"Millennials Now Ruining Wine As Well"

[Robert.A.Jr.]

If you are a middle-achieving student and your family is middle class, then you will have a tough time. You'll get into relatively mediocre schools and still end up paying $30K+/yr all in to attend. And your job opportunities will likely be mediocre as well, making it difficult to pay off the debt you probably took out.

No doubt the middle-class gets the squeeze on college expenses, but I wonder the rest of what you say. Perhaps it depends on your geographic region, but not all regions recruit only from Ivy or top-tier state schools. Having lived and worked in some southern states - Florida and Georgia - and the state school grads have way better than mediocre opportunites. Heck, half of my associates are from FSU and UF, neither of which are top 25 law schools. At least in law, while school quality does indeed matter, your class ranking can make a huge difference. A top 5%-10% grad at FSU, a 47th ranked law school, will get a killer, high-paying job. That kid also likely qualified for Florida bright futures scholarships paid for by the lottery, giving him/her free tuition. Not saying its easier coming from the middle, but I do not agree with the mediocrity comment. Mediocrity is what you make of any opportunity. Winners will win regardless.

Sorry, I fundamentally disagree with your argument. Best case scenario, you go to state undergrad, get into competitive enough state law school, graduate top of your class (and I mean top of your class, not top 5%-10% if you're coming from mediocre school like UF), manage to land a job at a Cravath scale firm, grind your ass off billing at least 2200-2500 hours, try to pay off $100k in debt (because you're assuming all these generous full tuition scholarships which really don't exist), while living in a high CoL area, and hope at some point down the road you'll make it to an equity partner position.

The scenario I described is the only real hope for millennials who want upward economic mobility. You literally need to be in the 0.001% to achieve this path that you call "winners will win regardless". Now let's talk about what really needs to happen:

You're upper middle class, but you're really smart, and somehow you manage to land yourself in a top 25 undergrad school (despite all the legacies and prep school kids), of which 90% are private. You're average all in cost is roughly $60-80k/year. You might qualify for some financial aid, but not a ton, and you're going to graduate with at least $50k in debt, if not more. Next, you goto a top 25 law school, again of which the vast majority are private. Private law schools are $100k/year all-in these days, and even the few public schools like Boalt are over $80k/year now given budget cuts and law school's status as professional schools. You graduate holding $300k+ combined graduate/undergraduate debt that you need to pay down as you work 100 hour weeks in the desperate hope of making partner. So there's upward mobility here again, but it's much lower than it used to be when you graduated in 1992, and sure in this scenario, you don't need to be the top 0.01%, but you still have to be the top 1-2%, which is unrealistic for an entire generation of lawyers.

Let's be real, if you look at where Am Law 100 associates and recently promoted partners went to law school, the vast majority are coming from top 25 schools. The average prospect of the decent lawyer graduating today from a state school is bleak compared to the path of a lawyer graduating from the boomer generation. And to Rob M's point, the harsh prospects of what I described is for still one of the highest paying fields around where there is mobility. In Rob M's world, which is much more reflective of the 98%, there really is little hope.

Full disclosure, I'm not a lawyer (working for one during college was enough to ensure I didn't want to goto law school ), but plenty of my friends are attorneys, I unfortunately pay my attorneys way too much money, and if you ask lawyers graduating today, they'll agree what I described is par for the course.

That's funny, I'm at an AmLaw 100. HQ in the South.

Most law firms in the South, and perhaps other states, draw predominantly from local state schools, as the tendency of these local state school grads to stay with us is better than if we went hawking out-of-state Ivy league grads. Half of my associates are state school grads. The newest associate in our office is from FSU. The two partners just made in Orlando, one is Florida the other is Emory. Many of my partners are state school grads. I can say the exact same thing with my peer group and their associates at the Florida offices of Holland and Knight, Greenberg Traurig, et al. The generalized comments I am hearing here not accurate. Perhaps in the Norteast, with Ivy law grads galore, a state school grad has a more difficult track, but that's not the country as a whole. Incidentally, Sr DC Counsel Neal Mollen went to state school, and is a senior partner at an AmLaw 100, perhaps 50. Our websites are public, pretty easy to check out facts.

It's not bleak. It's not doom and gloom. It's what you make of it.

Sorry, just not buying into this tale of woe.

And I agree with Siun, the AmLaw 100 or partnership at any firm is just one track, but not the only track that this profession offers you. We just had an associate, who would have made partner next year, leave to go in-house with Universal Studios. Quite a cool gig. So many opportunities, and some far more balanced in life. I love what I do, and where I'm at, but I will be the first to say its a sacrifice, you need to love what you do, and you work stupid hours.

[Chr!s G|@rn3r]

Millennials are the reason this exists, so yes they have ruined wine.

[KyleC]

Gosh, life is not worth living if you don't make partner track at one of the top firms eh? Only graduates of the top 25 schools ... middle class kids who got to state schools will land in mediocre jobs I think someone said above. Oh and I have decided to live in Seattle and must live downtown ... etc etc. Do y'all hear yourselves? And it's the fault of Boomer arrogance and we are out of touch with reality ... and apparently we never have fun in bed coz we don't look as good as the millennials. Wow.

Now there's a political side to this I won't touch outside of the Politics forum but as a working class kid who grew up in the 60s, I really wonder who the arrogant ones are. You are defining success and happiness in life in all the wrong terms and then blaming "the olds" or "the silents" or "the boomers" for your inevitable unhappiness. And you seem completely oblivious to your own extraordinary privilege. Just amazing.

Says someone who believes UIC is under $13k/year because things like room, board, books, and other feeds don't exist. Just shows how out of touch some people are with the reality that millennials face.

And if you believe I'm positing that life isn't worth living unless you're partner at a law firm, you're either deliberately misconstruing my words, or you're not understanding that I'm refuting Robert.A.Jr's statement that all is well and "winners will win regardless".

