Frequently Asked Questions

These firms have hundreds or thousands of attorneys, offices in the U.S. and abroad, and revenue placing them in The American Lawyer's AmLaw 100. They handle transactional, litigation, and regulatory work for institutional clients at rates that reflect the stakes. Associates are paid on the "Milbank/Cravath scale." It was historically called the Cravath scale, but Milbank opened the last four raise cycles (2018, 2021, 2023, and June 2026), so much of the industry now credits Milbank with setting it. Top firms tend to match raises almost immediately to avoid losing associates to competitors. After the June 2026 raise, base pay runs from $235,000 for first-years to $455,000+ for senior associates, plus bonuses.

Attorneys choose Big Law for the depth of the work, the firm's reputation, and the jobs it can lead to later. The tradeoffs are long hours, demanding partners, and high attrition. Most associates won't make partner at their first firm.

The American Lawyer, an ALM publication, ranks U.S. firms by gross revenue and reports profits per equity partner (PPEP), revenue per lawyer (RPL), and other financial measures. Associates, candidates, clients, and the legal press use the AmLaw 100 to compare firms' size, profitability, and market position.

Firms at the top of the AmLaw 100 (Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, DLA Piper, Baker McKenzie, Skadden, Sidley Austin, Sullivan & Cromwell, and others) generate $3 billion to $7+ billion in annual revenue. The AmLaw 200 extends the same methodology to the 200th-largest U.S. firm, capturing strong regional and specialty firms below the AmLaw 100 threshold.

Where the AmLaw 100 measures financial scale, the Vault Law 100 measures market perception of prestige. Vault surveys thousands of associates annually at competing firms, asking them to rate the prestige of other firms they would not consider working at themselves. The resulting weighted score (the "raw score," generally on a 1.0 to 10.0 scale) produces the prestige ranking, which is republished each summer.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore has historically ranked first, with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Sullivan & Cromwell, Skadden, and Paul, Weiss regularly near the top. Students and lateral candidates use these rankings when choosing firms, though firms increasingly question whether the methodology still fits the market.

OCI compresses the bulk of Big Law summer associate hiring into a defined window each year. The process begins with a "bid list". Students rank firms they want to interview with, and firms select students for ~20-minute screener interviews held on campus over a few days. Students who advance receive "callback" invitations: half-day interviews at the firm's office with three to five attorneys (typically a mix of associates and partners), followed by an offer decision within days or weeks.

Historically, 2L OCI was the main route into Big Law summer programs, which usually led to a full-time offer after graduation if the summer went well. More recently, top firms have hired more 1Ls and used early-acceptance programs to fill 2L classes sooner. Students need to watch the timing, research firms, and explain their experience clearly.

The full path runs from acceptance letter to return offer, and it keeps moving earlier: 0L internship applications in the winter before law school, firm recruiting events from the first weeks of 1L fall, applications in September, interviews from October (a month earlier for STEM and IP candidates), and offers concentrated after transcripts release in early January. Mosaic's field guide, The Big Law Recruiting Timeline for Law Students, maps every stage, including jumbo offers, the grades-versus-networking tradeoff, and how return offers are decided.

The squeeze lands first on the JD classes of 2027 and 2028. Pay stays identical because of lockstep compensation, but some students will land a notch lower on the prestige ladder than their predecessors, and students at lower-ranked schools feel the squeeze hardest. Mosaic's field guide, The Big Law Pyramid Is Turning Into a Cylinder, walks through the NALP data, the leverage math, and what the next five to ten years look like.

Moving between firms is the main way experienced attorneys change jobs within Big Law. Laterals usually join at the class year matching their experience: a fifth-year M&A associate, for example, would usually remain a fifth-year and keep that salary and bonus tier on the Milbank/Cravath scale. Reasons to move include different work, better pay, a stronger partnership path, relocation, hours, or problems with the current firm's culture or leadership.

Third- through sixth-year associates make the most lateral moves. Firms hire more when a strong market creates demand in a practice and less during downturns. Mosaic specializes in lateral hiring, with particular depth in M&A, restructuring, finance, private equity, capital markets, litigation, and regulatory work.

Look for an offer that works across all five areas. Pay is the easiest to compare because most AmLaw 100 firms use the same Milbank/Cravath scale. The harder question is whether the group does the work you want and has enough of it to keep you busy. That's often what makes the biggest difference, and it's difficult to judge from outside.

Most associates don't make partner, so ask where people from the group have gone next: government, in-house roles, or clerkships. That history tells you something about the training and alumni network. For culture and financial stability, talk with current and former associates. A recruiter who knows people inside the firm can help you have those conversations.

Signing bonus clawbacks are standard in senior lateral offers, where the firm has typically committed $50,000 to $250,000+ in upfront cash to secure the hire. The clawback exists to protect the firm's investment if the associate takes the money and leaves shortly after joining. Typical structures call for full repayment if the associate leaves in year one, pro-rated (often 50%) repayment if they leave in year two, and no repayment after the two-year mark.

