SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby sunynp » Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:59 am

Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours: :D

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you


That's the thing. People go to these firms and might justify the prestige by thinking that the bonus will make sense if they don't go above 2,200 hour or some nonsense like that. Problem is that you will almost certainly bill more than 2,400 hours at these firms, and if you do, you might as well go to Boies, Susman, K&E, Quinn, etc., because you're going to be much more well compensated. I get that three of those firms don't really have decent corporate groups, but K&E's is quite good. You might end up doing more middle market deals than those massive $40 billion megadeals, but (a) when are the latter deals happening ITE? and (b) given the amount of diligence and shitwork involved in the latter, why would you not want to do the former?

Those are just my two cents. I'm being a little glib and facetious... choosing a firm isn't that simple. Some people just fit in better at other firms, but the $$$ point always gets me. And believe me, when you're paying taxes, rent, and your loans and you're seeing your monthly $$$ disappear so quickly, you're going to regret choosing those prestige points.


You think that Boies, Susman and Quinn aren't prestigious. huh. I know Quinn has detractors, but I still thought people considered them to be good lawyers. I know people think Quinn makes money because they have no solid support staff, but I have no clue what the real story is with them.

You cant assume that people who are working for Sullivan and Cromwell wanted to work at those firms or that they had offers at those firms.
Last edited by sunynp on Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Blindmelon » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:02 am

D-hops wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
D-hops wrote:Now I am curious why people still continue to pick these Cravath/Sulcrom-scale bonus firms over the firms that pay more variable rate bonuses with the bottom of the scale equaling these other firms. I imagine not everyone has those choices, but I am sure quite a few people do and still chose the lockstep bonus firms.


How much more does KE and Quinn end up paying their associates. I'd imagine some of it is exit options, but damn, I don't know.

If midlevels start moving in droves to those firms, the lockstep firms will have to match.

What other firms pay significantly above market to a good chunk of their associates? Even Quinn is really just at market for 2100-2400 hours right? I know at least a couple V100 do bonuses that can go above market, but we are talking barely so, and only for a small number.


With KE and Quinn I think it can be 3-4 times market bonuses. Boeis pays above market, I think Ropes can pay above market. I am sure there are others I can't think of.

But when you think about it there aren't many firms that are going to be putting significant pressure on the top firms to change their compensation because there are just too many jobs at the Cravath-scale firms.


Ropes isn't above market. Compared to the other big Boston firms, they either match or are below. Maybe they're above market in other offices though, I'm unsure.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:09 am

So when I actually get into practice and work for my V5, am I going to have to worry about constant gloating from Kirkland associates in the real world around bonus time? If this thread is any indication, they might literally try to rub their extra bonus cash in my face, while yelling that this behavior has nothing to do with their tiny penises. My hunch is that this would more than likely come from NYC Kirkland bros, since from my experience, Chicago Kirkland bros don't have anything near the inferiority complex that the NYC guys have.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:10 am

sunynp wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours: :D

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you


That's the thing. People go to these firms and might justify the prestige by thinking that the bonus will make sense if they don't go above 2,200 hour or some nonsense like that. Problem is that you will almost certainly bill more than 2,400 hours at these firms, and if you do, you might as well go to Boies, Susman, K&E, Quinn, etc., because you're going to be much more well compensated. I get that three of those firms don't really have decent corporate groups, but K&E's is quite good. You might end up doing more middle market deals than those massive $40 billion megadeals, but (a) when are the latter deals happening ITE? and (b) given the amount of diligence and shitwork involved in the latter, why would you not want to do the former?

Those are just my two cents. I'm being a little glib and facetious... choosing a firm isn't that simple. Some people just fit in better at other firms, but the $$$ point always gets me. And believe me, when you're paying taxes, rent, and your loans and you're seeing your monthly $$$ disappear so quickly, you're going to regret choosing those prestige points.


You think that Boies, Susman and Quinn aren't prestigious. huh. I know Quinn has detractors, but I still thought people considered them to be good lawyers. I know people think Quinn makes money because they have no solid support staff, but I have no clue what the real story is with them.

You cant assume that people who are working for Sullivan and Cromwell wanted to work at those firms or that they had offers at those firms.


