BOOOOO!!!!!

The tiers are becoming obvious.

**Please note that Texas is considered by Wilson Sonsini to be moving to the $160K scale.

Lat, we need a post concerning Texas and how many out-of-state firms have raised their salaries while the BigTex firms do NOTHING. I'm getting really tired of hearing about my firm raising its salraies in other cities (NY, LA, DC, etc.) and other firms raising their salaries in my city. It's about time my firm raised its salary scale in my city!

The eyes of Texas are upon you.

Thanks for getting this up, Lat!

who cares about texas? just be happy with your $500k mansion while the rest of us in real cities are struggling to pay rent.

Someone at WSGR: How much is a "full bonus"?

From DLA Management:

As you are undoubtedly aware, over the last ten days there has been a wave of adjustments to associate salary scales in some markets. We are monitoring developments as they occur, and remain committed to meeting the prevailing salary levels among competing firms in each of our markets.

We are unique in the number and geographic diversity of our offices in the United States. On reflection we believe it preferable to address this issue on as comprehensive a basis as possible, rather than serially. So please bear with us for a short period of time while the situation in some markets clarifies. Those changes that we do implement will be effective as of June 1st.

Thanks again for all you do for the firm and, most of all, for the outstanding service you provide to our clients.

Frank, Lee and Terry

seriously texas...stfu and go back to diligencing your cattle acquisition documents

3 questions:

1 & 2, for anyone at Wilson:

1) Does this 100% thing mean that you top out on bonus at 2100 hours?? As in, if you're fool enough to bill more than that, you're doing it entirely for free? And as in, previously this number was at only 1900 hours, so there was no incentive for anyone to work more than 8 hours a day?

2) Can someone give me an idea of what size bonuses we're talking about. I want to know how this compares to Heller and MoFo.

3) For Lat: please post the Orrick memo you promised on Friday!!!

This settles it, NY to 190. It will separate the NY firms from the Non-NY firms once and for all. Look at what the Orrick to $160 raise has done. NY too 190 will clearly put the nail in the coffin of these mid-tier firms.

as someone heading to law school next year, can you all honestly tell me whether this is what i have to look forward to? whether griping about salaries or compensation and battling over whether nyc is better than LA is what i will be using as a diversion when i'm working as an associate? do any of you actually enjoy the work that you're doing? do any of you find it rewarding? does the culture of a particular firm make it harder to apply some reductive, solely salary-related formula in calculations of where you should work? are all of them the same? if you like a particular firm, why would you care if someone else is making 15K more doing the same work? what other industry is as lock-step as this? it doesn't make much sense to me.

7:06 are you demented? you are not a rational human being.

don't go to law school, 7:08.

avoid law school at all costs.

Future Law: Can you repeat the question?

7:08,

As far as I can tell, it works sort of like this: the mildly retarded post on xoxo, the mildly annoyed post here, and the people who are more or less content with life... I dunno, maybe they write letters to Penthouse or something.

If you bill 2000 hours at Orrick, you get the standard bonus. With regards to the discretionary bonus, for years 1-4, you are guaranteed a discretionary bonus of at least $10K if you bill 2100 hours. For years 5 and above, you are guaranteed a discretionary bonus of at least $15K if you hit the 2100 hours threshold.......

Exhibit A

2007 BONUS PROGRAM FOR ASSOCIATES IN U.S. OFFICES

Level Standard Bonus Discretionary Bonus Maximum Bonus
1 $25,000 Up to $20,000 $45,000
2 $30,000 Up to $20,000 $50,000
3 $35,000 Up to $20,000 $55,000
4 $40,000 Up to $20,000 $60,000
5 $40,000 Up to $35,000 $75,000
6 $45,000 Up to $35,000 $80,000
7 $45,000 Up to $35,000 $80,000
8+ $50,000 Up to $35,000 $85,000

Translation for DLA: "We may raise, and if we do raise, we'll be cheap and make the raise effective as of June 1st. But then again, we are not commiting to anything just yet."

thank you, sooth-sayers of 7:10. as far as i know myself (pretty well?), i am interested in the law, in public policy issues and in things of that ilk. should i just avoid biglaw/corporate firms or is the practice of law in general to be avoided?

Absolutely go to law school - its a blast, seriously - but realize if you go into law you're doing it for the money (unless you have a trust fund and can do something cool like pro bono)

6:41, was that BOOOO!!! or BOOUURNS!!!

