NY firms will have to bump. 190 here we come!!!!

Okay, it makes sense to me that NY will likely bump, but how did everybody settle on 190?

Why not $175?

Wow - that's quite a gap between 1800 and 1950 hours - from $35k-$65k. Does anyone at Hogan really go for the 1800 option? Can they realistically turn down work if they are on that track?

Sweet. That means the others like Wilmer, A&P and Akin should be coming soon.

DLA Piper is too cheap to raise in DC. They are going to become a second class citizen in the world of biglaw.

If NY bumps again, this whole domino chain is just going to repeat itself, unless one of two things happen:

(1) NY firms bump only for their NY offices;

(2) Any bump comes in the form of bonuses, not base salary.

NY firms will not bump. It's only been three months since the 160K bump.

Curious, why does NY have to go to 190K. They already receive 35K bonus for 1950. Most DC firms give much smaller bonuses (circa 15K0 for reaching 2100. So that is a 35K gap already, why is a 65K necessary?

DLA Piper is too cheap to raise in DC. They are going to become a second class citizen in the world of biglaw.

If NY bumps again, this whole domino chain is just going to repeat itself, unless one of two things happen:

(1) NY firms bump only for their NY offices;

(2) Any bump comes in the form of bonuses, not base salary.

Okay, so when does Chicago follow suit?

I agree with 10:33. A big bonus from NY firms (say, $45K for first years) would not be followed.

There is however a third way NY firms could do it, without causing a domino effect - bump it so much that the non-NY markets simply can't follow (e.g. $190K). =)

Calling all partners in Dechert and MLB. Are you guys looking north (NY) and south (DC)? Why the hell does our starting compensation suck and even worse are our mid-level's salaries!!

Calling all partners in Dechert and MLB. Are you guys looking north (NY) and south (DC)? Why the hell does our starting compensation suck and even worse are our mid-level's salaries!!

10:41, because you work in a hellhole market with no major clients. HTH

Will Boston go to 160 now that DC is 160?

Looks like the 1800 track is 80% compensation (or slightly less) for billing more than 90% of the hours. What a raw deal, particularly since several firms pay 80% for 80% time.!!!

I've never heard a convincing reason why NY would bump above 170. Why wouldn't they just drop 160 off the scale, and add something new at the top? All through the 125 era they were happy being at the same level at other markets, and at 145 they were happy being only 10 ahead. What makes anyone think that they suddenly believe they need to be way ahead of everyone else?

That said, I work in NY, so I encourage all NY firms to prove me wrong!

This is amazing. At the risk of degenerating into another endless debate about New York's COL, $160k in Baltimore is approximately equivalent to $900,000 anywhere else. The Natty Boh should flow freely tonight.

This is amazing. At the risk of degenerating into another endless debate about New York's COL, $160k in Baltimore is approximately equivalent to $900,000 anywhere else. The Natty Boh should flow freely tonight.

let's not forget the clerkship bonus shaming. although a mere one-time payment, it's still shameworthy for a firm to consider itself top-shelf and not pay 50-Gs.

so let me be the first to say: shame, shame, shame. you know who you are.

What about Boston? It makes no sense that DC and San Francisco/LA would go to 160, and not Boston as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Wilmer/Ropes/Goodwin announce soon.

Does anyone know if Cadwalader is planning on raising clerkship bonuses? I haven't seen much information regarding where they stand.

NYC has to go up. There is no way they settle for this. I think it has to come in the form of salary because that is the only thing recruits see.

My prediction for salariesbefore we see another 5 years of nothing (bonuses stay the same):

NYC: $180-190k

DC/CA/Chicago: $170-175k

Other Sizeable Markets (Charlotte, Atlanta, Texas): $155-160k

Baltimore: ONE...MILLION...DOLLARS!

Thank you, Orrick, for kicking off this round of raises!

amen 10:40 - the silence is deafening....

The thing about Boston is there's hardly any cross-pollination with LA firms. So even when other offices of those LA firms raise it doesn't really put much pressure on Boston firms.

