Bogus?

From: Partner
To: BigFirmAssociates

Dear Monkeys:

I know that most of you will be surprised to know that we occasionally monitor the traffic on the ATL boards. We like to keep our fingers on the pulse of the monkey community, particularly those monkeys that (temporarily) make our firm their home. I must say, I am shocked at some of the attitudes. For example:

"You've got yours; why can't we have ours? Just give back your increases in PPP over the last year and we'll call it even."

I assume you are talking to the BigFirm partners who wouldn't give up 1% of their distrubution to increase your salaries by 17%? You are so right. They really are greedy bastards!

Monkeys, despite being members of the legal profession it is obvious you are still naive about the way things work, so please allow me to educate you --

First, be advised, I fu*king despise each and every one of you whiny little sh*ts. Every time one of our idiotic competitors raises the already bloated salaries of their monkeys, myself and a handful of others ALWAYS vote against doing the same for our associates. Sadly, we are outnumbered within our firm and thus such raises have, in the past, always been approved.

Now monkeys, do you want to know why I hate you and always vote against raises? Oh, let me count the reasons:

1) YOU ARE EASILY REPLACEABLE. Monkeys, I know with your flashy Top 25 credentials you have a heightened sense of entitlement and had gotten used to being catered to when we were trying to "woo" you (what we in our firm call the "Finger F*ck Phase" of recruitment). But understand this: if I can you today, there will be 50 people lined up outside my door begging or the chance to work with me for the "meager and unfair" salary we are paying you. Think about that the next time you reach for the keyboard to make whiny ATL posts.

2) YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F*CK YOU ARE DOING. Again, b/c most of you did well at Top 25 law schools (or extremely well at schools outside the Top 25) you are feeling that you are pretty smart and pretty skilled and worth the $180k we are paying you. Know this: you don't know f*cking sh*t about lawyering. I swear, the next time that I have to explain to a first or second year Ivy League associate how to respond to a request for disclosure, I will stab that f*cker in the heart with my letter opener. If you monkeys honestly think you are worth the generous amount of money we already pay you, you are seriously delusional. If anything, you should drop to your knees every time you see me in the hall and kiss my feet and/or blow me out of gratitude for the paycheck I give you. Because, monkeys, that money comes directly out of my pocket. Which leads me to...

3) NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY F*CKING CLIENTS. You understand that all those assignments I give you are for work to be done serving MY clients, right? You do recognize all the hassle, headache, heartache, and sweat I had to go through to sign up that Fortune 100 company, yes? So, please explain to me how it is you are entitled to a bigger slice of my pie. As far as I am concerned that is ALL my money and it makes me ill to have to share a penny of it with associates who Are Easily Replaceable and Don't Know What They Are Doing. (And I don't want to hear any of this "how can I develope my own business when I spend all my time working on your cases?" F*ck you. I am unsympathetic - I went the extra mile to build a book and so will you; or else, you will have no furture at my firm regardless of whatever handjob we give you to keep you happy and docile until it is time to pass you over for partner.)

And speaking of handjobs, the only use I have for associates under five years is entertainment. Remember that summer associate who used to be a Hawaiian Tropic model or whatever the f*ck it was (she might have been a Hooters calendar girl, who knows)? Yes, I sodomized her in the managing partner's poolhouse at Summer Bash 2006 while you idiots were standing outside drinking margaritas 10 feet away, talking about some leg*l bullsh*t. Good times. (BONUS: we didn't give her an offer at the end of the summer, which still cracks me up to this day. F*ck her, she didn't do any work for me so I had nothing to worry about). And don't even get me started about that first year associate my ex-wife and I got drunk and took turns violating. Sadly, that episode may have prejudiced her career with the firm as she left about a year later. Oh well. Plenty more where she came from. (As an aside, I am amazed at how many of you are more than willing to try to sleep you way to the top. Alas, that will have to be the subject of another post).

Anyway, back to my point, whch is this: instead of crying about your pay I expect, instead, nothing but gratitude from each of you. And I am hardly unique in the legal community. In fact, there are plenty of partners just like me prowling the halls of our firm, keeping a close eye on all our monkeys. And you will get higher salaries only over our dead bodies.

One final thought: how is it that so many of you seem to have a lot of free time to make posts on this board? Obviously, you are not billing, working, and making me money like you should. I will take great pleasure in rooting you out and firing you.

GET BACK TO WORK, MONKEYS. I OWN YOUR A$$!

It's not bogus. Quinn has written to ATL before:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/01/wherein_we_hear_from_john_quin_1.php

OCEANS RISE

CITIES FALL

QUINN REMAINS

WHY IS IT THAT FIRM X PAYING 5TH YEARS THIS YEAR THE SAME AS THEY PAID THEM AS 4TH YEARS LAST YEAR A "SALARY FREEZE"

BUT

FIRM X CHARGING 10-15% MORE PER BILLABLE HOUR FOR 5TH YEARS THIS YEAR THAN THEY CHARGED FOR THE SAME 4TH YEARS LAST YEAR ISN'T A "RATE INCREASE"?

Quinn Emanuel is dead come OCI. From the looks of it, the firm cares only about lateral partners with big books of business. Associates exist only to feed the machine. Well done, Quinn.

Quinn's argument is bonus.

a. If the market sets salaries as he claims, why does his firm use a tiered system under which the majority of associates are not better off (you have to get to 2400 hours to get above market) and most are worse off?
b. The reason the market was bad was b/c ppp and revenue per lawyer were in many cases less. Quinn made considerably more money this year and yet they paid less the "market" that other firms who had far less ppp made. Wachtell doesn't pay market because their partners make far more than the market and believe in compensating associates for their hard work according. Quinn does not.
c. Quinn seems not to have thought through the long-term affects of its decision. Anyone with an offer at a comparable firm is not going to Quinn. Quinn is a lousy deal for anyone that doesn't want to be a partner there.
d. Quinn's whole pitch was they were not like other firms. Obviously, they are like other firms when there is a race to the bottom.
e. Going by his logic, we shouldn't have a minimum wage b/c plenty of unemployed people would work for less based on the "market."

Quinn's email does accurately characterize what he said about the bonuses. He also made the point that law firms are not just for-profit businesses, but for-partner-profit businesses.

Another great line was when he addressed people who were mad that only 100 pro bono hours counts toward your bonus hours total for the year. His response was that the question didn't make sense, because the person asking the question was basically saying "I want to do pro bono... but only if I get paid for it." He repeated that the firm would happily support as much pro bono as its lawyers wanted to do (and had spent some time talking proudly about a 20+ year crusade by George Hedges that resulted in getting a death sentence overturned), so that got a big laugh.

