PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190 Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 428544
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
If you have recently accepted an offer, you're probably getting emails from recruiters asking why you chose your firm over theirs. If you accepted at a firm that even has the potential for higher compensation compared to the firm you rejected (K&E, Boies, Wachtell, Quinn), or has lockstep bonuses (Weil, STB, DPW), or pays for your insurance (S&C), or has been a market leader in moving comp recently (Cravath, STB), or is in a lower CoL area (TX, FL, DE), it's probably a good idea to state that as your primary reason. Something like "nicer people" or "work/life balance" is realistically going to do nothing to change firms' behavior, but if we make it clear that choices are being driven in large part by compensation it could help nudge the market forward. All it takes is one firm thinking they're losing out on too many good candidates.
- Wild Card
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:48 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
What's the point? Law schools will just raise tuition another 10,000.
- LaLiLuLeLo
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
190? Didn't your mother teach you to aim for the stars?
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
NY TO 220
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Nagster5
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Because the schools will raise tuition regardless?Wild Card wrote:What's the point? Law schools will just raise tuition another 10,000.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- SmokeytheBear
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:40 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Another raise this winter would be sweet. I know that the executive board of my firm (which was one of the first to match) had pre-approval to match raises (which is why they matched so quickly). Based on what a partner said to me after the raise, I also know that they had pre-approval to match at a higher number than what Cravath raised it to, meaning that there is still some hope!
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Good thread, bad anon
- 84651846190
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Doesn't Quinn end up being lower pay in the end on a per-hour basis, considering the ridiculously high hours stipulations they have on bonuses?
-
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:05 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
How does this matter to us?Wild Card wrote:What's the point? Law schools will just raise tuition another 10,000.
- 2014
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Hell they can raise tuition by 20k per 10k compensation increase, sounds great to me.Wild Card wrote:What's the point? Law schools will just raise tuition another 10,000.
- Nagster5
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Not the point. We just want firms understanding that they must offer more money in order to get those HIGH QUALITY APPLICANTS. Whether they are actually a better deal on a per hour basis matters for people looking to go to those firms, not for convincing firms compensation is the primary driver of students' decisions.ExBiglawAssociate wrote:Doesn't Quinn end up being lower pay in the end on a per-hour basis, considering the ridiculously high hours stipulations they have on bonuses?
- Nagster5
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Was an accident, I'm the OP.jd20132013 wrote:Good thread, bad anon
- RCSOB657
- Posts: 3346
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:50 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Well I can point you to statistical data showing what you're already saying. (More modern students in the US base their expectations of higher learning on money earned potential than anything else.) Will that change the minds of people who started college in the 70s who had an inverse reaction to the same question? (70s students went to school for personal enrichment). I mean will telling them you want more money help? Above my pay grade.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Nagster5
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
I think if we tell them we didn't go to their firm because we had the opportunity for more money elsewhere, they might listen. Also, I don't see a direct correlation between the opinions of the general higher ed population and a subgroup who have pretty clearly chosen to sacrifice personal enrichment for money (biglaw).RCSOB657 wrote:Well I can point you to statistical data showing what you're already saying. (More modern students in the US base their expectations of higher learning on money earned potential than anything else.) Will that change the minds of people who started college in the 70s who had an inverse reaction to the same question? (70s students went to school for personal enrichment). I mean will telling them you want more money help? Above my pay grade.
-
- Posts: 428544
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
People should do whatever they want to do. I doubt that what's being urged in this thread will have much impact on firms (particularly on the micro-scale on which it's likely to happen.) And some of what I'll say below will be of little interest to people who aren't interested in their professional development while at a firm and just want to make as much money as possible for a short amount of time before leaving. But with those disclaimers, I wanted to flag a few downsides of "NY to 190/220/1M" that may exist depending on your specific firm that law students and junior associates might not be aware of.
1. Higher salaries increase your billing rate. The key downside here is that it gets much harder for younger associates to get experience. Clients are less willing to have you in that call/meeting/etc. Partners are less willing to write off your time.
2. Higher salaries increase your billable hours expectations (certainly the informal expectations, and sometimes the formal ones).
3. Higher salaries don't necessarily increase overall pay. Firms may compensate for a salary increase they can't afford by scaling back bonuses. Consider this particularly if your firm pays above-market bonuses to high performers. They may cut back on those bonuses to facilitate a salary increase. If you are a mediocre or low-performing associate, this is good news for you since the money gets redistributed; less good if you are a strong associate. And some firms may even pay undermarket bonuses to compensate for the salary raise - bad news for all.
