Monday, September 27, 2004
OxyContin Defendant, Using Insurance Policies to Defend, Consumes Multiples of Coverage Limits
Judge refuses to permit insurer to tender limits to avoid defense obligation
Lisa Siegel
The Connecticut Law Tribune
09-27-2004
Due to Purdue Pharma's "take no prisoners" stance in hundreds of OxyContin product liability suits across the country, the company has yet to pay 1 cent to plaintiffs. But now, at least one insurer is trying to litigate a way out of paying the multimillion-dollar legal bills created by those aggressive defense tactics. In a first-impression ruling in Connecticut, Judge Taggart D. Adams has blocked Steadfast Insurance's bid to limit damages related to suits over the controversial painkiller.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Dykema Launches Mideast Practice Initiative
New Practice Features Alliance with Fahmy Hudome International and Haveman Group to Assist Businesses with Inbound and Outbound Opportunities Involving the Middle East
Dykema Gossett Press Release 9/20/04
Dykema Gossett has formed a Mideast Practice Initiative that will advise businesses and individuals seeking to do business in the Middle East, as well as Middle Eastern companies seeking US opportunities. The new practice has formed an alliance with consulting firms Fahmy Hudome International, which focuses on government affairs and international energy issues and the Haveman Group, which specializes in healthcare.
In response to increased business opportunities involving the Middle East, Dykema Gossett PLLC, a Midwest law firm, today announced the formation of a Mideast Practice Initiative that will advise businesses and private individuals seeking to do business in the Middle East, as well as Middle Eastern companies and investors seeking inbound U.S. opportunities.
Judy Jenkins, of counsel in Dykema Gossett’s Washington, D.C. office, focuses on antitrust and trade regulations matters, government contracts law and international trade. She is Dykema's point person on this initiative. Previously Ms. Jenkins served as a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI).
Leveraging the firm’s highly regarded Government Policy Department, Dykema Gossett has formed a strategic alliance with Fahmy Hudome International, a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on government affairs and international energy issues, and the Haveman Group, a consulting and government relations firm specializing in healthcare and based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Bullish on Settling
With proven cost savings, why hasn't Toro's settlement program been adopted by more companies, especially its competitors?
Ashby Jones
Corporate Counsel
09-24-2004
While resolving cases before legal expenses pile up isn't exactly a novel strategy, few companies in recent memory have pushed product liability settlements as aggressively and systematically as Toro. The $1.5 billion business uses a highly choreographed approach that includes nonthreatening paralegals, experienced settlement counsel and mediators familiar with Toro's preference for early case resolution. Thanks to the program, Toro says it will save $100 million in litigation costs by mid-2005.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
House Moves to Crack Down on Frivolous Lawsuits
Jim Abrams
The Associated Press
09-15-2004
Citing support by Democratic contenders John Kerry and John Edwards for sanctions against lawyers who abuse the system, House Republicans pushed through legislation Tuesday aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits. Most Democrats were not persuaded, saying the bill went too far. The bill prevents forum shopping, in which attorneys seek courts known for huge damage awards, and sets a one-year license suspension if a lawyer files three or more frivolous cases in one jurisdiction.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
PROFITS PER PARTNER UP 6.6% IN U.S. LAW FIRMS NEW SURVEY REPORTS
Newtown Square, PA, July 27, 2004 — The newly released Altman Weil Survey of Law Firm Economics, 2004 edition reports equity partners in U.S. law firms earned an average $319,000 in 2003, a 6.6% increase from the previous year.
“This is a challenging time to be a lawyer,” commented Altman Weil’s Bill Brennan. “Intense and ever-increasing competition combined with the recessionary economy of 2003 caused firms to struggle to maintain profitability.
But despite those challenges, executive management teams in law firms were able to produce small increases in net profits. The enhanced performance was generated by slightly increased billing rates, good control of expenses and a movement to de-equitize marginal partners. This is quite an achievement, and a tangible payoff for law firms that have invested in professional managers with significant business experience.”
