So when you're a second-year associate out on the West Coast, how is it going to feel working with a first-year in your firm's NY office and knowing he makes more than you in salary, *and* more in bonus?
This is a thread to post random things (from Greedy and elsewhere) possibly relevant to LA/SF/SV moving to $145k.
Current situation:
Most Cali firms have raised first years by $10k, second years by $5k or $10k, and other years by $5k. K&E, LW and GDC are the only non-NY firms to announce a $10k raise across the board. All of these firms have have followed NY market in matching the $20k raise for their NY offices. Quinn is the only non-NY firm to match NY market in all its offices.
I'm really not clear. Irell has always had a slightly higher payscale so going to $135k was only a $5k raise. It could be that they only raised first-years, and all the other firms are raising by $5k just to meet Irell's existing structure.
Seriously. Why does everyone assume that all the big markets have to match NY? NY firms are more profitable and the cost of living is higher; it's natural that they'd pay more.
Date: February 11th, 2006 6:58 PM Author: Gold National
i always look at "pay" as a function of the ability to staff (defined as being able to hire qualified inputs). i'm not sure what peripheral reasons to raise salary would be sufficient to compel me to do so, were i running a firm.
Looking at it in terms of supply/demand is perfectly valid. That's why Greedy LA has been talking about lateral openings at the branch offices of NY firms -- hopefully just the noise will be enough.
125k became standard when tech picked up and people realized there were markets outside NY that were pretty important. It seems billing rates don't differ in LA and NY that much anymore, and while the PPP of LA firms doesn't exactly match Cravath and S&C, they're still doing better than the likes of Dewey, Fried Frank, and Shearman.
Also like I mentioned below, bonuses at NY firms have been higher anyway and I think people had less of a problem with that.
Date: February 16th, 2006 8:08 PM Author: Blue institution
I won't feel that bad since they will be working a lot harder than I am and they will have to live in NYC and will pay 2500 for a 500 square foot studio.
Might as well start with this very spirited message cross-posted on Greedy LA and themonkeyscribe:
Los Angeles Firms MUST Match NYC, or Mass Exodus Will Ensue
Mass Exodus, or Mass Malaise...I'm not sure.
Let's Recap:
(1) There have been no raises since 1999.
(2) A $10K raise for 1st years and $5K for subsequent years does not even match the rate of inflation on $125,000 over 7 years.
(3) Profits Per Partner (PPP) has risen steadily in all major L.A. firms since 1999, and rather dramatically in the last year alone: Quinn - $1.9m (+1% over 2004); Gibson - $1.64m (+8%); Latham - $1.602m (+14%); Munger - ~$1.08m (+4%); Loeb - $926k (+30%); Sheppard - $785k (+15%); Allen Matkins - $675k (+16%).
(4) Housing prices have doubled (if not TRIPLED) in Los Angeles since 1999.
(5) Law school tuitions have rose by an average of 28% nationwide, with some state schools (like Berkeley, UCLA and UC-Hastings) having seen their tuition fees DOUBLE since 1999.
(6) The Southern California housing market is almost as cramped and expensive as the NYC market, and the market prices in San Fran market are almost identical in the prices to NYC.
(7) With this new NYC raise ($145,000) in place, *FIRST* year associates in the L.A. offices of NY-based firms earn $5,000 more than *SECOND* year associates at Latham, Gibson Dunn, Irell, Quinn Emmanuel and O'Melveny.
(Cool Second year associates in Los Angeles offices will now earn $25,000 LESS than second year associates in NYC offices. $25,000 Less!!! Sure, NYC attorneys are known to work long hours, but if they didn't stroll in the office at 10AM everyday and take 2-hour lunches, they'd leave the office at a more reasonable hour like the rest of us (more efficient) lawyers who bill 2000 hours/year and still have a life outside of work.
