First Year Associate Salaries in NYC Rise Again

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>It was not meant to be insulting and you shouldnt take it that way. </p>

<p>I grew up in a household where my mother worked about the same if not more hours for the Russian govenment, and in Russia it was common practice to be babysat by your granparents during the day while your parents are at work, however in no respect is it appropriate parenting. </p>

<p>You can turn out fine, i am not saying you turn out poorly becuase parents are not around, i am a product of that type of household but i would never ever say that its ideal, or that its ok, or that people should strive for that to occur. In an ideal household there should be a full time parent, and mathematically when your working over 40hours a week you just are not a full time parent, period.... Even if you work midnight to six am, it takes its toll, and parenting becomes your secondary responsibility then. </p>

<p>People are disillusioned if they think that working 60 hours a week and making 200k compensates for the 4 hours every night they spend at home being a parent.</p>

<p>Doing it out of necessity is understandble and respectable,and like i said, i grew up in that type of house as well, however, it is not ideal, and no one who grew up like that should defend it or say that it is how they would want to raise their own children.</p>

<p>Doing it out of choice, is horrible in my opinion, i think its inappropriate for a woman to put her career before her family. So many women today refuse to realize that as much as they want equality with men, men can not have children, and biologically speaking, it will never be the mans responsiblity to nurture the child. I agree that women should have equal options with men, but women should realize that nature comes first, and by nature,, they are mothers and nurtutures. </p>

<p>really big off subject rant... sorry.</p>

22

<p>To me, there's a big difference between (1) missing a vacation or whatever because you are truly needed for a truly urgent matter; and (2) missing a vacation or whatever because of a typical BIG(f?)LAW faux-urgent billing opportunity.</p>

<p>The first scenario recalls Jimmy Stewart's character in It's a Wonderful Life who blew off his honeymoon in order to save his bank from a run. It's annoying, but any devoted professional would feel proud of the work he or she did and that would make up to a large extent for the missed engagement.</p>

<p>The second scenario will kill your soul.</p>

<p>I don't know about transactional work, but in litigation, true emergencies are rare and true emergencies where a particular associate is indispensable are even rarer.</p>

<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>

23

<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>But that 160K is relative. It's now the standard for beginning associates in top NYC offices. In other fields, the amount is different (usually less). And in many cases, top NYC law firms among them, the amount in question isn't really all that much compared with firmwide revenue. But the attitudes are often the same.</p>

<p>My point: if you want to abuse your subordinates, you'll find handy excuses just about anywhere.</p>

24

<p>These are some exerpts from the Wall Street Journal article someone requested:</p>

<p>Does 'Thank You' Help Keep Associates?
By PETER LATTMAN
January 24, 2007; Page B7</p>

<p>"Faced with a surge in turnover of its associates, the prestigious law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has been putting on a charm offensive to hold onto junior lawyers."</p>

<p>"The crash course in etiquette went into high gear at a partners meeting last February. To deal with low associate morale and high attrition, a confidential slide presentation reviewed by The Wall Street Journal urged partners to say things like "thank you" and "good work" to associates they supervise."</p>

<p>"What else should partners do? "Return associates' phone calls as quickly as you would a partner's or client's," said one bullet. "Be sensitive to not canceling associates' vacations," said another."</p>

<p>"The presentation showed that the New York firm, now with about 625 lawyers, lost 31% of its associates in 2004 and 30% in 2005. The average associate attrition rate for law firms of about that size or bigger for 2004 was 21%, up from 16% in 2002, according to a study by the National Association for Law Placement."</p>

<p>"Sullivan has pursued other efforts to improve morale, including weekly associates lunches with the firm's chairman, H. Rodgin Cohen; a $1,000 yearly allowance for senior associates to entertain junior associates and greater efforts to give associates feedback on their work. "We are pleased with the positive results to date," says Mr. Cohen."</p>

