Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=312046
I think like 25 million-40 million seems to right for someone at an eat what you kill firm that has the biggest books of business. I've heard up to 15 million for some Dechert partners in Philly; so, I'd have to imagine some NYC rainmaker is clearing that.DuggieBlue wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:15 pmWas wondering what a guy like say David Boies would make a year at his prime?
Any rumored salaries or take home pays from notable lawyers you can think?
+1. This is pure rumor, but I heard that John Desmarais (one of the top IP litigators in the country) left K&E to form his own firm because they wouldn't pay him more than $10-20m, even though he was probably bringing in much more in business/profits. Don't know what he's making now after Desmarais LLP has moved away from their initial troll work, but I suspect it's on par with that.trebekismyhero wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:51 pmYeah, the highest paid lawyers are the plaintiffs attorneys that get a piece of multibillion dollar settlements. At my big law firm, which had PPP around $2.5m, there were a couple rainmakers that did make over $10 million. I'd be surprised if even at Wachtell and Kirkland there were partners making more than $15-20 range.
They settled for $3 billion. It was covered in the recent Carl Ichan documentary.Lacepiece23 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 1:53 pm
I doubt that judgment withstood appeal. Too lazy to look it up. But judgments are routinely struck down because of the 10x constitutional cap on punitives. Sometimes a 10 million dollar settlement is better than a 100 million dollar judgment.
I'm pretty sure there is a WLRK memo out there somewhere that discusses this, and I'm almost certain it says that the name partners get paid 120% of whatever would normally be the ceiling. So, if the ceiling is $15 million, they're walking away with $18 million.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:46 pmCan’t remember the source, but I think I read somewhere that although WLRK is lockstep, Lipton as name partner takes (or previously, took) home an outsized portion. If his share is more than a few percentage points (of WLRK’s ~$700M profits), he could easily clear $30-40M.
Interesting … 120% strikes me as a fairly modest premium for name partner, though it’s in keeping with the mensch like culture the firm reportedly has.Sackboy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:51 pmI'm pretty sure there is a WLRK memo out there somewhere that discusses this, and I'm almost certain it says that the name partners get paid 120% of whatever would normally be the ceiling. So, if the ceiling is $15 million, they're walking away with $18 million.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:46 pmCan’t remember the source, but I think I read somewhere that although WLRK is lockstep, Lipton as name partner takes (or previously, took) home an outsized portion. If his share is more than a few percentage points (of WLRK’s ~$700M profits), he could easily clear $30-40M.
This is also why there have been massive defections from BSF. The younger generation of partners were getting taxed by legacy partners.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 6:49 pmDavid Boies is probably in the sweet spot between PI firms and more traditional defense-minded Big Law. Just take a look at the recent articles covering him and they usually open by mentioning his vineyard in Califoria, his mansion in NY, his yacht, his other home in Armonk, etc. He also partakes in a portion of every case profit BSF brings in.
Adjusting for long-term duration as opposed to the peaks and troughs associated with contingency-based PI firms, he's probably near the top.
That’s probably the current cap that the post above is referring to. That would imply about a 9:1 ratio between max and min equity compensation there based on the anecdata we’ve seen for value of min. shares (somewhere between 2-2.5m)peoplearehungry wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 3:06 pmThe recent Bloomberg Law piece on Kirkland said they have partners making $20 million/year but didn't name names.
A few K&E litigators won a $200 million fee in a contingency case last year. Got to think they did alright.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:12 amThat’s probably the current cap that the post above is referring to. That would imply about a 9:1 ratio between max and min equity compensation there based on the anecdata we’ve seen for value of min. shares (somewhere between 2-2.5m)peoplearehungry wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 3:06 pmThe recent Bloomberg Law piece on Kirkland said they have partners making $20 million/year but didn't name names.
If my memory serves me correctly, I read an article a year or two ago about KE moving from a 7:1 or 8:1 spread to a 9:1 spread, so this all checks out given we've also seen reporting of a minimum share payout of $1.9 million a couple of years ago (and it's no doubt risen). So, that pretty much settles it that KE's bottom is $2.25M and top is $20M (approximately). Based on how these things work, most of the partners are probably around the minimum or a million above (so, $2.25-$3.25 million), and the whales up top drag the average PPP to the $5M+ it is now.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:12 amThat’s probably the current cap that the post above is referring to. That would imply about a 9:1 ratio between max and min equity compensation there based on the anecdata we’ve seen for value of min. shares (somewhere between 2-2.5m)peoplearehungry wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 3:06 pmThe recent Bloomberg Law piece on Kirkland said they have partners making $20 million/year but didn't name names.
Yes I saw that. I think the point about the cap discussion though is that no matter how much they had awarded their all-in draw for the year wouldn't exceed $20m (not exactly something to cry about). Kirkland's litigation group has been quietly pushing the development of this plaintiff-side group for a few years now (https://www.kirkland.com/news/press-rel ... ubles-down). I wonder if it will eventually cause conflict on compensation issues--exactly like in the example being discussed.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:24 pmA few K&E litigators won a $200 million fee in a contingency case last year. Got to think they did alright.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:12 amThat’s probably the current cap that the post above is referring to. That would imply about a 9:1 ratio between max and min equity compensation there based on the anecdata we’ve seen for value of min. shares (somewhere between 2-2.5m)peoplearehungry wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 3:06 pmThe recent Bloomberg Law piece on Kirkland said they have partners making $20 million/year but didn't name names.
It already causes annoying issues for the associates on those teams because there are pressures from above to limit hours billed on the contingency cases. So imagine biglaw partners demanding biglaw work but without spending biglaw time on it. Not fun.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 2:57 pmYes I saw that. I think the point about the cap discussion though is that no matter how much they had awarded their all-in draw for the year wouldn't exceed $20m (not exactly something to cry about). Kirkland's litigation group has been quietly pushing the development of this plaintiff-side group for a few years now (https://www.kirkland.com/news/press-rel ... ubles-down). I wonder if it will eventually cause conflict on compensation issues--exactly like in the example being discussed.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:24 pmA few K&E litigators won a $200 million fee in a contingency case last year. Got to think they did alright.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:12 amThat’s probably the current cap that the post above is referring to. That would imply about a 9:1 ratio between max and min equity compensation there based on the anecdata we’ve seen for value of min. shares (somewhere between 2-2.5m)peoplearehungry wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 3:06 pmThe recent Bloomberg Law piece on Kirkland said they have partners making $20 million/year but didn't name names.