NY to 200k?! Forum

[cornerstone]

I think the comparison between associate and partner comp is a red herring. Sure, I'd like a bigger portion of the partners' profits, but I don't own the business so there's not much I (or other associates) can do about it short of leaving or striking. If I do, my firm will just replace me with some other shmuck who doesn't care that the partners are profiting off our backs. We're all fungible after all (sorry snowflakes). Partners will continue to bill us out at the highest rate they can and pay us at the lowest rate they can. Besides our feelings, there's no good reason to tie those numbers together.

Put more simply, the partners aren't going to start raising salaries in real terms until there's a disruption in their (fungible) workforce. Apart from the recent midlevel defections (which spurned large COVID and hiring bonuses), that's not going to happen until the relatively smart/high achieving individuals that choose to go to law school in the first place in hopes of landing a biglaw salary instead choose to stop going to law school. At that point, firms would no longer have droves of fungible candidates to fill their associate ranks. Thus, the better measuring stick for associate comp isn't what partners are making, but rather what associates could make if they picked a different career path. I don't see salary hikes popping up for the other options for english/polisci majors, and the cost of law school hasn't gone up enough to blemish the allure of a biglaw salary. So sadly, I think we're stuck with salaries that largely track inflation, rather than profits.

This also explains why CSM, DPW, S&C, or whatever other high PPP preftigious firm has been mentioned ITT will not going to hike salaries in real terms over other, less preftigious, lower PPP firms. They have absolutely no incentive to do that. This was a banner year for law school applications, and I don't hear anybody complaining about having difficulty pulling in a good first year class. If sheeple start realizing that they can make the same salary in a lower cost city with fewer hours, then maybe they'll flex their financial might and try to put some actual pay differentiation into the associate market to attract their fungible first years. But as the arguments about preftige ITT show , that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Edit: spelling.

[Anonymous User]

transactional attorneys thinking that anything they do is prestigious is funny to me. i guess any attorneys, but transactional most of all

Lol so true. “Please paper this deal for me.” - client. Some of these attorneys think they are more important than the client it blows my mind.

"attorneys thinking that anything they do is prestigious is funny to me."
FTFY

[synergy]

I've heard funds in some firms (i.e. non STB/KE/Deb) is manageable with the hours + minimal weekend work. Can anyone in funds confirm?

Mayer Brown is. Hours are manageable in every group except some niche corporate ones.

Funds associate not at one of the above firms. I billed 4 hours this weekend I would say that is rare. Right now we are bleeding people and totally slammed. I’m at 100 hours for the month and on track for 240, which is miserable compared to where I normally am. That said, I’m just barely on track for 1900 hours for the year and I generally agree hours are manageable and there is less weekend work.

Would you mind sharing what firm you are at and if you're hiring (since you said you were bleeding people)? Could I also trouble you for a DM if you don't mind? I would love some advice.

[Anonymous User]

V&E matched DPW scale

[Anonymous User]

V&E matched DPW scale

Haha. Yep, right after saying everyone is required back in the office on Sept. 7.

[Anonymous User]

Put more simply, the partners aren't going to start raising salaries in real terms until there's a disruption in their (fungible) workforce. Apart from the recent midlevel defections (which spurned large COVID and hiring bonuses), that's not going to happen until the relatively smart/high achieving individuals that choose to go to law school in the first place in hopes of landing a biglaw salary instead choose to stop going to law school. At that point, firms would no longer have droves of fungible candidates to fill their associate ranks. Thus, the better measuring stick for associate comp isn't what partners are making, but rather what associates could make if they picked a different career path. I don't see salary hikes popping up for the other options for english/polisci majors, and the cost of law school hasn't gone up enough to blemish the allure of a biglaw salary. So sadly, I think we're stuck with salaries that largely track inflation, rather than profits.

One way this could happen would be fewer high achievers going to law school, but the disruption could also happen on the demand side: if these firms start needing larger class sizes than the T20 can support. Higher workloads, higher midlevel attrition rates, and (hopefully) more pressure for QOL improvements like parental leave and billable vacation time could eventually make firms feel like they need to significantly grow their class sizes and actually compete on salary.

[showusyourtorts]

V&E matched DPW scale

Haha. Yep, right after saying everyone is required back in the office on Sept. 7.

Not worth the trade-off in the slightest IMO (assuming that an alternative would be in-office, say, 3x days a week etc. and obviously knowing that it's not like V&E associates writ large can negotiate an actual trade-off).

