NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

I think we're going to see some market separation on this one. No way Jenner raises. Maybe not Mayer Brown either, given their leverage and the fact that they are already a third fiddle to Kirkland and Sidley in their home market anyway. O'Melveny is over $2ppp but has high leverage. Fenwick's leverage is almost as high and profits are a lot lower. Covingttton is Covingttton. While it's confusing that firms like Gibson and Latham haven't announced yet, the delay on this may indicate that a lot of firms have finally at least for now hit their ceiling.

Can you explain "leverage" and how that factors into this?

the more associates per partner, the more each partner has to pay for a raise. e.g. if its 1:1, each partner pays the raise for 1 associate; if its 1:3, each partner pays for 3 associates.

Ahhh. Well, surely they recognize that it is because of their leverage that they are able to post those PPP in the first place, so stiffing associates is both short sighted and extremely selfish.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.

Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

[Anonymous User]

Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." .

Small point, but GDC is headquartered in LA.

[Anonymous User]

Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.

Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.

[Anonymous User]

Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." .

Small point, but GDC is headquartered in LA.

another small point: Williams & Connolly, post-NYC's move to 180k but prior to the recent move to 190k was above-market for I want to say first-through-fourth years w/r/t to the 180k-scale, including when NYC bonuses were factored in. W&C moved last year and just refused to confirm it to ATL.

[hoos89]

Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

Because leverage inflates PPP. It's like cutting a pizza into fewer slices...the size of the pizza doesn't change. Revenue per lawyer is a better metric for assessing financial strength of a firm, I think.

And yeah I'd probably be a bit more leary of a higher leveraged firm: 1) they're probably going to have more problems in a downturn and need to let more people go, 2) (to the extent you care) partnership prospects are essentially zero, 3) they're less likely to be able to support future raises than firms with comparable PPP as it results in a higher % hit to their bottom line, and 4) there's probably a higher concentration of work generated by a small number of partners, which means if one rainmaker leaves it could have a massive effect on the firm's profitability.

[Person1111]

PPP isn't the relevant metric. Elite boutiques like W&C (because yes, it is elite) have lower PPP because they aren't heavily leveraged.

Example: Paul, Weiss might have a very high PPP but when leverage is like 6 associates to 1 partner, increasing every $10k increase is a $60k hit to a partner. At an elite boutique where there the ratio is 1:1, a $10k increase is only a $10k hit to the partner.

Also, Boies probably has more unprestigious resumes (UCLA, GW, arguably Berkeley) than prestigious ones (HYSCCN). This is not true with elite boutiques like Susman, KVN, MTO, which are truly selective.

I’m so not following the PPP bit. If Paul Weiss partners take a $60k hit for raising associates’ salaries by $10k wouldn’t their PPP be more greatly affected by raises than the elite boutiques?

Yes, that's the point the other poster is making. Even though W&C has a lower PPP, he is suggesting they will be less affected by a raise, so if PW can raise, W&C certainly can. (not my words, just explaining to you)

not sure "unprestigious" is the correct word choice there

What is obviously missing here is what city we're discussing. In NYC, for example, W&C, KVN, MTO, and Bartlitt Beck don't have NY offices. Susman does, and has to be the toughest boutique offer with only 14 associates, all with unreal feeder (or SCOTUS clerk) resumes. Boies NY has to be second. There are only 30 NY associates, most with HYSCCN CoA/D.C. clerkship resumes. Boies has some weird office locations though (Ft. Lauderdale, Vegas, & Hollywood, FL), which might by why above poster says Boies gathers some middling UCLA/GW ppl.

I can't speak for all of their locations, but the associates at Boies Fort Lauderdale (all 8 of them) seem to be very well-credentialed as a whole.

[PMan99]

Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.

Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.

It means they have partners who can bring in enough business to sustain a ton of associates. Very, very few big law firms (or biglaw firms) are going to be turning down work just to keep headcount/leverage down.

[Anonymous User]

Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.

Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.

It means they have partners who can bring in enough business to sustain a ton of associates. Very, very few big law firms (or biglaw firms) are going to be turning down work just to keep headcount/leverage down.

It sounds like you're taking the perspective that if a firm is highly leveraged then business must be good. But what happens if that changes? There's lots of dead weight that they'll surely be quick to cut.

[Anonymous User]

Doesn't change the fact that it's a much harder hit on PPP for a firm with leverage of 7:1 to match than one with 2:1 leverage. The underlying financials of the firm with high leverage aren't as strong as its PPP would suggest.

Why do you say that the underlying financials are less strong than the PPP suggest? Would you be leary of a highly leveraged firm?

A few reasons - this means that they are highly reliant on big business bringing partners that to have enough work for lots of associates. Swings in business hit the firm harder. Also, as we have been discussing, changes in associate comp have a larger effect on PPP.

