Spoken like a true member of the DC Bar....

Boooooooooo James J. Sandman. what a party-pooper. He should just consider himself lucky he doesn't work for Mayer Brown.

I agree with much of what he says - and he makes a point about the "client market", but where I disagree with him is about retention and attrition - I think big salaries will definately help with retention and attrition. I, for one, can't think of too many places I can go where I am going to do better than my recently-raised Biglaw salary and benefits. Unless your talking about some serious stock options (backdated or otherwise) or equity potential as GC. Otherwise, I'm staying here FOREVER - long after your ass is gone, Sandman............

Why is it that when law firms talk about increasing salaries they talk about the impact on rates and clients, but when talking about PPP those topics are never mentioned?

I also agree with lots of what he says. I think this is funny:

The supply of new lawyers is constrained by the limited number of graduates that our law schools produce every year; paying more won’t have any material effect on the size of the applicant pool.

Read: f*** you, tier 2.

But I think the argument about the federal bench is probably wrong. Surely they could use a raise. But to compare their salaries to those of first year associates doesn't really frame the issue. What if the raise set dist ct judges' salaries at $190k? Then they'd say, oh, the injustice; judges’ salaries are less than second-year associates! And on and on...judges shouldn’t be paid like partners. So if you want to make this comparison, where does it stop? 3rd year? 5th year? Of counsel? It’s a stupid comparison.

Being a judge is public service, it's crazy prestigious, judges get free reign to do whatever the hell they want in their chambers, and they can hob-nob with their fellow judicial big wigs 'til they can't take it anymore. And, of course, the fact is that many on the federal bench made handsome six and seven figure salaries for years on the backs of young associates.

I’m a little sick of this story. Dear Congress: give judges a $20k raise so we can stop hearing about this.

HK...

It's called deflection.

The impact of an associate's salary has a much greater effect on clients' rates than a Partner's profits that are 10 times greater.

Uh...yeah...sure...

I second "picking on H&K's" 5:45 comment. It's disingenuous (at best) for partners (whose compensation has increased at a rate greater than associate's over thepast seven years) to say that "more money isn't the answer." What a**holes.

The Sandman piece oozes hypocrisy.

Paying associates more money will not increase retention (i.e., something other than money is motivating associates to work for biglaw), but will increase pressure on profitability and take a heavy toll on firm culture (because partners are -- surprise -- motivated by money).

Sandman is a person I very much respect, but I think 5:45 makes a good point. Despite the associate increases, disparity between partner and associate pay is still at a record level.

For all the truth in what Sandman says about living below your means, that wisdom needs to be imparted to the partners as well. See what has happend w/ Mayer Brown.

Sandman: "Remember why you went to law school: to make a difference. And follow your heart."

He's a product Liability and mass tort defense litigator. I refer back to the comment about oozing hypocrisy for a supremely well-paid manager partner to thumb noses at the billing-machines associates's salaries.

I love how the whole thing oozes with contempt for one firm... a firm very close to my heart at the moment. Seriously though... I wanna know how much A&P's profits per partners rose since salaries were at $125,000. B/c really, they can make up the difference by taking home less of our hourly rate - my understanding is that Wachtell is significantly less leveraged in terms of associate salaries.

And they wonder why bar organization attendance and participation by young attorneys decreases every year. Who is he writing this piece to?

Associates? Gee thanks, I want less money or mentoring. Get a grip.
Partners? Maybe, his point will resonate with partners. But they are making vast multiples.
Clients? The same clients that shell out double and triple size bonuses to their employees (Banks, hedge funds, etc.).

What is his point? Why didn't he write this article slamming Wachtell when they paid above market pay and bonuses. I could see if this article came from a disinterested observor -- but this guy is supposed to be representing our interests!

"Read: f*** you, tier 2."

rofl

5:56, if no one considers us to be real lawyers, then why are these tier 2 schools allowed to be called law schools?

They should be called "doc review slave labor for $55k/year" schools.

He's right in the sense that it might increase pressure from the top to be more profitable. That said, the latest round of pay increases doesn't even dent profits for the most profitable firms. As a percentage of profits per partner, associate salaries are lower than they have been in a while.

Maybe what he should write about the fact that partners can stand to go from making 1.85 million a year to 1.825 million a year.

To be clear, I think Sandman has done amazing things for A&P. Under his guidance, the law firm became a more civilized and diverse place to work.

But I do find him to be hypocritical on the relationship between associate pay and rates issues. He may have followed his heart to the courtroom on behalf of big tobacco, but really that doesn't mean he can't cut loose of some of the money he earned off the associates doing the dirty work. His entire argument is developed with the key assumption that PPP cannot be lowered for any reason whatsoever -- and that if the costs of business ever go up the rates have to go up too. That could happen, but it doesn't have to. Businesses absorb costs all the time and take a hit on profitability. I think he and others are just spoiled by big fat PPP and don't want to give it up any more than associates want to give up big salaries.

