Associate Pay Jumps To $205K

Episode Notes

Transcript

[Music] 

Joe Patrice:  Hello and welcome to Thinking Like A Lawyer.  See, almost got by there.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, but you didn’t.  

Joe Patrice:  So, I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law.  That’s Kathryn Rubino who also works in the same place, and we’re here again for a — you know, a podcast where we kind of go through some of the big stories of the week in the legal universe.  Yeah, so what — how things been for you?

Kathryn Rubino:  Very slow.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, slow.

Kathryn Rubino:  Oh no, I’m lying.  I’m very much lying.

Joe Patrice:  Slow.

Kathryn Rubino:  Since last we chatted, there was a lot of movement in the big law market.

Joe Patrice:  Right.  So, I guess we’ll issue small talk and jump right into —

Kathryn Rubino:  Well, I mean we can small talk if you prefer.

Joe Patrice:  I mean — I don’t know.

Kathryn Rubino:  How was your weekend, Joe?

Joe Patrice:  It’s, fine, fine, fine.  How was yours?

Kathryn Rubino:  Great.

Joe Patrice:  Good, good, yeah.  How’s the weather?

Kathryn Rubino:  Not great.  Rainy, rainy, generally speaking.  It’s been true for a few days now.

Joe Patrice:  Great.  Well, okay, I feel like we’ve exhausted that topic.  So, maybe we’ll move right in then.  So, let’s talk raises.  

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, it’s been a very busy week or so since last we chatted with the Thinking Like a Lawyer audience.  And listen, associate compensation is something we’ve been talking about quite a bit on the podcast.  Usually or previous to this week, we’ve been talking about it in terms of special bonuses, which are, you know, sort of, “Please stay at the firm,” little things handed out.  But last week on Thursday, Milbank announced that they were going to raise associates’ salaries.

Joe Patrice:  Right.  So, for anybody who’s not been following the years and years of how this goes, associate salaries were very sticky for many, many years.  We went from — there was a big jump in the late 90s from, you know, to jump into the six figures, basically.  And then from then, it kind of held for many, many years.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  And then, there was a slight jump and then it held for another many, many years.  And then, — so between like 1999 and 2016, there was very little movement, like a slight jump.  And then 2016, there was a big jump.  We had another one in 2018.  Then ’19, we had a cost-of-living adjustment, basically and, you know, now we have yet another leap.  It’s not even that we just had another leap within a couple of years, we had another leap within several hours.  As you said, Milbank starts the movement by changing the pay scale to have the first-year associates making $200,000 a year in the scale.  Within, you know, less than 24 hours later, Davis Polk changes this and starts paying the first-year associates $205,000 essentially.  The people who have just started and like haven’t —

Kathryn Rubino:  Right, that we call it generally the stump year.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  They haven’t been at the firm for a full year, yet.  They’ve graduated a couple months ago, just took the bar exam, or —

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, those folks are getting $202,500.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right, right, which is actually —

Joe Patrice: Actual first years, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: That’s actually something that is distinct.  Generally speaking, the stump year and first years are lumped together in a single band, but for whatever reason saving $2,500 per new associate, I suppose.  The new Davis Polk scale separates those folks out into two different groups.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  So, now we have $205,000 as the like, first year.  First year, not the zero F year folks.  So, $205,000 a big number, and we’re starting to see matches of that scale.  We even now seen one person — one firm who matched to the Millbank’s scale immediately, has now re-upped and matched the Davis Polk’s scale.

Kathryn Rubino:  McDermott.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, McDermott.  It’s filtering through.  So, I think we have enough to talk about for quite some time on this.  So, let’s think through.  What do we — where do you want to take this conversation first?

Kathryn Rubino:  First of all, I think that — Let’s talk about the early matchers to the Milbank’s scale.  

Joe Patrice:  Okay.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.  That was, I think Mintz, Levin did it, McDermott, Cadwalader, so far, the only one that we’ve heard about, although I expect them all to — and Milbank included, I expect to match the Davis Polk’s scale.  But I think that it was really interesting.  Some of the firms that were very vocal about wanting to recruit in the lateral market, McDermott, Mintz were very, very vocal about that, and they’re some of the first firms that jumped up to the new Milbank scale.  And not necessarily the firms that you would have previously thought about as early movers.  Mintz, I think had taken two months — almost two months to match the 2018 raises.

