NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Wilmer Fail is first loser.

ShepparTTT MuTTTin is second loser.

KaTTTen is third.

Wonder if that's just where the line is drawn.

Lol what's a Katten

[Anonymous User]

How has Wilmer not raised yet? It competes directly against Ropes and Goodwin in Boston. Additionally, Kirkland and Proskauer and other satellites that have already raised have summer classes in Boston.

Is Wilmer just going to take leftovers?

fact check: absolutely no one will remember or care in 6 months whether WH raised on june 15th or july 15th.

WH will match and it will happen before OCI.

People at less profitable law firms who appear to be a permanent underclass are the ones who should be bitching. Both for the money and the reduction in quality of future incoming associates. Welcome everyone with no place better to be!

I can guaran-fucking-tee you that people—at the very least, WH associates—will remember that while everybody else’s raises had gone effective, WH management was virtually the only top firm to not even give their associates the courtesy of an announcement. June 15 vs. June 30? Sure, a lot of people might not remember that, but now there are real, economic implications to associates for WH partners not giving a shit about their associates, the firm having serious liquidity issues, or whatever the problem is (I’d love to know, but it’s not like partners have been anything close to transparent).

I am sure the eventual raise will be effective July 1.

A lot of people were sure that WH would have matched by now.

WH associate here. This is entirely correct. Folks will remember. Sure, we probably won't lose a penny all things told and I am still confident we will match, but the universal consensus here is that the firm has beyond clueless. DC has clearly moved. Boston moved weeks ago. Literally dozens of peer litigation shops in NY have matched. Fucking Hogan Denver has gotten raises. Anyone who works at WH could have (and likely did) get offers at these other firms. The absolute silence from the top given Wilmer's relative prestige rankings and profitability is not going to be forgotten by associates soon.

Hogan Denver didn't get any raises. It seems like a big deal now but it'll just be something to gripe about later on, nothing beyond that. If you really want to go through the annoying process of trying to lateral as a result, go for it, I guess.

Wilmer does good work and is well thought of by students in recruiting. There won't be any impact there.

I agree it is probably not worth lateralling over, depending on your time horizon at the firm and many other factors. I'm just saying it won't be forgotten soon by associates. It's definitely going to impact morale, surveys, exit decisions, etc.

I also think it will impact recruiting, albeit marginally. But honestly, if you're between Covington or WH or Ropes and WH, this has not helped the firm's case...

[Anonymous User]

Is ReedSmith the only firm that officially announced they wouldn't raise?

[Anonymous User]

Is ReedSmith the only firm that officially announced they wouldn't raise?

Greenberg traurig did as well. Also lots of under-market variations: Patterson, Norton rose, and Jones Day only meeting that new market for juniors, Jenner not paying out summer bonuses, ect.

[Anonymous User]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/another ... e-bigtime/

A Houston Boutique (Ahmad Zavitsanos or AZA) matched and yet the majority of vault 100 New York firms haven’t lollll. Embarrassing for all of these second-tier firms.

AZA has always been at the top of the market in TX.

Yeah this isn’t a surprise

[Anonymous User]

What's up with T3 Philadelphia firms? Cozen, Reed, Duane, Pepper, Ballard? Silence from all of them......

[Anonymous User]

What does highly leveraged mean for a firm? I know it generally means lots of debt, but people use it to describe how many associates are at a firm or something?

[Anonymous User]

What does highly leveraged mean for a firm? I know it generally means lots of debt, but people use it to describe how many associates are at a firm or something?

Associate to equity partner ratio. High leverage is usually anything more than a 3:1 ratio.

[Anonymous User]

What does highly leveraged mean for a firm? I know it generally means lots of debt, but people use it to describe how many associates are at a firm or something?

Associate to equity partner ratio. High leverage is usually anything more than a 3:1 ratio.

Thanks. So high leverage is a bad thing for associates because it makes it harder to match salaries, easier to lay people off, easier to enter a work desert, partnership is more impossible?

[Anonymous User]

What does highly leveraged mean for a firm? I know it generally means lots of debt, but people use it to describe how many associates are at a firm or something?

Associate to equity partner ratio. High leverage is usually anything more than a 3:1 ratio.

Thanks. So high leverage is a bad thing for associates because it makes it harder to match salaries, easier to lay people off, easier to enter a work desert, partnership is more impossible?

Not necessarily. Need to look at it in context of other measurables too.

[Anonymous User]

What does highly leveraged mean for a firm? I know it generally means lots of debt, but people use it to describe how many associates are at a firm or something?

Associate to equity partner ratio. High leverage is usually anything more than a 3:1 ratio.

Thanks. So high leverage is a bad thing for associates because it makes it harder to match salaries, easier to lay people off, easier to enter a work desert, partnership is more impossible?

Not necessarily. Need to look at it in context of other measurables too.

It's always bad for the associate, but it's not at all necessarily bad for the firm.