And his pot shot at Simpson was pretty weak. No one forced A&P to raise and match.

I work in biglaw, have received the standard increase typical of those of senior associates in other firms, and I couldn't agree with Sandman more.

I'm not saying that I don't enjoy my salary and the freedom it allows me. But the salary comes at a high price. I think associate salaries -- especially for new lawyers -- are too high.

Also, Sandman is right that the clients indirectly pay for these high salaries. That's true. But at an even more removed -- but equally true -- level, everyday consumers are the ones who indirectly pay for our salaries. Think about it -- if your firm represents a car manufacturer, it is the buyer of the manufacturers' cars that ultimately contributes to the high salaries of associates. I would bet that more often than not, those people earn much less than any of the Biglaw associates who have benefited from the salary increases. Enough is enough.

here's a thought, everyone talks about how these raises come of so that people can get the "good press" or "positive image"

think about what kind of quality image it would send to your associates and your clients if you came out and said "X, Y, and Z will match the raises in all offices, and in doing this, we promise not to raise from our 2000 billable hour requirement or raise hourly rates for our clients for the next year"

your associates would love you for actually giving them more of your take home. your clients would love you for not raising your rates, and you'd probably get a portion of the work that's looking for new counsel just because of the marginally lower rates and good will

I have to say that if i were a few years older, i'd be fine with it, you get such a huge raise the day you make partner anyway, i would be fine with a little bit less to keep the people around me happy, appreciative, and willing to work hard to get my projects done

I agree with 6:48.

First year salaries should be lower, and there should be huge jumps year over year, the top firms paying top dollar will still always get the top talent, because if you're a star, you'll get picked up. The recruiters would just have to spend more time paying attention to actual legal developments than they do to law school students who, having just recently graduated can admit, know nothing

As a BigLaw member of the DC bar, I'm outraged by sandman's sanctimonious nonsense. He seems to be advocating a sort of tacit colusion amoung the firms to restrict price, in essense a pricefixing conspiracy to the benefit of the partners. I second what others have said: pay for associate raises from PPP, not from clients.

Sandman presents the following laughable economic analysis:

"And despite high salaries, the average attrition rate among big-firm associates has topped 20 percent in the last couple of years. Is there any reason to think that more money will keep associates longer and drive attrition rates down? I don’t think so."

This might be right if all that mattered was whether salaries were "high", rather than how high they actually are. Fortunately, economic analysis deals with more than Sandman's two categories of prices ("high" and "not high") and recognizes that quantity supplied generally increases as price increases.

In my opinion, Sandman is an idiot. Give us an actual chance to make partner and maybe we will work for less money.

6:48 is almost as idiotic as Sandman. Probably written by another partner. Associate salaries are too high because they are indirectly driving up the price of a new car?!! Somehow, I think the hourly rates of a carmaker's outside lawyers are not a huge factor in the price of a new car.

Also, hourly rates have been going up for years without a commensurate increase in associate salaries. I wonder if Sandman was writing op-ed pieces about the harms of hourly rate increases between 2000 and 2005 when he and his partners were keeping 100% of the benefit of the increases to themselves.

'maybe we will work for less money.'

perhaps the dumbest comment yet.

do any of you read the daily trades? partners are switching firms at a frenetic pace these days--any threat to their compensation, and the ones who can (the ones who bring in business) start looking for the exits.

how do firms grow? by bringing in money-making partners. how do firms do this? raise ppp. not coddle babies (ie, law students) who have no clue about what it takes to succeed in the business.

please, law students, shut the f*^% up.

and I'm not a partner. The point I was trying to make is that as lawyers, and as members of the global community, we have a responsibility not to take advantage of those less fortunate than us. By playing into the idea that all firms must pay associates astronomical salaries, and by requiring our clients to pay higher hourly rates to compensate for the increases, we are indirectly making life harder for folks less fortunate for us.

7:31,

How do you think firms raise PPP? They do it by leverage. Money-making partners won't make money if they don't have associates to do their work.

What is up with Reed Smith? Do they realize there is a market outside of friggin Pittsburgh???

look this is silly. I'm not saying associates deserve this salary in any objective sense, but lets be realistic, its not like ppps are going up b/c law firms are suddenly doing better work. They are going up b/c the economy is doing well. It is not like the cost of labor (associates) is rising disproportionately to the partner's profits. In fact, the distinguishing thing about law is that labor is keeping pace with the owners in terms of proportion of the wealth they get.

What an absurd piece. Not one mention of partner pay and how that scews things. Either this guy is a selfish partner looking for a bigger bite of associate pay, or he is a fool.

I strike again. SKADDEN SUCKS!!!!!!

