The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
DC Bar President Decries Associate Raises
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:25 AM Author: Laughsome national Cheap bastard is a partner at A&P too:
The High Price of Escalating Associate Salaries By James J. Sandman
Leading New York firms recently raised the base salary for a first-year associate to $160,000. That’s before bonuses, which at year-end 2006 were generally an additional $30,000 for first-years, across the board, at the big firms.
The New York increase can be expected to have a ripple effect across the country. Other large cities may not go as high as New York, but many will go up significantly.
I am very familiar with the market forces that cause a law firm to increase its associate salaries to match the competition’s. In the war for talent, I understand that you lose if you pay anything less than the going rate. But I don’t understand what causes a firm be the first to increase the salary of a brand-new lawyer from an already eye-popping $145,000 to $160,000. There is no competitive advantage in doing so. Other firms will surely follow suit, and the firm that led the market will quickly be indistinguishable from the rest of the pack. More importantly, though, I think first-year associate salaries at big firms have gotten to a level where increases are very bad. They are bad for the law firms that pay them, for the associates who receive them, for the clients who foot the bill for them, and for the society we serve.
For the law firms that pay them, astronomical associate salaries increase pressures on profitability, which take a heavy toll on firm culture. In terms of recruiting and retaining associates, I think the higher salaries are wasted dollars. The supply of new lawyers is constrained by the limited number of graduates that our law schools produce every year; paying more won’t have any material effect on the size of the applicant pool. And despite high salaries, the average attrition rate among big-firm associates has topped 20 percent in the last couple of years. Is there any reason to think that more money will keep associates longer and drive attrition rates down? I don’t think so.
Associates leave big law firms in spite of the money and not because it isn’t enough. Higher salaries will do nothing to give associates greater responsibility, more rewarding work, better training, or increased access to mentors—the things that many associates who leave big firms say they wanted but didn’t get. I’ll give you even odds that higher salaries will only allow associates to pay off their educational debts sooner, put down a mortgage on a house earlier, and leave big law firms even faster than they have been.
For those associates who do tough it out, these higher salaries are not a happy development. There is no free lunch. Higher salaries inevitably mean higher billable-hour expectations and even less work–life balance. Greater emphasis on revenue generation seems inevitably to reduce the quality of lawyers’ lives.
Smart associates who have been around for a while knew before the latest round of salary increases just how much money doesn’t buy. Newer lawyers and current law students will learn soon enough.
Sadly, these high salaries will attract a number of those who are just entering the profession to positions that are not suited to their interests, their talents, their temperaments, or their long-term objectives, but that offer the quickest option for paying off that crushing debt load. And so some of this number will be introduced to the profession in a way that will cause them to become disillusioned very early in their careers—and maybe to give up on the profession as a whole because they were so poorly matched to their first job.
And what of the clients? It’s disingenuous to suggest that they won’t end up being charged for higher associate salaries. Although the cost of a salary increase may not be passed along in immediate rate hikes, it will be eventually. There is no increased value to accompany the higher rates, particularly not for inexperienced lawyers. Of course the firms’ argument will be that price is simply a function of supply and demand and not a measure of intrinsic value. But I think that first-year associate rates—which in some big firms in some big cities were more than $265 an hour before the latest salary increases—may be reaching a point of such disconnection from intrinsic value that the client market will reject them. I don’t know if there is an economic principle to describe that phenomenon, but my instincts tell me that there is a point where customers perceive prices to be irrationally high, revolt, and force a reordering of the market. Stay tuned.
Stratospheric law firm associate salaries have ripple effects throughout the legal profession and societal consequences beyond. When a first-year associate makes $190,000 in salary and bonus and a federal district judge makes $165,200, the allure of the federal bench for the best and the brightest is diminished. When the disparity between law firm salaries and government salaries reaches the point it has now, some lawyers who would otherwise have been attracted to public service will not be able to make the sacrifice, and the public will be the poorer for it. When legal services providers offer a starting lawyer $120,000 less than a lawyer starting in a big firm, the job of serving the poor, never easy, just got harder. I know these are all different markets, but there are intersections among them, and what goes on in the law firm segment affects life in the others.
I don’t for a minute begrudge hardworking law firm associates a handsome living. They didn’t ask for increases that were triggered by one law firm’s misguided notion of what motivates them. I hope they are able to get some enjoyment out of the additional dollars. But my advice is this: Don’t become dependent on the money. Live below your means, and be generous. Once you’ve got your educational debt under control, do what you want to do because you love it, not what you have to do to maintain a lifestyle. Remember why you went to law school: to make a difference. And follow your heart.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/march_2007/president.cfm |
 |
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:38 AM Author: umber people who are hurt What an idiot. I was getting billed out at ~$300 when I was making $125K base when I first started. Partners charge exorbitant billing rates because they can, not because that's the only way they can cover their overhead on expensive associates. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701818) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:44 AM Author: frum provocative site yeah I saw this. I dont get it. This guy will be the first to defend his riches or some CEO getting a billion dollar bonus but god forbid the guys at the "bottom" start seeing their salaries rise.
its a bit of a circular argument. SA's work to hard so they shouldn't be paid more because they will be asked to work too hard.
