Mintz Levin setting up shop in Toronto

[C_Terror]

3 minutes ago, helloall said:

I don't think this thread is giving Mintz enough credit. Littler, Cozen, and Dickinson all pay under the US market, and don't have the same level of clients as Mintz. Also, they poached some pretty big names - losing Cheryl Reicin is absolutely going to hurt Torys.

Losing Mike and Mitch is absolutely huge too. Torys is well known for their Canadian pensions and PE work on the street. If rumours are true that they brought along most of their clients, this means huge institutional funds. 

[KOMODO]

14 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Again, take this with dead sea level grains of salt, but what I've been seeing online and on Fishbowl is that 1st/2nd years in the US are billing out at 500-600 per hour, and their compensation is 215-225K. Canadian big law associates bill anywhere between 400-600 CAD per hour and they get paid 130-160K CAD.

I understand that the associate to partner ratio is skewed in Canada vs US, which just means that either (a) Canadian associates are much more productive than the US associates, or (b) a lot of Canadian big law partners are just  glorified senior associates. Either way you cut it, the partner level as a whole takes a bigger piece of the pie than the associates level in Canada. 

I don't doubt the PPP at US firms are significantly higher. My point was that PPP in Canada has gone up quite a bit (again, we have no hard data, but just based on the increase of revenue at the top firms), while associate base salaries hasn't even kept up with inflation since 2008. I understand the pricing structure is different, which is why I took out the $ and used ratios. My math should be correct, but my assumptions may be off, but shouldn't be by that much. Let's say a 3rd year US associate gets billed out at $650 USD an hour, and hits the target of 2000; that's $1,300,000 in revenue. 3rd year salary is $250,000 so the ratio is 5.2. Let's say an equivalent 2nd year Canadian associate (articling) gets billed out at $575 CAD and hits the target of 1800; that's $1,035,000 in revenue. 2nd year CA salary (non Davies/BJ) is $150,000, so the ratio is about 6.9.

I may be a little conservative here, but my ratio still stands. Let me know where you disagree on the rate assumptions. Also with regards to NY office space, if it's wildly more expensive than Canada, then that means that Canadian big law partners eat even more of the associate's salary share.

Yeah so I think this is not quite right:

• Like Rashabon already mentioned, NYC associates bill way more than Canadian associate, think 2000 hour averages vs. 1700 hour averages, I don't think 1800 would be the average. Using the lower end of your estimates, if NYC $500/hour*2000=$1M, then they're taking home less than a quarter, but remember that not everything you docket gets billed and collected, so it's complicated. In Toronto if $400/hour*1700=$680,000, they're taking home a pretty similar percentage (19% vs 21%) but again I think that's artificial as there are various write offs, special rates, etc. The way we bill in Canada is more likely (I think) to be subject to write offs and write downs than major US firms. Not even to mention the fact that there are many, many first year associates in Toronto not quite hitting target but still collecting normal salaries and I assume the same is true in various firms in the States, so all of these estimates make it look like partners are making more than they actually are.
• In your second point, I think you have it backwards. If a Toronto firm has 1 associate for each partner and the associate's pay is 1/3rd their collections (which is the traditional thinking - salary should be roughly 1/3 of collections, then 1/3 to overhead and 1/3 to the partnership), then the partner they work for is taking 1/3 their collections. If a New York firm has 5 associates for each partner and the pay for associates is 1/3rd their collections, the partner gets 5/3rds so they're doing massively better than their less leveraged counterpart.
• My sense anecdotally is that people assume partners in Canada make way more than they actually do, I'm not sure where the idea that PPP in Canada have increased dramatically comes from but I don't get the sense that is universal. You also have to consider that the pandemic year or two were boom times, so if you're basing your assumptions solely on that they're going to be skewed, if you look at a longer period including this year things are levelling off a bit.
• I think part of what you might be getting at is that it's easier to make (income) partner in Canada than in the States, which I would agree with. So maybe you mean to be analyzing this for equity partners only, which are more comparable? 

[BlockedQuebecois]

Go look up the compensation requests from S&C in the FTX matter. There are very fundamental differences between Canada’s billing structure and the US firms. To pick just a few examples: 

• S&C’s first year associates, who are the equivalent of articling students, bill out at $550/hour;
• Senior associates bill out for as much as $1475/hour – a rate that would make almost every bay street partner blush;
• Partners bill out at as much as 2300; and
• The total blended rate is $1450/hour.

