Why are we expecting news on LW shortly? I know there was an associates committee meeting this morning, but do they have any power to increase salary? I would have assumed that power rested solely with something like an executive committee (or perhaps even the partnership as a whole), and that the call this morning was merely to agree on a recommendation to the relevant decisionmaking committee.

Do we know that Goodwin didn't match outside New York? Can someone post the memo in the comments (or email it to Lat)?

No match outside of NYC

Waiting for Thelen...

I am a GP-Boston associate and can confirm that the "memo" was only sent to the NY associates. We are all waiting for an update...(for Ropes to go first).

Yeah, what about boston? The real thing to note here is that Goodwin is a Boston-based firm and is, one would assume, a market-driver in Boston. I guess its not surprising that they didn't announce in Boston waiting to see what happens elsewhere. I think there are 500 attys in boston to only 100+ in NYC - so the decision is not as financially significant to raise in NYC as is the decision whether to match in boston or pay something else (i.e. $145).

This might not be true, but as a boston 2L who and was in on the rumor mill that gets created during recruiting, I was under the impression that GP is fairly "reactionary" in increasing associate salaries... I could be wrong though.

meaning that GP probably won't lead the way to increasing Boston salaries... however, I don't think Boston firms would want to allow too much of a gap or you could see increased numbers of Boston law students/junior associates going to NYC.

what about curtis mallet?

There has been no Goodwin memo in DC either.

Duane Reed just matched!

What about gnar gnar moose foot? Are they going to match? Firmwide?

There has been no Goodwin memo in DC either.

It's Duade *Reade*, fool.

What about gnar gnar moose foot? Are they going to match? Firmwide?

There has been no Goodwin memo in DC either.

Are all of the firms matching relieving compression for more senior associates? Or are some just moving everyone up by the same amount. The raises seem to get more significant as you go up the scale.

It's Duane *Reade*, fool.

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

I often wonder how many times windbag will post each of his comments...

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

Hit post once. wait. ignore error message. refresh. wait. if post does not appear within ten minutes, THEN think about re-posting. Otherwise spare us.

Who's talking about moving to NYC?

It's all about NYC-based firms right here in D.C. With firms just blocks away paying $160K right here in D.C., why stay at a $135k or $145k firm?

I wonder how many practicing attorneys actually can figure out that you only need to click the post button once?

Are all of the firms matching relieving compression for more senior associates? Or are some just moving everyone up by the same amount. The raises seem to get more significant as you go up the scale.

"It's all about NYC-based firms right here in D.C. With firms just blocks away paying $160K right here in D.C., why stay at a $135k or $145k firm?"

Amen!

stop being such a square, dad

when I made the earlier post, I was speaking specifically to the Boston market, and I think the close proximity of NYC does have an effect on Boston law students (at least at the better Boston law schools). Granted, there are lots of considerations and, money is one of them. That was my only point.

Also, there are significant numbers of law students who come to Boston law schools simply because Boston is a great place to be a student... not necessarily because they want to practice in Boston. So I do think a widening salary gap would have an effect on Boston firms ability to recruit.

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

Are all of the firms matching relieving compression for more senior associates? Or are some just moving everyone up by the same amount. The raises seem to get more significant as you go up the scale.

stop being such a square, dad

the MAIN advantage of working outside of NYC is that you don't have to deal w/ douchebag NY'ers.

for that, i am down to take a paycut any day.

I often wonder what windbag often wonders about . . .

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

the MAIN advantage of working outside of NYC is that you don't have to deal w/ douchebag NY'ers.

for that, i am down to take a paycut any day.

Windbag is absolutely right! Law firms outside NYC SHOULD NOT MATCH NYC - associates chose non-NY for a variety of excellent reasons like lower COL, better hours, better lifestyle, etc. They are not going to run for an extra $8K post-tax per year! If they want to suffer NYC for that, go ahead!

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

Windbag has lost all credibility through his complete inability to stop hitting the "post" button.

