NY to 210k Forum

[Elston Gunn]

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.

I don’t think this is how it works at all. The number of hours that need to be worked is driven by how much business the firm has, not what they pay their associates. At least at the top firms, it seems the main problem right now is that they can’t keep and/or hire enough competent associates to handle the volume of business they have. This obviously creates a vicious circle where moving in house looks more and more attractive as hours demands rise, making the lack of bodies even worse.

[Anonymous User]

I will be pissed if inflation starts to rise meaningfully and we don’t see a bump in the next 1-2 years

[Anonymous User]

If billing rates are increasing (they have), so should Associate salaries. Partners are just stingy assholes.

[Anonymous User]

Third-year associate here...my billing rate is at the level a junior parter would bill at 5 years ago. Also, my niche group can't bring in laterals mid-levels...they should pay me more.

[YA_Tittle]

Third-year associate here...my billing rate is at the level a junior parter would bill at 5 years ago. Also, my niche group can't bring in laterals mid-levels...they should pay me more.

The problem is this leverage works both ways. If your practice is really that niche, there probably aren't many places you can leave for to make more money.

[Iowahawk]

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.

Isn't the LCOL 190 trend pretty specific to Texas, which has some highly unusual dynamics (huge growth market with an ongoing arms race)? I think a few pay it in Denver too, but it's not the norm

[Anonymous User]

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

DPW’s $1.5-2K special gifts and the generally improving economic situation make 2018-style summer bonuses possible. But I think my money is on another round of year-end “special” bonuses that the firms make clear is separate from the “normal” amounts they might return to in 2022. The expected, repeatable compensation (salary + “normal” bonuses) won’t change.

[Anonymous User]

If billing rates are increasing (they have), so should Associate salaries. Partners are just stingy assholes.

This phenomenon is far from limited to biglaw. Labor continues to take home a smaller and smaller slice of the pie over time as capital accrues more value. Buy and hold stocks and hope the economic system holds on long enough for you to die before it all comes crashing down.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah. It’s hard to make the argument with a straight face that biglaw associates are getting screwed, because we earn so much compared to many other industries.

But the same trends that apply elsewhere in the western world and particularly the United States, of increasing income inequality, and an -ever-shrinking top tier that take a larger and larger slice of the pie.

Equity partnership is harder than ever to get, and takes longer to achieve, even as associates are working more hours and have succumbed to total availability (with some trade offs such as increased flexibility, sure).

We’re “lucky” to be in an industry with pseudo-unionization in the form of highly transparent finances that can sometimes be effective in shaming the partnership caste into sharing the wealth, and an active community of commentators that harass lagging firms into keeping up with market.

But that only goes so far. If midlevels actually wielded their power in a unified manner... can you imagine some of these equity partners suddenly having to get back into word documents, manage email flow, etc? Wouldn’t take long before you got a serious, and much deserved, redistribution of profits down the chain to the people actually killing themselves to make the whole thing work.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah. It’s hard to make the argument with a straight face that biglaw associates are getting screwed, because we earn so much compared to many other industries.

But the same trends that apply elsewhere in the western world and particularly the United States, of increasing income inequality, and an -ever-shrinking top tier that take a larger and larger slice of the pie.

Equity partnership is harder than ever to get, and takes longer to achieve, even as associates are working more hours and have succumbed to total availability (with some trade offs such as increased flexibility, sure).

We’re “lucky” to be in an industry with pseudo-unionization in the form of highly transparent finances that can sometimes be effective in shaming the partnership caste into sharing the wealth, and an active community of commentators that harass lagging firms into keeping up with market.

But that only goes so far. If midlevels actually wielded their power in a unified manner... can you imagine some of these equity partners suddenly having to get back into word documents, manage email flow, etc? Wouldn’t take long before you got a serious, and much deserved, redistribution of profits down the chain to the people actually killing themselves to make the whole thing work.

