More Rumors: NYC to 190!
We're beginning to wonder whether this "NY to 190" business is just a big practical joke. But even though no real information has emerged, and the co-chair of Simpson's personnel committee told us his firm is "not currently considering an increase in associate salaries," the rumors continue to swirl.
Here are two email messages we've received that are representative of many others:
"NYC big firm starting salary may be increasing to $190k in the coming weeks. My source was a recruiter whose friend at Sidley told him the news. Have you all heard anything or is this bs?""[A] friend of mine, who is a partner at a big Chicago firm, with a large presence in NYC, mentioned that pay raises are likely in NYC and that the firm has budgeted $190k as the starting first-year salary."
Such gossip is not far removed from this commenter's parody:
My dad's step-mom's estranged aunt is a janitor at Cravath, and she said she found a scribbled note on the floor of a partner's office saying "damn, looks like we have to go to at least $175k soon; call wife re: can't add second pool to home in Nantucket this summer."
We wish we had more to tell you right now. We'll continue to dig.
But at this point, your guess is as good as ours. So feel speculate to discuss in the comments. Vote in our reader polls, if you haven't done so already.
Will any of this chatter make associate pay raises happen -- or happen faster? Unlikely. But hey, there are worse ways to pass the time.
Earlier: Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: The Simpson Rumor
Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: Official Comment from Simpson
ATL Reader Poll: WWNYD?
(114) Comments
first!
Seems like NYC firms are content to let their status as the most "prestigious" slowly disappear. Sure, it won't vanish quickly, as the big NYC firms will still pay more with bonuses than most, but the writing is on the wall.
Some non-NYC firms have even begun to compete with bonuses, as last year Kirkland paid some of the highest; it will be interesting to see if Kirkland Chicago does the same this year, after raising to 160.
If the NYC firms are concerned about this type of "prestige" or "status," I think a raise is necessary. If they don't care about that type of thing, then they should probably just leave things as is. They will still attract good talent (associates and clients) for the time being.
I really hope the first firm to make the move to 190 is a firm that is NY based and basically only in NY (like Patterson). That would really sending Simpson & Co. spinning.
as a rising 2l at stanford, i sure hope that nyc does raise. i want to begin my career in ny, but i have close to 150k in debt. i have a nagging feeling that it would be a dumb move to take a ny job when other great cities pay the same wage and cost/tax so much less. it will be a tough decision. i hope that nyc firms make the decision easier before oci.
Reply to 8:40am: what are you talking about? Simpson & Co. (e.g., Simpson, Cravath, Sullivan) are "NY based." What is Patterson?!?!?
Lat, you're working overtime today!
Why did you change it from "Sidley" to "a Big Chicago firm?" I suppose that's the advantage of reading your blog through an rss reader is that it shows all versions of the post.
I was going to go to a NYC firm post-clerkship, but if the situation remains unchanged, I will have to consider Chicago (about the same, possibly higher pay (maybe Kirkland) with far lower COL) or LA (much nicer weather with about same pay). In my mind, the whole point of slaving away at a NYC firm is prestige and money. They are squandering both.
For someone who is not predisposed to any one of the larger cities (e.g., DC, NYC, Chicago, LA) in particular, why would they choose NYC as things currently stand?
Reply to 8:44 - I didn't mean to imply that Simpson wasn't NY based. I was trying to say that it would be interesting if a place like Patterson, that only has one office in NY, in an attempt to really distinguish themselves from the large national firms, raised to 190 before everyone else. It would just throw the bigger firms for a loop.
Didn't expect an attack. Jeez.
It has been two weeks since the Jenner memo went out. Does LAT have any word what is going on there? Are they going to raise and pay market or are they closing shop? Is associate morale right now awful. Any insight would be much appreciated.
Does anyone feel lately like everyone who responds on this blog works for Jenner? Because I could care less.
It has been posted like 500 times. The Jenner associate's meeting is on Monday. Everyone expects to find out then. Stop asking for chrissakes.
Jenner to $1.90!
8:40/9:15 - Cravath effectively has only one office, in NY. (Their London office has something like 30 attys.)
bring it bitches!
Die. All of you.
Jenner blows.
I'm thinking they are budgeting $190 as base + bonus. That's not all that earth shattering, is it?
DC list of shame? C'mon... keep the pressure on. I'm a summer at a fairly large DC firm that's holding at 145, and I'd like some news re: a raise before the summer ends!!!