Also, he got a question that was, literally "apart from the PR spin, name one thing you've done in two years to improve morale." He rattled off a number of things that you may or may not consider morale boosters, but then added the classic "of course, if you really don't like it here, life's too short. LEAVE."

It was, overall, pretty awesome. Some people complain about being an associate at Quinn, and there is some seriously trivial and/or annoying stuff here, but it is a pretty upfront place; JBQ doesn't really lie or bullshit you about the attitude or reality of the job like some places do.

And I appreciate that.

Nice job 3 -- a fine piece of legal fiction; better than any of that crap John Grisham or Brad Meltzer pump out. You're correct that big firm partners do monitor this site, especially on a lazy Friday afternoon. But you're clearly not a big firm partner. My guess is that you're a senior associate -- or possibly a big firm reject who has hung out his own shingle -- because your take on how we think is fairly accurate.

But you give yourself away with the handjob paragraph. No big firm partner would EVER post a paragraph like that because if there is even a 0.001% chance of that post being tied to you -- in a litigation or otherwise -- it's too big a chance to take. Well written, though -- try Penthouse.

Sincerely,

A Real Big Firm Partner

You want the truth?........Associates can't handle the truth!

Quinn is a smart businessman, which explains how he grew his practice so quickly. he demonstrates solid leadership in this example; something i've yet to see in many other biglaw firms. associates: your employment with the firm is transactional. you do work, you get paid. you're not an investor/shareholder, so stop trying to act like one.

Why was 3's comment removed? People need to develop a much thicker skin if that seriously offended them. JHC, that was sardonic at worst....ATL should not just take down posts without looking because someone took offense. The same person who calls black people African-Americans (Really? did they just step off of the boat from Nigeria [if so, then that's totally acceptable]? Am I a German-American after 6 generations of being here? Get real) and wants the world to pay each other with hugs and weed is probably the damn PC police that is ruining what was hilarious and monotony-breaking stuff that brightened up my day.

There is a legitimate argument that the market should set the minimum wage, and not the government. We are talking about apples and oranges though. Lawyers make significantly above minimum wage. If you are simply going to go to the firm that pays the most, without regard to the work or the people, more power to you. I would not make a decision solely on that.

- Not a Quinn associate

9 @ 2:33 here -- what happened to the post I was responding to? The "memo from the partner" ?

Yeah, because keeping partner salaries at (or above) the same levels is totally in keeping in line with the market. Fucking tool.

Wah, law firms are a business, not an ATM, wah. What a bunch of entitled whiners.

That "memo from the partner" is long, off-topic, and a repeat post (the author keeps posting it constantly in the comments, like spam).

To # 9 and 12 -

Thank you for the feedback. They did indeed remove my post. I can repost it but would not bother. And yes, I am not with a big firm. I used to be for about 4 years back in the day when I was young and naive. Then I was in-house with a big, big, big government contractor. Right now I like to think that I make more $$ than most big firm partners, so my feelings are not hurt whatsoever. I.e. I am not a big firm reject. Rather, I can pick whichever big firm I want to work for, if I choose to. :-) Ain't that fun.

It looks like comment #3 was reinstated (so #9 and #12 are now #10 and #13).

Maybe we should go back to addressing each other by time stamp.

Market was full bonus without a minimum at elite places and 2000 at most other places. Quinn paid full bonus only if you reached 2100 hours and only paid an enhanced bonus at 2400 hours.

That sucks. I would hope Quinn associates follow the "market" and go to Boies, Schiller and other places who reward associates for a good year. In almost all businesses, when ownership has an exceptional year, they reward their employees. Quinn believes in a distorted market theory.

We need a UNION to bust Quinn's ass -- associates of all firms UNITE!

21:

9 here (the one who reported on the speech). I don't WANT that to be the case. I like that the firm pushes us to stay busy. We do have some slackers here who would otherwise take advantage of there being no minimum and make more work for the rest of us.

"No minimum to get a bonus" is as lame as lockstep compensation generally. Some associates (the ones who don't make hours) simply are not worth a market bonus.

BILLY MAYS HERE FOR QUINN EMANUEL!

wonder how many of these greedy partners would come back home from Afghanistan if they sent there along with their fellow associates

I understand the partners’ interest in maximizing profit and the logic of following, rather than leading, the bonus market. What I don’t understand is why the hell the Quinn associates would kill themselves (assuming they are not engaging in substantial billing fraud) hitting 2400, 2600 or 2800 hours for a marginally higher bonus threshold. All of their work at those levels is purely profit for the partners, having long-since covered their salaries and overhead. Are they simply about gunning for partner? How realistic an expectation is that, especially for the junior and mid-level associates? If am willing to put in that many hours, I’m going somewhere that will reward it NOW, as opposed to some expectation in the future. It seems like a rational, economic Quinn associate should either take less work (bill 2000 hours) or leave.

Whether you agree or disagree with John Quinn, you have to admire his candor (and the transparency with which he runs his firm).

7 -- you're living in 2006. Time to understand the new world.

The law firm hierarchy:

1) Clients
2) Partners
3) Of-counsel
4) Senior Associates
5) Legal Secretaries/Paralegals
6) Mid-Level Associates
7) Junior Associates

A law firm only has a fiduciary responsibility to its owners--the partners. As you move up the ranks, you want more money/power/prestige, but you have to earn it first. Once you have earned it, and you're on top, you will have a completely different perspective.

I don't think that after you've busted your ass for 15 years, built a book of business worth upwards of $1 million and basically sacrificed years of your life in billable hours to the firm you will be worried about whether or not glorified apprentices are getting a $17,500 bonus or a $35,000 bonus. And Wachtell gives out more compensation because they EXPECT their associates to bill out closer to 3,000 hours/year than 2,000 hours. Given that you're not billing for all the time you're at work, you probably will be spending 1.5-2.0 times more time at work, which makes the pay more or less comparable.

When it is your ass/money on the line, then you get to make the decisions. You are being given an opportunity to make $160,000+ a year. If you don't like the working conditions or the pay structure, then there are ample opportunities elsewhere. If this is something you're serious about, put your head down, be grateful for what you have, and move forward resolutely. Stop worrying about bonuses, freezes, etc...This is a prime time to show your dedication/worth to the firm so that when the economy turns around, you get your due reward. Whilst the axe is sharpened, avoid putting your head on the block with petty complaints about bonuses/salary freezes.

