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

[Big Shrimpin]

loving all the calls to arms ITT

[Anonymous User]

At a Texas big 3 firm.

Managing partner refers to pay increase:
Recruiting director shouts yeehaw
MP talks about importance of remaining competitive
Talks about market for laterals

Says an announcement will be made by the end of next week

[Nylon]

Problem for Latham is what they do in London. Millbank and Kirkland have matched for all London associates (not just US qualified) and Latham has at least twice as many London associates as either of those firms (London is second biggest office). Will be riots at Latham London if they raise for the US guy but not the UK guy doing same hours in next office. But it will cost them....

[DELG]

At a Texas big 3 firm.

Managing partner refers to pay increase:
Recruiting director shouts yeehaw
MP talks about importance of remaining competitive
Talks about market for laterals

Says an announcement will be made by the end of next week

First TLS post ever to actually make me want to move to TX.

[Anonymous User]

At a Texas big 3 firm.

Managing partner refers to pay increase:
Recruiting director shouts yeehaw
MP talks about importance of remaining competitive
Talks about market for laterals

Says an announcement will be made by the end of next week

WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

[Anonymous User]

At a Texas big 3 firm.

Managing partner refers to pay increase:
Recruiting director shouts yeehaw
MP talks about importance of remaining competitive
Talks about market for laterals

Says an announcement will be made by the end of next week

Why next week?!

[Anonymous User]

Seems that WH (a) has to move in response to a peer firm's move in their two main markets, i.e. Ropes/Goodwin in Boston (former being more likely due to big NY presence) or A&P, GDC, Hogan, or CovingTTTon and (b) would then have to move AT LEAST in Bos/NY/DC. Probably Palo Alto and LA too. Would be awesome if little old Goodwin forced Wilmer to go 180k across the board.

[Anonymous User]

At a Texas big 3 firm.

Managing partner refers to pay increase:
Recruiting director shouts yeehaw
MP talks about importance of remaining competitive
Talks about market for laterals

Says an announcement will be made by the end of next week

UGH I CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG.

[Anonymous User]

WH is more likely to move their Dayton office to 180 than moving NY only.

WH will likely have to wait until someone in Boston moves. If Ropes goes in Boston, WH would have to move to 180 for all offices (except Denver?)

They have like 40 lawyers combined in Denver/LA/Palo Alto right? Including partners. I think if they go 180 in the big 3 offices, they do it across the board. I just don't know if they have the money when it's all-or-nothing.

Also, above, I didn't mean the PPP isn't important. Obviously it is. But WH has been willing to take hits for long-term goals before. This is a big one so idk if it'll happen.

[Anonymous User]

I just don't know if they have the money when it's all-or-nothing.

They all have the money.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

WH is more likely to move their Dayton office to 180 than moving NY only.

WH will likely have to wait until someone in Boston moves. If Ropes goes in Boston, WH would have to move to 180 for all offices (except Denver?)

They have like 40 lawyers combined in Denver/LA/Palo Alto right? Including partners. I think if they go 180 in the big 3 offices, they do it across the board. I just don't know if they have the money when it's all-or-nothing.

Also, above, I didn't mean the PPP isn't important. Obviously it is. But WH has been willing to take hits for long-term goals before. This is a big one so idk if it'll happen.

I just don't get why that's a given.

Sure, it's looking like that's how things have been trending this time around but it seems like lots of these markets (Denver?) only more recently got to $160k. Some places like Seattle aren't even uniformly at $160. I think my firm has national offices that pay less than $160k--I bet that's a big point of discussion now.

Being in the Bay Area it's kind of annoying to me that firms pay ppl in lower COL areas the same just so they don't get their feelings hurt. Maybe that's why it takes a decade to get a pay raise around here (that and that recession).

But all the same, good for you secondary markets folk... sorry I'm so salty with my $3000k a month shitty 1 br in SV.

[Anonymous User]

Seems that WH (a) has to move in response to a peer firm's move in their two main markets, i.e. Ropes/Goodwin in Boston (former being more likely due to big NY presence) or A&P, GDC, Hogan, or CovingTTTon and (b) would then have to move AT LEAST in Bos/NY/DC. Probably Palo Alto and LA too. Would be awesome if little old Goodwin forced Wilmer to go 180k across the board.

I doubt "little" old Goodwin Procter will make the first move. It's moving its flagship Boston office to a new building, which will probably cost $$$.

[Anonymous User]

I just don't get why that's a given.

Sure, it's looking like that's how things have been trending this time around but it seems like lots of these markets (Denver?) only more recently got to $160k. Some places like Seattle aren't even uniformly at $160. I think my firm has national offices that pay less than $160k--I bet that's a big point of discussion now.

Being in the Bay Area it's kind of annoying to me that firms pay ppl in lower COL areas the same just so they don't get their feelings hurt. Maybe that's why it takes a decade to get a pay raise around here (that and that recession).