7:08 - Do not go to law school for the money. Do not go to law school because you think it will give you options. Go to law school only, and I stress only, if you truly want to be a lawyer and wish to practice outside of big law. Become a prosecutor, hang up your own shingle, take risks, but don't go to law school if you'll be stuck having to work for big law to pay off your loans. It is not worth it. Quality of life sucks. Intellectual stimulation sucks. Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.

Law school was like a three year vacation. The only bitch is that They expect you to pay Them back when you're done.

So you're forced to work in inhumane conditions for a pittance, barely able to afford the high-octane gas for your 335i. And as much as you'll want to tip the peon who just wxed it for you, you just won't be able to afford it. It's a bitch. Really eats at yoiur soul.

Don't go to law school.

At any moment, some asshole down the road at the next firm might start earning a slightly larger crapload of money than you, and from that day forward you'll wake up at 3AM in a cold sweat wondering where - where, dear God - did I go wrong?

Yeah, don't go to law school.

Please don't base the decision whether to attend law school or not on message board responses. Decide if you want to be a lawyer, or otherwise thinking getting a JD will help you get what you want out of life. Talk to lawyers or law students in person, not anonymous posters on a message board. My experience has been that people in law school don't complain about salary wars (because really, it's a crapload of money whether firm X raises 15k or not), but do worry about getting a good job and hopefully not having to work ridiculous hours.

Lat, this whole day's worth of posts have been worthless. No one in New York cares what anyone outside New York does. They only care about other firms in New York.

What that means is that NY will not raise to $190 because no one will raise until someone else in NY raises. It does not matter if every fucking firm in DC, California, Texas, I don't care (and I really don't fucking care because I'm in London) raises to $160, no one in NY will raise until someone else in NY does so first.

Anyone that wakes up in a cold sweat at 3AM because the guy down the street is earning crapload+15k to his crapload obviously has bigger problems on his hands than intellectual stimulation and job satisfaction issues.

i'm excited to go to law school, but after being an avid reader of this board for a while, i am definitely starting to detect some of the undercurrents of resentment and frustration of some (what i assume are) associates, so i'm just trying to get a better sense of the why.

7:08 - You will find less crying at a preschool than at a good law school or law firm. People in law are so whiny, I have no idea what it is about them.

The biggest whiners are those who haven't had another job and have nothing to compare Big Law with. These people apparently don't realize that 99% of the populatioin does not make $150K a year much less $200K a year, particularly when they are 25. These people also don't realize that ALL jobs, at least in some respects, suck.

All professionals work hard, not just lawyers. Lawyers just get paid more, and in many instances, go through less hell to get there. Law school, other than the first year which is mildly difficult, is a breeze. Medical school, now those people get screwed.

For my part, I make great money, and actually get good work as a junior associate.

Seriously, if you've worked a couple of years, give it a shot, it's not a bad deal at all.

7:18, those are such nice thoughts. If you go to law school they will beat them out of your head, after destroying your morale, chipping away at your humanity, and driving you to the brink of suicide.

But other than that, law school's awesome. Wooo party!

thanks, 7:32. i have worked a couple of years. i'm definitely going to law school in the fall - only question is if i get off the waitlist at a couple places, or if not, i'll be going to a slightly outside of the t14 school, which i can live with, though i'd be overjoyed if i were classmates with L2L (bless his heart).

7:32 must live in Texas and/or have no loans. It's a lot of money, but given cost of living/loan payments, it's still a joke.

Future Law Student- In my experience, these message boards generally reflect the worst parts of law school/law firm life. People at law schools are much more normal and much less bitter than people who post on internet message boards. Take everything you read with a grain of salt.

re: the WSGR memo above
what is the difference between the "base," "H3," and "E" at the top of the chart? are they for different categories of associates with different billable hours requirements? for different cities? neither of those explanations make sense, but i am having trouble thinking what these distinctions are.

can someone at WSGR please clarify?

7:38 in fairness, I have no loans and no family to support, and I realize that there is a bit more of a squeeze once you start a family. But, I live in Los Angeles, do not come from wealth and I do not expect to own a home for several years. Having said that, I have been able to save over 50% of what I earn without living all that modestly. After college, I worked about 100 hours a week on average for $3500 a month before taxes. That was plenty of money to me at the time. This is substantially less work and substantially more money.

