The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
1985 Amlaw Rankings
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:04 AM Author: gold sandwich national http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/AmLaw50-1985.pdf
What will 2035 look like? |
 |
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:06 AM Author: bright excitant boiling water edit: nevermind (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954319) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:06 AM Author: wild primrose keepsake machete I've never heard of Mudge Rose...who the heck are they? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954330) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:08 AM Author: Flushed mental disorder set It's a spinoff of Pewp Schute. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954340) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:11 AM Author: Boyish senate lol dick nixon, pat buchanan, and scooter libby are alumns AND most of the partnership went to latham ny. sounds like a great place. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954367) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:12 AM Author: Stirring Sweet Tailpipe lol, sounds like the kind of guys who are partners there (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954376) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:19 AM Author: Stirring Sweet Tailpipe wait, richard nixon before or after he broke into Dem party headquarters to sabotage their election campaign, obstructed justice by trying to cover it up, and refusing to turn over incriminating evidence based on a bs claim to exec privilege, before resigning in shame? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954429) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:11 AM Author: Drunken emerald native Dissolved and a bunch of them went to Latham. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954373) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:14 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office what about finley, kumble? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954393) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:57 AM Author: shaky blue institution http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/25/books/finley-kumble-sat-on-a-wall.html
The latham of its time |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:04 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office "Mr. Kumble, who banned the munching of bagels at the office because they seemed too ethnic" LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954678) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:07 PM Author: coral travel guidebook Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon was a prominent New York City law firm tracing its origin back to 1869.[1] The firm is known best as the legal launching pad of Richard M. Nixon.[2] For the period during which Nixon was a senior partner, the firm was renamed to Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.
The firm employed some 190 lawyers at the time of dissolution in 1995. Among problems that ultimately destroyed the firm were a long internal fight for leadership, expanding offices in Washington and New Jersey, as well as its sections for litigation and international law.
A group of prominent lawyers, including chairman, joined Latham & Watkins.[3]
[edit] Notable alumni and employees Pat Buchanan, an American politician, author, syndicated columnist, and broadcaster William P. Ford defender of civil rights for El Savadoreans. Elizabeth Blodgett Hall, headmistress for Concord Academy James Halpern, a judge of the United States Tax Court Lewis Libby, a former Assistant to the President of the United States, George W. Bush John N. Mitchell, United States Attorney General Richard M. Nixon, the thirty-seventh President of the United States Ralph Oman, former Register of Copyrights of the United States Jed S. Rakoff, a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York John Sears, an attorney and a Republican political strategist. Gordon C. Strachan, aide to White House Chief of Staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman under U.S. President Richard Nixon Gao Xiqing, General Manager of the China Investment Corporation [edit] References 1.^ The Factories Article from Time magazine, 24 January 1964 2.^ The Mudge Rose Firm Enters the Tar Pit of Legal History Article from the New York Times, 1 October 1995 3.^ The Drudge Report Article from New York Magazine, 14 June 1999 [edit] External links Eye Mudge Rose-IBERC Israeli activities. MUDGE ROSE GUTHRIE ALEXANDER & FERDON, Appellantv.U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al. The Accidental Defenders Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudge_Rose_Guthrie_Alexander_%26_Ferdon" Categories: Law firms based in New York City | Defunct law firms of the United States | Law firms established in 1869 | Defunct companies based in New York | Companies disestablished in 1995 | Companies based in New York City |
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:09 AM Author: Wonderful temple electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954352) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:10 AM Author: bright excitant boiling water Look at WLRK's PPP numbers. HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954359) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:11 AM Author: Wonderful temple electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954368) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:10 AM Author: Flushed mental disorder set WLRK hid its Jewiness better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954362) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:10 AM Author: Appetizing mewling party of the first part hospital Wlrk is not 1 in the amlaw. Amlaw is based on gross revenues so more lawyers = higher rank. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954365) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:12 AM Author: Wonderful temple electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954380) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:10 AM Author: Drunken emerald native WLRK has never been number 1 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954366) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:13 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office Aww yeah dem senior partners at mofo pulling down 170K per year. (yeah i know, inflation, etc, but i bet this still pisses them off seeing second years make what they made as partners in the 80s.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954385) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:15 AM Author: Flushed mental disorder set Inflation adjusted to 2010: $347,110. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954398) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:16 AM Author: Drunken emerald native MoFo PPP is what, 1.5mm or so now? I bet it pisses the associates off that the partners are making 8-10 times as much when associate salaries haven't risen nearly as much. This is true of every firm on that list of course. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:20 AM Author: Stirring Sweet Tailpipe y do u think that is? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954436) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:20 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office first years made like 30 or 40k back then (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954437) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:21 AM Author: Stirring Sweet Tailpipe troof. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954443) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:25 AM Author: Drunken emerald native Sounds like they're underpaid today then by about 50% (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954481) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:28 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office its more than a little silly to expect associates to share in all of the gains during that period when they were driven by strategy, associates just provided the grunt work. should be happy with their 4-5 time increase in salaries, well outpacing inflation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954492) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:35 AM Author: Drunken emerald native What strategy exactly did most of the partners participate in? By the terrible argument you're making, basically the executive committee members of each firm should claim most of the gains. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:38 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office umm, pretty much massive expansion and leverage. the shareholders of the firm, ie the partners, receive the gains, naturally. not sure why you seem to think junior associates should be entitled to get any part of that pie, even if it was just a windfall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954541) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:42 AM Author: Drunken emerald native What are you talking about? The partners didn't have anything at risk. Most firms distribute the vast majority of their capital every year. What other industry has become 10 times as profitable in the past 25 years? Look at the leverage numbers in that chart. They're similar to what they are today - 2x to 3x. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:45 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office who cares? even if what you're saying is right, its not an argument for why associates should get any more than the market will bear or have any reason to feel aggrieved that partners are making more money than they used to.
