Anonymous wrote:That’s not true. At the true lockstep firms (Cravath, Devevoise and Cleary) the spread between the lowest and highest paid partners is about 3:1. This is based purely on seniority. With PPPs at over 3 million, this means that first year equity partners (8 years out of law school) are clearing about 1.5M.

Are you a partner at one of those firms?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

I do not disagree. My point is that the guy/woman who is claiming to be compensated at $1.6 million as a third-year equity partner is probably an outlier as well - he or she is not likely only to be 10 or 11 years out of law school.

NP. At my firm (just outside V15) the gate from non-equity to equity status has narrowed significantly post-crisis, but at the same time those who do make equity are getting paid a lot much more quickly. In other words, even at firms that I’d say are outside the “elite” tranche, 1.6 for a 3rd year equity partner sounds about right.

FWIW I’m a third year non-equity and will be 500-600 this year. The salary compression from 7th year associates through the end of the non-equity partner spectrum has really gotten out of hand. However, the autonomy that comes with the “partner” title even if it’s non equity has been more important to me than the money.

What year did you graduate law school?

2007

Thanks. You've proven my point. You're non-equity still, 11 years out of law school. That's fine, obviously, great in fact, but you ain't making 1.6. No one 11 years out of law school in biglaw is.

Not really. I started by telling you that I was not at an elite/single track/lockstep firm that makes equity partners in year 8 or 9. So you’re right, at middle of the pack two-tier partnership firms like mine, a person who’s in their third year of equity partnership generally has more experience (call it ~15 years), and only the top performers of that group are making 1.5 anyway. But there are people at more profitable firms that adhere to a traditional (true) partnership model who do it faster. It’s a small group at just the very top firms, but that seemed to be who we were talking about.

That’s not true. At the true lockstep firms (Cravath, Devevoise and Cleary) the spread between the lowest and highest paid partners is about 3:1. This is based purely on seniority. With PPPs at over 3 million, this means that first year equity partners (8 years out of law school) are clearing about 1.5M.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

I do not disagree. My point is that the guy/woman who is claiming to be compensated at $1.6 million as a third-year equity partner is probably an outlier as well - he or she is not likely only to be 10 or 11 years out of law school.

NP. At my firm (just outside V15) the gate from non-equity to equity status has narrowed significantly post-crisis, but at the same time those who do make equity are getting paid a lot much more quickly. In other words, even at firms that I’d say are outside the “elite” tranche, 1.6 for a 3rd year equity partner sounds about right.

FWIW I’m a third year non-equity and will be 500-600 this year. The salary compression from 7th year associates through the end of the non-equity partner spectrum has really gotten out of hand. However, the autonomy that comes with the “partner” title even if it’s non equity has been more important to me than the money.

What year did you graduate law school?

2007

Thanks. You've proven my point. You're non-equity still, 11 years out of law school. That's fine, obviously, great in fact, but you ain't making 1.6. No one 11 years out of law school in biglaw is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

I do not disagree. My point is that the guy/woman who is claiming to be compensated at $1.6 million as a third-year equity partner is probably an outlier as well - he or she is not likely only to be 10 or 11 years out of law school.

NP. At my firm (just outside V15) the gate from non-equity to equity status has narrowed significantly post-crisis, but at the same time those who do make equity are getting paid a lot much more quickly. In other words, even at firms that I’d say are outside the “elite” tranche, 1.6 for a 3rd year equity partner sounds about right.

FWIW I’m a third year non-equity and will be 500-600 this year. The salary compression from 7th year associates through the end of the non-equity partner spectrum has really gotten out of hand. However, the autonomy that comes with the “partner” title even if it’s non equity has been more important to me than the money.

What year did you graduate law school?

2007

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

I do not disagree. My point is that the guy/woman who is claiming to be compensated at $1.6 million as a third-year equity partner is probably an outlier as well - he or she is not likely only to be 10 or 11 years out of law school.

NP. At my firm (just outside V15) the gate from non-equity to equity status has narrowed significantly post-crisis, but at the same time those who do make equity are getting paid a lot much more quickly. In other words, even at firms that I’d say are outside the “elite” tranche, 1.6 for a 3rd year equity partner sounds about right.

