2014 Biglaw Bonus Thread Forum

[mvp99]

I was gonna ask what the deal was with $190. Why is that the magic number?

Would you rather the number be 180? Get with the program.

NYC to 190!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NYC to 190, but that just seems highly unlikely. It's way beyond the rate of inflation, which would put us just over 170. I'm with DF: I think 175 is possible (provided the economy stays strong), with 180 being the upper bound.

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.

NYC to $183,220.38!

[Desert Fox]

230k is right if you are going to keep up with tution raises.

[sweeteavodka]

I was gonna ask what the deal was with $190. Why is that the magic number?

Would you rather the number be 180? Get with the program.

NYC to 190!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NYC to 190, but that just seems highly unlikely. It's way beyond the rate of inflation, which would put us just over 170. I'm with DF: I think 175 is possible (provided the economy stays strong), with 180 being the upper bound.

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.

This:

Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.

The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

[Tiago Splitter]

There are "NYC to 190k" posts from 2010 around here. Not sure where that number comes from but I like it.

[Cobretti]

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.

This:

Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.

The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity recruitment efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.

[sweeteavodka]

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.

This:

Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.

The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.

It's absolutely a factor, I would agree with that. But when supply is still outstripping demand with enrollment drops and salaries sticky at $160k, it's hard to see how that concern gets you anywhere significant for juniors.

[84651846190]

I think 190 is unrealistically high too, but don't forget that salary needs to keep pace with the increases in tuition above inflation as well if its going to stay relatively equal.

This:

Firms have never done it this way. Past raises were always based on losing too many mid-levels and first year salaries just kind of tag along.

The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity recruitment efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.

Dude, no. No one in biglaw, and especially not the partners, gives a fuck about how expensive tuition is. It has nothing at all to do with salaries or bonuses.

[84651846190]

I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.

[Mal Reynolds]

I enjoy when law students speculate on law firm inner workings.

[2014]

Maybe whichever firm does jack it up might want to go a little too high to try and stop lower ranked competitors from matching though. Most firms at 160 would probably be fine going to 170, but if you jump it straight to 190 it's more likely you create two mainstream tiers of pay within major markets (and maybe the more prestigious firms want this)

[B.B. Homemaker]

I enjoy when law students speculate on law firm inner workings.

I hear Cravath is switching to Charmin soon, so idk, that could shake things up. I know for a fact that White & Case uses Scott.

[Mal Reynolds]

The cream doesn't wipe their bholes with one-ply.

[Cobretti]

The rate of law school tuition increases don't play into it.

If you don't think they consider the cost of tuition at law schools relative to entry level salaries as part of their long term recruitment efforts you aren't giving these people enough credit.

ETA: to expand on this, to not keep pace would be to make the profession less accessible to the lower and middle class who are forced to take out loans and would do more to undermine diversity efforts of the last 20 years than anything else they could do.

It's absolutely a factor, I would agree with that. But when supply is still outstripping demand with enrollment drops and salaries sticky at $160k, it's hard to see how that concern gets you anywhere significant for juniors.

I'm not saying it by itself is going to get us a pay raise, I'm saying when they are determining what to raise it to they will consider it because as much as we like to joke about lawyers being bad at math they aren't morons.

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm not saying this is pure speculation, but this is pure speculation.

[B.B. Homemaker]

I'm not saying this is pure speculation, but this is pure speculation.

Speculative mind-reading got Nino a seat on the bench. Don't hate.

[Tiago Splitter]

Maybe whichever firm does jack it up might want to go a little too high to try and stop lower ranked competitors from matching though. Most firms at 160 would probably be fine going to 170, but if you jump it straight to 190 it's more likely you create two mainstream tiers of pay within major markets (and maybe the more prestigious firms want this)

The big dogs could have done this at any time, and it might have worked around 2011 when they were doing better and things looked really dicey for firms below the top tier. But I just don't think the top firms care at all about competing with lower ranked firms. Until Cravath starts losing people to Hughes Hubbard it doesn't need to.