DC hits a little closer to home, though I don't really see Boston having to raise unless NYC raises again. Though I hope I'm wrong.

Does anyone know if Cadwalader is planning on raising clerkship bonuses? I haven't seen much information regarding where they stand.

is kirkland DC still at 145? if they move dc to 160 which they have to do, they can't keep chicago at 145.

two alternate predictions:

As a baseline presumption, I think that NY is NOT going to 190. The reason is that they will have a competitive advantage if they make compensation adjustments in their bonus (hold money longer, less likely non-NY firms will match, etc.)

SO,
Prediction Number 1:
Cravath will lead the bonus season next year with a monster bonus, maybe 15K higher than this year. Of the top firms, they haven't received any publicity for making the market move.

Prediction Number 2:
Sullivan will lead the bonus season next year with a monster bonus, as they will want to engender more good will given the recent charney situation.

NYC has to go up. There is no way they settle for this. I think it has to come in the form of salary because that is the only thing recruits see.

My prediction for salaries before we see another 5 years of nothing (bonuses stay the same):

NYC: $180-190k

DC/CA/Chicago: $170-175k

Other Sizeable Markets (Charlotte, Atlanta, Texas): $155-160k

Baltimore: ONE...MILLION...DOLLARS!

Alright, New York: there was a brief time span in which higher compensation meant that we didn't resent having to live in NYC. Now that our classmates are making the same $ while enjoying a MUCH lower COL, the resentment is back.

Attrition: resume.

NYC has to go up. There is no way they settle for this. I think it has to come in the form of salary because that is the only thing recruits see.

My prediction for salaries before we see another 5 years of nothing (bonuses stay the same):

NYC: $180-190k

DC/CA/Chicago: $170-175k

Other Sizeable Markets (Charlotte, Atlanta, Texas): $155-160k

Baltimore: ONE...MILLION...DOLLARS!

The thing about Boston is there's hardly any cross-pollination with LA firms. So even when other offices of those LA firms raise it doesn't really put much pressure on Boston firms.

DC hits a little closer to home, though I don't really see Boston having to raise unless NYC raises again. Though I hope I'm wrong.

If NY comes in with a big bonus, DC/LA/Chi people will whine about getting lower bonuses. This is going to keep happening until (1) major firms can't afford it anymore and (2) associates stop taking hours increases.

11:00, that's all fine and good, but clearly you've never tried to recruit law students before. Salary is key. Large bonuses for mid-levels are great for retention, but 2Ls just want to know for certain that they are going to make as much as everyone else.

For Boston, you do have Wilmer (if it raises in DC).

I second the commenter who said, "Suck it, Sandman."

11:07 - why can't it just be that the big money firms pay more? They'd be more attractive to students. A firm with 2M+ PPP like Cravath should just come in at 200k, blow everybody out of the water. Other firms won't be able to match that.

The real test will be whether DLA raises in the major cities.

10:48 is dead on. In Bodymore, Murderland you can still buy a sweet house (that isn't even a crack house) for something in the $200-300k range; a whole freaking house! $160k in Baltimore is a ridiculous windfall. Congrats, Baltimorons (I kid because I love...)!

The first domino falls-- watch the other DC biggies scramble to be next!

Re: Boston -- once Wilmer raises in DC, it will have to raise for its Boston office. There'd be downright mutiny in their Boston office if they didn't. Which means that at a minimum, Ropes and Goodwin must follow suit.

I agree with 10:45 - Where did the idea come from that NY firms think that their associates *deserve* more than firms in other cities?

Contra:

1. The "125 era" (nicely put, 10:45), and

2. The fact that raise to 160 was made by STB, which raised in all its offices. (And, matching began other multi-office NY-based firms that raised across the board too).

I think that makes it pretty clear that NY firms do not think that there is anything special about NY such that associates there should be paid more.

Moreover, as long as NY-based firm lead compensation moves, and apply the raise across the country, other markets will be dragged along. However, NY-based firms won't simply raise again (nationwide) when other firms in the smaller markets inevitably catch up. That would mean they were literally bargaining against themselves!

