A Bold First Move

Cravath has long been known for being among the first to reveal compensation figures for associates, and this year is no exception. According to a memo first-year associates will receive a pro-rated bonus of $15,000, while the most senior associates could receive up to $115,000, also depending on class year and performance.

In addition, the firm is offering “special” bonuses, ranging between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with payout levels recently publicized by rival firm Milbank LLP.

Ripple Effect Across the Industry

Not surprisingly, other top-tier U.S. law firms are moving quickly in response. Within hours of Cravath’s disclosure, Paul Hastings LLP announced a matching structure of year-end and special bonuses, using the same scale laid out by Cravath.

This phenomenon is familiar: large law firms tend to mirror each other when it comes to associate compensation, in order to remain competitive and retain top talent. Last year, Milbank was first to announce the 2024 bonuses; subsequently other firms followed in order to stay aligned.

Bigger Picture: Strong Demand, Steady Pay

There are broader industry factors at play. Data from the report that law firms experienced a “sharp spike” in client demand during the third quarter of 2025—particularly within transactional practices.

With that backdrop, it is no surprise that firms are feeling comfortable rewarding associates generously. Many associates at leading U.S. law firms already earn annual salaries between $225,000 and $435,000, depending on their class year. The bonus structure is therefore only one part of their total compensation.

Why It Matters to Associates

For associates at a firm like Cravath, the bonus announcement sends a clear message: this is a rewarding year. The pro-rated structure for first-year associates ensures that even those who’ve just joined the firm benefit, while the top-end bonus underscores the value placed on senior associate contributions.

Moreover, special bonuses provide an added incentive — and they help firms signal performance recognition beyond merely longevity or class year. For those associates who have gone above and beyond, the $6,000-to-$25,000 additional bonus may feel like a meaningful reward.

Implications for the Legal Labor Market

This development carries several implications. First, it reinforces a compensation arms race at the top end of the associate class: if one large firm raises the bar, others must respond or risk being seen as less attractive.

Second, talented associates now have more leverage—not just in negotiating bonuses but also when considering lateral moves. Firms that lag may find recruitment and retention more difficult.

Third, this could prompt ripple effects further down the market: midsize firms may feel pressure to boost their own bonus structures (or at least keep pace with expectations), which could lead to upward pressure on compensation across the board.

What to Watch Going Forward

As the season unfolds, the key metrics to watch will include:

• How many firms match or exceed Cravath’s scale. Will we see firms top $140k, or will they stick to that threshold?
• Whether special bonuses increase in size or frequency. Firms may use these discretionary payouts to differentiate themselves.
• How the demand-driven business environment sustains itself. If transactional demand continues to hold or grow, firms may feel confident maintaining or increasing compensation levels; if demand wanes, bonus sizes may be viewed more conservatively.

Final Thoughts

In short, Cravath has taken a decisive step in setting the tone for 2025’s year-end bonuses among U.S. law firms. By offering up to $140,000 to associates—and matching special bonus pools to those of major rivals—the firm has both rewarded its top talent and issued a signal to the rest of the market.

As many will note, the most senior associates stand to gain significantly; yet even newer associates are assured meaningful reward, which speaks to the overall confidence in the market. Given the strong transactional activity reported, it appears that the major law firms are in a good position to deliver on these compensation promises—marking a notable moment in the legal employment landscape.

Looking for your next big legal career move? Explore thousands of open positions across the country on LawCrossing, the industry’s most comprehensive legal job platform. Stay ahead of the market and find opportunities that match your experience, goals, and salary expectations.

The post Cravath Raises Bar on Associate Bonuses first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Biglaw firms that pledged $125 million in pro bono work to the Trump administration now deny the deals amid backlash from clients, law students, and Congress.

Introduction

In a stunning reversal, several of the nation’s largest law firms—once eager to strike pro bono agreements with the Trump administration—are now scrambling to downplay or deny the very deals they brokered. What began as a strategy to avoid politically motivated executive orders has morphed into a public relations crisis, as firms face scrutiny from lawmakers, clients, and the next generation of attorneys.

