Fall bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is exactly what many of us said would and should happen to the legal industry. A huge number of firms constantly auto-matching and falling lockstep behind market leaders on pay is not rational behavior. Contrary to the intro paragraph of the Vault page of like 50 law firms, not every firm is "elite" and not every firm "takes only the very best and brightest" from "only the top law schools."

There really is a gap between firms like Davis Polk or S&C, on the one hand, and Arnold & Porter or Kramer Levin or whatever, on the other. Firms like Cravath need to decide which side they fall on, but it's healthy and rational, from a business perspective, for there to be further separation among firms along metrics like pay and bonus. Not everyone can be a DPW, and masking that behind lockstep market-conforming compensation only obfuscates reality.

It sucks for associates at lower tier firms, obviously, but having the expectation that things would be otherwise is setting yourself up for disappointment sooner or later.

The flip side of all this is that firms should absolutely not be able to get away with saying things like "we are an elite firm" or "compensation leaders" or whatever. And that applies to Cravath. This isn't 1995. No one can ride on their name forever. Hold everyone accountable to their own reality.

As someone from K&E, I always kind of knew that the S&Cs, Debevoises, etc. viewed me as lower-tier and not in their league, despite vault ranking, but nice that K&E confirmed that and removed all doubt this fall. But lol at Cravath telling their associates they are 2nd tier.

one potential other rationale is that kirkland and cravath (and maybe others) are moving to more blackbox comp systems a la wachtell and hoping to ride on existing perceived prestige, while still retaining top talent via more discretionary bonuses targeted to those they want to keep (as opposed to being locked in to matching the market). that being said, some firms employ some form of discretionary bump already for top performers (e.g., 1.1-1.3 times market, have seen it at multiple firms that do not advertise as such) so not clear that it's not the result of partner greed.

food for thought.

[legalpotato]

Two-sentence message: “In light of recent announcements from some law firms, we confirm that we will be determining 2020 bonuses in the fourth quarter in accordance with our customary timing.”

Second sentence is essentially “thank u for your service”

At PW. Suspect we’ll do the same thing now. Heard from a few partners that this was their preference. At this point I wouldn’t really mind waiting in case CSM beats the scale by a bit.

They prefer to show how little they appreciate their associates relative to (some of) their competitors and you’re ok with that?

Apparently some clients saw the news and reacted poorly to it - I know i know it doesn’t make a lot of sense given high partner profits and such but clients will react how they want. Was told that partners don’t have a problem with the dollar amount, just had some concerns abt the optics. Would obviously have preferred to get the money sooner but I have no doubt that we’ll be trued up so ultimately doesn’t matter whether I get it October or December.

Please stfu about client perception. It is a stupid take and a false narrative. Clients don’t give a fuck about what associates are paid. Clients give a fuck about what they are charged. Rates will go up next year regardless of whether or not these bonuses are paid out. Boomer partners are just being greedy fucks because destroying the planet and perma-fucking the economy apparently wasn’t enough for them.

So weirdly angry.

If 100% of partners that I know and trust have the same take (delaying payment is about managing client perceptions), and I (and others, clearly) faithfully report that on these boards, don’t get mad about it. Just passing on what I’m told, from people with very little reason to lie given how furious we’ll be in December if it turns out to have been a smokescreen.

The way to look at it seems to be: if you're the firm, you can more easily negotiate rates or collections with the client if you DON'T have to tell them you're giving your associates a bonus in the middle of a pandemic. It's true that the client ultimately just cares about the rate, but the rate is asked for and agreed to, and in that horse trading, it will help the firm to be able to say that the rate is based on XYZ, where XYZ doesn't have to involve also justifying more money for associates. Is that in fact how the negotiations with clients on rates and collections works? I don't know. If there are people who do lurking, would love to hear about it.

Yes, much better for optics to just say that we are keeping all the money for ourselves because that new yacht and mistress are not paying for themselves.