[Anonymous User]

Were the Fried Frank and Gunderson matches just a flame? Haven't seen ATL report on those.

ATL is behind the instagram meme accounts these days..they were both on there on Friday

They have a story highlight with all the match screenshots on @nonequitypartner, but I didn't see Fried Frank.

[Anonymous User]

I think the comparison between associate and partner comp is a red herring. Sure, I'd like a bigger portion of the partners' profits, but I don't own the business so there's not much I (or other associates) can do about it short of leaving or striking. If I do, my firm will just replace me with some other shmuck who doesn't care that the partners are profiting off our backs. We're all fungible after all (sorry snowflakes). Partners will continue to bill us out at the highest rate they can and pay us at the lowest rate they can. Besides our feelings, there's no good reason to tie those numbers together.

Mostly agree and won't dispute that we're fungible, but as for a good reason to tie the numbers together, I think part of the explanation for why salaries are so (relatively) high (after all - if this theory were strictly true, starting BigLaw salaries would be barely above government/small firm, not $60k+ higher) is that while we are technically fungible, replacing an associate, especially a midlevel associate, is somewhat costly.

Partners obviously expect and accept some attrition, but speaking as a midlevel litigation associate, yes, I agree there is nothing unique about me as a person or as a holder of a T13 diploma - there are hundreds of others who could be trained to do what I do, but I *have* been trained to do what I do, and in a way the partners and clients like it, so if I left, it would be a genuine disruption to the productivity and profitability of my group for at least a year or two.

Just a longwinded way of saying that there is a business incentive to not constantly churning through the "other shmucks."

[Anonymous User]

Put more simply, the partners aren't going to start raising salaries in real terms until there's a disruption in their (fungible) workforce. Apart from the recent midlevel defections (which spurned large COVID and hiring bonuses), that's not going to happen until the relatively smart/high achieving individuals that choose to go to law school in the first place in hopes of landing a biglaw salary instead choose to stop going to law school. At that point, firms would no longer have droves of fungible candidates to fill their associate ranks. Thus, the better measuring stick for associate comp isn't what partners are making, but rather what associates could make if they picked a different career path. I don't see salary hikes popping up for the other options for english/polisci majors, and the cost of law school hasn't gone up enough to blemish the allure of a biglaw salary. So sadly, I think we're stuck with salaries that largely track inflation, rather than profits.

One way this could happen would be fewer high achievers going to law school, but the disruption could also happen on the demand side: if these firms start needing larger class sizes than the T20 can support. Higher workloads, higher midlevel attrition rates, and (hopefully) more pressure for QOL improvements like parental leave and billable vacation time could eventually make firms feel like they need to significantly grow their class sizes and actually compete on salary.

Maybe, but in that scenario wouldn't firms rather dip deeper into T30-T40ish schools, rather than compete aggressively (on salary) for a dwindling supply of T20 students? It's not like that median-ish kid at GW/Fordham/Emory/etc. is incapable of handling biglaw work. Schools in that tier already have a decent beachhead in biglaw, so it would be trivially easy to dial those numbers up.

[cornerstone]

I think the comparison between associate and partner comp is a red herring. Sure, I'd like a bigger portion of the partners' profits, but I don't own the business so there's not much I (or other associates) can do about it short of leaving or striking. If I do, my firm will just replace me with some other shmuck who doesn't care that the partners are profiting off our backs. We're all fungible after all (sorry snowflakes). Partners will continue to bill us out at the highest rate they can and pay us at the lowest rate they can. Besides our feelings, there's no good reason to tie those numbers together.

Mostly agree and won't dispute that we're fungible, but as for a good reason to tie the numbers together, I think part of the explanation for why salaries are so (relatively) high (after all - if this theory were strictly true, starting BigLaw salaries would be barely above government/small firm, not $60k+ higher) is that while we are technically fungible, replacing an associate, especially a midlevel associate, is somewhat costly.

Partners obviously expect and accept some attrition, but speaking as a midlevel litigation associate, yes, I agree there is nothing unique about me as a person or as a holder of a T13 diploma - there are hundreds of others who could be trained to do what I do, but I *have* been trained to do what I do, and in a way the partners and clients like it, so if I left, it would be a genuine disruption to the productivity and profitability of my group for at least a year or two.

Just a longwinded way of saying that there is a business incentive to not constantly churning through the "other shmucks."