27:

You assume that people said "hey, I want the extra $10,000 or whatever, so will bill another 500 hours to get it."

Quinn had a TON of trials this past year, with a truckload of work. (That all tapered off toward the end, which JBQ noted in his comments when the firm announced the PPP to the American Lawyer). Associates don't really have the option of saying "wow, billing 300 hours this month sure sucked, see you guys in November!" when that happens. So next thing you know, they're at 2400, or 2600 or higher. Shit happens.

At least when shit happens, you don't get the same bonus as some chump skating along at 1900, like all the people who advocate lockstep, no-minimum hours bonuses want.

On the one hand, I understand what Quinn is saying - profitable businesses don't pay above-market compensation to employees just because they are more profitable than the market. However, he's missing a couple of points:

First, Quinn's bonuses were well below market. I didn't see other firms requiring 2100 hours just to get the Cravath bonus.

Second, good associates don't conduct themselves like mere employees. They make the firm's problems their own. But, it requires a sense of investment in the firm to muster the initiative of a good associate. When associate compensation is grossly out-of-step with partner compensation, associates will act like mere employees, making the partner's lives more difficult.

I don't admire his candor. He knows that the job market sucks right now and obviously he and other partners are taking advantage of that. All the while, the vast majority of partners who cite "the market" or overwhelmingly very liberal (I believe Quinn is actually conservative) and don't support the market when it comes to executive compensation, deregulation, etc...

His argument is just self-serving. If he really believed in the market, he would advocate for a judicial system in which the loser paid the court costs and attorney fees like they do in most countries.

29 - Nice post. The readers of this site need a dose of realism.

Please delete 3; it is obscenely long.

16, actually yes, when partners make more money, that is because of the market, which is where the partners get the money from. Economics 101.

Incentivize work....hmmm....I think that's bad for the proletariat. Everyone should get paid the same! VIVA LOCKSTEP!

-F. Castro

32 - what does loser pays have to do with the "market?" It's a euro-socialist construct designed to push the regulation of conduct from individual parties fighting it out in the judiciary to the executive branch of government. Hardly a libertarian concept.

Agreed with 10. 3's comment sounded believable until the "speaking of handjobs" paragraph. Sounds like a senior associate daydreaming and wasting time on ATL.

19 -- I should have said "refugee" not "reject" . Sorry.

9/10

29 - This isn't 1973. Associates today have huge student loan burdens and don't have the luxury of almost guaranteed partnership if they stick around for seven years. This is why associates have to make their money now and can't afford to be grateful for anything less than top notch compensation. If Boies is giving up more green paper than Quinn, then they should go there (and they would if the economy was better). It's very similar to the NFL. The players have to make their money now because in fifteen years they won't be playing NFL ball anymore. And your hierarchy is wrong. Do you think associates would be making $160,000 if they really were seven spots down? No way.

13- shut up and get out. you're an idiot. what you as a white/Caucasian person chooses to call yourself has no bearing on the preferred identifier of other racial groups. everyone else learned that lesson after the Civil Rights Movement, but I guess you were too busy looking for people to oppress to get the memo then, huh? go back to work.

35 - so if the market is good, partners get all the money and give about the same bonuses as they always do to associates, and if the market if bad, partners get all the money and cut back on the associates? Yes, sounds like market economics to me.

Well I for one do admire what Quinn wrote in response to the whiney associates....he called their bluff. The economy is in the craper, and here are a bunch of associates complaining about a $10K bonus when other associates are getting fired or trying to get their first job. If y'all didn't notice the post below, Quinn just nabbed two respected IP Partners from another firm. Obviously Quinn's strategy is working to attract profitable partners and to solidify the firm's presence beyond the next recruiting season (even if it was motivated by greed). I like Quinn because he knows it's all about the Benjamins. He doesn't appologize that the firm is in it for the money and he doesn't fault the associates for wanting to move to another firm for more money.

30 (2:55 p.m.) –

If you’re saying that extra 500 hours is an *expectation,* Quinn associates are getting SCREWED. Take this example: A midlevel Quinn associate (2004) gets $25,000 at 2,100 hours and $37,500 at 2,599. If that associate works 2,580 hours, he/she has worked 480 hours for an extra $12,500 ($26/hour…you could earn more moonlighting as a department store shoe salesman). All the while, Quinn has billed that associate out at, conservatively, $350/hour for an extra $168,000 in revenue.

You’re saying billing less hours isn’t an “option,” but you’re fine with Quinn partners giving you 7.5% of that very-hard-earned money, which is pure profit for them at that point? The Kool Aid there must be really delicious.

3's clearly not old enough to be a partner if he uses the term "good times." No one over the age of 33 really uses that expression in this context. Nice try.

lol @41

He is a humor-deficient descendant of a female canine. Unfortunately, he is also too mentally-deficient to understand that just because someone wishes the world didn't have to be so G-D politically correct all the time to avoid hurting people's sensitive little feelings, that doesn't make him oppressive.

Oh, and the part about the preferred racial identifier? That's rich. I guess white people should come up with a good one...umm...Super-Awesome DudePeople. Asians should be Big Ol' Wangs at PF Changs. Mexicans should be Mocha-Americans. Don't you dare use any other term and oppress us!!!!

Viva the Civil Rights Movement! We all must now smell each other's farts and say that they smell like roses to avoid hurting people's feelings! Black people don't disproportionately commit more crimes! Mexicans don't disproportionately cross more borders illegally! I don't even see colors anymore! Save the Whales! Praise Buddha!

44:

It is not an expectation (e.g. "work 2600 hours or get fired"). Many associates in good stead bill 2100-2200 or so and hang around for a long time (they don't tend to be gunning for partner, obviously).

What is an expectation, though, is that you will do what needs to be done on whatever cases you're staffing. Sometimes that translates into 2800 hours rather than 2100 hours. Yes, they obviously make a ton of money off those extra hours, and yes they *could* pay more (as Quinn himself admits). But they don't have to, and many places with lockstep bonuses *do not.* At least QE gives you something for those extra hours.

I do agree that you're doing it wrong if you set out to bill that much just for the money (although consider whether it beats the alternative of a second job), but life sucks, get a helmet.

44-

Wow...way to make it seem like we aren't pretentious pricks by saying that $26/hour (roughly $52,000/year) is worthy of shoe salespeople at a department store. I think you're a wee bit out of touch, especially when 50% of Americans make less than roughly $35,000/year. But you're right, we're slave laborers. WOW.

Billy Mays - you jumped the shark two years ago.