People need to settle down. There will be no more raises in NY this calendar year. The thing to watch is whether the top private equity and M&A practices have another strong year, and expect to again in 2008. If that is the case, the big firms will need to make sure their mid-levels aren't running off to finance jobs. Then, you might see a raise to 175 in the new year.

But remember how long the 125 era was, and that we've had *two* substantial raises in less than 18 months...

11:10, I think that's what Simpson and company were trying to do originally. Too many medium money firms just decided to stretch and match it. I don't know if the big money firms would want to try that again since it didn't work out like they had hoped (though it probably helped reduce any price-competitive advantage that a non-big-money firm may have had by boosting its costs).

How does the Hogan 1950/1800 track work? What if a "1950" person doesn't make 1950? Just curious, thanks.

Predictions on which firm will be next - A&P, Mayer, Jenner, Winston?

My money is on Mayer - - maybe that will develop some good will after the recent mass firings.

What's with all the posts about DLA?

I'm astounded by H&H's treatment of the 1800 hour crowd. For a billable hour requirement of 92% of their 1950 counterparts, they get 78% of the salary. I understand that H&H's costs for each of those associates is the same (in benefits, support staff, office space, etc.), so that the extra 150 hours is essentially overhead-free, but I still don't think that justifies the discrepancy.

And I wonder whether the corrective bonus paid to the 1800+ crowd is based on the 1950 scale or the 1800 scale until 1950 is reached.

Having worked in Baltimore once, $160k is a fortune there. But still not worth it.

Why am I going to NYC again? Oh yeah; it's because I don't make economically rational choices. I should do something to fix that.

What about clerkship bonuses?

The Definitive Clerkship Bonus Collection (5.9.07):

The $50K/$70K list:
2. Cravath
4. Skadden
9. Weil

The $50K "flat" list:
3. SullCrom
5. Davis Polk
6. STB
7. Cleary
12. Paul Weiss
13. Debevoise

The Raised-to-$35K-club list:
14. Wilmer

The List-of-shame-Vault 20 list:
1. Wachtell
8. Latham
10. Kirkland
11. Covington
15. Shearman
16. Sidley
17. White & Case
18. Gibson Dunn
19. A&P
20. OMM

I disagree with 11:15. Raises aren't about recruiting, they are about retention. (But matching a competitor's raise is about both).

Cravath et al will still be able to recruit enough 2Ls from the best law schools without raising salaries again (where else are all these kids with heavy debts going to go?). The issue for the firms is retention after they have trained associates to actually do the work that generates profits.

As 11:14 says, you need to look to what will draw away midlevels.

$160k is nice in Baltimore but it's not nearly as nice as $160k in Houston (which Skadden pays). The COL in Baltimore has been driven up fairly high by its proximity to DC.

11:25, Sidley indicates on their website that they pay a 35K clerkship bonus.

11:25: Appreciate your continuing efforts, but I know I'm not the only commenter who continues to be confused by the "raised-to-$35" tier. Several of the firms in the list of shame are at 35. Does Wilmer get its own spot because it raised to 35 recently, as opposed to a while ago, like the firms in the list of shame? Why does the list reward being late to the party?

11:22 - it's fine (and can be completely rational) to go to NYC, but it's not rational to go to NYC solely because the nominal amount of salary is higher. The problem is that NYC people want to live in the city more than anywhere else, but ALSO want to get paid more than everyone else. That doesn't jive--if everybody wants to do something, it should cost them more to do it.

The market's still segmenting. My prediction come December:

NY firms raise to $175 in August for all offices; West Coast firms with $1.2M PPP match; NY firms then up to $190.

Thus by December we have NY firms at $190 in all offices;

NY offices of all firms at $190;

top flight non-NY firms like Orrick at $175 in their major market non-NY offices;

second tier firms like DLA, etc. at $160 (bumping to that figure in the Fall); and

third tier firms (those with PPP below $1M i.e. Reed Smith) varying between $145 and $160.

