Have the 2018 Associate Salary Hikes Caught Up With Big Law?
With expenses up and demand flat, dozens of firms that raised salaries last year must now contend with the consequences.
May 15, 2019 at 03:37 PM
5 minute read
Over 100 large law firms increased associate salaries in 2018. Milbank set the increase in motion, Cravath, Swaine & Moore upped the ante, and others decided hiking pay was worth it to stay in the game.
Nearly a year later, data from the first quarter of 2019 suggests that the added expense pressure is beginning to catch up with many of these firms. In reports issued earlier this week, both Citi Private Bank and Thomson Reuters aggregated data from a number of firms and found that expenses, driven by lawyer compensation, grew in the mid-single digits, while demand was flat.
A handful of law firms at the top of the marketplace can shrug off these increases, at least for now. In normal market conditions, the demand for their expertise doesn't waver, and they have no trouble extracting 2,400 billable hours a year from their associates.
But that's a small field. And it leaves dozens of other firms navigating a marketplace where demand is wavering and costs are up.
“Associate compensation—that doesn't go away,” said Citi analyst David Altuna. “We do think that it's going to challenge profit growth.”
If demand were surging, it would be easier to push aside the issue for a future reckoning. That appears to be what happened in 2018, when the salary increases were unfurled during what turned out to be the strongest year for law firms since the Great Recession.
Now, with growing uncertainty about the global macroeconomic outlook, thanks to trade tensions, fears about China's economy, and the continuing fiasco that is Brexit, deal flows are down. Litigation appears to be holding steady after a 2018 that proved stronger than recent years, particularly for firms with niche practices, but there's no guarantee it will stay robust.
“Especially for those firms where demand is off, the expense of increased associate salaries is not helpful,” said Zeughauser Group analyst Kent Zimmermann.
The pressure from the increases extends beyond associate compensation, said the leader of one international law firm that increased salaries in 2019.
“Associate salaries are expenses of the business, and they've certainly gone up. But an indirect impact is that junior partner allocations or distributions or profit has had to go up,” said the leader, who spoke under conditions of anonymity to discuss financial issues.
The leader noted that when senior associates are earning $340,000 or $350,000 annually, with a $100,000 bonus, junior partners expect to earn even more than $440,00 or $450,000.
“The true owners of the business, the senior partners, they're now pressured two ways: the amount of profit and how you're sharing the profit,” the law firm leader said.
While the leader's firm has succeeded in growing demand over the first quarter, for others that haven't, options are limited and urgency is high.
“Many firms that took on the expense of increasing associate salaries can ill afford to be permissive of chronically underperforming practices, offices or lawyers, and can ill afford to be permissive of chronic excess capacity,” Zimmermann said.
With salaries and real estate serving as law firms' biggest financial obligations by far, other fixes will be of little consequence. Take client entertainment, which makes up just 4% of the budget at one firm.
“I could send an email tomorrow and say 'No lunches out' and it wouldn't make a difference,” the leader said.
One thing firms can control is associate's output, and paying young lawyers more money means smart firms will look to manage their performance more closely.
“There's going to be less tolerance for underperformance,” the law firm leader said.
Another wise long-term strategy, one that's yet to be embraced, would be to think about ways to break from the pack when the outliers hike salaries.
While firms insist they must resort to dollars to compete for top talent, “it's not economically justified,” said Bruce MacEwan, president of Adam Smith, Esq. “There are plenty of graduates out there from name-brand law schools who would work for less than $190,000.”
If firms could push aside the psychological impulse to match a small coterie of elite firms on salary in order to demonstrate they belong at the table, they could instead strategize about other ways to distinguish themselves in the race for talent. That could involve lifestyle adjustments like reduced billing expectations and overseas opportunities, along with secondments, and enhanced training.
Freed from the financial imperative to recoup every second of those overcompensated associates' time, firms could do things like sending young lawyers out off the clock to join partners in meeting with clients, MacEwan's colleague Janet Stanton noted.
This is not to ignore the very real of weight of student loan debt faced by most law school graduates, or the sacrifices they make for those fat paychecks. But recognizing that young lawyers follow incentives beyond money can only help identify other new methods of breaking from the pack, Stanton suggested.
“I just wish firms would be clear about who they are and what they need to do, rather than just be lemmings,” she said.
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250