Law school was only mildly unpleasant. Not horrible, not great, kind of like sitting in a dentist's chair. I'm glad when my teeth are clean, I just don't revel in the process.

Also, there's no way you should go unless you have a trust fund. You will come out $150,000 in debt and an wind up indentured servant for at least ten years if you're lucky. If you're not lucky, you'll end up in bankruptcy.

So has anyone in CA not raised yet? List of shame?

It looks like the powers that be at WSGR need to get their proofreading act in order. Did anyone else notice the glaring typo in the memo above?

Last time I checked, (((2,000-1,900)*.30)+.40/100 does not equal 70%. It equals 30.004%. Of course (((2,000-1,900)*.30)+.40)/1000 equals 70%, but that's not quite what the memo says, does it? Nope.

How many bamboo lashings would an associate receive for making that error in a client's prospectus? My over-under is 18.

8:08 - Morgan Lewis has not raised.

Sheppard Mullin has not raised, can we get an updated CA list of shame?

8:18pm: you should proof your own work. i count 2 errors in your post. and i'll take the over.

Gimee the loot! Gimee the loot!

7:32, that's great for you. I'm seriously glad you have such a great perspective on life and your job and are able to save so much. But given that my attorney spouse and I are trying to live modestly enough to cut a check for the equivalent of two large mortgage payments each month in order to pay off enough loans to even think about starting a family, and that we barely get to see each other thanks to the phenom known as billable hours requirements, I think that my perspective is just as valuable as yours in terms of informing a Future Law Student's decision (which, granted, is not very much) without being called a whiny preschooler.

If you are (honestly) billing 2,100/year, you are actually working 12 hours a day, six days a week.

Is that living?

A friend gave up a dream partnership at a top tier trial boutique in SF to go into a 2 man partnership, and is much happier for it.

Who cares what these turds say about bonii. Talk is cheap. We'll see how the bonii turn out in December. Maybe they hope they can put downward pressure on bonii, but don't think so. We'll see where the tiers (tears?) are in December.

Anonybitch, OUT!

Jesus. Bonii??? Is this your way of telling us you took Latin in prep school?

English - do you speak it??? It's bonuses, bitch.

8:52 you aren't an attorney are you.

I work at Wilson. Previously we received bonuses for billables between 1700 and 1900 hours. This is handy for laterals who had to stick around at their last firm to catch a bonus, and then start at WSGR in February.

Our big pay "raise" today, = a $13,000 loss for any of them who can't quit make 1900 hours, the new absolute minimum.

We also lost our quarterly productivity bonuses.

The year end billable requirement even went up for Seattle and SLC, who don't get a pay "raise" so they really got screwed. An associate working 1899 hours will receive $23,000 less under the new pay structure for working the same number of hours.

No promise that they'll gross us up to make sure we get at least as much under this new structure.

ULTIMATELY - WILSON SCREWED US BIG TIME!!!!

8:52, what the hell kind of math is that? 6 x 12 x 52 = 3744. Even assuming you take a month of vacation and are grossly inefficient, you're still billing way more than 2100 if you're putting in 12 hours a day, six days a week. 12 hours a day, 5 days a week will get you 2400 easy.

8:36, I'm sure you and your spouse are perfectly nice people, but what on earth makes you think anyone wants to hear you complain about your financial situation given that you and your spouse are presumably Big Law lawyers making at least $350K a year? Do you understand how that sounds to normal people?

DLA Translation:

We want to wait it out a few more days and see if there is another Winston ouy there. If so, that's when we'll announce, raising salaries in California and Baltimore, and screwing our flagship office in Chicago, as well as D.C., which we think is overrated anyway.

It's not what you make, it's what you get to keep. What part of that don't you understand? I too had aspirations of working with "the law, public policy issues, and the ilk," but that had to be set aside for the time being because of student loan debt. I think 8:05's point bears repeating: "Also, there's no way you should go unless you have a trust fund. You will come out $150,000 in debt and an wind up indentured servant for at least ten years if you're lucky. If you're not lucky, you'll end up in bankruptcy."

Or you could be lucky like you and have mommy and daddy pay for law school. Or maybe you got a full scholarship. In which case, congratulations, you must be awesomer than me, but you seriously can't expect your experience to be the be-all and end-all of biglaw.