(9) Almost all big NYC firms or branch offices ALREADY GET A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF $10k-$15K, AND FOR YEARS HAVE HAD HIGHER BONUSES THAT IN OTHER MARKETS TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW EXPENSIVE NYC IS!!! GIVING THEM ANOTHER $20k/YEAR TO ALL CLASSES JUST ADDS INSULT TO INJURY TO ALL THE HARDWORKING ASSOCIATES IN MAJOR MARKETS LIKE L.A., CHICAGO AND WASHINGTON, DC WHO ARE NOT COMPENSATED WITH SUCH MONETARY PERKS AS "COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS". It used to be the case that NYC lawyers were paid more because firms in NYC required more work, but plenty of firms in 2006 are billing 2000+ hours/year and are NOT located in NYC. These lawyers should not be penalized because they chose to work in a different market.
Last (and least), associates in LA face just as great of a risk of a terrorist attack as their counterparts in NY: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html. It's called "hazard pay" people...we should be compensated for that risk!
THE LOS ANGELES FIRMS MUST GIVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK...OR THEY WILL FIND IT DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO LURE TOP RECRUITS IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THEY WILL FACE MASSIVE RETENTION PROBLEMS, AND THEY WILL SEE THEIR ASSOCIATE SATISFACTION RANKINGS CRASH DRAMATICALLY. LOS ANGELES LAWYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DEMAND THESE RAISES FROM THEIR EMPLOYERS EITHER...THE PARTNERS SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
See my link above (after the really long rant from Greedy). There might be more pressure from NY firms in SV than LA, but I'm not sure. I think a lot will depend on what senior associates think since that gap gets pretty big, although new associates should think about it too -- that difference adds up even if you only plan to be in biglaw for 3-4 years.
Date: February 11th, 2006 5:51 PM Author: Concupiscible half-breed shrine
actually NY assoc would have no reason to complain, it would just guarantee that the current structure stays the same - with LA and other offices getting crap bonuses and NYC getting at least 10-20 more in bonuses
it is good for NYC assoc for the rest of the country to go to 145 so as to ensure the bonuses do not fall and total actual compensation increases
Date: February 12th, 2006 4:47 PM Author: bearded alcoholic boiling water
"GIVING THEM ANOTHER $20k/YEAR TO ALL CLASSES JUST ADDS INSULT TO INJURY TO ALL THE HARDWORKING ASSOCIATES IN MAJOR MARKETS LIKE L.A., CHICAGO AND WASHINGTON, DC WHO ARE NOT COMPENSATED WITH SUCH MONETARY PERKS AS 'COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS'."
What genius wrote this? Assuming this is a biglaw asso., does this person not understand that the term "adjustment" means that pay could be moved up OR DOWN?
"Some have said that law students have more incentive to go to NY based firms in SF/SV, but I actually think laterals do.
If you are a third year at GDC, with your new base pay of $155k, maybe you'll end up with a total comp of say 185k, but only if you are a star.
If you lateral to STB/S&C/anyone else who matched the 20k across the board raise, you'd have a base pay of $170k, and while we don't know what the bonuses are going to be for them, I bet it will certainly be more than $15k for third years.
And don't forget that bonus is lockstep at these places, so you don't have to be the superstar to get it."
Latham and Kirkland have already done this, and MoFo and Paul Hastings will probably be the next to follow since they held off on NY raises. But I started this thread hoping things will change and they'll all go to $145k.
Date: February 12th, 2006 7:01 PM Author: Crystalline Set
That doesn't make sense if NY offices are boosting their branch offices (including California offices) to 145k (as some of them have). A firm currently making market and presumably committed to paying market isn't going to suddenly pay below it. That would sacrifice a significant amount of recruiting power.
Date: February 12th, 2006 7:16 PM Author: Crystalline Set
Several firms. Look at monkeyscribe, other threads on here, infirmation, etc.
Logically, if some of these firms are paying 145k, all firms that want to recruit the best students by paying market wage will soon raise to 145k. All this worrying is a bit ridiculous. It just might take more than a couple weeks.
