{"id":100708,"date":"2026-10-17T10:02:04","date_gmt":"2026-10-17T14:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/?p=100708"},"modified":"2026-10-17T10:02:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-17T14:02:04","slug":"cooley-matches-milbank-biglaw-pay-war-100708","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/cooley-matches-milbank-biglaw-pay-war-100708\/","title":{"rendered":"Cooley Matches Milbank Without Cravath’s Seal, Boosts Biglaw Pay"},"content":{"rendered":"

Biglaw compensation has entered a new phase of competitive escalation, and the latest move by Cooley LLP<\/a> signals that the traditional hierarchy of salary leadership may be shifting. By matching the scale set by Milbank<\/a> without waiting for Cravath, Swaine & Moore to issue its customary blessing, Cooley has placed a bet that market momentum, not pedigree, now determines pay. This decision reverberates far beyond the firm itself, touching on questions of associate morale, client expectations, and the very structure of how large law firms compete for talent.<\/p>\n

In the same week, news broke that Katie Zacharia’s position at a major firm had been eliminated — yet she remains employed as a “lawyer.” The discrepancy between title and role underscores a quiet but pervasive tension in Biglaw: firms are restructuring around profitability, and not every associate will find a place in the new order. Meanwhile, a technology company has expressed willingness to pay law firms for access to their data, but only if the attorney-client privilege concerns can be resolved. And the Department of Justice has moved to block California from counting approximately 20,000 votes in a case notable more for its thin legal reasoning than its likelihood of success.<\/p>\n

These four storylines — compensation, career stability, data commodification, and electoral intervention — are not isolated. They reflect a legal industry in which money, technology, and politics intersect with increasing intensity. Understanding each requires peeling back the surface of the press release and examining the strategic calculations underneath.<\/p>\n

Cooley Matches Milbank: The End of Cravath’s Salary Primacy?<\/h2>\n

For decades, the standard operating procedure in Biglaw compensation was straightforward: Cravath would announce its new salary scale, and the rest of the market would follow. This unwritten rule gave Cravath outsized influence over associate pay across the entire Am Law 100. Milbank broke that pattern in recent years, taking the lead in salary announcements and successfully forcing Cravath to match. Now Cooley has gone a step further by matching Milbank’s scale without waiting for any signal from Cravath at all.<\/p>\n

The decision is not merely procedural. It reflects a fundamental shift in how law firms perceive their competitive position. Cooley, a firm deeply rooted in technology and life sciences, operates in a market where talent is scarce and expensive. Its clients are often startups and growth-stage companies that expect their outside counsel to attract top-tier associates. Matching Milbank’s scale ensures that Cooley remains a viable destination for the best law graduates, particularly those drawn to the innovation economy.<\/p>\n

By bypassing Cravath, Cooley is also making a statement about who sets the pace. The firm is signaling that it trusts its own assessment of the market more than it relies on the traditional hierarchy. This could encourage other firms to follow suit, potentially accelerating the salary arms race. In an environment where lateral hiring has become a primary growth strategy, the cost of falling behind on associate compensation can be measured not only in lost talent but in lost business.<\/p>\n

What is the significance of Cooley matching Milbank’s pay scale without Cravath’s seal? It means that the old model of a single firm leading the market is eroding. When multiple firms — Milbank, Cravath, Cooley — all offer competitive scales, associates gain bargaining power, and firms must differentiate themselves through culture, work, and advancement opportunities rather than simply matching a single standard. Cooley’s move normalizes Milbank as the benchmark, not Cravath, and that alone changes the dynamics of Biglaw recruiting.<\/p>\n

The long-term implications are substantial. If the pattern continues, we may see the emergence of a tiered compensation system where elite boutiques and leading tech-focused firms pay a premium above the Milbank scale, while others struggle to keep pace. The traditional lockstep model, already under<\/a> strain, will face additional pressure as associates demand compensation that reflects their practice group’s profitability.<\/p>\n

Bonuses and Raises: What Associates Really Want<\/h2>\n

While salary scales grab headlines, the more immediate concern for many associates is whether this year’s bonuses will come with raises. The question, asked in forums and whispered in hallways, is whether the market for associate talent is robust enough to support both a competitive base and a meaningful year-end bonus. The answer is not clear-cut.<\/p>\n