[KyleC]

No doubt the middle-class gets the squeeze on college expenses, but I wonder the rest of what you say. Perhaps it depends on your geographic region, but not all regions recruit only from Ivy or top-tier state schools. Having lived and worked in some southern states - Florida and Georgia - and the state school grads have way better than mediocre opportunites. Heck, half of my associates are from FSU and UF, neither of which are top 25 law schools. At least in law, while school quality does indeed matter, your class ranking can make a huge difference. A top 5%-10% grad at FSU, a 47th ranked law school, will get a killer, high-paying job. That kid also likely qualified for Florida bright futures scholarships paid for by the lottery, giving him/her free tuition. Not saying its easier coming from the middle, but I do not agree with the mediocrity comment. Mediocrity is what you make of any opportunity. Winners will win regardless.

Sorry, I fundamentally disagree with your argument. Best case scenario, you go to state undergrad, get into competitive enough state law school, graduate top of your class (and I mean top of your class, not top 5%-10% if you're coming from mediocre school like UF), manage to land a job at a Cravath scale firm, grind your ass off billing at least 2200-2500 hours, try to pay off $100k in debt (because you're assuming all these generous full tuition scholarships which really don't exist), while living in a high CoL area, and hope at some point down the road you'll make it to an equity partner position.

The scenario I described is the only real hope for millennials who want upward economic mobility. You literally need to be in the 0.001% to achieve this path that you call "winners will win regardless". Now let's talk about what really needs to happen:

You're upper middle class, but you're really smart, and somehow you manage to land yourself in a top 25 undergrad school (despite all the legacies and prep school kids), of which 90% are private. You're average all in cost is roughly $60-80k/year. You might qualify for some financial aid, but not a ton, and you're going to graduate with at least $50k in debt, if not more. Next, you goto a top 25 law school, again of which the vast majority are private. Private law schools are $100k/year all-in these days, and even the few public schools like Boalt are over $80k/year now given budget cuts and law school's status as professional schools. You graduate holding $300k+ combined graduate/undergraduate debt that you need to pay down as you work 100 hour weeks in the desperate hope of making partner. So there's upward mobility here again, but it's much lower than it used to be when you graduated in 1992, and sure in this scenario, you don't need to be the top 0.01%, but you still have to be the top 1-2%, which is unrealistic for an entire generation of lawyers.

Let's be real, if you look at where Am Law 100 associates and recently promoted partners went to law school, the vast majority are coming from top 25 schools. The average prospect of the decent lawyer graduating today from a state school is bleak compared to the path of a lawyer graduating from the boomer generation. And to Rob M's point, the harsh prospects of what I described is for still one of the highest paying fields around where there is mobility. In Rob M's world, which is much more reflective of the 98%, there really is little hope.

Full disclosure, I'm not a lawyer (working for one during college was enough to ensure I didn't want to goto law school ), but plenty of my friends are attorneys, I unfortunately pay my attorneys way too much money, and if you ask lawyers graduating today, they'll agree what I described is par for the course.

That's funny, I'm at an AmLaw 100. HQ in the South.

Most law firms in the South, and perhaps other states, draw predominantly from local state schools, as the tendency of these local state school grads to stay with us is better than if we went hawking out-of-state Ivy league grads. Half of my associates are state school grads. The newest associate in our office is from FSU. The two partners just made in Orlando, one is Florida the other is Emory. Many of my partners are state school grads. I can say the exact same thing with my peer group and their associates at the Florida offices of Holland and Knight, Greenberg Traurig, et al. The generalized comments I am hearing here not accurate. Perhaps in the Norteast, with Ivy law grads galore, a state school grad has a more difficult track, but that's not the country as a whole. Incidentally, Sr DC Counsel Neal Mollen went to state school, and is a senior partner at an AmLaw 100, perhaps 50. Our websites are public, pretty easy to check out facts.

It's not bleak. It's not doom and gloom. It's what you make of it.

Sorry, just not buying into this tale of woe.

And I agree with Siun, the AmLaw 100 or partnership at any firm is just one track, but not the only track that this profession offers you. We just had an associate, who would have made partner next year, leave to go in-house with Universal Studios. Quite a cool gig. So many opportunities, and some far more balanced in life. I love what I do, and where I'm at, but I will be the first to say its a sacrifice, you need to love what you do, and you work stupid hours.

You're making a spurious argument based on a few cherry picked examples. Why don't you log into Lexis and pull top 50 feeder schools in 2018 for Am Law 100 firms for new associates and partners? Let's let the data speak for itself .

Sure you described the path of going in-house, which also means a huge pay cut compared with big law. How long will it take your associate to pay off debt, save enough to buy a house, etc. on an in-house comp package compared to a seventh year associate back when you graduated?

[Craig G]

Two things that are killing wine:

1. Craft cocktail
2. Craft beer

Pushed by a lazy and uneducated press and aided by bar/restaurant owners that are lazy, uneducated and greedy. The simple quick easy profits are used to buy ads that drive coverage and are then used to push more of the same crap. So it goes round in a circle. Mixologists and beer gurus abound. Pushing tacos and fanatsy pizzas. Articles are running 10-1 against wine. I just wish I was going to live long enough to see these little twits grow up. Eventually they will turn to wine. But the damage will be done.

I won’t speak to cocktails, but you can go to lots of places and have a glass of really good beer for $6 or pretty crappy wine for $12. There’s essentially no place in the US where you can get really good glass of wine for $6 in a restaurant. That’s not the fault of craft beer.

[James Billy]

... and apparently we never have fun in bed coz we don't look as good as the millennials. Wow.

I didn't say that. I'm sure you have lots of fun.

They have just as much fun drinking their Trader Joe's as you do drinking the Ridge Monte Bello that they lust after.

[Robert.A.Jr.]

Sure you described the path of going in-house, which also means a huge pay cut compared with big law. How long will it take your associate to pay off debt, save enough to buy a house, etc. on an in-house comp package compared to a seventh year associate back when you graduated?

