I think that as soon as one of the big Chicago firms move, the others will quickly follow. The move is inevitable. The question is which firm is going to get the PR boost from going first.

Chicago really does need to step up to the plate. It competes very directly with DC and CA markets, and Chicago firms need to recognize that. I moved to Chicago from DC, and might not have made the move if Chicago salaries were lagging behind at the time.

I don't know it's clear yet that Chicago needs to pay 165 to be competitive. There's a view from the type of people who could never stand the thought of being away from NY or CA (unless it's to slum in DC) that Chicago is 2nd tier if pay is lower. But the bottom line is that it's a *lot* less expensive to live in Chicago than NY or CA. Chicago may well go to 160k, but it's just as reasonable to think that Jenner, Mayer, etc. feel that they can still attract top talent at 145. Bottom line is that 145 in Chicago is still a lot more in actual spending power than 160 in NY, CA, or DC. So, if your only concern is money, you're still going to Chicago. I don't follow the line of reasoning that says it's somehow less prestigious to receive a *higher* real salary even if it's lower in nominal terms. That's like saying that being an executive at a railroad in the 1800s was less prestigious than being a paralegal at a law firm today, because the paralegal makes more in nominal terms, even though the partner had infinitely greater spending power...

Again, I'm not saying that Chicago *won't* settle at 160, simply that it's not clear to me why Chicago would be thought less prestigious that it has been thought for the past five years if it didn't.

Skadden in Chicago has been at 160K.

Will Kirkland follow suit? Latham? Or will Chicago be doomed to TTTitude forever?

The PR for going first doesn't seem to be important. Most Chi Firms at this point are probably going to move right before Fall recruiting season. There wouldn't seem to be any incentive to do it until the end of July or so.

Latham Chicago went to 160 along with the rest of the firm.

I thought PH already raised to 160 in Chicago

11:59 - L&W raised to $160 in Chicago when it raised in CA and DC.

11:59 - yes, COL is lower in Chicago. And if salaries were driven by this line of "equitable" reasoning, then I would anticipate Chicago would be lower (of course, CA/DC would be lower than NY as well). Of course, I would expect the law firms would also provide the beaches and sun of CA, or a thriving financial district full of lucrative exit options such as NY (or at least theater district comparable to Broadway).

COL is driven by supply and demand. NY and CA have those things, so it's more expensive to live there. When one moves to either location, one makes a choice to prefer those things over additional spending power. If you want to talk fairness, then I don't see what's fair about CA associates getting money and sun, while Chicagoans just get the money.

My point is that COL does not arbitrate salaries. The amount of desirable associates, relative to the demand for such associates at law firms, has a far greater role. Other markets matter because we can expect that if CA raises $15K, there will be more associates willing to practice there (instead of Chicago) than there were before the $15K raise. Maybe that's enough to motivate Chicago firms to raise. Maybe not. But that's where the debate lies - the solution won't be found in comparing purchasing power and concluding that as long as Chicago is cheaper, it will always be the prime destination for attorneys (and thus, no need for firms to raise).

I think if Chi-town waits til Fall to raise to 160, it will definitively settle in as a mediocre market. If prestigious, national firms like Mayer, Jenner, Sidley, etc. wait to Fall to raise, there is no way Chi-town can be seen as anything other than a back-seat player. Anyone disagree?

Amazing that Mayer, Kirkland, and Sidley have still not gone up to 160. How do they expect to compete for talent in DC? Do they really expect their attorneys to give up $15,000 every year when they can get similar work at the DC offices of firms like Gibson, Latham, O'Melveny, and the NY-based firms?

12:08 is right on the money. This is not a discussion about COL.

12:13 is right that Kirkland, Sidley, Jenner & Mayer all have DC offices. How can they not raise in DC and continue to compete for talent?

Skadden, Latham and Paul Hastings are already $160k in Chicago.

I think Kirkland is the lynchpin for three reasons:

(1) they can't stay behind in DC (K&E is $160k in CA but $145k in DC currently);

(2) once they move in DC, they can't keep Chicago (the home and by far largest office) behind ALL other offices without increased resentment/departures; and

(3) they compete for the top nationwide talent from the top law schools - if Chicago's market falls behind, so will K&E's talent.

