Do you think a $20k raise is generous? Forum

[WinSome]

Just to echo what someone else said above. 180k for someone without much experience is tons of money.. no matter how you slice it. obviously this fact shouldn't stop us from demanding more (because it is always in our self interest to demand more) but 180k is "generous" given work exp/qol relative to other industries. I think the bigger issue is the law school tuition... it is just ridiculously expensive and it is the enormous amount of student loans that seem to distort our perception of how "generous" biglaw salary is. If we were all heading into biglaw with 50k or less in student loans. Even 160k would seem generous.

Investment bankers make low to mid $100k out of college. $180k is not generous for three years of professional school and bar admission.

$180k is more than 98% of the population. For an entry-level position, that is insane. Did you have the opportunity to be an investment banker coming out of college? I know I did not have pedigree for those positions. I was a liberal arts major who was looking at a low paying job. Sure I went through three years of law school and took out a lot of debt, but that does not make $180k for an entry-level job any less insane. I will be able to service that debt faster than I would have been able to service my undergrad debt alone coming out of undergrad. I will be making more than both of my parents combined. Would I like more? Sure. But I am lucky to have the job I got and will be in much better position than most law grads. I wouldn't say the firms are "generous" for raising salary because they are all motivated by their own self-interest. However, I am gracious that I will be making $20k more than I thought I would when I accepted, and I am lucky that I have an entry-level job lined up that starts at $180k with guaranteed raises based on class year if I can stick around.

I keep it all in perspective. I was also a libarts major making $17/hr in my job before law school. I was incredibly stoked to make $160k, let alone $180k. It's an insane amount of money and my debt load isn't as bad as some. But I'd hardly call firms giving the first raise in nearly a decade "generous". I won't call actual compensation being lower than it was pre-recession even with the $20k raise "generous". I don't think NFL owners are "generous" for giving a player $63 million guaranteed. You have to keep it in perspective.

Using the term "entry level" is disingenuous. Not all entry level positions were created equal. An entry level pediatric surgeon making $180k wouldn't be grateful for the generosity. They would be outraged at being severely underpaid by several tens of thousands of dollars.

I never said they were generous. They are self-interested and I said so in my post. Entry-level might be slightly misleading for professional school positions, but I'd argue it is fairly accurate for law positions. A surgeon still has to do a residency for several years at low pat to get experience before starting as a full surgeon. Attorneys are basically entry-level because the only real legal experience the entry-levels have coming in is their summer position. Those 10 weeks are not real experience like doctors get in their residency for years. Also, the pay for a summer is still the same as first year unlike the medical profession.

[Anonymous User]

Sure, by definition Cravath moved because it felt that by that point it would make more money in the long run by raising salaries. But the only means Cravath had that impulse first. I wouldn't call it "unique" if all the peer firms had the same issues (midlevel retention) that would have made their unilateral raises imminent anyway.

Basically, just because Cravath won the race doesn't mean ten other horses aren't on the same track.

I don't think other firms have as big of a midlevel retention problem as Cravath.

Remember, other firms can hire lateral associates to plug in their needs. Cravath has always said they do not hire lateral associates. (I'm not sure if that's necessarily true but let's take them at the word.) If that's the case, AND we combine that with the fact that they probably underhired for the c/o 2011 (present day fifth years) we get a unique, and serious understaffing issue for midlevels.

That's a problem that S&C, Simpson, etc. don't have.

I would note that every class of corporate associates above 3rd years at Cravath has fewer than 8 or fewer associates (29 total by my count). The corporate practice does not hire laterals (though specialists groups like executive comp do hire laterals from time to time). That being said, retention is only a part of why the partnership approved the raise. The other part is the partnership coming to an understanding of the size of associates' law school debt. At the end of the day, the raise was partly a function of fairness and partly a function of retention/recruiting.

[Anonymous User]

Just to echo what someone else said above. 180k for someone without much experience is tons of money.. no matter how you slice it. obviously this fact shouldn't stop us from demanding more (because it is always in our self interest to demand more) but 180k is "generous" given work exp/qol relative to other industries. I think the bigger issue is the law school tuition... it is just ridiculously expensive and it is the enormous amount of student loans that seem to distort our perception of how "generous" biglaw salary is. If we were all heading into biglaw with 50k or less in student loans. Even 160k would seem generous.

