I'm guessing Best Company to Work for 2007 means they don't have the billable hours necessary to hit the new scale...

Back to billing...

Who?

Is it true that Sonnenschein and Schiff raised?

Bingham has not raised yet because they are a thoughtful firm with business sense and no fear of doing their own thing.

Case in point: All of you should know than only about 3 out of 10 mergers actually work out. Bingham has successfully done 11 mergers, and all have worked out well.

That's good business sense.

Another case in point. Bingham is one of the Best Company's to work for DESPITE a 2000 hr billable requirement. How do you do that? You focus on your key assets (employees) and make sure they have what they need.

More good business sense.

Bingham is again using its good business sense and thoughfully examining what is going on with salaries. Blindly copying what everyone else is doing is not a strategy for success.

Maybe they are no longer looking for money-grubbing, pay-attention only to salary 2L's. If so, good for them.

Maybe they are looking at other ways to compensate their attorneys (e.g. bonus, time off, etc.)

I hope Bingham continues to examine the situation, look for creative solutions, and doesn't just follow the pack.

While Bingham is showing some strength, all the other firms are proving the attorney stereotype: risk averse, uncreative, boring.

"What exactly is Bingham's problem? Its associates deserve answers, and after one month of hearing about raise after raise, there is nothing but silence. Please do anything you can to squeeze some information from firm management before the firm starts bleeding associates and decimates its summer recruiting program for the year."

Whiny little bitches.

9:38, c'mon. The corporate department in Bingham's Boston office can't even keep 50% of its incoming associates past the 2 year mark. Everyone there is miserable.
We all work for one thing in the end: salary.

WWRLD?

Damn...I guess they let the Bingham partners post messages on Above the Law. Keep drinking the Kool Aid man.

9:38 AM:

If you guys are going to be cheap, just be honest about it.

They're at 2000 hours minimum and haven't raised? Oh man, somebody is getting prison raped.

Oh, they'll raise... they're whores to the market like everyone else.

AHOY MATIES!!!!

9:38 - that is a laughable post. I used to work in Bingham's NY office. Like so many others, I left after the McCutchen merger, which was a disaster for the NY office. Bingham's NY office is a joke at this point. Classes from two or three years ago have vanished already.

9:38:

My meager background in game theory is obviously weak compared to you.

Can you please explain how a firm could possibly signal to the market of associates that it is a national "lifestyle firm"? Assume the market knows it has a 2000 hour billable requirement. Given the risk that the "lifestyle firm" line may be a bluff, wouldn't every associate and law student obtain a better expected value by going to the firm that guarantees higher compensation (rather than the firm that makes vague allusions to bonuses or more time off)?

Perhaps they're smart enough to bask in the limelight (no such thing as bad PR?) while they determine their next move.
-----
Or, maybe they're cheap.
-----
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake"
-Grandmaster Savielly Tartakower

9:38 = Bingham Compensation Committee Chair

I have never heard of this outfit. Is it some sort of a family law boutique?

Greetings. I would like to take this opportunity to provide an update on associate compensation.

First, here's a brief recap. In March, we announced increases in our U.S. starting salaries and in the salary structure for second year and more senior associates effective July 1, 2007. We look forward to the implementation of the new structure and to awarding substantial salary increases to associates in accordance with the announced program. In this context, let me reiterate our appreciation for all you do in serving our clients and contributing to our business. I am confident that our continuing goal of fairly compensating associates will be met, both with the July adjustments and in the future.

Next, as widely reported over the past month, many firms have announced further increases in first year associate salaries above and beyond the changes announced earlier this year. In California, the major firms, which had increased first year salaries from $135,000 to $145,000, have announced a further increase to $160,000. Many firms have reported similar increases in Chicago and Washington, DC. In assessing and responding to these developments, we have sought once again to strike a balance that advances the firm’s interests – including those of its clients, partners, associates and others – in a reasonable and responsible manner.

As you know, Reed Smith does not set associate compensation on a lock-step basis. Rather, we establish salaries based primarily on individual performance within a target/range matrix. Individual performance takes into account a variety of factors covered in the annual performance evaluations, with primary emphasis on quality of work and productivity (hours). An associate’s overall economic contributions can also play a role in setting salaries. This involves consideration of working attorney revenue, write-offs, billing rates, and the like.