Joe Patrice:  Okay.

(00:05:01)

Kathryn Rubino:  So, you know, it was interesting to see that the need for laterals, I think, is really pushing this raise, and those firms that are going to be quick about it.  And the fact that McDermott, you know, turned around and issued a second memo within two days also speaks to their desire to recruit.

Joe Patrice:  I’m going to push on that just because — I think, you’re absolutely right about the concept, but I think you have it in reverse.  I don’t think this is about recruiting, I think it’s about retention.

Kathryn Rubino:  Oh yeah.  Yeah, yeah.

Joe Patrice:  I think right now, the amount of in particular transactional work but legal work generally, but the amount of transactional work running through the system right now has firms absolutely swamped with leaving revenue on the table because they can’t physically get all the work done there, making huge demands to get more attorneys.  We’ve heard of six-figure signing bonuses from somebody’s of these firms just to get human bodies who can do the work.  Those folks going to say Kirkland for six-figure bonuses. they’re coming from somewhere and they might be coming from Mintz, and people like Mintz have to do what they need to make sure they don’t lose those folks and put themselves behind —

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.  But folks that have been very vocal about wanting even more folks to do the work.  I don’t know if you saw it.  This is not a legal meme that I saw, but there was definitely a bunch of like just workplace memes, they’re saying how the pandemic has caused such a crush in new work and firms — not firms but companies are so excited to tell you how much they want to help your quality of living, but aren’t willing to hire new people to help with the extra work.  And that was not legal industry-based but it certainly resonated, I think, for legal industry folks.  And what we are seeing is that some firms are looking for the bodies, looking for the folks to do more work, and I think to help quality of life.  And I think those are just more people generating more revenue, that’s what happens when you have a billable model, right?

Joe Patrice:  Well, and a billable model that is based as it is, and a lot of these big law firms on leverage.  It is — look, when a first year is running around and doing their document review or whatever, it’s important to note that even though you’re paying them $205,000 realistically, given the amount of work that big law is, which is long hours whatever, they’re being functionally paid, what?  Somewhere around between 80 and 90 bucks an hour maybe.  They’re being billed out for their time at what?  Between $450 and $650 an hour I would assume for a first year.

Kathryn Rubino: Probably, yeah.

Joe Patrice:  And by assume, I’m not really assuming, I’m saying that actually is the range that the firms have, but different firms do it differently.  So, I was trying to give them the flexibility.  So, when you have a model where the giant markup is between the sunk cost in the first-year salary, and in what you bill them out at.  Having people to do that work is key, and $205,000 sounds like a lot of money until you start factoring in, you’re working 2,100 hours a week and law school is, left you in 200 grand of debt, and this is kind of what you need to pay people to get them, their foot in the door.

Kathryn Rubino:  And the other thing to note, and I think the other part of the reason why we saw what we’re seeing salary increases is that generally speaking, the profit margins at the top big law firms has increased.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  You know, we had seen — Prior to 2020, we had seen rates of in the high 30% of profit ratios to — you know, high 30%.  Now, we’re seeing 39% to 42% for the best law firms.  That’s a nice little uptick and an extra $10,000-$15,000 per associate is not bad, it’s not bad for that increase in profitability.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  That’s the issue.  A lot of times, mainstream media coverage of the amount of money that young associates make is fixated on, “Oh, they’re making all this money.”  But at the end of the day, I mean that money’s coming into the firm, where is it supposed to go?

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.

Joe Patrice: It was supposed to make partners even richer?  Because otherwise it kind of has to go to the associates.  That’s actually not fair, right.  It could go to the counsel or the staff sometimes.  But the point remains, it goes two people who are not —

Kathryn Rubino:  Who are making money for the firm.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, when you push back against the idea of raises, what you’re really saying is that you would rather the partners just pocket it.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.  And running a big law firm is a complicated financial proposition, there’s lots of things.  The other part of this is also partner recruitment, right?  There are two kinds of components, I think, to recruiting partners successfully.  One is, profits per partner, right?  And so, you are trading that if you’re giving raises, you’re saying, “Yes, the amounts that we are dividing amongst our partners by whatever complicated formula we have is going to be slightly smaller.”  But I think that savvy lateral partners are also looking for a good associate talent base.  

