Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Unironically, today has to be the day, right? I figure either we hear from DPW by end of business day today or firms in the V10 get fed up and start announcing on their own. It’d be funny if DPW played the game of chicken for too long and some other firm e.g., STB or Cravath ends up announcing the spring bonus.

Agreed. If it's not today DPW went from flexing to dropping the ball.

Disagreed. It won't be today, and whoever ends up raising (or not), next month no one will remember that DPW failed to make an announcement on Monday, February 7, 2022. Associates will continue to gripe about hours and will be collecting bigger paychecks than they did before Milbank raised.

Forget? Since when do associates forget anything related to compensation. One scroll through this thread and you can find people posting links to moves firms made over the last 2+ years w/r/t compensation

[Anonymous User]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

[ExpOriental]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

[Anonymous User]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

You're not a partner yet, you're one of us, why have this "realist" perspective?

[Anonymous User]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

[Anonymous User]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

[ExpOriental]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

You're not a partner yet, you're one of us, why have this "realist" perspective?

The fuck difference does it make?

1. This forum is irrelevant. The mouthbreathers on /r/lawschool have more influence than this place does, which is really saying something.

2. Slow matches don't matter. Who cares. If you're going to make a stink, do it over something that actually matters; demand higher pay, better WLB, whatever. But whining about your salary match coming two weeks later than you expected is just laughable and makes you look ridiculous.

3. Don't put your associate juju on me. Partner is a state of mind; I was born a partner. That's the difference between you and me, and is why you can't get laid.

[clone22]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

[Anonymous User]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

Latham was a black fucking sheep at my T6 a few years out from them being bastards. None of the good students would even consider them.

I think the better point is “eventually, if you make the right moves, you can recover your reputation in the associate / law school market” and I think that’s by and large true for Latham now, 15 years out. But that’s a far weaker statement than “nobody remembered bro.”

[Anonymous User]

I still remember that CovingTTTon tried to put its foot down and not match the market move to 180k before succumbing to pressure. We don’t forget even the pettiest hesitations to raise

That isn't petty. No one besides the weirdos on this forum remembers, much less cares about slow matches.

Also, that seems to have had exactly zero impact on Cov's recruiting, so what does it even matter? Even Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by the Lathaming. No one actually cares about this shit in the real world.

You're not a partner yet, you're one of us, why have this "realist" perspective?

The fuck difference does it make?

1. This forum is irrelevant. The mouthbreathers on /r/lawschool have more influence than this place does, which is really saying something.

2. Slow matches don't matter. Who cares. If you're going to make a stink, do it over something that actually matters; demand higher pay, better WLB, whatever. But whining about your salary match coming two weeks later than you expected is just laughable and makes you look ridiculous.

3. Don't put your associate juju on me. Partner is a state of mind; I was born a partner. That's the difference between you and me, and is why you can't get laid.

Lmaooooooo are you okay friend?

[Anonymous User]

Morgan Lewis announced a trash match and NRF just matched.

Stop discussing “Lathaming” and let’s talk bonuses.

Y’all are behind.

[ExpOriental]

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

I care about what my salary ends up being. I don't care about match timing. I cannot wrap my head around why people give a fuck. Unless you're at one of the relatively few firms where the match is a genuine question, you have no reason to be concerned.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

lolwat

Are you trying to suggest that e.g. DPW and Kirkland's hesitation to match/raise is a sign that those firms are unhealthy? Do you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

I certainly buy that it mattered in the immediate wake of the layoffs, but I've seen no evidence that it persisted. I can only offer a counter-anecdote: I graduated more recently than you and did not witness anyone concerned about the Lathaming, which was old news at that point. I suspect that if you look at recruiting data for the last 5 years, Latham's selectivity is basically the same as its peer firm's, though I certainly can't confirm that.

Which is more to the point - if the single most notorious adverse action against associates a biglaw firm has ever taken did not have serious long term impacts on its recruiting, slow matches certainly won't.

[ExpOriental]

Latham was a black fucking sheep at my T6 a few years out from them being bastards. None of the good students would even consider them.