FWIW I’m a third year non-equity and will be 500-600 this year. The salary compression from 7th year associates through the end of the non-equity partner spectrum has really gotten out of hand. However, the autonomy that comes with the “partner” title even if it’s non equity has been more important to me than the money.

What year did you graduate law school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

I do not disagree. My point is that the guy/woman who is claiming to be compensated at $1.6 million as a third-year equity partner is probably an outlier as well - he or she is not likely only to be 10 or 11 years out of law school.

NP. At my firm (just outside V15) the gate from non-equity to equity status has narrowed significantly post-crisis, but at the same time those who do make equity are getting paid a lot much more quickly. In other words, even at firms that I’d say are outside the “elite” tranche, 1.6 for a 3rd year equity partner sounds about right.

FWIW I’m a third year non-equity and will be 500-600 this year. The salary compression from 7th year associates through the end of the non-equity partner spectrum has really gotten out of hand. However, the autonomy that comes with the “partner” title even if it’s non equity has been more important to me than the money.

Anonymous wrote:Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

I do not disagree. My point is that the guy/woman who is claiming to be compensated at $1.6 million as a third-year equity partner is probably an outlier as well - he or she is not likely only to be 10 or 11 years out of law school.

Kirkland is enough of an outlier I’m not sure it’s useful in response to a general question about what the typical salary range would be for someone in that position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH is up for partner next year at an elite boutique that pays market for associates and I expect his all-in to be like $400k? But if people in this thread are right I won’t send the money back!

I’m at one of the Big Four old DC firms and it’s a total black box.

WTH is the Big Four? That’s not a thing.

Not PP, but I assume she means Covington, Wilmer, A&P, and ?. Maybe W&C, but they aren't nearly as old.

Also, if the boutique matches associate comp (as a number do), all in for associates is around $450k, so the number quoted would be worse as a partner. That can happen with taxes, benefits, deferred compensation, but it might be higher than you expect.

The fourth is Hogan.

That makes sense. They just slipped my mind.

I can see why -- it's nowhere near what it once was.

Don’t disagree but they’re the four considered to be the classic white shoe DC set.

FWIW I’m not at Hogan, it’s one of the others.

Further to the Kirkland process:

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/10/what-really-goes-on-at-kirkland-ellis/

PP here. Really sorry about all those typos. No wonder I'm no longer with a fancy DC law firm!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 3rd year equity partner at a top firm. I made $1.6 mill last year.

Can't be a DC based firm Right? They're not paying that to third year partners.

It's not DC based. But has a large DC office.

Maybe Latham, Kirkland, Skadden, or Quinn.

I posted earlier and said that people were undershooting this -- this number sounds in the right ballpark to me and is right for the firms the Quoted poster mentioned -- as well as some others like Cleary, Simpson, Gibson, etc who have DC offices.

I appreciate what some others said about how sometimes the salary progression is not what people might imagine -- I do think that's true for some firms. But the very top firms really are operating in a different sphere and are compensating junior equity partners very well and much more than 700k. That's not true of the DC based firms like Covington, A&P, Akin Gump, etc but they don't pay top of the market. It's as simple as that.

All true, except there's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison goin on. Most of these firms either have two-tiered partnerships where partners start as non-equity or they promote far fewer partners to equity than the DC firms. Kirkland, for example, has at least twice as many non-equity partners as equity. I have a hunch that the "third year equity partner" here, who posted that s/he made $1.6 milion, has been out of law school several years longer than a typical third year equity partner at a DC-based firm.

I don't think that's true. Most of the DC based firms have an intermediate step too -- either they promote you to non equity partner or worse they promote you to some "of counsel" type position. I believe that Kirkland has no of counsel middle ground for junior attorneys and non equity partners are usually up for equity after 3-4 years -- so it is basically the same track to equity as others.

DC based firms are primarily focused on practice areas such as litigation, regulatory, white collar defense, government contracting, etc. The other firms mentioned in this thread that pay more are corporate firms. There is a major difference between the two types of firms and what they can charge and how fee sensitive clients are.

