The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
LA firms increase PPP in 2005; Gibson, Latham at $1.6m
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:11 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Quinn - $1.9m (+1%) Gibson - $1.635m (+8%) O'Melveny - $1.615 (+23%) / $1.515m all partners Latham - $1.602m (+14%) / $1.400m all partners Paul Hastings - $1.325m (+13%) Munger - ~$1.08m (+4%) Manatt - $1m Loeb - $926k (+30%) Sheppard - $785k (+15%) Allen Matkins - $675k (+16%)
Irell not yet reporting.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1138961110211 http://www.legalweekstudent.net/ViewItem.asp?id=27628
Last year: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=136852&mc=2&forum_id=2#3983802 |
 |
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:26 AM Author: Plum Odious Step-uncle's House Hominid How do these figures related to associates?
I know a high PPP is good for partners. But does that conversely mean that a high PPP is bad for associates?
I'm clueless. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:28 AM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm Firms will take a small slice of PPP and give it to associates as their discretionary bonuses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998492) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:30 AM Author: Plum Odious Step-uncle's House Hominid So a high PPP benefits both partners *and* associates in terms of compensation, is that correct?
But doesn't it also mean that the associates were billing more hours than their competetors (to get the PPP so high above the competition)?
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:32 AM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm Yes.
Not necessarily. It could just mean the firm had a major windfall case that year. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:33 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Interesting thing about Quinn is that while their 2004 jump in PPP was attributed to a big contingency case(s), they seem to have maintained that PPP this year even without it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998527) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:36 AM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm ask greedy la. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998552) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:34 AM Author: Sick Church Building Or it can suggest they're leveraging the hell out of their associates and there's not much hope for them to ever make partner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998533) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:10 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker Exactly. "Windfalls" don't happen in biglaw unless you're in the rare firm (Quinn, Boies, Susman) that does contingency work. Otherwise, windfall just means the firm was ridiculously busy and thus was leveraging the hell out of each and every associate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000641) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:29 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Well, it's hard to say that without knowing how busy the firm was the year before -- this increase could just put the firm back at "normal" work levels. Also firms like Gibson and Latham might increase overall PPP if some traditionally slower branch offices (and overseas offices) picked up a lot of new work -- although I guess that usually ends up spilling over to main offices as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000780) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:53 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker Sure, I just meant that "windfall" in biglaw means someone was working harder somewhere. It doesn't mean they unexpectedly got a $500 million jury verdict in a products liability case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000991) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:58 PM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm This is not really true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001035) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:00 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker Educate me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001046) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:04 PM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm I was at a dinner party last night where a biglaw partner was talking about a windfall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001076) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:15 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker I guess that settles it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001120) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:19 PM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm Meh, its not uncommon is all I'm saying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001137) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:23 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker I just don't understand how a windfall is even theoretically possible under a billable hours system, unless one office is just totally out of touch with how much another office is working. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001152) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:26 PM Author: mahogany aggressive rigpig national This is just a semantic disagreement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001161) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:30 PM Author: cocky spot ratface contingency fees (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001176) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:31 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Wow, somebody didn't read the thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001178) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:32 PM Author: cocky spot ratface so shoot me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001183) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:29 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake This board sometimes likes to use PPP as a proxy for firm prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998504) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:31 AM Author: Plum Odious Step-uncle's House Hominid Is there a PPP ranking (for all firms, not just LA) that I can find online?
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:32 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake If you have Westlaw, look up last year's AmLaw 100 and AmLaw 200 issues.
EDIT: Here's a cite: 8/2005 AMLAW 113 |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:34 AM Author: Plum Odious Step-uncle's House Hominid If PPP is a proxy for prestige, why is Munger so highly regarded on this board? PPP of $1M doesn't seem very prestigious (relatively). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998537) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:37 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake This board also likes to use selectivity as a proxy for prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998555) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:38 AM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm You say that with a pejorative tone, but both are clearly the most empirical measures of prestige. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998562) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:40 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Even somebody who's been online as long as me has trouble conveying tone accurately online. I actually didn't mean it either positively or negatively. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998581) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:41 AM Author: Big ruddy stage pisswyrm It was the "this board" part I guess. Sorry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998588) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:42 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake I might have been criticizing the board's obsession with firm prestige a bit, but I didn't mean anything regarding selectivity as a factor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998601) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:47 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Some more counterexamples are Cahill Gordon and Cadwalader, both with PPP over $2 million in 2004, but aren't generally regarded as very prestigious on xoxo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998621) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:55 AM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch See my post below. Cadwalader is probably a good example of a firm that runs a good business and makes smart financial decisions. They own their building. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998680) |
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:54 AM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch High PPP's aren't necessarily bad for associates and don't necessarily mean a firm is drilling its associates harder.