almost every one of those firms is substantially larger, by the way. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:48 AM Author: Drunken emerald native So what if they're substantially larger? No other industry has seen margins go up that fast, even if the individual companies have grown in headcount or revenue by a commensurate amount. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954597) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:51 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office not really seeing your point. so law firm margins have outperformed other industries. ok, good time to be an owner of a law firm i guess. not sure why associates should expect to share pro rata in that gain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954619) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:31 AM Author: black foreskin brunch fail. associates are the ones doing the work and put a lot at risk.
and btw, this is a legit negotiating point. stop acting like it's not even supposed to be on the table. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:38 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office same as any industry really, the low level grunts pull the weight and the bigshots bear the fruit. not unique to law. not sure what the associates are risking? job security? this cuts against the argument that the associates are so valuable that they should share in the spoils. quality of life? you knew the deal when you signed up and its not like biglaw is ever the only option.
its a negotiating point but not a convincing one |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:42 AM Author: black foreskin brunch i find your counterarguments pretty ridiculous.
1) "not unique to law"? - AND? 2) "so valuable that they should share in the spoils" - uh, not really. they're the ones doing the work, regardless of whether they can be fired. the partners would never make the profits they do without the associates. 3) "you knew the deal" for starters, they all generally try to deceive on this point. even if "you knew" i don't see why that means someone can't ask for better
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:48 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office Sure you can ask for better, you're not going to get it though. Supply of capable lawyers is way higher than demand for associates.
I haven't seen a good argument yet for why associates should expect to share pro rata in gains in law firm profits. They do lots of work. So what? "the partners would never make the profits they do without the associates." This doesn't mean associates are not fungible. Associates would have no work to do without the partners and without the firm behind them. Every company relies on hordes of underlings whose collective work product is essential to the business. Generally these workers do not share in the gains from their work product except to the extent necessary to keep them on board or to replace them with someone who can do the same job. I don't see why associates should be mad that partners are making more money.
|
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:51 AM Author: black foreskin brunch pride comes before a fall man. smart, determined people will find a way around your bullshit. and careful, you never know when someone's going to be in a position to subject you to your own brand of treatment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954765) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:56 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office well im an associate myself, so not really applicable.
but if it were, the 'brand of treatment' i receive seems to be massive salary in comparison to my peers and solid work experience on my resume. not too worried about turnabout on that front. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:53 AM Author: Indigo Heady Heaven What associates gained in salary they gave up in job security and legitimate chances at equity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954629) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:31 AM Author: black foreskin brunch cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954737) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:34 AM Author: black foreskin brunch proposed reasons for the difference:
1) explosion of TTT law schools and number of grads
2) partnership track is designed to keep you from taking their clients
3) outsourcing |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:51 AM Author: Indigo Heady Heaven My father started biglaw in 82.
They also only worked 50 hour weeks.
They also had a legitimate expectation of partnership. 20-30% would make it from a given class. What is it now? 1%? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:54 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office you're signing up for a different job today than you were then, sure.
then again, starting salaries have doubled even adjusting for inflation. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:01 AM Author: Confused vigorous public bath pocket flask Not trying to counter your point, but what has tuition done since then? 10x increase? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954658) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:03 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office whole other ball of wax, its absurd i agree (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954672) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:09 AM Author: Confused vigorous public bath pocket flask I got curious and looked it up. Tuition at HLS was $8,800 in 85. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954691) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:11 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office what is it today? 40K? 50? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954696) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:17 AM Author: Confused vigorous public bath pocket flask Around $40k. It was $4300 in 1980, so that's basically a 10x increase in 30 years. I don't know if the numbers for other schools are available online, but figure state schools and even lower t14s probably couldn't charge H rates back then like they do now. Places like GW and Fordham were probably dirt cheap. edit: for some perspective, the median income was around $20k in 1980, and is $46k today. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 1:04 PM Author: cerise hairraiser stead Mofo's PPP is probably closer to 1.1-1.2M, but point taken. 2002-2007 was batshit crazy.
Given ITE, biglaw is experiencing a bit of a correction. Expect current PPP, RPL, salary/bonus numbers, revenues, size to stay pretty much constant through 2015 with probably some dip during the interim. So basically, biglaw will have seen no growth between 2006 and 2015 |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:06 AM Author: adventurous base dragon Brutal 1400 billables back then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954683) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:22 AM Author: self-absorbed area Actually surprising how similar it is, considering how small the firms were then. Who knew that the same firms that were good when they had 70 lawyers would be successful with 1000? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954453) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:23 AM Author: Stirring Sweet Tailpipe it's called oligopoly power (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954459) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:43 AM Author: Confused vigorous public bath pocket flask What happened to Rogers & Wells? That has a nice ring to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954568) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:45 AM Author: Startled flickering nowag principal's office merged with clifford chance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954588) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:50 AM Author: Indigo Heady Heaven weird geographical diversity trolling
most major american cities had firms at the top
Now it's dominated by NYC.
Shows how much BIGLAW has specialized into niche practices (big finance/deals/10-year-litigations). They used to do a far broader range of things. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 2:55 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle sable church LOL @ $170k PPP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15954638) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 12:55 PM Author: cerise hairraiser stead wow, leverage was still pretty bad then. Seems like most were 3:1 (total lawyers to partners). Probably closer to 5:1 now, but 3:1 still suggests pretty partnership odds (sub-20% for sure) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1413253&forum_id=2#15956089) |