Reed Smith is very cheap and the partners are very concerned with PPP these days. A couple years ago they paid under 125k for entry levels in the NYC office and only recently have they been paying market - before it was an under-market non-lockstep system. Given that the NYC office already can't compete for talent, they have no reason really to raise salaries. Can't speak for other offices though.

thing about Reed Smith is they, among all "big" firms, are best positioned to raise salaries to market without taking a big hit. Their two biggest offices are in Pittsburgh and London, so they can likely skip those two cities and simply raise in NYC, DC and California -- maybe Philly too I suppose.

Our responsibility as members of the global community? What is this bullshit? Our responsibility is to provide a service (labor) in exchange for the best price (salary) we can get for the service. Just like Ford and Toyota charge as much as they can in the market for their cars (without charging so much someone goes to the competition). If getting legal advice wasn't valuable clients would not pay for it.

PPP has been going up, up, up for years. Associate salaries are just keeping up with inflation during that time period. Time for the partners to pass back the years of increased billing rates that they have been holding in escrow for associates in the form of higher PPP.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read -- trumped only by the fact that there are actually a couple of morons on this board agreeing with it. Does anyone actually think that if we suddenly take a 50% paycut, hours will go down or hourly rates will go down? If you do, you're an idiot and deserve whatever abuse you get. Associates are still outrageously underpaid relative to partners vis-a-vis the ration 6-8 years ago. My 2200 hours at $400 brings in a hell of a lot more money to the firm than I get in salary.

The biggest crap load of all is when he says, "Remember why you went to law school: to make a difference. And follow your heart."

Mr. Sandman, NOBODY WENT TO LAW SCHOOL TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I mean nobody.

Okay maybe a few, like a 100 people a year total. But those are the idiots... people who don't know it is going to be a lot more rewarding to be a teacher, a member of the clergy, an activist or something else. That's the best way to make a real difference. By doing anything other than being a lawyer, for shit's sake.

7:44

yes you need bodies to staff deals. and you want competent, able bodies.

for the past several weeks, people on this board have generally been bitching and moaning over 10-30K differences in base salary for same-year nyc positions, freaking out and making hyperbolic statements like 'i'm walkin' if my firm doesn't raise...' and similar bs.

my point: why think this bottom-line attitude toward salary stops at the associate level? partners care a lot more about what they make versus their peers, and at that level the differences are much much greater (several 100k).

the idea that firms are going to reduce partner salary to accommodate associate raises is rdiculous in such an environment. the money makers are going to leave for firms able to sustain the raises without any impact on the partners' shares.

you eat what you kill.

Don't know if it ever got mentioned since we aren't in the Vault 100, but Seward & Kissel matched salaries last Friday, retro to 1/1.

I generally respect Jim Sandman, but this piece is a bunch of crap! What did he make last year? The average equity partner at A&P? Maybe they can share a little of their wealth with the people that actually do the work...

uh, aren't there anti-trust issues with making a statement like this?

I don't think that the CEO of GM is allowed to publish an article in automotive weekly saying effectively to the competition - Let's all not increase wages any further than $25 / hour for mechanics.

Have any other Baker offices moved?

I bet Sadman aka "The Marlboro Man," wrote this piece from his multi-million dollar mansion, paid for with Philip Morris blood money. Yeah, follow YOUR heart Jimmy . . . right to the bank!

Since the raises are so bad I guess A&P will be doing the right thing for its clients and not matching in the future? (Of course, they're already $15k behind a bunch of firms in town [DC].)

All this discussion misses the point. Simpson Thacher raised salaries to make it more costly for other firms to enter NY. This was not a competitive move vis-a-vis other NY law firms in the competition for salaries, but to make it hard for non-NY firms, especially those from Londa, DC, LA, etc., to make successful inroads into NY. That is the only thing that rationally explains the salary increase. "Raising rivals costs" is a well known antitrust theory of market exclusion.

And I pointed out in an earlier post it raises costs for rivals beyond NYC. Firms inevitably have to raise to some new level in their home and other branch offices, which in some cases is where the bulk of the attorneys reside. So it makes it much more costly to do business overall for "national" law firms.

This article is so poorly written and makes so little economic sense it is laughable.

Several important considerations that Sandman ignores or does not recognize include:

1) Simpson Thacher's raise (like S&C's before that) was not merely gratuitous, but was instead motivated by self-interest. Both Simpson and S&C want to hire the very best law school graduates (on the basis of schools and grades). In addition to competing against other law firms for these students, Simpson and S&C also compete against investment banks, private equity funds, and consulting firms. While not many top students go to these alternative options right now, if law firm pay were to not keep pace -- i.e. remain at $145K indefinitely-- many more law students would start to look to these alternative options. While it may be true that a firm in the V50-100 competes less directly against these alternatives, these firms match pay because they are competing against other law firms. The key though is that nothing constrains lawyers from going to the business side if it becomes far more lucrative. This problem is especially acute in NY right now, but it has been acute elsewhere in the past. Remember in the dotcom era, it was start-ups in California.