4. Higher salaries increase the risk of layoffs (including soft layoffs in which midlevels are counseled out before they can become seniors) and may impact the rate of partner promotion (admittedly only of interest to a few here.) Associate salaries are usually a law firm's largest bottom line expense. The hit on partner profits caused by higher salaries can have ramifications for associate longevity and promotions. We're still in flush biglaw times, but the pendulum can swing from feast to famine pretty quickly, as those of us who lived through 2000 and/or 2009 remember.
Again, not disagreeing with anything in this thread, and it won't apply to the very, very top of the biglaw food chain (i.e. disregard if you're headed to Wachtell). Just wanted to add a few relevant points that students and young lawyers of a non-Wachtell persuasion may not consider when they hope for the highest conceivable salaries.
1. Higher salaries increase your billing rate. The key downside here is that it gets much harder for younger associates to get experience. Clients are less willing to have you in that call/meeting/etc. Partners are less willing to write off your time.
2. Higher salaries increase your billable hours expectations (certainly the informal expectations, and sometimes the formal ones).
3. Higher salaries don't necessarily increase overall pay. Firms may compensate for a salary increase they can't afford by scaling back bonuses. Consider this particularly if your firm pays above-market bonuses to high performers. They may cut back on those bonuses to facilitate a salary increase. If you are a mediocre or low-performing associate, this is good news for you since the money gets redistributed; less good if you are a strong associate. And some firms may even pay undermarket bonuses to compensate for the salary raise - bad news for all.
4. Higher salaries increase the risk of layoffs (including soft layoffs in which midlevels are counseled out before they can become seniors) and may impact the rate of partner promotion (admittedly only of interest to a few here.) Associate salaries are usually a law firm's largest bottom line expense. The hit on partner profits caused by higher salaries can have ramifications for associate longevity and promotions. We're still in flush biglaw times, but the pendulum can swing from feast to famine pretty quickly, as those of us who lived through 2000 and/or 2009 remember.
Again, not disagreeing with anything in this thread, and it won't apply to the very, very top of the biglaw food chain (i.e. disregard if you're headed to Wachtell). Just wanted to add a few relevant points that students and young lawyers of a non-Wachtell persuasion may not consider when they hope for the highest conceivable salaries.
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Good use of anon, poster gunning for partnerAnonymous User wrote:People should do whatever they want to do. I doubt that what's being urged in this thread will have much impact on firms (particularly on the micro-scale on which it's likely to happen.) And some of what I'll say below will be of little interest to people who aren't interested in their professional development while at a firm and just want to make as much money as possible for a short amount of time before leaving. But with those disclaimers, I wanted to flag a few downsides of "NY to 190/220/1M" that may exist depending on your specific firm that law students and junior associates might not be aware of.
1. Higher salaries increase your billing rate. The key downside here is that it gets much harder for younger associates to get experience. Clients are less willing to have you in that call/meeting/etc. Partners are less willing to write off your time.
2. Higher salaries increase your billable hours expectations (certainly the informal expectations, and sometimes the formal ones).
3. Higher salaries don't necessarily increase overall pay. Firms may compensate for a salary increase they can't afford by scaling back bonuses. Consider this particularly if your firm pays above-market bonuses to high performers. They may cut back on those bonuses to facilitate a salary increase. If you are a mediocre or low-performing associate, this is good news for you since the money gets redistributed; less good if you are a strong associate. And some firms may even pay undermarket bonuses to compensate for the salary raise - bad news for all.
4. Higher salaries increase the risk of layoffs (including soft layoffs in which midlevels are counseled out before they can become seniors) and may impact the rate of partner promotion (admittedly only of interest to a few here.) Associate salaries are usually a law firm's largest bottom line expense. The hit on partner profits caused by higher salaries can have ramifications for associate longevity and promotions. We're still in flush biglaw times, but the pendulum can swing from feast to famine pretty quickly, as those of us who lived through 2000 and/or 2009 remember.
Again, not disagreeing with anything in this thread, and it won't apply to the very, very top of the biglaw food chain (i.e. disregard if you're headed to Wachtell). Just wanted to add a few relevant points that students and young lawyers of a non-Wachtell persuasion may not consider when they hope for the highest conceivable salaries.