It means they have partners who can bring in enough business to sustain a ton of associates. Very, very few big law firms (or biglaw firms) are going to be turning down work just to keep headcount/leverage down.

It sounds like you're taking the perspective that if a firm is highly leveraged then business must be good. But what happens if that changes? There's lots of dead weight that they'll surely be quick to cut.

Also returning to the original point we're comparing firms with similar PPP but different leverage. So sure, one partner is bringing in a bunch of business, but it's probably lower value business. This tends to sink out during hard times, whereas bet the company matters are going to keep coming.

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

[hoos89]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

It's not like those are even super low COL areas: they're just lower than NYC. I'd rather have $190k in Chicago even.

How far above market are the bonuses for 2400+? It's not like there aren't other firms that pay more for high billers (some of which start lower than 2400).

[Anonymous User]

Jones day defender from a few pages back here... I'm just going to shut up now https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/jones-d ... tion-case/

[Anonymous User]

Is DC just staying at 180?

There is no longer such a thing as a "DC market," or any other city market. There hasn't been a a generation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of DC associates at Simpson, Sidley, Morgan Lewis, etc are on the new scale and will soon get the bonuses they earned.

The firms that have raised compete for summers and laterals with the firms that haven't, even firms in their home market. The associates already at "DC firms" or "Boston firms" or what have you see their law school classmates at what they had thought were peer firms suddenly and inexplicably earning more than them, and they see no reason for their firms not to match.

Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." Its where the kids at FIP are actually trying to go while throw backup bids at Paul Weiss and Cravath. Some satellites matter more: Skadden, Kirkland, and Cleary for example, create market pressure. Others don't; what the handful of Davis Polk associates in the DC office are making is not important. Comp has never taken center stage in DC: Williams & Connolly is still the top prize despite substantial below-market comp, and Boies DC associates have been making more than other DC firms for years, but its rarely a top choice over Covington or Wilmer.

Gibson's inclusion on this list strikes me as strange when (1) Gibson isn't a DC firm and (2) in DC, the size difference between Gibson and Skadden/Kirkland/Cleary is negligible.

Quick website searches show 218 for Gibson, 205 for Kirkland, and 181 for Cleary in the District. I couldn't narrow the count down so easily for Skadden, but I think it would be the largest of those four in DC. Gibson doesn't really belong in the cabal of the core DC firms.

In my experience, Williams & Connolly and Covington have a special "DC elite" aura among 2Ls, and Wilmer, Hogan, and Arnold & Porter are next up for the really DC-or-bust people as they're thought of as truly "DC firms." (That's not to say that Gibson or Wilmer don't rank ahead of them for other types - I'm just talking about the "DC clique" as you called it and how "DC firms" play into that.)

The advantages conferred by that seem to be pretty meaningless once in practice. I don't think HL or A&P confers better gov exit options than GDC or KE or Skadden. There's definitely more of them, though, so it looks that way. And which has more "prestige"? Maybe the Hogan name carries more sway at a happy hour with some House legislative assistant you're trying to pick up. No clue. But the very DC centric firms carry much less sway outside of DC as compared to the bigger boys. To the extent that matters (and it doesn't, really, at all), it's a consideration if you ever think you'll leave the swamp.

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

Ropes and Goodwin already matched. Wilmer was slow the last go-around too.

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

Ropes and Goodwin already matched. Wilmer was slow the last go-around too.

Ropes - full match
WH - ___
Goodwin - full match
Choate - ___
Skadden - full match
foley hoag* - ___
Mintz - ___
Fish - ___
Latham - WTF BRO
Proskauer - Milbank only
Weil - full match
Goulston* - ___
Cooley - ___
Nutter* - ___
MLB - full match
JD - clusterfuck
Nixon* - ___
K&L (??) - ___
McDermott - match reported on TLS, not ATL confirmed
HK* - ___

[Anonymous User]

Is DC just staying at 180?

There is no longer such a thing as a "DC market," or any other city market. There hasn't been a a generation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of DC associates at Simpson, Sidley, Morgan Lewis, etc are on the new scale and will soon get the bonuses they earned.

The firms that have raised compete for summers and laterals with the firms that haven't, even firms in their home market. The associates already at "DC firms" or "Boston firms" or what have you see their law school classmates at what they had thought were peer firms suddenly and inexplicably earning more than them, and they see no reason for their firms not to match.