(00:10:04)

They only have so many hours individually to bill out.  It’s about having a team of folks that are billing out.

Joe Patrice:  And this brings us to, it depends on what your particular book of business is.  And I think the issue and why, you know, we’re seeing so much hot movement and transactional stuff where you have to have deal teams to make everything work.  That’s the sort of job where having quality people makes the platform work for you, and you will trade off some amount of what you have to get the platform to work.  But if — I think we’ve talked in the past about these virtual firms you had an interview with some — Well, not an interview, right?

Kathryn Rubino:  I think it was a trivia question.

Joe Patrice:  There’s a trivia question about how some of these virtual firms are — actually, one of them cracked the Am Law 100 this year.

Kathryn Rubino:  Correct.

Joe Patrice:  And part of the reason that’s happening is, that if your business model is such that it is discrete tasks that you as a partner can maximize by doing yourself, those virtual firms are now more attractive, and partners are leaving for those because they can keep more of their money because they don’t need a heavily leveraged based-billing model.  But point remains, when you do, you need to be paying associates so that you can compete in it.  And it’s not just, it used to be about getting the best talent.  Now, there’s a factor of, “there’s physically not enough bodies,” which is why we have these giant signing posts.  

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah.  That’s why we have a compensation warfare for folks.  It is very interesting moment that we’re seeing.  It is unlike other raises we’ve seen in the past where this is really being linked very, very closely to a lateral market that is fire unprecedented in a ton of ways.  And I think that a lot of legal industry observers are trotting out what we’ve said — what they’ve said in the past about raises, “Oh, raises are generally seen by a slump in billing rates,” and all this kind of stuff.  You know, that they’ve seen a slump in billables, and I don’t know that we’re going to see that.  I think that this is of a different kind, and I don’t think that everyone can or should hit that $205,000 number.  I think that we’ve long talked about the difference between sort of the Am Law 50, the very top of that, and sort of the rest.  And I think that, we might see a difference in starting salaries.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  We’ve talked about this for a while now with a lot of these raises, it almost seems like this is our life on a deja vu loop.  Every time one of these raises happened, we start wondering if this will be the one where people don’t try to keep up with the joneses.  Will this be the one where a Am Law say second 50 firm says, “You know what?  That’s just not the world we play in.  We’re going to pay $190,000.

Kathryn Rubino:  I mean, I also think it’s very interesting and I think a firm’s book of business and where they are may also play a role because we’re not seeing the same demand for — For example, litigation associates as we are for corporate associates.

Joe Patrice:  True.

Kathryn Rubino:  So perhaps, they’ll change out of a lockstep model whether it be based compensation or on bonuses.  But that is also a potential response that they are keeping the folks that they need, and the folks who are in less demands may not see the benefit of sort the market.

Joe Patrice:  I mean it’s —

Kathryn Rubino:  That is kind of potentially scary, I think.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  There’s a lot of moving parts as for how the money goes.  And I got to be honest, I don’t necessarily know all of it because I went to law school to be a lawyer, not an accountant.  

Take advantage of Noda, no cost IOLTA management tool that helps solo and small law firms track client funds down to the penny.  Enjoy peace of mind with one click reconciliation, automated transaction alerts and real-time bank data.  visit trustnoda.com/legal to learn more.  Terms and conditions may apply.  

But you’re right we could see some variation.  One aspect that we may see some variation on, and we already have a little bit of insight is, Polsinelli who has offices all across the country, including in hotbed markets like New York and D.C. and San Francisco, but also in St. Louis and Nashville and Chattanooga.  Their announcement is that they are matching the 200k, the original Milbank’s scale not the Davis Polk $205,000 raise at the top, and $170,000 at the bottom and it’s varying by office.  That is an interesting announcement, because the trend over the last few sets of raises have been firms saying that they’re moving everybody kind of in a blanket scale no matter what office you’re in.  Which was reflecting another trend, which was that we said started seeing whether it was because they had some family connection there or what, but we had started seeing a market of folks who cut their teeth in New York or whatever at saying, “And now I’ve decided I’m moving to Dallas.”  