Historically, NY firms have almost always paid the same base salaries as Chicago firms. What's with you guys. You had one year where the base salaries in NY were more, and now you think it should always be that way. Give it up... firms are going national/international now.
DC List of Shame (taken from a June 6th thread)
17. William & Connolly
36. King & Spalding
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable
More Money = More Problems.
I think it's mo' money, mo' problems.
NY won't go to 190, but these firms should go to 160:
Continuing CA List of Shame:
1) Thelen Reid
2) Perkins Coie
3) Bryan Cave
4) Baker & McKenzie
5) Seyfarth Shaw
6) Foley Lardner
7) Greenberg Traurig
8) Holland & Knight
9) Nixon Peabody
DC List of Shame
17. William & Connolly
36. King & Spalding
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable
Well, we should all remember that the 190K figure in NYC didn't just arise out of thin air. It came from a partner quoted by law.com in a recent article who assumed they'd go to 190K by December.
Next rumor to Lat:
"The hiring partner at Davis Polk's pit bull took a shit, and he didn't pick it up. The shit didn't stink, but it looked like it was in the form of '190.' Just thought you should know."
Considering that salaries were at $125K in February 2000, almost eight years ago, the hike to $190K seems long overdue.
1:37 - no, that is not the case. The $190K was originally arbitrarily made up by someone at Robert Half Legal or some other such recruiting-type person who was quoted. Get your sources straight -- don't they teach you in law school how to cite check? Whoever it was completely pulled it out of their ass.
You guys are all retards. NY won't go any higher until at least the beginning of the year, if it even does then, which it probably won't.
Why would they raise now? They care about laterals, which would imply raises at the beginning of the year, if ever.
King & Spalding should no longer be on the DC list of shame. Atlanta is a different story, though.
Good point:
DC List of Shame
17. William & Connolly
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable
190k would be a surprise 170-175k, is coming.
i don't get it... do people not remember a year and a half ago when new york firms paid the same base as every other major city, and how that had been going on for at least 6 years? New York to 190k is wishful thinking and nothing more. New York firms won't do it because they don't have to--people will still work there. There was no sense of loss in prestige before when everyone was at 125, and there won't be any now.
does anyone have a list of DC firms in the 50-100 vault range who HAVE raised to 160?
2.44 is not too bright.
since you have the list of firms that have not raised, you can figure out who has by using the method of deduction.
ok, watson?
2:50 - expressio unius est exclusio alterus what??
Why aren't you slobs billing?
I heard that WilmerHale in DC is still paying its summers at the 145k scale. True?
Yes. It's true. A lot of the summers are pissed, actually.
Summers are pissed. Ha! They get paid a crapload of money for doing absolutely nothing worthwhile and then complain about it.
Should make great lawyers.
F&R is worse. Their summers are getting paid at 135!
a friend of mine summering at skadden said 2 weeks ago that rumors are flying in-house that skadden is going to raise to 190 to "blow everyone else out of the water."
friend also says that skadden is a summer's paradise and that skadden's associate attrition rate is not due to the slave-labor work environment but to the big $$ they can make on wall street.
Obviously, nobody NEEDS to raise to 190. Nobody needed to raise to 160, either. I am sure lawyers would have dutifully gone about their jobs if they were still at 145.
Since there is essentially collusion among law firms (informally), everyone ends up at the same pay scale. They all want to pay the same salary, that way salary is not a distinguishing factor among firms. Really, what it takes is one firm taking a jump (like Simpson or Orrick), to raise salaries, and then everyone else follows.
It makes sense that salaries in New York would go above $160,000 when other markets are the same. The key is getting one single firm to take that jump. 95% of the AmLaw 100 firms would never take that jump, because they don't WANT to be market leaders. Therefore, we are basically waiting on a small group of firms like Skadden, Cravath, Simpson, Sullivan, and maybe a few others like Davis Polk to jump and raise. It's possible a smaller firm could do it to try to stake claim to more prestige, but that's the only other way that it happened.
Firms like Gibson, Latham, Orrick, Kirkland, Mayer Brown, etc., are never going to be market leaders. When the pay raise comes, it'll be from one of a handful of New York firms, mostly mentioned above.
Why is Jones Day not on the DC list of shame? They're currently paying $160K with no bonus, aren't they? They're basically W&C minus 5K and prestige.
