The deal firms have not yet decided what to tell the market in the Pay War
KEY TAKEAWAY: Six firms have matched Milbank’s 2 June 2026 scale of $235K–$455K. Every one — McDermott Will & Schulte, Hueston Hennigan, Quinn Emanuel, Katten, Texas litigation boutique Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes, and Dunn Isaacson Rhee on bonuses — is litigation-led. Cravath, Davis Polk, Sullivan & Cromwell, Paul Weiss and Kirkland have not moved. Litigation told the market it is having a very good year.
Milbank’s 2 June 2026 memo took less than 72 hours to expose a split in the BigLaw market that has raised some eyebrows.
By Thursday afternoon, every firm publicly matching the new $235K–$455K scale was a litigation shop. McDermott Will & Schulte and midsize trial firm Hueston Hennigan were the first to match, then Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and a Texas litigation boutique, Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes, fell in behind, with Katten close on their heels.
Cravath, Davis Polk, Sullivan & Cromwell, Paul Weiss and Kirkland were nowhere on the published list.
That is not a coincidence. The BigLaw Salary Scale is historically set by the M&A and capital markets giants and matched by everyone else. This time, litigation is setting it, and the deal firms are watching.
Why are Litigation firms matching Milbank first in 2026?
Quinn Emanuel partners are taking home payouts of around $9 million for 2025, putting them in the extremely rare company of Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton as the only large law firms to crack that threshold.
The firm looked at $2.7 billion in revenue for 2025, a 10 percent increase over 2024. A $10K bump for first-years and $20K for senior associates is a rounding error at those numbers, and Quinn matched within hours because it never has to argue the question internally.
Hueston Hennigan is a 60-lawyer trial boutique that bills against Kirkland and Quinn in the biggest commercial disputes in the US. Matching Milbank is a recruiting message: the pay ceiling no longer requires an Am Law 50 platform.
The Texas boutique entrants are sending the same signal to senior associates in Dallas, Houston and Austin.
The deal firms have a harder calculation. M&A volumes are uneven, capital markets activity is well short of 2021, and comp committees are asking whether 2026 fee realisation supports the match. Litigation did not have to ask that question this week.
Which firms have matched Milbank so far — and which haven’t?
| Firm | Practice Profile | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| McDermott Will & Schulte | Full-service, litigation-heavy | Matched (US + UK) | 3 June 2026 |
| Hueston Hennigan | Pure litigation boutique | Matched | 3 June 2026 |
| Quinn Emanuel | Pure litigation | Matched (US) + raised UK above scale | 4 June 2026 |
| Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes | Texas litigation boutique | Matched | 4 June 2026 |
| Katten | Litigation-strong, full-service | Matched | 4 June 2026 |
| Cravath | M&A / capital markets | Silent | — |
| Davis Polk | M&A / capital markets | Silent | — |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | M&A | Silent | — |
| Paul Weiss | Mixed, litigation-strong | Silent | — |
| Kirkland & Ellis | Private equity / M&A | Silent | — |
| Latham & Watkins | M&A / corporate | Silent | — |
What to learn from the pattern?
Two things to note here. First, the firms moving first on pay are publicly confident about their pipeline, which is a signal about where work, not just dollars, is heading in eighteen months. The Power Firms List will be tracking the divergence as the year develops.
Second, the boutique read is the most under-reported story of the week. The historical penalty for joining a litigation boutique was a comp ceiling 15–25% below the top of the Legal Pay Guide. At firms doing real trial work, that penalty just compressed to near zero.
For students mapping options on the jobs board, the calculus on platform size versus practice focus has materially changed in five days.
What happens next is the deal firms move, probably Cravath inside the week. The question is no longer whether they match but hether they will quietly carve out a smaller bump for senior associates and dress it as a structural decision rather than a fee-pressure one. Let’s see soon.
Sign up for the LawFuel newsletter for the second-wave tracker.
