NY to 210k Forum

[britdude87]

Anyone get a pay increase today?

Yep my firm randomly gave me a bigger check today

[Necho2]

Anyone get a pay increase today?

Yep my firm randomly gave me a bigger check today

Did you just hit the SS deduction cap?

[objctnyrhnr]

Anyone get a pay increase today?

Yep my firm randomly gave me a bigger check today

...

More details are necessary.

[QContinuum]

Anyone get a pay increase today?

Yep my firm randomly gave me a bigger check today

Did you just hit the SS deduction cap?

Or maybe they hit their 401(k) contribution limit? Or maybe that check included some kind of taxable reimbursement? Or, perhaps, they miscalculated some deduction or other in previous check(s) - that's happened to me before, though it was only corrected after I complained.

No firm is going to "randomly" give someone a bonus without letting them know.

[yodamiked]

Anyone get a pay increase today?

Yep my firm randomly gave me a bigger check today

Did you just hit the SS deduction cap?

Or maybe they hit their 401(k) contribution limit? Or maybe that check included some kind of taxable reimbursement? Or, perhaps, they miscalculated some deduction or other in previous check(s) - that's happened to me before, though it was only corrected after I complained.

No firm is going to "randomly" give someone a bonus without letting them know.

I could be wrong, but pretty sure that was meant to be sarcasm.

[ThomasLocke]

NY to 210k is inevitable in my opinion. Law firms are in a desolate competition for talent and millennials are increasingly not interested in careers in biglaw that lack larger meaning/public good component and work life balance. The allure of being a fancy professional in a big firm with a cool office and clients used to do a lot of heavy lifting. Today the law is seen as an outdated profession with a bad business model and people at the top who are out of touch. The only thing that’s drawing people to it is money and the pull is ultimately not THAT strong.
If we were still at 160k, everyone outside the V10 would be competing for students with 160 LSATs who majored in underwater basket weaving.

[Samark45]

NY to 210k is inevitable in my opinion. Law firms are in a desolate competition for talent and millennials are increasingly not interested in careers in biglaw that lack larger meaning/public good component and work life balance. The allure of being a fancy professional in a big firm with a cool office and clients used to do a lot of heavy lifting. Today the law is seen as an outdated profession with a bad business model and people at the top who are out of touch. The only thing that’s drawing people to it is money and the pull is ultimately not THAT strong.
If we were still at 160k, everyone outside the V10 would be competing for students with 160 LSATs who majored in underwater basket weaving.

I don't think this read on the market is accurate. A lot of people go to law school because they (a) don't have the self-knowledge to find some other form of satisfying employment or (b) don't have the competence/ability to find some other form of better-paying employment (i.e., in a finance-related area). Law school is still a relatively safe harbor for risk-averse people, and there's no shortage of risk-averse people willing to go into structured jobs that don't require technical skills. The college grads with the skills to get tech/finance/business jobs aren't Big Law's target. If salaries increase, it won't be because firms need help finding people to do red lines or file signature pages or run Westlaw searches.

[Chrstgtr]

NY to 210k is inevitable in my opinion. Law firms are in a desolate competition for talent and millennials are increasingly not interested in careers in biglaw that lack larger meaning/public good component and work life balance. The allure of being a fancy professional in a big firm with a cool office and clients used to do a lot of heavy lifting. Today the law is seen as an outdated profession with a bad business model and people at the top who are out of touch. The only thing that’s drawing people to it is money and the pull is ultimately not THAT strong.
If we were still at 160k, everyone outside the V10 would be competing for students with 160 LSATs who majored in underwater basket weaving.

I don't think this read on the market is accurate. A lot of people go to law school because they (a) don't have the self-knowledge to find some other form of satisfying employment or (b) don't have the competence/ability to find some other form of better-paying employment (i.e., in a finance-related area). Law school is still a relatively safe harbor for risk-averse people, and there's no shortage of risk-averse people willing to go into structured jobs that don't require technical skills. The college grads with the skills to get tech/finance/business jobs aren't Big Law's target. If salaries increase, it won't be because firms need help finding people to do red lines or file signature pages or run Westlaw searches.

The first year class of 2019, which still hasn't started yet, decided to go to law school when we were at 160K. Most people decide to go to law school for the money and those that didn't weren't going to change their mind when it went from 160K to 180K. I think it is pretty clear the above description is inaccurate.