Geeves, will you bring me my gin and tonic, and have you polished my shoes yet? Be sure to get the Bentley gased up, too.
I think it's "Jeeves."
6:57:
why does it make sense that ny firms would go above 160k, when they didn't do it when everyone was at 125 for six years? The market is just fine with new york paying the same base as dc, sf, la, etc.
and all of this ignores that ny associates ARE in fact compensated better than their peers in other cities when bonuses are factored in.
if new york firms do raise, it almost certainly would be due to competition from wall street, not from some shop in dc paying the same base.
Seriously, without a NYC raise relative to other cities why would a mid-level associate stay?
After 4 or 5 years in NYC, not even assuming you went to law school there, you know that making partner in NYC is harder than elsewhere, you know that associates in the Chicago or, jeez even LA, go home before you do. So why bother.
Go to Chicago or LA or DC, live better, be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, and save some money.
9:46 is a idiot.
6.57,
That's a good analysis. But for a firm like Orrick or MBP to get noticed is to take the jump and move to 190.
Likely it will be Cravath or Skadden because both are having a banner year so far. Between those two, I see Skadden doing it first, if just to reinforce that the NYC office is their most important office.
I'm a summer at a top biglaw shop in NY. I was at dinner with a partner who, when asked, said, "Yes of course salaries will go up soon." He speculated it will come from S&C because "they're associates are miserable" and they need to recruit for next year.
Believe the rumor if you like, but the fact is there is steep competition for summer associates and recruiting season starts very soon. The raise will come before September when fall recruiting picks up.
And yes, it is 10PM and yes, I did just get out of work.
9.53
I think you are wrong. 9.46 is right. I left to go to Chicago when salaries were the same. Partners are more humane here.
WSWAG
I am so glad that I never even bothered to interview with biglaw in NYC. Who cares if they pay more. It's inhumane. I'm pissed if I have to leave my (SF) office after 9:00.
Although it is 10:40 on a Saturday night and I am writing a memo, from home. So maybe I shouldn't feel quite so smug.
10:03:
investigate the difference between "they're" and "their". and why the fuck are you at work at 10 pm on a saturday if you're a summer? is it because you fail to differentiate between possessive pronouns? are you being punished?
When are clerkship bonuses going to scale in proportion to the recent salary moves? We've had a lot of firms catch-up, but no big moves? Whomever moves first could catch some big clerks.
Skadden blows. They won't be the first to raise.
2:31 -- if "your" going to be an asshole at least get one thing straight. In order to differentiate, one must first be presented with two things, and "they're" is no possessive pronoun. dipshit.
10:03 -- Are you sure you're a SUMMER at a "big law shop"? Or would it be more accurate to say, "I'm a night janitor at a top biglaw shop in NY and I have yet to learn elementary grammar"? My money is on the latter, unless of course you are the Monica Goodling type...
Dickstein raised weeks ago...
DC List of Shame
17. William & Connolly
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
96. Venable
It's just weird to have W&C on this list...
DC List of Shame
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
96. Venable
I just ate a small child.
DC Vault of Shame(still at 145,000)
(when Dickstein updates their NALP profile, i'll remove them)
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
66. Bingham McCutchen
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
88. Arent Fox
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable
Vault of Extreme Shame(still at 135,000)
87. Squire Sanders
"does anyone have a list of DC firms in the 50-100 vault range who HAVE raised to 160?"
Sure, here it is:
The firms that matter.
There is no doubt that NYC firms will raise. Most NYC firms are doing very well as evidenced by ppp's. The selling point for recruiting is that you work hard but get good experience and are compensated very well.
The psychological barrier is 200k. You will not see that, but 190k is a definite.
White Girls With Asian Guys
NYC to 190!
It's not weird at all to have W&C on the list. When end-of-year bonuses are virtually guaranteed, and are CERTAINLY awarded at the hours the normal W&C associate bills, there's no reason to treat their compensation package the same as that of a firm with a 160K base salary. This is not difficult to understand.
I'm in California, and I'm kinda getting used to getting raises every four months, so I predict NYC goes to $190k at the start of OCI season and CA matches at the end of OCI season. Whoo hoo! Go NYC!
PS. Anyone who says NYC has to pay more to maintain its "prestige" is a moron. Look at the history, dumbass. Until very recently everyone, everywhere paid $125k. NYC lawyers still considered themselves and their firms more prestigious. The extra money is purely to stop the bleeding of mid-levels and seniors to better jobs outside of law firms. It's not to attract some snot-nosed 2L. Wow, are law students getting dumber every year?
