Vomit.

deflation is better than contraction, especially for first years who don't have any meaningful way to distinguish themselves from their peers

first!!!!!

V10 first years are worth 160k.

McGuire Woods are worth about a dollar fiddy.

a new way for top firms to distinguish themselves from competitors during the recession...

If the first years are starting in October or September as previously done, then 144K a year kicks 160K a year, yet you start in January 2010 or March 2010 ass!! Good job McGuire!!!

3L, soon to be a first year. :)

I could buy a lot of DUSTER for $144k. Are they hiring? What if I am WALKING ON SUNSHINE?
*Sucks duster can*

Of course there will be deflation - given the number of out-of-work Biglaw associates, the firms can get away with slashing junior level salaries. Most of the unemployed would gladly take a job making $135,000-$145,000 given that their prospects for getting a job at all are so uncertain. And the firms know it too - they can cut costs and very few people will bother complaining about it.

5 & 6: I hope you fail the bar.

Love,
3L starting at a V10. I really don't want to work with assholes like you.

will this be accompanied by a 10 percent reduction in billable hour expectations? if so, this is welcome news

5: No they aren't. No first year is worth $160k. $144k sounds much more reasonable to me.

Of course there will be deflation - given the number of out-of-work Biglaw associates, the firms can get away with slashing junior level salaries. Most of the unemployed would gladly take a job making $135,000-$145,000 given that their prospects for getting a job at all are so uncertain. And the firms know it too - they can cut costs and very few people will bother complaining about it.

13,

But one or two firms wont. Then it will be "who is worth it" and not just a starting salary. When the economy picks back up all firms will increase the salaries so they can compete for the best. And the legal community will be right back where it was 2 years ago.

It was kind of odd how many firms were paying top-tier compensation. I imagine things will differentiate out, but the top will still pay 160.

1st 2nd and 3rd year will now be conducted as a reverse auction basis.
5 in a room
low bid keeps the job
supply and demand sets the rate
saving to go directly to partner bonuses

Didn't McGuirewoods only pay $145,000 in its offices? Where are you getting the $160K number?

Firms that bill at higher rates can afford to attract top talent by paying on the 160k scale. Many firms don't deliver enough value to their clients in order to justify higher billable hour rates and therefore cannot and should not pay on the 160 scale.

The stupid push to $160 is the main reason so many associates are out of jobs now. Kudos to McGuire Woods.

Are they reducing summer associate salaries accordingly? If not, you'd have SA's earning more per week than first-year associates.

so there really is going to be a pay separation b/n vault firms.

*doubles my job hustling efforts to secure a v5 position for 2L summer*

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa

when are the first years starting at McGuire? If it is in September or October, then the salary is much better than making 16K more at Latham but having to wait until March 2010.

Kudos!!!

when are the first years starting at McGuire? If it is in September or October, then the salary is much better than making 16K more at Latham but having to wait until March 2010.

Kudos!!!

146k is better than 0k. Kudos to MW.

Is this firm located in Biloxi?

18 is right. The lack of distinction in salary for basically the entire AM LAW 100 (WLRK being the exception) was entirely indefensible. There are real distinctions between these first year associates, both in current and future potential. The best firms should attract the best associates and the simplest signal the market can send about the best firm (ie financially healthiest firm) is the payscale.

As a former MW associate, I have to say I am proud of the firm for making this decision instead of laying off associates. I knew the push to $160,000 would be moronic. I'm glad to know most of my former colleagues will be ok

8 --> stupid persona

19 --> stupid comment

It is time for US firms to adopt the Belgian model: First 3 associate years effectively are an unpaid apprenticeship (modest stipend to cover bare bones living expenses). Years 4 and 5: 100% compensation is performance-based. Thereafter, you are partner or gone.

Does anyone else on this post absolutely despise nervous T-10 1L? You are such a douche. You go to a top ten law school and are distinguishing between v5, v10? Just be happy that you will get into biglaw in this market and stop being such a wimp about everything.

If this starts to domino, then it presents an opportunity for firms to cut back on recruiting to law students and let the salary speak for itself.

I am so depressed. My career and life have been ruined.

- Laid off Latham 1st Year

Elie - can we get a chart showing start dates for incoming 3Ls?

seems like a shrewd move. save money but still keep your talent. though methinks they should've pushed down to at least 130k or lower since no associate is going to give up any sort of six-figure employment is this economy

As an independent contractor, I will not be cutting my salary... I'm far from being a "first year" anyway.

does v stand for vagisil?

Cutting salary is more strange than layoffs. It implies that they still have enough work to go around. Otherwise, you'd think they'd make the cuts and save the full 160. Weird.

Also, McGuireWoods is a Richmond-based firm that never paid 160 in all its offices (not even the HQ). It also has (had?) a big, big presence in Charlotte, which is in a tough spot right now. So, while this is significant for those first years who just got a 10% reduction in pay (but are still happy to have a job), it doesn't say a lot about the firms that pay 160 across the board.

This might just be a way of McGuireWoods telling its busy(er) Richmond associates that they are valued as much those in New York and Chicago who are no longer working New York-type hours.

