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

[Anonymous User]

This is silly.

All that said, keep in mind that places like Paul Weiss and Cleary and maybe Cravath are less likely to lead the charge than other peer firms. Most notably for the above, they have higher leverage and thus any across-the-board increase will reduce their PPP more than other firms (and big decreases look really bad). Not saying they won't, but the calculus for them will be whether the prestige bump from raising salaries will count for more than the greater PPP drop than their peers. (Case in point: PW has tremendous PPP. However, that's largely a function of their leverage of 7 associates per partner as compared against peer firms' leverage of ~4. PW is doing this (a) so their partners are rich, (b) because the type of work they do allows it and (c) because it means that they look like badasses compared against firms with lower leverage (and thus lower PPP). If they raise associate costs, that'll hurt them much more than it'll hurt a similarly-profitable-but-on-the-back-of-"associate productivity"-instead-of-leverage firm like S&C. And that's not good for PW.)

All that said, the impressions among people at my firm are that there's an even chance that salaries go up. Everyone is really busy, practice groups are bleeding associates, and the pay nowadays, compared against the size of debt balances and housing costs in NYC looks really unfavorable.

[swampman]

This is silly.

All that said, keep in mind that places like Paul Weiss and Cleary and maybe Cravath are less likely to lead the charge than other peer firms. Most notably for the above, they have higher leverage and thus any across-the-board increase will reduce their PPP more than other firms (and big decreases look really bad). Not saying they won't, but the calculus for them will be whether the prestige bump from raising salaries will count for more than the greater PPP drop than their peers. (Case in point: PW has tremendous PPP. However, that's largely a function of their leverage of 7 associates per partner as compared against peer firms' leverage of ~4. PW is doing this (a) so their partners are rich, (b) because the type of work they do allows it and (c) because it means that they look like badasses compared against firms with lower leverage (and thus lower PPP). If they raise associate costs, that'll hurt them much more than it'll hurt a similarly-profitable-but-on-the-back-of-"associate productivity"-instead-of-leverage firm like S&C. And that's not good for PW.)

All that said, the impressions among people at my firm are that there's an even chance that salaries go up. Everyone is really busy, practice groups are bleeding associates, and the pay nowadays, compared against the size of debt balances and housing costs in NYC looks really unfavorable.

S&C to 190 confirmed.

[TLSModBot]

Holy shit guys. I was going through the Ashley Madison email dump and look what I found:

[PourMeTea]

right next to wahrheit this is SUS

[GreenEggs]

Holy shit guys. I was going through the Ashley Madison email dump and look what I found:

[Robb]

This is silly.

All that said, keep in mind that places like Paul Weiss and Cleary and maybe Cravath are less likely to lead the charge than other peer firms. Most notably for the above, they have higher leverage and thus any across-the-board increase will reduce their PPP more than other firms (and big decreases look really bad). Not saying they won't, but the calculus for them will be whether the prestige bump from raising salaries will count for more than the greater PPP drop than their peers. (Case in point: PW has tremendous PPP. However, that's largely a function of their leverage of 7 associates per partner as compared against peer firms' leverage of ~4. PW is doing this (a) so their partners are rich, (b) because the type of work they do allows it and (c) because it means that they look like badasses compared against firms with lower leverage (and thus lower PPP). If they raise associate costs, that'll hurt them much more than it'll hurt a similarly-profitable-but-on-the-back-of-"associate productivity"-instead-of-leverage firm like S&C. And that's not good for PW.)

All that said, the impressions among people at my firm are that there's an even chance that salaries go up. Everyone is really busy, practice groups are bleeding associates, and the pay nowadays, compared against the size of debt balances and housing costs in NYC looks really unfavorable.

Where are you getting your info from? None of those firms seem to have significantly different leverage ratios than S&C. Here are their ratios, as well as those of some other firms, based on the attorney profiles on their websites:

S&C: 2.7:1
Simpson Thacher: 2.9:1
Paul Weiss: 3.2:1
Cravath: 3.2:1
Davis Polk: 3.2:1
Cleary: 4.1:1

[Anonymous User]

Why 190k and not just a nice round 200k?

