General questions about employment stats Forum

[powerfail]

I’ve been admitted to some schools in the lower T14, have been offered a full ride at a top-20 school, and am waiting to hear back from the top 6. (No rejections/waitlists yet.) I have some general questions about legal employment. I'm thinking at a high level about what I want to do after law school and how much I care about cost/scholarships.

1. I’ve seen the graphs that show a “bimodal” starting salary distribution, suggesting that people tend to be paid either in the $60k range or the $180k range.

However, there is still non-trivial area under the middle part of the curve (e.g. $110k), so there are some jobs which pay that much. Can anyone provide insight on what kinds of jobs these are? Do they tend to be at law firms? Government agencies? Corporations? Something else?

How difficult is it to find such an “in the middle” job if you go to a T14 law school and could obtain a $180k large law firm position but specifically want one of these instead?


2. There is a huge spike at the $180k range without much on either side, so apparently there is not much variation in starting salary among “big law” firms. That said, I’ve heard that life can vary quite a bit between large law firms, and some are more intense/competitive than others. Specifically, this article (https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/90004 ... he-Market/) argues that law firms in NYC are on the high end, both in terms of hiring selectivity and expectations once you are hired.

(Does anyone disagree with the article? It does generalize quite a bit, but maybe the generalizations are valid, I don’t know.)

So, why is the difference in intensity/competitiveness not reflected in salaries? (This is especially surprising given that NYC has a higher cost of living than, say, Texas, which also has some large law firms.) The situation seems odd from an economic standpoint.

[Wubbles]

I believe most of the jobs over 100k but below 190k are at large, regional firms in cities with lower market rates than NYC, such as Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Cleveland, etc. There are less of these jobs in any particular city than the large markets. The hours are usually less than NYC, but not by too much. The associates still work hard and for a lot of hours generally.

[acr]

I’ve been admitted to some schools in the lower T14, have been offered a full ride at a top-20 school, and am waiting to hear back from the top 6. (No rejections/waitlists yet.) I have some general questions about legal employment. I'm thinking at a high level about what I want to do after law school and how much I care about cost/scholarships.

1. I’ve seen the graphs that show a “bimodal” starting salary distribution, suggesting that people tend to be paid either in the $60k range or the $180k range.

However, there is still non-trivial area under the middle part of the curve (e.g. $110k), so there are some jobs which pay that much. Can anyone provide insight on what kinds of jobs these are? Do they tend to be at law firms? Government agencies? Corporations? Something else?

How difficult is it to find such an “in the middle” job if you go to a T14 law school and could obtain a $180k large law firm position but specifically want one of these instead?

These are regional big/mid law jobs. They are just harder to acquire without a combination of ties to the region, connections, stellar grades, internships there, etc. For example, I was interested in Denver, where market-paying firms compensate in that middle range, until my CSO told me that there were 20-30 associates hired that year...in the entire market. And it's not like Denver is a tiny city with a stagnant economy.

Compare that to the thousands of associates hired in NYC and you have your answer. The likely outcome for law students, just based on positions available, is either big law in a huge market (which pays $180k) or a small-firm, public interest, or government job (which pays $50-60k).

Obtaining regional big/mid law is possible from a T14, but banking on that outcome is a great way to get yourself into trouble. Lots of median T14 students put all their eggs into landing a specific, smaller market and either 1) end up in NYC or 2) miss big law completely. It helps to have a compelling reason to want to be in the market as well as a high class rank.

[powerfail]

I see, thanks. So I understand that cities like Denver, Minneapolis, and Cleveland might not have too many positions. But what about large cities other than NYC (DC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, LA, etc.)? I'm guessing there are a decent number of jobs in those places, since, for example, the majority of Berkeley Law graduates work in large law firms, and a majority also work in California. About 1/3 of UT Law graduates work in large law firms and almost all stay in Texas.

https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/90004 ... he-Market/

The article I referenced above suggests that the culture of law firms in NYC is particularly harsh (see the parts about paranoia about mistakes, very high turnover, etc). The author tries to cast this in a positive light (as a way of explaining why NYC law firms are considered the best), but I don't feel like I would be happy there. Would you agree that these factors are significantly different in NYC vs. elsewhere? Or is the article overblown, and things are similar in places like California/Texas? I'm not just talking about the hours, but also subtler working conditions, turnover, etc. How fair is it to generalize about the experience in different regions? I'm asking because this might inform my choice of law school within the T14, given that even T14 schools tend to place their graduates in the surrounding region (e.g., does it make sense to pick Berkeley over Columbia/NYU despite the somewhat lower ranking).

