Top Law Schools

Sackboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:
Weil’s corporate group has been ~1800 hours average for the last several years, litigation has been a bit higher, and restructuring has been ~2300+.

I'm genuinely pretty shocked about both Weil's and Kirkland's hours averages. I don't work considerably north of Kirkland's, but I do work north of it and my annual billable hours always start with a 2. I thought I was lucky, hearing all these horror stories on here of people billing like 2600. I feel like I'm not slacking enough now, lol.

RIP to restructuring folks. You really have to love it to grind out 2300+ years on end. Is that the official number given at an associate/firm town hall?

When firms provide average hours are they pro-rating or not counting associates that aren’t there for a full year? Otherwise arrivals and departures could throw off the reported average vs what associates are really working.

Anonymous User wrote:There's also a lot of misunderstanding about NSP billing rates here. There's no "fake partner" bump in billing rates for a newly minted NSP. It goes up by the same incremental amount as you would expect going from year 5 to 6. So a 1st year NSP would be billed out the same as a 7th year associate at a peer firm.

Thanks for confirming this. Amazing how many people assume that clients (most of whom came from biglaw) are idiots and breathlessly sign invoices to pay Jeff Smith, UChicago class of '15, $4k/hour because he's a "partner".

Lurk2020 wrote:When firms provide average hours are they pro-rating or not counting associates that aren’t there for a full year? Otherwise arrivals and departures could throw off the reported average vs what associates are really working.

I mean, why wouldn't they prorate? These numbers are typically put forth at confidential internal town halls, as yardsticks for the associates to use to evaluate their own productivity. The firm really has no incentive to artificially lowball these figures. (I'm not aware of any top firm that publishes these numbers or uses them in recruiting etc.)

QContinuum wrote:

Lurk2020 wrote:When firms provide average hours are they pro-rating or not counting associates that aren’t there for a full year? Otherwise arrivals and departures could throw off the reported average vs what associates are really working.

I mean, why wouldn't they prorate? These numbers are typically put forth at confidential internal town halls, as yardsticks for the associates to use to evaluate their own productivity. The firm really has no incentive to artificially lowball these figures. (I'm not aware of any top firm that publishes these numbers or uses them in recruiting etc.)

Agreed. Firms have no real incentive to massage these numbers because they are only ever shared internally. One thing to keep in mind however is the difference between “average” hours for the associate class, and those that will make it past a few years. So if you are at Weil/K&E and are billing 1900 hours... things aren’t looking too sunny for advancement.

Lurk2020 wrote:

Sackboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:
Weil’s corporate group has been ~1800 hours average for the last several years, litigation has been a bit higher, and restructuring has been ~2300+.

I'm genuinely pretty shocked about both Weil's and Kirkland's hours averages. I don't work considerably north of Kirkland's, but I do work north of it and my annual billable hours always start with a 2. I thought I was lucky, hearing all these horror stories on here of people billing like 2600. I feel like I'm not slacking enough now, lol.

RIP to restructuring folks. You really have to love it to grind out 2300+ years on end. Is that the official number given at an associate/firm town hall?

When firms provide average hours are they pro-rating or not counting associates that aren’t there for a full year? Otherwise arrivals and departures could throw off the reported average vs what associates are really working.

I’ve always thought these averages were weirdly low. My V50 firm in NYC told us that the average billable were 1700. How the hell is that even possible in big law?

Anonymous User wrote:

Lurk2020 wrote:

Sackboy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:
Weil’s corporate group has been ~1800 hours average for the last several years, litigation has been a bit higher, and restructuring has been ~2300+.

I'm genuinely pretty shocked about both Weil's and Kirkland's hours averages. I don't work considerably north of Kirkland's, but I do work north of it and my annual billable hours always start with a 2. I thought I was lucky, hearing all these horror stories on here of people billing like 2600. I feel like I'm not slacking enough now, lol.

RIP to restructuring folks. You really have to love it to grind out 2300+ years on end. Is that the official number given at an associate/firm town hall?

When firms provide average hours are they pro-rating or not counting associates that aren’t there for a full year? Otherwise arrivals and departures could throw off the reported average vs what associates are really working.

I’ve always thought these averages were weirdly low. My V50 firm in NYC told us that the average billable were 1700. How the hell is that even possible in big law?

There are a ton of folks in biglaw just trying to coast for 1-2 years and then do something else with their time.

