much better than quinn emanuel's "screw you here's your money" email

It's funny to watch everyone here harp on about New York and DC firms. Texas firm salaries and bonuses come out just as good or better when cost of living is taken into account. And even if it isn't, some Houston and Dallas firms do match New York and DC pay.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1169114543229

Need I also mention that associates working at non-DC and New York firms tend to be happier?

http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/12/associate_satis.html

It's funny to watch everyone here harp on about New York and DC firms. Texas firm salaries and bonuses come out just as good or better when cost of living is taken into account. And even if it isn't, some Houston and Dallas firms do match New York and DC pay.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1169114543229

Need I also mention that associates working at non-DC and New York firms tend to be happier?

http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/12/associate_satis.html

explicitly says that those who have given notice will not get the retroactive increase in comp...anyone notice this in any other memos? probably affects more than a few people out there...

will all ny based v100 firms match? or is this a way for the top firms to distinguish themselves?

It's funny to watch everyone here harp on about New York and DC firms. Texas firm salaries and bonuses come out just as good or better when cost of living is taken into account. And even if it isn't, some Houston and Dallas firms do match New York and DC pay.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1169114543229

Need I also mention that associates working at non-DC and New York firms tend to be happier?

http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/12/associate_satis.html

explicitly says that those who have given notice will not get the retroactive increase in comp...anyone notice this in any other memos? probably affects more than a few people out there...

It's funny to watch everyone here harp on about New York and DC firms. Texas firm salaries and bonuses come out just as good or better when cost of living is taken into account. And even if it isn't, some Houston and Dallas firms do match New York and DC pay.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1169114543229

Need I also mention that associates working at non-DC and New York firms tend to be happier?

http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2006/12/associate_satis.html

will all ny based v100 firms match? or is this a way for the top firms to distinguish themselves?

Sidley?

i don't think the other v100 firms have a choice but to match if they want to attract and retain talented associates....

Lat,

Looks like your technical difficulties are also making everything appear TWICE in the comments section.

Its making reading the comments pretty freakin annoying. Time to ask Jack Welch for a raise so you can purchase better blogging software?

i don't think the other v100 firms have a choice but to match if they want to attract and retain talented associates....

I think people are just pushing "post" twice instead of being patient....

I don't think all V100 firms need to match. Its faulty logic. There are only a limited amount of spots available in the top firms, even if one firm pays 160K and one pays 145K someone will go there. THe less firms at top paying 160K the more top associates that will be forced to take less money.

2:01

You are right in practice, but then every firm paying $145,000 basically is saying, "We're not a top firm anymore."

even if they match, the talented associates will still not stay if they could go to better firms. those who end up in other v100 firms go there coz they don't have offers from top firms in the first place. so it makes no difference in terms of attracting talent whether v100 firms match or don't match. matching would just cost more money for the firm without adding benefits. the only downside i can think of is the low morale

But those students from top law schools that everyone is competing for would be less likely to go to the 145k firm because of a healthy interest in a particular practice area or city or quality of life and take the 160 elsewhere and suck it up. I know I would do the same.

Even more interesting about the CC memo: excludes not only those who have given notice to leave by Feb. 15, but also those that "have received notice of termination" by then. I thought people were just given the signal to look elsewhere. They are actually firing associates?

Anon 2:01, your logic is flawed as well. Sure, the firms at the bottom of the v100 don't need to match the v10 firms, but the firms 30-40 firms will want to match the 20-30 so they don't lose the quality people they want, 40-50 will want to match 30-40 for the same reason. Sure, they will still fill their spots even if they don't, but not with the same quality of people. It will trickle down.

even if they pay 160K, still nobody will believe they are a top firm...they can claim they pay the same as the real top firms, but they are still not a top firm

Someone posted a comment about Schulte yesterday. Is that confirmed?

2:04pm No. 2 - you are absolutely right. You hit the nail on the spot - I totally get this matching business. Why should a V60 match STB/S&C, etc? They are not fighting for the same "talent"!!

I will be summering at a big DC firm that has not announced yet. If the firm doesn't match, I am inclined to go to another DC office upon graduation. There is no reason why I should be paid less than classmates of mine who haven't done as well, but have the good fortune of working at less presigious DC firms who have decided to step up.

Anyone know what time the CC memo went out to US associates? Hopefully other Magic Circle firms in US will follow suit.

This whole top firm thing is irritating. If I have a critical litigation issue to my company, I'm going to Paul Weiss before I go to Cravath. If I'm starting a hedge fund, I'm going to Schulte or Sidley before Sullivan. If I have an important bankruptcy issue, I might go to Weil before Simpson. In other words, Anonymous at 2:08 is an idiot.

