Top Law Schools

Time for another "NYC to 190" thread.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1 ... curindex=1

Seems like pretty much everyone (with a few exceptions) had a GREAT 2014. Anyone think this'll have any bearing on starting salaries potentially going up?

Is there anyway to get American Lawyer and its sister publications for less than $30/month? I can't find a student rate or anything

Why would they? Attracting quality first years isn't an issue.

lacrossebrother wrote:Is there anyway to get American Lawyer and its sister publications for less than $30/month? I can't find a student rate or anything

Don't think so. Weirdly, some of the articles load fully for me, while others are locked and tell me to get a subscription. Seems very random, but it makes life a little bit easier.

I think it's more likely that there will be more movement on bonuses before a base increase. I wouldn't expect base salaries to go up unless firms start having problems attracting adequate numbers of associates.

Avian wrote:I think it's more likely that there will be more movement on bonuses before a base increase. I wouldn't expect base salaries to go up unless firms start having problems attracting adequate numbers of associates.

I generally agree, but it seems like the gap between the elite firms (those with PPP > $2 million) and the rest of the pack is widening. Does anyone think that the elite firms might raise salaries in a move to attract the best talent, and the rest of the pack can't match because their profits/PPP will suffer? This would effectively create two tiers of starting salaries...

Am I the only one who thinks it's even remotely possible?

KM2016 wrote:

Avian wrote:I think it's more likely that there will be more movement on bonuses before a base increase. I wouldn't expect base salaries to go up unless firms start having problems attracting adequate numbers of associates.

I generally agree, but it seems like the gap between the elite firms (those with PPP > $2 million) and the rest of the pack is widening. Does anyone think that the elite firms might raise salaries in a move to attract the best talent, and the rest of the pack can't match because their profits/PPP will suffer? This would effectively create two tiers of starting salaries...

Am I the only one who thinks it's even remotely possible?

They already get the better talent. The question is retaining it. No reason to overpay Juniors.

Desert Fox wrote:

KM2016 wrote:

Avian wrote:I think it's more likely that there will be more movement on bonuses before a base increase. I wouldn't expect base salaries to go up unless firms start having problems attracting adequate numbers of associates.

I generally agree, but it seems like the gap between the elite firms (those with PPP > $2 million) and the rest of the pack is widening. Does anyone think that the elite firms might raise salaries in a move to attract the best talent, and the rest of the pack can't match because their profits/PPP will suffer? This would effectively create two tiers of starting salaries...

Am I the only one who thinks it's even remotely possible?

They already get the better talent. The question is retaining it. No reason to overpay Juniors.

Fair enough, but I can't see them raising mid-level and senior salaries without also increasing junior salaries. But I digress...

KM2016 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

KM2016 wrote:

Avian wrote:I think it's more likely that there will be more movement on bonuses before a base increase. I wouldn't expect base salaries to go up unless firms start having problems attracting adequate numbers of associates.

I generally agree, but it seems like the gap between the elite firms (those with PPP > $2 million) and the rest of the pack is widening. Does anyone think that the elite firms might raise salaries in a move to attract the best talent, and the rest of the pack can't match because their profits/PPP will suffer? This would effectively create two tiers of starting salaries...

Am I the only one who thinks it's even remotely possible?

They already get the better talent. The question is retaining it. No reason to overpay Juniors.

Fair enough, but I can't see them raising mid-level and senior salaries without also increasing junior salaries. But I digress...

Maybe not, but I wouldn't jump to 190k either.

I'd go 170, 180, 200 for juniors at most.

C'mon! NYC -> 190k! Juniors add the most value to a firm.

A junior partner at my firm (which has led in the past) told me we were considering raising salaries until Simpson boosted bonuses.

If the m&a boom continues, I wouldn't be surprised if salaries went up.

For what it's worth, 190k seems too high. I would guess 175k, if anything.

Anonymous User wrote:A junior partner at my firm (which has led in the past) told me we were considering raising salaries until Simpson boosted bonuses.

If the m&a boom continues, I wouldn't be surprised if salaries went up.

For what it's worth, 190k seems too high. I would guess 175k, if anything.

Bonuses seem like the safe choice for firms. In a slow year they can more easily cut.

Though this benefits the non-elite firms who tend to weasel out of bonuses if you don't meet hours expectations. They get to claim to be market not paying a huge chunk of people bonuses.

On $190k+bonus pretax I could probably kill my loans in two or two and a half years. would be epic. Prolly not gonna happen tho, as DF said $170 or $175 is more likely if even

jbagelboy wrote:On $190k+bonus pretax I could probably kill my loans in two or two and a half years. would be epic. Prolly not gonna happen tho, as DF said $170 or $175 is more likely if even

just susman bro

what was the impetus for the raise to 160k?

Hasn't there always been more lawyers than jerbs?

