NYC to 200k Forum

[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 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?

Did Debevoise match or not?

[Man from Nantucket]

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.

Columbia, as you will recall, is tied with Yale for most prestigious law school.

[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.

As the anon you're quoting, it should be LOLz at the whole thing. Is your implication that Sidley, Debovoise, Ropes & Gray, and WilmerHale belong in the upper echelon of prestige but not Jones Day, Covington, Paul Hastings, or MoFo?

[oblig.lawl.ref]

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).

Meeting hours is something that almost every first year worries about at some point. Just wait until your first 60 hour month. I think the majority of big law associates hit their hours targets, but it's not like 90% or anything like that.

Yeah, I think there is a lot of limited experience here. If you've been in BL for several years and have friends that have been too, you'll have heard of people being worried about hitting hours. The economy has been good and hours have been high so I think it's less heard of these days but that's not permanent or universal. That being said the poster at the top is way overstating the standardization of hours requirements. They vary and I think most BL associates know that, i.e. it's probably another law student way overstepping their bounds.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

ITT: there is no difference between Milbank and Cravath. They are the same.

[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.

Agreed. Original anon here who "doesn't know wtf they're talking about". I'll reiterate that most of my friends (double digit sample size) at "top" firms have not hit 2,000 billables within their first couple of years. Does that mean that there aren't those who are billing 2800 or doing 600 pro bono? Of course not.

But to make believe that it's par for the course that most first and second years will hit their bonuses is unfair to 1Ls and 2Ls reading this thread. If I were cynical, I'd say you were a recruiter at a firm that has billables tied to hours.

[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.

No, the Kirkland shatters thing is not real, at least not for two years after you join (which means people coming in later are especially screwed).

This is because the accounting year runs from like August to August or something (I don't really remember), and so if you come in mid-way through that period, your hours will be below normal for purposes of bonus season the following December (even if you have actually worked and billed well over 2000 during the actual calendar year). So you'll get a lovely 105% bonus, which is not "shattering."

Additionally, they won't pay you a stub bonus at all during the first few months at the firm. So if you join come off a clerkship and join in September (or lateral or whatever), you may work 15 months before getting a bonus, and only then get right about market (because you were a month or two "late" for the purposes of the actual accounting year).

It sucks.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

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?

News to me on the Cooley market shattering bonuses.

[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?

Also not top of market, but during orientation Sidley gives a presentation that shows that half of associates at Sidley do not hit hours as well. The most vocal people, however, are the people hitting 2400-3000 so generally people think everybody is super busy.

[Anonymous User]

ugh when will cravath, sullcrom, davis polk, skadden etc announce?
Once one of them announces, Kirkland will have to decide if they wanna match to 190 or go to 200, which will get the ball rolling.

I feel like all of the ^ above are waiting because they don't want another firm to outraise them. But, this means they all are just waiting in silence for each other, so god knows when we'll actually hear something

[Anonymous User]

Cool, guys, but I might not hit my hours requirement if I keep having to sift through the off-topic pontification on this thread just to see if I got a raise.

[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.

No, the Kirkland shatters thing is not real, at least not for two years after you join (which means people coming in later are especially screwed).

This is because the accounting year runs from like August to August or something (I don't really remember), and so if you come in mid-way through that period, your hours will be below normal for purposes of bonus season the following December (even if you have actually worked and billed well over 2000 during the actual calendar year). So you'll get a lovely 105% bonus, which is not "shattering."

Additionally, they won't pay you a stub bonus at all during the first few months at the firm. So if you join come off a clerkship and join in September (or lateral or whatever), you may work 15 months before getting a bonus, and only then get right about market (because you were a month or two "late" for the purposes of the actual accounting year).

It sucks.

I'm the person quoted above. The bonus year runs from 9/1 to 8/31. I lateraled in toward the end of a bonus year and got a 1.05x market bonus in December of that year. You're right 1.05x is not shattering, but pretty good given that I'd worked like 6-8 weeks during the previous bonus year, all of which were super slow.

[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 know this is not the topic of the thread, but Milbank is not a peer firm to Cravath, STB, S&C, DPW in several areas like M&A for instance.

Milbank is one of the most profitable firms nonetheless and I think that's what really matters when it comes to compensation.

[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 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?

Did Debevoise match or not?

Debevoise associate here. No official email yet and I haven’t heard anything orally. That being said, partner lunch is on Tuesdays and they could have made a decision there and the earlier poster has heard through the grapevine that it’s happening.

