I have some info on plaintiffs' firms: they are sleezebags. HTH.

I think that McKool Smith in Dallas was at 137,500 when all the major firms were at 125,000. I'm not sure if they are at or above 160,000 presently. If I recall correctly, they don't pay a bonus, which is kind of odd considering the way plaintiff's firms are paid.

Is it true that Mel Weiss and Bill Lerach were making $16 million a year before the indictments?? Is there really more money in plaintiffs' work, or is it really just a very small percentage at the top who make enormous bucks while the average plaintiffs' lawyer lives on a shoestring?

I don't know much about plaintiffs' firms, but on a whim I looked up Wiley Rein (which posted PPP of $4.4 mil) on NALP, and they list a starting salary of $160k for 1950 billable hrs, and $125 for 1800. "Clerkship bonus: Y," but no mention of amount

Hooray for plaintiffs attorneys. Now if only we can collect the judgments.

A few months ago, I saw the Hon. Janice Rogers Brown in line to pay for her lunch at Sbarro's Pizza in Union Station. Go figure! If nothing else, this is proof positive that the controversy about salaries of federal judges is not just empty talk...

It really is just a very small percentage at the top who make enormous bucks while the average plaintiffs' lawyer lives on a shoestring.

Those are not what I would call plaintiff's firms. The brunt of plaintiff's work is done by small firms of no more than 10 lawyers.

I work for a plaintiff's firm. My observations:

1. My boss is extremely greedy. He makes more than the average biglaw partner, but I make much less than the average biglaw associate. Plaintiff's firms do not share the wealth. There are a lot of decamillionaire plaintiff's lawyers in LA, and a lot of $15/hour slave wage tier 2 grads like me supporting them.

2. He thinks he's some great humanitarian. I swear, he literally says he does "God's work." I'm not joking. He also claims he would do plaintiff's work for free if his wife would let him.

3. A lot of the cases are bullshitish, if not flat out bullshit. The key seems not to be the merits of the case, but rather the wealth of the defendant. A meritorious case against a poor defendant is worth much less than a stretch case against a wealthy defendant. I don't know what's worst though, filing these cases or dragging out their defense. You would not believe the machinations defense lawyers (some biglaw) contrive so they can bill a few more hours rather than settle.

4. It's a lot more work than you might think, and the work is productivity based, not hours based.

All in all I'm starting to like it, especially after hearing the biglaw horror stories. Those places seem like hellholes which are not worth any amount of money.

Hey L2L, you feeling ok? You acutally posted positively at the end...worried about your health...

I want the dirt on the people who get jobs at Bredhoff and Kaiser and Altschuler & Berzon!

Yeah, but I don't want that to be perceived as a positive statement about Loyola.

I still deeply regret going here, and wish I would have gone to Southwestern on full scholarship. I could have had the same job and career prospects with much less debt.

I did products liability for several years, and got to see a bunch of plaintiff firms on the otherside. From what I could tell, the biggest difference was that plaintiff firm money is extremely inconsistent and uncertain. For example, I knew of an associate at a Texas firm that collected on a big judgment. The head partner dressed up in a santa suit and went around handing out checks for $700k. The associate had been there only a couple of months. I guess this bought loyalty because the associate worked on bullshit cases for the next several years, and I can't imagine his base salary was anything to write home about.

Realistically, how much do partners at Milberg Weiss or Lerach Coughlin make a year? It's probably a number that blows away BigLaw numbers.

The article about Bill Lerach this morning noted that his Firm had over 30 settlements last year, totaling $7.b *billion.*

If they get, say, 20% of that figure, that's about $1.4 billion. Even if you take off $200 million as overhead, which is way high, that leaves $1.2 billion of profits. And they only have about 180 lawyers. Even if 100 of them are partners, which again is a real stretch, that's $12 million per partner!

Am I missing something here? Wouldn't it be funny if L2L stuck it out as his firm, made partner, and one day made more than all of us? Wow.

