The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
STB RAISES TO $160K
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:33 PM
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
We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, to $160,000.
Counsel and classes senior to 1998 will be addressed on an individual basis.
Again, on behalf of the Firm, thank you for your commitment and hard work.
This just in.
Lets hope so. |
 |
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:35 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:37 PM
he sent me the memo but I cant fwd it. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:37 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:49 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 12:58 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 8:10 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:13 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:38 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:41 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:46 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:40 PM MEMORANDUM TO ALL ASSOCIATES AND COUNSEL
The Firm has been very busy and we expect the high level of activity to continue. We are proud of the results we are helping our clients achieve. We believe we have the finest legal team of any global law firm. In appreciation of your efforts, we are pleased to increase associate base salaries as follows, effective January 1, 2007: 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 We are also raising the base salary for the members of the Class of 2007, who will arrive in the fall, to $160,000. Counsel and classes senior to 1998 will be addressed on an individual basis. Again, on behalf of the Firm, thank you for your commitment and hard work.
January 22, 2007 Pete Ruegger |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:42 PM http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/breaking_simpson_thacher_ups_t.php |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:44 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:36 AM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 7:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:45 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:46 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:46 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:47 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:48 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:48 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:49 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:50 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:51 PM
Right now you have Irell and Manatt -- all more or less boutiques -- and Kirkland, which is more or less a boutique in Cali. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:52 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:54 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:20 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:30 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:49 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:19 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:37 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:45 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:02 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:59 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:10 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:19 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:51 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:57 PM
I really don't see how DC can't bump up after this. A total comp. difference of about $40k between NYC & DC just seems way too high. |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 9:16 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:50 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:12 PM
WLRK and STB are the only two NYC firms that are worth working for.
incidentally, this causes my contempt for cravath only to grow |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:51 PM
that was quick. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:53 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:54 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:57 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:02 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:07 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:51 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:14 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:59 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:06 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:22 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:27 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:50 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:53 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:38 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:28 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:36 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:41 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:52 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:55 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:24 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:53 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:54 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:57 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:59 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:02 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:03 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:56 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:16 PM
I could see that happening again, but lets hope they learned their lesson. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:03 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:08 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:11 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:13 PM
135k + 10k bonus compared to 160k + 30k bonus = pretty big deal |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:14 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:18 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 4:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:03 PM
Now I regret the fuck out of it. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:08 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:18 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:27 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:28 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:29 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 10:12 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:42 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 7:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:59 PM
Most top firms lack billing requirements. You don't work in biglaw if you believe them. |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 11:59 AM
regardless of how hard it is to get fired in BIGLAW, i think most people understand that if they're given 60 hours of work and only do half of it (thereby working around a 40-hour week), they're probably going to get kicked out the door. |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 7:30 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:01 PM
who the fuck are YOU? |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:05 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:00 PM
A raise to $160K, plus the market $30-$35K bonus, means that 25 year old kids with no work experience at all will be pulling down roughly $200K in salary. This just doesn't seem like a logical move given the high turnover rates at STB (and all V50 firms). It's also likely to make the partnership at all of STB's peer firms resent them.
Personally, I'm skeptical about the autenticity of this memo. But if it's for real, I'm even more skeptical about the rest of the NYC market matching after they just rasied $20K in base salary a year ago.
I do think, however, that a bold move like this might be enough to push the L.A./Chicago/D.C. markets to meet NYC at $145K. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:07 PM
I never understood the term "compensation leader". Does that mean they are always ahead of the market rate, or that they just set the market and then everyone catches up later?