Also I dont see the relevance of comparing a judge to an entry level SA. If maintaining a balance between public / private sector salaries were important, shouldn't have we been having this conversation 20 years ago? Also isn't the answer then to raise salaries for public sector jobs and not artificially cap private sector salaries?
|
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:49 AM Author: Laughsome national Agreed. He also doesn't take issue with rising PPPs. Associate pay isn't the only thing driving up billing rates and hours. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701843) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:10 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend Or even to cap partner salaries, since biglaw partners are the real "peer group" to federal judges. But this guy would never in a million years advocate that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702490) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:16 PM Author: Disturbing piazza Exactly. This guy's partnership draw for one year alone could probably double the pay of SCOTUS justices. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702514) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:34 PM Author: Onyx arousing mediation stag film triple at least (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702951) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:45 AM Author: Curious orchestra pit macaca Is there any anti-trust liability here? You basically have an representitive of A&P saying "we won't raise if no one else raises." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701833) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:58 AM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center Only if you can show that future non-raises result from his anti-competitive behavior.
Still, it's funny to see an article like this from a firm with a huge antitrust section. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:01 PM Author: Curious orchestra pit macaca Should I take a class that will give me credit for suing someone and sue them to get publicity and a nuisance settlement? Any effect on C&F? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701896) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:09 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center I would not worry about C&F as much as I'd worry about your ability to secure gainful employment after graduation. Law firms do not like lawsuits involving other law firms. I'd imagine that suing this guy would result in you receiving the legal profession equivalent of a scarlet letter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701933) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:12 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig Only if antitrust law was retarded. Why can't a law firm (or any producer) complain about the cost of inputs? It's not like law firms are the only employer of lawyers... if they were salaries would not be trending upward as quickly. There's pressure from other employers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701946) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:18 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center There is a difference between complaining and using your position as DC Bar Pres. to make a statement implicitly encouraging firms to stop raising salaries. As I said earlier, it is unlikely that anyone could file a claim based solely on this article; but that does not change the fact that this article reeks of collusion and anti-competitive behavior. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701965) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:21 PM Author: Disturbing piazza Doesn't it explicitly acknowledge collusion and anti-competitive behavior? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701973) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:35 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center No, it explicitly acknowledges the many reasons why firms would benefit from not raising salaries. It implicity says: "Hey, other firms, if you don't raise, we won't either." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702007) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:44 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig "this article reeks of collusion and anti-competitive behavior."
Again, assuming some level of retardation. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 5:28 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center No, only if you apply a different standard to law firms than you do to other businesses. Somehow I doubt that the folks in the antitrust group at Arnold and Porter would be too excited if the CEO of a major airline client published an article complaining about lower fares and urging his peers to maintain the status quo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703213) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:22 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig CEOs of major airlines complain about excessive competition and low fares all the time. Bad example. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703625) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:33 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center Are you really saying that CEOs of major airlines openly discuss price fixing all the time? Do they publish these articles in journals aimed specifically at their competitor airlines in an implicit effort to set higher prices across-the-board?
As an antitrust attorney... If your client, the CEO of the hypothetical major airline, was the president of the hypothetical airline association, would you really not have a problem with him writing an article encouraging price fixing? At the very least, I hope you would advise him to choose his words very carefully.
In this case, the President of the DC Bar appears to be implicitly encouraging major law firms to (at the very least) refrain from raising associate salaries and set prices at a mutually agreed upon level. But nobody is arguing that this article alone constitutes an antitrust violation. So, if that is your main point of contention, you are knocking down a straw man. Still, the article implicitly encourages price fixing and monopolistic behavior and an unreasonable restraint of trade, which if followed by actions at other DC firms, could be construed as evidence that the head of the DC bar, a partner at Arnold & Porter, violated federal antitrust law. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:47 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig Again, complaining about the cost of inputs is a common refrain, even those inputs that one industry purchases the vast majority of. Read any trade magazine and you'll see such complaints.
If there were two firms in the world, maybe this would be a concern. In a world of hundreds of essentially fungible employers such nonsense is unlikely to raise eyebrows except by overimaginative 2Ls.
If you were a lawyer, would you really have counseled him not to publish this article because of "antitrust" concerns? If so, you're a jackass. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:54 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center The fact that I'm a jackass has nothing to do with the fact that you are too stupid to process to most basic aspects of anti-competitive behavior. Your smug satisfaction at knocking down straw men aside, this article would do more than contain common complaints about cost inputs if one could show that it resulted in monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior. Obviously, it is a big jump to make; but it is not the impossible leap that you make it out to be. The head of the DC Bar and a partner at a large DC firm should not be telling attorneys at other firms how to set their salaries.