In all seriousness, Cravath's time as V1 was always weird. But confirmed that they cannot stay V1 any longer.

[ccmbr006]

Sucks that momentum on bonuses appear dead, but the people suggesting clients don't care about associate pay have short memories or weren't around for the 2016 salary raises--the first in nearly a decade and issued in response to a dramatic increase in the cost of living in New York, not a substantial and unexpected payout in the middle of the worst economic downturn in a century:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies- ... 1466029554

Distinguish the comments in there as much as you like from whatever you think the current bonuses are designed to address, but it's flat out wrong to claim clients don't care about associate pay.

[Anonymous User]

Just lol at all the KE, Cravath, Skadden and Latham people who laughed at Freshfields and Shearman at OCI and now wish they were there though.

Not my experience at Skadden or OCI. I didn’t interview at those firms or laugh at them. I am glad they got this fall bonus and I hope we do too. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, maybe.

[NoLongerALurker]

In all fairness, junior lawyers being paid 190k-220k to shadow phone calls and copy edit and run redlines is absolutely insane. It’s part of why if I were a corporate client I’d probably never hire a biglaw firm (other than the sort of insurance policy of being able to pass blame onto them for mistakes if a senior exec was mad about something..)

But market is market. The idea that CSM is refusing to match market and blaming client reaction seems a bit much. Do CSM’s clients react more negatively to a market matching bonus than DPW’s do to a market setting bonus?

[Scallion]

In all fairness, junior lawyers being paid 190k-220k to shadow phone calls and copy edit and run redlines is absolutely insane. It’s part of why if I were a corporate client I’d probably never hire a biglaw firm (other than the sort of insurance policy of being able to pass blame onto them for mistakes if a senior exec was mad about something..)

But market is market. The idea that CSM is refusing to match market and blaming client reaction seems a bit much. Do CSM’s clients react more negatively to a market matching bonus than DPW’s do to a market setting bonus?

You know what else is insane? Expecting people to generate millions of dollars for a firm, and not make at least 190K-220K while working a job where you're at the beck-and-call of your superiors 24/7, get emails at all hours of the day and night, miss holidays and time with friends and family regularly, risk getting chewed out for using just a few days of "unlimited" vacation, have limited control over who you work with, can get booted in a matter of months - years, while likely having upwards of 100, even 200K in debt accrued just so that you can work at the firm.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but the bullshit on how we shouldn't get paid what we do needs to stop. Who would choose biglaw over making the world a better place, more clearly, if they got paid the 50-70K peanuts of nonprofit gigs?

Edit: In my anger at that sentence, I forgot why I really came to this thread. I wanted to say "Boo, Cravath."

[NoLongerALurker]

I mean I’m with you. If you are going to bill me out at 800 bucks an hour despite me knowing nothing, and you are finding clients to pay that, then I better be getting an absurd salary to go along with it. But that’s just because the system is so absurd to begin with that that the wealth in it is obscene and nonsensical — but I’m all about giving it to associates who are pulling all nighters (and literally wasting some of the best years of their lives doing so).

[Anonymous User]

Sucks that momentum on bonuses appear dead, but the people suggesting clients don't care about associate pay have short memories or weren't around for the 2016 salary raises--the first in nearly a decade and issued in response to a dramatic increase in the cost of living in New York, not a substantial and unexpected payout in the middle of the worst economic downturn in a century:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies- ... 1466029554

Distinguish the comments in there as much as you like from whatever you think the current bonuses are designed to address, but it's flat out wrong to claim clients don't care about associate pay.

I mean, clients can be mad, but again those raises were a LONG time coming. They really only adjusted for inflation

[Anonymous User]

I am former biglaw senior associate very recently turned in-house attorney and have a little experience on both sides of the pitch table now. My anecdotal thoughts below on the last couple dozen posts below.

