NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

Coming from 2012 AmLaw numbers and 2017 AmLaw numbers. Shearman had $1.52MM PPP in 2012 (ranked #37) and $2.32MM in 2017 (ranked #28).

No wonder ML is at the bottom of your metric. You captured the period that they went through merger with Bingham.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone here work for Latham or GDC? Are associates at your firm confident the match is coming or is morale starting to sour? I’m at another Cal firm that has yet to match and I want some anonymous, unverifiable assurances one of you will match soon to force the hand of my firm.

100% chance GDC matches whatever Latham does. 99% chance Latham matches, no idea why they're taking their sweet time. GDC management always tells its associates that it will never be leader in compensation, but will always follow the market. And in terms of what the "market" is, GDC management only looks at "peer firms," which at this point is really only Latham (used to include OMM and MoFo and maybe PH, but over the past 15 years Latham and GDC have left them behind; and Quinn is too much of an upstart and still viewed as too much like a plaintiffs' firm to be a peer).

Latham will match. Delay a function of firm structure and procedures (technically the Associates Committee makes the recommendation on compensation and, while the overall recommendation isn't really in doubt, it takes time. plus scuttlebut is that there was some lively debate re hours requirements.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone here work for Latham or GDC? Are associates at your firm confident the match is coming or is morale starting to sour? I’m at another Cal firm that has yet to match and I want some anonymous, unverifiable assurances one of you will match soon to force the hand of my firm.

100% chance GDC matches whatever Latham does. 99% chance Latham matches, no idea why they're taking their sweet time. GDC management always tells its associates that it will never be leader in compensation, but will always follow the market. And in terms of what the "market" is, GDC management only looks at "peer firms," which at this point is really only Latham (used to include OMM and MoFo and maybe PH, but over the past 15 years Latham and GDC have left them behind; and Quinn is too much of an upstart and still viewed as too much like a plaintiffs' firm to be a peer).

Latham will match. Delay a function of firm structure and procedures (technically the Associates Committee makes the recommendation on compensation and, while the overall recommendation isn't really in doubt, it takes time. plus scuttlebut is that there was some lively debate re hours requirements.

Guess as to how Latham will come out re hours requirement for bonus?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone here work for Latham or GDC? Are associates at your firm confident the match is coming or is morale starting to sour? I’m at another Cal firm that has yet to match and I want some anonymous, unverifiable assurances one of you will match soon to force the hand of my firm.

100% chance GDC matches whatever Latham does. 99% chance Latham matches, no idea why they're taking their sweet time. GDC management always tells its associates that it will never be leader in compensation, but will always follow the market. And in terms of what the "market" is, GDC management only looks at "peer firms," which at this point is really only Latham (used to include OMM and MoFo and maybe PH, but over the past 15 years Latham and GDC have left them behind; and Quinn is too much of an upstart and still viewed as too much like a plaintiffs' firm to be a peer).

Latham will match. Delay a function of firm structure and procedures (technically the Associates Committee makes the recommendation on compensation and, while the overall recommendation isn't really in doubt, it takes time. plus scuttlebut is that there was some lively debate re hours requirements.

Guess as to how Latham will come out re hours requirement for bonus?

Latham has perhaps finally recovered from their LaTTTham reputation of Lathaming people and is now officially a V5 firm, so my totally unsubstantiated guess is that Latham will require hours because Latham can't help but make themselves look like assholes.

[NakedPowerOrgan]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

[Anonymous User]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

This, since the biggest hiccup to raising salaries is how much hit the partners who make the decision are willing to take.

[azpurua]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

Still begs the question of what's the deal with Shearman? According to this, their PPL (not RPL) is $1,037,000, putting them 4th in the world.

[Anonymous User]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

Still begs the question of what's the deal with Shearman? According to this, their PPL (not RPL) is $1,037,000, putting them 4th in the world.

That has to be wrong. Their RPL is $1,075,000.

[nealric]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

This, since the biggest hiccup to raising salaries is how much hit the partners who make the decision are willing to take.