(00:15:01)

And with high-end in-demand New York-related — New York or D.C. based associates opting to move to these smaller markets even though traditionally, we paid those markets less because there’s, you know, less business there, the cost of living is less whatever, they very much got caught up in uniform pay scale across the country.  

This announcement out of Polsinelli at least suggests that maybe we’ve hit the bridge too far on the everybody getting the same money.  Flip side of that though, is maybe that isn’t how we’re going to go this route because we’re living in a world coming off of a pandemic where everyone made more money than ever by being totally remote.  They’ve invested in infrastructure for virtual meetings.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, the virtual infrastructure.

Joe Patrice:  Or we instead going to start seeing folks say, “Location really is meaningless,” and we are paying everybody cents.  So, that’s going to be a thing to plan out.  

Kathryn Rubino:  I mean I think that we had already been seeing that location is meaningless in terms of salary, because before the Milbank set of increases on last week, we had seen a couple of firms announced salary increases, but those were generally firms that were on different locations, get different amounts of money kind of world view, and they were sort of right-sizing and saying, “You know there’s a uniform scale across the country.”  So, you know the raises that we had seen pre-Milbank were on smaller markets getting bumped up to the larger markets.  

So, I don’t know that we’re going to see a big trend there.  I think that that might be how we see that kind of mid-range firm try to catch up saying, you know — For in New York and Silicon Valley, we can play, but we’re not going to do it in our Pittsburgh office, for example.  

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  It’s a way to kind of get like a check mark in the minds of law students that are in the New York, or interviewing in the New York market to say, “Oh, well they make $205,000,” but not necessarily doing a deep enough dive to say, “Well, sure in that market.”

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  We’ve talked for years that legal demand is not really — it’s largely stagnant, like low, small growth and that revenue increases have mostly been through the process of billing rates going up.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  Obviously, here we are in the middle of some good demand, which is why we’re having a lot more money.  But as sure as the tides whenever there’s a raise increase in-house council decide to regale us with their thoughts about it, usually anonymously.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah.  They’re not happy.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  But I don’t know.

Joe Patrice:  Well, it’s not so much that they’re not happy.  They just — I really hope these don’t come across as rate increases, and the answer is they will because they always do, and you always pay them.  So, I have no sympathy for you.

Kathryn Rubino:  And here’s the thing, like if you think about it in terms of inflationary changes, we’re not talking about crazy salary increases, right?  So, these are — Generally speaking, there’s not an every-year cost of living adjustment to first-year salaries because each individual right moves up the ladder and gets an increase that way.  So, there hasn’t been like — there aren’t like yearly cost of living stuff.  So, every couple of years, you get a big splashy one.  But here’s why I think they’re actually complaining more so even than typical that they always will complain, and part of it is because their own compensation structure often based on profitability and how much money they’re able to save the company.  So, knowing that they — yes, they might have to pay it, but they’re still going to be pissed about it because it’s going to affect their ability to make their own bonuses at the end of the year.  But part of it is also because there was a recent survey by Ogletree and FTI Consulting that said how 60% of in-house legal departments said that they are freezing hiring of new in-house folks.

So, we’re seeing something very different than what we’re seeing in the big law kind of half of the equation, where we’re seeing people can’t hold on to their folks, the lateral market is fire, and the opposite when you’re talking about an in-house opportunity saying most places are not even considering expanding or filling new roles, right?  So, I think that there’s also — there’s a different vibe going on in that market and they’re maybe not fully realizing how important it is for big law firms to — If you want your deals, if you want your stuff to be staffed this is how big law has to play in order to get those folks.  You want your ideal staff by the best and the brightest, well then you have to pay for it.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  I’m sorry, but this is just life.  You fully sign up for capitalism in other ways, and this is the other side of it.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  It’s weird because a few years ago, I feel as though we had a moment for the in-house legal department.  

(00:19:58)

They were moving more work in-house, hiring fewer outside firms, smaller tests were being brought in.  This was partially a factor of not willing to pay fees and also a factor of, you know improvements in technology and third-party discovery companies and so on making it easier for in-house legal departments to handle things on their own.  And it seems as though that experiment has reversed itself.  Departments are laying people off.  They’re going back to the idea of hiring big outside folks.  We’ve seen salary increases that are followed by rate increases that don’t seem to affect revenue streams, which suggests that whatever appetite there was to cut costs, says — you know doesn’t really happen.  And this is the old adage was that, you don’t get fired for hiring Cravath basically.  If your in-house legal department, you look at a situation, you probably could hire a mid-tier firm that charge less to do that job, but you’re not going to because what if something goes wrong.  If you hire Cravath then something goes wrong, no one’s going to blame you because you at least hired an elite firm, you know.