Any litigator who hates plaintiff's firms is a moron- they pretty much keep the securities/anti trust practices at the Vault 100 in business. Not to mention all the social good. So as a lawyer who left a Vault 100 (not the top 50 so I understand if some of you snicker) who went plaintiff side, I can tell you it’s a LOT more interesting and more meaningful.

The issue for recruiting is threefold. First, there is huge difference between pay/prestige at the top of the market (Leach, Bernstein Litowitz, a few others) and the rest of the market, which, on the bottom end, devolves into ambulance chasing, at best. Second, the salaries are not set- they pay you what you think you are worth. If you are looking to move from defense to plaintiff side you should expect a 20% pay cut initially– everyone hopes to get back to market after a few years, but, from my perspective, that seems unlikely unless you are very very good. Bonuses are also not lockstep, and you can do very very well if you’re on game or you can get nothing. Its not based on billables, usually. The clerkship bonus is also negotiable and, in my experience, its not near 50K. Finally, I may be wrong, but I don’t think most plaintiff’s side firms do traditional summer programs– they only recruit if they need people, and then usually laterals. But I could be wrong about that last point.

Most important from my perspective is the inherent feeling of self worth that you just don’t get on the defense side. For some people, thats worth a 20% pay cut. For others, its not. We call those people sellouts.

It's funny, the partner I work for at my Biglaw firm defending corporations from the likes of Lerach has the same T.R. quote framed on his office wall. We're not so different, you and I.

"I'm the meanest, nastiest s.o.b. in town."

You are "The Hammer" (a/k/a Jim Shapiro) and you rock ... keep rockin' on!!!

Was that a typo, 700k? Wow.

King of torts: calling a litigator who hates plaintiffs' firms hypocritical is like saying that a police officer shouldn't hate cops. There are at least a few of us who got into this business specifically to defend companies - most of which (in terms of our clients) are public, meaning any decision against them is simply going to transfer several billion dollars of value from the company's shareholders (401k plans, mutual funds, etc. as well as Warren Buffet) to a dozen or so lawyers, and in far lesser amounts to a poorly-defined class which probably didn't know they had been "wronged" until so informed by said lawyers - from opportunistic vultures who would rather force the company to settle in time to pay for soundproofing on their new jet than actually determine the truth of their allegations.

Incidentally, in my last job I helped companies de-register in the U.S. (usually by changing their articles of incorporation to force U.S. shareholders to sell to overseas investors, often at a discount b/c of the time constraints) specifically to avoid exposure to U.S. shareholder liability laws. _That_ job made me feel like a sellout, even if it was only made necessary by, um, you guys.

I used to work at 10 lawyer plaintiffs' firm. Mostly consumer class actions although some catastrophic injury and some business litigation (on a contingency and some hourly (to pay overhead)).

I now work at a 50+ doing a lot of hourly litigation for businesses.

It is funny to listen to the associates now talk about hitting their hours, getting "easy billing," and billing enough to hit bonuses. It doesn't seem so much like a profession, but rather punching a clock.

As a plaintiffs' lawyer, no one ever talked to me about my hours (we did keep track so that we could submit a multiplier and determine profitability of settlements). I really liked not having that emphasis on the billable hour -- i felt like you could practice law without having someone look over my shoulder. If a class cert brief took you a month to draft, no one complained about the cost, if you certified the class.

So if I wanted to read some newspapers to try to dream up new theories, I could. Or if I wanted to push discovery against a defendant dragging their feet, I would, on principal. I still had to get my other work done, but the freedom to control the cases I worked on was there. There was always a lot of work, so we worked a lot.

That said, the salary was not impressive Although my bosses had mm dollar homes, Porsche's , Benzes, and one had a Rolls Royce, the associates pay was low compared to biglaw.