In addition to base salary, the firm has a robust bonus program. Last year, as a result of enhancements in the program and improved financial performance, that program yielded individual bonuses as high as $75,000 and again saw increases in the average bonus amounts and the percentage of associates receiving bonuses.

Finally, Reed Smith maintains a reasonable, 1900 chargeable hours expectation for associates, whereas many other large firms have minimum expectations at the 1950 or 2000 hour levels. We do not intend to change our standard chargeable hours expectation.

We also do not intend to make further structural changes to associate starting salaries in 2007. We believe we have already struck the right balance for this year. However, in light of recent market developments, we have decided to increase our starting salary for first year associates in California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. to $160,000 effective January 1, 2008. In addition, we will accelerate to January 1, 2008 the implementation of the previously announced increase to $145,000 in Philadelphia/Wilmington.

Between now and year end, we will determine the appropriate increases in the salary targets and ranges for second year and more senior associates in light of the new first year numbers. Salaries effective January 1, 2008 will be set in accordance with the overall revised structure. As currently, we will assure that the top of the salary range for each class year is at least equal to the prevailing large-firm lockstep salary level for that class year and location. Individual salary placement as of January 1, 2008 will of course depend on performance.

In this context, we remain committed to preserving a culture of work/life balance despite the increasingly recognized risks resulting from repeated jumps in law firm associate salary structures. Associates who maintain a 1900 annualized chargeable hours pace will benefit from the increased salaries available under our revised program. (Part-time associates, where hours are annualized for performance evaluation and bonus purposes, will of course benefit on a pro rata basis.) Those associates who consistently exceed our expectations (both as to quality and productivity) can on balance expect to achieve higher salary levels. In addition, our target/range structure will continue to provide the flexibility, when warranted by individual performance and practice economics, to pay our highest-performing associates salaries equal to or above the large-firm lockstep levels. Conversely, as in the past, the failure to meet the 1900 chargeable hours expectation will presumptively result in lower salary levels.

While we are not planning additional changes to our salary structure this year, in connection with the previously announced July 1 structural adjustments, we will also review individual associate salary placement in our markets in light of market factors and practice economics.

As a further enhancement to our 2007 compensation package, we have also decided to provide additional hours-based bonus payments for this year beyond those available under our current program. In addition to the current bonus thresholds, we will make further payments of $5,000 at each of 2000 and 2100 chargeable hours and $10,000 at 2300 chargeable hours. This means, for example, that associates with 2300 chargeable hours for 2007 will earn additional bonuses of $20,000. In order to maintain the focus on our time entry policy, we will reduce the total of these additional payments by $5,000 for any associate who during the calendar year fails on more than two occasions to comply with firm policy concerning entering and releasing time (see Policy Manual Section I.F.6). It is our hope and expectation that this adjustment will not affect many associates. These additional hours-based bonus amounts are in addition to the matter origination and discretionary bonus components of our program, which are not dependent on chargeable hours.

Although we are not at this time announcing additional changes for 2008 outside of California, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia/Wilmington, we will continue to assess our position in other markets and make announcements of any further changes before the end of the year.

Thanks for taking the time to review this information. Thanks even more for your dedication to providing our clients with outstanding service, which more than anything else will assure our continued success. We value your contributions and look forward to working together with you to advance our collective goals for your long-term success in the profession and at Reed Smith.

If you have questions, please feel free to speak to your Practice Group Leader or Office Managing Partner. You may also relay questions to management through your Associates Committee representatives.

Do the 1.5 hrs necessary to read and fully comprehend that Reed Smith memo count towards chargable hours?

so Schiff and Sonnenschein both raised in Chicago??? Can anyone confirm this???