Those NY firms have been on a roll lately in SV.* Guess it wasn't enough when Wilson Sonsini started losing clients -- maybe the Cali firms will wake up when they start losing associates and partners too?
Date: February 14th, 2006 11:05 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
"A quick survey of salaries in NY, Chicago, Boston, DC and LA/SF shows that LA/SF market salaries are generally $5k - $30 below the other major markets:
Date: February 15th, 2006 12:39 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
Yeah, it seems most of the NorCal firms actually did go to 10/10. It's too hard to dig through the Greedy boards and get the specifics on which firm raised what, though. And you're still left with third-years and higher getting only $5k raises.
Date: February 15th, 2006 12:51 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
Yeah, outlook not so good. As 2Ls, the good news is that it just might take one year/recruiting season to make the $145k raise happen. But it still strikes me as absurd that our NY classmates will be getting the benefit of an extra $200/wk this summer -- well, assuming our firms even raise to the $2600 level.
I know that the link states that the project was 115 million. However, you might think that the firm would not like the banner to read the way it does. In addition, I believe that the error was brought to their attention last week and has not been corrected
Date: February 15th, 2006 12:40 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
"When are the California firms going to step up?"
"Honestly, they will step up only when the 2006 recruiting season has people turning down their offers for WSGR/GDC/etc for DPW, S&C, and STB's SV offices (for example, just to consider the SF/SV market).
Last season, I know from my contact at STB-PA, was horrible and this year's summer class is small. These 2L's were choosing the CA-based firms over the top NYC firms' SF/SV offices.
With the pay difference, there will be a good incentive to go to STB/DPW/S&C. If the 2L's still avoid those firms, then the CA-based firms will have no reason to match."
Date: February 15th, 2006 12:42 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
"the salary gap between the NY firms and CA offices of other major firms is significant. I expect some associates will opt to join the California office of a NY firm to get the weather and the much better salary. If you do not see yourself staying at a big firm in the long run, this has a lot of appeal. However, per the earlier post on this board, the chances of making partner out of the California office of some NY firms is nil--no matter how good you think you are. To the extent you think you have the stuff (and desire) to make partner, you might consider accepting the the lower salary in the short run. You will more than make it up if you actually make partner. Another wrinkle in the salary debate is whether the latest NY raises will end up being a complete wash come bonus time. At least a couple memos I've seen indicate that this is not a "raise" but a shift in the distribution of total compensation from year-end bonus to salary. In that case, the comp gap has not changed, but is just much more visible."
Bonuses are taxed the same as ordinary income, although they might get withheld differently (i.e. might have to wait till you file your taxes to get some of it back).
I think Proskauer LA has a pretty substantial presence and probably competes with the likes of Irell and OMM. Not a good sign if they aren't announcing the raise with NY.
Date: February 15th, 2006 1:27 AM Author: crawly stirring locale kitty cat
They're not a big deal at all. They're about 60 lawyers and it's Proskauer, with their ridiculous "offer to join a specific practice group only, perhaps not the one of your choice" deal. I'll never understand why someone would ever summer there unless they're splitting. Chances of needing to reinterview are way too high.
The people I had my screening interview with were really nice (guy and girl, two person interview). Had both recently come from Skadden LA. If I remember right, it was my first interview during OCI.
"This could all go haywire if 145 becomes the new 135 in DC.
Think about it--the NY firms are going to 145 in all offices. They have a much bigger presence in DC than they do in LA. Thus, NY firms raising to 145 in DC is much more likely to move the DC market up to 145 than the fact that 20-lawyer offices in LA like STB and S&C are going up to 145 is likely to move the LA market to 145. I'm not sure if that made sense, but you know what I mean.
Considering LA has a considerably higher COL than DC (I think), that situation could enrage LA GAs..."