2) While mid-level associate attrition is higher at top firms than at lower-ranked firms, this is not entirely due to the fact that associates at top ranked firms dislike their firms. Much of the greater attrition rates at top shops stems from the fact that associates at top firms have greater exit opportunities to well-paying jobs. Naturally, if you want to stem the flow of costly attrition, raising salaries for the mid-levels with lots of options should help.

3) Firms aren't necessarily "forced" to pay the higher salaries to match the Simpson raises. In fact, firms in other markets have not matched the NY salary increases. Firms do though have to stay competitive with NY or they will risk losing recruits to NY. This is why firms raise. Ego too might be involved, but no one is "forced" to do anything, except maybe in an economic sense.

4) If another round of raises gets triggered in NY, we may see a lot of firms decide not to match. This would make economic sense. Realistically, firms at the bottom of the V100 are not competing with the top firms for hires. These firms that hire a lot of T2 students probably could get away with paying less, although it might end their ability to even credibly say that they hire the best.

5) Sandman's ruse about clients suffering is a red herring. Increased costs do not necessarily equate to increased prices. Billing rates increased steadily from 1999 to 2005 without assoicate salary increases. Prices correspond to demand. If one law firm overprices, clients will go elsewhere. Perhaps some of the top NY firms are a little less immune to price pressure on the high margin, bet the company work that they do, but even they must price in response to demand.

6) Perhaps the worst thing with Sandman's article is the impression that it gives readers of A&P. Talk about making your firm look cheap and ungrateful to its associates. A&P's PPP are very, very high -- which of course Sandman doesn't mention. If Sandman were concerned about clients, all of the partners at A&P could make $100K less and thereby reduce billing rates. Of course, this won't happen. I don't begrudge partners making lots of money, but just don't act like associates -- who do a lot of the work -- are ungrateful, overpaid, and ruining the profession.

7) Sandman's shots at Simpson are very troubling. They come very close to an antitrust type of price fixing. In fact, this kind of comment is the type of signalling with regard to pricing that airlines are always about to get in trouble for.

8) Sandman saying that you went to law school to make a difference is a bit ironic. For starters, many people at top schools go to law school to have a good career and make lots of money. Second, Sandman hasn't really taken this to heart. He does after all work at the tobacco king firm.

9) The district judge pay thing is also a red herring. Sure some district judges probably are very underpaid. This happens a lot with government jobs in general -- as I'm sure that some congressmen and senators (who make about $150k) are also underpaid. Some district judges are not underpaid though -- e.g. ones who work in rural areas where even partners only make a couple hundred thousand. District judges choose this job and know the pay going in. Should they make a bit more -- sure. But this doesn't have any bearing on the appropriate compensation of associates.

Well, I've gone on long enough. This article is really laughable. And wouldn't be so pathetic if it didn't come from one who is supposed to be an intelligent, effective attorney.

lots of good points. To add to the district judge thing - here is the really misleading part about what he said. Judges are not choosing between being first year associates and being judges (obviously). In fact, I would say that any district court judge out there could probably quit and get a job at a firm with $1,000,000 PPP (and if that is no longer the case than the federal bench sucks). So really, the thing that would discourage somebody from being a judge is not associate compensation but partner compensation.

11.56, GREAT comment. Agree 100%.

When I first read this article, I did not realize that Sandman was a partner at Arnold & Porter. Knowing that now, I think the article is even more ridiculous.

I think Sandman and a lot of other partners are woefully out of touch with reality. When they went to law school, tuitions were relatvely low.

Just in 1986, tuition at Yale/Harvard/Stanford was about $10,000 a year or lower. That's $30,000 a year. I think Cravath was paying about $65,000 a year at the time.

Take modern times. If you go to a school like Harvard or Columbia, you are going to have expenses in the $35,000-$40,000 range (closer to 40K if you have to pay for an apartment in NYC). That means you'll graduate with debt in the range of $130,000 to $140,000 or so (keep in mind that interest on private loans accrues really fast). That means that if you graduate and make even $160,000 you are barely making more than law school debt alone.

When you add in taxes, etc., you are lucky to be pulling in $80,000 or $85,000 in the northeast. Thus, you really aren't left with a huge amount if you want to pay your debts off in a reasonable amount of time. I can PROMISE Sandman that a lot less people would go to law firms if they didn't have student loans. Of the people I know, I'd say well over half want to be in a firm to pay off their debts, and that's it.

I just think it's hypocritical for Sandman to say associates shouldn't be making $160,000 when they faced a lot less pressure from law school debt in their own time.

It seems to me that the Mayer Brown contraction is related to the DLA Piper raise for patent lawyers, and for that matter, Simpson's decision to kick start the latest round of Skaddenfreude. The old compensation models are simply proving untenable as certain types of work (corporate, IP, white collar defense) are increasingly able to command much higher rates, especially compared to typical big clients like insurance companies who are increasingly trying to micromanage and cut costs.