Do you actually work at any of the firms you're talking about. Because I have -- and what you're saying in absolutely not true. While it's true that the big DC-based firms like Covington and A&P have counsel positions and Kirkland does not, the counsel position at these firms is not a necessary stepping stone to an becoming an equity partner. The standard route to partnership in these firms is still eight years an associate, then equity partner. Counsel is more often than not a position offered to associates whom the firm would like the keep but never wants to make equity partner, or lateral hires who the firm brings in as counsek for a couple years to feel them out before promoting.

At Kirkland and other firms, all associates going through the evaluation process are first promoted to non-equity around the sixth year, then after three or four years (and sometimes more) a lucky few are promoted from non-equity to equity. What these means as a practical matter is that the path to equity at K&E is 10 or 11 years, while at firms like Covington and A&P it's eight. So a third year equity partner at K&E is probably a fifth or sixth year equity partner at Covington, etc.

I'm not suggesting that the third year Kirkland partner isn't making more than the fifth or sixth year DC-based firm partner. I'm sure s/he is. But is also true that many, many non-equity partners at Kirkland are never promoted to equity at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 3rd year equity partner at a top firm. I made $1.6 mill last year.

Can't be a DC based firm Right? They're not paying that to third year partners.

It's not DC based. But has a large DC office.

Maybe Latham, Kirkland, Skadden, or Quinn.

I posted earlier and said that people were undershooting this -- this number sounds in the right ballpark to me and is right for the firms the Quoted poster mentioned -- as well as some others like Cleary, Simpson, Gibson, etc who have DC offices.

I appreciate what some others said about how sometimes the salary progression is not what people might imagine -- I do think that's true for some firms. But the very top firms really are operating in a different sphere and are compensating junior equity partners very well and much more than 700k. That's not true of the DC based firms like Covington, A&P, Akin Gump, etc but they don't pay top of the market. It's as simple as that.

All true, except there's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison goin on. Most of these firms either have two-tiered partnerships where partners start as non-equity or they promote far fewer partners to equity than the DC firms. Kirkland, for example, has at least twice as many non-equity partners as equity. I have a hunch that the "third year equity partner" here, who posted that s/he made $1.6 milion, has been out of law school several years longer than a typical third year equity partner at a DC-based firm.

Yes, this. I'm sure that in Eric Holder's third year as a partner at Covington (the first time), he was making a lot more than a typical third-year equity partner because he'd been practicing law for 25 years at that point, including time spent as a judge and as Deputy AG.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 3rd year equity partner at a top firm. I made $1.6 mill last year.

Can't be a DC based firm Right? They're not paying that to third year partners.

It's not DC based. But has a large DC office.

Maybe Latham, Kirkland, Skadden, or Quinn.

I posted earlier and said that people were undershooting this -- this number sounds in the right ballpark to me and is right for the firms the Quoted poster mentioned -- as well as some others like Cleary, Simpson, Gibson, etc who have DC offices.

I appreciate what some others said about how sometimes the salary progression is not what people might imagine -- I do think that's true for some firms. But the very top firms really are operating in a different sphere and are compensating junior equity partners very well and much more than 700k. That's not true of the DC based firms like Covington, A&P, Akin Gump, etc but they don't pay top of the market. It's as simple as that.

All true, except there's a bit of an apples/oranges comparison goin on. Most of these firms either have two-tiered partnerships where partners start as non-equity or they promote far fewer partners to equity than the DC firms. Kirkland, for example, has at least twice as many non-equity partners as equity. I have a hunch that the "third year equity partner" here, who posted that s/he made $1.6 milion, has been out of law school several years longer than a typical third year equity partner at a DC-based firm.

I don't think that's true. Most of the DC based firms have an intermediate step too -- either they promote you to non equity partner or worse they promote you to some "of counsel" type position. I believe that Kirkland has no of counsel middle ground for junior attorneys and non equity partners are usually up for equity after 3-4 years -- so it is basically the same track to equity as others.

DC based firms are primarily focused on practice areas such as litigation, regulatory, white collar defense, government contracting, etc. The other firms mentioned in this thread that pay more are corporate firms. There is a major difference between the two types of firms and what they can charge and how fee sensitive clients are.