It’s just a fundamentally different economic environment down south. 

With that said, I do think associates should get paid more in Canada. I just think that because I want to get paid more, not because I think the Canadian legal market can or would support NYC rates. 

[JurisPrudent]

8 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Losing Mike and Mitch is absolutely huge too. Torys is well known for their Canadian pensions and PE work on the street. If rumours are true that they brought along most of their clients, this means huge institutional funds. 

I'd take the rumours with a grain of salt. Not saying some clients won't go across (some surely will), but for large institutional clients, often that relationship goes beyond a single partner and moving from an established firm to what is essentially a start-up in Canada may not be a straightforward decision for large organizations.

[helloall]

FYI, Mintz Boston has a 1,850 billable hours requirement. IIRC, their base salary follows the Cravath scale for juniors, albeit their bonuses are lower and there's some salary compression for mid-level/senior associates.

[C_Terror]

12 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

Yeah so I think this is not quite right:

• Like Rashabon already mentioned, NYC associates bill way more than Canadian associate, think 2000 hour averages vs. 1700 hour averages, I don't think 1800 would be the average. Using the lower end of your estimates, if NYC $500/hour*2000=$1M, then they're taking home less than a quarter, but remember that not everything you docket gets billed and collected, so it's complicated. In Toronto if $400/hour*1700=$680,000, they're taking home a pretty similar percentage (19% vs 21%) but again I think that's artificial as there are various write offs, special rates, etc. The way we bill in Canada is more likely (I think) to be subject to write offs and write downs than major US firms. Not even to mention the fact that there are many, many first year associates in Toronto not quite hitting target but still collecting normal salaries and I assume the same is true in various firms in the States, so all of these estimates make it look like partners are making more than they actually are.
• In your second point, I think you have it backwards. If a Toronto firm has 1 associate for each partner and the associate's pay is 1/3rd their collections (which is the traditional thinking - salary should be roughly 1/3 of collections, then 1/3 to overhead and 1/3 to the partnership), then the partner they work for is taking 1/3 their collections. If a New York firm has 5 associates for each partner and the pay for associates is 1/3rd their collections, the partner gets 5/3rds so they're doing massively better than their less leveraged counterpart.
• My sense anecdotally is that people assume partners in Canada make way more than they actually do, I'm not sure where the idea that PPP in Canada have increased dramatically comes from but I don't get the sense that is universal. You also have to consider that the pandemic year or two were boom times, so if you're basing your assumptions solely on that they're going to be skewed, if you look at a longer period including this year things are levelling off a bit.
• I think part of what you might be getting at is that it's easier to make (income) partner in Canada than in the States, which I would agree with. So maybe you mean to be analyzing this for equity partners only, which are more comparable? 

- Don't think my math is wrong there. I used 2000 billables for NY and 1800 for Tor (which is the target, not 1700). Toronto big law first year associates bill more than $400/hour, but even using your numbers, at 1800 target and accounting for the articling difference (so 2nd year NYC vs 1st year Toronto associate), it's 4.4 vs 5.5. The extra 1.1 should translate to $160K CAD for a first year Canadian associate, not $130K. Again, this is using your assumption, with the corrected billable target of 1800 in Toronto. The write offs, associates not hitting targets etc are probably true for both sides of the border though, so I'm more inclined to assume it's not a major factor here.

- The crux of my argument there is that Canadian partners in general just eat a larger slice of pie that is associate billables and associates as a percentage get less. What I'm arguing here is your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 principle probably isn't true, and that associates probably get 1/5, over head 1/3 and partners get the rest (higher than 1/3).

- Again, the PPP argument wasn't me comparing Canadian partner PPP to American partner PPP, but more so the PPP in Canada has gone up much more than the Canadian associate's salary over the past 15-20 years. (Associate salary isn't even matching inflation from 2008). Think of it this way. If a Corporation's revenue has gone up 100% and its biggest expense is salary, but salaries for the Corporation has only gone up 40%, and every year, any profits are paid out as dividends, then the Corporation's shareholders benefit from the delta right? Except in a law firm, who are the "shareholders". The collective equity partners. 