Some firms are managed better than others. Some firms have lazy old partners getting paid to do nothing. Or they'll have a bunch of high-paid managing partners who don't practice much law. A law firm is like any other business, and it can blow a ton of money due to bad decisions.
A high PPP firm is probably a good thing for associates. Business is stable. Partners doing well and have good work for you and aren't going to leave for another firm. Bonuses aren't likely to be in doubt. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:07 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake This makes sense. All other things being equal, happy partners are probably good for associates.
Obviously there's a limit to what you can do with any single statistic, but I wonder how you'd interpret revenue per lawyer numbers? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:14 AM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch Whatever statistic you're looking at, your "happy partners are probably good for associates" is going to hold true.
A firm that is more profitable is probably one with good business practices, not one that squeezes a few more hours out of its associates. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:16 AM Author: Sick Church Building I don't see how "good business practices" and "one that squeezes a few more hours out of its associates" are opposed. Are you saying they've reached the optimal level of slave driving? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998839) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:21 AM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch That would be a fair thing to say. Trying to squeeze extra hours out of associates may have negative effects, too. Quality of work goes down, time needed to be written off, lawyers are more unhappy and prone to leave, firm's reputation goes down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998877) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:27 AM Author: Sick Church Building Even if it is the optimal level of slave driving, that may not be best for associates. Associates would love to work less for the same salary if it comes at the expense of the partners' incomes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998932) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:36 AM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch I think associates would like to work less for the same salary so they can have more free time and less stress, not because they're pissed that they're making the partners rich. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4998986) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:38 AM Author: Sick Church Building I wasn't saying that they're out to get the partners. I'm saying that if that's where the money has to come from, they'd be fine with that. That would reduce PPP and suggest that associates may very well be better off at a firm that doesn't have the highest PPP ranking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4999000) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 2:43 AM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch There isn't that much mobility. It isn't good for an associate to move around too much, so a move with the hopes of slightly less hours really isn't going to happen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#4999042) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:07 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Here's a link to Bay Area numbers in case anybody missed it: http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/pdf/BayAreaTopTen2005Results.html (chart at end of article) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000624) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:35 PM Author: Arousing trust fund depressive These PPP numbers confuse me. The most common chart I've seen is: http://www.law.com/special/professionals/amlaw/amlaw200/amlaw200_ppp.html
That chart lists a lot of CA firms as having quite low PPP's. For example, Irell is $615,000, Munger is $660,000, and Orrick is $660,000.
What gives? What am I missing? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:37 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake You're missing that that chart is from 2000. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000854) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:37 PM Author: Arousing trust fund depressive Haha good point. Where can I see the latest chart? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000858) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:38 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Look up this cite in Westlaw: 8/2005 AMLAW 113 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000866) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:53 PM Author: Arousing trust fund depressive Thanks. What other charts that show rankings of law firms are good besides vault? I remember hearing one by AmLaw or something that was kind of like US News is that it assigned weights to a lot of different criteria. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000994) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:57 PM Author: Hyperventilating sanctuary personal credit line You are probably talking about the American Lawyer's A-List. They rank the top 20 firms in the country based on a few factors such as revenue per lawyer, associate satisfaction, pro-bono, diversity, etc. However, on their website you can see how all of the AmLaw 200 rank. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001025) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:00 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Yeah, AmLaw has its annual A-list: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1125047117498
Not very popular on this board, because it includes pro bono and diversity scores. Even if you did think those were important factors, the methodology is unclear and probably whacked.