Lat -

Using terms like "flyover country" even if you put it in quotes is going to make you a lot of enemies...

Not paying $160 isn't going to make Chicago firms mediocore or 2nd tier. What fool would say, "I'm not going to Chicago because they're paying less than DC" even though in real terms they aren't paying less? Who thinks like that?

Chicago will have no trouble attracting top legal talent - people choose to live in cities for a myriad of reasons beyond raw salary figures.

I am currently clerking and have an offer from what I consider one of the Chicago big three, Kirkland, Sidley, or Mayer, which I have not yet accepted. I prefer not to mention which one. In any case, I would like to accept that offer, but I have started interviewing with other firms that have made the leap to secure a backup option if I can. I really enjoy the work, the people, and the firm at which I have an offer; but I can't swallow making $15K less in the same city at firms that I consider to be no better than those three. So if push comes to shove and I get a job offer at one of the $160K firms, I'm taking it. As I expect I will only have a couple weeks to make the decision, I really hope the market moves before then, because I'd really prefer to stick to a place where I know the people and am certain that I like the work. Consider me one market data point --- even if an anonymous one.

12:24: if people in flyover country cared about whether coasties consider this flyover country, they would have moved to the coasts to relieve themselves of this stigma. those of us who are left don't care what we're called.

anyway. does anybody know what the Much Shelist bonus situation is?

12:24...Would "Connecting Flight Country" make you feel better?

I would be incredibly shocked and perturbed if WLRK, Skadden, DPW, S & C and STB allowed their NY associates to be paid the same as those in places like Denver and Sacramento. I think these NY offices will raise once again in the immediate future.

it is a little ridiculous that cities outside nyc with a fraction of living expenses have the same associate salaries. without an nyc premium, you have to wonder how long it will retain its recruiting dominance.

If Kirkland raises in Chicago (which I believe it will) it will not do so because of raises on the west coast or DC, rather it will do so because it believes that if it does not it will lose too many potential hires to Latham (and Skadden).

12:26 - someone who also likes DC, in fact, likes it more than Chicago, but not more than the relative COL differences. Of course, once the DC market significantly removes that consideration by raising salaries, that person will likely end up in DC.

No one is "all about the money," and no one is "all about everything but the money." People move to cities for lots of reasons, and purchasing power is one of them. But it's an economic fact - if you raise salaries today in City X, City X looks more attractive to work in than it did yesterday. And while I can't prove it, I'd say it's likely there are significant numbers of attorneys and aspiring attorneys who wouldn't hate living in either Chicago or DC (or LA, or SF, or NY). Some of these people will be swayed by the money, even though it's not the only reason they like those places.

flyover country or flight-connecting... you sound dumb. chicago is not NYC, but you have to give it some love.

Also, is the Much Shelist memo authentic?? they don't seem to have offices in the cities listed, nor is there any reference to a pay increase on their website (which you would think they'd be trumpeting)

That's a Latham memo - LeeAnn Black works for Latham, and Latham has an Associates Committee, etc. That's just a Latham memo with the firm name changed. Latham has offices in all those cities.
Talk about Texas...

holy crap, nobody cares about texas. texas fools with their cowboy hats and shotguns can whine all they want about their salaries or cost of living. Truth is, nobody cares about texas. so quit your bitchin!

If Kirkland raises in Chicago (which I believe it will) it will not do so because of raises on the west coast or DC, rather it will do so because it believes that if it does not it will lose too many potential hires to Latham (and Skadden).

holy crap, nobody cares about texas. texas fools with their cowboy hats and shotguns can whine all they want about their salaries or cost of living. Truth is, nobody cares about texas. so quit your bitchin!

holy crap, nobody cares about texas. texas fools with their cowboy hats and shotguns can whine all they want about their salaries or cost of living. Truth is, nobody cares about texas. so quit your bitchin!