The Origins: Trading Pro Bono for Protection

In early 2025, firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader pledged over $125 million in free legal services. The goal? To shield themselves from Trump administration executive orders threatening to penalize firms perceived as politically oppositional or too aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The work was intended to focus on:

• Assisting veterans and public servants.
• Ensuring fairness in the justice system.
• Combatting antisemitism.

But as time passed, the nature of these agreements drew controversy.

Fallout: Client Losses and Law School Boycotts

As details of the pro bono commitments emerged—including rumors that firms might be compelled to defend police accused of brutality or assist in controversial federal enforcement actions—the backlash was swift:

• Corporate Clients Exit: Major companies, including Microsoft, pulled business from capitulating firms.
• Law Student Resistance: Top law students signed pledges refusing to work for participating firms, with some law school deans even advising graduates to weigh the political implications when selecting employers.

These reactions not only threatened firms’ reputations but also their talent pipelines and long-term profitability.

Congressional Scrutiny: “What Deals?”

Congressional Democrats demanded transparency. In response, the firms issued carefully worded letters claiming:

• The administration had no power to dictate client choices.
• Their pro bono work remained independent.
• No new restrictions had been imposed on their services.

A&O Shearman’s letter was among the most explicit, emphasizing the firm’s discretion in selecting clients within the agreed-upon service areas. Still, observers noted the irony: agreeing to $125 million in specific pro bono commitments necessarily restricts other possible cases, regardless of how firms framed it.

The Firms’ Dilemma: Legal Loopholes vs. Public Perception

While technically accurate that no formal “restrictions” were placed, the financial commitment limited the firms’ flexibility. Critics argued:

• Allocating $125 million to specific causes reduces capacity to take on other pro bono matters.
• Pledges to avoid DEI-related pro bono cases—a condition reportedly accepted by some firms—further constrained their service scope.

Moreover, by agreeing to these deals, the firms risked appearing complicit in the administration’s politicization of the legal industry.

Potential Retaliation: What Happens If Firms Resist?

Now, as some firms attempt to renege or reinterpret their commitments, they face a new threat: retaliation. The Trump administration has already suggested it could enforce the agreements more aggressively if firms refuse politically charged cases, such as:

• Defending law enforcement officers accused of misconduct.
• Representing federal immigration officials under legal scrutiny.
• Possibly defending Trump himself in post-presidency legal battles.

Failure to comply could trigger new executive orders or targeted penalties, leaving firms reliant on ongoing litigation by groups like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block to challenge the constitutionality of such orders.

Broader Implications for the Legal Industry

This episode exposes deep vulnerabilities in how law firms navigate political pressures:

• Risk of politicized pro bono commitments undermining attorney independence.
• Client trust erosion when firms appear to prioritize political expedience over principles.
• Talent pipeline disruption as law students demand higher ethical standards.

It also raises broader questions about the weaponization of executive power to influence legal services and professional autonomy.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Biglaw

The current backpedaling by Biglaw firms serves as a stark reminder: attempts to appease political forces often backfire. What was meant to be a strategic compromise has devolved into a reputational and operational quagmire, with firms now desperate to distance themselves from the very deals they once embraced.

The legal community—and the public—won’t soon forget.

The post Biglaw Firms Now Backpedaling on Controversial Pro Bono Deals With Trump Administration first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Jenner & Block Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Trump’s Executive Order

On April 28, 2025, Jenner & Block LLP, a leading U.S. law firm, is set to ask U.S. District Judge John Bates to permanently strike down a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order sought to penalize the firm for its prior affiliation with Andrew Weissmann, a central figure in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election.

The hearing will take place in Washington, D.C., at 10:30 a.m. ET (1430 GMT), marking a critical chapter in the escalating conflict between Trump’s administration and major law firms perceived to oppose him.

Why Jenner & Block Is Suing the Trump Administration

Jenner & Block filed suit shortly after Trump’s March 25 executive order, arguing that the order:

• Violates the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association.
• Breaches the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process before the government can restrict rights or impose penalties.

The firm contends that the administration’s actions amount to retaliation for protected legal activities and affiliations, setting a dangerous precedent for political interference in the independent practice of law.