From: Portnoy, Elliott I.
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:44 AM
To: #Associates-CHI; #Associates-DC; #Associates-LA; #Associates-SF; #AssociatesSVO
Cc: #Partners-CHI; #Partners-DC; #Partners-LA; #Partners-SF; #Partners-SVO; #Policy-Planning-All; #Practice-Group-Heads-All

Subject: Associate Salaries: Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC Offices

We are fortunate to have enormously talented associates who contribute mightily to Sonnenschein's success. Over the last few weeks, we have been monitoring compensation changes that have been occurring in a number of markets. After consulting with our practice leaders and office managing partners, and consistent with our desire to remain competitive with leading national law firms, we are pleased to announce that we are increasing starting salaries in our Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC offices to $160,000. We will be adjusting salaries for all other associate classes in these offices effective July 1, 2007 to take into account the increase in the starting salary.

We take great pride in our outstanding associates, and appreciate your extraordinary contributions and devotion to our clients and the Firm.

Elliott I. Portnoy
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
1301 K Street NW
Suite 600 East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
202.408.6433 direct
202.408.6399 fax
202.236.6760 mobile
eportnoy@sonnenschein.com
www.sonnenschein.com

So the Reed Smith memo basically says screw off. Did I get that right from reading it quickly?

Why is Jones Day Chicago waiting so long? The summer kids must be ticked.

I like how "robust" the Reed Smith bonus plan is. If $75k is a "robust" bonus, I sure hope the guy didn't bust his ass too hard. You can crush 75k at a number of other firms if you work a lot. And I find it hard to belive some schmo at RS isn't working as hard as the head schmo's everywhere else.

Sounds like Reed Smith is coming up with a creative solution:

* Reap reward of being able to say $160k starting salary during recruiting
* At the same time, not follow the other firms blindly, but put the money where your mouth is, i.e. pay for extra hours, good time entry practice, matter origination, and discretionary bonuses for skills not measured in hours.

Reed Smith is showing the other firms how to be successful. Based on where they put their money, they value both Fungible Billing Units and those with skills other then a heartbeat, two eyes, and 10 fingers.

I hope Bingham will find a way to be even more creative then Reed Smith.

9:38 and 10:46 = young partner with no book of business (otherwise why worry)

Bingham hasn't raised yet because there is no need to. Bingham will raise in August or September when they start handing out offers to summer associates and doing fall recruiting.

Why raise now- just because everyone else is doing it? If they lose a couple associates over a 15 grand raise, then those are the associates Bingham can afford to lose, or were going to lose anyway.

If they hold out then they get the benefit of looking tough and they get to save a couple million dollars. As long as they raise in time for fall recruiting- no harm no foul. The only detriment to holding out is all the bad buzz...among lower level associates in other firms who spend their time on blogs. Who cares? Once they raise in the fall everyone will forget about how long it took.

I say good for them.

I laugh at 10:49 and others who, instead of responding with some substance, attempt to discredit what I am saying by guessing who I am.

Whether I'm a law student, associate, partner, retired person, or your grandma, it doesn't matter.

Attack the substance, not the poster.

wtf is up with this board being taken over by partners? 9:38, 10:46 and 10:53 have no idea what they are talking about, and are seriously disillusioned as to the mindset (and memory) of law students and young associates.

9:38 -- Creative solutions, huh?

Then why does Bingham take its sweet ass time every year to figure out what the "market rate" is for its hours-based bonus structure? There is absolutely zero innovation there, pal. Bingham pays the market rate for bonuses; it just suddenly doesn't like the market rate for salaries. I call bullshit.

And don't talk to me about "time off". Nobody gets to take any time off of significance if you expect to get a bonus or make partner. And if you expect to get paid your "time off" when you eventually leave the firm because you exhausted or tired of its cheap behavior, guess again -- sorry, you don't get to "accrue" your vacation; it is use it or lose it.

Totally right about everyone forgetting this in a few months. I mean, I haven't seen one post referring to the last round and how long it took for someone to raise, much less the raise before that.

Whatever, doesn't matter... For some reason this morning I am feeling super boisterous... possibly because I have been at this for just over a year and a half and have seen my salary go from 125k to 170k. With another 15k coming in January... All the sooner I can get out of this and start operating self-service car washes! Cheers everyone!

Its obvious to me that "Campaign to end Lock Step Salaries" does not work at Bingham - despite what he/she read on the firm website, he/she has no clue what he/she is talking about. The 9:38 post is clearly just opinion and blind speculation from an outsider and has little basis in fact or reality.

11:01, you obviously don't read this board very often. If you did, you would know that 1) people frequently talk about who raised first last time, and 2) "last time" means last time, not two times ago.