"12:26 - someone who also likes DC, in fact, likes it more than Chicago, but not more than the relative COL differences. Of course, once the DC market significantly removes that consideration by raising salaries, that person will likely end up in DC. "

Not the person I posited. I was speaking of someone who makes a decision to go to DC because the pay was $160 even though $145 in Chicago is actually more in real terms. Someone who makes the decision based primarily on money, but doesn't account for COL is about as a major idiot.

who cares about chicago or texas??? it's all about BOSTON.

Coasties? Isn't that a term for people in he coast guard? What do they have to do with this?

12:38 is right. This memo looks phony.

Much Shelist only has Chicago and Irvine offices. Further, I'd be stunned if they are at 145K now...I'd expect them to be a few notches lower based on comments made in an article in the Chicago Lawyer a month or two ago. (I'd guess 125K tops)

It does, in fact, look like the Latham memo.... Someone should put 12:38 in charge of fact-checking.

Wait and $ee: Texas-Based Firms' Lone Star Offices Unmoved in Current Round of Pay Hikes

By Brenda Sapino Jeffreys
Texas Lawyer
Monday, May 14, 2007

Despite a major market move to higher associate salaries in California this month, Texas-based associates with large Texas-based firms are out of the big money, at least for a while.

In Texas, the seismic shift in California had just a small impact on the associate salary market. Los Angeles firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which has an office in Dallas, raised its first-year starting base to $160,000 in the wake of the raises instituted by other major California firms — including for its Dallas associates. Houston-based Susman Godfrey upped starting salaries to $160,000 for associates in offices in New York and Los Angeles in response to the increases at the California firms.

But the market isn't moving in Texas — at least so far — as the Big-Tex firms monitor the market by assessing the competition and looking for any slip in recruiting prowess.

"Everybody is watching it," says Howard Ayers, managing partner of Houston-based Andrews Kurth.

The $160,000 base became the New York market rate in January, but it wasn't until the early days of May that a group of large California-based firms moved to the same rate. That's what put Susman Godfrey, which traditionally pays huge bonuses to its associates, over the edge.

"We've got a growing New York office, and, just from a competitive standpoint, we thought it was the right move to make at this point," Susman Godfrey partner Shawn Raymond says about the timing of the raises in New York and Los Angeles.

Raymond, employment chairman for the firm, says the timing of the new, higher salaries for first-year and second-year associates at Susman Godfrey in New York and Los Angeles directly relates to the market move in California.

First-year associates with Susman Godfrey in New York and Los Angeles will earn a base salary of $160,000, and the base goes up to $170,000 for second-year associates. In Houston, Dallas and Seattle, the comparable base salaries are $140,000 and $145,000, the 84-lawyer firm announced on May 8.

In Texas, associates at the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn also got a raise effective May 1. Karl Nelson, the partner in charge of the Dallas office, says the firm upped its associate salary scale firmwide, including the increase in the first-year starting base salary to $160,000.

Nelson says the raises Gibson, Dunn announced on May 8 are in response to the wave of salary hikes launched on May 3 by San Francisco-based Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Orrick, which doesn't have offices in Texas, announced the increase to $160,000 in starting base pay in all California offices, except Sacramento.

Nelson says Gibson, Dunn, which has 40 lawyers in Dallas, wants to remain competitive.

"We think we've got extraordinarily talented associates, and we want to be able to compete for the best talent out there," he says.

But large Texas firms apparently aren't feeling such pressure. There's no word of a raise coming from any of the largest firms based in Texas — even from Houston-based Vinson & Elkins, the firm that was the first major Texas firm to follow big New York firms in 2006 and raise its associate salary scale. At that time, V&E moved to a $135,000 starting base salary for first-year lawyers, a level that most large Texas firms met. [See "Talent Competition," Texas Lawyer, Dec. 25, 2006, page 24.]

"We constantly try to keep abreast of the market, and we have not done anything to change our salaries at this point in time. That's sort of where we are," says Joseph Dilg, managing partner of the 740-lawyer V&E.

V&E, like other major Texas firms, increased salaries at its New York and Washington, D.C., offices earlier this year after New York-based Simpson Thacher & Bartlett moved to a $160,000 first-year base salary and other firms in New York followed Simpson Thacher's lead. V&E pays a first-year starting salary of $160,000 in New York and $145,000 in D.C. But V&E and several other Big-Tex firms do not currently plan to raise Texas salaries, according to interviews with partners in management at the firms.

