If you have been a biglaw partner for 10+ years, how much wealth have you accumulated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP with 3M is probably a non equity partner.

I speak from experience. I usually make around 750k and I work part time ish (40 hours). It's a sweet gig. Don't have to bring in any business.

I wouldn't turn this down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

So you're saying that two big law partner spouses average perhaps $2m of combined annual compensation for 10 years = $20m. $2m combined seems reasonable to me as less than $2m in earlier partner years and more than $2m in later years. After tax take home of $11-12m. Average spending of perhaps $300k-$500k annually so call it a total of $4m. So that's $7m-$8m not including any investment returns and or savings from the first 10-12 years as senior associates & non equity partners? $10m doesn't seem like a stretch at all. In fact, it seems like it should be typical for two biglaw partner spouses. I could see $15m+ even as a stretch.

It's not linear like that. Very few partners will ever make more than $2M a year.

Sorry perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: combined $2m on average annually over 10 years. We're talking biglaw as in V25 or V50, etc where PPP are $1.5m+. So perhaps the first year if both spouses make $500k each and the last year both spouses make $1.5m each then the combined average for both is $2m.

You're right, I missed the "combined." That sounds reasonable, for double biglaw partner marriages. Not sure how common that is, but however many couples there are like that, I agree they should be fairly rich.

I can't name one couple where both spouses are Biglaw partners and I know a lot of people from various circles.

I can think of two couples like this, and I've worked at 3 BigLaw firms. One thing to consider is that when both spouses are partners, expenses for things like childcare and house stuff go way up. Like, full-time nanny + household manager + au pair up.

Full time nanny = 60K max
Full time housekeeper = 80K max
Au pair = 25K

Total cost = 165K after taxes, which is roughly 330 in income

Not insignificant, but not what I would call "way up", relative to income.

Plenty of equity partners have spouses who either don't work or work part-time or in a (relatively) low-paying field and ALSO have a full time nanny and full time housekeeper.

There are lots of two-partner couples who don't advertise their status to the world, and I can think of plenty that were a surprise after many years. I mean, how often did you know the occupation of the spouse of every single person you worked with?

What does a full time housekeeper do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

So you're saying that two big law partner spouses average perhaps $2m of combined annual compensation for 10 years = $20m. $2m combined seems reasonable to me as less than $2m in earlier partner years and more than $2m in later years. After tax take home of $11-12m. Average spending of perhaps $300k-$500k annually so call it a total of $4m. So that's $7m-$8m not including any investment returns and or savings from the first 10-12 years as senior associates & non equity partners? $10m doesn't seem like a stretch at all. In fact, it seems like it should be typical for two biglaw partner spouses. I could see $15m+ even as a stretch.

It's not linear like that. Very few partners will ever make more than $2M a year.

Sorry perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: combined $2m on average annually over 10 years. We're talking biglaw as in V25 or V50, etc where PPP are $1.5m+. So perhaps the first year if both spouses make $500k each and the last year both spouses make $1.5m each then the combined average for both is $2m.

You're right, I missed the "combined." That sounds reasonable, for double biglaw partner marriages. Not sure how common that is, but however many couples there are like that, I agree they should be fairly rich.

I can't name one couple where both spouses are Biglaw partners and I know a lot of people from various circles.

I can think of two couples like this, and I've worked at 3 BigLaw firms. One thing to consider is that when both spouses are partners, expenses for things like childcare and house stuff go way up. Like, full-time nanny + household manager + au pair up.

Full time nanny = 60K max
Full time housekeeper = 80K max
Au pair = 25K

Total cost = 165K after taxes, which is roughly 330 in income

Not insignificant, but not what I would call "way up", relative to income.

Plenty of equity partners have spouses who either don't work or work part-time or in a (relatively) low-paying field and ALSO have a full time nanny and full time housekeeper.

There are lots of two-partner couples who don't advertise their status to the world, and I can think of plenty that were a surprise after many years. I mean, how often did you know the occupation of the spouse of every single person you worked with?

Sincere question: do you have kids?