@14- I am afraid the legal community will not bounce back as you optimistically predict. The billable hour concept is near its end. The biglaw paradigm is antiquated. Going to law school will be a sucker's bet because most transactional work will be outsourced to grateful and cheaper barristers in India. But hey, I made my millions and retired at 44 so I can give a rat's ass about these low level associates being fired or subjected to wage reductions.

Layoffs make more sense that this nonsense. If a firm doesn't have enough money to pay their associates' salaries, it is because the firm doesn't have enough work to go around. Some practice groups are busy, others are not, and cutting salaries penalizes the busy practice areas. If you don't have the work to keep people busy, you need to let people go. If a firm simply refuses to conduct layoffs, it would be much more fair to cut salaries in slow practice areas or pay by the hour.

29: I think the "apprenticeship" is only 2 years.

30:

yes. I do. he is a total boner.

Don't these guys represent BIG TOBACCO? Who the eff cares about them or the popped-collar crowd they recruit?

Laid off Latham first year:

Shut the fuck up. There are people in this world who can't afford to feed their children, who live in poverty, who are dying of horrible illnesses because they don't have the funds to buy available medicines.

You just don't get 160K salary for a while and might decrease your credit score, default on some loans, and suck it up and get a crappy job for a while.

No one feels sorry for you. There are kids making 10 cents a day doing dangerous work in Asia. And don't complain about "I worked hard in lawschool to get here." Those kids are born into poverty. They have no choice. Some children get cancer and die. They also had no option.

You are just an annoying, whining, entitled DOUCHE!

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Yes, 32, yes they have.

I would happily take 144k to start in Sept rather than 160k to start in january or defer until Fall 2010. The important thing for 3Ls entering as first years is just to start work and get some experience under our belts. Shoot, I'd probably take less than 144.

Let's be honest...we'd all work for a lot less just to keep our jobs. Especially us 1st/2nd years who need to get a few years experience before being thrown to the wolves. The important thing is experience, not money.

Nice work Elie. I know people, including me, sometimes groan at your attempts to be insightful at the end of your posts, but this time I think you hit the nail on the head. Partners now have the leverage necessary to decrease associate salaries, and in a world that worships PPP, expect one V20 firm to do this, and the rest will follow.

Would a 10% decrease in salary have saved 10% of a firm's workforce? If so, then I would have gladly taken the hit for my colleagues. Maybe I wouldn't have had that terrible survivor's guilt as I watched some good friends breaking down as they were escorted out of the building. $145,000 for baby associates is still a lot of damn money.

29,

Do law schools in Belgium charge $40k a year for tuition? Do law grads in Belgium have 6 figure student loan debt?

Since many top law students in the U.S. graduate with a lot of law school debt, law school isn't going to be worth it to a lot of law students in the U.S. under the model you suggest.

Since all you geniuses seem to be able to state with certainty what someone's "worth", why stop at 144K - perhaps 100K is the right figure? Or is it 50K? Perhaps first years should just work for chewing gum and learn to like it?

nervous smokes monkey pole

yea, nervous T-10 1L pisses me off too. never funny, either. I can imagine he's one of those nerds outlining until 11 PM halfway through the semester, congregating with all the future law review editors, commiserating about how "nervous" they are. Fuck you.

Also, I'm pretty sure Fenwick and West is doing this, too.

Since all you geniuses seem to be able to state with certainty what someone's "worth", why stop at 144K - perhaps 100K is the right figure? Or is it 50K? Perhaps first years should just work for chewing gum and learn to like it?

I have a v12. vrooooom

43: I hope your entire family dies of cancer. And when it happens, don't complain. Millions of people died under the rule of the Nazis. So in comparison, you'll have nothing to complain about.

You are a giant D-bag.

Glad to see McGuireWoods show some leadership on something that needs to occur more broadly to help stem the tide of layoffs across the board.

Now if we can only have a firm roll back the nationwide salary match from a couple of years ago. I still can't believe that this wasn't the first thing done. Firms are cutting 15% of all associates and first-years in Texas are still making the same as their co-workers in NYC.

If I were a managing partner (to avoid hurt feelings or inferiority complexes), I would roll all associate salaries back to a nationally uniform base for each class year (120K for first-years?) and then award city-specific, cost-of-living adjustments that I would emphasize are distinct from salary. Sure, it would be, in essence, a return to the old model (and would cause associate frustration in the affected cities), but at least the firm could assert that the differential isn't based on any value or quality judgments, and is operating as a mechanism to help mitigate layoffs.

Well, I won't work in BIGLAW for less than 160K. I would rather do public interest and have my loans forgiven after 10 years.

-3L going to V10 firm

I'm glad to know most of my former colleagues will be ok
__________________________________________

What makes you think that? They aren't doing layoffs YET. This just means you get to make less money until they finally fire you for good.

50:

*takes a break from outlining to give 50 a high five...then i cry and he pulls his hand away and says 'too slow joe'*

:(

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa

53 loves v8 because it is good for the body.