I would be so interested to see associates at a major biglaw firm attempt to unionize. It is an open question whether they even could under the NLRA if they wanted to (and I get the sense that a union push among biglaw associates probably wouldn't succeed, and would be fiercely opposed by the firm) but it would be fascinating to see what would come out of it. I'm kind of surprised that no one has tried - to my knowledge, at least. Surely there are enough liberal biglaw associates who took Labor Relations Law at their T14 and decided to go down swinging when they realized they were done with biglaw.

[nealric]

Yeah. It’s hard to make the argument with a straight face that biglaw associates are getting screwed, because we earn so much compared to many other industries.

But the same trends that apply elsewhere in the western world and particularly the United States, of increasing income inequality, and an -ever-shrinking top tier that take a larger and larger slice of the pie.

Equity partnership is harder than ever to get, and takes longer to achieve, even as associates are working more hours and have succumbed to total availability (with some trade offs such as increased flexibility, sure).

We’re “lucky” to be in an industry with pseudo-unionization in the form of highly transparent finances that can sometimes be effective in shaming the partnership caste into sharing the wealth, and an active community of commentators that harass lagging firms into keeping up with market.

But that only goes so far. If midlevels actually wielded their power in a unified manner... can you imagine some of these equity partners suddenly having to get back into word documents, manage email flow, etc? Wouldn’t take long before you got a serious, and much deserved, redistribution of profits down the chain to the people actually killing themselves to make the whole thing work.

I would be so interested to see associates at a major biglaw firm attempt to unionize. It is an open question whether they even could under the NLRA if they wanted to (and I get the sense that a union push among biglaw associates probably wouldn't succeed, and would be fiercely opposed by the firm) but it would be fascinating to see what would come out of it. I'm kind of surprised that no one has tried - to my knowledge, at least. Surely there are enough liberal biglaw associates who took Labor Relations Law at their T14 and decided to go down swinging when they realized they were done with biglaw.

It's pretty rare to see any white collar employee base unionize. Part of the problem is that there is not complete commonality of interest. A 9th year gunning for partner is in a very different position than a first year looking to pay off loans and jet, who is in a different position from a mid-level. Turnover is also a significant barrier to unionization. Associates don't stick around long enough to make it worthwhile.

[Anonymous User]

Fair enough about commonality of interest, but I think an associate union could coalesce around a small number of concepts for which all associate interests are aligned.

First, profit sharing - a dedicated percentage of the firm’s profits allocated among associates by a class-year formula (and perhaps basic qualification standards agreed to by the union, i.e. hours).

Second, some system of more enforceable time off. Even at my “unlimited PTO” V10, real vacations are vanishingly rare and even long weekends frequently interrupted. I’ll let the union reps hash this one out later, but some system for compensating associates who blow up their vacations and also protecting time when associates claim it would be an improvement.

I can surely see that a firm that shares more profits with associates would become LESS attractive to partners, who could simply decide to take their book with them across the street to a shop that compensates associates less and lets them keep more. That’s a potential issue. But I also think that - as we have seen consistently and across the board for years - when a firm increases associate compensation, its peers follow. That could happen here, too. It might only take one group of associates to change the game for the industry.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Fair enough about commonality of interest, but I think an associate union could coalesce around a small number of concepts for which all associate interests are aligned.

I can surely see that a firm that shares more profits with associates would become LESS attractive to partners, who could simply decide to take their book with them across the street to a shop that compensates associates less and lets them keep more. That’s a potential issue. But I also think that - as we have seen consistently and across the board for years - when a firm increases associate compensation, its peers follow. That could happen here, too. It might only take one group of associates to change the game for the industry.

*every partner leaves because you cut all their comp in half*
*there's no increase to associate compensation that comes from the firm because there's no more firm*
*game only changes for 400 newly unemployed associates*

If I were a greedy partner, I would slowly replace all my associates year by year with all the T1 median OCI strikeouts as staff attorneys, and they would do the job 97% as well for half the pay.

You all have been told plenty of times that compensation is determined not by the revenue you're responsible for, but for how much you cost to replace. Once you really start to internalize it, your anger will be focused.