Bonuses were not great, but we did not have any huge hits while I was there. A lot of times it seemed like feast or famine. Even so, I really enjoyed the work (I had to switch jobs because of a family relocation). It is fun to be an aggressive plaintiffs' lawyer and put together a case.

King of torts made sense until this last part:

"Most important from my perspective is the inherent feeling of self worth that you just don’t get on the defense side. For some people, thats worth a 20% pay cut. For others, its not. We call those people sellouts."

Others would call that unjustified smugness.

I think it's largely a wash.

Some plaintiffs attorneys are doing the world some good by defending the injured and largely defenseless and by keeping the big evil corporations in line. Others are second-order parasites who bring the economy down by filing frivolous lawsuits and extorting settlement from baseless claims.

Some civil defense attorneys are doing the world some good by defending against frivolous lawsuits and by helping good clients get ahead. Others allow the bad guys to do awful things with impunity.

Any lawyer who's too self-righteous about what he does makes me skeptical.

Anonymous 11:53:

The management of those companies who deregister in the U.S. want to do what ever accounting shanatagans (sp) they want (and environmental damage, etc) without the interference of regulators or plaintiff’s lawyers. Not the type of client you should feel good about representing. Good to see we are on the same page. In any event, companies who deregister most likely can’t access U.S. public equity markets in the future, so they are probably too small to make them a target for a lucrative shareholder suit.

Your analysis of the wealth transfer from shareholders to plaintiffs lawyers is way off. In a securities suit, the plaintiffs are most likely pension funds that have suffered losses from fraud. Any recovery, less fees, goes back to the fund. The losers are the management of the company who committed the fraud in the first place (ripping off the owners). Corporations should be run for the benefit of its owners (the shareholders) so no one should feel badly when plaintiffs prevail in a securities suit. Anti-trust and products liability is different but there are people who are injured, and that deserves redress, even if a public corporation's owners suffer.

Anonymous 12:05:

I paid 20% (about 40K) to be smug. Its justified.

I worked at a 15 attorney plaintiffs' firm in Baltimore, MD. On of the Partner's there told me he took home about $50,000 a month!!

The 3 partners in the firm were absolutely loaded. I don't think anyone else was doing that great. They scored quite a few big settlements when I was there including a $3.5 million wrongful death.

However the partners were just slime balls. They were completely morally bankrupt. All they cared about was money...nothing else mattered. I hated it.

They didn't work crazy hours though, they just threw alot of mud in the complaint and hoped some of it stuck: they let the defense attorneys and judge's figure out what had merit.

Usually, the plaintiffs' lawyers that make the big dollars are the ones that bring in big verdicts. Second in command on down do not get to share all that much in the huge paychecks. This is so because everyone who is second in command on down is expendable, but there is only one Tom Girardi, etc.

What can a first year associate expect to make at a firm like Lerach or one of its peers? Assume a standard year of settlements, I'm mostly interested in the base pay.

Plaintiff's firms to 190k!!!!

I interviewed at a top plaintiff's shop about 2 years ago... The salary for a 4th year was about 20% below NY market but bonuses ranged up to $100k. They were having a good year though.

There are few large plaintiffs firms. Even fewer will hire right out of law school. After a stint at a big defense firm, I was hired by a large plaintiffs firm. The signing bonus was massive. The base salary, however, was in line with my former position on the other side of the "v." I was still making money for the partners, but I rarely used a time sheet, the
office had a keg, which was used responsibly, and I received spot bonuses after big victories. (Contrary to the snark attacking plaintiffs' work product, we were very effective. I, like many of my colleagues, had
clerkship experience and won far more than lost. Indeed, how many defense lawyers bemoan the large settlement payments they make? How many of them
have ever been to trial?) Nevertheless, the firm made (and still makes) gluttonous amounts of money in which I largely did not share. During that
time, however, I learned how to build cases, litigate them, and take them to trial. I learned the economics of the practice. This was no secret. In fact, during the interview process, the plaintiffs firm's major selling point was that I would learn how to run a practice and then be able to go out on my own. When I believed that I was ready, I did just that. Now, I
set my own hours, take cases predominantly against corporations, which is consistent with my political ideology, and keep what I earn. After one year in practice, I net more than I ever did at Biglaw. The foregoing, however, is not for everyone. If you need a partner to approve your work and act as a safety net, are afraid to take a deposition alone, or go to
trial, churning billable hours is your life's calling. If, however, you are audacious enough to take control of your own life by taking an uncertain
career path that allows for consistency between your practice and your ideology, with only the promise of financial independence, then you should jump over that "v." One should always act in accordance with one's principles.

