Many firms do advertise their compensation on their website, but not all above-market firms will. The information can be typically found via an Above the Law article or some Law.com press release. The scale of "how above market" is typically more obscured, largely because bonuses are variable at boutiques (much more contingent on successes and individual performance that year). If a 30 attorney firms nets a 80m settlement after a 9-fig jury verdict, bonuses are going to be huge that year. That might not happen every year. However, all "above market" boutiques that I know of at least guarantee compensation "above market" even if, hypothetically, the firm lost every case that year. It's just not going to be "above market" by that much.Anonymous User wrote:Does your firm advertise that it pays above market? Is the general rule that any above-market firm will say so (e.g. on its website)? If not, is there a list somewhere?
There are a few firms that advertise base salaries which are above market as well.
It is a little unfortunate that law students have to dig to learn about above market firms, but that's also a consequence of the dominance of Vault and how its rankings are created (attorney surveys exclusively).
I think size/leverage are more important than practice area focus when it comes to early experience. I don't think there's a huge advantage to being at a lit boutique over MTO, but I don't know anyone who works at MTO so I can't confirm that. My assumption is that MTO is not as leveraged as biglaw and structures its teams to allow juniors more substantive experience. If you're choosing between MTO and a lit boutique, I would make that decision based on practice groups, firm location, and culture.Anonymous User wrote:Do you think that what matters more is that your firm only does litigation or that it is small and gives early experience to juniors? I.e. is there any benefit to a lit boutique over a firm like MTO, which is full-service but small and low-leverage?