It's official. This site has been taken over by a bunch of rejects. I understand that it's hard to understand the concept that there are tons of firms that have gone to 160k outside of NYC, and that that is the issue which people are taking about. This is confusing how?

somebody call me when windbag stops posting.

I often wonder if windbag has one of those little bird-things on his desk, the ones with the bobbing weighted-heads... and if he places it directly over his enter key so that it continually posts his comment.

Jenner just announced, 160K in NYC, 145K in all other offices.

at anon 4:06

Where is that next fantastic firm who wants to pay its DC associates 160?

I wish my firm would just announce already so I could stop obsessively checking this blog and get some work done!

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

V&E NY?

Really, 4:01? Can you honestly say that if every firm went to 160 in NYC but NOT A SINGLE FIRM had gone higher than 145 in DC, LA, Chi, etc., that you'd be completely fine with that, no problem whatsoever, no issue, fair's fair?

A simple review of the comments on this site show that many non-NYC people keeping this issue alive would disagree with you - they're not upset about firms other than theirs in their cities raising to 160 while theirs didn't; they're upset about the presumption that NYC offices should get 160 and others shouldn't.

That's the only thing NYC associates are arguing - I think most NYC folks could care less about the intra-firm fighting in DC or LA. I'm just wondering which position you really take, and whether you really see one as an issue and the other as a non-issue.

Whoops, meant "lmao at anon 4:06".

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

BB matched...

Can confirm that Jenner & Block just went to 160K in NYC.

Do firms have student loan repayment/tuition reimbursment programs in addition to the outrageously large salaries?

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

BB=Bell Boyd?

4:20: No. Student Loan Repayment/Tuition Reimbursement = Your High Salary.

I did know a girl who worked for an IP firm in DC and they paid for her last three years of law school on top of her salary (she did a part time program). She was unique though because she was doing patent work and had a Masters in Chemistry. For a firm to pay for tuition is almost unheard of.

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

Entering:

Yes, it's called $160k per year. Dumba$$!

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

"I did know a girl who worked for an IP firm in DC and they paid for her last three years of law school on top of her salary (she did a part time program). She was unique though because she was doing patent work and had a Masters in Chemistry. For a firm to pay for tuition is almost unheard of. "

Not unheard of at all. Most patent practices offer this. They are called "student associates" and receive around 90K plus tuition.

As a non-NYer, I have no problem that they get paid more. That little bit of extra money (and yes, as a percentage of salary, it's not that much) isn't going to drag me out of my 1600 sq. ft. condo, make me sell my BMW and squeeze into the Big Apple.

however, if the gap gets too big, we've got problems. That's why everyone has to come up, at least some. NY probably will and maybe should always make more, and that's fine, because even though i work at a big firm, I like my life. But if the non-NY firms lag too far behind, they won't attract enough top talent, or keep the talent they have.

Sorry Chicago and DC ... 15K isn't nearly enough of a difference to cause a talent drought, and if it's enough for you, pack your bags, I'm sure your firm will miss you ... and then raise their salaries

4:17 - there are several issues. First off, prior to last January, there was generally no difference between salaries at NYC and Cali firms. This HUGE COL differences was remedied by larger bonuses in NYC. People were mostly fine with that. Also, what's conveniently forgotten is that Cali lead the jump to 125k. Where was NYC associate revolt? How were they paying for their $3000/month, 200 square foot studios, on only $100k? It was Gunderson that lead the charge from $100 to $125.

Last year, S&C was the first to go from $125 to $145. My guess is that Associates in CA were none to pleased when their firms only went to $135, however, there were relatively few NYC firm offices that went to $145 in CA (Milbank, DP, Skadden, maybe a couple more), so it wasn't as bad. However, this time most of the NYC firms that have gone to $160 have do so in their CA offices as well, not to mention so has Quinn (and maybe Irell). This is where the problem arises. Obviously, associates at the Big 3 (as well as firms like Orrick & Mofo) are not going to be happy to be making $15k less than people who couldn't get their jobs, or people at firms that they had turned down. Seems pretty obvious, no?

