Biglaw - twelfth-year associate??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would someone like that make? $400K base + bonus?

550 base and 450-500 bonus.

I find this hard to believe. Probably more like $415,000 base and bonus potential of no more than $150,000.

If I was a 8+ year associate I would definitely try to cap myself at around 600k total as that is about 1.8 mil revenue, pretty easy to generate at a top firm.

To put that in context the GS pay scale tops out at 180k, SESs cap out at 220k working 50+ hours, DC corporate executives at the VP level will rarely make over 400k, surgeons make 500-700k, and financial regulators top out at 275k. If you are in a niche big law practice, 600k is great. Take the rest of the time to build client base and lateral to junior partner or senior in-house role. DC biglaw employees are insanely rich by all local metrics.

$1.8 revenue for an associate is about as good as it gets, in my experience. There are always write-offs, write-downs, whatever your firm’s jargon is, and the result is that only 1850-1950 of those 2000 hours ultimately get paid to the client. 2,000 hours billed per year, at an hourly rate of $900, if paid in full (not happening), is $1.8M. Again, paying an associate $600k is borderline unsustainable in my opinion. But I’m just a non-equity partner so what do I know.

6th year biglaw here already generating $1.8M revenue (1800 hr @ $1000/hr).

Are you sure that you're actually billing at $1k an hour? I'm client with a $20m litigation/regulatory budget and we don't pay that for a 6th year, even at tippy top firms. We have discounted rates.

+1. Almost every major client has discounted rates. No 6th year associate billing 1800 hours is bringing in $1.8 million because no 6th year associate anywhere is being billed out to every client they work for at their full hourly rate.

[Anonymous]

I posted earlier asking about the 6th year associate lawyer's practice area or specialty.

I am familiar with major accounting firm billings in a specialty (non-audit/non-assurance) area and a first year manager is billing at various rates (depending upon the client & the specific task performed) up to $900 per hour. Very common to give a 30% discount off the $900 hourly rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would someone like that make? $400K base + bonus?

550 base and 450-500 bonus.

I find this hard to believe. Probably more like $415,000 base and bonus potential of no more than $150,000.

If I was a 8+ year associate I would definitely try to cap myself at around 600k total as that is about 1.8 mil revenue, pretty easy to generate at a top firm.

To put that in context the GS pay scale tops out at 180k, SESs cap out at 220k working 50+ hours, DC corporate executives at the VP level will rarely make over 400k, surgeons make 500-700k, and financial regulators top out at 275k. If you are in a niche big law practice, 600k is great. Take the rest of the time to build client base and lateral to junior partner or senior in-house role. DC biglaw employees are insanely rich by all local metrics.

$1.8 revenue for an associate is about as good as it gets, in my experience. There are always write-offs, write-downs, whatever your firm’s jargon is, and the result is that only 1850-1950 of those 2000 hours ultimately get paid to the client. 2,000 hours billed per year, at an hourly rate of $900, if paid in full (not happening), is $1.8M. Again, paying an associate $600k is borderline unsustainable in my opinion. But I’m just a non-equity partner so what do I know.

6th year biglaw here already generating $1.8M revenue (1800 hr @ $1000/hr).

Are you sure that you're actually billing at $1k an hour? I'm client with a $20m litigation/regulatory budget and we don't pay that for a 6th year, even at tippy top firms. We have discounted rates.

+1. Almost every major client has discounted rates. No 6th year associate billing 1800 hours is bringing in $1.8 million because no 6th year associate anywhere is being billed out to every client they work for at their full hourly rate.

I find the $1,000/hr figure for a 6th year associate rather questionable. For a mid-level partner or highly-specialized Of Counsel, maybe...

Word to the wise, if you're making BIGLAW money, that gravy train will end unless you build your own book ($1M+ in origination) or have someone to feed you billable hours (i.e. a client willing to pay for your work, not the partner's work). Also, it's also a good idea to acquire a bit of humility if you're looking to move in-house. There are plenty of incredibly smart, ambitious, and politically savvy in-house counsel who can make or break your career. They are trusted by the business leaders who make money for their companies, which in turn makes your BIGLAW money possible in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I’m also surprised by the 6th year $1000 figure, as in my firm that’s more like 10th year plus and junior partners, but dependent on market and practice area.

Not really relevant but I always want to ask, to the PPs who write BIGLAW in capitals, why? Do you think it’s an acronym for something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would someone like that make? $400K base + bonus?

550 base and 450-500 bonus.

I find this hard to believe. Probably more like $415,000 base and bonus potential of no more than $150,000.

If I was a 8+ year associate I would definitely try to cap myself at around 600k total as that is about 1.8 mil revenue, pretty easy to generate at a top firm.

To put that in context the GS pay scale tops out at 180k, SESs cap out at 220k working 50+ hours, DC corporate executives at the VP level will rarely make over 400k, surgeons make 500-700k, and financial regulators top out at 275k. If you are in a niche big law practice, 600k is great. Take the rest of the time to build client base and lateral to junior partner or senior in-house role. DC biglaw employees are insanely rich by all local metrics.

