Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:33 PM Author: Smoky office
We believe we have the finest legal team of any global law firm. In appreciation of your efforts, we are pleased to increase associate base salaries as follows, effective January 1, 2007:
Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000
We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, to $160,000.
Counsel and classes senior to 1998 will be addressed on an individual basis.
Again, on behalf of the Firm, thank you for your commitment and hard work.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:40 PM Author: Bisexual Church Mediation
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
MEMORANDUM TO ALL ASSOCIATES AND COUNSEL
The Firm has been very busy and we expect the high level of activity to continue. We are proud of the results we are helping our clients achieve.
We believe we have the finest legal team of any global law firm. In appreciation of your efforts, we are pleased to increase associate base salaries as follows, effective January 1, 2007:
Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000
We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, to $160,000.
Counsel and classes senior to 1998 will be addressed on an individual basis.
Again, on behalf of the Firm, thank you for your commitment and hard work.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM Author: Carmine angry genital piercing marketing idea
Wow, they really resisted going to 135, but you're right, it's hard to imagine that they'll stay there if it's 25k below NY. (That differential is probably more that fair, given the COL, but 2Ls don't always think that way.)
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:02 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
but firms still want to attract people who might otherwise go to new york. in chicago they like to be able to say, "hey, this is like new york but without all the bad stuff and much much cheaper"
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:19 PM Author: jet-lagged pozpig area
STB pays lockstep salaries and bonuses across all offices. No telling what other firms in DC & Cali will do, but STB associates will be making a sweet $160,000 to start.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:57 PM Author: Violent vivacious university
I don't think it is an even differential - as the other poster noted, DC COL isn't THAT much lower than NYC. Plus, DC bonuses are typically significantly less than NYC.
I really don't see how DC can't bump up after this. A total comp. difference of about $40k between NYC & DC just seems way too high.
Date: January 23rd, 2007 9:16 AM Author: harsh up-to-no-good menage philosopher-king
I think I'm just hoping for $160k in DC, SF or LA. The partners at Latham, Covington, etc. have a hard decision to make, but moving up to $150k seems credited to hold the line. This should make OCI kinda interesting.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
it's also an unnecessary risk. It's much more likely that word would go out that someone was going to put out a raise memo on monday afternoon and everyone gets the message
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM Author: Indecent incel
just checking my instinct :) seems like it would be pretty hard to keep something like that secret. as far as enforcement, i would think that some subset of NLRB, FTC, and DOJ would be able to do something about it, not just associates individually or as a class.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:07 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
I know, i know, but I'm just thinking it would be awfully hard to prove and i'm sure they've all been very careful about it. Like, I'm sure a couple firms will wait until tomorrow to match just to put some distance in it.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:14 PM Author: Odious alcoholic resort
especially in the age of email, there's always, ALWAYS something on paper. all it takes is one leak, or even economic evidence for the DOJ to start trolling through documents. and if they find it... holy shit there'd be hell to pay
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:56 PM Author: Sick Swashbuckling Multi-billionaire Public Bath
Smarter, the promo material said that compensation would be at the level of "top-tier NY firms." If our firm doesn't raise, they've got some 'splaining to do.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:16 PM Author: Mischievous peach location love of her life
yeah, but didnt this happen a couple of years ago when the market went to 145 and the firm initially said it was going to keep SAs at 125 and only after getting ridiculed on this board and others did they change it.
I could see that happening again, but lets hope they learned their lesson.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:11 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
why the hell does it matter? Should someone at Cravath be jealous of fried frank associates and regret that decision because they got notice a couple of days earlier?
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:14 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
Well, the decision to work in NYC or Cali is a pretty big one regardless of money. Or are you suggesting that you should have worked in STB's Cali office?
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:03 PM Author: cracking liquid oxygen
Well the difference between $125k and what I took instead was pretty big, but it seemed worth it because I liked the other, smaller firm. It was a tough decision though.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:27 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
honestly in new york at least they cannot squeeze any more hours out of people. It's a lot more likely that they are doing this to retain more mid-levels and seniors and therefore increase their effective billing rates
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:29 AM Author: Topaz Stage
I'd be curious to see the math. I know that a 1st year out of college in I-banking makes approx $150k with bonus. That comes with a 120-130hr wk. An associate just out of an MBA program makes about what, $300k-350k with a 100-120hr wk.? How's this compare to an average BigLaw requirement (not billable but rather actual workweek to equal the billable)?
