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

[Tls2016]

The idea that some V10 firm will raise salaries of its current associates in order to persuade more 21-year-olds to apply to law school tickles me. Not saying they won't raise salaries -- obviously, they will and very soon -- but it won't be to lure 0L's into applying to, e.g., Northwestern.

If the causal chain ever came to fruition, I think it would run the other way. It's not "we need to raise salaries so more kids will apply to law school," it's "we have to raise salaries to keep talent, because the ones coming in are no longer adequate replacements."

The problem is the inherent pyramid structure, as mentioned above where high attrition is expected. There are only a few associates good enough for partners to care and they will know who they are. So they don't need to replace most of the people who leave and the new crop of first years will pick up the grunt work. (Also, never forget, the partners know how to do the work without associates.)

I hope a raise comes through but my bet would be on increased bonuses if anything. Wasn't there a firm where all the associates complained about pay and the result was they lost something? Was that the infamous Skadden cheese plate debacle?
I just think that there is no meeting of the minds between juniors and partners. But that can change so don't give up hope. Just don't know when it's coming.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Law firms look at grades and school cuz they want to best available talent, not cuz it requires certain amount of talent to do the work. Gpa/school is all relative; Whether or not overall admission standard goes down, there always will be students eager to work at top law firms.

This theory seems to postulate that firms have been deliberately hiring overpriced talent for 50 years when they could've had armies of Touro contract attorneys be equally effective at one-quarter of the price, and that partners who everyone agrees are ruthlessly concerned about the bottom line were, I don't know, either too generous or too dumb to change it.

Firms obviously have given a shit about something fairly uniquely at the T14 for decades. Call it intelligence, call it work ethic, call it prestige, whatever. There's probably plenty of whatever it is right now, but the supply is not infinite. And whatever it is, if there are fewer people with Desirable Characteristic X at the same type firms are hiring more associates, then it's harder to replace people who leave and it's harder to compete for the incoming talent. And again, that doesn't mean you or I will ever see a salary increase, but something will eventually have to give.

Related: Does anyone know where I can find reliable data on associate turnover?

[Tls2016]

Law firms look at grades and school cuz they want to best available talent, not cuz it requires certain amount of talent to do the work. Gpa/school is all relative; Whether or not overall admission standard goes down, there always will be students eager to work at top law firms.

This theory seems to postulate that firms have been deliberately hiring overpriced talent for 50 years when they could've had armies of Touro contract attorneys be equally effective at one-quarter of the price, and that partners who everyone agrees are ruthlessly concerned about the bottom line were, I don't know, either too generous or too dumb to change it.

Firms obviously have given a shit about something fairly uniquely at the T14 for decades. Call it intelligence, call it work ethic, call it prestige, whatever. There's probably plenty of whatever it is right now, but the supply is not infinite. And whatever it is, if there are fewer people with Desirable Characteristic X at the same type firms are hiring more associates, then it's harder to replace people who leave and it's harder to compete for the incoming talent. And again, that doesn't mean you or I will ever see a salary increase, but something will eventually have to give.

Related: Does anyone know where I can find reliable data on associate turnover?

Well, I think it's based on convincing clients to pay a bill by presenting a certain image for the juniors . But we all know that clients are refusing to pay for first years training or to do a lot of discovery stuff and guess what, contract attorneys are a thing, and they get paid nothing compared to associates. It turns out clients care more about lowering their bills then having 1st years from YHS learn on their dime.

I know this is simplistic but trying to get the basic idea here.

[FluffMonster]

nah. people choose to live in NYC all the time for irrational reasons because its the best city in the world. there are still lots of lawyers addicted to the bottles and models, which isnt available outside of NYC. between the 2, they arent having any problems with talent. the other cities are having problems with talent - not NYC.

Only place you can afford models and bottles anymore is outside of NY.

[legends159]

$160K starting base plus bonus is still a lot of money. Other industries are not paying much more than that for entry level positions so I don't see a decline in legal talent on the horizon. The best and brightest who want top dollars may not go to law or work biglaw but that's fine. Just need someone who isn't an idiot to turn changes. And if only dummies go to law school, well biglaw will just hire the best dummies and I'm sure they'll be competent enough to do the work.

[mvp99]

what we need is midlevels to lateral in DROVES now

[Johann]

nah. people choose to live in NYC all the time for irrational reasons because its the best city in the world. there are still lots of lawyers addicted to the bottles and models, which isnt available outside of NYC. between the 2, they arent having any problems with talent. the other cities are having problems with talent - not NYC.

