Too bad Fried Frank is a festering TTT in decline.

Did Fried Frank call Lat directly to inform him of this? Did the firms finally figure out that it's the best way to disseminate information?

There was a comment on another thread today about Hogan & Hartson raising salaries on its lower-hours track. Does anyone have a memo or more specific information?

so who's in the 70K club now?

Skadden, Cravath, Sullivan, Simpson, Paul Weiss, Weil, LeBoeuf, and Ropes?

Any others?

Mmmmm, fried frank.

CLERKSHIP BONUSES (as of 6/13/07):

The $50k List (* denotes $50k/$70k):

2. Cravath*
3. SullCrom*
4. Skadden*
5. Davis Polk
6. STB
7. Cleary
9. Weil*
12. Paul Weiss*
13. Debevoise
21. White & Case
25. Ropes & Gray (NY only)*
29. Fried Frank
54. LeBoeuf*
55. Cahill
NR. Patterson Belknap

The "List of Shame":

1. Wachtell ($0)
8. Latham ($35k)
10. Kirkland ($35k)
11. Covington ($35k)
14. Wilmer ($35k)
15. Shearman ($15k)
16. Sidely ($35k)
17. Williams & Connolly ($25k)
18. Gibson ($35k)
19. Arnold ($15k)
20. OMM ($35k)
22. Jones Day (?)
23. MoFo (?)
24. Hogan (?)
25. Ropes & Gray ($35K outside NY but $70K for 2yr clerkship)

Any predictions on when the big boys (i.e., Latham, Kirkland, Covington) going to step up and match the new market rate?

6:45 - Simpson isn't in the $70k club.

6:58: No time soon.

CLERKSHIP BONUSES (as of 6/13/07):

The $50k List (* denotes $50k/$70k):

2. Cravath*
3. SullCrom*
4. Skadden*
5. Davis Polk
6. STB
7. Cleary
9. Weil*
12. Paul Weiss*
13. Debevoise
21. White & Case
25. Ropes & Gray (NY only)*
29. Fried Frank
54. LeBoeuf*
55. Cahill
NR. Patterson Belknap

The "List of Shame":

1. Wachtell ($0)
8. Latham ($35k)
10. Kirkland ($35k)
11. Covington ($35k)
14. Wilmer ($35k)
15. Shearman ($15k)
16. Sidely ($35k)
17. Williams & Connolly ($25k)
18. Gibson ($35k)
19. Arnold ($15k)
20. OMM ($35k)
22. Jones Day (?)
23. MoFo (?)
24. Hogan (?)
25. Ropes & Gray ($35K outside NY but $70K for 2yr clerkship)
48. DLA Piper ($10K for district court)

This is stupid. Didn't Jenner just de-equitize a bunch of partners following in the footsteps of Mayer Brown because "litigation is slowing down." The only thing clerks are good for is litigation. I've got two of them in my transactional group now, and if I were two years older I'd have their whiny asses canned for being incompetent. They can research the hell out of some stuff, but they're practical morons. I think if you're going to pay for anything it should be real work experience, or I don't know, rich parents that could be clients. A law firm is a business, and giving clerkship bonuses is the worst investment (outside of a purely litigious law firm) I could imagine. You're better of spending the money on another document clerk every year.

75% of Covington's class comes in from a clerkship. I can't imagine they'd invest in raising clerkship bonuses, especially since none of their peer firms - W&C, Wilmer - have.

75% of Covington's class comes in from a clerkship. I can't imagine they'd invest in raising clerkship bonuses, especially since none of their peer firms - W&C, Wilmer - have.

Latham needs to step up to the plate. The way I hear it, they are desperate for clerk's. Offering a clerkship bonus that is 15k below peer firms is not going to get the job done. Put your money where your mouth is!

White Girls With Asian Guys

9:37 - glad I'm not the only one thinking that.