"V10"? Woo hoo! V10!

Those rankings are a product of the boom. They were always virtually meaningless but nowadays they sound downright quaint. No one can afford to be a snob in this economic climate. Humility is one of the few upsides to this deflationary collapse.

Isn't McGuireWoods a furniture manufacturer?

Salary cuts?

QUINN ASCERTAINS this will hurt McGuire in the future

I don't understand the "I work at a more prestiguous firm then you" law mentality. It doesn't occur in any other industry really for incoming associates.

I went to an offer cocktail thing at Skadden. Some junior associate actually told me, "to work here you also get the advantage of the prestige and the ability to drop the Skadden name bomb on colleagues."

Needless to say, I didn't accept there. Who can care about that? I don't get the "prestige" thing. If you are prestiguous, you can lateral when you're more experienced. If you suck at a prestiguous firm and got to do nothing but doc review because you sucked, then you'll suck no matter where you go.

I hate law people for that reason alone.

Signed,

Partner at a BigLaw firm who went to a T3 lawschool.

What a relief. Someone needs to put the brakes on salaries and MW is the ideal candidate. 160, or 144, in Richmond, VA is a disgusting fortune. And you don't need this sum to lure good lawyers in Manhattan.

29:
That model may work well in Belgium, where tuition costs are much, much lower, but here it wouldn't work...at all. Make law school free (or nearly free) and a 3 year unpaid internship ("stage", I believe it is called in Belgium) is warranted.

However, between tuition, books, and paying for living expenses with loans, I went $150K into debt to have the privilege of attending law school. If there was no "outrageous" $160K salary at the end of it, I'd never have gone for a JD (nor would many others like me who weren't born with the proverbial silver spoon).

"PARTNER at a BIGLAW firm who went to a T3 LAWSCHOOL"

I'm sorry, could you go over your position on "prestige dropping" again?

RVA to 144!

Why does everyone always blame the push to $160k for the failure of firms, when the shift in associate comp was really just an overdue truing-up of the historic partner/associate income ratio? Let's not forget that partner income soared during the early 2000s, while the associate pay scale stagnated (albeit at levels higher than most people in the country earn, but that's not the right comparison--it needs to be compared with partners in the same industry).

If 62 is a partner then...OH NO DIARRHEA ALL OVER THE CARPET WHY DID I FART NAKED THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS

62:

I'm with you. I crossed off about 30% of BIGLAW at the outset because I could care less about prestige. I'm not sure prestige is going to mean a whole lot for pepole that are completely miserable at work.

Besides, most law firms still pay the same as firms like Skadden. It's possible that exit options may be better at more prestigious firms, but I haven't found that to be the case among my peers who have left BIGLAW.

54, you nailed it.

65,

I was trying to portray that I went to a Tier 3 lawschool. I apologize if it came across that I went to a top 3 school. I am not used to the posting lingo on this blog.

62

why haven't we outted nervous? come on ppl get with the program!!!

The layoffs will happen regardless of what the salaries are, because if there is no work to assign, you don't need the associate - period.

I think what people will realize next is that education is as overpriced as housing has been. Is it worth taking on 150k of student loan debt for a 10% chance of landing a 160k/year job that lasts, on average, only 3 years? What about if it's only a 144k job? What if it goes down to 80k?

Law Schools, B-Schools and Colleges are going to be in a world of pain when parents and students come to their senses and just say fuck it : we'll buy a Gas Station or Subway franchise and work for ourselves instead of wasting so much time and money on overpriced education.

62,

Many apologies. The prestige stuff turns me off, too. I summered in biglaw this past summer and within my class, go to one of the "less prestigious" schools. I try to use it to my advantage...it's motivating in a way.

65

37 to EIC!!!

43, are you Bob Dell?

The layoffs will happen regardless of what the salaries are, because if there is no work to assign, you don't need the associate - period.

I think what people will realize next is that education is as overpriced as housing has been. Is it worth taking on 150k of student loan debt for a 10% chance of landing a 160k/year job that lasts, on average, only 3 years? What about if it's only a 144k job? What if it goes down to 80k?

Law Schools, B-Schools and Colleges are going to be in a world of pain when parents and students come to their senses and just say f___ it : we'll buy a Gas Station or Subway franchise and work for ourselves instead of wasting so much time and money on overpriced education.

62 = Law Student at TTT3 school.

Come on, you're going to sign as a "Partner at BigLaw firm" after admitting you went to an "offer thing" at Skadden and that you "didn't accept there."

First off -- you did not get offered at Skadden. You are pissy because you thought you had a shot, while Skadden was only showing up at your school to make their diversity numbers look good.

Second -- nobody "name bombs" their colleagues. They name bomb their former classmates who ended up at TTT firms.

Finally -- Right now, everyone would KILL for that doc review staffing. Around the office, word of a huge doc review coming up results in every junior running to their office and firing off emails of "I am available for any assignments you may have" at lightning speed.