Ayers says the firm adjusted starting salaries this spring at its offices in New York and Washington, D.C. — to $160,000 and $135,000 respectively — but is standing pat in Texas.

"What the Texas firms have done, many of them anyway, is adjust salaries on a market-by-market basis, and, so far, there hasn't been market pressure to do so in Texas," says Ayers.

In 2006, Andrews Kurth was quick to follow V&E's move, announcing within hours that it would also raise its salary scale.

But today other large Texas firms, including Baker Botts of Houston and Dallas firms Thompson & Knight, Haynes and Boone and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, also are taking a wait-and-see attitude.

"We are always watching the market, as you can imagine, but at this point we are not planning on a raise in the Texas offices," says Terry Conner, a partner in Haynes and Boone in Dallas who is the firm's financial partner.

Akin Gump is watching the Texas market closely but isn't currently considering associate raises, despite attempts by California firms to match the New York first-year rate, says Kenneth Menges, the partner in charge of the Dallas office of Akin Gump.

"I think most observers would differentiate the Texas market from both coasts, but that being said, we will of course be competitive in Texas, and so far I'm seeing no signs of any movement here," Menges says.

Peter Riley, managing partner of Thompson & Knight, says, "We're staying where we are. We raised New York to $160,000, but we are keeping our package the same otherwise."

Raise Fatigue?

Why are Texas firms seemingly more reluctant in 2007 than in 2006 to raise associate salary scales?

Perhaps because it's only been a year since salary scales went up. Prior to 2006, the last major round of salary increases took place in 2000, in a wave of raises led by firms in the Silicon Valley struggling to keep their associates from defecting to dotcoms. But Texas firms may still be digesting the cost of those 2006 raises.

Conner says, "If you hadn't had the good increase in '06, then certainly you would see movement today."

Texas firms also hope their associates understand that the cost of living is lower in Texas, Conner notes.

"You have to love the Texas market, whether you are a firm or a client or an associate, because everything is a little lower here, but in a good way: Salaries are a little lower, rents are lower, billing rates, but also cost of living," he says.

At least so far, Texas firms also don't seem to be feeling pressure to raise salaries to win recruiting wars.

"We haven't noticed any issues there," says Dilg.

Ayers says, "We have not seen an impact, but we assume our associates and law students are watching the market just as we are."

Conner says, "We have not noticed it here, and so far I would not say we are worried about it, but we are always vigilant to make sure that we don't fall behind, that's for sure."

Directors at career services offices at two law schools in Texas say the disparity between first-year starting salaries at major Texas-based firms in Texas and at big firms in New York or D.C. or elsewhere isn't a big concern for students seeking post-graduation jobs.

"They want to stay in Texas," says Karen Sargent, assistant dean and director of career services at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in Dallas. "The cost of living and the quality of life here is much better."

Katherine Logue, director of the career services office at Baylor University School of Law in Waco, says that's the case for Baylor students as well.

The higher salaries in cities outside of Texas are a "non-factor at this point," Logue says.

"The cost of living here, even if you are in Dallas or Houston, even in Austin, is less than in most of these other places. Students take that into consideration," she says.

Houston firm consultant William C. Cobb of Cobb Consulting says that in recruiting Texas firms can resist the pressure to raise salaries in Texas as long as Texas natives want to practice in Texas — even those who go to top law schools around the country.

"There's enough kids, who are really sharp, who really want to go back to Texas. Maybe they will be able to resist it," Cobb says, noting that if prospective associates begin to turn down offers to work in Texas, saying they would prefer to go work in California for a few years to make more money, then the firms may hike salaries in Texas.

Last Round

In March 2006, V&E made associates all over Texas happy when it increased its associate salary scale, raising first-year base salaries to $135,000 in Texas and $145,000 in D.C. and in New York City. Those pay packages were retroactive to March 1, 2006.