Date: February 15th, 2006 1:26 PM Author: Blue institution
it is true that all the other class years are getting screwed, but Cali first years get a 10k bar bonus, which NYC first years don't get, so for first years it is a wash
I always thought that was made up by the lack of the pro-rated bonus for the stub year, although you said before that many Cali firms actually do give that bonus, so I'm still confused on this point.
Date: February 15th, 2006 1:36 PM Author: beady-eyed black foreskin
I'm almost positive about Latham, PH, Sheppard Mullin, and Kirkland. And though I don't know for sure, I would be shocked if firms like Heller and McDermott would give both the stipend and a bonus.
"This could all go haywire if 145 becomes the new 135 in DC.
Think about it--the NY firms are going to 145 in all offices. They have a much bigger presence in DC than they do in LA. Thus, NY firms raising to 145 in DC is much more likely to move the DC market up to 145 than the fact that 20-lawyer offices in LA like STB and S&C are going up to 145 is likely to move the LA market to 145. I'm not sure if that made sense, but you know what I mean.
Considering LA has a considerably higher COL than DC (I think), that situation could enrage LA GAs..."
Date: February 16th, 2006 1:07 PM Author: beady-eyed black foreskin
I said this in another thread, but Proskauer LA sent emails to their summers that the office was raising to $135, and that summer salaries would be raised accordingily (presumably to $2600).
Actually, I'm more disappointed that Proskauer didn't raise $20k across all their offices like the other NY firms. But that might be just proof that they really are as TTT as suggested above.
True. But even at $140k, they've only paid summers $2400/wk, so it'll be interesting to see if they raise to $2800 now.
In terms of recruiting, I think Skadden LA is pretty on par with GDC/OMM/LW in a way that STB and S&C aren't, so this could be a big deal. If Skadden goes to $2800, that's going to be smack in the face for those Gibson summers who turned down Skadden offers.
Date: February 16th, 2006 7:59 PM Author: Exciting senate
this is gonna be a long-ass vigil. the market will remain unsettled until the end of the year when bonuses are announced and we'll see if 145K base actually means higher overall compensation.
Yeah, I was thinking I still have another year until I graduate, and maybe that's how long it'll take. But just in case, I'm trying to space out my posts so I can bump this semi-regularly.
It'd be funny if there was some hiring partner at Latham or MoFo watching this thread and seeing if he could outlast me, but I think I'm giving myself way too much credit there.
Interesting given this Greedy post from a couple days ago:
"Pillsbury is in serious cost-cutting mode. It recently offered buyout packages to nonbilling professionals and has been reported in the local legal press as not having ruled out layoffs -- of either nonbilling or billing professionals. In that scenario, in what economic world is raising associates' salaries "the right thing"? That's like telling Ford or GM that the "right thing" to do in the face of economic challenges would be to raise employee salaries. Even if that sort of mismanagement did not rise to the level of a securities or corporate law violation, the stockholders would not tolerate it. Like it or not, in law firms, the partners are the stockholders."
Date: February 18th, 2006 1:38 AM Author: Irate clown depressive
I wonder if we will see two tiers of pay in LA. My guess is that we will. The days of all biglaw firms (minus Skadden) paying the same first-year amount are over. Elite NY and LA firms will pay 145; the rest will pay 135.
Date: February 18th, 2006 12:25 PM Author: Crystalline Set
I think the problem is that many, many firms consider themselves elite and have made a commitment to paying market. Assuming they can afford the jump, I don't think these firms will tolerate being classified in a lower tier and will make the jump.
Yea. But for some firms it was like pulling teeth to raise 10k (many only raised 5k for 2nd years), so I dunno if they can stomach a raise to 145k--20k across the board. Should be interesting.
According to Greedy LA, Quinn only announced the $145k for first-years, so higher classes are still in the dark as to whether the raise really will be across the board.