1) Many (most) of the in-house attorneys attorneys at corporations that are hiring biglaw firms themselves started in biglaw, and know where the $$ is really going, and it isn't associate salaries. The idea that firms are pointing to associate salaries as a reason for why rates rates are so high is largely incorrect, and firms don't really justify themselves that way anyway. Firms charge the rates they do because they all claim to be the best and all claim to demand premium rates for premium work. It would be a huge sign of weakness, and not to mention completely laughable, if a firm justified its rates because they needed to pay associates $X (many partners are often reluctant to give associates any credit at all).

1b) Nonetheless, there are some curmudgeons who don't really get the biglaw legal market, don't know how much partners are making these days, and get upset about anyone making decent $ besides them. These people exist, but in my experience they are relatively few and far between. (These people also exist in firms and are the ones who think it's absurd to pay you anything given that they're giving you the opportunity to work on their matters.)

2) Most in-house attorneys aren't angry about associate salaries at biglaw firms... most of us left and took big cuts with a smile on our faces. No one wants to go back to biglaw.

3) The optics of giving out bonuses right now aren't that bad from my point of view. It seems to me to be one of the many partner memes that get trotted out in biglaw whenever there is a need to justify a course of action to associates that associates won't like.

4) Junior associate rates / salaries are crazy, but a good number of clients flat out refuse to pay for 1st or 2nd year time. Other clients will have strict rules regarding how much time, if any, can be charged for traditional junior associate tasks (research, seconding hearings, etc.). The very bottom end of the biglaw scale is most misaligned with the value provided and there are often controls in place to address that.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Sucks that momentum on bonuses appear dead, but the people suggesting clients don't care about associate pay have short memories or weren't around for the 2016 salary raises--the first in nearly a decade and issued in response to a dramatic increase in the cost of living in New York, not a substantial and unexpected payout in the middle of the worst economic downturn in a century:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies- ... 1466029554

Distinguish the comments in there as much as you like from whatever you think the current bonuses are designed to address, but it's flat out wrong to claim clients don't care about associate pay.

Yes, and it damaged their reputations with clients so badly that the industry *checks notes* had its best year ever.

You'll notice firms never concerned about the optics about reporting record PPP three months after they told the clients rates just HAD to go up another 6%. If they were, you'd think firms would be sheepish about their obscene profits, rather than wholesale exaggerating them to AmLaw. None of Cravath's clients would do shit besides bitch in a phone call.

And in case you think I have a short memory, here's me discussing that exact article four years ago:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-p ... 1466029554

After Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP said last week it would boost starting pay for its junior-most lawyers to $180,000, law firms across the country stumbled over themselves to announce salary increases for their own associates.

But now companies are pushing back.

Bank of America Corp.’s top lawyer recently sent an email to a group of law firms calling the increases in associate lawyer pay unjustified, making it clear the bank wouldn’t help firms absorb the cost.

“While we respect the firms’ judgment about what best serves their long-term competitive interests, we are aware of no market-driven basis for such an increase and do not expect to bear the costs of the firms’ decisions,” David Leitch, Bank of America’s global general counsel, wrote in the email, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal

Fucking LOL

Yeah, I'm sure BofA is SO OUTRAGED that next time they find themselves in nine-figure litigation, they'll hire Hodgson Russ and Day Pitney instead of Wachtell and Cleary.

Double fucking LOL at poaching stagnant midlevels from firms for nine years and then acting like you have no earthly idea why they might raise salaries.

[SplitMyPants]

I completely get why firms would just roll this into later bonuses etc.

But god damn if it isn't disappointing for us 1200 hour track people.

+1 womp womp

[Yea All Right]

I am former biglaw senior associate very recently turned in-house attorney and have a little experience on both sides of the pitch table now. My anecdotal thoughts below on the last couple dozen posts below.

