lol if houston associates get screwed over in this one. BB has now become a 2nd tier firm...

sarcasm is lost on some. re-read the post, moron.

Then why is the chart titled "TEXAS ASSOCIATE SALARY CHART"? Houston is in Texas, right?

They have taken compression to a whole new level with the $2,500 raise between 3rd and 4th year.

This may be a very silly questions, but when does a year begin for salary purposes?

Just to clear up confusion that the BB SAs just puzzled through: It looks like BB failed to match V&E, but the key is that V&E's deferred comp is pro-rated and BB's isn't. So at least for this year, the two firms are paying the same amount of money.

For example, a 4th year at BB billing 2000 hours will make $175000 (base) + $22500 (bonus) = 197500 (total compensation). A 4th year at V&E billing 2000 hours will make $175000 (base) + $35000 (deferred) * 5/12 (pro-rating) + $7500 (bonus for hitting 1950 hours) = $197083.

IF I am an associate who starts full time in September of 2007 . . . Am I Class of 2007??? Or if I was a summer in 2006 and hired to start full time in September 2007, would I be a Class of 2006??

To elaborate, here are the full scales for this year.

Baker Botts:

Base | Bonus | Total |
160k | 0 | 160k |
170k | 5k | 175k |
172.5k | 11.5k | 184k |
175k | 22.5k | 197.5k |
180k | 31.5k | 211.5k |
185k | 38k | 223k |
190k | 40k | 230k |
195k | 40k | 235k |

V&E:
Base | Pro-Rated | Bonus | Total |
160k | 0 | 5k | 165k |
170k | 0 | 5k | 175k |
170k | 6.3k | 5k | 181.3k |
175k | 14.6k | 7.5k | 197.1k |
180k | 20.8k | 10k | 210.8k |
185k | 27.1k | 10k | 222.1k |
190k | 27.1k | 12.5k | 229.6k |
195k | 27.1k | 12.5k | 234.6k |

5:45 - its when you graduated law school, not when you first walked through the doors.

05:45 - It's the year you graduated law school.

Jinx

Thank you

You guys are unbelievable. You think BB would allow themselves to be 2d tier? Stupid. As shown by 5:45, BB's comp is slightly higher...

OK, are we seriously worried that much about pro-rating? The real issue is that BB is paying nowhere close to what V&E is (at 2000 hours) for mid-level and senior associates. BB associates got screwed. Finally, we see some significant separation in the market with V&E coming out on top. I guarantee most firms match BB, not V&E, for 3rd year and up.

5:45, if you start this September, you will be at first year salary for Setp - Dec, then through Jan-December of the next year. So, basically, you are first year for 16 months.

BB retained their bonuses for 2150 and 2300, though. How big are those? Could a high-billing BB associate make more than his/her VE counterpart?

V&E vs. BB (if billing 2000 hours)

BB | V&E
$160 | $160
$175 | $170
$184 | $185
$197.5 | $210
$211.5 | $230
$223 | $250
$230 | $255
$235 | $260

So if someone graduates in December (Dec. '06 for example) and begins working in March after the Feb bar, are they considered class of '06 or will they be considered class of '07 with all the others they summered with?

Could someone please explain to me prorating and how it works? I saw the 5/12 ratio above, but have no idea what it is in relation to. Thanks.

ve isn't giving full bonuses for 2007. they are prorating them for the number of months left in the year--hence, 5/12

6:19, you're calculating using VE's full-year bonus and BB's 2007 stub bonus. Look at 5:47.

BB Bonuses currently in place for the other hours target (they add together):

2150 2300
1
2
3 5 5
4 7.5 12.5
5 10 12.5
6 12.5 17.5
7 12.5 17.5
8 15 22.5

So, as a 5 and 6 th yr at BB, you have to work 2300 to get what VE pays at 2000 (233/230 & 253/250 resp.)

Do you guys even know what prorating means (6:11, I'm looking at you)? BB's 2007 bonus is not a full bonus. V&E's memo listed the full year bonus, but they won't make that until 2008.

