NY to 200k?! Forum

[Anonymous User]

There's a lot of talk about whether the firms previously paying the $190,000 market rate will raise. But how do people think firms that didn't previously match market with respond to the raise to $205,000?

Will they play catch-up and move to $190,000, make a big move to $205,000, or continue on at the previously sub-market rate (making the difference even larger than before)?

Thinking of firms like Ballard Spahr, etc.

[TTTTortQueen]

There's a lot of talk about whether the firms previously paying the $190,000 market rate will raise. But how do people think firms that didn't previously match market with respond to the raise to $205,000?

Will they play catch-up and move to $190,000, make a big move to $205,000, or continue on at the previously sub-market rate (making the difference even larger than before)?

Thinking of firms like Ballard Spahr, etc.

I think Polsinelli raised to $190k after Milbank's $200k announcement

[beepboopbeep]

I don't know, I get this, but this is a very specific and subtle message that you have to get across to an associate and lateral partner market inundated with noise and money. "We won't pay you as much, but you'll actually make partner, and you'll be a trial lawyer." The problem is many people will see that and think "but I could be a trial lawyer at Latham or Kirkland and make $5m per year." The response is "yes, but did you see the part about actually making partner?" But when your brand identity depends on a complex back and forth explanation it's a hard line to hold. Williams' line 20 years ago was simply "trial lawyer + $$$ + prestige." There's a shift now and I wonder how sustainable it is.

Do you believe this, or do you work at W&C or a similar firm and are trying to shame them into paying you more? Better hours, actual partnership odds, substantive responsibility, etc. have been a pretty simple and compelling message to sharp 2Ls for years, let alone laterals who have some capacity to understand what actual partnership odds means in practice. There's a reason the top lit-focused students in T14 classes have long flocked to boutiques like W&C, MTO, etc. over corporate-focused NY megafirms.

Does W&C really do a ton of lateral hiring anyway, especially at the partner level? I'd guess that like similar firms, to the extent they're hiring non-homegrown partners at all, they are mostly coming out of government.

I genuinely believe this. I'm at an entirely different V25 (V10) that doesn't even compete with Williams on most things, so I don't have skin in the game one way or the other. Our perception of Williams is that it's an oddity and may not be around ten years from now (because it became the odd biglaw firm that got big but also stuck to lit) but it's not borne out of animosity toward them just a sense that the ground is changing under them. Would be happy to be proven wrong on that they're obviously an institution in the old legal community and have a lot of DC history, don't get my intention wrong. It's just hard to market a firm that doesn't appear to be financially competitive or tracking the growth of the industry any longer and I've seen all these same "we're special" / "we're different" arguments before at firms that then go belly up another year or two later.

Respectfully, then, this is a bonkers take. These dynamics were in play for W&C even when I went through OCI years ago and it didn't stop them from being, and remaining, one of the single most selective firms in the country. Let's say you're right about everything and W&C has to dip down to top 10% at CCN and just a d.ct. clerkship instead of top 5% + COA. And they can only pull a lowly assistant AG instead of the SG in the post-government revolving door. In what universe does any of that lead to the firm collapsing "a year or two later," much less ten years from now? Their existing partners have the relationships and reputation that the firm already has, and I just don't see Lisa Blatt or whoever leaving in a huff because they lose one or two more fourth-year associates than normal due to salary compression. This isn't a Boies-Schiller-esque situation where a boutique has to navigate the transition from the founders to their successors, which is the only other collapse of a quasi-boutique* of roughly comparable statute I can think of in the last decade. If the partner pay starts to fall way behind that could be another story, but this a thread about associate comp.

(*Arguable whether a firm of 300+ lawyers can really be called a boutique anymore, but W&C and MTO both seem to get away with it.)

[Anonymous User]

Fish & Richardson match

Source?

EDIT: Nevermind, here: https://abovethelaw.com/2021/06/fish-raises/2/

[Anonymous User]

There's a lot of talk about whether the firms previously paying the $190,000 market rate will raise. But how do people think firms that didn't previously match market with respond to the raise to $205,000?

Will they play catch-up and move to $190,000, make a big move to $205,000, or continue on at the previously sub-market rate (making the difference even larger than before)?

Thinking of firms like Ballard Spahr, etc.

Lol...Ballard Spahr. I heard they took a huge pay cut because COVID hit the panhandling industry hard.

[Anonymous User]

Hunton match Wilkie scale all offices.

[Anonymous User]

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but Paul, Weiss matched.