In recent years, firms have used bonuses to reward productivity and retain associates during boom cycles. But the current economic climate is mixed. While some practice areas — litigation, restructuring, regulatory — are thriving, others are facing a slowdown. Technology and M&A practices, in particular, have experienced volatility. Firms like Cooley, which are heavily exposed to the tech sector, must balance the need to attract talent against the uncertainty of client demand.<\/p>\n

Associates are watching closely. The precedent set by Milbank and matched by Cooley suggests that base salary is the primary tool for signaling commitment to talent. But bonuses remain a discretionary lever that firms can adjust based on financial performance. If the overall market holds steady, a repeat of last year’s bonus scale is plausible. However, firms may also restructure their compensation packages to emphasize base salary increases over bonuses, effectively locking in higher fixed costs in exchange for predictability.<\/p>\n

The broader lesson is that the compensation conversation is no longer a once-a-year event. It has become a continuous negotiation, driven by lateral mobility, transparent salary data, and the willingness of firms to bid against each other. Associates who understand the market dynamics are in a stronger position to advocate for themselves, but they also face the risk of being priced out of roles if their practice areas contract.<\/p>\n

Katie Zacharia’s Job Disappears: A Cautionary Tale About Title and Role<\/h2>\n

In a development that has drawn quiet but intense attention among Biglaw insiders, Katie Zacharia found that her position had been eliminated — yet her employer confirmed that she remains a “lawyer” at the firm. The distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a broader trend in which law firms are redefining roles to manage headcount and costs while retaining talent they may not need at a given moment.<\/p>\n

When a “job disappears” but the person stays, several interpretations are possible. The firm may be restructuring practice groups, shifting resources toward higher-margin work, or eliminating a specific position that no longer aligns with strategic priorities. In Zacharia’s case, retaining her as a “lawyer” suggests that the firm values her legal skills but does not have a clear role that matches her previous responsibilities. This limbo can be demoralizing and risky for the associate, who may find themselves without a clear path to partnership or even stable billable hours.<\/p>\n

The incident highlights a little-discussed aspect of Biglaw employment: the gap between the promise of long-term careers and the reality of fluid organizational structures. Associates are hired into a firm, but they are effectively on loan to practice groups that can expand or contract quickly. When a group shrinks, the firm must decide whether to keep the people and find them new work or let them go. The choice to retain an associate without a defined role is often a short-term hedge — an attempt to avoid the cost and reputational damage of a layoff while the firm hopes that business picks up.<\/p>\n

For associates, the lesson is clear: title and salary are not the same as stability. The very forces that drive salary increases — competition for talent, market volatility, client demands — also create conditions in which roles can vanish without warning. Being a “lawyer” is not the same as having a job that leads toward partnership or professional growth.<\/p>\n

Tech Company Willing to Pay for Law Firm Data — At What Cost to Privilege?<\/h2>\n

A technology company has expressed willingness to pay law firms for access to their internal data, recognizing that the insights locked in billing records, matter management systems, and workflow analytics could be extremely valuable. The catch is that the data may contain attorney-client privileged information, and the company is effectively asking law firms to navigate that minefield.<\/p>\n

This scenario is not hypothetical. As law firms digitize their operations, they generate massive amounts of data about how legal services are delivered — which tasks take the longest, which clients drive the most billable hours, which practice areas are most profitable, and even which partners are most efficient. Selling or licensing that data could be a new revenue stream for firms struggling with flat or declining margins. But the risks are profound.<\/p>\n

Attorney-client privilege is the cornerstone of the legal profession. It protects communications between lawyers and their clients from disclosure to third parties. If a law firm provides data that reveals patterns about a specific client’s legal strategy, billing practices, or case outcomes, that could be construed as a waiver of privilege. Even aggregated, anonymized data may not be safe: sophisticated analytics can often re-identify individuals or organizations from anonymized datasets.<\/p>\n

The tech company’s offer, while novel, forces law firms to confront a dilemma. The potential revenue is tempting, especially for firms that are investing heavily in technology and need to justify those costs. But the ethical and legal consequences of a privilege breach could be catastrophic — disqualification from representing clients, malpractice claims, and irreparable harm to reputation. No firm has publicly accepted such an offer, and industry experts warn that the legal framework for protecting privilege in data sales is far from settled.<\/p>\n

