I heard O'Melveny canned a slew of people. Lat, can we get a post? You went from 24/7 OMM coverage to nada...what gives? Also, what other firing news is out there?

Even Quinn's piss-poor showing is better than MoFo...

So what was the QE "full bonus?" Was it the same as the NY bonus plus special bonus, only given in all their offices?

a first-year at Quinn billing 2100 hours gets a bigger bonus than a 6th (or even higher) year billing 2099 hours. great job, John Quinn!

Ivy should visit Quinn associates as a super special bonus. To chat, of course.

"So what was the QE "full bonus?" Was it the same as the NY bonus plus special bonus, only given in all their offices?"

This was posted a few weeks ago.

Class of 2007: Year-end bonus of $35,000 (pro-rated); no special bonus
Class of 2006: Year-end bonus of $35,000; special bonus of $15,000
Class of 2005: Year-end bonus of $40,000; special bonus of $20,000
Class of 2004: Year-end bonus of $45,000; special bonus of $25,000
Class of 2003: Year-end bonus of $50,000; special bonus of $35,000
Class of 2002: Year-end bonus of $55,000; special bonus of $45,000

****these are benchmark amounts which are subject to adjustment (up or down) to reflect individual performance.****

the special bonuses will be paid half this month and half in June 2008
----------------------------------
WEAK SAUCE

A friend of mine also told me that Simpson Thacher recently laid off like 40-50 juniors (i.e., 1st yeas through 3rd years). I was skeptical myself, since I read this blog regularly and don't recall seeing anything posted about it. But does anyone out there have any info that might tend to corroborate this allegation?

1:11 -- even MoFo's anemic showing is better than MWE

There's supposed to be a video conference firmwide at MWE on the 15th to address associate and income partner bonuses. I'm concerned they may decide that they overestimated the market, and will demand a partial refund of my bonus.

Also, I hear they're planning to submit invoices to retroactively bill us for all of the coffee we have drunk over the last year.

Wow, that's nearly as bad as Sidley's 20-25k across the board.

I guess if you're at Quinn you need to either (i) bill 2500 to make sure you hit whatever number they pull out of their ass without telling you until after the fact, or (ii) assume you aren't going to hit the number, and in that case there's not much point billing over 1700. A sizable number of associates choosing option 2 this year will teach Mr. Quinn to fuck with his moneymakers at his peril.

We need more organized info on CA bonuses. In particular, I still want to know whether MoFo is the only firm where NY associates get up to $115K in bonuses and CA associates get $0 for exactly the same work.

Lat - do a post on layoffs. Curious to hear what's up in the market.

Which practice area traditionally garners the largest bonus: sophisticated, cross-border transactional work or complex, bet-the-company litigation?

(T5-->V10)

hey lat, why zero news on the layoff stuff? it's been out there for quite a while now.

any laterals considering coming to Quinn's NYO should reconsider. this is par for the course - finding unique ways to screw over associates.

Not sure why everyone is still concerned with bonuses. Many people would more effectively spend their time worrying about keeping their job this year.

I agree with other posters here. A substantive focus on layoffs is incredibly timely, if not almost overdue.

Layoffs? I assume that associates doing either sophisticated, cross-border transactional work or complex, bet-the-company litigation are immune from layoffs, but please correct me if that is a misconception.

(T5-->V10)

quinn pays it's senior associates WAY under market, not counting their bonus problems. if people don't know that yet they need to wisen up. also, everyone I know that works at quinn in the CA offices works like a DOG.

I am thrilled I chose to summer at Kasowitz over Quinn--only thing about Kasowitz is they don't pay special bonuses unti June. What gives?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thetoad01/2163284161/

more kumari fulbright... is she white, looks like a mutt to me

Sweet tastin in the shower

Lat - bonus season may be over in NYC, but is barely underway in what I like to call the rest of the country. Is there any word on what CA firms other than OMM are doing with their home office associates, in particular Orrick? Orrick led the way on matching 160k in CA, anyone have any insight on whether they are going to man up once again? Or will they follow the pathetic lead of MoFo and give everyone the shaft?