Donald A Goldman/LAS/MWE
Sent by: Susan Brown
01/29/2007 10:51 AM
To
U.S. Associates
cc
U.S. Partners, U.S. Counsel
Subject
Associate Compensation

By now I am sure that you have heard about developments in the Associate compensation market across the United States. The Firm is in the process of evaluating and determining changes to be made in our compensation structure. We intend to continue to pay fair and competitive compensation to our Associates. We anticipate making an announcement regarding the changes after the Management Committee meeting on February 14.

Donald A. Goldman
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
2049 Century Park East
Suite 3400
Los Angeles, California 90067
310-551-9319 (Phone)
310-277-4730 (Fax)

http://www.jenner.com/careers_new/careers.asp?ID=000012178803

Has anyone ever looked to how much different law schools set people back in various locales and how raises have worked since then in those locales? It seems to me like since rates were static for so long, it just got more expensive to go to law school for a long time. Finally maybe these raises are just making it as "affordable" to go to school, then biglaw as it was in the '90s....

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

non-salary-hike question for fellow BIGLaw'ers: how much does your firm require you to pay for your medical insurance? mine is over $250 per paycheck for a family plan.

Jenner matches Sidley.

http://www.jenner.com/careers_new/careers.asp?ID=000012178803

I often wonder how many practicing attorneys actually post to this board compared to the number of law students. Mostly because a grown-up realizes that the decision to work in Boston, DC, LA, or Chicago as opposed to NYC has to do with a lot more than $15k in base pay. To act as if there is really a 'regional' legal market where attorneys will flow from smaller (yet still major) cities into NYC for a relatively small increase in compensation, COL-adjusted of course, smacks of a superficial understanding of the biglaw industry.

My point is basically this. There might be some people who are in law school who might be a little bit more attracted to NYC because of the $$$. But the folks from the quality law schools (and the quality folks from the not-so-quality law schools) will still go where they want -- if they have good reasons for living in and working in another city, those reasons won't be completely undermined by a few hundred more dollars in each paycheck.

what about 401(k) matching? how many biglaw shops match up to a certain amount each year?

Patton Boggs this afternoon announced the following salary scale for associates in the Dallas office:

2006 - $145,000
2005 - $150,000
2004 - $165,000
2003 - $185,000
2002 - $195,000
2001 - $210,000
2000 - $220,000
1999 - $225,000

windbag/duane reade is complety wrong. first of all the differential is not 15k. it's much greater, depending on class year, and when you take into account bonus, since the bonus structures are different. For example, i"m a midlevel at a Big 3 california firm, and my comp is 40K less than I would be getting in my NY office or at a NY firm. that's 20K in base, and 20K in bonus. That doesn't even take into account that NY bonuses are at many firms lock-step so you don't have to worry about your hours as you do in CA.
Now, 40K is a huge difference, and the difference only gets bigger as you get more senior. And there very much IS a legal market flow amoung quality law students,, especially when you take into account that a huge portion of the "quality law schools" are on the east coast. Take my situation for example. I went to law school on the east coast. I would love to live in NY, but chose CA in large part because, dollar for dollar, you get better quality bang for your buck in CA than in NY. You can afford a nicer apt/condo, can afford a place with washer/dryer, can live closer to work, etc. When I moved out here there wasn't really much salary gap between top CA and NY firms, so I chose CA because I place a lot of value on quality and convenience of housing/lifestyle, etc. but now that the comp gap is 40K for me, and will go up each year, that 40K goes a long way toward paying for the "niceties" in NY that I didn't want to do without. And I know that a lot of my friends feel the same way. Many of us would like to live in NY for a period while we're still relatively young, and now that we no longer have a financial reason to stay in CA, it becomes very attractive to move, and am strongly considering it.

"It's all about NYC-based firms right here in D.C. With firms just blocks away paying $160K right here in D.C., why stay at a $135k or $145k firm?"