That's certainly a factor, but the percentage of equity partners can vary quite a bit. It's a bit different when equity partners are a small cadre as opposed to a firm where all partners have equity. RPL gives you an idea how much profit they are making on an individual associate, which gives an idea how much headroom there is to increase salaries while keeping an associate profitable.

[Anonymous User]

Why does Sherman always seem to be doing so poorly when they've greatly increased profits in the last five years?

Lol, because they are not doing so poorly. Don't let Vault rankings fool you. They are nothing but associate surveys.

[Anonymous User]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

This, since the biggest hiccup to raising salaries is how much hit the partners who make the decision are willing to take.

That's certainly a factor, but the percentage of equity partners can vary quite a bit. It's a bit different when equity partners are a small cadre as opposed to a firm where all partners have equity. RPL gives you an idea how much profit they are making on an individual associate, which gives an idea how much headroom there is to increase salaries while keeping an associate profitable.

For one thing, though, shouldn't it be assumed that non-equity partners will not necessarily automatically get raises on account of the move to $190K? RPL includes everybody (of counsel, non-equity partners, non-partner track staff attorneys), some or many of which might not be affected by the move to $190K or receive summer bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

Why does Sherman always seem to be doing so poorly when they've greatly increased profits in the last five years?

Lol, because they are not doing so poorly. Don't let Vault rankings fool you. They are nothing but associate surveys.

Associate surveys the results of which will reflect firm stinginess.

[worklifewhat]

Where are these numbers coming from? Shearman's 50% PPP growth in the last 5 years seems huge, I didn't think they were doing that well.

I recall a few years ago Shearman de-equitizing a large number of partners with the aim of rapidly boosting profitability. I would be interested to know the decline in # of equity partners over this same period. I would guess at least 20%.

Part of why RPL is a better metric. Firms play tons of games with PPP by limiting the number of equity partners.

A better metric for determining firm health; not necessarily a better metric for determining ability to increase associate salaries.

Still begs the question of what's the deal with Shearman? According to this, their PPL (not RPL) is $1,037,000, putting them 4th in the world.

Not sure about global rankings, but according to the amlaw 2017 rankings, the top 10 firms for PPL are:
Wachtell: 1.897M
Quinn: 1.045M
Kirkland: 913K
SullCrom: 863K
Gibson: 794K
Cahill: 789K
Milbank: 728K
Skadden: 702K
Simpson: 699K
Willkie: 668K

Shearman comes in at 43 with 385K.

[Anonymous User]

Hey DC, how does it feel to be bent over by Philly?

Latham and Gibson, hope you can get some of Orrick and Munger Tolles's seconds

[Anonymous User]

LaTTTham baby.

[Anonymous User]

Shearman matched the Cravath salary scale and bonus.

[Anonymous User]

Shearman matched with bonus. This is from a friend who works there so no i don't have the dang memo

[Anonymous User]

LaTTTham baby.

Explain yourself!

[Anonymous User]

Akin Gump matched. That should put some pressure on DC.

[Anonymous User]

Akin Gump matched. That should put some pressure on DC.

Maybe there's some momentum going again today... that's 4 firms so far after a slow day yesterday.

[Anonymous User]

LaTTTham baby.

Explain yourself!

There's no Latham match yet, just chill.

[Anonymous User]

If Orrick can match, surely OMM can too.

Here's hoping. With so many other firms in the v50 matching, it seems inevitable. Maybe they're waiting for Latham and Gibson though.

[Anonymous User]

Wall of Shame, updated to compare to more of their less-shameful colleagues.

Everyone's talking about whether Hogan, Wilmer, or Covington will be the firm to break the DC dam, but Akin Gump is #1 on this list and raised on the same day as Hogan (which was first) in 2016...

Called it! (anonymously, lol)

[Anonymous User]

Akin Gump matched. That should put some pressure on DC.

Maybe there's some momentum going again today... that's 4 firms so far after a slow day yesterday.

Tomorrow is the day. Firms don't want it mid week. No need to relive the productivity debate re: distracted vs. partying.

[Anonymous User]

Akin Gump matched. That should put some pressure on DC.

YEEESSSSSSSSS