The Quinn houdini act of trying to be at the top of the market and compete with upper echelon firms for the best of the best, but not treating its associates like these firms, is now transparent.

Pennywise, pound foolish: Quinn spends unbelievable amounts of $ recruiting, yet has now screwed their own loyal associates who are already here, doing good work, creating a culture of low morale and extreme bitterness towards Quinn's greed. It took FAR less than 50 hours shy of the (nebulous) benchmark to get screwed - people within 15-30 hours received 1/2 bonus. And more sour grapes? People within 10 hours (2490) of the next jump (2500 - which gave an additional 10k) were not given the additional bump for giving away their lives. This sweatshop is like the WalMart of law firms.

More frustrating - partners other than Quinn have no say in what The Man decides. Many are very upset by how their associates are being treated, but have no power to change it...

I agree with 1:55PM -- we need more CA info. I can't believe that the MoFo model -- i.e., "market" in NY and $0 in CA -- is the norm.

To add insult to injury, MoFo just informed everyone that 2007 was a great year financially. Really awful to be a non-NY associate there right now.

CWT has not yet let any of its associates know if bonuses are to be paid and how much they would be if paid.

Is there a MoFo california memo or email or is everyone just assuming they will be 2100 or nothing?

Britney Spears to 190!

T5->V10 is the best thing to happen to ATL since azn men put their members in white gals.

QE's way to do bonuses is seriously terrible. At (certain) other firms, the bonus cutoffs are announced in advance (2000, 2100, 2200, 2250, etc.), and the firm maintains flexibility by determining at bonus-time what dollar amounts are actually given to those who meet each level. The goal posts stay the same, however.

QE's way of doing things just seems like a way for the firm to screw associates.

Quinn Emanuel is a fiefdom. There may be many name partners, but there is one decisionmaker. Don't go there expecting any input into how the firm is run, or expecting that anyone other than Quinn himself will make decisions that affect your salary, bonus, etc. If you want a traditional firm structure, go to a traditional firm--OMM, L&W, GDC

2:24pm, MoFo CA is always 2100 for the guaranteed hours-based bonus, with a possible discretionary "merit based" bonus at 1950. So the average CA associate working 1950 gets $0, unless s/he gets the discretionary merit-based bonus.

The big difference this year is that MoFo associates in NY are guaranteed the "market" regular and special bonuses, creating a very large disparity between NY and CA associates doing the same work.

It is the disparity, not the absolute numbers, that I find problematic. Even allowing for some market-based or COL-based disparity between NY and CA, MoFo simply should not pay its home office associates so much less than it does its NY office associates.

That sucks about Quinn. My firm better not try anything like that.....

MoFo sent out a bonus memo in May (it was posted here) when the CA raise to 160K went around. It said there would be no bonuses below 2100, and then announced what the 2100, 2300, and merit bonus structure would be. It hasn't been revisited since then. It's possible that the firm will come to its senses and realize that top firms (which is how it styles itself) don't just not give bonuses. It's possible that it misread the market at the time, thought other CA firms would do the same, and is now going to pull its head out and give market bonuses.

2:40 isn't quite right. I know MoFo doesn't always stiff everyone at the 1950 level. Before doing away with it with the raises, MoFo had an automatic contribution bonus for people working 1950.

2:46, the point is that MoFo is stiffing people now. In fact, if you take into account inflation, many people are making less in total compensation now than before last year's raises! Except the partners, of course.

What's that? Uh -- layoffs? Don't talk about -- layoffs? You kidding me? Layoffs? I just hope we can win a game!

2:46, you are right, but the MoFo contribution bonus was announced at the end of 2006 (supposedly to be paid for 2007), and then was taken back when salaries went to $160K. It had never existed before, and does not exist now.

omg - almost went to quinn. thank god i didn't!

White Girls With Asian Guys Doing Either Sophisticated Cross-Border Transactional Work or Bet-The-Company Litigation

Listen to yourselves. You drone on and on about the differences in your firms' compensation structures, all the while overlooking the fact that these firms are basically identical when it comes to the unhappiness of the associates they employ.

