BigLaw Associate Median Salary to $145K Forum

[vizio24]

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

[crazycanuck]

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

[Anonymous User]

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

I can't freakin' wait.

[HeavenWood]

IB NY2190!

[clintonius]

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Almost as incredible as the fact that law schools, without even teaching you everything you need to know to pass the Bar, will charge you $150k for your degree.

[IAFG]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

[crazycanuck]

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Almost as incredible as the fact that law schools, without even teaching you everything you need to know to pass the Bar, will charge you $150k for your degree.

Are some of those TTT really law schools?

[wjs98]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.

[Pokemon]

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/new-york ... e-slumped/


Stats show that nationally, $145k is the median, and even in markets like LA, only 2/3 of big firms pay $160K.

Meh.

I still think it's incredible that they are willing to pay a new graduate, who has never worked a day before in their life, 160k.

Almost as incredible as the fact that law schools, without even teaching you everything you need to know to pass the Bar, will charge you $150k for your degree.

Are some of those TTT really law schools?

The TTT probably do a better job teaching you for the bar. People there have to memorize things often, whereas at T-14 the exams are open book where memorization of the law will not get you far.

[HeavenWood]

The TTT probably do a better job teaching you for the bar. People there have to memorize things often, whereas at T-14 the exams are open book where memorization of the law will not get you far.

LOL

[androstan]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.

Probably would be better for law graduates as a whole.

[HeavenWood]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.

Says ppl w/o offers.

You're a cunt.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

Yeah, I think you nailed it. The overall median salary can go down without any individual employer lowering its salary, if lower-paying employers start hiring more relative to higher-paying ones. Of course, that's beyond the comprehension of the legal tabloid industry.

Edit: And, of course, that is a GOOD THING because it may mean the median salary of all law grads is increasing, even if the median salary among that subset of law grads going into law firms is decreasing. Maybe not, but hell if anyone can tell based on this data.

[rad lulz]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.

Says ppl w/o offers.

I hope you get AIDS.

[joojoo123]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

I would also be fine with a 145K median in general if it meant firms could afford to hire more attorneys.

Says ppl w/o offers.

Says one of the few people a MOD should ban....

[androstan]

I apologize everyone, I was being an insensitive jerkoff.

[09042014]

I apologize everyone, I was being an insensitive jerkoff.

Don't apologize. IP TO 180K

[sunynp]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

The $145,00 data is only for firms with over 700 attorneys.

From the NALP press release on the report:

Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

$160,000 Still the Norm at Largest Firms, Though Prevalence Erodes

To be sure, in many markets, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, first-year salaries of $160,000 are still the norm at the largest firms, though they are not as widespread as they were just a few years ago. For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2012 only about two-thirds did so. Overall in firms of more than 700 lawyers salaries of $160,000 accounted for 46% of reported first-year salaries, compared with 54% in 2011, 58% in 2010, and 65% in 2009.

In firms of 251-700 in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, although some firms still pay first-year associates $160,000, most do not, resulting in medians in the $135,000-145,000 range. The median in San Francisco for firms of 251 or more lawyers remains at $145,000 having reached $160,000 only in 2009. Only in New York is the $160,000 starting salary still dominant, with 75% of firms with 251 or more lawyers paying that amount and 87% of firms with 701 or more lawyers reporting that as the first-year associate salary.Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

You are probably right that medians went up in the intervening years because the proportion of hires by biglaw big market firm went up as biglaw firms in other markets cut hiring to a lower proportion of the whole. Everyone hired fewer people, they are looking at the total nationwide of firms with over 700 to get the median.

[IAFG]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

The $145,00 data is only for firms with over 700 attorneys.

From the NALP press release on the report:

Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

$160,000 Still the Norm at Largest Firms, Though Prevalence Erodes

To be sure, in many markets, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, first-year salaries of $160,000 are still the norm at the largest firms, though they are not as widespread as they were just a few years ago. For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2012 only about two-thirds did so. Overall in firms of more than 700 lawyers salaries of $160,000 accounted for 46% of reported first-year salaries, compared with 54% in 2011, 58% in 2010, and 65% in 2009.

