Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Orrick still pays the 1950 bonus (and all bonuses). So MoFo is still $15-$20k behind.

I'll bet they could pay $170 if they cut health insurance and vacations. Then everyone would want to work there, right?

NY pay is expensive, hence Orrick not passing it out in Portland, OR. But NY pay is base plus bonus, and it sounds like MoFo just raised their min billable to 2100+ to get a bonus, so which is the better deal and which is the poser? Pay bonuses to SF, DC & the rest or spin the pay shuffle like it's actually a raise by bumping up ten associates in Denver?

I don't get it: Is someone going to pick MoFo SF over Orrick SF because Orrick pays less in Sacramento? Or is someone going to pick Orrick SF over MoFo SF because Orrick pays more in SF?

That was weak.

Please don't refer to 160k as the "New York" pay scale. The less permanency the better.

MoFo has 10 attorneys in Sac. so it's nothing for them to bump up to $160 there. They were already at $145 anyways.

Moreover, rumor has it that Orrick has gone to 1) a New York market bonus for billables of 2,100, as well as 2) $25K at 2,000 (for first years, increasing by year I think).

I'm wondering though if anyone can confirm the bonus rumor...

I can't confirm the bonus rumor (just have friends at Orrick, don't work there). Maybe next week.

Sounds good. If anyone else can confirm, doing so would be much appreciated.

The MoFo "increase" is a little silly, considering the elimination of the 1950 bonus. It is basically a wash for my year, although I suppose all else being equal I'd rather have that $15K this year than waiting until Feb of next year.

If Orrick and/or OMM pay any bonus before 2100 -- and I have no idea whether that is, in fact, true -- then MoFo remains behind and I doubt anyone will be fooled.

I like the idea of not making bonuses contingent on meeting billable hours. I may be totally off here, as I'm only a student, but it seems the move would reduce pressure to bill. People who are just doing the firm thing a couple years to pay off loans can take it easy, while those gunning for partner track can bill their butts off.

Lat,

Here is an idea for a thread:

List of Shame for NY Firms that haven't moved to $190,000

You've got to hit the non-160 firms hard.

Not that they are a california firm, but what's the deal with Jones Day? I understand they don't pay bonuses either; do they pay a higher base to compensate for that, or are they just on the NY scale?

Jones Day just pays a base salary. They used to pay "above market" ($130K) when market was $125k. Now they're just trying to hang on.

They may as well be a DC firm like Hogan or Wilmer- they act the same in DC. They're too cool/elite to stoop to paying you as much as other firms for the same work.

So you might rather just work at another BigLaw firm and pocket the $30k in extra pay. (Unless you're trying to work in Cleveland.)

Hey 2L, there is no such thing as "taking it easy" at the big firms anymore, regardless of whether you hope to make partner or not. With these higher salaries, the economics just don't work unless the associates are billing high hours. That is the why our happiness about higher salaries has to be tempered with realization that the pressure to bill is increasing every time we get a raise.

Lat,

We also need a list of shame for non-50K bonus firms. I'm thinking the headliner should be Debevoise. Please put a little heat on them ASAP.

MoFo should be on any list of shame until they give a real raise.

2L, it's also why any firm that justifies paying you less by claiming that it has a better lifestyle is probably bs-ing you. How many partners will take a pay cut so you can have a weekend off?

But giving the money back to associates won't make a difference. The partnership is already maximizing profits every way possible; there is no tightening of standards or increased expectation that would not have come anyway- it's the only way to go from $1.1 to $1.2mil per partner.

Don't listen to James Sandman. Even if he'd let you take it easy for a paycut, his partners would simply pocket the change and then ask you to step up like you will have to anyway.

Given a choice between working hard to make a partner rich and getting paid $135k and working hard to make a partner rich and getting paid $160k, I'll take the latter.

1:08pm(2) is right -- if you disagree, put yourself in this situation. You're at a $135k firm as a young associate. Friday at 6pm, your boss says "we have a Monday, 9am deadline on this."

Can you possibly imagine saying, "well, yea, but I only make $135k, so I am not coming in this weekend. If this was a $160k firm, I realize I'd have to, but I came here so I wouldn't have to do that."