Technically this is true, but there certainly is such a thing as the "DC market" and "DC firms" in the mind of top law students. Wilmer, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson, A&P, Hogan Lovells, ect.--that's the DC clique, and they constitute a "market" for recruiting purposes even if big New York and California firms have DC satellite offices. These are the firms with the biggest summer classes, the home offices, the most DC-focused practices, the best government exit options, and yes, the most "prestige." Its where the kids at FIP are actually trying to go while throw backup bids at Paul Weiss and Cravath. Some satellites matter more: Skadden, Kirkland, and Cleary for example, create market pressure. Others don't; what the handful of Davis Polk associates in the DC office are making is not important. Comp has never taken center stage in DC: Williams & Connolly is still the top prize despite substantial below-market comp, and Boies DC associates have been making more than other DC firms for years, but its rarely a top choice over Covington or Wilmer.

Gibson's inclusion on this list strikes me as strange when (1) Gibson isn't a DC firm and (2) in DC, the size difference between Gibson and Skadden/Kirkland/Cleary is negligible.

Quick website searches show 218 for Gibson, 205 for Kirkland, and 181 for Cleary in the District. I couldn't narrow the count down so easily for Skadden, but I think it would be the largest of those four in DC. Gibson doesn't really belong in the cabal of the core DC firms.

In my experience, Williams & Connolly and Covington have a special "DC elite" aura among 2Ls, and Wilmer, Hogan, and Arnold & Porter are next up as they're thought of as truly "DC firms."

The advantages conferred by that seem to be pretty meaningless once in practice. I don't think HL or A&P confers better gov exit options than GDC or KE or Skadden. There's definitely more of them, though, so it looks that way. And which has more "prestige"? Maybe the Hogan name carries more sway at a happy hour with some House legislative assistant you're trying to pick up. No clue. But the very DC centric firms carry much less sway outside of DC as compared to the bigger boys. To the extent that matters (and it doesn't, really, at all), it's a consideration if you ever think you'll leave the swamp.

I went to one of the HYS schools and GDC in DC was regarded as equal to, if not slightly preferable to, A&P and Hogan. I've always understood the preftige pecking order to go W&C/Covington > GDC/Wilmer > A&P/Hogan [cutoff of the DC "clique" here]> major DC offices of non-DC firms (think like Skadden, Sidley, Akin Gump, JonesDay) > the lower native DC firms (Steptoe, Wiley Rein) and smaller satellites. This is especially true if you lean conservative as FedSoc types love them some GDC DC.

[Anonymous User]

^Anon who you were responding to here, and I totally agree with that, with the exception of some of the big non-DC firms like Skadden or Kirkland outranking A&P and Hogan for the non DC-or-bust types. Gibson is usually more sought after from what I see (especially those FedSoc'ers) but it's just not in that DC core. This is probably a meaningless distinction. Anyway. Back to firms paying up.

[Anonymous User]

^Anon who you were responding to here, and I totally agree with that, with the exception of some of the big non-DC firms like Skadden or Kirkland outranking A&P and Hogan for the non DC-or-bust types. Gibson is usually more sought after from what I see (especially those FedSoc'ers) but it's just not in that DC core. This is probably a meaningless distinction. Anyway. Back to firms paying up.

The real distinction should be firms that pay market >>>> firms that don't.

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

Brown Rudnick is as average as a firm gets and it matched. WTF.

Every form in the AmLaw 100 should be able to match now.

[Anonymous User]

Is everyone here employed at prestigious top 50 firms? Any other fellow AmLaw 50-100 associates waiting patiently on the sidelines hoping we'll get some scraps thrown our way?

[Anonymous User]

Is everyone here employed at prestigious top 50 firms? Any other fellow AmLaw 50-100 associates waiting patiently on the sidelines hoping we'll get some scraps thrown our way?

Me! My firm isn’t going to raise, but I wish it would raise a little. Our PPP is very low, almost to the point where a senior associate at one of the big firms is making slightly less than some of the equity partners at my firm.

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

Brown Rudnick is as average as a firm gets and it matched. WTF.

Every form in the AmLaw 100 should be able to match now.

Did they even match $180 before? Vault says they are still at $160k... http://www.vault.com/company-profiles/l ... y-overview

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

Brown Rudnick is as average as a firm gets and it matched. WTF.

Every form in the AmLaw 100 should be able to match now.

Did they even match $180 before? Vault says they are still at $160k... http://www.vault.com/company-profiles/l ... y-overview

I believe they matched 180 in mid-2017

[Anonymous User]

Brown Rudnick match across all offices. No summer bonus though (rationale being that above market bonuses are paid to 2400+ hour billers).

I'm ok with it honestly. Its nice that a smaller AmLaw 200 firm pays market at all (190K for first years in Hartford and Providence is kinda crazy).

A firm that rescinded offers to almost half of its incoming associates just before they graduated has now matched. And yet still no word from most of the biggest Boston, DC, and California firms. Very interesting.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=227896

Brown Rudnick is as average as a firm gets and it matched. WTF.

Every form in the AmLaw 100 should be able to match now.

Yeah, Brown Rudnick’s profits per partner is so low, I thought it was another DC firm.