"indentured servant?" the ignorance, audacity, and shamelessness of such a statement prove my point. I'm not in debt, I'm very fortunate in that respect.

However, if I were in debt, I wouldn't waste everyone's time complaining about it. Did you not understand that you would be $150K or whatever it is in debt when you signed your loan documents? Do you understand that is a rather trivial amount when compared to what you make in the grand scheme of things?

Tell it to the people who actually go to the government or into public service or in to small firms for that matter. They don't complain about money nearly as much as you making $200K straight out of law school. For that matter tell it to all the other people in the world who have far less money than you but have the decency not to trouble everyone else with there problems.

Suck it up.

I am future law student. I spend my days reading this board and learning how to use phrases like "T14" and "biglaw" which should be helpful to ny development as a lawyer, right? I enjoy public policy issues and I don't understand why people are so motivated by a higher salary. I am sensing undercurrents here which I don't quite understand. I like tapioca pudding. I like to sit on my thumb and then smell it. I love L2L :)

C-YA guys!!!!!!!

Seriously guys, Wilson Sonsini is having a Town Hall Meeting? Isn't that like where farmers show up with their goats and complain about the price of grain? Isn't that like where they fired Gene Hackman in Hoosiers? What does that have to do with salaries?

I'm with you future law student. This is all very confusing. I need to go lie down now.

This Wilson Sonsini thing is great - get rid of bonuses!!! If they aren't going to pay you to exceed you hours then you don't have to do it, right?

Regarding the 12/hr per day comment and how it's so easy to bill 2400/year: unfortunately, you can't bill clients for things like going to lunch and taking a dump (you're not supposed to anyway). If you figure out an easy way to bill 2400, let me know.

Dear 9:10:

Yes, I am a trial lawyer. (If you like I will explain the difference between trial lawyer's and "litigators". Briefly, “litigators” spend most of their lives drafting and arguing motions and attending depositions where they aspire to get off some very pithy comments! Trial lawyers pick juries and live for nothing else.)

I have been doing this a long time. I have also put in my share of 70 hour weeks, and have the requisite # of divorces to show for it.

What you will discover, if you go Bigfirm and make partner is that the compensation committee basically does not give a rat’s ass about where you matriculated LS, how cleaver you are, or how many hours you personally work. Its all about the book of business you control, which is all about being well rounded and actually having a life.

Which is what life is about anyway.

I'm at WSGR. The new salaries only come at the expense of bonuses for those working under 1900. It's a full bump for those working over 2100.

The mystery is trying to figure out what the 2nd to last paragraph means.

Does that mean the firm will give some kind of bonus (discretionary or non) for people who work well beyond 2,100?

Or does that simply mean that Utah & Seattle will be compensated with a little something extra if they fall between 1900 & 2100?

I have to think it's former. No way the firm would cut off the incentive to work harder, and this whole thing is designed to give more $$ to the 2100+ workers, at the expense of the below 1900 workers.

orrick is looking better and better as this goes on. first they redo their bonus structure to be more like the ny scale, which is great, and then they raise salaries first while others follow with pseudo-raises. they are the clear winners this round.

It is pretty easy to bill 2400 at wilson; you just back-date your time sheet.

lol!

12:08, that is the best thing I have read on here in ages.

I'd love to work in Utah, but no one pays enough to make it worth it. Skiing is expensive.

I always bill for dumps.

12:31, your client sounds like a piece of shit.

I have a feeling this round of raises might eventually blow up in our faces. 125 to 135 was not big deal. They owed that to us because salaries were flat for a long time. 135 to 145 seemed like we were rewarded for a hot market and everyone was making money. 145 to 160 was not a very comfortable move. I heard a lot bitching in the halls. I hear a lot of clients bitching. From the WSGR raise you can tell that the associates are going to pay for it. Minimum billables are now 2100 hours and I wonder if this will become the new standard everywhere. Now there is more pressure to bill and client aren't going to like that either. I wonder what is going to happen when the market turns around. But at the same time, the partners can definitely afford to share the wealth.

I agree with 1:31 on this, but you are focusing on the wrong numbers. The story lies in the mid-to-senior level associates.

In 5 months time, base salaries have gone up $60-$70K, that's a big adjustment. Of course, partners don't have to pass all this on to clients, but they are wed to seeing their PPP's go up 10 to 15 percent a year.