[Desert Fox]

I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.

A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

[thelawyler]

I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.

A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

But but remember we're the entitled generation.

[Desert Fox]

(is boomer partner)

(payed 30k total for tution at local TTT)

(makes 2 million a year)

You millenials shouldn't make so much money!

[Cobretti]

I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.

A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

I'm saying it would be irrational for the recruitment and compensation committees to not be aware of these facts, and it seems ignorant to assume they're so out of touch that it wouldn't be a factor. I don't know why anyone not on those committees would care though.

[PinkRevolver]

I have never once heard a partner even acknowledge that he/she was aware of how expensive law school is these days. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of them didn't really know or think about it at all.

A partner I worked with was shocked to find out how much debt you'd have by paying full price. And she only made partner 2 years ago, so went to school like 10-11 years ago. She was off by like half.

I'm saying it would be irrational for the recruitment and compensation committees to not be aware of these facts, and it seems ignorant to assume they're so out of touch that it wouldn't be a factor. I don't know why anyone not on those committees would care though.

A partner on the recruitment committee asked me about school tuition this summer during my SA (V50). When I told him the cost of sticker he was absolutely bewildered and said he would never have taken the chance at law in this job market climate. He thought we were crazy for being in school even though we had an SA because you don't even know if after you pass the hurdle of getting an SA if you'll get an offer afterwards (thank God I did). I don't really think tuition is something they keep up with or take into account when determining salary/bonuses.

[Cobretti]

I'm saying it would be irrational for the recruitment and compensation committees at compensation leading firms to not be aware of these facts, and it seems ignorant to assume they're so out of touch that it wouldn't be a factor. I don't know why anyone not on those committees would care though.

A partner on the recruitment committee asked me about school tuition this summer during my SA (V50). When I told him the cost of sticker he was absolutely bewildered and said he would never have taken the chance at law in this job market climate. He thought we were crazy for being in school even though we had an SA because you don't even know if after you pass the hurdle of getting an SA if you'll get an offer afterwards (thank God I did). I don't really think tuition is something they keep up with or take into account when determining salary/bonuses.

Sorry, fixed. The point is there are people who are in a position to realistically change base compensation that are aware of the market conditions of their pool of applicants, and will consider it because it would be irrational not to.

[Actus Reus]

Law firms are pretty poor at finances in most cases anyways. The fact that law firms still use the billable hour, incentivizing themselves to work more and then charging clients is example 1. That's why alternative shit is so popular these days.

Every single client now essentially asks for a capped fee

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sorry, fixed. The point is there are people who are in a position to realistically change base compensation that are aware of the market conditions of their pool of applicants, and will consider it because it would be irrational not to.

It might be rational to consider tuition, but why would it be rational to increase salaries because of tuition raises? Law firms don't care about law students' economic interests. And it's not like there are higher-paying jobs that law students will start going after instead of biglaw as tuition continues to go up. Biglaw jobs are still the highest-paying jobs out there for law students, generally speaking.

[Cobretti]

Sorry, fixed. The point is there are people who are in a position to realistically change base compensation that are aware of the market conditions of their pool of applicants, and will consider it because it would be irrational not to.

It might be rational to consider tuition, but why would it be rational to increase salaries because of tuition raises? Law firms don't care about law students' economic interests. And it's not like there are higher-paying jobs that law students will start going after instead of biglaw as tuition continues to go up. Biglaw jobs are still the highest-paying jobs out there for law students, generally speaking.

I've been arguing that they would consider tuition when determining how much to raise when they do. I'm sure it would be a factor generally as well but I never said it would be sufficient to raise base salary. We got on this topic after of all the other arguments for why they would raise comp, and started talking about how much they would raise.

And of course they care about their economic interests, that is how they attract people to the profession. The long term recruitment strategy would be to attract people to law school in the first place, not to biglaw after they've decided on law school. Biglaw has already sufficiently beaten out most potentially competitive JD employers by paying significantly more.