With low leverage, you get more substantive work earlier on, smaller teams, less of a hierarchy, and a more realistic shot at partnership if that's what you want. If you don't want to make partner, having more substantive work under your belt helps you lateral/exit that much quicker.

When picking between peer firms, lower leverage is always a plus. Not determinative, but relevant.

[Anonymous User]

What does highly leveraged mean for a firm? I know it generally means lots of debt, but people use it to describe how many associates are at a firm or something?

Associate to equity partner ratio. High leverage is usually anything more than a 3:1 ratio.

Thanks. So high leverage is a bad thing for associates because it makes it harder to match salaries, easier to lay people off, easier to enter a work desert, partnership is more impossible?

Not necessarily. Need to look at it in context of other measurables too.

High leverage is basically always worse than low leverage, within reason. The difference between 3.5 and 3 is likely meaningless and other factors are more important; but between 5 and 2, the latter is almost certainly receiving a much better associate experience (assuming comparable overall quality of firm)

[unlicensedpotato]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/another ... e-bigtime/

A Houston Boutique (Ahmad Zavitsanos or AZA) matched and yet the majority of vault 100 New York firms haven’t lollll. Embarrassing for all of these second-tier firms.

AZA has always been at the top of the market in TX.

Seconded, AZA's a good shop, no surprise there.

[Anonymous User]

Genuinely surprised Sheppard Mullin hasn't matched. Their finances are good, and they are a California-heavy firm competing with other California firms that have already matched.

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

[Anonymous User]

They're so clueless. From everything I've heard, most partners are totally unaware of the extent to which peer firms (and less than peer firms at this point) have already moved. I've been getting emailed requests all weekend and have been pushing back hard.

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Also at WH, and also have weekend work (as usual). How can they be so ignorant of the non-NY markets? Did you tell him that every other major Boston and DC firm has already followed?

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Holy shit

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Holy shit

WH associae also with weekend work. If this sentiment doesn’t change quick I’m going to lateral. How the hell can these fools rake in massive PPP gains and yet be so stingy with their associates?

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Also at WH, and also have weekend work (as usual). How can they be so ignorant of the non-NY markets? Did you tell him that every other major Boston and DC firm has already followed?

I didn’t want to push it after the response was way more defensive than I expected (we had been shooting the shit about sports before this and no reason for tensions to be high). I assume he knows and just doesn’t like it?

[Anonymous User]

I didn’t want to push it after the response was way more defensive than I expected (we had been shooting the shit about sports before this and no reason for tensions to be high). I assume he knows and just doesn’t like it?

anon here that asked you the question. fair enough. good work raising it. i'm just going to keep asking them all what's going on until it gets announced (and then if, or when it gets announced, i'll be asking why it took so long).

why trust a firm to deliver on market bonuses at the end of the year that is dragging their feet so much for on matching compensation here?

[Anonymous User]

My firm matched, but I've heard some variation of the following from multiple partners:

"$190k for first years. It's absolutely ridiculous. Their work isn't valuable and no other career pays that much to start, with maybe the exception of some finance or medical fields. When I started I was making $[X] per year."


They always ignore that first years were making MORE in real money a decade ago ($160,000 in 2006 is $202,000 in 2018 dollars).


They are also apparently indifferent to the fact that law school debt is as high as ever. They ignore that as much money as associates are making, partners are making far, far more (as it should be, but spread the wealth a bit, right?) They ignore that while first year work may be shit and a $190,000 salary is unusually high, first years (and all other associates) are not just selling their skills but also basically ALL of their time and making massive personal sacrifices in exchange for the salary. Of course they know that, but they somehow have some cognitive block when it comes to assessing fair salaries.

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Yikes. Tons of firms with DC offices have already full matched there. WH is going to get left in the dust when it comes to recruiting if they don't plan on raising imo.

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Yikes. Tons of firms with DC offices have already full matched there. WH is going to get left in the dust when it comes to recruiting if they don't plan on raising imo.

It seems like WH partners think they are such an almighty force of nature, it doesn’t matter if they recruit a significantly less qualified class of associates.

[Anonymous User]

I have some weekend work here at WH and broached the subject of raises with a partner during a pretty casual catch-up call he and I were having. He was super defensive and said that DC and Boston have no reason to follow NYC firms on raises or bonuses. I left it at that, but jeez, I hope that’s not indicative of broader partner sentiment.

Holy shit

WH associae also with weekend work. If this sentiment doesn’t change quick I’m going to lateral. How the hell can these fools rake in massive PPP gains and yet be so stingy with their associates?

I mean, in fairness, partners at many elite firms feel the same way, even after matching - case in point, I started at a firm in fall 2016 that matched very quickly both to 180 and 190, and a partner on my first case told me bluntly that the recent raises were totally undeserved and that it was absurd that the firm had just increased pay. The difference is that partners at most firms recognize that they have to market to be competitve even if they hate it or think its unreasonable. Wilmer’s partners seem oblivious to that