Within hours of V&E's move, Andrews Kurth notified its associates that the firm would increase its salary scale, effective Jan. 1, 2006. After that, most large Texas firms followed suit by raising their associate salary scales, although the salary scales differ somewhat, primarily in how bonuses are determined, with some firms adopting more of an hours-based bonus system than in the past.

The last time large Texas firms made a salary jump was in 2000, when most of the Big-Tex firms moved to a salary package of $115,000 for Texas associates.

But this January, when New York firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett raised its associate salary scale, including a new first-year base of $160,000, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007, a number of other New York firms quickly followed suit: including Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Both firms have offices in Texas, and associates in those Texas offices also got those rich raises. [See: "Money Talks," Texas Lawyer, Jan. 29, 2007, page 3.]

Associates at some other out-of-state firms with Texas offices, such as Fish & Richardson, which has offices in Dallas and Austin, also followed by moving to the $160,000 base for first-years in offices around the country. [See: "Fish Scale," Texas Lawyer, Feb. 5, 2007, page 3.]

Another consideration for Texas-based firms watching the California pay hike might be the reaction of clients, who are quick to equate higher associate salaries with higher billing rates.

General counsel heading some of the nation's largest legal departments also say they don't want to read about associate raises in a newspaper — they would prefer to hear about it from their outside counsel, according to a survey conducted in April by Altman Weil, a management consulting firm based in Newtown Square, Pa.

In a survey answered by general counsel at 38 of the 200 largest legal departments in the country, 84 percent of the general counsel say firms should contact them about the associate raises and what it might mean to them as clients. All of the GCs who participated in the survey say they were not contacted this year by firms that raised associate salaries.

More than half of the GCs, 58 percent, characterize the new $160,000 starting base rate as "outrageous "; 16 percent say it's part of the cost of doing business with firms; 5 percent say "this issue isn't even on my radar screen "; and the rest had other answers.

Also according to the survey, 20 percent of the GCs say, because of this year's salary hikes, they do not allow first-year and second-year associates to do work for them.

As one GC wrote on the survey, "On the workflow front, we are VERY reluctant to allow younger associates to attend meetings, hearings, etc., unless their participation is essential."

Is this a real firm or is this a joke?

12:54 - then I agree that the person you posited doesn't exist. But I don't think anyone here is arguing that associates only care about absolute salary, free of COL concerns. That doesn't mean that DC going to $160 is a silly reason to go to DC, inasmuch as it is another factor why someone might want to practice there. The straw that breaks the camel's back, if you will.

Real firm, bogus memo.

Dude, this place has 85 attorneys - it is totally irrelevant for these discussions. Its financial picture might be totally different - PPP could have been 10mm last year for all we know. It isn't part of the "market" - it might as well be referred to as a "boutique"

What's taking Boston so long?!

Much Shelist only has offices in Chicago and Irvine, CA. Bad fact checking, Lat...

The fact is, there is a very real COL difference between NY and all other cities. For that reason, we could accept that firms paid more to NY associates. There is only a small COL difference between Chicago and, for example, DC. Add to that the fact that we are doing the same work they are doing there, or in NY, and it begins to feel like Chicago associates are not appreciated. No one wants to do their best work when they don't feel that they are appreciated.

With each day that passes, Chi-town is becoming less and less relevant.

yes, 1:15, the difference is called: please spend $3500 a month on rent in some ridiculously extravagant new building in order to justify life. go live in brooklyn for $1200 a month and the COL shrinks to just about nothing.

Latham has already increased its salary for Chicago associates to $160K, effective retroactively to May 1st. It's only a matter of time until Kirkland, Sidley, Mayer, etc. follow suit.

yes, 1:15, the difference is called: please spend $3500 a month on rent in some ridiculously extravagant new building in order to justify life. go live in brooklyn for $1200 a month and the COL difference shrinks to just about nothing.

The reason that COL is higher in NYC is exactly the reason why NYC should pay less not more.

COL is higher because more people want to live there. Because people are already attracted to NYC, firms don't need to pay as much to get people to work in NYC.

See how that works.

that is 100% the latham memo

Much Shelist has no practices that would support premium rates (e.g. IP, private equity, high-end litigation, etc.) They are a mid-size regional GP firm, not a boutique.

