Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=309503
I think PEP is much higher than 1.5 but that's because Molo and Lamken are the only equity partners. Anon bc was told this in interview process.Elston Gunn wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:13 amAgree with the above, though I’d be surprised if the PEP is as low as $1.5m. Fwiw, one of my (very well credentialed) friends works at ML and they seem quite happy. It’s the type of place where associates get a good amount of substantive experience and partnership is realistic if you want it.
Very interesting and bizarre. They must compensate a lot of their partners like equity partners, even if they are non-equity; otherwise, I don't know how they'd retain all their top flight talent that could head off to other lit boutiques or biglaw and get equity.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:14 amI think PEP is much higher than 1.5 but that's because Molo and Lamken are the only equity partners. Anon bc was told this in interview process.
In general, I'd say biglaw numbers are extremely inflated on this board. No firm, except perhaps Wachtell, gets its associates remotely close to 2,500 or 3,000 hours, because those a truly insane numbers. You'll hear from time to time people on here on pace to bill 2,500-3,000, but they are rare cases and usually (1) in bankruptcy/M&A or (2) don't know how to turn down work. First years at some big law shops now bill close to $600/hr. 3000 hours would put you at $1.8M in revenue, which is higher than the RPL of every firm except Wachtell, which has an unusual business model, and ties with S&C. If you're doing the average RPL of the highest RPL normal biglaw firm as a 1st year (i.e. lowest billing rate), things don't add up. More realistically, most biglaw shops get probably 80% of associates within the 1800-2200 range. The same is going to be true of ML and other lit boutiques, but their range probably drifts up a bit and creates something like a 1900-2300 range since they run leaner and lit probably, on average, provides for much more consistent hours and work streams.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:22 pmOP here. Thanks for the responses. I'm also curious about this. 2000? 2500? 3000?
YES. The average hours of biglaw attorneys I know IRL vs those I see on this board are wildly different. There's a huge selection effect, people who bill a lot will talk about it more online.Sackboy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:55 amIn general, I'd say biglaw numbers are extremely inflated on this board. No firm, except perhaps Wachtell, gets its associates remotely close to 2,500 or 3,000 hours, because those a truly insane numbers. You'll hear from time to time people on here on pace to bill 2,500-3,000, but they are rare cases and usually (1) in bankruptcy/M&A or (2) don't know how to turn down work. First years at some big law shops now bill close to $600/hr. 3000 hours would put you at $1.8M in revenue, which is higher than the RPL of every firm except Wachtell, which has an unusual business model, and ties with S&C. If you're doing the average RPL of the highest RPL normal biglaw firm as a 1st year (i.e. lowest billing rate), things don't add up. More realistically, most biglaw shops get probably 80% of associates within the 1800-2200 range. The same is going to be true of ML and other lit boutiques, but their range probably drifts up a bit and creates something like a 1900-2300 range since they run leaner and lit probably, on average, provides for much more consistent hours and work streams.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:22 pmOP here. Thanks for the responses. I'm also curious about this. 2000? 2500? 3000?
Really depends on the firm. This is a valid point generally but at lit firms like Quinn, Susman, Boies schiller and certain transactional groups at Davis Polk, S&c, ect., numbers get really big. I billed 2600 in 2019 and 2700 in 2020. I left to a less insane environment after my 2020 hours nearly broke me as a human being, and billed less than 2100 this year. My colleagues at my old firm were still regularly over 2500 at year end.Sackboy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:55 amIn general, I'd say biglaw numbers are extremely inflated on this board. No firm, except perhaps Wachtell, gets its associates remotely close to 2,500 or 3,000 hours, because those a truly insane numbers. You'll hear from time to time people on here on pace to bill 2,500-3,000, but they are rare cases and usually (1) in bankruptcy/M&A or (2) don't know how to turn down work. First years at some big law shops now bill close to $600/hr. 3000 hours would put you at $1.8M in revenue, which is higher than the RPL of every firm except Wachtell, which has an unusual business model, and ties with S&C. If you're doing the average RPL of the highest RPL normal biglaw firm as a 1st year (i.e. lowest billing rate), things don't add up. More realistically, most biglaw shops get probably 80% of associates within the 1800-2200 range. The same is going to be true of ML and other lit boutiques, but their range probably drifts up a bit and creates something like a 1900-2300 range since they run leaner and lit probably, on average, provides for much more consistent hours and work streams.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:22 pmOP here. Thanks for the responses. I'm also curious about this. 2000? 2500? 3000?