Revenue and Expenses
On a per lawyer basis, law firm revenues increased 4% between 2002 and 2003, while expenses increased just slightly more by 4.2% overall, both up at about twice the rate of inflation. Increased revenue was due primarily to increased billing rates.
Substantially increased spending on paralegals (13%), occupancy (9.8%) and malpractice insurance (20.8%) accounted for a large portion of the increase in expenses. Expenses would have been significantly higher if not for modest increases in a number of areas including staff, reference materials, and other expenses.
The Survey reports dramatic fluctuations in revenue and expenses regionally. Law firms in the North East, Middle Atlantic and Pacific regions reported double digit increases in revenues and expenses. In contrast, law firms in the Mid-West and Mountain regions of the country reported a modest decline in revenue per lawyer, as well as a decrease in costs.
Billing Rates
The median hourly billing rate for 25-29 year partners was $294/hour in 2003, representing a 7.3% increase over last year’s reported rate. Five-year associates billed a median $203/hour, up 7.4% according to the Survey. The Consumer Price Index rose 2% in the same time period.
Rates varied in direct relation to size of firm. Partners with over 20 years experience, in law firms with 41-75 lawyers, billed a median $250/hour in 2003. Their counterparts in firms with more than 150 lawyers had a median billing rate of $330/hour.
Billable Hours
Billable hours for partners and associates were down slightly from 2002, according to the Survey. Partners with 25-29 years in practice worked a median 1,703 hours, just 2% less than the previous year, while 5-year associates reported median hours of 1851, down 1.6%.
Survey trend analysis reveals that billable hours for experienced associates are virtually unchanged since 1985, having risen a negligible .7%. In the same time period, partners in practice for 25-29 years have increased the number of hours they work by 10.7%.
“Partners have learned a hard truth in a maturing legal services market,” noted Altman Weil principal Jim Cotterman. “The owners of the business must produce more legal work, and more of their own income.”
Compensation
The Survey reports modest compensation increases for all lawyer categories in 2003. The median total compensation for all law firm partners rose 5.3%; with senior partners with 25-29 years in practice reporting a median 5.8% increase, while partners with 9 years experience reported a 3.9% rise. Non-equity partners reported the highest gain in total compensation, up 8.4% from 2002. Associate compensation rose 6.1%, and starting salaries to new graduates were up 4.3%.
The most highly paid practice specialties for litigation partners in law firms in 2003 were Securities, IP and Tax. In non-litigation practice, IP, Municipal Finance and International specialists led with the highest median total compensation numbers.
The Survey
The Survey of Law Firm Economics has been published annually since 1972 by Altman Weil Publications, a subsidiary of Altman Weil, Inc., a legal management consultancy headquartered in suburban Philadelphia. The Survey reports on law firm revenues and expenses, billable hours, overhead, margin, billing rates, leverage, compensation and more. It enables law firms to compare performance data with peer firms in similar size, geographic area and practice category.
This year’s Survey contains information from 19,740 lawyers from 348 U.S. law firms, including 10,077 partners/shareholders, 8,280 associates and 977 active counsel. Data was collected in the spring of 2004 and reports 2003 performance.
The Survey can be purchased for $755 from Altman Weil Publications. The Altman Weil Small Law Firm Economic Survey, which contains data from participating firms with one to fifteen lawyers, is available for $415. Orders and inquiries can be made by calling 888-782-7297 toll free or by visiting the firm’s online store at https://store.altmanweil.com.
Altman Weil Publications conducts and publishes numerous surveys of the legal profession including the Managing Partner and Executive Director Survey, the Retirement and Withdrawal Survey for Private Law Firms and the Survey of Compensation Systems in Private Law Firms. For additional information visit www.altmanweil.com.
Contact(s):
William F. Brennan
Consultant
Altman Weil, Inc.
610.886.2000
bbrennan@altmanweil.com
###
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Snell & Wilmer Attorney Kandace Richardson Appointed as Ambassador for the ABA
Snell & Wilmer announced today that attorney Kandace Richardson has been appointed an Ambassador for the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Business Law for the 2004-2006 bar year. Richardson is one of only five business attorneys selected from across the nation to participate in this prestigious program. The ABA Business Law Section's Ambassador Program is intended to develop future Section leaders among attorneys.
