NYC to 200k Forum

[nealric]

As to Shearman, open up your Vault rankings, click rankings history to see older rankings and click 2007 or 2008, they used to be ranked in the top 20. They used to be ranked even in the top 10 back in late 90s or early 20s.

Wow you weren't kidding, recession must've hit them hard

Yeah, people used to say "Shearman" in the same breath as S&C or Cravath. They seem to be going the way of Dewy Ballentine- a former white shoe firm that rested on its laurels.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson matched raise and bonus. You get the bonus if you’re annualizing 1950 at the end of June or, alternately, if you’re above 1950 at the end of the billable year.

Honest tip or sneaky Latham associate?

GDC confirmed

[Anonymous User]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/early-m ... ur-friday/

[Anonymous User]

King & Spalding just made an announcement. Free bagels every Friday from now on for everyone with 1,950 billable hours, pro-rated. This does not apply to the Atlanta office, where bagels will be discounted but not free.

[Anonymous User]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/early-m ... ur-friday/

Congrats, Denver. Commence Denver vs. NYC debate.

*inserts every argument made for Texas*

[Anonymous User]

This seems like a giant middle finger from GDC to associates in every office but New York (a middle finger that also brings raises and bonuses, but w/e).

[Anonymous User]

This seems like a giant middle finger from GDC to associates in every office but New York (a middle finger that also brings raises and bonuses, but w/e).

Good lol. Wish more firms did this

[Anonymous User]

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/early-m ... ur-friday/

Congrats, Denver. Commence Denver vs. NYC debate.

*inserts every argument made for Texas*

Plus dude weed lmao

[Anonymous User]

This seems like a giant middle finger from GDC to associates in every office but New York (a middle finger that also brings raises and bonuses, but w/e).

I doubt there is anyone in their NYC office billing less than 1950 anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson match - the dam has broken. All DC and CA firms will now follow ASAP.

Thank you Gibson.

[Anonymous User]

Now that Gibson matched, we should here from Latham, then the top Boston, DC, and California firms that are still holding out should follow in short order.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson match - the dam has broken. All DC and CA firms will now follow ASAP.

Thank you Gibson.

Meh, we all knew Gibson was gonna match and they were what, #5 on the wall of shame? I agree that as a sheer number of associates Gibson is big (for both DC and Cali) but in terms of $$$ they're in a league with the NYC transactional firms, not DC's impoverished regulaTTTory shops.

[Anonymous User]

Now that Gibson matched, we should here from Latham, then the top Boston, DC, and California firms that are still holding out should follow in short order.

I honestly don't know about the timing of Latham. Obviously they're gonna match some day, but I'm buying into the "their management is a shitshow" theory. They have the money and the swagger to match within a week like they did in 2016. If they haven't gotten their act together by this point, I'm not holding my breath that they'll necessarily be before Paul Hastings, Cadwalader, MoFo, etc.

[Anonymous User]

King & Spalding just made an announcement. Free bagels every Friday from now on for everyone with 1,950 billable hours, pro-rated. This does not apply to the Atlanta office, where bagels will be discounted but not free.

Confirmed, with summer bonus of cream cheese. The Atlanta dam has finally broken.

[Anonymous User]

This seems like a giant middle finger from GDC to associates in every office but New York (a middle finger that also brings raises and bonuses, but w/e).

I doubt there is anyone in their NYC office billing less than 1950 anyway.

Meh it's actually not that big a deal. In our NY office you don't get bonus bumps for exceeding 1950 hours, and in the rest of our offices you do, so it makes sense that you would just have to be "in good standing" in NY.

[Anonymous User]

With Gibson matching the raise and bonus, it won't be long before the rest of the 40 or 50 biggest, best regarded, and most profitable firms get on board. It has been clear, however, for the last two weeks that we would make it here eventually.

With that in mind, I wish I could convey to my firm's management that delaying the eventual, almost inevitable match harms the firm. Of course I want the raise selfishly, to pay off my loans and my mortgage. I also want my firm to stay healthy and at the top of the market. Part of that is continuing to recruit the most promising summer associates and attorneys coming from clerkships. Part of that is keeping associate morale and engagement up. Delaying a match that peer firms (and even less profitable, less well regarded firms) are making is detrimental to both of those.

It is tough for law students and junior attorneys picking one firm from several offers to distinguish those firms. They're on the outside, trying to look in. They can see, even from the outside, salary, bonuses, the terms of those salaries and bonuses, and--of particular relevance now--the extent to which firms appear eager to compensate their associates at the top of the market, or the extent to which they seem eager to avoid doing so.

For associates already at the firm, most work very, very hard for our clients. In doing so, we want to see that we're compenated as well as ours peers at the firms we could have joined. That is particularly true when we see billing rates and profits go up almost every year, while associate salaries stagnate.