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:10 PM
firms get a lot of good will, esp in recruiting (even if it's not justified), for being the 'first to go to X' |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:12 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:14 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:15 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:13 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:15 PM
since there's not much (at least for 2Ls) to distinguish between firms, whether one has an image as a 'compensation leader' or 'grudging follower' figures a bit into the calculus |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:22 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:24 PM
actually, i think a good number of associates are aware of who set the market when (browse through greedy a bit)
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:31 PM
It's possible, I guess. But it didn't factor into my decision, and I somehow doubt it factored into other students' decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that STB stepped it up, but I just don't see how it benefits them in recruiting. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:37 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:39 PM
No, it doesn't. I don't know where you people get this idea. being market leaders has nothing to do with anything other than being the first to send out the memo. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:44 PM
i'm not sure why you're so fired up against the idea. yes, you like your firm better than STB. you're annoyed they didnt raise first. we get it. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:48 PM
Just because people do it, however, does not mean that it is rational for them to use this as a factor. My point is that there are no side benefits and, really, no benefit at all for having your firm announce first. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:53 PM
Like it or not, firms spent a lot of money on recruiting, to set themselves apart from the competition, and to sell themselves to students, and any edge in making students (who = lucrative future profits) choose them over peer firms would, imo, be the definition a 'side benefit' |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:01 PM
i agree that it's pretty useless perk for associates, as long as everyone else is matching |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:05 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:45 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:50 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:03 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:09 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:22 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:55 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:19 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:24 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:33 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:18 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:34 AM
But isn't this really about mid-level/senior associates? |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:16 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:19 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:20 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:25 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:28 PM
(unlike S+C's grudging "ok, we're raising to 145k, but it's going to come out of your bonuses") |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:35 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:40 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:25 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:57 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:20 PM
I think this is the credited response. Seriously I was surprised that STB didn't step up the bonus instead of salaries, because that would seem the easier way to do this. But maybe they thought higher salaries would hold off attrition more than bonuses (associates might just grab the bonus and run). |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:37 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:16 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 4:48 PM
like little factory workers? |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:03 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:03 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:05 PM V20ish probably, plus NY v50 |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:31 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 11:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:06 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:12 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 1:22 AM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 12:53 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:12 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:14 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:16 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:47 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:19 PM
What about firms who don't do as much of that work? Can they really afford to match? |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:20 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:27 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:36 PM
Note that it also costs the firm anywhere between $250,000-$400,000 to recruit, train, pay salary to and provide benefit packages and perks (i.e. blackberries, laptops, gym and parking subsidies, etc.) for a single first-year associate.
So firms really don't make much of young associates at all. In fact, some firms barely break even on new associates the first 2 years.
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:38 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:41 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:45 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:57 PM
And don't buy into the hype that NYC lawyers bill "significantly more" than 2200 hours. 2200 hours is pretty average, and a great deal of NYC attorneys never even make it to 2200. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:08 PM
say 300 hour x 2400 (which seems like a fair NYC number and on the low end for v10) = 700k+ |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:15 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:18 PM
2400 is NOT on the "low end" for a v10. The only places where you're likely to find more than 25% of associates billing 2400+ is at Watchtell and Cravath.
At all other V10s, 2400 would be considered above average. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:38 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:32 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:25 PM
|
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:27 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:30 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:54 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:17 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:33 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:59 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 11:11 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:32 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:36 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:52 PM
But, no denying bankers make more money. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:57 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 1:14 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:03 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:53 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:25 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 4:57 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:31 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 1:03 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:33 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:36 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:36 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:37 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:38 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:42 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:37 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:44 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:44 PM
KIRKLAND & ELLIS STILL pwns the market because of its SHATTERING bonuses. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:25 PM
Technically, even with the $15K bump to other firms, they'll still be paying on average $2K more than their competitors. (This is if you factor in bonuses -- and if you assume the bonuses at the firms that raise will stay at the same level.) So they don't necessarily need to move. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 7:00 PM
I'm sure a lot of movement will happen soon though.
What I'm most curious about is how this will impact secondary markets. |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 7:32 PM
Kirkland will suffer if it does not match.
|
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 2:23 PM
It is KIRKLAND & ELLIS NYC policy to pay the NYC market in base and to shatter the NYC market with bonuses. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:47 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:50 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:51 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:51 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:51 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:52 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:54 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:35 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:54 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:59 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:02 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:05 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:38 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 10:17 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:55 PM
*splooges* |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:56 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:01 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:04 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:14 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:20 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 12:28 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:56 PM
*sticky* |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 11:39 AM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 5:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 6:02 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 7:00 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 7:59 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 7:17 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 7:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:30 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:35 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:00 PM
Just in case anyone forgot. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:23 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:29 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:42 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:39 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:46 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:07 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:58 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 8:59 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:11 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:13 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:30 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:07 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:08 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:25 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:20 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:20 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:26 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:40 PM
We have revised this post to state that ATL posted the memo first. This we believe to be indisputably true. Thank you.
