NY to 200k?! Forum

[nealric]

Any Texas people have insight on that market? It'll be interesting to see if the Baker Botts/Bracewell types are still able to match the national firms. I'm assuming they will because they can't let KE, Latham and V&E outbid them, but it's got to be getting tougher.

BB will match. They're hemorrhaging laterals across the board to the new Big 3 of KE/VE/Latham - if they don't, it's the death knell for the legacy firms.

No idea about Bracewell though. They likely will, but they aren't competing in the same sphere anymore.

BB was sub-market for a while with their tiered (rather than class year) model.

I don't think legacy firms like BB are going away, but they may be pretty firmly in the second tier (if they aren't already). V&E seems to be the only one that's really managed to keep up in the new national firm run environment. Still, I think BB matches.

Not sure Bracewell ever really competed all that directly with the top firms. They've always been a step below the big 3 (even as the identity of the big 3 has changed). But I think there's a reasonable likelihood they match.

Where the second tier tends not to match is at bonus time. They either explicitly don't match, individualize bonuses, or impose requirements such that only a small portion of the class actually gets market bonus.

Below the Bracewell tier, there may be a 1st year match with compression thereafter. Problem is you go too far down in profitability, and the spread between a senior associate and jr. partner becomes slim to non-existent. It's pretty common to effectively take a paycut and these firms after marking partner due to the equity buy-in.

[Anonymous User]

Have heard confirmation from multiple sources at Skadden that there will be something else announced today unrelated to the salary increase. Haven’t heard confirmation that this will be the retention bonuses yet but fingers crossed.

Can you give a little more color? At Skadden and have not heard anything ... might be OOTL.

Read pages 19 & 20 of this thread. There were a few posts about possible retention bonuses at one or more V10s with more color. Safe to say Skadden was one of the firms being discussed.

Might just be for mid levels and seniors. My contacts at Skadden are both mid-seniors and were told by partners today that separate great news was coming with the salary increase.

Excellent...hopefully annualizing at 2000 will be enough for these. My first few months were a bit slow but has been crazy lately.

Can confirm a midlevel at skadden was told she was “at the cusp, so make sure your hours are in” recently when she was annualizing approx 2000.

[Anonymous User]

Re: DC, firms like Gibson, Kirkland, Skadden, Simpson etc. will all have to match as well. I see no possible world where they don’t, which would mean a lot of pressure on the native DC firms.

Absolutely those rich firms will match, including in their DC offices, but it wasn't that long ago that native DC firms paid less than NYC market and you'd make more going to Gibson in DC than Hogan in DC. It took a break in inertia for DC to move to NYC market, and the successive salary raises/bonuses might be what it takes to break the inertia the other direction and finally have DC firms (with their lower PPP thanks to regulatory) accept their second-tier status and stop recruiting from T6 (at least the top half of classes at T6).

Trust me I don't want this to happen, but I don't think the possibility can be entirely discounted. Especially since Hogan tried to screw around with 2020 special bonuses, Covington tried to screw around with 2021 special bonuses, and AP straight-up didn't pay 2020 special bonuses at all. These firms are already walking a fine line between market and below market.

[topherdane]

Have heard confirmation from multiple sources at Skadden that there will be something else announced today unrelated to the salary increase. Haven’t heard confirmation that this will be the retention bonuses yet but fingers crossed.

Can you give a little more color? At Skadden and have not heard anything ... might be OOTL.

Read pages 19 & 20 of this thread. There were a few posts about possible retention bonuses at one or more V10s with more color. Safe to say Skadden was one of the firms being discussed.

Might just be for mid levels and seniors. My contacts at Skadden are both mid-seniors and were told by partners today that separate great news was coming with the salary increase.

Excellent...hopefully annualizing at 2000 will be enough for these. My first few months were a bit slow but has been crazy lately.

Can confirm a midlevel at skadden was told she was “at the cusp, so make sure your hours are in” recently when she was annualizing approx 2000.

I have heard the number 2,000 exactly from someone at Skadden. That would make sense, as it's a little higher than the (I think) 1,800 bonus requirement but not unreasonably higher. These would be well-designed to stop heavily worked people from leaving.

[Anonymous User]

Any Texas people have insight on that market? It'll be interesting to see if the Baker Botts/Bracewell types are still able to match the national firms. I'm assuming they will because they can't let KE, Latham and V&E outbid them, but it's got to be getting tougher.

