Biglaw Associate Raises

[Anonymous]

Maybe there was better experience to be had 20 years ago. I've done two stints in big law. Despite the longer hours, I've improved as an attorney more from all of my other professional opportunities. I'd say I gained more skills in my first year at DOJ than in 3 years of biglaw experience. Same for the clerkship. I've had some exceptional colleagues I truly respect in firms. But it feels like a pause button on becoming a better attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The profession is be coming increasingly one of haves and have nots.

Actually it is dis-aggregating. There is now a proliferation of small, medium and boutique firms that are ultra specialized in certain areas of law at a level of depth and nuance that Big Law could never be. Within my industry, there are about 5 firms like this along with a couple attorneys who have put out a shingle that everyone knows and is comfortable with. After that, there is only then two partners at two BigLaw firms that are at the same level. The large companies without experience in this industry always end up at one of those two BigLaw firms, while those who are knowledgeable go with the others. The fees are certainly more reasonable, but those firms also have significantly lower overhead than BigLaw and I believe the lawyers actually doing the work are collecting a much higher percentage of the fees that are billed and probably collect very similar salaries to BigLaw, but obviously without all the fancy offices and perks.

[Anonymous]

OP, why does anyone care? We all know that 95% of these associates will be gone by their 8th year. Some will have made smart decisions and transitioned nicely to in house or government jobs, and others will burn out of the profession completely. Plus, any client paying for a 1st, 2nd or 3rd year big law associate is colossally stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep - and 2000-2001- always happens when there's a lawyer labor crunch - and all those kids who get sucked in by the paycheck will be spit out in 5-8 years with mediocre experience looking for a better life. Don't do it - suck it up - go be an AUSA or Honors lawyer - you'll be a better lawyer in the long run and have better prospects.

Recent-ish grad here. I, and most of my classmates, would have done Honors or been AUSAs if we could. Most of those jobs are far more competitive than biglaw though.

+1. My last year in DOJ, my component got 6000 applicants who listed us in their top two and we had four available openings. Obviously some of the resumes were poor, but there were at least hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants who were reasonably qualified to get a biglaw job.

I do agree there are some people who could get DOJ Honors jobs who choose to start in biglaw and instead of admitting its for the salary, convince themselves its about the training or other resources firms offer. I think those people are making a mistake, or at least being dishonest with themselves about their motives.

It seems pretty reasonable to choose BigLaw instead of Honors when you are in your 30s with more than 200k in student loans. It makes sense to cash the pay check, catch up a bit financially and then transition to government. It's harder to go the other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep - and 2000-2001- always happens when there's a lawyer labor crunch - and all those kids who get sucked in by the paycheck will be spit out in 5-8 years with mediocre experience looking for a better life. Don't do it - suck it up - go be an AUSA or Honors lawyer - you'll be a better lawyer in the long run and have better prospects.

Recent-ish grad here. I, and most of my classmates, would have done Honors or been AUSAs if we could. Most of those jobs are far more competitive than biglaw though.

+1. My last year in DOJ, my component got 6000 applicants who listed us in their top two and we had four available openings. Obviously some of the resumes were poor, but there were at least hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants who were reasonably qualified to get a biglaw job.

I do agree there are some people who could get DOJ Honors jobs who choose to start in biglaw and instead of admitting its for the salary, convince themselves its about the training or other resources firms offer. I think those people are making a mistake, or at least being dishonest with themselves about their motives.

It seems pretty reasonable to choose BigLaw instead of Honors when you are in your 30s with more than 200k in student loans. It makes sense to cash the pay check, catch up a bit financially and then transition to government. It's harder to go the other way.

Don't disagree with that. Just think folks should use that logic instead of convincing themselves it's for the training and formal mentoring programs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The profession is be coming increasingly one of haves and have nots.

Actually it is dis-aggregating. There is now a proliferation of small, medium and boutique firms that are ultra specialized in certain areas of law at a level of depth and nuance that Big Law could never be. Within my industry, there are about 5 firms like this along with a couple attorneys who have put out a shingle that everyone knows and is comfortable with. After that, there is only then two partners at two BigLaw firms that are at the same level. The large companies without experience in this industry always end up at one of those two BigLaw firms, while those who are knowledgeable go with the others. The fees are certainly more reasonable, but those firms also have significantly lower overhead than BigLaw and I believe the lawyers actually doing the work are collecting a much higher percentage of the fees that are billed and probably collect very similar salaries to BigLaw, but obviously without all the fancy offices and perks.

Ppl here -- you've done a good job of describing what I was alluding to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is preposterous! Who in their right mind honestly thinks that a 1st year is worth 180K?

OK. You're smart enough to get into a good school and dumb enough to go into debt. With zero experience and no practical skill, what does a 1st year bring to the table that gives 180K worth of value?

You sound very mad.

[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."

You're full of shit and you're jealous. Get a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you have. And it's sad more clients don't grow a backbone.

we just agreed to hire more internal GCs. transactional.

i think we'd all agree we're not paying someone with 0-2 years of real experience to learn on the job and be billed at that rate.

do you know how many times I call a law associate to go through a shareholder agreement key term and the appendices and they don't even know how to use excel for the cap table!?! No thanks, learn your lessons on someone else's dime or my nickel.

[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 in the gov't and make over 200, granted I'm more senior than a 5th. So sorry, I wouldn't!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure you have. And it's sad more clients don't grow a backbone.

we just agreed to hire more internal GCs. transactional.

i think we'd all agree we're not paying someone with 0-2 years of real experience to learn on the job and be billed at that rate.

do you know how many times I call a law associate to go through a shareholder agreement key term and the appendices and they don't even know how to use excel for the cap table!?! No thanks, learn your lessons on someone else's dime or my nickel.

This so-called raise is really just a cost of doing business for law firms. What a law firm pays its associates and what the law firm bills its clients is loosely connected. From 2007 to the present, billing rates have gone up every year in many of these large law firms but associate salaries have remained the same. Partner profits, however, have gone up, meaning the partners are the only ones who have seen the fruits of the billing rate increases. In other words, it took nine years for the billing rate increases to trickle down to the associate ranks. Partners (like any human being) want to see their earnings go up as well, however, so this will mean more billable hours and fewer associates. If you want to rail at someone, rail at the people who are in charge of the law firms that you're hiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You're full of shit and you're jealous. Get a life.

Eh. Other people in this thread agreed with me that layoffs of that magnitude had basically been unprecedented in the industry. Maybe it will be different for you, though. Heh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

You're full of shit and you're jealous. Get a life.

Eh. Other people in this thread agreed with me that layoffs of that magnitude had basically been unprecedented in the industry. Maybe it will be different for you, though. Heh.

You don't seem to have heard that the economic crisis affected EVERYONE and had nada to do with big law raises. So, you are both stupid and jealous. Back to your low-paying job before your boss sees you posting and docks you an hour's pay. And yea, I know you're a CEO and just hanging out on DCUM for fun and blah blah. Whatever.