In short, the 5:47 post is correct, and the 6:19 post is not.

hang on for above, those numbers are wrong, I started them at the wrong year.

okay, so BB's true bonus for 2008 and beyond is not reflected in the schedule released?

6:17,

Your post is unfounded, wild speculation. V&E and BB have always paid within $5,000 of each other, even at the highest billing levels. An extra $5,000 doesn't make up for a $12,500-25,000 difference up the line after year 3.

BB Bonuses currently in place for the other hours target (they add together):

2150 2300
1 5 5
2 5 5
3 7.5 12.5
4 10 12.5
5 12.5 17.5
6 12.5 17.5
7 15 17.5
8 15 22.5

6:23,

Are you claiming that the BB memo is only for the remainder of 2007 and that they will be paying more than those bonuses for the full year of 2008?

I have been checking this site the way I used to check for grades.

I just got the feeling of seeing that grades posted, except I can't really figure out my grade.

Here's BB's '08 scale, if they took these numbers out to 12 months:

1st 160 0 160
2nd 170 12 182
3rd 172.5 27.6 200.1
4th 175 54 229
5th 180 75.6 255.6
6th 185 91.2 276.2
7th 190 96 286
8th 195 96 291

Of course, the '07 bonus is for hitting 2000, not for hitting 833 over the next 5 months, so presumably they are factoring the existing bonus program into these numbers. But whatever. It's fun to dream. Here's what I think BB does: at least matches VE for 2000 and leaves bonuses in place for 2150 and 2300.

Sorry, it's been a long day, so this may be a dumb question:

So when the new first years start in September, they will get the "Class of 2006" salary (160k)?

And the current first years will as well, until December when they will go to $170k, while the new ones will stay at 160k?

6:30 - Look at the letter from the managing partner. That is exactly what he is saying. I can't believe people on this board (6:19) would actually think BB would allow that much of a gap. It simply won't happen. BB's base is slightly higher and I fully expect their bonus beginning Jan. 1 to be in line with VE or even a little higher.

6:37: correct.

6:27, what are you talking about? How is there a 12-25K difference?

6:30, the memo states that the amounts shown are the actual amounts that will be paid for 2007. The 2008 bonus levels will be announced later.

Sorry. Didn't see 6:39.

6:37(1) isn't correct though, right? This is a full year bonus, not just a 5/12ths of a year bonus?

6:39 is right though, I think. But obviously I think a full year 2008 bonus for a class of 1999 will be in the range of 45k-50k, not 96k like 6:37(1) seems to be saying.

Wow, lawyers really do suck at math.

Wow, love that $2,500 jump between 2nd and 3rd year and 3rd and 4th. Guess the Baker Botts associates know exactly when to leave!

Good reasoning 7:11. I guess they could jump to VE where the jump between 2nd and 3rd is 0 ($170k each) and 3rd and 4th is $5k.

Looks like not *everything* is bigger in Texas.

BB DID NOT PRO-RATE THEIR RAISE, ESSENTIALLY GIVING A RAISE STARTING LAST NOVEMBER OF 2006 (START OF BILLABLE YEAR), REALLY NICE; AND THOSE ARE JUST THE 2007 NUMBERS, MEANING NUMBERS WILL CHANGE FOR 2000 HOURS FOR 2008. BB IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE BELOW VE.

BB DC Associate:

Your right our tax and housing bills are much smaller.

Why is nobody taking into account that bonus at 1950 that ve pays? That is on top of the deferred comp, isn't it?

True! And for that I envied you ... until a couple of hours ago.

I would take 160 compressed in Texas over the DC payscale any day of the week.

I'd like an answer to 08:07's question. This is key. If I work at V&E, do I still get my performance bonus on top of my base? I assume the answer has to be yes, because otherwise V&E's "raise" isn't much of a raise. Can someone at V&E let us know?

To 08:07,

If you look at my 5:47 post, the number I put for VE's "bonus" figure is their 1950 bonus.