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:42 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
because that goes against the tradition of law firms and guess what, hurts junior associates' morale. how would you feel about a firm that says, "hey, we had a great year, everyone gets a raise but you". Sounds like a great way to keep the people you are shafting in the organization
Date: January 23rd, 2007 11:59 AM Author: hot space mexican
there's no need for a requirement, even an unspoken one, if you're given a constant stream of work that will keep you billing 50-60 hours per week.
regardless of how hard it is to get fired in BIGLAW, i think most people understand that if they're given 60 hours of work and only do half of it (thereby working around a 40-hour week), they're probably going to get kicked out the door.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:00 PM Author: Wine laughsome set
Can someone (preferably someone in the know like GTO or Hazelrah) please explain the logic of this move to me. Why would STB move to $160 when all they had to do was stay where they were. If they wanted to show some good faith, they could've just upped bonuses $5K over market for each class year.
A raise to $160K, plus the market $30-$35K bonus, means that 25 year old kids with no work experience at all will be pulling down roughly $200K in salary. This just doesn't seem like a logical move given the high turnover rates at STB (and all V50 firms). It's also likely to make the partnership at all of STB's peer firms resent them.
Personally, I'm skeptical about the autenticity of this memo. But if it's for real, I'm even more skeptical about the rest of the NYC market matching after they just rasied $20K in base salary a year ago.
I do think, however, that a bold move like this might be enough to push the L.A./Chicago/D.C. markets to meet NYC at $145K.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:07 PM Author: Wine laughsome set
So you think that STB is setting the bar higher than they think their peer firms are willing to go?
I never understood the term "compensation leader". Does that mean they are always ahead of the market rate, or that they just set the market and then everyone catches up later?
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:13 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
I never got that "good will" concept. As long as my firm matches, I could give a shit who goes first. We all get paid the same anyway, except for Wachtell and apparently kirkland.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:15 PM Author: Abnormal Goal In Life
i think it exists
since there's not much (at least for 2Ls) to distinguish between firms, whether one has an image as a 'compensation leader' or 'grudging follower' figures a bit into the calculus
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:31 PM Author: aquamarine nighttime quadroon
Even still, would knowing that STB set the market this year meaningfully affect the decision of future 2Ls, when they also know that every peer firm will inevitably match?
It's possible, I guess. But it didn't factor into my decision, and I somehow doubt it factored into other students' decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that STB stepped it up, but I just don't see how it benefits them in recruiting.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:37 PM Author: Abnormal Goal In Life
well, the effect on recruiting is probably just incidental - as others have stated on the thread, it's probably mainly to improve retention. they're making tons of money, having attrition problems, and need to get people to stay. i'm sure having an image as "market leaders" confers other side benefits
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:39 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
" i'm sure having an image as "market leaders" confers other side benefits"
No, it doesn't. I don't know where you people get this idea. being market leaders has nothing to do with anything other than being the first to send out the memo.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:44 PM Author: Abnormal Goal In Life
now you're being ridiculous. are you claiming to know the reasons behind every law student's choice to go to or turn down firms in this and past recruiting seasons? how do you know it didnt affect one person per school? two people? 10? 20? we both only have anecdotal experience, but the mere fact that mine invalidates yours makes your assertion silly.
i'm not sure why you're so fired up against the idea. yes, you like your firm better than STB. you're annoyed they didnt raise first. we get it.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:48 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
Totally different point. Yes, I am sure some kids went to some firm or another because it was a market leader. I never denied that - in fact, I agree with it whole heartedly.
Just because people do it, however, does not mean that it is rational for them to use this as a factor. My point is that there are no side benefits and, really, no benefit at all for having your firm announce first.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:53 PM Author: Abnormal Goal In Life
Well, we'll agree to disagree. I think the mere fact that reputation as a 'market leader' will affect some peoples' choices (which you agree with) is a side benefit (which you disagree with).