10:56 and 11:01 are both right.

As a law student going through OCI this fall, I am paying attention to who's screwing their associates.

Once I choose a firm, I will forget about this round of raises.

10:56 - here is some substance for you -The real profitable large law firms have followed or set the "market" on associate salaries. They will remain profitable and continue to recruit the best associates, despite forking over a little more in lock step salaries to associates.

The next tier of firms can try all they want to come up with creative excuses to do what they do, but at the end of the day they can't financially compete with the elite firms that they strive to be like. You can speculate all you want about this next tier of firms and consciously finding "creative" solutions, but that is the reality.

Your "campaign" is a farce and is nonsensical.

9:38,
You really had me receptive to your arguments, and then you had the audacity to use the words "best company's [sic] to work for" and 2000 minimum billable hours in the same sentence.

I don't know what Bingham counts towards billable hours, but 2000 hour minimum of standard billable (with small allowances for pro bono and firm work) does not a lifestyle firm make.

If your MINIMUM hours are higher than everyone else, your MINIMUM salary had better be at least equal. Making it up in bonus does nothing for the 1950-hour Bingham associate who'd be making hours at another firm, on the $160k scale. At Bingham, he doesn't make his hours minimum, he doesn't get market salary, and he doesn't get a bonus. Hmmmm... Best Company to work for, indeed.

And everyone knows that those "Best Company" things are crap. Largely targeted to the staff, actually. Because you know the general public is just sitting around thinking, "you know - that seems like a great company - I'll go get my JD and work there..."

10:56 - The poster is the substance. I know equity partners at my firm who have said they don't give a rats ass about a raise for the associates... it's just not enough money to bother them. The only ones that worry are income partners and/or equity partners who slid into their spot with not enough business to keep them there when the next squeeze comes.

11:08 - Your on crack... I think maybe, just maybe, someone has referred to the last round in relation to one firm.

Man, this is all super weak... anyone who doesn't (1) love doing this job, or (2) have a get-quick-rich exit strategy needs their head examined. I'm so outa this bullshit in a couple more years... Car Wash City here I come!

Finally some great posts that raise good points.

11:15, it is true that having a higher billable hour requirement then the average firm should translate into a higher minimum pay.

BUT, that assumes that the goal is to keep a pay-for-hours salary structure. I am against the pay-for-hours salaray structure, which is a result of lock step salary structures and the cause of all that makes biglaw law practice so horrible.

I am not convinced that those who pay the most get the "best" law students. I don't even know what the "best" law students are. Maybe people are referring to grades?

I agree that at this point, most biglaw firms look the same and act the same. BUT, that does not mean it has to be that way forever. We have the power to change the system, and it has to start with eliminating money as the #1 concern.

Everyone should be paid their fair wage, and not some arbitrary lock step amount people here claim is the "market" price.

A market price would be accomplished if there either was a union representing associates in the negotiation of compensation or each attorney negotiated their salary based on their own skills and performance.

A system where firms announce what they will pay for their attorneys is not a market based price. It is more akin to a plan-based price in the biglaw legal market. (i.e. more communistic then capitalistic)

Let's face it, under lock step it looks like this: Firms decide what to pay attorneys; attorneys say: yes, thank you.

11:28--I'm on crack because I can read? The entire Chicago discussion (post Latham raise) was replete with discussion on who raised and in what order last time.

No one is being "super weak"; they are just calling you out on your statements that aren't true.

10.45, 10.49, 11.01, 11.28-

Really? Car wash? I'm TOTALLY with you in principle, but a car wash? C'mon! There's gotta be something better than that. What about...river rafting guide?...or if you're a city type, a dog walker? Now that's the shit!

A system where firms announce what they will pay for their attorneys is not a market based price. It is more akin to a plan-based price in the biglaw legal market. (i.e. more communistic then capitalistic)

Let's face it, under lock step it looks like this: Firms decide what to pay attorneys; attorneys say: yes, thank you.

Ridiculous. Then why don't firms "decide" to pay $50k rather than $160k. It would do wonders for PPP. Are the firms deciding topay so much because they're just full of exceedingly generous people? Riiight.