Adding to 1:44, many partners purchased nice houses 15-20 years ago in a very different real estate market, and have absolutely no idea of the comparative buying power between their associate salaries then and the "eye-popping salaries" of today. I know that the partners at my firm (especially the older ones) thank that associates are saving huge portions of their salaries, which just isn't the case for the most part.

As others have already pointed out, Sandman's article is riddled with false assumptions and flaws. He has some valid points, but certainly doesn't address the elephant(s) in the room of the changing legal culture: rainmaker firm hopping and its collateral effects on the pressure to increase PPP and the decreased chances for partnership by everyone esle. Many firms are too busy trying to recruit rainmakers to worry about developing their own partners, which is viewed as too expensive a long term investment. (That's not theory, I've heard it straight from the horses' mouth from partners at top 10 DC firms)

I think Sandman makes some valid points. He may be a BigLaw partner, but he is also a man committed to pro bono work and diversity in the legal profession.

Some of us did go to law school to make a difference, and it is inspiring to have such leaders in the profession.

OK Sandman...quit lurking.

As his take home skyrockets, every sentiment about how associates are making too much and we should be helping the world is bullsh*t. He's a hypocrit.

2:22 is obviously looking for a reaction.

I want Sandman to pay off my student debts and give me 20% down on a house, and then he can reduce my salary.

Tell sandman to take a dip in the PPP of his firm. The only thing that has skyrocketed more than associate salaries is PPP. So Mr. Sandman if full of shit.

Greetings, monkeys!

I must confess, this morning I was curious what response I was getting to my words of wisdom posted yesterday. Thus, I could not resist logging on to see what direction the discussion on this board has taken. And of course, after a short detour caused by myself and a couple others, including that Hoffa character, I see we are right back where we started from - discussing/bitching/crying/debating associate salaries and bonuses, etc.

Silly monkeys! While your single-mindedness is impressive (and God help us if I could harness that single-mindedness for my own purposes), such talk is useless and unproductive. Rather than bitching about your pay, which will not go up one cent no matter how many times you post on this board, wouldn't it be better for you clever monkeys to swap ideas and career strategies? You know, things like Beating the System or Getting Even with Partners Who Suck?

It is obvious many of you are not getting the mentoring you so sorely need. But fear not, monkeys! I graciously offer you the gift of my services in providing you with a little "direction" and "enlightenment". I will be giving you advice that my Fortune 100 client pays me $285 an hour for (I know - don't get me started. Their general counsel is a devious bastard who really f*cked me on our fee agreement. I will have my revenge on that little sh*t. In fact, my revenge plot is set forth below).

Here is a short list of some of the topics we will be discussing. Remember, feedback is not only encouraged, it is EXPECTED:

1) Mafia Theory (How you SHOULD approach your Bigtex career)
2) True Power (How to get it, keep it, and, occasionally, abuse it)
3) Interpersonal Relations (this one is about sex, and why sleeping with your firm's 22 year old receptionist only SOUNDS like a good idea)
4) What You Should Be Doing RIGHT NOW (here we will discuss your BigTex exit strategy, which you should be updating DAILY)
5) Open Forum (I will take questions from monkeys I deem worthy of individual attention)

Sadly, a lot of the things I am about to share with you should have already been given to you by people in your own firms. They choose not to share because they are either stupid or lazy, or they just think You Are Easily Replaceable so, why bother?

Now you are ready to move on to topic #1: Mafia Theory. And remember, monkeys, I tease...because I love.

(Also, you know that general counsel I despise so much? His daughter is a little SMU sorority girl who, much to my chagrin and disbelief, is going to be attending a top 10 law school on the west coast - a better school than I, Herman, went to. This girl is hot, although she seems really stupid and I think she has a drug habit. It infuriates me that this girl is somehow going to a better school than me. Anyway, I see this girl out all the time - does she ever even go to class? - and I have made it my mission to sleep with her. Thus far I have had no success but fear not, monkeys; I am attacking the project with a single-mindedness that all of you can obviously appreciate.)

Listen up, monkeys - what I am about to tell you is so simple, so stupid, it almost makes me embarrassed to have to write it. And yet, the more I think about it, the information I am about to give you really isn't that obvious. Here is why:

From the get-go we spend a lot of time and effort convincing each of you that you are special snowflakes and that our BigTex firm is one big happy family and there will always be a place for you here. Unfortunately, this is really not the case.

We tell you these things because we don't want you thinking too far into the future. We do this because we want you only to focus on the task at hand, on billing us hours, on making us $$$. We never promise you that you will make partner. Sure, we tell you what the partnership track IS, but you often will not know whether you are on the track. Despite your best efforts, you making partner is to a great extend beyond your control.

Now, this section is not specifically about how to make partner (my short answer would be "bag a deep-pockets client"). What it IS about is how to navigate your way through years 1-7 of your BigTex career. It is really about how to make yourself as bulletproof as possible and, to a lesser extent, how to increase the odds of your enjoying your work and, most importantly, the people you work with. And it is about seeing through the smokescreen your firm blows at you.