Anonymous User wrote:I’ve always thought these averages were weirdly low. My V50 firm in NYC told us that the average billable were 1700. How the hell is that even possible in big law?

I'm surprised that people haven't figured this out using their available numbers.

Take this example. 1st-year, X, bills at $500/hr. X bills 1,750 hours with an 85% realization rate. That's 1,500 billed hours for $750,000 in revenue. Even assuming the all-in cost of X (salaries, benefits, office space, apportioned cost of office support staff) is $500k, that's still a 50% gross margin. Ancillary expenses may bring that down to 40%, but that's still healthy and about the average for the AmLaw 100.

For reference, WLRK, K&E, and Cahill have some of the highest profit margins, and they only sit around ~60% most years, and even their average hours are probably not as bad as imagined as WLRK has a different business model and K&E/Cahill predominantly operate in highly lucrative practice areas. I think that AmLaw 2019 actually had a statistic that said something to the effect of Fish & Richardson was the firm with the highest average billables at 1,917 hours.

JusticeSquee wrote:There are a ton of folks in biglaw just trying to coast for 1-2 years and then do something else with their time.

This is true, but I think that people also have to consider that a decent chunk of the firm may be on leave for any number of reasons. If an associate takes parental leave for 6-months and were on pace for 2,000 hours. That's now cut to 1,000. It would take two other associates billing 2,500 hours each to bring the average of the three back to 2,000.

BrainsyK wrote:This is true, but I think that people also have to consider that a decent chunk of the firm may be on leave for any number of reasons. If an associate takes parental leave for 6-months and were on pace for 2,000 hours. That's now cut to 1,000. It would take two other associates billing 2,500 hours each to bring the average of the three back to 2,000.

I'd assume the firm would take unpaid leave into consideration in calcing out the average? Otherwise, again, you end up with an inaccurate and misleading lowball figure, which doesn't benefit the firm (if anything, they'd have an incentive to get the average as high as possible to make associates feel the need to bill more to keep up).

As for hours being weirdly low, 1) I totally agree, but 2) I also think part of what makes BigLaw so challenging isn't the sheer quantity of billables per se, but the unpredictability. Often I've had days with little or no work, then suddenly late in the afternoon, or even in the evening, something urgent rolls in with no advance notice. 8 PM - 3 AM is "only" 7 billables max if you don't take any breaks, which doesn't look so bad, but the fact that it's 8 PM - 3 AM is what makes it feel very painful. And the worst part is, of course, that you can't plan for it in advance. It's one thing to know you'll be on the night shift - then you can sleep during the day, see friends, whatever. But in BigLaw, you're still on call all day. You can't just wake up at 4 PM, grab a leisurely dinner with friends, then roll in at 8 PM. So the day that "looks" like a light, 7-billable day, in fact feels like (and actually is) a very painful and exhausting >17-hour day.

ghostoftraynor wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:A word of caution about profit margin. Some firms have very high profit margins because they focus on high margin practices, because they have armies of non-equity partners billed out at partner rates but not paid as partners (in K&E's case), and/or because of their billing model (in Wachtell's case).

Other firms have high margins because they are extraordinarily stingy (by biglaw standards) and underpay staff (or don't fill vacancies at all), offer crappy benefits, nickel and dime associates on reimbursements (for meals and other expenses), etc. This is great if you're a partner, but not so much if you're anyone else at the firm. Being stingy in normal times also means that, if things go sour, there aren't really any costs that you can cut further.

For these firms, being stingy also inflates PPP. Some of the stingy firms in the top 20 by PPP would drop out of the top 20 if they had profit margins that are closer to the median for the top 20 (50ish%). So, high profit margin and high PPP, by themselves, don't tell you that much about a firm's business.

Anon because I obviously work at a stingy high profit margin firm.

I don't think this is right. Top firms have generally the same costs (same salaries, office space needs etc), but billing rates differ significantly. Some firms also have a lot more work and associates have higher average hours. Billing rate X average hours is by far the biggest driver. Being cheap isn't not materially moving the needle for anyone.

Nah, firm structures vary significantly and it's important to parse when considering their financial health. Just for an illustrative example, Orrick cut salaries even with decent PPP/RPL numbers because they had a low profit margin, and part of that is because getting that business involves dozens of marginally profitable offices and lots more expensive counsel/non-equity partners than average. It's a much riskier way to do business than if you can just sit around billing $800+ for your third years and waiting for the phone to ring with another ten-figure M&A deal. Everyone would love to do that, but there's only so much of the highest-margin work to go around.