Now, let me be the first to say .. McGuire Woods can suck it. This is the shittiest, most lowdown statement you can make to your associates. Firms like MGW raised salaries to 160 because they knew they would lose their top talent to other firms during the boom cycle. Now, when gifted with an economy so bad that every associate is just thankful for ANY job, the firm turns around and gives them a pay cut (which indicates they have enough work to go around, but not enough money) for no reason other than that they can get away with it!

Nothing should be a bigger slap to the face of associates than for a firm to say, in effect, "we know you'll take this cut and like it, because you have nowhere else to go, and we don't think you're any better than that."

McGuire associates will remember this indignity when the economy picks back up. Mark my words -- firms that engaged in massive layoffs during this recession will end up better off than firms that did pay freezes. Because at least the former will keep the associates they didn't fire when the economy turns around. The firms that engaged in pay cuts or freezes now may keep more associates during the "down," but will see them leave in droves when the economy rebounds.

78,

Summer associate programs and events were around in the 80's and 90's. Many partners were summer associates at one point.

There is no indignity in keeping one's job. You sound incredibly bitter.

- A lawyer who was a summer associate in the late 80's

why would you take ten percent of the people you pay the least instead of five or even two percent of the sallary of people you pay a hell of a lot more? And I'm not implying the partners but all of the associates who don't bring in the work. Why put the entire burden on the attorneys who make, relatively, the least?

80, their salaries were frozen. Therefore, it is a pay % already taken. If not, would it be fair for a 2nd year and a 1st year to make the same salary? The 2nd year salary was frozen at 160k.

50: On behalf of law review nerds who outline till 11pm, I take serious offense to being compared to 1L.

We're nervous too, but staying quiet about it since our nerd skills have probably situated us better in this garbage economy, and we know that being vocal about our concerns is a great way to make anyone who isn't lucky enough to be in the same position not unreasonably hate us.

If I had to guess, I would peg 1L as a nerd by virtue of having no friends or social competency rather than on account of being a good law student.

81- sorry, thought it was current not incoming. In that case, I don't care.

73 - titcr

I don't like McGuire Woods -- TaylorMade are much better.

43 -

Go f**k yourself.

Debating what a first-year is "worth" is meaningless. They're worth what the market will pay. It is clear that the market will no longer pay the ridiculous billable rates some of us charge, and that's the end of the story.

As for the prestige debate, this reminds me of Blachman's "Anonymous Lawyer." Nobody really gives a shit.

Another former MW associate here.

I agree that MW's cut is a good move. Firm management should have NEVER moved from $145K to $160K in the first place, but was basically forced to do so after its cross-town rival, Hunton & Williams, made the move. Fine, I get that.

However, because MW is not lock-step and because the $160K rate applied only to incoming first years, you had a bizarre situation where second or even third years were making LESS than first years who had not even passed the bar. I left shortly after that asinine decision and never looked back.

Kudos to MW for not doing layoffs. We'll see if that lasts. As with all things at McGuireWoods, pride and face play almost as much a role in these decisions as numbers. Unless Hunton & Williams also cut 1st year salaries though, MW partners are feeling pretty humble in Richmond right now. Serves them right.

78 = Useless 1st Year

Salaries are going down because 1st years are overpaid. I routinely have to write off 50% of a 1st Years time because they contribute so little to the end project. Once you have been practicing awhile you will realize that the abiltiy to bring in and manage work is wortk 100 times the ability to review boxes of documents.

82: Kill yourself.

so how low do NY salaries have to sink before it becomes not worth it to pay the absurd cost of living in this city and go somewhere else?

89,

Were you ever a first year attorney? Did you graduate law school and automatically start as a mid-level associate? Or did you work as a first year at a big firm, but refuse to accept the money that the partners were paying you because you weren't worth it?

Let me guess, you were one of the superstar first year associates who the partners were happy to throw money at because you were so brilliant. The partners at your firm never had to write off any of your time, right?

It's annoying to keep reading comments from senior attorneys disparaging first years. I hope some of you realize that at one point you were a first year attorney (and probably had some partner bitching about you too).

92

I actually started the practice of law before the salaries skyrocketed. I worked for a V5 firm and made $85K (which at the time seemed like quite a bit) . The rise in associate salaries was a direct result of the dot com brain drain,, which ended some time ago. My point is that there is a huge difference between a 1st year and a 3rd year and they should be paid accordingly.

89

@38: "But hey, I made my millions and retired at 44 so I can give a rat's ass about these low level associates being fired or subjected to wage reductions."

.....

Then why the fuck are you reading ATL?

What MW offices were paying 160? I interviewed with their McLean office and the pay was already 145, so what is it going down to? 130?

95 -

LA, NYC, Chicago, Charlotte, Tysons Corner and Richmond were all paying $160 in mid-2008 when I left MW. When did you interview with McLean?

I got offers from v1 through v50 and rejected them all

90: So sorry your plan to aim for the middle-lower end of the pack proved to be a seriously stupid decision. No need to take it out on some 1L who has the brains to realize he or she might need to work hard in school.

-- Not 82, not a 1L, but someone who actually thinks working hard is important.

The ship be sinking...