[cavalier1138]

So I understand that cities like Denver, Minneapolis, and Cleveland might not have too many positions. But what about large cities other than NYC (DC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, LA, etc.)?

The firms in those cities generally pay NYC market rates or are smaller firms paying much less.

There may be some firms paying below market but above $60k in those cities, but they won't be hiring many associates each year. So it's effectively the same issue as trying to gun for a job in one of the non-market-rate big firms in a secondary region.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Biglaw is biglaw. The main thing that sucks about NYC is because your $190k doesn't go as far, which dulls one of the few positives. On the other hand, is the easiest market to get a job in, so it's easier to lateral away from an especially shitty partner. (I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the culture is more "intense" at V20 firms with fancy Wall Street clients than at whatever-the-6th-best-firm-in-Dallas-is, but we're talking about the difference between drinking horse piss and drinking cow piss here.)

Midlaw, "regional biglaw," and the handful of F50 companies that hire directly into their legal departments aren't much better. Think about it in economic terms: how could they be paying more per hour?

The other huge problem with those $90-$140k jobs is that, unlike biglaw, you don't get much in the way of guaranteed salary progression. You might start out doing 80% of the work for 60% of the pay, which a lot of people would be cool with, but pretty soon you're doing 80% of the work for 40% of the pay of your big-market counterparts. And you don't have the sexy exit opportunities that they do.

[Libya]

There is probably a difference in the quality of the firms the average biglaw SA at a T13 snags vs. the T20s that have been putting alot of students into biglaw. From what I can tell splitting hairs among the V20 or so is dumb, but there may be an appreciable career/comp. difference between a cravath scale firm’s major office as opposed to a smaller, less-prominent big/midlaw firm with blackbox comp. I may be off on this though as I’m still in law school so feel free to correct me. But in my home market, for example, you could easily leave 150-200K post tax on the table by ending up at one of the blackbox firms starting at ~160-170 (and some of these are like V50) vs a cravath scale firm

[dabigchina]

Just to chime in that the Big4 will generally hire JD/LLMs and pay them around 120-140 in NYC (not sure if this is the going rate for LLMs and they pay less for a pure JD). Expectations for responsiveness and billables are generally lower than in biglaw. Salary progression is low, but the exit opportunities are more plentiful than biglaw (although generally lower paying because your lower starting salary anchors you).

That being said, it'd be tough to snag something at a big4 if you don't have prior accounting experience/an LLM.

[decimalsanddollars]

Just to add a little data: the Texas markets have a lot of firms that pay between $80k and $190k, but the workload is not much less for the firms that pay $120-180k (Dykema, Gray Reed, Clark Hill Strasburger, Carrington Coleman, Greenberg Traurig, Bell Nunnally, Dickinson Wright, Husch Blackwell, Kelly Hart, etc.) than for firms that pay NYC market, and I've heard that Thompson Coe (starting around $88k) is hours similar to biglaw for less than half the money.

[powerfail]

Thanks for the responses. What about the turnover issue, though? From my reading, it seems like most people end up leaving or getting pushed out of the largest law firms (especially in NYC), and the system is built based on that assumption, whereas at smaller, more regional firms, the atmosphere is such that people are more likely to stay long-term and a higher percentage of associates become partners, etc. acr mentioned that there are only 20-30 openings a year at large law firms in Denver--isn't that partly because people aren't leaving/getting pushed out and therefore don't need to be replaced? (I understand the point that it's hard to get those jobs in the first place.)

