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

[Anonymous User]

Gibson? Where you at?

[arklaw13]

So with Sidley now matching in DC can we say it's a lock for the rest other than tiny satellite offices and DLA?

[Anonymous User]

Gibson? Where you at?

gibson and latham are DIRECT peers in LA; almost everyone at one made a choice between them. they will absolutely have to match.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day had a very good record at SCOTUS last year.

sounds like a good excuse not to match: gotta pay for them scotus clerkship bonuses. their comp structure is generally shit anyway. plus this:

Jones Day is such a bullshit firm.

Posting Anon b/c I'm a disgruntled JD associate who is trying desperately to lateral -- and make no mistake, lateraling is hard when other firms realize you are just doing it for the money (the JD culture really isn't that bad -- it's milquetoasty but could be worse).

Here's the underlying tension I've noticed: Brogan has a truly longterm vision for the firm -- notice that JD did not do massive layoffs during the recession. Yet, this lies in contrast with the short term up & out nature of big law. I nor most of my associate colleagues, don't care where JD will be in 20 years: we just want to be paid now!

There's been a lot of associate grumblings with blackbox comp ever since bonuses increased two years ago -- before that, 2nd years were fine making 7k below market.

If JD doesn't match in all of its major markets, there will be mass defections. In my case, if I don't find another big law firm, i will just leave the private sector altogether -- 185k total comp as a 3rd year is not worth having spent the last three years working crazy hours at a relatively young and exciting juncture in my life that I will never get back. I'd be happy to chalk it up as an investment if I were PAID, but unless I get a lateral offer paying 210 + bonus so 230ish I'm just not going to stay.

This is a common sentiment. The irony is that JD associates talk with each other about money more than probably any other firm.

[sublime]

..

[Anonymous User]

JD anon-why are you disgruntled? Is it money or something else? I notice you said culture is OK.

[Anonymous User]

Word on the street (in the office) is that Morgan Lewis won't be matching.

Which office are you in? Fellow MLB associate who hasn't heard a peep here.

[Anonymous User]

Incoming JD associate currently polishing up my resume in case we don't match. Too bad the raise will probably cost firms so much money that they won't want to hire any new first years.

[Anonymous User]

Also an MLB associate here. They will have to match if Dechert does (a la the 160 bump in Philly). They will certainly wait until the rest of the dominoes fall, but they will match. Given their recent push re: associate development efforts (hiring new staff, launching new programs, etc.), they don't really have a choice.

[Anonymous User]

Posting Anon b/c I'm a disgruntled JD associate who is trying desperately to lateral -- and make no mistake, lateraling is hard when other firms realize you are just doing it for the money (the JD culture really isn't that bad -- it's milquetoasty but could be worse).

Here's the underlying tension I've noticed: Brogan has a truly longterm vision for the firm -- notice that JD did not do massive layoffs during the recession. Yet, this lies in contrast with the short term up & out nature of big law. I nor most of my associate colleagues, don't care where JD will be in 20 years: we just want to be paid now!

There's been a lot of associate grumblings with blackbox comp ever since bonuses increased two years ago -- before that, 2nd years were fine making 7k below market.

If JD doesn't match in all of its major markets, there will be mass defections. In my case, if I don't find another big law firm, i will just leave the private sector altogether -- 185k total comp as a 3rd year is not worth having spent the last three years working crazy hours at a relatively young and exciting juncture in my life that I will never get back. I'd be happy to chalk it up as an investment if I were PAID, but unless I get a lateral offer paying 210 + bonus so 230ish I'm just not going to stay.

This is a common sentiment. The irony is that JD associates talk with each other about money more than probably any other firm.

Sorry JD associate, that sucks. Good luck lateraling. I agree that JD/Brogan has a really long term vision and that's to be commended, at least somewhat. But it's weird to me that there's no distinction between the # of associates vs. the salary of those associates. Layoffs happen when the firm has too many associates. Each associate is costing the firm $160k + benefits + office space + office resources. To pay market would cost JD, as you said, like $10k more per associate? And to raise now would be $20k more per associate (plus tax/benefits stuff)? It's good to be cautious with hiring; but it seems really weird to not pay "market" because of a long-term view. As you said, that makes sense if everyone's getting equity and can float for awhile on the cash they are getting. It doesn't make any sense to the associate who will be there for four years and walk away only with salary they earned.