89/93,

What does $85,000 in whatever year you started dollars equate to in today's dollars? I would guess that the difference isn't that great when you consider inflation. If you also take into consideration the cost of living and lower law school tuition, you might have been more overpaid than current first years.

No one deserves to earn $144k right out of school...period.

101, not even the biggest law?

100,

The $85,000 was the going rate for big law firms in 1998. Inflation was most definitely not 6.5% a year over the past decade, so you guessed wrong.

So not only did you fail in life, but you also fail at simple math.

-- not 89/93

Smart firm.

How big is big enough to deserve 160k? That, my ATL friends, is the question of the day.

I'm fairly certain that MW has never paid 160 in Richmond.

I blame Dealbreaker, their weak ass comments, and their seizure inducing ad.

91 - with the impending tax increases, plus being in 150k of debt, *ANY* drop in associate comp is enough to make me want to leave NYC.

So a person fails at life and math for not knowing when starting salaries at law firms were 85,000? The law is truly full of douchebags.

106 I thought the same thing, I don't remember anyone every saying Richmond made $160,000

No first year lawyer is worth 160,000 but a first year out of college as an investment banker is worth 200,000 -- now riddle me that batman.

108, why don't you leave? Please do it soon so that,
a) we will stop hearing about your whining about how expensive it is in a city that you specifically chose to live in, and
b) once demand is lower, the cost of living will be lower and the job market will be better for the rest of us here.

@89

When you actually have to LITIGATE a case you will realize that your result is only as good as the quality of your document review.

I am worth at least $250,000 in my first year. $160,000 is a bargain for the firm.
Who are you to say what people are worth? Douches.

89 = 1st Year That is Not Allowed to Draft Briefs

I have actually litigated cases. I never said that document review was not important, it just really is not that difficult. Keeping trying to justify your self worth.

115, did you just call yourself a first year that is not allowed to draft briefs?

Ha. Yes. Good pick up 116. I am an "unfrozen caveman lawyer" chat lines confuse me.

98: eat my shit and die.

Love,
90

Quote: "Second -- nobody "name bombs" their colleagues. They name bomb their former classmates who ended up at TTT firms. "

78, do you know any associates or partners at Skadden? They're the Lord God Kings of name bombing - even if nobody cares. In that case, they'll just turn up the drama knobs and wear the black cowboy hat until you pretend you care - or at least put on some theme music for them.

19, you are wrong. As 73 mentions, an associate with extremely low billables costs the firm money whether he is making $160k or $135k, and an associate with normal billables is making the firm plenty of money at either salary. Job cuts are happening when THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WORK TO KEEP PEOPLE BUSY, not because of salary issues.

69: Its "I could NOT care less."

120 = Forrest Gump

First years typically lose money whether earning $135K or $160K since a significant percentage of their time must be written off. In addition, at the margin, clear associates salary has a significant impact on profitability.

100, though I would not specifically be able to recall when the starting salary went up from 82K, I can tell you that it went TO 82K in or around 1988. Adjusted for inflation, that's about 141K in today's dollars. I seem to recall it going to 140 (I think) in around 2000. I just didn't know it was held in the 80s for so long and then adjusted that much at once.

But as 93 said, the pressure to increase to 140 at first came as a result of the dot com and other high tech "brain drain". I believe Silicon Valley firms started that one because of what they were competing with in their in-house regional cos.

If, as 103 is saying, it remained in the low-mid 80s until 1998, that would mean that every senior lawyer you know from grad years 1988 to 1997 earned LESS (in terms of purchasing power) than a first year associate of today.

The class of 1997 would seemingly have been paid the least of all.

123, either you went to one of the best paying large firms that beat their competitors by almost 20% in salaries, or your memory is a little fuzzy.

Median big firm salary was $70k in 1992. I'm guessing it was not $12k higher four years before then.
Market big firm salary was $125k (never $140k) in 2000.
The market reached $140k six years later.
http://www.nalp.org/2007septnewlawyers?s=average%20first%20year%20salary

Since your 2000 number is a bit off, I'm guessing your memory is a little fuzzy.

124: you realize "median" does not mean the same thing as "average" or "market" right?

- not anyone who has been posting in this thread

noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! this can't be happening!!!!!

43 - you're a f'ing douchecap.

MW is full of shit. Cutting 1st years while leaving everyone else at the same level. I'm sure most first years budgeted their lives at the 160k level and a 16k reduction will hurt (primarily because 2nd years make 170, etc). I'm betting that next year, when this year's first years become second years, the pay won't jump to 170, MW will adjust it to 154-160 and move the then 3rd years to 185k, just continuing the disparity. MW is shit now.

124 - I said I didn't know when it left the low-mid 80s. I recalled an industry adjustment in 2000. I also recalled a former Skadden associate being quite verbal in his objections at the time. That's why I suspected the 140K came then, but admittedly I could not specifically recall.

As far as the BigLaw starting salary being 82K, however, that was what I knew to be the case in at least Stroock and Mudge in 1989-1991. I know Skadden occupied that range in 1991 as well and I wouldn't think that Stroock and Mudge paid more than Skadden in the late 1980s.

