Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: Go to Fenwick & West, Young Man
If you want to get a raise to the $160K pay scale, but without a corresponding "adjustment" to your bonus. Or if you want to bill only 1800 hours a year, and still make a decent living.
From a source at the firm:
Fenwick & West raises. Keeps bonus structure the same.I know the partners are relishing embarassing our biggest competitor WSGR with this move.
Check out the memo, after the jump.
FENWICK & WEST LLP ASSOCIATE PAY RAISE MEMO
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Associates, Senior Counsel, Of Counsel
CC: All Partners
Lois Boyd
Rich Ransom
Cheri Vaillancour
Julieta Wiley
FROM: Kathryn J. Fritz
DATE: May 18, 2007
RE: Mid-Year 2007 Associate Salary Adjustments
The Firm is raising the salary scale for associates in the 1st through 8th year classes, effective June 1, 2007, as set forth below. Attorneys in more senior classes will be separately notified if there will be any adjustments to their salary.
These adjustments reflect our continued commitment to offering competitive compensation to attract and retain top level talent. We also continue to offer an 1800 billable hour commitment option, an election which is unique among our law firm peers.
The 2007 Associate Bonus program will be unchanged. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask me.
2007 Adjusted Associate Salary Scale
Year 1950 Hours -- 1800 Hours
1999 280,000 -- 258,000
2000 265,000 -- 244,500
2001 250,000 -- 230,500
2002 230,000 -- 212,000
2003 210,000 -- 193,500
2004 185,000 -- 170,500
2005 170,000 -- 157,000
2006 160,000 -- 147,500
(60) Comments
who?
Go....
Not sure how this embarasses WSGR. You bill 1800 there as a 1st year and you still make $160k in salary. The WSGR bonuses just don't kick in until 1900, as opposed to the old scale which kicked in at 1700 (and dude, who bills that little?). So....where's the part where Fenwick bests WSGR?
Not sure how this embarasses WSGR. You bill 1800 there as a 1st year and you still make $160k in salary. The WSGR bonuses just don't kick in until 1900, as opposed to the old scale which kicked in at 1700 (and dude, who bills that little?). So....where's the part where Fenwick bests WSGR?
Anyone know what the bonus structure that stays in place actually is?
Two words: Tucker Max
Not sure how this embarasses WSGR. You bill 1800 there as a 1st year and you still make $160k in salary. The WSGR bonuses just don't kick in until 1900, as opposed to the old scale which kicked in at 1700 (and dude, who bills that little?). So....where's the part where Fenwick bests WSGR?
Glad to see the raises starting again.
Between 1950 and 2100 hours, you will make substantially more at Fenwick than you will at WSGR -- same base salary at both firms but Fenwick pays full bonus while WSGR doesn't (you don't get a full bonus at WSGR until you bill 2100 hours).
Moreover, Fenwick gets candor points. They announce they are giving a raise and its actually a raise. In contrast, WSGR announces that they are giving a raise, but instead it's a disguised cut in total compensation in many cases.
Not sure how this embarasses WSGR. You bill 1800 there as a 1st year and you still make $160k in salary. The WSGR bonuses just don't kick in until 1900, as opposed to the old scale which kicked in at 1700 (and dude, who bills that little?). So....where's the part where Fenwick bests WSGR?
(1) Apologies all for the multiple posts. screwy computer.
(2) Anon at 2:32: A good point. I guess we'll see how things shake out at the end of the year re: total compensation. Could be that firm profitability is the final trump--that is, because places like WSGR tend to tie the associate bonus pool to overall profitability, it could be that even at 70% bonus, WSGR does better. Or not. BUT, I still dispute your characterization of this being a "disguised" move.
Dear Sidley, Kirkland, Winston, and Jenner:
Do you notice how firms in Cali respond to the salary increase by other Cali firms? Yes, they move to 160k as well.
Now that 3 firms in Chicago have gone to 160k, you should follow suit... or face the ramifications.
I heard that DC bar president and A&P partner James Sandman has threatened that if A&P raises he's going to move to a Chicago firm (since they'll never raise).
I heard spiderman kicked the crap out of sandman.
I heard that Jesus got really pissed off when he went to church.
Sandman obviously chose the wrong time to buy his third vacation home. He should have known $125K wouldn't last forever.
Winston's not going to raise in DC or Chi. They have too many people in those offices. It was easy to raise in CA - only about 80 associates. DC and Chi total about 400+.
winston might raise in chicago if kirkland, mayer, sidley do, but you're right, there is no way in hell they will lead the charge there. winston and jenner are in the same boat as mcdermott, and I don't think anyone should be waiting for them to move the market. kirkland, mayer and sidley are the key--one of them goes, the other two will, and probably then winston, mcdermott, jenner, and a handful of others.
should look for kirkland or sidley before jenner. the reason is DC -- both kirkland and sidley have to be feeling pressure to move there and they'll be in a tough situation moving in DC but not moving at home in chicago. jenner is under less pressure in DC, where gibson is the only major appellate firm at 160. (well, except for jones day, whose salary is way below market for other reasons)
Any chance Jones Day raises before Kirkland in Chicago?
4:21, no, unless for some reason Sidley and Mayer move but Kirkland doesn't. Jones Day has and always will play second fiddle to those three.
Chicago is settling at $145. Unless you work for a CA or NY firm in Chicago, you're going to get stuck behind.
4:44, that is simply not true and is contrary to the rumors in Chicago at the top firms.
DLA will go to 160 in its major markets.
Okay, it's time:
CA List of Shame:
1) Sheppard Mullin
2) Pillsbury
3) Thelen Reid
4:58 -- oh really? what firms? Winston told Chicago to fuck off already. Trying to stir the pot?