9 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Go look up the compensation requests from S&C in the FTX matter. There are very fundamental differences between Canada’s billing structure and the US firms. To pick just a few examples: 

• S&C’s first year associates, who are the equivalent of articling students, bill out at $550/hour;
• Senior associates bill out for as much as $1475/hour – a rate that would make almost every bay street partner blush;
• Partners bill out at as much as 2300; and
• The total blended rate is $1450/hour.

It’s just a fundamentally different economic environment down south. 

With that said, I do think associates should get paid more in Canada. I just think that because I want to get paid more, not because I think the Canadian legal market can or would support NYC rates. 

Guys, I've never argued that Canadian associates should be paid the same dollar figures as US associates, but that we should at least be paid the same ratio to billables that they get paid. We don't need to bring NYC rates into this. Why don't we just look at CAD rates? 

Blocked, S&C first year salary to total billables assuming 2000 hours would be a ratio of 5:1

Now, let's look at Canadian associates at CAD rates. 

1st year associate (which is really 2nd year in US, but let's be conservative here), bills out at about 500-600 CAD, but let's say 500CAD to be conservative. That would be a ratio of 6:1. If we were to apply the 5:1 ratio that US associates are getting paid, then CAD associates should be getting paid $180K a year instead of $150K a year. 

Obviously we can't use NYC rates, which is why we need a common denominator, which would be the ratio of salary to total billables.

[JackoMcSnacko]

49 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

I don't doubt the PPP at US firms are significantly higher. My point was that PPP in Canada has gone up quite a bit (again, we have no hard data, but just based on the increase of revenue at the top firms), while associate base salaries hasn't even kept up with inflation since 2008. I understand the pricing structure is different, which is why I took out the $ and used ratios. My math should be correct, but my assumptions may be off, but shouldn't be by that much. Let's say a 3rd year US associate gets billed out at $650 USD an hour, and hits the target of 2000; that's $1,300,000 in revenue. 3rd year salary is $250,000 so the ratio is 5.2. Let's say an equivalent 2nd year Canadian associate (articling) gets billed out at $575 CAD and hits the target of 1800; that's $1,035,000 in revenue. 2nd year CA salary (non Davies/BJ) is $150,000, so the ratio is about 6.9.

I may be a little conservative here, but my ratio still stands. Let me know where you disagree on the rate assumptions. Also with regards to NY office space, if it's wildly more expensive than Canada, then that means that Canadian big law partners eat even more of the associate's salary share.

Your rate assumptions are wrong.  3rd year NY would be closer to $850 USD.  2nd Year TO would be closer to $550 CAD. 

Regardless, differences between firms (not to mention cities) in institutional discounts, special discounts, fixed fee structures, practices surrounding write off and collections issues makes these ratios pretty unhelpful for any sort of meaningful analysis.  

 

Edit: 

10 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Again, the PPP argument wasn't me comparing Canadian partner PPP to American partner PPP, but more so the PPP in Canada has gone up much more than the Canadian associate's salary over the past 15-20 years. (Associate salary isn't even matching inflation from 2008). Think of it this way. If a Corporation's revenue has gone up 100% and its biggest expense is salary, but salaries for the Corporation has only gone up 40%, and every year, any profits are paid out as dividends, then the Corporation's shareholders benefit from the delta right? Except in a law firm, who are the "shareholders". The collective equity partners. 

1st year associate (which is really 2nd year in US, but let's be conservative here), bills out at about 500-600 CAD, but let's say 500CAD to be conservative. That would be a ratio of 6:1. If we were to apply the 5:1 ratio that US associates are getting paid, then CAD associates should be getting paid $180K a year instead of $150K a year. 

You haven't considered the profits partners get from counsel (which is widespread in the US and where the real meat of the profits come from), and income partners (which is also more widespread in the US).

Also, your first year rates seem pretty inflated to me.  Either that or my old shop was actually a bargain.

Edited March 23, 2023 by JackoMcSnacko

[KOMODO]

46 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

- Don't think my math is wrong there. I used 2000 billables for NY and 1800 for Tor (which is the target, not 1700).

That's not right though? Some Toronto firms have an 1800 target but certainly not all of them, I find that 1700 is much more common?