[Anonymous User]

Fair enough about commonality of interest, but I think an associate union could coalesce around a small number of concepts for which all associate interests are aligned.

I can surely see that a firm that shares more profits with associates would become LESS attractive to partners, who could simply decide to take their book with them across the street to a shop that compensates associates less and lets them keep more. That’s a potential issue. But I also think that - as we have seen consistently and across the board for years - when a firm increases associate compensation, its peers follow. That could happen here, too. It might only take one group of associates to change the game for the industry.

*every partner leaves because you cut all their comp in half*
*there's no increase to associate compensation that comes from the firm because there's no more firm*
*game only changes for 400 newly unemployed associates*

If I were a greedy partner, I would slowly replace all my associates year by year with all the T1 median OCI strikeouts as staff attorneys, and they would do the job 97% as well for half the pay.

You all have been told plenty of times that compensation is determined not by the revenue you're responsible for, but for how much you cost to replace. Once you really start to internalize it, your anger will be focused.

There’s a reason none of the big guys scrapes the barrel for talent by compensating less (Jones Day excluded). And there’s a reason, like I suggested, that every single associate compensation increase gets matched by dozens and dozens of firms. Biglaw-quality associates are simultaneously necessary, replaceable, and finite - even scarce in some circumstances. That makes for a messy dance in terms of labor relations, but surely the shut-up-and-take-it-or-the-next-guy-will picture you paint is not reality.

[Bdgerald]

Fair enough about commonality of interest, but I think an associate union could coalesce around a small number of concepts for which all associate interests are aligned.

I can surely see that a firm that shares more profits with associates would become LESS attractive to partners, who could simply decide to take their book with them across the street to a shop that compensates associates less and lets them keep more. That’s a potential issue. But I also think that - as we have seen consistently and across the board for years - when a firm increases associate compensation, its peers follow. That could happen here, too. It might only take one group of associates to change the game for the industry.

*every partner leaves because you cut all their comp in half*
*there's no increase to associate compensation that comes from the firm because there's no more firm*
*game only changes for 400 newly unemployed associates*

If I were a greedy partner, I would slowly replace all my associates year by year with all the T1 median OCI strikeouts as staff attorneys, and they would do the job 97% as well for half the pay.

You all have been told plenty of times that compensation is determined not by the revenue you're responsible for, but for how much you cost to replace. Once you really start to internalize it, your anger will be focused.

While I agree that staff attorneys are a very useful resource which more firms should hire, their usefulness is capped. You need a pipeline of quality mid level and senior associates. You’re paying juniors for future, not current potential.

[Anonymous User]

Fair enough about commonality of interest, but I think an associate union could coalesce around a small number of concepts for which all associate interests are aligned.

I can surely see that a firm that shares more profits with associates would become LESS attractive to partners, who could simply decide to take their book with them across the street to a shop that compensates associates less and lets them keep more. That’s a potential issue. But I also think that - as we have seen consistently and across the board for years - when a firm increases associate compensation, its peers follow. That could happen here, too. It might only take one group of associates to change the game for the industry.

*every partner leaves because you cut all their comp in half*
*there's no increase to associate compensation that comes from the firm because there's no more firm*
*game only changes for 400 newly unemployed associates*

If I were a greedy partner, I would slowly replace all my associates year by year with all the T1 median OCI strikeouts as staff attorneys, and they would do the job 97% as well for half the pay.

You all have been told plenty of times that compensation is determined not by the revenue you're responsible for, but for how much you cost to replace. Once you really start to internalize it, your anger will be focused.

There’s a reason none of the big guys scrapes the barrel for talent by compensating less (Jones Day excluded). And there’s a reason, like I suggested, that every single associate compensation increase gets matched by dozens and dozens of firms. Biglaw-quality associates are simultaneously necessary, replaceable, and finite - even scarce in some circumstances. That makes for a messy dance in terms of labor relations, but surely the shut-up-and-take-it-or-the-next-guy-will picture you paint is not reality.

