Top Law Schools

Are they still at 200k or did they also increase first-year salaries?

Interested as well.

Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Midlevels getting wrecked with no bonus should be a reason to re-up.

ArtistOfManliness wrote:Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Except that W&C's raise came before all the NY firms raised salaries, so if they are trying to stay above market there is a big reason to re-up.

Anonymous User wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Except that W&C's raise came before all the NY firms raised salaries, so if they are trying to stay above market there is a big reason to re-up.

But they're not. For years, they were content with 180 to market's 160. And the fact that they haven't re-uped is a good sign that they're not going to

ArtistOfManliness wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Except that W&C's raise came before all the NY firms raised salaries, so if they are trying to stay above market there is a big reason to re-up.

But they're not. For years, they were content with 180 to market's 160. And the fact that they haven't re-uped is a good sign that they're not going to

I mean, I could see it either way. They moved first, to get to ~30k above market even after bonus. I doubt that they knew with certainty that a NYC pay raise was coming shortly thereafter. Perhaps they just calculate compensation totally independent of the market, but if not, there could be a reason they would raise salaries.

Anonymous User wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Except that W&C's raise came before all the NY firms raised salaries, so if they are trying to stay above market there is a big reason to re-up.

They don't give a shit about staying above market. Never have. People go to W&C to say they work at W&C, not for the money.

First Offense wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Except that W&C's raise came before all the NY firms raised salaries, so if they are trying to stay above market there is a big reason to re-up.

They don't give a shit about staying above market. Never have. People go to W&C to say they work at W&C, not for the money.

Cuz the money is crap, especially mid-level +

ArtistOfManliness wrote:

First Offense wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

ArtistOfManliness wrote:Still 200. They increased to 200 a year before the 180 bump... no reason to re-up

Except that W&C's raise came before all the NY firms raised salaries, so if they are trying to stay above market there is a big reason to re-up.

They don't give a shit about staying above market. Never have. People go to W&C to say they work at W&C, not for the money.

Cuz the money is crap, especially mid-level +

Even after the bump after year 4 you would probably make more at a market firm. Although generally the major DC firms have lagged behind market bonuses a bit (until recently) so maybe the difference was bigger than we give it credit for.

A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

And they see the sun even less than us average biglaw associates.

First Offense wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

And they see the sun even less than us average biglaw associates.

That's a legitimate dig. The $10-20k you shed as a midlevel on the other hand is silly and misguided.

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

They still (generally) ascribe to the old model. They hire you expecting you to become partner some day. So small class sizes, very lean staffing, a ton of responsibility.

I wonder how DC firms in general are with that though when compared to NY firms. Then again, with most of the big DC firms merging with global firms maybe the distinction between DC firms and non-DC firms doesn't really exist anymore.

Anonymous User wrote:

First Offense wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

And they see the sun even less than us average biglaw associates.

That's a legitimate dig. The $10-20k you shed as a midlevel on the other hand is silly and misguided.

.

First Offense wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

They still (generally) ascribe to the old model. They hire you expecting you to become partner some day. So small class sizes, very lean staffing, a ton of responsibility.

I wonder how DC firms in general are with that though when compared to NY firms. Then again, with most of the big DC firms merging with global firms maybe the distinction between DC firms and non-DC firms doesn't really exist anymore.

It'll be pretty lulzy when they announce "Williams Connolly Patterson Belknap" in a couple of years.

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

One of the lowest-leveraged biglaw firms in the country (lower than even Wachtell's) which means you're working like a dog because there's no one else to do the work, but your odds at partnership is much, much, much higher than at at NYC shops

The PPP is also very low because of the low leverage, but there's a greater ratio of partners:associates so it's a wash. The revenue per lawyer is also in the top ten the country

throwaway_ wrote:

First Offense wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

They still (generally) ascribe to the old model. They hire you expecting you to become partner some day. So small class sizes, very lean staffing, a ton of responsibility.

I wonder how DC firms in general are with that though when compared to NY firms. Then again, with most of the big DC firms merging with global firms maybe the distinction between DC firms and non-DC firms doesn't really exist anymore.

It'll be pretty lulzy when they announce "Williams Connolly Patterson Belknap" in a couple of years.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

*shudders*

First Offense wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

They still (generally) ascribe to the old model. They hire you expecting you to become partner some day. So small class sizes, very lean staffing, a ton of responsibility.

I wonder how DC firms in general are with that though when compared to NY firms. Then again, with most of the big DC firms merging with global firms maybe the distinction between DC firms and non-DC firms doesn't really exist anymore.

In theory. But don't they usually announce partner classes in November? Looks like no one made it this year, after a few 9th and 11th years made it last year. Not sure how that's a better risk/reward model for associates than alternatives

Wild Card wrote:Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

*shudders*

Their decision to put the "and" after the first name irrationally bothers me.

bk1 wrote:

Wild Card wrote:Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

*shudders*

Their decision to put the "and" after the first name irrationally bothers me.

"Branding".

itbdvorm wrote:
In theory. But don't they usually announce partner classes in November? Looks like no one made it this year, after a few 9th and 11th years made it last year. Not sure how that's a better risk/reward model for associates than alternatives

I honestly don't know when they announce their partner classes. I'd also be really interested to see their attrition rate - despite the "higher chances at partnership", I wouldn't be surprised if the workload itself just burns people out at a pretty high rate. Those fuckers work too much.

itbdvorm wrote:

First Offense wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A W&C attorney has a much greater chance at partnership, which means far higher earning potential than the average biglaw associate (who will never make partner)

Why are chances at W&C better? Not doubting/questioning, just curious.

They still (generally) ascribe to the old model. They hire you expecting you to become partner some day. So small class sizes, very lean staffing, a ton of responsibility.

I wonder how DC firms in general are with that though when compared to NY firms. Then again, with most of the big DC firms merging with global firms maybe the distinction between DC firms and non-DC firms doesn't really exist anymore.

In theory. But don't they usually announce partner classes in November? Looks like no one made it this year, after a few 9th and 11th years made it last year. Not sure how that's a better risk/reward model for associates than alternatives

Or it's because they haven't announced publicly yet. My inside sources tell me 4 associates were promoted this year.

I'm surprised they don't lose talent more often. They're paid a staggering amount less than associates at Kellogg Huber and now also Wilkinson Walsh, and 40-50K less a year than at Covington, Gibson etc.