DC Vault of Shame

17. William & Connolly
36. King & Spalding
40. Baker Botts
48. Jenner & Block
50. Fulbright & Jaworski
58. Vinson & Elkins
59. Alston & Bird
64. Holland & Knight
66. Bingham McCutchen
68. Foley & Lardner
70. Hunton & Williams
71. Patton Boggs
74. Kirkpatrick Lockhart
75. Nixon Peabody
77. Bryan Cave
79. Crowell & Moring
86. McGuire Woods
87. Squire Sanders
88. Arent Fox
93. Kilpatrick Stockton
95. Dickstein
96. Venable

CLERKSHIP BONUS TO 100K!!

Uhm, Latham isn't desperate enough for clerks to give my ass a job (top 5%, tier 1 school, district court clerkship: interview at Latham but no offer).

What's the story with Shearman!? Can you call them Lat? $15K!!

Clerkship bonuses seem to me to be a relatively inexpensive investment. Unlike the salary increases, it's a one time expense. Also, many places give some kind of a signing bonus to new associates that clerks don't get because their getting the clerkship bonus (my situation). The way I'm looking at it, a new associate gets a 20k signing bonus and I get a 35k clerkship bonus, so I only get 15k more for doing the clerkship. AND, they get a year of training subsidized by the federal government during which they didn't have to pay me a 135k salary. I think it is a pretty good deal for them.

"They're," of course.

K&S DC has moved to $160K....

The funny thing about clerks is that they are largely useless. It amuses me that firms fall all over themselves to pay large bonuses and to give seniority credit to people who have spent a year developing no relationships, no business, etc., all on the premise that maybe they'll know something about how that judge likes things.

7:45:

Don't be upset because you get bitched-out all day by 23 year old IBankers.

We need some GeeneParmesan action...trigger that shit. You know which one I want.

9:49 - I have a fever and the only cure is a memo

I've heard some of the NYC firms with bonuses under 50k, particularly at 15k, have begun to see current clerks jump ship. I wonder how much longer they will wait?

9:54: The funny thing about you is you're useless. There is more to the practice of law then "devloping relationships...business, etc." Besides, as a second-year associate, how much business did you generate? My guess is very little. Or none. At least I know how to write.

Clerks have very little sense of how to practice law or manage their time when they get into the firm setting. That's my experience in any case.

You're right that business development is a secondary issue; the big one is developing relationships within the firm. Of course, at biglaw, if associates are just a cog in the machine, I suppose that doesn't matter.

9:37: What is your source for Latham being desperate for clerks? Apparently the hiring people don't know that. I'm a yale grad, district court clerk and I didn't even get an interview.

The only thing more useless than a clerk is a Yale grad, of course.

11:09 = Robert O. Link

Cadwalader Chairman Robert Link "has no use for Yale Law School."

"I don't think we even recruit there anymore," he said of the law school often regarded as the nation's most intellectual. "They don't seem to produce the kind of lawyer we want."

My sources are associates in the NY office. Perhaps desperate is not the right word, but I was told that the office was eager to hire clerks. Maybe things have changed in the last 6-12 months.

The carping about clerks being "useless" at law firms is hilarious, I'm guessing it's written by bitter 3Ls who didn't get a clerkship out of law school (don't worry guys, it's not too late to apply for 2008!).

What could be more valuable than a lawyer who has spent the last year analyzing and writing on issues that commonly arise in litigation? Certainly not a 1st yr associate who has been stuck doing doc review for the last year. $35k-$50k is a small price to pay for that experience.

11:39 - it's probably written by attorneys tired of you english major types siphoning profits from the groups that actually make money...

11:39: because a clerk who spent a year researching petty criminal stuff and sentencing guidelines is pretty damn useless when it comes to business litigation.

I accepted an offer at Latham. I'm banking on a bump in the clerkship bonus before I finish my term as a clerk. By the way, firms hire clerks more for the prestige they bring with them, than for any practical skills they have acquired through the clerkship. As for losing the opportunity for one year to "devlop relationships...business, etc", that's a laughable argument.