I definitely would discourage a client, who was a leader at his own company and the head of a major trade organization, from publishing an article that implicitly encouraged price fixing. If your concerns about your own self-image preclude you from giving sound legal advice, you should probably consider another profession.
|
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:47 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen so price-fixing for a good is okay if some distant substitute goods don't play along? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702428) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:22 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig Talking about prices is not price fixing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703623) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:36 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center Talking about price fixing can be illegal if it results in price fixing. If the head of a major trade organization writes about price fixing and his competitors engage in price fixing as a result of his writing, he could be held accountable for the price fixing, no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703671) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:48 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig Are you sure you're familiar with what price fixing is? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703727) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:56 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center Nope. Care to explain it to me? Perhaps you could explain monopolistic behavior as well? Thanks.
Keep in mind that I was taking exception to your broad statement about price fixing, not your views of this article. So, if you don't mind, you can just limit your comments to explaining to me the reasons why talking or writing about price fixing could never violate federal antitrust law. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:53 AM Author: Disturbing piazza What a fucking moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701858) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 11:56 AM Author: histrionic box office Who went to law school to make a difference? But seriously, this article and its reasoning are just awful. How the hell did this guy become a partner at A&P? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701868) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:03 PM Author: Curious orchestra pit macaca The raises probably cost him at least $100k this year. In his position, making every colorable argument against raises is the rational thing to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701904) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:05 PM Author: Disturbing piazza The raises might have "cost" him $100K, but that number pales in comparison to the increases in PPP he's seen over the last few years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701915) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:12 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend True, but there's the psychological principle of attribution bias. If my salary goes up, I will think it's because I am smart and hard-working. If my salary goes down, it's because the world is an unfair place. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702495) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:04 PM Author: Disturbing piazza My experience is that the vast majority of partners at very top firms are brilliant but as you go down the food chain it gets very disappointing very fast. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7701909) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:39 PM Author: clear contagious famous landscape painting resort This article would have been a 180 had it ended with "EXIIIT LIIIGHT, ENTER NIIIGHT! TAKE MY HAND, WE'RE OFF TO NEVER NEVER LAND" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702629) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 9:51 AM Author: cerebral misanthropic library loved this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7710842) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 10:30 AM Author: brass well-lubricated tanning salon yeah that post deserved more love (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7710912) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:27 PM Author: appetizing nursing home genital piercing I think his point (well it should be his point) is that if you want to confer an effective material benefit on associate wage slaves, it wouldn't be to pay them more for the same amount of soul-crushing work; instead reduce attrition by paying the same amount of money for less billable hours.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2007 2:57 PM Author: brilliant violent stead "instead reduce attrition by paying the same amount of money for less billable hours."
Two problems with this argument:
1) Attrition is encouraged at large law firms. 2) Do you really think that if attorneys were paid less, partners would allow them to bill less? |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:53 PM Author: heady spruce set trump supporter "I am very familiar with the market forces that cause a law firm to increase its associate salaries to match the competition’s."
BUT...
"I don’t understand what causes a firm be the first to increase the salary of a brand-new lawyer from an already eye-popping $145,000 to $160,000." |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:54 PM Author: heady spruce set trump supporter "paying more won’t have any material effect on the size of the applicant pool."
That's not the point. The point is that you want access to a particular part of that pool. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:55 PM Author: heady spruce set trump supporter "I’ll give you even odds that higher salaries will only allow associates to pay off their educational debts sooner, put down a mortgage on a house earlier, and leave big law firms even faster than they have been."
The horror! |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 9:54 AM Author: Flirting faggotry I CANNOT believe this guy used his position as the head of a bar association like this. Basically, he wanted to send a letter to the managing partners of every DC firm saying “hey don’t raise salary, let’s not compete for talent, that will only cut into our profits.” He could not do that, so he uses the dc bar association to make the announcement. Not only that but he, a money grubbing partner (not that there is anything wrong with that, if you are honest about your motivations), dresses his announcement up with some follow your heart bull shit. Absolutely disgusting, this guy should be impeached. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7710847) |
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:21 PM Author: salmon rough-skinned ticket booth I'll admit the part about making a difference has me lost. Maybe it is somehow connected to my carbon footprint.
But I don't think it is an antitrust issue, because it isn't a harm to competition.
It would be somewhat of an antitrust issue if he made a bunch of public announcements that "because of the increase in associate salaries, we are increasing our billing rates to $X", but that still wouldn't be a violation of any of the antitrust laws unless all firms within a market charged the same and uniformly went up.
|
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:38 PM Author: Stirring mad cow disease center Right. As it stands, not an antitrust issue. But if anti-competitive or monopolistic behavior results from his statements then it becomes a possible antitrust issue. Regardless, I can't imagine A&P would be too excited if the CEO of one of their antitrust clients wrote a similar article in a major trade journal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702015) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 12:29 PM Author: 180 tank what an idiot.
1) What hes really asking is "why did stb go up first," because the reason for matching is clear. Well, that answer is clear too--building up goodwill with current and potential associates--something that is very important to differentiate itself from the elite market.