Date: February 21st, 2006 10:04 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
Holiday's over, let's hope news of Quinn's raise starts spreading. Here's one reaction to MoFo's NY-only $145k raise:
"Here's the fundamental problem, as I see it. MoFo is trying to become more like a NY-based firm, without having to pony up the NY compensation. Examples: last year's raising of the minimum billable hour requirements, the abandonment of the "MoFo" logo on merchandise because the NY partners though it sounded too Californian, and firm chairman Keith Wetmore's move from SF to the NY office. Historically (i.e., pre-2000 ["Viva Bob Gunderson!!"]), MoFo associates have tolerated the existence of differential pay in different offices, with NY being paid a bit more. But the new salary and bonus structure in NY is so far and away higher than any other office, that it is making MoFo associates in other offices angry. The firm has never, to my knowledge, allowed one office's associates to be paid so much higher than everybody else. MoFo markets itself as "one firm," where deals and cases can be reliably staffed across offices. When more junior associates in NY are making substantially more money than their more senior counterparts in other offices -- including their supervising senior associates -- that is a sure a recipe for discontent and sinking morale, especially given the big increases in partnership profits and firm revenue. Those profits and that revenue are largely billed on the backs of the mid and senior-level associates. Sure, the chosen few might make partner some day, but that is cold comfort given the statistical odds against it."
"Law firm consultant Edward Poll said it's too soon to tell whether other Los Angeles-based firms will follow suit.
"It's an interesting game that is being played," he said. "I think it could go either way, but my guess is that big players like Gibson, [Dunn & Crutcher], O'Melveny [& Myers], and Latham [& Watkins] will draw a line in the sand and say, 'We're not going any farther.'"
Date: February 25th, 2006 5:28 AM Author: Cracking Garnet Friendly Grandma Roast Beef
Thanks for the link Hazelrah--you are on top of it. I also tend to doubt that the big LA firms will raise to 145k to match Quinn, but we shall see. All it might take is one more firm raising to 145k to get the dominos falling again.
Date: February 25th, 2006 11:43 AM Author: crawly stirring locale kitty cat
So I guess this settles the question of whether Quinn's raises were just for NYC. I would think that Irell would be the first to match, if anyone is going to, since they were the leaders last time, and Irell and Quinn have a lot of cross-offers.
"I think Quinn is a very different kind of firm than a large global firm. . . . One firm's decision, particularly one with a specialized practice niche, is not terribly relevant."
It'll be interesting if Quinn wants to set itself off from the other firms, like Wachtell does in NY. They've had the highest PPP in LA (maybe all of non-NY, really) for two years now but haven't quite gotten the reputation to match. A salary premium could really be Quinn's way of getting the prestige that everybody knows they want.
If you look at the PPP numbers (LA firms increase PPP in 2005; Gibson, Latham at $1.6m) you'll see Quinn at $1.9m, and Munger at not even $1.1m. Irell hasn't reported but if it's like last year, it's somewhere in between at $1.6m. Certainly there's room for Quinn to pay a premium over Munger, if not the others.
Date: February 26th, 2006 3:35 AM Author: Greedy stock car
If any firm in the country is going to go tit for tat with the likes of Wachtell, it will be Munger, not Quinn. Quinn doesn't have the same kind of intellectual firepower that Munger has.
Date: February 27th, 2006 10:32 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
It doesn't have anything to do with intellect. It has to do with whether a firm has the desire/need to boost its prestige, and whether that firm has the profits to justify a higher payscale. Quinn has both. Munger has neither.
Date: February 27th, 2006 2:05 PM Author: multi-colored pearl degenerate
These raises must come at some cost right? Or am i just being a pessimist?
that extra 10k is either coming out of a bonus or it is being worked for through escalating min billable requirements. It's not like its an extra 10k for free. It all comes at a cost, correct?
It'll be very interesting to see what kind of bonuses are given out at the firms in LA paying 145 base, and to see, at the end of the day, how much the 10k raise really translates into in terms of total compensation
I dunno. Maybe it is a fairness thing; inflation has gone up over the last six years and salaries have not. Maybe the powers that be finally decided to relieve their guilt.