What is the BB current bonus schedule at 2000/2150/2300? Anyone know what the new bonuses for 2150 and 2300 will be?

The e-mail said that the bonuses at 2150/2300 would be the same incremental value over 2000 as they were previously announced. So if I do my math right, the new 2150/2300 bonuses are:

2150 | 2300
$ 5,000 | $10,000
$10,000 | $15,000
$19,000 | $31,500
$32,500 | $45,000
$44,000 | $61,500
$50,500 | $68,000
$55,000 | $72,500
$55,000 | $77,500

08:59: But V&E's new base salaries run to 260k, not 195. (See 6:19, which matches the V&E memo).

To 9:15,

6:19 accurately matches the format of V&E's memo. But it does not accurately represent total compensation THIS YEAR. V&E's memo said that the "deferred compensation" bonuses would be prorated this year at a 5/12 rate.

The salary comparison in 6:19 fails to correctly pro-rate the deferred compensation portion. Please see my post at 5:47 for an accurate comparison.

Does anyone have V&E's 2150 bonus numbers? I'd like to do a full chart comparing BB compensation at various billing rates to V&E's, but I can only find V&E's 2300 bonuses.

My take: BB couldn't let V&E pay more than it, but didn't want to commit to anything for the future. If you look at the comparison, BB basically matched V&E for 2007, but structured it as a bonus instead of deferred compensation. V&E punted the bulk of the raises to 2008 by prorating the deferred compensation part, but at least this suggested where its compensation was headed for 2008. BB punted on making a long term decision by setting the bonuses such that BB will be significantly below V&E in 2008 unless something is changed.

So where does that leave us? BB didn't really tell us anything about the future. Everyone gets a raise comparable to V&E for 2007, but is left to think "Well of course they'll match V&E for 2008."

Ok, to clarify, here is the V&E structure for THIS year, based on how many hours:

Year | Base | 1950 (base+deferred+bonus) | 2000 (b+d+b) | 2150 (b+d+b) | 2300 (b+d+b)

1st | 160 | 165(160+0+5) | 165(160 + 0 + 5) | 165(160+0+5) | 165(160+0+5)
2nd | 170 | 175(170+0+5) | 175(170+0+5) | 180(170+0+10) | 180(170+0+10)
3rd | 170 | 175(170+0+5) | 181.25(170+6.25+5) | 186.25(170+6.25+10) | 196.25(170+6.25+20)
4th | 190 | 197.5(190+0+7.5) | 205.83(190+8.33+7.5) | 213.33(190+8.33+15) | 223.33(190+8.33+25)
5th | 200 | 210(200+0+10) | 222.5(200+12.5+10) | 232.5(200+12.5+20) | 247.5(200+12.5+35)
6th | 210 | 220(210+0+10) | 236.67(210+16.67+10) | 246.67(210+16.67+20) | 261.67(210+16.67+35)
7th | 220 | 232.5(220+0+12.5) | 251.25(220+18.75+12.5) | 263.75(220+18.75+25) | 278.75(220+18.75+40)
8th | 230 | 242.5(230+0+12.5) | 263.33(230+20.83+12.5) | 275.83(230+20.83+25) | 295.83(230+20.83+45)

Please remember that this is this year only. The next year's deffered bonus will be in full. Similarly, where the bonuses will be at is unpredictable.

Now, the BB scale as I understand it (for THIS year):

