NYC to 200k

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
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 User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:
NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Updated for AmLaw200 firms with PPP over $1 million.

NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Confirmation that David Boies spent all the firm's money paying Mossad agents to run covert, international spy operations to suppress women raped by Harvey Weinstein.....(ALLEGEDLY):

NakedPowerOrgan wrote: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)

    Irell ($3.08MM PPP, 98.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    - NO BONUS MATCH
    Paul Weiss ($4.56MM PPP, 36.2% L5Y PPP growth, 3.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Fried Frank ($2.94MM PPP, 123.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Milbank ($3.46MM PPP, 41.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 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)
    Willkie ($2.97MM PPP, 43.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    SullCrom ($4.27MM PPP, 23.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Paul Hastings ($2.91MM PPP, 39.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Akin Gump ($2.39MM PPP, 54.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Choate Hall ($2.31MM PPP, 56.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Vinson & Elkins ($2.36MM PPP, 60.6% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Latham ($3.25MM PPP, 33.0% L5Y PPP growth, 3.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Shearman ($2.32MM PPP, 52.4% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    1. Boies ($3.27MM PPP, 20.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    2. BuckleySandler ($2.48MM PPP, 37.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    King & Spalding ($2.61MM PPP, 31.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Quinn ($4.74MM PPP, 6.8% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Ropes ($2.32MM PPP, 46.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cravath ($4.00MM PPP, 14.2% L5Y PPP growth, 4.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    3. Kobre & Kim ($2.49MM PPP, 29.0% L1Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage

    Goodwin ($2.15MM PPP, 42.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    WilmerHale ($2.12MM PPP, 44.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 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)
    Dechert ($2.68MM PPP, 27.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Winston ($2.16MM PPP, 44.8% L5Y PPP growth, 3.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Proskauer ($2.37MM PPP, 27.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Debevoise ($2.83MM PPP, 36.2% L5Y PPP growth, 5.3 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) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Wilson Sonsini ($2.21MM PPP, 34.4% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Cleary ($3.07MM PPP, 17.3% L5Y PPP growth, 3.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    White & Case ($2.26MM PPP, 32.9% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Sidley ($2.26MM PPP, 25.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Baker Botts ($1.84MM PPP, 35.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Kramer Levin ($2.15MM PPP, 28.5% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Sheppard ($1.71MM PPP, 35.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.4 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Alston & Bird ($1.93MM PPP, 12.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.2 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Lowenstein Sandler ($1.75MM PPP, 21.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Mayer Brown ($1.58MM PPP, 37.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    4. Holland & Knight ($1.36MM PPP, 43.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    DLA Piper ($1.76MM PPP, 34.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Hogan Lovells ($1.28MM PPP, 17.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    5. Fragomen ($1.98MM PPP, 31.4% L5Y PPP growth, 4.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Stroock ($1.60MM PPP, 32.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    McDermott ($1.71MM PPP, 17.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    6. Nelson Mullins ($1.09MM PPP, 60.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Cadwalader ($2.51MM PPP, 5.3% L5Y PPP decline, 4.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    7. Jeffer Mangels ($1.67MM PPP, 7.5% L5Y PPP growth, .9 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    8. Robins Kaplan ($1.15MM PPP, 42.4% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Katten ($1.57MM PPP, 19.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Covington ($1.54MM PPP, 22.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    MoFo ($1.74MM PPP, 18.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    9. Greenberg ($1.63MM PPP, 20.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    10. Troutman Sanders ($1.06MM PPP, 51.1% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    11. Kasowitz ($1.92MM PPP, 13.1% L5Y PPP growth, 3.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Fenwick ($1.51MM PPP, 31.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    12. Fish & Richardson ($1.63MM PPP, 9.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    13. Nixon Peabody ($1.11MM PPP, 43.4% L5Y PPP growth, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    14. Venable ($1.13MM PPP, 34.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    O'Melveny ($2.01MM PPP, 2.5% L5Y PPP decline, 3.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Munger ($1.63MM PPP, 4.2% L5Y PPP growth, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Orrick ($1.86MM PPP, 14.3% L5Y PPP growth, 3.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    15. Winstead ($1.12MM PPP, 33.0% L5Y PPP growth, 1.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    16. Loeb & Loeb ($1.68MM PPP, 11.9% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Patterson Belknap ($1.66MM PPP, 9.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    17. Mintz Levin ($1.29MM PPP, 32.0% L5Y PPP growth, 2.6 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    18. Morris Manning ($1.17MM PPP, 31.7% L5Y PPP growth, 2.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    19. Pillsbury ($1.28MM PPP, 15.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    20. Honigman Miller ($1.01MM PPP, 29.9% L5Y PPP growth, 0.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    21. Arent Fox ($1.07MM PPP, 25.5% L5Y PPP growth, 1.1 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    22. Manatt Phelps ($1.32MM PPP, 5.6% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    23. Finnegan ($1.28MM PPP, 9.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    24. Crowell & Moring ($1.12MM PPP, 20.8% L5Y PPP growth, 1.4 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Jenner ($1.42MM PPP, 4.9% L5Y PPP decline, 1.7 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH
    Baker McKenzie ($1.30MM PPP, 19.3% L5Y PPP growth, 2.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    Morgan Lewis ($1.37MM PPP, 11.7% L5Y PPP decline, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    25. Foley & Lardner ($1.17MM PPP, 22.2% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    27. Foley Hoag ($1.20MM PPP, 16.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.2 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Perkins Coie ($1.17MM PPP, 15.6% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    26. Bracewell ($1.31MM PPP, 10.0% L5Y PPP decline, 1.9 EP:Assoc. leverage)