Remember, this was a voluntary choice. Why should I feel badly for someone that voluntarily chose to make this career change, at the precipice of making partner, and then lament her future opportunities? That's rather sillly, really. She also chose working less hours, less stress, better vacation time, better benefits and stock options. I'm really crying now. I also happen to know what her salary range is, and it's not that much of a change. If you cannot live very comfortably in a town like Orlando, then you are doing something wring. I really don't know where you get these wild generalizations from. Sure, there are extreme examples, but as I keep saying, the reality and the middle ain't so bad.

Stop fixating on Am Law. That's only 100 firms out of many thousands. And many of the others pay damn well, too.

She and her husband drink Pappy's by the way. Do Millienials have a penchant for fine bourbon? And Colgin?

[JDavisRoby]

Home ownership as the benchmark for financial success and as the path to wealth is a falsehood cooked up to keep the housing and mortgage markets propped up. In reality far better off limiting your exposure to unplanned housing related expenses and renting while putting excess cash in the market (and good wine).

[Siun o'Connell]

... and apparently we never have fun in bed coz we don't look as good as the millennials. Wow.

I didn't say that. I'm sure you have lots of fun.

They have just as much fun drinking their Trader Joe's as you do drinking the Ridge Monte Bello that they lust after.

TJ's has some good wine and I don't drink Ridge. I do have fun sharing my Cruse sparklers with my millennial team who have no interest in law school since we're having too much fun doing an app startup.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

...
I do find the millennials I work with tend to grab a beer as the first option when we have work happy hour ... the wine served is pretty dreadful and the beers are pretty good. I have my wine shipped to the office so I keep a stash and often open a bottle instead and better wine is really appreciated by them - and enjoyed. I just think they are not exposed to it often enough to chose it over a cheap beer. ..

Whenever I find myself worrying about how much I am about to spend on beer I remind myself that I am probably quibbling over the cost of a cheap bottle of wine. For the most part, the absolute best beers in the world cost as much as a cheap bottle of wine. And the most expensive beers in the world, for the most part, are still under $100 per 750mL.

[Gary York]

Beer is cheap and easy. So is vodka. Not really sure that is the point. And if you do a $$$/per ounce cost, beer is not that cheap.

[AlexS]

My lord.

I'm not a millennial (1978) but given how much they've been maligned (rightly or wrongly) by the older generations, the backlash frustration from millennials towards the older generations should be expected

And sorry disgruntled older folks, but despite US worker productivity being at an all time high, fact is, there's far less economic mobility for millennials than boomers -- just because people now have the ability to drink sparkling water & eat avocado toast across the country does not change simple, fact-based reality.

Now back to bashing the kids.

[Anton D]

“What really distinguishes this generation from those before it is that it's the first generation in American history to live so well and complain so bitterly about it.”

Said 30 years ago...and still complaining, only about those damned kids nowadays.

Boomers. We are so entitled that we complain about the kids we raised and lament where the kids went wrong.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Beer is cheap and easy. So is vodka. Not really sure that is the point. And if you do a $$$/per ounce cost, beer is not that cheap.

I do this math all the time, and I think you're wrong. Obviously, this begs the question, what is "cheap" on a per ounce basis?
Two 12 oz beers is nearly same liquid volume as one bottle of wine. An $18 six pack (definitely on the expensive end of the spectrum) means two beers costs $6. I don't know about you, but I consider a $6 bottle of wine to be dirt cheap.

[James Billy]

... and apparently we never have fun in bed coz we don't look as good as the millennials. Wow.

I didn't say that. I'm sure you have lots of fun.

They have just as much fun drinking their Trader Joe's as you do drinking the Ridge Monte Bello that they lust after.

TJ's has some good wine and I don't drink Ridge. I do have fun sharing my Cruse sparklers with my millennial team who have no interest in law school since we're having too much fun doing an app startup.

Cool.

[larry schaffer]

Beer is cheap and easy. So is vodka. Not really sure that is the point. And if you do a $$$/per ounce cost, beer is not that cheap.

I do this math all the time, and I think you're wrong. Obviously, this begs the question, what is "cheap" on a per ounce basis?
Two 12 oz beers is nearly same liquid volume as one bottle of wine. An $18 six pack (definitely on the expensive end of the spectrum) means two beers costs $6. I don't know about you, but I consider a $6 bottle of wine to be dirt cheap.

Depends on the beer, my friend - and how much is being consumed on premise? Pliny may ube 'cheap' if purchased as a 6 pack, but on draft? Not so much so. . .

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Larry,
I'm not sure how on-premises vs. off-premises is relevant to the conversation, but I'll play, anyways.

1. It's not fair to compare draft beer prices with retail wine prices. Better comparison would be draft beer pricing being compared to wine pricing off restaurant wine list.

2. Draft beer pricing: would you agree that $1 per ounce is very expensive? It's very rare to see beer prices that high, but I'm using that very high figure to help make a point.

If wine was a whopping $1 per ounce, then we're talking a $25 bottle of wine.

In reality, in L.A. (an expensive market) most craft beer is going to run 50 to 60 cents per ounce *on draft*. That's a $15 bottle of wine *at retail.*

What am I missing?

[Hoang Pham]

I would be a considered a millennial, but hardly look at myself as one. For the bar scene, I feel that there is a lot of increasing competition from craft brewing and mixology cocktails. To put things in perspective, i'm from the SF Bay. A night out on the town at a nice bar, does one opt for the $10 house red wine from who knows where winery that's probably been sitting there for who knows how long and takes 5 seconds to pour, or do you opt towards that fancy whisky cocktail for $12-14 that took time to make. As much as I love wine, I'll always opt towards a cocktail in that scenario. More predictable quality and better value.

[Adam G]

I am technically a millennial (although towards the beginning of the loosely defined millennial window), and the component I struggle with the most is just how few other millenials there are to share wine with. All of my wine friends are getting on for at least 10 years older than me and in many cases 30 years older.