Year | Base | 1950 (base because no bonus) | 2000 (b+bonus) | 2150 (b+b+bonus2) | 2300 (b+b+b2+bonus3)
1st | 160 | 160 | 160(160+0) | 165(160+0+5) | 170(160+0+5+5)
2nd | 170 | 170 | 175(170+5) | 180(170+5+5) | 185(170+5+5+5)
3rd | 172.5 | 172.5 | 184(172.5+11.5) | 191.5(172.5+11.5+7.5) | 204(172.5+11.5+7.5+12.5)
4th | 175 | 175 | 197.5(175+22.5) | 207.5(175+22.5+10) | 220(175+22.5+10+12.5)
5th | 180 | 180 | 211.5(180+31.5) | 224(180+31.5+12.5) | 241.5(180+31.5+12.5+17.5)
6th | 185 | 185 | 223(185+38) | 235.5(185+38+12.5) | 253(185+38+12.5+17.5)
7th | 190 | 190 | 230(190+40) | 245(190+40+15) | 262.5(190+40+15+17.5)
8th | 195 | 195 | 235(195+40) | 250(195+40+15) | 272.5(195+40+15+22.5)

Overally, I think BB really dropped the ball on this. REMEMBER: ALL OF THIS IS THIS YEAR.

As you can see from the scales, there is a lot of parity in the earlier years, with BB having a slight edge of a few thousand at hours of 2000+. However, as you get farther up the scale, V&E just starts to blow BB's scale out of the water. An 8th year, 2300 hour associate (someone who wants to be partner) at BB is making 272.5 while the same at V&E is making 295.83. Similarly, BB associates from 4th year on up really get the shaft if they don't bill 2000 hours - a 4th year V&E associate at 1950 is making 197.5 while the same at BB is making 175. Ouch.

However, with all of this said, who knows how the structures will change for next year. Both firms are reserving their judgment on 2008 until further notice. Likely, V&E will be lowering their regular bonuses significantly. However, the above chart reflects the 5/12 deferred compensation and not the full 12/12.
Therefore, if BB uses its current system for next year the same as this year and assuming V&E eliminates all bonuses but the deferred compensation (which they won't) a V&E 8th year at 2000 hours will be making 280K while the same at BB will be making 235K. That is a huge difference, and it goes across the board. From talking to my friends, BB is going to lose a lot of new associates to V&E this year as a result of this.

9:58, your base for V&E is for DC, not Texas. That's why it appears to blow BB out of the water.

Again, anyone know anything about some of the other firms in TX -- Baker & McKenzie? DLA Piper? Dechert? Haynes & Boone? Kelly Hart? Jackson Walker? Littler Mendelson?

To 10:48,

Do you have your numbers right?

An eighth year at BB (billing 2300) is making 195k base + 77.5k bonus = 272.5k total. An eighth year at V&E is making 195k base + 27k pro-rated deferred + 45k bonus = 267k.

Your BB number is right; your V&E number is wrong. BB actually wins by a few thousand dollars.

Also, your guesses on what might happen next year are pretty silly. There is no way BB will use the same bonuses for a full year of work that they have just announced for an August raise.

Who cares? It's Texas.

I venture to guess that most of the morons posting here are not getting paid by either of these firms. Either that or lawyers do really suck at math.

Good call on my V&E chart above. I was just trying to sort this all out for everyone. Indeed, I used the DC chart, not the Texas chart. That makes a big difference and pretty much evens the two out.

Here's my updated, hopefully correct V&E chart:

Year | Base | 1950 (base+deferred+bonus) | 2000 (b+d+b) | 2150 (b+d+b) | 2300 (b+d+b)

1st | 160 | 165(160+0+5) | 165(160 + 0 + 5) | 165(160+0+5) | 165(160+0+5)
2nd | 170 | 175(170+0+5) | 175(170+0+5) | 180(170+0+10) | 180(170+0+10)
3rd | 170 | 175(170+0+5) | 181.25(170+6.25+5) | 186.25(170+6.25+10) | 196.25(170+6.25+20)
4th | 175 | 182.5(175+0+7.5) | 197.08(175+14.58+7.5) | 204.58(175+14.58+15) | 214.58(175+14.58+25)
5th | 180 | 190(180+0+10) | 210.83(180+20.83+10) | 220.83(180+20.83+20) | 235.83(180+20.83+35)
6th | 185 | 195(185+0+10) | 222.08(185+27.08+10) | 232.08(185+27.08+20) | 247.08(185+27.08+35)
7th | 190 | 202.5(190+0+12.5) | 229.58(190+27.08+12.5) | 242.08(190+27.08+25) | 257.08(190+27.08+40)
8th | 195 | 207.5(195+0+12.5) | 234.58(195+27.08+12.5) | 247.08(195+27.08+25) | 267.08(195+27.08+45)