    Brown Rudnick ($1.26MM PPP, 7.4% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    27. Chapman & Cutler ($1.11MM PPP, 4.8% L5Y PPP growth, 0.7 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    28. Hunton Andrews Kurth (approx. $1.13MM PPP, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    29. Wiley Rein ($1.16MM PPP, 2.8% L5Y PPP decline, 0.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    30. Reed Smith ($1.18MM PPP, 9.1% L5Y PPP growth, 2.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    31. Arnold & Porter ($1.19MM PPP, 16.4% L5Y PPP decline, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)


    Jones Day ($1.01MM PPP, 10.3% L5Y PPP growth, 1.3 EP:Assoc. leverage) - NO BONUS MATCH

    32. Hughes Hubbard ($1.12MM PPP, 35.1% L5Y PPP decline, 3.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    33. Kilpatrick Townsend ($1.01MM PPP, 17.6% L5Y PPP growth, 2.0 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    34. McGuireWoods ($1.02MM PPP, 7.9% L5Y PPP growth, 1.8 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    35. Curtis Mallet ($1.08MM PPP, 31.4% L5Y PPP decline, 3.5 EP:Assoc. leverage)
    36. Baker & Hostetler ($1.00MM PPP, 7.5% L5Y PPP growth, 2.3 EP:Assoc. leverage)


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


Thank you! Some huge firms still out there that haven't raised.


any idea where Eversheds would fall on this list (if at all)?

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:14 am

NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Some fun facts, maybe useful to law students during OCI:

$1.4 million PPP seems to be around the sweet spot for where it becomes likely that you'll at least see a raise when the market moves. 90 percent of firms in the AmLaw 200 with over $1.36 million PPP have matched salary raises. 85 percent of AmLaw 200 firms at or below that mark have not announced salary matches or have announced they will not match. Zero firms below $1.28 million PPP have announced salary raises and bonuses.

Nearly all firms (approx. 90 percent) above $2.0 million PPP have announced matches to both bonuses and raises. Boies not announcing yet and Cooley denying summer bonuses are the two most prominent exceptions in that group.

Roughly $1.4 million to $2 million PPP seems to be where it gets interesting. Around 75 percent of firms in that range have matched salaries but around half of those firms have refused to supplement those raises with bonuses.