No chance. Do you think the partner will be any less likely to ask?

So, when is Chicago (outside of Skadden) going to raise to 160k? Shouldn't these raises put pressure on Chicago firms? Isn't Chicago the only such large city that hasn't gone to 160k?

Lat, how bout some love for NJ. Can we put some pressure on the cheap Jersey firms

WAIT WAIT WAIT.

Lemme get this straight:

MoFo is paying Mo'fo's in DENVER and SACRAMENTO and NORTHERN VA and SAN DIEGO the same as me in my New York firm?!!??!!

WTF? This is BULLSHIT!

Hey 2:48, stop whining. Poor little you in your "New York firm." Please. As if your lemming mentality, sucker-for-punishment professional choices deserve any pity. You don't want to work in NY and get paid 160? Move to Denver.

NY to 190. NOW

A bunch of DC-centered firms are still paying $145 everywhere but New York. I'm not sure how much longer they can last without facing serious recruitment problems.

2:48: Northern Virginia = DC. The associates live in DC, face the same cost of living, etc.

New York should be at 190. We work way longer hours and have way more expenses.

Why is there all of this NYC vs. non-NYC associate fighting? Isnt it really about associates versus partners? The Sac/Denver/BFE offices should love NYC to go up to 190 and the NYC people should be rooting for those non-NYC offices to go to 160K. Those moves benefit all assocites regardless of where they are working because it puts more pressure on their salaries going up. The pie isnt being divided between associates in Denver and NYC, its being divided between all partners and all associates. I feel like it is playing into firm management hands for associates in NYC to be complaining about associates' pay raises in non-NYC markets.

"I feel like it is playing into firm management hands for associates in NYC to be complaining about associates' pay raises in non-NYC markets."

Wouldn't NYC complaints cause the same pay raises you speak of?

Can someone explain to me why it makes any sense for all firms to pay the same? Both why it makes sense for one firm to pay the same in two different offices (large COL gaps) and why it makes sense for two firms in the same city to pay the same?

If there's a ceiling on wages, aren't we all underpaid?

Also, why should one firm in one office pay two associates the same if they're worth different amounts to the firm?

Everyone needs to keep in mind first-year associates were making 17% of an average partner draw in 2000 and last year only made 11%. This is all about partner greed (and associate greed as well to a lesser extent) so we should keep in mind raises could just mean a bit less walking around money for partners instead of more hours for associates. Plus, can most associates really work any more at this point?

As a student headed back to Colorado, I was happy when the top of the Denver market hit $145k. If it gets bumped up to $160k, thanks to MoFo, all the better. :) (And I thought I was leaving all the money behind by moving to a smaller city....)

I admit it is unfair that we'd be making as much as our counterparts in NYC. They do get higher bonuses--but that really doesn't compensate. But the fact that they have far more opportunities for career growth in a large legal market should even things out a little bit.

mofo seems to be in such decline... when i first started law school, it was the top choice of firms in sf for most students. definitely not true anymore. and this is just another reason (out of many) as to why.

i can't believe mofo is just moving the bonus to boost the base pay. really, really sad move. glad i'm not going there.

I think any Chicago firm's excuse for staying at 145K just got a lot weaker...

"Everyone needs to keep in mind first-year associates were making 17% of an average partner draw in 2000 and last year only made 11%."

How much would a first year need to make to hit that 17%?

What percentage of partner profits were associates at in 1990, say?

Give Mofo a break--their profits per partner last year were less than half Quinn's and almost 750k less than Latham's.

See http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Quinn+Emanuel+hits+the+$2+million+mark:+firm's+profits-per-partner...-a0161284438

That said, Latham and GDC have no excuse now that OMM has made a move. Throw Paul Hastings in there as well.

Is O'melveny doing the same thing as MoFo or is MoFo making this pathetic move on its own. Do they really think that word won't spread that they're taking away the bonus?

This makes them look worse than if they'd made no move. They're actually getting negative publicity.