My new assessment based on the corrected numbers: near parity in a bizarre, roundabout way. If you bill less than 1950, the firms are essentially equal. If you bill between 1950 and 1999, V&E is preferable because of that early bonus kick-in. If you bill 2000, nearly perfect parity. If you bill 2150 or 2300, BB is slightly better. It'll be very interesting to see how this all turns out for next year.

whew, look at that compression. What a way to inspire confidence among the senior associate ranks!

But why oh why would a firm ever even consider inspiring confidence among its most profitable level of employee - senior associates? Much better to inspire those who have yet to walk in the door.

Well, if nothing else, BB gets the award for the most confusing salary raise. Seems like they should have had a column in the middle showing the "full" deferred portion and then on the right have the pro-rated calculation of that amount for the rest of 2007.

1:32 - Baker & McKenzie matched the V&E base salaries (not including the "deferred" portion) and has punted on how to structure the bonuses.

BB is slightly ahead.

The question becomes: is V&E going to pay the full deferred portion next year? Because, as I understand things, if they *do* then they are far ahead. Any information with regard to this?

Up here in the PNW, we hear a lot of crap about not having billing rates as high as other places. Partners use that as one of many excuses to keep PNW pay down. Could someone give some ranges of Texas billing rates for each class year? Texas 7th-8th years are making close to double what a PNW 7th-8th year makes at a number of the big shops in town (exclusive of national branch offices). I'm not ready to believe the billing rates are double.

I don't think the math is right yet. My copy of V&E's memo tells me that the Houston BASE salaries (without bonus) are now like 06:19 yesterday said they were.

$160
$170
$185
$210
$230
$250
$255
$260

But these numbers do not include the bonus they pay at 1950. Let's just use 05:47's bonus numbers from yesterday and add them. ($5, $5, $5, $7.5, $10, $10, $12.5, $12.5) We get the following comparison between associates who bill exactly 2000 hours at the two firms.

BB | V&E
$160 | $165
$175 | $175
$184 | $190
$197.5 | $217.5
$211.5 | $240
$223 | $260
$230 | $267.5
$235 | $272.5

This assumes the current schemes are applied straightforwardly in 2008. Someone please tell me why BB mid-levels and seniors aren't getting hosed.

12:36 - Because they don't spend hours calculating all that stuff out.

So they are content with their salary.

12:02

I'm a rising 2L in TX and I can tell you that a big selling point from many of the big firms (according to them) is that billing hours are low here. They all tell you that either (a) they've gotten rid of any minimum hours requirement, or (b) the minimum hours requirement is somewhere between 1850 and 2000.

I can't tell you whether that actually holds once you become an associate, but that's the line they give us in these h'yer parts.

I've been looking in both TX and Portland (because I grew up in OR), and it appears the legal culture of Austin and Portland are very similar -- fairly laid back, no extreme hours, casual dress. But Austin pays 160 and Portland pays 105. And it's cheaper to live in Austin.

9:50,

Yes, V&E will pay the full deferred next year. But Baker Botts will up the bonuses next year. I'd be shocked if either firm allowed themselves to be one-upped by the other.

And to 9:13,

"Well, if nothing else, BB gets the award for the most confusing salary raise."

I think that award goes to V&E. Their entire "deferred base" scheme is nothing more than a large 2000 hour bonus. BB's only failing is that they made it hard to compare by announcing a straightforward raise (new base salaries & new bonuses) rather than some convoluted new base, but with a deferred part (which by the way is pro-rated) plus old bonuses.

Is V&E going to pay the full deferred portion next year?

2:41,

I think that's the implication of them prorating it this year. It sounds like the only thing they are going to tweak for next year is bonuses.