You might have an argument if lockstep was holding salaries down over time. After 3 raises in 2 years, I can't see how anyone can say that with a straight face.

Hey Mr. "Campaign to End Lock Step Salaries" I love the "we have the power to change things" speech, but why don't you get lost and come back and do it some other time when you aren't effectively arguing against ME getting a raise?

Thanks, dick.

I heard Bingham screwed their associates last year with regard to pro bono work and bonuses. Something like all pro bono counted towards the hours based bonuses, but then the bonus was reduced by the percent of your total time that was spent on pro bono.

So if you worked 200 hours on a pro bono case and hit the 2000 minimum, your bonus was reduced by 10% (200/2000). Can anyone confirm?

11:37 - Well, I was thinking those coin operated car washes on the side. I mean, they're like ATM machines that dispense quarters... READ: cash business. Yeah baby. Plus, wouldn't it be fun to take those things into banks.

Good tip on the dog walker thing. I'm so doing that. I'll walk dogs for upscale cougars living downtown and wax about how I became disillusioned with the law and decided to follow my heart.

11:36 - Why so !ANGRY!? LOL, take a pill dude, your already in the top 2% of U.S. incomes. Cheers!

"A market price would be accomplished if there either was a union representing associates in the negotiation of compensation or each attorney negotiated their salary based on their own skills and performance."

Rule #1 - Always be leary when someone mentions "market" and "union" in the same sentence.

11:44: The reason why firms are not paying $45K is that they don't want to lose talent to other fields (i.e. banking, private equity, etc.). That's still happening, even though law firm salaries are escalating. They just can't compete, but at least they now try.

12:13...

It goes like this: NY firms don't want to lose their associates to PE, I-banks, and hedge funds.... so they raise salaries for associates. Cali firms dont want to lose associates to start-ups (think the 125k move)... so they raise associate salaries.

Chicago, DC, Texas etc doesnt want to lose their associates to other markets like CA and NY, so they raise salaries.

Bingham is too busy making unnecessary renovations to its offices and its letterhead to care about associate salaries. Or, maybe it blew all its money changing to the orange logo.

11:54-
Confirmed. Bonuses were reduced if you had "too many" pro bono hours. No word on how the ultimate figure was arrived at.

The Bingham situation is a farce. As has been discussed at length, firms with considerably lower PPP than Bingham's are stepping up to the plate in an effort to better compete with the most elite players. In California, most of the CalLaw25 have already raised, and some of the CalLaw firms to watch, including highly profitable midsizers like Allen Matkins and Cox Castle are expected to meet the market. When you have midsize players out-compensating you [Bingham], you need to think REALLY HARD about what message you're sending to the market.

Nice try 9:38 - how about those midlevels your SF office just bought off to leave because you don't have enough work for them? how about the first years that leave 6 months in? (I know of 2 on the West Coast). Bingham gives two shits about their associates. Please.

Nice try 9:38 - how about those midlevels your SF office just bought off to leave because you don't have enough work for them? how about the first years that leave 6 months in? (I know of 2 on the West Coast). Bingham gives two shits about their associates. Please. And the pro bono reduction? You sold yourselves to 2Ls and Summers as a firm that supported pro bono, then you gutted the program and lost partners as a result.

So Reed Smith is apying add'l bonus, but what's the base??? I honestly don't know if I'm getting screwed or if the bonus structure at my firm is at market. Can we PLEASE PLEASE start talking some numbers on bonus? Here, I'll start:

first bonus is at 2000 hours, we get 4% of base
2100 - 9%
2200 - 15%
2350 - 22%
2500 - 30%

I'm getting screwed, aren't I?

I don't know anything about the buying off of associates. I wonder if that is even true.

Even if true, that information bolsters my belief that lock step salaries must go.

Those associates obviously were too expensive to keep around. Why were they too expensive? The only answer I can think of is that they had to be paid at the lock step rate but could not work enough to justify the amount of compensation.

I wish they could have been paid a market rate, that is, a fair amount in light of their ability to contribute to the firm. They would still work there, if they wanted to.

Ask yourself: why should a product (associate work) have only one fixed price when there actually are myriad varieties of associate work. Or are people claiming associate work is a fungible product?