And if there are big differences in turnover between law firms on Wall Street vs. a place like Denver, what's causing them? From your responses it sounds like it's probably not be the raw number of hours.

I guess these questions aren't going to be that relevant to choosing a law school. But I'm curious and want to understand the post-law-school landscape better. FYI, I am not only interested in corporate law/going to a large firm. I am also interested in other things like judicial clerkships and government positions, which means it's important to go to a well-ranked law school but also limit debt. But right now I'm trying to understand how law firms work since that's where the majority of graduates go.

[cavalier1138]

FYI, I am not only interested in corporate law/going to a large firm. I am also interested in other things like judicial clerkships and government positions, which means it's important to go to a well-ranked law school but also limit debt.

Depending on what "government positions" means, you're often going to need biglaw credentials to have that exit option.

[nixy]

Yes, law firms are built on the idea of turnover - they hire more associates than will make partner. And yes, that may be more the case in NYC than Denver, but the difference in openings isn’t really because people are getting pushed out less in Denver - it’s more that it’s just a much smaller market that simply doesn’t have as many biglaw firms.

Some turnover is just culture/tradition. For a lot of people, a NYC biglaw firm is a training ground for other jobs (in house, government). Someplace like Denver tends to have people who are going to stick around a bit more. Also, keep in mind that plenty of people who leave/get pushed out of one NYC firm will end up at another firm.

[FND]

Yes, law firms are built on the idea of turnover - they hire more associates than will make partner. And yes, that may be more the case in NYC than Denver, but the difference in openings isn’t really because people are getting pushed out less in Denver - it’s more that it’s just a much smaller market that simply doesn’t have as many biglaw firms.

Some turnover is just culture/tradition. For a lot of people, a NYC biglaw firm is a training ground for other jobs (in house, government). Someplace like Denver tends to have people who are going to stick around a bit more. Also, keep in mind that plenty of people who leave/get pushed out of one NYC firm will end up at another firm.

As an FYI, I did some research recently, and while I wish I still had the link, it looked like the 'average' attrition rate for biglaw is 14% - i.e. out of 100 first years, 86 become second year, 74 become third years, 63 become fourth years, and 1/3rd or so stick around to become partner.
However, and this is why I wish I still had the link, some firms have much greater turnover than other firms.

[FND]

the bimodal salary distribution is not absolute - it's not all biglaw or bust. Just, the most common options for first year attorneys are biglaw (which hires hundreds of attorneys) and there are a gazillion sh*tlaw/boutiques, which also hire a lot of cheap attorneys.

There are plenty of firms in between, throughout the country. There are firms in NY that pay $160k, firms that pay $140k, firms that pay $120k, etc. etc.

The problem is, Cravath hires around 90-ish new attorneys every year. But a midlaw firm may only hire one new attorney every other year. Likewise, the New York office of Weil Gotshal may hire 75 new attorneys per year, but Weil Miami only ever recruits laterals.
Remember, a lot of midlaw firms don't need to waste money training a 1st year associate, when they can just want for the 3rd and 4th year associates that are being counseled out of biglaw, or who are looking for better hours. Likewise, secondary markets get enough people who are leaving the big markets a few years down the line.

So it's a lot harder to find those jobs. Whereas, even though smaller outfits don't hire that often either, the sheer volume of them means there's a lot more jobs at that lower salary level available to young'uns.

From what I can tell splitting hairs among the V20 or so is dumb, but there may be an appreciable career/comp. difference between a cravath scale firm’s major office as opposed to a smaller, less-prominent big/midlaw firm with blackbox comp.

yeah this. Thinking long term, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that in 2018 Wachtel's profits per partner are $6m and Cravath's is $4m, but there's a world of difference between that upper echelon and firms like Fox Rothschild at $675k or and Husch Blackwell at $575k

[+] Spoiler

as a total aside, for one firm that I'm aware of, where the PPP is around $1m, I know that bringing in $500k of business was enough for an acquaintance to make partner (with the firm assuming that number would keep growing)