I personally would like to thank V&E and Baker Botts, regardless of the confusion, for being the clear market leaders in Texas (V&E over BB). Everyone else that punted (yes, FJ, LLS, Akin, Bracewell, TK, A&K, I'm talking to you) and waited until the dust settles to annouce above second year, shame on you for your lack of confidence that anyone would follow you. And for you firms that have not made a peep (yes, King & Spalding, Greenberg, Baker & Hostetler, Sutherland, Jackson Walker, Gardere, I'm talking to you), what are you waiting for, honestly? If you're going to dick around, at least help your associates find better jobs.

To 2:59PM, V&E is not over BB, V&E is UNDER BB for this year, and the BB memo clearly states "Our 2008 bonuses are currently under review and will be announced in due course." BB will again be above VE just like they were in the last round of raises (140 BB to 135 VE). To August 3, 10:48PM, I hope those friends that are considering going to VE over BB just because they looked at this memo READ the fact that this is NOT going to be the bonus next year, compensation will not be below VE. BB will not be screwing its senior associates by any means.

so in conclusion, baker botts pays slightly more than v&e for the remainder of 2007. baker botts punted on next year, but assuming they extrapolate the current non-prorated bonuses out for an entire year, they will continue to pay slightly more than v&e for 2008.

but the question remains -- why the punt job? is it to preserve flexibility in the event the economy tanks between now and when they announce 2008 bonuses? is it to help with client relations by making it look like they're not paying as much as v&e? or is there some other reason?

Can someone confirm this for me? For a 2000 hour 1st year associate, V&E pays $165k and BB pays $160k? Is this correct?

5:34, that is not correct. Both numbers, V&E and Baker Botts are for 2007. V&E's memo says "Our productivity bonus program for 2007 will remain unchanged, with bonuses at the 1950, 2150, and 2300 hour levels as previously announced. We will evaluate our bonus structure for 2008 based on market conditions and our new salary structure."
That means that V&E may just eliminate the 1950 bonus for 2008.

Baker Botts memo also states that "Our 2008 bonuses are currently under review and will be announced in due course."

What all this means: V&E for 2008 first years will probably remain at 160 (5k extra at 1950 will be counted in the new 160 base) and BB will remain at 160, so both will be at 160k for first years in 2008. I hope that clears it up.

If V&E keeps the 160 and 5k extra for 1950 hours, BB will add 5k bonus to the first year 2008 level chart, so both will be at 165k.

Summary: Either both will be at 160k or both will be at 165k, that is the part that is currently under investigation.

The only sure thing is BB will NOT be under V&E for any year.

BB remains the leader in the market, but can someone answer 3:48? It is a good question.

BB DC and NY do not have this kind of compression in associate pay. The differences in 4th, 5th, and 6th year pay are $35K, $50K, and $65K, respectively. Perhaps its because senior associates' billing rates in DC and NY are higher than many of the partners in TX. Plus, the raises were retroactive to July 1 and summer associates got 'em too.

6:25, you are a partner at both V&E and BB? I ask this because you sure seem to know a lot about what *will* happen in 2008 with respect to *both* firms.

As it stands for 2007, both firms are now paying an annual base salary of $160k for first year associates billing 2000 hours. However, V&E is paying a $5k bonus at 1950 hours. BB is not.

I see no evidence in either firm's memo that persuades me that 08:27 is wrong. I don't get it. V&E's still paying a bonus on top of the base. BB is too, but its base is much lower. And, when you add BB's bonus to its base, it doesn't even equal V&E's base for the mid- to senior associates.

>>but the question remains -- why the punt job? is it to preserve flexibility in the event the economy tanks between now and when they announce 2008 bonuses? is it to help with client relations by making it look like they're not paying as much as v&e? or is there some other reason?<<

Just speculation: The last formal day for BB summer associates was Friday. The raise announcement came about an hour before a "farewell happy hour" began. My guess is that they felt some pressure to reassure their SAs that they would be matching V&E before everyone headed off, but that they haven't really decided on compensation structure/amounts for next year.