If NYC associates get a raise resulting in them continuing to be paid at much higher rates than their counterparts in DC, LA, and SF, I am going to be highly annoyed. At many firms, DC associates are billing more than NYC associates and the billables of CA associates are even with NYC associates. And we're all doing the same work. And the quality of the associates in DC, LA, and SF is just as good as that in NYC (yes, I realize this may absolutely shock some of you Manhattan folks. Newsflash: We also received NYC offers.). So why should NYC associates continue to be paid more? The NYC associate bonus more than makes up for the COL. And it's no huge "hardship" to live in this country's most cosmopolitan city (plus, unlike other cities, there are lots of nice + relatively close living alternatives for those who wish to pay lower rent -- think Brooklyn or even NJ. Comparable decreases in rent in CA would mean at least an hours drive commute each way, which adds lots of money in parking and gas, not to mention lost time that could be spent reading, etc.).
Ultimately, this wage-war needs to stop. Soon. It only means more hours for associates, more layoffs, and the like. GCs aren't going to stand for this type of nonsense if it affects their bottom line. And partners won't want to pay from their pocket.
The solution: Make the payscale an even $160 in DC, Boston, SF, LA, and NYC (Chi, ATL, and other areas of CA might reasonably be lower due to COL factors). Then, supplement incomes with EQUAL BONUS STRUCTURES (none of this NYCers make ~$30,000 more than their counterparts per year) based on quality and quantity of work (i.e., you work 2,400 hours, you get a bonus of x amount no matter where you are located). Finally, the firms can do a COL adjustment to address certain COL factors (i.e., NYC associates get a bonus bump of $10,000 and DC/SF associates a bonus bump of $5,000 at the FYE to address the higher cost of living than in LA, Boston, etc.). And, if certain markets (Sacramento or Delaware anyone?) are having trouble finding appropriately high quality associates, given them a special bump too, to make it worth their while to live there.
I'm admittedly biased because as an SF associate, I am paid a lot less than NYCers (who get those bonuses) and a lot less than those living in other cities (where the COL is lower) for doing the same work at equally high billables. I love SF and now consider it home -- but if I had been able to run the underlying calculations while doing OCI way back when, might have made a different choice. (Unfortunately, bonus info wasn't readily available when I was recruiting, so I couldn't take that info into account . . . ). I'm considering whether I should make a switch now, but doing so would ultimately be disruptive to the relationships I've already built at my firm, on client teams, and in my community, etc.
10:16 -- as per 5:24's eloquent post, W&C is back on the list of shame -- and at the top of it to boot.
DC List of Shame
17. William & Connolly
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
96. Venable
can we stop with the lists of shame?
Any truth to the rumor that Jenner will announce that its NYC office will go to $175 tomorrow when it announces Chicago and DC to $160 tomorrow?
Morale has to be lower there now and I keep hearing that they are looking to tell people that they have arrived in the transactional world. That would do it.
8:12: did you hear this rumor within the firm? How confident are you about the 160 tommorow? Any word on compression?
Jenner Info...where did you get this information?
I've the $160k info from friends at jenner now. The assumption is that the firm has waited quite some time and that tomorrow's town hall meeting will be the announcement. As far as compression, how could they do that when firms like Katten and MWE (firms that had compression on the old 135 and 145 scale) have come out full bore across the board. Off-market compression and dequitization of partners? No way would they send that message.
I've heard the $175k NYC speculation from friends in NYC that are being heavily recruited by Jenner's office there which is apparently mostly transactional. This would really surprise me and I think it's false, but wanted to see if anyone else had heard similar rumblings.
My firm bumped to $160 two weeks ago. Hopefully - jenner will set the new NYC market. Of course, maybe they are too busy setting the low end of the chicago market.
so Jenner is telling potential associates that they are raising to $175? damn.
Are you seriously telling me that Jenner is going to set the NYC market? That would be quite a feat. Quite a feat I say. They still haven't moved their home office!
Odds that NYC goes to at least $175k within the next:
12 months = 99%
6 months = 80%.
3 Months = 55%
Odds that jenner moves the NYC market = 15%.
Odds that NYC goes to at least $175k within the next:
12 months = 99%
6 months = 80%.
3 Months = 55%
Odds that jenner moves the NYC market = 15%.