Yeah, billing rates have gone up, partners' profits have gone up, and cost of living has gone up. Associates wouldn't exactly be getting a raise "for free" -- they've been paying for it already all these years.
Through the years, each of your firms have made general promises to your associates to "pay competitive salaries", etc... Well it's time to start doing just that. There are now 276 associates in LA at 7 firms who are on significantly higher pay scales then yours - this is not being competitive. While this strategy may fatten your partner's wallets in the short term, it is self-destructive in the long term: it is hurting associate morale (which results in lower billing and attrition), the perceived prestige of your firms, and come August, it will most certainly hurt recruiting. How can you claim to be a Top Tier firm and pay your associates 2nd Tier salaries? Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before this practice works a self-fulfilling prophecy and you do indeed become 2nd tier firms in LA....
Now that Skadden and Quinn have matched (both with sizable offices in LA), there is no compelling justification for not matching - clearly Skadden and Quinn have reviewed the "cost of living" data that you are clinging to, and have determined that it's either not that significant, or NY associates can receive a market adjustment come bonus time (as has been the practice for many years). While we are pleased that there has been an initial raise, it simply has not kept pace with inflation, the cost of living in LA, and now what the martket has determined is the going rate for a Big Law associates. We welcome you to reconsider your positions on salary."
This was on Greedy, so the poster was probably thinking of laterals. In that case, I assume it's because Munger and Irell have pretty specific hiring needs and limited openings, whereas the big firms are where most of the movement will be.
"CA branch offices of NY firms have become a much more attractive option since then (perhaps more so in SF/SV). If not corrected soon, I'd expect the huge disparity in pay ($15k+ for 2nd years - $40k+ for 8th years) will significantly impact law school recruiting. These boards seem to be pretty complacent, but law school boards are all over the cheapness of CA firms."
Nice. I think I alluded above that the headhunters are already taking advantage of this in their recruiting efforts, so the firms should definitely be listening.
"Salaries were also a hot topic at an alumni event for Ivy League schools held in Hollywood this week." -- I've never heard of these things. Will I be expected to schmooze with Cornell JDs?
Actually, I think the outlook is getting better, maybe not in time for this summer but at least for by the time we graduate.
Incidentally, my firm hasn't yet announced summer salaries but they are imposing a hard 13-week limit on all summers. I think 13 weeks is pretty standard for summer programs, but I've been told the NY firms are pretty flexible about people staying longer.
I suppose you're right about the long term prospects getting better.
My firm hasn't announced summer salaries either, and I don't think there's a hard week limit (or at least it hasn't been announced yet). I think, though, that 13 weeks is plenty. I think if you're at CLS and are doing the 1 week professional responsibility course at the end of the summer and want to work from the Monday after finals to the Friday before Prof Resp starts you're looking at 15 weeks. While the money is good, I would not want to work wire to wire for the whole summer. 13 sounds like the max anyone should want to do. One week buffers are always nice to have, especially when working on the other side of the country.
Based on what people say about summer programs, I'm going to be pretty disappointed if I'm working wire to wire for any part of the summer. But you'd know better than me. My non-firm 1L summer was definitely a cushy gig.
But yeah, at least now I get back in time to do 3L OCI with NY branch offices, if it comes to that. ;)
This guy isn't me, but he might as well be (well, maybe he got more offers than I did):
"Seems like most of you so-called "greedy" associates are pretty complacent with the lousy raises you just got... I can assure you that most of the students that I know who will be summering in your LA offices don't feel the same way. I for one turned down an offer at a NY based firm for an offer with one of the Big 3 - boy do I feel like duped. If salaries don't equalize by August, many of your best SA's (top of their class at the best law schools) will be turning down their full-time offers for better money at Skadden, Quinn, etc...
I'm sure you'll have no problem filling our spots with bottom feeders who would take any big law job, but we know that's not who you're looking for.