The Vince (the Sham Wow guys) is coming for you. You getting this camera guy?

40,

"It's very similar to the NFL." Way to make yourself and your doc review projects feel important!

Not 29.

40-

Try 1986, but yes, you're right. This crazy phenomenon called inflation never existed, salaries and debt loads were disproportionately less during that time period. Also, tuition wasn't charged until approximately 1995 at most law schools. Before then, we showed up, were housed and fed for free and received all of our case books on a year-long loan.

Get real! While I do grant that partnership is harder these days--mainly due to your generation's absurd sense of entitlement and complete lack of loyalty, but I know, looking in the mirror is hard! Waaa!--the situation most young lawyers are in has not changed. I graduated with debt and had to work bad hours to pay it off as well, but I took my job/compensation as an opportunity instead of a right.

P.S. You think your hours are bad now? Try NYC during the 80s. Think your bosses are assholes now? Again, try any power-broker/power-attorney/power-executive/power-anything in the 80s.

Babies, that STRAIGHT TALK is going to pay off when the market TURNS AROUND. John Quinn--he's a STRAIGHT SHOOTER.

As far as associate salaries, they are only that high because they can be billed out for more and firms understand that they have debt loads/COL needs. My legal secretary is worth more than any of my associates, and I make it a point to tell them that if any of them make her life hard, they will be shit-canned. You have no idea how hard it is to find a good LS, but it is so damn easy to pick up any starry-eyed t14er and put him in a room staring at a computer screen for 2500 hours a year. Again, associate salary = compensation for the firm being able to bill you out for more due to your JD, not because of your worth.

I really hope none of the kool-aid drinkers at Quinn or defending Quinn are: (1) associates or (2) liberals. His argument is basically the people at the top are the only ones worth anything and everyone at the bottom is expendable and if you pay people better at the top, the benefits trickle down to everyone.

Anyone who has ever worked in a business setting knows that profits do play a role in compensation. When Microsoft is doing better, there are more salary increases and employee stock optons go up. The reverse is true when times are bad. Unless Quinn wants to give associates shares in the partnership, he should be rewarding associates with better bonuses.

His argument is akin to what loan sharks and other miserly sorts argue, i.e. we do it because we can.

It stinks like sex and sphincter pressure in here. Please moderate.

Offended

@29
More realistic:

The law firm hierarchy:

1) Partners
2) Clients
3) Law students
4) Summer associates
5) Mid-Level Associates
7) Senior Associates
8) Junior Associates
9) Of-counsel
10) Coffee
12) Staff

54:

Quinn has a profit-sharing plan that drops (on average) about 3% of your total compensation (including bonus) into your 401k in April of each year.

Also, we didn't freeze salaries, and last year were one of the few non-NY firms to offer NY level bonuses in California (not trying to start the whole 2100 hours thing again).

Point being that the fact the firm is doing well is, indeed, noticable in our take-home, just like your Microsoft example.

Paul Hastings simultaneously kicked 10 female associates down the stairs today at lunch.

29-
"there are ample opportunities elsewhere"

Please provide details, including contact information.
Quinn Associate

54-

Um, have you ever heard of something called the owner-agency problem in economics? This is a classic example of that very phenomenon:

The owners (partners) are acting in the firm's best interests, because they are the firm, and without them, the firm would cease to exist--no matter how important associates think they are--so they are increasing their profits. This makes the firm more attractive, appear more viable and helps them steal more rockstar partners from other firms.

The agents (associates) working on behalf of the owners do not hold the owners' interests as their own. Instead, they place their personal interests above that of the firm and believe that they should receive some of the benefit whilst taking on 0% of the risk.

54, no one denies that some firms/companies spread the wealth when the going is good. But it isn't required. You aren't entitled to it, and you haven't earned it unless you have brought in substantial ($1M plus) client business, in which case they would have made you a partner anyway, and you wouldn't be spreading your liberal bullshit on this site.

Last I checked, your ass isn't on the line if the firm goes under. Why is it, then, that you deserve all the rewards and none of the risk? Because we all should just get along, love one another and spread all of the wealth? Gimme a break, you deserve what you earn. That is true all the way from CEOs to welfare-collecting, baby-having Obama voters.

If you really have a huge book of business and you aren't a partner, then move on to someplace where they will make you one so that you get what you're worth. If you're a glorified support staffer making $160,000 and sucking off of the partner's teat. STFU.

57, that indicates that Quinn associates in the NY office should leave since they are getting less than market and CA associates are getting more.

60, I agreed with you until your 5th paragraph 2nd sentence. Not asking for all the rewards just some more. Basically, something more than any other decently ran place to let us know we are valued a little more. Sometimes leading the market (by a little, not a lot) can be good for the business too.

61: 57 here. Maybe they should. From what I can tell informally, our NY associates definitely are the largest source of complaints about the firm.

Whether that's because they're NY attorneys and think that, therefore, they are God's gift to the profession (as seen elsewhere in the comments), our NY office is actually more miserable than elsewhere, some combination of the above, or whatever, is another question.

59-

BigLaw isn't the only game around. That was my main point. You can lateral into a small regional firm somewhere like San Diego or Phoenix or Dallas and pull in $750k+ once you make partner there with better hours/lifestyle. If you'd rather shoot for $2 million+, then go for it knowing that it's your goal and you're making the sacrifices to get there.

#3 was posted on the Texas Greedy Associates board about 2 years ago by some dumbass named HMoore. Some idiot just copied and pasted it. There were a whole series of posts from HMoore, each one more stupid than its predecessor.

Ask yourself why JBQ is openly encouraging people to voluntarily leave the firm. 10 - 15% annual attrition is built into the business model of law firms, for better or worse. If it doesn't occur voluntarily, because, say, there is nowhere to go and your firm is doing relatively well, it's a problem and you have to start cutting people, which is bad for morale and the firm's reputation and the people cut (see basically every other ATL post over past three months). So the idea is to make sure your best associates are happy, but that a certain percentage (ideally 10 - 15%) are unhappy enough to leave voluntarily. Maybe Quinn partners are just being stingy with bonuses to keep the cash for themselves because they're awful and shallow people who are just not satisfied with 3 million each and want it to be 3.2 or whatever. Or, perhaps it's a strategic decision to avoid layoffs. If they beat market (or even match it), it would be great for recruiting, but there would be no slots to fill because no one would leave. -- Law student ( I suppose i'll inevitably be tagged as a partner, but I'm just a bored 1L at the library. really. ok, fine, i'll prove it. asslobster. There. I've said it. Would a partner at a big law firm making 3 zillion dollars a year write that? eggsactly. thank you.)