Your post assumes that the quality of work/life/co-workers at all firms is fungible. Especially for mid- and upper-level associates who have established relationships and reputations at their firms, jumping ship for $15-20k in salary is not worth essentially having to start from scratch in building an internal reputation and base of work. That concern may not exist for law students or first-years, but that's just because they are too inexperience, short-sighted, and dollar-struck to know any better.

"It's all about NYC-based firms right here in D.C. With firms just blocks away paying $160K right here in D.C., why stay at a $135k or $145k firm?"

Your post assumes that the quality of work/life/co-workers at all firms is fungible. Especially for mid- and upper-level associates who have established relationships and reputations at their firms, jumping ship for $15-20k in salary is not worth essentially having to start from scratch in building an internal reputation and base of work. That concern may not exist for law students or first-years, but that's just because they are too inexperienced, short-sighted, and dollar-struck to know any better.

5:53: Imagine that you're a 2L who wants to work in D.C. Ordinarily, all else being equal, you would have preferred a DC-based firm -- C&B, W&C, WH, A&P, H&H, etc. But you also have offers from the DC offices of NY firms -- Skadden, Simpson, Debevoise, Fried Frank, whatever. Assuming quality of work, quality of life, and prestige are a wash (or, just as significantly, are very hard for a law student to ascertain), would it be so crazy to pick the firm that's going to pay you more?

GOODWIN | PROCTER

Memorandum

To All New York Associates

From Minta E. Kay

Re 2007 Updated New York Salary Scale

Date January 26, 2007

I am pleased to announce that effective as of January 1, 2007, base salaries for associates in the New York office will be increased to the following amounts:

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 and senior $280,000

These increased base salaries, including the retroactive amount for January 2007, will be reflected in your February paycheck.

Total compensation, including base salaries, for Professional Track Attorneys will continue to be determined independently.

Nemo-

I don't think it would be crazy at all for a 2L to look at the firms paying more, but I think making that the sole decision criteria -- which is not what your post says but what the earlier post suggested -- is crazy. I agree that quality of life/quality of work can be difficult to ascertain, but it's not that difficult, especially if you summer at a firm and see how late people are really there. In terms of prestige, IMHO Simpson, FF, Debevoise and some of the other NYC-based firms simply do not carry the same weight in DC as they do in NYC. As for Skadden DC, I think it's generally accepted that on average their associates work way more than at other DC-based firms.

I could be wrong, though.

I think it's generally accepted that Skadden associates anywhere have a crappy quality of life. Though if anyone wants to say otherwise, I'd love to hear it.

I work at a big national firm in Boston with a NYC office and am class of 1999. My salary is $70K less than what is being paid in NYC, but from what I understand, even with the occasional late nights, I work a LOT less than associates in New York. Hence, I am able to see my kids during the week, and have some time with my husband. After taxes, I believe it is a fair tradeoff.

This might be old news - but Goodwin Procter announced their non-NYC salaries - consistent with Wilmer

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?topic=Greedy%20Boston&msg_id=0036da

If Goodwin announced on non new york offices, they didn't tell any of their associates. This is wrong.

If Goodwin announced on non new york offices, they didn't tell any of their associates. This is wrong.

11:08, the memo was sent to all associates in BOS, SF, LA and DC this afternoon.

Goodwin sent the memo around in Boston today.

GOODWIN | PROCTER
M E M O R A N D U M

To All Boston, Washington, D .C . and California Associates
From Minta E. Kay
Chair, Attorney Review Committee
Re 2007 Updated Salary Scale
Date February 1, 2007

I am pleased to announce that effective as of January 1, 2007, base salaries for associates in the Boston, Washington, D.C. and California offices will be increased to the following amounts :

Class of 2006 $145,000
Class of 2005 $155,000
Class of 2004 $170,000
Class of 2003 $190,000
Class of 2002 $210,000
Class 2001 $225,000
Class of 2000 and senior $240,000

These increased base salaries, including the retroactive amount for January 2007, will be reflected in your February paycheck.

Total compensation, including base salaries, for Professional Track Attorneys will continue to be
determined independently.