Ralph Baxter of Orrick saw the opportunity to go in for the kill, knocking out half of Orrick's competition in recruitment while also counteracting some of the problems with mid-level movement, and did so. Chack back in six months...

The market's still segmenting. My prediction come December:

NY firms raise to $175 in August for all offices; West Coast firms with $1.2M PPP match; NY firms then up to $190.

Thus by December we have NY firms at $190 in all offices;

NY offices of all firms at $190;

top flight non-NY firms like Orrick at $175 in their major market non-NY offices;

second tier firms like DLA, etc. at $160 (bumping to that figure in the Fall); and

third tier firms (those with PPP below $1M i.e. Reed Smith) varying between $145 and $160.

Ralph Baxter of Orrick saw the opportunity to go in for the kill, knocking out half of Orrick's competition in recruitment while also counteracting some of the problems with mid-level movement, and did so. Check back in six months...

I think NY raises are out of the question until January again -- gotta wait until the financial sector says how it did. What's their incentive to raise now other than a bunch of 1Ls trolling about it on this blog?

I don't think DLA can wait until the fall to bump to 160. They will have a lot of trouble if they do that.

11:37 -- you don't know shit. Do some work.

11:43 - i second that.

"Ralph Baxter of Orrick saw the opportunity to go in for the kill, knocking out half of Orrick's competition in recruitment while also counteracting some of the problems with mid-level movement, and did so. Check back in six months..."

Hay guyz, we compete with Skadden for associates!

Not likely, Orrick. Once a crappy public bond firm, always a crappy public bond firm.

11:14 -- you suggest that firms will raise first year salaries to 175 to make sure that mid-levels aren't running to finance, but wouldn't it make more sense to put some salary distance between 2nd year and 3rd year, in that case, so there is incentive to stick around?

who cares about DLA?

Why would any NY firm raise salaries before January?

1. Summer associates have committed to their firms, and are about to start work. So, there is no incentive to raise to lure them in.

2. The firms are already on an even footing for Fall recruiting since the market has reached equilibrium at $160,000, and the experience of last February and this February is that a raise will be matched. So, there is no incentive to raise to attract '08 summers.

3. It's already more than 4 months into the year, so midlevels aren't going to throw away 1/3 of their bonus to move to another place for 2/3 of a raise (that would be decreasing their total compensation). Moreover, associates should be confident that any raise will be followed by swift matches. So, there is no incentive to raise in order to bring in laterals.

4. Point 3 regarding salary/bonus applies with at least equal strength to moves from a firm into business/banking/etc. where the bonus component is an even larger portion of total compensation. So, there is no incentive to raise in order to prevent mid-level associates who might be going to banks.

If someone can present a rational, business-based reason that a NY firm would raise before January, I'd like to hear it...

All this talk about how firms will now differentiate based on top-tier NYC firms paying higher bonuses will not work as either a law school recruiting or lateral recruiting tool UNLESS WE GET TRANSPARENCY ON BONUSES.

I work in SF, and don't care what the NYC bonuses are, but I definitely care what my competitor firms are doing here. Like I said in an earlier post, I want to know what every CA firm would pay me for my typical 2200-2400 hours, not what they'd pay me if I did the least amount of work possible without getting fired (the "base salary"). so I'm requesting again Lat, that you PLEASE start an entry devoted to CA bonus levels (feel free to do them for NY and DC too, but it'll be a mess if they all go in one place, especially considering that CA does hours-based bonuses and is thus very different). Thank you in advance.

Now, now, 11:43, 46 and 48. You don't have to like Orrick but all the non-NY folks in Cali and DC owe them.

And if their match gets you another raise then you'll owe them.

11:59 -- I don't owe anybody shit.

11:43, you may not realize that DLA is already in a lot of trouble. That's why it took them so long to bump to 145 and why they retroactively instituted an hours requirement. No way do they bump to 160. The downward spiral has already started.

11:59, I don't owe them shit. I work at QE in CA.

Also, Orrick blows, because it raised starting June 1. All the real firms raised effective May 1.