...

But, all that being said, I am buying wine, probably significant amounts for someone in my age range that would put me in the very top percentiles. You don't catch me buying Rousseau or Maybach though, and that's for good reason.

Sounds like we're a similar cohort - except I would never admit to being a millenial. Oregon Trail generation, sure. You're close by...happy to meet up and share a couple bottles any time!

I also completely agree with your characterisation of buying habits. With a mortgage to pay, child care, saving for college, saving for something resembling retirement, etc, it's hard to justify spending that much per bottle. (There were a couple years in there, though, when my income rose substantially before my costs did...I found myself willing to spend more on wine. Who'd have guessed?)

[Yao C]

My anecdotal experience, in the hope of transmitting another millennial perspective across the chasm of the generations:

1) I hosted wine tastings as a fun diversion at my last job. I’d pour 4-6 classic wines, usually blind, and turn it into an educational thing. The level of interest in these events was unreal - usually 15-20% of the SF office (just about all millennial) would sign up and I’d have to turn people away

2) I value experiences, like a good millennial should. Food and wine are really reliable pathways to great experiences. Disposable income notwithstanding, I don’t know too many millennials who think much different. Me and my millennial buddies enjoy getting together for dinner and a few nice bottles of wine, and you’d be amazed the number of millennials we’ve hosted for that express purpose

3) If anything, it’s the label fetishizing and accumulation / hoarding for its own sake that we’d like to get away from. Say e.g. choosing not to have of cases of Rousseau just because it’s Rousseau, even if one can afford it. One might say this is a distinction without a difference, but it’s intent that matters with millennials not outcomes

I would be a considered a millennial, but hardly look at myself as one. For the bar scene, I feel that there is a lot of increasing competition from craft brewing and mixology cocktails. To put things in perspective, i'm from the SF Bay. A night out on the town at a nice bar, does one opt for the $10 house red wine from who knows where winery that's probably been sitting there for who knows how long and takes 5 seconds to pour, or do you opt towards that fancy whisky cocktail for $12-14 that took time to make. As much as I love wine, I'll always opt towards a cocktail in that scenario. More predictable quality and better value.

I feel there is as much variability in the quality of a cocktail as there can be in an industrial vs artisanal glass of wine. But hey to your point one doesn’t need to be slavish in one’s devotion to wine to have a good time with alcoholic beverages

[Jeremy C]

On a positive note, I find it encouraging that there are quite a few millennials here on this board who are clearly pursuing a discerning appreciation of wine.

[Howard Cooper]

Sure you described the path of going in-house, which also means a huge pay cut compared with big law. How long will it take your associate to pay off debt, save enough to buy a house, etc. on an in-house comp package compared to a seventh year associate back when you graduated?

Remember, this was a voluntary choice. Why should I feel badly for someone that voluntarily chose to make this career change, at the precipice of making partner, and then lament her future opportunities? That's rather sillly, really. She also chose working less hours, less stress, better vacation time, better benefits and stock options. I'm really crying now. I also happen to know what her salary range is, and it's not that much of a change. If you cannot live very comfortably in a town like Orlando, then you are doing something wring. I really don't know where you get these wild generalizations from. Sure, there are extreme examples, but as I keep saying, the reality and the middle ain't so bad.

Stop fixating on Am Law. That's only 100 firms out of many thousands. And many of the others pay damn well, too.

She and her husband drink Pappy's by the way. Do Millienials have a penchant for fine bourbon? And Colgin?

Clearly, just like not all jobs in law firms are the same, not all in house jobs are the same. A lot of companies are building up their in house staffs (quality and quantity) so as to reduce the amount of work given to outside counsel. While in the past, it seemed like a lot of our clients hired senior associates who did not make partner, in my last few years before I retired there were a number of instances where clients hired attorneys who had made partner but really were service partners who were quite sharp and excellent and hard working attorneys but who mostly did work for clients of others. Some of these people had been doing a good bit of work previously for the company they went to work for, got relatively senior positions at those companies and did quite well going in house as Robert suggests.

There is no one size fits all.

Also, while law school tuitions are unbelievably high these days, even by college standards, the law student who can get jobs for the summer at major law firms make quite a bit of money that they can use to offset a portion of the cost. I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

As for law schools, my sense is that while most large law firms do recruit at the top schools, of course, they also recruit at the top state colleges where their major offices are located. My last law firm's largest office was in Atlanta and we certainly hired a good number of students from the University of Georgia, just like Robert describes his firm hiring people from Florida and Florida State. My sense from the couple of firms I worked at and from talking to friends at other firms, this is pretty common.

[Dale Bowers]

More for me !

[Charlie Carnes]

I agree Jeremy.

There are two great advantages that Millennials have that I didn't have (born1969). There is so much incredible, relatively inexpensive wine out there, that is fairly easily accessed. Just look at Berserker Day, even without discounts, there were tons of amazing, affordable wines for sale, and potential long term relatinships/access with winemakers, that will reward for years to come. Also, (I am saying this with a flame retardant suit on), I think newer generations are/will be more AFWE... Heck, I would have considered myself lucky to have never gotten caught up in the "Highly Allocated Critically Acclaimed Wine Market". Pining over 100 point BS that was unattainable and unaffordable. If anything Millennials might benefit from the "lack of a movement" in wine today (unless there is one that I don't know) as the critic's voice seems less important than ever.

There is a great articleI just read in Garden and Gun Magazine Feb/March edition about craft-cocktail renaissance. Not directly correlating, but tangential.

[Greg K]

Sure you described the path of going in-house, which also means a huge pay cut compared with big law. How long will it take your associate to pay off debt, save enough to buy a house, etc. on an in-house comp package compared to a seventh year associate back when you graduated?

Remember, this was a voluntary choice. Why should I feel badly for someone that voluntarily chose to make this career change, at the precipice of making partner, and then lament her future opportunities?