You seem really young and money hungry OP. By the time you get to your mid thirties and have kids, most people's priorities start to shift. And they'd gladly give up a few hundred thousand dollars to spend more time with their kids.

You CAN hire a full time housekeeper and bevy of nannies but not many people WANT to live like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

So you're saying that two big law partner spouses average perhaps $2m of combined annual compensation for 10 years = $20m. $2m combined seems reasonable to me as less than $2m in earlier partner years and more than $2m in later years. After tax take home of $11-12m. Average spending of perhaps $300k-$500k annually so call it a total of $4m. So that's $7m-$8m not including any investment returns and or savings from the first 10-12 years as senior associates & non equity partners? $10m doesn't seem like a stretch at all. In fact, it seems like it should be typical for two biglaw partner spouses. I could see $15m+ even as a stretch.

It's not linear like that. Very few partners will ever make more than $2M a year.

Sorry perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: combined $2m on average annually over 10 years. We're talking biglaw as in V25 or V50, etc where PPP are $1.5m+. So perhaps the first year if both spouses make $500k each and the last year both spouses make $1.5m each then the combined average for both is $2m.

You're right, I missed the "combined." That sounds reasonable, for double biglaw partner marriages. Not sure how common that is, but however many couples there are like that, I agree they should be fairly rich.

I can't name one couple where both spouses are Biglaw partners and I know a lot of people from various circles.

I can think of two couples like this, and I've worked at 3 BigLaw firms. One thing to consider is that when both spouses are partners, expenses for things like childcare and house stuff go way up. Like, full-time nanny + household manager + au pair up.

Full time nanny = 60K max
Full time housekeeper = 80K max
Au pair = 25K

Total cost = 165K after taxes, which is roughly 330 in income

Not insignificant, but not what I would call "way up", relative to income.

Plenty of equity partners have spouses who either don't work or work part-time or in a (relatively) low-paying field and ALSO have a full time nanny and full time housekeeper.

There are lots of two-partner couples who don't advertise their status to the world, and I can think of plenty that were a surprise after many years. I mean, how often did you know the occupation of the spouse of every single person you worked with?

What does a full time housekeeper do?

daily cleaning, beds, laundry, errands, grocery shopping, cooking

[Anonymous]

This thread makes me feel a lot better about our dual engineer salaries (one FT, one PT WAH) and our Millionaire Next Door investing perspectives.

We're beating a lot of BigLaw partners in terms of wealth accumulation, and we're working a hell of a lot less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

So you're saying that two big law partner spouses average perhaps $2m of combined annual compensation for 10 years = $20m. $2m combined seems reasonable to me as less than $2m in earlier partner years and more than $2m in later years. After tax take home of $11-12m. Average spending of perhaps $300k-$500k annually so call it a total of $4m. So that's $7m-$8m not including any investment returns and or savings from the first 10-12 years as senior associates & non equity partners? $10m doesn't seem like a stretch at all. In fact, it seems like it should be typical for two biglaw partner spouses. I could see $15m+ even as a stretch.

It's not linear like that. Very few partners will ever make more than $2M a year.

Sorry perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: combined $2m on average annually over 10 years. We're talking biglaw as in V25 or V50, etc where PPP are $1.5m+. So perhaps the first year if both spouses make $500k each and the last year both spouses make $1.5m each then the combined average for both is $2m.

You're right, I missed the "combined." That sounds reasonable, for double biglaw partner marriages. Not sure how common that is, but however many couples there are like that, I agree they should be fairly rich.

I can't name one couple where both spouses are Biglaw partners and I know a lot of people from various circles.

I can think of two couples like this, and I've worked at 3 BigLaw firms. One thing to consider is that when both spouses are partners, expenses for things like childcare and house stuff go way up. Like, full-time nanny + household manager + au pair up.

Full time nanny = 60K max
Full time housekeeper = 80K max
Au pair = 25K

Total cost = 165K after taxes, which is roughly 330 in income

Not insignificant, but not what I would call "way up", relative to income.

Plenty of equity partners have spouses who either don't work or work part-time or in a (relatively) low-paying field and ALSO have a full time nanny and full time housekeeper.

