — unsurprising considering my years of practice imagining the downside in every possible scenario — although the "pro"s obviously won.

There is no way an associate at Kirkland will admit to a below-class rating unless they are already going out the door and don't give a damn anymore

I do agree that our bonus structure is bullshit and I wish I had known more though.

Agree, although doesn't Kirkland give associates stats on how many were below, at, and above class? Would be at least an informative data point to know whether it was, e.g., 1% getting below-market bonuses as opposed to 20%.

[lawposeidon]

I think a lot of firms made similar jumps or even 1,800-2,000 jumps in the years before $180k.

They're always taking a little here taking a little there. I have a question, why don't associates get raises every time billing rates go up?! (Not go up because they moved up a year, go up for the same year)

[Anonymous User]

Associate at Skadden here.
A few years ago, the minimum was 1,600 hours, which was much easier to hit.

Why did Skadden just randomly raise the target? Dang at this greed. Crazy that they raised billable requirements without a raise.

Same associate here.

Skadden did an associates survey that year, and some associates were expressing a desire for monetary recognition for billing much more hours than the 1,600 requirement. Skadden responded, embarrassingly, not by introducing tiered bonus structures (which I think would horrible anyway), but by raising the minimum billable threshold.

[Anonymous User]

It certainly varies by firm. I'm a senior associate that has worked at a firm without a billable requirement but am now at a firm with a billable requirement of 2000 hours.

The important thing is to do your due diligence. I cannot stress this enough. Talk to as many people as possible and get as many specifics as possible. Once you have an offer, get coffee with multiple associates at different levels. A lot of people will parrot back firm selling points when speaking in generalities, but not many people will outright lie to you when asked specific questions. How many hours did you bill last year? How many of that was billable hours versus pro bono hours? How many nonbillable busdev, recruiting, etc. hours were on top of that? Was that a normal year for you? Is that normal for your group? For your class year? For the firm? Do you know anybody or have you heard of anybody who didn't get a bonus because they missed the hours requirement? If so, was it purely that person's fault, due to reasons outside of their control, or a mix of both?

Even at Kirkland, which does not have a minimum-hours requirement and gives most people above-market bonuses, there are still a handful of people who get below-class ratings and, accordingly, get bonuses substantially below market. It's important to know why they got those ratings and to internalize the risk — no matter how small — that you could be in that category at some point.

It would be silly to do otherwise considering that bonuses are such a huge part of your salary. I only moved to the firm I'm at now because I got comfortable with my chances (very high) of hitting the requirement — every partner and associate I talked to confirmed that no associate had ever missed out on a bonus due to failing to hit minimum hours. That being said, I would of course prefer if my firm didn't have this policy. It was probably the biggest factor in the "con" column when making my decision — unsurprising considering my years of practice imagining the downside in every possible scenario — although the "pro"s obviously won.

There is no way an associate at Kirkland will admit to a below-class rating unless they are already going out the door and don't give a damn anymore

I do agree that our bonus structure is bullshit and I wish I had known more though.

Agree, although doesn't Kirkland give associates stats on how many were below, at, and above class? Would be at least an informative data point to know whether it was, e.g., 1% getting below-market bonuses as opposed to 20%.

The Kirkland bonus presentation in NY last year (don't know about years before, I just joined) only discussed associates who got an at class rating (3) or higher. Of those, about 25% got 1.05x-1.24x market, ~50% got 1.25x-1.40x market and 25% got >1.40x market. So the Kirkland shatters thing is real, but they do not tell you how many people are rated below class.

[Anonymous User]

I think people here are a little too hung up on Vault rankings. Milbank's PPP last year was practically identical to Skadden's and easily topped "more prestigious" firms like GDC, Cleary, Sidley, Jones Day, Covington, Debovoise, Paul Hastings, Ropes & Gray, WilmerHale, and MoFo. Prestige doesn't pay the bills.

LOLz at the bolded.

[Anonymous User]

Same associate here.

Skadden did an associates survey that year, and some associates were expressing a desire for monetary recognition for billing much more hours than the 1,600 requirement. Skadden responded, embarrassingly, not by introducing tiered bonus structures (which I think would horrible anyway), but by raising the minimum billable threshold.

ROFL. Reminds me of the Simpsons monkey paw episode

[Anonymous User]

I'm near top of class at HYS

striations

i don’t understand these references

you don’t talk about the movement of glaciers enough that striation isn’t in your autocorrect?

Though I doubt I'm as aristocratic as original anon above, I'm also at HYS, and also accepted an offer at V50ish firm over much "prestigier" options. Making it easier to spurn the prestige was homogeneity of pay across all firms (homogeneity isn't as blue bloddy as striation, right??). If that changes so does my calculus.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, hours not being tied to bonus is huge. For example, as it stands right now, Skadden's all in first-year salary is 180 (majority of first years do not make bonus) and Milbank's is 205 (no billable requirement).

Skadden's billable requirement is 1800 and there is no limit on pro bono hours counting. The vast majority of people easily hit that.

This is false at almost all firms.

Almost every firm that has a requirement has it (like Skadden) at 2000, with 1800 billable and up to 200 pro bono. And at almost every one of these firms many if not most of the first and second years fail to hit these numbers. I have third-year friends at the "busy" groups at Cravath, DPW, etc and they have yet to break 2000 (luckily for them there is no billable requirement).

I am an associate at skadden. The requirement is 1800 and there is no limit on how many pro bono can be applied to that number. A girl my year had over 400 pro bono hours our 1st year and she made bonus.

How did this place become such a dumpster fire of posters since I was in school?