2:10 perfectly describes why many of the firms will be committing major mistakes if they don't match in LA & DC. People don't understand that the SAME LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES fill these firms, regardless of location. They aren't going to take lightly to being considered on a different tier than their peers.

to anonymous at 2:10PM

hi douche. with that attitude, you might not get an offer from your 2L firm at all.

a & o, et al, now must match. with white/case, cc, shearman now having matched, all the international players must get on board.

So is Clifford Chance planning a massive layoff on Valentine's day?

2:10's attitude is not out of line nor is it going to jeopardize his chances of receiving an offer. That kind of reasoning is going through the minds of associates at the DC/LA firms right now too. Top firms in these cities will lose current associates and future ones if they fail to match.

So is CC planning a massive Valentine's day layoff

Anon 1:43 claims that CC has an office in Palo Alto. So does the CC website. But if you search for the list of lawyers at that office, you learn that it's a null set.

Comparison of NY/LA pay (assuming Latham & Gibson match OMM)

From Greedy Associates' "Plead The Fifth":

OMM Base/bonus/total comp

Stub: 48,333/10,000/58,333
1: 145,000/27,500/172,500
2: 155,000/30,000/185,000
3: 170,000/32,500/202,500
4: 190,000/35,000/225,000
5: 210,000/37,500/247,500
6: 230,000/40,000/270,000
7: 245,000/42,500/287,500

NY Base/Bonus/Total Comp

Stub: 53,333/10,000/58,333
1: 160,000/35,000/195,000
2: 170,000/40,000/210,000
3: 185,000/45,000/230,000
4: 210,000/50,000/260,000
5: 230,000/55,000/285,000
6: 250,000/60,000/310,000
7: 265,000/65,000/330,000

Difference

Stub: NY + 5,000
1: NY + 22,500
2: NY + 25,000
3: NY + 27,500
4: NY + 35,000
5: NY + 37,500
6: NY + 40,000
7: NY + 42,500

does anyone know how this affects compensation of associates in foreign offices?

Any word on Ropes?

Any word on Ropes?

2:15 #1

who are you? a GC at a Fortune 500? Don't pretend you know how companies make decisions regarding which firms to hire. top firms = firms that are good all around. tier 2 firms = firms that are good only in certain areas. talented law students who are not sure what they want to do will go to top firms because there are more options. there are a lot fewer talented law students who know what area they want to practice right out of law school

Ditto on word from Ropes. I assume they'll match at least in NYC, but seeing it on paper is reassuring.

Re Ropes "seeing it on paper is reassuring" - Does that mean they have have raised?

Were Latham & Gibson among the last to raise last year?

a & o, et al, now must match. with white/case, cc, shearman now having matched, all the international players must get on board.

It seems that many people have forgotten that these raises weren't made just to attract 1Ls. Most analysts seem to believe they were made to retain current associates. Furthermore, law firms aren't just competing with each other for talent, especially in NYC with hedge funds and banks hiring many mid-level associates. If firms don't raise and match they'll see even higher departure rates, which ultimately cost the firm more than giving a 15K raise. As always we'll see the NYC top 100 matching.

anonymous at 2:15 has it right.

Regardless of rankings, different firms excel in different areas. I went to a v50 firm over a v1-10 firm b/c the v50 excelled in a practice area that interested me. Knowing that your firm is ranked high on the Vault isn't going to keep you there very long, but doing the kind of work you want will.

That being said, it would have been a lot harder to go to the v50 if I knew I was going to be paid 15k less.

Not everyone is a prestige whore but most people are money whores (or have 6 figure debt after law shcool). All the v100 firms compete with each other on some level, any v100 firm that doesn't match is definitely going to take a hit in recruitment.

Anonymous 2:34 - Highly-regarded firms are highly regarded in different ways and in different areas. Of course, most have long-standing corporate clients who go to them for nearly everything, but 2:15 #1 is spot on in his/her point. Top firms are, if anything, NOT good at everything. It's their expertise and depth within industries that is highly regarded. And your last sentence baffles me. The "talent" (however defined) of a law student determines whether they know what area they want to practice? Are you mad?

Anyone care to share what time the White & Case memo went out? It means a lot to us Magic Circle folk here in the U.S. Pressure's on partners!

Agreed re recruitment - With 20+ firms already at 160K for first years, any firm that doesn't match must know that it will be very difficult from them to recruit anyone who can get an offer from one of those firms.

2Ls really don't know much about these firms, so the additional money (and prestige that goes along with being at one of the top firms) will be very difficult to overcome.

I'm not saying that is right, or economically sound. It's just a fact of the marketplace.

i wouldn't worry about magic circle. with cc and w/c now at 160, a & o, ll, and freshfields would sooner shut down us operations than lag behind.

