NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

[Anonymous User]

I've heard Simpson and Kirkland, but SA at Kirkland hasn't heard anything yet

[Anonymous User]

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

I heard Kirkland matched, which doesn’t bode well for the move to 200K.

[Anonymous User]

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

Associate at STB, no email matching yet.

[sparkytrainer]

Word on the street is Cravath to 215 ...

I honestly think if Cravath moved to 215, maybe 10 firms match in total. I highly doubt the rest of the v100 will follow a move like that. A lot of the v30-100 took months to even match 180.

Forcing separation could be ideal though. It would be a stark advantage in recruiting and retaining talent vis-a-vis all the rest, and would help justify higher billing rates.

There’s no real incentive to do this, because Cravath still gets top students and can charge top rates even while paying associates the same as firms with much lower PPPs.

The firms with the most to gain are probably the Milbanks and Cahills of the world, but 10k probably isn’t enough to really cause separation from the lower ~V50. 10-15k does help a bit with retention, though, which is probably more what this move was about.

100% agree. I was speaking towards a ball-busting move of something like 215 or 220. That would completely separate firms.

[Anonymous User]

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

Associate at STB, no email matching yet.

Ditto on no email yet at STB. Also, some partners are not happy. Exec committee meets on Tuesdays I think so likely no match until tomorrow at the earliest.

[thelastlaugh]

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

Associate at STB, no email matching yet.

Ditto on no email yet at STB. Also, some partners are not happy.

LOLZ.

[Anonymous User]

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

I heard Kirkland matched, which doesn’t bode well for the move to 200K.

Can someone please confirm this? I agree this is extremely unfortunate, if true. Kirkland has been firing on all cylinders, and has a great shot to one-up the more prestigious New York firms with a move to $200k or $210k and the creation of a "Kirkland scale." And as we know, prestige follows the money.

[Anonymous User]

Firms may be cautious to announce a match because, IIRC, Simpson Thacher raised bonuses a few years ago and then DPW beat them within hours (or possibly the next day). If I were on the comp committee, I wouldn't want to announce a Milbank salary match only to have another firm beat the Milbank salary scale 10 minutes later.

[Anonymous User]

Word on the street is Cravath to 215 ...

I honestly think if Cravath moved to 215, maybe 10 firms match in total. I highly doubt the rest of the v100 will follow a move like that. A lot of the v30-100 took months to even match 180.

Forcing separation could be ideal though. It would be a stark advantage in recruiting and retaining talent vis-a-vis all the rest, and would help justify higher billing rates.

There’s no real incentive to do this, because Cravath still gets top students and can charge top rates even while paying associates the same as firms with much lower PPPs.

The firms with the most to gain are probably the Milbanks and Cahills of the world, but 10k probably isn’t enough to really cause separation from the lower ~V50. 10-15k does help a bit with retention, though, which is probably more what this move was about.

100% agree. I was speaking towards a ball-busting move of something like 215 or 220. That would completely separate firms.

I'm not sure that even would do the trick. It would absolutely price out some firms, but, for example, large Texas firms are not interested in making the argument that COL-adjusted salary is still better; they want the numbers to be the same. And, given that a move even to 215 or 220 only slightly outpaces the inflation-adjusted growth over the past 10 years, firms would still feel compelled to move up.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has not spoken yet relax folks

[Anonymous User]

Word on the street is Cravath to 215 ...

I honestly think if Cravath moved to 215, maybe 10 firms match in total. I highly doubt the rest of the v100 will follow a move like that. A lot of the v30-100 took months to even match 180.

Forcing separation could be ideal though. It would be a stark advantage in recruiting and retaining talent vis-a-vis all the rest, and would help justify higher billing rates.

There’s no real incentive to do this, because Cravath still gets top students and can charge top rates even while paying associates the same as firms with much lower PPPs.

The firms with the most to gain are probably the Milbanks and Cahills of the world, but 10k probably isn’t enough to really cause separation from the lower ~V50. 10-15k does help a bit with retention, though, which is probably more what this move was about.

At least in litigation, Cravath does not get the top students. The best from my class (Chicago) went elsewhere, and Cravath hired down to median.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland has not spoken yet relax folks

Thank you.

O elite big law Gods that be
Mighty Latham, Skadden, K&E
Venerable STB, DPW, S&C
Hear our Prayer: More Money!

[lawposeidon]

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff? Edit: Or against senior attorneys who will get pushed out sooner as a result?

[Anonymous User]

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?

The partners can suck it for all I care

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?

The partners can suck it for all I care

[lawposeidon]

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?

The partners can suck it for all I care

My question didn't imply they would suck it. Rather, that they would take, from another, what they give to the raise-granted associates.

[Anonymous User]

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff? Edit: Or against senior attorneys who will get pushed out sooner as a result?

These salary increases seem to come in markets where firms are desperately trying to keep bodies from latterling

[lawposeidon]

These salary increases seem to come in markets where firms are desperately trying to keep bodies from latterling

Are they though? I used to check lateral.ly and most of the associates who left didn't leave to another job. Seemed like they were pushed out.

[Anonymous User]

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?

The partners can suck it for all I care

My question didn't imply they would suck it. Rather, that they would take, from another, what they give to the raise-granted associates.

Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.

[lawposeidon]

Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.

I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!

[Anonymous User]

These salary increases seem to come in markets where firms are desperately trying to keep bodies from latterling

Are they though? I used to check lateral.ly and most of the associates who left didn't leave to another job. Seemed like they were pushed out.

Big law second year. DROVES of juniors leaving to go to other firms, in-house, in-patient treatment. It's a boom economy where one inhumane month makes people realize, "wait, there's other options out there, screw this"

[Anonymous User]

Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.

I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!

You seem like a 1L who asks too many questions. COULD THERE BE SOME SMALL NEGATIVE? Idk; just give me the money plz and thanks.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.

I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!

These "underperformers" aren't being kept around at any top firm. The fat has been cut in a post-recession world. They will continue to cut our benefits (as they have been) and cut other overhead where possible (shared service support staff firmwide, for example).

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.

I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!

You seem like a 1L who asks too many questions. COULD THERE BE SOME SMALL NEGATIVE? Idk; just give me the money plz and thanks.

Also, this.