Kathryn Rubino: The best, yeah.

Joe Patrice:  So long as that mentality exists and that decisions are made on that kind of work with that kind of scale, everyone’s going to pay the higher fees and if you’re paying the higher fees, you may as well go all in.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah.  And I think that we’ll continue because — but I do think that, especially, you know anonymous in-house folks that are talking about the raises that their outside counsels are getting, are doing it because it feels “unseemly” because that’s not what they’re getting.  And listen, I get it, like I’m a legal industry journalist and I’m reporting on it, and that’s not necessarily raises that I personally see.  So, there is kind of a but for, you know various choices in your career, “What could I have been making at one point if I had stayed in the firm?”  But listen in-house folks get lots of benefits that firm folks don’t, right?  People see it as a lifestyle move, there’s different opportunities afforded to you if you go in-house than if you stay in a firm and you made a choice.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  And again too an earlier subject, to suggest it’s unseemly really is to suggest that the partners should just keep pocketing the money.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  Because the money is there.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right.  Exactly.  Don’t forget what I said earlier was that there was a spike in profitability at firms.  So, yeah, they’re sharing it with associates, why do you care how big law decides to divide up their profits.  

Joe Patrice:  Right.  Because the amount of money that’s going to be the inevitable fee increase, which will happen is not going to be the amount that covers 100% of this increase.  Like a lot of this is because this is the way the whole thing works.

Kathryn Rubino:  And the truth is, firms are more likely to do fee increases than they are to pass that increase in money to their associates, right?  They make all sorts of fee increases all the time that aren’t — Like for years when salaries were stagnant, fees weren’t.

Joe Patrice:  Right.  It’s also true that, like not to get into the economics of it all, but realistically — I mean no one’s paying sticker price.  

Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.

Joe Patrice:  These billable rate increases all go through a series of filters before they have discounts before people actually get them.  It’s all kind of almost a marketing thing, how they’re doing it all.  So, figuring out what the real increase is, is different than what happens when the firm just sends out a new bill sheet.  And it’s kind of almost being a phrase that I’ve had to say a lot over the past week over a different issue, it’s being a little deliberately obtuse to say, “Oh they’re going to raise all of our fee.”  Yes, you’ll see those numbers increase but what is the real increase that you’re going to face?  That’s a different story, and you know that, and we all know that, but — you know posturing for the Wallstreet Journal or whatever, they’ll say that.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yes.  I think those kind of posturing statements are just part of the elaborate dance that happens every time this happens.  And frankly, I’m exhausted by it.  It’s not genuine.  You know that in order to keep these deals staffed, firms need to do this, so stop it, just stop it.

Joe Patrice:  Well, anyway so we’ve had a lot.  Is there anything else about raises you want to get into?

Kathryn Rubino:  Well, I mean I think that we’re going to continue to see it, some of the biggest players historically in associate compensation have not yet made a move.

Joe Patrice:  Ooh, that’s an interesting point.  Well, first let’s quickly take it aside to hear from our friends from Lexicon and then, we’ll get into that with the what comes next.  

Advertiser:  Here’s a message just for the attorneys out there. So, you passed the bar, joined a firm or even built your own.  

(00:25:00)

Now, are you finding out that you’re doing more administration than actual law practice?  Lexicon can help.  Lexicon is a legal services and technology provider with over a decade of experience streamlining administrative tasks, like time keeping, HR, billing, client intake and more, so you can focus on maximizing billable hours and increasing client satisfaction.  Call 855-4-Lexicon or visit lexiconservices.com/go to learn more.

Joe Patrice:  All right, so the what comes next speculation is — and I think you and I have talked about this offline, do we think this is the end of raises?  

Kathryn Rubino:  No.

Joe Patrice:  Davis Polk put up the definitive, or obviously not the end of raises for all-time, we’re not going into like —

Kathryn Rubino: The scale.