[Anonymous User]

Hogan Lovells full match

[Anonymous User]

I don't know, I get this, but this is a very specific and subtle message that you have to get across to an associate and lateral partner market inundated with noise and money. "We won't pay you as much, but you'll actually make partner, and you'll be a trial lawyer." The problem is many people will see that and think "but I could be a trial lawyer at Latham or Kirkland and make $5m per year." The response is "yes, but did you see the part about actually making partner?" But when your brand identity depends on a complex back and forth explanation it's a hard line to hold. Williams' line 20 years ago was simply "trial lawyer + $$$ + prestige." There's a shift now and I wonder how sustainable it is.

Do you believe this, or do you work at W&C or a similar firm and are trying to shame them into paying you more? Better hours, actual partnership odds, substantive responsibility, etc. have been a pretty simple and compelling message to sharp 2Ls for years, let alone laterals who have some capacity to understand what actual partnership odds means in practice. There's a reason the top lit-focused students in T14 classes have long flocked to boutiques like W&C, MTO, etc. over corporate-focused NY megafirms.

Does W&C really do a ton of lateral hiring anyway, especially at the partner level? I'd guess that like similar firms, to the extent they're hiring non-homegrown partners at all, they are mostly coming out of government.

I genuinely believe this. I'm at an entirely different V25 (V10) that doesn't even compete with Williams on most things, so I don't have skin in the game one way or the other. Our perception of Williams is that it's an oddity and may not be around ten years from now (because it became the odd biglaw firm that got big but also stuck to lit) but it's not borne out of animosity toward them just a sense that the ground is changing under them. Would be happy to be proven wrong on that they're obviously an institution in the old legal community and have a lot of DC history, don't get my intention wrong. It's just hard to market a firm that doesn't appear to be financially competitive or tracking the growth of the industry any longer and I've seen all these same "we're special" / "we're different" arguments before at firms that then go belly up another year or two later.

Respectfully, then, this is a bonkers take. These dynamics were in play for W&C even when I went through OCI years ago and it didn't stop them from being, and remaining, one of the single most selective firms in the country. Let's say you're right about everything and W&C has to dip down to top 10% at CCN and just a d.ct. clerkship instead of top 5% + COA. And they can only pull a lowly assistant AG instead of the SG in the post-government revolving door. In what universe does any of that lead to the firm collapsing "a year or two later," much less ten years from now? Their existing partners have the relationships and reputation that the firm already has, and I just don't see Lisa Blatt or whoever leaving in a huff because they lose one or two more fourth-year associates than normal due to salary compression. This isn't a Boies-Schiller-esque situation where a boutique has to navigate the transition from the founders to their successors, which is the only other collapse of a quasi-boutique* of roughly comparable statute I can think of in the last decade. If the partner pay starts to fall way behind that could be another story, but this a thread about associate comp.

(*Arguable whether a firm of 300+ lawyers can really be called a boutique anymore, but W&C and MTO both seem to get away with it.)

The profits per partner at Williams already do dramatically lag its "peers." Let's look at the PPP of the five firms above them and then the five firms below it per Vault:

15 - Covington - $1.9m
16 - Jones Day - $1.3m
17 - White & Case - $3m
18 - Debevoise - $4.6m
19 - Ropes - $3.4m
20 - Williams - $1.4m
21 - Wilmer - $2.5m
22 - Paul Hastings - $3.9m
23 - MoFo - $2.2m
24 - Cooley - $3.2m
25 - Milbank - $4.5m

That's sort of the point I'm making. What's compelling a superstar litigation partner to stay at Williams in 2021? The finances don't seem to support it nor does the business model. I get the idea that it's a great place to be a young up and coming associate because you have a reasonable shot at actually making partner but that's not how law firms survive in this day and age. And their metrics seems to show a problem too--their revenue dumped 15% 2018 to 2019 (at a time when most firms were growing strongly) and only slightly grew 2019 to 2020 (2%). All this talk about the old days and CoA clerks and solicitor generals sounds like a bunch of "the good old days" discussions on the eve of the firm collapsing because Kevin Hodges finally says "screw it" and goes and takes a $10m p/ year 5 year guarantee from Latham.

[Anonymous User]

Hogan match. 202.5 for stubs

[Anonymous User]

Hogan match. 202.5 for stubs

This is the benefit of not having a "t" in your firm name. Now CovingTTTon and Arnold & PorTTTer are left to wallow.

[Anonymous User]

STB matched:

Class of 2020 - $205,000
Class of 2019 - $215,000
Class of 2018 - $240,000
Class of 2017 - $275,000
Class of 2016 - $305,000
Class of 2015 - $330,000
Class of 2014 - $350,000
Class of 2013 - $365,000

Anything from the bay area firms (mofo, wsgr, cooley,orrick)?

