Top Law Schools

Thread title is a comically slanted paraphrasing of what was said. Brave anon.

The Lsat Airbender wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:00 am

Thread title is a comically slanted paraphrasing of what was said. Brave anon.

Not the OP and yeah, okay, but the partner did suggest paying first years closer to medical residents' pay ($59,000) and then immediately complained about how many juniors quit, begging the question of what she was smoking when she posted this.

I don't get this tbh. Nobody forced her firm to salary match? Not a great look for her to be undermining decisions made by the partnership on social media.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:05 am

I don't get this tbh. Nobody forced her firm to salary match? Not a great look to be undermining decisions made by the partnership on social media.

Everything she says is stupid. The part about it decreasing the ability to retain people that “look different” doesn’t even make sense. Nothing about paying associates more decreases ability to hire people that look different. She’s free to go ahead and hire people regardless of their looks.

The title isn't backed up by the text but lol this is so weird! Why would she go an post this on LinkedIn? Everything about it is dumb, from comparing to medical residency (post residency MDs make very good money) to whining about partners making "only" 2-3x associates, to blaming the work and training problems on too much pay. I guess maybe her firm can't afford it, but she shouldn't publicize that!

Honestly I appreciate it when people just come right out and out themselves as having terrible opinions - now I can avoid this person like the plague.

I think she’s upset because Faegre isn’t a true biglaw firm but it’s trying to pay associates like it is. At a firm like Faegre, I think junior partners probably made less than market paying biglaw 8th years, so raising first year salaries to market rates probably drives those people away.

Not sure why she’d post any of this on social media, though.

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

I think she’s upset because Faegre isn’t a true biglaw firm but it’s trying to pay associates like it is. At a firm like Faegre, I think junior partners probably made less than market paying biglaw 8th years, so raising first year salaries to market rates probably drives those people away.

Not sure why she’d post any of this on social media, though.

Yup this. If the numbers don’t make sense for your firm don’t do it.

Also really love the comparison to salaries for folks in medicine. Give me a break, clueless and poor judgment!

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:05 am

The title isn't backed up by the text

I can't tell what exactly she's referring to with "decreased ability to retain those who . . . look different." But the way I read that line, it matches the title of this thread. Though I guess it could be the opposite. Maybe it means her firm can't retain people that look different because they're being hired elsewhere? It seems like a meaningless throw away line.

The firm's inability to retain people who "look different" might be bad for the firm, but that doesn't mean the matches are bad for those people. (Not that I understood what that line really meant, either.)

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:29 pm

The firm's inability to retain people who "look different" might be bad for the firm, but that doesn't mean the matches are bad for those people. (Not that I understood what that line really meant, either.)

I agree that if that's what she's saying, then the title is wrong. I read the post as "if firms need to pay first years so much, they're going to need to focus on hiring billing machines, which (for some unexplained reason) will result in fewer jobs for people that 'look different.'" Again, I have no idea what she's actually saying. That's just how I read it on my first read.

TUwave wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 am

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

I think she’s upset because Faegre isn’t a true biglaw firm but it’s trying to pay associates like it is. At a firm like Faegre, I think junior partners probably made less than market paying biglaw 8th years, so raising first year salaries to market rates probably drives those people away.

Not sure why she’d post any of this on social media, though.

Yup this. If the numbers don’t make sense for your firm don’t do it.

The implicit belief behind this idea from partners at Faegre-tier firms is “I deserve more money - it’s not fair that I only make X more than fresh law school grads - and associates being overpaid is why I’m not getting it, but my firm can’t cut its pay and continue to compete for the same level of associate talent. It would be best for my firm and its true peers (not necessarily the V10, but the ones around mine) to all cut their associate pay simultaneously.”

But they can’t make this argument in the open so we get these weird lists that try to say “Actually lower pay would be good for associates because (bullshit reasons here).”

Reading her post and the posts in this thread, I assumed she was in one of their Midwestern offices. But no, she is in DC. Must be angling for a move to Covington.

cfcm wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:06 pm

Reading her post and the posts in this thread, I assumed she was in one of their Midwestern offices. But no, she is in DC. Must be angling for a move to Covington.

Looks like she started with Drinker before the merger, not sure how the merger impacted her partnership earnings.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:50 pm

TUwave wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 am

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

I think she’s upset because Faegre isn’t a true biglaw firm but it’s trying to pay associates like it is. At a firm like Faegre, I think junior partners probably made less than market paying biglaw 8th years, so raising first year salaries to market rates probably drives those people away.

Not sure why she’d post any of this on social media, though.

Yup this. If the numbers don’t make sense for your firm don’t do it.

The implicit belief behind this idea from partners at Faegre-tier firms is “I deserve more money - it’s not fair that I only make X more than fresh law school grads - and associates being overpaid is why I’m not getting it, but my firm can’t cut its pay and continue to compete for the same level of associate talent. It would be best for my firm and its true peers (not necessarily the V10, but the ones around mine) to all cut their associate pay simultaneously.”

But they can’t make this argument in the open so we get these weird lists that try to say “Actually lower pay would be good for associates because (bullshit reasons here).”

To be completely fair, she’s right. Those next tier firms should not be paying $205k given their business models. I have a friend at a peer firm and they bill first years out at like $350/hr in a major market. Compare that with a lot of the V20 that bill at least $200 (and closer to 2x) that.

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:50 pm

TUwave wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 am

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

I think she’s upset because Faegre isn’t a true biglaw firm but it’s trying to pay associates like it is. At a firm like Faegre, I think junior partners probably made less than market paying biglaw 8th years, so raising first year salaries to market rates probably drives those people away.