Totally agree. I guess my point is even that isn't much of an incentive to raise salaries in real terms unless all the shmucks are moving somewhere outside of biglaw. If V10 firm X raises salaries to prevent the outflow of shmucks, then the rest will surely follow and they have gained nothing. If K&E just raised salaries for all midlevels for retention purposes they wouldn't get a leg-up over peer firms (let's not start debating who that includes) because those peers would surely follow. That's why these not-so-transparent-yet-astronomical lateral bonuses for corporate associates make sense right now (and probably why K&E always pays out large bonuses rather than raising salaries).

[cornerstone]

Put more simply, the partners aren't going to start raising salaries in real terms until there's a disruption in their (fungible) workforce. Apart from the recent midlevel defections (which spurned large COVID and hiring bonuses), that's not going to happen until the relatively smart/high achieving individuals that choose to go to law school in the first place in hopes of landing a biglaw salary instead choose to stop going to law school. At that point, firms would no longer have droves of fungible candidates to fill their associate ranks. Thus, the better measuring stick for associate comp isn't what partners are making, but rather what associates could make if they picked a different career path. I don't see salary hikes popping up for the other options for english/polisci majors, and the cost of law school hasn't gone up enough to blemish the allure of a biglaw salary. So sadly, I think we're stuck with salaries that largely track inflation, rather than profits.

One way this could happen would be fewer high achievers going to law school, but the disruption could also happen on the demand side: if these firms start needing larger class sizes than the T20 can support. Higher workloads, higher midlevel attrition rates, and (hopefully) more pressure for QOL improvements like parental leave and billable vacation time could eventually make firms feel like they need to significantly grow their class sizes and actually compete on salary.

Maybe, but in that scenario wouldn't firms rather dip deeper into T30-T40ish schools, rather than compete aggressively (on salary) for a dwindling supply of T20 students? It's not like that median-ish kid at GW/Fordham/Emory/etc. is incapable of handling biglaw work. Schools in that tier already have a decent beachhead in biglaw, so it would be trivially easy to dial those numbers up.

Right. And I don't think there's a direct relationship between biglaw salaries and T13 class sizes. Sure, class size is somewhat tied to biglaw demand for associates (see schools that dropped class size after '08), but I don't see the same relation to salary. Again, firms would really only want to raise salaries if the students that are going to those T13 (or other lower ranked schools they start drawing from) aren't good enough (as the last anon hinted at) so they need to sweeten the pot for law school candidates.

[Anonymous User]

I get the feeling that these salary increases are less about competing with peer firms who will match. Rather, they're about competing with opportunities outside of BigLaw entirely, or with firms who pay below market but come with better quality of life. Some overworked associates are going to another firm because they'll get a big signing bonus for their suffering. But many of them are just leaving BigLaw entirely, a problem for which it won't matter that peer firms pay the same.

[texas1100]

[posted on wrong thread]

[Anonymous User]

I've heard rumblings from friends at other V10s that some firms are contemplating retention bonuses on top of matching the new salary scale (and on top of the bonuses announced earlier this year). Anyone got the scoop?

[Anonymous User]

I've heard rumblings from friends at other V10s that some firms are contemplating retention bonuses on top of matching the new salary scale (and on top of the bonuses announced earlier this year). Anyone got the scoop?

Stop with these fleeting bonuses and hike up the salary.

[LBJ's Hair]

Put more simply, the partners aren't going to start raising salaries in real terms until there's a disruption in their (fungible) workforce. Apart from the recent midlevel defections (which spurned large COVID and hiring bonuses), that's not going to happen until the relatively smart/high achieving individuals that choose to go to law school in the first place in hopes of landing a biglaw salary instead choose to stop going to law school. At that point, firms would no longer have droves of fungible candidates to fill their associate ranks. Thus, the better measuring stick for associate comp isn't what partners are making, but rather what associates could make if they picked a different career path. I don't see salary hikes popping up for the other options for english/polisci majors, and the cost of law school hasn't gone up enough to blemish the allure of a biglaw salary. So sadly, I think we're stuck with salaries that largely track inflation, rather than profits.

One way this could happen would be fewer high achievers going to law school, but the disruption could also happen on the demand side: if these firms start needing larger class sizes than the T20 can support. Higher workloads, higher midlevel attrition rates, and (hopefully) more pressure for QOL improvements like parental leave and billable vacation time could eventually make firms feel like they need to significantly grow their class sizes and actually compete on salary.