[Anonymous User]

Baker & McKenzie loosely committed to matching market on a regional basis.

[Anonymous User]

JD anon-why are you disgruntled? Is it money or something else? I notice you said culture is OK.

Money. Culture is neutral, so I'm fine with leaving or staying if they match.

[Nynaeve]

Any word on Reed Smith or Orrick?

[Anonymous User]

Also an MLB associate here. They will have to match if Dechert does (a la the 160 bump in Philly). They will certainly wait until the rest of the dominoes fall, but they will match. Given their recent push re: associate development efforts (hiring new staff, launching new programs, etc.), they don't really have a choice.

Makes sense. I figure that post-Bingham they can't really afford to take a hit to recruiting and retention because of this.

[Anonymous User]

Posting Anon b/c I'm a disgruntled JD associate who is trying desperately to lateral -- and make no mistake, lateraling is hard when other firms realize you are just doing it for the money (the JD culture really isn't that bad -- it's milquetoasty but could be worse).

Here's the underlying tension I've noticed: Brogan has a truly longterm vision for the firm -- notice that JD did not do massive layoffs during the recession. Yet, this lies in contrast with the short term up & out nature of big law. I nor most of my associate colleagues, don't care where JD will be in 20 years: we just want to be paid now!

There's been a lot of associate grumblings with blackbox comp ever since bonuses increased two years ago -- before that, 2nd years were fine making 7k below market.

If JD doesn't match in all of its major markets, there will be mass defections. In my case, if I don't find another big law firm, i will just leave the private sector altogether -- 185k total comp as a 3rd year is not worth having spent the last three years working crazy hours at a relatively young and exciting juncture in my life that I will never get back. I'd be happy to chalk it up as an investment if I were PAID, but unless I get a lateral offer paying 210 + bonus so 230ish I'm just not going to stay.

This is a common sentiment. The irony is that JD associates talk with each other about money more than probably any other firm.

Sorry JD associate, that sucks. Good luck lateraling. I agree that JD/Brogan has a really long term vision and that's to be commended, at least somewhat. But it's weird to me that there's no distinction between the # of associates vs. the salary of those associates. Layoffs happen when the firm has too many associates. Each associate is costing the firm $160k + benefits + office space + office resources. To pay market would cost JD, as you said, like $10k more per associate? And to raise now would be $20k more per associate (plus tax/benefits stuff)? It's good to be cautious with hiring; but it seems really weird to not pay "market" because of a long-term view. As you said, that makes sense if everyone's getting equity and can float for awhile on the cash they are getting. It doesn't make any sense to the associate who will be there for four years and walk away only with salary they earned.

What did they do in 2007 when salaries were raised? I'm a summer at a regional office and I'm trying to see if I made the right call...

[Anonymous User]

Posting Anon b/c I'm a disgruntled JD associate who is trying desperately to lateral -- and make no mistake, lateraling is hard when other firms realize you are just doing it for the money (the JD culture really isn't that bad -- it's milquetoasty but could be worse).

Here's the underlying tension I've noticed: Brogan has a truly longterm vision for the firm -- notice that JD did not do massive layoffs during the recession. Yet, this lies in contrast with the short term up & out nature of big law. I nor most of my associate colleagues, don't care where JD will be in 20 years: we just want to be paid now!

There's been a lot of associate grumblings with blackbox comp ever since bonuses increased two years ago -- before that, 2nd years were fine making 7k below market.

If JD doesn't match in all of its major markets, there will be mass defections. In my case, if I don't find another big law firm, i will just leave the private sector altogether -- 185k total comp as a 3rd year is not worth having spent the last three years working crazy hours at a relatively young and exciting juncture in my life that I will never get back. I'd be happy to chalk it up as an investment if I were PAID, but unless I get a lateral offer paying 210 + bonus so 230ish I'm just not going to stay.

This is a common sentiment. The irony is that JD associates talk with each other about money more than probably any other firm.