Trump’s order specifically targeted Jenner over its past employment of Weissmann, accusing the firm of ties to what Trump continues to call a “hoax” and “witch hunt” regarding the Russia investigation.

What Trump’s Executive Order Against Jenner & Block Entails

The executive order aimed to:

• Restrict Jenner’s attorneys from accessing federal buildings and meeting with government officials.
• Terminate government contracts involving Jenner’s clients.
• Intimidate firms through threats of federal isolation and financial penalties.

This move was seen as part of Trump’s broader pressure campaign against lawyers and law firms connected to investigations or causes he opposes.

Other Law Firms Also Fighting Trump Executive Orders

Jenner & Block is not alone. At least three other major firms have filed similar lawsuits:

• WilmerHale
• Perkins Coie
• Susman Godfrey

Judges presiding over all four lawsuits have issued temporary injunctions, preventing the White House from enforcing key parts of the executive orders while the cases proceed.

Meanwhile, to avoid being targeted, nine other prominent law firms — including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps — have pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes favored by the Trump administration.

(Read about law firms’ pro bono pledge here.)

The Broader Legal and Political Implications

Jenner & Block’s lawsuit goes beyond a mere business dispute. It raises urgent constitutional questions about:

• Government retaliation against private entities based on political affiliations.
• The erosion of the independence of the legal profession, traditionally protected from political pressure.
• The chilling effect on lawyers who represent unpopular or politically controversial clients.

The firm is also part of a larger coalition challenging the Trump administration’s policies affecting transgender rights and federal agency funding, indicating a growing legal resistance to executive overreach.

(Explore more about major corporate law firms suing the Trump administration.)

FAQs About Jenner & Block’s Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration

Q1: Why is Jenner & Block suing the Trump administration?
A: The firm argues that Trump’s executive order violates constitutional protections, punishing it for protected speech and affiliations related to the Russia investigation.

Q2: What was Jenner & Block’s connection to the Russia probe?
A: The firm previously employed Andrew Weissmann, who was a key prosecutor in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Q3: What other law firms are involved in lawsuits against the Trump administration?
A: Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have also filed suits to block executive orders targeting them.

Q4: What constitutional rights are at stake?
A: The First Amendment (free speech and association) and the Fifth Amendment (due process protections) are central to Jenner’s case.

Q5: How have other firms responded to Trump’s pressure?
A: Some firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono services to causes supported by the Trump administration in exchange for avoiding executive order targeting.

The post Jenner & Block Moves to Permanently Bar Trump Executive Order in Landmark Free Speech Battle first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The much-anticipated bonus season is underway, with many law firms aligning their compensation structures to match market expectations. However, not all firms are following the trend of offering both year-end and special bonuses, signaling a shift in the legal industry’s approach to associate compensation.

Divergence in Bonus Strategies

While a majority of firms have adhered to the bonus scale set by industry leader Milbank, which includes both year-end and special bonuses, notable exceptions have emerged. Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie have chosen not to offer special bonuses this year, illustrating a calculated departure from the norm.

“Firms just don’t feel the pressure anymore to follow,” said Katherine Loanzon, Managing Director at Kinney Recruiting. According to Loanzon, special bonuses are typically discretionary and hinge on a firm’s financial success, as well as its desire to remain competitive in recruiting top talent. However, shifting market dynamics have lessened the urgency for firms to compete aggressively on compensation.

Year-End Bonuses Remain Standard

Perkins Coie and Hogan Lovells have maintained robust year-end bonuses, with payouts ranging from $20,000 to $115,000 based on seniority. However, these firms are not offering the additional special bonuses, which in other firms range from $6,000 to $25,000.

Hogan Lovells has implemented an alternative strategy, rewarding associates who exceed the minimum hours requirement with additional bonuses surpassing the base amounts. “Our bonus structure goes beyond the year-end billable hours bonuses, and we believe it aligns with our overall strategy,” a Hogan Lovells spokesperson told Bloomberg Law.

The Milbank Effect on Associate Compensation

Milbank has solidified its reputation as a trendsetter in associate compensation. Earlier this year, the firm surprised the legal market by announcing special bonuses. However, unlike previous years, peer firms did not immediately rush to match Milbank’s move. Instead, most waited for Cravath Swaine & Moore’s year-end bonus announcement before making their decisions.