Investment bankers make low to mid $100k out of college. $180k is not generous for three years of professional school and bar admission.

$180k is more than 98% of the population. For an entry-level position, that is insane. Did you have the opportunity to be an investment banker coming out of college? I know I did not have pedigree for those positions. I was a liberal arts major who was looking at a low paying job. Sure I went through three years of law school and took out a lot of debt, but that does not make $180k for an entry-level job any less insane. I will be able to service that debt faster than I would have been able to service my undergrad debt alone coming out of undergrad. I will be making more than both of my parents combined. Would I like more? Sure. But I am lucky to have the job I got and will be in much better position than most law grads. I wouldn't say the firms are "generous" for raising salary because they are all motivated by their own self-interest. However, I am gracious that I will be making $20k more than I thought I would when I accepted, and I am lucky that I have an entry-level job lined up that starts at $180k with guaranteed raises based on class year if I can stick around.

I keep it all in perspective. I was also a libarts major making $17/hr in my job before law school. I was incredibly stoked to make $160k, let alone $180k. It's an insane amount of money and my debt load isn't as bad as some. But I'd hardly call firms giving the first raise in nearly a decade "generous". I won't call actual compensation being lower than it was pre-recession even with the $20k raise "generous". I don't think NFL owners are "generous" for giving a player $63 million guaranteed. You have to keep it in perspective.

Using the term "entry level" is disingenuous. Not all entry level positions were created equal. An entry level pediatric surgeon making $180k wouldn't be grateful for the generosity. They would be outraged at being severely underpaid by several tens of thousands of dollars.

I never said they were generous. They are self-interested and I said so in my post. Entry-level might be slightly misleading for professional school positions, but I'd argue it is fairly accurate for law positions. A surgeon still has to do a residency for several years at low pat to get experience before starting as a full surgeon. Attorneys are basically entry-level because the only real legal experience the entry-levels have coming in is their summer position. Those 10 weeks are not real experience like doctors get in their residency for years. Also, the pay for a summer is still the same as first year unlike the medical profession.

completely agree with above re entry level position label. doctors have to do residency. football players have to train for years (via school and college) before they make big bucks. unfortunately we all know the law schools dont really prepare its students for the real world and newly minted attorneys have to learn everything on the job. no real surprise that some clients bulk at paying for first years.

again, i never said the firms are "generous." they must have had some financial motive for the raise. but i just think 180k is a lot of money for an entry level position and i feel lucky and grateful.

[Anonymous User]

Just to echo what someone else said above. 180k for someone without much experience is tons of money.. no matter how you slice it. obviously this fact shouldn't stop us from demanding more (because it is always in our self interest to demand more) but 180k is "generous" given work exp/qol relative to other industries. I think the bigger issue is the law school tuition... it is just ridiculously expensive and it is the enormous amount of student loans that seem to distort our perception of how "generous" biglaw salary is. If we were all heading into biglaw with 50k or less in student loans. Even 160k would seem generous.

Investment bankers make low to mid $100k out of college. $180k is not generous for three years of professional school and bar admission.

$180k is more than 98% of the population. For an entry-level position, that is insane. Did you have the opportunity to be an investment banker coming out of college? I know I did not have pedigree for those positions. I was a liberal arts major who was looking at a low paying job. Sure I went through three years of law school and took out a lot of debt, but that does not make $180k for an entry-level job any less insane. I will be able to service that debt faster than I would have been able to service my undergrad debt alone coming out of undergrad. I will be making more than both of my parents combined. Would I like more? Sure. But I am lucky to have the job I got and will be in much better position than most law grads. I wouldn't say the firms are "generous" for raising salary because they are all motivated by their own self-interest. However, I am gracious that I will be making $20k more than I thought I would when I accepted, and I am lucky that I have an entry-level job lined up that starts at $180k with guaranteed raises based on class year if I can stick around.

Have you started working yet? I had the same opinion up until about six months in, when I pulled a couple of back-to-back 300+ hour months which also involved working for a psychotic partner, and I suddenly understood why all those associates on the internet were complaining about their comp being too low. And then that happened again a few months later and suddenly I was one of those associates.