Why are lawyers so confrontational when they're not even being lawyers?

2:34 #2

In defense on 2:15 #1, I am a member of the GC's office at a fortune 100 company and to a large extent he's right. We don't go to the same firms for all issues for any number of reasons. As he said firms have different specialties. Also, personal connections between us and the firm under consideration plays a large role. Finally, the cost of retaining firms vary significantly. To give an extreme example, Wachtell is the right firm to retain only under very special circumstances, despite being by far the most competative firm. Furthermore, they really only focus on one area, so to say a top firm is top in everything really isn't true.

i wouldn't worry about magic circle. with cc and w/c now at 160, a & o, ll, and freshfields would sooner shut down us operations than lag behind.

Anonymous: Re Ropes. No, I have no information on them. My point was I would like to see some sort of confirmation.

That being said, I do expect them to raise in NYC to match. I know nothing of the Boston market.

fall 2006 stubs did NOT get bonuses at omm.

does anyone doubt that nearly all top 100 firms will match 160K in NYC and (at least) 145K in DC/CA?

if so - why y'all trippin?

To 2:15: Cravath litigation > Paul Weiss litigation. Hope that helps.

2:55:

I have doubts. The comments from Hogan and Venable suggest that DC firms are going to go down kicking and screaming, if they go at all. Pretty demoralizing if you ask me.

what is magic circle?

What NYC firms HAVEN'T announced yet? SHouldn't they be chastised?

ringworm, i think

What NYC firms HAVEN'T announced yet? SHouldn't they be chastised?

To 3:01 anonymous:

Cravath litigation is not better than PW. No chance. No way.

magic circle refers to the (5?) british firms that have historically dominated the london legal market. i think that each of them now have offices in the us.

The reason some firms respond faster than others often has to do with their management structure and not to do with any hesitation to raising salaries. It's not like one partner gets an email saying salaries have gone up and he just fowards it out to the firm saying "ok, we'll match." People neeed to chilll. Seriously, firms have always matched and will keep doing it. It's only been a couple days and the pay is retroactive to Jan. 1, so it's not like it matters if you find out today or tomorrow.

"Cravath litigation is not better than PW. No chance. No way."

They're both fantastic, but Cravath = #1 Litigation in NY, PWR = #2.

Isn't the who's-better-at-litigation discussion a little like asking who's more attractive: Gisele or Heidi Klum? Or who's music is better: Beatles or Rolling Stones? I mean, c'mon!

The members of the Magic Circle are: Freshfield, Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, Linklaters, and Slaughter & May.

"Slaughters" doesn't have a NY office, but the rest do.

Gisele = Beatles = Cravath

Rolling Stones, Adlai Stevenson = Paul Weiss

no. the rolling stones are garbage. hth.

Baker & Mckenzie hasn't matched yet....or at least it hasn't been leaked yet.

"no. the rolling stones are garbage. hth."

I think that was the point.

"no. the rolling stones are garbage. hth."

I think that was the point.

Baker & McKenzie has matched yet...or at least it hasn't been leaked or announced if they did.

Correction (sorry for the type) Baker & McKenzie has NOT matched yet...or at least it hasn't been leaked or announced if they did.

the only people who make generalized statements of general idiocy like 'some top firm x > other top firm y' or general comparisons of huge departments without qualification are law students. So all 2Ls or others inclined to recycle the same kind of crap that gets repeated on those college boards wherein one person says some school is better than another because U.S. News ranked it two spots higher, please check yo'self.

cravath rocks! i slept under my desk for 5 days in a row!

You slept for five days in a row? You're lucky you still have a job, rip van winkle!

You slept for five days in a row? You're lucky you still have a job, rip van winkle!

2:54PM Anonymous: Fall 2006 stubs at OMM NY did not get bonuses?

Anonymous 2:54 Are you referring to OMM New York? Fall 2006 stubs did not receive bonuses?

Not sure about OMM NY stub bonuses, but OMM CA stubs did not get a bonus this year

Not sure about OMM NY stub bonuses, but OMM CA stubs did not get a bonus this year

what's a stub?

tier 2 firms, aka 'boutiques, aka 'mid-size'

here's how the whole pay bonanza has been playing out at the tier 2's of NYC:

Prior to this recent wave of increases, many of the higher end mid-size 'boutique' firms were on the following pay schedule:

Class / 2007 Base Salary
2006 $135,000
2005 $145,000
2004 $155,000
2003 $170,000
2002 $185,000
2001 $210,000
2000 and earlier are out of lock-step

The way such mid-size boutiques have been responding is by increasing by $10k for classes of 2006, 2005 and 2004 and by $15k for classes of 2003, 2002 and 2001 each time the big firms have bumped up over the past year or so.