Prestige? yes, a year spent in the Western District of Bumblefuck will bring in the clients, alright.

1:03 - I'm in the same boat (i.e., accepted an offer to Latham and am finishing up my clerkship, hoping they raise before we get there). And despite what some people on this site might believe, I know a helluva lot more than my classmates who are currently first year associates. I have much more experience with ex parte applications, motions, pretrial conferences, trials, you name it (and not just on "petty criminal cases," either, as Hobbes might believe--I've worked on multi-million dollar patent and copyright suits, breach of contract cases, etc.).

Hobbes - by going to such an extreme, are you admitting that a clerk from a prestigious district/circuit does benefit firms?

A) First year litigation associates at large firms don't make client contacts. They do document review.

B) Re: "a clerk who spent a year researching petty criminal stuff and sentencing guidelines is pretty damn useless when it comes to business litigation"

So let me get this straight. You are a "lawyer" who does loads of important civil business litigation. Presumably this involves a court once in a while. A court has Judges. Judges have clerks. Clerks draft opinions and advise judges about how to rule in these business litigation cases. Yet apparently, clerks have no experience with civil business litigation. Fascinating logical leap. You MUST be in corporate.

There may be a practical benefit to having clerks from the district(s) where the firm frequently practices. Circuit clerks are prestigious. District court clerks probably won't matter much to clients. And going to Latham from the District of Nebraska won't impress Latham's clients.

"Calvin" -- so tell me the average percentage of time a clerk spends on criminal vs. civil matters. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've been bumped from a civil court date because the judge must attend to criminal matters.

If a clerk actually gets a chance to work on a civil case and do some substantive research and/or writing, those are good things -- and they will be useful down the road. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks clerks get to spend a large chunk of their time on that in most courts is screwed in the head.

--Hobbes (not the tiger, but the "nasty, brutish and short" variety)

Hobbes -- I clerk for a magistrate judge, so 100% of my time is devoted to civil litigation. And because I'm in NYC, there's a great deal of extremely complex business litigation that comes across my desk (maybe I've seen one of your briefs?). I'm not the best or the brightest lawyer in the world, but I doubt many biglaw associates get comparable experience in their first year of practice.

-- Calvin (not the kid in the comics, but the 16th century french protestant theologian and lawyer)

In my experience, district court clerks spend very little or no time on criminal matters. A judge doesn't need a clerk's help to take a plea, sentence a criminal, etc.

I have spent 100% of my time working on civil matters ranging from wacky pro se lawsuits to complex securities and intellectual property litigation. And I can tell you, having already worked a bit in BigLaw, that clerking will serve me and my firm a whole better than another year of doc review would have.

Calvin: alright, in your case I'm wrong about experience. Congratulations. Though I think I have you on the "prestige" point. Who even know that magistrates had clerks?

Hobbes - I don't know where you're getting your idea that clerks don't work on biglaw-type civil matters. I'm a district court clerk and I spend almost all of my time on such cases (including researching the law, discussing it with the judge, and writing orders/judgments). How can you think that a first year attorney doing document review is learning more than I am?

You sound like a disgruntled attorney who applied but did not get a clerkship.

Hobbes --

I've recently done a district and a circuit clerkship. At the district level, i did 95% civil. Many (if not most) district judges do most of the criminal matters themselves since it is a specialized area and is prone to mistakes and being overturned. It tends to be quite different at the circuit level (outside the DC circuit) where more than half of your time might easily be devoted to criminal cases.

Hobbes --

I've recently done a district and a circuit clerkship. At the district level, i did 95% civil. Many (if not most) district judges do most of the criminal matters themselves since it is a specialized area and is prone to mistakes and being overturned. It tends to be quite different at the circuit level (outside the DC circuit) where more than half of your time might easily be devoted to criminal cases.

Hobbes -

You are absolutely clueless. This year I've written over a dozen opinions disposing of claims briefed and argued by senior partners at the most prestigious law firms in the country. That day-in, day-out exposure - to good writing and oral advocacy - is invaluable and firms recognize as much. You will never have that amount of responsibility, even as a senior associate. Stop rationalizing your failure to secure a clerkship. The tribe has spoken.