“When August passed without a match of the special bonuses, I assumed they were done,” said Kate Reder Sheikh, a recruiter at Major, Lindsey & Africa. “It has been a pleasant surprise to see them alongside annual bonuses.”

Conditional Special Bonuses

Some firms have tied special bonuses to higher billable hour requirements. Fish & Richardson and Katten Muchin Rosenman, for example, mandate a minimum of 2,000 hours for associates to qualify for these bonuses. This conditional approach reflects a more measured response to fluctuating market conditions.

Lessons from Market Shifts

The current bonus landscape contrasts sharply with the frenetic environment of 2021, when firms offered special bonuses and salary increases to address unprecedented demand for legal services. That period of heightened competition was followed by a phase of cost-cutting, including associate layoffs at some firms.

“Once the dust settled, the firms that were always going to be market leaders have pretty much maintained that reputation,” Loanzon noted. Firms that attempted to compete without the same financial stability were hit hardest by the market downturn. “I think a lot of firms are just learning from that,” she added.

Looking Ahead

Industry experts suggest that more firms may join Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie in declining to offer special bonuses. “Once a few firms set this as an alternative standard, it becomes a lot easier for others to follow suit,” said Reder Sheikh. However, she cautioned that this approach may not sit well with associates. “I don’t think associates will be pleased, though.”

As firms navigate the complexities of retaining talent while managing financial realities, the bonus season continues to reflect broader trends in the legal industry. Whether the current divergence in strategies represents a temporary shift or a long-term change remains to be seen.

The post Bonus Season Highlights Varying Approaches Among Law Firms first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Milbank LLP, a prominent U.S.-based law firm, announced on Friday its decision to close its office in Beijing, marking another significant withdrawal of a major law firm from China’s legal market. This move underscores a growing trend of global firms re-evaluating their operations in the country due to evolving market dynamics and geopolitical challenges.

Continued Commitment to Asia

A spokesperson for Milbank, which employs approximately 900 lawyers worldwide, emphasized that the firm remains “very committed to Asia through our strong presence in Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, and Tokyo.” These locations continue to serve as key hubs for the firm’s operations across the region.

The firm’s website lists one partner and two associates currently stationed in Beijing. Notably, one of these associates is also listed as practicing in Hong Kong, where Milbank maintains a team of 21 lawyers.

A Brief History of Milbank’s Beijing Office

Milbank’s Beijing office, established in 2006, focused on advising clients on cross-border transactions and financing. Despite this expertise, the firm has opted to pivot away from its Beijing operations, reflecting broader industry challenges. Milbank has not disclosed further details regarding the closure or the reallocation of resources within its Asia network.

Broader Context: U.S. Law Firms Retreat from China

Milbank’s decision comes on the heels of similar announcements by other leading law firms. Earlier this week, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison confirmed plans to close its Beijing office after more than four decades of operations. This marks a broader trend of major U.S. law firms either downsizing or exiting the Chinese market entirely.

Factors contributing to this retreat include:

• Economic Uncertainty: Slowing growth and a challenging investment climate have dampened business prospects for foreign firms.
• Muted Deal Activity: Reduced transactional opportunities have strained the profitability of many practices.
• Geopolitical Tensions: Increasing frictions between the U.S. and China have created additional pressures on foreign businesses operating in the region.

Geopolitical Shifts and Policy Impacts

The geopolitical landscape is poised for further shifts. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his intention to maintain many of the Biden administration’s hardline policies on China. These include imposing tariffs on Chinese imports and other measures targeting critical industries.

On Monday, the United States escalated its efforts to curtail China’s semiconductor industry, enacting its third major crackdown in three years. This action imposes stringent export restrictions on 140 Chinese companies, adding another layer of complexity for businesses navigating the bilateral relationship.

The Future of Legal Services in China

The departure of major law firms from China raises questions about the future of foreign legal services in the country. While some firms continue to maintain operations in key cities, the shifting landscape suggests a more cautious approach to investment and expansion. For now, Milbank’s focus on other Asian financial hubs indicates a strategic realignment rather than a complete withdrawal from the region.