It's moving the other way right now, FWIW https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... increasing

[Anonymous User]

I get the feeling that these salary increases are less about competing with peer firms who will match. Rather, they're about competing with opportunities outside of BigLaw entirely, or with firms who pay below market but come with better quality of life. Some overworked associates are going to another firm because they'll get a big signing bonus for their suffering. But many of them are just leaving BigLaw entirely, a problem for which it won't matter that peer firms pay the same.

Yeah, I think salary increases have more to do with preventing associate loss to in-house or government positions.

[Anonymous User]

Were the Fried Frank and Gunderson matches just a flame? Haven't seen ATL report on those.

ATL is behind the instagram meme accounts these days..they were both on there on Friday

They have a story highlight with all the match screenshots on @nonequitypartner, but I didn't see Fried Frank.

FF hasn't matched. I asked a good friend there who said no match has been announced. FF is usually slow to match and only does so once it is clear that the market is set (i.e., after CSM, DPW, STB, et al. have announced the same scale).

[Anonymous User]

V&E matched DPW scale

Haha. Yep, right after saying everyone is required back in the office on Sept. 7.

Full time or with flexibility? JW because I'm at another TX biglaw firm and refuse to go back more than 3x a week.

[Anonymous User]

I've heard rumblings from friends at other V10s that some firms are contemplating retention bonuses on top of matching the new salary scale (and on top of the bonuses announced earlier this year). Anyone got the scoop?

I heard something similar from two independent sources at the same V10. Must promise to stay at the firm, presumably will be a clawback if you leave. Slightly higher hours requirement than for regular/special bonus. May only apply for certain class years (mid-levels up). Higher amount than for special bonus.

Take this for what is worth, this is third hand info.

[2013]

I've heard rumblings from friends at other V10s that some firms are contemplating retention bonuses on top of matching the new salary scale (and on top of the bonuses announced earlier this year). Anyone got the scoop?

I heard something similar from two independent sources at the same V10. Must promise to stay at the firm, presumably will be a clawback if you leave. Slightly higher hours requirement than for regular/special bonus. May only apply for certain class years (mid-levels up). Higher amount than for special bonus.

Take this for what is worth, this is third hand info.

LOL at an hours requirement for a RETENTION bonus…

[NYto200K]

HOLY SHIT. McDermott Will & Emery has yet to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy or give notice of its dissolution, even though it matched Milbank and then rematched DPW the next day. It's reputation is in fact wholly unaffected. It's almost like firms can match and rematch without consequence and arguments to the contrary are malarkey.

[malibustacy]

Put more simply, the partners aren't going to start raising salaries in real terms until there's a disruption in their (fungible) workforce. Apart from the recent midlevel defections (which spurned large COVID and hiring bonuses), that's not going to happen until the relatively smart/high achieving individuals that choose to go to law school in the first place in hopes of landing a biglaw salary instead choose to stop going to law school. At that point, firms would no longer have droves of fungible candidates to fill their associate ranks. Thus, the better measuring stick for associate comp isn't what partners are making, but rather what associates could make if they picked a different career path. I don't see salary hikes popping up for the other options for english/polisci majors, and the cost of law school hasn't gone up enough to blemish the allure of a biglaw salary. So sadly, I think we're stuck with salaries that largely track inflation, rather than profits.

One way this could happen would be fewer high achievers going to law school, but the disruption could also happen on the demand side: if these firms start needing larger class sizes than the T20 can support. Higher workloads, higher midlevel attrition rates, and (hopefully) more pressure for QOL improvements like parental leave and billable vacation time could eventually make firms feel like they need to significantly grow their class sizes and actually compete on salary.

It's moving the other way right now, FWIW https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... increasing

For this application cycle, sure, but apparently the new LSAT is a joke and that's led to some kind of a hyperinflation in top scores.

Among top undergrads, it's been a trend for decades that graduates are doing anything else than attend law school.

[ExpOriental]

HOLY SHIT. McDermott Will & Emery has yet to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy or give notice of its dissolution, even though it matched Milbank and then rematched DPW the next day. It's reputation is in fact wholly unaffected. It's almost like firms can match and rematch without consequence and arguments to the contrary are malarkey.

I'm assuming it has more to do with internal policies re: partner approval for major capital outlays and such. I.e., if there's some annoying hoops the firm has to jump through to actually authorize the raises, it makes sense to just wait and see where things settle before moving. I really doubt reputational risk is a major consideration here.