This is where Mafia Theory comes in.

In implementing Mafia Theory, the first thing you need to do is forget this fantasy that your firm is like a family and we love you and will take care of you always, that your hard work will be rewarded in the end and you will someday be granted tenure. Bullsh*t. Go find someone who slaved away for BigTex only to get passed over for partner and ultimately shown the door. Go talk to someone whose firm dissolved and got left behind by the partner they did all their work for, when that partner joined another firm and took his business with him (ex Arter-Hadden and Vial Hamilton associates and jr. partners know all about this).

Mafia Theory is first about changing the way you view the structure of your firm and your place in it. BigTex is not like a family. Nor is it like a sports team or even a military organization (which is my previous analogy, mostly b/c chain-of-command seemed to fit). No, your BigTex firm is most like...La Cosa Nostra. The Mafia.

(Now monkeys, I did not spring from the womb with this knowledge. What I know is based on bitter, first-hand experience. Yes, mighty Herman got f*cked a couple times early in his career. Profit from my experience. Okay, back to Mafia Theory).

You are a soldier/associate. You work under the direction of partners/"made men". If you have seen "Goodfellas" you understand that soldiers do all the dirty work and have no rights, no say-so in the mob. They exist and serve, literally, at the pleasure of the Made Men. Much like you with the partners of your firm. Unlike you, they cannot be easily whacked. Unlike you, they have some (abeit varying) degree of power.

And much like junior mafiosos it is IMPERATIVE that you get yourself under the protection of a Made Man. This is, in my opinion, the single-most important thing you can do in your early career. Even better, if you are smart this is something you can actually have a great deal of control over.

Mafia Theory works best for those of you who are in or will be joining large sections in your firm; for example, the litigation associate pool or "business section" associates. If you are in a section where you could possibly be pulled in 12 different directions by seven different partners, Mafia Theory is for you.

From Day 1, you need to identify those partners within your section that you want to work with, the ones you believe are "stand-up" guys. DO NOT sit around and wait for them to choose you or be content to hitch your wagon to the first partner that takes a liking to you. Remember, monkeys: USE THE SYSTEM BEFORE THE SYSTEM USES YOU.

Once you have identified the partner(s) you wish to pursue, you need to do everything in your power to make sure that your name is not far from their lips. Even if you have 10 projects from others, you need to make sure to swing by that person's office every now and again and take projects from them if work is available, even if it means working extra hours. Trust me, the payoff is worth it.

Because once you are under a Made Man's protection, once it is known that you are one of Partner X's people, you are set (and note that I am not saying this is an easy or quick process). You now have someone who will protect you. You have now successfully reduced your exposure to doing projects for the f*ckhead partners, the ones people are miserable doing work for. As a bonus, you may become great friends with that partner and he may someday go to bat for you when it is time for you to be "made". And if he splits, you are going with him (or at least will be given the option).

Just choose wisely, monkeys.

For example, there were two occasions where I got into serious disagreements with partners in my firm, such that, under normal circumstances, my career may have been prejudiced. But I stood firm; they were wrong, I was right, and they were being complete dickheads and trying to treat me like a dog (monkeys, I don't let anyone treat me the way I sometimes treat you. You should really stand up to me more often).

You know what happened to me? Not a thing. Because I had Made Men come to my defense. Not only that, I had a couple other partners that I didn't even do work for come up to me later and tell me they heard what happened, hoped I was doing okay, blah blah blah. Mostly, they were afraid a pissed-off Herman would wreck team morale. They were right, of course, but I digress.

I could never have gotten away with that if I wasn't under protection. I also would not have gotten half the perks I did if I had not chosen the right Made Men. And with respect to my soldiers...well, lets just say they have chosen a Made Man wisely.

Mafia Theory can be summed up thusly:

1) Recognize you are in the Mob, not the Mouseketeers.
2) Carefully choose Made Men.
3) Woo Made Men.
4) Get under Made Mens' protection.
5) Enjoy life!!!!!

Okay monkeys, on to Section 2: True Power.

lol dude no need to post all five parts. really.

Hello again, my little monkeys!

It just occurred to me that before we can start this mentoring program, it is probably necessary that I tell you a little bit about myself. After all, monkeys, if you haven't learned by now in this profession credibility is everything. You should know a little bit about me so that you can give my words of wisdom their proper weight.

Let me preface my bio by saying this: although I have contempt for your lawyering skills, I recognize that at least a few of you are quite smart and clever and, clearly, know how to use Internet Explorer. Thus, it is necessary that I play a little coy with you regarding some of the specifics. Heaven forbid one of you, through the use of Martindale or Google, "outs" me before I am ready to reveal myself to the class. I will reveal myself in due time, and will do so because I have absolutely nothing to fear from any of you. In fact, this will be discussed in great detail in the True Power part of my presentation.