I don't think this or any other ranking is really all that good. Really it just comes down to what kind of work you want to do and what kind of firm will be the best fit for you. Unfortunately it can be pretty hard to know either until well after you've had to make a choice. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:04 PM Author: Arousing trust fund depressive Thanks guys. Yeah I really don't care whatsoever about pro bono and diversity. Is there a way you can just see how firms rank when it comes to Associate Satisfaction and RPL Score (whatever that is?). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001070) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:07 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Associate satisfaction is from their annual associates survey: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Cover+Story&id=1127984709005
I think rating stuff this way is pretty unhelpful, although the avg hours billed/worked I think is pretty good. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:10 PM Author: mahogany aggressive rigpig national Revenue per lawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001108) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:12 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Oh and if you need another random stat, you can check out corp deal volume/value: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=274885&mc=19&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:21 PM Author: Hyperventilating sanctuary personal credit line The A-list has the categories broken down for every firm in the Am-Law 200. I would be careful how much stock you put into the "associate satisfaction" numbers. RPL is hard to fuge, but some of the most miserable people I know are at places with high satisfaction. Thats not to say they won't be better on the whole, its just saying you still might be miserable there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001900) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:29 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Yeah, you can't put much stock in high associate satisfaction scores. Low satisfaction scores might mean something, but you have to keep in mind that it's a self-selecting group that answers the surveys, so it could be just a few responses from people with a bone to pick. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001951) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 12:37 PM Author: Talented state queen of the night Old numbers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5000855) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:00 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker Hazelrah: Seeing as you're unusually talented at searching greedy associates (which I am too dense to understand), have you seen anything about Wachtell numbers? Seems like if they want to keep their "better than everyone" compensation scheme, they'll have to bump up to $160,000 for first years (unless they want to rely entirely on bonuses for exceeding market). I guess the same holds true for Skadden too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001041) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:03 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Haven't heard anything about Wachtell. Somebody (I think zcxv) said their first-year bonuses were around 60k, which seems about right. I think we'll need to wait a few weeks to see how the rest of the market deals with the S&C raises. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001066) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:34 PM Author: Navy site lettuce wachtell had total comp $200K this year - bonuses at $60K. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001192) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:37 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake At 70 hrs/wk vs. 60, that comes out to an extra $5 per hour. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001206) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:38 PM Author: Navy site lettuce hey man, I am not working there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001210) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:40 PM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch Isn't it more like $80/hour?
200,000-160,000 divided by 10 x 50 |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:46 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake We're calculating different things. Yours treats the extra Wachtell hours as "overtime pay," mine was how much the Wachtell associate makes as a fixed hourly wage. Both are probably useful to know. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5002064) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:48 PM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch Gotcha. By number shows that $5 more per hour not insubstantial even if you're making 6-figures. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5002081) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:50 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Yeah, I shouldn't have brushed it off like that. Anybody who's worked a wage job knows that an extra $5/hr is huge, especially when you're talking 60 hours a week. I've been "promoted" with wage increases far below that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5002089) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:51 PM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch Yeah. Look at the political impact/depates that go into a $.25 or $.50 min. wage increase. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5002100) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:54 PM Author: Fear-inspiring range liquid oxygen I'm not sure too many people would accept working another 10-12 hour full day for the $5/hr promotion. In the real world, overtime pays time and a half. How does that figure into your calculations? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5002119) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:58 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake It's about right, and a little better, because I'd figure somebody at e.g. DPW was making ~$53/hr, and the post above puts Wachtell overtime pay at $80/hr, which is pretty good.
But yeah, the problem is the marginal value of free time usually gets extremely high as you get later and later into the day. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:03 PM Author: Passionate red house dysfunction Law really does not pay as well as business. This is the very of the top and compared to successful finance/entrepreneurs, they don't earn a lot. I mean, obviously they earn an obscene amount. But considering that it's the very top of the earnings chart (excluding the like 2 plaintiff's attorneys who make zillions), the positions are freakin impossible to get, and they're crushing to have, the salaries are not that high. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001063) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 1:04 PM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker and your point is? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5001069) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: nighttime electric furnace brunch The problem is that law firms: 1) bill by the hour, and 2) have no assets besides human capital. Those two statements are obvious, but when you think about it, you'll realize why a law firm isn't a great business. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5002021) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 8:15 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Post-weekend bump. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5007815) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:17 AM Author: Thirsty Hall Potus Educate me. PPP doesn't mean that is what the partner takes home, correct? You still need to reduce it by assc. salary, business expenses, etc.? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008262) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:19 AM Author: Navy site lettuce that would be revenue per partner not profits. profits are whats left after the expenses are taken out. I am not sure if associate bonuses count as expenses - they probably do.