62-

Point well taken. However, if leading the market means presenting a weaker financial picture of the firm, then those interests are dissonant, and the partners' interests prevail. Like it or not, just like corps, people live and die by financials. If I'm a rockstar partner at a firm where PPP just dropped, but we paid market salaries/bonuses/didn't lay people off, I will be seriously considering moving on to a firm that paid slightly less than market bonuses, didn't lay people off or freeze salaries and increased their PPP. More partners with bigger books = more work for associates = more billing = more profits = giving associates higher compensation packages while still increasing PPP.

You will get yours, but only if the firm does first. That sentence describes every executive comp package ever, and since law firms are businesses, it should describe yours as well, but you just might need to wait. No reason to bankrupt the firm by paying 2007 market bonuses going into a recessionary year (2009) just like there's no reason to pay Wall Street 2007 market bonuses going into 2009 either--it honestly doesn't make good business sense, no matter how bitter it tastes now. If you gut this out, you will see the wisdom. Think strategic....not tactical...(I think I may need to shoot myself for actually using consultant lingo. Hence, this is my last post ever).

ROD PAMPERS appreciates this.

Wholey fuck 60. Did you really say "whilst taking on 0% of the risk"? Why don't you ask a Heller staffer the extent of risk the owner of a law firm has! The answer is fucking 0%

Fuck you!

It doesn't make much sense (business or otherwise) to pay non-NY associates the same as NY associates. NY associates have a much higher cost of living http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_nyc_so_costly_you_need_to_earn_six_figur.html
and bill at a higher rate.

I am wondering what justification exists for doing it this way. NY partners get much better compensation (on average) than their counterparts in other cities. If partners want to pay associates less in bonuses, fine but just stop paying LA associates the same as those in NY.

51 - Sure inflation exists, so our debt load is higher, but tuition has been increasing at levels 3 times higher than inflation for the better part of a decade.

There's absolutely no way that you had anywhere NEAR the ratio of student loan debt::salary that most young lawyers now have

69 again...and now I am fuming!

60 - How the fuck is the fact that non-owners (Associates and staff) not getting paid is not taking some of the fucking risk.

Fuck you!

70:

Assuming that NY-based associates are in fact billed out at a higher rate, that's a possible justification for paying them more (assuming that their hours/realization are comparable to other offices).

"Cost of living" shouldn't matter worth shit. It's stupid expensive to live in Hawaii, and most law firms there pay around $60,000 to associates. There's a general going rate, and lots of lawyers want to live in New York because, hey, they live in New York City. It is not as though there's a lack of supply for legal skill there.

If you didn't know what sort of financial situation you were putting yourself in, then please don't apply for a job at my firm. You should have been prepared for the realities of life after law school. If you did know, and you're complaining, then you should have considered other employment options--such as i-banking--that would have carried more money with more risk and less debt. You chose to take on your debt, and you chose to work for the firm that you do (hopefully you still have a job).

A perfunctory NPV analysis proves that going to a t14 school, paying sticker and working in BigLaw for the first 8 years of your career (considering ONLY the base salaries), would create a 39% return on your investment. Please go complain elsewhere that you leveraged an investment returning 39% with debt. Thank you.

71 -- I'm not 51, but I'm roughly his contemporary (1989 law grad). I graduated with $60K in debt and NY BigLaw starting salary of $85K. And that's only because starting salaries jumped from $60K to $85K between 1986 and 1989 to offset the high salaries being offered by investment banks during the M&A craze (sound familiar).

So unless yoour debt is higher than $120K (in other words total law school costs of $40K per year), you're no worse off than we were.

67 says: "More partners with bigger books = more work for associates = more billing = more profits = giving associates higher compensation packages while still increasing PPP"

False as to the last clause. As the Quinn associates above admit, they get very little additional compensation for the "more work for associates." The partners at Quinn are simply leveraging the associates more than other firms, and the associates there accept it as the cost of doing business. I don't fault the partners, it's the fault of the stuipd-ass associates who went there in the first place and/or stay there. There are comparble firms with the same or better comp that don't require as many associate hours. If the hard-working Quinn associates simply left, or didn't go there in the first place, they'd be better off.

71 -- I'm not 51, but I'm roughly his contemporary (1989 law grad). I graduated with $60K in debt and NY BigLaw starting salary of $85K. And that's only because starting salaries jumped from $60K to $85K between 1986 and 1989 to offset the high salaries being offered by investment banks during the M&A craze (sound familiar).

So unless yoour debt is higher than $120K (in other words total law school costs of $40K per year), you're no worse off than we were.

This was the first time that I have regretted not bidding on Quinn during OCI my 2L year, to at least have gotten a closer look at the firm. His take is 100% correct (much as I don't like to admit it) and he sounds like he knows what he's doing in this rough environment.

76-

Again, you cannot make business decisions only looking backward. Does it matter if I pulled in $8 million this year if I'm only going to pull in $4 million next year? Given that these numbers aren't related to PPP or the percent decline that is likely in 2009, but the main point is that if you made $8 million in 2008, yet know you're going to make $4 million in 2009, it would make little to no sense to live in 2009 as if you made $8 million.

Every investment prospectus ever says "past performance is not indicative of future gains." This is the right move going forward, not backward. If they expected PPP to go up 10% next year, then ya, fuck 'em. When you start seeing other firms falling in 2009, partners fleeing to Quinn and you have a job--perhaps you'll think about it differently.

They don't adequately incentivize associates to put in more hours. If I was there and had billed 2300 hours, I'd hardly feel compelled for a repeat performance the following year.

80-

Thank you for making a sound business point instead of "They have more!!! Gimme Gimme Gimme!" The competing interest to that sentiment, however, would be the joy you derive from actually having a job, which might be lost if you skate in on 2,000 hours.

75, sadly most law schools have a tuition that alone is close to $40,000/academic year. Once you add in the cost of living (usually in a major city such as New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, SF, etc.) it goes way over $40k - more like $50k. Bottom line, average law school debt has gone up even when normalized to the 80s. I'm not saying the money a first year associate gets isn't more than enough to pay that off, and I'm not 71. I just wanted to point out that the cost of the JD has gone up more in relation to the 80s.

79 -- Law firm bonuses are intended to reward the past year's work, not some inchoate expectation about the "economy" in the upcoming year. That's why they are and should be based in some part on the number of hours worked in the past year. If 2009 is a shitty year, give shitty bonuses at the end of 2009, don't screw your associates. That, as 80 so succinctly put it, disincentives hard work and is just a stupid business decision.

