NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

At King & Spalding, you get about $30-$40 per hour (depending on class, I believe) for each hour worked over 2,050 hours.

wtf so you have to bill an extra 400-500 hours just to get a FIRST YEAR market bonus?

That's not bad. If we bill an extra 400 we make less than $15 an hour. If we bill an extra 300, it's not even a guarantee that we will make anything over the market bonus. I think this system sounds pretty nice.

K&S has a firm-wide meeting tomorrow (was already on the books). Wouldn't be a bad time to announce...

Will probably be the best-attended firm-wide associate meeting in the history of K&S.

[Anonymous User]

Why is Greenberg Traurig not on this list, is it conclusive they won’t raise?

"For us, our highest priorities remain excellence, delivering value and innovation and maintaining a wind-proof culture based on individual respect, trust, empowerment, and collaboration. Change can be empowering, but not when it is simply based on what the “pack” is doing rather than a solid strategy which is grounded in our core values. For over 50 years, we have found our best opportunities in change; it has allowed our firm to be diverse, entrepreneurial, nimble, and responsive over the years. But we do not base our changes on the whims of the marketplace or ill-advised, so-called experts."

-Greenberg TTTraurig

This was post-Milbank before everyone else joined. Do we really think they are dumb enough to be left behind?

[Anonymous User]

It’s concerning that Winston immediately matched Milbank but hasn’t re-matched, even after Kirkland and Sidley did so.

Then again, we may not feel pressure unless/until Mayer/Jennner/etc. also match.

[Anonymous User]

We need O'Melveny and MoFo on this list. My firm won't raise until those two do.

[Anonymous User]

We need O'Melveny and MoFo on this list. My firm won't raise until those two do.

What's your firm?

[Anonymous User]

It’s concerning that Winston immediately matched Milbank but hasn’t re-matched, even after Kirkland and Sidley did so.

Then again, we may not feel pressure unless/until Mayer/Jennner/etc. also match.

I'm at Katten and quite a few senior people have said we are waiting to see what Mayer/Jenner do and also whether Winston rematches.

[Anonymous User]

"For us, our highest priorities remain excellence, delivering value and innovation and maintaining a wind-proof culture based on individual respect, trust, empowerment, and collaboration. Change can be empowering, but not when it is simply based on what the “pack” is doing rather than a solid strategy which is grounded in our core values. For over 50 years, we have found our best opportunities in change; it has allowed our firm to be diverse, entrepreneurial, nimble, and responsive over the years. But we do not base our changes on the whims of the marketplace or ill-advised, so-called experts."

-Greenberg TTTraurig

This was post-Milbank before everyone else joined. Do we really think they are dumb enough to be left behind?

Yes, you really think they’re so dumb that at the time they made that statement, they didn’t realize that most of their peers would be matching Milbank in the coming days and weeks? That’s essentially what you’re asserting here..

They want to be cheap, we'll call them out for being cheap.

[Anonymous User]

This:

Wow. It’s sooooo amazing that Kramer Levin, a firm sitting at 93rd on the Am Law 100 gross revenue ranking, can offer up raises when firms like Latham at 2nd can’t bring themselves to announce. Or that Reed Smith at 25th claims they can’t afford. Really amazing.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/guess-w ... ir-thumbs/

SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEE

[OneTwoThreeFour]

"For us, our highest priorities remain excellence, delivering value and innovation and maintaining a wind-proof culture based on individual respect, trust, empowerment, and collaboration. Change can be empowering, but not when it is simply based on what the “pack” is doing rather than a solid strategy which is grounded in our core values. For over 50 years, we have found our best opportunities in change; it has allowed our firm to be diverse, entrepreneurial, nimble, and responsive over the years. But we do not base our changes on the whims of the marketplace or ill-advised, so-called experts."

-Greenberg TTTraurig

This was post-Milbank before everyone else joined. Do we really think they are dumb enough to be left behind?

Yes, you really think they’re so dumb that at the time they made that statement, they didn’t realize that most of their peers would be matching Milbank in the coming days and weeks? That’s essentially what you’re asserting here..

They want to be cheap, we'll call them out for being cheap.

What a shitty statement, fuck that guy and fuck GT.

[Anonymous User]

This:

Wow. It’s sooooo amazing that Kramer Levin, a firm sitting at 93rd on the Am Law 100 gross revenue ranking, can offer up raises when firms like Latham at 2nd can’t bring themselves to announce. Or that Reed Smith at 25th claims they can’t afford. Really amazing.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/guess-w ... ir-thumbs/

SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEE

I 100% agree with shaming any and all biglaw firms that haven't matched, but that doesn't make gross revenue any less idiotic of a metric. Anyone wanna argue that Baker McKenzie (#3) associates should be paid more than Wachtell (#48) associates?

[Anonymous User]

Is DC just staying at 180?

