Is Miami biglaw still 'that' competitive? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think Weil does ANY corporate work in Miami.

If you check chambers, you will get a general lay of the land. I think McDermott has been growing its Miami office.

Interviewed with Weil for a SA spot and they were exclusively hiring for lit, but I know they also do real estate. Don't think they do much, if any corporate work.

[sflyr2016]

Before this year’s rasies, they would sometimes match or come close to it. After the raises, it’s probably tougher—especially at GT since they haven’t moved salaries while Hk has. No shot on bonuses. Still, you should factor in that Florida has no income tax and that Miami is relatively cheap for a larger city.

V5 corporate associate, HYS alum, Florida ties. Interested to know if top Miami corporate practices (HK, Greenberg) match NY base/bonus on a case by case basis. No plans of lateraling from current firm at the moment as experience/culture/team is great, but may want to move for personal reasons at some point.

[elbg]

The HK/GT/etc. firms are bad on comp. If you want top of market, you'll need to try the larger national firms - Weil, MLB, Hogan, McDermott, WC, Boies - there may be a few others, and I'm not sure if all of those firms pay top. I think these firms lean strongly toward litigation, though. There's generally a very strong appetite for NYC biglaw laterals.

[LHS17]

McDermott and W&C are definitely strong in corporate.

[Anonymous User]

Is WC on full NY lockstep now? I see that the comp on their NALP page for the Miami office jumped from 183 (the raise this summer when NY went to 190) to 190k

[Anonymous User]

Is WC on full NY lockstep now? I see that the comp on their NALP page for the Miami office jumped from 183 (the raise this summer when NY went to 190) to 190k

Yes, full NY and bonus.

[Anonymous User]

Is WC on full NY lockstep now? I see that the comp on their NALP page for the Miami office jumped from 183 (the raise this summer when NY went to 190) to 190k

Yes, full NY and bonus.

Is this serious? Do you know from firsthand experience? I'm trying to decide whether to target NY, DC or come back to Miami straight out of school, and if WC is on the NY scale that might change things for me

[2013]

Is WC on full NY lockstep now? I see that the comp on their NALP page for the Miami office jumped from 183 (the raise this summer when NY went to 190) to 190k

Yes, full NY and bonus.

Is this serious? Do you know from firsthand experience? I'm trying to decide whether to target NY, DC or come back to Miami straight out of school, and if WC is on the NY scale that might change things for me

Wasn’t the White and Case scale already at a point where an associate in Miami would take home more than NY? I thought I heard that the bonus was always on NY scale.

[sflyr2016]

Yup. WC went full NY. Not there but was recruited and friends are there now. So can confirm.

[sflyr2016]

They’re not bad on comp lol. But they don’t pay as much—which, by the way, is still a ton, especially when you factor in Col in miami.

But I agree. If you’re expected to consistently bill 2k-plus at GT/HK/Etc are a raw deal. For that, go to a NY-market-paying firm. But if you can bill less elsewhere and still be on a realistic path to partnership, then it’s worth taking a pay cut.

At least, that’s how I see it. A lot of that, of course, is group/partner specific. But make no mistake about it, the larger the firm’s clients, the more demanding they are. And that, by far, will drive what the firm’s expectations are.

The HK/GT/etc. firms are bad on comp. If you want top of market, you'll need to try the larger national firms - Weil, MLB, Hogan, McDermott, WC, Boies - there may be a few others, and I'm not sure if all of those firms pay top. I think these firms lean strongly toward litigation, though. There's generally a very strong appetite for NYC biglaw laterals.

[Anonymous User]

Yup. WC went full NY. Not there but was recruited and friends are there now. So can confirm.

Damn that's a huge W; is there any reason not to take an offer there? And I imagine it might get more competitive now that they're on full NY scale. I bet most Miami people from my YHS will be gunning for WC now

[sflyr2016]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

[LHS17]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

How do people like the culture there? People dump on GT here, but haven’t seen much about WC in recent threads.

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

How do people like the culture there? People dump on GT here, but haven’t seen much about WC in recent threads.

I’m at WC in Miami and I love it. It’s not perfect, especially hours-wise this year, but I think hours might be bad at a lot of firms because of how hot the market is right now. But the people are fantastic.

[Anonymous User]

WC has a had bad rep here—especially bk. Then again, I’ve met some who’ve gotten in with the right ppl/group and like it fine (like the poster above). It’s possible things have changed for the better recently. GT is basically WC hours without the pay.

[Anonymous User]

Are the NALP 2019 summer stats correct? GT shows 9 in Miami (seems high) and WC 4 (seems low).

