First?

First

It's crazy talk (for this second). The 9.1% projected increase is the "closing the gap" expectation for the firms that aren't quite BigLaw because of the BigLaw salary increases of this year.

Let's all use those things we're getting paid way too much to not use while filling in spreadsheets and performing exciting document productions. If we can remember how ...

If you subscribe to the "the point of raising salaries is to separate the wheat from the chaff" theory, it isn't crazy. How the **** is a structured finance outfit going to raise salaries right now? (Maybe cwt, but it would hurt and they would fall even further in the "look at our ppp we're just as good as skadden" game. I just don't see mckee raising right now, much less tpw.)

Shouldn't Cravath raise, or at least do something to take care of its senior associates?

If Cravath's peer firms are Wachtell and S&C, which now has its senior associate bonus program, it is below market.

The smaller firms are closing the gap in associate salaries, but not in overall revenue.

Does that mean partners in biglaw are taking in more than they should or are the big firms just inefficient?

A classmate of mine just got an offer at Cravath (which he plans to turn down!). They told him that they paid $3100/week in 2007, but would pay "more" in 2008. I'm sure they will push to separate the boys from the men.

10:41AM is full of shit. I already accepted my offer, but they never said anything about paying "MORE". All they say is that salary in 2008 will be "at least" $3078 per week. Mainly to give you false hopes and draw attention away from the fact that you'll be working Wachtell hours for Milbank pay.

OK so the market is not what it was for structured finance folks 6 months ago. But the real question is whether any top firm raises. If one does, the rest of the BIGLAWs will have to follow suit. Thus, regardless of the credit crunch, is private equity still doing well enough to justify the raise? M&A? You may see PPP for some top firms decline but who cares. Those partners are making enough money and 100k to those guys should, in my associate opinion, come second to the associates making an extra 15k to keep up with increased cost of living. Come one, remember when you were just starting out? Are you willing to screw your associates to go from 2.5 to 2.6 per year. Or do you not understand that associate satisfaction might net you more in the long run. THINK ABOUT IT!

10:49 = titcr

Given that a healthy portion of the posters here are presumably law students, I'm suprised there is not more gossip along the lines of that provided by 10:41.

Did no one have the balls to ask about what the firms were expecting to happen to starting salaries for 2008? If you did, what's the word?

White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!
White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!
White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!
White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!
White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!
White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!
White girls with asian guys! WGWAG!

This is very interesting. Just a couple days ago, I was talking to a partner in a large, Chicago based firm. He said, "If X firm raises to 175,000, we will be right behind them." Oh, and he's on the executive committee. Veeeeery interesting.

I believe NY will raise again soon. I mean Texas BIGLAW is at 160k, and we all know that can go a lot further in Houston than in NYC. Come on NY, you gonna let Texas punk you like that?

This is very interesting. Just a couple days ago, I was talking to a partner in a large, Chicago based firm. He said, "white girls with asian guys is a hilarious thing. its really really really funny! oh my, im litterally laughing out loud! LOL!"

Its crazy what greedy lawyers will believe! Mass layoffs are more likely this year than any raises in NYC..

I can't believe what I just heard. Here, Houston, this is for you. I got respect for this city. It's got a lot of fucking balls. Good for you, Houston. Don't take no shit off nobody.

New York, you gonna let Houston get away with that? You gonna let this fucking punk get away with that? What's the matter? What's the world coming to? What the fuck is this world coming to??

I was talking to a senior partner who usually bosses me around but occasionally is nice to me and she said, "Now is the time to raise so we can show that we can say, we are a top flight firm and we can stick it to the wannabes who think they are joining the club by paying 160k."

I thought, hmmm, what do I know, I'm just a first year who just got back from Doc Review in a warehouse in Riyadh? But I feigned like I knew the sh*t and I said "oh that's great to hear" and then I scurried back to my cave/office.

"Did no one have the balls to ask about what the firms were expecting to happen to starting salaries for 2008? If you did, what's the word?"

Are you nuts?!