With partnership track expending, more attorneys heading for non-equity, there is a huge swell in the number of attorneys billing in the $500-$600 per hour range. Is there enough premium work and cash-flush clients will to pay this? I have to think these senior associates will feel the sting first when things slow.

I don't see what the big deal with Winston only raising in Cal. Other Chicago bigfirms haven't raised at all. Seems to me it make sense to raise where the market demands it, not just where a firm has its offices. If anything, it shows that Chicago doesn't dictate what happens in LA/SF...

New standard of 2100? What the hell are you talking about 1:33? What big firm are you a junior partner for? 100% of the firms that have gone to the $160 scale (and that means ALL for your sake) have remained at 2000 hour base or LESS! Working more than 2000 for a bonus has ALWAYS been an option. Don't try to shift the standard by bumping billables.

The new raise will come from one of two sources: increased billing rates or at the expense of already ridiculous profits per partner. And I think we all know where partners will stick it.

How come everyone makes a big deal out of associate salaries going up, but no one seems to say anything about the orgasmic jumps in profits per partner over the same period? PPP averaging $1M or $2M per year? Cmon! GCs and assistant GCs don't make a fraction of that. A bump from $145k to $160k costs about $7 per billable hour. How much do you think it costs to bump PPP by $500k?

Pay the associate market what the market will bear. Pay the new standard. But don't have a fit when the associate market reflects what's going on in the market for partners.

New standard of 2100? What the hell are you talking about 1:33? What big firm are you a junior partner for? 100% of the firms that have gone to the $160 scale (and that means ALL for your sake) have remained at 2000 hour base or LESS! Working more than 2000 for a bonus has ALWAYS been an option. Don't try to shift the standard by bumping billables.

The new raise will come from one of two sources: increased billing rates or at the expense of already ridiculous profits per partner. And I think we all know where partners will stick it.

How come everyone makes a big deal out of associate salaries going up, but no one seems to say anything about the orgasmic jumps in profits per partner over the same period? PPP averaging $1M or $2M per year? Cmon! GCs and assistant GCs don't make a fraction of that. A bump from $145k to $160k costs about $7 per billable hour. How much do you think it costs to bump PPP by $500k?

Pay the associate market what the market will bear. Pay the new standard. But don't have a fit when the associate market reflects what's going on in the market for partners.

just have to laugh at the 'they owed it to us' comment.

these secondary moves (where firms are matching the 'market' rates, not establishing them) are all about competing for new talent. every one of these firms, i bet, is freaked about being at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting, and everyone is fighting over the same group of law students (top schools, top grades, etc.).

there just is not enough talent (ie, talented law students) to go around for all the firms that aspire to be major players--so law students, that's the competitive market for these secondary movers. as a result, firms pay through the nose to increase their odds of getting quality hires. and this, in turn, so they can justifiy the rates they charge to their clients (by saying 'look, we hire the best and brightest people possible, which translates to better results for you').

Then what explains Cadwalader's match? Isn't their target candidate someone in the bottom 50% of a fourth-tier school? I loved Link's quote in a recent article they his firm doesn't even recruit at Yale anymore.

Why does Seattle keep getting dissed? The COL there is much higher than in TX. C'mon Perkins Coie, show us the money!

8:52...nice try, but you are obviously full of shit. you honestly think the only way to bill 2100 hrs is to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week? clearly you are talking out of your ass and are just a college kid repeating someone else's horror story...and lol@requisite number of divorces...

8:47: People routinely bashing Cadwalader is tiring . . . I'm sure the reason they have partner profits in the millions is not because it staffs its law firm with idiots.

If you want to make fun of them, make fun of them for being a sweatshop. At least that accusation is true.

9:39 -- the guy said *honestly*. The issue of fraud in billing is a totally separate topic.

Sweet - an effective "no raise" and a removal of incentive. Good management at this firm.

I realize that the purpose of this board is primarily a forum for complainers, but do any of you seriously believe yourself to be "poor" even in NYC with loans and rent? You should yank that golden spoon out of your mouth and jam it somewhere else.

I started at NYC "biglaw" in 1993 with $120,000 in loans (at 10% interest mind you), $1600 in rent and exactly half current associate pay, which still was roughly double what my parents ever were paid. I felt quite wealthy, with a car and a beach house rental with five co-workers that started the same day I did. Life was good, though I did not save a dime. I did, however, immediately transfer every bonus check to my student loans, and they were gone in about 3.5 years.