I think partners get to take home the profits unless tey reinvest it into some big captial expenditure. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:37 AM Author: bonkers jew Do you know if the profits per partner figure just the profits divided by number partners (so there could be some partners making more or less than the figure listed) or is it more the average partner's gross pay? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008413) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:40 AM Author: shimmering contagious windowlicker i'm pretty sure that PPP is just the whole pot divided by the number of partners. in reality, junior partners will be taking home less than PPP, and senior partners more -- at least at a lockstep firm. at an eat-what-you-kill firm, different partners will be taking home more and less than PPP, but as determined by performance rather than seniority. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008441) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:46 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Almost all lockstep firms allow for some adjustment for performance, so younger rainmakers can still make as much or more as more senior partners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008489) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:53 AM Author: Thirsty Hall Potus How does the partnership "buy in" get figured? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008566) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 11:56 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Pretty sure they aren't figured into these numbers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008592) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 12:02 PM Author: Thirsty Hall Potus They can be rather signifcant I believe. I think they are included in a capital account, which you should be able to recover when you leave the firm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008645) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2006 12:04 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Yeah, I believe at many firms, new partners make less than senior associates when you take the required buy-in into account. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5008672) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2006 1:54 AM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Well I'm glad this thread was helpful to somebody: http://infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002wvB (although I think I recognize that name from this board) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5054802) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2006 2:01 AM Author: Avocado Indian Lodge Yeah, i think i've had a discussion on here with that guy before.
What do you make of this contention about LA firms? You seem to be the foremost authority on LA firm compensation. |
|
Date: February 11th, 2006 12:46 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake I would definitely like to see salaries go up. I'm not exactly excited about the prospect of being a 2nd year in LA and knowing a first-year in the NY office is making more in salary *and* bonus. But it remains to be seen how much influence the NY firms have in LA.
The only top NY firms in LA are SullCrom, Skadden, and Simpson. S&C and Simpson are both pretty small and probably hire less than 10 summers between them. I also don't think they take very many laterals. It's not clear to me that they overlap all that much with Munger/Irell/Quinn or GDC/OMM/LW in LA, unless you wanted to a specific kind of corp practice.
Skadden is a bigger player with a broader practice. But they've been at $140k and paying (close to) NY bonuses, with limited effect, although maybe the difference is big enough now to force LA firms to respond.
Milbank, White & Case, and Proskauer are in LA also, but I don't really know too much about these offices. Proskauer is possibly more of a contender, with their litigation/entertainment practice.
I think at the very least we'll see the LA firms match Kirkland's $10k across the board raise. A $15k disparity for 2nd years and higher will really increase dissatisfaction, if not lateralling. $10k might allow for some wiggle room with bonuses, although it's not like the LA firms (except maybe Irell) were really matching NY bonuses anyway.
I might be missing something here and there could be more pressure in LA than I've noticed. But I think if it does go to $145k, Silicon Valley will play a big part of it -- there are a few more NY firms there, and they seem to be expanding and grabbing market share from Wilson Sonsini and the local players. So we'll see what happens.
I think I'll start a Cali $145k raise vigil thread, heh. |
|
Date: February 11th, 2006 12:49 PM Author: Mind-boggling fighting base mexican Have Milbank, White & Case and Proskauer announced matching across the board? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5056368) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2006 12:52 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake I believe Milbank has (do they have an hours requirement on their bonuses?) and Proskauer is expected to announce next week. I'm not so sure on White & Case -- they announced in NY but I don't think those apply to other offices. Could be wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=353408&forum_id=2#5056394) |
|
Date: February 22nd, 2006 1:41 PM Author: chestnut swashbuckling mad-dog skullcap corn cake Added info on OMM, Paul Hastings, and profits per equity partner / all partners distinction.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911510735 http://www.legalweekstudent.net/ViewItem.asp?id=27628 |