I think they're plenty prestigious. Just for many top law students, that isn't prestigious enough.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:12 am

Anonymous User wrote:So when I actually get into practice and work for my V5, am I going to have to worry about constant gloating from Kirkland associates in the real world around bonus time? If this thread is any indication, they might literally try to rub their extra bonus cash in my face, while yelling that this behavior has nothing to do with their tiny penises. My hunch is that this would more than likely come from NYC Kirkland bros, since from my experience, Chicago Kirkland bros don't have anything near the inferiority complex that the NYC guys have.



Not really sure why I'd have an inferiority complex. I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.

Anyways, I'm not trying to gloat. I regret that post (which is why I, too late, edited that post out). Some firms are better fit than others, and for some, fit>>>$$$. It's just such an individual choice.

But for people who choose on the basis of a sliver of higher prestige, yes, I'm gloating.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cavalier
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Cavalier » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:14 am

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

User avatar
NinerFan
Posts: 482
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby NinerFan » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:16 am

Anonymous User wrote:
sunynp wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
wiseowl wrote:$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours: :D

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you


That's the thing. People go to these firms and might justify the prestige by thinking that the bonus will make sense if they don't go above 2,200 hour or some nonsense like that. Problem is that you will almost certainly bill more than 2,400 hours at these firms, and if you do, you might as well go to Boies, Susman, K&E, Quinn, etc., because you're going to be much more well compensated. I get that three of those firms don't really have decent corporate groups, but K&E's is quite good. You might end up doing more middle market deals than those massive $40 billion megadeals, but (a) when are the latter deals happening ITE? and (b) given the amount of diligence and shitwork involved in the latter, why would you not want to do the former?

Those are just my two cents. I'm being a little glib and facetious... choosing a firm isn't that simple. Some people just fit in better at other firms, but the $$$ point always gets me. And believe me, when you're paying taxes, rent, and your loans and you're seeing your monthly $$$ disappear so quickly, you're going to regret choosing those prestige points.


You think that Boies, Susman and Quinn aren't prestigious. huh. I know Quinn has detractors, but I still thought people considered them to be good lawyers. I know people think Quinn makes money because they have no solid support staff, but I have no clue what the real story is with them.

You cant assume that people who are working for Sullivan and Cromwell wanted to work at those firms or that they had offers at those firms.


I think they're plenty prestigious. Just for many top law students, that isn't prestigious enough.


Yeah, prestige is always relative. The real prestige whores aren't satisfied with clerking with some random SCOTUS associate justice, it would have to be Chief Roberts himself.

Kidding. I hope.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:18 am

Yeah, prestige is always relative. The real prestige whores aren't satisfied with clerking with some random SCOTUS associate justice, it would have to be Chief Roberts himself.


That's the problem. There are plenty of these types in law school. For them, there's something in their heads that won't let them choose Boies over S&C. Anyways, my point is made. gotta run folks.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273137
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So when I actually get into practice and work for my V5, am I going to have to worry about constant gloating from Kirkland associates in the real world around bonus time? If this thread is any indication, they might literally try to rub their extra bonus cash in my face, while yelling that this behavior has nothing to do with their tiny penises. My hunch is that this would more than likely come from NYC Kirkland bros, since from my experience, Chicago Kirkland bros don't have anything near the inferiority complex that the NYC guys have.



Not really sure why I'd have an inferiority complex. I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad.


And I had clerkship offers from many SCOTUS judges.

I'm not mad, I just think it's ridiculous that you (and other Kirkland people if there are multiple ones ITT) are just so goddamned attracted to threads like this. I'm not sure if you're in NYC, Chicago, or another office; but if you're in NYC (your reply seemed to imply that) and you're bragging about your wise, cash-driven decision--well, that's just hilarious. The guys at Sidley-Chicago are working fewer hours, taking home more money due to the lower COL, and are equal to or better than Kirkland-NYC in prestige points. Ah, but then you certainly wouldn't be annoyed if every single time a NYC thread appears, a Sidley-Chicago associate busts in and laughs at everybody's ridiculous decision to go to a NYC firm, right?

User avatar
angrybird
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:15 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby angrybird » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:39 am

Cavalier wrote:This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Blindmelon » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:44 am

Anonymous User wrote:
I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.



So what? I had like 11 CBs and 10 offers from V5s.

