Biglaw Associate Raises

[Anonymous]

It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I am not a 5th year, but I would like to work for you.

[Anonymous]

Fingers crossed that this leads to a lot more business for solid boutique/midlaw shops esp. in litigation. Bc selfishly that's where I want to be -- not in ridiculous up and out politics of biglaw where they'll get rid of you for any slight and not in the dead govt career path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

+1. Partners are my firm (also NYC) looked for ANY reason to get rid of associates to be able to hold down costs (bc they had hired 50 people with the intent to pay them 125k and then were suddenly having to pay 50 people @160k and they were NOT going to eat that cost). I fear the same thing will happen now -- the junior/mid level classes are already in place at 160k (and higher depending on what yr you are) and it's going to create a significant pay roll cost to pay everyone who is on board more -- which means by Dec. reviews, they'll again be looking to trim to bring the costs down to where they expected them to be originally. It's become a sad profession -- and I am someone who LOVED my time in biglaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

True. But as a senior in house lawyer, guess who gets to make life miserable for the once feared equity partner at Biglaw? You know? That asshole that made your life miserable? The one who made you miss your child's whatever? The one who wasted all those weekends?

Don't you want to be in the position to say"Frank. This is crap work. Just crap and you can't seriously believe I am going to have a check cut for you . . ."

That's priceless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try and think of this from the client's perspective. (I am transactional, so doc production doesn't apply).

I have something that needs attending to. It would take a 4th year plus no more than 3 hours. So let's assume 700 an hour MAX. That's max 2100.

You guys assign it to a 1st year.

We have a first year and a senior meeting to assign the project. 1 hour. The two lawyers bill me a total of 1000 just to assign the work. Then the first year spend 8 hours figuring it out. Not dumb, just starting from zero. That's 3200 more. Then another couple hours for the senior to review and the first year to revise. Another 1500.

Now I have a 5700 dollar bill for something that should have cost me 2000 max.

How are you defending that?

And I pick and pay lawyers who provide value to me. So I am more likely to pick a senior associate or a mid over contacting a partner. It builds your book.

At my company, our in-house demands flat rate anytime we need outside counsel. They send out expressions of interest and get quotes. Never from big firms, but there are a lot of small and boutique firms that specialize in this area of law.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

You're an 8th year and your salary (not origination or bonus) is 350+? Where the hell do you work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

True. But as a senior in house lawyer, guess who gets to make life miserable for the once feared equity partner at Biglaw? You know? That asshole that made your life miserable? The one who made you miss your child's whatever? The one who wasted all those weekends?

Don't you want to be in the position to say"Frank. This is crap work. Just crap and you can't seriously believe I am going to have a check cut for you . . ."

That's priceless.

Fair enough, but if I'm gov't I can make them write a white paper on a pointlessly fast deadline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

You're an 8th year and your salary (not origination or bonus) is 350+? Where the hell do you work?

I was including bonus, which puts it around 400.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

True. But as a senior in house lawyer, guess who gets to make life miserable for the once feared equity partner at Biglaw? You know? That asshole that made your life miserable? The one who made you miss your child's whatever? The one who wasted all those weekends?

Don't you want to be in the position to say"Frank. This is crap work. Just crap and you can't seriously believe I am going to have a check cut for you . . ."

That's priceless.

Fair enough, but if I'm gov't I can make them write a white paper on a pointlessly fast deadline.

Plus govt. has job security...no concerns about getting laid off if there's a merger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a good thing for associates BUT I worry about the long term. When firms when from 125k to 135k to 160k, that was the first time that when we hit a bump in the road (2008-2009), it became pretty standard to weed out half the class in their 4th yr. It happened at my NYC firm and those of my friends, all Vault 1-50 firms. And it continues to this day under the guise of "performance." So now what -- the weed out will begin in the 3rd yr or 2nd yr to save some of the salary cost? If you're making this money, save HARD bc it doesn't look like the industry has learned anything from the past 8 yrs. Only in law can you have declining work (which it is in certain large areas including lit and IP right now) rewarded by huge raises.

The raises create the decline.

Wouldn't a 5th year rather work for me in house? I'll pay you 175. Bonus. Some equity. And be pissed if you are at the office after 6.

I'm an 8th year and that sounds like a pretty solid job but it's more than a 50% salary cut and at that point I'd probably just rather work for the Federal government.

True. But as a senior in house lawyer, guess who gets to make life miserable for the once feared equity partner at Biglaw? You know? That asshole that made your life miserable? The one who made you miss your child's whatever? The one who wasted all those weekends?

Don't you want to be in the position to say"Frank. This is crap work. Just crap and you can't seriously believe I am going to have a check cut for you . . ."

That's priceless.

Fair enough, but if I'm gov't I can make them write a white paper on a pointlessly fast deadline.

Plus govt. has job security...no concerns about getting laid off if there's a merger.

But you could get Trumped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is 2006 all over again, I remember. My offer from Biglaw was 125K, bumped to 135K before I started, soon after jumped to 160K.

It also happened in 2000. The salaries in NYC went from 90 something to 101 to 125 before we graduated. I remember all the mid level associates being bummed out b/c they knew that the billables would go up accordingly and any semblance of a life that they had would be gone.

I worked at 2 firms before moving into the govt. When a boss who was going to be a partner at large firm recently asked me if I would consider joining him, I didn't even hesitate to thank him but decline. Even if they doubled my salary (and I make north of 200K), I would never return. I have two young kids, a very flexible job (telework and early start/end times) and great benefits. I enjoyed some of the work that I did but most of the higher up people that I worked for were miserable and not very nice. I don't miss it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try and think of this from the client's perspective. (I am transactional, so doc production doesn't apply).

I have something that needs attending to. It would take a 4th year plus no more than 3 hours. So let's assume 700 an hour MAX. That's max 2100.

You guys assign it to a 1st year.

We have a first year and a senior meeting to assign the project. 1 hour. The two lawyers bill me a total of 1000 just to assign the work. Then the first year spend 8 hours figuring it out. Not dumb, just starting from zero. That's 3200 more. Then another couple hours for the senior to review and the first year to revise. Another 1500.

Now I have a 5700 dollar bill for something that should have cost me 2000 max.

How are you defending that?

And I pick and pay lawyers who provide value to me. So I am more likely to pick a senior associate or a mid over contacting a partner. It builds your book.

On the other hand, lots of clients don't want to pay mid-level or senior associate rates when they think it is something a junior associate could do. I had a client who kept pushing back against having a third-year associate do research and filings, even though she knew the case and had experience in the court we were in, and therefore was able to do those tasks more efficiently and with fewer mistakes than the first-year associate who replaced her (at the client's urging).