Good points all around (re: clerkship bonuses). I have changed the list:

The $50K/$70K list:
2. Cravath
4. Skadden
9. Weil

The $50K "flat" list:
3. SullCrom
5. Davis Polk
6. STB
7. Cleary
12. Paul Weiss
13. Debevoise

The List-of-shame-Vault 20 list ($35K or less):
1. Wachtell
8. Latham
10. Kirkland
11. Covington
14. Wilmer
15. Shearman
16. Sidley
17. White & Case
18. Gibson Dunn
19. A&P
20. OMM

I'm with 11:58. The bonus question is all that really matters at this point, because once a mjor domino in a major market falls, all the others will follow, and that's the end of that story.

In response to 11:50 - The biggest gap on the current salary scale is between 3rd and 4th years:

160
170 (+10)
185 (+15)
210 (+25)
230 (+20)

I guess the firms think that it's after 3 years that they want people coming back.

350 in NYC!

Breaking: Sullivan announces $180K.

350 in NYC!

Don't you guys remember what followed the salary run-ups in 2000? Enjoy it while you can, because it will be the junior classes that pay the biggest price if the market slows. I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't happen again, but I came out of law school in a VERY bad time. I know I'm jaded, and I do believe we're owed raises, but I'm going to be cautious as to how firms handle them.

Piper had to do multiple rounds of layoffs before after they raised salaries everywhere, so I'm sure DLA constantly has it in the back of its head.

Many of the leader firms can likely easily support these raises, but many of the firms that keep following the raises may be far more stretched to sustain it. When the clients start to balk at hourly rate increases and the partners won't let it come out of their compensation, something will have to give. Let's hope that doesn't coincide with a market downturn. This housing mess is certainly not a good sign, and the private equity deals have become a bit too exuberant.

Take the raises, but make sure you have a savings account.

It's amazing how these salary discussions quickly denigrate into law student/troll circle-jerks. NYC firms currently have no logical reason to raise salaries. Raises were announced just three months ago. If business stays strong, perhaps there will be a bump in January, but not prior to then given the current circumstances. NYC firms don't care if west coast and DC firms are at the same level - they would care if they were above. Also, I highly doubt that DC bonuses will be higher than NYC.

I'm seriously thinking of leaving Chicago, all my friends and family are in CA anyway.

12:16, no one is going to believe another NY raise until they see it.... but nice try

Lat, can you start a salary list of shame for DC and CA? You can start with Wilmer, Covington, A&P, Heller and Wilson Sonsini.

what about williams and connolly? will the DC movement force them to move?

I agree with the NYC crowd, they should earn at least 190. If I had to be surrounded by stupid Yanke$$ fans all day, everyday, I would need more than an extra 30k to keep from killing them or myself. That's not to mention the stench of living in that city, that should be worth 20k or so.

If NYC is the greatest place on earth, why should you get more money to live in that sh*thole? You can't have it both ways.

12:19 - Wow, an intelligent, though-provoking post here on ATL? I'm amazed! Snarking aside, I completely agree. I'm worried about what's going to happen when the economy turns down. I can picture lots of little, unemployed M&A drones.

12:07, you're a Dumas. Orrick went first, so June 1 was the best deal going. It's easy to go next and say May 1. It's like going after Simpson and raising to $161k. So what?

hear, hear 12:30.

12:19 and 12:31:

You're right on the ball. A "downturn" is not really a "downturn" at a law firm, since it really only means that some equity partners will only make 950,000 instead of 1,000,000.

But they'll shed Associates before they led that catastrophe happen.

12:25 - are you serious about leaving Chicago? Give me a break -- even $135K is a steal there. Housing is literally 1/2 the cost of NY or SF. Give it a rest

"Orrick went first, so June 1 was the best deal going. It's easy to go next and say May 1. It's like going after Simpson and raising to $161k. So what?"

Orrick didn't go first. That ship sailed back in February. Orrick is cheap as hell, but trying to play like it's not.