BB will match. They're hemorrhaging laterals across the board to the new Big 3 of KE/VE/Latham - if they don't, it's the death knell for the legacy firms.

No idea about Bracewell though. They likely will, but they aren't competing in the same sphere anymore.

BB was sub-market for a while with their tiered (rather than class year) model.

I don't think legacy firms like BB are going away, but they may be pretty firmly in the second tier (if they aren't already). V&E seems to be the only one that's really managed to keep up in the new national firm run environment. Still, I think BB matches.

Not sure Bracewell ever really competed all that directly with the top firms. They've always been a step below the big 3 (even as the identity of the big 3 has changed). But I think there's a reasonable likelihood they match.

Where the second tier tends not to match is at bonus time. They either explicitly don't match, individualize bonuses, or impose requirements such that only a small portion of the class actually gets market bonus.

Below the Bracewell tier, there may be a 1st year match with compression thereafter. Problem is you go too far down in profitability, and the spread between a senior associate and jr. partner becomes slim to non-existent. It's pretty common to effectively take a paycut and these firms after marking partner due to the equity buy-in.

Bracewell dragged their feet on special bonuses but finally matched. They are bleeding associates due to a conservative environment that discourages working from home, failure to take COVID seriously after January 2021 (some groups were requiring associates to come in daily starting in January), and failure to pay special bonuses (at first). I guess they realized they had to match special bonuses to stop the bleeding.

I assume they will match this as well, but they'll drag their feet. Other Texas firms in the Bracewell tier (which I agree is a step below Kirkland/Latham/V&E) like Hunton Andrews Kurth matched special bonuses, so I assume those firms will match the salary increase as well.

[Anonymous User]

Have heard confirmation from multiple sources at Skadden that there will be something else announced today unrelated to the salary increase. Haven’t heard confirmation that this will be the retention bonuses yet but fingers crossed.

Can you give a little more color? At Skadden and have not heard anything ... might be OOTL.

Read pages 19 & 20 of this thread. There were a few posts about possible retention bonuses at one or more V10s with more color. Safe to say Skadden was one of the firms being discussed.

Might just be for mid levels and seniors. My contacts at Skadden are both mid-seniors and were told by partners today that separate great news was coming with the salary increase.

Excellent...hopefully annualizing at 2000 will be enough for these. My first few months were a bit slow but has been crazy lately.

Can confirm a midlevel at skadden was told she was “at the cusp, so make sure your hours are in” recently when she was annualizing approx 2000.

I have heard the number 2,000 exactly from someone at Skadden. That would make sense, as it's a little higher than the (I think) 1,800 bonus requirement but not unreasonably higher. These would be well-designed to stop heavily worked people from leaving.

lol I hope it's calculated at the end of June...I will get right there by then. A little short as of May.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who works at Skadden I haven't heard anything about this, but I am in a non-NY office, so that may have something to do with it.

[Anonymous User]

It took a break in inertia for DC to move to NYC market, and the successive salary raises/bonuses might be what it takes to break the inertia the other direction and finally have DC firms (with their lower PPP thanks to regulatory) accept their second-tier status and stop recruiting from T6 (at least the top half of classes at T6).

DC firms could pay less than NY and still not have "second tier status." Pretty much every associate at a good DC firm could be at one of equal or better prestige in NY. It's a numbers game and tons of people - for tons of reasons - would rather be in DC than NY, but NY simply has so many more positions for associates than DC does. I am sure many of them would take a small pay cut and still do so (since it would be washed out by COL differences and then some, anyway).

It helps that lots of the work done in DC is either not done elsewhere or is nowhere near as busy/prestigious/whatever in other markets - regulatory, lots of flavors of lit including appeals, etc.

This is irrelevant anyway because Hogan and Covington will match (A&P, who knows). The non-native firms in DC are growing in size and in practice groups and their associates would get instantly plucked by Gibson/Kirkland/Skadden if they didn't match.

[Anonymous User]

It took a break in inertia for DC to move to NYC market, and the successive salary raises/bonuses might be what it takes to break the inertia the other direction and finally have DC firms (with their lower PPP thanks to regulatory) accept their second-tier status and stop recruiting from T6 (at least the top half of classes at T6).

DC firms could pay less than NY and still not have "second tier status." Pretty much every associate at a good DC firm could be at one of equal or better prestige in NY. It's a numbers game and tons of people - for tons of reasons - would rather be in DC than NY, but NY simply has so many more positions for associates than DC does. I am sure many of them would take a small pay cut and still do so (since it would be washed out by COL differences and then some, anyway).