[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.

No, the Kirkland shatters thing is not real, at least not for two years after you join (which means people coming in later are especially screwed).

This is because the accounting year runs from like August to August or something (I don't really remember), and so if you come in mid-way through that period, your hours will be below normal for purposes of bonus season the following December (even if you have actually worked and billed well over 2000 during the actual calendar year). So you'll get a lovely 105% bonus, which is not "shattering."

Additionally, they won't pay you a stub bonus at all during the first few months at the firm. So if you join come off a clerkship and join in September (or lateral or whatever), you may work 15 months before getting a bonus, and only then get right about market (because you were a month or two "late" for the purposes of the actual accounting year).

It sucks.

I'm the person quoted above. The bonus year runs from 9/1 to 8/31. I lateraled in toward the end of a bonus year and got a 1.05x market bonus in December of that year. You're right 1.05x is not shattering, but pretty good given that I'd worked like 6-8 weeks during the previous bonus year, all of which were super slow.

Ok well now I'm just thinking I got screwed. :'(

[Clearly]

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."

God I hope this is a joke.

[Anonymous User]

I know this is not the topic of the thread, but Milbank is not a peer firm to Cravath, STB, S&C, DPW in several areas like M&A for instance.

Milbank is one of the most profitable firms nonetheless and I think that's what really matters when it comes to compensation.

Milbank is not a peer of the aforementioned firms, full stop. They do not play in the same prestigious league. They are not hiring the same associates. I know and like my former law school classmates at Milbank, but not a single one of them had an offer from any of the aforementioned firms, and every single one of them would have gone to one of those firms had they had the chance.

This is not to unduly shame Milbank -- especially not today. Milbank got the ball rolling and raised salaries for everyone. We should be thanking them. We ought to be shaming the V10 firms that didn't raise salaries in the first place, and may only ultimately match MTHM. Those firms are greedy af and need to pay up for the very best talent from the most elite schools.

What, praytell, is the benefit of working for a prestigious law firm if that law firm isn't a compensation leader? It's beyond insanity that they think they can pay less than the "lesser" firms and get away with it. They can't. If they want better talent, which they have, they need to pay more. NY to $200k is not much of an ask here.

[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."

God I hope this is a joke.

It's not only a biglaw thing. This is a common motivational tool in high-tech, consulting and finance too. You need some mechanism to identify the bottom 20% or 33% of employees, so you can get rid of them sooner than later. It also explains why Skadden went from 1600 to 1800 billables, when top-performers complained they weren't making enough. They would rather get rid of the underperformers than pay the performers more.

[Anonymous User]

Winston matched in all offices including Houston btw.

Imagine making $190k in fucking Houston.

[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?

News to me on the Cooley market shattering bonuses.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/02/firm-ha ... -for-many/

But Cooley has a 1950 billable requirement (according to NALP), so based on the general feeling surrounding billable hours requirements in this thread, no one gets a bonus

[Anonymous User]

Imagine making $190k in fucking Houston.

It's pretty great.

[Anonymous User]

Winston matched in all offices including Houston btw.

Imagine making $190k in fucking Houston.

4th year in Dallas here. Total comp last year was $210k + $55k bonus. 2200hrs. my firm will match. i can confirm, it is fucking sweet.

[Cobretti]

160k in January 2007 inflation adjusted to today is $198,044.

just saying.

[TheoO]

ugh when will cravath, sullcrom, davis polk, skadden etc announce?
Once one of them announces, Kirkland will have to decide if they wanna match to 190 or go to 200, which will get the ball rolling.

I feel like all of the ^ above are waiting because they don't want another firm to outraise them. But, this means they all are just waiting in silence for each other, so god knows when we'll actually hear something

Except for Cravath, these are all massive firms with partners across different parts of the country and the world. I would assume that it takes a bit of time to get people together and come to a decision.

[FormerChild]

Love the energy on this when talking about the raise, good stuff. I have some unsolicited comments for some of the others ITT, stfu. Some of y’all are literally on here arguing over whose peer firms with who. I cannot be more serious when I say this, nobody gives a fuck!! I just had to scroll 4 pages through people arguing whether Milbank is a peer firm with Jones day like wtf *insert nick young gif here*. Seriously, if you want to discuss peers and prestige (even though you totally don’t care about prestige ) maybe start a new thread. Let’s preserve this thread for what really matters, giving us more money. Maybe re-name the thread JG Wentworth 877-CASH-NOW to really bring it home