So be prepared for a huge recruiting problem next Fall..."
"While I agree that paying NY associates differently than OC/L.A./San Fran is B.S., I disagree with your analysis. There are a lot more "top school" candidates than there are first year associate positions. Though in the coming years a great candidate will take the 145k over the 135k for the same work (e.g., first year work at big law is first year work at big law whether it is 145k or 135k a year), I do not think GDC...etc will be hurting for associates. In the end, the pool of kids looking for work is bigger than the pool of big law associate positions."
In addition to paying 145k in their LA offices, don't NY-based firms also dish out bigger bonuses? I've been told that STB, LeBoeuf,Dewey, etc use the same bonus structure as their NY office. This all adds up to substantially more cash.
Date: March 7th, 2006 8:30 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
Yes, as do Skadden and S&C, and DPW and the others in the Bay Area. Proskauer is paying $135k in LA but I believe they've traditionally paid NY lockstep bonuses as well.
Date: March 7th, 2006 11:57 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
And on that topic...
"very seldom does someone stay at one firm from first-year associate to partner. So when NY-based firms are paying 145k AND offering lockstep NY-sized bonuses to their LA associates, it seems the financial incentives might be too strong to pass up."
"And don't forget that the cumulative difference in pay over 5-7 years (including lockstep bonus vs. median L.A. bonus) approaches 75K-100K, not chump change. That, and the fact that you can lateral to any of the L.A. based firms as a non-equity partner (perhaps except the Big 3, where you are not going to make partner anyway) is a big draw for Skadden / Sullivan / Simpson / etc. "
Date: March 7th, 2006 12:48 PM Author: Flesh Galvanic Home
I heard a rumor that Latham's Chicago office sent out an email saying they will pay 2600 a week, if true I imagine LA will too which really leave GDC lagging behing L and OMM.
I should ask my Latham NY classmates if they've heard anything, but if OMM is going to go 2800 in NY and 2600 elsewhere, it makes sense that Latham will play the same game.
If Quinn pays $2800 in LA this summer, maybe next year's 2Ls will see some changes.
Date: March 8th, 2006 4:54 PM Author: sooty slippery piazza people who are hurt
Can you explain how you know so much about Quinn and why you're so interested in them when you don't work there?
It's not strange that SAs are getting paid $2,600. Quinn, above all things, is savvy. What would be the benefit of paying $2,800 when the current summer class is locked in? Quinn can just raise summer salaries to $2,800 in September if it feels that will help recruiting.
"After firms sink $50k per law student into their recruiting costs this summer only to lose a chunk of them to other firms that pay more, there will be no question that the failure to match has had a significant impact. The point is that any student who can leave will leave, which will typically be the very best of each class.
The point that there are more students than jobs is just silly. Sure, someone who barely made the top third at Loyola would love a job at GDC, but that's not who GDC is looking for.
Even worse, good luck recruiting judicial clerks this spring (which is right now, by the way). I think Quinn will be very successful landing them in the next month or two."
"Perhaps LA recruiting from CA law schools won't be affected, but law students with easy access to NY firms will think long and hard about turning down NY money for LA. All major NY firms now pay substantially more than the big 3, even those NY firms with less prestige. LA firms will still fill their recruiting classes, but their ability to attract Ivy grads will be impacted."
"I have to agree. I'm a 3L and what I've seen is that those poor souls that chose going to NY last summer have now been redeemed. For people like me, where NY or LA was a close call, we feel especially duped. Even the people going to Philly are laughing - two of my buddies just learned that they will be making as much in Philly as I will in LA. Unless, of course, I get a raise."
Date: March 8th, 2006 12:50 PM Author: submissive topaz hissy fit
"their ability to attract Ivy grads will be impacted"
You mean they'll have to settle for hiring the top students from Stanford, NYU, Chicago, Michigan, and Virginia? The horror! They might as well just close up shop now.