Richardson, who had been practicing law in California since 1998, joined Snell & Wilmer's Phoenix office in December 2003 as a business law attorney. She was recently named to the board of directors for the Hayzel B. Daniels Bar Association. Richardson received her B.A. in mathematics with highest honors from the Hampton University in 1994, she then earned her juris doctor with honors from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law in 1997.
Richardson is an experienced practitioner, having represented various businesses ranging from start up and emerging growth to Fortune 1000 companies. She advises management teams on capital raising transactions, public offerings, mergers and acquisitions licensing, Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance, corporate governance and best practices for boards of directors, executive stock transactions and selling plans, analysts conference calls and press releases, strategic alliances and commercial transactions.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
PATRICIA LEE REFO NAMED CHAIR OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S AMERICAN JURY PROJECT
ABA Public Opinion Poll directs focus of new ABA President
PHOENIX (August 27, 2004) –Incoming American Bar Association (ABA) President Robert J. Grey Jr. (formerly a partner at Network member firm LeClair Ryan in Richmond, Virginia) named Snell & Wilmer partner Patricia Lee Refo Chair of The American Jury Project, an initiative to produce a single set of modern jury standards the ABA can propose as a model, which the new president launched upon the commencement of this leadership term for the national legal association.
Grey announced that his term would focus on "creating better justice through better juries." The American Jury Project is one of two such initiatives. In addition, a blue ribbon Commission on American Jury was launched to “work on ways to improve the response rate to summons by strengthening Americans’ understanding that the system they so respect works only when they are actively involved.” Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is serving as honorary co-chair of the Commission, which is begin headed by three co-chairs.
This reform effort comes as a new public opinion poll, released earlier this month by the American Bar Association, reveals that Americans have a profound belief and trust in the jury system, and disproves the popular notion that Americans consider jury duty to be a burden to be avoided. Grey stated, "If we are to sustain Americans' respect for the jury system, the legal profession must take steps to move the jury experience into the 21st Century."
Refo, who is the outgoing chair of the ABA Section of Litigation, is a partner with Snell & Wilmer's Phoenix office. She focuses her practice on complex business litigation, with an emphasis on litigation for financial institutions, professional malpractice defense, class actions, trade secret litigation and commercial and business torts. She has been actively involved with the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association for more than 15 years.
Refo also serves, by the appointment of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States Judicial Conference. She is a member of the Faculty of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, and has taught trial advocacy programs across the United States, in Argentina and in Hong Kong. Refo earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School and received her B.A. from the University of Michigan.
The American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership association in the world. With more than 400,000 members, the ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public.
The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts
Marc Galanter
TO APPEAR IN THE JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, VOL. 1, NO. 3 (NOVEMBER 2004)
Article in ABA's The Journal Of The Section Of Litigation, Volume 30, No. 2, Winter 2004
Study prepared as a working paper for the ABA Section of Litigation Symposium on the Vanishing Trial, held in San Francisco, Dec. 12-14, 2003. The Vanishing Trials Project began with the initiative and support of Robert Clifford, then chair of the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association, continued with the support of his successor Scott Atlas, and came to fruition under the guidance of chair Patricia Refo.
Table 1. Civil Trials in U.S. District Courts at Ten-year intervals, 1962-2002
Figure 1. Number of Civil Trials in U.S. District Courts, by Bench or Jury, 1962-2002
Figure 2. Percentage of Civil Terminations During/ After Trial in U.S. District
Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 3. Percentage of Civil Cases Reaching Trial Resolved During Trial in U.S. District Courts, 1988-2202
Figure 4. Tort and Contract Trials in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 5. Civil Rights Trials in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Table 2. Inmate Population and Civil Rights Filings in U.S. District Courts, 1970-2001
Figure 6. Prisoner Petitions Filed in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 7. Prisoner Petition Trials in U.S. District Courts, by Bench or Jury, 1962-2002
Figure 8. Case Type as Portion of Total Civil Trials in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 9. Total Civil Consent Cases Terminated by Magistrate Judges in U.S.