<p>"Another effort to improve morale involved rethinking the performance-review process. One Sullivan lawyer considered borrowing from an approach used by the firm's biggest client, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Stephanie Wheeler, a Sullivan litigation partner and co-head of a new committee on associate morale, sent a memo in June to her two co-heads, entitled "Sample Goldman Sachs 360 Degree Reviews." Attached were four reviews of Goldman employees, including three of partner managing directors. "360-degree reviews" -- evaluations in which an employee gets feedback from a boss, subordinates and peers -- have become a popular management tool at corporations. Goldman uses the tool and is renowned for its strong corporate culture and espirit de corps -- the very issues Sullivan has been working on."</p>

<p>"Low associate morale is standard fare at big law firms, where smart young lawyers, though well-paid, often work long and unpredictable hours for sometimes-demanding bosses. It is a serious business issue: The industry's demand for lawyers from top schools outpaces the supply, especially as lawyers increasingly eye opportunities at private equity firms and hedge funds. This week, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP raised its associate salaries by $15,000 to a base salary of $160,000 for first-year associates, more for more-senior people. Yesterday, Sullivan announced it would match the Simpson salaries and exceed the figures for senior associates."</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
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.....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's your opinion, malishka, and you're entitled to it, but please don't patronize all of the hard-working moms out there by stepping back to deny that what you said is an insult. It is an insult. My children have a nice home in a safe neighborhood, they go to excellent schools and they are very well taken care of and very much loved, and much of the credit for the advantages that they have is due to the fact that I work hard to make a living. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to be a stay-at-home mom or working less than 60 hours a week. Let's not forget either that someone can be a stay-at-home mom and be a horrible at the job of mothering. Just because you spend time at home does not by definition make you a good parent. In my opinion, it's the quality of the time you spend at home that matters. </p>

<p>Malishka, you make your choices and everyone else out there can make theirs. It sounds like it would be a very bad idea for you to ever take a job at a big law firm. There -- your problem is solved. You might want to think twice, though, before judging anyone else's life when you know nothing about them.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
If you want to abuse your subordinates, you'll find handy excuses just about anywhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're probably right. The fact remains, though, that a law student who has the excellent qualifications to get a job at a big law firm could probably find plenty of other job opportunities should that student want them. If that law student is not willing to make the sacrifices required by a big law firm, than that law student should look for employment elsewhere. You don't get paid the big bucks for nothing.</p>

27

<p>Wow- who would have thunk retelling the story about the "wedding experience" would get the discussion going like this. But I think that type of experience clearly shows the sacrifice and lifestyle that is expected of associates at biglaw firms. PS- It wasn't an out of town wedding week-end either. We are all NY folks. Our affairs usually take place for a few hours on Sat. or Sunday.
When d had the opportunity to work on her winterbreak at the firm, we all sort of expected that it would have a great positive effect and d would be excited over the experience of working at that type of firm. Instead it had the opposite effect and made my d question whether she really wanted to work at a firm like that.<br>
The jury is still out--<br>
D is leaving for study abroad in a few days and all law school related activities are on hold for the next few months. (except my presence on cc) She is still planning to apply next fall. But I am not betting as to what path my d will follow after that-
Thanks Sally for finding the WSJ article. I thought it very appropriate to this discussion.</p>

28

<p>I completely agree with lskinner in post #22; he said what I meant much better than I did. If you're on trial (or the transactional equivalent), that's that. Maybe it's different at Cravath, but at the garden variety big city big firm, those don't happen every weekend.</p>

<p>Some partners and senior associates are bullies and enjoy the power they have to make underlings squirm. That's the central problem I'm focusing on, not the realities of client service. I've billed 250 hours in a month when they really needed me, and did it with a smile on my face, because my bosses treated me like a human being. If I'm mis-reading my position and I'm about to be quietly let go, that would make me sad because I like it here, but I'm sure I can land on my feet.</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."</p>

<p>I agree with this. Either try to change the system to make it more tolerable for yourself (i.e. push back against unreasonable requests) and take the consequences, quit, or else don't ask for pity.</p>

