NY GOES TO 180k! IT HAPPENED!!!! (CovingTTTon does a 180! Holder wept.) Forum

[First Offense]

I can't keep up with this discussion, but basically you're all saying NYC to 190k, right?

[bruinfan10]

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of essentially equal replacements, but there are enough that you don't need to raise salaries to get people.
lol no fucking way. My firm only recently started talking to 1st years (and only for IP because Finnegan poaches all teh EE's as 1Ls). I've never heard an attorney, let alone one with say, ever talk about attracting OL talent to the field.

Hell a lot of firms dont even give a shit about hiring juniors, they are happy to just take laterals when they need them.

1) you don't work at a compensation setting firm

2) you are Junior and have zero input or insight into long term strategic vision

3) any anecdotal evidence you could possibly have isn't enough to show the billion dollar legal industry is an irrational economic actor, which it would have to be for anything you argue to be true.

Aren't you a fucking 2L?

I'm not saying I have better anecdotal evidence than you, I'm saying your anecdotal evidence is worthless to disprove the given assumption that an industry as big as law would act as a rational actor.

this was priceless. sit down before you hurt yourself kiddo. big law firms as "rational economic actors" that's a fun one

[bearsfan23]

I can't keep up with this discussion, but basically you're all saying NYC to 190k, right?

Yes, but only if it's led by a V9 + Deb firm.

PW isn't prestigious enough to push all of NYC to $190k

[abl]

law firm recruiting is 0 sum. the goal is to have better talent than the competition to attract more business -- not to have more talent in an absolute sense. raising salaries in order to bring more talent into law school makes no sense because the additional talent will be shared with competitors, and will produce no comparative benefit.

what matters more is raising comp to keep your good people from going in house

This isn't true from a long term talent perspective

The best of the best from the Swarthmore's, Stanford's, Pomona's, Williams's, Ivy league research universities, ect. stopped going to law school three or four years ago. Law has been pleading talent to tech and finance (and even the banks have bled to silicon valley). Raising base comp would draw more of the "best and brightest" into law school, and a certain % of those people would go into private practice. On a firm by firm basis this is negligible, but industry wide its a meaningful talent investment when you consider the industries law firms as a whole compete with (and the salary price points).

You completely missed my point. Adding more talent to the legal field as a whole does not benefit any given law firm. Law firms make money by winning business. They need comparatively strong talent in order to win business. If better talent goes to law school, every firm's level of talent improves, but no firm improves its position relative to others. The tide simply rises, and no strategic advantage accrues to any particular firm. Thus, the notion that firms would raise salaries to lure better 0L's into the legal profession makes no sense.

Other drivers for raising salary make sense. Just not this one.

I did miss your point, since you said "law firm recruiting," not market share of clients, but I think what you're actually saying here makes even less sense. Firms want quality hires. Sure, in a perfect world, only your firm would have strong candidates, but each firm still benefits individually when the "tide rises." If three firms that compete for talent amongst each other and take in a substantial number of juniors each year -- say, Cravath, Davis Polk, S&C -- all increased the quality of attorneys, that would benefit all three firms. Law recruiting might be zero sum, but I don't agree the market for legal services is so much a zero sum game that improvements in human capital across the board, or at least across a tier, are no longer a worthy long term investment.

Law firms compete against each other, sure, but they are also facing more significant market pressures from clients related to the transformation of the chief industries we service (large corporations, financial institutions, start ups). In fact, most elite firms have institutional clientele that they represent and will continue to represent, and they couldn't be more aggressive with pitching even if they wanted to since they are conflicted out of most other matters. There are so many factors in play here aside from firm v. firm that disrupt the "zero sum" concept you've alluded to here.

Agreed. Biglaw firms don't just care about winning business; they also care about preserving their high hourly rates. To fulfill this goal, firms can't merely be better than other biglaw firms--they have to be better than midlaw firms, better than in-house talent, etc. If the overall talent pool falls too far, and the quality of biglaw associate works drops accordingly, biglaw firms are going to struggle to protect their high rates. I think that this will likely be the case even if the midlaw and in-house talent pool drops similar amounts--I don't think clients will pay astronomical rates for merely the best of the relatively mediocre options.

I'm not convinced that any partners are actually thinking about first year compensation along these lines, but jdb is correct that there is an overall recruiting impact of at least theoretical importance that could motivate a move to $190k.

[UpandDown97]

Might it be possible that instead of raising salary, firms may introduce/raise signing bonuses? Allows them to retact them when need be, is a bit less "showy" then starting salaries, and succeeds in poaching talent.

[Desert Fox]

[Anonymous User]

As a rising 2L with plenty of debt, I would take a job at a firm that offered loan repayment over a considerably more "prestigious" firm. 10% of principal plus interest would be basically be the equivalent to a 30-40K bonus POST taxes.

[abl]

If firms really wanted more talent, they'd offer a loan repayment plan. Pay interest and then pay 10 percent of principle per year.

What's the advantage of doing this for a firm (over just offering a normal bonus)?

[Desert Fox]

[abl]

If firms really wanted more talent, they'd offer a loan repayment plan. Pay interest and then pay 10 percent of principle per year.

What's the advantage of doing this for a firm (over just offering a normal bonus)?

encourages debt slavery

?