"Hi, I'd like a job. I really am worth the $160K you plan on paying me. With a healthy bonus, please. Oh, right, one more thing: actually, that's not really going to be quite enough. Are you planning on raising you salaries anytime soon?"

hey 11.07:

partner in large chicago-based firm = kirkland?

well if there is going to be a raise it would only make sense to do it right now (while law students are holding open multiple offers and making their decision) or after the new year (to keep associates from grabbing their bonus and leaving).

kirkland would obviously move, not follow 11:29.

This is very interesting. Just a couple days ago, I was talking to a gay S&C associate with bedbugs that tazed me bro and said that if that summer slapped that guy she should get an offer and a signing bonus and be allowed to work on the beach for $64 a day but ONLY IF another firm did it first.

No, it was a top firm ranked lower than Kirkland, which I view as a good thing--K&E would never let a lower Chi firm outraise them.

For what it's worth, I'm a 2L going thru recruiting. I asked a general question about compensation and the partner went into all this detail.

11.31's right on the money.

If firms started raising now, it would certainly effect law students' decisions of where to accept offers. With a few offers open that I'm having trouble deciding among, something like that could sway the balance. (Yes, yes, less important than fit and feel and all that jazz, but a factor nevertheless.)

11.07: So was the comment that if Kirkland raises, lower firm would also raise?

That doesn't say much, because if the NY firms go first, Chicago (other than Skadden) may not follow immediately

Once 2007 is in the books and the PPP has taken its hit, firms that want to further segment the market can move up. But I'm guessing it'll be a post-bonus payout raise.

New York to 161!

11:39--if NYC goes, so will Kirkland. They will pay top $$ b/c they are the best in Chicago & they can afford to do it.

No, the comment wasn't "if Kirkland raises..."

It was "If [NY-based firm] raises..."

11:36,

$$ less important than "fit or feel"?

loooooooooooooooooool

My firm is talking about laying off associates who are significantly under budget in some groups this year. I'm all for it. Trim the fat and give the survivors a raise. Whoo hoo!

these are retention raises. they are not recruiting raises. firms do not have a problem getting people to come and work for them. it's retention that's the issue. which is why they do the raises after bonuses are announced and given out because it's further incentive to stay.

Where does the money come from for associate raises? Is it coming from partners taking a hit on their income (a nice thought, but really?), increasing billable requirements or expectations (for those firms that don't have reqs), hiring less associates in a class (which would increase hours for those associates), getting rid of perks (not likely firms will stop giving free coffee to its sleep-deprived associates), or raising rates (which clients hate, esp for jr associates)?

NY must raise if attorneys will have the same shot at NY's finer women as those bankers and hedge fund types.

Look, 250,000 won’t get me to central park west. NY needs to up, and up soon. Otherwise, all the trophy wives will be gone...

http://nynerd.com/gold-digger-on-craigslist-classic-answer/

Are we going to have to start saying NYC to 210?

11:53

No, dude! Fit and feel is nothing compared to quality of life.

OK, I can't even say that without cracking up.

I got paid yesterday, and taxes raped me. NY to secede!

"I can't believe what I just heard. Here, Houston, this is for you. I got respect for this city. It's got a lot of fucking balls. Good for you, Houston. Don't take no shit off nobody.

New York, you gonna let Houston get away with that? You gonna let this fucking punk get away with that? What's the matter? What's the world coming to? What the fuck is this world coming to??"

comment of the day. well done.

now New York has to dig the hole itself.

I don't know about you. But I don't think there are two many summers that still have offers open they're just waiting out. Let's be honest, in this market, if you haven't jumped all over your offer, you probably don't have one anymore ...

I'm about ready to switch to the GOP. Taxes are freaking out of control. No wonder rich people hate poor people so much. I barely get half my gross salary.

12:27-hasn't the GOP been in power for roughly the last decade?

How about a post about Birmingham, AL

12:16 - - Seconded

yeah, ok, that's not accurate. law firms tend to not be in the business of rescinding offers.

12:29 - Yeah, and imagine who bad it will be when Hillary gets in there.

12:29: not in nyc, where what really kills you is the city tax on top of everything else.