[dabigchina]

There will always be a steady supply for T14 grads for large law firms.

Even 160k starting sounds great if you've never practiced law and don't understand the amount of effort to put in, or the personalities that you have to put up with to make 160k. I've talked to engineers who make 100k+ out of undergrad who seem to think my life is great because i make 190 base and can't imagine why I'm not thrilled about my job.

[jkpolk]

This may be obvious, but there are a lot of pressures pulling people away from their status quo law firm jobs. In-house jobs are increasingly plentiful and reasonably well compensated. Money mustache/early retirement folks are an increasingly large subset of the millennial law firm types. With a "humming economy" (or "the occurrence of decadent, late stage capitalism", whichever you prefer) big law job openings for well credentialed candidates are plentiful and many offer big signing bonuses. Salary increases, retention bonuses, etc. are required for firms to keep strong attorneys from leaving the profession/their roles. Equally as obvious, none of the above pressures are applicable to first year attorney salaries (in-house could be, but we're not there yet).

[Clytemnestra3]

Agree with the above. Raises should be concentrated at the 3-7 year level. At that level you have enough experience to get a job outside biglaw that pays well. I would think law firms would want to encourage those people to stay and creating greater separation in compensation is one way to do that.

It doesn’t look like any bump is happening this year, but I could see it happening next year.

[eng2law]

Agreed. Seems like the Cravath model of paying head and shoulders above what you would otherwise make to make money a non-issue is failing, at least in the big cities. Comp at the top companies (esp tech, internet) has grown leaps and bounds -- at least doubled during the same time that 1 yr associate comp has gone from 160 to 190. I remember 160 being like director-level pay at the top companies back in 2006/2007. Now director-level pay is WAY WAY above 190. Makes more sense for the companies to bring legal work in house now.

[NoLongerALurker]

I guess any progress is good progress. . . https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/dla-pip ... ary-raise/

(warning: don't get hopes up too high based on URL / thread title, but still think this goes here)

[Anonymous User]

I guess any progress is good progress. . . https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/dla-pip ... ary-raise/

(warning: don't get hopes up too high based on URL / thread title, but still think this goes here)

As a previous DLA associate...uhh, wut? I was not in NYC or SF but was getting paid market. Not sure what this changes. I know not all offices got market but unclear to me which ones were the beneficiaries of this. Then again, I always thought DLA got a bit of a pass for not paying market in all offices...what other biglaw firms have an office in freakin' Baltimore?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I guess any progress is good progress. . . https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/dla-pip ... ary-raise/

(warning: don't get hopes up too high based on URL / thread title, but still think this goes here)

As a previous DLA associate...uhh, wut? I was not in NYC or SF but was getting paid market. Not sure what this changes. I know not all offices got market but unclear to me which ones were the beneficiaries of this. Then again, I always thought DLA got a bit of a pass for not paying market in all offices...what other biglaw firms have an office in freakin' Baltimore?

TWO offices in Baltimore, LOL.

IDK who this raise affects (what is a "major market" for them?) but rest assured DLA is still not paying market wages in its major offices.

[Anonymous User]

I guess any progress is good progress. . . https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/dla-pip ... ary-raise/

(warning: don't get hopes up too high based on URL / thread title, but still think this goes here)

As a previous DLA associate...uhh, wut? I was not in NYC or SF but was getting paid market. Not sure what this changes. I know not all offices got market but unclear to me which ones were the beneficiaries of this. Then again, I always thought DLA got a bit of a pass for not paying market in all offices...what other biglaw firms have an office in freakin' Baltimore?

TWO offices in Baltimore, LOL.

IDK who this raise affects (what is a "major market" for them?) but rest assured DLA is still not paying market wages in its major offices.

Same anon. I got market salary and bonus. Not a high biller or a superstar. Salary was lockstep. I could see bonus being the devil in the details, but not really sure.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I guess any progress is good progress. . . https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/dla-pip ... ary-raise/

(warning: don't get hopes up too high based on URL / thread title, but still think this goes here)

As a previous DLA associate...uhh, wut? I was not in NYC or SF but was getting paid market. Not sure what this changes. I know not all offices got market but unclear to me which ones were the beneficiaries of this. Then again, I always thought DLA got a bit of a pass for not paying market in all offices...what other biglaw firms have an office in freakin' Baltimore?