For clients, this development should be a warning. They need to ask their outside counsel whether any client data is being collected, analyzed, or shared with third parties. In-house legal departments are already starting to include data privacy and privilege protection clauses in engagement letters. The tension between data monetization and confidentiality is unlikely to resolve easily; it may require new regulations or professional rules that explicitly address the sale of law firm data.<\/p>\n

DOJ Moves to Block California From Counting 20,000 Votes: Legal Reasoning Under Scrutiny<\/h2>\n

The Department of Justice has filed a motion to prevent California from counting approximately 20,000 ballots, and the legal reasoning behind the request has been characterized as “incredibly sketchy” by observers across the ideological spectrum. The motion, which comes in the context of a broader dispute over a local election, relies on an interpretation of federal voting law that many legal scholars consider strained at best.<\/p>\n

At issue is whether California’s procedures for processing absentee ballots comply with federal statutes that require uniform standards for voting. The DOJ argues that certain mail-in ballots were not properly verified, and that counting them could undermine the integrity of the election. The state counters that its procedures meet all legal requirements and that disenfranchising voters is a disproportionate remedy.<\/p>\n

The request is notable for its timing and its apparent lack of strong precedent. Federal intervention in state election procedures is legally permissible but rare, and courts typically give significant deference to state election officials. The DOJ’s motion appears to rely on a novel argument that has not been tested in previous cases, which may explain why observers find the legal reasoning unconvincing.<\/p>\n

If a court denies the DOJ’s request, the votes will be counted and the election result will stand. If the court grants the motion, it would set a potential precedent for federal courts to police state election procedures under a broad reading of federal voting law. Either outcome carries significant implications for future elections, particularly in closely contested states where mail-in voting is widespread.<\/p>\n

For law firms and legal professionals, this case is a reminder that election law is becoming an increasingly contested and specialized field. The number of election-related lawsuits has risen sharply in recent years, and law firms that can navigate the intersection of state election codes and federal constitutional law are in high demand. At the same time, the politicization of election litigation poses challenges for firms that must balance zealous advocacy with their duty to maintain public confidence in the legal system.<\/p>\n

A Profession at a Crossroads: Talent, Money, and Trust<\/h2>\n

Each of these stories underscores a central truth about the legal profession in 2025: it is being reshaped by forces that demand constant adaptation. Salaries are rising, but so is the precariousness of individual roles. Data has become a new kind of currency, but its value is constrained by ethical boundaries that are still being drawn. And the law itself is being weaponized in political battles that test the limits of legal reasoning.<\/p>\n

For associates, the message is to stay informed and proactive. The era of counting on a single firm’s leadership for salary guidance is over. The era of assuming that a job title implies a secure future is likewise ending. Those who understand the business of law — not just its practice — will be better positioned to navigate the uncertainties ahead.<\/p>\n

For law firms, the challenge is to compete for talent without losing sight of the values that sustain the profession: confidentiality, loyalty, and rigorous adherence to legal standards. The pressure to raise salaries and monetize data will only intensify, but firms that cut ethical corners may find that the short-term gains are not worth the long-term damage.<\/p>\n

As for the DOJ’s intervention in California, it serves as a cautionary tale about the use of legal process for political ends. Whether the motion succeeds or fails, it will be studied for years as an example of how far the government is willing to go to influence election outcomes. In a profession built on precedent, the precedents being set today may haunt the legal system for decades.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Biglaw compensation has entered a new phase of competitive escalation, and the latest move by Cooley LLP signals that the traditional hierarchy of salary leadership may be shifting. By matching the scale set by Milbank without waiting for Cravath, Swaine & Moore to issue its customary blessing, Cooley has placed a bet that market momentum, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":100711,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cards.overcentral.com\/cards\/en\/100708.png","fifu_image_alt":"Cooley Matches Milbank Without Cravath's Seal, Boosts Biglaw Pay","footnotes":""},"categories":[40657],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-legal"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cards.overcentral.com\/cards\/en\/100708.png","fifu_image_alt":"Cooley Matches Milbank Without Cravath's Seal, Boosts Biglaw Pay","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100708"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100708\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":100710,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100708\/revisions\/100710"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/100711"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}