First Year Associate Salaries in NYC Rise Again

<p>From nylawyer.com:</p>

<p>Simpson Thacher & Bartlett has raised associate base salaries, with first-years now set to earn $160,000 before bonus. </p>

<p>The New York firm's move, announced internally yesterday, comes less than a year after an earlier round of salary increases boosted first-year salaries in the city to $145,000 from the $125,000 that had been standard for several years prior. </p>

<p>Philip T. Ruegger, the chairman of Simpson Thacher's executive committee, said in an interview yesterday that the firm had made its decision in light of the firm's strong overall performance in the past year. </p>

<p>"We're happy to pay our associates a little more because of that," said Mr. Ruegger. "We have great people and we just want to show that we appreciate them. We want to keep them here and happy." </p>

<p>Mr. Ruegger said the decision to increase salaries would not impact year-end bonuses, which he said would be separately determined later in the year. Last month, Simpson and other major firms announced bonuses starting at $30,000 for first-years. </p>

<p>Likewise, Simpson Thacher's salary increase is almost certain to be matched by other law firms. In the past, those other firms might chiefly have been elite New York firms like Sullivan & Cromwell or Davis Polk & Wardwell. But the many out-of-town firms that have expanded into the New York market in recent years have shown a willingness to match the latest salary moves, at least at the junior levels. </p>

<p>Indeed, Simpson Thacher's move could be calculated to ensure New York remains the top market in terms of associate pay. In recent weeks, a number of firms had also raised California first-year salaries to $145,000 from $135,000. </p>

<p>Firms feel enormous pressure to match each other in junior associate pay because they are all trying to compete for the same pool of top law school students. Salary scales diverge more at senior levels, and a smaller number of firms will seek to match Simpson Thacher's new top salary for senior associates of $290,000. </p>

<p>Top corporate firms like Simpson have had significant issues with retention of mid-level and senior associates who are often attractive hires for investment banks and other financial firms that pay even more. </p>

<p>Simpson Thacher's salary increase will surprise many in the legal community because it comes so soon after the new $145,000 standard was set. That increase was first announced by Sullivan & Cromwell last February. At that time, the starting salary had been $125,000 in New York for over five years.</p>

<p>Wow - if only I had no desire to be a good wife, sister or (eventually) mother those jobs would probably be awesome. </p>

<p>:-D</p>

<p>Be careful there, because you're implying that many women who do have those jobs are not good wives, sisters or mothers. What is good for you and what you want is not necessarily what others choose for themselves or what others are able to do. </p>

<p>I, for one, did not appreciate the implications of your comment.</p>

<p>I said "I" - I would of said "women in general" in place of "I" if that was what I meant. </p>

<p>I've worked for that kind of salary before, and in my experience, without regard to the industry becuase this is a common denominator among jobs of this earning level, especially at entrly level: you are expected to live for the job first, everything else secondary. There are very long hours. Divorce rates are high. Piano recitals and soccer games get missed. Etcetera. </p>

<p>And because of the money at stake, if you're not willing to make that sort of committment, they can find someone else who will. Thats just a reality of those jobs. </p>

<p>Not that these jobs wouldn't be great for some, or for some limited period of time. Lord knows even holding that sort of job for a few years would pay off a lot of student debt and get some great stuff on a resume before finding a job that allows more balance in life, but I've tried it and hope some students keep in mind the sacrifice that is very very often expected in exchange for that level of earnings and consider all of their opportunities accordingly.</p>

<p>160K...nice. would have*</p>

<p>As an UG, d had a "winter break internship" at a major firm in nyc for 2 years. As her duties were more research/legal ass't, she was treated as "one of the office girls". That is probably one of the best ways to get insight into the operations of the firm. Anyhow- the ladies are telling my d about one of the young attorneys who had to work over a particular week-end and had to miss her boyfriends sisters wedding. Suffice it to say- they broke up.
In all honesty my d is treading lightly towards the idea of "big law" as she is not sure she wants to make ALL the sacrifices that go with it. She knows she can "pay her dues" for 5 to 6 years and then go on and do alot of other things, but to "sacrifice" the fun things in life when you are 24 to 30 years old may not be the way my d wants to go--</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not that these jobs wouldn't be great for some, or for some limited period of time. Lord knows even holding that sort of job for a few years would pay off a lot of student debt and get some great stuff on a resume before finding a job that allows more balance in life, but I've tried it and hope some students keep in mind the sacrifice that is very very often expected in exchange for that level of earnings and consider all of their opportunities accordingly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I totally agree. I was making $190k at BIG(f?)LAW when I quit 5 years ago. The job was NOT worth $190k. But I did end up with a nice house.</p>