As mentioned above, there's other ways you can run a more or less expensive business. Even within NYC some offices can be 25, 50, 100% more expensive in rent per lawyer than others. There are a million stories on here about the various ways associates are nickel and dimed (is DPW still on that fucking $25 Seamless limit?) that affect your QoL, and things like leverage affect your future prospects even in good times. Sum it all up and you'll see meaningful differences in the expenses of various firms, even similarly situated ones.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Nah, firm structures vary significantly and it's important to parse when considering their financial health. Just for an illustrative example, Orrick cut salaries even with decent PPP/RPL numbers because they had a low profit margin, and part of that is because getting that business involves dozens of marginally profitable offices and lots more expensive counsel/non-equity partners than average. It's a much riskier way to do business than if you can just sit around billing $800+ for your third years and waiting for the phone to ring with another ten-figure M&A deal. Everyone would love to do that, but there's only so much of the highest-margin work to go around.

As mentioned above, there's other ways you can run a more or less expensive business. Even within NYC some offices can be 25, 50, 100% more expensive in rent per lawyer than others. There are a million stories on here about the various ways associates are nickel and dimed (is DPW still on that fucking $25 Seamless limit?) that affect your QoL, and things like leverage affect your future prospects even in good times. Sum it all up and you'll see meaningful differences in the expenses of various firms, even similarly situated ones.

100% agree.

Look at the firms moving to/around Hudson Yards. Cravath supposedly was paying $54M for 600k sq ft. at Worldwide Plaza. The firm is moving to Two Manhattan West with 481k sq ft. The average commercial rental cost in Hudson Yards was $118/sq. ft. at the end of 2018. That means Cravath could now paying ~$57M for 80% of the square footage (it's probably more since Two Manhattan West won't open until 2022 and consequently probably has higher rents). They could have probably renegotiated and stayed in WW Plaza with 80% of the square footage at $45M. This is an example of a conscious choice that firms make that affects their profit margins. Now, imagine if a firm has 20 offices instead of 2.

lawdude31 wrote:

jackshunger wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

At my T6, Cravath gets about 50-60% of people they offer, which also happens to match up pretty strongly with the number of people that get Wachtell, W&C, Boies, Susman, etc. I think their brand is fine for the most part, sure they aren't getting the top, top students anymore, but they still have better conversation rates than S&C, DPW, Skadden, and the like.

But they also don't seem to necessarily be in consideration for all top students the same way S&C and the other top firms do. And they also are less grade selective, focusing more on students who fit their mold, and therefore are more likely to accept the offer.

Cravath basically never gets anyone to take an offer at UChicago. I think they got literally nobody at both 2017 and 2018 OCIs and only got a couple of people at this year's. Part of that is strong aversion to the NYC market in general in top students at the school and part of it is that Cravath doesn't go close to median at Chicago to compensate like S&C, etc. do, but no other firm struggles so badly relative to its "prestige."

Anonymous User wrote:

lawdude31 wrote:

jackshunger wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

At my T6, Cravath gets about 50-60% of people they offer, which also happens to match up pretty strongly with the number of people that get Wachtell, W&C, Boies, Susman, etc. I think their brand is fine for the most part, sure they aren't getting the top, top students anymore, but they still have better conversation rates than S&C, DPW, Skadden, and the like.

But they also don't seem to necessarily be in consideration for all top students the same way S&C and the other top firms do. And they also are less grade selective, focusing more on students who fit their mold, and therefore are more likely to accept the offer.

Cravath basically never gets anyone to take an offer at UChicago. I think they got literally nobody at both 2017 and 2018 OCIs and only got a couple of people at this year's. Part of that is strong aversion to the NYC market in general in top students at the school and part of it is that Cravath doesn't go close to median at Chicago to compensate like S&C, etc. do, but no other firm struggles so badly relative to its "prestige."

I mean, I read this, at least partially, as Cravath not really caring if they get Chicago students. If they went oh-for in 2017 and 2018, they offered like a single-digit number of people.

Gotta love the harmony in fighting over whether UCHI grads pick Cravath or Cravath pick UCHI grads considering they're basically a match made in Coasian hell.

UVA2B wrote:Gotta love the harmony in fighting over whether UCHI grads pick Cravath or Cravath pick UCHI grads considering they're basically a match made in Coasian hell.