District Courts, 1982-2002
Figure 10. Total Civil Consent Trials Before Magistrate Judges in U.S. District
Courts, 1979-2002
Figure 11. Proportion of Civil Trials of a Given Length in U.S. District Courts, 1965-2002
Figure 12. Number of Civil Trials of a Given Length in U.S. District Courts, 1965-2002
Figure 13. Median Time (in months) From Filing to Disposition by Stage at which Terminated, Civil Cases in U.S. District Courts, 1963-2002
Figure 14. Number of Civil Cases Terminating at Each Stage in U.S. District Courts, 1963-2002
Figure 15. Percentage of Civil Cases Terminating at Each Stage in U.S. District Courts, 1963-2002
Figure 16. Number of Civil Filings by Jurisdictional Basis in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 17. Number of Civil Filings by Case Type in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 18. Case Type as Relative Portion of Civil Filings in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 19. Per Capita Civil Filings in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 20. Civil Filings per Billion Dollars of Gross Domestic Product in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002 (in 1996 Chained Dollars)
Figure 21. Total Class Actions Filed, U.S. District Courts, 1978-2002
Figure 22. Class Action Filings by Case Type, U.S. District Courts, 1978-2002
Figure 23. Criminal Defendant Dispositions in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 24. Criminal Defendant Dispositions by Bench and Jury in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 25. Number of Criminal Defendant Dispositions by Trial, by Case Type – Drugs, Violent Crimes & Fraud in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 26. Proportion of Criminal Trials of a Given Length in U.S. District Courts, 1965-2002
Figure 27. Number of Criminal Trials of a Given Length in U.S. District Courts, 1965-2002
Figure 28. Adversary Proceedings, Terminated During/After Trial, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, 1985-2002
Figure 29. Civil Filings per Sitting Judge in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 30. Article III Judgeships in U.S. Appellate and District Courts, 1962-2002
Table 3. Non-Article III Judgeships and Other Employees of U.S. Judiciary, 1962-2002
Figure 31. Federal Judiciary Expenditures in Thousands of Chain-type (1996) Dollars and Federal Judiciary Spending as a Percentage of Government Expenditures, 1962-2002
Table 4. Civil Trials in Courts of General Jurisdiction in Twenty-Two States, 1976-2001
Figure 32. Civil Trials as Percentage of Dispositions in 22 State Courts of General Jurisdiction, 1976-2002
Table 5. Contract, Tort and Real Property Trials (Combined) in Courts of General Jurisdiction in Nine States (and Puerto Rico), 1992-2002
Table 6. Number of Trials in U.S. District Courts, in Two Sets of State Courts of General Jurisdiction and in Bankruptcy Courts 1992-2001
Table 7. Criminal Trials in Courts of General Jurisdiction in Twenty-Two States (and D.C. and Puerto Rico), 1976-2002
Table 8. Felony Trials in Courts of General Jurisdiction in Eleven States (and D.C. and Puerto Rico), 1976-2002
Figure 33. Number of Civil and Criminal Trials per Sitting Judge in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 34. Number of Bench and Jury Civil Trials per Sitting Judge, 1962-2002
Figure 35. Approximate Number of Lawyers in the United States, 1970-2002
Figure 36. Lawyers Per Capita in the United States, 1970-2002
Figure 37. Per Capita Civil Trials in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Figure 38. Per Capita Civil Trials in Courts of General Jurisdiction in 22 States, 1976-2002
Figure 39. Civil Trials per Billion Dollars of Gross Domestic Product in U.S. District Courts, 1962-2002
Monday, September 06, 2004
Where Have All the Trials Gone?
Joseph Basta
Dykema Gossett
Litigation Law Developments — August 2004
Despite media publicity about a national litigation explosion, trial lawyers for more than a decade have sensed the steady development of the opposite phenomenon: there seem to be fewer civil trials, both in federal and state courts. “Litigators” are replacing “trial lawyers.” Now there is empirical evidence to support the suspicions of the trial bar and debunk the media hype.