[Tiago Splitter]

Why 190k and not just a nice round 200k?

Why not a golden toilet seat instead of just a good solid ceramic? I mean JFC

[Anonymous User]

Why 190k and not just a nice round 200k?

Why not a golden toilet seat and not just a good solid ceramic? I mean JFC

190k just seems so arbitrary.

[Anonymous User]

Where are you getting your info from? None of those firms seem to have significantly different leverage ratios than S&C. Here are their ratios, as well as those of some other firms, based on the attorney profiles on their websites:

S&C: 2.7:1
Simpson Thacher: 2.9:1
Paul Weiss: 3.2:1
Cravath: 3.2:1
Davis Polk: 3.2:1
Cleary: 4.1:1

Poster above here. Numbers come from Amlaw 100 that was released in April. Firm,Lawyers,Equity Partners,Leverage ((Lawyers - Equity Partners)/Equity Partners):

Skadden,1654,383,3.32
S&C,805,170,3.74
Cleary,1178,185,5.37
STB,929,187,3.97
DPW,871,153,4.69
Paul Weiss,943,135,5.98
Cravath,442,91,3.85

Not sure why this differs from your numbers (retired partners? inclusion/exclusion of counsel?). Presumably Amlaw scrubbed their numbers to account for similarly situated lawyers the same way, but who knows. Apologies for exaggerating PW's leverage as 7; I must have confused it with Cadwalader (!).

[jbagelboy]

Where are you getting your info from? None of those firms seem to have significantly different leverage ratios than S&C. Here are their ratios, as well as those of some other firms, based on the attorney profiles on their websites:

S&C: 2.7:1
Simpson Thacher: 2.9:1
Paul Weiss: 3.2:1
Cravath: 3.2:1
Davis Polk: 3.2:1
Cleary: 4.1:1

Poster above here. Numbers come from Amlaw 100 that was released in April. Firm,Lawyers,Equity Partners,Leverage ((Lawyers - Equity Partners)/Equity Partners):

Skadden,1654,383,3.32
S&C,805,170,3.74
Cleary,1178,185,5.37
STB,929,187,3.97
DPW,871,153,4.69
Paul Weiss,943,135,5.98
Cravath,442,91,3.85

Not sure why this differs from your numbers (retired partners? inclusion/exclusion of counsel?). Presumably Amlaw scrubbed their numbers to account for similarly situated lawyers the same way, but who knows. Apologies for exaggerating PW's leverage as 7; I must have confused it with Cadwalader (!).

Those AMLaw figures certainly are not accurate for CSM and DPW

[Desert Fox]

[dixiecupdrinking]

Holy shit guys. I was going through the Ashley Madison email dump and look what I found:

I'm not sure anyone else has realized just how much effort you put into this, and I'm not sure whether to be impressed or sad.

[WhyYaCryin]

^
Lol at "Leela wants to feelya"

[John_Luther1989]

NY to $190k CONFIRMED!

[checkers]

Holy shit guys. I was going through the Ashley Madison email dump and look what I found:

I'm not sure anyone else has realized just how much effort you put into this, and I'm not sure whether to be impressed or sad.

'DesertFoxWife@gmail.com' hahaha

[Traynor Brah]

[Cobretti]

Holy shit guys. I was going through the Ashley Madison email dump and look what I found:

I'm not sure anyone else has realized just how much effort you put into this, and I'm not sure whether to be impressed or sad.

'DesertFoxWife@gmail.com' hahaha

This is amazing. Someone is doing excellent work ITT.

[cookiejar1]

Literally the height of legal scholarship right here.

[lawschool90]

This thread needs more rumors

[Cobretti]

This thread needs more rumors

But how can you have rumors about a confirmed fact?

[Anonymous User]

It's ridiculous how much unconfirmed trolling is going on in this thread. NYC is not going to be 190K anytime soon.

Wake up people

[smaug]

It's ridiculous how much trolling about this being unconfirmed is going on in this thread. NYC is not going to be 190K anytime soon—It's already there.

Wake up sheeple

ftfy

[El Pollito]

he's right, palo alto to lead the way

[Anonymous User]

Heard something out of NY today to the effect that they're going up, wasn't told an amount