I think his point was referring to in-house positions generally, not this individual. Obviously if she left instead of becoming partner the position was remunerative.

I generally agree with you that firms hire from local schools, in the same way that my firm hires from Fordham, Brooklyn, Cardozo, etc. But I think the overall point on law firms stands - it's become a far more haves and have nots profession as the last 50 years have evolved. Just look at the distribution of starting salaries - new graduates are either making top 50 associate money or they're making vastly less. That sort of distribution simply didn't exist before, when salaries were also bunched closer together, even though law schools assume everyone will be paid at that scale. It's also a much greater rat race. For all that we have our $1000 phones, we use them - 20 years ago when you were out of the office, you were not available. The last time I was genuinely not available to clients was when I went to Zimbabwe years ago. And clients expect that availability. The salaries are higher, the time commitments are greater, the opportunities for upward progression are less certain. Again, it's concentration at the top.

I will add, I find the notion that partners have it easy pretty ridiculous; most law firms are now run in ways that are somewhat similar to banks - lower performing partners get weeded out too. And relatively quickly. For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

[Markus S]

... Garden and Gun Magazine ...

There's such a thing? Rather like a title the Kosher Pig...

[A.Gillette]

For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

That was me. Note that firing associates and firing partners aren’t mutually exclusive. A firm can do both. My point was about what’s changed over the last 30 years. Take a look at the New York Times stories about firms that fired associates in the early 90s. It was shocking that firms would do that and it took years for those firms to recover reputationally among recruits. In 2009, basically every firm laid off associates. It was just seen as part of the business.
A

[AlexS]

... Garden and Gun Magazine ...

There's such a thing? Rather like a title the Kosher Pig...

Or Millennials & Wine...

[Robert.A.Jr.]

I generally agree with you that firms hire from local schools, in the same way that my firm hires from Fordham, Brooklyn, Cardozo, etc. But I think the overall point on law firms stands - it's become a far more haves and have nots profession as the last 50 years have evolved. Just look at the distribution of starting salaries - new graduates are either making top 50 associate money or they're making vastly less. That sort of distribution simply didn't exist before, when salaries were also bunched closer together, even though law schools assume everyone will be paid at that scale. It's also a much greater rat race. For all that we have our $1000 phones, we use them - 20 years ago when you were out of the office, you were not available. The last time I was genuinely not available to clients was when I went to Zimbabwe years ago. And clients expect that availability. The salaries are higher, the time commitments are greater, the opportunities for upward progression are less certain. Again, it's concentration at the top.

I will add, I find the notion that partners have it easy pretty ridiculous; most law firms are now run in ways that are somewhat similar to banks - lower performing partners get weeded out too. And relatively quickly. For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

I actually agree with much of what you said. I'm glad your reference time was last 50 years. My point has been that millenials in general do not have only doom and gloom before them, while the rest of us Gen-Xers (me), Boomers (Howard, Neal, et al) and Silencieos (I don't know what this is), somehow have had a cakewalk. It's been great, and it's been brutal. My career has gone through three recessions, including the so-called great one, 9/11 and the Dot.com bust. That's been some serious shit. And while we are accused of having taken or abused opportunity, we have also created lots of opportunities - the numbers don't lie re: law firm growth and starting salaries.

All law firms are different, but I have grown up under a system were expectations on law firm productivity are much higher on partners than what's expected of associates. Yes, our comp is higher, but in general, we also work more. We are also 100% at risk. In my group, the lowest billing partner out-billed in terms of raw billable hours, the highest billing associate. We do, however, have a strong group of associates, and I should add, paralegals and secretaries. Every single person adds major value in the delivery of client services, and are compensated accordingly.

I cannot speak to starting salaries at smaller firms, but what are we talking about? Isn't that comp still generally quite decent? The public defender's office in Orlando starts at 60k. A young couple in their mid-20s pulling down 120k in Orlando ain't suffering. Any disparity between big law and regular law firms - and yes I'm sure that exists - isn't that prevalent in all professional services or business? The question for any new graduate is, do you really want to work those hours to make X, or are you willing to settle for less and have more life balance? When presented, it's a Faustian choice.

[AlexS]

For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

That was me. Note that firing associates and firing partners aren’t mutually exclusive. A firm can do both. My point was about what’s changed over the last 30 years. Take a look at the New York Times stories about firms that fired associates in the early 90s. It was shocking that firms would do that and it took years for those firms to recover reputationally among recruits. In 2009, basically every firm laid off associates. It was just seen as part of the business.
A

Yup.

Nowadays we're all just numbers on a spreadsheet, Friedman's dream realized...

[Markus S]

Also, while law school tuitions are unbelievably high these days, even by college standards, the law student who can get jobs for the summer at major law firms make quite a bit of money that they can use to offset a portion of the cost. I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

And where does discrimination fit in to the hiring practices of said firms? When someone is a top tier student from a top tier law school but they are possibly short, biracial or a race that doesn't fir in to the office scheme, doesn't look like model material, and they don't get these fantastic offers? These students do not go to the major firms to be able to begin paying back their student loans. What is the percentage of students who can get these summer jobs...10-20%?

[Robert.A.Jr.]

For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

That was me. Note that firing associates and firing partners aren’t mutually exclusive. A firm can do both. My point was about what’s changed over the last 30 years. Take a look at the New York Times stories about firms that fired associates in the early 90s. It was shocking that firms would do that and it took years for those firms to recover reputationally among recruits. In 2009, basically every firm laid off associates. It was just seen as part of the business.
A

I was interviewing with Skadden during my second year of law school, and the buzz on the street was that they had just laid off like 50-100 young associates. And yet they were seeking a substantial number of summer associates. No way was I going there, went to San Franc instead! That reputation is brutal, and yet, Skadden still attracts top talent. A wiser choice may be to go to a firm that offers real opportunity, not just hints of possible glory.