TWO offices in Baltimore, LOL.

IDK who this raise affects (what is a "major market" for them?) but rest assured DLA is still not paying market wages in its major offices.

Same anon. I got market salary and bonus. Not a high biller or a superstar. Salary was lockstep. I could see bonus being the devil in the details, but not really sure.

...since when did DLA pay the fall bonus?

[clone22]

Since someone necro'd this thread - damn, this has aged like fine milk. I read the first few posts thinking they're from Jan 2021.

We are all probably at equilibrium in terms of associate comp. Some firms (and practices) are super slammed - others seem to be kind of sliding by.

If I had to venture a guess - the WFH trend will put a downward pressure on associate salaries (so salaries won't drop, but won't advance for a while). Part of the reason high-cost markets like NYC and SF paid so much was the high cost of living within a commutable distance from the office. With full or at least partial WFH, the "reasonable" commuter distance expands (think people moving from downtown to outer burbs of NYC, or across the bay in SF), so people's housing costs shrink.

[nickofdime]

Since someone necro'd this thread - damn, this has aged like fine milk. I read the first few posts thinking they're from Jan 2021.

We are all probably at equilibrium in terms of associate comp. Some firms (and practices) are super slammed - others seem to be kind of sliding by.

If I had to venture a guess - the WFH trend will put a downward pressure on associate salaries (so salaries won't drop, but won't advance for a while). Part of the reason high-cost markets like NYC and SF paid so much was the high cost of living within a commutable distance from the office. With full or at least partial WFH, the "reasonable" commuter distance expands (think people moving from downtown to outer burbs of NYC, or across the bay in SF), so people's housing costs shrink.

While probably true initially, now biglaw pays the same in LCOL cities as well. So that argument may not work any longer.

[Anonymous User]

Since someone necro'd this thread - damn, this has aged like fine milk. I read the first few posts thinking they're from Jan 2021.

We are all probably at equilibrium in terms of associate comp. Some firms (and practices) are super slammed - others seem to be kind of sliding by.

If I had to venture a guess - the WFH trend will put a downward pressure on associate salaries (so salaries won't drop, but won't advance for a while). Part of the reason high-cost markets like NYC and SF paid so much was the high cost of living within a commutable distance from the office. With full or at least partial WFH, the "reasonable" commuter distance expands (think people moving from downtown to outer burbs of NYC, or across the bay in SF), so people's housing costs shrink.

While probably true initially, now biglaw pays the same in LCOL cities as well. So that argument may not work any longer.

IIRC Cravath moved to 180 at least in part because associates successfully convinced partners that they couldn’t afford to live close to the office on 160. Partners aren’t raising comp unless (1) they think it will help them by keeping associates around and/or billing more frequently or (2) some other firm did (1) and they’re matching.

[Anonymous User]

Since someone necro'd this thread - damn, this has aged like fine milk. I read the first few posts thinking they're from Jan 2021.

We are all probably at equilibrium in terms of associate comp. Some firms (and practices) are super slammed - others seem to be kind of sliding by.

If I had to venture a guess - the WFH trend will put a downward pressure on associate salaries (so salaries won't drop, but won't advance for a while). Part of the reason high-cost markets like NYC and SF paid so much was the high cost of living within a commutable distance from the office. With full or at least partial WFH, the "reasonable" commuter distance expands (think people moving from downtown to outer burbs of NYC, or across the bay in SF), so people's housing costs shrink.

While probably true initially, now biglaw pays the same in LCOL cities as well. So that argument may not work any longer.

IIRC Cravath moved to 180 at least in part because associates successfully convinced partners that they couldn’t afford to live close to the office on 160. Partners aren’t raising comp unless (1) they think it will help them by keeping associates around and/or billing more frequently or (2) some other firm did (1) and they’re matching.

So if rents are generally falling in NYC — that’s the narrative, whether or not it’s empirically true — that would seem to make (1) less likely? I mean, that would have some downward impact on comp even apart from all the discussion of associates relocating to lower COL areas

It’ll be interesting to see if the special bonuses make a return in 2021

[Anonymous User]

Since someone necro'd this thread - damn, this has aged like fine milk. I read the first few posts thinking they're from Jan 2021.

