Top Law Schools

vizio24 wrote: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 wrote:

vizio24 wrote: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.

crazycanuck wrote:

vizio24 wrote: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.

clintonius wrote:

crazycanuck wrote:

vizio24 wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

clintonius wrote:

crazycanuck wrote:

vizio24 wrote: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?

Pokemon wrote: 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.

wjs98 wrote:

IAFG wrote: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.

androstan wrote:

wjs98 wrote:

IAFG wrote: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.

IAFG wrote: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.

androstan wrote:

wjs98 wrote:

IAFG wrote: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.

androstan wrote:

wjs98 wrote:

IAFG wrote: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.

androstan wrote:I apologize everyone, I was being an insensitive jerkoff.

IAFG wrote: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.

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.

sunynp wrote:

IAFG wrote: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

IAFG wrote:

sunynp wrote:

IAFG wrote: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.

sunynp wrote:
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.

Desert Fox wrote: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.