It helps that lots of the work done in DC is either not done elsewhere or is nowhere near as busy/prestigious/whatever in other markets - regulatory, lots of flavors of lit including appeals, etc.

This is irrelevant anyway because Hogan and Covington will match (A&P, who knows). The non-native firms in DC are growing in size and in practice groups and their associates would get instantly plucked by Gibson/Kirkland/Skadden if they didn't match.

A&P matched 2021 special bonuses before any other DC native firms. The Hogan 2020 bonus references are inaccurate. Hogan imposed an absurd scale to obtain any of that 2020 bonus and never paid out the full special bonus to anyone. Also, Hogan cut salaries in 2020 while CovingTTTon and Arnold & PorTTTer did not.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who works at Skadden I haven't heard anything about this, but I am in a non-NY office, so that may have something to do with it.

Constantly checking email to see this email...come on already.

[Anonymous User]

O’Melvney matched the DPW scale by voicemail.

[Anonymous User]

It took a break in inertia for DC to move to NYC market, and the successive salary raises/bonuses might be what it takes to break the inertia the other direction and finally have DC firms (with their lower PPP thanks to regulatory) accept their second-tier status and stop recruiting from T6 (at least the top half of classes at T6).

DC firms could pay less than NY and still not have "second tier status." Pretty much every associate at a good DC firm could be at one of equal or better prestige in NY. It's a numbers game and tons of people - for tons of reasons - would rather be in DC than NY, but NY simply has so many more positions for associates than DC does. I am sure many of them would take a small pay cut and still do so (since it would be washed out by COL differences and then some, anyway).

It helps that lots of the work done in DC is either not done elsewhere or is nowhere near as busy/prestigious/whatever in other markets - regulatory, lots of flavors of lit including appeals, etc.

This is irrelevant anyway because Hogan and Covington will match (A&P, who knows). The non-native firms in DC are growing in size and in practice groups and their associates would get instantly plucked by Gibson/Kirkland/Skadden if they didn't match.

A&P matched 2021 special bonuses before any other DC native firms. The Hogan 2020 bonus references are inaccurate. Hogan imposed an absurd scale to obtain any of that 2020 bonus and never paid out the full special bonus to anyone. Also, Hogan cut salaries in 2020 while CovingTTTon and Arnold & PorTTTer did not.

Exactly. And as far as I know, Hogan didn't have some mass exodus of associates during the period when salaries were cut (I understand they were paid back). Obviously there are differences, particularly in the lateral market, between June 2020 and June 2021, but Hogan's behavior in 2020 (and Covington's in 2021) is reason to believe the DC firms are willing to take a lateraling and recruiting hit in order to keep more money in partners' pockets.

Maybe Hogan's corporate group would be devastated if they didn't match, but it's worth remembering that Covington and Hogan are HUGE in DC, like 400+ associates or something, whereas the Skaddens and Gibsons of the world I think are 100-200 in DC, so it's not like all the DC firm associates could flee to DC outposts of national firms if/when their employers cheap out and refuse to match.

[shubie93]

Just saw Boies announced DPW-scale match on ATL (https://abovethelaw.com/2021/06/bsf-rai ... e=hs_email).

[Anonymous User]

Maybe Hogan's corporate group would be devastated if they didn't match, but it's worth remembering that Covington and Hogan are HUGE in DC, like 400+ associates or something, whereas the Skaddens and Gibsons of the world I think are 100-200 in DC, so it's not like all the DC firm associates could flee to DC outposts of national firms if/when their employers cheap out and refuse to match.

But they may flee to other markets. I guess some people can be that dead-set on DC, but there is definitely a nonnegligible number of people who would choose, for example, S&C in NY rather than Hogan or Cov DC if there is actually a $15k difference in compensation. I would be shocked if at least Cov did not match--it ultimately just toes the median line despite grumbling about it.

[Anonymous User]

When I was a law student, I was pretty excited to see raises from 160K to 180K to 190K...now while I definitely like more money, the raise doesn't excite me at all. Like a few hundred bucks more a month...for the asaps and all-nighters and 250 billable hrs, while charging clients this much for an hour of my time?