 

47 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Toronto big law first year associates bill more than $400/hour, but even using your numbers, at 1800 target and accounting for the articling difference (so 2nd year NYC vs 1st year Toronto associate), it's 4.4 vs 5.5. The extra 1.1 should translate to $160K CAD for a first year Canadian associate, not $130K. Again, this is using your assumption, with the corrected billable target of 1800 in Toronto. The write offs, associates not hitting targets etc are probably true for both sides of the border though, so I'm more inclined to assume it's not a major factor here.

I'm using your numbers - you said $400-600 for Canada and $500-600 for the States? And I disagree that the write off / target issues are the same but we're just both speculating so not going to get anywhere.

 

49 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

- The crux of my argument there is that Canadian partners in general just eat a larger slice of pie that is associate billables and associates as a percentage get less. What I'm arguing here is your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 principle probably isn't true, and that associates probably get 1/5, over head 1/3 and partners get the rest (higher than 1/3).

So again, I think the real difference in what we're saying is that there are more partners in Canada (it's easier to make partner in Canada). Obviously if the ratio of associates to partners is 1:1, the total % of the pie eaten by partners will be higher than if the ratio of associates to partners is 1:5, because there are so many more partners. This doesn't mean associates should be paid more or partners are taking too much though, there are so many partners that each one gets less.

 

52 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

- Again, the PPP argument wasn't me comparing Canadian partner PPP to American partner PPP, but more so the PPP in Canada has gone up much more than the Canadian associate's salary over the past 15-20 years. (Associate salary isn't even matching inflation from 2008). Think of it this way. If a Corporation's revenue has gone up 100% and its biggest expense is salary, but salaries for the Corporation has only gone up 40%, and every year, any profits are paid out as dividends, then the Corporation's shareholders benefit from the delta right? Except in a law firm, who are the "shareholders". The collective equity partners. 

I just don't think this is true, but neither of us can cite anything firm to back up our feelings, so it's kind of a meaningless argument to have. 

54 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Guys, I've never argued that Canadian associates should be paid the same dollar figures as US associates, but that we should at least be paid the same ratio to billables that they get paid. We don't need to bring NYC rates into this. Why don't we just look at CAD rates? 

Blocked, S&C first year salary to total billables assuming 2000 hours would be a ratio of 5:1

Now, let's look at Canadian associates at CAD rates. 

1st year associate (which is really 2nd year in US, but let's be conservative here), bills out at about 500-600 CAD, but let's say 500CAD to be conservative. That would be a ratio of 6:1. If we were to apply the 5:1 ratio that US associates are getting paid, then CAD associates should be getting paid $180K a year instead of $150K a year. 

Obviously we can't use NYC rates, which is why we need a common denominator, which would be the ratio of salary to total billables.

First of all, associates aren't somehow entitled to a certain % in this market just because it exists elsewhere. The constraints of each specific market are going to drive salaries because, capitalism. But second, rates and billing practices are important, because they impact your math, which I personally think is flawed. You're arguing that Canadian partners are walking away with a more lucrative deal than their American counterparts...that is just not true at all and actually the opposite of everything I have ever seen relating to the difference between private practice here vs. the States.

[C_Terror]

1 hour ago, JackoMcSnacko said:

Your rate assumptions are wrong.  3rd year NY would be closer to $850 USD.  2nd Year TO would be closer to $550 CAD. 

Regardless, differences between firms (not to mention cities) in institutional discounts, special discounts, fixed fee structures, practices surrounding write off and collections issues makes these ratios pretty unhelpful for any sort of meaningful analysis.  

 

Edit: 

You haven't considered the profits partners get from counsel (which is widespread in the US and where the real meat of the profits come from), and income partners (which is also more widespread in the US).

Also, your first year rates seem pretty inflated to me.  Either that or my old shop was actually a bargain.

Rates have gone up quite dramatically. Is NY 3rd year really $850 per hour? That's actually wild and much more than what a vast majority of senior partners bill out at (converted to CAD). If that's true, then I could be off because that'll change the calculus. I personally don't think ratios are unhelpful, especially when there are so many firms with different practices, but the one thing all have in common per city is the same billable target, lock step salary and average rate per hour.