MoFo matched, stubs @ 202.5

[beepboopbeep]

15 - Covington - $1.9m
16 - Jones Day - $1.3m
17 - White & Case - $3m
18 - Debevoise - $4.6m
19 - Ropes - $3.4m
20 - Williams - $1.4m
21 - Wilmer - $2.5m
22 - Paul Hastings - $3.9m
23 - MoFo - $2.2m
24 - Cooley - $3.2m
25 - Milbank - $4.5m

That's sort of the point I'm making. What's compelling a superstar litigation partner to stay at Williams in 2021? The finances don't seem to support it nor does the business model. I get the idea that it's a great place to be a young up and coming associate because you have a reasonable shot at actually making partner but that's not how law firms survive in this day and age. And their metrics seems to show a problem too--their revenue dumped 15% 2018 to 2019 (at a time when most firms were growing strongly) and only slightly grew 2019 to 2020 (2%). All this talk about the old days and CoA clerks and solicitor generals sounds like a bunch of "the good old days" discussions on the eve of the firm collapsing because Kevin Hodges finally says "screw it" and goes and takes a $10m p/ year 5 year guarantee from Latham.

But again, everything you're saying has been the case for years. And is equally true at a place like MTO, whose PPEP is hardly better at ~$1.7m. Here's a thread on this forum from a decade ago pointing out the same thing as you are about both firms: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=157110.

Here we are, ten years later. We weren't on the eve of W&C and MTO collapsing in 2011, in an incomparably worse legal market, and I sincerely doubt that we are now. Ultimately they are both lit-oriented firms with relatively low leverage compared to a big NYC corporate firm that happens to have a lit department and the PPPs reflect that. And of course pure lockstep firms -- where younger heavyhitters are going to end up undercompensated for the same reasons -- still exist too.

[Anonymous User]

Hogan match. 202.5 for stubs

This is the benefit of not having a "t" in your firm name. Now CovingTTTon and Arnold & PorTTTer are left to wallow.

Just saw an Arnold & PorTTTer associate setting up a TTTenTTT under the E St Bridge in DC

[ChairmanKaga]

15 - Covington - $1.9m
16 - Jones Day - $1.3m
17 - White & Case - $3m
18 - Debevoise - $4.6m
19 - Ropes - $3.4m
20 - Williams - $1.4m
21 - Wilmer - $2.5m
22 - Paul Hastings - $3.9m
23 - MoFo - $2.2m
24 - Cooley - $3.2m
25 - Milbank - $4.5m

That's sort of the point I'm making. What's compelling a superstar litigation partner to stay at Williams in 2021? The finances don't seem to support it nor does the business model.

But again, everything you're saying has been the case for years. And is equally true at a place like MTO, whose PPEP is hardly better at ~$1.7m. Here's a thread on this forum from a decade ago pointing out the same thing as you are about both firms: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=157110.

What is the RPL of each of these firms? Does either one have non-equity partners?

PEP is an average figure, so a firm which is fundamentally very profitable can artificially depress its PEP relative to peers by bringing its lowly-paid junior partners or service partners into the equity with small points allocations (giving them drawings equivalent to what a non-equity partner at a peer would earn). But the star partners could still be earning $5m+.

[Anonymous User]

K&E match.

[Anonymous User]

KE matches - at 205 without the weird 202.5 stub situation.

Kinda wild to think the market moved off of 160 just five years ago and now we’re at 205.

[Anonymous User]

KE matches - at 205 without the weird 202.5 stub situation.

Kinda wild to think the market moved off of 160 just five years ago and now we’re at 205.

First years in 2007 made $160k plus $40k bonus or 200k. That was fourteen years ago. Real estate was half as expensive — or less if you live in California or Manhattan. Rent was only 2/3 of today.

[Anonymous User]

White and Case matched

[Anonymous User]

Unsure if this was posted here already, but Debevoise matched earlier today.

[Anonymous User]

Can confirm K&E matched today

[2013]

I don't know, I get this, but this is a very specific and subtle message that you have to get across to an associate and lateral partner market inundated with noise and money. "We won't pay you as much, but you'll actually make partner, and you'll be a trial lawyer." The problem is many people will see that and think "but I could be a trial lawyer at Latham or Kirkland and make $5m per year." The response is "yes, but did you see the part about actually making partner?" But when your brand identity depends on a complex back and forth explanation it's a hard line to hold. Williams' line 20 years ago was simply "trial lawyer + $$$ + prestige." There's a shift now and I wonder how sustainable it is.