Instead of raising 30K in salary, law firms would do better to make a 401K contribution, and to increase the salary by the difference between 30K and the effective value of the 401K contribution, which will of course be greater than the effective sum it cost the firm. Associates would be equally well off, and law firms might save a few thousand dollars
yawn. Watching spoiled children demand more toys gets boring.
7:25 -- if you are going to include firms in the list of "shame" because of bonuses, firms so included probably require an asterisk. You would also have to include Jones Day to be consistent, unless I'm mistaken and they do give bonuses in NYC.
Someone made the point earlier that Jones Day should be on the DC list of shame too since their base salary is 160K and they pay no bonus. Makes sense to me.
...about Jenner.
It's going to go to 190. There is no doubt.
If you can make more as a corp counsel, then firms have to raise.
Can I bring to your attention the pay now on offer at Weil in London? http://www.legalweek.com/Articles/1032278/Article.html
Jones Day should be on a perpetual list of shame for not giving bonuses.
Still, can't imagine how anyone is able to get by on 90,000 pounds/year in London, especially after UK taxes. 75,000 pounds/year must have been a hand to mouth existence there
11:27,
How many corporate counsel make $190,000 straight out of a law firm? Maybe corporate attorneys, I doubt that that's true for litigators.
6:21: the conclusion is that either London associates are underpaid or NY associates are overpaid. There is a CNN article today re: the world's most expensive cities -- London by that calculation is 26% more expensive than NY.
12:23.
Bingham pays 160K in every office nationwide. It is not on the DC list of shame.
I hate to ask anything about Jenner, but what time is this meeting?
To 11:04
I know, it's not on my outlook calender either.
NY List of Shame:
Greenberg Traurig
Memo to Richard Rosenbaum: It's mid-June, and I'm still waiting for the raise promised in January.
DC List of Shame
17. William & Connolly
36. King & Spalding
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable
King & Spalding should be removed from the D.C List of Shame.
Womble Carlyle can be added, however.
JOOOOONES DAY
Does Jones Day not pay any bonuses in its NY office? I once heard a rumor that JD pays bonuses in NY only.
what is this jenner place? what do they do there?
sorry k&s.
DC List of Shame
17. William & Connolly
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
91. Thelen Reid
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
96. Venable
11:53, was it promised on July 1 or something?
Re GT:
To quote from the email (at http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/skaddenfreude_the_greenberg_me.php):
"We are pleased to announce that our New York office will be increasing associate compensation retroactive to January 1, 2007... Each associate will be advised of her or his salary by the end of this week."
Jones Day DC = 160K with no bonus = List of Shame
First, it is correct that Jones Day does not pay bonuses except in NYC. Second, there is a good reason for that! Check out these numbers from the NALP Directory for JD DC:
Average annual associate billable hours: 1875 (2005) and 1808 (2006)
Uh, 160 for 1808 hours doesn't sound too shameful to me.
2:38, how has Greenberg not paid that out yet?
3:10am: good question. ask in the empty offices down the hall. seriously, they raised real estate but no one else.
Check out yesterday's post on Philalawyer.net, "$160K (You're Selling Yourselves Short)."
NY, DC, SF, LA to 190K!
http://www.philalawyer.net/archives/160k_youre_sell.phtml
If you strip away everything else and discuss the matter in terms of cost of living, as some people here have done (not that it is the only consideration), I would take issue with the idea that cost of living is comparable across NYC, SF, LA, DC and Chicago. Not only do most statistics suggest that is plainly false (and not a matter of a 10K adjustment), but I have lived in four of those five cities in the past five years and that is not true. I am not arguing that cost of living difference should or will translate directly into compensation at biglaw firms, but, if they did, come on people. Even with recent significant increases in cost of living in some of these places, it is just not true that they are all basically at parity. Even once you factor in certain assumed changes in standards in housing, the truth is you shouldn't live in nyc as a biglaw associate unless living in nyc is worth a significant decrease in the ratio of your cost of living over your salary and trading off some quality of life factors for others.
double hearsay,
the hearsay is out there on the left coast as well. the comments i heard from a recruiting coordinator were that skadden was indeed planning on raising to $190k. the odd thing is that this talk is coming out of l.a.; perhaps all firms will begin making compensation changes on a one-firm philosophy rather than by using city-by-city adjustments. in the end, that is the only way to "blow everyone else out of the water" without a new clamor for NYC to 225!