bottom. feeding. suckers.

Which are generally regarded as the top plaintiff's shops in NYC?

Luke: Are you earning more than your counterpart in biglaw, or simply more than you earned as a first year at big law? Another words, can one realistically expect to go out on their own and - if successful - to make at least what their classmates are making at biglaw?

1:05: soulless. myopic. automaton. I represent real people who have been fired because of their age, race, national origin, and gender in the name of the shareholder value, to which 11:53 has apparently devoted his/her life. You cannot imagine how many 7th and 8th year associates I have spoken with after they have gotten the bullet or a good tasering. Surely you are not suggesting that all claims of race/gender discrimination at the partnership level are frivolous? Today, you call us bottom feeders. In a few years, your opinion may change.

In my defense practice I have yet to find a plaintiffs' lawyer who gives a shit about "justice". A couple of them have at least been reasonable litigators. Most of them are slime-sucking scum. The business litigators are much better than the products liability folks though. The pharmaceuticals lawyers are the absolute worst.

1:15: More than my counterpart. Now that I am in my second year, my hope is that certain pending cases will bring in considerably more. Note, however, that a good deal of planning went into my first year before I hung out the shingle.

I agree with 12:05. I don't think you can put everyone in a box so I generally can't back up statements that say plaintiff's lawyers = scumbags or doing work that is ideologically better than big law firms. It really depends.
I agree with Luke for the most part, but the smug bug strikes again at the end. Starting one's own practice is definitely not for everyone, but it's not necessarily about fear-- it just sounds unattractive to me.
There are many reasons to join a big law firm that aren't all about fear, money, or convenience. For example, you wouldn't go down that path if your goal was work for a particular gov't agency, go in-house, or do anything that has to do with finance. Believe it or not, some people are just interested in the corporate world.

Luke - You sound like a reasonable human being. I actually have no problem with plaintiffs' attorneys, what they do, etc. I know some cases or meritorious, and some aren't. BUT, in my brief experience as a litigation assoc. at a big defense firm, I have found the plaintiffs' attorneys to be absolutely contemptible scum. They think they're such hot shit, big shots, and treat everyone around them, including their associates, like morons. They the treat the judges like morons. I've seen plaintiffs attorneys try to lecture federal judges in a settlement discussion. It's unbelievable. Again, I'm not concerned about who has the better argument in the case, I'm just saying I've found most plaintiffs' lawyers to be such disgusting human beings I could never ever work for them, and I am not unaware of the faults of biglaw and the partners etc. Any thoughts?

To echo the above, I've seen plaintiffs' attorneys shout at their clients in court before a judge in a settlement discussion, treating them like crap and demonstrating that they think their clients are worthless except for their claim. I saw a plaintiffs' attorney fire off a stream of profanity in a depo, causing his greaving client to burst into tears while all he could do was turn around, glare at her and say "Do you need a break?" It's such a strange world where the seemingly decent ones in the room are defending the corporation / hospital.

Yes, I am.

Some observations at the end of my one-year federal district court clerkship:

# asshole plaintiff lawyers = # asshole defense lawyers

# bullshit cases = # bullshit defenses

# attempts to extort a settlement = # attempts to steamroll a resource-poor plaintiff

Neither side is "good" and neither side is "evil." It's all about the way you play the game.