Could someone who is a position to know explain why firms would wait until january or later to make a pay raise? i'm with 12:31, it seems like it would make more sense for them to do it immediately, or not at all.

ok but you NYers wouldn't be so excited about republicans if you'd ever met any. nasty people.

I had a dream last night where homer SIMPSON and margaret THATCHER raised their employees in NY to $190K...
and then anAKIN skywalker and forrest GUMP followed suit...
and only then it bacame weird

Show me the money!

Why does everyone assume a law firm's sole purpose is to recruit law student talent? If I were a law firm, I would be more interested in getting and keeping my clients . . . clients who are already pissed off they have to pay jacked up billing rates for over-priced first year associates. And clients don't really give a shit if the CoL is higher in NY.

Law students need to get over themselves, law firms don't exist for the sole purpose of providing you with employment.

12:29 - Yeah, and imagine who bad it will be when Hillary gets in there.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 26, 2007 12:34 PM

__________________________________

Yeah--she might a waste a trillion dollar surplus on a ruinous war in Iraq, unlike those fiscal conservatives! Oh . . . nevermind . . .

Atlanta to 35k!!!

1:13 works for a crappy firm with crappy clients. The firms that are in a position to start the raising war have clients who don't care about billing rates. We're nothing more than a rounding error to them.

1:54: Sorry, but I work for biglaw in DC. You don't need client contact to know GCs are pissed about the salary hikes. . . pick up a magazine or legal trade journal once in a while. Law firm fees account for some of the highest line item spends on corporate ledgers, and legal fees are pretty much associate billing rates. Sure, an individual associate may not account for much . . . but most cases I know are staffed associate heavy and partner light. So all those little billing rates add up. A lot of big clients are already restricting the use of biglaw first or second years on cases, and others are consolidating their outside counsels so that one firm gets all the work but only if the client gets a huge discount (more than 10% reduction of rates). Firms won't raise anytime soon because they care less about talent than they do about clients.

1:13: you suck and you don't know what you're talking about. We, the talent, are the only thing the firms care about.

1:13: you suck and you don't know what you're talking about. We, the talent, are the only thing the firms care about.

Kills me to hear these tools refer to themselves as "talent" HAAAAAAA back to bate stamping that pile of documents bitch! yOU DON;T HAVE TALENT.

1:38 What surplus? A trillion? C'mon, there was no such thing. Isn't some of that money for Afghanistan too? Anyway, $200 billion/year for 5 years is chump change in terms of the federal budget (less than 10% of $2.5 trillion annual budget). Congress doesn't even vote on 2/3 of the budget (entitlements and debt service)

And do you mean the war that Hillary voted for and for which she keeps reauthorzing money. She can't run away from the Iraq issue because even her husband's policy was regime change. The Weekly Standard used to write articles supporting President Clinton on that issue in the late '90s. Some of the people that voted for a joint resolution in 1998 to invade Iraq are some of the most vocal critics now.

But other than that, you are pretty clever.

Oh yeah, WGWAG!

Did all BigLaw firms in the major markets raise to $160? If not, how about some serious lists of shame?

3:10 -
I think there's a difference between NY white-shoe biglaw firms and DC biglaw - I think 1:54 is right, the Simpson Thachers and DPWs can raise associate salaries to 175k or 190k without their client's blinking. The Hogans and Akin Gumps and A&Ps can't. Associates at firms like DPW, CGSH, etc. already bill out at a hundred or more an hour than associates at DC biglaw firms.

Firms shouldn't raise first or second year salaries. Firms should be concerned about retaining high performing third, fourth, fifth, and sixth years (you know, the ones who actually turn out productive work product, require less supervision, and actually make money for the firm). Given the transparency that ATL has provided (thanks, Lat!) law students interviewing are well aware of associate compensation structures, including bonuses and mid- & senior-level salaries. If there were a firm that paid $160 but paid its mid level associates lots more than other firms, you can bet that students would know and be interested in interviewing. And guess what? That firm would not only retail its associates, but would also have lots of lateral applicants (who were trained by other firms during their money-making years). This is why you see Kirkland and Orrick getting so much talk even though they pay the same starting salary as everyone else.

