Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing raised its first-year associate pay to $235,000 in September 2025, ten thousand dollars above what the country’s largest firms were paying at the time. By June 2026, the firm had not raised that number again.
It did not need to. The national scale caught up to AZA instead. A wave of firms, described in the trade press as “more than a dozen” within two weeks, adopted a new $235,000 first-year benchmark this June, the same number AZA had already been paying for nine months. What had been a premium became a floor other firms were racing to reach.
What the September raise actually said
The original move was specific and small in dollar terms, ten thousand dollars per associate, but the reasoning behind it was not about matching a number. AZA’s hiring partner, Monica Uddin, tied the raise directly to how the firm uses its junior lawyers.
“Our young lawyers aren’t stuck making other people’s outlines. They’re out trying cases, and we’ll pay them more for it. When you out-hustle and out-argue, you should out-earn, too,” Uddin said.
Managing partner John Zavitsanos framed the raise as a like-for-like exchange rather than generosity. “We’ve long matched New York Big Law salaries, and this year we are raising them $10,000. We send our new lawyers to court immediately, and they are worth at least as much as their Big Law counterparts, who usually don’t get anything like the experience the AZA associates receive,” he said.
By that account, the firm was pricing experience rather than overpaying junior lawyers, experience most large firms do not let a first-year associate accumulate.
Both executives framed the number as a trade rather than a gift, which matters for how the raise reads a year later. A firm defending a pay decision as generosity has to keep defending it as the market shifts. A firm defending it as a fair price for measurable output only has to point at the output again.
Nine months of being ahead, then the market moved
Trade press coverage in June 2026 traced how quickly the new $235,000 figure spread once the largest firm to move set it as the going rate. AZA’s own response, when the number it already paid became everyone else’s new number, was to note that nothing on its end had to change.
“Excellence is expensive, but our people are worth it!” Uddin said when asked about the shift. The scale by then ran well past the first-year figure. Coverage of the broader 2026 pay cycle put eighth-year associates at national firms approaching $445,000, with senior associates clearing $600,000 with bonuses.
A pattern that goes back further than one raise
This was not the first time AZA priced its junior lawyers ahead of the market rather than behind it. In January 2013, the firm raised first-year pay to $170,000, exceeding the roughly $160,000 most major firms were then offering. Zavitsanos made the same argument then that his firm would make again twelve years later.
“We are small and lean, and we successfully go toe-to-toe with the biggest law firms in the country on a regular basis,” he said in 2013. “We strive to get associates in front of a jury during their first year at the firm. So far, every new lawyer we’ve hired has had a significant role in a jury case within 12 months of joining the firm.”
Thirteen years apart, the same firm made the same trade twice, and the arithmetic lines up closer than a coincidence would suggest. The 2013 raise put AZA roughly $10,000 above the $160,000 standard of that year. The 2025 raise put it $10,000 above the $225,000 standard of that year. Both times, the firm priced itself at the same fixed premium over whatever the rest of the profession was paying, rather than picking a number and holding it regardless of where the market moved.
Why a roughly 70-lawyer firm keeps setting a number the largest firms eventually meet
Firms with thousands of lawyers set the market’s headline number by moving first and moving publicly, because their scale makes any change to first-year pay a story on its own. A firm the size of AZA cannot move a national market by raising one class year’s salary. What it can do is choose to sit ahead of that market rather than behind it, then let the eventual convergence make the case that the earlier number was not an overpay.
That only works as an argument if the firm’s associates are doing something that justifies the number independent of what everyone else pays. AZA’s own recruiting pitch rests on trial volume: an associate at the firm reported going to trial twice and giving two opening statements inside their first year, a Vault-ranked outcome the firm’s compensation argument depends on being true rather than aspirational.
A large firm’s associate class typically staffs a case in layers, with a first-year drafting research memos that a senior associate and then a partner both revise before a client sees them. That structure protects the client from a junior lawyer’s mistakes, and it also means a first-year’s billable hours rarely translate into courtroom time. A trial boutique staffed thin enough that a first-year can be given a case outright is making a different trade: fewer layers between the associate and the client, more risk if a junior lawyer is not ready, and a faster path to the kind of experience that Mensing earned when he received a large docket of his own cases at a global firm in his own first year.
What convergence does and does not prove
A national pay scale catching up to a smaller firm’s number does not prove the smaller firm caused the shift. Big Law associate compensation moves in cycles driven by the largest firms competing with each other, and AZA’s $235,000 figure sat still for nine months while that cycle played out elsewhere.
What the convergence does show is that the premium AZA paid in September 2025 was real rather than symbolic. A firm that sets a number ten thousand dollars above the market and then watches the market spend the better part of a year closing that gap was pricing something correctly, well before the rest of the profession agreed on the price, rather than making a marketing gesture.
The next test of the pattern is already visible. If the profession’s two prior data points hold, AZA’s next move will not come until the national scale closes in on $235,000 again from below, or overtakes it, rather than on any fixed calendar. A firm that has now made the same trade in 2013 and in 2025 has given the market a rule to watch for, even without saying so directly: watch what the largest firms pay, then price associates ten thousand dollars past it.
Featured image credit