Jones Day is also a counterexample. The firm pays certain associates below market, but it maintains a stable business environment because, with its black box, it has flexibility to pay who it needs to pay. Most firms can't pay a special bonus to, for example, just the CM team in NY - they have to pay everybody or nobody.

[objctnyrhnr]

Are we going to see some movement on salary/bonuses this week or what?

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Fair enough about commonality of interest, but I think an associate union could coalesce around a small number of concepts for which all associate interests are aligned.

I can surely see that a firm that shares more profits with associates would become LESS attractive to partners, who could simply decide to take their book with them across the street to a shop that compensates associates less and lets them keep more. That’s a potential issue. But I also think that - as we have seen consistently and across the board for years - when a firm increases associate compensation, its peers follow. That could happen here, too. It might only take one group of associates to change the game for the industry.

*every partner leaves because you cut all their comp in half*
*there's no increase to associate compensation that comes from the firm because there's no more firm*
*game only changes for 400 newly unemployed associates*

If I were a greedy partner, I would slowly replace all my associates year by year with all the T1 median OCI strikeouts as staff attorneys, and they would do the job 97% as well for half the pay.

You all have been told plenty of times that compensation is determined not by the revenue you're responsible for, but for how much you cost to replace. Once you really start to internalize it, your anger will be focused.

There’s a reason none of the big guys scrapes the barrel for talent by compensating less (Jones Day excluded). And there’s a reason, like I suggested, that every single associate compensation increase gets matched by dozens and dozens of firms. Biglaw-quality associates are simultaneously necessary, replaceable, and finite - even scarce in some circumstances. That makes for a messy dance in terms of labor relations, but surely the shut-up-and-take-it-or-the-next-guy-will picture you paint is not reality.

Jones Day is also a counterexample. The firm pays certain associates below market, but it maintains a stable business environment because, with its black box, it has flexibility to pay who it needs to pay. Most firms can't pay a special bonus to, for example, just the CM team in NY - they have to pay everybody or nobody.

What is “the CM team”?

[MillllerTime]

Are we going to see some movement on salary/bonuses this week or what?

For reasons laid out in the Willkie bonus thread, bonuses make much more sense to firms than permanent salary increases that are basically impossible to walk back. Depending on your level and expected time left in biglaw, they're also potentially better for current associates (if I were a 3L or first year I'd feel differently).

Would obviously rather get paid a bunch of money today, but I think the mechanics Willkie set up are the right answer to accomplish busy firms' goals. It's also tough to argue with the amounts since they just copied last fall's market; I'm skeptical whether it will truly move the needle for burnt out associates, but on the margins they may keep people around a month or two longer than anticipated and that may be all that a firm dealing with a spike in demand thinks they need.

[GuyApollo]

Capital Markets bruh.

[Anonymous User]

Who is ready for some bonuses tomorrow? PS I heard Linklaters matched FYI. I need something to make me feel good about my life.

[Sackboy]

Jones Day is also a counterexample. The firm pays certain associates below market, but it maintains a stable business environment because, with its black box, it has flexibility to pay who it needs to pay. Most firms can't pay a special bonus to, for example, just the CM team in NY - they have to pay everybody or nobody.

JD also only has an equity tier in its partnership, AND it makes very large partner classes. That's appealing to a lot of folks.

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day is also a counterexample. The firm pays certain associates below market, but it maintains a stable business environment because, with its black box, it has flexibility to pay who it needs to pay. Most firms can't pay a special bonus to, for example, just the CM team in NY - they have to pay everybody or nobody.

JD also only has an equity tier in its partnership, AND it makes very large partner classes. That's appealing to a lot of folks.

Yes, 50 most recently. Not every associate cares or should care, but it matters for some. Similarly, Jones Day often freezes salaries in instances where other firms would give "the talk." Most juniors can stick around for a while if they want that. It's not the firm for everyone, but it doesn't have to "scrape the barrel for talent" either. The compensation picture is more complicated than that.