Excuse you, just because you don't think you're talented doesn't mean I'm not. I get paid damn well to do my job damn well.

I'm glad I don't have to work with 3:53. What arrogance; what first year thinks they really know anything about practicing law? In a couple years when you're more senior and the talented arrogant first year's mistakes are causing you to have more work, not less, why don't you tell this board how talented you think first years are.

I have a useful comment: how about all the pricks on this thread eat a banana parfait out of my butthole. Lawyers are fungible. Lawyers are always someone else's bitch. And when you leave, there will be 100 more freshly minted and streaming off the bus to take your place.

Who said I was a first year? Upper-level associates read this board as well. And word among upper-levels is that a raise IS in fact coming soon, for all years, in NY BigLaw.

here, here, Ed Pellegrino - exactly, lawyers are just like US soldiers in iraq!!

I'm want to rent the Ghostbusters penthouse. But how can I do that with a measly 200k per year?

*sign

*sigh

Miami hookers to 190!

I think it's funny when partners like 1:13 come on and try to say that clients are pissed about associate pay raises because it costs them money.

Pssst, partner. That's because you pass off the cost of the pay raise onto the client so your precious PPP doesn't take a hit.

At least be straight about it, dude.

It does make me angry when certain BigLaw partners tell me "do you know how much *I* made when I first started working at a big law firm?" I'm pretty reasonable about most things, and know that my salary is a TON of money (and I started at $125!). Still, this gets my ire up.

(1) These partners went to college and law school at a time when tuition was a mere pittance. I have several times the student debt of them AND their college roommates, combined. The rise in the cost of law school has outpaced the rise in associate salaries, so despite their griping, they actually earned more in terms of real take home. And don't even get me started about how they probably didn't have to borrow from double-digit-usurious-interest Sallie Mae.

(2) These same partners worked hundreds of hours less per year than they expect us to now. Yes, you met your wonderful wife at that dinner party. I've got no chance of meeting a wonderful husband because you've scheduled multiple 6 PM meetings and given me so much work that my friends never see me and I can barely keep my plants alive (hence why I've brought them into the office).

(3) These partners had a legitimate shot at making partner. If you were smart, relatively hard working, and wanted to stick around, you became partner. Nowadays, firms are so big, but keep the partnership so small, that the business plan rests on a certain amount of burnout, passive aggressive pointing towards the door, and outright firing of smart and relatively hard working associates.

(4) It seems pretty hypocritical to complain about our salaries when partners themselves take home millions. Now THAT is a LOT of money.

I just got paid...I just got home...Uncle Sam don't care though, he still took his almost 50% share.

So I say sh*t don't raise my salary unless you are gonna give me so much that when Hillary or her kin get elected their even higher cut wont be enough to keep me effectivly poor....I shoulda went straight to a gov't job outta high school - no student loans, show up for 7 hours, work 3, go home and let Uncle Sam steal from the lawyers and the rest of the "rich." ...ah I guess thats why they say hindsight is 20/20.

8.48 is right. The average partner is clueless about today's problems.

Thankfully, most compensation committee members know better.

Word around my large ny firm is 1st years to $180.

Word at my firm is bonuses are going up this year.

Word around my Chicago Biglaw firm is billing rates are being bumped "significantly" this January. Last I heard that was for this past year. PPP in '07 are expected to rise over those in '06 at a rate just above the 5 year average rate, so the '07 pay raises were adequately compensated for. Somebody is walking home with more money in '08 - clearly it will be the partners, but maybe, just maybe, they feel like sharing?

8:48 - nicely put. If you believe in polygamy we should go out sometime.

I always want to go Lee Iacocca on these guys - if you can hire a better 5th year associate for less money, do it.

How much would total taxes be for a first year big law associate in NYC (assuming 160K + bonus)?

How much does it cost per year to live a good life in Manhattan (e.g. upper east side or another decent area)?

The bottom line is that they have to do something to compensate NY Big Law associates better. I billed over 300 hours in my first month and I can make almost as much in Jersey and bill 2/3rds the hours and have a better chance of making partner. NYC isn't worth the headaches or the taxes.