[Anonymous User]

This:

Wow. It’s sooooo amazing that Kramer Levin, a firm sitting at 93rd on the Am Law 100 gross revenue ranking, can offer up raises when firms like Latham at 2nd can’t bring themselves to announce. Or that Reed Smith at 25th claims they can’t afford. Really amazing.

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/guess-w ... ir-thumbs/

SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEE

I 100% agree with shaming any and all biglaw firms that haven't matched, but that doesn't make gross revenue any less idiotic of a metric. Anyone wanna argue that Baker McKenzie (#3) associates should be paid more than Wachtell (#48) associates?

United front of shaming.

[KM2016]

Is WashingTTTon DC just staying at 180?

FTFY

[Anonymous User]

Is DC just staying at 180?

Looks like it. And Wilmer will be below the Boston Market and Latham and Gibson are shedding any pretension of being elite they ever possessed.

[Anonymous User]

Kudos to Reed Smith (and GT) for coming right out and admitting they're cheap little shits. Every other firm with sub-$2 million PEP is apparently just gonna stand still and hope no one notices they're there (at 180).

[NakedPowerOrgan]

Wall of Shame for Firms Yet to Announce:

• Fried Frank ($2.94MM PPP, 55.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  1. Latham ($3.25MM PPP, 24.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  2. Paul Hastings ($2.91MM PPP, 28.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  3. Akin Gump ($2.39MM PPP, 35.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  4. King & Spalding ($2.61MM PPP, 23.8% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Vinson & Elkins ($2.36MM PPP, 37.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  5. Shearman & Sterling ($2.32MM PPP, 34.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  6. Gibson Dunn ($3.24MM PPP, 13.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  6. Dechert ($2.68MM PPP, 21.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  8. Wilmer ($2.12MM PPP, 31.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  9. Schulte ($2.56MM PPP, 17.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Cooley ($2.08MM PPP, 28.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  Kramer Levin ($2.15MM PPP, 22.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  10. Baker Botts ($1.84MM PPP, 26.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  12. Alston & Bird ($1.93MM PPP, 11.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  13. Sheppard Mullin ($1.71MM PPP, 26.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  14. Cadwalader ($2.51MM PPP, 5.6% L5Y PPP decrease, 4.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  15. McDermott ($1.71MM PPP, 14.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  16. Fragomen ($1.98MM PPP, 23.9% L5Y PPP growth, 4.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  16. MoFo ($1.74MM PPP, 15.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  18. Mayer Brown ($1.58MM PPP, 27.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  19. O'Melveny ($2.01MM PPP, 2.6% L5Y PPP decrease, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  20. Orrick ($1.86MM PPP, 12.5% L5Y PPP growth, 3.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  20. Katten ($1.57MM PPP, 16.6% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  22. Greenberg ($1.63MM PPP, 16.8% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  23. Fish & Richardson ($1.63MM PPP, 8.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  24. Covington ($1.54MM PPP, 18.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  24. Fenwick ($1.51MM PPP, 23.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
  26. Jenner ($1.42MM PPP, 5.2% L5Y PPP decrease, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)

Slightly expanded Wall of Shame to generally include all firms that, on paper, are better financially positioned than Morgan Lewis to match raises and bonuses.

[NakedPowerOrgan]

Kudos to Reed Smith (and GT) for coming right out and admitting they're cheap little shits. Every other firm with sub-$2 million PEP is apparently just gonna stand still and hope no one notices they're there (at 180).

I have more sympathy for Reed Smith. PPP is sub-$1.2MM, while GT's is over $1.6MM, and their PPP growth has lately been half the rate of GT (which itself has been roughly half the rate of rising firms like Paul Hastings, Akin Gump, and V&E). I think Reed Smith genuinely thought they couldn't afford it while GT could have but chose not to.

[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.

[Anonymous User]

Is DC just staying at 180?

DC-based legal work just isn't that profitable compared to, e.g., the private-equity work that K&E has been raking in. Wilmer at least has strong non-DC offices to bring in cash and subsidize the DC office. I could see some of the old-school DC firms skipping raises and bonuses, opting instead to pay associates in "prestige" points.

[cfcm]

You can’t eat prestige.

[Anonymous User]

You can’t eat prestige.

Lower-paying jobs with supposed access to "power" or "prestige" is the name of the game in DC in general.

[nahumya]

Yeah, they'll be eating Chipotle, hold the guac.

[Anonymous User]

meanwhile KE houston has 10 avocado trees per associate IN THE OFFICE

[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.

[Anonymous User]

You would still see 2Ls bidding DC at OCI try to get A&P or HL or JD over Skadden or K&E because they want to be at a firm HQ and not a "satellite office." Even when they recognize that 3 or maybe 4 years is their goal in biglaw. Dat prestige tho. Source: Classmates who graduated within the last few years from a T-13 and had this exact rationale for picking a firm.