Where are those "better life in biglaw" kids when you need them? Mofo, the big quality of life firm, is tanking. Shouldn't they be clamoring over Mofo's economic compromises for quality of life? Shouldn't they be proving the rest of us wrong?

See http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/04/law_students_having_a_cake_and.php

Where are you on this one Craig?

When I did callbacks for MoFo I was astountingly unimpressed, especially since I had such high hopes from everything I had read on paper, and the impression I got from the screening interviews. MoFo needs to right its ship, it is sinking fast and hard. This Mickey Mouse bonus swap move is the lastest from them. Someone above had it right, they'd have been better to make no move. All they've really done is given a raise to the lazy associates, and a slap in the face to the onces who were putting in their hours. 1950, what a joke. I have a feeling if I did under 1950, I wouldn't be seeing ANY paycheck for too long. Even at a "lifestyle" BigLaw firm.

Who has a good guess on what Latham will do on salaries and clerk bonuses (and when they will do it)?

mofo is definitely NOT a lifestyle firm. they must have great marketing and pr to make so many students think they are, but people i've talked to who have actually worked there or had any interaction with them know that their reputation is undeserved and quite contrary to the actual environment.

Try working in fucking London at $1.99/£1. Some of us don't have U.S. passports.

In fairness to MoFo, it really does not pretend to be a lifestyle firm anymore. Those days are long over and MoFo management actively discourages any recruiting efforts based on the "lifestyle" concept, b/c they know that would be false advertising.

They also probably feel that the lifestyle tag will not impress the kinds of clients they are looking for these days.

The bonus swap thing really is goofy, though -- do they actually think people are not going to see through it?

Does anyone have definitive info on Orrick and OMM bonuses? MoFo is getting bashed about the bonus thing, but I've yet to see the actual numbers that would permit us to compare the total compensation packages at all three firms.

Paris Hilton's going to jail,
tra la la la la!

As a summer associate, one senior partner at my biglaw firm said it best: As soon as you market yourself as a lifestyle firm, you get lazy associates. I think there is some truth in that...why not be honest and say you'll get an education, but it will suck.

good call on the lazy assocs.

Look - mofo just added the bonus at 1950 last year; and they havent taken away the hours bonus entirely, just that 1950 bonus (which was small anyway). This raise is a good thing. PLUS, they made it clear that if you wouldve been better off under the old 1950 bonus system, they will make up the difference in Jan 08.

NY to 190...

ha ha...I get to buy a sweet house w/ my 160k in CA and you all in NY have to work more hours and live in a studio...

come out West...California is warmer and more fun!

yeah, but my bonus is bigger than your mom's ass

What kind of house are you buying in LA for 160? And, I've seen his mom's ass..it's quite nice.

NY sucks: A different smell on every corner.

I've seen his mom's ass..it's quite nice.

NY sucks: A different smell on every corner.

6:33 - The notion that you were able to effectively guage the economic health of a firm and determine that it was a sinking ship during the course of your screening interview is beyond nonsense.

MoFo took me to a crappy lunch in La Jolla - you have to TRY to have a crappy lunch in La Jolla...

12:52, the "must bill 2x00 hours for associates to be profitable" line is a HUGE LIE promulgated by BigLaw partners. Do the math.

A first year getting paid 160k and billed out at 250+ per hour takes in 375k at 1500 collected hours. Add another 100k in office/benefits/overhead/other expenses to his salary and he's wildly profitable, generating 115k in profit over 260k invested = 44% ROI, and that's at 1500 hours. Think they're paying more than 100k/yr/associate in expenses? At 160k (likely a huge overestimate, but fine), it's still 17% ROI at 1500 hours, and at 1800, it's 41%, or 73% at the 100k overhead estimate. And this is all for a first year. By the time you're a midlevel, if you survive that long, you're double or triple the goldmine you already are at the beginning, generating 3x or more what the firm spends on you.

BigLaw partners are not making MILLIONS of dollars because they only make money if you work like a slave. It's B.S., and anyone who tells you this with a straight face is insulting your intelligence.