Only place you can afford models and bottles anymore is outside of NY.

catch 22. cause it only exists in nyc.

[TLSModBot]

nah. people choose to live in NYC all the time for irrational reasons because its the best city in the world. there are still lots of lawyers addicted to the bottles and models, which isnt available outside of NYC. between the 2, they arent having any problems with talent. the other cities are having problems with talent - not NYC.

Only place you can afford models and bottles anymore is outside of NY.

catch 22. cause it only exists in nyc.

Well, there are still like part-time tier 2 catalog models and bottles of $40 scotch.

[El Pollito]

Law firms look at grades and school cuz they want to best available talent, not cuz it requires certain amount of talent to do the work. Gpa/school is all relative; Whether or not overall admission standard goes down, there always will be students eager to work at top law firms.

This theory seems to postulate that firms have been deliberately hiring overpriced talent for 50 years when they could've had armies of Touro contract attorneys be equally effective at one-quarter of the price, and that partners who everyone agrees are ruthlessly concerned about the bottom line were, I don't know, either too generous or too dumb to change it.

Firms obviously have given a shit about something fairly uniquely at the T14 for decades. Call it intelligence, call it work ethic, call it prestige, whatever. There's probably plenty of whatever it is right now, but the supply is not infinite. And whatever it is, if there are fewer people with Desirable Characteristic X at the same type firms are hiring more associates, then it's harder to replace people who leave and it's harder to compete for the incoming talent. And again, that doesn't mean you or I will ever see a salary increase, but something will eventually have to give.

Related: Does anyone know where I can find reliable data on associate turnover?

Well, I think it's based on convincing clients to pay a bill by presenting a certain image for the juniors . But we all know that clients are refusing to pay for first years training or to do a lot of discovery stuff and guess what, contract attorneys are a thing, and they get paid nothing compared to associates. It turns out clients care more about lowering their bills then having 1st years from YHS learn on their dime.

I know this is simplistic but trying to get the basic idea here.

Have you worked with K attorneys? They are largely unemployable.

[spyke123]

Law firms look at grades and school cuz they want to best available talent, not cuz it requires certain amount of talent to do the work. Gpa/school is all relative; Whether or not overall admission standard goes down, there always will be students eager to work at top law firms.

This theory seems to postulate that firms have been deliberately hiring overpriced talent for 50 years when they could've had armies of Touro contract attorneys be equally effective at one-quarter of the price, and that partners who everyone agrees are ruthlessly concerned about the bottom line were, I don't know, either too generous or too dumb to change it.

Firms obviously have given a shit about something fairly uniquely at the T14 for decades. Call it intelligence, call it work ethic, call it prestige, whatever. There's probably plenty of whatever it is right now, but the supply is not infinite. And whatever it is, if there are fewer people with Desirable Characteristic X at the same type firms are hiring more associates, then it's harder to replace people who leave and it's harder to compete for the incoming talent. And again, that doesn't mean you or I will ever see a salary increase, but something will eventually have to give.

Related: Does anyone know where I can find reliable data on associate turnover?

Maybe I was not clear, I did not mean law firms will hire anyone with a JD. They are obviously looking for talent. They care about schools/gpa and will generally hire from T14 because they want the best available talent. So yes, they do give a shit about T14 and they will continue to do so. But the thing is whether or not admission standard goes down, T14 will continue to churn out thousands of grads each year (have enrollments at T14 actually gone down over the years? even though medians might have been falling?) and law firms will have no shortage of Harvard kids to hire from. I bet it will be a long time (if ever) before top law firms will realize kids from Harvard aren't as smart as they used to be.

[Anonymous User]

I bet it will be a long time (if ever) before top law firms will realize kids from Harvard aren't as smart as they used to be.

What's your basis for the claim that "Harvard [kids] aren't as smart as they used to be?" Last I checked, HLS' LSAT median was 99th percentile, same as it's been for years.

[UnicornHunter]

nah. people choose to live in NYC all the time for irrational reasons because its the best city in the world. there are still lots of lawyers addicted to the bottles and models, which isnt available outside of NYC. between the 2, they arent having any problems with talent. the other cities are having problems with talent - not NYC.

Only place you can afford models and bottles anymore is outside of NY.

catch 22. cause it only exists in nyc.

Not so much a catch-22 as just another in a long list of reasons to not be a lawyer.

[TheoO]

I bet it will be a long time (if ever) before top law firms will realize kids from Harvard aren't as smart as they used to be.