5:04 PM:
Really? Based on O'Malley's e-mail?
Ain't gonna happen..
5:17, I work at a Chicago Biglaw shop, so I am getting a kick out of these replies...
No seriously, I do, and what 4:58 says is true, no one seriously believes that Kirkland, Sidley, and Mayer will all three sit back and let Latham be ahead of them. One of them is going to move, then another one, and then another one, and once they do, the other Biglaw shops will follow, or at least the ones who matter. It's virtually inevitable. I think they are waiting to see what the various firms did with the raises in all the markets before figuring out what to do and then make an announcement for all offices at once, rather than go piecemeal.
Frankly, that's probably the smart move. No sense in pissing off your associates in Chicago by moving DC and LA first. This way they see what everyone is doing with their bonuses and salaries, and can move accordingly.
5:33, I think 5:17 was more criticizing the people who just throw out random "uhh, I heard 15 firms said Latham sucks and they're gonna raise to 160!"
5:13 -- there's a rumor going around at Thelen that one of the chairs and said no salary increases are being considered.
Welcome to 2nd-tiersville.
Sheppard will raise - it's inevitable - ExCom meeting next Tuesday
5:33, I work in the Chicago office of one of the 3 firms you mentioned would not sit back, and I haven't heard a peep. I'm shocked (and feel a bit stupid, considering Latham was a firm I was looking at when I came on board) personally, but I really haven't heard any chatter out there.
Maybe I'm not very well connected. I have to think they would raise because they fight for the same talent in key practice areas as Latham (plus, Latham's storm on Chicago over the past few years has not gone unnoticed). But my ideas of what they should or will do aren't that relevant...
Has Munger raised?
If not, they should go on that CA list of shame as well.
Any chance that Dixon, Cox and Peters will match Fenwick's bold move?
6:04, probably -- they do like to thrust themselves into the fold.
5:13, McDermott and DLA too, unless I've missed something.
CA List of Shame:
1) Sheppard Mullin
2) Pillsbury
3) Thelen Reid
4) McDermott Will & Emery
5) DLA Piper
Keep updating.
Surely Reed Smith is on the list of shame, as well.
CA List of Shame:
1) Sheppard Mullin [Any word?]
2) Pillsbury [Interim announcement made; decision forthcoming.]
3) Thelen Reid.[Any word?]
4) McDermott. [Interim announcement made; decision forthcoming.]
5) DLA Piper.[Interim announcement made; decision forthcoming.]
6) Reed Smith [any word?]
Reed Smith aint raising my friends - no chance
Add Morgan Lewis.
Morgan Lewis already said they are not raising. Remember the memo that said they like to lead in certain areas, but salaries are not one of them.
Morgan Lewis will raise, I guarantee it, at least in CA. The memo said that they don't like to LEAD, as in lead the charge on raising salaries, but if everyone else is doing it, they will begrudgingly do it too since they have so many attorneys in California now. They'll just be one of the last to do it.
Morgan will not raise. They haven't even said they are thinking about it.
Do not go to Morgan.
The article didn't say Morgan wouldn't raise.
Bingham has not raised.
Thelen is supposed to be coming out with a new bonus plan this month - maybe they will address salary then? There hasn't been a murmur....word is Bingham is announcing a match on Monday.
1) Sheppard Mullin
2) Pillsbury
3) Thelen Reid
4) McDermott
5) DLA Piper
6) Reed Smith
7) Morgan Lewis
8) Bingham
8:11, see 5:41.
I am an associate at a "list of shame" firm and am still at work.
Do not go to such places thinking you'll get some nice "quality of life." That's all bs.
1) Sheppard Mullin
2) Pillsbury
3) Thelen Reid
4) McDermott
5) DLA Piper
6) Reed Smith
7) Morgan Lewis
8) Bingham
9) Perkins Coie
5:17 and 5:38, I've heard it from good sources at Mayer and Kirkland.
Ropes! Ropes! Ropes is now 160 base for ALL offices, and still no minimum billable requirement and bonuses remain handsome....
Jenner has a significant DC presence too. They were the first to bump to 125 in Chicago. Who knows...
Someone will go, but the waiting is ridiculous and is itself doing damage to the Chicago market. Is Chicago not profitable enough? That's crazy with CA and TX firms on the $160K scale. It looks like Chicago partners are the real greedy associates here - trying to see if they can keep the $15k per associate in their own pocket. Why are NYC partnerships more willing to share the PPP wealth?
1:12 - explain how this is "doing damage to the Chicago market" except in your eyes.
The buzz at Sheppard Mullin is that raises to the $160K scale will happen on Tuesday, after the regularly scheduled meeting of the executive committee.
1:42 - 1:12 clearly means that the longer Chi firms wait (when all other cities in the country respond so fast) the less and less chicago looks like a market where an associate's services will be valued at top dollar. What partnership are you a member of? Logicless? Feel free to post your legal problems on here too - we can solve them for you since they must be beyond you.
If Chicago pays its associates less than the other historically peer cities, then it gives the distinct impression that it is a second-tier city and legal market. Prestige-seeking 2Ls are going to be disinclined to go to a second-tier market. The difference in pay will be mirrored by a difference in average quality.
9:56, nice try, but people go to Chicago because they want to go to Chicago. If salary reflects reality, then what harm is it doing? What are you, a law student who is clueless?
People go to Chicago because they want to go to Chicago......among the other top tier legal markets. Law students interested in BigLaw generally pick between Chicago, LA, DC, and NYC. If Chicago falls out of that pack, law students will not be as likely to consider it as an equal option.