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

[Anonymous User]

Hogan Lovells will be announcing their match later today - no word yet on whether it's just NY or will include DC too.

Hogan > CovingTTTon

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Hogan Lovells will be announcing their match later today - no word yet on whether it's just NY or will include DC too.

I expect Hogan won't match in DC because DC is its own special market.

- CovingTTTon Compensation Committee

Covington DC is like Yale Law School. Does Yale give out merit-based aid? Lol no. When some Covington associate mentions to a partner that Skadden DC has moved to 180 and that therefore Covington should match, it's like when an applicant takes his Hamilton to Yale admissions and asks for a match.

Prestige is worth more than money, my friends.

"Apparently all of the summers are from American and Wake Forest this year. I didn't realize those had become top five schools, but I guess it's been 30 years since I've been in that world."

[jbagelboy]

Hogan Lovells will be announcing their match later today - no word yet on whether it's just NY or will include DC too.

I expect Hogan won't match in DC because DC is its own special market.

- CovingTTTon Compensation Committee

Covington DC is like Yale Law School. Does Yale give out merit-based aid? Lol no. When some Covington associate mentions to a partner that Skadden DC has moved to 180 and that therefore Covington should match, it's like when an applicant takes his Hamilton to Yale admissions and asks for a match.

Prestige is worth more than money, my friends.

Nah--Yale is like Williams & Connolly, who can ignore the pay scales because of prestige. CovingTTTon is GeorgeTTTown.

[rpupkin]

Hogan Lovells will be announcing their match later today - no word yet on whether it's just NY or will include DC too.

I expect Hogan won't match in DC because DC is its own special market.

- CovingTTTon Compensation Committee

Covington DC is like Yale Law School. Does Yale give out merit-based aid? Lol no. When some Covington associate mentions to a partner that Skadden DC has moved to 180 and that therefore Covington should match, it's like when an applicant takes his Hamilton to Yale admissions and asks for a match.

Prestige is worth more than money, my friends.

Nah--Yale is like Williams & Connolly, who can ignore the pay scales because of prestige. CovingTTTon is GeorgeTTTown.

In a completely unrelated move, Covington just announced that they plan to hire 250 first-year associates this fall.

[kcdc1]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

[rpupkin]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

Uhhh....I'm afraid that in at least a few cases, this is very much about firms going under.

[dixiecupdrinking]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

Uhhh....I'm afraid that in at least a few cases, this is very much about firms going under.

No firm has ever gone under due to partner defections or disputes over pay!

[smaug]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

Eh. I get this but law is a weird industry. The CEO of Ford can't take a factory with him and move to Dodge if he doesn't like his pay package. Partners *are* the product that law firms sell. A law firms assets are just the partnership and, to a lesser extent, the associates. Upsetting the balance too much might make the assets to somewhere else, fucking the entire thing up.

[androstan]

Hogan Lovells will be announcing their match later today - no word yet on whether it's just NY or will include DC too.

I expect Hogan won't match in DC because DC is its own special market.

- CovingTTTon Compensation Committee

Covington DC is like Yale Law School. Does Yale give out merit-based aid? Lol no. When some Covington associate mentions to a partner that Skadden DC has moved to 180 and that therefore Covington should match, it's like when an applicant takes his Hamilton to Yale admissions and asks for a match.

Prestige is worth more than money, my friends.

- CovingTTTon Compensation Committee

[NJPitcher]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

Uhhh....I'm afraid that in at least a few cases, this is very much about firms going under.

I mean, the raise is an average of ~$25k per associate, multiply that by leverage, and for even the most leveraged firms (say 5:1) it costs partners no more than $125k per partner. No firm would go under by lowering partner compensation $125k, especially if every firm lowers partner/raises associate pay at the same time.

[Tiago Splitter]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

Uhhh....I'm afraid that in at least a few cases, this is very much about firms going under.

I mean, the raise is an average of ~$25k per associate, multiply that by leverage, and for even the most leveraged firms (say 5:1) it costs partners no more than $125k per partner. No firm would go under by lowering partner compensation $125k, especially if every firm lowers partner/raises associate pay at the same time.

As long as firms aren't paying big guarantees to lateral rainmakers, sure. If you're at a firm where low paid partners make 350k and top dogs make $5 million but it's guaranteed finding the money isn't so easy.