Your 2009 example Is a tough one. It was the height of the recession. Most business had to lay off or die. We leaned out but only letting go those associates and partners that really didn't perform during the good times, so why carry them during the bad times?

[Greg K]

For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

That was me. Note that firing associates and firing partners aren’t mutually exclusive. A firm can do both. My point was about what’s changed over the last 30 years. Take a look at the New York Times stories about firms that fired associates in the early 90s. It was shocking that firms would do that and it took years for those firms to recover reputationally among recruits. In 2009, basically every firm laid off associates. It was just seen as part of the business.
A

Oh, I know, I was there. But they also got rid of plenty of partners too.

[Greg K]

I generally agree with you that firms hire from local schools, in the same way that my firm hires from Fordham, Brooklyn, Cardozo, etc. But I think the overall point on law firms stands - it's become a far more haves and have nots profession as the last 50 years have evolved. Just look at the distribution of starting salaries - new graduates are either making top 50 associate money or they're making vastly less. That sort of distribution simply didn't exist before, when salaries were also bunched closer together, even though law schools assume everyone will be paid at that scale. It's also a much greater rat race. For all that we have our $1000 phones, we use them - 20 years ago when you were out of the office, you were not available. The last time I was genuinely not available to clients was when I went to Zimbabwe years ago. And clients expect that availability. The salaries are higher, the time commitments are greater, the opportunities for upward progression are less certain. Again, it's concentration at the top.

I will add, I find the notion that partners have it easy pretty ridiculous; most law firms are now run in ways that are somewhat similar to banks - lower performing partners get weeded out too. And relatively quickly. For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

I actually agree with much of what you said. I'm glad your reference time was last 50 years. My point has been that millenials in general do not have only doom and gloom before them, while the rest of us Gen-Xers (me), Boomers (Howard, Neal, et al) and Silencieos (I don't know what this is), somehow have had a cakewalk. It's been great, and it's been brutal. My career has gone through three recessions, including the so-called great one, 9/11 and the Dot.com bust. That's been some serious shit. And while we are accused of having taken or abused opportunity, we have also created lots of opportunities - the numbers don't lie re: law firm growth and starting salaries.

All law firms are different, but I have grown up under a system were expectations on law firm productivity are much higher on partners than what's expected of associates. Yes, our comp is higher, but in general, we also work more. We are also 100% at risk. In my group, the lowest billing partner out-billed in terms of raw billable hours, the highest billing associate. We do, however, have a strong group of associates, and I should add, paralegals and secretaries. Every single person adds major value in the delivery of client services, and are compensated accordingly.

I cannot speak to starting salaries at smaller firms, but what are we talking about? Isn't that comp still generally quite decent? The public defender's office in Orlando starts at 60k. A young couple in their mid-20s pulling down 120k in Orlando ain't suffering. Any disparity between big law and regular law firms - and yes I'm sure that exists - isn't that prevalent in all professional services or business? The question for any new graduate is, do you really want to work those hours to make X, or are you willing to settle for less and have more life balance? When presented, it's a Faustian choice.

As far as work, are you referring to billable work or work generally? If you're billing more than associates, that's not what big NYC firms would want to see. When you add in non-billable activity, it may be true. Also depends on the type of work.

As far as starting salaries, this is the graph I'm referring to: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/07 ... log480.jpg. That's not a typical or normal labor market.

[Howard Cooper]

For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

That was me. Note that firing associates and firing partners aren’t mutually exclusive. A firm can do both. My point was about what’s changed over the last 30 years. Take a look at the New York Times stories about firms that fired associates in the early 90s. It was shocking that firms would do that and it took years for those firms to recover reputationally among recruits. In 2009, basically every firm laid off associates. It was just seen as part of the business.
A

I remember lots of firms firing associates in the early 90s. It was far from rare. The firm I worked for at the time (I was an associate when it happened) certainly fired associates and did not make any partners for two years. I was extremely lucky that I was up for partner the next year when the firm was anxious to make partners after two years of not having done so.

And, certainly firms get rid of partners, although it is not always terribly public. A lot of firms get rid of partners by cutting their income dramatically and letting them leave "voluntarily." Or, they give the partners a few months to find a new position. When the partners leave, nonpartners at the firm wonder why some partners are jumping ship. This has been going on as long as I can remember.

[Howard Cooper]

Also, while law school tuitions are unbelievably high these days, even by college standards, the law student who can get jobs for the summer at major law firms make quite a bit of money that they can use to offset a portion of the cost. I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

And where does discrimination fit in to the hiring practices of said firms? When someone is a top tier student from a top tier law school but they are possibly short, biracial or a race that doesn't fir in to the office scheme, doesn't look like model material, and they don't get these fantastic offers? These students do not go to the major firms to be able to begin paying back their student loans. What is the percentage of students who can get these summer jobs...10-20%?

Most firms I know of are anxious to hire well qualified women and minority candidates, particularly at summer associate and associate positions. They get quizzed a lot by clients as to the make up of the firm and can lose business if the firm is all white and male. Promoting women and minorities to partner positions have been a bigger issue at a lot of larger firms (although this is improving from what I saw), but at summer associate or associate levels, there certainly are opportunities.


I have no idea what the percentage of students are who get summer jobs in top firms. Never looked at this. But, certainly, too many kids go to law school today. It you are taking on a lot of debt and you are not going to a top law school or one of the better public law schools in your state, you are taking a huge risk. People need to take some responsibility for the decisions they make. Yes, not all lawyers are going to make huge money. There are no guarantees in the legal business, nor should there be. Frankly, there are a lot of lawyers who cannot do the more complicated types of work done at a big firm. I have had associates working for me that just were not good enough. So, the work goes to the better associates, the lesser associates get less work and eventually are fired for insufficient hours, which often translates into nobody wanted to work with you.

Do you think all lawyers should get big money? Even if they are not good lawyers?

[Howard Cooper]

Your 2009 example Is a tough one. It was the height of the recession. Most business had to lay off or die. We leaned out but only letting go those associates and partners that really didn't perform during the good times, so why carry them during the bad times?