A current first year takes home more than $100,000 after taxes. Even if your rent and loans totaled $6,000 per month, that still leaves $28,000 in cash -- about $80 per day. If you can't eat and entertain yourself on $80 per day, you should lose some weight or start cooking at home.

The whiners here obviously thought that a law degree paved the streets with gold from the outset. No job does so, nor should it. You earn your stripes in this business like any other. Lawyers don't get paid banker money, but bankers work more and their job is in jeopardy at every minute. If you think first year associate work is boring, try spending 16 hours a day making pitch books. A first year banker is nothing more than an expensive secretary.

While there also is a serious dearth of math skills here as well, 2,000 hours is not a whole lot of time. That is a normal year even for pencil pushing corporate types. Think about your clients -- they arrive at work at 7 am and are still there at 6:30 pm for a far less lucrative corporate job. Be thankful for what you have, rather than resentful about what you don't.

10:24 - it must be easy to sit back in your partner office with property bought "on the cheap" in the early/mid 90's at a firm that probably wouldn't hire someone with your qualifications as an associate today. Just sayin.

10:24. I want your money. And I'm going to get it.

I just farted and a little poop came out.

10:33 - it's called sharting. Practice using it in everyday conversation and it'll become second nature.

10:33 - it's called sharting. Practice using it in everyday conversation and it'll become second nature.

10:24 AM:

2,000 hours isn't a helluva lot of time. 2,000 billable hours is a lot of time.

If you're billing efficiently (80%) each and every day of work, assuming that you are busy each and every day, you may be able to make 2,000 working about 10-11 hours a day.

Lawyers don't keep track of time. Most of the Partners I know bill out for every minute they're in the office. That's how a lot of people get to 2,000.

7:08 - You have to understand that law school is inherently competitive, and at most schools, the competition is over who gets a biglaw job and who doesn't. (Or, if you land at a top ten school, who clerks for the Supreme Court and who doesn't.) You'll have to decide whether you want to join in that competition and let your life be driven by your own vanity, or distance yourself from that sort of thinking and make your own decisions. That's not to say that you can't make your own decisions and still go biglaw, but decide to do that because that's what you want to do. I did, and I have no regrets. What you are seeing on this board is the unfortunate continuation of law school competition into the practice of law. Sadly, and I do mean sadly because life can and should be far more fulfilling than all this, many of these people have no other sense of self-worth than the prestige of their law firm and the amount of their salaries. If this board is seriously making you reconsider going to law school, call up some lawyers at small firms, public interest agencies, and the government, and get their perspectives too. Biglaw is a small subset of legal practice, and the people on this board are an even smaller subset of that. And the rest of you desperately need to do some pro bono.

1052: That's why they're partners. Working smarter, not harder.

Does the DLA memo from the management mean that they are also considering clerkship bonuses?

1104: Fuck the poor!

Does the memo from the DLA Management mean that they are considering clerkship bonuses as well?

I'm a junior associate at big law ca. (and for you naysayers--nobody will argue this firm is quality big law) I love my job. Once every three or four weeks I have really long hours. The rest of the time I learn a lot about law, business and the world in general. The partners in the firm are generally friendly and enjoy teaching. Plus they stimulate a "renaissance lawyer" approach that if your only interest is inside the law office you're missing out on life.

Point is, Future Lawyer, be choosy. Pick a law firm that is interested in you and where the lawyers are people not drones. You really can figure out the difference in interviews, and if you can't, you should be able to during a summer associate gig (split your summer if you can). And if you really can't find it after being a summer associate, dump your hopes of NY 190 (or whatever the 2Ls mostly whining about salaries are begging for two years from now) and "prestige", and do something that you will find meaningful and stimulating. No matter what you do, if you're passionate about it, as a lawyer, you'll find prestige anyway.

re 11:15, that is "nobody will argue this firm is NOT quality big law."

"I'm a junior associate at big law ca."

Is that big law canada?

Please tell me you are joking 11:15

HAHAHAHAHA

11:15 - please name your firm

10:27--
You apparently don't know even recent history. The job market, and indeed the competition to get into law school, was ferocious in the early-mid 90s because of the recession. I have no idea who 10:24 is, works for, or what his status is, but I can assure you that it most certainly is not more difficult to get hired into big law now than it was 13 years ago. Quite the contrary, actually.

