Biglaw Associate Raises

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

You just proved my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True. And I'd be a good fit at an agency I'm pretty sure he wants to cut. But on the plus side, he still hasn't figured out the name of the agency so I might have a few years before he cuts it successfully.

[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.

Yeah you sound like a really happy, well-adjusted person who's satisfied with his career

[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.

Yeah you sound like a really happy, well-adjusted person who's satisfied with his career

Actually, I thought PP sounded like someone who made a light-hearted and reasonable funny joke. I think you are over reading a tad. I hope you will write off the time you spent on it.

[Anonymous]

I remember when this happened at my big firm around 2000. Many, many associates pushed for their salaries to be raised, too, to keep up with the market.

It was about 5-7 years later that many of those same associates got laid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when this happened at my big firm around 2000. Many, many associates pushed for their salaries to be raised, too, to keep up with the market.

It was about 5-7 years later that many of those same associates got laid off.

Yeah, but in the up or out model of firms, that is going to happen anyway. Higher salaries probably only exacerbate on the margins. Many people would have been glad to get the extra salary for all of those years, as would all the people who voluntarily leave after a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when this happened at my big firm around 2000. Many, many associates pushed for their salaries to be raised, too, to keep up with the market.

It was about 5-7 years later that many of those same associates got laid off.

So you're saying I can have a pay raise for 7 years?

I think you're inferring way too much causality given that whole thing where the economy collapsed 5-7 years after 2000.

[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?

NP. With the increases, salary is $315,000 for class of 2008 and $325,000 for class of 2007.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when this happened at my big firm around 2000. Many, many associates pushed for their salaries to be raised, too, to keep up with the market.

It was about 5-7 years later that many of those same associates got laid off.

Yeah, but in the up or out model of firms, that is going to happen anyway. Higher salaries probably only exacerbate on the margins. Many people would have been glad to get the extra salary for all of those years, as would all the people who voluntarily leave after a few years.

The layoffs that happened at our firm later had not happened there in that magnitude in the last 30 years, or maybe ever.

But I'm not really trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to stand behind you like you're Patton and whisper in your ear, "All glory is fleeting."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when this happened at my big firm around 2000. Many, many associates pushed for their salaries to be raised, too, to keep up with the market.

It was about 5-7 years later that many of those same associates got laid off.

Yeah, but in the up or out model of firms, that is going to happen anyway. Higher salaries probably only exacerbate on the margins. Many people would have been glad to get the extra salary for all of those years, as would all the people who voluntarily leave after a few years.

The layoffs that happened at our firm later had not happened there in that magnitude in the last 30 years, or maybe ever.

But I'm not really trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to stand behind you like you're Patton and whisper in your ear, "All glory is fleeting."

I think it's fair to say that the layoffs beginning in 07 were unprecedented. As were the firms that folded leaving thousands of associates flopping about like fish out of water. While not having a 35K salary hike may have saved some, the impact was negligible. Dead weight is dead weight and it is very difficult for a partner to live in less than 7 figures.

[Anonymous]

Looks like most major firms are not only matching, but matching nationwide. And then there is Covington which is only raising in NY. Some mighty pissed folks in DC. Will be interesting if this holds. Even if they ultimately cave, they will have lost some goodwill. Might have been better off waiting a little longer to see where the market settled.

[Anonymous]

I'm also in house. We are increasingly relying on local and regional firms with much lower billing rates. The quality of the work is the same and th savings substantial. When we use BigLaw, we always negotiate a reduced fee. We've never been denied this request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm also in house. We are increasingly relying on local and regional firms with much lower billing rates. The quality of the work is the same and th savings substantial. When we use BigLaw, we always negotiate a reduced fee. We've never been denied this request.

+1

[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.

Same as 1986. My starting salary out of law school got bumped from $50k to 60K. Same old. same old. Law firms are lemmings...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm also in house. We are increasingly relying on local and regional firms with much lower billing rates. The quality of the work is the same and th savings substantial. When we use BigLaw, we always negotiate a reduced fee. We've never been denied this request.

The entire business model of big law is changing. You disregard this at your peril.