$1.8 revenue for an associate is about as good as it gets, in my experience. There are always write-offs, write-downs, whatever your firm’s jargon is, and the result is that only 1850-1950 of those 2000 hours ultimately get paid to the client. 2,000 hours billed per year, at an hourly rate of $900, if paid in full (not happening), is $1.8M. Again, paying an associate $600k is borderline unsustainable in my opinion. But I’m just a non-equity partner so what do I know.

6th year biglaw here already generating $1.8M revenue (1800 hr @ $1000/hr).

Are you sure that you're actually billing at $1k an hour? I'm client with a $20m litigation/regulatory budget and we don't pay that for a 6th year, even at tippy top firms. We have discounted rates.

+1. Almost every major client has discounted rates. No 6th year associate billing 1800 hours is bringing in $1.8 million because no 6th year associate anywhere is being billed out to every client they work for at their full hourly rate.

+1

[Anonymous]

Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

It depends on the firm. But in my former firm, yes there was a difference. While no one is guaranteed a job these days, obviously, a counsel in my former firm has a lot more job security than an associate. The associate position is rarely understood to be permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

It depends on the firm. But in my former firm, yes there was a difference. While no one is guaranteed a job these days, obviously, a counsel in my former firm has a lot more job security than an associate. The associate position is rarely understood to be permanent.

This. Associate attrition is both expected and necessary. Ideally the best become partners. Counsel is supposedly a more permanent role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

It depends on the firm. But in my former firm, yes there was a difference. While no one is guaranteed a job these days, obviously, a counsel in my former firm has a lot more job security than an associate. The associate position is rarely understood to be permanent.

This. Associate attrition is both expected and necessary. Ideally the best become partners. Counsel is supposedly a more permanent role.

Or a holding role that gives you 24-36 months to build a book sufficient to feed yourself and make a little money for the firm. Counsel as a permanent role is reserved for subject matter experts who are in demand from the firm's or other partners' clients. Think tax, ERISA, patent (EE or CS) and other esoteric practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

It depends on the firm. But in my former firm, yes there was a difference. While no one is guaranteed a job these days, obviously, a counsel in my former firm has a lot more job security than an associate. The associate position is rarely understood to be permanent.

Also, an income partner will leverage down more than a senior associate, generating more revenue for the firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

It depends on the firm. But in my former firm, yes there was a difference. While no one is guaranteed a job these days, obviously, a counsel in my former firm has a lot more job security than an associate. The associate position is rarely understood to be permanent.

This. Associate attrition is both expected and necessary. Ideally the best become partners. Counsel is supposedly a more permanent role.

Or a holding role that gives you 24-36 months to build a book sufficient to feed yourself and make a little money for the firm. Counsel as a permanent role is reserved for subject matter experts who are in demand from the firm's or other partners' clients. Think tax, ERISA, patent (EE or CS) and other esoteric practices.

Isn't it basically an associate role that's switched to being called "counsel"? I imagine these counsel paid a salary have billable hour requirements so the firm can make an expected amount of money off them? How does it differ from "staff attorney"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

It depends on the firm. But in my former firm, yes there was a difference. While no one is guaranteed a job these days, obviously, a counsel in my former firm has a lot more job security than an associate. The associate position is rarely understood to be permanent.

This. Associate attrition is both expected and necessary. Ideally the best become partners. Counsel is supposedly a more permanent role.

Or a holding role that gives you 24-36 months to build a book sufficient to feed yourself and make a little money for the firm. Counsel as a permanent role is reserved for subject matter experts who are in demand from the firm's or other partners' clients. Think tax, ERISA, patent (EE or CS) and other esoteric practices.

Isn't it basically an associate role that's switched to being called "counsel"? I imagine these counsel paid a salary have billable hour requirements so the firm can make an expected amount of money off them? How does it differ from "staff attorney"?

Staff attorney is below associate at most firms. They are not partner track, and they generally don't provide legal advice to clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

I wish. My DH went from federal government to a big law firm a few years ago, to an income partner position. It was a lot easier when he was a W-2 employee, than to have to pay the quarterly estimated taxes and file a Schedule K. (I do the taxes for our household.) Also, the benefits seem very stingy (compared to my job in-house in corporate America), but maybe that's true for associates too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really that much of a difference between the associate, the "counsel" paid a salary, or the income partner? They're all paid a salary and are employees, not owners -- it is just nomenclature?

I wish. My DH went from federal government to a big law firm a few years ago, to an income partner position. It was a lot easier when he was a W-2 employee, than to have to pay the quarterly estimated taxes and file a Schedule K. (I do the taxes for our household.) Also, the benefits seem very stingy (compared to my job in-house in corporate America), but maybe that's true for associates too.

I'm assuming he's making more than what he made as a Fed? How do you go from being a Fed to an income partner? How do you have a book of business coming over as a Fed? I'm assuming others in the firm are giving him the work?