1:22. If be "less" you mean "exactly the same," then yes, I see how it works. Otherwise no, it makes no economic sense.

I agree that the memo is probably fake. Much Shelist is nothing special in terms of law firms and I'd be surprised if they were even paying 145k.

Philly? Philly? Philly? Our pay scale sucks and our bonuses are even worse!

I think it's a real-fake memo. I bet it came from Much Shelist, in an effort to get some cheap PR. I bet there are a lot more people that know about the firm than there were 2 hours ago. Wouldn't be the craziest thing...

Can David Lat PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get/pay an economics professor or someone equally conversant in economics to post some simplified tutorials and explanations of how the economics of law firm associates salaries work and work in relevant COL/city issues? About half of the posts in these discussions belie an absolute dearth of knowledge of such matters. See, e.g., 1:22.

Philly, Boston, and Texas are irrelevant for now. With NY, LA, & DC done, the next question is decisively CHI. Everyone else will have their time in the sun once CHI is determined.

1:35 is a partner. From what city, though?

DC is done? I didn't realize that.

COL doesn't make a bit of difference. I didn't decide where to practice based on COL, it was based on the legal market. If Chicago doesn't walk and talk like a real legal market, I'm leaving, even if my COL goes up.

It seems odd to me that people are talking about Chicago before talking about Boston. Boston has a much higher cost of living than Chicago, no?

To 1:41, I agree its not really accurate to say DC is "done." A lot of that is up in air - Hogan and Akin moved, but A&P, Covington, and Wilmer have not yet done anything. It will be interesting to see what happens, because pre-merger, I think Wilmer would have moved already. Now, however, they have to face the fact that a move in DC also equals a move in Boston, which so far has avoided the latest round of increases. A&P and Covington, in turn, tend not to be early movers, and may be waiting on Wilmer, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

12:08 -- I'm 11:59. You and I are actually on the same page; I obviously just wasn't clear.

I'm not saying this has anything to do with what a person "deserves". Just supply and demand. I was reacting to LAT's comment (echoed by others) that Chicago would be TT if it didn't raise and I found this logic absurd.

I realize that there are many reasons people choose cities but my point was that nominal salary alone could not possibly the right measuring stick. It seems strange that, say, Chicago can attract just the right number of people by having the same nominal salary as NY, CA, and DC. Sure, there's a point at which someone in New York will move to Houston, or vice versa, but generally those markets are not competing with each other for the same people.

My argument is that what should matter to any of us factoring salary into our calculations is the real value of the salary rather than the nominal value. It could well be that it takes 160 to get me to move from city X to city Y, but that's because of what the 160 can buy in city Y relative to what 160 can buy in city X, not because the piece of paper happens to say 160.

Not looking good Lat.

I completely echo everyone on here who has pointed out that Chicago is not as relevant to the salary discussion as Boston. Not only does it have a higher cost of living, which is certainly relevant, but it is also simply a better legal market.

At least one top Boston shop is moving to 160. No memo yet but about as solid as rumor as you can ask for going around.

We're talking about Chicago because several firms in Chicago have already moved to 160, and those moves should put pressure on other Chicago firms to follow. The rumor mentioned by 2:04 is the first we've heard of anything in Boston, and Boston firms certainly can't be feeling the same pressure as the top Chicago firms. That's why the talk is currently focused on Chicago.

2:04, do you have a name? ropes? foley? goodwin? choate? bueller?

1:55 - I'm 12:08. Then I absolutely agree. The prestige of a law firm or law market would seemingly have little to do with what it pays versus other firms in other markets. I'm sure there's a lot of $160 NY firms that don't crack the V100 list, and certainly K&E Chicago can out-recruit them right now (maybe not for everyone, but for most), assuming that person isn't a "NY or bust" individual.

I'm also not sure that Boston is more relevant (whatever that means in this context), nor do I grasp the concept that Boston salaries are effectively frozen until there's an ATL posting specific to them.

2:01 = Denny Crane.

