David Lat

David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law. His writing has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Observer, Washingtonian magazine, and New York magazine. Prior to ATL, David worked as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as book reviews editor of the Yale Law Journal. David has received several awards for his work on ATL, including recognition as an ABA Journal Legal Rebel, a group of innovators within the legal profession, and inclusion as a member of the Fastcase 50, "the fifty most interesting, provocative, and courageous leaders in the world of law, scholarship, and legal technology." You can connect with him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter.

Posts by David Lat

Skaddenfreude: The Cravath Memo

By

If you were hoping that Cravath was going to up the ante for associate base salaries, we’re sorry to disappoint you. As reported last week in the comments, CSM basically matched the Simpson Thacher scale (after a bit of a delay; perhaps they were deliberating about besting the market).
For your reading pleasure, here’s the official pay raise memorandum from Cravath, Swaine & Moore, which went around on Friday afternoon:
Cravath Swaine Moore associate base salary pay raise memorandum.JPG
Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

134 Comments

ATL Reader Poll: It’s All About the Billables, Baby

By

Last week we opened up a reader poll concerning billable hours. We’ll keep it open until 5 PM today. You can check it out, and cast your vote, by clicking here.
A number of you had various quibbles with the poll — the wording of the question, the methodology, etc. Such is to be expected from an audience of lawyers. But we do admit our earlier poll was more complicated than necessary. (Also, it was rather narrowly targeted, limited to lawyers on the new “Simpson Thacher” payscale.)
Here are two more general polls for your consideration. One is for those of you at large law firms (defined as 100+ lawyers firmwide), and the second is for those of you who are not at Biglaw shops. Some quick notes:

1. These polls are highly unscientific, vague, etc. (and we’re sure that after we put them up, a number of you will come up with refinements to them). But just humor us and take them — they’re just for entertainment purposes, really.

2. In the second poll, for non-Biglaw lawyers, if you work in an office where you’re not required to bill hours — e.g., government — just provide what you regard as the rough equivalent of billables. (We are not going to get into such fine points as whether a particular meeting in your office is more like a billable meeting with clients or a non-billable, internal administrative meeting.)

3. If you didn’t work for the entire year in 2006 — e.g., you’re a first-year who arrived in the fall — just annualize your billables. Or come up with a rough estimate of what you would have billed had you been there for the whole year.

We are overlooking all sorts of little niceties. But we don’t care; we don’t want to complicate matters. These polls, while crude, will shed light on the questions we’re really trying to get at:

1. Do Biglaw attorneys work harder than non-Biglaw attorneys?

2. If so, how much harder do they work (and is it worth the extra money)?

THANKS!!!
Note: To see the results of these polls WITHOUT voting, click here (for the Biglaw poll) and here (for the non-Biglaw poll).
Earlier: Prior ATL reader polls (scroll down)

15 Comments

Skaddenfreude: The LeBoeuf Lamb Memo

By

We have a number of associate base salary memos in the queue for publication (including some from last week, when tech problems frustrated publication). Rest assured, we will get around to posting them. (Considering that nobody is doing anything particularly exciting — e.g., besting Simpson Thacher — the time pressures for publication aren’t great.)
But for those of you who like your news to be breaking, here’s a memo that’s still warm from the photocopier. One of you already posted it in the comments. But for the record, and for those of you who only read the ATL main page, the LeBoeuf Lamb pay raise announcement is reprinted below.
LeBoeuf Lamb Greene MacRae associate base salary pay raise memo LeBouef Lamb Green McRae.JPG
Note that LeBoeuf will be paying New York salaries to its DC associates (as indicated in the addressee line for the memo). Note also that this memo is with all the horn-tooting enthusiasm of a press release, perhaps in the anticipation that it would get leaked outside the firm:

17 Comments

Skaddenfreude: The Covington & Burling Memo

By

If you’re trying to figure out what the new standard salaries are going to be in DC, it’s hard to ignore Covington & Burling. Covington is regarded by many as the archetypal Washington law firm.
As previously noted in the comments, we have confirmed pay raises for Covington associates. We thank the multiple sources who sent us this memo (in various forms):
Covington Burling CB pay raise associate base salary memo.JPG
Our tipsters draw our attention to these highlights:

“Covington DC salaries are same as Hogan, but 7th and 8th years (1999 and 2000 classes) at Covington will be paid $5,000 less than at Hogan & Hartson (assuming billables of 1950 or more). No explanation provided for why senior associate salaries are now less at Covington than at Hogan.”

“Brussels is still being evaluated.”

Because, you know, it’s all about Brussels.

53 Comments

Justice Ginsburg to Justice O’Connor: “Girl I’m Gonna Miss You”

By

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2 cheerleader beauty queen Little Miss Sunshine.JPGOr actually, “I’m missing you already.” Supreme Court justices have feelings too, y’know.
The former cheerleader and current Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader “Kiki” Ginsburg, misses having a “wing-woman” when she visits the highest ladies’ room in the land. Per Joan Biskupic of USA Today:

It’s been a year since Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the Supreme Court after a quarter-century tenure and left Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the lone woman on the nine-member court. Although it’s unclear how O’Connor’s departure will affect the law, this much is certain: Ginsburg misses her friend, and worries about the message court visitors get when they see only one woman on the bench.

“The word I would use to describe my position on the bench is lonely,” Ginsburg, 73, said in an interview with USA TODAY.

“This is how it was for Sandra’s first 12 years,” she said, citing the time from O’Connor’s appointment in 1981 to Ginsburg’s arrival in 1993. “Neither of us ever thought this would happen again. I didn’t realize how much I would miss her until she was gone.”