The Litigation Section of the American Bar Association sponsored a symposium on “The Vanishing Trial” in December, 2003 to study the apparent decrease in trials. The working paper for the symposium was “The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts,” written by Marc Galanter, Law Professor at the University of Wisconsin. Galanter’s study documented an alarming decrease in civil trials, both in federal and state courts. Galanter tracked federal court filing statistics from 1962–2002.
He found that, although yearly dispositions had increased five-fold from 50,000 to 258,000 cases during that time period, the number of civil trials in 2002 was 20% lower than the number in 1962; 4,569 trials in 2002, 5,802 trials in 1962. Even though filings had increased dramatically over 40 years—no doubt reflecting more laws, more lawyers, and more social complexity— dispositions by trial were less than one-sixth of what they had been in 1962. Trial lawyers used to tell clients 1 in 10 cases went to trial, now it is closer to 2 in 100 cases. And most of the fall-off has occurred in the last 15 years.
Data from state courts around the country are more spotty but nevertheless reflect the trend now documented in federal courts. Statistics compiled from 22 states, including Michigan and California (where, among other states, Dykema Gossett has offices) from 1976 to 2001 show trials as a percentage of dispositions declining from 34% in 1976 to 18% in 2001. Yet total dispositions—reflecting an increase in filings—tripled over that same time period.
Why the decrease in trials nationally? Galanter’s study has a tougher time ascribing cause than it does tracking the phenomenon itself. Explanations include the departure of cases to other forums, diversion to alternative dispute resolution, the sheer expense of trial, and the discretion of trial judges to effect dispositions short of trial.
Similarly, the effects of the trial implosion are as yet uncertain. A decrease in trials means the system looses it historic benchmark for resolving many disputes: “What would a jury do?” Commentators now see a profusion of legal doctrine developing independent of trials. Indeed, many settlements already seem to
have lost their real-world connection, particularly in class actions, which the parties almost never take to trial. And fewer trials means fewer experienced trial lawyers to help clients decide when they should take the risk of trial and how to manage that risk once taken. Inexperienced trial counsel simply may be less likely to advise clients to opt for trial.
In absolute numbers, trials are not yet an endangered species nationally. But the marked decrease in trials over the last 15 years is sure to have an impact on our system of justice in the decade ahead; exactly what impact no one knows with any certainty.
For more information, contact Joseph Basta at (734) 214-7665 or jbasta@dykema.com.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Eight Tips for Drafting Better Arbitration Clauses
Kathryn J. Humphrey
Dykema Gossett
Litigation Law Developments — August 2004
Do you have a typical arbitration clause that you like to use in your contracts?
Consider these eight ways of improving the prospective agreement to arbitrate a dispute:
1. How should the question of enforceability of an arbitration agreement be resolved? The arbitration clause can so specify, but only if written in clear and unmistakable language. For example: “In the event of any claim that this arbitration agreement is invalid or is not enforceable by the arbitrators, the arbitrators shall determine whether the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. The parties agree that this determination, often reserved for the courts, is hereby submitted to the arbitrators.”
2. How should dispositive legal questions be resolved? The arbitrators could be authorized to determine the equivalent of motions for summary judgment, but the award could be overturned because of the failure of the arbitrators to hear evidence that otherwise would be relevant to the claim or defense. If you believe that the ability to bring a dispositive motion would be useful, despite this risk, include in your arbitration agreement a sentence indicating that, for example, “the arbitrators may hear and determine any preliminary issue of law asserted by a party as dispositive, to the same extent that a court could hear and determine a motion for summary disposition.”
3. Should the matter be heard by one or three arbitrators? How should they be selected? You should consider this, and specify your ideal in the agreement. Example: “Within ___ days after the commencement of arbitration, each party shall select one person to act as arbitrator and the two selected shall select a third within ten days of their appointment. If the arbitrators selected by the parties are unable or fail to agree upon arbitrator, the third arbitrator shall be selected by the American Arbitration Association.”