In firms of 251-700 in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, although some firms still pay first-year associates $160,000, most do not, resulting in medians in the $135,000-145,000 range. The median in San Francisco for firms of 251 or more lawyers remains at $145,000 having reached $160,000 only in 2009. Only in New York is the $160,000 starting salary still dominant, with 75% of firms with 251 or more lawyers paying that amount and 87% of firms with 701 or more lawyers reporting that as the first-year associate salary.Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

It is still not very meaningful without a head count.

[Kronk]

SOLID uses of anonymous in this thread.

[sunynp]

Wait, wait, wait.

If this was the median in 2007, but the large law firm median went UP in 2008, 2009, 2010 a.k.a. the shitty years... couldn't this just mean that smaller large firm and secondary market hiring is up? And that the increased median had to do with $160k-paying firms also being the ones doing the hiring?

It's not like there's been some rash, this year, of large firms bringing their bases down.

The $145,00 data is only for firms with over 700 attorneys.

From the NALP press release on the report:

Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

$160,000 Still the Norm at Largest Firms, Though Prevalence Erodes

To be sure, in many markets, including Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, first-year salaries of $160,000 are still the norm at the largest firms, though they are not as widespread as they were just a few years ago. For example, in 2009, about 90% of offices in firms of more than 700 lawyers in Los Angeles and Washington, DC reported a first-year salary of $160,000; in 2012 only about two-thirds did so. Overall in firms of more than 700 lawyers salaries of $160,000 accounted for 46% of reported first-year salaries, compared with 54% in 2011, 58% in 2010, and 65% in 2009.

In firms of 251-700 in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC, although some firms still pay first-year associates $160,000, most do not, resulting in medians in the $135,000-145,000 range. The median in San Francisco for firms of 251 or more lawyers remains at $145,000 having reached $160,000 only in 2009. Only in New York is the $160,000 starting salary still dominant, with 75% of firms with 251 or more lawyers paying that amount and 87% of firms with 701 or more lawyers reporting that as the first-year associate salary.Recent research from NALP reveals that, although first-year associate salaries of $160,000 are still widespread at large law firms of more than 700 lawyers — especially in large markets — that figure no longer represents the prevailing salary, resulting in a median for this group of firms as a whole of $145,000, a median figure last seen in 2007. In the intervening years at least half the first-year salaries in firms of this size were reported at $160,000, with the proportion reaching a high of nearly two-thirds in 2009, confirming the characterization of 2009 as the recent high point for large firm salaries.

http://www.nalp.org/2012_associate_salaries

It is still not very meaningful without a head count.

Yeah you probably have to buy the report. The only thing they say is that 2/3 of LA and Washington DC biglaw firms are paying $160,000 and in 2009 90% of them were paying $160,000.

[rayiner]

Big law median salary was always right on the cusp of $160k. E.g. at NU, median salary dropped from $160k to $145k for C/O 2011, because it went from 55% at $160k to like 47% at $160k.

[09042014]

145K for firms over 700? That's barely the top 50 firms. So places like DLA Piper, Baker McKensey, Squire Sanders, Morgan Lewis, mcguirewoods, Hutnon Williams, etc etc. count.

But Arnold Porter, Devoise, Quinn, Cravath, Fried Frank, & DPW don't count.

[IAFG]

Yeah you probably have to buy the report. The only thing they say is that 2/3 of LA and Washington DC biglaw firms are paying $160,000 and in 2009 90% of them were paying $160,000.

2/3s of firms were paying 160 or 2/3s of associates were making 160?

If, during the recession, a few V50s were the only firms hiring in LA, accounting for 90% of hiring, and they all paid $160k, then of course the median is going to rise to $160k. If large firms that only ever paid $145k in LA (Holland & Knight, for example, paying $145k in LA with 700+ lawyers nationally) are finally recovering enough to resume hiring in larger numbers, they're going to bring the median down, obviously without decreasing the number of $160k jobs.

[IAFG]

145K for firms over 700? That's barely the top 50 firms. So places like DLA Piper, Baker McKensey, Squire Sanders, Morgan Lewis, McGuireWoods, Hutnon Williams, etc etc. count.

But Arnold Porter, Devoise, Quinn, Cravath, Fried Frank, & DPW don't count.

It's 55 firms, and if any of them dropped base salary last year, I didn't hear about it. Seems like the most likely explanation is that the firms that pay $145k in secondaries picked up their hiring in those markets.