Anyway you slice it, being a lawyer with the chops to graduate from law school and start off in BigLaw is not getting himself/herself into a bad gig. Here's a scenario:

$15k yr in bonuses (level, after-tax) all to debt
$200k in debt
6.8% interest rate
Annual Payments
Take home 60% of base pay
Net is before COL and other items

Year 1:

Base: $160,000
Take-home: $96,000
PMT: $33,200
Net: $62,800

Year 2:

Base: $170,000
Take-home: $102,000
PMT: $30,500
Net: $71,500

Year 3:

Base: $185,000
Take-home: $111,000
PMT: $27,300
Net: $83,700

Year 4:

Base: $210,000
Take-home: $126,000
PMT: $23,700
Net: $102,300

Year 5:

Base: $230,000
Take-home: $138,000
PMT: $19,300
Net: $118,700

Year 6:

Base: $250,000
Take-home: $150,000
PMT: $13,600
Net: $136,400

Year 7:

Base: $265,000
Take-home: $159,000
PMT: $5,300
Net: $153,700

Year 8:

Base: $280,000
Take-home: $168,000
PMT: $0
Net: $168,000

I would say that you are going to be alright. If you can't live in NYC on that, then go to LA or Dallas. If you refuse to do that, then it's on you. $200k is a shit-ton of debt, and $15,000 bonuses/year is not realistic, even in this market they're higher and increase by class year.

You could just gut it out for 3-4 years and have your debt either paid off/paid down so significantly that you can take a job at MidLaw or SmallLaw and still be able to manage your debt payments and live well, which is what I did.

Does it suck to write that damn check every month? You better believe it, and it sucks to see the principal outstanding as well, but we are by no means paupers with no way out of the bottom tier. I hate coming onto these boards and hearing professionals whine about how bad they have it ONLY pulling in $20,000 bonuses and ONLY making $220,000 a year. We're all big boys and girls and we have to sleep in the bed we make insofar as debt and BigLaw.

If 78 wasn't written by a QE partner, I'll eat my shorts.

These types of posts ALWAYS pop up on the QE threads - "I'm merely a QE associate, but I think the firm is the bee's knees", "I'm just a 3L law student, but Quinn is a genuis", "I'm an associate at another firm, but I really wish I had checked those QE guys out."

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be hilarious.

QE to even higher ego-to-talent ratio!

Dear Partners:

As an HLS grad, and BigLaw 1st Year, THANK YOU for letting me work for you. We aren't all oblivious to the fact that we are paid much more than we are worth, especially when there isn't much work to go around.

I'm stuck in BigLaw for now in order to pay down my law school debt, (yes, 75, I graduated with ~$160,000 in law school debt - no consumer debt, no undergrad debt), and if this gig isn't fulfilling for either me (or the firm) in the long run, I'll figure something else out.

In the meantime, some of us really do recognize our role and are ok with what we make. If my office managed to score 100% more profitability next year, I'd be happy for the partners to whom the money rightfully belongs, take whatever I earn and call it good.

So, thanks.

86, you are an idiot. If there isn't much work to go around at Quinn, then how are people billing 2600 hours? Trying pulling all-nighters on a couple of cases and having to cancel vacation plans and then maybe you can speak.

86 here.

87, I'm not at Quinn, have no experience with that firm.

And I've already had a couple all-nighters as well as stepped-on vacation plans and it sucks, but it comes with the job. Did you really expect to not have to work in that way? I'm genuinely curious.

Everyone knows that there is rampant, anti-competitive collusion in associate compensation. I suppose it does make good business sense, since partners will never lose an anti-trust suit.

"And I've already had a couple all-nighters as well as stepped-on vacation plans"

86, that contradicts your point that there isn't much work to go around.

Hardly: a few 80 hour weeks followed by twiddling thumbs and small chance at making billable targets for this year = not much to go around. ;)

The end of our PROFESSION and the beginning of attorneys becoming just another part of the capitalistic system.

Seriously people, if we don't respect our profession we will become as powerless as DOCTORS against the system they are against--we will just have another job.

The entire reason we get paid so much is because we recognize that there is so much money in what we do that we don't have to fuck ourselves. That is becoming less and less the reality.

86, 91-obviously you a corporate associate. Quinn which is a litigation boutique is incredibly busy. You may be lucky to have your job but others at Quinn want to reap some of the benefits of a banner year.

Go back to twiddling your thumbs.

Quinn what?

Wow. Reading the self-aggrandizing partner posts on this board make me realize I should never use a big firm for anything ever again.

F--k All of You,
CEO

I'm tired of the rhetoric that BIGLAW associates--including first-year associates--are overpaid. That's garbage. First-year associates are billed at $350 per hour. For 2,100 hours, that amounts to $735,000. (And don't give me the nonsense that firms are writing off all those hours.) A first-year associate getting paid $180k for those hours is simply not overpaid. If someone is overpaid, it is a partner taking three fourths of the money that asociate directly brought into the firm.

John Quinn tried to excuse his slap in the face of Quinn associates by saying that the firm paid associates market compensation. Fine, but there are two sides to a market--supply and demand. And associates need to fight for themselves on their side of their equation instead of humbly accepting a small fraction of the profits they bring into the firm.

Arrogant partners love to act like there is an endless supply of interchangeable associates (in a deluded effort to convince themselves that its their imagined genius alone that brings in the money--just read Post #3 if you want to see such a bitter, deluded moron) but that's bullshit. Why does Quinn recruit from top schools? Why in general are firms obsessive about grades and clerkships? Quinn and every other firm knows that some associates are way better than others, and great associates help win clients.

Why would anyone want to work at a firm where the lead partner openly boasts that all the firm cares about is the partners? That honesty and bravado comes with a tangible price for associates--fewer perks and benefits. What an associate wants is a firm that at least acts as if it cares about the associates, even if ultimately that's PPP driven. John Quinn's "straight talk" doesn't do an associate any good.

86 is either the biggest tool in his law firm or a Quinn rep not smart enough to write a faux post credibly.

Oh thank you BIGLAW, thank you so much for letting me learn how to be a great lawyer on the firm's expense, because after all, I can't contribute anything, I'm only a first year out of Harvard Law School, and of course the firm is losing so much money teaching me, that's what I've always heard. Often it seems like I'm not learning anything at all, I'm just doing hours upon hours of grunt work, and I'm absolutely miserable, but I know in the end you have my best interests in mind. I'm so glad you make gazillions of dollars, but it's a miracle you do it with such useless associates who don't know anything. Really you should pay me less. One day I hope I too will be able to do all the amazing things you've learned to do like write briefs and :gasp: take depositions.

