What’s your source? Are you at bsf? What does eventually mean?Anonymous User wrote:Still rumors of eventual changes in the comp formula, and associates are pretty sure it'll be matched eventually. But I'd like to point out that BSF summers are now officially underpaid compared to their peers, given that summers just received their pay for the first two weeks of July.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:bumpAnonymous User wrote:bumpAnonymous User wrote:anyone have an update on progress at BSF?
jfc this is ridiculous
NYC to 200k Forum
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 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.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
can someone please elaborate on this point? specifically in NYC. Are they paying the new market and the summer bonuses may be based on performance? thinking of lateraling there.Anonymous User wrote:Morgan Lewis denied raises to certain associates that are not at the firm's productivity levels. Unclear how many associates this affects, but they will all be staying on the old payscale for the foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Some with low hours won't even get the raise...Anonymous User wrote:can someone please elaborate on this point? specifically in NYC. Are they paying the new market and the summer bonuses may be based on performance? thinking of lateraling there.Anonymous User wrote:Morgan Lewis denied raises to certain associates that are not at the firm's productivity levels. Unclear how many associates this affects, but they will all be staying on the old payscale for the foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Depressing that this thread really died down and my V100 firm hasn’t matched yet while all of its “peers” have matched.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Here's to hoping that the market corrects the cheap firms actions by plaguing them with the shittiest OCI candidates that all reject offers at those firms.Anonymous User wrote:Depressing that this thread really died down and my V100 firm hasn’t matched yet while all of its “peers” have matched.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
As far as I know, it’s across the firm and I imagine it screws a lot of associates. No raise in base salary and bonus for associates that aren’t on track to meet 2000 billable hours.Anonymous User wrote:Some with low hours won't even get the raise...Anonymous User wrote:can someone please elaborate on this point? specifically in NYC. Are they paying the new market and the summer bonuses may be based on performance? thinking of lateraling there.Anonymous User wrote:Morgan Lewis denied raises to certain associates that are not at the firm's productivity levels. Unclear how many associates this affects, but they will all be staying on the old payscale for the foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
So basically, the current first years stay at $180k if they're behind on hours target, and come October will be 2nd years, but paid LESS than the new first years....is there ever a way for these associates to catch up with compensation for their class year?Anonymous User wrote:As far as I know, it’s across the firm and I imagine it screws a lot of associates. No raise in base salary and bonus for associates that aren’t on track to meet 2000 billable hours.Anonymous User wrote:Some with low hours won't even get the raise...Anonymous User wrote:can someone please elaborate on this point? specifically in NYC. Are they paying the new market and the summer bonuses may be based on performance? thinking of lateraling there.Anonymous User wrote:Morgan Lewis denied raises to certain associates that are not at the firm's productivity levels. Unclear how many associates this affects, but they will all be staying on the old payscale for the foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
It was implied, although not clearly, that there would be an opportunity for partners to make a case for associates who didn’t receive the raise come October so that associates would be able to catch up to compensation for their class year. This raise cycle was entirely based on the billable hours, which the firm conveniently did not mention in the initial announcement.Anonymous User wrote:So basically, the current first years stay at $180k if they're behind on hours target, and come October will be 2nd years, but paid LESS than the new first years....is there ever a way for these associates to catch up with compensation for their class year?Anonymous User wrote:As far as I know, it’s across the firm and I imagine it screws a lot of associates. No raise in base salary and bonus for associates that aren’t on track to meet 2000 billable hours.Anonymous User wrote:Some with low hours won't even get the raise...Anonymous User wrote:can someone please elaborate on this point? specifically in NYC. Are they paying the new market and the summer bonuses may be based on performance? thinking of lateraling there.Anonymous User wrote:Morgan Lewis denied raises to certain associates that are not at the firm's productivity levels. Unclear how many associates this affects, but they will all be staying on the old payscale for the foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Eversheds at full matches in their respective markets (190k NY, 165k Hotlanta)
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Informed by a couple of Bracewell associates they matched.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
All offices?Anonymous User wrote:With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:26 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Would be glorious to be a Las Vegas BSF associate if they matched all offices and if the Vegas office had associates. Alas.Anonymous User wrote:All offices?Anonymous User wrote:With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
It's become clear the BSF summer bonus is not like the "special" bonuses paid at other firms, which everyone understands to be separate, one-off payments that don't affect December bonuses. At BSF it's an "interim" bonus that just amounts to an advance of the December bonus. Same is true of the salary increase -- more money in our pockets now means lower bonuses in December.JusticeJackson wrote:Would be glorious to be a Las Vegas BSF associate if they matched all offices and if the Vegas office had associates. Alas.Anonymous User wrote:All offices?Anonymous User wrote:With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