4. Do you expect preliminary relief to be available, before the determination of the full claim? The Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association permit preliminary relief. (These are called the “Emergency Interim Relief Procedures” of those Rules.) They permit the holding of monies in escrow, the issuance of an injunction, and other means necessary to preserve the status quo. However, if you anticipate that preliminary relief may be necessary, it will speed the matter if the arbitration agreement explicitly permits a party to apply to the arbitrators for that preliminary relief. Example: “Either party may apply to the arbitrator seeking injunctive relief until the arbitration award is rendered or the controversy is otherwise resolved. Either party also, without waiving any remedy under this agreement, may seek from any court having jurisdiction any interim or provisional relief that is necessary to protect the rights or property of that party, pending the establishment of the arbitration tribunal.” Remember, too, that arbitrators proceed carefully with great attention to their authority to do anything beyond the typical award. If you want the flexibility to ask the panel to modify preliminary relief after deciding the whole claim, include that in the arbitration agreement. For example: “Either party may apply to the arbitrator to modify a ruling for preliminary relief before or concurrently with the arbitration hearing.”
5. Does the choice of law matter to you? If so, provide that “This agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of [jurisdiction].”
6. What remedies are available to the arbitrators for determining the full claims and defenses? For example, the parties may agree that the arbitrators can award equitable relief, attorney fees, punitive damages, compensatory damages only, pre-award interest, liquidated damages, a high/low determination, etc. They may agree to place a dollar limit on the award, or to specify a certain rate of pre-award interest (so long as it does not duplicate any pre-judgment interest awarded when the judgment is rendered by a court). Examples: “Any award in an arbitration initiated under this clause shall be limited to monetary damages and shall include no injunction or direction to any party other than the direction to pay a monetary amount.” “The arbitrators will have no authority to award punitive or other damages not measured by the prevailing party’s actual damages, except as may be required by statute.”
7. Are there issues of confidentiality that will arise during arbitration? If so, provide for the protection of trade secrets by means of a non-disclosure agreement, the imposition of liquidated damages, or other protection.
8. Are you concerned that the other party may run out of funds during the arbitration? Some clients have been in the frustrating position of having an opponent stop paying its share of the arbitration fees. That failure can result in a paralysis of the dispute: it stops dead in its tracks; there is no further arbitration and no award is entered. Consider including in the agreement a provision that states that “the failure by one party to pay its share of arbitration fees constitutes a waiver of the claim or defense in the arbitration,” or some similar language. For more language, and more considerations in drafting your arbitration clauses, consult “Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses—A Practical Guide” published by the American Arbitration Association.
For more information, contact Kathryn J. Humphrey at (313) 568-6484 or khumphrey@dykema.com.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Joining a Law Firm's Sales Force?
New York Lawyer
September 1, 2004
By Keith Griffin
The Connecticut Law Tribune
The NLJ Client List -- Who Defends Corporate America -- 2002
2004 NALP Survey of Associate Salaries
Entry-Level Associate Salaries Continue to Remain Stable in Large Firms
NALP completed its 10th annual comprehensive survey of associate compensation. 599 offices provided salary information as of April 1, 2004. 18% of responding firms had 50 or fewer attorneys and 27% had more than 500 attorneys.
The median salary for first-year associates ranged from $65,000 in firms of 2-25 attorneys to $120,000 in firms of 500 attorneys or more, with a first-year median for all participating firms of $95,000. A comparison with figures reported for the prior four years reveals that first-year salaries have remained stable in firms of 251 or more attorneys during this period, with a median of about $110,000. This is in sharp contrast to a 30% increase in the median, from April 1999 to April 2000. In some major cities, such as Los Angeles and New York City, as well as the Silicon Valley area, the prevailing salary of $125,000 for first-year associates in large firms has remained unchanged since April 2000. Salary stability at this level was last experienced almost a decade ago in the mid-nineties.
2004 Table of Survey Results:
