Milbank's Early Associate Bonus Announcement Signals Fierce Competition for Law Firm Talent
It also raises concerns that law firms and their clients will soon feel the brunt of the continued arms race over salaries.
November 08, 2019 at 03:08 PM
5 minute read
Milbank's uncharacteristically early associate bonus announcement demonstrates just how competitive the war for talent has become and raises concerns that law firms and their clients will suffer from the continued arms race over salaries.
On Thursday, Milbank chairman Scott Edelman announced that the firm's first-year associates would take home a $15,000 end-of-year bonus, while senior associates on the upper scale would receive a $100,000 bonus.
Milbank's announcement is the earliest in recent memory, coming a week before Cravath, Swaine & Moore's already-early Nov. 19 bonus announcement in 2018. Given the fierce competition for talent, many who work in the industry are not surprised.
"The market for sought after talent is more competitive than ever and that causes firms to look for an advantage wherever they can find it," said Zeughauser Group consultant Kent Zimmermann. "I would not be surprised if the date moves up more."
Coming out as the first mover in salary and bonuses sends a signal to the firm's attorneys and the external lateral pool that Milbank is in great financial health, said Harvard law school professor Scott Westfahl.
Being the first to announce also boosts name recognition—an important currency in a law school ecosystem where students have to make their employment decisions before their second year, he said.
Milbank has already garnered some name recognition at Harvard, Westfahl said, given the six years the university and firm have collaborated on the associate training program he oversees: Milbank@Harvard. But it took last year's market-setting associate salary announcement to get widespread attention from Harvard students, and now he hears the firm mentioned by students more than ever.
"I think that the student recruiting market for new hires is such that students have very little time to evaluate firms," Westfahl said. "If you've heard of a firm, then you have a lot more confidence that it's a solid place to interview."
Milbank did not explain the reasoning behind the early announcement.
While Cravath has invariably matched or set the market pay scale for associate bonuses, the firm has been mum on its own bonuses this year. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and other white-shoe firms also have yet to state their bonus plans.
But the expectation is that in their own time, top firms will match Milbank's bonus structure. And a growing chorus of experts have denounced the constant arms race over salaries as both tone-deaf to clients and profit-strangling to firm finances.
First-quarter data published by Citi Private Bank and Thomson Reuters found that last year's round of associate salary raises had a hand in driving up costs by as much as 6.5% as demand slackened. Reuters' most recent report, which aggregated three quarters of data, found that while demand has increased, costs have continued to grow as well.
Estimates indicate the cost of the last associate salary hike may run as high as seven figures for a large firm like Milbank, and corporate clients have made it clear they aren't happy about the yearly raises, as the cost is often passed along to them in the form of higher billing rates.
"Everyone wants good talent, but they're overpaying and it creates consequences for the rest of the firm and is usually felt by clients in the form hidden costs," said Corcoran Consulting Group principal Tim Corcoran, who advises large law firms on their compensation systems.
There is some indication that common wisdom may be shifting. A report by the National Association of Law Placement found that many firms declined to follow the $190,000 market-leading salary set by Milbank last year. Firms such as Greenberg Traurig and Reed Smith have moved away from competing in salary brinksmanship, opting to focus on talent development instead.
Reed Smith, for example, ignored Milbank's $10,000 increase to $190,000, citing the "interest of its clients." Instead, the firm announced a new slate of perks for its attorneys, including changes to the firm's billable hour policy, a continuing education track and an internal recognition program.
But in the end, money talks, and few hold onto the illusion that the salary war will go extinct in the near future.
"It would be nice if that could be avoided this time and firms can hold the line," Zimmermann said. "But I don't have a lot of confidence that that's going to happen."
Similar Stories:
A Week Early, Cravath Kicks Off Associate Bonus Season
Milbank Boosts Associate Salaries With $190K Starting Pay
Milbank Becomes First Mover With Early Associate Bonus Announcement
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
© 2025 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 AllThree Akin Sports Lawyers Jump to Employment Firm Littler Mendelson
Brownstein Adds Former Interior Secretary, Offering 'Strategic Counsel' During New Trump Term
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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