2) if he really means all that BS about associates truly wanting other things like mentorship and good work--why the hell did his firm match? $$$ is obviously the bottom line.
a whole lot of hot wind just to vent your frustration about having to take a couple dimes out of your pocket. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 1:02 PM Author: racy turquoise toaster It's not like his firm has a shining reputation for providing those other things he says associates want more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702096) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 1:09 PM Author: orchid mentally impaired locale ask current STB associates how much of that goodwill is left. they are busier than any firm I know right now - pulling people off projects left and right to pull all nighters on shitty drafting sessions.
Still he is disingenuous not to be bitching about his main point - his precious profits. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:02 PM Author: 180 tank everything is relative...is there less work at the other firms that raised? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702281) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:20 PM Author: orchid mentally impaired locale yes, there is less work on average at several other firms.
Almost all NYC firms raised. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:09 PM Author: umber people who are hurt "they are busier than any firm I know right now - pulling people off projects left and right to pull all nighters on shitty drafting sessions."
Anecdotal and irrelevant. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:19 PM Author: orchid mentally impaired locale Its not irrelevant. One month later we all get paid exactly the same. And people at STB at least are too busy to feel much good will because of the raise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702535) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:11 PM Author: drab twisted shrine "The supply of new lawyers is constrained by the limited number of graduates that our law schools produce every year"
What a dishonest fuck. The "supply" is limited because the market rate firms only hire from a small percentage of the pool of graduates each year (national schools + folks who were top 10% elsewhere) to do work that a monkey could handle. And they do it specifically so that they can justify charging exorbitant rates for newbies who have to have most of their work checked. Meanwhile, many extremely capable young graduates don't get a sniff at these firms.
The partners at the firms paying rookies $160K deserve no sympathy for this mess. None. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:22 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig "to do work that a monkey could handle."
Speak for yourself. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:23 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner TTT troll.
So the people they do hire are incompetent, but the people they pass over who didn't go to a good school or make top grades at TTTs are somehow "extremely capable?" |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:26 PM Author: racy turquoise toaster TITCR, no one wants him for a reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702357) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:46 PM Author: drab twisted shrine Read my post again, numbnuts. I didn't suggest the people hired aren't capable. ALL lawyers need supervision at outset of their careers. I was pointing out that there are a great many people who could do very well in biglaw that the firms won't consider. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703015) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:42 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen if they were extremely capable, why couldn't they get into a decent law school or get top grades at their sub-par law school?
if a monkey could really handle the work, and their preference for top students increases the amounts they pay to associates, why wouldn't a single firm that hires total schlubs and charges less as a result totally out-compete the top firms? |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:58 PM Author: drab twisted shrine LSATs and law school grades are highly imperfect predictors of actual lawyering skills.
What do you define as a decent school? A subpar School? If by top grades, you mean top 10%, then 90% aren't extremely capable by your definition. And what do you define as a "total schlub"? On this board it's apparently anyone who doesn't get a biglaw job.
And to answer your second question, There's a longstanding system in place that major corporate clients have bought into for years. The whole "best & brightest" spiel does sell, and who's to say that the clients aren't well served by the current system? If they're willing to pay $265 an hour for a raw pedigree, then power to them. But the partners shouldn't bitch - no one feels sympathy for folks making $900K a year just because some of their peers might be making $2 mil. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 6:12 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen "LSATs and law school grades are highly imperfect predictors of actual lawyering skills."
granted -- but they're the best that's available.
"And what do you define as a "total schlub"? On this board it's apparently anyone who doesn't get a biglaw job."
ha -- no, on this board, it's anyone who doesn't cruise into the V5 from a t6 school. personally, i'd probably draw the line to include all of HYS, 75% of CCN,50% of T7-14, and 5-10% of the rest of tier one. again, you're right that these metrics are imperfect, and lots of worthy people slip through the cracks while others manage to fake their way through, but they're the best the firms have available, so of course they're going to use them.
"But the partners shouldn't bitch - no one feels sympathy for folks making $900K a year just because some of their peers might be making $2 mil."
it's all relative. you wouldn't say that a poor inner-city person with diabetes and no health insurance shouldn't bitch because people in ethiopia are far worse off even though it's true. if you were a 900k partner, you'd envy your $2MM brethren too.
this is, of course, not to say that this james sandman character isn't a total douchebag. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:21 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner "Follow your heart."