Like it or not, firms spent a lot of money on recruiting, to set themselves apart from the competition, and to sell themselves to students, and any edge in making students (who = lucrative future profits) choose them over peer firms would, imo, be the definition a 'side benefit'
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:58 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
A side benefit - to the firm? Or to the associate? I can see how you can argue its a side benefit to the firm because they might get a couple of extra hires (which i'd argue is very minor but does exist), but I don't get how this is a side benefit to the associate. What does the STB associate get from this? Added prestige on XOXO? They certainly get nothing substantive.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:01 PM Author: Abnormal Goal In Life
oh, i'm speaking solely about the firm. this subthread consists of me saying that "firms get a lot of good will, esp in recruiting (even if it's not justified), for being the 'first to go to X' " and someone else asking whether "Even still, would knowing that STB set the market this year meaningfully affect the decision of future 2Ls, when they also know that every peer firm will inevitably match?" the answer to that is pretty clear
i agree that it's pretty useless perk for associates, as long as everyone else is matching
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:05 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
Yes, there is some bizarre recruiting benefit for STB, I agree with that. I've never quite understood it, though, because I don't see any benefit for associates.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:45 PM Author: Insane gas station
You are speaking for yourself, which makes you sound stupid. Personally, I know more than a few people who, all things equal, would like to work for the firm that leads rather than follows.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:50 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
All thing are equal. Are there some associates that get off on it? Sure. I'm sure there are also some associates at Skadden who get off on having free hot cocoa. This doesn't mean that the thing itself, here, announcing first, actually has any value.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:03 PM Author: demanding trip step-uncle's house
Ever heard of a little firm called Gunderson Dettmer? Being the first to announce actually is hot shit for the same reasons that any positive PR is hot shit.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:19 PM Author: Internet-worthy address
Yes, there are some associates who consider that working at a market leader constitutes a benefit; therefore, STB will receive a benefit from being perceived as a market leader (although the degree of this benefit is probably very small and certainly not large enough, by itself, to cover the cost of the raise).
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:34 AM Author: Topaz Stage
As someone who went through the process, I didn't care who first went up to $145k so long as the firms that made me an offer did. Now it would be interesting if this happened during recruiting season. Then I would care!
But isn't this really about mid-level/senior associates?
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:16 PM Author: Wine laughsome set
Same here. If all the firms match $160K, they'll make it retroactive to Jan 1st, so it won't matter which firm declared "first". As long as my firm "follows the market", I'll be happy.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:20 PM Author: Insane gas station
A firm that is at the forefront of compensation is likely a better place to work and provide other substantial perks than one that only pays the absolute minimum required to their associates.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:35 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
what difference does it make what they exhibit right now? Everyone will get paid the same in the end. And, btw, S&C didn't say that, and their bonuses weren't lowered.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:40 PM Author: Abnormal Goal In Life
i know the actual bonuses werent lowered, but they took some flak for their announcement. i'm pretty sure it was S+C, i would double check for the posts but GA has slowed to a crawl. look it up later
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:25 PM Author: Odious alcoholic resort
fuck that. S&C's partners tried to stunt their associates' pay. who wants to work for a bunch of greedy bastards? the more you prove that STB's partners had nothing to gain by this, the more i see it as an actual reflection of the firm's attitude toward the associates, and the more i'd want to work there.
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:57 AM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
(1) discuess this S&C on the other thread, no evidence that they were trying to limit anything, (2) STB has nothing to gain by going first. They have a lot to gain if they feel that the higher salary will mean more retention. But that has nothing to do with them going first.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:20 PM Author: scarlet theater
EDIT: This was a response to the post below on PPPs, although it's pretty applicable here too.
I think this is the credited response. Seriously I was surprised that STB didn't step up the bonus instead of salaries, because that would seem the easier way to do this. But maybe they thought higher salaries would hold off attrition more than bonuses (associates might just grab the bonus and run).
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:16 PM Author: chartreuse field old irish cottage
just wait until PPP #'s come back. simpson had an absolutely ridiculous year in private equity/ M+A. their numbers will likely be so high that they would have been embarrassed not to raise salaries. throw in that simpson was late to act on the bonuses this year (by late, i mean not 1st, 2nd or 3rd) and that theyve taken a huge recruiting hit because of the fact that associates are literally clocked in and out of the office, and the move makes perfect sense.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:12 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
if everyone in new york matches, this is exactly the kind of thing that is going to make every firm that thinks highly of its self to raise salaries a little bit. Hard to see Jones Day in cleveland continuing to hold the line at 125k when they are supposedly trying to draw the same kind of people that go to firms in chicago and new york
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:36 PM Author: Wine laughsome set
Assuming first-years bill out at $275/hour (which is the midrange between $250-$300/hour), when you multiply it by 2200 hours in a year...a first-year brings in $605,000 total. Some of those hours, however, are likely to be cut down by the supervising/billing attorney.
Note that it also costs the firm anywhere between $250,000-$400,000 to recruit, train, pay salary to and provide benefit packages and perks (i.e. blackberries, laptops, gym and parking subsidies, etc.) for a single first-year associate.