1) Many (most) of the in-house attorneys attorneys at corporations that are hiring biglaw firms themselves started in biglaw, and know where the $$ is really going, and it isn't associate salaries. The idea that firms are pointing to associate salaries as a reason for why rates rates are so high is largely laughable, and firms don't really justify themselves that way anyway. Firms charge the rates they do because they all claim to be the best and all claim to demand premium rates for premium work. It would be a huge sign of weakness, and not to mention completely laughable, if a firm justified its rates because they needed to pay associates $X (many partners are often reluctant to give associates any credit at all).

1b) Nonetheless, there are some curmudgeons who don't really get the biglaw legal market, don't know how much partners are making these days, and get upset about anyone making decent $ besides them. These people exist, but in my experience they are relatively few and far between. (These people also exist in firms and are the ones who think it's absurd to pay you anything given that they're giving you the opportunity to work on their matters.)

2) Most in-house attorneys aren't angry about associate salaries at biglaw firms... most of us left and took big cuts with a smile on our faces. No one wants to go back to biglaw.

3) The optics of giving out bonuses right now aren't that bad from my point of view. It seems to me to be one of the many partner memes that get trotted out in biglaw whenever there is a need to justify a course of action to associates that associates won't like.

4) Junior associate rates / salaries are crazy, but a good number of clients flat out refuse to pay for 1st or 2nd year time. Other clients will have strict rules regarding how much time, if any, can be charged for traditional junior associate tasks (research, seconding hearings, etc.). The very bottom end of the biglaw scale is most misaligned with the value provided and there are often controls in place to address that.

Thank you for your insight. Now I'm more annoyed at curmudgeons and out-of-touch partners/clients.

[TigerIsBack]

In all fairness, junior lawyers being paid 190k-220k to shadow phone calls and copy edit and run redlines is absolutely insane. It’s part of why if I were a corporate client I’d probably never hire a biglaw firm (other than the sort of insurance policy of being able to pass blame onto them for mistakes if a senior exec was mad about something..)

But market is market. The idea that CSM is refusing to match market and blaming client reaction seems a bit much. Do CSM’s clients react more negatively to a market matching bonus than DPW’s do to a market setting bonus?

You know what else is insane? Expecting people to generate millions of dollars for a firm, and not make at least 190K-220K while working a job where you're at the beck-and-call of your superiors 24/7, get emails at all hours of the day and night, miss holidays and time with friends and family regularly, risk getting chewed out for using just a few days of "unlimited" vacation, have limited control over who you work with, can get booted in a matter of months - years, while likely having upwards of 100, even 200K in debt accrued just so that you can work at the firm.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but the bullshit on how we shouldn't get paid what we do needs to stop. Who would choose biglaw over making the world a better place, more clearly, if they got paid the 50-70K peanuts of nonprofit gigs?

Edit: In my anger at that sentence, I forgot why I really came to this thread. I wanted to say "Boo, Cravath."

Exactly this. And oh by the way, we only wanna hire people that are smart enough or hard working enough to graduate toward the tip top of their class, so you're also starting with a limited pool of applicants. The work isn't brain surgery, but it takes some level of aptitude.

[MrTooToo]

This is exactly what many of us said would and should happen to the legal industry. A huge number of firms constantly auto-matching and falling lockstep behind market leaders on pay is not rational behavior. Contrary to the intro paragraph of the Vault page of like 50 law firms, not every firm is "elite" and not every firm "takes only the very best and brightest" from "only the top law schools."

There really is a gap between firms like Davis Polk or S&C, on the one hand, and Arnold & Porter or Kramer Levin or whatever, on the other. Firms like Cravath need to decide which side they fall on, but it's healthy and rational, from a business perspective, for there to be further separation among firms along metrics like pay and bonus. Not everyone can be a DPW, and masking that behind lockstep market-conforming compensation only obfuscates reality.

It sucks for associates at lower tier firms, obviously, but having the expectation that things would be otherwise is setting yourself up for disappointment sooner or later.

The flip side of all this is that firms should absolutely not be able to get away with saying things like "we are an elite firm" or "compensation leaders" or whatever. And that applies to Cravath. This isn't 1995. No one can ride on their name forever. Hold everyone accountable to their own reality.