"If, however, you are audacious enough to take control of your own life by taking an uncertain
career path that allows for consistency between your practice and your ideology, with only the promise of financial independence, then you should jump over that 'v.'"

Luke, your comments indicate your full fledged bias against corporations. I'm sure that makes you a good advocate for your clients, but is does not mean you walk the moral high ground. If you honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of cases brought by the plaintiff's bar at-large are not frivolous, you are diluted. Deep pockets distort morals on both sides of the v.

I happen to work in Biglaw because my work aligns with my ideology and will assuredly make enough money for me to be financially independent. I may not become a fabulously wealth scum sucking dirt bag (like so many of the "financially independent" members of the plaintiff's bar), but I will be acting in accordance with my principles and will keep a nice roof over my head.

There are both saints and sinners in our profession. Because I have had defense lawyers admit to destroying documents, I do not generalize that all defense lawyers are unethical. (I also do not believe that they are soulless, myopic, automatons; that was an attempt at humor.) In fact, people very close to me are quite happy at Biglaw. I only object to biased and invalid generalizations about plaintiffs. Better plaintiffs lawyers generally settle cases quite early, which may explain why many of you have not encountered them. The only other serious observation I can make is that the two bars have different economic incentives. Defense lawyers must bill, which results in needlessly long and inefficient discovery and motion practice. This infuriates plaintiffs who carry a heavy caseload because of an unsteady income stream. This heavy caseload and unsteady income stream no doubt results in some of the indecorous behavior discussed above.
I must now get back to extorting innocent corporate defendants and will leave it at that.

BTW, no one is actually reporting what associates at plaintiff’s firms can expect to make. The best estimate is that it is around 20% less than a biglaw shop, with a smaller bonus to boot (I wish the 100K/700K bonus number is true, but that is not reality). Ditto for the signing bonus. The joke is that no one really knows– even associates at the firm don’t know what their colleagues make.

Nor, by the way, does anyone know what the partners at the plaintiff’s shops make- there are no ppp numbers that get reported. Sure, there are a few superstars who make a fortune, but based on my experience, most partners make about the same, if not a little less, than a partner at biglaw.

I never heard of a plaintiff's firm with a keg, but if its true, more power to them. And Luke, I'm with you on the principle thing. The world would be a better place if everyone did what they thought was right rather than what they thought they had to do.

Check out the compensation/bonuses at this (largely plaintiff-side) firm in Tex:

http://www.susmangodfrey.com/recruit/atty_compensation.html

Non-equity partner at a major plaintiffs' class action firm chiming in.

On our side the hours are better than biglaw the first few yeers, and remain better ever after. The money is worse the first few years, but better after that if you can wait to December 31 for 80% of the annual total. Outside of NYC, straight from law school you may start at $80-90K, with a first years bonus of $10-20. After that it really doesn't up except for bonuses. You will have fewer hours and more responsibilities in the first few years than at biglaw, so it's a fair trade.

In good years with bonuses senior associates are over $300K, and non-equity partners reach seven figures. Equity partners can buy baseball teams or sponsor endowed chairs at law schools, depending on taste. There is greater variability from year to year of course, and no lockstep.

One tip if you're interviewing with Plaitniffs' firms: Negotiate before you accept an offer. Negotiating is a big part of the job, and whether on not you're successful, you'll be respected. Ask for more money upfront, moving expenses, bar review costs, etc. because you probably won't get it if you don't ask.

And to the guy who thinks I'm scum, your wife sees me differently ;)

Enron to 190! (million)

I'll stop extorting for only this one moment to comment on 2:48. His recommendation concerning the need to negotiate, among others, is helpful because it highlights the premium the plaintiffs bar places on entrepreneurs and go-getters. Otherwise, 2:48 demonstrates the diversity of the plaintiffs bar. Unlike most of us, his grammar is poor and he is crass. I pity his wife.