If you are at a larger firm, expect several members of your class to just up and quit, regardless of the money.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Sure, by definition Cravath moved because it felt that by that point it would make more money in the long run by raising salaries. But the only means Cravath had that impulse first. I wouldn't call it "unique" if all the peer firms had the same issues (midlevel retention) that would have made their unilateral raises imminent anyway.

Basically, just because Cravath won the race doesn't mean ten other horses aren't on the same track.

I don't think other firms have as big of a midlevel retention problem as Cravath.

Remember, other firms can hire lateral associates to plug in their needs. Cravath has always said they do not hire lateral associates. (I'm not sure if that's necessarily true but let's take them at the word.) If that's the case, AND we combine that with the fact that they probably underhired for the c/o 2011 (present day fifth years) we get a unique, and serious understaffing issue for midlevels.

That's a problem that S&C, Simpson, etc. don't have.

Cravath has historically hired more summers to compensate for the no-laterals thing. E.g. Skadden NY has like 10% more associates but Cravath hired more summers last year. Certainly might present a problem for fifth, sixth and seventh years right now, but it wouldn't really explain why juniors got a pay bump.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I would note that every class of corporate associates above 3rd years at Cravath has fewer than 8 or fewer associates (29 total by my count). The corporate practice does not hire laterals (though specialists groups like executive comp do hire laterals from time to time). That being said, retention is only a part of why the partnership approved the raise. The other part is the partnership coming to an understanding of the size of associates' law school debt. At the end of the day, the raise was partly a function of fairness and partly a function of retention/recruiting.

LOL at a firm where the average partner still makes 20 times a first-year while at the same time giving them almost no chance to make it themselves talking about "fairness." Yeah, I'm sure someone finally JUST told the Cravath partnership how out of control school debt was in the past nine years; if only they'd known!

Raises don't have dick to do with "fairness", and a forced reaction to supply and demand doesn't make the Cravath partners anything besides self-interested chucklefucks.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Just to echo what someone else said above. 180k for someone without much experience is tons of money.. no matter how you slice it. obviously this fact shouldn't stop us from demanding more (because it is always in our self interest to demand more) but 180k is "generous" given work exp/qol relative to other industries. I think the bigger issue is the law school tuition... it is just ridiculously expensive and it is the enormous amount of student loans that seem to distort our perception of how "generous" biglaw salary is. If we were all heading into biglaw with 50k or less in student loans. Even 160k would seem generous.

Investment bankers make low to mid $100k out of college. $180k is not generous for three years of professional school and bar admission.

$180k is more than 98% of the population. For an entry-level position, that is insane. Did you have the opportunity to be an investment banker coming out of college? I know I did not have pedigree for those positions. I was a liberal arts major who was looking at a low paying job. Sure I went through three years of law school and took out a lot of debt, but that does not make $180k for an entry-level job any less insane. I will be able to service that debt faster than I would have been able to service my undergrad debt alone coming out of undergrad. I will be making more than both of my parents combined. Would I like more? Sure. But I am lucky to have the job I got and will be in much better position than most law grads. I wouldn't say the firms are "generous" for raising salary because they are all motivated by their own self-interest. However, I am gracious that I will be making $20k more than I thought I would when I accepted, and I am lucky that I have an entry-level job lined up that starts at $180k with guaranteed raises based on class year if I can stick around.

Have you started working yet? I had the same opinion up until about six months in, when I pulled a couple of back-to-back 300+ hour months which also involved working for a psychotic partner, and I suddenly understood why all those associates on the internet were complaining about their comp being too low. And then that happened again a few months later and suddenly I was one of those associates.

If you are at a larger firm, expect several members of your class to just up and quit, regardless of the money.

Forgot to mention this too. Two posters keep mentioning how at least doctors have training, etc. There are reasons why biglaw pays what it does. I really just don't get the sentiment of "I'm thankful because it's a lot of money." Yeah, it is, but that has no bearing on whether compensation is enough.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a bit confused why it's a partners fault that some of its associates took out sticker debt to go to Columbia. Should they pay different values based on how much student loans you have?