81: Actually, I know Quinn associates who aren't working as hard as last year because the bonuses are too low to provide an incentive. I'm sure John's bold prediction that we'd never see last year's bonuses any time soon didn't help matters.

I predict 2008 is a turning point for Quinn Emanuel.

96: You make a lot of good points. As good a deal as first years are the firm, mid-levels being billed out at $550 are even better.

I hope quinn spends that extra 15K on something he really needs, because, you know, times are tough right now

One Hundred and FIRST!!!

Most of this BS is way off base.

Quinn is a (somewhat notoriously) leanly staffed trial litigation shop. In that sort of practice, you don't necessarily shoot for X hours. They just sort of happen. The hours are painful, but anyone who went to Quinn without really wanting to do it needs their head examined. Quinn has as many upfront warnings as Marine JAG as to what it is like.

If someone went to Quinn not wanting to work their asses off, well, good luck to them.Why not try to get Wachtell for their superior commitment to quality of life?

The associate/teamster union seniority system has collapsed. From now on only the best lawyers/drivers are going to make any significant money.

Entrepreneurial lawyers will still get rich. However, the mopes on the law work assembly line are going to have to settle for a double wide trailer and a double wide wife - unless they get off their asses and start hustling up business and becoming the best lawyers they can be.

102: Watchell happens to pay respectable bonuses and is extremely prestigious. Quinn offers skimpy bonuses for the hours worked and low prestige. You just destroy your life and kill yourself just to hear John Quinn say a law firm is a business and if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Law students and lateraling associates considering Quinn should ask themselves two questions:
1) How did Quinn make such a huge PPP?
2) And still John Quinn gloats that the associates got "market compensation"?

It's pretty disgusting really.

Quinn knows that people won't lateral to Boies because most associates at Boies get smaller bonuses than they would have for working the same number of hours at Quinn. Amazingly, by having an opaque bonus system, but nonetheless claiming every year that it gives out big bonuses, Boies has convinced people that its bonuses are better than those of other firms -- which is simply not the case.

Who needs to lateral to Boies? HHR had better bonuses than Quinn this year. http://abovethelaw.com/2009/01/associate_bonus_watch_mother_h.php And if prestige is your issue, go to Skadden. It is more prestigious than Quinn (especially in NY) and pays associates a lot more.

The only reason to go to Quinn is if you work in CA. If you work in NY, Quinn is a shithole.

Nobody seems to understand how awesome it is to bill 2,100-2800 hours IN FLIP FLOPS .

3 - did you draft that comment before the post came out? typing all that after the post wouldn't make you #3. Suspect.

105: I'd work for Boies over Quinn in a heartbeat.

92 - we should be so lucky as to be as powerless as doctors. Any shitbird with an MD can move to a small town that does not smell like ass/NYC, and make 300-500K. Lawyers have to be successful at biglaw to make even a piddling 700K or so, which is nothing in a large city.

Why do a lot of people consider Quinn a TTT?

QE sucks. I was recently adverse to them in a major litigation matter and was far from impressed. I've seen many better lawyers from small, medium, and large firms alike. And its a shitty place to work. I feel sorry for people who work their asses off to get that Harvard law degree, only to end up in a cubicle at QE.

Quinn is top tier because it wins big trials. Or is it just a big hoax that Quinn won the rights to Bratz? That it just invalidated Rambus' patents? That citibank paid $2 bil to some hedge funds the firm represented?

The firm tried 22 jury trials last year and won 18, including the biggest in the country. Anyone who dismisses that kind of record has no credibility.

113, that is all true but none of the benefits from those wins trickle down to the associates. It takes 2100 hours to get market and 2400 hours to get slightly above market.

114, its really 2000, because 100 hours of pro bono/aait credit carry over. Trial team members generally bill 2400 for the year, so they do get extra bonus.

One thing to remember too is that partnership chances are much better at quinn than Wachtell, Cravath, Skadden, etc. 7 made it last year, 8 the year before, 7 the year before that. Plus you're up a lot earlier than those places. So focus on bonuses alone doesn't really tell the whole story.

You're not going to bill less than 2100 at QE anyway, what's your problem?

HONEST appraisal - where is Quinn in the hierarchy of CA firms?

It is generally regarded as the #1 business trial firm in the country.

114, how much of your own money is at risk that the firm. My guess is that most of the partners have significant skin invested in the firm (if you think otherwise, take a look at what Covington is giving back to Eric Holder). If the firm tanks a la Heller, that money is at risk. It pays your salary when clients aren't paying, as well as your benefits, the rent etc. Even lowly service partners still have to pony up. So the pay disparity reflects the risk.

117-- anyone who tells you quinn isn't one of the top litigation firms in california doesn't know what they are talking about.

117: the question is, from whose perspective? 118 gives the perspective of john quinn; i have not heard anyone else make that claim. 120 probably gives you the perspective of an in-house counsel at a major business in california. the rest of this thread and earlier threads give you the perspective of associates. i don't think many associates care whether quinn is the #1 business trial firm in the country. i bet quite a few hope the firm suffers. i'm neutral personally. i work hard for my clients, not the firm.

If not Quinn (for #1 in business trials), then who? Boise? W&C? Neither one of those are particularly easy to work for or particularly easy to get hired at.

If you don't want to rack up massive hours, don't freaking interview with, summer with, and accept offers at what are essentially huge trial firms.

Stupid law students.

People are willing to rack up massive hours but they also want to be compensated well when the firm has over $3 million in ppp.

85: you are right, I have noticed this phenomenon many times in the past. It's remarkable that you posted just before #86, the most ludicrous post in this whole thread. I think it's phony baloney--the same idiocy I've seen on so many posts in Quinn-related message-board threads over the years. I also think I know the idiot who writes them and would love to expose her.

"Best business litigation."

Not criticizing the description, but what litigation in BigLaw isn't business litigation? What if anything separates Quinn from Gibson, Munger, Irell, or O'Melveny? I often hear these names listed before Quinn by law students who want to litigate in CA.

Does Quinn pull any clients or have any prestige that these firms don't have?

125--Quinn would say its trial emphasis, experience, and ability separates it. I think there's a nugget of truth in that, though I must note that many a firm brags about how it's not afraid to bring cases to trial. And I believe that the pre-trial phase is more important than trial.

Munger is obviously more selective than Quinn. Irell is also more selective, at least from a grades perspective.