The negotiation almost never focuses on whether to include a clawback; it focuses on the carve-outs (situations in which repayment is excused) and the precise definition of "cause" in those carve-outs. Standard market practice now includes carve-outs for termination by the firm without cause, death or disability, and firm-initiated reductions in force.

The argument to make to a resistant firm is straightforward: the clawback is designed to protect the firm from an associate who takes the money and walks. That rationale evaporates when the firm itself ends the relationship. Forcing the associate to repay six figures after a no-cause termination operates as a penalty, and it is the kind of provision that draws scrutiny from courts and creates reputational risk for the firm in a small market.

Where the real negotiation happens is the definition of "cause." Firms will try to draft cause broadly to cover any performance issue or policy violation, which would gut the carve-out. Candidates should push for a narrow, exhaustive list: felony conviction or moral-turpitude offense; willful misconduct, fraud, or malfeasance; material breach of fiduciary duty; or willful continued failure to perform substantially all assigned duties after written notice and a reasonable cure period (typically 30 days). The narrower the cause definition, the more protective the carve-out.

California's employee-protective framework creates real exposure for firms attempting to enforce clawbacks against terminated employees. California Labor Code § 221 broadly prohibits employers from collecting back wages already paid, and many courts characterize signing bonuses as wages, particularly when the bonus has been taxed, withheld against, and treated as compensation in the firm's books. The California Supreme Court's Schachter v. Citigroup (2009) decision provides a pathway for enforcing forfeiture on truly unvested, conditional compensation, but courts have been more skeptical when the firm initiated the termination.

California courts also disfavor liquidated damages and forfeiture provisions that operate as penalties. When the firm is the party that ended the employment relationship and is now seeking to extract money from the terminated employee, the provision starts to function as a penalty against the terminated party. Even if enforceability is uncertain, the cleaner path for candidates is to negotiate carve-outs directly into the offer letter and avoid the cost and uncertainty of post-termination litigation.

Know the timeline, how reference calls work, when to ask for more time, and what your separation agreement says before you sign. Mosaic's full field guide, How to Survive a Big Law Layoff, walks through each step. The short version is that the decision is usually driven by the firm's economics, the "still employed" window is the most valuable asset an attorney has while interviewing, and most firms will extend that window if asked at the right moment.

First-generation law students often have to build the network that other candidates inherit. Mosaic Scholars selects students at top schools who don't have that family or social network and gives them advising, firm research, introductions, and continuing support.

Selected scholars receive five guaranteed 30-minute advising sessions per year plus ongoing text and call support, a one-month Legal Scout premium membership, LinkedIn profile optimization, access to attorney contact databases, monthly small-group Q&A calls, a private Discord and LinkedIn community, and access to firm headcount and financial data. The program is provided entirely free of charge.

Mosaic's lateral recruiting business and law firm sponsorship of student affinity groups sustain the program. Advising students early helps us build relationships that may last throughout their careers, including future placements and referrals. Scholars pay nothing, and participation doesn't require them to use Mosaic for a placement.

For initial consideration, send a current resume, your LinkedIn URL, and the subject line above. Strong applicants are usually invited to a brief introductory conversation. Decisions arrive within a few weeks of applying.

Bryson built Mosaic around candid advice, his direct involvement in placements, and wider access to legal careers. Having been an associate himself shapes the questions he asks about firms and how he talks through a candidate's choices. He's also willing to say what he thinks publicly, even when it's pointed.

He also founded and directs Mosaic Scholars for first-generation law students, created Upward Review, hosts Non-Billable Hours, and leads Mosaic's law school affinity group sponsorship program.

Connect with Bryson on LinkedIn ›

Recruiters generally earn a commission when a candidate accepts an offer. That can create pressure to push a move that doesn't fit. We take a longer view: understand the person's circumstances, advise them honestly, and earn their trust over time. A placement should make sense for their career.

That approach also shows up in Mosaic Scholars, free advising for first-generation law students; Upward Review, a free anonymous partner review platform; and our history of sponsoring student affinity groups. None depends on a placement outcome.

There's plenty to read about firms, but much less about the partners you'd work for. Who teaches well? Who is difficult to work with? Who invests in associates? Those answers have mostly traveled through personal networks. Upward Review puts those accounts in a database with identity and employment verification.

Reviews appear without the contributor's name. The details of an experience may still be recognizable to someone who was involved. Read the reviewer privacy explanation and ask about the process before sharing sensitive information. Access follows a "give to get" model. Submitting a verified review unlocks the full database for one year. Eligibility is limited to current or former AmLaw 100 associates; partners and counsel are excluded.

Sponsored organizations included BLSA, APALSA, LaLSA, SALSA, MENALSA, LSAD, and LLSA chapters at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, UChicago, Duke, Penn, UVA, Berkeley, and UCLA. Non-student sponsorships included the Legal Accountability Project, the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, the Iranian American Bar Association (Los Angeles), and RAINN.

Sponsored organizations received financial support, fundraising help, career guidance, panel planning, alumni data, and market intelligence. We wanted to build relationships with the legal community over time. That work now continues through Mosaic Scholars.