We are all probably at equilibrium in terms of associate comp. Some firms (and practices) are super slammed - others seem to be kind of sliding by.

If I had to venture a guess - the WFH trend will put a downward pressure on associate salaries (so salaries won't drop, but won't advance for a while). Part of the reason high-cost markets like NYC and SF paid so much was the high cost of living within a commutable distance from the office. With full or at least partial WFH, the "reasonable" commuter distance expands (think people moving from downtown to outer burbs of NYC, or across the bay in SF), so people's housing costs shrink.

While probably true initially, now biglaw pays the same in LCOL cities as well. So that argument may not work any longer.

IIRC Cravath moved to 180 at least in part because associates successfully convinced partners that they couldn’t afford to live close to the office on 160. Partners aren’t raising comp unless (1) they think it will help them by keeping associates around and/or billing more frequently or (2) some other firm did (1) and they’re matching.

So if rents are generally falling in NYC — that’s the narrative, whether or not it’s empirically true — that would seem to make (1) less likely? I mean, that would have some downward impact on comp even apart from all the discussion of associates relocating to lower COL areas

It’ll be interesting to see if the special bonuses make a return in 2021

I think so, because my read is that there is little to no incentive for a firm to be a first mover on comp to either gain prestige or a higher associate quality. For prestige, is there really any impact? Did Milbank get a Vault boost for moving first most recently? And for associate quality, the knowledge that every single peer firm will match any move you make, down to the penny, means that there’s no incentive to try to compete on compensation for better employee talent.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I think so, because my read is that there is little to no incentive for a firm to be a first mover on comp to either gain prestige or a higher associate quality. For prestige, is there really any impact? Did Milbank get a Vault boost for moving first most recently? And for associate quality, the knowledge that every single peer firm will match any move you make, down to the penny, means that there’s no incentive to try to compete on compensation for better employee talent.

I keep trying to tell people that raising comp is about keeping your associates from leaving Biglaw entirely rather than trying to draw in new associates. People don't seem to have gotten the memo.

[Anonymous User]

I guess any progress is good progress. . . https://abovethelaw.com/2021/03/dla-pip ... ary-raise/

(warning: don't get hopes up too high based on URL / thread title, but still think this goes here)

As a previous DLA associate...uhh, wut? I was not in NYC or SF but was getting paid market. Not sure what this changes. I know not all offices got market but unclear to me which ones were the beneficiaries of this. Then again, I always thought DLA got a bit of a pass for not paying market in all offices...what other biglaw firms have an office in freakin' Baltimore?

TWO offices in Baltimore, LOL.

IDK who this raise affects (what is a "major market" for them?) but rest assured DLA is still not paying market wages in its major offices.

Same anon. I got market salary and bonus. Not a high biller or a superstar. Salary was lockstep. I could see bonus being the devil in the details, but not really sure.

...since when did DLA pay the fall bonus?

Dunno, guess they didn't. Didn't work there for the fall bonus. Up until then, I was getting market pay. But my sense is it's completely office dependent with no rhyme or reason.

[Anonymous User]

I think so, because my read is that there is little to no incentive for a firm to be a first mover on comp to either gain prestige or a higher associate quality. For prestige, is there really any impact? Did Milbank get a Vault boost for moving first most recently? And for associate quality, the knowledge that every single peer firm will match any move you make, down to the penny, means that there’s no incentive to try to compete on compensation for better employee talent.

I keep trying to tell people that raising comp is about keeping your associates from leaving Biglaw entirely rather than trying to draw in new associates. People don't seem to have gotten the memo.

Is it though? Because when the pay goes up, the hourly expectations go up to. Explicitly in places with hours targets, and impliedly at firms without them. Obviously more money is better than less money all things being equal, but if you raise the intensity of billing to keep pace with higher salaries so that partners don't take a profits hit, doesn't that just leave the associate in the same place in terms of wanting to leave biglaw? Or maybe more inclined, since you have even less quality of life time.

I was just getting drinks with a law school friend who works in government. I said I would definitely take a 50% paycut for a 50% hours cut. He paused and said he would definitely take a 50% hours increase for a 50% pay increase. It was a funny moment of being on the exact same wavelength but in completely different positions.

Anyway, no way salaries are going up. Maybe mid-year bonuses, but I doubt it.