(If you do think associate work is a fungible product, please explain why that is so.)

1:30-

Yes. Cry for a bit. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. And find another firm.

1:30 is at a List of Shame firm.

"Campaign to end Lock Step Salaries" - I'm not sure who you are, but, as an ex-Bingham associate, I can tell you that you are completely out of touch with the way things worked (and from what I hear, still work) over there. That firm lost a lot of unhappy associates when it wasn't lock-step (4th years getting paid a 1st year salary).

Are you saying that an employment fourth year, for instance, should get paid less than a corporate fourth year even if both work 2000 hours?

"Finally, Reed Smith maintains a reasonable, 1900 chargeable hours expectation for associates"

Chargeable hour expectation? Aren't almost all big firms "logged hours"?

"Campaign to End Lock Step Salaries" - your rambling is starting to get downright incoherent and you are making absolutely no sense. Can you please just shut the fuck up now? Thank you.

Can anyone confirm removal of Sonnenschein and Schiff from the CA List of Shame?

Continuing CA List of Shame:

1) Thelen Reid*
2) Reed Smith
3) Bingham
4) Perkins Coie
5) Bryan Cave
6) Townsend*
7) Baker & McKenzie
8) Schiff
9) Seyfarth Shaw
10) Sonnenschein
11) Foley
12) Greenberg Traurig
13) Holland & Knight

* denotes CA-based firm

I agree with 2:00. The "Campaign" is really way off base. I can't follow it at all. It really does sound like the ramblings of a crazy person. Maybe it really is my grandma!

Can we just get back to talking about who is raising and when? M'kay? Thanks.

Remove Sonnenschein, Schiff. Also I would remove Reed Smith - they are still arguably "shameful", but at least they said something instead of just ignoring the issue. Or maybe give them a footnote.

Removing Sonnenschein, Schiff, and Reed Smith (even though that last one didn't do lockstep raises):

Continuing CA List of Shame:

1) Thelen Reid*
2) Bingham
3) Perkins Coie
4) Bryan Cave
5) Townsend*
6) Baker & McKenzie
7) Seyfarth Shaw
8) Foley
9) Greenberg Traurig
10) Holland & Knight

* denotes CA-based firm

10:56 AM: (aka Campaign to End Lock Step Salaries)

Attack the substance, not the poster.

Point One: You haven't raised.
Point Two: You have seen increasing PPP every year and can afford to raise.
Point Three: You claim to offset your cheapness by being a "lifestyle firm"
Point Four: You have a 2,000 billable requirement.

Point 3 cannot be reconciled with Point 4.

This email sent from Bingham's Santa Monica office sums it up well

Dan,

Good evening. I wanted to take a moment to email you personally on behalf of my colleagues in the Santa Monica office regarding the associate salary issue. I've already spoken to both Christine McWilliams and Meena Patel about these issues, and I am sure that you are well aware of the market trend that has swept across every large law firm in the country (with the exception of Bingham and Reed Smith, last I checked). With each passing day, associates in this office have become increasingly disgruntled about Bingham's failure to match the rest of the market's move to a $160,000 base salary. As the COA member in this office, I feel obligated to keep you apprised of the rather low level of associate morale here regarding Bingham's failure to issue any response at all to the salary issue.

The attached article from the Los Angeles Business Journal was brought to my attention this morning by a partner in our office, and indicates that the $160,000 pay raise has filtered down to many "second-tier" law firms, such as Sheppard Mullin. The article also quotes a legal recruiter as explaining that a $145,000 base salary is "no longer market."

From the Santa Monica associates' standpoint, we are a bit embarrassed that our new firm -- which prides itself for its ranking as among the nation's "best places to work" -- is now officially paying under-market salaries to its associates. There is a sense among the associates here that immediate action should be taken to address the issue, but we are concerned that the same sense of immediacy is not shared by firm management. We are also concerned that some associates in other Bingham offices who are experiencing lower-than-average billables this year may be exerting pressure on the management to resist the pay raise in spite of the fact that nearly every other large firm in California has matched the increase.

This is not even an issue about the adequacy of our current compensation level. Bingham simply cannot expect to recruit and retain the most qualified associates if it disregards the market trend that has clearly established itself over the past month.