I get the job may suck no matter the salary but that doesn't mean it's not a high salary. It's not about fairness. Highly profitable businesses still lay low level pay low level wages. A lot of people just get used to making a certain income and that changes perspective. My parents never made what a first year associate makes and they worked their whole lives.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm a bit confused why it's a partners fault that some of its associates took out sticker debt to go to Columbia. Should they pay different values based on how much student loans you have?

Uh, it's not anyone's "fault" but if partners don't compensate associates in congruence with the debt loads then they really shouldn't complain or even be confused when only morons are going to law school.

[TLSModBot]

I think we can all agree the real problem here are the law schools increasing tuition by leaps and bounds while literally providing no useful service.

If there was any viable way to punish them besides just not contributing alumni donations I'd take it in a heartbeat.

[ticklemesilly]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

[WinSome]

Just to echo what someone else said above. 180k for someone without much experience is tons of money.. no matter how you slice it. obviously this fact shouldn't stop us from demanding more (because it is always in our self interest to demand more) but 180k is "generous" given work exp/qol relative to other industries. I think the bigger issue is the law school tuition... it is just ridiculously expensive and it is the enormous amount of student loans that seem to distort our perception of how "generous" biglaw salary is. If we were all heading into biglaw with 50k or less in student loans. Even 160k would seem generous.

Investment bankers make low to mid $100k out of college. $180k is not generous for three years of professional school and bar admission.

$180k is more than 98% of the population. For an entry-level position, that is insane. Did you have the opportunity to be an investment banker coming out of college? I know I did not have pedigree for those positions. I was a liberal arts major who was looking at a low paying job. Sure I went through three years of law school and took out a lot of debt, but that does not make $180k for an entry-level job any less insane. I will be able to service that debt faster than I would have been able to service my undergrad debt alone coming out of undergrad. I will be making more than both of my parents combined. Would I like more? Sure. But I am lucky to have the job I got and will be in much better position than most law grads. I wouldn't say the firms are "generous" for raising salary because they are all motivated by their own self-interest. However, I am gracious that I will be making $20k more than I thought I would when I accepted, and I am lucky that I have an entry-level job lined up that starts at $180k with guaranteed raises based on class year if I can stick around.

Have you started working yet? I had the same opinion up until about six months in, when I pulled a couple of back-to-back 300+ hour months which also involved working for a psychotic partner, and I suddenly understood why all those associates on the internet were complaining about their comp being too low. And then that happened again a few months later and suddenly I was one of those associates.

If you are at a larger firm, expect several members of your class to just up and quit, regardless of the money.

Yeah, I don't start until the fall, so I could be singing a different tune then.

[bk1]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

You can say that a 180k starting salary is "generous" (however you want to define that) while also saying that a 20k increase that doesn't even keep pace with inflation is not really "fair" (however you want to define that).

[LaLiLuLeLo]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

It's pretty amazing how apathetic people are in the U.S. when it comes to the employer-employee relationship. Sorry I don't really want to be a bootlicker and thank the Partner Pantheon every time they decide to drop a few more crumbs down to us mortals.

[rayiner]

Ha. You're like the worst kind of poster on TLS. The one who just says someone else is dumb or poor at something without saying why. But please, entertain me and do the math for me then (I became a lawyer for a reason remember). There are some assumptions built in:

Billable rate: $450
Average annual collected hours for associate: 2,500

Salary accounts for 14.22% of the margin for $160k. 16% of the margin for $180k.

That's wildly optimistic. Average hours billed in New York is probably 2,000 (lower in other markets that matched), and firm-wide realization rates are like 85%. For junior associates, it's probably more like 60-70% (many clients are straight-up refusing to pay for first-year associate work).

Hours collected for first through third-year associates is probably less than 1,500 outside WLRK and its ilk.

[Anonymous User]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

You can say that a 180k starting salary is "generous" (however you want to define that) while also saying that a 20k increase that doesn't even keep pace with inflation is not really "fair" (however you want to define that).

Sure, if you assume the year 2007 was the correct and proper baseline to which we should always measure against. But that's looking at the all time high. 20 years ago (when many of today's Partners were starting out) first year associates made like $80k which is a lot less adjusted for inflation than today's associates make.

