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:
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
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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