[rpupkin]

I mean, the raise is an average of ~$25k per associate, multiply that by leverage, and for even the most leveraged firms (say 5:1) it costs partners no more than $125k per partner. No firm would go under by lowering partner compensation $125k, especially if every firm lowers partner/raises associate pay at the same time.

The reality isn't this simple.

[sundance95]

I mean, the raise is an average of ~$25k per associate, multiply that by leverage, and for even the most leveraged firms (say 5:1) it costs partners no more than $125k per partner. No firm would go under by lowering partner compensation $125k, especially if every firm lowers partner/raises associate pay at the same time.

Bolded are two unjustified assumptions you're making. Some firms might very well go under. You're assuming that every partner bears the compensation load equally, and yet we know that is not true in many cases. Even if it were, rainmakers might well leave if they get a better offer from a competitor. And, of course, not every firm has raised associate pay, so we're not in the scenario you posit.

[Anonymous User]

Inside scoop: Hogan DC expected to match

[rpupkin]

Inside scoop: Hogan DC expected to match

I can't believe Hogan is going to pay above market in DC. Reckless.

[kcdc1]

ATL trolling us: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/dear-big ... -salaries/

What sort of nonsense apologist BS is this? This is like telling CEO's of massively profitable companies not to raise employee salaries for fear of the businesses going under. This is not about firms going under -- it's about distribution of revenue between management and employees. It's possible for partners to simply take a slightly smaller share.

Uhhh....I'm afraid that in at least a few cases, this is very much about firms going under.

Ok sure, for the set of firms where raising salaries would legitimately imperil the firm's financial footing, don't raise salaries. But there's no need to legitimize firms' decisions to keep salaries stagnant in order to avoid reducing partner compensation from, say, 1.3M to 1.25M.

[Anonymous User]

Inside scoop: Hogan DC expected to match

I can't believe Hogan is going to pay above market in DC. Reckless.

CovingTTTon expected to issue the following statement: We are disappointed that Hogan, Skadden, Latham, and the other firms with DC locations have decided to mischaracterize the DC market. We will let our associates know if we believe the DC market has changed.

[rpupkin]

Twist: Convington is playing possum. Watch them come out with memo this week announcing DC to 185K. All the other firms will be caught flat-footed.

[jbagelboy]

Twist: Convington is playing possum. Watch them come out with memo this week announcing DC to 185K. All the other firms will be caught flat-footed.

CovingTTTTon announces DC to 185K.. For fourth year associates.

[bern victim]

Twist: Convington is playing possum. Watch them come out with memo this week announcing DC to 185K. All the other firms will be caught flat-footed.

CovingTTTTon announces DC to 185K.. For fourth year associates.

also, all fourth years are fired

[rpupkin]

Twist: Convington is playing possum. Watch them come out with memo this week announcing DC to 185K. All the other firms will be caught flat-footed.

CovingTTTTon announces DC to 185K.. For fourth year associates.

also, all fourth years are fired . . . but are welcome to return as first-year associates, who will be paid a salary consistent with the DC market.

[Big Shrimpin]

Twist: Convington is playing possum. Watch them come out with memo this week announcing DC to 185K. All the other firms will be caught flat-footed.

CovingTTTTon announces DC to 185K.. For fourth year associates.

also, all fourth years are fired . . . but are welcome to return as first-year associates, who will be paid a salary consistent with the DC market.

Oh, what SAVAGERY!

[jbagelboy]

but really, I'm surprised by the lack of matching activity today. maybe all the non-matched AmLaw firms are hoping everyone woke up from their hangovers and forgot about what happened last week

[J14M]

Honest question from someone who knows embarrassingly little about law firm economics. Once a firm raises salaries, how would it ever benefit from laying off associates? It should be very easy for a first-year associate to bill enough hours to cover a $180K salary, for a second-year to cover a $190K salary, etc. So if those people are laid off, isn't the firm just losing more money? Seems to me that if a firm lays people off, it only becomes harder to cover the raises they just gave out.

[123fakest]

but really, I'm surprised by the lack of matching activity today. maybe all the non-matched AmLaw firms are hoping everyone woke up from their hangovers and forgot about what happened last week

must be because none of the compensation committees meet on monday...right? guys, that must be it, right?