9:26 - I'd didn't gauge the economic health of MoFo when determining it was a sinking ship. I determined it was a sinking ship because during interviews it came off as a crappy place to work. All their recruting marketing was based on all this "Best 50 Companies to work for" (or whatever) crap, and the lifestyle aspect of it while maintaining all the BigLaw prestige. Not one bit of it rang true at the call backs I did, and THAT was the sinking ship part. They also did some really, really, boneheaded, unprofessional things. They could have $3M PPP and still have been a sinking ship in my opinion. Granted, however, that most people might not use the term sinking ship the way I did.

9:04 - I still disagree, this system just rewards the laziest of their associates if it rewards anyone. If they didn't want to give a raise, but wanted to do SOMETHING to be competitive, they should have upped the 2100 bonus. Of course, that doesn't have the recruiting appeal as saying "we start at $160k" and that's what it's really all about. To all of us, it looks like a backfire. However, the law students who haven't been working yet and aren't asking all the right questions, will probably not notice the difference. Thus, while it is a slap to all the associates who were already working hard, it will probably work out for MoFo as a recruiting tool, and remember, that's what it's REALLY all abougt. It has nothing to do with the current associates.

NY still has the best nightlife and girls

as a california, and one from Los Angeles I can admit that. So although New Yorkers will die earlier because of their longer hours and more work, at least they'll live those few years pretty damn well.

MOFO is doing quite well - not a sinking ship. Believe me, I know b/c I work at the HUB. However, the parnters won't ever make as much as they could if they went to Latham or GDC and they know that. Probably has a lot to do w/ all the pro bono the firm handles. Of all the major law firms, MOFO is one of the few that gives more than lip service to pro bono matters.

As noted above, all that "best places to work" buzz is just not true. Well at least for attorneys. Probably is a great place to work for the staff. For attorneys, it is just like every other major firm where the emphasis is on billing as much as possible. Probably like every firm we have cool partners and we also have our fair share of A**HOLES.

As for the "quality of life" thing, that went out years ago when the firm decided to try to follow in Latham's footsteps.

As for the raise, it is always nice to get a bump. However, seems like we may not be as valued as some of our peers since MOFO took away the 1950 bonus we worked for the last three years to get in exchange for the raise.

Nobody is going to leave the firm b/c of the reduced bonus, but it may cause some 2Ls to choose another Bay Area firms. And recruiting already seems to be a cause for concern for some.

But in the end, where else is a litigator going to make $210,000 just 4 years out of school for doing something she more or less likes to do anyway.

9:47pm, I have no interest in defending biglaw partners or anyone else, but your calculations are factually way off. As a rule of thumb, employee expenses (i.e., salary plus payroll taxes, benefits, etc.) alone are generally about 200% of an employee's actual salary. So a first-year making $160K is costing a firm about $320K just in salary plus related expenses. Then you have to add in every other expense a firm has -- payroll for staff, office space, technology, marketing, etc. I really don't know exactly how it all shakes out, but your simplistic calculations do not even come close.

"NY still has the best nightlife and girls"

aahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha...dude, that was the funniest thing i've read all day...you obviously have never seen ny girls

What about Philly firms? We start lower and we have mid-level comp that sucks?!
Morgan Lewis and Dechert who bill themselves as big players should step up!

1050PM. The rule of thumb is that benefits are 1/3 of salary, not 100% of salary.

NY will have to go to $190K soon (from what I hear the move to $160K hasn't helped with attrition as much as firms would have wanted). If it does, though, you'll see the NY-based shops with firm-wide salary policies changing those policies pretty quickly.

10:04:

"Granted, however, that most people might not use the term sinking ship the way I did."

Well, at least we agree on something.

making 125k in philly. this blows. WTF philly??? can't we even get to $135k. this is BS.

12:38 - Several Philly firms moved to $135K in the last few weeks. Where have you been?

i know... just not my firm. boooooooooo
don't you think $135k is still low? considering 2 hrs from ny/dc both have firms $160k (even though dc has many still at $145k)

I work for a NY Firm. . . I just gave up my Sat Night. NY TO 190.

let it be very clear to all that mofo did not "match".