But all the same, good for you secondary markets folk... sorry I'm so salty with my $3000k a month shitty 1 br in SV.

I don't understand the COLA argument that people keep raising. COLA makes sense in the context of government jobs with a standardized salary. It maybe makes sense for people transferring to a different location in a private industry, if that company also standardizes pay/raises. The reason NY/SF/SV cost more though is because they're more desireable. You should be getting something for that extra money. They may not be accurately priced, but the market is setting that price. Of course there are advantages to being in NY/SV over TX. Maybe those advantages are worth the extra money and maybe they aren't. If everyone in a given year at HLS chose to start at TX firms though, I guarantee that the NY firms would raise their starting salaries to a point that the TX firms couldn't match. If you don't think it's worth it to live in SV, then don't live there.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone remember if Greenberg dragged its feet on going to 160 in NY?

[Desert Fox]

I just don't get why that's a given.

Sure, it's looking like that's how things have been trending this time around but it seems like lots of these markets (Denver?) only more recently got to $160k. Some places like Seattle aren't even uniformly at $160. I think my firm has national offices that pay less than $160k--I bet that's a big point of discussion now.

Being in the Bay Area it's kind of annoying to me that firms pay ppl in lower COL areas the same just so they don't get their feelings hurt. Maybe that's why it takes a decade to get a pay raise around here (that and that recession).

But all the same, good for you secondary markets folk... sorry I'm so salty with my $3000k a month shitty 1 br in SV.

I don't understand the COLA argument that people keep raising. COLA makes sense in the context of government jobs with a standardized salary. It maybe makes sense for people transferring to a different location in a private industry, if that company also standardizes pay/raises. The reason NY/SF/SV cost more though is because they're more desireable. You should be getting something for that extra money. They may not be accurately priced, but the market is setting that price. Of course there are advantages to being in NY/SV over TX. Maybe those advantages are worth the extra money and maybe they aren't. If everyone in a given year at HLS chose to start at TX firms though, I guarantee that the NY firms would raise their starting salaries to a point that the TX firms couldn't match. If you don't think it's worth it to live in SV, then don't live there.

It's probably more because they are have jobs that other cities lack. If firms were willing to just let you transfer offices willy nilly, then you'd have a point. But they should adjust comp if they demand you work in midtown manhattan. That's the firms choice, not the employees.

[North]

Anyone remember if Greenberg dragged its feet on going to 160 in NY?

Greenberg NY to 3 associates per office

[Anonymous User]

WH is more likely to move their Dayton office to 180 than moving NY only.

WH will likely have to wait until someone in Boston moves. If Ropes goes in Boston, WH would have to move to 180 for all offices (except Denver?)

They have like 40 lawyers combined in Denver/LA/Palo Alto right? Including partners. I think if they go 180 in the big 3 offices, they do it across the board. I just don't know if they have the money when it's all-or-nothing.

Also, above, I didn't mean the PPP isn't important. Obviously it is. But WH has been willing to take hits for long-term goals before. This is a big one so idk if it'll happen.

I just don't get why that's a given.

Sure, it's looking like that's how things have been trending this time around but it seems like lots of these markets (Denver?) only more recently got to $160k. Some places like Seattle aren't even uniformly at $160. I think my firm has national offices that pay less than $160k--I bet that's a big point of discussion now.

Being in the Bay Area it's kind of annoying to me that firms pay ppl in lower COL areas the same just so they don't get their feelings hurt. Maybe that's why it takes a decade to get a pay raise around here (that and that recession).

But all the same, good for you secondary markets folk... sorry I'm so salty with my $3000k a month shitty 1 br in SV.

WH has 7 associates+counsel in the Denver office, and I doubt they'd even have counsel on a lockstep system anyway, so 5 associates. I feel like it's a miniscule difference to raise the salary for "all offices" instead of doing everywhere but Denver. $180k is ridiculous in Denver but it just seems like they'd do it if they're doing it everywhere else. Maybe not. But if so, man I want to transfer.

[Anonymous User]

It's probably more because they are have jobs that other cities lack. If firms were willing to just let you transfer offices willy nilly, then you'd have a point. But they should adjust comp if they demand you work in midtown manhattan. That's the firms choice, not the employees.

Having more jobs is part of what makes them more desirable though. I completely agree that manhattan firms should have to pay more to get people there. They aren't going to unless forced though. To me, it's a balancing act between the long-term value of working at the V5, plus the salary, reduced by the costs of living in NY. When people decide the costs are too high, they won't choose that firm anymore. Then the firm has to raise. I think there's obviously a long-term economic benefit to working for awhile at the V5 over TX Big 3 or whatever that isn't measured in associate comp.

ETA: I think using billing rates as a proxy for salary makes more sense than COL.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone remember if Greenberg dragged its feet on going to 160 in NY?

Greenberg NY to 3 associates per office

What does that mean?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone remember if Greenberg dragged its feet on going to 160 in NY?