Instead of worrying about a few thousand dollars here or there, why not channel your energy toward finding a career that doesn't destroy your life?

Man, I sure am glad I went in house.

BOW DOWN TO THE M.B.A. WHO PAYS YOUR SALARIES.

jaw my meaty

What do people know about the bonuses at regional firms? . . . Wait. Are there bonuses at regional firms?

3:01 -- what is the better path to law firm happiness: sophisticated, cross-border transactional work or complex, bet-the-company litigation?

(T5-->V10)

No higher hours requirement at Fish. The requirement is still 1900; the first hours bonus kicks in at 2000, as before, but that first hours bonus is much increased.

2100 hrs has been the de facto cutoff for substantial bonuses at Quinn for years. you roll the dice by coming in lower that that. formally announcing cutoffs leads to bad behavior. although the NY assoc tend to be laterals that may not know the 2100 rule, my sense is that they are so busy they generally exceed that number. the people probably feeling screwed are west coast but they have little to complain about. they can be compensated like NY lawyers if they work the hours. if not, they can enjoy the special bonuses that most of their California peers won't get and can be out of the office by 7. that's not so bad.

Lat, can you do a thread on how lame MoFo is?

Loving the Jim Mora Layoffs tirade!

As are the hours bonuses at each 100 milestone thereafter. It is a complete reversal on the part of Fish. Back to the 2007 New York scale AND hefty increase in bonuses for each 100 hour increment above 1900.

Also, Fish *almost* matched the NY "special" bonuses in 2007 by announcing at the end of the year a large increase in the bonus pool. Bonuses for many 3-5 associates in the 300 hour over goal range were well above $50,000, paid this week.

Nobody in my office mentioned any higher hours requirements, though we were reimnded that 1900 is not a TARGET or a GOAL, but a MINIMUM requirement. No surprises there...

Loving the Jim Mora Layoffs tirade!

Loving the Jim Mora Layoffs tirade!

3:43: it wasn't funny the first time you said it, let alone the second and third. And it wasn't Jim Mora who said it. And you got the damn quote wrong the first time. Overall grade: F-.

3:36 - that is simply not true. John Quinn, in his state of the firm address last year, specifically said that if you billed 2000 (including pro bono) for 2006 you got the full bonus.

oh and go fuck yourself you worthless partner.

I did make the layoffs quote. The other quote (they were who we thought they were) was Dennis Green

3:52 - John Quinn did say that for 2006 (though he might have said 2050), but at Rookie School in September, we were told by John Purcell that 2100 was our hours target.

Any Buffalo Bills fans here? Do you realize that your team's assistant director of college and pro scouting is a GIRL? And Ralph Wilson's DAUGHTER?? Well-run team, that.

Do you biglaw folks really find billing 2100+ all that hard? I'm at a midsize firm and did 2200 last year. Of course, that didn't seem all that hard considering I had to travel a lot for hearings and depositions. I guess 2100 is pretty tough when all you do is doc review and binder assembly.

3:52 - i'm not a partner and i also know enough not to take those state of the firm addresses at face value. that's marketing, not reality.

3:36

It's not about whether billing 2100 is hard or not. It's about not knowing what you need to do in order to get the full bonus. I'm quite sure that all the associates who billed more between 2000-2100 would've hit 2100 had they known. This is the way things are at Quinn (or should I say, "quinn"). They WILL screw you. They screw laterals out of legit pro-rated bonuses all the time, they change the rules after the game has been played!

Thanks for letting me wear jeans, John, but I'd rather have $25,000 more dollars.

Complex, Bet-the-Company Litigation can KISS MY ASS!

Complex, Bet-the-Company Litigation can KISS MY ASS!!!

Purcell also told Rookie School that if you were on the cusp of the bonus, other factors would be considered. This was not the case - agreed 4:07, changing the rules after the game has been played.

There's nothing that makes my heart bleed more than people who make $160K+/year complaining that they need another $25K. Fuck off, you greedy douchebags.

4:22 - certainly missing the point. its not the amount of money. its the process. we never asked for this salary nor this bonus. its about a fair process.

I don't work at quinn, but I know a lot of people who do, and none of them were even close to being below 2100. For all its "casualness," quinn is well known as a sweat shop. I don't know anyone who's ever billed below 2250 there, and I know plenty of folks who have consistently billed *way* more than that. The only people I've ever heard of billing low there were the associates who partners decided were stupid and didn't want working on their cases (i.e., the people who the firm was pushing out). Anyone who failed to hit 2100 at quinn has much bigger things to worry about than only making $35k more than MoFo associates, rather than $70k.

This just in from Fish:

2008 Associate Salary & Bonus Scale

Year Base Salary 2000 Hr 2100 Hr 2200 Hr Anticipated Max

1st 160,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 50,000
2nd 170,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 50,000
3rd 185,000 25,000 32,000 40,000 60,000
4th 210,000 25,000 32,000 40,000 70,000
5th 230,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 80,000
6th 250,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 90,000
7th 265,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 100,000

4:22--We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money.

4:25: You're missing the point. Sometimes life isn't fair. You're certainly not "suffering" as a result of this "injustice." So quit complaining and get back to your doc review.

You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

I agree with 4:22. You folks do make a lot of money considering what you actually do. But I am willing to bet there will be many layoffs in the next 6 months. Everything I've read on this site tells me most of you have had it too good for too long, and situations like that don't last in an economy like this. I hope you all stashed away some of that bonus money.

I've got a family to feed!

I've REALLY got a family to feed.

$20,000 is walking-around money FO SHO.

"Economist"-

Since when does economics ever give a shit about "make a lot of money considering what you actually do"?

Some guy/gal a few weeks back put it best: We get paid what we get paid because if the firm doesn't pay well, we walk down the street to a firm that WILL pay us. Demand (law firms, banks, hedge funds, corporations) for top legal talent far outstrips supply (top students/top law schools/associates at top firms)-- hence the raises.

The market doesn't care that you don't attach the same value to our services.

4:37 - FUCK YOU.

1:55--Orrick's general bonus structure has been well documented by Lat. Hit 2000 hours, get a bonus ($25k for 2006 grads). The only question remaining is whether NY associates will get something more.

5:00: Thanks for proving "Economist's" point.

If Quinn had any fear that its associates would walk, it would have paid the big bonus. Most of his associates aren't going to leave and if they do, so what? They're easily replaceable by some other cocky lemming who draws the non-existent parallel between the offer of a $160K salary and the imprimateur of being "top legal talent."

Start facing the fact that, notwithstanding your law school's reputation or your grades, you're a fungible commodity. Which is why biglaw firms like Quinn can dick over their "top legal talent" without fear of reprisal.

Oooh, looks like we have some blockage up here.

5:00, settle down there. No need to get hostile just because I say BigLaw associates are overpaid. What you seem to be missing is that many of the associates on here are pissed about their bonuses, and they clearly can't ALL go crawling to Cravath or WLRK. Not all firms are keeping up with the latest pay increases because they can't or don't want to. So how can you say the market is entirely in your favor, and not tipping against you?

Law firms are beginning to put the brakes on unquestioned raises. Now we're hearing rumors (and some confirmations) of layoffs at BigLaw firms. Do you think that indicates the market is squarely in the hands of associates? You don't have to get pissed because of my comments, I'm simply making a point as to the market for associate attorneys.

Associates will just leave if they're not paid competitive bonuses. Sure they will. Just like, before going to law school, they were all going to be writers, journalists, etc.

Suck it up you risk-averse vaginas, and BOW DOWN TO THE M.B.A. WHO PAYS YOUR SALARIES.

BOW DOWN TO THE JD/MBA WHO STEALS YOUR WIVES.

5:12:

I didn't prove Economist's point. Economist's point was a moral one- i.e. that biglaw associates get paid too much for what they do. The market doesn't care whether what I do is "valuable" in some moral way to society- the market is amoral. I know that what I do is completely pointless other than shifting money from one rich guy to another. I also know I'm fungible. A cog is a cog. That's not the point. The point is that there's a limited number of cogs. If ONE firm deviates from the market, they will be punished. If the entire demand side of the labor market just decides to shift its price point, then you will likely see a reaction by the supply side (i.e. people jumping ship out of biglaw). A more likely scenario is business will slow, and associates will be fired, perhaps curbing demand and thereby putting downward pressure on prices (i.e. wages).

5:00/5:15-

I never said the market is entirely in my favor. The market may go against me (firms go under, lots of layoffs, oversupply of "top legal talent" and prices may go down). The legal labor market has so far been in my favor (resulting in two market-wide mid-year raises last year).

3:48 -- Jim Mora made the playoffs quote. And the quote in 2:50 was drawn directly from the transcript from his press conference (just leaving off the p). So please stop criticizing others for things you know absolutely nothing about. Overall grade -- STFU.

"Economist's" point was not a moral one. He is making a productivity argument. You make a lot of money for looking at documents and assembling binders all day long. Apparently, the powers that be are realizing that too.

However, may I suggest that Quinn's associates test your theory and quit their jobs. I guarantee they'll be replaced faster than they find new work, notwithstanding their "deviation." Moreover, I guarantee that the quitting associates will be "punished" much more harshly than the firm.

This is retarded. CA legal market is officially 4th tier behind NYC, CHI, and BOS. All these "big shot" firms out here pay cheap ass bonuses and expect people to say, "oh I live in sunny CA and it's sooo laid back here...I could never live in NY." Guess what, been both places, CA lawyers bust their ass just as much as NYC lawyers. The weather is nice, but I don't see that much of it anyway and is it really worth $40-100k pay difference? Norcal is just as expensive, but way dirtier and bumpkin than NYC (people here pay $2M for a crapass tract home next to a 7-11 in Palo Alto and think they're chic). In any case, $20-60k in take home a year buys a lotta Manhattan apartment, car, non-working spouse time. These bitches better recognize or I'm taking my dual-barred ass back to NYC. Anybody wanna split a u-haul?

5:58: Stop halfway and work in Dallas or Houston. You'll make CA money and it will go twice as far. Also, you'll work half as much. Trust me: I'm from the Northeast originally. But I make enough down here to live like a king AND make it back to NYC when I want to hang out. Problem is, when I go back, all my NYC friends are working.

6:01: You left out Texas's best feature: Attractive women. As I'm sure 5:58 will agree, girls look much better when there's no off-season for girls to get fat. Unless you find dumpy chicks in long sweaters and leggings really attractive, NYC is not the place for eye candy.

My argument isn't a moral one (though there is a moral argument to be made). While I recognize that BigLaw associates work long hours (as do many professionals), a firm can nonetheless attract extremely qualified associate talent for $150k, probably even $130,000. I think firms are beginning to realize that paying a premium to new associates who haven't even a clue how to file a pleading just doesn't make much sense. Now, I don't think the market will fall very far. But I do think you're beginning to see a stratification in pay, indicative of a more critical approach by firms that are really questioning whether they are getting any added value by paying associates special bonuses on top of generous bonuses. The fact is most firms can maintain their standards even if they pay their associates 90% what another firm might be offering. There are only so many hedge funds, PE firms and top-paying law firms out there. Partners realize that, and that's why they're not rushing out to match each other in the latest round of salary wars.

Hey 4:27,
Do the 2100 hour and higher bonuses amounts include the lower hour amounts (e.g., is a 1st year really getting $20,000 at 2,000 hours and an additional $25,000 at 2,100 hours, or is it really just an additional $5,000 at 2,100 hours)? That must be the case.

I know 4 people at Quinn. None of them made 2100. I hear a lot about a sweatshop mentality there, but a lot of people there are slackers too. Either way, it sounds like an absolute shithole.

I made the 2100 QE mark because I thought -- but didn't know -- that was the cut off (and also I got super busy towards the end). But honestly, I'm not sure why it wasn't more front and center. I feel bad for my brethren that got half the bonus, especially as I know many of them believed 2000 was the cutoff mark. I don't think it's a conscious decision to screw anyone over (although it may be an attempt to send a message that we have to take the rules seriously (then again, what rules??)), I think it is more an aversion to being organized and stating formal policies. But oh well -- where else can you make these salaries? Pretty short list.

Well said 6:45.

Economist (or Biglaw partner complaining about associate pay while pocketing millions a year off the sweat of our brow): What are you smoking? Are you some partner who is so out of touch with reality that you think you can attract Biglaw talent to work Biglaw hours for $130k? It's called New Jersey, and they pay their Hofstra and Rutgers grads $130k to do second rate work for second rate clients. Why don't you try it at your firm and watch it empty out of everyone except the bottom 10% retards within 1 year. What is this BS about firms' reticence to match each other in this latest round? Have you been under a rock? NYC moved to 160k, everybody and their mother, even the likes of Squire Sanders and IP boutiques moved to 160k. NYC moved to special bonus, all NYC firms and bigshot non-NYC firms (Kirkland, Quinn, Ropes) moved to some version of special bonus. Now everyone else is up in arms about the craptastic bonuses being paid in non-NYC locales and, in the next year or so, watch the firms respond as they realize that top tier talent will be moving to NYC-based firms, as those firms move higher up on the prestige/desirability ladder.

But if you're so sure that you don't need top tier legal talent to do top tier legal work, then I have some cousins at Concord Law who will draft pleadings for you for minimum wage. I'm sure they're just as clueless and useless as the average Biglaw associate in your eyes and can be molded to do bet the company litigation under your brilliant tutelage.

Maybe that's the case in some offices, 6:28. I don't know of anyone in quinn's sf office that has ever billed under 2100 (except for one class of '04 slacker in his first year who was then no-bonused and basically fired).

Good point 7:00 p.m. The monkey-like work you're doing can ONLY be done by the top graduates of top tier schools. As Peter Venkman said in Ghostbusters, "You're right...no human being could stack books like this."

7:00,
First off, not everybody matched the special bonuses. The pay is being stratified. Take a guess why.

Second, I love your quotation, "Why don't you try it at your firm and watch it empty out of everyone except the bottom 10% retards within 1 year."

I'd like to know where "everyone except the bottom 10%" is going to go? Do you not understand that there are a limited number of hedge funds out there. Are you all going to send your resumes to Wachtell? It's funny how you think everyone is going to move to NYC and land a job at the highest-paying firm. Honestly, do you really think the legal market is so fluid and dynamic that Big NYC Firms are just going to open up the door for all Californians? Get a fucking clue. Successful NY firms can't expand two-fold in January because a bunch of associates are pissed about their pay in December. Stop reading caselaw and get a fucking education in reality.

7:02 - If it makes you feel better, there is no difference in talent in this world. A monkey, an online law school grad, and a harvard law review editor are all the same. The litigation brief I'm drafting now could be done just as well by a monkey or someone with who scored 150 on their lsat, because we're all the same. Happy?

7:16 - If it makes you feel better, you're a pretentious snob. Although there are certainly differences in talent, I have no doubt that there are plenty of graduates at Rutgers or Hofstra that could do whatever it is you are doing just as well as you can.

I'm guessing that whatever you are working on isn't that important or difficult, considering you are posting to this blog on a Friday late-afternoon anyway.

7:22 - You're absolutely right. You and the Economist should round up all the Hofstra and Rutgers grads you can find and open your own Jersey firm paying $130k a year. It will be heaven on earth and all the problems in the legal world will be solved. You will be flooded with resumes from Wachtell associates wanting to make less money but you will reject them because it will be a Hofstra/Rutgers only shop. I am a pretentious tool and no one in our profession thinks like me.

7:22, are you even an attorney? I've never made a binder and don't do much doc review at all; that's what temps are for. Further, it's not the school per se that gives any particular student more talent than another, but the school is a proxy for how smart the student is. Having managed teams of temp attorneys, I can tell you firsthand that your Hofstras and Rutgers in fact can NOT do what I do, nor could they even keep up with the temp attorneys from good schools.

Finally, junior associates are paid our high salaries because the firm is betting that we'll quickly become valuable mid level and senior associates. That's when the pedigree differneces really start to show. Agan, lawyers from lesser schools, as a group, aren't as smart and aren't worth the initial investment.

CA--->NY,

You really should come to New York first, and THEN explain to us how the world works. I think California has confused you in that regard.

Dear Economist,

See 5:58. CA--->NY did work in NY first. So, I guess he or she can explain how the world works after all . . .

6:19: The amount listed at each hours level is a total, not an increment over the previous level. But there is also a possible merit bonus on top of those hours bonuses which can be quite substantial.

Losers.

(T1 --> V1)

8:34, get back to work before Herb finds out. P.S., sorry to hear about your wife leaving you.

Economist/Biglaw Partner: You get what you pay for. If your firm is ok with the type of associates below market bonus will attract (e.g., MWE associates), then great. My main disagreement with you is not over bonus amounts, but your assertion that a Biglaw firm can attract talent for 150k or 130k. Just look at the mess Fish & Richardson made when it tried to instituted a holdback system, not even a paycut mind you. They looked terrible, associates were up in arms, and the firm had to backtrack immediately. Even with bonuses, you can be sure no self-respecting law student or lateral associate will be going to MWE for years to come. I think I'm the one on planet earth when I say that if a Biglaw firm cut salaries, even to the old 145k scale (without cutting the hours requirement), that it would lose most of its marketable associates. Most of the fleeing associates would be taken in by other law firms paying market, not hedge funds. That is, unless you can orchestrate somekind of conspiracy to cut salaries at all firms at once.

Question, has Fish moved to a 5 year partnership track? A bunch of recently named partners at F&R graduated in 2002, one of them even graduated in 2003!

"Most of the fleeing associates would be taken in by other law firms paying market, not hedge funds. That is, unless you can orchestrate somekind of conspiracy to cut salaries at all firms at once."

These firms seem to be able to raise salaries like it's a cartel, so I'm sure they are smart enough to coordinate the limiting or total denial of any future raises. Also, I did say I don't believe firms will actually cut to 130k. In fact, I'm not sure they will cut at all. But I don't think you'll see raises as you've seen in the last few months. More likely, they'll just lay off some associates to contain the displeasure to a select and unfortunate few.

Regardless of our differences, I simply posted on here to say that I think the economy is about to tank, and I think the effects will be widespread. Good luck getting back to nyc.

"The school is a proxy for how smart the student is."

Of course it is. Because a person's undergraduate grades and LSAT score are the most certain predictors of intelligence and legal aptitude.

Get over yourself, you pretentious fuck.

9:40, that's not pretense. I don't believe anyone said that school is a "perfect" proxy for how smart the student is, but it's ridiculous to behave as if it's no proxy at all. Look at the people who progress most successfully in the legal profession. Yale, Harvard and Stanford grads actually do better, on average, than Loyola grads. Shocking, I know.

9:40, you're an idiot. Obviously, every major law firm in the country thinks school is a reasonably good proxy -- it's reflected in their recruiting policies and practices. Why do you think Skadden is a sure thing for someone in the bottom of the class at HLS, but is seen as an "elite" law firm by those at lower-ranked schools? How many people from Fordham are at Wachtell? Four. How many from Harvard? 43. But the members of WLRK's hiring committee are probably just "pretentious fucks" who aren't acting rationally.

9:53: I agree with you. Exceptionally smart and gifted people attend the most prestigious schools in the country. But exceptionally smart and gifted people also attend schools that are not as prestigious. I have no quarrel with labeling someone who attended a good school as "intelligent."

However, I take issue with the claim that someone who went to a less prestigious school is categorically "less intelligent."

Statements like, "I can tell you firsthand that your Hofstras and Rutgers in fact can NOT do what I do, nor could they even keep up with the temp attorneys from good schools" cannot be taken seriously.

9:59, presumably then you'd be happy if that previous poster's comment (which I agree is silly) were amended to "I can tell you firsthand that THE MAJORITY of your Hofstras and Rutgers . . . ." Because aside from a very small percentage of people with whatever odd circumstances, exceptionally smart and gifted people actually *don't* tend to attend unprestigious schools. The majority of NYU law students did not get accepted at HLS. The numbers are obviously far more skewed when you get down to Hofstra and Rutgers (or wherever).