I also recall 70K, but at a mid-sized firm in 1986 and 1987. That particular firm was never a top level player, though.

PS to 124. I must add that all of the firms I worked in and whose associates I would have known personally were in New York City. In the late 80s and at least into the early 90s and somewhat beyond, I believe that large firms in other metro areas were behind NYC's compensation schedule.

Former MW associate here: good for them. It was ridiculous that they were trying to compete in the salaray arms race in the first place. I joined them through unusual circumstances and was never terribly impressed with the place, so left, but at least this is a sane decision. Probably won't do much more than bide some time, but still.

The problem with the whole industry, and I mean the whole industry, is that no one wants to admit that all of our salaries are a boom bubble. They are. Ten years ago a senior lawyer might be topping out at 400 an hour in most jurisdictions. Now it is 700+. Talk to GCs like I did yesterday and you will hear the same thing over and over again: these rates cannot be sustained. Problem is, no one who is making a million dollars a year wants to admit that was the outlier and that they shouldn't expect it to continue. And others have focused so hard on the fact they make buckets of money, letting that justify all the crap they have to put up with to do so, can't entertain then the notion of letting go of the one thing they love about this work.

Honestly, we haven't even seen the start. Some firms are going to fold. Others are going to eliminate summer programs. Still others are going to eliminate all first year hiring. The whole market can't do it, but some players can make the sane decision to let others bear the cost of training.

Incoming lawyers, do yourself a favor: realize that the biglaw salary you are about to earn is an aberration. Live and save accordingly. You might get lucky in the biglaw game. But if you don't or the whole market dramatically resets, at least you will be prepared.

p.s. unlike most, I'm not some law student posing or having fun on the net about serious things that are impacting good people.

125, you realize that the link's data specifically states it refers to median and market salaries, right?
You know, the same median and market salaries that I used in my post?

- 124, who is also someone who does know how to read.

68 = EPIC WIN

112--> I will when they decrease NYC salaries, d'bag. Until then, I deserve to live above the poverty line. Now go get your fucking shinebox.

131/124. The link you provided doesn't say what you think it does.

131: you're joking right? try again. the chart actually criticizes itself for listing medians instead of at least modal information, though if you don't understand what "median" numbers represent, i highly doubt you understand "mode" either.

127- if these first years have budgeted in such a stupid way that they can't survive on $144,000 a year, they really aren't that bright and shouldn't be making that money anyway. If it was a heftier cut, I would feel bad, but many of us started at a measley (ha!) $125,000 a few years ago and did JUST FINE.

What happened to NY to 190?

Top PPP firms to 190 -- all other firms to 160 or lower, damn it.

Alas, it'll never happen, because if firms have a good excuse to lower salary, well, it's going to happen.

135, I don't think the chart is saying what you think it means. All the reported salaries are the MEDIAN salaries. The footnote says that because so many salaries were reported at the MEDIAN level in the asterisked years (2000-2006), it is more useful to think of that "median" salary as the "modal, or prevailing" salary for those years. In other words, the chart tells us the median salaries for 1992-1999 and the modal, or market, salaries (which is also the median) for 2000-2006. Nowhere does the link text criticize itself for not listing modal salaries, because it DID list the modal salaries for 2000-2006.

But hey, I'm sure it makes you feel better to insult others but make a fool of yourself in the process.

134, the link tells me the median salary was $70k in 1992.
It also tells me the market salary was $125k in 2000. That was the median salary, but the link tells me it was also the modal, or market, salary that year because so many salaries were reported at that level.
I mentioned all this in 124.

Please enlighten me as to what you think the link actually says.

139 - it does not list modal data for the other years, to which you are comparing; i.e., modal data would have been more useful.

point being, what is listed is median information for the early years (1992, etc.), and those years were the ones in question. median information is useful to show trends, but not to show market. they show a shift in market salaries, but not actual market salaries.

Skadden is not prestigious! ... let's be honest

141, yes the modal information was not available for before 2000, which is why I specifically said in 124 that "Median big firm salary was $70k in 1992."
Nowhere did I try to claim that the modal salaries in 1992 was $70k nor did I try to make any such comparison. I was merely skeptical that a firm could have paid $82k in 1992 when the same person claimed the firm paid $140k in 2000.

Reading comprehension really helps these days.

123/128/129 here

Neither the median nor the mode precludes the possibility that BigLaw in NY was paying 82K to first years in the late 80s and early 90s. In fact, the "median" would imply that someone was paying above 70K.

So for all the sniping about statistical models, the link never served to disprove what I said about the salaries circa 1989, 1990, 1991.

"Median big firm salary was $70k in 1992. I'm guessing it was not $12k higher four years before then."

your direct comparison between what was estimated as the MARKET salary in 1988 v. MEDIAN salary in 1992. you keep tooting your little "reading comprehension" horn there friend. i am going home.

145, the $82k was not the estimated "MARKET salary in 1988" but an individual data point provided by 123/128/129. An individual data point does not establish what the market salary was in 1988, just so you know. The statement estimates what the MEDIAN may have been in 1988.
Great retort!