It seems like as long as there's more people wanting biglaw than there are spots, the pay shouldn't have to raise.

what am i missing here?

Helioze wrote:what was the impetus for the raise to 160k?

Hasn't there always been more lawyers than jerbs?

It seems like as long as there's more people wanting biglaw than there are spots, the pay shouldn't have to raise.

what am i missing here?

Nobody wants to work with waterheads.

Helioze wrote:what was the impetus for the raise to 160k?

Hasn't there always been more lawyers than jerbs?

It seems like as long as there's more people wanting biglaw than there are spots, the pay shouldn't have to raise.

what am i missing here?

My firm lost a couple people to banking/consulting. At some level, competition from other industries matters at least somewhat. You need smart people to do fast-paced, billion-dollar deals. You don't want to lose them. (I'm in corporate so I can't speak to litigation.)

That said, I think we're more likely to see bonuses that vary with the market than pay raises.

Helioze wrote:what was the impetus for the raise to 160k?

Hasn't there always been more lawyers than jerbs?

It seems like as long as there's more people wanting biglaw than there are spots, the pay shouldn't have to raise.

what am i missing here?

Most lawyers are too dumb to trust with important matters. Therefore, biglaw firms almost exclusively hire non-entry level associates from other biglaw firms (or from prestigious clerkships or (sometimes) prestigious BIGFED).

The bottom line is that there are a lot of lazy, dumb people who go to law school because the vast majority of law schools are easy as fuck to get into: study decently for the LSAT for 1-2 months and you can get into the vast majority of law schools, assuming your GPA isn't absolute shit. It's more competitive to get a welding job or become a fireman than it is to get into law school. Biglaw firms want to shut out all of these fucking dumbasses, and rightfully so.

Magic Hat wrote:Why would they? Attracting quality first years isn't an issue.

I imagine it's going to take one of the main firms (not like some super elite boutique that's already attracting better talent) to up their salary before there's really a reason to.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote: It's more competitive to get a welding job or become a fireman than it is to get into law school. Biglaw firms want to shut out all of these fucking dumbasses, and rightfully so.

CR - my sister is in welding school, that path... actually looks really rewarding. I strongly suspect her future earning/debt situation is going to look pretty damn favorable to my post-top-law-schools.com.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote: Most lawyers are too dumb to trust with important matters.

Have you ever been to All4JDs? I intellectually understood that many people admitted to some law school must be retarded but it's actually scary.

Magic Hat wrote:Why would they? Attracting quality first years isn't an issue.

Yeah but it will be once all the smart people from college realize they can make more money doing some other job versus going to school for 3 more years with the best possible outcome being a not-that-great salary. Firms need to attract talented people to the profession and into law school by showing them "hey if you are at a top firm (big law firm) you're going to get paid very well"

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Helioze wrote:what was the impetus for the raise to 160k?

Hasn't there always been more lawyers than jerbs?

It seems like as long as there's more people wanting biglaw than there are spots, the pay shouldn't have to raise.

what am i missing here?

Most lawyers are too dumb to trust with important matters. Therefore, biglaw firms almost exclusively hire non-entry level associates from other biglaw firms (or from prestigious clerkships or (sometimes) prestigious BIGFED).

The bottom line is that there are a lot of lazy, dumb people who go to law school because the vast majority of law schools are easy as fuck to get into: study decently for the LSAT for 1-2 months and you can get into the vast majority of law schools, assuming your GPA isn't absolute shit. It's more competitive to get a welding job or become a fireman than it is to get into law school. Biglaw firms want to shut out all of these fucking dumbasses, and rightfully so.

Which is kinda funny when you think about the fact that a trained chimp could do privilege logs and most people wash out of biglaw before they start doing much work that requires any sort of brainpower.

Poopface wrote:

Magic Hat wrote:Why would they? Attracting quality first years isn't an issue.

Yeah but it will be once all the smart people from college realize they can make more money doing some other job versus going to school for 3 more years with the best possible outcome being a not-that-great salary. Firms need to attract talented people to the profession and into law school by showing them "hey if you are at a top firm (big law firm) you're going to get paid very well"

People who work in biglaw do get paid very well (on the face of their salary - leaving aside the things about the job that weigh against that, since they're not going to change if the salary goes up $15-30K). It's still the top paid job for law grads and most law grads aren't going to have more lucrative options. I guess I don't see big firms having to worry about attracting newbies for a while.

But maybe you define a not-that-great salary differently than I do.

Eh, IDK about biglaw pay being amazing. It's certainly generous, but assuming reasonable efficiency (1.3 hours in office for every 1 billed - actually pretty ambitious for most first years) and 2400/yr billed (a lot but common in NYC and it can be worse) that's 62.4 hrs/week with a 2-week for which you're making about $50/hr before taxes, which are high. Take loans and NYC rent off the top and I honestly wonder if it doesn't compare to what you'd make managing a Home Depot only with worse hours