Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is the first time I've legit wondered whether my firm will match, and perhaps a true comp breakaway is what they're pushing forward for here.

V10 will match, right?

For sure. But I (op) am not at a V10, so that's why I'm wondering if we're nearing the breaking point. I still likely think all or most all who usually match will. But my totally unsubstantiated sense is that for firms like mine, we're nearing a meaningful resistance point.

edit: "I still think likely all or most all," not "I still likely think"

[Anonymous User]

I wonder how many DPW and Cravath partners have checked this thread to have made their moves accordingly…

[ElCuervo]

I’d think it’s easier to increase pay for senior associates purely because there is less of them. But I’m sure law firm math is slightly more complex…

Was talking to a partner at a V5 about exactly this, and when DPW came over the top she was like "phew -- I don't mind paying seniors more, but paying juniors another 10k each takes literally thousands per week out of my take-home for people who don't even produce meaningful revenue given that we write off all their hours." (this wasn't an asshole kind of partner, either).

This makes sense not only because of the number of juniors vs. the number of seniors, but also because much of a junior's billable time is written off.

[Anonymous User]

CSM/Kirkland are going to re-raise. I feel it in my bones.

OP here.

Correction: CSM is going to re-raise. I feel it in my bones.

Let’s hope you got some pretty reliable bones

OP here. My bones are reliable as hell

[Anonymous User]

Cravath scale + year-end bonus all-in comp (does not include special bonuses) by year:

2021: 215 + 20 = 235
2020: 225 + 30 = 255
2019: 250 + 57.5 = 307.5
2018: 295 + 75 = 370
2017: 345 + 90 = 435
2016: 370 + 105 = 475
2015: 400 + 115 = 515
2014: 415 + 115 = 530

The big lurches between years 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are definitely retention focused. Then it seems like the firms don't need to press as hard to keep around the 6th years and up that they want anyway.

Edited because I can't do elementary level math.

[Anonymous User]

Cravath scale + year-end bonus all-in comp (does not include special bonuses) by year:

2021: 215 + 20 = 235
2020: 225 + 30 = 255
2019: 250 + 57.5 = 307.5
2018: 295 + 75 = 370
2017: 345 + 90 = 435
2016: 370 + 105 = 475
2015: 400 + 115 = 515
2014: 415 + 115 = 530

The big lurches between years 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are definitely retention focused.

[Anonymous User]

delete

[Anonymous User]

....

2014: 415 + 115 = 525

The big lurches between years 2/3, 3/4, and 4/5 are definitely retention focused.

you mean 415 + 115 = 530

I went to law school so I wouldn't have to do math!

[Anonymous User]

In 2007, the base + bonus range was 205-390. That's x1.9 multiple from first year to 8th year. Now it's x2.25, and that's not even counting special bonus, retention and signing bonuses.
https://www.biglawinvestor.com/biglaw-salary-scale/

[Anonymous User]

CSM/Kirkland are going to re-raise. I feel it in my bones.

OP here.

Correction: CSM is going to re-raise. I feel it in my bones.

Let’s hope you got some pretty reliable bones

OP here. My bones are reliable as hell

Nicely done OP. You deserve the victory lap.

[Neff]

7th year at a V5 here. This raise is horrendously tone-deaf in the context of what is happening in the world and makes me want to wretch. Fuck money fuck these golden handcuffs fuck biglaw and fuck us at TLS perpetuating this joke.

[Anonymous User]

7th year at a V5 here. This raise is horrendously tone-deaf in the context of what is happening in the world and makes me want to wretch. Fuck money fuck these golden handcuffs and fuck biglaw.

If you don't want it, give it to me.

[bigboybob]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

[njdevils2626]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

[Anonymous User]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

[Anonymous User]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

Not for the vast majority of firms. It’s because by the time you’re a fourth year you’re usually burnt out and asked to take on way more responsibility on your cases. That can make people want to say forget it and go in house.

[Anonymous User]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

I don't think so. There's always going to be enough people willing to at least start as juniors in biglaw. The shortage of mids and above is because of the toll biglaw extracts after that many years and the big jump in responsibility/workload you start to have as you become a midlevel.

[njdevils2626]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

Not for the vast majority of firms. It’s because by the time you’re a fourth year you’re usually burnt out and asked to take on way more responsibility on your cases. That can make people want to say forget it and go in house.

I don't think so. There's always going to be enough people willing to at least start as juniors in biglaw. The shortage of mids and above is because of the toll biglaw extracts after that many years and the big jump in responsibility/workload you start to have as you become a midlevel.

These responses go together and both justify the targeted raises. Firms may be narrow-minded in thinking that money is always the answer to an issue, but the raises are designed to stave off that burnout experienced by those who would otherwise go in house as a mid-level by making the pay discrepancy larger. Like the second poster said, the issue isn't with the number of people signing up to start as juniors in biglaw so raises at that level wouldn't push the issue

[Anonymous User]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

Not for the vast majority of firms. It’s because by the time you’re a fourth year you’re usually burnt out and asked to take on way more responsibility on your cases. That can make people want to say forget it and go in house.

