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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.