<p>"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."</p>

<p>Maybe it's different in my market? I see people jumping from big firm to big firm all the time after one or two years. The destination firm often has lower PPP, but generally the same market salaries for junior associates. At least one of my LS classmates jumped from a NYC V3 to a V10 after less than a year.</p>

<p>Regarding the question in post #15, if we're looking at all NY firms that paid $145k as of last week, that group of firms does not hire exclusively from Tier 1. There's a huge range, from firms that hire almost exclusively from Harvard and Yale to those that routinely hire top students from schools outside the top tier like Cardozo, Brooklyn, or St. John's (they'll have different grade cutoffs for each school). These firms don't all have the same bonus or long-term salary prospects; they just have the same starting salary.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
Some partners and senior associates are bullies and enjoy the power they have to make underlings squirm.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i wouldn't have characterized the more demanding partners i worked for as bullies for the most part. in my experience, the partners got to be where they were because they themselves were willing to put the firm at the top of their priority list and be available 24/7, if necessary. and they didn't slack off once they made partner. so they naturally expected this same commitment from the associates -- not even a matter of "if you want to be partner, i expect this," but simply a matter of "this is what it means to be a good lawyer." they loved to tell war stories about how their personal lives had been disrupted all in the name of servicing their client.</p>

30

<p>Best post of this entire thread.. by sallyawp:</p>

<p>"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>You have to prove yourself in a new job. If you keep coming up with excuses (valid or not) when you're needed, most people will not forget that you let them down. I volunteered for a special project this year and drove back to work several times after being called back in. I ended up working 2800 hours this past year but I took the assignment and didn't whine about it. If I were the supervisor, I would not be happy with someone who came up with excuses every time I was in a jamb and needed them to work. Taking time off for a wedding should be planned several weeks in advance so it wouldn't be such a problem. I had a few things like that and found someone else to handle things while I was out. I got a few cell calls but it wasn't a problem.</p>

31

<p>Exerpts from today's nylawyer.com:</p>

<p>Left-Coast Firms Not Matching NY Pay</p>

<p>"More California-based firms are opting for a segmented associate salary scale, hiking pay to a $160,000 base in their New York offices but implementing a $145,000 scale here."</p>

<p>"'It's too early to tell, but my guess is that the differences will remain because New York is the most robust, vibrant and competitive legal market in the world,; said Gregory Nitzkowski, managing partner for Paul, Hastings."</p>

32

<p>Same story for DC and Chicago-based firms, for the most part.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
I ended up working 2800 hours this past year

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is this (56 hrs/wk) considered a lot for a young lawyer in a big firm?</p>

34

<p>The thing is, though, that billing 2800 hours typically means that an associate has worked a lot more than that. Usually, in order to bill 10 hours a day, a lawyer has to actually be at the office (this doesn't include time spent travelling to and from the office) approximately 12-13 hours or more (depending on amount of time taken for lunch and dinner, bathroom breaks, unbillable time in between working on client matters, time spent grabbing a cup of coffee or a soda, etc.). So, assume that in order to bill 2800 hours in a year, a lawyer actually needs to work a minimum of approximately 3350 hours per year. Lawyers at big firms get four weeks of vacation per year (which they are encouraged to take, though sometimes work does put quite a wrench into well planned time off) plus between eight and ten paid holidays. So, 3350 hours per year over 46 weeks (assuming for simplicity that there are ten paid holidays, and keeping in mind that an associate may work one or more days that are officially paid holidays and/or one or more days that are officially vacation days), means that that associate is working an average of 72.8 hours per week. Add in commuting time and time spent getting showering, getting dressed, etc., and you have one heck of a schedule. Additionally, an attorney does not usually work a "typical" week. Instead, an attorney is likely to work 90 hours a week for weeks on end, followed by a few shorter weeks. Moreover, many busy attorneys do actually bill more than 2800 hours per year.</p>