I think there's a good chance that Greenberg stays put. They're cheap, they're black box, and it seems like their entire pitch is "hey we've got former big name firm partners but we can charge you less now because we pay our associates less."

Edit: they also took entry salary info off nalp during the recession, which led me to conclude that they dropped below 160 then.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I just don't get why that's a given.

Sure, it's looking like that's how things have been trending this time around but it seems like lots of these markets (Denver?) only more recently got to $160k. Some places like Seattle aren't even uniformly at $160. I think my firm has national offices that pay less than $160k--I bet that's a big point of discussion now.

Being in the Bay Area it's kind of annoying to me that firms pay ppl in lower COL areas the same just so they don't get their feelings hurt. Maybe that's why it takes a decade to get a pay raise around here (that and that recession).

But all the same, good for you secondary markets folk... sorry I'm so salty with my $3000k a month shitty 1 br in SV.

I don't understand the COLA argument that people keep raising. COLA makes sense in the context of government jobs with a standardized salary. It maybe makes sense for people transferring to a different location in a private industry, if that company also standardizes pay/raises. The reason NY/SF/SV cost more though is because they're more desireable. You should be getting something for that extra money. They may not be accurately priced, but the market is setting that price. Of course there are advantages to being in NY/SV over TX. Maybe those advantages are worth the extra money and maybe they aren't. If everyone in a given year at HLS chose to start at TX firms though, I guarantee that the NY firms would raise their starting salaries to a point that the TX firms couldn't match. If you don't think it's worth it to live in SV, then don't live there.

I don't think we're really concerned with the facts, so much as fairness. Obviously if firms are paying 180K in Texas, we could go there. I'm just saying they shouldn't pay them that amount there. I don't think the offices of most firms in Austin and to a lesser extent Dallas but also including Denver, Seattle, etc bring in nearly as much money as SF/SV, NYC, etc. On top of that, and perhaps relatedly, the COL is much higher in those areas. So it would make sense to keep more of the comp in those profit centers to offset the COL the associates incur while earning the bulk of the firm's profits.

I have a feeling some of these national firms are moving profits from high COL areas to pay for associates in lower COL areas with lower profits to keep their egos in tact and maintain a presence in that market. It's an investment in the market in most cases probably but I don't like that investment atm because it took 9 years to get a raise and I feel like we should get it first before investments go to the lower COLA.

But that's some generalizations and guesses on how it works on a firm by firm basis.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone remember if Greenberg dragged its feet on going to 160 in NY?

I think there's a good chance that Greenberg stays put. They're cheap, they're black box, and it seems like their entire pitch is "hey we've got former big name firm partners but we can charge you less now because we pay our associates less."

Edit: they also took entry salary info off nalp during the recession, which led me to conclude that they dropped below 160 then.

Safe to assume Troutman Sanders and Greenberg Traurig are identical in this respect?

[Nylon]

The difference lies in the long term view and ability to develop business. If your aim is to make partner and get clients then you go to the big markets where clients will bear high fees (NY, SF). A few years high comp as an associate in Denver or Seattle is nice if your career plan is to pay debt quickly and do something totally non-law but it will be hard to make significant rain there, even for the very best...

For those playing short term market arbitrage, by all means fill your boots but if you want the best chances of a high paying equity share or the most interesting/lucrative in house options then head to a big market and suck up the higher living costs in the meantime.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone remember if Greenberg dragged its feet on going to 160 in NY?

I think there's a good chance that Greenberg stays put. They're cheap, they're black box, and it seems like their entire pitch is "hey we've got former big name firm partners but we can charge you less now because we pay our associates less."

Edit: they also took entry salary info off nalp during the recession, which led me to conclude that they dropped below 160 then.

Safe to assume Troutman Sanders and Greenberg Traurig are identical in this respect?

I was thinking K&L Gates, but Troutman Sanders might be a better analog.

[Anonymous User]

Getting concerned that Covington's statement that this goes back to the previous model of higher NY compensation and to some degree this addresses COL may be the 'out' that some cheap firms use.

Associate salaries haven't changed in a decade, and yet our cost of attendance at the schools they demand has increased something of the order of 25% - whereas it used to be closer to $30k, it's now closer to $40-$50k. We are incurring substantially higher debt loads, and thus monthly payments and interest expense.

Further, other cities, such as the Bay Area, have seen more drastic COL impact that New York.

Profits per partner have increased, associate salaries have not moved, our expenses via debt service and COL have increased and Covington feels that this is a return to the old model and makes any sense?

I guaranty that the highly-regarded firms that fail to follow market will see a bigger lateral outflow post-bonus season and decreased interest at OCI. I may not be jumping ship right away if my firm fails to follow market, but I definitely will make the move in the future because it makes no sense to stay put when a large portion of the market, my peers, are being paid a higher base for the same work.

Here's to hoping more firms don't get cheap and weasel their way out of following market compensation.