I think the better point is “eventually, if you make the right moves, you can recover your reputation in the associate / law school market” and I think that’s by and large true for Latham now, 15 years out. But that’s a far weaker statement than “nobody remembered bro.”

I did not say no one remembered the Lathaming; obviously people did. But you're making my point for me - even something like that fades eventually. The idea that a meaningful proportion of associates are remembering something as petty as a two week match vs. a four week match is absurd.

The fuck difference does it make?

1. This forum is irrelevant. The mouthbreathers on /r/lawschool have more influence than this place does, which is really saying something.

2. Slow matches don't matter. Who cares. If you're going to make a stink, do it over something that actually matters; demand higher pay, better WLB, whatever. But whining about your salary match coming two weeks later than you expected is just laughable and makes you look ridiculous.

3. Don't put your associate juju on me. Partner is a state of mind; I was born a partner. That's the difference between you and me, and is why you can't get laid.

Lmaooooooo are you okay friend?

This is serious business and I'm being very serious.

[Anonymous User]

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

I care about what my salary ends up being. I don't care about match timing. I cannot wrap my head around why people give a fuck. Unless you're at one of the relatively few firms where the match is a genuine question, you have no reason to be concerned.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

lolwat

Are you trying to suggest that e.g. DPW and Kirkland's hesitation to match/raise is a sign that those firms are unhealthy? Do you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

I certainly buy that it mattered in the immediate wake of the layoffs, but I've seen no evidence that it persisted. I can only offer a counter-anecdote: I graduated more recently than you and did not witness anyone concerned about the Lathaming, which was old news at that point. I suspect that if you look at recruiting data for the last 5 years, Latham's selectivity is basically the same as its peer firm's, though I certainly can't confirm that.

Which is more to the point - if the single most notorious adverse action against associates a biglaw firm has ever taken did not have serious long term impacts on its recruiting, slow matches certainly won't.

It does affect Latham's recruiting. I've done interviews and talked to prospective summers who are taking a second look at Latham/deciding between us and other firms, and I've been asked about Lathaming even as recently as last year. I've even been asked "why do people talk so much poorly about Latham", and then I have to explain how Lathaming really ruined our rep for a long time and why it isn't a concern for you and your future at all. No idea how much it affects the final decision on whether to accept an offer or not, but it's definitely something that still comes up.

[Anonymous User]

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

I care about what my salary ends up being. I don't care about match timing. I cannot wrap my head around why people give a fuck. Unless you're at one of the relatively few firms where the match is a genuine question, you have no reason to be concerned.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

lolwat

Are you trying to suggest that e.g. DPW and Kirkland's hesitation to match/raise is a sign that those firms are unhealthy? Do you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

I certainly buy that it mattered in the immediate wake of the layoffs, but I've seen no evidence that it persisted. I can only offer a counter-anecdote: I graduated more recently than you and did not witness anyone concerned about the Lathaming, which was old news at that point. I suspect that if you look at recruiting data for the last 5 years, Latham's selectivity is basically the same as its peer firm's, though I certainly can't confirm that.

Which is more to the point - if the single most notorious adverse action against associates a biglaw firm has ever taken did not have serious long term impacts on its recruiting, slow matches certainly won't.

I’m saying, from actually dealing with lateral recruiting as opposed to just being a loudmouth on an Internet forum, that our prospective pool is absolutely plugged into which firms are growing and doling out compensation and it’s a plus factor as they see it as a sign of the firm on a growth trajectory beyond just amlaw figures which can be juiced.

Hope that fucking helps.

[Anonymous User]

Are you two finished? Back on topic now.

[Anonymous User]

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

I care about what my salary ends up being. I don't care about match timing. I cannot wrap my head around why people give a fuck. Unless you're at one of the relatively few firms where the match is a genuine question, you have no reason to be concerned.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

lolwat

Are you trying to suggest that e.g. DPW and Kirkland's hesitation to match/raise is a sign that those firms are unhealthy? Do you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

I certainly buy that it mattered in the immediate wake of the layoffs, but I've seen no evidence that it persisted. I can only offer a counter-anecdote: I graduated more recently than you and did not witness anyone concerned about the Lathaming, which was old news at that point. I suspect that if you look at recruiting data for the last 5 years, Latham's selectivity is basically the same as its peer firm's, though I certainly can't confirm that.