What's your basis for the claim that "Harvard [kids] aren't as smart as they used to be?" Last I checked, HLS' LSAT median was 99th percentile, same as it's been for years.

Scoring high on the LSAT ain't what it used to be; getting a top GPA ain't what it used to be. You can retake the LSAT multiple times and even places like HLS don't necessarily average out anymore. I'm not saying HLS students are dumber (it wouldn't be next to impossible to gauge), but I think that there's something to be said about admission standards having been diluted a bit at the top 14.

[star fox]

I bet it will be a long time (if ever) before top law firms will realize kids from Harvard aren't as smart as they used to be.

What's your basis for the claim that "Harvard [kids] aren't as smart as they used to be?" Last I checked, HLS' LSAT median was 99th percentile, same as it's been for years.

Scoring high on the LSAT ain't what it used to be; getting a top GPA ain't what it used to be. You can retake the LSAT multiple times and even places like HLS don't necessarily average out anymore. I'm not saying HLS students are dumber (it wouldn't be next to impossible to gauge), but I think that there's something to be said about admission standards having been diluted a bit at the top 14.

Well the lsat is percentile based so whatever it means it probably means about what's it meant since it was scaled in such a way. I guess at some point if associate comp falls to like $90k equivalent value to today's dollars and tuition keeps skyrocketing something has gotta give but as of now I don't think anyone is paying any notice if Harvard and Columbia's median lsat drops a point. They still have enough available "top law students" to choose from.

And $160k is still a high salary for people without experience

[kcdc1]

I'm not saying HLS students are dumber (it wouldn't be next to impossible to gauge), but I think that there's something to be said about admission standards having been diluted a bit at the top 14.

We can't afford to sugarcoat this issue anymore -- the caliber of students at HLS is getting frighteningly close to what 10 years ago you might have found, at say, Vanderbilt or even Notre Dame. Firms better buck up soon or client service will suffer.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The T14 responded to the decline in qualified applicants with a mix of a decline in students and a decline in standards. There are fewer students and they're less qualified. The fact that there are fewer T14 students when firms are increasing hiring is a simple supply/demand issue that has them going further into the class at most schools than anytime since 2007 (at least for c/o 2016), although probably not as far as they did then. Do they notice the quality decline? They say they do (although it's possible partners have been saying "these new associates are the worst yet!" forever). Do they care enough to do anything about it? Probably not anytime soon.

I wonder if more non-firm employers are ever gonna come to OCI. HP, Microsoft and I think one or two other big ones have had some success at T14 OCI offering salaries relatively close to $160k. McKinsey has always taken their bunch. If non-firm demand is rising faster than firm-demand, it stands to reason that in-house salaries are liable to move long before firm salaries do, and anecdotally, I've heard things improved a little on that front, although I'm sure someone who knows that market better than me can shed some light on the situation.

[Anonymous User]

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/associat ... mcdermott/


its happening this year.. this is it.

[raptors_delight]

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/associat ... mcdermott/


its happening this year.. this is it.

NY PLZ

[GreenEggs]

Have you worked with K attorneys? They are largely unemployable.

They're just incompetent?

[kcdc1]

Time to cut the crap and UNIONIZE.

Let's talk plans. Who's in the union, and what's our strategy? I suggest a strategy that focuses on controlling the flow of T14 DEGREES -- we know biglaw can't operate without them.

[Pokemon]

This is happening. Was walking around office today and door of partner's corner office was closed. I hear as I pass another partner from inside screaming "I cannot ducking believe we will start paying them 190k." I slowed down maybe I could overhear something else but no luck.

[Actus Reus]

This is happening. Was walking around office today and door of partner's corner office was closed. I hear as I pass another partner from inside screaming "I cannot ducking believe we will start paying them 190k." I slowed down maybe I could overhear something else but no luck.

[Anonymous User]

What firm is this at?

This is happening. Was walking around office today and door of partner's corner office was closed. I hear as I pass another partner from inside screaming "I cannot ducking believe we will start paying them 190k." I slowed down maybe I could overhear something else but no luck.

[rpupkin]

What firm is this at?

This is happening. Was walking around office today and door of partner's corner office was closed. I hear as I pass another partner from inside screaming "I cannot ducking believe we will start paying them 190k." I slowed down maybe I could overhear something else but no luck.

And if you're not comfortable identifying the firm for fear of being outed, please provide Vault range within three places. TYIA.

[rpupkin]

Time to cut the crap and UNIONIZE.

Let's talk plans. Who's in the union, and what's our strategy?

I'm in. I'll provide muscle, assaulting any contract attorney who crosses our picket lines.