Awwwww. Glad his heart-following led him to biglaw partnership.
|
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:24 PM Author: Disturbing piazza Someone definitely needs to send him the thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702341) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:25 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner I'll do it but I'm waiting for more comments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702348) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:24 PM Author: shimmering swollen depressive yeah, money doesnt matter at all. most people would choose to do soul-crushing work 80hrs a week regardless of the pay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702345) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:29 PM Author: shimmering swollen depressive Id like to see some stats on market pay relative to inflation and LS debt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702367) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:30 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner Things stagnated at $125 for entirely too long. And it'd be good if we could get data on the average tuition increases at top law schools in the past 10 years or so (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702375) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:32 PM Author: shimmering swollen depressive and right after I saw such data i'd like to give this guy a swift kick in the nuts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702383) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:43 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen why wait? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702418) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:33 PM Author: shimmering swollen depressive "I’ll give you even odds that higher salaries will only allow associates to pay off their educational debts sooner, put down a mortgage on a house earlier..."
god forbid |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:40 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702408) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:44 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen seriously, what a raging asshole. A&P now joins S&C and Cravath on the list of firms i will warn 1L's against. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702422) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:47 PM Author: Cyan soul-stirring den I am now this much happier that I turned them down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702432) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:28 PM Author: histrionic box office Your anti-Cravath crusade is a true service to this board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702576) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:31 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen ty ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702592) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:47 PM Author: Laughsome national Yeah, that was one of the worst lines. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702431) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:02 PM Author: deranged iridescent kitchen wrinkle Yeah, because after they pay off their educational debts they would NEVER consider quitting biglaw to pursue public interest work or some kind of government job.
I'm sure in this asshat's world we would incentivize public interest employment and other forms of craptastically paid "difference making" by keeping associates chained to their crushing law school debts for as long as humanly possible. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:15 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend Why would we waste our windfall on boring shit like that? Models and bottles, baby. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702509) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:44 PM Author: Cyan soul-stirring den He really comes across as disingenuous with all his faux-"I'm looking out for you" re: associate attrition rates. This guy's compensation is derived wholly from a pyramid-scheme business model that basically requires high associate attrition. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702420) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:46 PM Author: Comical avocado institution pervert Well, at least this much was good advice: "But my advice is this: Don’t become dependent on the money. Live below your means . . . " (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702426) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:49 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen what an incredible hypocrite this James Sandman character is. this raise was a wealth transfer from partners to associates, and that's why his panties are in such a knot -- not because it's going to hurt clients. he's all about earning huge paychecks himself, but everyone else should follow their hearts and be happy with less.
if this reflects A&P culture, the smart law student isn't going to give them a second thought. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:53 PM Author: Adventurous garrison french chef It's unbelievable that he would write this - it's a huge blow to the reputation of his firm, and it's not going to have any effect on the market pressures that drive associate salaries.
Not to mention how much his generation is better off than our generation generally via housing appreciation, social security, etc.
If I were an A&P associate I would sure be less motivated to work on weekends, etc. after that screed. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:54 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen i think i'd start taking headhunter calls (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702458) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:49 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner "Remember why you went to law school: to make a difference."
ROFLWOFLLOFLZOLLOPORL
Actually, I went to law school to make more money. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:15 PM Author: Curious orchestra pit macaca He is making a differnce by defending toxic torts? I wonder how many people have died as a direct result of him getting his client off the hook for massive pollution cleanup liability? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702508) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:53 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen someone please email him a link.
James.Sandman@aporter.com
http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?attorney_id=370 |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:56 PM Author: Mewling Slimy School Cafeteria Mexican Why don't you do it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702468) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:14 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen done:
Mr. Sandman,
As a 2L at Stanford Law School who seriously considered joining your firm this past application cycle, it is with some dismay that I read your article on the DC Bar website, available at http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/march_2007/president.cfm . Your suggestion that it is good for associates to make less money is both patronizing and absurd, particularly since you quickly suggest that "higher salaries will only allow associates to pay off their educational debts sooner, put down a mortgage on a house earlier, and leave big law firms even faster than they have been" -- as though being indentured to student loans and mortgage payments is somehow to our benefit.
It isn't, of course; it's to yours. You seem happy enough earning around A&P's per-partner profit of $835,000 per year, and it's pretty transparent that your real motivation is not to help associates or clients but to watch your own wallet at the expense of your associates'. On the suspicion that your anti-associate mentality reflects the broader culture among the partnership of Arnold & Porter, I will strongly recommend to the 1L's and 2L's I talk to that they consider seeking employment elsewhere, and I will provide a link to your article (saved to my computer in case it disappears from the website) to justify my suggestion.
In case you're curious how other law students have reacted to your article, you might be interested to see the discussion that followed on a law student discussion board. I've provided a link below. Needless to say, I think I'm not alone in my reaction.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&mc=51&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:17 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend Excellent work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702521) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:18 PM Author: Curious orchestra pit macaca I can't wait for the reaction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702523) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:23 PM Author: Disturbing piazza If he's like every other Biglaw partner I know he will complain about associates' sense of entitlement while continuing to collect his windfall profit share, with double digit annual percentage increases, for doing less work than a fourth year associate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702549) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:25 PM Author: charismatic theatre place of business But he put in all those hard hours when lawyers billed 1600 hours a year. He's in every right to demand the new associates to work 2400 hour a year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702565) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:28 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen my only regret is failing to CC: the A&P hiring partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702575) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:29 PM Author: Disturbing piazza Forward it. I doubt he'll click on the link but the hiring partner will probably read this thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702582) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:34 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen trying to find the hiring partner but i can't -- the nalp directory says it's Ms. Claire Reade but the A&P website lists no such person.