 

20 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

That's not right though? Some Toronto firms have an 1800 target but certainly not all of them, I find that 1700 is much more common?

 

I'm using your numbers - you said $400-600 for Canada and $500-600 for the States? And I disagree that the write off / target issues are the same but we're just both speculating so not going to get anywhere.

 

So again, I think the real difference in what we're saying is that there are more partners in Canada (it's easier to make partner in Canada). Obviously if the ratio of associates to partners is 1:1, the total % of the pie eaten by partners will be higher than if the ratio of associates to partners is 1:5, because there are so many more partners. This doesn't mean associates should be paid more or partners are taking too much though, there are so many partners that each one gets less.

 

I just don't think this is true, but neither of us can cite anything firm to back up our feelings, so it's kind of a meaningless argument to have. 

First of all, associates aren't somehow entitled to a certain % in this market just because it exists elsewhere. The constraints of each specific market are going to drive salaries because, capitalism. But second, rates and billing practices are important, because they impact your math, which I personally think is flawed. You're arguing that Canadian partners are walking away with a more lucrative deal than their American counterparts...that is just not true at all and actually the opposite of everything I have ever seen relating to the difference between private practice here vs. the States.

I'm not sure what firm you're at but my friends at almost all the sisters, and other national full service firms have 1800 billable in Toronto. I know that you're using my numbers, but I'm assuming the average of 1800 billable, not 1700. 

Of course we're not entitled, but I'm simply pointing out market discrepancies which makes it a worse deal for Canadian associates vs US associates. And no I'm not arguing that Canadian partners are walking away from a more lucrative deal; I've never argued that at all. My argument is that we're underpaid as associates vs US associates, and that Canadian partners eat more of our lunch than US partners do. That doesn't mean Canadian partners walk away with more than their US counterparts, does it? I understand that constraints of Canadian legal market and the limited number of firms drive salaries, but having more firms help the associates in my opinion. 

And while we can only speculate on the PPP growth, we can all agree that Associate's salary hasn't kept up with inflation from 2008 right?

And finally, while I don't feel entitled to a higher salary, I can certainly hope that we'll get paid more and closer to the ratio US associates get paid, which is why I started this thread in the first place. Of course, we're all speculating a lot of variables here. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by C_Terror

[Jaggers]

I won't comment specifically on what we pay firms in Toronto, but those numbers are nowhere close to what we pay for junior associates. Those are partner numbers for Toronto in most cases. I don't think we're unique, though obviously we don't pay the rack rates.

[KOMODO]

10 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

I'm not sure what firm you're at but my friends at almost all the sisters, and other national full service firms have 1800 billable in Toronto. I know that you're using my numbers, but I'm assuming the average of 1800 billable, not 1700. 

Regardless of whether my own firm's associate target is 1700 or 1800 or something else, my gut instinct is that more Toronto firms use a target of 1700 than 1800. However, I tried to fact check that, and in doing so I pulled a spreadsheet from 2017 that I received when I was working on a compensation comparison project and it showed the following:

• 1700 billable target: Dentons, Goodmans, McCarthys, Osler
• 1750 billable target: Blakes, Torys
• 1800 billable target: Cassels, Norton Rose, Stikes
• "No" billable target: Davies
• Non-reporting for this project: A&B, BJ, BLG, Faskens, Gowlings, Miller Thomson

I would imagine the non-reporting firms are more likely to have a 1700 target than 1800, but I have nothing to back that up. Happy for others to weigh in if they feel this data is outdated or inaccurate. 

So I just don't think you have your facts right - based on this and assuming it hasn't changed since 2017, only 1 of the 7 sisters had a billable target of 1800. Maybe your friends were citing the threshold for those retention bonuses everyone was giving out a few years ago, as most firms required 1800 to get the full extra one time payment? Or maybe they were talking about the hours they perceive people bill, though we know that kind of anecdata is usually overreported by high billers and underreported by low billers?

[JackoMcSnacko]

56 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Rates have gone up quite dramatically. Is NY 3rd year really $850 per hour?

It's actually more by at least $100 for most top firms in the city, I gave conservative numbers accounting for large firms outside of the very top firms.