Yay, one data point. Most firms will billable requirements put the requirement in at a certain place because they have data that shows that a certain percentage of associates do not hit the hours. Wouldn't you do this if you were management? Most places about half will not hit hours. Nobody will talk about it openly though because having low hours is supposedly shameful and shows you're not a desired associate (even though not always the case).

I have friends in firms all over the city and yes, about half do not hit 2000. Cleary stated the average billables in 2017 for corporate associates was 1850. Gibson, Sidley, etc were similar from what I heard. I can't imagine its significantly different at other firms from those three firms throughout the city.

[Anonymous User]

There's no way Cravath lets Milbank and Proskauer do this to them, right?

Yeah, this is pretty embarrassing for Cravath unless they beat the raises. It's one thing when it's STB or S&C or DPW - firms Cravath views as peers - that are setting the market on compensation. It's another thing entirely when it's Milbank setting the market.

What the hell are you talking about? Milbank is a peer to STB, S&C and DPW in everything except for vault ranking, so if those are peers to Cravath, so is Milbank. Do you not know the kind of work Milbank does, the rates Milbank charges, or the profits Milbank makes?

I am well aware of Milbank's profitability. I also work at one of the firms in question, and I know that the partners do not consider Milbank a peer, or even relevant to the conversation of peer firms ("debatable" peers to them are places like Debevoise and Latham). Whether that's a fair assessment of Milbank or not is totally irrelevant; the partners don't think it's a peer firm.

More delusional attorneys.

https://abovethelaw.com/careers/2016-ra ... -pedigree/

The median lawyer at Davis Polk and Cleary Gottlieb attended Columbia Law School.

The median lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell attended New York University School of Law.

The median lawyer at Milbank Tweed attended Georgetown.

HTH.

Yeah, nobody really cares though. It also becomes more complex because one group inside a firm may consider another firm their peer while that wouldn't apply to a different group inside the same firm. I'm sure bankruptcy partners at DPW would give up a few of their prestige points to successfully pitch deals that Milbank would otherwise win.

[Anonymous User]

It certainly varies by firm. I'm a senior associate that has worked at a firm without a billable requirement but am now at a firm with a billable requirement of 2000 hours.

The important thing is to do your due diligence. I cannot stress this enough. Talk to as many people as possible and get as many specifics as possible. Once you have an offer, get coffee with multiple associates at different levels. A lot of people will parrot back firm selling points when speaking in generalities, but not many people will outright lie to you when asked specific questions. How many hours did you bill last year? How many of that was billable hours versus pro bono hours? How many nonbillable busdev, recruiting, etc. hours were on top of that? Was that a normal year for you? Is that normal for your group? For your class year? For the firm? Do you know anybody or have you heard of anybody who didn't get a bonus because they missed the hours requirement? If so, was it purely that person's fault, due to reasons outside of their control, or a mix of both?

Even at Kirkland, which does not have a minimum-hours requirement and gives most people above-market bonuses, there are still a handful of people who get below-class ratings and, accordingly, get bonuses substantially below market. It's important to know why they got those ratings and to internalize the risk — no matter how small — that you could be in that category at some point.

It would be silly to do otherwise considering that bonuses are such a huge part of your salary. I only moved to the firm I'm at now because I got comfortable with my chances (very high) of hitting the requirement — every partner and associate I talked to confirmed that no associate had ever missed out on a bonus due to failing to hit minimum hours. That being said, I would of course prefer if my firm didn't have this policy. It was probably the biggest factor in the "con" column when making my decision — unsurprising considering my years of practice imagining the downside in every possible scenario — although the "pro"s obviously won.

There is no way an associate at Kirkland will admit to a below-class rating unless they are already going out the door and don't give a damn anymore

I do agree that our bonus structure is bullshit and I wish I had known more though.

Agree, although doesn't Kirkland give associates stats on how many were below, at, and above class? Would be at least an informative data point to know whether it was, e.g., 1% getting below-market bonuses as opposed to 20%.

The Kirkland bonus presentation in NY last year (don't know about years before, I just joined) only discussed associates who got an at class rating (3) or higher. Of those, about 25% got 1.05x-1.24x market, ~50% got 1.25x-1.40x market and 25% got >1.40x market. So the Kirkland shatters thing is real, but they do not tell you how many people are rated below class.

Speaking of shattering - https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/associa ... big-hours/

55K for a first year?? Why wasn't I told about this!?

[Anonymous User]

This is false at almost all firms.

Almost every firm that has a requirement has it (like Skadden) at 2000, with 1800 billable and up to 200 pro bono. And at almost every one of these firms many if not most of the first and second years fail to hit these numbers. I have third-year friends at the "busy" groups at Cravath, DPW, etc and they have yet to break 2000 (luckily for them there is no billable requirement).

What? Is this legitimately a concern? In talking to most of my first year friends at major firms, from V5s to V50s, I have yet to hear a someone worry about hitting hours - in fact, anything that I hear from them is usually a matter of way too many hours (i.e. consistently billing 200+ a month).

No, its not. That poster has no idea wtf they're talking about.

Its because of this attitude that you've probably never heard of it. Nobody will talk to you about it. Stats will show half of associates at firms with hours requirements do not hit hours, and some at firms with no requirement would also not hit but do not advertise it.

[Anonymous User]

Different level of firms, but Goodwin regularly posts its % of associates receiving a bonus and almost 1/3 don’t receive a bonus.

Also, for market shattering, isn’t Cooley a market shattering firm for bonus?

[Anonymous User]

Firms don't want all associates to meet hours. They get the maximum out of associates by hiring more than there are hours, thus creating a hunger games competition for hours. That's why you have such high attrition. It's called "pruning the tree."