If you're going to match the firms moving the market eventually, why not tell the whole legal marketplace that you think you're associates are the best and match the raises sooner, rather than after a weeks long delay? Doing so costs nothing if you're going to match anyway, and it will pay dividends.

[Anonymous User]

With Gibson matching the raise and bonus, it won't be long before the rest of the 40 or 50 biggest, best regarded, and most profitable firms get on board. It has been clear, however, for the last two weeks that we would make it here eventually.

With that in mind, I wish I could convey to my firm's management that delaying the eventual, almost inevitable match harms the firm. Of course I want the raise selfishly, to pay off my loans and my mortgage. I also want my firm to stay healthy and at the top of the market. Part of that is continuing to recruit the most promising summer associates and attorneys coming from clerkships. Part of that is keeping associate morale and engagement up. Delaying a match that peer firms (and even less profitable, less well regarded firms) are making is detrimental to both of those.

It is tough for law students and junior attorneys picking one firm from several offers to distinguish those firms. They're on the outside, trying to look in. They can see, even from the outside, salary, bonuses, the terms of those salaries and bonuses, and--of particular relevance now--the extent to which firms appear eager to compensate their associates at the top of the market, or the extent to which they seem eager to avoid doing so.

For associates already at the firm, most work very, very hard for our clients. In doing so, we want to see that we're compenated as well as ours peers at the firms we could have joined. That is particularly true when we see billing rates and profits go up almost every year, while associate salaries stagnate.

If you're going to match the firms moving the market eventually, why not tell the whole legal marketplace that you think you're associates are the best and match the raises sooner, rather than after a weeks long delay? Doing so costs nothing if you're going to match anyway, and it will pay dividends.

Because they're afraid of client backlash, which is bullshit because at this point the writing's on the wall, and by the time clients see the rate increase--which is all they really care about--I guarantee you none of them will remember/care whether it was Covington or A&P that raised 36 hours before the other one.

[Anonymous User]

Amen.

But to be honest, my firm is so terrible at internal marketing, it wouldn't surprise me that they have no idea about any of these factors.

[Anonymous User]

As to Shearman, open up your Vault rankings, click rankings history to see older rankings and click 2007 or 2008, they used to be ranked in the top 20. They used to be ranked even in the top 10 back in late 90s or early 20s.

Wow you weren't kidding, recession must've hit them hard

Yeah, people used to say "Shearman" in the same breath as S&C or Cravath. They seem to be going the way of Dewy Ballentine- a former white shoe firm that rested on its laurels.

The comparison to Dewey is misplaced. Dewey had financial difficulties and became bankrupt. Shearman incurred a damage to its reputation after the dotcom bubble burst and that's when the decline started.

Looking at the firm's performance over the past year as well as the perception changes, it seems like they stopped declining any further. It would be interesting to see if they can get back up to where they used to be.

[Anonymous User]

Amen.

But to be honest, my firm is so terrible at internal marketing, it wouldn't surprise me that they have no idea about any of these factors.

The drawn out delays have no upside, but they do have costs. Firms don't save anything because they match anyway after a few weeks. So they don't get anything. And in the meantime, their associates and potential summer associates and laterals watch as peer firms raise salaries and pay bonuses. Delaying an inevitable match is a lose-lose.

[Anonymous User]

How many firms have hours requirements on their bonus?

[NakedPowerOrgan]

A new day for the Wall of Shame.

Wall of Shame for Firms Yet to Announce:

• Kirkland ($4.70MM PPP, 44.7% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Davis Polk ($3.70MM PPP, 50.7% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Weil ($3.64MM PPP, 63.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Paul Weiss ($4.56MM PPP, 36.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Milbank ($3.46MM PPP, 41.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Fried Frank ($2.94MM PPP, 123.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Simpson ($3.68MM PPP, 38.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Skadden ($3.47MM PPP, 32.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  SullCrom ($4.27MM PPP, 23.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Willkie ($2.97MM PPP, 43.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Akin Gump ($2.39MM PPP, 54.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  1. Latham ($3.25MM PPP, 33.0% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  2. Paul Hastings ($2.91MM PPP, 39.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  3. Boies ($3.27MM PPP, 20.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  Shearman ($2.32MM PPP, 52.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Vinson & Elkins ($2.36MM PPP, 60.6% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Quinn ($4.74MM PPP, 6.8% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  4. King & Spalding ($2.61MM PPP, 31.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  Cravath ($4.00MM PPP, 14.2% L5Y PPP growth, 4.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Gibson Dunn ($3.24MM PPP, 15.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Schulte ($2.56MM PPP, 21.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  5. WilmerHale ($2.12MM PPP, 44.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  Ropes ($2.32MM PPP, 46.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Dechert ($2.68MM PPP, 27.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Goodwin ($2.15MM PPP, 42.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Proskauer ($2.37MM PPP, 27.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Cahill ($3.69MM PPP, 3.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Cooley ($2.08MM PPP, 39.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Winston ($2.16MM PPP, 44.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)[/s]
  