Please let me know if there is any further action I might be able to take on my colleagues' behalf with respect to this issue. Bingham's failure to join the rest of the large law firms in California is disappointing to many of us -- especially for those associates who are working as hard (or harder) than our peers at comparable (or
less-prestigious) firms, for lower pay.

Any information you have about any progress being made to address this issue would be greatly appreciated.

This email sent from Bingham's Santa Monica office sums it up well

Dan,

Good evening. I wanted to take a moment to email you personally on behalf of my colleagues in the Santa Monica office regarding the associate salary issue. I've already spoken to both Christine McWilliams and Meena Patel about these issues, and I am sure that you are well aware of the market trend that has swept across every large law firm in the country (with the exception of Bingham and Reed Smith, last I checked). With each passing day, associates in this office have become increasingly disgruntled about Bingham's failure to match the rest of the market's move to a $160,000 base salary. As the COA member in this office, I feel obligated to keep you apprised of the rather low level of associate morale here regarding Bingham's failure to issue any response at all to the salary issue.

The attached article from the Los Angeles Business Journal was brought to my attention this morning by a partner in our office, and indicates that the $160,000 pay raise has filtered down to many "second-tier" law firms, such as Sheppard Mullin. The article also quotes a legal recruiter as explaining that a $145,000 base salary is "no longer market."

From the Santa Monica associates' standpoint, we are a bit embarrassed that our new firm -- which prides itself for its ranking as among the nation's "best places to work" -- is now officially paying under-market salaries to its associates. There is a sense among the associates here that immediate action should be taken to address the issue, but we are concerned that the same sense of immediacy is not shared by firm management. We are also concerned that some associates in other Bingham offices who are experiencing lower-than-average billables this year may be exerting pressure on the management to resist the pay raise in spite of the fact that nearly every other large firm in California has matched the increase.

This is not even an issue about the adequacy of our current compensation level. Bingham simply cannot expect to recruit and retain the most qualified associates if it disregards the market trend that has clearly established itself over the past month.

Please let me know if there is any further action I might be able to take on my colleagues' behalf with respect to this issue. Bingham's failure to join the rest of the large law firms in California is disappointing to many of us -- especially for those associates who are working as hard (or harder) than our peers at comparable (or
less-prestigious) firms, for lower pay.

Any information you have about any progress being made to address this issue would be greatly appreciated.

legal pad says bingham is matching: http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/end_the_bingham.html

5.35-

Great catch. Is it true?

Now, what about Thelen?

As you are all aware, during the past several weeks there has been significant market activity related to associate and counsel compensation at major law firms across the country. That activity has varied greatly in the local markets where we have the greatest number of lawyers. Although we have a policy of remaining competitive with our peer firms in our local markets in terms of attorney compensation, we make these types of firmwide decisions with extreme care and always with a view toward attracting and retaining the best legal talent and preserving our unique culture. Among other reasons for a deliberate approach, we also want to avoid the impact that significant salary increases can have on clients. While we will always meet the market, we take all of these other responsibilities seriously. Following careful study, we will be increasing 2007 base compensation in our domestic U.S. offices to match the base compensation structure in our New York office, consistent with the new national market. That base compensation model is as follows:

Class Salary

Class I $160,000

Class II $170,000

Class III $185,000

Class IV $210,000

Class V $230,000

Class VI $250,000

Counsel I $265,000

Counsel II $280,000

Counsel III $290,000

Base increases will be paid to associates and counsel in good standing in the July 6 payroll, retroactive to June 1. Of Counsel compensation will be determined individually.

I want to thank everyone for their patience, since I have been traveling in Asia on business, and just returned to the office yesterday. If you have any questions regarding our new compensation structure, please do not hesitate to contact me or members of the COA leadership / Attorney Development team.

Tony Carbone

212-705-7430

From The Recorder via Law.com: "Bingham McCutchen Offers Buyouts to Some Associates." Can you say "lay offs"? I knew that you could.

http://www.legalreader.com/archives/003779.html

I confirm the memo posted in the comments section. Sonnenschein will raise effective July 1, 2007.

I confirm the memo posted in the comments section. Sonnenschein will raise effective July 1, 2007.