143 - Yes, reading comprehension does help at any time. Start with what I ACTUALLY said in post 123.

I said that the starting salary of 82 BEGAN in or around 1988, but that I did not know when starting salaries LEFT that range. I said only that I knew of an adjustment that occurred in 2000, which I said I THINK was 140K. However, since I had already said I didn't know when the 82K STOPPED, I would not know whether the 2000 adjustment was a large jump in a single year.

Here's my comment if you'd like to read it again.

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/mcguire_woods_cuts_1st_year_sa.php?show=comments#comment-967072

And I did not say it all occurred in the same firm either and neither did 103. (Source for the salary being in the 80s as late as 1998.)

In fact, I said that I recalled that Silicon Valley firms were the first to go to 140K. That would mean that it occurred in a law firm NOT in NY.

I can understand that someone might incur a $150k law school debt with the goal of starting out at a $160k salary. However, that’s a fairly high risk/reward proposition. For those who are complaining that they can’t meet their financial obligations outside of BIGLAW, let me ask “What was your Plan B?”

147, you really need to calm down. I was merely responding to the critics who seem to be confusing the concepts of median, modal, and market. I was skeptical of your post in 123 when you first wrote it, but I believed you were telling the truth after you wrote 128. Notice how I used the past tense and I was not currently disputing your assertion about salaries in 123?
Yeah, about that reading comprehension.

149 - It comes in handy to read the post I was responding to as well.

"I was merely skeptical that a firm could have paid $82k in 1992 when the same person claimed the firm paid $140k in 2000.

Reading comprehension really helps these days. "

That was in post 143. I was not the person who claimed "the firm" (as in the same one) paid 140K in 2000. I never made any claim about 140K at all.

Post 147 responds to post 143. It's in the address.

Yes, about that reading comprehension.

And incidentally, can someone at ATL PLEASE tell me what someone has to do to get a confirmation email to get a screenname? This 123/128/147 WTF is confusing even the people who WROTE the damn posts, like the unfortunate 149/143.

50 - on what basis do you say fenwick's doing this too?

I say we find some women and party. I gots the vitamin E.

Didn't Holland and Knight also cut salaries after the layoffs last month?

I graduated in 95. My starting comp in DC was 72. Other DC firms paid in the range of 70 to 74. New York was 84. The salary jump occurred over phases at my firm. In 99, there was a first move putting first years in the 90s, then in 2000, it went to 125, then later that year to 135. Finally, it hit 160. I thought I had died and gone to heaven.

I remember as an associate complaining that comp was too low for what was asked of me, but I also remembering feeling so glad to have a job because there were so few out there. Now, I try to see both sides of this debate. The way I generally come out is that a good associate is worth the pay and they become more so with every year they work. For those associates, you have a right to want top of the market. I also now know that many associates are not as good as they think and associates are not good judges of which of their peers are good attorneys. Just because someone is nice, funny, cute, etc. does not mean they can write and think. Until you are depending on another attorney to give you work product, you just cannot know whether that attorney is good. When you like someone, it is very hard to say they are lousy attorneys. But if that is the fact of it, they don't deserve associate comp or to take up a slot that someone with talent can fill.

Given how lockstep firm salaries are, harping on median vs. mode is a little ridiculous.

There used to be a larger difference between New York office salaries and others, but outside of that, chances both the median and the mode for a given year were the market salary or at the absolute minimum very very close to it.

There's a difference between salaries at the edges--for the more obscure biglaw firms and there used to be more of a difference at the absolute elite--but if you're picking the median and you're picking the mode at a given time in the past 20 years, it's just not very likely they differed that much.

One other thing, prior to the raises, firms paid different kinds of attorneys different rates. For example, patent prosecution and tax got more. Regulatory and lit got less. Firms like MoFo gave you extra if you had an MBA or other useful grad degree. Nothing was really lock step so it is hard to look at the historical data other than as a general indicator.

I graduated in '05 with 120K in combined law school/undergrad loans. Went JAG and have cut my debt load in half, to about 60K, plus killed all $15,000 of stupid credit card debt I had racked up in law school and before. I specifically asked to be assigned to a unit deploying to Iraq in the surge. Military pay no federal tax while deployed, and I had zero expenses back home as I had no apartment or car as I obviously didn't need them while deployed. i got about 15K from my law school since my job qualified for their Loan Repayment Assistance Program.

Now I'm about to get out this summer and will clerk for a federal judge. It was a tough three-plus years, but worth it between the debt I paid off and experience I obtained- jury trials, lots of motion practice, and some unique nation-building operational law stuff. For the 1Ls and 2Ls out there who are looking for a different path that can nonetheless be rewarding, consider the military and other forms of government service. Will you get rich? Financially speaking, probably not, but you can definitely be happy.

so does this apply only to the offices where the starting associates were making 160k or also the offices, like richmond, where they start at 145k (i.e. bumping them down to around 130k)?

duster girl=comedic brilliance

Hey guys, I just heard: NY to $190 next year!

... That's $190.00.