This is a very useful post.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:49 am

Based on this rationale, it seems HB has no chance of matching...
Haynes Boone (approx. $0.957M PPP, 1.84 EP:Assoc. leverage)

Anonymous User wrote:
NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Some fun facts, maybe useful to law students during OCI:

$1.4 million PPP seems to be around the sweet spot for where it becomes likely that you'll at least see a raise when the market moves. 90 percent of firms in the AmLaw 200 with over $1.36 million PPP have matched salary raises. 85 percent of AmLaw 200 firms at or below that mark have not announced salary matches or have announced they will not match. Zero firms below $1.28 million PPP have announced salary raises and bonuses.

Nearly all firms (approx. 90 percent) above $2.0 million PPP have announced matches to both bonuses and raises. Boies not announcing yet and Cooley denying summer bonuses are the two most prominent exceptions in that group.

Roughly $1.4 million to $2 million PPP seems to be where it gets interesting. Around 75 percent of firms in that range have matched salaries but around half of those firms have refused to supplement those raises with bonuses.


This is a very useful post.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Based on this rationale, it seems HB has no chance of matching...
Haynes Boone (approx. $0.957M PPP, 1.84 EP:Assoc. leverage)

Anonymous User wrote:
NakedPowerOrgan wrote:Some fun facts, maybe useful to law students during OCI:

$1.4 million PPP seems to be around the sweet spot for where it becomes likely that you'll at least see a raise when the market moves. 90 percent of firms in the AmLaw 200 with over $1.36 million PPP have matched salary raises. 85 percent of AmLaw 200 firms at or below that mark have not announced salary matches or have announced they will not match. Zero firms below $1.28 million PPP have announced salary raises and bonuses.

Nearly all firms (approx. 90 percent) above $2.0 million PPP have announced matches to both bonuses and raises. Boies not announcing yet and Cooley denying summer bonuses are the two most prominent exceptions in that group.

Roughly $1.4 million to $2 million PPP seems to be where it gets interesting. Around 75 percent of firms in that range have matched salaries but around half of those firms have refused to supplement those raises with bonuses.


This is a very useful post.


TK has below 1.28M PPP and announced full salary match and bonuses (though bonuses were tied to hours/productivity). Will be interested to see how HB responds. In Texas, if V&E does something, BB has to respond. But then after that, it seems like HB, TK, Fulbright, Bracewell, Locke and Hunton/AK are sort of in the same group in that they don't necessarily have to do what V&E/BB do, but if a majority of that group does something, it seems like the rest have to fall in line. So now that Fulbright and TK have taken very different approaches, will be interesting to see how the respond.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:54 pm

Still can't believe GT. What a pathetic firm. I would literally go to basically any firm in the Amlaw 75 before them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:38 pm

.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:56 pm

.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:24 am

Lots of shame left on that shame list. Going to be a tough recruiting season for those fellers.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:26 pm

A&P matched. No bonus.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:41 pm

did they give an excuse?

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:13 pm

A&P wanted to consider a year's worth of performance metrics, and noted that any year-end bonus decisions will factor in all available data, including the fact that some firms offered mid-year bonuses this year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:25 pm

Thanks for adding additional firms to the list. I think this round of raises is the one that'll separate the top-paying firms from the rest. $200k is going to be the real test, however, because the psychological impact of that number.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:50 pm

I’m so glad the news about McGuireWoods hit ATL. They continually find ways to screw over their associates. Not only do they use the black box salary system to compress salaries to the point where mid level and senior associates get paid two class years behind the $190k scale (if they’re lucky) but the firm requires associates to bill 2050 to be eligible for a less than $15k end of year bonus. Truly unbelievable that they get away with it. I predict a mass exodus of associates in the near future.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:57 pm

I’m still amazed that BSF managed to get away with not raising attorney compensation in 2016. Think BSF will consider that fact in modifying its formula?

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I’m still amazed that BSF managed to get away with not raising attorney compensation in 2016. Think BSF will consider that fact in modifying its formula?


BSF did raise attorney salaries in 2016.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I’m still amazed that BSF managed to get away with not raising attorney compensation in 2016. Think BSF will consider that fact in modifying its formula?


BSF did raise attorney salaries in 2016.


No it didnt, it just advanced more of the comp formula in base. Overall comp did not change

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:43 pm

OneTwoThreeFour wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:
rahulg91 wrote: It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.