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 428544
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Prior anon. I'm speaking as a senior associate based on issues I've observed in practice, and I'm not comfortable with those observations being associated with a screenname that has identifying information. That's precisely the point of anon.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Nailed it
Last edited by Danger Zone on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- LaLiLuLeLo
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:54 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
This could all be solved by not working at CovingtonAnonymous User wrote:People should do whatever they want to do. I doubt that what's being urged in this thread will have much impact on firms (particularly on the micro-scale on which it's likely to happen.) And some of what I'll say below will be of little interest to people who aren't interested in their professional development while at a firm and just want to make as much money as possible for a short amount of time before leaving. But with those disclaimers, I wanted to flag a few downsides of "NY to 190/220/1M" that may exist depending on your specific firm that law students and junior associates might not be aware of.
1. Higher salaries increase your billing rate. The key downside here is that it gets much harder for younger associates to get experience. Clients are less willing to have you in that call/meeting/etc. Partners are less willing to write off your time.
2. Higher salaries increase your billable hours expectations (certainly the informal expectations, and sometimes the formal ones).
3. Higher salaries don't necessarily increase overall pay. Firms may compensate for a salary increase they can't afford by scaling back bonuses. Consider this particularly if your firm pays above-market bonuses to high performers. They may cut back on those bonuses to facilitate a salary increase. If you are a mediocre or low-performing associate, this is good news for you since the money gets redistributed; less good if you are a strong associate. And some firms may even pay undermarket bonuses to compensate for the salary raise - bad news for all.
4. Higher salaries increase the risk of layoffs (including soft layoffs in which midlevels are counseled out before they can become seniors) and may impact the rate of partner promotion (admittedly only of interest to a few here.) Associate salaries are usually a law firm's largest bottom line expense. The hit on partner profits caused by higher salaries can have ramifications for associate longevity and promotions. We're still in flush biglaw times, but the pendulum can swing from feast to famine pretty quickly, as those of us who lived through 2000 and/or 2009 remember.
Again, not disagreeing with anything in this thread, and it won't apply to the very, very top of the biglaw food chain (i.e. disregard if you're headed to Wachtell). Just wanted to add a few relevant points that students and young lawyers of a non-Wachtell persuasion may not consider when they hope for the highest conceivable salaries.
-
- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
lolololololololololololololololololoolololololololololoolololololoAnonymous User wrote:if we make it clear that choices are being driven in large part by compensation it could help nudge the market forward
-
- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
ps, you are already making clear that your choices are being driven in large part by compensation (because you almost assuredly did not consider firms that paid below market)
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1381
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
higher salaries will lead to understaffing is a fair point, because those profits for partners must be maintained
That said...it may be worth it since you generally don't have a life anyway
That said...it may be worth it since you generally don't have a life anyway
- Nagster5
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Cravath partners didn't raise because they love giving their money to associates, they did it because they thought it would help them attract better associates. Whatever we can do to to convince firms that this is the right line of thinking is good IMO.bk1 wrote:ps, you are already making clear that your choices are being driven in large part by compensation (because you almost assuredly did not consider firms that paid below market)
Also, plenty of people pass on firms that pay above market for market paying firms. People who choose W&C/Covington/Cravath/S&C/DPW over places like K&E/Boies/Desmarais/V&E convince firms that they can pay people in preftige and still get top candidates.
-
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:24 pm
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Upping salaries probably had more to do with trying to prevent losing people they already had than attracting "top talent". The people they are competing for all go to firms that they knew would match right away. And raising 20K isn't going to make Wachtell less attractive.
But a second year that hates his miserable life at Cravath and pays all his money to loans and his shitty apartment and fantasizes about suicide might not leave to go back to Cleveland if you pay him 30k more a year. I mean he still will, but at least a raise makes sense in that case.
But a second year that hates his miserable life at Cravath and pays all his money to loans and his shitty apartment and fantasizes about suicide might not leave to go back to Cleveland if you pay him 30k more a year. I mean he still will, but at least a raise makes sense in that case.
- Nagster5
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 am
Re: PSA: Biglaw 2Ls, do your part to get to 190
Hadn't considered this actually, thanks for the insight.notgreat wrote:Upping salaries probably had more to do with trying to prevent losing people they already had than attracting "top talent". The people they are competing for all go to firms that they knew would match right away. And raising 20K isn't going to make Wachtell less attractive.
But a second year that hates his miserable life at Cravath and pays all his money to loans and his shitty apartment and fantasizes about suicide might not leave to go back to Cleveland if you pay him 30k more a year. I mean he still will, but at least a raise makes sense in that case.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login