I like this attitude and analysis but it sort of implies that some of the newer guard firms that are bursting at the seams with money sure as hell better come to the table with appreciable bonuses if they want to continue that momentum. So, like, looking at you Kirkland--they'd better true-up their associates in December if they want to lay claim to the title of the up and comer in the V10; they make too much money not to without a huge reputational effect.

[Anonymous User]

The thing about Kirkland “truing up” is that it’s hard to know exactly what that means. Take a 3rd year bonus. Kirkland’s usual median multiplier is like 1.2x or something, which is $60k. Add in a $30k fall bonus and KE would have paid 3rd years $90k. Does anyone really expect Kirkland’s median 3rd year bonus this year to be 90k? They’ll stake a claim to “far above market” and also end up paying out less than Freshfields with their best year ever.

[MrTooToo]

The thing about Kirkland “truing up” is that it’s hard to know exactly what that means. Take a 3rd year bonus. Kirkland’s usual median multiplier is like 1.2x or something, which is $60k. Add in a $30k fall bonus and KE would have paid 3rd years $90k. Does anyone really expect Kirkland’s median 3rd year bonus this year to be 90k? They’ll stake a claim to “far above market” and also end up paying out less than Freshfields with their best year ever.

Right. I mean, that's exactly the bullshit move that I think most of us are thinking K&E is going to pull; they'll try to hide it in some weird "market metric" where your hypothetical third year is getting 1.5x above Cravath's year end or whatever but still far below what he would have gotten with a V10 fall bonus + standard Cravath scale year end.

I think we all know what truing up should mean: the fall bonus scale + the Cravath end of year scale + some Kirkland multiplier on at least the end of year component. But that doesn't mean it will happen, agreed.

[transferquestiontls]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

[FedFan123]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

Make sure your vote on the vault survey next year reflects that, as all ours should

[Anonymous User]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

Cleary has been slipping out of the top rankings for years now. This is only going to hurt them. Unfortunately, I don’t see Skadden experiencing as much blowback for this.

Accidentally anon. Apologies!

[sms18]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

There is no indication yet that Skadden, Latham and Cleary are not paying fall bonuses - so your facts are not fully accurate. (Also, as may other have already pointed out, Vault ranking doesn't solely have to do with compensation - and this fall bonus isn't about what associates "deserve" and which firm "deserves" to be in the V10).

[gontid]

This is exactly what many of us said would and should happen to the legal industry. A huge number of firms constantly auto-matching and falling lockstep behind market leaders on pay is not rational behavior. Contrary to the intro paragraph of the Vault page of like 50 law firms, not every firm is "elite" and not every firm "takes only the very best and brightest" from "only the top law schools."

There really is a gap between firms like Davis Polk or S&C, on the one hand, and Arnold & Porter or Kramer Levin or whatever, on the other. Firms like Cravath need to decide which side they fall on, but it's healthy and rational, from a business perspective, for there to be further separation among firms along metrics like pay and bonus. Not everyone can be a DPW, and masking that behind lockstep market-conforming compensation only obfuscates reality.

It sucks for associates at lower tier firms, obviously, but having the expectation that things would be otherwise is setting yourself up for disappointment sooner or later.

The flip side of all this is that firms should absolutely not be able to get away with saying things like "we are an elite firm" or "compensation leaders" or whatever. And that applies to Cravath. This isn't 1995. No one can ride on their name forever. Hold everyone accountable to their own reality.

A&P arguably has higher hiring standards than DPW lol.

[spyke123]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

There is no indication yet that Skadden, Latham and Cleary are not paying fall bonuses - so your facts are not fully accurate. (Also, as may other have already pointed out, Vault ranking doesn't solely have to do with compensation - and this fall bonus isn't about what associates "deserve" and which firm "deserves" to be in the V10).