Most view BB as the premier BIGTex firm. Why are they allowing V&E to win this war?

9:34, premier with respect to what? Amount of time elapsed before responding to associate raises?

Can anyone provide a memo that leads us to a conclusion other than the one provided in 8:27?

Otherwise, it looks pretty clear that V&E is paying 1st year associates $5k more than any other BigTex firm.

Why the heck are lawyers in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago making more (starting at 160K) than Washington DC lawyers? More specifically, why hasn't Holland and Knight (DC) raised salaries (still stuck at 145K)?

Can somebody confirm Hunton and KL Gates in DC?

Would anyone really make their decision re: employment based on a measly 5k? After taxes it's only 3k -- and you're already pulling in enough money to put you in the top 5% of American household incomes!

Jeesh. Who cares which of these two firms is paying more, when the difference is so small? If you have offers from both, go work with the people you get along with better. Or pick the one that decorates its office more to your taste. Or choose the one that throws a Purim party. Or flip a coin.

For crying out loud.

V&E only pays more than BB for first years if you bill less than 2150 hours at BB. At 2150, BB pays first years $165, and at 2300 it pays $170. V&E caps 1st year comp at 165. (see 8/3 10:36 pm, and 8/4 3:32 am).

The top-tier big firms in Houston will all have similar compensation packages for at least the first 3 or 4 years to avoid competing on salary+bonus.

I wonder what it would feel like knowing that you only got 1/6 the raise other 2nd-to-3rd years got. Ouch.

5:36 ... there's still a DC firm paying 145K?!? Holy shit.

11:37, ??? Elaborate.

Has Hunton DC raised?

10:40, it isn't about the money. It is about being the best. Both can make a legitimate claim. When differences between the firms show (or may show, if V&E pays the full deferred portion next year -- and they will) people demand to know why. Please remember that many of the best applicants in Texas are splitting with these two firms, or did so once upon a time.

yes, 10:40, 12:18 is right.

I mean, don't you know that many people base their self-worth on whether they are making 1000 dollars more than the person at the firm across the street? Don't you know that its not your work environment and happiness that matters, but whether you are "the best?"
And don't you know that the firm that pays the highest salary automatically qualifies as "the best" firm?

1:12 -- it's also extremely difficult to get a job at one of the $160k firms in Austin. I agree that working in Austin for that amount of money is the best deal around, but only a few people will be able to take advantage of it.

11:52... I know, it's verrrrrry complicated.

At most real firms, the raise between the 2nd and 3rd year is 15k... you see, that equals 185k-170k.

But at Baker Botts, the raise between the 2nd and 3rd yearis 2.5k... you see, that equals 172.5k-170k.

So if you take 15k, and divide it by 2.5k, you get 6. This means that a 2.5k raise for tools at Baker Botts is 1/6 of the raise at a real firm.

Too many liberal arts majors getting into law school these days.

12:18 --
I realize that the firms might try to lay claim to being "the best" by upping each other in salaries by 1-2K, but no associate with half a brain or an ounce of depth would think for two seconds that a few K's difference in salary makes any sort of substantive difference in any "best" pissing contest.

And I don't know this for sure, but I suspect it isn't possible to split at both BB and VE. They both seem likely candidates for the 1st-half-only program -- forcing summers to choose one or the other.

10:55 - I know of at least one person splitting between the two. VE is first-half-only in some offices and both halves in others (Houston). The person I know is at BB second half.

First years: Whenever I want to know your opinion on compensation, I'll ask for it. Otherwise, shut up and get back to doc review.

Do you guys need to compare summer associate salaries? I really think that is the only thing I could care about less than a 5K difference for first years.

-midlevel

Hey 8:07, nice cliche. while you're at it why don't you tell the lawyer catfish joke.

on a side note, does anybody know if BB has posted their new 2100hr., 2200hr., bonuses?