<p>Billing 2800 hours per year is nothing to sneeze at.</p>

35

<p>Yeah, I wasn't clear if she was referring to hours billed or hours worked. Regardless, 60 hrs a week is 50% more than "full-time". I was just curious -- I hear a lot of discussion about the hours but I just realized that I don't know the numbers off the top of my head.</p>

36

<p>You know, I bet by 2010, starting salaries for first-year associates will amount to at least $200,000 relative to the increase of standard of living.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
You know, I bet by 2010, starting salaries for first-year associates will amount to at least $200,000 relative to the increase of standard of living.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wouldn't necessarily count on that. Law firm associate salary increases are not tied whatsoever to cost of living or inflation rate increases. In fact, it is only recently that salaries have jumped so high and so frequently. From the late 80's through the beginning of 1998, the starting salary for 1st year associates in most big NYC law firms was between $85,000-87,000, and remained unchanged during that entire period. In 1998, salaries for first year associates were raised to $94,000/year. Two years later, salaries for first year associates jumped to $110,000/year. Only a couple of years ago did first year salaries jump to $125,000, followed quickly by successive jumps to the present starting salary of $160,000. </p>

<p>Will salaries continue to rise? It's a good question. Ostensibly, these salary increases are being made to stem the tide of mid-level associates leaving law firms (largely because law firms (claim to) make little money off of the labor of their junior associates, taking into account their salaries and benefits, office space, assistant, training, etc., and because law firms finally do reap the benefits of the labor of these departing mid-level associates). If that is true, then law firms really have no great reason to continue to increase starting salary levels. Instead, what they may begin to do (and I'm surprised that this has not yet happened) is to increase the leaps in salary level beginning with the third or fourth year so that by the time someone is a seventh or eighth year associate, that associate would have a difficult time matching their salary elsewhere. </p>

<p>Interesting, also, is the contradiction in law firm structure. On the one hand, law firms need to retain their mid-level and senior associates because law firms make the most money from their labor (the reality is that salaries don't rise nearly as quickly as billing rates do) and need their expertise to run deals and take on significant responsibility, allowing partners to leverage their client relationships and their own expertise. On the other hand, however, law firms count upon attrition to reduce their swelled junior associate ranks so that there are naturally fewer associates at the top vying for partner than there were when their peer classes began working for the firm.</p>

<p>I know (and these big law firms must know) that a lot of people go to work for big law firms for the money, for the training . . . for whatever reason, without any intention of ever sticking around after a few years. I don't think that money will change that equation for many associates, who are only willing to suck up the hours and the unpredictability of working in a big law firm for so long, regardless of pay. In fact, the salary increases may make it easier for associates to leave the big law firms earlier if associates can pay off their student loans more quickly and get themselves released from the "golden handcuffs" of law firm life. Those who are dead set on gunning for partner would most likely do that regardless of $15,000 more per year in salary. I suppose that these salary increases are aimed, then, at the associates at the margins, who might stay or who might go, depending upon the circumstances. </p>

<p>Only time will tell.</p>

38

<p>Let me see...$160,000 per year. 46 work weeks. =160,000/46= $3478 / week. Each week is 72.8 hrs. 3478/72.8=$47.77 / hour. $160,000 doesn't sound all that great after all....</p>

39

<p>a job i'd love, <a href="http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/lawrecruit.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/lawrecruit.html&lt;/a> says that the law grads they hire start out at $54,272 - $70,558 per year, and once they pass the bar exam they're eligible to be promoted up to 107,521 - $139,774 a year. </p>

<p>Yeah, the earnings don't increase as quickly as they do in the private sector, and there aren't bonuses in the same way, but on a per-hour basis it's not as big a difference as I might have thought!</p>

40

<p>$50/hr isn't that great? It's certainly too many hours, but $50 sounds pretty amazing. (For comparison, my first job will almost certainly pay less than $11/hr.)</p>