This is still the selection effect. You're talking about your high hours and so are other high hour folks. I worked at a DPW/S&C peer, and it was the exact same thing. However, I also saw the hours of our group, and we had a lot of folks billing 1600-1800 who just didn't talk about it, because it's not "cool" to talk about how little you're billing. This is like the "lack of sleep" competition teenagers and college students play. "I slept 2 hours last night, haha" "well, I didn't even sleep at all!" The kid who sleeps 8 hours a day isn't like "well, I got a nice nights sleep." That's not how the social jockeying works in that situation or at firms. The average and typical hours at elite firms are far lower than people talk about. Now, COVID elevated everyone's hours, but it's generally the truth. Those "low" billers aren't going to make partner, but who cares, because nobody is really making partner anyway.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 2:21 pmReally depends on the firm. This is a valid point generally but at lit firms like Quinn, Susman, Boies schiller and certain transactional groups at Davis Polk, S&c, ect., numbers get really big. I billed 2600 in 2019 and 2700 in 2020. I left to a less insane environment after my 2020 hours nearly broke me as a human being, and billed less than 2100 this year. My colleagues at my old firm were still regularly over 2500 at year end.
I'm not sure you can read into it like that. Marketing/recruiting departments often are just trying to spend their budget, especially given COVID's impact on traditional processes.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:18 pmAnyone know why MoloLamken is suddenly promoting testimonials from its current employees on Linkedin? Seems like targeted advertising for law clerks. Sort of surprised to see they feel the need to advertise, given their rep.
On track for 8,760 hours this year personally.
Did you interview with the other big-name boutiques (e.g. Susman, Kellog, Bartlit)? If so, what did you think of them?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 7:39 pmI interviewed with them for a post-clerkship position, and every single person I spoke with came across as hostile, unpleasant, and weird.
The least hostile, unpleasant, and weird one ended up clerking for SCOTUS. I imagine she deserved it, if only because her personality was closest to normal.
IIRC, they're top rated for securities lit and appellate, not so much for general commercial lit, but the boutiques typically aren't best at that anyway. Lots of reasons for that, but not necessary to inundate OP with info. That said, many of its lawyers (Steven Molo in particular) are absolute all-stars. It's the typical give and take you get with choosing between lit boutiques and the best biglaw firmsAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:32 pmDoes anyone know anything about MoloLamken? Does it pay market? What sort of hours do its associates bill? How long is the partnership path? And is there any data about its financial health (RPL, PPEP, etc.)?
Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 10:56 pmIIRC, they're top rated for securities lit and appellate, not so much for general commercial lit, but the boutiques typically aren't best at that anyway. Lots of reasons for that, but not necessary to inundate OP with info. That said, many of its lawyers (Steven Molo in particular) are absolute all-stars. It's the typical give and take you get with choosing between lit boutiques and the best biglaw firmsAnonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:32 pmDoes anyone know anything about MoloLamken? Does it pay market? What sort of hours do its associates bill? How long is the partnership path? And is there any data about its financial health (RPL, PPEP, etc.)?
I also interviewed for post-clerkship, and I didn’t find the people unpleasant. There was an expectation to interview with every lawyer in the firm, which might have made sense in the early days, but by the time I interviewed it was way overkill. Also, after doing all those interviews, they never gave me an answer one way or the other. That was bad.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 7:39 pmI interviewed with them for a post-clerkship position, and every single person I spoke with came across as hostile, unpleasant, and weird.
The least hostile, unpleasant, and weird one ended up clerking for SCOTUS. I imagine she deserved it, if only because her personality was closest to normal.
Also interviewed post-clerkship and it was not a great experience. Marathon zoom day and a couple attorneys were either late or no-shows. They also make a big deal about the interviews being substantive and rigorous (they send a big memo about it) but they were actually behavioral and light. Didn’t really get a chance to show my legal acumen like they said they were looking for and when I tried to steer it in a substantive direction, the interviewers didn’t engage. [edit] I have conducted many dozens of interviews at firms, clerkships, and prelaw work experience. The batch I had were not good interviewers.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 12:23 pmI also interviewed for post-clerkship, and I didn’t find the people unpleasant. There was an expectation to interview with every lawyer in the firm, which might have made sense in the early days, but by the time I interviewed it was way overkill. Also, after doing all those interviews, they never gave me an answer one way or the other. That was bad.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 7:39 pmI interviewed with them for a post-clerkship position, and every single person I spoke with came across as hostile, unpleasant, and weird.
The least hostile, unpleasant, and weird one ended up clerking for SCOTUS. I imagine she deserved it, if only because her personality was closest to normal.