12:49 - 135K might be low for NYC and LA, but is not low for Philly. You can live very well off on that kind of money in PA.

2:46 - Are you just hoping for 190 in NY, or do you know something the rest of us don't?

190k in NY just aint happening for one reason. The clients bitched at the last raise and I think that firms will not want to defend another one.

Does anyone think that we won't see at least double-digit increases (%) in PPP next year? I don't, even with these raises.

NY to 190. ty

David,

Can you post about New Jersey firms?

New Jersey offices:
Can someone confirm L&W at 145k?
Hughes Hubbard @ 160k?
Patton Boggs @ 150K?
Where is Morgan Lewis? Dechert?

ALSO, it is not uncommon for the highest billable hours to be at the non-NY offices of NY firms. I interviewed with Skadden Chicago and they told me their hours were highest in the country. Someone told me that sullivan palo alto has higher billables than new york. The reason is simple: In NY hub offices, like ALL HUB offices, you can hide and skate by with fewer hours.

That alone justifies maintaining lockstep rates across offices for NY firms. (ESPECIALLY if they bill you out at the same rate.)

9:13, you might be able to afford a hovel in the valley at 160K. The idea that real estate in Los Angeles is any more affordable than in NY is probably twenty years old. Were you living under a rock for the housing boom of the 90s/00s?

I interviewed at MoFo and the other big 3. All are great firms, but I felt like I was getting straight talk at MoFo and not the party line. Also, 9:45, my best lunch was with MoFo in Del Mar.

Plus, how could I ever complain about working in Del Mar making 160 my first year out of school.

I interviewed at MoFo and the other big 3. All are great firms, but I felt like I was getting straight talk at MoFo and not the party line. Also, 9:45, my best lunch was with MoFo in Del Mar.

Plus, how could I ever complain about working in Del Mar making 160 my first year out of school.

Confirmed - Orrick pays 25k at 2000 for first years, and 35k at 2100. This goes up ~5k/10k by class year. There is also some wiggle room to pay more with a discretionary bonus. I believe the 2000 bonus would be the equivalent of the bonus that MoFo eliminated.

But what bonus does MoFo do? They don't pay anything until 2100? What do they pay at 2100?

I think it's impossible to compare all these firms on base pay alone. There should be more transparency in total comp. Can anyone give total comp info on OMM, Mofo, etc.?

hmm...I think the MoFo recruiting staff are posting.

If they can pay 160k out in the backwoods, they can pay 190k in NYC.

11:53-- that can't be right. Hughes Hubbard & PB paying more than L&W? Check your facts.

Yes, S&C Palo Alto bills substantially more, on average, than S&C NYC.

As for MoFo: I'd rather have the $160K up front than $145K and a bonus later. That said, I wish that each firm would distribute information on how and whether their bonus structure will change given a base pay increase.

When I interviewed at MoFo SF, I too felt that I was getting "straight talk" - sometimes too straight. It was the only firm at which I was repeatedly warned by attorneys, "This is not a lifestyle firm." But, when I spoke w/headhunters and others after my interview, I was told it was because they'd gotten burned by people who had come expecting a lifestyle firm and departed quickly in disappointment. If that's what they're trying to avoid, I'd rather they supply the straight talk.

Sure, MoFo may never be the first to announce a salary raise and probably will never offer top of the market, across the board bonuses. But their pro bono commitment, by the numbers, is unmatched by any of the firms that do pay said top bonuses. So, I figure that those who want to work at a biglaw firm which pays top of the market rate base compensation and has some semblance of a pro bono commitment, must chip in to help pay for the pro bono somehow. If it's through a lower bonus, y'know what? That's fair enough.

11:53, you are correct, and I can confirm those NJ salaries.

L&W at 145k (all domestic offices of LW outside of NYC are at $145K, including NJ)

Hughes Hubbard @ 160k (but this figure is illusory because there are only like 3 or 4 attorneys in HH's NJ office, and I don't think they are hiring entry levels)

Patton Boggs @ 150K (this is also correct, but deceiving because there is crazy compression in salary between the class years, and PB's bonuses are also crap, so total comp is not higher than LW or HH)

AFAIK, Morgan Lewis and Dechert are both at $135K in NJ.