The upshot is that BSF raised salaries and paid summer bonuses without actually increasing overall associate comp. The same thing happened when they raised salaries in 2016, so this is the second time in two years that every other firm has increased associate comp while BSF stood still.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
the executive committee is still determining where it will land on overall compensation with a formula change. the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp, and it was taken under extraordinary pressure from associates, esp in DC. my guess is partners wouldn't have done anything until the formula changes were announced if not for recruiting/retaining ect.Anonymous User wrote:It's become clear the BSF summer bonus is not like the "special" bonuses paid at other firms, which everyone understands to be separate, one-off payments that don't affect December bonuses. At BSF it's an "interim" bonus that just amounts to an advance of the December bonus. Same is true of the salary increase -- more money in our pockets now means lower bonuses in December.JusticeJackson wrote:Would be glorious to be a Las Vegas BSF associate if they matched all offices and if the Vegas office had associates. Alas.Anonymous User wrote:All offices?Anonymous User wrote:With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
The upshot is that BSF raised salaries and paid summer bonuses without actually increasing overall associate comp. The same thing happened when they raised salaries in 2016, so this is the second time in two years that every other firm has increased associate comp while BSF stood still.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Foley & Lardner to 190k in large city offices, years 2 and 3 seem to match market as well. At least some raises beyond year 3 in all offices to be relatively competitive, but unless you’re billing 2200+ still lots of compression and bonuses well below market after year 3.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Does this include Miami office?Anonymous User wrote:Foley & Lardner to 190k in large city offices, years 2 and 3 seem to match market as well. At least some raises beyond year 3 in all offices to be relatively competitive, but unless you’re billing 2200+ still lots of compression and bonuses well below market after year 3.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/associa ... good-news/Anonymous User wrote:the executive committee is still determining where it will land on overall compensation with a formula change. the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp, and it was taken under extraordinary pressure from associates, esp in DC. my guess is partners wouldn't have done anything until the formula changes were announced if not for recruiting/retaining ect.Anonymous User wrote:It's become clear the BSF summer bonus is not like the "special" bonuses paid at other firms, which everyone understands to be separate, one-off payments that don't affect December bonuses. At BSF it's an "interim" bonus that just amounts to an advance of the December bonus. Same is true of the salary increase -- more money in our pockets now means lower bonuses in December.JusticeJackson wrote:Would be glorious to be a Las Vegas BSF associate if they matched all offices and if the Vegas office had associates. Alas.Anonymous User wrote:All offices?Anonymous User wrote:With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
The upshot is that BSF raised salaries and paid summer bonuses without actually increasing overall associate comp. The same thing happened when they raised salaries in 2016, so this is the second time in two years that every other firm has increased associate comp while BSF stood still.
I'm not sure all of your comrades agree with you on that...
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Thanks for the update! I was wondering if they would ever match! Do you happen to know when the raises go into effect? I remember in 2016, they had a BS "we will raise the salary next year in February" schtick. Wondering if they're playing the same game again or not.Anonymous User wrote:Foley & Lardner to 190k in large city offices, years 2 and 3 seem to match market as well. At least some raises beyond year 3 in all offices to be relatively competitive, but unless you’re billing 2200+ still lots of compression and bonuses well below market after year 3.
What is the minimum hours requirement for bonus? Is it 2200 as you mentioned? I know they historically never pay market bonuses, so I'm guessing they aren't going to match the summer bonus.
I was a summer at one of Foley's big city offices. I got the impression that even though they try to sell you on them being a "lifestyle firm", they are just plain cheap and hours are equally bad as market paying biglaw firms. I was wondering if you have a different opinion of them?
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
To answer earlier question, Miami likely not getting bumped for years 1-3 unless other biglaw firms in Miami did.Anonymous User wrote:Thanks for the update! I was wondering if they would ever match! Do you happen to know when the raises go into effect? I remember in 2016, they had a BS "we will raise the salary next year in February" schtick. Wondering if they're playing the same game again or not.Anonymous User wrote:Foley & Lardner to 190k in large city offices, years 2 and 3 seem to match market as well. At least some raises beyond year 3 in all offices to be relatively competitive, but unless you’re billing 2200+ still lots of compression and bonuses well below market after year 3.
What is the minimum hours requirement for bonus? Is it 2200 as you mentioned? I know they historically never pay market bonuses, so I'm guessing they aren't going to match the summer bonus.
I was a summer at one of Foley's big city offices. I got the impression that even though they try to sell you on them being a "lifestyle firm", they are just plain cheap and hours are equally bad as market paying biglaw firms. I was wondering if you have a different opinion of them?