10:24, I call B.S.

If you took home $50,000 a year. Then that was a little over $4k a month. With a $120k in loans you're payments to pay them off in 42 months would have had to have been $3,400. With $1600 in rent? Not possible. Even assuming you only spent $1900 a month to live, you would had to have bonuses somewhere in the neighborhood of 65k in order to pay everything off.

My better half and I live modestly in DC and our monthly expenses are about $3900 a month.

In order to pay off a 150k in loans in 3 years you have to make monthly payments of $4,800.

So that is $8,700, not including dinners or lunches out, entertainment, our random personal expenses, doctor visits, medications, a car payment (we have the same car we've had since college w/no payment), gas, birthday, anniversary, wedding or X-mas presents.

At 155k, I take home after taxes, benefits, etc. about $8,400 a month. There is no way you can afford to pay off you loans on that salary in 3 years. No f*ing way.

11:37 - complete bullshit. Your "assurances" are meaningless and lack any sort of foundation in fact. I notice you wisely don't address the housing situation.

Take a look at the matriculation statistics of any top 20 law school over the past 20 or so years. Anything catch your eye? It has become much more difficult to get into the schools that feed biglaw. Once there, it is much harder to make partner in biglaw. Once you've made partner it is much harder to become an equity partner. Then, when you (not you, because, remember, you wouldn't have made it this far in today's world) are an equity partner you have to face the distinct possibility that you will be laid off in order to increase profits/partner.

Yes, definitely easier today.

Has WSGR reconsidered its clerkship bonus?

12:03--
Please stop embarrassing yourself. First, the single greatest number of LSATs administered in a year was 152,685 in 1991. It then dipped down by a third, as low as 103,991, in 1998, before trending up again and maxing out at 148,014 in 2003. See http://www.testprepguy.com/GoodNews.pdf. What that means by inference (to the extent that # of LSATs administered is a proxy for # of applicants, an obvious proposition) is that in 1991, it was tougher to get into any law school than any year before or since, especially when you consider that there are now 5k more 1L seats (19 more ABA schools) nationwide. And, as I already explained, this early '90s aberration was completely because of the recession at the time. This means that the bench at that time, from 1 to 44,000 (# of 1Ls at the time), was as deep as it ever was or has been since.
As for your claim that the admission numbers keep rising (exponentially, ad infinitum one is to presume), there is also a simple explanation for that -- it's called grade inflation and LSAT score inflation. The grade inflation part isn't even worth arguing (too well documented), and here's how LSAT score inflation has worked. http://www.deloggio.com/how&when/newcurve.htm
Now, if you want to argue that there are somehow fewer spots in biglaw than there were 13 years ago, have at it (I have neither the time nor interest in attempting to ascertain that), but I highly doubt the facts will back you up on that either, especially because firms in the early/mid-90s were petrified by the recession.
Finally, all I'm talking about is getting in the door. I'm not referring about partnership ascendancy, as that had nothing to do with the original comment I was addressing, which was to the effect that someone hired back then "probably wouldn't" be hired today. That's simply unsupported in fact.

1:14 - get back to work and stop proving that it is possible to find statistics to support pretty much any position, no matter how absurd.

1:14 - you're a tool.

I find it amusing that everyone is acting like these are huge raises. If I am not mistaken, the 125k standard was set in 1999? So, 8 years later, we are to 160? What is that a year, compounded? 3.1% and change? Does anyone really think inflation has been running, much, if anything, below that?

I love how these big firm partners try and act magnanimous just because some competing industry forced them to maintain wage rates. What have billing rates done during those 8 years?

5:01 - my thoughts EXACTLY

1:14

LSAT/Grade inflation are irrelevant b/c you can't inflate rank/percentile.

The number of law schools is irrelevant to getting hired at biglaw b/c you're not getting your foot in the door from a second tier school. Top 50 is top 50 whether or not there are 200 schools or 2 million.

Also, according to your numbers the number of LSAT takers was essentially the same for 2003 (i.e. the people graduating this year) as they were during the peak in 1991 (assuming whoever made the previous statement even took the LSAT in 1991).

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can argue that admissions are down as indicated by LSATs, and also argue that there are 15K more 1L seats. Seriously, the arguments are mutually exclusive.