Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: They're all going to match but other than Wilmer, the others aren't going to come close to matching until Latham also matches.

After Cov did its attempt at holding DC salaries down last year, it took another week before Hogan went to 180 and that was after quite a few other people had matched, and after Latham

https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/salary- ... ed-raises/

WH still took 4 days to match after Ropes though...

Didn't WH also wait to match until Hogan matched? They have more lawyers in DC than in Boston.

Yes, but Hogan went before Ropes and Goodwin last time, so Wilmer didn't feel the need to match quite yet

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: They're all going to match but other than Wilmer, the others aren't going to come close to matching until Latham also matches.

After Cov did its attempt at holding DC salaries down last year, it took another week before Hogan went to 180 and that was after quite a few other people had matched, and after Latham

https://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/salary- ... ed-raises/

WH still took 4 days to match after Ropes though...

Didn't WH also wait to match until Hogan matched? They have more lawyers in DC than in Boston.

Yes, but Hogan went before Ropes and Goodwin last time, so Wilmer didn't feel the need to match quite yet

Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

Interesting

owlofminerva wrote:https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... n%20Update

Interesting

Summary for those who can't get beyond the paywall?

Anonymous User wrote:
Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

In 2016 Cravath went to 180 on a Monday, and Hogan was the first DC firm to match, the following Monday.

This year Cravath was also on a Monday. No reason to think Hogan will act before Monday. If anything, things seem a bit slower this time around because partners nationwide hadn't been planning on this raise for years.

.

Anonymous User wrote: Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

It's a much harder decision for Hogan. Their PPP is relatively low at $1.3 mil and they are leveraged at 3.83. If you assume $35k (c/o 2014 raise + summer bonus) is the average cost to raise per associate that's $134k per partner. That amounts to a 10% cut off the top for each partner. Given that PPP only grew by 2.4% in 2017, Hogan partners are probably looking for any reason not to go for the raise.

Sources:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... -practice/
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... ity-index/

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

It's a much harder decision for Hogan. Their PPP is relatively low at $1.3 mil and they are leveraged at 3.83. If you assume $35k (c/o 2014 raise + summer bonus) is the average cost to raise per associate that's $134k per partner. That amounts to a 10% cut off the top for each partner. Given that PPP only grew by 2.4% in 2017, Hogan partners are probably looking for any reason not to go for the raise.

Sources:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... -practice/
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... ity-index/

That's not the whole story. Hogan is a verein, and its PPP includes it numerous international offices, which are less profitable and carry substantial overhead. The US partnership's PPP is much higher than the firm-wide PPP reported in AmLaw. ...this Kool-Aid is quite tasty...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

It's a much harder decision for Hogan. Their PPP is relatively low at $1.3 mil and they are leveraged at 3.83. If you assume $35k (c/o 2014 raise + summer bonus) is the average cost to raise per associate that's $134k per partner. That amounts to a 10% cut off the top for each partner. Given that PPP only grew by 2.4% in 2017, Hogan partners are probably looking for any reason not to go for the raise.

Sources:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... -practice/
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... ity-index/

Is that because of their regulatory practice or because they have offices in ridiculous places like Colorado Springs and Rio? (or some combination maybe?)

Either way, probably still not an excuse to pay less than Wilmer and Covington, if/when those match. At the very least they could raise for DC/NY/LA

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

It's a much harder decision for Hogan. Their PPP is relatively low at $1.3 mil and they are leveraged at 3.83. If you assume $35k (c/o 2014 raise + summer bonus) is the average cost to raise per associate that's $134k per partner. That amounts to a 10% cut off the top for each partner. Given that PPP only grew by 2.4% in 2017, Hogan partners are probably looking for any reason not to go for the raise.

Sources:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... -practice/
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... ity-index/

That's not the whole story. Hogan is a verein, and its PPP includes it numerous international offices, which are less profitable and carry substantial overhead. The US partnership's PPP is much higher than the firm-wide PPP reported in AmLaw. ...this Kool-Aid is quite tasty...

Fair point. Do you think the US partner comp is closer to the $2 mil mark? That's still a 6.7% hit (assumptions get wonky with the foreign offices though, so probably a little lower than that even). A bit more palatable though.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

It's a much harder decision for Hogan. Their PPP is relatively low at $1.3 mil and they are leveraged at 3.83. If you assume $35k (c/o 2014 raise + summer bonus) is the average cost to raise per associate that's $134k per partner. That amounts to a 10% cut off the top for each partner. Given that PPP only grew by 2.4% in 2017, Hogan partners are probably looking for any reason not to go for the raise.