The post Milbank Closes Beijing Office Amid Shifting Legal Landscape in China first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP, based in Washington, D.C., announced on Monday its decision to rebrand, shedding its longstanding name to emerge as Steptoe LLP.

The Evolution of a Distinct Identity

After 43 years of operating as two distinct entities under the same name, the firm has opted for a name change to reinforce its unique identity. Steptoe Chair Gwen Renigar emphasized that clients and colleagues across various markets, including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and China, have consistently referred to the firm simply as “Steptoe.”

Clearing the Path for Differentiation

The renaming is a strategic move aimed at setting Steptoe apart from its counterpart, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, a smaller law firm based in West Virginia. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC will retain its original name, ensuring a clear distinction between the two entities.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Navigating a Shared History

The roots of both firms trace back to the same Steptoe & Johnson, which saw a division in 1980. Despite parting ways, they chose to maintain an identical name, a decision that has finally been revisited after more than four decades. Chris Slaughter, CEO of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, highlighted the practicality of differentiating names, acknowledging that it simplifies operations for everyone involved.

Embracing the Trend of Concise Branding

This rebranding aligns with the growing trend in the legal industry favoring shorter names and single-name law firm brands. Steptoe joins the ranks of firms like Milbank and Quarles, opting for simplicity and clarity in their brand representation.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

The transformation from Steptoe & Johnson LLP to Steptoe LLP marks a pivotal moment in the firm’s history. It reflects a strategic decision to embrace a more distinct and streamlined brand identity in an ever-evolving legal landscape.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Steptoe & Johnson LLP Rebrands to Steptoe LLP After 43 Years first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Ropes & Gray, White & Case, and Weil Gotshal & Manges Join Salary Surge

In a sweeping trend, several of the nation’s premier law firms, including Ropes & Gray, White & Case, and Weil Gotshal & Manges, align their associate salaries with the prevailing Big Law pay scale. Established by industry giants Milbank and Cravath Swaine & Moore, this scale ranges from $225,000 for first-year associates to $435,000 for the most senior counterparts.

The Domino Effect: Over a Dozen Firms Adopt the New Standard

The momentum behind this salary surge is evident, with over a dozen top-tier law firms now publicly committing to matching the compensation standards introduced by Milbank and Cravath Swaine & Moore. This shift signifies a substantial reevaluation of associate remuneration within the legal sector.

Weil Gotshal & Manges Implements Changes for the New Year

According to a communication sent on Monday and viewed by Bloomberg Law, Weil Gotshal & Manges, a prominent New York-based firm, is set to implement its revised salary scale on January 1. Additionally, the firm disclosed its updated bonus scale, mirroring last year’s structure, ranging from $15,000 to $115,000 for the most senior associates.

White & Case Commits to the New Pay Scale and Bonus Structure

On the same day, White & Case announced its commitment to aligning with the new pay scale and bonus amounts for associates in good standing. This move further solidifies the industry-wide shift towards a standardized compensation framework.

Ropes & Gray Joins the Wave of Adjusted Salaries

Ropes & Gray is also embracing the new pay scale, as per a memo reviewed by Bloomberg Law. Furthermore, the firm distributes bonuses to associates meeting its 1,900 credit hour mark. Notably, a significant bonus of $130,000 is allocated to the class of 2015 associates.

Milbank Initiates the Salary Hikes, Cravath Follows Suit

The catalyst for this wave of salary adjustments was Milbank, which, on November 7, announced a surprise $10,000 across-the-board increase in associate salaries, citing “high levels of activity.” Cravath subsequently matched Milbank’s raise for junior lawyers and implemented a $20,000 increase for senior associates on November 28.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Joins the Movement

The momentum continued with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison announcing on November 29 that it would pay its eighth-year associates an impressive $435,000, further underscoring the industry’s commitment to redefining compensation standards.