David Lat" I guess he posted the text of the memo first, but XO reported the raise first, which is what counts. Idiot. |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 9:43 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:06 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:07 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:08 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:15 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:17 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:23 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:28 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:28 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:44 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:10 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 10:48 PM |
|
Date: January 22nd, 2007 11:50 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 7:24 AM
Who gives a shit about making partner anymore? Just live cheaply, make the bare minimum on your billables, and when you get pushed out, you can do something else. |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 8:16 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 9:24 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 10:53 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 1:10 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 1:53 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 3:40 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 4:13 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 1:11 AM |
|
Date: January 26th, 2007 2:11 PM
Or you could work part-time doing whatever you want, and still maintain a standard of living that is well above average.
Plus, at upper-level associate rates it would only take you a few more years (along with compounding interest) to double up. And if your SO was making money the whole time you were, you'd be even wealthier. |
|
Date: January 29th, 2007 11:28 AM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 5:29 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 9:18 AM
Maybe I should consider law again... |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 11:57 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 4:54 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/23/the-rich-libido |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 6:41 PM
"Ian Kerner, a New York-based sex therapist, says the study sheds new light on the links between money and sex. One reason that wealth would equate to better sex, he says, is that money helps alleviate many of the daily stresses that can inhibit a couple’s sex life.
“I see in my practice that financial stress can have huge impacts on the libido and can cause general dissatisfaction,” he says. “When you strip away those elements of financial hardship and stress, that can make for better sex. This shows that sex and money are very intertwined.”
|
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 2:22 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 7:20 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 8:21 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 9:55 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 1:05 PM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 2:24 PM
Relevant thread: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=568309 Chart: http://www.autoadmit.com/lawfirms/compensation/nysalary07jun.html |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 5:51 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 11:33 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 3:42 PM |
|
Date: January 26th, 2007 2:17 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 8:57 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 9:46 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 10:14 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 11:34 AM |
|
Date: January 23rd, 2007 7:21 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 1:06 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 1:15 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 8:19 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 3:25 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 4:18 PM
These firms would have been way better off if they had left starting at $145K and then provided a big bump around year 3 or 4. |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 5:04 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 8:10 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 11:57 PM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 9:27 AM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 11:37 AM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 4:58 PM |
|
Date: January 27th, 2007 3:53 AM |
|
Date: January 27th, 2007 3:04 PM |
|
Date: January 28th, 2007 8:03 PM |
|
Date: January 29th, 2007 2:37 AM
perhaps you have a point that all associates want to get a raise at once, but i'm not convinced. besides, all associates *don't* get treated equally -- senior associates are practically partners in terms of their authority over junior associates. |
|
Date: January 29th, 2007 11:31 AM |
|
Date: February 4th, 2007 11:59 PM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 5:55 PM |
|
Date: January 26th, 2007 2:23 PM
Maybe they've given up on pretending to be generous by paying above-market salaries and below-market bonuses, and they'll just match like other firms do? |
|
Date: January 29th, 2007 9:54 AM |
|
Date: January 24th, 2007 6:22 PM
http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0036GM |
|
Date: January 25th, 2007 10:15 AM |
|
Date: January 26th, 2007 3:43 PM |
|
Date: January 26th, 2007 3:46 PM
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/attention_boy_associates_heres_1.php#comments |
|
Date: January 29th, 2007 3:48 PM |
|
Date: January 30th, 2007 12:47 PM |
|
Date: January 30th, 2007 5:20 PM |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2007 12:35 PM
145 non NY |
|
Date: February 6th, 2007 7:22 PM |
|
Date: February 8th, 2007 9:59 PM |