Are Plaintiff's Firms Illegally Suppressing Associate Salaries? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have it on reasonably good authority that they are.

Specifically, I've heard at least some of these firms may have an agreement not to hire associates from peer firms, in order to suppress associate salaries (similar to the antitrust scheme tech companies in Silicon Valley were recently sued for).

Thoughts?

[rpupkin]

I have never heard this. What counts as "reasonably good authority?" I don't expect you to provide names, but you're anonymous—at least tell us the general level of the source.

[dixiecupdrinking]

It's not immediately clear to me how agreeing not to hire each other's associates would suppress salaries, assuming these peer firms all pay roughly the same to begin with. See biglaw.

[jarofsoup]

I didn't think anti-trust laws worked this way.

[Actus Reus]

Presumably the free market would require the firms to compete for the best talent (forced to offer some enhanced benefit over rivals, such as salary, bonus, etc.) but with no concern over a rival firm hiring, then those incentives don't need to be offered.

Not sure it would rise to a violation if they're just all paying the same salaries per class year though unless they've tacitly agreed to do so.

[FSK]

Send DOJ a letter, they actually take enforcement action from that stuff.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[Voyager]

Send DOJ a letter, they actually take enforcement action from that stuff.

Please make sure to tell DOJ that you have it on good authority.

Would add: bold and underline "good authority"

[foregetaboutdre]

I didn't think anti-trust laws worked this way.

In an undergrad labor econ class I remember my prof talking about silicon valley firms basically agreeing not to hire each others engineers and this was a no-no, but I can't remember the details/didn't take anti-trust.

Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/techn ... -case.html

[jbagelboy]

Send DOJ a letter, they actually take enforcement action from that stuff.

Please make sure to tell DOJ that you have it on good authority.

DOJ/Commission antitrust informants actually have to provide an extensive legal and factual presentation that includes exhibits, document and dats productions and a memorandum to be taken seriously/acted upon

"I have it on good authority that I'm underpaid" probably falls short

[Voyager]

Send DOJ a letter, they actually take enforcement action from that stuff.

Please make sure to tell DOJ that you have it on good authority.

DOJ/Commission antitrust informants actually have to provide an extensive legal and factual presentation that includes exhibits, document and dats productions and a memorandum to be taken seriously/acted upon

"I have it on good authority that I'm underpaid" probably falls short

Well if you write it like THAT, sure.

"I have it on good authority that I'm underpaid": totally different story.

[lavarman84]

Guys, you're wrong. He has it on "reasonably" good authority that they are. It's objectively good authority. You have to accept that.

[kellyfrost]

I don't think that they are.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks all for the responses. FWIW I'm not personally an employee of a plaintiffs firm (heard this from someone who is, though).

[Voyager]

Guys, you're wrong. He has it on "reasonably" good authority that they are. It's objectively good authority. You have to accept that.

Good call out. That should be a footnote at the bottom of the page, written just like how you have it.

[FullRamboLSGrad]

My banner on top is for Glen Lerner, thought it fit well with this thread.