2:09 - I do have a name, and will post as soon as it's confirmed. I'm sure if you're on this board you know Boston's not the most transparent of cities. Small town and all.

Some Boston firms, specifically Wilmer, Ropes, and Goodwin, must definitely be feeling the pressure. All have offices in DC and San Francisco. If they want to stay competitive in those cities, they must raise to 160, and when they raise their DC and SF offices to 160, they will have major pressure to raise in Boston as well.

While some Chicago firms could at least still make the argument that COL is lower there than on the coasts, the Boston firms can't make the argument that COL is lower there than it is in SF (it's probably about equal) or DC. I'm not saying salaries are purely based on their relationship to COL, but the public justifications the firms give are usually tied to that.

Look, if Boston firms were going to move, they had all the reason they needed when Fish & Richardson went to 160 months ago. The recent movement in Chicago necessitates the question being asked by this post. Contrary to some posts on this board, the Chicago market DOES matter.

Can David Lat PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get/pay an english professor or someone equally conversant in english to explain to 1:35(2) what "belie" means?

Goodwin has 4 offices in CA. One would think they're weighing their options.

you seriously think boston is a better legal market than chicago?!

you seriously think boston is a better legal market than chicago?!

Can David Lat PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE guess how much I can bench press?!?

Doesn't matter how many times you ask, I seriously think Boston is a better legal market than Chicago.

anon 1:35 -- if by "belie" you meant "display," i would tend to agree with you. but belie doesn't mean display so i'm not sure what you meant.

Kirkland, Mayer, Sidley, Jenner . . . does anyone at these firms know what they are going to do?

Can David Lat PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE guess how much I can bench press?!?

Again, I really want to question the degree to which markets compete with each other. Most people look at 2 markets absolutely tops. I don't doubt that there's a point at which someone will move from Boston to New York, but I seriously wonder how many people would go for a 15k pay difference (particularly given other "soft" quality of life issues). Sure, there will be some people, but maybe not enough to put serious pressure on the Boston firms. Most of the people in Boston are there because they want to... be in Boston.

To take a silly example, let's say that tomorrow Houston salaries went to 190 and absolutely no one else moved. How many people from NY or SF would really want to go to Houston? The same is true in reverse -- let's say SF went to 210 tomorrow. Do we really think SF would be inundated by applications from folks in Houston or Atlanta?

I'm not claiming to know the degree to which markets are interrelated and only a complete idiot would think there isn't a tight link between certain city pairs (NY & DC come to mind). I simply question the assumption that merely because NY moves to 160 Chicago or Boston or wherever has to do the same to get quality talent.

As a side note, I'd really warn people against knocking the talent outside of the big cities. I'm just a junior associate, but I can't tell you the number of times I've seen some crafty plaintiff's lawyer from Phoenix or Providence or wherever the hell come dangerously close to beating the living !#$@# out of a more highly credentialed team from DC or NY...

i actually think there's quite a bit of movement between NY, boston, and DC

2:04 is all BS

I'll happily accept drinks at the end of the week after the announcement is made.

p.s. 2:46 molests collies. I have proof.

Yesh, but who's going to be in a "better" position to "pay" for the drinks? you or me?

Why just collies? turd.

Your typos and use of quotes frightens and confuses me. Let's just say I'm getting a raise, and maybe you are too.

I don't know why just collies, man. Must be your thing.

Kirkland, Wintson, Sidley and Jenner are considering the bump. If it doesn't happen now then it will happen in Jan 08. Will these firms wait? Clearly they aren't going to lose their current associates overnight, but it will slowly take it's toll in terms of recruiting. Especially with summers arriving at many of these firms this week and fall recruiting right around the corner. We can agrue cost of living versus here or there and prestige in one particular area or another, but the fact is that there are three large firms paying on the $160k scale in Chicago, Illinois at this very moment. For better or for worse law students and summers look at these numbers. And other attorneys also look at them as some measure of the firm's prestige/success. After all, if they are paying more then you bet they are charging more and that's a measure of what clients value. There IS a new standard in Chicago.