If any of the CA firms had any balls, they'd make the raise retroactive to Jan 1. That would separate the men from the boys.

I am in favor of making the raises retroactive to Jan. 1 of 2007.

1:06 - Who isn't in favor of that on this board? What made you think that was worth someone's time to read?

1:09 -- And posting a comment for the sole purpose of telling someone they are wasting time is not a waste of time?

children

Jacoby & Meyers justed announced they're going to 160k, but only in their flagship office. Their Binder & Binder sub is not raising.

What about Jones Day DC?

12:08, 11:50 here -- sure, fine, but why give raises to juniors who don't make you money? Instead, put it into midlevels who do and whom you're trying to keep from leaving? If you're trying to keep midlevels from going to finance, what's your incentive to give 1st and 2nd years big raises?

Whatever, 12:55. I'm not so sure that GDC, LW and Hogan would be paying $160k now if not for a volunatary move by the firm you're calling "cheap as hell."

The regional law firms may have the most trouble from these raises. If they match, they have much more difficulty staying profitable (and retaining quality partners). If they don't match, there becomes a greater divide between them and the national firms and they can't retain associate talent. Both result in a loss of clients and a downward spiral.

The legal industry is a consolidating industry and those that don't consolidate are going to have problems. The big national firms can afford these pay raises and may in the long run benefit as smaller regional firms are displaced.

In response to 11:57:

I agree with your points 1-3 but point 4 is wrong. In fact, the raises are designed to stem the flow of corporate associates to banks. Litigators are not driving anything, hence no real impetus to raise anywhere but NY (matching to cure inequities or not be the only quality firm in town not at a certain price point is not a real impetus).

If your 3 holds, departing associates give up 1/3 of a firm bonus but stand to receive much larger (if pro rated) banking bonus. In reality, they negotiate this before jumping and may also get a signing bonus. So the reason to raise in NY is to prevent migration to banks alone.

I think that as long as banks are doing well (did you see the record first quarter!!!) they will attract talent. Raises will, at most, delay the urge to leave. If someone is unhappy, he will eventually leave anyway.

NY firms do not care about LA firms they don't directly compete with. The reason salaries went to 125 in NY a few years back was because talent was exiting to VC bubble companies in CA, not because S&C felt outmoded by Wilson Sonsini. Salaries will go up again but partners are generally not stupid when it comes to their money. Pride and greed will keep NY at 160 for a while, even if salaries could naturally be higher.

Enough time wasted. I hope this helps.

CA=$500K!!!

There are a lot of comments on here about DLA being in a lot of trouble. Can anyone making those comments support that?

I ask because I'm a 5th year at a competing firm, and have been asked to join the partner I do most of my work for in a move to DLA effective in about 5 weeks. I haven't made a final decision and we're still negotiating salary at DLA but they've guaranteed they'll match what I'd be making if I stayed plus a signing bonus.

I was in law school during the last big downturn and do remember what it was like when firms expanded too fast and left it to associates to pay the price for managements exuberance. However, from everything they've shown me at DLA during the past two weeks about their business model and their expansion over the past few years, I have been feeling comfortable that they're as well off as any large firm.

If the posts on here about DLA being in trouble are more than just someone with some sort of grudge against the firm, could you please elaborate? Provide links to information if you have it?

Any support for what you're saying would be appreciated.

My impression is that -- so long as they follow the salary increase -- DLA will be fine. Clients like the full service firm opportunity, so DLA's model is probably the future. To survive and prosper DLA must put a premium on retaining and attracting top talent, and that means keeping up with the salary increases.

They've retained a couple big partners the last 6 months, so they must be doing something right.

1:57 PM:

I am an Associate at DLA Piper and I'm not a big fan of the firm. But I can tell you that I haven't heard anything at all about the firm being in trouble. Our internal numbers suggest just the opposite.

There is some concern about the direction we're heading. The attitude from the top is that if our clients can't pay our increasingly higher rates, we don't want them, even if they've been with the firm for a number of years. That may be an over-simplification.