Do you believe this, or do you work at W&C or a similar firm and are trying to shame them into paying you more? Better hours, actual partnership odds, substantive responsibility, etc. have been a pretty simple and compelling message to sharp 2Ls for years, let alone laterals who have some capacity to understand what actual partnership odds means in practice. There's a reason the top lit-focused students in T14 classes have long flocked to boutiques like W&C, MTO, etc. over corporate-focused NY megafirms.

Does W&C really do a ton of lateral hiring anyway, especially at the partner level? I'd guess that like similar firms, to the extent they're hiring non-homegrown partners at all, they are mostly coming out of government.

I genuinely believe this. I'm at an entirely different V25 (V10) that doesn't even compete with Williams on most things, so I don't have skin in the game one way or the other. Our perception of Williams is that it's an oddity and may not be around ten years from now (because it became the odd biglaw firm that got big but also stuck to lit) but it's not borne out of animosity toward them just a sense that the ground is changing under them. Would be happy to be proven wrong on that they're obviously an institution in the old legal community and have a lot of DC history, don't get my intention wrong. It's just hard to market a firm that doesn't appear to be financially competitive or tracking the growth of the industry any longer and I've seen all these same "we're special" / "we're different" arguments before at firms that then go belly up another year or two later.

Respectfully, then, this is a bonkers take. These dynamics were in play for W&C even when I went through OCI years ago and it didn't stop them from being, and remaining, one of the single most selective firms in the country. Let's say you're right about everything and W&C has to dip down to top 10% at CCN and just a d.ct. clerkship instead of top 5% + COA. And they can only pull a lowly assistant AG instead of the SG in the post-government revolving door. In what universe does any of that lead to the firm collapsing "a year or two later," much less ten years from now? Their existing partners have the relationships and reputation that the firm already has, and I just don't see Lisa Blatt or whoever leaving in a huff because they lose one or two more fourth-year associates than normal due to salary compression. This isn't a Boies-Schiller-esque situation where a boutique has to navigate the transition from the founders to their successors, which is the only other collapse of a quasi-boutique* of roughly comparable statute I can think of in the last decade. If the partner pay starts to fall way behind that could be another story, but this a thread about associate comp.

(*Arguable whether a firm of 300+ lawyers can really be called a boutique anymore, but W&C and MTO both seem to get away with it.)

The profits per partner at Williams already do dramatically lag its "peers." Let's look at the PPP of the five firms above them and then the five firms below it per Vault:

15 - Covington - $1.9m
16 - Jones Day - $1.3m
17 - White & Case - $3m
18 - Debevoise - $4.6m
19 - Ropes - $3.4m
20 - Williams - $1.4m
21 - Wilmer - $2.5m
22 - Paul Hastings - $3.9m
23 - MoFo - $2.2m
24 - Cooley - $3.2m
25 - Milbank - $4.5m

That's sort of the point I'm making. What's compelling a superstar litigation partner to stay at Williams in 2021? The finances don't seem to support it nor does the business model. I get the idea that it's a great place to be a young up and coming associate because you have a reasonable shot at actually making partner but that's not how law firms survive in this day and age. And their metrics seems to show a problem too--their revenue dumped 15% 2018 to 2019 (at a time when most firms were growing strongly) and only slightly grew 2019 to 2020 (2%). All this talk about the old days and CoA clerks and solicitor generals sounds like a bunch of "the good old days" discussions on the eve of the firm collapsing because Kevin Hodges finally says "screw it" and goes and takes a $10m p/ year 5 year guarantee from Latham.

This is a bad take. Some of those “peer” firms have a lot of nonequity partners who make less.

Also, I would be surprised if more than a handful of litigation/trial equity partners at Kirkland make anywhere near $5m

[Anonymous User]

Also, I would be surprised if more than a handful of litigation/trial equity partners at Kirkland make anywhere near $5m

You’re wondering if more than a handful of lit partners make the average at K&E? Geez. Yes, there are dozens of lit partners at or above the average. But certainly proportionately way fewer than corporate. Lit can be insanely lucrative — especially document heavy work like antitrust, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Cooley match. Stubs @ $205k

[lion0gate]

KE matches - at 205 without the weird 202.5 stub situation.

Kinda wild to think the market moved off of 160 just five years ago and now we’re at 205.

First years in 2007 made $160k plus $40k bonus or 200k. That was fourteen years ago. Real estate was half as expensive — or less if you live in California or Manhattan. Rent was only 2/3 of today.

Sure but 2007 doesn't need to be a better standard of comparison than any other year. That would be cherry picking the best year for associate compensation in basically ever.