There are lots of two-partner couples who don't advertise their status to the world, and I can think of plenty that were a surprise after many years. I mean, how often did you know the occupation of the spouse of every single person you worked with?

Sincere question: do you have kids?

You seem really young and money hungry OP. By the time you get to your mid thirties and have kids, most people's priorities start to shift. And they'd gladly give up a few hundred thousand dollars to spend more time with their kids.

You CAN hire a full time housekeeper and bevy of nannies but not many people WANT to live like that.

Sorry but do you have kids? I think some of the posts have more than a tinge of jealousy in that they want to feel secure in their knowledge that those who make substantially more money must not have a better life and in fact have a worse life due to either: divorce, not seeing kids, working around the clock, etc.
That may be true for some and not true for all. Just as I don't think it's right to generalize about those poorer than yourself I also don't think it's right to generalize about those who are richer.

How many families with kids can afford to have one parent stay at home especially once the kids are in school? Generally biglaw partner families can afford to have a parent stay at home. If both parents are biglaw partners does having a housekeeper take care of cleaning, cooking, grocery shopping etc to give the parents more time with the kids--how is that not anything but "giving up money" to spend time with kids? The fact that they can easily afford it doesn't mean there's some ulterior selfish rich person motive to spend less time with the kids?

I don't think anyone would disagree that having more money gives you more flexibility. What someone chooses to do with that flexibility is up the individual--everyone is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

So you're saying that two big law partner spouses average perhaps $2m of combined annual compensation for 10 years = $20m. $2m combined seems reasonable to me as less than $2m in earlier partner years and more than $2m in later years. After tax take home of $11-12m. Average spending of perhaps $300k-$500k annually so call it a total of $4m. So that's $7m-$8m not including any investment returns and or savings from the first 10-12 years as senior associates & non equity partners? $10m doesn't seem like a stretch at all. In fact, it seems like it should be typical for two biglaw partner spouses. I could see $15m+ even as a stretch.

It's not linear like that. Very few partners will ever make more than $2M a year.

Sorry perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: combined $2m on average annually over 10 years. We're talking biglaw as in V25 or V50, etc where PPP are $1.5m+. So perhaps the first year if both spouses make $500k each and the last year both spouses make $1.5m each then the combined average for both is $2m.

You're right, I missed the "combined." That sounds reasonable, for double biglaw partner marriages. Not sure how common that is, but however many couples there are like that, I agree they should be fairly rich.

I can't name one couple where both spouses are Biglaw partners and I know a lot of people from various circles.

I can think of two couples like this, and I've worked at 3 BigLaw firms. One thing to consider is that when both spouses are partners, expenses for things like childcare and house stuff go way up. Like, full-time nanny + household manager + au pair up.

Full time nanny = 60K max
Full time housekeeper = 80K max
Au pair = 25K

Total cost = 165K after taxes, which is roughly 330 in income

Not insignificant, but not what I would call "way up", relative to income.

Plenty of equity partners have spouses who either don't work or work part-time or in a (relatively) low-paying field and ALSO have a full time nanny and full time housekeeper.

There are lots of two-partner couples who don't advertise their status to the world, and I can think of plenty that were a surprise after many years. I mean, how often did you know the occupation of the spouse of every single person you worked with?

Sincere question: do you have kids?

You seem really young and money hungry OP. By the time you get to your mid thirties and have kids, most people's priorities start to shift. And they'd gladly give up a few hundred thousand dollars to spend more time with their kids.

You CAN hire a full time housekeeper and bevy of nannies but not many people WANT to live like that.

Sorry but do you have kids? I think some of the posts have more than a tinge of jealousy in that they want to feel secure in their knowledge that those who make substantially more money must not have a better life and in fact have a worse life due to either: divorce, not seeing kids, working around the clock, etc.
That may be true for some and not true for all. Just as I don't think it's right to generalize about those poorer than yourself I also don't think it's right to generalize about those who are richer.

How many families with kids can afford to have one parent stay at home especially once the kids are in school? Generally biglaw partner families can afford to have a parent stay at home. If both parents are biglaw partners does having a housekeeper take care of cleaning, cooking, grocery shopping etc to give the parents more time with the kids--how is that not anything but "giving up money" to spend time with kids? The fact that they can easily afford it doesn't mean there's some ulterior selfish rich person motive to spend less time with the kids?