So firms really don't make much of young associates at all. In fact, some firms barely break even on new associates the first 2 years.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:41 PM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
This partner sob story argument is flawed. YOu have to take into account that partner's couldn't bill as much as they did if they didn't have a team of associates work for them. Associates all the firms to take on deals, which make the partners money irrespective of what the associate actually bills.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:57 PM Author: Wine laughsome set
I dont know any firms in NY whose first-years bill out at more than $300/hour (unless they are specialized, like patent litigators).
And don't buy into the hype that NYC lawyers bill "significantly more" than 2200 hours. 2200 hours is pretty average, and a great deal of NYC attorneys never even make it to 2200.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:18 PM Author: Wine laughsome set
You've clearly never worked a firm a day in your life.
2400 is NOT on the "low end" for a v10. The only places where you're likely to find more than 25% of associates billing 2400+ is at Watchtell and Cravath.
At all other V10s, 2400 would be considered above average.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM Author: Irate mustard business firm bbw
yeah, stupid to speculate on total comp. but having a high guaranteed salary is one advantage over ibanking (it helps sign a lease for instance)...firms should leverage that more to discourage attrition to clients.
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:59 AM Author: Sepia mildly autistic coffee pot cruise ship
it was based on a non-commital statement that said very little either way. The fact that they did nothing further to weaken the market suggest the statement to the paper meant nothing when it was said. No other firm was guaranteeing full bonuses at the time.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:36 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
law firm associates almost never take a paycut and never get fired. Ibankers and PE people take a paycut more than half of the time, are laid off during down years and generally have to leave if they dont make VP in two or three years.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:57 PM Author: Infuriating senate hairy legs
yeah, i dont know why anyone would want to be a lawyer vs. a banker in NYC. the effect on other markets is more intriguing though... and banker bonuses are likely coming to a crashing halt this year or the next
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:03 PM Author: Bisexual Church Mediation
incorrect. base for ib is substantially lower than this. also, if you think that ib'ing bonuses of the last couple years are the norm, you're new to the game.
Technically, even with the $15K bump to other firms, they'll still be paying on average $2K more than their competitors. (This is if you factor in bonuses -- and if you assume the bonuses at the firms that raise will stay at the same level.) So they don't necessarily need to move.
Date: January 24th, 2007 7:32 PM Author: Useless low-t boistinker
Perhaps, but if I were at Kirkland and were willing to lateral, I'd sure as hell prefer a set 160K base salary promise (along with the incremental payments of that sum throughout the year) to having to continue to rely on partner generosity bonus-time just to keep up with other firms.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:20 PM Author: ocher heady crackhouse
while lat was writing his blog and pretending to be a woman, earl was running wind sprints with his asian b-ball team, preparing for exactly this situation.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:30 PM Author: supple really tough guy
For a lot of firms, there won't be much of a bonus system to go for, unless you're super hardcore. These base salary raises aren't coming entirely from partner profit, I can tell you that.
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:35 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
I honestly dont think there will be much more pressure to bill. The partners of STB intend to make money on the raise not by getting more hours out of juniors but by getting more juniors to stay and become mid-levels and seniors--that's where the real profit margin is in a law firm anyway. Increasing the pressure on the juniors just to get another 30 or 40 billables out of each associate would undermine that goal.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:42 PM Author: Odious alcoholic resort
probably. but it would be pretty amazing if they had the balls to go all the way to $200k. it would be like someone suddenly turned the volume way down on the rest of this furor.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:26 PM Author: milky hall faggot firefighter
They had already raised to $145K in DC right after new years though. I wonder if that was a bit of a precursor to another bump in NYC. My friend told me the memo said specifically though that DC was making a bump to *match* NYC, making it sound like the two offices would have equivalent pay going forward. Who knows.
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:23 PM Author: scarlet theater
Next time we need to post the memo. But then David Lat would probably say something like, "You saw the memo copied to a blog here first, folks. PLEASE CREDIT ABOVE THE LAW."
Date: January 23rd, 2007 7:24 AM Author: Hairraiser Useless Brakes People Who Are Hurt
Under this compensation scheme, a new associate will earn a million dollars in 4.5 years, and NET a million in 6 years.
Who gives a shit about making partner anymore? Just live cheaply, make the bare minimum on your billables, and when you get pushed out, you can do something else.
Date: January 23rd, 2007 8:16 AM Author: dashing national lettuce
I've always thought this as well. Not saying it's easy to work in big law for 8 years, but living well yet smart for those 8 years could net you a significant nest egg.
