Related Posts
📉 unless you're a first year analyst
Pro
Bowl Leader
Hello all,
Can anyone at Pwc please refer me for the job in the link below:
https://www.naukri.com/job-listings-management-consulting-pharma-life-sciences-r-d-associate-pricewaterhouse-coopers-private-limited-bangalore-bengaluru-1-to-4-years-170621500558?utmcampaign=androidjd&utmsource=share&src=sharedjd
Thanks in advance! PwC
Additional Posts in Big Law
Mentor
Subject Expert
Mentor
Subject Expert
Coach
Coach
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Mentor
Sing it from the hilltops
Subject Expert
Two reminders, offered as context.
First, law firm pay is never about what’s fair or what any specific learner earned in an objective sense. For both partners and associates your firm pays people what it thinks is the lowest amount possible that’s consistent with avoiding excessive turnover and/or trouble attracting the type of applicants the firm needs. The only people who get premiums are new lateral partners and rainmakers whose departures could be destabilizing.
Second, there are many ways to game published PPP figures, and several incentives for firms to do so. Some firms undoubtedly really did achieve higher profitability last year. But at others the PPP you’re reading about was engineered.
Why not just make partner
Coach
Clients are less institutionalized and pretty much controled by a small group of rainmakers, so why would the priority not be boosting profits and paying these partners. If these partners leave the associates won't have jobs. This is very different than back when clients were owned by the firm and the associates and partners were similarly servicing firm clients. The value add by associates just is increasing at the same rate as profitability. It's not like you are 15% more valuable to the firm from last year. What is the business case for giving associates a greater share of profits?
Subject Expert
Just echoing others here: the very reason rainmakers exist is leverage- ie, the ability to leverage the labor of an army of associates. Rainmakers need associates to DO the work just as much as associates need rainmakers to BRING IN the work. Neither role is sufficient on its own. It only works because the relationship is symbiotic.
Coach
Go start your own firm then
Why don’t you try it and let us know how you fare
With AI breathing down our throats, I think these are the last of the associate comp golden years. I don't think we're going to see a total collapse of the lockstep comp system, but I think it will be much harder to break into, and we'll start seeing a lot more career attorney type roles (this is already happening). In other words, I don't see associates' slice of the pie growing exponentially ever again and wouldn't expect an increase just because those at the top continue to rise.
Seems to me like the biggest sufferers are the non equity partners…
Would like to see if equity partner numbers are going down, and whether this increase can be partly tied to the denominator (number of equity partners) going down.
Coach
This is the correct question. Equity partner numbers in amlaw is more or less flat nominally while NEP is soaring. You'll find that at nearly every firm PEP growth exceeds revenue growth, assuming revenue is growing. The easiest way to game PEP is less equity partners. And it doesn't even take much, since all you have to do is pay more partners at a fixed rate and do other things that don't affect things internally but allows for them to be considered NEP by amlaw standards.