Yes, 2008 and 2009 was unbelievable hard. The firm I was a partner in closed down near the end of 2008 and I really did not get paid much in 2008 - there is downside risk as well as upside risk for partners. Fortunately, our group was able to move to another law firm in what ended up as a great move for me personally, but times were really bad in 2008.


But, times were also really bad in around 1980 or so when I was first starting out (I was in the government for a few years then so was somewhat isolated from this, but friends were not), in the early 1990s and in the early 2000s.

[Howard Cooper]

I generally agree with you that firms hire from local schools, in the same way that my firm hires from Fordham, Brooklyn, Cardozo, etc. But I think the overall point on law firms stands - it's become a far more haves and have nots profession as the last 50 years have evolved. Just look at the distribution of starting salaries - new graduates are either making top 50 associate money or they're making vastly less. That sort of distribution simply didn't exist before, when salaries were also bunched closer together, even though law schools assume everyone will be paid at that scale. It's also a much greater rat race. For all that we have our $1000 phones, we use them - 20 years ago when you were out of the office, you were not available. The last time I was genuinely not available to clients was when I went to Zimbabwe years ago. And clients expect that availability. The salaries are higher, the time commitments are greater, the opportunities for upward progression are less certain. Again, it's concentration at the top.

I will add, I find the notion that partners have it easy pretty ridiculous; most law firms are now run in ways that are somewhat similar to banks - lower performing partners get weeded out too. And relatively quickly. For whoever posted (not you Robert) that partners would rather fire all the 26 year olds than lower comp - that puts a ton of pressure on partners. And partners are more expensive, so are sometimes easier to get rid of than associates.

I actually agree with much of what you said. I'm glad your reference time was last 50 years. My point has been that millenials in general do not have only doom and gloom before them, while the rest of us Gen-Xers (me), Boomers (Howard, Neal, et al) and Silencieos (I don't know what this is), somehow have had a cakewalk. It's been great, and it's been brutal. My career has gone through three recessions, including the so-called great one, 9/11 and the Dot.com bust. That's been some serious shit. And while we are accused of having taken or abused opportunity, we have also created lots of opportunities - the numbers don't lie re: law firm growth and starting salaries.

All law firms are different, but I have grown up under a system were expectations on law firm productivity are much higher on partners than what's expected of associates. Yes, our comp is higher, but in general, we also work more. We are also 100% at risk. In my group, the lowest billing partner out-billed in terms of raw billable hours, the highest billing associate. We do, however, have a strong group of associates, and I should add, paralegals and secretaries. Every single person adds major value in the delivery of client services, and are compensated accordingly.

I cannot speak to starting salaries at smaller firms, but what are we talking about? Isn't that comp still generally quite decent? The public defender's office in Orlando starts at 60k. A young couple in their mid-20s pulling down 120k in Orlando ain't suffering. Any disparity between big law and regular law firms - and yes I'm sure that exists - isn't that prevalent in all professional services or business? The question for any new graduate is, do you really want to work those hours to make X, or are you willing to settle for less and have more life balance? When presented, it's a Faustian choice.

As far as work, are you referring to billable work or work generally? If you're billing more than associates, that's not what big NYC firms would want to see. When you add in non-billable activity, it may be true. Also depends on the type of work.

As far as starting salaries, this is the graph I'm referring to: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/07 ... log480.jpg. That's not a typical or normal labor market.

What exactly is your point here? Some attorneys are worth a whole lot more money than are other attorneys? Should all attorneys be paid the same?

I would expect to see similar salary disparities between MBAs who go to work for investment banks vs. MBAs who go to work for operating businesses; Drs who are say radiologists vs. internists; engineers going to work in silicon valley vs. engineers who get jobs for the local county; etc.; etc.; etc.

[Greg K]

I actually agree with much of what you said. I'm glad your reference time was last 50 years. My point has been that millenials in general do not have only doom and gloom before them, while the rest of us Gen-Xers (me), Boomers (Howard, Neal, et al) and Silencieos (I don't know what this is), somehow have had a cakewalk. It's been great, and it's been brutal. My career has gone through three recessions, including the so-called great one, 9/11 and the Dot.com bust. That's been some serious shit. And while we are accused of having taken or abused opportunity, we have also created lots of opportunities - the numbers don't lie re: law firm growth and starting salaries.

All law firms are different, but I have grown up under a system were expectations on law firm productivity are much higher on partners than what's expected of associates. Yes, our comp is higher, but in general, we also work more. We are also 100% at risk. In my group, the lowest billing partner out-billed in terms of raw billable hours, the highest billing associate. We do, however, have a strong group of associates, and I should add, paralegals and secretaries. Every single person adds major value in the delivery of client services, and are compensated accordingly.

I cannot speak to starting salaries at smaller firms, but what are we talking about? Isn't that comp still generally quite decent? The public defender's office in Orlando starts at 60k. A young couple in their mid-20s pulling down 120k in Orlando ain't suffering. Any disparity between big law and regular law firms - and yes I'm sure that exists - isn't that prevalent in all professional services or business? The question for any new graduate is, do you really want to work those hours to make X, or are you willing to settle for less and have more life balance? When presented, it's a Faustian choice.

As far as work, are you referring to billable work or work generally? If you're billing more than associates, that's not what big NYC firms would want to see. When you add in non-billable activity, it may be true. Also depends on the type of work.

As far as starting salaries, this is the graph I'm referring to: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/07 ... log480.jpg. That's not a typical or normal labor market.

What exactly is your point here? Some attorneys are worth a whole lot more money than are other attorneys? Should all attorneys be paid the same?

I don’t understand how you got that impression, to be honest. This was in furtherance of my point that the legal world has polarized further and further in recent years. But only a relatively small percentage of graduates will make that salary, even though law school is so much more expensive even than when I graduated 15 years ago.