Date: January 25th, 2007 1:11 AM Author: Topaz Stage
In what world? Buying a studio anywhere decent in NYC costs $500k. Unless you wanna live in Brigthon Beach in which case you can get a 1bdrm. If you wanna live in the city, $1m for a 1bdrm/2bth worth living in is cheap. How do people afford to live these days? Work here for a couple years, then move to the Poconos?
Date: January 26th, 2007 2:11 PM Author: jet-lagged pozpig area
The interest on a million dollars, at 5%, would be $50,000/year. Median income in this country is around $45,000/year. You could easily retire on the interest if you accepted a moderate standard of living, and you could even live on less and let your principle keep growing. NYC wouldn't be your best bet, but you could even live there if you rented.
Or you could work part-time doing whatever you want, and still maintain a standard of living that is well above average.
Plus, at upper-level associate rates it would only take you a few more years (along with compounding interest) to double up. And if your SO was making money the whole time you were, you'd be even wealthier.
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:41 PM Author: fuchsia startling kitchen
Too bad a report a few months ago found that iBankers and lawyers have awful sex lives. It was ain a feature on "Extreme" jobs. Being actually *wealthy* might get you better sex though. Salaries are not wealth.
"Ian Kerner, a New York-based sex therapist, says the study sheds new light on the links between money and sex. One reason that wealth would equate to better sex, he says, is that money helps alleviate many of the daily stresses that can inhibit a couple’s sex life.
“I see in my practice that financial stress can have huge impacts on the libido and can cause general dissatisfaction,” he says. “When you strip away those elements of financial hardship and stress, that can make for better sex. This shows that sex and money are very intertwined.”
Date: January 25th, 2007 2:22 PM Author: concupiscible stage
this is a really good point. i often think of this as i try to figure out why i believe i would be happier with money. because the daily stresses would melt away.
Date: January 26th, 2007 2:17 PM Author: jet-lagged pozpig area
Anything that doesn't look like a blatant attempt to leech off LSD's goodwill would be better. "Law Firm Information" or something. Anything but "Discussion" or "Jive."
Date: January 24th, 2007 9:46 AM Author: arrogant national security agency corn cake
Interesting ... why do wilmerhale, gibson, jones day, a&p, hogan, ropes have so many unknowns? Do associates at those firms not leak their memos? Maybe raises are communicated in person or by paper memo?
Date: January 24th, 2007 11:57 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
doesnt work that way, you moron. If you want more people to get to the 4th year you dont screw them by giving everyone else a raise but them. That doesn't make any fucking sense
Date: January 25th, 2007 4:58 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
because it doesn't fucking help you retain seniors if you are paying 3rd and 4ths just as much and it doesnt fucking help you retain juniors if they dont get a raise. What is so fucking hard to understand about this? You have to retain juniors for them to become mid-levels and seniors
Date: January 28th, 2007 8:03 PM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
you need to understand that in order to get more people to senior level you have to keep them from leaving after year 1, 2, 3, and so on. Just boosting the salary for year 5 and higher does about as much for junior morale as an increase in PPP. Also, it's a slap in the face to give higher levels a raise and not lower ones. This is not a corporation. This is a law firm. In a law firm there is an expectation that associates will be treated equally. I know this fucks up your dumb argument but you'll have to trust me on this one until you actually work at a large firm.
Date: January 29th, 2007 2:37 AM Author: Odious alcoholic resort
if your problem is that years 4-5 are leaving more rapidly than you'd like, it makes a lot of sense to my mind to increase their weekly paycheck. if junior associates and senior associates aren't leaving more rapidly than you'd like, it makes a lot of sense to my mind not to increase their weekly paycheck.
perhaps you have a point that all associates want to get a raise at once, but i'm not convinced. besides, all associates *don't* get treated equally -- senior associates are practically partners in terms of their authority over junior associates.
Date: January 29th, 2007 11:31 AM Author: Splenetic unhinged school idea he suggested
dude if you don't think that junior associates would be in revolt if seniors got a raise and they didn't you are delusional and have never worked at a firm. Associates expect to be treated equally with respect to raises, period. and the problem isn't that firms are losing too many people between year 4 and year 5. They are losing too many people at every level
Date: January 26th, 2007 2:23 PM Author: jet-lagged pozpig area
Skadden's merely matching? If they continue to pay below-market bonuses their associates will get screwed.
Maybe they've given up on pretending to be generous by paying above-market salaries and below-market bonuses, and they'll just match like other firms do?
From Law.com: Washington-based Covington & Burling also announced Monday it was raising its salary for first-year associates to $145,000 in the District