Really not true at all. The point is, for the most part, the dude at Cravath is still making the same amount as the dude at a firm like Schulte Roth Zabel. Whatever firms lagging in compensation were already lagging before the 180k jump.


All of my friends who arent at top flight firms like davis polk/cravath/quinn/ect. have seen weird shit happen with their comp structures. Usually this means cutting some associates out of a bonus for hours or staggering bonuses so they are no longer market, but I am familiar with several V50 firms that have not increased associate pay in lock step beyond the 180k starting. And even if firms are not literally underpaying associates in base or bonus, they are playing accounting tricks by fudging payout dates (march instead of december for bonus, starting the salary jump two months late, ect.).


+1. Firms are trying to keep up with the Joneses and failing. They're covering it up by screwing associates wherever possible.


My firm pays out bonuses and bumps pay the last check of February but that check includes what you would have earned from January 1st at the increased pay. So, they're not underpaying associated despite the later increase and bonus pay date. It's inconsequential of the associate except to the extent that they want to leave the firm and have to stick around for that much longer.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:11 am

DLA Piper matched bonuses but you need to be on track to hit 2100, which is above the "minimum"

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:31 am

Anonymous User wrote:
OneTwoThreeFour wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:
rahulg91 wrote: It worked pretty well. Firms that are not as profitable have been skimping on bonuses in the last year (not to mention reports of benefits being cut at several firms). You are correct in that most firms were able to match 180k, but most firms were clearly not able to keep total compensation (base + bonus + benefits) competitive with Cravath, Kirkland, Skadden, etc. Another 20k should make this even more obvious.


Really not true at all. The point is, for the most part, the dude at Cravath is still making the same amount as the dude at a firm like Schulte Roth Zabel. Whatever firms lagging in compensation were already lagging before the 180k jump.


All of my friends who arent at top flight firms like davis polk/cravath/quinn/ect. have seen weird shit happen with their comp structures. Usually this means cutting some associates out of a bonus for hours or staggering bonuses so they are no longer market, but I am familiar with several V50 firms that have not increased associate pay in lock step beyond the 180k starting. And even if firms are not literally underpaying associates in base or bonus, they are playing accounting tricks by fudging payout dates (march instead of december for bonus, starting the salary jump two months late, ect.).


+1. Firms are trying to keep up with the Joneses and failing. They're covering it up by screwing associates wherever possible.


My firm pays out bonuses and bumps pay the last check of February but that check includes what you would have earned from January 1st at the increased pay. So, they're not underpaying associated despite the later increase and bonus pay date. It's inconsequential of the associate except to the extent that they want to leave the firm and have to stick around for that much longer.


It's tax-disadvantageous to have the bonus paid after December 31.

Postponing the pay increase to second paycheck and grossing up is pretty standard. I'm not quite sure of the reason for it, though; perhaps there's some accounting advantage.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:54 am

FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:01 am

Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.


Name the firm. You're anonymous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:32 am

What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.


K&S and A&B both raised while Mcguirewoods specifically said they weren't raising. It's just Kilpatrick and Troutman that haven't responded yet, both of whom hover around the same PPP as Mcguirewoods.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:FWIW, I worked for a super high ppp firm that cut corners on everything, including finding ways to deny comp. Both no bonus and holding people a year back in salary, but not necessarily billing rate. It happens, and it’s awful on the associate side.


Name the firm. You're anonymous.

Anonymous User
Posts: 325890
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NYC to 200k

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What's with the big Atlanta firms outside of King & Spalding not raising yet? They are destined to lose all the best recruits to K&S and other cities.

Anonymous User wrote:K&S and A&B both raised while Mcguirewoods specifically said they weren't raising. It's just Kilpatrick and Troutman that haven't responded yet, both of whom hover around the same PPP as Mcguirewoods.

Yeah K&S and A&B are so obviously the #1 and #2 firms respectively in the ATL market that the other firms don't really have much to gain by spending more in an effort to attract top students, most of whom are going to go to K&S/A&B anyway.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.