<p>Sally or any other computer literate person- please link up todays article in WSJ Online-- "Does Thank You Help Keep Associates?" (p. B7)</p>

<p>It addresses high turnover in large firms. Saw it on LSD.org</p>

<p>"one of the young attorneys who had to work over a particular week-end and had to miss her boyfriends sisters wedding."</p>

<p>This varies from firm to firm and from partner to partner, but unless you're talking about the very toughest NYC firms, missing weddings and so forth has a lot to do with how much the associate is willing to dig in her heels and say no.</p>

<p>Since most associates aren't expecting to make partner anyway, I don't know why they let partners push them around so much when the case is not even at trial. Firms HATE firing associates; I have never heard of an associate being fired for refusing to skip a wedding or other event that was planned far in advance (I'm sure that it has happened, but it is rare). Associates would do well to push back a little if a partner is obnoxious about this kind of thing...they might find that the bullying partner chooses another, easier victim.</p>

<p>Hanna- it's deeper than that. I think it is the culture and a wacked belief that it is expected that you forgo your life for the firm. I am sure if the young lady spoke to the partner, he or she would respond like a mensch ( as age and confidence does mellow most of us) and tell her it would be fine to go. But the young attorney was probably too intimidated to even ask the partner. It's also my understanding that there was probably a lower level supervising attorney and not the partner that she was reporting to who in turn was also trying to impress the partner<br>
The point is- the young attorney didn't even ask the partner if she could go to the wedding. (The story gets a bit fuzzy and my d told me about it last year) - but I think the supervising attorney said NO!! No wedding- no more boyfriend!! It's a hard decision for some to make.</p>

<p>I agree, in all high stakes work places, such as large law firms, there is a general culture of "work first" that can only be mediated by a consertive effort by management to stress work life balance -which these management teams are well aware of!! They weren't born partners, they have been through the same rungs on the ladders as everyone else, so they are not oblivious to this issue. </p>

<p>So when a lack of such employee support occurs, its not just because the employee is self inflicting this pressure. It is as much a strategic part of the employers management plan as it would be if there WAS a policy/campaign in place to encourage work-life balance. </p>

<p>Not that I completely disagree with Hanna. Pushing back here and there will help to curb the middle management bullies, and maybe earn the respect of a few higher ups, but in general, your rolling the dice to push back - because when you aren't perceived well or your definitely not mentioned in future partner discussions, you are always going to wonder if that pushing was the reason...especially if the new partner, Joe Blow, did miss the soccer games and the weddings, etc etc.</p>

<p>I have to admit that I'm not all that sympathetic to someone in this position. She didn't "have to miss the wedding." She acquiesced when someone told her not to go.</p>

<p>It's a bad bargain to sacrifice your life for a firm that is not giving you equivalent value in return. If you're a highly educated lawyer and you're negotiating that bad of a bargain for yourself, well...like I said, you won't get much sympathy from me. I can't really blame an employer for milking all the money they can out of a willing cow. Don't act like their cow, and they can't treat you like one.</p>

<p>"can only be mediated by a consertive effort by management to stress work life balance"</p>

<p>Why is it only management who can change the culture? I think they have an important role, but they can only do so much if the associates are willing to suck up abuse. Associates speaking up -- and if necessary, walking out -- is a critical aspect, too.</p>

<p>"when you aren't perceived well or your definitely not mentioned in future partner discussions, you are always going to wonder if that pushing was the reason"</p>

<p>Most associates are not PLANNING to stay at these firms and make partner, so it's a mistake to care so much about what Joe Blow thinks. If you really do care more about making partner than about those weddings and soccer games, fine, keep your mouth shut...but if you really thought that highly of partnership, you'd feel it was a fair trade-off, and you wouldn't be complaining about everything you have to miss.</p>

<p>Well, I want to respond, but as I started writing, I realized this discussion is turning into something frighteningly similar to a catty episode of "The View." </p>

<p>I suppose I concede then. Newbie high paid lawyers should expect that the firm bow to wedding plans, and in light of resistance to this expectation should further define and hold to their boundaries. Firms will respect this, and if they dont, then it doesnt matter because newbie lawyers dont plan to be partners anyway. But if they do, this is a moot issue, because people who want to be partners shouldn't be upset about sacrificing their personal lives to do so...they should "shut up." </p>