2:07: If DLA can attract clients that can pay the higher rates in place of the long-term clients that can't, they will benefit financially, which will attract both partners and associates.

It sucks for the partners with long term clients, and may lead to some dissension and defections as a result, but is a solid financial model if followed with tact.

The higher quality of firms can charge higher rates and that is where DLA seems to want to go. That is why it is inevitable that they will increase salaries. If they don't, they won't be able to make it to the level they seek.

2:07 - Thanks for your reply. That has been an issue in my negotiations, not so much because the rates are higher, but because they have a floor on projected annual legal fees for any new client that I would bring in. In my current practice, I have several clients that I cultured on my own that generate regular work for me, but not necessarily enough to meet DLA's floor on an ongoing basis.

The firm has told me that they understand the difficulties of their system for mid-levels and have adjusted their evaluation system for partner elections to place less weight on new clients brought in by their associates and more weight on their volume of service to existing large clients. I have to admit this worries me on a personal level in terms of my own practice and partnership prospects, but I'm not certain yet whether this is necessarily a bad business model for the firm as a whole. In your opinion, from what you've seen, is the firm being honest about its partnership criteria?

2:07 - Thanks for your reply. That has been an issue in my negotiations, not so much because the rates are higher, but because they have a floor on projected annual legal fees for any new client that I would bring in. In my current practice, I have several clients that I cultured on my own that generate regular work for me, but not necessarily enough to meet DLA's floor on an ongoing basis.

The firm has told me that they understand the difficulties of their system for mid-levels and have adjusted their evaluation system for partner elections to place less weight on new clients brought in by their associates and more weight on their volume of service to existing large clients. I have to admit this worries me on a personal level in terms of my own practice and partnership prospects, but I'm not certain yet whether this is necessarily a bad business model for the firm as a whole. In your opinion, from what you've seen, is the firm being honest about its partnership criteria?

1:40: I disagree, there will always be a place for the regional firms because not all clients can pay the rates the bigger national firms charge.

2:07: If DLA can attract clients that can pay the higher rates in place of the long-term clients that can't, they will benefit financially, which will attract both partners and associates.

It sucks for the partners with long term clients, and may lead to some dissension and defections as a result, but is a solid financial model if followed with tact.

The higher quality of firms can charge higher rates and that is where DLA seems to want to go. That is why it is inevitable that they will increase salaries. If they don't, they won't be able to make it to the level they seek.

HOGAN ROCKS!

2:17 PM:

That sounds right. There is a great deal of emphasis placed on servicing existing clients at DLA Piper. I can't really speak to how it would affect prospects for Partnership or whether it is reflected in Partnership considerations.

If you work in a discrete practice area at DLA, you can really benefit from the existing client base without having to constantly go out and pitch prospective clients. Doing both, however, obviously will pay higher dividends, and there is an emphasis on both.

It sounds like there are a lot of DLA people on this board. Have any of you heard any rumors about the status of salaries?

Highly doubtful that a partnership would entrust the p/l and quarterly 411 sheets to associates. They often don't give them to a person about to make partner. So if you're basing a law firm move on 2:07's "I haven't heard anything wrong," I'd at least consider a second opinion.

NY = 125K

Does anyone have any information about what Kirkland's reaction in DC?

Does anyone have any information about what Kirkland will do in DC?

Does anyone have any information about what Kirkland is doing in DC?

is this everyone's first day on the internet? can we cut out the quadruple posts?

Does anyone have any information about what Kirkland is doing in DC?

LOL @ 5:24. Agreed. Didn't know so many attorneys were dee-dee-dee's.

Kirkland has dissolved. Now will you shut up?

Good question about Kirkland, although not four friggin times. Given their reputation, I'd bet they'd go up too but I have no specific information to that effect.

There's a rumor over in the Stroock thread that Winston raised to 160k in LA - can anyone confirm? Deny?

Any idea why Chicago is being so resistant to joining the $160 club, after so many years of keeping in line with salaries in NYC, DC, and LA? What's going on with the Chicago market? Is it failing?