Which is more to the point - if the single most notorious adverse action against associates a biglaw firm has ever taken did not have serious long term impacts on its recruiting, slow matches certainly won't.

Get back to billing hours before you risk upsetting the overlords you ride endlessly for.

[Wanderingdrock]

Morgan Lewis announced a trash match and NRF just matched.

Stop discussing “Lathaming” and let’s talk bonuses.

Y’all are behind.

I'm not sure I agree that Morgan Lewis' match is "trash." Their announcement, as I understand it from ATL, seems pretty sensible. They've been honest and clearer with their associates than almost anybody else, saying basically what everybody knows - they'll match whatever the market (DPW) sets. They've just assigned a date for when associates can expect to be made whole, which happens to have the added benefit of serving as a sort of retention bonus in April.

[Anonymous User]

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

I care about what my salary ends up being. I don't care about match timing. I cannot wrap my head around why people give a fuck. Unless you're at one of the relatively few firms where the match is a genuine question, you have no reason to be concerned.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

lolwat

Are you trying to suggest that e.g. DPW and Kirkland's hesitation to match/raise is a sign that those firms are unhealthy? Do you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

I certainly buy that it mattered in the immediate wake of the layoffs, but I've seen no evidence that it persisted. I can only offer a counter-anecdote: I graduated more recently than you and did not witness anyone concerned about the Lathaming, which was old news at that point. I suspect that if you look at recruiting data for the last 5 years, Latham's selectivity is basically the same as its peer firm's, though I certainly can't confirm that.

Which is more to the point - if the single most notorious adverse action against associates a biglaw firm has ever taken did not have serious long term impacts on its recruiting, slow matches certainly won't.

I don’t get why it is hard to understand that people are getting anxiety about slow matches. We are all human and emotional beings. I am 100% sure most firms (including mine) will match but I am getting angrier the longer the wait is. It doesn’t matter that firms will true up and mathematically I’ll be at the same place financially regardless of when the match happens. The wait is frustrating.

[Anonymous User]

Latham was a black fucking sheep at my T6 a few years out from them being bastards. None of the good students would even consider them.

I think the better point is “eventually, if you make the right moves, you can recover your reputation in the associate / law school market” and I think that’s by and large true for Latham now, 15 years out. But that’s a far weaker statement than “nobody remembered bro.”

I did not say no one remembered the Lathaming; obviously people did. But you're making my point for me - even something like that fades eventually. The idea that a meaningful proportion of associates are remembering something as petty as a two week match vs. a four week match is absurd.

The fuck difference does it make?

1. This forum is irrelevant. The mouthbreathers on /r/lawschool have more influence than this place does, which is really saying something.

2. Slow matches don't matter. Who cares. If you're going to make a stink, do it over something that actually matters; demand higher pay, better WLB, whatever. But whining about your salary match coming two weeks later than you expected is just laughable and makes you look ridiculous.

3. Don't put your associate juju on me. Partner is a state of mind; I was born a partner. That's the difference between you and me, and is why you can't get laid.

Lmaooooooo are you okay friend?

This is serious business and I'm being very serious.

What a shit take re Latham. You could just as easily argue Latham got lucky. There was nothing preordained about them recovering or growing the way they’ve grown. Your complacency about it screams inexperience. There are plenty of ways where this:

https://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/how-did ... r-layoffs/

is never really recovered from. Good for them that they did recover but it was a spectacular fuckup.

[Anonymous User]

Ya really sounds like you don't care at all bro

I care about what my salary ends up being. I don't care about match timing. I cannot wrap my head around why people give a fuck. Unless you're at one of the relatively few firms where the match is a genuine question, you have no reason to be concerned.

It matters as a proxy for firm health in the lateral market, which matters significantly right now.

lolwat

Are you trying to suggest that e.g. DPW and Kirkland's hesitation to match/raise is a sign that those firms are unhealthy? Do you really want to stick with this line of reasoning?