Luke: which large plaintiffs' firm are you talking about? Sounds like a place I'd be interested in but the info is useless if you don't identify the firm.

Okay, this is really my last post. Anon at 3:02: the plaintiffs firm that I am identifying is your own. (I do not believe that the possessive is necessary, but am uncertain.) Call me smug, but if you want to win on my side of the docket, you have to aspire to work for yourself--and have others work for you.

The associate salaries at Susman Godfrey are comparable to big law defense firms, with much higher average bonuses. They are probably an outlier, though.

Luke: I'm not disagreeing with you (even if you are somewhat smug). I'm planning to pursue the path you described (biglaw - where I am now - to large-ish plaintiffs firm to solo practice) and am interested in knowing which firm (a) gave you a large signing bonus and (b) taught you to run a practice.

Ugh. This is really my last post. Anon 3:02: my path is irrelevant to what you want to do, in part because it is mostly outside NY. More importantly, you need to look at your market--the firms, the individual lawyers, the prospective clients, the specific practice area--to determine which firm, if any, will give you a push toward starting your own practice. I would not do anything until you have this requisite market awareness. Our bar lacks the institutional support to which you are accustomed.

I had a summer offer from Lerach (which I'm now thankful I rejected) and they were starting at the 160 scale.

So . . . my theory is that there is an inverse relationship between the needless wordiness and philosophizing in a post on ATL and actually being a successful independent plaintiff's-side attorney. The conclusion to this theory is: Luke is a disaffected 3L who got no-offered from BigLaw.

The smugness of plaintiff lawyers is a big joke. It's a well-known fact that the bread and butter of most plaintiff firms are crappy cases. The meritorious ones that are also high-dollar are extremely rare. The lifeblood of plaintiff lawyers is filing one crappy low-dollar suit after another while waiting for the occasional meritorious high-dollar one, and that is a fact.

Good plaintiffs' lawyers settle meritorious cases before they are even filed.

Good insurance adjusters do too. As a defense lawyer I can assure you that the majority of cases that reach our offices are ones an adjuster correctly believed should not have been settled pre-litigation. Not all. But a majority.

I also happen to think that Luke is faker since I have know idea how a large plaintiffs' side firm would prepare someone for solo practice. The model is very very different. I also doubt the "massive" signing bonus for an unproven associate.

With respect to his "solo practice" its common knowledge that anyone who goes out on their own does crap work (house closings, wills, per diem work) for a few years before they get anything of value in the pipeline.

"no idea" not "know idea." Excuse me.

I've certainly heard of biglaw associates getting signing bonuses from plaintiffs' firms. And I think Luke's point was that he carefully planned his solo practice so he didn't have to do "crap work" like most people do. Sounds like he had the courage to do what a lot of people here only dream about.

5:40 = Luke.

All this vague info is useless.

Which plaintiffs' firms have you heard give signing bonuses? Without names, who cares? And if Luke isn't a faker and just didn't want to identify his former employer, he could have just said that instead of responding with idiotic pronouncements about market research. Isn't that what this thread is supposed to provide? Market info?

Robins Kaplan, Labaton, Baron & Budd. The point is with plaintiffs' firms, you can personally negotiate instead of being lockstep, and, as several people have noted, people get their own individual deals, including signing bonuses.

I can smugly assure you that I did not post 5:40, although I confess deep disappointment in myself for having come back to this thread so close to beer time. Nevertheless, now that I am back for this last time, let me offer some observations.

Defense Dude @ 5:14 lives in a fantasy world. Most adjusters never settle with plaintiffs' lawyers. (I am not talking about the motor vehicle accident type.) Instead, adjusters often take advantage of the injured who lack the benefit of counsel. When plaintiffs' counsel gets involved, adjusters hire defense lawyers who whack the case for fees for a number of years, which is why settlements take forever. Good plaintiffs' lawyers, however, lack this billing incentive and effectuate early settlements with the adjusters' insureds.