That's not new. There's always attrition. Why is there suddenly more now? It's a pipeline issue. Start with too few juniors, you'll find yourself missing seniors 5-8 years later.

[malibustacy]

7th year at a V5 here. This raise is horrendously tone-deaf in the context of what is happening in the world and makes me want to wretch. Fuck money fuck these golden handcuffs fuck biglaw and fuck us at TLS perpetuating this joke.

Donate your salary to the Ukrainian Armed Forces then jeez

[njdevils2626]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

Not for the vast majority of firms. It’s because by the time you’re a fourth year you’re usually burnt out and asked to take on way more responsibility on your cases. That can make people want to say forget it and go in house.

That's not new. There's always attrition. Why is there suddenly more now? It's a pipeline issue. Start with too few juniors, you'll find yourself missing seniors 5-8 years later.

It is not controversial that firms are facing markedly higher attrition rates over the past few years, read any thread on this site. More importantly, if it's a pipeline issue, that gets solved long-term by bringing in larger incoming classes for which junior raises would be counterproductive as a function of (1) having each junior account for a higher portion of firm payroll budget, when (2) it's unnecessary to incentivize juniors to sign up for biglaw; as the previous poster said there is no shortage of people willing to start

[Anonymous User]

7th year at a V5 here. This raise is horrendously tone-deaf in the context of what is happening in the world and makes me want to wretch. Fuck money fuck these golden handcuffs fuck biglaw and fuck us at TLS perpetuating this joke.

lol @ complaining about the 400k base salary

[Anonymous User]

Damn. Juniors getting no luv.

Recruiting incoming law students and getting them to stick for a couple years isn't the problem, firms are having trouble with years 4+ generally. It shouldn't be a surprise that raises are being funneled there

This is backwards reasoning tho. The reason there's a shortage of mids+ is because of years of under recruitment of juniors.

Not for the vast majority of firms. It’s because by the time you’re a fourth year you’re usually burnt out and asked to take on way more responsibility on your cases. That can make people want to say forget it and go in house.

I don't think so. There's always going to be enough people willing to at least start as juniors in biglaw. The shortage of mids and above is because of the toll biglaw extracts after that many years and the big jump in responsibility/workload you start to have as you become a midlevel.

These responses go together and both justify the targeted raises. Firms may be narrow-minded in thinking that money is always the answer to an issue, but the raises are designed to stave off that burnout experienced by those who would otherwise go in house as a mid-level by making the pay discrepancy larger. Like the second poster said, the issue isn't with the number of people signing up to start as juniors in biglaw so raises at that level wouldn't push the issue

Right. I haven't been around for long enough to confirm, but apparently the market has changed such that clients don't want to pay an army of expensive 1st/2nd years for endless hours of diligence or doc review like they used to. That means 1st and 2nd years are not particularly useful, and more importantly, not particularly profitable. Billing rates reflect that - there has been a lot of rate compression in the middle/top, which correlates to when juniors (more like midlevels) can start doing actual profitable work. Firms charge more for it because they can.

That means that firms can't boost profits or reduce the burden on midlevels by hiring armies of 1st/2nd years who just can't do the work. To increase profits, firms have resorted to loading up the limited number of midlevels they have with profitable (and more stressful) work, which in turn leads to quicker burnout. That's why firms are now paying more to retain good midlevels, rather than hiring extra lower margin 1st years in hopes that a few more of them stick around.

That and firms need midlevels now, not in 2-3 years, so it's better to just throw money at what they have.

[Anonymous User]

That's not new. There's always attrition. Why is there suddenly more now? It's a pipeline issue. Start with too few juniors, you'll find yourself missing seniors 5-8 years later.

If it were true** that the problem is a pipeline issue, with too few juniors starting, the response from law firms would be to widen the pipeline, i.e., simply hire more first years at the prevailing rate, rather than pay juniors more. More money isn't the solution to "under recruitment of juniors."

There's a vast number of qualified 2Ls who will sign up for big law starting at $215K (or heck, even $190K for that matter). If firms needed to, they could expand their starting classes by 2x-3x simply by changing their hiring criteria; all without touching first year salary whatsoever.


** but it's not

[Anonymous User]

Even accepting the premise that firms should start with more juniors to resolve midlevel and senior attrition problems (which I think is a sketchy premise anyway), I don’t think raising 1st or 2nd year salaries would appreciably increase the number of 2Ls who decide to pursue biglaw and become juniors. There will always be median T20 or below median but not awful Cornell students who are capable of doing biglaw work and want the job who aren’t getting offers. The supply of interested 2Ls is sufficient.

The issue is that, at every level of seniority, more associates are exiting biglaw than used to do so. And the supply vs demand crunch is now focused on 4th and 5th years who are in low supply. So firms are focusing their money there. (If they decided to spend more on 1st years, it would do nothing to fix the current problem until 2026 anyway.)