[Anonymous User]

Maybe Hogan's corporate group would be devastated if they didn't match, but it's worth remembering that Covington and Hogan are HUGE in DC, like 400+ associates or something, whereas the Skaddens and Gibsons of the world I think are 100-200 in DC, so it's not like all the DC firm associates could flee to DC outposts of national firms if/when their employers cheap out and refuse to match.

But they may flee to other markets. I guess some people can be that dead-set on DC, but there is definitely a nonnegligible number of people who would choose, for example, S&C in NY rather than Hogan or Cov DC if there is actually a $15k difference in compensation. I would be shocked if at least Cov did not match--it ultimately just toes the median line despite grumbling about it.

Some firms are also offering full remote to lateral hires.

[Anonymous User]

O’Melvney matched the DPW scale by voicemail.

Nice, but why not just send an individualized fax to every associate?

[Anonymous User]

When I was a law student, I was pretty excited to see raises from 160K to 180K to 190K...now while I definitely like more money, the raise doesn't excite me at all. Like a few hundred bucks more a month...for the asaps and all-nighters and 250 billable hrs, while charging clients this much for an hour of my time?

And this is why people are still leaving. The actual thing that would improve retention especially for mid-level and senior associates (but which firms don't want to do because it would affect their profitability), is to provide associates with a clear path to equity partnership that they could at least follow and understand rather than making it an opaque and confusing process that feels like a mix of Game of Thrones and a lottery. People don't put up with biglaw for an extra $800 per month after taxes when average PPP is $4m. It also wouldn't be such a bad idea to, you know, not work people to death to fill the profits of a partnership that, as things currently stand, they realize they have almost no chance of joining.

[TigerIsBack]

When are the big players going to make an announcement so the rest of the shops can all fall into line with whatever ends up being market? Is this just a game of chicken and if so, how long can this continue (while Milbank now continues to most certainly rule the roost in Manhattan)?

[nealric]

When I was a law student, I was pretty excited to see raises from 160K to 180K to 190K...now while I definitely like more money, the raise doesn't excite me at all. Like a few hundred bucks more a month...for the asaps and all-nighters and 250 billable hrs, while charging clients this much for an hour of my time?

And this is why people are still leaving. The actual thing that would improve retention especially for mid-level and senior associates (but which firms don't want to do because it would affect their profitability), is to provide associates with a clear path to equity partnership that they could at least follow and understand rather than making it an opaque and confusing process that feels like a mix of Game of Thrones and a lottery. People don't put up with biglaw for an extra $800 per month after taxes when average PPP is $4m. It also wouldn't be such a bad idea to, you know, not work people to death to fill the profits of a partnership that, as things currently stand, they realize they have almost no chance of joining.

Even with a 100% contractually binding guarantee of partnership, they'd still lose a decent amount of people who just don't want to live that biglaw lifestyle anymore.

[Anonymous User]

Hueston Hennigan matched DPW

[TigerIsBack]

When I was a law student, I was pretty excited to see raises from 160K to 180K to 190K...now while I definitely like more money, the raise doesn't excite me at all. Like a few hundred bucks more a month...for the asaps and all-nighters and 250 billable hrs, while charging clients this much for an hour of my time?

And this is why people are still leaving. The actual thing that would improve retention especially for mid-level and senior associates (but which firms don't want to do because it would affect their profitability), is to provide associates with a clear path to equity partnership that they could at least follow and understand rather than making it an opaque and confusing process that feels like a mix of Game of Thrones and a lottery. People don't put up with biglaw for an extra $800 per month after taxes when average PPP is $4m. It also wouldn't be such a bad idea to, you know, not work people to death to fill the profits of a partnership that, as things currently stand, they realize they have almost no chance of joining.

Even with a 100% contractually binding guarantee of partnership, they'd still lose a decent amount of people who just don't want to live that biglaw lifestyle anymore.

Totally agree. For most people that I see leaving firms to go in-house or anywhere else but another big firm, it's not usually because partnership doesn't seem feasible but that being a partner seems significantly more miserable than being an associate.

[Anonymous User]

Are mid-size law firms really any better? I hear mixed stories. Considering leaving DC-based firm regardless of this raise.

[Anonymous User]

Any news on the big IP firm front?

[Anonymous User]

Are mid-size law firms really any better? I hear mixed stories. Considering leaving DC-based firm regardless of this raise.

For lit, most are better and don't carry the expectation that you are available 24/7. Your work is also usually more steady (i.e. you may bill 200 hours, but you worked 9-7 M-F to do that).

But obviously, YMMV based on the firm.