Joe Patrice:  Of this cycle, is this the end as Davis Polk said it, or we’re going to see something else?

Kathryn Rubino:  I don’t think so.  I think that someone else might come over —

Joe Patrice:  Oh, you got a cough there, did you —

Kathryn Rubino:  I think that there’s a very strong possibility of another sort of raise to the compensation grid, meaning kind of the standard that everyone tries then to match.  Not necessarily on first-year associate salaries, which first year usually get like the headline number, but I think that particularly for mid and senior associates.  Those are the folks that are most in danger of lateralling, going somewhere else, they’re the ones who are in most demand.  So, I think that someone else coming over the top at least as it replies to senior, maybe mid-level associates, I think is something we’re likely to see.  I think that’s what happened in 2018 where the first-year numbers didn’t change, but mid-senior associates in 2018, Cravath increased those numbers and then everyone matched that’s out. 

Joe Patrice:  Not to call out a specific firm, but there is a firm, the one that we’re talking about that is so philosophically and old-fashionedly married to its system, we don’t really bring in laterals, we do everything, we train people from the ground up.  And that sort of world view is why you’re the target of people poaching.  That’s where people are going to get your mid- or — So, you unlike some of these other firms if they lost a fifth-year can turn around and hire a new fifth-year.  Cravath has some severe risk of really having holes in their staffing if they don’t do something.  

Kathryn Rubino:  Right, or that they change their philosophy, seems less likely.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  I think that’s why they’re the most likely to make a bump and say something like, “We start at $205,000, but we think the fifth-years get 10 grand more or whatever.  The problem is then, is everyone going to match that and put everyone back at square one, or can try deal with it through some sort of a bonus structure, it’s unclear.

Kathryn Rubino:  I think that if your goal is to keep those mid-level and senior associates at wherever they currently are, I think that you have to make that move if you’re really at risk, and it depends on your numbers, different firms.  You know, if you have three fifth-years, yeah, you’re going to match it.  If you have a class of 150 fifth-years, I don’t know.  I think it certainly becomes more of a discussion.  But if you’re really concerned about losing that tier of associates, I think you have to.  And I think that that’s why some of the folks that I’m very certain will eventually match the $205,000 scale at a minimum have not yet moved, and I think that they’re waiting to see — just to wait to see what else shakes out and then they’ll bow to whatever the prevailing market rate is.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.  Well, all right.  So, I think that — you know, interesting day, interesting stuff to follow.  You should be reading Above the Law to get all of these as they happen.  We also have a bonus alerts set up which you can sign up for, and then get an email pinged over to you as soon as these stories come up, so you aren’t missing any of them if you’re fast and furiously trying to keep on top of the market, and let people who maybe are your bosses know that your closest competitor just raised everyone’s. If you are at a firm and you just saw your salary increase, you should tell us about it at Above the Law.  Reach out to us in any of the various ways, on the website tips. 

Kathryn Rubino:  Tips at abovethelaw.com.

Joe Patrice:  Right, or social media or whatever.

Kathryn Rubino:  You can also text us at (646) 820-8477.  That’s a text-only line.

Joe Patrice:  Right.  You should send these things.  Obviously, we’ll keep you anonymous, but we want to know what are the things that we always feel we have to tell people is that we will sometimes get some tipster who says, “You didn’t report on my firm doing it last week that’s because you didn’t tell us.”  We don’t magically know that a firm has done things.  If you think, “Oh I’m not going to say it because everyone else at the firm has probably already told them.”  Don’t think that, we are more than happy to get 50 emails from one firm as opposed to not getting any.  So, let us know.  You should be listening to this show, subscribe to it, give it stars, write something about it, all great things you can listen to the Jabot, which is Kathryn’s other program, the Legaltech Week, Journalists’ Roundtable, a show that I’m also on.  

(00:30:09)

You should be listening to the other programs from the Legal Talk Network.  Check us out on social media, I’m @josephpatrice, she’s @kathryn1.  What else?  Thanks to Lexicon and Noda powered by MT Bank for sponsoring this show and helping you all hear it.  And with all that said, I will see you next week when I assume you know, I assume salaries will be 350 for first years 

Kathryn Rubino:  Jesus.

[Music]

 

Podcast transcription by Tech-Synergy.com

Continue Reading