I could be wrong (and hopefully so) but given Cravath has spoken, other firms will most likely wont be paying bonuses. I am not speaking for the OP but the point really isnt about the exact vault rankings (ie cravath should be ranked 11 now) but more about which firms are considered "peer firms". If this divergence in compensation becomes a trend (eg cravath lowers year end bonus but dpw matches last year), I just dont see how cravath and dpw (using them as examples) could be considered peer firms for law school students and laterals going forward.

[transferquestiontls]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

There is no indication yet that Skadden, Latham and Cleary are not paying fall bonuses - so your facts are not fully accurate. (Also, as may other have already pointed out, Vault ranking doesn't solely have to do with compensation - and this fall bonus isn't about what associates "deserve" and which firm "deserves" to be in the V10).

What is it about then? Compensation obviously is not the only factor going into rankings, but it is probably the most important one. Why do you think Milbank suddenly rose up to v20ish after they announced 190k salary?

You are right about the facts being not fully accurate. I guess I just don’t see how the fact that Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are waiting this long could be any positive indication that they will match. But we will find out soon enough. Nevertheless, my point still stands - if firms who call themselves as a market leader fail to provide top compensation, they should not be considered as one.

[esther0123]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

There is no indication yet that Skadden, Latham and Cleary are not paying fall bonuses - so your facts are not fully accurate. (Also, as may other have already pointed out, Vault ranking doesn't solely have to do with compensation - and this fall bonus isn't about what associates "deserve" and which firm "deserves" to be in the V10).

I could be wrong (and hopefully so) but given Cravath has spoken, other firms will most likely wont be paying bonuses. I am not speaking for the OP but the point really isnt about the exact vault rankings (ie cravath should be ranked 11 now) but more about which firms are considered "peer firms". If this divergence in compensation becomes a trend (eg cravath lowers year end bonus but dpw matches last year), I just dont see how cravath and dpw (using them as examples) could be considered peer firms for law school students and laterals going forward.

The option of not paying is on the table but Cravath’s decision might actually encourage “peers” to one-up Cravath + pay fall bonus if they can comfortably afford it. It will disrupt the existing pecking order and make a very strong impression for future recruitment purposes. This will be a true litmus test for how strong of a hold Cravath still has on the market.

Those firms who were kind of on the edge financially can point to Cravath and not pay, I guess. In any case, the market will diverge, IMO.

[MrTooToo]

Facts: DPW, S&C, and Milbank are paying out fall bonuses. Kirkland, Cravath, Skadden, Latham, and Cleary are not.
Conclusion: v10 firms that did not pay out the bonuses don’t deserve to be up there. True compensation leaders are firms that are willing to pay associates what they deserve.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion going on here.

There is no indication yet that Skadden, Latham and Cleary are not paying fall bonuses - so your facts are not fully accurate. (Also, as may other have already pointed out, Vault ranking doesn't solely have to do with compensation - and this fall bonus isn't about what associates "deserve" and which firm "deserves" to be in the V10).

I could be wrong (and hopefully so) but given Cravath has spoken, other firms will most likely wont be paying bonuses. I am not speaking for the OP but the point really isnt about the exact vault rankings (ie cravath should be ranked 11 now) but more about which firms are considered "peer firms". If this divergence in compensation becomes a trend (eg cravath lowers year end bonus but dpw matches last year), I just dont see how cravath and dpw (using them as examples) could be considered peer firms for law school students and laterals going forward.

I feel like "Cravath has spoken" matters less and less these days. Cravath doesn't seem like a compensation or industry leader anymore. Their model feels dated. Both their RPL and their PPP slipped from 2018 to 2019--on PPP they're almost out of the top-10 now whereas I can remember a few years ago they were neck and neck with Wachtell in the 1/2 spots. The last salary scale increase was initiated by Milbank, not Cravath. Davis Polk was the first major biglaw firm to solidify the fall bonus scale this year, not Cravath. Why should we, or the industry, care about what Cravath "says" at this point?