Awww…. Isn’t that cute? Who knew that someone who spent 13+ years dealing with admin law could be so sentimental?
(We aren’t joking about the supreme judicial ladies room. As indicated here by Jan Crawford Greenburg, aka the Eve Harrington of One First Street, the justices’ robing room has a women’s bathroom — even though it didn’t back when Justice O’Connor first joined the Court.)
Ginsburg ‘Lonely’ Without O’Connor [USA Today]
Madame Justice [Legalities via How Appealing]

2 Comments

Skaddenfreude: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGWe have confirmed pay raises in the New York and Los Angeles offices of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Our understanding is that the information was communicated in meetings, so there’s no memo or other official documentation.
We have verified the following pay scales with sources in Stroock’s NY and LA offices:
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN
New York:
Class of 2006 – $160,000
Class of 2005 – $170,000
Class of 2004 – $185,000
Class of 2003 – $210,000
Class of 2002 – $230,000
Class of 2001 – $250,000
Class of 2000 – $265,000
Class of 1999 – $280,000
Class of 1998 – $290,000
Los Angeles:
Class of 2006 – $150,000
Class of 2005 – $160,000
Class of 2004 – $175,000
Class of 2003 – $185,000
Class of 2002 – $200,000
As for Stroock L.A. associates in more senior classes, we’re told that raises are “discretionary.” If you can clarify that opacity, please drop us a line.
Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

12 Comments

Musical Chairs: Cadwalader Antitrust Moves to Skadden

By

Steven Sunshine Stephen Sunshine antitrust lawyer Above the Law.jpgBlind items: they’re not just about adulterous tycoons and drug-addicted celebrities.
Sometimes they’re about antitrust lawyers at large law firms. Here’s a blind item from, of all places, Antitrust Review:

We hear that the entire antitrust group of a major firm is moving to an even more major New York firm, effective Monday Jan 29 (all partners, special counsels and associates, both in the NY office and in the DC office). The group has been at the current firm only for a relatively short time and is now moving again. And this time, none of the group are staying behind.

Keep your eyes peeled on Monday, this move will be big news, we’ll post more detail once the story hits the papers.

The story has now hit the papers, including the Wall Street Journal. It’s the antitrust group of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, which just left for Skadden Arps.
The group is led by Steven Sunshine (above right), a former DOJ antitrust official who is based in Washington, and Jess Biggio and Matthew Hendrickson, who practice out of New York. Sunshine and Biggio are coming onboard as partners; Hendrickson is joining Skadden as counsel.
Major Antitrust Group Moves [Antitrust Review]
Skadden Adds Sunshine To Its Antitrust Practice [Wall Street Journal via WSJ Law Blog]

0 Comments

Skaddenfreude: The Kramer Levin Memo

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGWe have a bit of a backlog of law firm associate pay raise announcements. We’ll be clearing that backlog over the course of the day today, as well as publishing any new memos and emails that we receive (interspersed with our non-compensation coverage).
Here is the Kramer Levin email announcing increases in base salaries for its associates, which went out on Friday afternoon:
Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel associate base salary pay raise memorandum memo.JPG
Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

6 Comments

Skaddenfreude: End of Day Open Thread

By

100 dollar bill Above the Law Above the Law law firm salary legal blog legal tabloid Above the Law.JPGYou know what to do, people. Gossip away in the comments to this post.
As for solid confirmations received since our round-up, we have Fish & Richardson and Cravath (PDF to be posted shortly, but upshot is: all numbers the same as Simpson, through Class of 2000).
Many other rumors are floating around. We’re following up on a bunch of them, including Kramer Levin and Stroock.
If you can provide confirmation, please email us. Thanks.
P.S. If you’re not comfortable with providing us substantive information by email, then send us a message asking for our phone number and/or AIM screen name. We’ll reply with the requested contact info, and you can follow up with us by whatever means you prefer.

106 Comments

ATL Reader Poll: We Know How Much You Make. But How Hard Do You Work?

By

We love reader polls; it’s interesting to take the pulse of an informed electorate. We have two polls currently running, both about the celebrated case of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. To vote in those polls (or to change your vote if you previously voted), click here and here.
Now we bring you a third poll, related to the other big story in Biglaw: associate pay raises. A reader sent this message to us:

Would you consider a poll asking how many hours people at the biglaw firms who just received salary comps are working? I’m at a second-tier biglaw firm (am law 100 with nyc, dc, cali offices + regional markets) that’s considering what to do with compensation.

The reluctance to matching [the $160K payscale] is expressed as “associates at those firms just bill more hours than our associates do.” An empirical — though not necessarily scientific — survey would be helpful to confirm or debunk that position.

We like this idea. So, if you’re now on what we’ll dub the “$160,000 Simpson Thacher pay scale,” please take the poll that appears below. Three caveats/comments:

1. We realize there are divergences in salary at higher levels. We’re going to ignore them for now. If you’re on some variant of the “$160K, $170K, etc.” pay scale, you’re eligible to vote.

2. If you are NOT on the $160K payscale, please do NOT vote — even if you just got a pay raise (e.g., from $135K to $145K). One goal of this poll is to determine how hard a “$160,000 Associate” works (and whether she works that much harder than, say, a “$145,000 Associate”). That goal would be frustrated by participation of non-$160K associates.

3. Our standard caveat about our polls: We realize that “ineligible” voters might vote, that this poll is highly unscientific, etc. That’s okay; nothing turns on this poll. It’s just for the proverbial “s**ts and giggles.”

Without further ado, here’s the poll:


Earlier: Previous announcements of law firm associate salary increases (scroll down through “Skaddenfreude” archives)

27 Comments
Page 487 of 17361...483484485486487488489490491...1736