Here is my quick-hit bio:

- Yes, I am a partner at a BigTex firm. My office is somewhere in the Metroplex. Could be Dallas. Could be Ft. Worth. Could be Plano.

- I went to a top-tier law school. I have been practicing law somewhere between 11-13 years. I have been full equity for three years (none of this "special" or "non-equity partner" sh*t for me - I went directly to full equity. We'll discuss this under both True Power and The Greatest Day of my Legal Career).

- I may have gone to a service academy. If not, I was ROTC in college. My military service is in some way mentioned in my Martindale bio. I may or may not have served in the REAL Gulf War (not this George Bush clusterf*ck currently going on. As an aside, if you are one of these idiot flag-waving, Jesus-loving, self-righteous, GW Bush-voting Republican as*holes, you are not worthy of my advice so stop reading now).

- I am consistently voted one of the most popular partners in my firm among the associates and support staff. This is hysterical to me on a number of levels. But seriously, despite what you may think, I am actually very nice to my subordinates. This is mostly because you are harmless little monkeys and can do nothing to hurt me; you know, like my dog, whose name may or may not be Ricardo.

- I am well-liked because I come across as being cool and a nice guy. I am the partner who comes to all the happy hours (not because I like you, but because I like to drink). I have been told by an ex-girlfriend that I am "quirky and unconventional". That same ex-girlfriend also called me "passive aggressive". F*cking bitch - make up your mind! I have been described by my peers as "unnecessarily confrontational", a "sociopath", and "power drunk". I admit to being power drunk (SEE True Power). And sure, I can occasionally be an as*hole, but while you may ask "Herman, was it really necessary for your ex-wife to whip out that third dildo on the Naughty Associate?" my answer to that is: in the context of what we were doing, ABSOLUTELY. While a couple of you want to suggest that I am a rapist, understand this: the only raping I do is of your young minds and your self-worth when you arrive at my firm. I don't have to twist any arms to get you monkeys to do what I want. (Again, SEE True Power).

Okay Monkeys, now you are ready for Section 1: Mafia Theory.

dude really save your fingers for typing people care about.

Given that Sandman seems opposed to the raises, and we still have not seen an A&P memo, is it possible that A&P is still on the old pay scale and did not raise to 160?

That guy has way too much time on his hands. That's a guy (or gal) who should be working weekends to keep himself out of trouble.

This memo misses the point - it comes from a partner back in the age when law firms were collegial "stay long enough and you'll make partner" clubs. First, the increase is to prevent corporate associates from moving to banks and private equity shops. You have to pay associates more than they'd make in-house; otherwise staying doesn't make sense. He also has a very old school notion of why people leave; nearly everyone I worked with who left complained about the hours, not about lack of mentorship or exciting work. No, it doesn't help that junior work can be boring, but no job is perfect. Nor did most people I work with at any point in their law school career think they'd make a difference. Most of us knew it was going to be BigLaw. Sure, I'd take a reduced salary for better hours, but he's not going to take less PEP, so until he's willing to do that, I'm going to squeeze him and people like him for all he's worth. This should really worry associates who're likely to be canned if the economy turns sour though, as it inevitably will at some point.
As to the people who interpret this as an FU to 2nd tier schools - its not; its a business decision. There's a system in place by which law firms effectively susbidize law schools for doing their sorting for them. If you can get into Harvard or Boalt, you're obviously bright. So law firms don't have to bother in identifying targets carefully. Almost any 2L from a top 14 school should be a reasonable associate. Whereas if they start reaching below top 10% in the second tier, they actually really have to evaluate whom they hire. Why go through all the trouble? Its not cost effective.

"Sure, I'd take a reduced salary for better hours, but he's not going to take less PEP, so until he's willing to do that, I'm going to squeeze him and people like him for all he's worth."

Gotta love it.

"Remember why you went to law school: to make a difference. And follow your heart."

I know I'm not the first to comment on this, but does this dude realize the extent to which he's insulting his audience's intelligence? The head of my firm's NYC office has tried the same rhetoric with bonuses and not one associate bought it. The partners run the firm like a business when it comes to them, but expect junior lawyers to see the profession as a vocation.

Yes, this artilce is down right insulting. That's what most pisses me off about it.

I have a question: If Sandman went to law school to make a difference and follow his heart, why doesn't hit voluntarily give a portion of his multi-million dollar income to those who are in need? I mean, realistically he can lived comfortably in DC on $200,000-$300,000. Why not give the other million + away?

So insulting... 1st years should be glad to slave away for longer hours than almost any other profession -- while partners work half time -- doing pro bono and bar activities -- and collect obscene paychecks. Why won't associates organize? Why can't we pull off "a day without associates"? All call in sick one day -- or just not show up?