I did in fact work for one of the plaintiffs' firms listed by 6:18 (who is also not me), but will not disclose its name because I value my privacy. Also, my pronouncements about market research are far from idiotic. If you want to succeed at what I do, you cannot fall back on the partner or your buddies on Lat's thread, you have to exercise initiative. Not one of the firms listed by 6:18 will be there for anyone with open arms and a warm bottle of milk. You must demonstrate your worth. We in the plaintiffs' bar only help those who help themselves.

King of Torts @ 5:22 is correct about a lot of solos, and betrays himself as one of that ilk. But many plaintiffs' lawyers who, like me, have roots in Biglaw, have made relationships that have blossomed into different practices. The antitrust defense client at the old firm is now the new age discrimination case.
With that, I bid you adieu.

I have developed a practice niche in representing plaintiffs with defective penile implants.

12:43: Shouldn't it be "Contingency Fee Agreements to 44.4%! (55.5% for Appeals!)"

The most reasonable "classification" of attorneys that I've dealt with is the group that represents plaintiffs and defendants, a.k.a., commercial litigators. As a rule, "Plaintiffs' attorneys" are more myopic, less professional, and frequently place their own concerns ahead of their clients' interests (note to plaintiffs' attorneys: doing crossword puzzles, taking calls related to other cases, or working on other cases in the middle of your client's deposition = putting your concerns ahead of your client's). I applaud those of you who are exceptions to this general rule.

And anyone who says that most employment discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits are meritorious is looking through some seriously thick rose-colored glasses...

I've worked at two different plaintiff's firms as a law clerk. What I've come to realize is that cases tend to fall into three different categories: some company royally stuck it to the little guy (small percentage), some little guy is looking for the deep pocket with a frivolous lawsuit (a small percentage), and some little guy got wronged by a company but is seeking more than he deserves (largest percentage). In the end, there are no lawyers guys or bad lawyers, just guys trying to get the best deal for their client.

plaintiff's lawyers = the Devil

Defense lawyers = people trapped in hell wishing they were the devil

Most useless thread ever.

I left law school hoping to help people by doing Plaintiff's work as I knew an old lawyer who helped and cared for a friend of mine who was injured.

Unfortunately, most plaintiff lawyers I have met and worked for are greedy and selfish people who could give a care less about the plaintiffs. They pay good lipservice, but one I knew has not won a trial in years primarily since he is one of the most unlikeable people I have ever met.

I have met some very honest decent small firm GP attorneys but most plaintiff lawyers do not seem to care much and it is disgusting as they cry foul for the little guy all the while underpaying their staff and associates and many laying off people at rate that would make the steel industry proud. Actions speak louder than words.

That said in taking the plunge to build my own practice, I have rediscovered the meaning of the law and life in my ideals.

The question here remains unanswered. What are the following firms paying first year asssociates in salary and bonus: Lerach, Bernstein Litowitz, Milberg Weiss?

The question here remains unanswered. What are the following firms paying first year associates in salary and bonus: Lerach, Bernstein Litowitz, Milberg Weiss?

The salary at the big securities firms for associates is below market for Big Law, which is not too suprising. It is however, higher than a small PI firm. If you go in expecting to be compensated below market, you will be pretty close. Milberg, Bernstien and Lerach are probably starting around $100k.
For the securities firms (plaintiff side) there are generally no clerkship bonuses as most firms don't really hire straight from school or from clerkships. There are exceptions but for the most part, most attorneys have a few years of experience before they join the firm - or at least the ones that go on to be the heavy hitters. Look at the younger partners at the big plaintiff-side securities firms and you will find that they worked for the SEC or some other white shoe firm before switching sides.
As for the partner profits - only those at the very top make the big bucks. You can make a good living as a normal partner, but unless you make it into the "inner circle" at these firms, don't expect to get filthy rich and don't expect that it will be on par with BigLaw PPP numbers.
Just my $0.02 from my experience.