Narcissism of small differences, etc

LBJ's Hair wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

lawdude31 wrote:

jackshunger wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

At my T6, Cravath gets about 50-60% of people they offer, which also happens to match up pretty strongly with the number of people that get Wachtell, W&C, Boies, Susman, etc. I think their brand is fine for the most part, sure they aren't getting the top, top students anymore, but they still have better conversation rates than S&C, DPW, Skadden, and the like.

But they also don't seem to necessarily be in consideration for all top students the same way S&C and the other top firms do. And they also are less grade selective, focusing more on students who fit their mold, and therefore are more likely to accept the offer.

Cravath basically never gets anyone to take an offer at UChicago. I think they got literally nobody at both 2017 and 2018 OCIs and only got a couple of people at this year's. Part of that is strong aversion to the NYC market in general in top students at the school and part of it is that Cravath doesn't go close to median at Chicago to compensate like S&C, etc. do, but no other firm struggles so badly relative to its "prestige."

I mean, I read this, at least partially, as Cravath not really caring if they get Chicago students. If they went oh-for in 2017 and 2018, they offered like a single-digit number of people.

I meant this was more a supporting anecdote than as an insult to your firm, but you're wrong in any case. At least in 2018 Cravath was one of the top extenders of offers in NY and had by far the worst ratio. (And incidentally only a few NY offices broke double digits for offers at Chicago, only 40 or so students interview for the market every year).

In the healthiest market we've recently seen, Chicago grads rejected top NY firms for other opportunities in a relatively small sample size without (admittedly protected) evidence?

I'm not sure you're proving much here.

Anonymous User wrote:

LBJ's Hair wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

lawdude31 wrote:

jackshunger wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:As another data point about Cravath, multiple people I know from school turned down Cravath specifically because of the rotational system. The benefits just don't outweigh the negatives when you have comparable options. (Cravath might respond that they only want people who are willing to drink the Kool-Aid, but there's only so often that you can insist on that when the demographic shifts are not in your favor.)

At my T6, Cravath gets about 50-60% of people they offer, which also happens to match up pretty strongly with the number of people that get Wachtell, W&C, Boies, Susman, etc. I think their brand is fine for the most part, sure they aren't getting the top, top students anymore, but they still have better conversation rates than S&C, DPW, Skadden, and the like.

But they also don't seem to necessarily be in consideration for all top students the same way S&C and the other top firms do. And they also are less grade selective, focusing more on students who fit their mold, and therefore are more likely to accept the offer.

Cravath basically never gets anyone to take an offer at UChicago. I think they got literally nobody at both 2017 and 2018 OCIs and only got a couple of people at this year's. Part of that is strong aversion to the NYC market in general in top students at the school and part of it is that Cravath doesn't go close to median at Chicago to compensate like S&C, etc. do, but no other firm struggles so badly relative to its "prestige."

I mean, I read this, at least partially, as Cravath not really caring if they get Chicago students. If they went oh-for in 2017 and 2018, they offered like a single-digit number of people.

I meant this was more a supporting anecdote than as an insult to your firm, but you're wrong in any case. At least in 2018 Cravath was one of the top extenders of offers in NY and had by far the worst ratio. (And incidentally only a few NY offices broke double digits for offers at Chicago, only 40 or so students interview for the market every year).

ITT: Debates about whether the fact that no mostly-ignorant 2Ls in two years at a single small school made arbitrary and highly statistically variant decisions to summer at a single highly selective, super-rich firm outside the school's primary market foreshadows a structural shift in the way a large chunk of the industry does business.

UVA2B wrote:In the healthiest market we've recently seen, Chicago grads rejected top NY firms for other opportunities in a relatively small sample size without (admittedly protected) evidence?

I'm not sure you're proving much here.

UChicago = regional confirmed

Anonymous User wrote:I meant this was more a supporting anecdote than as an insult to your firm, but you're wrong in any case. At least in 2018 Cravath was one of the top extenders of offers in NY and had by far the worst ratio. (And incidentally only a few NY offices broke double digits for offers at Chicago, only 40 or so students interview for the market every year).