This collective response from prominent law firms establishes a new benchmark for associate salaries and highlights the legal sector’s competitive landscape as firms strive to attract and retain top talent.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Top Law Firms Follow Suit in Salary Raises to Match Big Law Standards first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Milbank Responds to Market Dynamics

In a strategic move responding to recent developments in the legal industry, Milbank, a prominent U.S. law firm, announced on Tuesday that it would align its associate compensation scale with that of rival Cravath, Swaine & Moore. This decision comes on the heels of Cravath’s recent adjustment of salary structures, which had initially overshadowed Milbank’s earlier salary increases for its associate lawyers.

Revised Seniority-Based Compensation Scale

Under the updated compensation structure, associates at Milbank will now enjoy salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000, contingent on their seniority within the firm. This marks a notable adjustment from Milbank’s initial salary scale introduced in early November, which had capped senior associates’ raises at $425,000. The revised increases amount to $10,000 to $20,000, depending on the associate’s class year.

Uniform Year-End Bonuses

In addition to salary adjustments, both Milbank and Cravath disclosed identical year-end bonuses tied to associate class years. These bonuses range from $15,000, pro-rated, to an impressive $115,000.

Industry-Wide Trend

The legal landscape in the United States often witnesses a swift domino effect among significant law firms following notable compensation adjustments. On the same day, Cravath’s salary increases on November 28 triggered a cascade of matching announcements from various firms, including Paul Hastings and McDermott Will & Emery.

Ripple Effect Across Top-Tier Law Firms

Milbank joins a roster of prestigious law firms across the U.S. that have committed to matching Cravath’s elevated compensation scale. This includes notable names such as Baker McKenzie, Boies Schiller Flexner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Dechert, Kirkland & Ellis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

In a highly competitive legal landscape, the synchronized salary adjustments and year-end bonuses underscore the industry’s commitment to attracting and retaining top-tier legal talent. The move by Milbank demonstrates a proactive approach to maintaining competitiveness and responding to market dynamics in the legal sector.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post U.S. Law Firm Milbank Matches Rival Cravath’s Compensation Scale first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

New York-based law firm Milbank, known for igniting a salary war in the legal industry last year, has again raised the bar by enhancing its attorney compensation packages. This move is poised to create a ripple effect across the legal sector, setting new standards for associate pay scales.

Upward Shift in Base Salaries

Under the revamped seniority-based salary scale introduced by Milbank, first-year associates are set to witness a significant increase in their base salary. Their compensation will jump from $215,000 to $225,000, as revealed in a confidential internal memo dated Tuesday, reviewed by Reuters. For eighth-year associates, the salary scale will peak at a substantial $425,000, demonstrating Milbank’s commitment to rewarding experience and dedication.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Generous Year-End Bonuses

In addition to elevating base salaries, Milbank will also provide year-end bonuses to associates based on their level of seniority. These bonuses will range from $15,000 (pro-rated) to $115,000, mirroring the bonus structure implemented across major U.S. law firms in the previous year. Eligible good-standing associates are set to receive these bonuses on or before December 31st. The anticipation of such generous bonuses further fuels motivation and commitment among the legal professionals at the firm.

Promising Prospects for 2023

Milbank’s decision to raise salaries and announce year-end bonuses is a testament to the firm’s continued success and its optimistic outlook for the future. As per the memo shared by Milbank’s chair, Scott Edelman, the firm remains exceptionally busy across all departments, and this robust activity is expected to persist throughout the remainder of the year. This bodes well for both the firm’s associates and its clients.

Make informed decisions in real time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Effective in January

The revised base salaries are set to take effect in January, ensuring that associates at Milbank will start the new year with an improved compensation structure. This news will likely boost morale and attract top legal talent to the firm.

Industry-Leading Trendsetter

Milbank, with its expansive presence, including hundreds of lawyers spread across 12 offices globally, is taking the lead in this year’s announcement of salary increases and year-end bonuses. Traditionally, other prominent U.S. law firms tend to follow suit shortly after Milbank’s lead, reinforcing the firm’s position as a trendsetter in the legal industry.

Adapting to Changing Market Dynamics

Notably, Milbank’s decision to enhance associate salaries and bonuses comes after a prolonged hiatus in salary increments, with the last increase occurring in early 2022. The legal industry, much like the rest of the business world, has experienced fluctuations in demand, especially in the realm of mergers and acquisitions. The market dynamics have shifted, creating a more streamlined environment in the corporate legal sector, following the booming global deal market in 2021. In response to these changes, Milbank has taken proactive steps to ensure that its legal professionals are well-compensated and motivated.