Date: March 8th, 2006 11:10 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
"I'm a class of '03 litigator at a Big 3 member and I just got my first cold call from someone asking if I wanted to switch to "another prominent LA firm that's willing to pay you 170,000 per year." Obviously, that universe of firms is fairly small but clearly those firms that are matching NY salaries are already trying to handpick potential laterals.
Quite honestly, the ONLY thing stopping me from interviewing is the fact that I lateraled here in October and I don't want a 4 month stint at another firm on my resume. I worked over 2 years at my first firm (thus earning me the "First Lateral is Free" Pass. Past that, I feel I'm pushing it, but if my peers are getting similar calls, I'm sure they're considering."
Date: March 8th, 2006 3:05 PM Author: submissive topaz hissy fit
Wow, a $25K bump. Prestigious.
I doubt this will have much effect on California firms, though. Salaries being equal, the CoL difference isn't going to tempt many Cali residents to move to freaking Texas.
Date: March 20th, 2006 2:23 PM Author: Greedy stock car Subject: Latham Raises $5K for Mid-Levels and Seniors
Close buddy of mine working at Latham just called me. He said that during a global videoconference this morning, Latham bumped salaries for all 2nd-through-8th year domestic (non-NY) associates. First-year salary will remain at $135,000.
Date: March 21st, 2006 12:34 AM Author: aromatic bossy kitchen jewess
Thanks, edited the OP to reflect this info. Here's what I said about it on the other thread:
Well, this is both good and bad.
The bad news is that it's still behind Quinn and the NY firms. And first years in LA/SF are still making less than first years in Texas, of all places.
The good news is that (aside from Quinn) they're the first firm to match Kirkland in making the raises $10k for all classes. So at a minimum, we should see firms like Gibson, OMM, MoFo, Sidley, etc. match this. The other good news is that this means firms are still reconsidering their raises, so there is still hope that another big firm will up both Latham and Kirkland and match Quinn and the NY firms.
Even if we don't see $145k in the next few months, I think this move still suggests that non-NY firms are realizing that Gibson's $5k raises were way too low and they have to match the NY firms eventually -- so we 2Ls may well see $145k by the time we graduate (or the first year after).
Susman Godfrey also seems to see the writing on the wall: "The firm--responding to moves by Vinson & Elkins, Andrews Kurth and Baker Botts--plans to raise associate salaries in its Texas, Seattle and Los Angeles offices to New York levels, Susman says." Gunner alert: Susman Godfrey opening in NY
Ah, thanks. I was wondering about White & Case, and I think we can assume the LA office is going the same route.
The Greedy post says that White & Case is in growth mode for the Palo Alto office, but they also closed their SF office recently. I'm not sure if they and firms like Dewey are the best candidates for "stepping up to the plate."
Date: March 28th, 2006 9:08 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Marketing Idea
Didn't Dewey pull out of NorCal altogether? That's certainly a less ambiguous sign than growing one office and closing another 30 miles away. I wonder what the hell is going on.
Regardless, one more firm bumping salaries for whatever reason can only help.
The post on this board was about a bunch of partners leaving. On Dewey's website, looks like the office is still there -- but with just one partner, one counsel, and eight associates.
Yeah, White & Case's move might not mean anything. I think they and Shearman were the only NY firms with both SF and SV offices.
A classmate who knew a little about East Asian politics joked, "One firm, two systems."
nalpdirectory.com is updated (or downgraded, for Firefox users) with all the new info, and it looks like Quinn is the lone beacon for the $145k salary. We'll see what happens when fall recruiting starts...
"Just like Mofo and everyone else with a NYC branch office, WSGR just upped the base for New York associates by $10-20K for junior-to-midlevels, and $20-$40K for senior associates. This is on top of the prior round of raises, so they are making a good bit more than us now. Kind of frustrating. I know the you have to match to compete for talent, but NYC isn't any different than the Bay area on expenses or COL, and the work (at least for WSGR) is not more sophisticated on the east coast."