Nah I don't work at Cravath. Just like, enjoyed your characterization of the below as a "Cravath problem":
(a) Cravath offered a single-digit number of UChicago students;
(b) Didn't get any acceptances from students at that school to accept for two years; and
(c) Declined to reduce grade cutoffs or increase number of offers to compensate

LBJ's Hair wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I meant this was more a supporting anecdote than as an insult to your firm, but you're wrong in any case. At least in 2018 Cravath was one of the top extenders of offers in NY and had by far the worst ratio. (And incidentally only a few NY offices broke double digits for offers at Chicago, only 40 or so students interview for the market every year).

Nah I don't work at Cravath. Just like, enjoyed your characterization of the below as a "Cravath problem":
(a) Cravath offered a single-digit number of UChicago students;
(b) Didn't get any acceptances from students at that school to accept for two years; and
(c) Declined to reduce grade cutoffs or increase number of offers to compensate

I mean Mono-Ouevre definitely has the correct overall take on this squabble, but I'm not sure you're really engaging with what anon poster seems to be saying.

Necho2 wrote:
I mean Mono-Ouevre definitely has the correct overall take on this squabble, but I'm not sure you're really engaging with what anon poster seems to be saying.

yah I dont really give a shit about this issue, just thought the original post was hilarious

CravaTTTh interviewers nervously twiddling their thumbs at DESERTED "callback dinner" at the Midway Airport Potbelly's while SIDLEY bros order BOTTLE SERVICE for double-digit K&E Scholar attendance at Michael Jordan's STEAKHOUSE

The Lsat Airbender wrote:CravaTTTh interviewers nervously twiddling their thumbs at DESERTED "callback dinner" at the Midway Airport Potbelly's while SIDLEY bros order BOTTLE SERVICE for double-digit K&E Scholar attendance at Michael Jordan's STEAKHOUSE

Original anon just returning to say this comment is terrific. Midway got rid of that Potbelly's when it switched dining contractors which actually sucks, it was the busiest Potbelly's in the country and now there's no decent cheap food in the whole place.

Anonymous User wrote:Midway got rid of that Potbelly's when it switched dining contractors which actually sucks, it was the busiest Potbelly's in the country and now there's no decent cheap food in the whole place.

Holy shit, you're right. They're moving into more bullshit $20 premium-fast-casual garbage like the big coastal airports

https://chicago.eater.com/2017/5/25/156 ... hicago-mdw


Just when I thought 2020 couldn't bring any more bad news...

QContinuum wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 26, 2020 3:29 pm

BrainsyK wrote:This is true, but I think that people also have to consider that a decent chunk of the firm may be on leave for any number of reasons. If an associate takes parental leave for 6-months and were on pace for 2,000 hours. That's now cut to 1,000. It would take two other associates billing 2,500 hours each to bring the average of the three back to 2,000.

I'd assume the firm would take unpaid leave into consideration in calcing out the average? Otherwise, again, you end up with an inaccurate and misleading lowball figure, which doesn't benefit the firm (if anything, they'd have an incentive to get the average as high as possible to make associates feel the need to bill more to keep up).

As for hours being weirdly low, 1) I totally agree, but 2) I also think part of what makes BigLaw so challenging isn't the sheer quantity of billables per se, but the unpredictability. Often I've had days with little or no work, then suddenly late in the afternoon, or even in the evening, something urgent rolls in with no advance notice. 8 PM - 3 AM is "only" 7 billables max if you don't take any breaks, which doesn't look so bad, but the fact that it's 8 PM - 3 AM is what makes it feel very painful. And the worst part is, of course, that you can't plan for it in advance. It's one thing to know you'll be on the night shift - then you can sleep during the day, see friends, whatever. But in BigLaw, you're still on call all day. You can't just wake up at 4 PM, grab a leisurely dinner with friends, then roll in at 8 PM. So the day that "looks" like a light, 7-billable day, in fact feels like (and actually is) a very painful and exhausting >17-hour day.

Fully agree with this assessment. I'm at one of the mentioned firms and have been told our average for my group is around 1950 hours/year. Through my own experience the average makes sense. I'm usually on pace to hit 2100 but then something will happen with my work and I'll finish the year around 1950-2000. It sucks because it looks like the bare minimum on paper, but that 1950 is a lot of late nights and weekends just like my peers hitting 2200+. It boils down to a difference of 4 hours per week, which adds up but when averaging firm wide or across practice groups, <1 hour per day can just mean someone is less efficient and brings the average up. Or someone has a deal die and brings that average down. I would question a firm that claims their associates total average is 2100+.