[Anonymous User]

WC has a had bad rep here—especially bk. Then again, I’ve met some who’ve gotten in with the right ppl/group and like it fine (like the poster above). It’s possible things have changed for the better recently. GT is basically WC hours without the pay.

I’m the poster above—bk is definitely the toughest group to be in here

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

Uh, I'd rather take an extra 100k+ annually for 2-4 years than gamble on making partner at these firms (you're not going to make partner).

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

Uh, I'd rather take an extra 100k+ annually for 2-4 years than gamble on making partner at these firms (you're not going to make partner).

I work at one of the non-market firms. I don’t think you’ll be making over 100k annually over a GT/Holland & Knight associate until maybe 6th year assuming you hit hours for bonus. I have friends at some of the market firms and hours aren’t the easiest to come by for the seniors they work with because they’re competing with the Miami rates at HK (senior associate is probably $200-300 cheaper/hr in some practice groups).

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

Uh, I'd rather take an extra 100k+ annually for 2-4 years than gamble on making partner at these firms (you're not going to make partner).

I work at one of the non-market firms. I don’t think you’ll be making over 100k annually over a GT/Holland & Knight associate until maybe 6th year assuming you hit hours for bonus. I have friends at some of the market firms and hours aren’t the easiest to come by for the seniors they work with because they’re competing with the Miami rates at HK (senior associate is probably $200-300 cheaper/hr in some practice groups).

AFAIK, the firms paying NY do a lot of non-Miami work so they don't have to deal with billing rate discrepancies. Anyway, not looking to argue, but in my experience, the only two things that really matter in biglaw are the time commitments and the compensation. If the time is the same, there's very little that can justify not getting paid an extra 50-100k. But to each his own.

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

Uh, I'd rather take an extra 100k+ annually for 2-4 years than gamble on making partner at these firms (you're not going to make partner).

I work at one of the non-market firms. I don’t think you’ll be making over 100k annually over a GT/Holland & Knight associate until maybe 6th year assuming you hit hours for bonus. I have friends at some of the market firms and hours aren’t the easiest to come by for the seniors they work with because they’re competing with the Miami rates at HK (senior associate is probably $200-300 cheaper/hr in some practice groups).

AFAIK, the firms paying NY do a lot of non-Miami work so they don't have to deal with billing rate discrepancies. Anyway, not looking to argue, but in my experience, the only two things that really matter in biglaw are the time commitments and the compensation. If the time is the same, there's very little that can justify not getting paid an extra 50-100k. But to each his own.

Bad advice. For starters, the discrepancy isn’t 100. It is significant, though. But being a senior-level associate with virtually no shot a partnership (or worse—being passed up), no book, and no real business ties in the area is far from ideal. I’ve seen it happen quite a bit, even to a close friend. They eventually get forced out or jump elsewhere for a major pay cut, as they aren’t exactly marketable at that point, hoping they can make partner at smaller shop.

Conversely, I’ve seen others who started or lateraled to HK/Bilzin/Stearns/Akerman/etc before their 6th year and coasted their way into partnership. And say what you want, but being a parter at any one of those firms is better than being a 10th-year associate at WC/HL who got passed up for partner and has absolutely no book or real market ties down here.

For most lawyers, practicing is a long game. 30 years, plus. Too many, though, get blinded by short-term stuff and don’t realize their mistake ‘till it’s too late. That’s my two cents on it, at least.

As for the money, I’d rather take a “pay cut” and bill under 2k, than work 200-400 hours to make 50k more. That should be factored in, too.

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

Uh, I'd rather take an extra 100k+ annually for 2-4 years than gamble on making partner at these firms (you're not going to make partner).

I work at one of the non-market firms. I don’t think you’ll be making over 100k annually over a GT/Holland & Knight associate until maybe 6th year assuming you hit hours for bonus. I have friends at some of the market firms and hours aren’t the easiest to come by for the seniors they work with because they’re competing with the Miami rates at HK (senior associate is probably $200-300 cheaper/hr in some practice groups).

AFAIK, the firms paying NY do a lot of non-Miami work so they don't have to deal with billing rate discrepancies. Anyway, not looking to argue, but in my experience, the only two things that really matter in biglaw are the time commitments and the compensation. If the time is the same, there's very little that can justify not getting paid an extra 50-100k. But to each his own.

Bad advice. For starters, the discrepancy isn’t 100. It is significant, though. But being a senior-level associate with virtually no shot a partnership (or worse—being passed up), no book, and no real business ties in the area is far from ideal. I’ve seen it happen quite a bit, even to a close friend. They eventually get forced out or jump elsewhere for a major pay cut, as they aren’t exactly marketable at that point, hoping they can make partner at smaller shop.