However, the headline number is often illusory due to all of the billing considerations I mentioned previously.  Consider (1) a firm with more institutional clients that demand top discounts will have a baked-in discount applied on all their billed matters, impacting the effective rate billed by each lawyer on just those matters or (2) a firm with a large practice of specific repeat transactions of a similar kind will see more fixed fee matters, which may produce higher or lower profits depending on whether the transaction has been streamlined within the firm.  These are some simple examples of considerations top firms operate on when sending out the final bill (and oftentimes there's more or multiple considerations I haven't listed).  The amount of files that bill out strictly on the headline billable rate is the minority.  The fixation on flat numbers reflects the general fantasy of how large law firms operate, and frankly takes away from the credibility of your positions, even if I do agree with some portions of the conclusion.

 

Btw the billable targets (and the reality of how much associates bill) being thrown around in this thread are also off, but I digress.  

 

[WhoKnows]

7 hours ago, Jaggers said:

I won't comment specifically on what we pay firms in Toronto, but those numbers are nowhere close to what we pay for junior associates. Those are partner numbers for Toronto in most cases. I don't think we're unique, though obviously we don't pay the rack rates.

I was gonna say, if we've got firms charging 550CAD + HST for 2nd year associates I am a bargain. 

7 hours ago, KOMODO said:

Regardless of whether my own firm's associate target is 1700 or 1800 or something else, my gut instinct is that more Toronto firms use a target of 1700 than 1800. However, I tried to fact check that, and in doing so I pulled a spreadsheet from 2017 that I received when I was working on a compensation comparison project and it showed the following:

• 1700 billable target: Dentons, Goodmans, McCarthys, Osler
• 1750 billable target: Blakes, Torys
• 1800 billable target: Cassels, Norton Rose, Stikes
• "No" billable target: Davies
• Non-reporting for this project: A&B, BJ, BLG, Faskens, Gowlings, Miller Thomson

I would imagine the non-reporting firms are more likely to have a 1700 target than 1800, but I have nothing to back that up. Happy for others to weigh in if they feel this data is outdated or inaccurate.

I believe a number of these firms have settled in around 1750. I know of a couple of the non reporting firms that are 1750, and believe one of the 1800 firms is now there too. 

Also agreed with Jacko, I think a lot of the talk around how many billables associates are putting down is off. I saw our internal average numbers and I can tell you it's a lot lower than some would have you believe. It's skewed some by mid year laterals, etc. But there aren't nearly as many people hitting target or drastically exceeding it as people seem to think. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by WhoKnows

[easttowest]

21 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

I was gonna say, if we've got firms charging 550CAD + HST for 2nd year associates I am a bargain. 

We do have firms charging that. 

[WhoKnows]

20 minutes ago, easttowest said:

We do have firms charging that. 

Without knowing how many/who, hard for me to pass judgement. I'd be curious what realization they're getting on those, but if you can get folks to pay it, go for it. Makes me feel a lot less bad about my number. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by WhoKnows

[nayaab05]

Seems like they are struggling to hire associates… 

[PzabbytheLawyer]

18 hours ago, nayaab05 said:

Seems like they are struggling to hire associates… 

Are things still tough on bay in terms of finding associates generally? Or has it all cooled down?

[nayaab05]

2 hours ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Are things still tough on bay in terms of finding associates generally? Or has it all cooled down?

It’s cooled down. Layoffs happening at some Bay Street firms. Based on the recruiter calls everyone I know seems to keep getting, I’m guessing Mintz is having a hard time finding associates (or is really hiring that many?). 

[PzabbytheLawyer]

They might be having trouble poaching on a downturn, where associates are more reluctant to jump.

They really mistimed their move.

[Jaggers]

Associates are jumping all the time right now. We are hiring people who we have to pay more than their manager.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

I've noticed a lot of people leaving and getting desperate around my year of call, but I'm not that senior yet.

[Jaggers]

There is a really strong market for 2-5 year associates right now.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

Word on the street is they're paying 20 percent more than "bay". Isn't that basically Davies pay?

Are they still poaching, or struggling to find associates?

[nayaab05]

On 5/6/2023 at 5:23 PM, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Word on the street is they're paying 20 percent more than "bay". Isn't that basically Davies pay?

Are they still poaching, or struggling to find associates?

Yes, they are paying Davies scale. 

As of a few weeks ago, still seem to be looking.