Not sure why she’d post any of this on social media, though.

Yup this. If the numbers don’t make sense for your firm don’t do it.

The implicit belief behind this idea from partners at Faegre-tier firms is “I deserve more money - it’s not fair that I only make X more than fresh law school grads - and associates being overpaid is why I’m not getting it, but my firm can’t cut its pay and continue to compete for the same level of associate talent. It would be best for my firm and its true peers (not necessarily the V10, but the ones around mine) to all cut their associate pay simultaneously.”

But they can’t make this argument in the open so we get these weird lists that try to say “Actually lower pay would be good for associates because (bullshit reasons here).”

To be completely fair, she’s right. Those next tier firms should not be paying $205k given their business models. I have a friend at a peer firm and they bill first years out at like $350/hr in a major market. Compare that with a lot of the V20 that bill at least $200 (and closer to 2x) that.

She's right from the perspective of the firm and the partners (tho even that is debatable bc the brain drain will be real). But she shouldn't be publicly admitting that the firm can't afford it! Defeats the purpose of the public bravado in matching market salaries. And she's full of it when she claims to care about associates.

I used to work in a British magic circle firm overseas where a lot of the same arguments were raised (except they actually did keep salaries far lower than their American counterparts). The way to cut through those arguments is to ask a simple question: are those firms willing to turn away instructions so as to provide an improved work / life balance for their teams? Of course, the answer is always no. Partners are incentivized to bring in as much work as they possibly can.

The only other option is to hire more staff - but again, its not in the firm's interest to overhire, and in any event a competant associate is always going to be overburdened once partners become aware this person is a safe pair of hands.

As a result, you look at the British magic circle firms and see that attorneys work as hard (and in some cases, even harder) than their American counterparts.

As others have suggested, her gripe is nothing more than a whinge about compensation. In which case, if she thinks she can earn more elsewhere, then she should move (or set up her own shop). But don't publicly undermine your firm. I'm sure if a disgruntled associate potted Faegre on social media, she would be the first to have her knickers all in a twist over it.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:50 pm

But they can’t make this argument in the open so we get these weird lists that try to say “Actually lower pay would be good for associates because (bullshit reasons here).”

This is the part that pisses me off the most. Obviously being cognizant to hire people that "look different" is a huge hot-button issue at firms right now. She's trivializing the issue by putting on her list that paying market salaries "decreased ability to retain those who . . . look different." It's utter bullshit, it's patronizing, and I'm offended she would go there in a thinly veiled attempt to prop up her own salary. In my opinion, people that "look different" should be annoyed that this boomer partner is using them as a pawn to push up her salary at their expense.

I actually went to her linkedin page to tell her this is all bs, but it looks like some others (including a professor) have already commented accordingly. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/ac ... 749668352/.

“Salary matching is good. If the folks at Faegre want to listen to Dr. Meyer and fall behind the top tier firms w/r/t compensation, they are free to do so. Not like most top tier financial firms are using them in the first place.”

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:50 pm

TUwave wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 am

2013 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:43 am

I think she’s upset because Faegre isn’t a true biglaw firm but it’s trying to pay associates like it is. At a firm like Faegre, I think junior partners probably made less than market paying biglaw 8th years, so raising first year salaries to market rates probably drives those people away.

Not sure why she’d post any of this on social media, though.

Yup this. If the numbers don’t make sense for your firm don’t do it.

The implicit belief behind this idea from partners at Faegre-tier firms is “I deserve more money - it’s not fair that I only make X more than fresh law school grads - and associates being overpaid is why I’m not getting it, but my firm can’t cut its pay and continue to compete for the same level of associate talent. It would be best for my firm and its true peers (not necessarily the V10, but the ones around mine) to all cut their associate pay simultaneously.”

But they can’t make this argument in the open so we get these weird lists that try to say “Actually lower pay would be good for associates because (bullshit reasons here).”

To be completely fair, she’s right. Those next tier firms should not be paying $205k given their business models. I have a friend at a peer firm and they bill first years out at like $350/hr in a major market. Compare that with a lot of the V20 that bill at least $200 (and closer to 2x) that.

Why is she "right"? Because they bill associates out less than the V10? Firms in the Faegre tier have all uniformly decided to pay associates the $180k market in exchange for paying partners less (I assume they are paying market but the point is they pay X and this boomer partner thinks X is too high). That is the business decision they have made. It results in partners making less than they could make at other firms if those other firms would cut them in on their equity. But those other firms are not doing so. And these firms are deciding to match on associate comp because they must believe it draws in a better tier of associate talent, or it keeps their firm perception to associates/laterals/partners higher than it would be if they went off market, or some other rational business answer.

For whatever reason, lots of people gloss over that part of it - this partner and others like her who complain are all free to take their book to another firm that pays partners more. If she can't get a firm to take her, that's her problem, not the associates. That's also the free market, baby.

At worst, your argument - that Faegre-type firms should pay associates less because the delta between their associate billing rates and Kirkland's is high - is equally applicable to the thesis that Kirkland-type firms should pay their associates more for the same reason. If your retort to this argument is "Kirkland doesn't lose associates to Faegre, so they don't need to," the inverse of that is Faegre partners aren't getting poached by the Kirklands, either.

Reading this post I think (5) is actually the #1 reason. I would guess that at a place like Faegre you having junior partners in the 450-550k range and there is strain on this structure when associate comp rises.

I’m sure it’s just unfortunate coincidence but she also happens to look exactly as you would expect someone would look like who watches Fox News and thinks that they being very clever in turning a woke talking point (diversity!) against those darn millennials who always want more.

To be clear, how medical residents are paid is also BS.