2:04 - Gee, I sure hope the head of your Comp Committee is reading this so your little dream comes true!!!!

nice try - it might happen, but not because of your "solid rumor"!

informal poll: how many people here wish they had to gone to business school, instead?

2:04: Talk about typos - your post said "as solid as rumor as you can ask for going around" What exactly does that mean, you Collie-humper?

I understand people don't like rumors on this board (though I'm not certain why they otherwise exist). And to be honest I'm nervous about unbridled raises and what types of cuts/lay-offs it might mean down the road. We've seen this happen before, and not too long ago.

Anonymous Clerk - If you really feel that way, once you get an offer from a 160 Chicago firm, I think you should tell someone at the 145 firm what you are thinking. They might tell you whether the firm is going to increase, or give you more time, or at least they would know that people they want to hire are considering going to 160 firms because of the salary difference. Once you have both offers, I don't think you really have anything to lose, and saying that might help yourself and other associates.

2:46 - Come on, you can think of another insult, can't you? Just repeating what I said, but applying it to me is kind of lame. At least use a different breed or something.

Doesn't matter how many times you ask, I seriously think Boston is a better legal market than Chicago.

1:18 - "go live in brooklyn for $1200 a month and the COL difference shrinks to just about nothing"

If by "just about nothing," you mean still substantial, then I'm totally with you. I spent last summer in BK and the previous summer in Chicago. First, you have the much larger tax bill. Then, you have the price of groceries and energy (cheaper in Chicago than NYC). Finally, you have the much nicer apartment that you can get in Lakeview/Wrigleyville than in Park Slope for $1200.

You got rooked, Lat - anyone active in the Chicago market could have told you there is no way Much Shelist is at $145 now, and no way they're going to $160.

Morgan Lewis is No. 12 on the AmLaw 100 and No. 41 in the Vault survey. Its PPP was $1.24 million last year. Morgan Lewis is a top tier national law firm and it should be ashamed of the fact that it has not yet matched the $160,000 salary.

hey 3:48 - thanks for the reminder of the grossly reductive thinking that Lat and others have promulgated regarding big law firms. does the below sound familiar to anyone?

[product] changes are usually minor; they can be merely a change in packaging or also include a change in advertising theme. The physical product need not change, but it could. The major sources of product differentiation are as follows.

* Differences in quality or design among output (product)
* Ignorance of buyers regarding the essential characteristics and qualities of goods they are purchasing
* Pervasive sales promotion activities of sellers and, in particular, advertising
* Possibility of developing significant product differentiation through advertising is greatly enhanced for so called “gift goods” or “prestige goods”
* Differentiation in the locations of sellers of the same good where the product fills no technical function but rather can satisfy many different sort of personal needs or uses (psychological or physical).

The objective of this strategy is to develop a position that potential customers will see as unique. If your target market sees your product as different from the competitors', you will have more flexibility in developing your marketing mix. A successful product differentiation strategy will move your product from competing based primarily on price to competing on non-price factors (such as product characteristics, distribution strategy, or promotional variables).

Differentiation has been shown to impact firm performance positively both theoretically and empirically. Differentiation primarily impacts performance through two mechanisms:

* Reduced price elasticity: Consumers may become willing to pay a premium price for the differentiating factor/s.
* Reducing directness of competition: As the product becomes more different, categorization becomes more difficult and hence draws fewer comparisons with its competition.

Most people would say that the implication of differentiation is the possibility of charging a price premium; however, this is a gross simplification. If customers value the firm's offer, they will be less sensitive to aspects of competing offers; price may not be one of these aspects. Differentiation makes customers in a given segment have a lower sensitivity to other features (non-price) of the product.

2:59 - - "Kirkland, Wintson, Sidley and Jenner are considering the bump."

Where is this coming from?

2:59, who spells Winston "Wintson"? You clearly are in the Know.

Hey, I just copied - - he/she wrote Wintson. Maybe it's jive for super cool firm.

Someone else PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use another "if by ... you mean ..." phrase. I'm thinking of trying it out in my next brief, but I want to see it in practice a few more times.

Hey lat-
can you start a chicago list of shame?

Weil, Gotshal pays $160 in Boston (and everywhere in the US, at least).