[Greg K]

Also, while law school tuitions are unbelievably high these days, even by college standards, the law student who can get jobs for the summer at major law firms make quite a bit of money that they can use to offset a portion of the cost. I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

And where does discrimination fit in to the hiring practices of said firms? When someone is a top tier student from a top tier law school but they are possibly short, biracial or a race that doesn't fir in to the office scheme, doesn't look like model material, and they don't get these fantastic offers? These students do not go to the major firms to be able to begin paying back their student loans. What is the percentage of students who can get these summer jobs...10-20%?

Most firms I know of are anxious to hire well qualified women and minority candidates, particularly at summer associate and associate positions. They get quizzed a lot by clients as to the make up of the firm and can lose business if the firm is all white and male. Promoting women and minorities to partner positions have been a bigger issue at a lot of larger firms (although this is improving from what I saw), but at summer associate or associate levels, there certainly are opportunities.

Agreed. Minority hiring, retention and promotion is a massive priority for firms today. It remains hard for various reasons.

[Robert.A.Jr.]

As far as work, are you referring to billable work or work generally? If you're billing more than associates, that's not what big NYC firms would want to see. When you add in non-billable activity, it may be true. Also depends on the type of work.

We only track billable. Raw billables.

Not what we want to see either, but let's not kid ourselves, when Associate X is hitting that end of the cycle when partnership potentially becomes a talking point, this is a negative factor for X. And business development.

I know Greg knows this well, but worth mentioning generally: An Ivy league law school grad is not necessarily better than a top-performing state school grad. Many of these students went to the state school over a top-25 ranked school because of cost, geographic considerations, or got a better scholarship. Many of these state school grads - at least in the South where we don't have any top-10 law schools (I think Duke, Emory and Vandy are the highest ranked) - have greater connectivity to the community and perhaps better prospects to develop business. More times than not, the top state school grad who grew up in the community in which he/she ends up working, will develop business quicker than the Ivy grad that moved to a new town with no connections. We've had many examples like this where the grad that looked better on paper and in interviews - perhaps even a few IQ points higher - was decidedly not the better lawyer, and never ereally developed business.

Funny enough, we have also hired young laterals from monster firms like Jones Day, them seeking to move from NYC to Orlando or one of our other Florida offices, for a better quality of life, and they are outpaced by those associates that started with us. Some of these big city monster firms have first years doing glorified paralegal work. Two or so years into that path, and you are behind the curve for the short and near-term. The difference is quite noticeable.

[Matthew King]

This is why I love WB. I never thought I’d learn so much about the vagaries of the Seattle real estate market or law firm hiring practices in a single thread ostensibly about wine habits!

[Justin S]

I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

Yes, summers usually get paid the same as first-year associates on a pro-rated weekly basis. I think it's $190k a year these days in big law (up about $30k from 10 years ago). Of course, that goes a heck of a lot further in Houston than it does in New York. Also, while starting compensation is broadly similar across big law firms, the magnitude of raises as associates climb the ranks diverges significantly. Law students tend to focus too much on starting salary, and less on things like overall compensation through the years, combined with the realistic opportunity to climb the ranks.


Anyway, back on topic. My sense is that there are more ways to spend money than ever before. Why would someone who is only modestly into wine buy anything over $30 / bottle when (1) they perceive the less expensive wine to be good enough, (2) there are lots of alternatives to wine like beer, cocktails, etc., and (3) wine can be difficult to understand w/o investing time into researching it and cutting through some of the pretentiousness. Remember that Vox video where the people surveyed preferred the $9 bottle to the $45 one? On the other hand, your average person can pick out an expensive car from an inexpensive one just by looking at it.

[Richard T r i m p i]

Lawyers now ruining wine as well.

RT

[Robert.A.Jr.]

Lawyers now ruining wine as well.

RT

And cycling!

Waiting until you come back down to ride again. Gonna put the spank on you worse than an invoice!

[Richard T r i m p i]

Lawyers ruining wines and bikes...but they sure do love their invoices! Can't imagine the damage you'd do if you were a millennial.

RT

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

Also, while law school tuitions are unbelievably high these days, even by college standards, the law student who can get jobs for the summer at major law firms make quite a bit of money that they can use to offset a portion of the cost. I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

Law clerks?!? Summer positions paying that much?!? You realize that's equivalent to $150k - $200k per year, right? As a student law clerk?!? LOL!!

[Howard Cooper]

Also, while law school tuitions are unbelievably high these days, even by college standards, the law student who can get jobs for the summer at major law firms make quite a bit of money that they can use to offset a portion of the cost. I have not followed this that closely, but I would think that summer associates at large firms might be making $3,000-$4,000 a week, depending on location.

Law clerks?!? Summer positions paying that much?!? You realize that's equivalent to $150k - $200k per year, right? As a student law clerk?!? LOL!!

Depending on location, top law firms pay 1st year associates $150,000 to $200,000 a year. Summer associates I believe are generally paid on the same scale. As others have said, this is only true for people at top firms, not people at all firms.

Junior associates in today's world are not that profitable as a decent amount of their time has to be written off because they do not know what they are doing. More senior associates are much more profitable as salaries are somewhat compressed for associates, again depending on the firm, location, bonuses, etc.

[Craig G]

Lawyers now ruining wine as well.

Since 1978!

[Howard Cooper]

This was in furtherance of my point that the legal world has polarized further and further in recent years.

The legal world has been polarized at the partner level for a long, long time - all of my career at least. But, for starting salaries, the polarization increased a lot in the 1990s when investment banking firms started going after top law students and big law firms had to increase starting salaries to compete. When I was first starting in 1980, DC law firms were paying about $30,000 to 1st year attorneys, while the Federal government was paying around $22,000, a much smaller differential than today. But, governmental salaries topped out while law firm salaries did not.


We should probably stop discussing law firm economics and go back to discussing how much prices have gone up for Bordeaux, Burgundy, California wines, Barolos, etc.