[bruinfan10]

If firms really wanted more talent, they'd offer a loan repayment plan. Pay interest and then pay 10 percent of principle per year.

What's the advantage of doing this for a firm (over just offering a normal bonus)?

encourages debt slavery

diabolical.

[Desert Fox]

[Desert Fox]

[Elston Gunn]

If firms really wanted more talent, they'd offer a loan repayment plan. Pay interest and then pay 10 percent of principle per year.

What's the advantage of doing this for a firm (over just offering a normal bonus)?

encourages debt slavery

?

Day one of your SA - Some recruiting lady says "You'll never have to worry about loans while you Work at DENTONS!"

3 years later some partner just ruined your weekend, "but I need this loan repayment!"

Or worse they could just make you sign continuing employment contracts to get it. Finnegan makes student associates sign them now.

Actually that is the better plan. Just do tution reimbursements. Sign your SA committment letter and get two free years of law school. If you work for us for 5 years!

dear god

what's the penalty if you leave early?

[Anonymous User]

If firms really wanted more talent, they'd offer a loan repayment plan. Pay interest and then pay 10 percent of principle per year.

Sorry, but that option ain't too attractive:

1) way too many folks attend T14 at sticker and no debt bcos they can with family money;
2) the payments made on behalf of the new Associate would be taxable to the Associate. (so why not just give 'em the extra cash.)

[chingwoo]

If firms really wanted more talent, they'd offer a loan repayment plan. Pay interest and then pay 10 percent of principle per year.

What's the advantage of doing this for a firm (over just offering a normal bonus)?

encourages debt slavery

?

Day one of your SA - Some recruiting lady says "You'll never have to worry about loans while you Work at DENTONS!"

3 years later some partner just ruined your weekend, "but I need this loan repayment!"

Or worse they could just make you sign continuing employment contracts to get it. Finnegan makes student associates sign them now.

Actually that is the better plan. Just do tution reimbursements. Sign your SA committment letter and get two free years of law school. If you work for us for 5 years!

dear god

what's the penalty if you leave early?

Isn't this the "we'll pay for your mba model?"

[Johann]

this is very common in many fields. you have to stay the 3 years to get any of it. nursing and teaching have lots of programs where if you stay 3 years they give you a large bonus. if you leave you get nothing. it's a really smart business move because it ensures retention or not having to pony up, but almost seems too smart for law firms to use and also probably throws a wrinkle into accounting.

[Anonymous User]

Most companies do all sorts of retention based compensation. Very commonly companies will pay for MBAs on a delayed schedule (like corp pays 33% per year but it doesnt vest for 5 years). Similarly some companies do it with 401k - matching contributions that don't vest immediately, so you give up a lot of $$$ when you leave. It is extremely common with signing and relo-bonuses where basically if you leave earlier than a certain date you have to repay a pro-rated amount of the bonus.

[star fox]

Most companies do all sorts of retention based compensation. Very commonly companies will pay for MBAs on a delayed schedule (like corp pays 33% per year but it doesnt vest for 5 years). Similarly some companies do it with 401k - matching contributions that don't vest immediately, so you give up a lot of $$$ when you leave. It is extremely common with signing and relo-bonuses where basically if you leave earlier than a certain date you have to repay a pro-rated amount of the bonus.

But often when a new company wants to hire you away, they step in on the MBA.

[Johann]

I'm bringing this KE $80 per hour for summers for 3L year here. This is the biggest deal I've seen re lawyer compensation since I started caring about the legal market last few years.

Way bigger than bonus season increases this past year.

1) It's a move purely targeted at the most junior of all people. This is the least profitable group in the law firm. I joked earlier in a NYC to 190 thread that first, recruiters would start reaching out to 3Ls on LinkedIn - this is that type of move.
2) It's not in NYC - which is big for me because it was not clear (to me at least) if other markets could match NYC.
3) It's a substantial amount of money - $48k in comp assuming 30 weeks of work (2 semesters).

[BigZuck]

Would you say that Kirkland, ahem, SHATTERED the myth that NYC to 190K was impossible?

[jbagelboy]

Would you say that Kirkland, ahem, SHATTERED the myth that NYC to 190K was impossible?

the problem is firms like Quinn and Kirkland have always done weird shit so the white shoe can still brush it off as eccentrics.

[beepboopbeep]

Brushing sth off is harder if you're losing candidates to those firms tho

I think the Quinn thing was more like, whatever, people who'd choose them based off that were going to get sucked in anyway

Money's money tho esp. when we're talking about these summers not having to take out probably any 3L loans now. pretty dope

[jbagelboy]

yea that's true. KE has always paid "above market" to some associates tho and it doesn't up their numbers from our school. So $ isn't everything. But that's the new york office and my sense is that their Chicago office is a bigger deal (and for us, harder to get). Also as you say this could be a lot of $.

[Johann]

You guys are so locked into this who is going to be the highest bidder for me rather than looking at the big picture takeaway - KE is swimming in so much pussy (work) right now they are throwing that shit to the dude down the hall they don't even care about (SAs) for a high 5 (smallest profit margin) instead of their wingman for an IOU (midlevels); if this is happening to KE, surely it's happening to other 919s (V10s) out there, and the next logical step is pussy for everyone (the pie grew, more pie for everyone AKA $$$).