<p>Nice.</p>

<p>"they should "shut up." "</p>

<p>You are misreading my post. To make myself more clear, I said that if you want to make partner so badly, fine, go ahead and disregard my advice to speak up...keep your mouth shut and swallow that abuse silently if you choose to. But my advice to everyone is to speak up at work, not shut up. Especially since most of the time at the highly-ranked firms, you can suck up that abuse for 8 years and you STILL won't make partner.</p>

<p>"Newbie high paid lawyers should expect that the firm bow to wedding plans"</p>

<p>As I said before, if you're on trial, that's one thing. But 90% of the time, it really isn't that critical for the newbie assignment to be done by THIS person IN the office THIS weekend. Much of the time the memo/brief sits on the partner's desk for a week after it's turned in. So heck yes, when it's not a work emergency, newbie lawyers (and I hope other employees in other industries) should expect their employers to be flexible about important family events they know about months ahead of time, like weddings. </p>

<p>It's about reasonableness on both sides. In the last 6 months, I've brought my laptop to Martha's Vineyard and a wedding in Hawaii. The firm accepted my physical absence; I accepted that I had to bill during my long-anticipated vacation. Everyone is happy. It's not a lot to ask. Every firm should do it.</p>

<p>Now, if you're a single mom with a GED working as a waitress, then you may be truly powerless economically, and you really can't take the risk of speaking up without a union behind you; you NEED that job. But big firm associates are universally highly educated and have many employment options, including other, nicer big firms. We need to have the guts to demand that we be treated respectfully, and vote with our feet if we are not.</p>

<p>So tell me, what do you propose as an alternative to what I'm saying?</p>

<p>Management should fix the problematic culture, yes, but since they are throwing money at the attrition problem instead of fixing it, what should associates do in the meantime?</p>

<p>Should highly skilled, highly paid, sought-after workers who are being abused and/or disrespected by higher-ups in the organization quietly accept that treatment?</p>

<p>Should you sacrifice things you care about deeply in your life -- like a serious boyfriend -- to please a firm that has made no promises to you whatsoever about your future there?</p>

<p>completely off topic to the tangent you guys took, but do these law firms in new york with those starting salaries only recruit from Tier 1 schools?</p>

<p>Contrary to what someone mentioned earlier, even if the woman in question had outright asked, or perhaps told, the partners involved that she was going to her boyfriend's sister's wedding, I doubt that she would have been given latitude to leave for the weekend. Leaving despite being told not to may be grounds to be fired for cause, which wouldn't bode well for someone's career. That said, in my direct experience, there is a big difference in treatment for a boyfriend's sister's wedding versus an actual sister's wedding (where they would have at least allowed her to attend the wedding -- though (as it happended in my case) the wedding weekend may be a bit shorter and involve a bit more responding to e-mails and voice mails than one may have initially desired. Oh, and as for the boyfriend who dumped the woman after she missed the wedding, good riddance! If missing the wedding was truly the only reason why they broke up, then he isn't someone who is going to be too flexible about letting a woman's career take flight -- dealing with business travel, longer hours or perhaps a move to another location. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, an associate does not have much choice. Law firms quietly let associates go who are not perceived to be "on track" or who aren't willing to go the extra mile every year at review time. These associates are rarely outright "fired", but are rather given a few months at their desks (and sometimes the assistance of a placement service paid for by the law firm) to find a new position. This way, both law firm and associate are spared the pain of having to admit that anyone was fired. These quite firings do happen every year at almost every big firm.</p>

<p>If a young attorney has a massive amount of student loans, whether from law school alone or a combination of law school and college, combined with the usual trappings of modern life, including rent payments/mortgage payments, car payments, gas and electric bills, cable bills, etc., there is not a lot of choice. No other big law firm is going to hire someone who leaves after the first year or second year without asking a lot of questions. Smaller law firms pay significantly less money. What is one to do?</p>