[bk1]

LOL at people talking about the unfairness of a 180K starting salary. A bit out of touch, don't ya think?

You can say that a 180k starting salary is "generous" (however you want to define that) while also saying that a 20k increase that doesn't even keep pace with inflation is not really "fair" (however you want to define that).

Sure, if you assume the year 2007 was the correct and proper baseline to which we should always measure against. But that's looking at the all time high. 20 years ago (when many of today's Partners were starting out) first year associates made like $80k which is a lot less adjusted for inflation than today's associates make.

I don't necessarily disagree. My point is more that it's one thing to talk about the overall salary or in relation to the economy as a whole and another to talk about it in terms of change or in relation to the profits of the entity that pays that salary.

I will note that there's all sorts of changes that have happened: in law firm profits, in chances of attaining partnership, etc. I don't really know enough to have an informed opinion.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

The legal market has changed a lot in 20 years.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB86770487218509000

In the mid-90s the legal industry was booming. Profits were going up in the double digit percentage range. It's simply too one-dimensional to just say, "Associates made less in 1996 than they do today!". Since then, profits have skyrocketed. Cravath's PPP of $1.5 million is about $2.3 million today. However, their actual PPP is over $3.5 million. So the Cravaths of the world have been doing even better in the last 20 years. You should also advocate for a bigger piece of the pie, not meekly accept whatever they decide to give you.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I'm a bit confused why it's a partners fault that some of its associates took out sticker debt to go to Columbia. Should they pay different values based on how much student loans you have?

Uh, it's not anyone's "fault" but if partners don't compensate associates in congruence with the debt loads then they really shouldn't complain or even be confused when only morons are going to law school.

I don't think there is any real evidence that there is or will be a dearth of law students/grads who are "qualified" (i.e., well credentialed and not dumb as rocks) for biglaw. There will pretty much always be 500 Columbia grads available year in, year out, and if they were getting systematically dumber it would take a generation for anyone to notice and longer for anyone to care.

[Serett]

At no point does "generosity" enter into the equation. But more is better than less.

[TLSModBot]

So what I'm hearing is that 180K is a bullshit slap in our face and we should be outraged, OUTRAGED at the audacity of these greedy partners

[LaLiLuLeLo]

So what I'm hearing is that 180K is a bullshit slap in our face and we should be outraged, OUTRAGED at the audacity of these greedy partners

Remember, remember

190k in December

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm a bit confused why it's a partners fault that some of its associates took out sticker debt to go to Columbia. Should they pay different values based on how much student loans you have?

Uh, it's not anyone's "fault" but if partners don't compensate associates in congruence with the debt loads then they really shouldn't complain or even be confused when only morons are going to law school.

I don't think there is any real evidence that there is or will be a dearth of law students/grads who are "qualified" (i.e., well credentialed and not dumb as rocks) for biglaw. There will pretty much always be 500 Columbia grads available year in, year out, and if they were getting systematically dumber it would take a generation for anyone to notice and longer for anyone to care.

I say this every goddamn thread, but the trend is toward fewer and fewer high-achieving students, and that is eventually going to have some repercussions if nothing changes. It may very well take years, but something will have to give.

[yay]

The legal market has changed a lot in 20 years.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB86770487218509000

In the mid-90s the legal industry was booming. Profits were going up in the double digit percentage range. It's simply too one-dimensional to just say, "Associates made less in 1996 than they do today!". Since then, profits have skyrocketed. Cravath's PPP of $1.5 million is about $2.3 million today. However, their actual PPP is over $3.5 million. So the Cravaths of the world have been doing even better in the last 20 years. You should also advocate for a bigger piece of the pie, not meekly accept whatever they decide to give you.

Can employees really convincingly demand more profit sharing from employers? With what? I don't see the power dynamic in law firms any different than at a fast food joints. Bigfirms who set the salary nationally can do as they please as legal field has been and will continue to be employer's market.

[kryptix]

Another thing to remember is that a lot of the people who stick around to be senior also have the credentials to be bankers etc. I did several years on Wall Street before law and thankfully did not have student loan debt, I also had a good MCAT score... Not everyone in biglaw is a liberal arts major making 30k, and the money isn't the only reason that people choose to do it.