Get out of law while you still can, pretty soon it's going to be WachTTTell

First, to be clear, MW in Richmond is NOT paying first-years $160,000. It is $145,000. MW offices paying $160,000 to first-years include NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Tysons Corner, and DC. Perhaps Charlotte, too.

Second, don't assume that a firm's decision to slash or freeze pay is a product of not having enough work to go around. A lot of big clients (i.e., Fortune 100 or 500 companies) are mandating significant changes in the way their outside counsel bill. Many companies, for example, are refusing to acknowledge rate increases. Others are asking for fixed-rate plans or demanding discounts. Nearly all are scrutinizing bills more closely than ever.

As a MW associate, I was mildly disappointed to learn of the pay freeze, but if that keeps colleagues from losing their jobs, then I think that's a pretty small concession to make given the circumstances. No complaints here.

The economy is decimating nearly all industries. The arrogant elitists out there need a reality check before they blindly criticize what some firms, like MW, are doing to adapt to the economic conditions.

43 = Phil Telfeyan?

Welcome back, Phil!

As a former MW partner, I can say that MW does not tell it straight on salary issues. They have multiple scales for all levels (partners, associates, counsel, staff), including different scales at different offices, with a strong bias in favor of Richmond and against NY and Chicago. When I was at the firm, they were dishonest, and there's no reason to believe that they suddenly got religion.

The reason why first year salaries are getting cut is simple: there's not enough work to go around, and there are too many partners--income/salaried and equity--who are NOT bringing in the work. It's less risky (politically) to fire associates with no experience, no track record, and no equity, than to fire partners.
I think that more than a few MW partners who are not holding their weight (but who are still pulling in high six-figure draws) need to be let go too.

Also, as a '96 grad, I can vouch that the salaries were in the 60K through 80K range in the mid-1990s at BIGLAW. We've seen a DOUBLING of the starting associate salaries since then. Clearly, that would outpace inflation (including inflation of law school tuition/room and board).

It's true that associate pay has increased. But I doubt it has increased at a faster pace than has income to the firm, as a result of increased billable hours requirements plus increased billing rates. Similarly, I doubt associate pay has increased at a faster pace than have PPP. Plus, law school tuition increases in proportion to starting salary. In short, associates are by no means the only parties to benefit from increased income to a firm, and, in fact, they are not the parties to most benefit from such increased income. If more money is coming into a firm, some of it is--and should--go to associates, including first-year associates.

As a more seasoned lawyer now, and having been through the prior legal recession of the mid-1990s, I would advise my more junior colleagues to get some great experience at DOJ, SEC, or some state agency and THEN go to biglaw. Most associates don't last at biglaw more than 3 years anyway (maybe 5). And if you do last, chances are high that you will be denied partnership the first (or second) time around, especially if the right people at the firm aren't in your corner. If you get your experience somewhere else and then lateral into biglaw (if you want to lateral in by that point), you will have some skills that NO ONE can take away from you. It's disturbing to me to see so many new attorneys being fired from these firms and they don't know how to conduct a proper document review. In short, these lawyers have no skills that are marketable outside of biglaw, and that's not good if you have bigloans to pay (along with all of the other bills that one would have).

Take this opportunity to go into fed government service (your benefits are better there than what you would get at any biglaw firm or company, generally). If that doesn't work, people should be open to going into practice areas that are bread and butter, core areas of practice (e.g., bankruptcy, torts, criminal, trusts & estates, divorce, maybe employment law). Also, people should be open to moving to areas where the cost of living is lower than the NE corridor or the west coast.

Keep your heads up!

@ 166: Agreed. But there is a saying: He who has the gold makes the rules. And it's a rule that associates--while they may be integral to making that gold--they DON'T make the rules. And at this time, we're seeing who truly has the gold at these firms--the partners with the most equity (and the most business).

Furthermore, thanks to the ABA which allows law schools to be used as profit centers by these "universities" without regard to the actual need for attorneys in this country, we do have an oversupply of attorneys at all levels. So, IMHO, even if the market picks back up someday, there will be no shortage of associates--even the "best and brightest"--and these firms will do the same thing when hard times come around again.

can we get a thread on SA salaries? I still dont have word from my firm (which is one of the places that got reduced to 10 weeks)...if this deflation thing catches on I imagine it would be easiest to take money from rising 3Ls who are just praying to keep their offers right?

Ask them about layoffs now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is McGuireWoods hiding the fact that they have had some staff layoffs or hasn't the new leaked yet?

Uh yeah, "But, and this is important, no layoffs at McGuire Woods. "

That's totally FALSE. They are doing "stealth" layoffs....staff and lawyers....and calling them "bad performance reviews"...

88 is right... They were paying far less than that in several of their non-Richmond offices for 2-3-4-5-6-7-8th years, which is why so many bailed. Nothing worse than a mid-level or senior associate getting paid the same or less than a 1st year attorney who has not passed the bar, especially when that atty is living in Richmond, which probably has the lowest cost of living of all of the cities in which MW has offices.

But, smart decision for them finally to realize that.