When are first year salaries going up? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts? Been on this scale since 2006?

[paratactical]

There is a glut of attorneys and a lack of jobs. I would doubt it would be soon.

[kaiser]

Um, do you not keep up with the whole "economy" thing? Be happy they haven't pushed salaries down since then.

[DallasCowboy]

ny to 190

[rayiner]

NY to $170k before C/O 2013 starts, assuming no double-dip.

Most markets won't follow, however. Matching $160k was ill-advised for everyone but NYC and Chicago. In NY, however, salaries are now below 1980s market adjusted for inflation. Going to $170k would simply bring them back to parity.

[Anonymous User]

Poster here: Sources for the jumps? or reasons? Very curious.

[Anonymous User]

Poster here: Sources for the jumps? or reasons? Very curious.

They are joking around with you. Absolutely no way its going up for awhile.

[Anonymous User]

Poster here: Sources for the jumps? or reasons? Very curious.

they're full of bs. they're not going up. be happy if you get a job/start on time.

[rayiner]

Poster here: Sources for the jumps? or reasons? Very curious.

they're full of bs. they're not going up. be happy if you get a job/start on time.

They're already going up in some places: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... _salaries/

NY market salary is not a direct function of the national economy. It's not a function of how many law school grads there are (there was a huge glut even during the boom). It's purely a function of law firm profitability and competition for top law school grads. The top NYC firms are nearly back at boom levels of profitability, and some non-NYC firms had record years in 2010 (Gibson, Quinn, Kirkland). These firms are bringing class sizes back to boom levels. These factors are going to decide whether associate salaries will go up.

[Anonymous User]

Seems really unlikely, although I don't understand why Chicago should go to 190 before SF/LA. Bay Area, especially SF and Palo Alto, has NY comparable cost of living.

On another note, what is the salary scale? If you have biglaw 160k, what can you expect to earn per year, on average, with raises and bonuses in the first 5 years? Sorry if this has already been explained somewhere.

[rayiner]

Seems really unlikely, although I don't understand why Chicago should go to 190 before SF/LA. Bay Area, especially SF and Palo Alto, has NY comparable cost of living.

On another note, what is the salary scale? If you have biglaw 160k, what can you expect to earn per year, on average, with raises and bonuses in the first 5 years? Sorry if this has already been explained somewhere.

NY market tends to closely track the cost of housing in NY, but in other markets it's more a matter of keeping up with the Joneses. If NY moved to $170k, I think Chicago would move first because Kirkland can afford to and they want stay competitive with the other V10s. None of the SF/SV firms can afford it in the same way nor do they have the same incentives to keep pace.

[run26.2]

Seems really unlikely, although I don't understand why Chicago should go to 190 before SF/LA. Bay Area, especially SF and Palo Alto, has NY comparable cost of living.

On another note, what is the salary scale? If you have biglaw 160k, what can you expect to earn per year, on average, with raises and bonuses in the first 5 years? Sorry if this has already been explained somewhere.

NY market tends to closely track the cost of housing in NY, but in other markets it's more a matter of keeping up with the Joneses. If NY moved to $170k, I think Chicago would move first because Kirkland can afford to and they want stay competitive with the other V10s. None of the SF/SV firms can afford it in the same way nor do they have the same incentives to keep pace.

Irell and Quinn--both LA firms--could afford this. Arguably, Irell is already above market if you consider bonuses.

Quinn's hiring practices also could justify them increasing salaries, given that they purport to target top students at top schools.

[03121202698008]

A hiring partner at oci volunteered that he thought it'd be higher by the time c/o 2013 graduated.

[Jericwithers]

Your second year.

[shoeshine]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

[rayiner]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

When a first-year is billed out at $250+, you can probably write off 60% of his hours and still turn a smal profit.

Also, again, salary is a first order function of supply/demand for associates with the desired credentials. It's only a second order function of how much they contribute to the bottom line.

[BeenDidThat]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

No. Law firms are in the business of handing out money for no good reason.

[IAFG]

Discussion here.

[Anonymous User]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

I heard from a partner somewhere that until the 3rd year an associate is a money loser for the firm. I think he was referring to the total investment, not per year. Still, no.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Better question: when are first year salaries going DOWN (again)?

[run26.2]

Also, again, salary is a first order function of supply/demand for associates with the desired credentials. It's only a second order function of how much they contribute to the bottom line.

This becomes even more true as associates increase in their years of experience.

[shoeshine]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

When a first-year is billed out at $250+, you can probably write off 60% of his hours and still turn a smal profit.

Also, again, salary is a first order function of supply/demand for associates with the desired credentials. It's only a second order function of how much they contribute to the bottom line.

So by this same logic, wouldn't the fact that there is a glut of qualified lawyers graduating from T-14s without jobs, and a decrease in the actual amount of big law positions available dictate that salaries should stay the same or decrease?

(I am referring to the trends over the last several years)

[BeenDidThat]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

When a first-year is billed out at $250+, you can probably write off 60% of his hours and still turn a smal profit.

Also, again, salary is a first order function of supply/demand for associates with the desired credentials. It's only a second order function of how much they contribute to the bottom line.

So by this same logic, wouldn't the fact that there is a glut of qualified lawyers graduating from T-14s without jobs, and a decrease in the actual amount of big law positions available dictate that salaries should stay the same or decrease?

(I am referring to the trends over the last several years)

Shoeshine, inflation. Inflation, shoeshine.

[run26.2]

Does a first year associate ever do anything truly worth his/her $160k salary?

When a first-year is billed out at $250+, you can probably write off 60% of his hours and still turn a smal profit.

Also, again, salary is a first order function of supply/demand for associates with the desired credentials. It's only a second order function of how much they contribute to the bottom line.

So by this same logic, wouldn't the fact that there is a glut of qualified lawyers graduating from T-14s without jobs, and a decrease in the actual amount of big law positions available dictate that salaries should stay the same or decrease?

(I am referring to the trends over the last several years)

They did stay the same for several years. Technically, you could say they decreased because firms deferred start dates, with firms paying less and new graduates receiving less salary. Firms also adjusted by decreasing their class sizes. Both of these actions were taken, I'd say, to avoid cutting salary.

The firms aren't rational actors. To lower salary in response to decreased demand sends a signal to the people that would potentially work there (new grads or laterals) that the firm is not as healthy as another firm. Layoffs do the same thing. Ego is at play here, and because of the hit to the rep, firms were loathe to lower salaries. At least that's my take.

[shoeshine]

Shoeshine, inflation. Inflation, shoeshine.

Not much inflation over the last 20 years. We even experience deflation in 2008.

--ImageRemoved--

Just to be clear, I am playing devil's advocate because I am bored. I hope they go up. NYC to 190!