I don't think anyone would disagree that having more money gives you more flexibility. What someone chooses to do with that flexibility is up the individual--everyone is different.

Yes I am the non equity partner at a small firm (non prestigious in the eyes if DCUM ) that works a 2/3 schedule so I can see my kids more.

I have my ideal gig. Im not jealous of anybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me feel a lot better about our dual engineer salaries (one FT, one PT WAH) and our Millionaire Next Door investing perspectives.

We're beating a lot of BigLaw partners in terms of wealth accumulation, and we're working a hell of a lot less.

+1 I was thinking the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I think the answer seems to be: easily 5 million. If you are young you can amass that much while spending freely, and if you are older you might choose to be more frugal and amass more.

Of course, this means “partner” in the terms we think of it, not a non-equity person at a low ranking firm.

You're pretty snotty for someone who isn't a partner anywhere and doesn't have millions parked in a bank account.

Why do you assume I'm not, or that I don't?

Really didn't mean to be snotty, but I thought that was what this thread was asking about, and it's what I'm familiar with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

So you're saying that two big law partner spouses average perhaps $2m of combined annual compensation for 10 years = $20m. $2m combined seems reasonable to me as less than $2m in earlier partner years and more than $2m in later years. After tax take home of $11-12m. Average spending of perhaps $300k-$500k annually so call it a total of $4m. So that's $7m-$8m not including any investment returns and or savings from the first 10-12 years as senior associates & non equity partners? $10m doesn't seem like a stretch at all. In fact, it seems like it should be typical for two biglaw partner spouses. I could see $15m+ even as a stretch.

It's not linear like that. Very few partners will ever make more than $2M a year.

Sorry perhaps you didn't read what I wrote: combined $2m on average annually over 10 years. We're talking biglaw as in V25 or V50, etc where PPP are $1.5m+. So perhaps the first year if both spouses make $500k each and the last year both spouses make $1.5m each then the combined average for both is $2m.

You're right, I missed the "combined." That sounds reasonable, for double biglaw partner marriages. Not sure how common that is, but however many couples there are like that, I agree they should be fairly rich.

I can't name one couple where both spouses are Biglaw partners and I know a lot of people from various circles.

I can think of two couples like this, and I've worked at 3 BigLaw firms. One thing to consider is that when both spouses are partners, expenses for things like childcare and house stuff go way up. Like, full-time nanny + household manager + au pair up.

Full time nanny = 60K max
Full time housekeeper = 80K max
Au pair = 25K

Total cost = 165K after taxes, which is roughly 330 in income

Not insignificant, but not what I would call "way up", relative to income.

Plenty of equity partners have spouses who either don't work or work part-time or in a (relatively) low-paying field and ALSO have a full time nanny and full time housekeeper.

There are lots of two-partner couples who don't advertise their status to the world, and I can think of plenty that were a surprise after many years. I mean, how often did you know the occupation of the spouse of every single person you worked with?

Sincere question: do you have kids?

You seem really young and money hungry OP. By the time you get to your mid thirties and have kids, most people's priorities start to shift. And they'd gladly give up a few hundred thousand dollars to spend more time with their kids.

You CAN hire a full time housekeeper and bevy of nannies but not many people WANT to live like that.

Sorry but do you have kids? I think some of the posts have more than a tinge of jealousy in that they want to feel secure in their knowledge that those who make substantially more money must not have a better life and in fact have a worse life due to either: divorce, not seeing kids, working around the clock, etc.
That may be true for some and not true for all. Just as I don't think it's right to generalize about those poorer than yourself I also don't think it's right to generalize about those who are richer.

How many families with kids can afford to have one parent stay at home especially once the kids are in school? Generally biglaw partner families can afford to have a parent stay at home. If both parents are biglaw partners does having a housekeeper take care of cleaning, cooking, grocery shopping etc to give the parents more time with the kids--how is that not anything but "giving up money" to spend time with kids? The fact that they can easily afford it doesn't mean there's some ulterior selfish rich person motive to spend less time with the kids?