<p>Here's my take on this: New law firm associates aren't stupid or blind. They know that when you take a job with a big law firm and get paid $160,000 a year beginning the very first day on the job, you are going to be expected to work very hard and to make sacrifices. The stories fly around law schools during recruiting season and the war stories are often told over dinner during summer associate events. Let's be honest -- any young attorney who thinks that you make that kind of money for anything but putting work first is fooling themselves. The answer is simple. If you don't want to make those sacrifices, don't take that job. If you don't want to take that job, you need to think very hard about the amount of student loans that you are willing and able to rack up and the lifestyle you want to lead. The first several years are admittedly insane, but it does get better after that, either because you have more control of your work as a senior associate and more ability to do the work you have quickly or on the fly, or because you take advantage of one of the multitude of opportunities that present themselves because of the experience you have obtained working for a big law firm. However, in a law firm, there will always be times when sacrifices are necessary. Can you say client service industry? In either case, plenty of women who continue to work in high pressure, high profile jobs enjoy what they do, find a balance (though it is certainly not the balance that a housewife in (as my husband calls it) the heartland would think is balance) and manage to be good moms, wives, sisters and daughters. </p>

<p>As the article mentioned, Smpson Thacher (Sullivan & Cromwell met the raises within hours of the announcement, and the other top firms in NYC will certainly follow) raised salaries because their attorneys are being seduced away from the firm by the lure of many outside opportunities. Those opportunities, however, are for the most part only available to someone who has worked at a big, prestigious law firm and who has made those sacrifices. The idea at the law firms is to give the mid-level and senior associates an incentive to stick around. In my opinion, many associates will choose to leave anyway because for a lot of them, the sacrifices are not worth it at any price. That said, though, many associates will tough it out through three or four or five years of that practice before jumping ship. </p>

<p>No one tortures these poor, suffering associates. No one keeps these young associates chained to their desks. These associates signed up for this. They knew what they were walking into. They took the paychecks and deposited them into their checking accounts. They can quit at any time. Law firms may want to present a kinder, gentler face, but when an SEC filing or an HSR filing or a merger of a public company has to happen at a very specific moment in time, that moment isn't going to wait, and the client and the SEC or the Department of Justice doesn't want to hear about how you just had to go to your boyfriend's sister's wedding. Could another associate jump into your place to help? Perhaps. Sometimes. But then sometimes you have information and knowledge from your experience on the deal that is necessary to get the job done properly. Perhaps no one else is available to do the work for you. Perhaps you are not willing to let someone do the work for you and then to owe them the favor of jumping in when they have someplace they need to go. If an attorney is looking for a kind, gentle and understanding place to work, then they will have to accept less money (most likely) and find a place that is not a big law firm. That's all there is to it. </p>

<p>I hate to sound harsh because there were times as a junior associate that I just wanted to scream about the things happening outside of the firm that I missed, but I could have walked in and quit any day of the week. I knew what I was getting into and I got it in spades. I did my years at a big law firm, got fantastic experience every moment during my time there (probably equivalent to double the number of years of practicing in terms of hours worked) and have benefitted from that expereince every day since I left. Let's be honest, some of those months and years really just sucked. I ****ed off my parents, lost a couple of serious boyfriends (not sure exactly how I found time to get serious, but I did) and felt very left out sometimes. I also managed to pay off all of my student loans long before the loans were due, to buy an apartment in Manhattan (not an easy feat, if you know anything about prices in the NYC real estate market) and then a house outside of Manhattan and to see and do things that I never could have afforded without having had my big firm job (for example, vacations to safari in Africa, sail the Galapagos, stay in castles in the Czech Republic and, most proudly, fly my entire family away for a vacation together). I waited until most of the craziness was over, but I managed to marry a wonderful man and to start a family. Overall, looking back at what I went through at my big firm, I wouldn't change a thing about my choice to have worked there.</p>

<p>If I am paying someone 160k a year, they better put whatever I am paying them for over friends and family.</p>

<p>I disagree that a woman can work in these companies and be a "good" mom, wife...... i am sorry, and women can bash me for all theywant, but you can not manage a 60 plus hour workweek and be a good parent, thats just fake parenting.....</p>

<p>
[quote]
If I am paying someone 160k a year, they better put whatever I am paying them for over friends and family

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think a single partner pays the entire salary of an associate.</p>

<p>I'd like to disagree with Malishka31's comment. It is actually very insulting. My mom worked 60 hour weeks for nearly 15 years and our family was and is still low-income. She managed to raise me and my brother on her own and we're both in good places (I'm a student at Pomona College). At least the women in these companies and big law firms can afford to give their children the financial resources that my mom could not give me. A distinction may be drawn in terms of necessity because obviously my mother had to work that much to support our family whereas women working for large firms may have the option of working for less and being "better" mothers... but please don't make assumptions like that. Maybe my mother is one of those rare mothers who can get up early and cook breakfast for the family, go to work for 10 hours and then come home and cook and clean. Nonetheless, none of what she did should be considered as fake parenting.</p>