Yes, no raise for Foley until the fiscal year turns over in Feb 2019. I’m sure there are intra-firm practical reasons for that, but if every other firm can raise instantly then those reasons are probably excuses.
It’s really hard to tell if Foley is just cheap or legit has a better path to partnership than its peers. Office and practice group specific politics are probably the most important factors. The risk of getting pushed out despite being a good lawyer is probably 20% instead of 40% at peers. Is that worth leaving 500k-1mm on the table in the prime years of your life, vs. earning 3-5mm more long term assuming being a biglaw partner doesn’t ruin your life? You decide based on your risk tolerance, stamina, and long-term goals. However, Foley is no longer a “lifestyle” firm, minimum billables after year 3 is 1950 starting next year. Quotes around lifestyle because since well prior to 2016 quasi-raise, in some practice groups you’re still expected to be willing to work 80-100 hr weeks if a deal is on and be on call 9-6 if it’s not.
Bonuses are 10% at 2000 hours, 20% at 2200 hours. Can get higher if people like you but that still puts you well below market.
Despite all that people are generally chill and genuinely want you to succeed. Just don’t expect money to be used to show the value you bring to the firm or your clients.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
What about that article is at all inconsistent with the quoted post? You cant just drop a link and ambiguously mischaracterize itAnonymous User wrote:https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/associa ... good-news/Anonymous User wrote:the executive committee is still determining where it will land on overall compensation with a formula change. the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp, and it was taken under extraordinary pressure from associates, esp in DC. my guess is partners wouldn't have done anything until the formula changes were announced if not for recruiting/retaining ect.Anonymous User wrote:It's become clear the BSF summer bonus is not like the "special" bonuses paid at other firms, which everyone understands to be separate, one-off payments that don't affect December bonuses. At BSF it's an "interim" bonus that just amounts to an advance of the December bonus. Same is true of the salary increase -- more money in our pockets now means lower bonuses in December.JusticeJackson wrote:Would be glorious to be a Las Vegas BSF associate if they matched all offices and if the Vegas office had associates. Alas.Anonymous User wrote:All offices?Anonymous User wrote:With summer bonusesAnonymous User wrote:Boies match
The upshot is that BSF raised salaries and paid summer bonuses without actually increasing overall associate comp. The same thing happened when they raised salaries in 2016, so this is the second time in two years that every other firm has increased associate comp while BSF stood still.
I'm not sure all of your comrades agree with you on that...
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
[/quote]Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:What about that article is at all inconsistent with the quoted post? You cant just drop a link and ambiguously mischaracterize itJusticeJackson wrote:https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/associa ... good-news/Anonymous User wrote:the executive committee is still determining where it will land on overall compensation with a formula change. the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp, and it was taken under extraordinary pressure from associates, esp in DC. my guess is partners wouldn't have done anything until the formula changes were announced if not for recruiting/retaining ect.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Boies match
It's become clear the BSF summer bonus is not like the "special" bonuses paid at other firms, which everyone understands to be separate, one-off payments that don't affect December bonuses. At BSF it's an "interim" bonus that just amounts to an advance of the December bonus. Same is true of the salary increase -- more money in our pockets now means lower bonuses in December.
The upshot is that BSF raised salaries and paid summer bonuses without actually increasing overall associate comp. The same thing happened when they raised salaries in 2016, so this is the second time in two years that every other firm has increased associate comp while BSF stood still.
I'm not sure all of your comrades agree with you on that...
The linked article and earlier ATL coverage explains how this happened in pretty solid detail, but the gist is that the 2016 salary increase at other firms amounted to a raise for those associates, but when BSF implemented the $180k scale two years ago, that just shifted money the bonus column into the salary column. Maybe they thought this wouldn't be an issue because the formula was already so 'generous' or whatever, but this apparently led to lots of associates getting below-market bonuses in 2017, notwithstanding 1-2 crazy outliers the firm tends to brag about. But the firm never changed the formula.
Announcing another salary bump in 2018 and interim bonuses would appear to exacerbate the problem absent a change to the formula. Associates quoted in the article are obviously frustrated that a) everyone gets that there is a problem, b) everyone gets that a salary increase won't fix the problem, and c) 'interim' bonuses that just advance part of the December bonus to July REALLY misses the point of the 'special' bonuses paid at other firms. So I'm not sure these BSf associates would agree with the part of the previous post that I underlined -- "the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp" -- because if the firm wanted to communicate that, they would either change the formula or say they're going to change the formula. And paying "interim" bonuses that appear to be like the special, one-off payments received at other firms but that are, in reality, not extra money in associate pockets is a really, really poor look for OCI and summers.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:What about that article is at all inconsistent with the quoted post? You cant just drop a link and ambiguously mischaracterize itJusticeJackson wrote:https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/associa ... good-news/Anonymous User wrote:the executive committee is still determining where it will land on overall compensation with a formula change. the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp, and it was taken under extraordinary pressure from associates, esp in DC. my guess is partners wouldn't have done anything until the formula changes were announced if not for recruiting/retaining ect.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Boies match
It's become clear the BSF summer bonus is not like the "special" bonuses paid at other firms, which everyone understands to be separate, one-off payments that don't affect December bonuses. At BSF it's an "interim" bonus that just amounts to an advance of the December bonus. Same is true of the salary increase -- more money in our pockets now means lower bonuses in December.