If the invisible hand were to do its job, wouldn't the outcome be that Simpson Thacher would raise salaries to, say, $215k for first-years? Then only a few similarly-profitable, top firms would be able to match. Pay would be different among different tiers of firms. It seems odd to me that I went to the top law school and clerked for a circuit judge and joined a leading (and wildly profitable) firm and work on front-page deals but make exactly the same salary as a 2d tier law school grad writing coverage memos at some firm that's struggling to be in the AmLaw 100. I guess I'm the victim of the antitrust conspiracy.

It also seems odd there aren't steeper pay raises with seniority. As a sixth-year lawyer, I know a little bit and could find other good jobs. Meanwhile, I don't make all that much more than the first-years I'm showing the ropes. Retaining 4th-6th years seems like the biggest problem for firms, so I'm surprised nobody has given higher pay raises for this group.

How on earth can the president of the bar association go on record stating that Simpson raising salaries was a bad move -- economically and ideologically -- for the industry? Why doesn't he just finish the thought, and fix salaries. You think we will see any price increases in the next 5 years? Not a chance!

Better yet -- Sandman, as bar president, why don't you use your official position to call for a moratorium on bonuses -- or to set a low standard bonus for all the other firms to match.

He is not even in NYC -- yet he criticizes a price increase in NYC.

Finally, Sandman could encourage his firm not raise salaries and bonuses to set an example to the market about how little money matters as an incentive-- see how many associates they have left!

Shame on you Sandman -- you are supposed to be representing all the members of the bar -- not just the few highly compensated partners.

1) The faster associates pay off loans and leave for government, probono or public interest the more people available to do this work. Wouldn't you want to see this happen? Or should people who don't want to be at a firm be forced to stay longer to pay their dues first?

2) If you want to call for higher federal judge salaries -- by all means do so -- but don't make it a counter-point in your anti-associate diatribe.

3) As president of DC bar, don't you represent government lawyers, public interest, in-house, as well as fat cat partners? Are you going to write opinion pieces on the salaries of all lawyers or just junior associates?

Is there a recall or impeachment process?

"There is no competitive advantage to [raising associate salaries]"? Really, Sandman, none?

How about: 1) signaling to associates they value their work and efforts, 2) attracting top talent that compares offers from law firms as well as banks, 3) push back competition from regional firms that cannot match, 4) push back competition from NYC firms that cannot match. These all sound like solid economic reasons. The piece you should be writing is why it makes no economic sense for firms to MATCH that cannot use the above reasons. Why should A&P in DC be matching NY salaries, when they do different work at different rates?

Conflict of Interest, anyone? You are a partner at a firm using your presidential soapbox to decry pay increases and lecture another firm (far more profitable than you) on the economics of price increases. If there is no economic reason to increase, then there is no economic reason to match! Think about it. You match to show you are just as good and profitable as everyone else. Then it would follow you RAISE to show you are BETTER and MORE profitable than everyone else.

Re: 4:32

Sandman's logic is perfectly understandable once you accept that he assumes that firms will not be making their associates partners. If not, there is no real reason to show that you value their work and efforts. All that he really expects is to work them as hard as possible until they are run off or find something better.

Good point 4:32; I too was appalled that he used his position as the head of a professional organization in an attempt to capture larger private gains. Disgusting.

Any news on irell raises/bonuses or summer associate salaries?

thought about why Reed Smith hasnt raised yet - perhaps because they were waiting until the Chicago merger was final?

Agreeing with 4:32 regarding the comment that "[t]here is no competitive advantage to [raising associate salaries]."

Law firms are businesses with revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If there were no economic reason to raise salaries, they would not raise salaries, and others would not match. Res ipsa loquitur.

Clearly, management of these firms disagree with Mr. Sandman...

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the astounding internal inconsistency in Mr. Sandman's article. Consider the following two quotes:

1. "Is there any reason to think that more money will keep associates longer and drive attrition rates down? I don’t think so."

2. "When the disparity between law firm salaries and government salaries reaches the point it has now, some lawyers who would otherwise have been attracted to public service will not be able to make the sacrifice, and the public will be the poorer for it."

So which is it? Does the higher salary have no impact on attrition, or does it encourage people to stay where they are rather than finding other work, e.g. public service? (And if the answer is that quote #2 only refers to the choices of new law school graduates, is there really a meaningful difference?)

Personally, I'm inclined to move away from BigLaw, but the recent salary increase is going to keep me here for at least an extra year or two.

What does Mr. Sandman see for us tier 2 students?

I wonder when Sandman actually started believing the half-truths that have been coming out of his mouth for years now...

Wonder if Arnold & Porter has ever raised billing rates in years when associate salaries remained flat? Point of research - have A&P's rates gone up more in years where there have been salary increases or the years where salaries have increased? Hmmm....

10 years of private practice and still have yet to break the 100k mark, after office expenses and employee salaries. Now seems like an appropriate time to just put a bullet in my brain.