I think the stats on associate compensation as a percentage of partner compensation is very telling. Ppl have pointed to the 2000 statistic of 17%, and how thats gone down to 11%. But I am curious how this statistic squares with the changes in partnership structure over the last 5 years or so. (My understanding is that there was much less of the two tier/non-equity system in 2000). Is the 11% skewed b/c we are comparing assoc. salaries to those of the inflated equity partners? Thoughts?

LW is almost certainly going to be going up to $160,000 in all domestic offices, I'd bet.

NY still gets higher bonuses. Also, if NY goes up again in the near future, I doubt any office except Latham NY will get it.

3:36: I don't understand the significance of that fact. To be sure, if a smaller percentage of partners are equity partners than in the past, it improves the partners' profit margin. But the significance of the 11%/17% distinction is that complaints by equity partners that associate salaries are out of control or unsustainable ring hollow. Associate salaries have cut into partner profit margins much more in the past than they are now.

Any chance that a MoFo type would be willing to post the full salary memo that was circulated?

Does anyone have any stats on how much HIGHER ny'ers bill compared to the Denver associates who now will be making the EXACT SAME AMOUNT AS THEM?

This is just absurd. People in NYC firms work like animals and are tethered to their blackberries. It's a horrible existence, and I for one am disgusted if associates in lifestyle cities with lower costs of living are making the exact same base salary.

Any thoughts on whether the CA-based firms (OMM, Orrick, MoFo, etc.) will match the NY $50k clerkship bonuses? For years, the CA-based firms had been paying much higher clerkship bonuses, but now NY has passed them. I wouldn't be surprised if they stay where they are, but what are some other opinions?

Think this means the other big California shops are going to go to $160 now? Latham, Gibson?

6:04, what's absurd is your ignorance of the free market. Are you disgusted that people put a premium on living in NY? The rates will move when NY associates start leaving and going to other cities.

Why should an associate's decision to live somewhere more expensive have any more impact on compensation than an associate's decision to buy an expensive car or house? When did American businesses start making compensation decisions based on the "to each according to their need" theory?

I hope there is some NY movement this week. As associates we should not have to work knowing people in Denver are making the same.

10:58-Then move to Denver. If you're not willing to do so, then you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm glad this thread has come along to remind me why it's so nice to be back in the West and off the East Coast.

Oh, and you're not getting paid less than people in Denver, once you factor in your bonus.

So who'll raise tomorrow? Gibson? Latham? *ahem* Seyfarth?

ITA, 11:36. Seriously, the entitled attitude from NYC associates is getting really annoying. Move to Denver, Sacramento, Seattle, Boulder, etc., or STFU. How on earth did you people cope when everyone was compensated on the $125K scale?

Although SF is expensive as all hell (though I acknowledge not as bad as NYC) and the pressure to bill is intensifying, I don't give a damn that people in Denver are making the same as me. They have to live in Denver. I'm living where I want to live, and I'm making a reasonably comfortable six figure amount just three years out of undergrad. What an unbearably hard life.

When will Boise raise from 80K?

I doubt that many, if any, of the firms that just raised 2 months ago are going to raise again.

Yeah, BOISE!!

I completely agree that lawyers who bill 2000+ hours in Denver work just as hard as those who bill 2000+ in NYC. The issue for the NY firms to struggle with is all about the cost of living, not the compensation for work done. Considering the State and City tax and the cost of living in Manhattan, NYC lawyers make significantly less than others.

Associates who have any semblance of flexibility will then not bother to even apply to NY firms, or NY offices if there is not some bonus or higher salary to compensate for the cost of living. Go to any cost of living calculator and see for your self.

You'd have to make 263K in NYC to match Boise's 80K, what with COL and all. Looks like Boise's overpaid.

http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_result.asp?presentsalary=80000&presenthomemetrocode=216&presentworkmetrocode=216&newhomemetrocode=119&newworkmetrocode=119¤tlocation=216&newlocation=119&x=42&y=11

The main problem here is all the NYC idiots justified their decision by thinking they were the shit and that they were making more money than everyone else. Now they realize that not taking COL into effect is stupid. You make less real dollars in NYC, it's a fact and it's nothing new. You're choosing, with your wallet, steaming manholes, crime, and bodegas. Awesome.