The upshot is that BSF raised salaries and paid summer bonuses without actually increasing overall associate comp. The same thing happened when they raised salaries in 2016, so this is the second time in two years that every other firm has increased associate comp while BSF stood still.
I'm not sure all of your comrades agree with you on that...
Not OP, but yeah, that's why the base pay match is a *signal* to summers and new recruits that the firm is aware of the raises and intends to remain competitive. Signal. As in, "this is not the final step." Whether that signal gets through to the outside through ABL's coverage is a different question.Anonymous User wrote: The linked article and earlier ATL coverage explains how this happened in pretty solid detail, but the gist is that the 2016 salary increase at other firms amounted to a raise for those associates, but when BSF implemented the $180k scale two years ago, that just shifted money the bonus column into the salary column. Maybe they thought this wouldn't be an issue because the formula was already so 'generous' or whatever, but this apparently led to lots of associates getting below-market bonuses in 2017, notwithstanding 1-2 crazy outliers the firm tends to brag about. But the firm never changed the formula.
Announcing another salary bump in 2018 and interim bonuses would appear to exacerbate the problem absent a change to the formula. Associates quoted in the article are obviously frustrated that a) everyone gets that there is a problem, b) everyone gets that a salary increase won't fix the problem, and c) 'interim' bonuses that just advance part of the December bonus to July REALLY misses the point of the 'special' bonuses paid at other firms. So I'm not sure these BSf associates would agree with the part of the previous post that I underlined -- "the move this week is just signaling for OCI/summers that the firm will not fall behind on comp" -- because if the firm wanted to communicate that, they would either change the formula or say they're going to change the formula. And paying "interim" bonuses that appear to be like the special, one-off payments received at other firms but that are, in reality, not extra money in associate pockets is a really, really poor look for OCI and summers.
This statement: "if the firm wanted to communicate that, they would either change the formula or say they're going to change the formula," while true, isn't helpful. Yes, the firm should change the formula. Saying "they could signal their intention to change by doing it," kind of misses the point of reading the tea leaves in what they *have* done. The executive committee is working on it (according to OP). Saying "yeah, but they should work faster," undervalues (1) how fundamental the formula is to the firm's culture/structure (or at least as perceived by the partners) and therefore how tentative the committee might be about making drastic changes; and (2) how inefficient and non-transparent BSF is when it comes to administrative matters. Seriously. Ask any BSF associate or even a summer. Even people who love the firm will admit that it sucks when it comes to admin and transparency even on trivial non-comp related issues. And given that the executive committee is essentially less than a year old (existed before, but many more decisions were made by the name partners), it's annoying but not surprising that they're being slow and opaque. So they aren't going to announce "hey we're changing the formula in some unspecified way at some unspecified date." They're just going to change it. So long as they change it before bonus season, the exec committee probably sees no harm in taking their time (I'm not saying I agree with that). In the mean time, I take the base match as an acknowledgement of the problem and see nothing to freak out about until there's a revised formula to analyze.
I will note that one way to help with both of these issues would be to include associates more directly in the process, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Also, a bonus formula tied to billing rate (like BSF's) will effectively give inflation-adjusted raises each year as the revenue generated by an associate increases. By contrast, at lock-step firms, associate pay remains constant (or *decreases* in real dollars) while the revenue they generate increases. So it is foreseeable that ten years after the market goes to $160K, BSF bonuses are blowing everyone else out of the water because they are tied to billing rates, which did not stay stagnant. Now that the rest of the market has moved to account for inflation, it's not surprising that the gap has shrunk (or, for lower billing mid-levels, there's now a gap the other way). Does this mean that BSF doesn't need to revise the formula but should just wait for the associates to reap the benefits of inflation? Probably not. But it does mean that David Lat's take of "above market comp at BSF is a lie" is overblown. Particularly when he's the one who had been overhyping the $350K bonuses that were clear outliers.
-
- Posts: 428547
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: NYC to 200k
Hunton Andrews kurth. Associates joining in the fall get $190 in nyc, dc, california, texas, $175 in Miami and richmond. Everyone else? We're still thinking about it and will get back to you.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login