Conversely, I’ve seen others who started or lateraled to HK/Bilzin/Stearns/Akerman/etc before their 6th year and coasted their way into partnership. And say what you want, but being a parter at any one of those firms is better than being a 10th-year associate at WC/HL who got passed up for partner and has absolutely no book or real market ties down here.

For most lawyers, practicing is a long game. 30 years, plus. Too many, though, get blinded by short-term stuff and don’t realize their mistake ‘till it’s too late. That’s my two cents on it, at least.

As for the money, I’d rather take a “pay cut” and bill under 2k, than work 200-400 hours to make 50k more. That should be factored in, too.

Is there an argument that WC / MWE / HL training is better than the native firms? What is the best time to lateral to HK / Akerman, etc. if playing the long game? Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

[elbg]

The long game is being completely exaggerated. You don't just walk into the partnership at HK/Greenberg etc. That's laughable on its face. These are massive global firms. You don't show up as a sixth year and say, "one partnership, please."

He is correct, in general, that you should not always chase short term career prospects over long term ones. But you will be sorely mistaken if your career plan is "lateral to Akerman as a 6th year and easily become partner."

[Anonymous User]

No later than 6th year (honestly, prob better as a 5th). Those firms tend to have a 2-3 year bar against laterals even being considered for partnership. That will allow you to get on partner track without delay and with plenty of time to build the necessary relationships internally. Any sooner and you’re leaving money on the table.

As for training, it can go either way. But in general, probably yes for deal work. But probably no for litigation, as you’ll likely get much more substantive experience sooner at native firms. That, however, depends mostly on who you mainly work under and how invested they are in training you.

[Anonymous User]

Depends what you want to do and what year you’re in. The money may be worth it if you’re *junior* and have no interest in building a book and/or making partner. But if you’re a mid level or above, I wouldn’t go somewhere you have virtually no shot at doing either.

Uh, I'd rather take an extra 100k+ annually for 2-4 years than gamble on making partner at these firms (you're not going to make partner).

I work at one of the non-market firms. I don’t think you’ll be making over 100k annually over a GT/Holland & Knight associate until maybe 6th year assuming you hit hours for bonus. I have friends at some of the market firms and hours aren’t the easiest to come by for the seniors they work with because they’re competing with the Miami rates at HK (senior associate is probably $200-300 cheaper/hr in some practice groups).

AFAIK, the firms paying NY do a lot of non-Miami work so they don't have to deal with billing rate discrepancies. Anyway, not looking to argue, but in my experience, the only two things that really matter in biglaw are the time commitments and the compensation. If the time is the same, there's very little that can justify not getting paid an extra 50-100k. But to each his own.

Bad advice. For starters, the discrepancy isn’t 100. It is significant, though. But being a senior-level associate with virtually no shot a partnership (or worse—being passed up), no book, and no real business ties in the area is far from ideal. I’ve seen it happen quite a bit, even to a close friend. They eventually get forced out or jump elsewhere for a major pay cut, as they aren’t exactly marketable at that point, hoping they can make partner at smaller shop.

Conversely, I’ve seen others who started or lateraled to HK/Bilzin/Stearns/Akerman/etc before their 6th year and coasted their way into partnership. And say what you want, but being a parter at any one of those firms is better than being a 10th-year associate at WC/HL who got passed up for partner and has absolutely no book or real market ties down here.

For most lawyers, practicing is a long game. 30 years, plus. Too many, though, get blinded by short-term stuff and don’t realize their mistake ‘till it’s too late. That’s my two cents on it, at least.

As for the money, I’d rather take a “pay cut” and bill under 2k, than work 200-400 hours to make 50k more. That should be factored in, too.

Is there an argument that WC / MWE / HL training is better than the native firms? What is the best time to lateral to HK / Akerman, etc. if playing the long game? Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

I’m at one of H&K/GT/Akerman/Bilzin. I think the training is probably better at the native firms, especially akerman and bilzin because that is the center of gravity of the firms.

Best time to lateral will be 4-5 year. The non-market firms do pay their laterals better. By 4-5 years, you will no longer need to be trained and you will still have time to develop ties and generate business by the time junior partnership rolls around at 8-10 years at these firms.

FWIW, my friend waited til 7th year to lateral to Akerman from a market firm and Akerman has a very strict 2-year waiting period for non-equity partnership, so he has to wait until after 9th year even though his supervisor wants him to be promoted this year. Non-equity partners at these firms probably make 300-400 depending on the form, which is obviously lower than a senior associate at a market paying firm after bonus, but it’s all about career trajectory.