In summary, Milbank’s recent move to elevate attorney salaries and announce year-end bonuses demonstrates its commitment to rewarding its dedicated legal professionals while setting new standards in the legal industry. This decision is aligned with the firm’s optimism for the future and its recognition of the evolving market dynamics.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Milbank Law Firm Boosts Attorney Salaries and Year-End Bonuses first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Several law firms have matched the new associate pay scale set by Milbank this year. 

On June 4, 2018, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy changed the legal industry when it announced it was raising its first-year associate salary rate from $180,000 to $190,000. The increase affected other associate years as well, and other law firms subsequently announced that they were matching the Milbank scale, according to Law.com.

One of those firms, Cravath, Swaine & Moore even upped the ante by stating they would pay mid-level and senior-level associates a higher salary than the Milbank Scale. See the two scales below:

The Milbank Scale:

• First year: $190,000
• Second year: $200,000
• Third year: $220,000
• Fourth year: $250,000
• Fifth year: $275,000
• Sixth year: $295,000
• Seventh year: $315,000
• Eighth year: $330,000

The Cravath Scale: 

• Class of 2017 — $190,000
• Class of 2016 — $200,000
• Class of 2015 — $220,000
• Class of 2014 — $255,000
• Class of 2013 — $280,000
• Class of 2012 — $305,000
• Class of 2011 — $325,000
• Class of 2010 — $340,000

Since Milbank’s announcement, several firms have stated they would match the new scale while others have stayed quiet. So far, the following firms have agreed to increase their scales to match Milbank’s.

1. Akin Gump
2. Baker McKenzie
3. Barack Ferrazano
4. Brown Rudnick
5. Cahill
6. Cleary
7. Clifford Chance
8. Cooley
9. Cravath
10. Davis Polk
11. Debevoise
12. Dechert
13. Freshfields
14. Fried Frank
15. Goodwin
16. Greenberg Gross
17. Gunderson
18. Holwell Shuster & Goldberg
19. Hueston Hennigan
20. Irell
21. Jones Day
22. Kaplan & Company
23. Keker
24. Kirkland & Ellis
25. Kramer Levin
26. Morgan Lewis
27. Munger Tolles
28. Orick
29. Paul Weiss
30. Proskauer
31. Quinn Emanuel
32. Ropes & Gray
33. Schulte Roth
34. Selendy & Gay
35. Sherman & Sterling
36. Sidley Austin
37. Skadden
38. Sullivan & Cromwell
39. Vinson & Elkins
40. Weil Gotshal
41. White & Case
42. Wilkie Farr
43. Wilson Sonsini
44. Winston & Strawn

Susman Godfrey, who already paid first-year associates $190,000 since 2016, told The American Lawyer that another raise could be in the pipeline. The law firm said that they wanted to attract and retain the best talent, which meant offering competitive salaries.

“If I were a betting man … discussion would not be about meeting the Milbank, Cravath scale. It’ll be about surpassing it,” Neal Manne, managing partner of Susman Godfrey, said to The American Lawyer.

Manne added that paying more for quality attorneys was not a negative for the firm, and that increasing revenue was more important.

“Our real focus is on the revenue side. We can grow our revenues by winning cases,” Manne said. “Changes in our costs in acquiring and paying our associates has no impact on our clients, except that they have happier associates working on their cases.”

But while dozens of law firms are catching up to Milbank, some refuse. For instance, Reed Smith told The American Lawyer that it refused to match the new scale.

In 2016, Cravath changed the pay scale from $160,000 to $180,000. The previous scale was set by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP who raised the amount from $145,000 to $160,000 in 2007.

• Cravath Surpasses Pay Scale Set by Milbank 
• Milbank Ups First-Year Associate Salaries 
• Firms Follow Cravath’s $180,000 Base Pay Scale  

What do you think of the pay scale for law firm associates? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Dozens of Law Firms Match Milbank Salary Pay Scale first appeared on JDJournal Blog.