  6. Baker Botts ($1.84MM PPP, 35.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  Cleary ($3.07MM PPP, 17.3% L5Y PPP growth, 3.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Debevoise ($2.83MM PPP, 36.2% L5Y PPP growth, 5.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Sidley ($2.26MM PPP, 25.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Wilson Sonsini ($2.21MM PPP, 34.4% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)[/s]
  
  7. Alston & Bird ($1.93MM PPP, 12.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  White & Case ($2.26MM PPP, 32.9% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Kramer Levin ($2.15MM PPP, 28.5% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  8. Sheppard ($1.71MM PPP, 35.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  9. Cadwalader ($2.51MM PPP, -5.3% L5Y PPP growth, 4.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  9. Mayer Brown ($1.58MM PPP, 37.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  11. Holland & Knight ($1.36MM PPP, 43.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  12. McDermott ($1.71MM PPP, 17.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  13. Katten ($1.57MM PPP, 19.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  14. Fragomen ($1.98MM PPP, 31.4% L5Y PPP growth, 4.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  15. Covington ($1.54MM PPP, 22.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  15. Greenberg ($1.63MM PPP, 20.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  17. Fish & Richardson ($1.63MM PPP, 9.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  17. MoFo ($1.74MM PPP, 18.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  19. O'Melveny ($2.01MM PPP, -2.5% L5Y PPP growth, 3.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  Orrick ($1.86MM PPP, 14.3% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  20. Fenwick ($1.51MM PPP, 31.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  21. Jenner ($1.42MM PPP, -4.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  
  Baker McKenzie ($1.30MM PPP, 19.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Morgan Lewis ($1.37MM PPP, -11.7% L5Y PPP growth, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)

Legend:
New York
California
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Houston
Boston
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Florida

[Anonymous User]

With Gibson matching the raise and bonus, it won't be long before the rest of the 40 or 50 biggest, best regarded, and most profitable firms get on board. It has been clear, however, for the last two weeks that we would make it here eventually.

With that in mind, I wish I could convey to my firm's management that delaying the eventual, almost inevitable match harms the firm. Of course I want the raise selfishly, to pay off my loans and my mortgage. I also want my firm to stay healthy and at the top of the market. Part of that is continuing to recruit the most promising summer associates and attorneys coming from clerkships. Part of that is keeping associate morale and engagement up. Delaying a match that peer firms (and even less profitable, less well regarded firms) are making is detrimental to both of those.

It is tough for law students and junior attorneys picking one firm from several offers to distinguish those firms. They're on the outside, trying to look in. They can see, even from the outside, salary, bonuses, the terms of those salaries and bonuses, and--of particular relevance now--the extent to which firms appear eager to compensate their associates at the top of the market, or the extent to which they seem eager to avoid doing so.

For associates already at the firm, most work very, very hard for our clients. In doing so, we want to see that we're compenated as well as ours peers at the firms we could have joined. That is particularly true when we see billing rates and profits go up almost every year, while associate salaries stagnate.

If you're going to match the firms moving the market eventually, why not tell the whole legal marketplace that you think you're associates are the best and match the raises sooner, rather than after a weeks long delay? Doing so costs nothing if you're going to match anyway, and it will pay dividends.

Because they're afraid of client backlash, which is bullshit because at this point the writing's on the wall, and by the time clients see the rate increase--which is all they really care about--I guarantee you none of them will remember/care whether it was Covington or A&P that raised 36 hours before the other one.

What's really ridiculous is that, at most of the top firms, equity partners -- already the highest-paid people at firms -- have essentially been getting raises on average of 7 percent every year for the last few years. And yet, supposedly, clients are freaking out about raising salaries for associates by 5 to 9 percent one year? Please.

[Anonymous User]

What's really ridiculous is that, at most of the top firms, equity partners -- already the highest-paid people at firms -- have essentially been getting raises on average of 7 percent every year for the last few years. And yet, supposedly, clients are freaking out about raising salaries for associates by 5 to 9 percent one year? Please.

PREACH! Worse yet is that some associates buy into this cuck mentality and think that if they get a cost of living adjustment, it will necessarily come with an hours requirement bump. Really?! So partners can raise rates and rack in more cash for themselves when the economy's humming but for us to get a COLA we better start pulling all-nighters twice weekly or the firm is RUINED.

[Anonymous User]

they have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn