Yes.

eat my second

meaningless if you don't control for hourly rate. billing and realization are and ought to be tied to comp. only interesting question is whether same billing same firm same clients different cities = different pay/bonus. best and biggest firms say no, but midsize firms cut costs where they can to boost ppp. ergo philly-based firms can boast ppp with the big boys while saving 100g on a midlevel associate.

col is never really more than a cover and doubly so in the case of bonuses. just cheap firms choosing to line ppp rather than pay above-market. which makes business sense, but sanitizing it with col arguments = horsecrap.

Yes. But more importantly, salaries should be higher in NY. The fact that they are not (or that no one has raised yet) is disgraceful, and a joke. Top talent from all over the country competes for NY jobs for a reason, and it isn't because we have good pizza.

I don't care how poorly the market is doing right now, that is no excuse for not raising. Big law does well in bear markets as well as bull markets . . . make no mistake. NY associates should be outraged.

Yes. But more importantly, salaries should be higher in NY. The fact that they are not (or that no one has raised yet) is disgraceful, and a joke. Top talent from all over the country competes for NY jobs for a reason, and it isn't because we have good pizza.

I don't care how poorly the market is doing right now, that is no excuse for not raising. Big law does well in bear markets as well as bull markets . . . make no mistake. NY associates should be outraged.

Yes. But, more importantly, salaries should be higher in NY. The fact that they are not (or that no one has raised yet) is disgraceful, and a joke. Top talent from all over the country competes for NY jobs for a reason, and it isn't because we have good pizza.

I don't care how poorly the market is doing right now, that is no excuse for not raising. Big law does well in bear markets as well as bull markets . . . make no mistake. NY associates should be outraged.

Yes. But, more importantly, salaries should be higher in NY. The fact that they are not (or that no one has raised yet) is disgraceful, and a joke. Top talent from all over the country competes for NY jobs for a reason, and it isn't because we have good pizza.

I don't care how poorly the market is doing right now, that is no excuse for not raising. Big law does well in bear markets as well as bull markets . . . make no mistake. NY associates should be outraged.

Boston's a great town. It's just like NY, except it's clean and safe, and has winning sports teams.

but it's still boston

Don't kid yourself. Boston is the poor man's New York.

2:38 (and dopplegangers): that's an absurd argument. Big firm lawyers in New York "should" get paid close to nothing, while people who actually make the world a better place should make salaries like ours. But I assume you weren't talking morality (because as big firm lawyers we all lose on morality), so the only other logical factor is the market. You say there are "reasons" people want to go to New York -- if you mean salary, then we should expect to lose associates to California and DC. If you mean people just plain would rather live in New York, then why on earth would firms pay more? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Firms will pay what they have to pay to get the best talent they can afford, period. If no one is going to pay a snot-nosed first year fresh out of law school $250k base, then that first year can't exactly complain his firm isn't following the market by not paying him $250k base.

2:38/:41, to your point that "[t]op talent from all over the country competes for NY jobs for a reason, and it isn't because we have good pizza[,]" you seem to be implying that the best and brightest law students routinely apply for spots in NYC OVER any place else, which isn't exactly accurate.

True so-called "top talent" in the law, i.e., federal law clerks and competitive fellowship types, tend to compete for DC over NYC. The jobs there are harder to land as a general rule than are the jobs in NYC, which tend to have much higher turnover within the lower ranks, require longer hours, offer less responsibility at entry/midlevel, higher COL, etc.

With regard to the consensus point made before that NYC associates tend to work longer hours than their big-city biglaw counterparts, I agree that this extra burden should be reflected in a higher bonus -- this fact coupled with the fact that the COL in NYC is much higher than in other big cities.

Sure, argue that NYC has better restaurants, culture, diversity, Woody Allen scripts, but please don't imply that NYC is hotter sh*t because it has better talent. (If you doubt me, try applying for a job at, say, Sullivan & Cromwell NYC, and then apply for a similar position at, say, Williams & Connolly and then report back!)

exactly, boston is a great town. NYC is the center of the universe. even tom brady hangs out here during the week.

Just as well that so many snobby associates live in NY. Boston doesnt need them.

2:55: it's reality. NY is the legal capital of the world . . . good, bad or indifferent . . . and salary (among other things) has helped secure that rank. I don't make the rules. Because of that, more law students compete for jobs in NY than any other city. If a firm in Austin can afford to pay associates $160,000, big law in NY can surely afford more - and should. One disclaimer, however- I don't think any first or second year is worth $160,000. But if a firm raises third years and higher only, they will probably take a hit in recruitment.

poor boston?

what about the fact that they seem to have struck some sort of deal with the devil for sports supremacy in the 3 major sports leagues here in this country?

3:04, did you not understand my argument? I don't care if you people think NY is heaven on earth. WHY is a firm going to pay a penny more than it has to?? If people are so enamored with NY because it is oh so wonderful, then they're going to come there even if they could make more money in real terms living in Dallas. Unless associates start leaving NY (why would ANYONE leave wonderful NY??), NY firms have absolutely zero reason to even LOOK at what other markets are doing. If California firms are paying first years a million bucks and law students would still rather be in NY, NY firms are not going to start paying 1.1 million. They will pay exactly what they have to pay to get the best talent they can afford. Period.

I am in NY and my penis length is in the 99th percentile for all males in thie world.

NY is the center of securities litigation, not the legal capital of the world. For the 2d Circuit, there is the equally powerful -- if not more influential -- DC Circuit. Some laws can only be litigated in that jurisdiction and whenever the government is the defendant, the DC Cir always has concurrent jurisdiction - so the docket is much more interesting. If you want to practice constitutional law, administrative law, regularly practice against the government or for the government, or shape public policy through the law by working in Congress, DOJ, any of the independent agencies, any of the big DC law firms/thinktanks/lobbying firms/non-profits (of which there are plenty in NY as well)/ consulting firms -- DC is the place to be. NY and DC are both great - just very different. No DC firm is going to best a NY firm in securities. But the same holds true the other way as well.

Good point, 3:18.

Don't forget the west coast either -- I think California has more civil litigation than any other state. So head toward the beach if you want to do high-quality civil litigation.

Having gone to Columbia undergrad and HLS for law school, I think I'm at least somewhat qualified to weigh in here: Boston sucks. It is a shitty, cut-rate attempt at what NYC actually succeeds in doing. Additionally, the people there are extremely uptight, unattractive, and poorly dressed. The weather is also horrible. As does the food, for the most part. The sports-fans are also completely intolerable. I have no idea why anyone would settle in Boston unless he/she had family there. If you want an east coast city, go to NY. If you want the most interesting legal work, go to DC. Otherwise, go to CA.

If NY is losing top talent (which they are)to DC and other cities that pay the same, then NY should raise.

I agree with the point that NYC is not the legal center of the world, just the doc heavy center of the world of securities and bankruptcy lit.

I also agree with the argument that if NYC is in fact the "legal capital," and does have superior talent to DC, SF, LA, Chi, etc., the top brass at NYC firms certainly don't seem to think so because compensation has held steady this year with those aforementioned cities, and it seems it will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

All of this may be a moot point though. We are in a recession folks, and so-called "top talent" will be fighting to go wherever they are needs -- needs which seem to fall with the stock market.

I'm not sure if it's completely fair to compare an S&C to a W&C because they are so different in size. Because it may be harder to get a job at W&C does not mean that it has better legal talent, it just means that their slots fill up more quickly because they have less of them to offer. In other words, if someone from S&C cannot get a job at W&C it is likely not because they aren't qualified, but because there are no availabilities. And for the record, everyone I know who got an offer at S&C, got an offer at W&C.

Nobody "deserves" a bonus. Firms set their compensation, associates vote with their feet. Not too complicated.

Is LAt really Queer? If so do you think hes the bitch or the dominant male?

C'mon, 3:44, he's small, hairless, catty, and Asian. What do you think?

New York is cold, expensive, full of idiots who think it is the centre of the world and, I might add, has become second in finance to London, and is becoming second in law.

There is a saying that one becomes a lawyer because they were bad at math. Anyone who thinks NY attorneys earn more in real terms than their brethren in Charlotte, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, etc is deluded. Take Charlotte, market for 1st years before bonus is $145k. To have same standard of life in NY you need to be on $235,222. Enjoy your bonus, I will enjoy my 4000 sq ft house, my 10 min commute and the fact that I am out of the office by 7 every day and don't work weekends.

"There is a saying that one becomes a lawyer because they were bad at math. "

There's also a saying about using correct pronouns. In this case, "one" and "they" don't agree but you're European so I'll cut you some slack because of the congenital intellectual deficiencies.

Have fun in your 4000 square foot house (if you lived in any half-decent city you would not need that much space to fend off the crushing boredom of your mediocre suburb).

2:55 - I think your market argument is a good one, but on balance it comes out favoring higher salaries in NYC.

One thing some outside NYC are missing is that NY firms aren't just competing with top NY firms for associates. The best NY firms are also competing with banks.

NYC is certainly the center of the transactional legal world, and by a large margin.

How many 30 year olds in DC (or Boston, Chicago, etc.) make more than $500K? Well there are tons of them in NYC at bank, PE firms, and hedge funds.

Top NY firms are, to a not insignificant extent, competing with these places for top associates.

That much of the financial services industry has taken a huge hit over the last 6-9 months is a big part of why associate salaries did not go up in 2008.

3:52: Some Charlotte firms are paying 160 to first years plus matching NY bonuses already.

European,

In what meaningful way is NYC second to London in finance?

In what meaningful way is NYC becoming second to London in law?

Shut up with the asinine "competing with banks" argument *please,* 2:55. Law firms are *not* competing with banks. 1) Other than in their legal departments, and a miniscule number of exceptions, banks are entirely uninterested in hiring lawyers. Banks do not even like hiring bankers who have been trained at competing banks. 2) Unless NYC law firms were going to bump up their bonuses WAY more (like, giving possibly upsides in the millions to fourth and fifth year associates), they will remain hopelessly non-competitive with bank salaries/bonuses, and will not retain a single associate who has the opportunity to go to a bank. The difference between a $60k bonus and a $90k bonus is meaningless -- both are pocket change to any modestly successful banker.

3:39, you said: "And for the record, everyone I know who got an offer at S&C, got an offer at W&C."

I doubt it seriously, but who cares? I only raised this rhetorical argument to make the point that all things law don't revolve around NYC.

And to your point, 03:58, that "NY firms aren't just competing with top NY firms for associates[,]" they "are also competing with banks[,]" I think you overstate this.

In reality, only transactional departments at large law firms would logically be in compeitition with banks, and reality, they aren't really in "competition" with large banks because most of these banks could not handle an influx of fresh JDs (with no business traning).

About midlevel is when the skillset becomes transferrable, and even then, the need for lawyers -- even the best and brightest -- at banks is nowhere near approaching what it is at large law firms. That's why large law firms don't feel anything more than anecdoate "pressure" to raise because of what banks do.

Goldman does what Goldman does; biglaw is much more concerned with STB raising.

3.57, perhaps the One and They are not the same (I became a lawyer as I heard Clients were not good at math). But no, oyu are correct. Thanks for taking my foreign status into account. When you have good-great weather for 10 months of the year, you don't get bored too easily.

As to how is NY losing out to London (and I write this as someone who hates English people), I would say check deal voume, size of deals, where companies are listing etc. Sarbanes was the straw that drove Big Business to THE City.

How can you justify a $40,000 "special bonus" for a midlevel associate? The cost of living isn't $3,333 per month (pre-tax) MORE than in other major cities like SF, DC, Boston, etc.

I don't disagree there should be some adjustment in salary for the higher COL, but a SPECIAL BONUS ABOVE THE COL INCREASE IS RIDICULOUS and exposes the idiocy of the system.

You, even.

There is ample evidence from new securities listings increasing on European exchanges (mainly in London) and de-listings on American exchanges in order to re-list in Europe that public companies prefer the less onerous regulations of European Markets. This is a serious issue that the SEC and other blue-ribbon panels have been yapping about without any real solutions. Some claim that SOX and related listing/maintenance costs are to blame.

Oh, and if that isn't good enough for you M&A transaction volume and PE/HF fundraising levels in Europe have been growing at a much faster clip than their American counterparts. I don't have data, but in some league table categories, even absolute volume is higher across the pond.

Touche, from an American who was a former expat in London.

There is ample evidence from new securities listings increasing on European exchanges (mainly in London) and de-listings on American exchanges in order to re-list in Europe that public companies prefer the less onerous regulations of European Markets. This is a serious issue that the SEC and other blue-ribbon panels have been yapping about without any real solutions. Some claim that SOX and related listing/maintenance costs are to blame.

Oh, and if that isn't good enough for you M&A transaction volume and PE/HF fundraising levels in Europe have been growing at a much faster clip than their American counterparts. I don't have data, but in some league table categories, even absolute volume is higher across the pond.

Touche, from an American who was a former expat in London.

Associates in New York need to get over themselves. They already DO get paid better than everyone else, except associates at a few other large firms who work just as many hours. This whole New York v. non-New York debate is based on a fallacy.

Top NYC firms are competing with banks, hedge funds, and PE funds. To think otherwise is ignorant. I personally know a number of people who have gone to hedge funds, Leman, CSFB, etc. Good transactional associates at V10 firms begin to have a lot of in-house opportunities in financial services when they get to be 5th years and more senior.

To say these opportunities are only available to transactional attorneys is largely (but not completely) correct. But no V10 firm is going to across the board pay its 5th year litigators less than its 5th year M&A associates. So STB raises salaries for everyone.

That financial services employers still pay way more than firms (even with raises) is true. To think that means firm raises are insignificant to associates who are considering a move to financial services employer is incorrect.

One has to consider the total opportunity cost of the move, of which salary is only one factor.

3:58, sure, makes sense, and I'm very grateful to the banks for causing the ripple effect that has made me tens of thousands richer than I would have been otherwise. But this doesn't mean NY associates will have market-adjusted salaries higher than their CA or DC counterparts, because CA and DC will continue to match as long as 1) they can afford to and 2) they believe there is a risk of losing associates to NYC. With a handful of exceptions, NY firms in general are no richer than other bigs firms in LA, DC, Chi, etc.

I would bill 2600 hours regardless of which city I was in.

"That financial services employers still pay way more than firms (even with raises) is true. To think that means firm raises are insignificant to associates who are considering a move to financial services employer is incorrect."

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong. $30k or even $100k is totally negligible and will not even enter into the rational actor's calculus when considering a move from biglaw to an i-bank, much less a hedge fund. Most of my non-lawyer friends from undergrad work at banks, and they all make considerably more (i.e., hundreds of thousands, and in one case, millions) than any biglaw associate at any level. They also have (surprisingly) better job stability, because their jobs are not lockstep plus up-or-out. And their upside is bigger. One of them already makes more money than the average Wachtell partner, and the potential for that is there for all of them.

5:27:

I think the point was that an increased salaray is a factor in whether an associate will stay at a firm, and not just from a financial perspective. When a firm like STB raises associate salaries it makes its associates think it cares about the associates, will do right by them, etc.

Banks certainly have a MUCH bigger long-term upside. But the first year or two the compensation at the bank is likely only $50-100K different. So getting a 20K raise from your firm, plus a 30K (or whatever) special bonus is not insignificant.

When associates join bankes they typically do so at the associate level. It's not like they're coming over as MDs.

"When a firm like STB raises associate salaries it makes its associates think it cares about the associates, will do right by them, etc."

I'm sorry, but any associate who draws those conclusions based on benefiting (slightly) from an across-the-board raise is naive, and an idiot--and also still *highly* unlikely ever to be promoted to partner. Firms like STB raise associate salaries so as to compete with other law firms for new recruits, period.

The anonymous compensation committee partners can leave any time now... We can see through you!

NYC owns. The rest of the world only wishes they could be us.

Sounds like everyone else has penis envy.

PS - Boston Sucks.

The cities with higher costs of living should get paid more. It doesn't make sense for attorneys in Texas to get the same pay, if NY firms are really trying to be "top of the market." Unless they're just trying to be top of the NYC market and don't mind getting shown up by regional law firms.

Everybody has job security at the top -- which is why that is where you should position yourself regardless of whether you are in law or finance.

And people who think that just any associate from a decent firm can simply walk over to a bank anytime and get a top-rate position making 10x what they were making at the law firm is dreaming. It doesn't work like that. The good banks looking to fill high paying position only take the very best folks from the top firms. And if you are one of those types who complains about billing 2400 hours per year, oh brother, just wait until you start your i-banking position.

I love how Boston fans are so on top of the world because the Sox finally got their act together. I mean it only took them 80 years. I look forward to them going nowhere this season.
I'll cut the Pats some slack because they are actually good, but face it NY (and Jeter) rule.

NYC more difficult to get jobs in than Boston, DC, et al? Pfft. Any douche who stumbled through law school can land one of the 100,099,830 first year associate positions in NYC, even at the top 20 firms. And they do all the time. Not so in the "other" major cities. That's anyone who went to a real law school anyway.

9:21 is correct. In my HLS 2004 class, every slacker from the bottom quintile of the class had multiple offers from at least "V50" NYC firms (or NYC offices of non-NYC firms), whereas many students in the top third of the class had about a 1 in 10 hit-rate with SF firms (and in some cases got no offers at all). As long as you went to a good school, it is incredibly easy to get a job in NYC; that's not the case in plenty of other cities.