Sources:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... -practice/
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... ity-index/

That's not the whole story. Hogan is a verein, and its PPP includes it numerous international offices, which are less profitable and carry substantial overhead. The US partnership's PPP is much higher than the firm-wide PPP reported in AmLaw. ...this Kool-Aid is quite tasty...

Fair point. Do you think the US partner comp is closer to the $2 mil mark? That's still a 6.7% hit (assumptions get wonky with the foreign offices though, so probably a little lower than that even). A bit more palatable though.

Maybe just assume it's comparable to Covington down the street. Both are the DC powerhouses; they compete for talent; and if one matches there's zero chance the other doesn't.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Come on Hogan! What are you waiting for???? We got mouths to feed!

It's a much harder decision for Hogan. Their PPP is relatively low at $1.3 mil and they are leveraged at 3.83. If you assume $35k (c/o 2014 raise + summer bonus) is the average cost to raise per associate that's $134k per partner. That amounts to a 10% cut off the top for each partner. Given that PPP only grew by 2.4% in 2017, Hogan partners are probably looking for any reason not to go for the raise.

Sources:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... -practice/
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018 ... ity-index/

That's not the whole story. Hogan is a verein, and its PPP includes it numerous international offices, which are less profitable and carry substantial overhead. The US partnership's PPP is much higher than the firm-wide PPP reported in AmLaw. ...this Kool-Aid is quite tasty...

Fair point. Do you think the US partner comp is closer to the $2 mil mark? That's still a 6.7% hit (assumptions get wonky with the foreign offices though, so probably a little lower than that even). A bit more palatable though.

I'd guess closer to 2M, but Hogan obviously isn't as profitable as NY firms (and other firms) because it is heavy in regulatory and litigation, which generally bring in less money than corporate.

I wonder if this means under-market firms will move at all. That is, 170 to 180. Anything on the Am Law 200 firms?

sidley matched w/ bonus

Sidley match, with bonuses - all US associates.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Okay at this point, we need to ask what’s going on with the supposedly “elite” litigation boutiques. Where is the response from Williams and Connolly, Susman, Boies, and Munger Tolles. Any associate working at one of those firms has a resume that can run circles around anyone at Cravath or S&C. Those “elite” firms are getting SHAMED by Selendy and by Hueston Hennigan.

lol W&C "elite" firm

It is relative to Cravath. It's way harder to get a job at Williams and Connolly than at Cravath. Idk about Boies, they seem slightly less selective than the other lot, but Susman and MTO are substantially more selective than Cravath, S&C, etc.

Even at T6 schools, Boies NY & DC only give a handful of offers a year, and its always to honors students. Its not as selective as Susman, but its far more than Cravath et al.; for example, cravath will give 50-75 offers at Harvard or Columbia (respectively), and Boies will give fewer than 10. Simply put, among New York offices, Boies is only out paced by Susman and Wachtell in terms of selectivity.

MLB full match + bonuses

Anonymous User wrote: Maybe just assume it's comparable to Covington down the street. Both are the DC powerhouses; they compete for talent; and if one matches there's zero chance the other doesn't.

We're not talking about will they, we're talking about when and why are they taking so long. Of course they will match, just like most of the rest of the V30/V50. That being said, Covington will have a much easier time with this since 1) they are at $1.5 mil ppp, 2) they have low leverage (2.45 which is super low like WLRK, WH, and OMM), and 3) they grew by 4.5% PPP in 2017.

Anonymous User wrote:MLB full match + bonuses

Amazing, if true. They’re way down there, PPP-wise

Anonymous User wrote:MLB full match + bonuses

How can Boston, Chicago AND Philly all have beaten DC to this game?! SMDH

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:MLB full match + bonuses

Amazing, if true. They’re way down there, PPP-wise

$1.37 mil. But leverage is 1.71 so only a 4.3% hit per partner. They had 10%+ PPP growth last year so I'm sure they want to look like they're moving up and spreading the wealth.

Associate at a “second” tier vault Houston based firm here. Assuming we are waiting for a firm like B.B. to match?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:MLB full match + bonuses

Amazing, if true. They’re way down there, PPP-wise

They want to be considered in a higher-echelon of firms, so this is a good signal to associates. Last time they moved much later in the cycle and also made raises effective in October.

This time, moved much quicker, raises effective in July and the bonus match is greatly appreciated (and unexpected).

Can someone explain to me why the American Lawyer ranks profitability by dividing PPP by RPL? Essentially it's saying we want you to get your high PPP from leverage rather than RPL. So WLRK sits at #40 despite HUGE RPL (this tells me they are profitable) and HUGE PPP (also tells me they are profitable). I get trying to scale PPP to get a more neutral measure of profitability, but I don't think just dividing by RPL does the trick.

Anybody confirming MLB match?