10:36, that's interesting and illustrative of what this animus from New Yorkers is really all about. They don't need to make more after the COL--they just need to make a higher number, or they feel inadequate. It's ridiculous.

Tell a New Yorker that 80k in Boise is 263k in NY and he'll say "yeah, but that's BOISE" or "But it's only 80k, I'm better than you"...but tell him that someone makes 160k in DC, LA, or (god forbid) Texas, and he'll get all up in arms, even though that's probably less than 263k after adjustment.

Wait...you're telling me...that I could be making that much more money in Boise? Boise? That's it. Who knows a corporate securities firm in Boise?

KFU: http://www.hteh.com/practicearea.asp?id=45

What the hell is Latham waiting for? They had a chance to make a strong showing during the first round of raises, and show up the CA Big 3, but didn't. Does anyone think LW will match in DC and CA?

Our managing partner here at LW in LA has quietly been spreading the word that we should expect the bump, and that we shouldn't get worried if we don't hear anything formal until the end of the month after the executive committee has its May meeting. Apparently they don't want to contribute to the "hysteria" (his words) by having an emergency meeting over this.

12:46 - did you hear anything about the effect on bonuses?

The big Chicago firms that have significant NYC offices, i.e., Winston, etc., should have the same scale for Chi, NYC and DC.

12:46 -- ...and do you get the sense a clerkship-bonus bump is in the mix as well? Thanks!

Anybody hear anything about Gibson?

wgwag

does anyone know if latham plans to bump across the country? Or just LA?

Anti-NYC rants are so tedious.

pillsbury, where you at? think the original SF office is happy that the winthrop people in NY are making 160? better come correct.

Almost as tedious as the NYC superiority and entitlement rants.

So, I have to say that this latest round of increases has me laughing. The partners at LW and the other shops that are holding out can't win in this battle. They took the cheap road earlier in the year and completely alienated their California attorneys. Now their hand is being forced, and they are going to have to accept the increase to the NYC levels. All that money they will have to spend, and they won't get one drop of goodwill from it. Lawyers are the worst businessmen. Summers won't respect LW's decision to raise as they now look like (and clearly are) followers, and the current associates are going to be furious the raises weren't given in the first place (and since the new raises won't be backdated to the first of the year, associates have already lost thousands of dollars each).
So, nice work I say to LW and the other holdouts. In waiting you lost out on an opportunity to show the associates that you care about them--instead, your current associates are bitter, you are now forced into paying the top salaries, and you have not shown law students any reason to pick your firm. The only firm that comes out ahead here is Orrick--nicely done.

Anybody think LW will match 160 in DC?

Do people think that summers/associates care when their firms raise as long as they eventually do? My thinking would be that as long as the money comes, firms don't lose out just b/c they didn't lead the pack

Help out a clueless criminal attorney who has never had any interest in big firm life - okay maybe sometimes I do envy the resources available for trial prep - but I am just a happy fool. I know someone with marginal experience at a very, very small firm that does minor real estate and other small business work - he just went to a very large NYC firm (connection helped get the position) - are you telling me just because he graduated in 2001 he is automatically getting $250,000. It doesn't matter what his background is? Everyone is treated the same? Wow. That's insulting.

In any event, I hope you all get as much money as you want.

4:40 - It depends on what class year the firm believes he should be placed into. He won't automatically become a member of the 2001 class (and get a $250K salary) just by virtue of graduating in 2001. If the big firm your friend got a job at thinks his last 6 years of minor real estate and small business work only equate to 2 or 3 years of "Biglaw" experience, they might put him in the class of 2004-05 with the rest of the 2nd and 3rd year associates. If the firm doesnt respect his background at all, they might even start him as a first-year associate. When it comes to laterals from non-Biglaw, it's usually case-by-case.