Sorry JD associate, that sucks. Good luck lateraling. I agree that JD/Brogan has a really long term vision and that's to be commended, at least somewhat. But it's weird to me that there's no distinction between the # of associates vs. the salary of those associates. Layoffs happen when the firm has too many associates. Each associate is costing the firm $160k + benefits + office space + office resources. To pay market would cost JD, as you said, like $10k more per associate? And to raise now would be $20k more per associate (plus tax/benefits stuff)? It's good to be cautious with hiring; but it seems really weird to not pay "market" because of a long-term view. As you said, that makes sense if everyone's getting equity and can float for awhile on the cash they are getting. It doesn't make any sense to the associate who will be there for four years and walk away only with salary they earned.

What did they do in 2007 when salaries were raised? I'm a summer at a regional office and I'm trying to see if I made the right call...

Before my time lol, so other input would be appreciated. What I do know is that back then they were not black box and paid market + bonuses like everyone else. Thus, it's a reasonable inference that blackbox was a scheme designed to lower comp.

When you have your D.C. summer event your coordinator will tell you that you can't ask Brogan about money. He's a good guy, but demands a 100% longterm commitment (yet, somehow forgets that the firm -- like all -- push associates out the door). The firm leadership is magnificently disconnected from associates. What is more, the associates who have the ears of partners are those who are themselves on partner track, so for them, being paid less is a short term investment.

Whether or not you made a bad decision? In terms of compensation, absolutely! In terms of culture, probably not: it's not Cooley, but it's also not Quinn. It's just neutral. If your biglaw plan is short term, than IMHO, take a shop that pays more even if the culture sucks, b/c let's face it: the difference between a "humane" law firm and a "sweat shop" can only be measured in millimeters, so I'd rather suck up 5% more shiftiness over three years and walk away with 30% more comp (yes, as midlevel, if they don't match, you will be paid 210 when your peers will have 235 + 25k bonus -- that's 50k difference)

[bearsfan23]

Really happy about the Sidley news. Chicago to 180k looks pretty much guaranteed!

Mayer Brown partners are probably Covington-level mad right now

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer in da hizzouse!!!

[Anonymous User]

Before my time lol, so other input would be appreciated. What I do know is that back then they were not black box and paid market + bonuses like everyone else. Thus, it's a reasonable inference that blackbox was a scheme designed to lower comp.

When you have your D.C. summer event your coordinator will tell you that you can't ask Brogan about money. He's a good guy, but demands a 100% longterm commitment (yet, somehow forgets that the firm -- like all -- push associates out the door). The firm leadership is magnificently disconnected from associates. What is more, the associates who have the ears of partners are those who are themselves on partner track, so for them, being paid less is a short term investment.

Whether or not you made a bad decision? In terms of compensation, absolutely! In terms of culture, probably not: it's not Cooley, but it's also not Quinn. It's just neutral. If your biglaw plan is short term, than IMHO, take a shop that pays more even if the culture sucks, b/c let's face it: the difference between a "humane" law firm and a "sweat shop" can only be measured in millimeters, so I'd rather suck up 5% more shiftiness over three years and walk away with 30% more comp (yes, as midlevel, if they don't match, you will be paid 210 when your peers will have 235 + 25k bonus -- that's 50k difference)

Yeah the problem is it is the best firm in my city so I would have to switch markets to actually get paid. But it sounds like it might be worth it.

[Anonymous User]

Baker & McKenzie loosely committed to matching market on a regional basis.

Interested in this. Any other details? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I am currently clerking on the west coast, but am joining Cov DC in the fall. I can't even express how annoyed I am right now. Not really sure how to react...

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer in da hizzouse!!!

NY, DC, BOS, LA & CHI offices, BUT NOT Newark, New Orleans or Boca.

[Anonymous User]

I am currently clerking on the west coast, but am joining Cov DC in the fall. I can't even express how annoyed I am right now. Not really sure how to react...

I think Covington will fall in line before you start. There's certainly an argument to be made that NY should paid higher than the rest, but once Chi, LA, SF (and TX?) got on board, and national firms gave raises to those in DC, I don't see a way that the old school DC firms hold out at 160.

[Anonymous User]

Munger Tolles & Olson just matched Cravath. Los Angeles has fallen.

[Anonymous User]

Chicago is going to be interesting. With Winston, Sidley, and Kirkland matching plus Latham and Skaddden you have to figure Jenner and Mayer will follow soon. But does anyone think any the other big Chicago firms will match anytime soon?