help, anyone? |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:29 PM Author: charismatic theatre place of business You can still forward it to them... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702584) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:18 PM Author: Mewling Slimy School Cafeteria Mexican Good work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702526) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:22 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner Nice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702546) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:32 PM Author: Gold floppy pit I didn't read the article, but from the portion you have quoted it doesn't seem at all clear that he is suggesting it is to the benefit of students. It seems obvious that he wants you to be tethered to your loans and mortgage precisely because it benefits the firm; accusing him of being disingenuous, at least based on that, probably isn't warranted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702596) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:35 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen please read the article before you criticize my interpretation of it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702608) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:37 PM Author: Gold floppy pit Don't really have the time. In only wanted to point out that the interpretation of that quote seemed poorly reasoned, which would in turn make you look dumb in the email. I'll assume the rest is damning. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702617) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:40 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen at one point he suggests that it is to associates' benefit to receive less money (reasoning that we don't care about money anyway) and then later suggests it'd be in the firm's interest because our mortgages and student debt would keep us chained to the firm. they're offered in different paragraphs, but the latter definitely undermines the former. i don't care if he thinks that i'm dumb, since it won't change the fact that i'm going to spread this far and wide in my school's 1L and 2L classes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702633) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:44 PM Author: Gold floppy pit Ok, but if you're not concerened with your reasoning, it's mostly just law-class warfare. Which is fair enough, but then people shouldn't be criticising his reasoning, except to the extent that it undermines the reputation of his firm (which, I agree with you, it probably will). Carry on and good work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702659) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:34 PM Author: Dun heaven I doubt the poor fool will respond. But please post the email if he does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702604) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 11:38 AM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen no response. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7711115) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:42 PM Author: Curious orchestra pit macaca Sign with your real name? School email address? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702644) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:26 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen of course not. askloafer@gmail.com (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702906) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 10:21 AM Author: Laughsome national Get a response yet? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7710902) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 11:38 AM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7711117) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 2:58 PM Author: Disturbing piazza Holy shit, he does product liability and mass tort litigation (presumably on the defendant side). How is that for "making a difference"? What a complete, utter hypocrite. This guy represents everything that is wrong with Biglaw partners.
And to echo the sentiment above, I don't see the upside to publishing an article like this. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:18 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend Maybe the upside is that he's telling his fellow biglaw partners what they want to hear. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702525) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:05 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702483) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:24 PM Author: Laughsome national Haha. Penn grad too. SWeet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702554) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:24 PM Author: charismatic theatre place of business Remember the reason you went to law school: to make a difference, but God forbid you work at few years in Biglaw to pay down your crushing debt and then leave to go make a difference.
BTW if Biglaw firms gave assoicates the ability to "make a difference" they wouldn't be leaving in droves.
Over under on this guy's LSAT. I'll start at 160. I say slightly under. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:41 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen he's not dumb so much as self-interested and disingenuous, or at least deluded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702639) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:43 PM Author: charismatic theatre place of business His reasoning = retarded.
You would think a biglaw partner would be able to hid his self-interest just a little bit? |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:54 PM Author: garnet glittery quadroon LSAT was probably out of 48 when he took it - I go 43. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702713) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:26 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner Someone should forward all of this to ATL and the WSJ law blog (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702567) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:27 PM Author: Disturbing piazza David Lat is definitely a regular here. He was probably arrow. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702574) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:28 PM Author: orchid mentally impaired locale hahahaha. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702581) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:05 PM Author: frozen parlor joires (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702793) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:30 PM Author: sinister aromatic masturbator whorehouse I love how he thinks that increased salaries will have no (incentive) effect on associate attrition, yet will discourage people becoming federal judges. LOL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702591) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:37 PM Author: Disturbing piazza He can't exactly be expected to understand economic incentives as a products liability/mass torts litigator. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702616) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:38 PM Author: Lascivious Cerise Yarmulke Address Subject: What a hypocrite I was about to say the same thing. What a fool. One more reason not to work at A&P.
"Is there any reason to think that more money will keep associates longer and drive attrition rates down? I don’t think so."