OMM offers associates higher compensation.

115-Why don't you give us a full analysis of how partnership chances are better at Quinn? I don't think it's true. For this discussion, we are not talking about people who lateraled in as of counsel to be made partner a year or two after, and we certainly aren't talking about lateral partners. We are only talking about people who join Quinn as first-year associates. What percentage of the last class of partners were once first-year associates at Quinn?

125 - You are using law students as a barometer? You must be a law student. 99% of law students don't know anything about the practice of law or any specific firm beyond what they've read in that firm's marketing materials or what they've heard as rumors from previous summer associates (like this stuff is ever accurate).

How on Earth is a law student supposed to asses which of many top-tier firms is the absolute "best" for a given practice area? One would think that there have been enough painful, hurt posts to ATL in the past couple years on what a chosen firm is actually like or how it wronged them that law students would realize they don't have a damn clue.

People might not have signed up with Wachtell for the quality of life, but I *know* of people who signed up with Skadden without understanding what they were getting into because, hey, it's Skadden and they are prestigous and their summer program is a blast, so they've got to be nice once you start working there.

Bitching about long hours at a trial litigation firm is exactly the same thing. I'm sure someone at your law school has tried a major case at some point. If you are thinking about being a litigator and making a specific effort to get with a firm that tries major cases and avoid the perceived "drudgery" that comes from being a typical "big firm litigator", ASK SOMEONE what is involved in that.

76 wrote: "it's the fault of the stuipd-ass associates who went there in the first place and/or stay there. There are comparble firms with the same or better comp that don't require as many associate hours. If the hard-working Quinn associates simply left, or didn't go there in the first place, they'd be better off."

You are so right. I was so STUIPD not to go to a COMPARBLE firm that doesn't require as many associate hours, like say, Heller, Thelen, Latham, Wilson Sonsini, Mofo, Orrick, Cooley, etc. I agree that the partners are greedy, but if by pulling in more PPP they can bring in more new partners with new business and we don't have to lay-off associates or dissolve, then I consider my choice to work at Quinn a fairly good one. (...and as soon as the economy turns around, I'll probably jump ship for a place with less hours.)

Um, Quinn HAS been laying off associates, they laid off at least 10 at the end of the year. And they weren't performance based -- these people all made their hours, got paid their bonuses, and got great reviews earlier in the year. They were told it wasn't performance based, it was based on the lack of work. It's not a bad business decision -- Quinn's work HAS dried up a lot recently, John Quinn sent out a memo about it in October and told associates not to expect it to improve overnight. But to claim that they're not laying off associates is just wrong.

Oooh... an anonymous blogger says there were at least 10 people laid off at the end of the year based on the lack of work. It must be true!

I haven't heard anything about layoffs and I haven't heard anyone complain about a shortage of work. I'll believe my eyes and ears over unverifiable ATL comments.

128, the difference is at Wachtell, you probably will bill 2600 or 2700 hours but you will be paid in good years twice what everyone else is and you work on the most cutting edge cases. At Quinn, if you bill 2600 hours, you get a slightly better than market bonus. BTW, Quinn isn't Wachtell. Quinn's LA offices might be comparable to a V-10 firm in terms of selectivity but their NY offices are nothing special. Until recently, many people with average grades at places like CLS and NYU got offers there. They usually just wanted moot court or some kind of oral advocacy experience.

I'll take a stab at 127's question, but I can only talk intelligently about LA because I don't know much about the people in the other offices. In LA, all 3 who made it in 06 summered at the firm and came after school, so they were definitely "home grown." In 07, of the four who made it in LA, 1 came after a clerkship, 2 joined the firm as junior associates. I would count those 3 as "home grown." This year the 1 LA partner was a guy who lateraled in as an of counsel. So of the 8 who made it in LA in the last 3 years, I think its fair to say 6 were people who rose through the ranks. Those are pretty good numbers.

With regard to the NY office, that office only opened in late 01, so obviously a lot of the people who made it came over from someplace else. I know one person who made it there this year has been with the firm since basically the beginning of her career. I can't speak to Northern California offices, although it seems like the people who make it up there are names that have been around the firm for a while.

Hope that's helpful.

133: You're using the wrong metric. The question isn't "of the people who made partner, what percentage were junior associates at QE." The question is "what's the percentage of junior associates that end up making partner." Apparently, for the class that came up this year, it was zero. I'm sure the number is small everywhere -- I wonder if it's smaller at QE than at other firms.

134-- I don't disagree with you, I just don't have that kind of data. I summered at another big firm and from my vantage point odds seem significantly better at quinn than they were there. But its one of the factors that I included in the mix of determining what firm to be at (and for me a significant one-- more than year to year bonus fluctuations).

There is way too much whining in these posts. For those who continue to complain about bonuses, please try to have some perspective.

First, we are in a very different economic climate this year. In case the complainers have colleagues at other firms who are laying off, you should know that those associates are faced with much much bigger problems. For those who find themselves out of a job, their only hope is that they have sufficient savings to weather the storm and meet their monthly rent/mortgage payments while they search for new employment. This is a whole different set of problems and one that makes a few thousand dollars in extra bonus pale in comparison.

Second, let's not forget that bonuses in the past several years have been on the rise and it culminated last year at record setting levels plus special bonuses. Partners made less because Quinn readily met the bonus market (and then some). Now associates are complaining because the market has shifted in the opposite direction. You have to take the good with the bad.

Third, if you really feel strongly that you should have received more and have something besides rhetoric to back it up, why not go talk to JBQ? He has an open door policy and associates in the past have received extra $$$ by making their contributions known. At a minimum, maybe by venting in some other forum besides these posts, you'll manage to get past the notion that you have been wronged. Bitching and moaning in these anonymous posts will get you nothing.

Finally, associates become partners and someday the shoe will be on the other foot and you'll be complaining about the associates who never bring in a single case but want more money. At the end of the day, Quinn, like most other firms, pays its associates a tremendous salary. Yes, we all have student loans and other financial commitments, but complaining about making around $200K/year (and even more for senior associates)? Many people wish they had that kind of problem.

Oh no, the associates are complaining about their pay. This will totally disrupt the efficiency of the market. I wish Quinn associates would look at things from the proper perspective. How many hours associates worked as a whole and what revenues they generated are beside the point. They aren't part of the market, defined as the amount of money Cravath paid.

There's a great depression out there folks. If bullshit doesn't sell, maybe fear-mongering will.

Yes, but if we stopped whining then Elie would have to report his own layoff.