<p>I just got this in my inbox yesterday:</p>
<p>Large-Firm</a> Associate Salaries Close In on $200K</p>
<p>I realize that they're no Wachtell but as we all know, one firm raises salaries, then other firms match. That's just how the industry works. I guess we should expect more raises on the way (and corresponding bumps in billing requirements)?</p>
<p>holy ****TTT!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>I know, I can't wait till the summer when the bidding wars start.</p>
<p>They won't necessarily match W&C - they are a unique place and their salaries have not followed the pack and the pack does not follow them.</p>
<p>selling your soul</p>
<p>
[quote]
Williams & Connolly doesn't have a bonus system. Without a raise in base pay, the firm's associates would be making substantially less than their friends at other firms who could earn $20,000 or more in year-end bonuses. Several managing partners in D.C. have called the raise a "nonevent" for just that reason. (Williams & Connolly partners declined to comment for this article.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is old news, and the above paragraph explains why it's not even really news at all.</p>
<p>AS: But FNS speaks so authoritatively that he must be right.</p>
<p>bluedevilmike, thank you for the smile. :) I have had similar thoughts on reading the posts by FNS.</p>
<p>That's how you win trials! You're RIGHT, even when you're WRONG! -Denny Crane-</p>
<p>As someone mentioned WC doesn't give bonuses so, in fact, their 180 is actually "less" than 160.</p>
<p>180 is NOT numerically less than 160. They have a different compensation structure that makes their all-in compensation less than that of rival firms.</p>
<p>
[quote]
180 is NOT numerically less than 160.
[/quote]
Well, that turns my world upside down.</p>
<p>For real? Speaking as a recent biglaw associate? Additional raises are NOT good news.</p>
<p>Hanna - I agree. I am old enough to remember what happened years ago when lean times met with huge salaries - huge layoffs. The other byproduct of bigger salaries - a bigger push for more and more hours. Be careful for what you wish.</p>
<p>What is a first year technically?
Is it as soon as you start working?</p>
<p>I am asking the question because at a lot of investment and consulting firms you are first a stub associate for about 6 months or so, and then you become a true first year and you get the first year salary.</p>
<p>You're a first year when you walk in the door.</p>
<p>I'm with cartera and hanna. I'm trying out a big firm this summer, but have serious concerns about the hours required of biglaw associate in order to earn their high paychecks. I wish there were a way to do the type of work big firms get but also work fewer hours (without the stigma of the "mommy track")--and I would gladly take a lower salary for it! </p>
<p>Many of my T14 classmates feel the same way, and while I realize that it's an incredibly privileged dilemma to have, many are considering government, nonprofits, and inhouse jobs because they're willing to trade off salary for quality of life.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, I just dont understand how people can handle 80-100 hour work weeks. How can you enjoy being rich if you're hardly at home to enjoy your riches?</p>
<p>You could work the crazy hours for a few years while saving the extra cash. When you get burned out use the big name firm on your resume to find another job with better hours.</p>
<p>bsme - that's a good plan but one that so many people have, those great jobs are really hard to get. When I have a great job with great hours to fill, I have top 10 law school grads from top biglaw coming out of my ears.</p>