"When the disparity between law firm salaries and government salaries reaches the point it has now, some lawyers who would otherwise have been attracted to public service will not be able to make the sacrifice, and the public will be the poorer for it." |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:42 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend If anything, the associate raises will ENcourage people to become federal judges, since by lowering PPP they slightly reduce the pay gap between judges and partners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702640) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:44 PM Author: charismatic theatre place of business Wrong, they will want to become 1st year assoicates and the large pay difference between assoicates and federal judges will reduce the quality of judges. Duh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702657) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:45 PM Author: chrome vigorous coldplay fan karate yo lay off the pipe buddy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702665) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:38 PM Author: lavender electric queen of the night Subject: on writ of certiorari to the XO SCOTUS The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. A decision from this Court will be released within the next 48 hours. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:53 PM Author: Gold floppy pit This should be awesome. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702705) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:12 PM Author: frozen parlor Or really fucking lame and stupid. I hope it'll be awesome, though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702833) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:54 PM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend Looks like Orin Kerr is as unimpressed by Sandman's self-serving logic as we are:
Greed is Good For Partners, Just Not For Associates: Writing in the DC Bar's Washington Lawyer magazine, Arnold & Partner former managing partner (and current DC Bar President) James J. Sandman argues that it hurts partners, judges, the American people, and associates themselves to pay associates too much money. According to Sandman, high associate salaries are bad because they teach young lawyers that money is everything -- and even worse, they cut into the partnership's profits. (Hat tip: Lat) http://www.volokh.com/posts/1172941772.shtml |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 3:57 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner lol @ Arnold and Partner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702733) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:04 PM Author: Laughsome national lol, but it's not like they deserve to be spelled correctly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702779) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:15 PM Author: frozen parlor Agreed. Arnold & Porter is a pretty shitty firm, especially when compared to the other DC litigation firms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702853) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:07 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen he totally reads this board (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702804) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:15 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner He's acknowledged as much in the past. Awesome prof. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702862) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:18 PM Author: Snowy Pisswyrm Psychic What a dumb, dumb thing to write. You know what's weird about this, though? I've read good things about him elsewhere. America's top places to work with a JD, for example, says that associates at A&P love him. Maybe he's just loosing his touch in his old age.
Also, if he doesn't like the pay raises so much, why doesn't he just cut salaries at A&P? He can cut them to the entry level salary for clerks---$60K. That will surely make clients, young associates, and partners happy. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:25 PM Author: Laughsome national "America's top places to work with a JD, for example, says that associates at A&P love him."
I bet not anymore. |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 4:29 PM Author: bipolar bronze liquid oxygen he keeps them chained to his boiler with mortgages and student debt, and if they say anything bad to the press, he beats them with a hose (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7702925) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 5:56 PM Author: Odious Cream Stage I agree w/ his points about providing things like better mentorship and training and reducing billable hours instead of only hiking pay rates. His other points are garbage; what a self-serving TTT w/ absolutely no logical reasoning skills. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703311) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:38 PM Author: rebellious orange university partner the DC associates are probably already grumbling about still being at $145. I wonder if this is meant to send any sort of message? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703677) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2007 7:49 PM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig DC associates were overpaid at $125K. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7703731) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 2:31 AM Author: insane very tactful school http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/profiles/profile2.php?firm=19 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7705651) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 2:49 AM Author: heady spruce set trump supporter You and Rach should do more substantive work like that and less threatening to out people. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7705689) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 2:50 AM Author: insane very tactful school No one's been threatened, geez. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7705690) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 2:51 AM Author: heady spruce set trump supporter Carry on, soldier. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7705694) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 8:21 AM Author: idiotic ebony hominid codepig That's a nice idea. If it is constantly updated it'll become quite valuable in years to come.
You should add the Shearman info. See, e.g., http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=443768&mc=18&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 10:51 AM Author: insane very tactful school Thanks, will do! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7710966) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 11:58 AM Author: Dun heaven Interesting. This could be like Vault, except useful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7711202) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2007 3:56 AM Author: Pale Fragrant Temple So many things wrong with this article. But the top thing is there's nothing worse than a rich biglaw partner telling associates to leave cheaply and "follow their dreams." Add to that a false concern for the pay difference with government employees (will he cut his own salary to make the Supreme Court Justices feel better?) and you have an asshole hypocrite whose greed shines through. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7705747) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 9:22 AM Author: galvanic dilemma organic girlfriend bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7710819) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 11:29 AM Author: walnut dead casino The greatest irony in this article is that he claims all firms will follow the salary increase, but his firm hasn't. Because A&P and the rest of the DC firms are too cheap to go above $145K, they are all at a recruiting disadvantage to STB and the rest of the NY firms. No wonder he's upset. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=589343&forum_id=2#7711088) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2007 4:46 PM Author: Laughsome national More bullshit:
Is Raising Salaries the Best Way to Retain Associates? Elizabeth Goldberg and Ben Hallman The American Lawyer
A partner at Greenberg Traurig was meeting with attorneys from five law firms when he learned that Simpson Thacher & Bartlett had raised associate salaries across the board.
"Every BlackBerry in the room started flashing," he recalls.
It was 4:30 p.m. on Jan. 22. At least five firms matched the next day, and by the end of the week, the sticker price for a new associate in the New York market was up for the second time in a little more than a year -- to $160,000.
The raise surprised competitors and legal consultants alike and caused many to question whether another pay increase makes sense. They point out that pay isn't associates' main gripe (uncertain partnership prospects and grueling hours top this list). Robert Link Jr., managing partner of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, goes even further. If improving associate morale was Simpson's goal, says Link, the raise may do more harm than good.