I don't think anyone would disagree that having more money gives you more flexibility. What someone chooses to do with that flexibility is up the individual--everyone is different.

+ 1

These threads always begin with curiosity about the money of biglaw and then get really jealous and mean-spirited quick. Big law can suck for lots of people, but some people are good at it, like it, and don't find it to be onerous. Yes, people can be rich and happy, just like people can be poor and happy.

People also can be rich and miserable, and sometimes their misery has nothing to do with the amount of money in their bank account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me feel a lot better about our dual engineer salaries (one FT, one PT WAH) and our Millionaire Next Door investing perspectives.

We're beating a lot of BigLaw partners in terms of wealth accumulation, and we're working a hell of a lot less.

Sorry I don't believe it...how do two engineers end up accumulating $5m+ in net worth by 45 without perhaps some big option scores?

How much can W-2 HHI be without stock options/RSUs for both of you? $400k combined? After tax that's $250k? Perhaps you spend less than $100k annually? Do you have children? If not, that's not a fair comparison. Let's say you save $150k annually but you didn't start your careers out making $400k combined--perhaps more like $200k combined initially--after tax $120k saving $75k annually. So on average saving $100k annually for the last 20 years?

Also you're comparing yourself to the big law partner where one spouse stays at home the entire time--both of you work. If you have two big law partner spouses you're talking about net worths of $10m+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me feel a lot better about our dual engineer salaries (one FT, one PT WAH) and our Millionaire Next Door investing perspectives.

We're beating a lot of BigLaw partners in terms of wealth accumulation, and we're working a hell of a lot less.

Sorry I don't believe it...how do two engineers end up accumulating $5m+ in net worth by 45 without perhaps some big option scores?

How much can W-2 HHI be without stock options/RSUs for both of you? $400k combined? After tax that's $250k? Perhaps you spend less than $100k annually? Do you have children? If not, that's not a fair comparison. Let's say you save $150k annually but you didn't start your careers out making $400k combined--perhaps more like $200k combined initially--after tax $120k saving $75k annually. So on average saving $100k annually for the last 20 years?

Also you're comparing yourself to the big law partner where one spouse stays at home the entire time--both of you work. If you have two big law partner spouses you're talking about net worths of $10m+.

Sorry btw if you happen to be one of the lucky few that work for Google or Facebook that's a whole different ballgame...

[Anonymous]

The original post was a fairly simple question.

It’s telling that 67 posts in and most responses by those in BigLaw who “make substantially more” than others focus on spending power and the theoretical potential to build wealth...but only a couple (or one?) who have actually accumulated wealth.

I suspect part of the reason for this is the age of the board. The Big Law salaries are self-reported here as high so of course high net worth is possible - but what a long road, made longer if one succumbs to the high consumption culture. The big law people I know with high net worth are very old - the one bonus to this profession as a pp pointed out is that the salary remains even at older ages unlike in some other professions / allowing for wealth accumulation later in life

[Anonymous]

I think there’s a lot less jealousy about Biglaw money now that it’s obvious no one seems to be saving any real money.

[Anonymous]

Two things worth noting: if you're a partner, it's not a "salary," so anyone calling it a "salary," is outing themselves as not super familiar with partnership, either at a law firm or anywhere else. It's a distribution of equity, or more commonly just called income. But it's not salary. I don't know anyone who calls it salary. Because it's not a salary. Associates and counsel get salary.

Second, as another PP mentioned, profits per partner are public information. Profits per partner are, in fact, AVERAGE income (it's a little more complicated than this, but not much). Senior partners can make twice these figures and junior partners half as much. At Latham it was 2.8M last year, at Skadden 2.5M, etc. These numbers are higher at firms that have non-equity partners (because PPP only includes equity partners) and lower at firms that don't have non-equity tracks.

Read https://abovethelaw.com/tag/profits-per-partner/

So there are not just "self-reported salaries" here on DCUM. The income is legitimately high, for equity partners, at those top firms. It's all public information. You can just google it.