So has anybody else raised to $50k (or even $50k/$70k)?

re: "I think I have you on the 'prestige' point. Who even know that magistrates had clerks?"

Hobbes -- Lawyers. Lawyers know that magistrate judges have clerks. Specifically, the lawyers at the V20 firm that are paying me a bonus larger than a social worker's annual salary to start there as a second-year litigation associate. Get your facts right, man, or get over your complex and just APPLY for that clerkship you've secretly wanted all these years. It's embarrassing how wrong all your posts have been today.

I'm guessing next you're going to argue next that going to an ivy league law school is a real bad idea b/c you don't learn "real lawyering" skills. Nevermind that it helps your career immeasurably in terms of experience and prestige. Much like a federal clerkship. Even a magistrate clerkship.

Where are LW and OMM? They at least have to raise to $50k in NY, don't they?

2:48 -- what, never have the day in day out responsibility to sit and listen to other people do arguments and to read what they wrote? Newsflash: you learn better by DOING, not by sitting around and observing.

But you're right, if Biglaw first years spend all their time in a warehouse, sitting around and listening to other people is better. No wonder I'm almost always disappointed with the quality of the people I deal with at most biglaw firms.

2:58: I have an Ivy League law degree (HLS). Those schools could, indeed, do a better job teaching people how to be lawyers, which is why so many biglaw lawyers flame out after spending a couple years in warehouses and going nowhere near real legal work.

Of course, I admit that Ivy League law degrees are prestigious, and mine made it much easier to get a job. Clerkships don't have the same impact, at least in most rational markets. The NY market (i.e., $400 an hour for first years to sit in warehouses) is so fucked up in so many ways that I'm not sure what happens there matters to the rest of the world.

Hobbes - You seem to have trouble following the thread of an argument to its logical conclusion. Clerks (and judges) do not passively *sit and listen to other people do [sic] arguments*. They closely analyze and dissect those arguments, reason through the myriad issues in complicated cases, and actually decide how to resolve the case (which, I might add involves, in your words "doing arguments"). Have you read an opinion lately? On average, the reasoning and writing therein (done by clerks) is more sophisticated and nuanced than what you will find in 90% of BigLaw briefs. As for solo practitioners, small firms, what have you, the briefs I have seen this year from them have been universally dismal -shoddy reasoning, grammatical errors, incorrect citations, even misspellings in the headings!? Your practial experience "DOING" god know what will not make you a better attorney than even the lowliest clerk. The rigorous clerkship application process serves a sorting function and you have been sorted OUT. Get over it.

3:32: Ooh, getting defensive, are we?

I've worked with plenty of former clerks. Thanks, but I'm quite confident of my own abilities, as are the partners I work with and my clients. Apparently my "practial" experience has been pretty good.

I look forward to kicking your ass in court some day, if you ever manage to get out of a warehouse.

oh, and WGWAG. YEAH!

I can "practially" kick your ass already.

4:20 - awesome!

Seriously folks, we're getting off topic here. Whether a clerk deserves a $50k bonus or not (I am inclined to think he or she does), it's the market rate. Let's keep the focus on whether (or when) any other firms are going to raise. Have any current clerks called the firms where they've accepted their offer to inquire about potential bonus increases?

Oh, I've called my firm. They're staying at $35k though they're "actively evaluating" the market for clerkship bonuses. Which sounds like code for "waiting until next year to raise to $50k." Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to get what I can, but my firm is in NY and it's a big one. I thought they would have matched White & Case and the Beef by now. The extra 15k is only about 7k after taxes, but it would be nice to have all the same.

5:21 - I haven't called my firm yet, but I'm expecting the same thing. I've written a few cover letters to other firms (paying $50k), but I haven't sent them out just yet. I like my firm, but it speaks poorly that their compensation is lagging behind their peers.