A higher salary "puts more pressure on productivity and hours," says Link, exacerbating precisely the quality-of-life issues that make junior lawyers unhappy.
"I don't know what Simpson was thinking," he adds.
Even as Link made those remarks, he was getting ready to write bigger checks. Cadwalader matched Simpson's pay raise within a day. Competitors had little choice but to follow suit. Link says there was "no deliberation" at Cadwalader: "We won't allow Simpson or any firm to distance themselves."
Across town, at Dewey Ballantine, Chair Morton Pierce convened his executive committee "immediately" upon learning the news, and the firm matched soon after.
Simpson Chair Philip "Pete" Ruegger probably didn't expect the raise to clinch him the Most Popular award at the managing partners club. And he knows that a pay raise is not a panacea for associates' woes. But Simpson lawyers don't hand out money -- the firm will pay at least $8 million more to its 520 associates in 2007 -- without a good reason.
One reason is public relations. "The perception that we're paying attention to compensation for associates will hopefully earn us goodwill," says Ruegger. If it's attention he wants, mission accomplished. The raise drew a blizzard of media attention. Law students, lawyers at Simpson and potential laterals could not have missed the news.
Another reason for the raise, according to Ruegger, was getting a leg up in the competition for talent in law schools. That competition is fierce. Firms are growing, and law schools are increasingly unable to meet their needs.
The number of associates at National Law Journal 250 firms increased 76 percent from 1996 to 2006, while the number of law school graduates climbed just 7 percent during that period.
Meanwhile, grads have more career options than ever, particularly on Wall Street.
"We've seen a lot more interest in the past year from investment banks and hedge funds," says Mark Weber, the assistant dean for career services at Harvard Law School. He says Wall Street is hiring more young grads -- the phenomena is too new to say exactly how many -- but the real demand is for midlevel associates.
This suggests that Ruegger's third explanation for the raise -- retaining midlevel associates -- may come closest to the heart of the matter. Simpson is a leader in the representation of investment banks and private equity firms as well as in the small club of firms that represent the big hedge funds. The associates who work on these matters make a lot of money for Simpson, and the firm is desperate to keep them.
Of course, these people are also cotton candy to Wall Street. As both investment banks and the legal industry boom, the battle for associates with a few years of deal-making experience becomes more intense. The use of high-caliber weaponry -- in the form of big raises -- would seem to be a solid strategic move.
But if it's these people Simpson wants to reach, the firm may not have chosen the best message. The pay increase speaks loudest to law students, according to consultant Carolyn Wehmann. Nor will it will change the game in terms of compensation. Law firms can't hope to match Wall Street. A third-year associate recently left Schulte Roth & Zabel for a hedge fund with a salary approaching $700,000, according to Georgina MacKenzie, a New York-based director at Michael Page International, a financial services recruiting firm. An extreme example, perhaps, but one that illustrates the problem facing law firms.
Ruegger acknowledges the gap. He says Simpson can't compete on a "money basis" with the investment banks. Will the raise let Simpson compete on a quality-of-life basis?
Doubtful. Money isn't necessarily an associate's first concern. On The American Lawyer's 2006 survey of midlevel associates, Simpson scored much better in terms of satisfaction with benefits and compensation than it did with overall associate happiness.
"What the salary increase can't and won't do is address associates' myriad of concerns about more communication, more feedback and more robust training opportunities," says Miriam Herman of Blaqwell Inc., a legal consulting firm.
As for overall associate happiness, the raise could have a negative impact.
Many firms will ask associates to cover their own raises with longer days or higher productivity. During the last round of hikes, Dechert raised its New York salary from $125,000 to $145,000. At the same time, the firm raised its minimum billables from 1,950 to 2,000 hours, according to associates at Dechert. An associate at Covington & Burling says that even if there isn't a formal change in the requirements, partners will simply expect more hours.
"We don't say, 'Here's your raise, now work 50 more hours,'" says Roger Warin, chairman of Steptoe & Johnson. "But associates know, for most firms, that's the way the math works."
If the raise was a mistake, it was an expensive one. The game of keeping up with the Wall Street Joneses isn't cheap. While $8 million may represent a mere 2 percent of Simpson's net profits in 2005, it does mean that a minimum of $50,000 of per-equity partner profit will be redistributed to the associates. Not that firms intend to cut partner salaries to pay for the raise. While partner profits have grown almost twice as much as associate salaries over the last decade, consultants say that firms will raise either associate hours or hourly rates before they ask partners to pony up.
"They're going to have to squeeze more blood out of the turnip," says Peter Zeughauser, lead consultant at Zeughauser Group.
Of course, turnips, at least those of the associate variety, aren't complaining about getting paid more money.
"Everybody is happy that salaries have been going up," Harvard's Weber says. "But at what cost?"
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter/lawArticleCareerCenter.jsp?id=1172743391190 |