I would disagree re Lathaming. Maybe it does not impact recruiting now (since memories are short), but I was still in law school when Lathaming occurred. I know during our OCI, people were very leery of going to Latham, and since most of people who got Latham offers also had offers at its peers, most of people with Latham offers went somewhere else.

I know this is one data point, and is anecdotal, but I strongly disagree that "Latham's recruiting has been basically unaffected by Lathaming".

I certainly buy that it mattered in the immediate wake of the layoffs, but I've seen no evidence that it persisted. I can only offer a counter-anecdote: I graduated more recently than you and did not witness anyone concerned about the Lathaming, which was old news at that point. I suspect that if you look at recruiting data for the last 5 years, Latham's selectivity is basically the same as its peer firm's, though I certainly can't confirm that.

Which is more to the point - if the single most notorious adverse action against associates a biglaw firm has ever taken did not have serious long term impacts on its recruiting, slow matches certainly won't.

I don’t get why it is hard to understand that people are getting anxiety about slow matches. We are all human and emotional beings. I am 100% sure most firms (including mine) will match but I am getting angrier the longer the wait is. It doesn’t matter that firms will true up and mathematically I’ll be at the same place financially regardless of when the match happens. The wait is frustrating.

He's obviously trolling. For most people, we know they'll match and TLS is a fun distraction where we can bitch throughout otherwise miserable days. In the event that he is actually as insufferable as he's projecting, LOL.

[Anonymous User]

Morgan Lewis announced a trash match and NRF just matched.

Stop discussing “Lathaming” and let’s talk bonuses.

Y’all are behind.

I'm not sure I agree that Morgan Lewis' match is "trash." Their announcement, as I understand it from ATL, seems pretty sensible. They've been honest and clearer with their associates than almost anybody else, saying basically what everybody knows - they'll match whatever the market (DPW) sets. They've just assigned a date for when associates can expect to be made whole, which happens to have the added benefit of serving as a sort of retention bonus in April.

The issue I have with ML's match is that they were audacious enough to describe the salary true-ups as "bonuses," where in reality those true-ups don't add any additional value to the retroactive salary raises. It's a trash match but I do respect that they formal addressed associate comp, since most firms haven't.

[Anonymous User]

Morgan Lewis announced a trash match and NRF just matched.

Stop discussing “Lathaming” and let’s talk bonuses.

Y’all are behind.

I'm not sure I agree that Morgan Lewis' match is "trash." Their announcement, as I understand it from ATL, seems pretty sensible. They've been honest and clearer with their associates than almost anybody else, saying basically what everybody knows - they'll match whatever the market (DPW) sets. They've just assigned a date for when associates can expect to be made whole, which happens to have the added benefit of serving as a sort of retention bonus in April.

It’s trash because being made whole three months late is in no way a retention bonus. Firms should be matching this week and paying said match beginning next Monday. Anything else is bullshit.

[ExpOriental]

I’m saying, from actually dealing with lateral recruiting as opposed to just being a loudmouth on an Internet forum, that our prospective pool is absolutely plugged into which firms are growing and doling out compensation and it’s a plus factor as they see it as a sign of the firm on a growth trajectory beyond just amlaw figures which can be juiced.

Hope that fucking helps.

It might help if it made a lick of sense. If your imposition is that lateral candidates perceive NRF as "growing" and DPW and Kirkland as "not-growing" because the former has already matched and the latter have not... do I need to go further? Do you really want to stick to the "juiced AmLaw numbers" line?

He's obviously trolling. For most people, we know they'll match and TLS is a fun distraction where we can bitch throughout otherwise miserable days. In the event that he is actually as insufferable as he's projecting, LOL.

I am both trolling and genuinely making fun of people who pearl-clutch over this shit.

The only thing I'm deadly serious about is being born a partner. Partner mindset, sigma grindset.

[Anonymous User]

I am still confused by the anxiety here. The outcome is inevitable except on the margins, and unless people are about to get kneecapped for outstanding loan shark debt, why not just let the system play out, as it obviously will, and just focus on things actually within one's control?