NYC to 200k

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:57 pm

Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:58 pm

I've heard Simpson and Kirkland, but SA at Kirkland hasn't heard anything yet

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho


I heard Kirkland matched, which doesn’t bode well for the move to 200K.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:59 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho


Associate at STB, no email matching yet.

sparkytrainer

Silver
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby sparkytrainer » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:00 pm

PMan99 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Word on the street is Cravath to 215 ...


I honestly think if Cravath moved to 215, maybe 10 firms match in total. I highly doubt the rest of the v100 will follow a move like that. A lot of the v30-100 took months to even match 180.


Forcing separation could be ideal though. It would be a stark advantage in recruiting and retaining talent vis-a-vis all the rest, and would help justify higher billing rates.


There’s no real incentive to do this, because Cravath still gets top students and can charge top rates even while paying associates the same as firms with much lower PPPs.

The firms with the most to gain are probably the Milbanks and Cahills of the world, but 10k probably isn’t enough to really cause separation from the lower ~V50. 10-15k does help a bit with retention, though, which is probably more what this move was about.


100% agree. I was speaking towards a ball-busting move of something like 215 or 220. That would completely separate firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho


Associate at STB, no email matching yet.
Ditto on no email yet at STB. Also, some partners are not happy. Exec committee meets on Tuesdays I think so likely no match until tomorrow at the earliest.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thelastlaugh

New
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:09 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby thelastlaugh » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho


Associate at STB, no email matching yet.
Ditto on no email yet at STB. Also, some partners are not happy.


LOLZ.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Which firms matched? Someone told me Simpson, but that's all I've heard. No confirmation tho


I heard Kirkland matched, which doesn’t bode well for the move to 200K.


Can someone please confirm this? I agree this is extremely unfortunate, if true. Kirkland has been firing on all cylinders, and has a great shot to one-up the more prestigious New York firms with a move to $200k or $210k and the creation of a "Kirkland scale." And as we know, prestige follows the money.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:07 pm

Firms may be cautious to announce a match because, IIRC, Simpson Thacher raised bonuses a few years ago and then DPW beat them within hours (or possibly the next day). If I were on the comp committee, I wouldn't want to announce a Milbank salary match only to have another firm beat the Milbank salary scale 10 minutes later.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:07 pm

sparkytrainer wrote:
PMan99 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Word on the street is Cravath to 215 ...


I honestly think if Cravath moved to 215, maybe 10 firms match in total. I highly doubt the rest of the v100 will follow a move like that. A lot of the v30-100 took months to even match 180.


Forcing separation could be ideal though. It would be a stark advantage in recruiting and retaining talent vis-a-vis all the rest, and would help justify higher billing rates.


There’s no real incentive to do this, because Cravath still gets top students and can charge top rates even while paying associates the same as firms with much lower PPPs.

The firms with the most to gain are probably the Milbanks and Cahills of the world, but 10k probably isn’t enough to really cause separation from the lower ~V50. 10-15k does help a bit with retention, though, which is probably more what this move was about.


100% agree. I was speaking towards a ball-busting move of something like 215 or 220. That would completely separate firms.


I'm not sure that even would do the trick. It would absolutely price out some firms, but, for example, large Texas firms are not interested in making the argument that COL-adjusted salary is still better; they want the numbers to be the same. And, given that a move even to 215 or 220 only slightly outpaces the inflation-adjusted growth over the past 10 years, firms would still feel compelled to move up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:09 pm

Kirkland has not spoken yet relax folks

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:14 pm

PMan99 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Word on the street is Cravath to 215 ...


I honestly think if Cravath moved to 215, maybe 10 firms match in total. I highly doubt the rest of the v100 will follow a move like that. A lot of the v30-100 took months to even match 180.


Forcing separation could be ideal though. It would be a stark advantage in recruiting and retaining talent vis-a-vis all the rest, and would help justify higher billing rates.


There’s no real incentive to do this, because Cravath still gets top students and can charge top rates even while paying associates the same as firms with much lower PPPs.

The firms with the most to gain are probably the Milbanks and Cahills of the world, but 10k probably isn’t enough to really cause separation from the lower ~V50. 10-15k does help a bit with retention, though, which is probably more what this move was about.


At least in litigation, Cravath does not get the top students. The best from my class (Chicago) went elsewhere, and Cravath hired down to median.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Kirkland has not spoken yet relax folks


Thank you.

O elite big law Gods that be
Mighty Latham, Skadden, K&E
Venerable STB, DPW, S&C
Hear our Prayer: More Money!

lawposeidon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby lawposeidon » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:20 pm

Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff? Edit: Or against senior attorneys who will get pushed out sooner as a result?
Last edited by lawposeidon on Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:20 pm

lawposeidon wrote:Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?


The partners can suck it for all I care

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
lawposeidon wrote:Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?


The partners can suck it for all I care

lawposeidon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby lawposeidon » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
lawposeidon wrote:Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?


The partners can suck it for all I care


My question didn't imply they would suck it. Rather, that they would take, from another, what they give to the raise-granted associates.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:22 pm

lawposeidon wrote:Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff? Edit: Or against senior attorneys who will get pushed out sooner as a result?


These salary increases seem to come in markets where firms are desperately trying to keep bodies from latterling

lawposeidon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby lawposeidon » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
These salary increases seem to come in markets where firms are desperately trying to keep bodies from latterling


Are they though? I used to check lateral.ly and most of the associates who left didn't leave to another job. Seemed like they were pushed out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:26 pm

lawposeidon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
lawposeidon wrote:Can I ask you guys a question? Understanding that this raise will come out of partners' pockets, and accepting that they'll resent this (because if they didn't they would have given it to you without being forced), don't you expect some backlash? Maybe not against you but maybe against other underperforming associates or staff?


The partners can suck it for all I care


My question didn't imply they would suck it. Rather, that they would take, from another, what they give to the raise-granted associates.


Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.

lawposeidon

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:13 pm

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby lawposeidon » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.


I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:29 pm

lawposeidon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
These salary increases seem to come in markets where firms are desperately trying to keep bodies from latterling


Are they though? I used to check lateral.ly and most of the associates who left didn't leave to another job. Seemed like they were pushed out.


Big law second year. DROVES of juniors leaving to go to other firms, in-house, in-patient treatment. It's a boom economy where one inhumane month makes people realize, "wait, there's other options out there, screw this"

Anonymous User
Posts: 320900
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:30 pm

lawposeidon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.


I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!


You seem like a 1L who asks too many questions. COULD THERE BE SOME SMALL NEGATIVE? Idk; just give me the money plz and thanks.

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:30 pm

lawposeidon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.


I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!


These "underperformers" aren't being kept around at any top firm. The fat has been cut in a post-recession world. They will continue to cut our benefits (as they have been) and cut other overhead where possible (shared service support staff firmwide, for example).

OneTwoThreeFour

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:15 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby OneTwoThreeFour » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
lawposeidon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Am the anon who thinks partners can suck it. In all seriousness, they are making oodles of money, and can afford it, at least at the top firms (I do expect many of the lower v100 not to match).

Could this accelerate a trend towards firing staff to save other overhead costs? Possibly, at least for secretaries, who are often useless. I will only care if they come after the paralegals. Good paralegals are priceless and hopefully the partners are not too stupid to realize that.


I know they can afford it. They could have afforded it before being forced to give raises. But they're greedy as hell and I wonder if they'll pay for these raises by taking it from somewhere else, like underperformers, including underperforming partners I imagine!


You seem like a 1L who asks too many questions. COULD THERE BE SOME SMALL NEGATIVE? Idk; just give me the money plz and thanks.


Also, this.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.