User avatar
Georgiana
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Georgiana » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:54 am

wiseowl wrote:$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours: :D

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you

Its more like < 3, 2011 bills out $350-400 and 2010 at $450-500. Pretty ridiculous. but free money is good...

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby r6_philly » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:57 pm

Lawl Shcool wrote:All jobs in all professions require hard work to be successful. In law, you trade the hard work for a lower upside but bigger safety net. That is a great deal for people starting families or don't like a lot of risk. In a business, you trade the hard work for a bigger potential upside, but that also comes with a much bigger chance of failure.


Absolutely no.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby romothesavior » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:13 pm

Blindmelon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.



So what? I had like 11 CBs and 10 offers from V5s.

lol

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby RedBirds2011 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:10 pm

r6_philly wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote:All jobs in all professions require hard work to be successful. In law, you trade the hard work for a lower upside but bigger safety net. That is a great deal for people starting families or don't like a lot of risk. In a business, you trade the hard work for a bigger potential upside, but that also comes with a much bigger chance of failure.


Absolutely no.


Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby r6_philly » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:02 pm

RedBirds2011 wrote:Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?


It sounds cliche but work smarter not harder. There are ultimate two factors for becoming successful: one is to bring/generate value to a business, the other one is having the interpersonal skills to get ahead. Those are not mutually exclusive, but either or may be sufficient.

The first one, generating value, has a strong correlation to hard work, but not a direct causal relationship. It is entirely possible that the least hardworking colleague is the one that's generating the most value (for whatever reason). In that sense, comparatively, working hard isn't the key to success. Also worth to note, sometimes (most of the time in many professions) working very hard will prevent you from being promoted because it is too hard to replace you. At some point you rise above from being a fungible part of the business machine, and your place is cemented into your current position. I suppose it depends on how you define success, but I tend to think people don't view strict job security as success, they view upward mobility as the determining factor.

The second one, I think is something that people don't want to admit, because most people don't like the fact that the most likeable person in the office may be the most successful. See in many professions there are no quantitative assessment. All professional assessments (I think as a predictor of success) are based on perception. So working hard may not translate into a perception of hard working. Whereas if you do just the right things at just the right time will allow you to look like you are the hardest working.

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office, but I do know that it's the reality of many other professions.

If you must have an example, think of gov. & agency work, where self-maintenance is a higher priority than productivity (yes they teach that in public admin classes).

ETA: I suppose you can define other types of busy work necessary for getting ahead as "working hard" but I doubt that's what OP meant, even if it literally applies.

User avatar
RedBirds2011
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby RedBirds2011 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:06 pm

r6_philly wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?


It sounds cliche but work smarter not harder. There are ultimate two factors for becoming successful: one is to bring/generate value to a business, the other one is having the interpersonal skills to get ahead. Those are not mutually exclusive, but either or may be sufficient.

The first one, generating value, has a strong correlation to hard work, but not a direct causal relationship. It is entirely possible that the least hardworking colleague is the one that's generating the most value (for whatever reason). In that sense, comparatively, working hard isn't the key to success. Also worth to note, sometimes (most of the time in many professions) working very hard will prevent you from being promoted because it is too hard to replace you. At some point you rise above from being a fungible part of the business machine, and your place is cemented into your current position. I suppose it depends on how you define success, but I tend to think people don't view strict job security as success, they view upward mobility as the determining factor.

The second one, I think is something that people don't want to admit, because most people don't like the fact that the most likeable person in the office may be the most successful. See in many professions there are no quantitative assessment. All professional assessments (I think as a predictor of success) are based on perception. So working hard may not translate into a perception of working. Whereas if you do just the right things at just the right time will allow you to look like you are the hardest working.

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office, but I do know that it's the reality of many other professions.

If you must have an example, think of gov. & agency work, where self-maintenance is a higher priority than productivity (yes they teach that in public admin classes).

ETA: I suppose you can define other types of busy work necessary for getting ahead as "working hard" but I doubt that's what OP meant, even if it literally applies.


Oh ok, yea I see where youre coming from now.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby kaiser » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:07 pm

Blindmelon wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.



So what? I had like 11 CBs and 10 offers from V5s.


Got ya beat: 10 CB's that led to 11 offers from V5's

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Helmholtz » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:08 pm

Cavalier wrote:This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.


Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

User avatar
angrybird
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:15 am

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby angrybird » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:09 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
Cavalier wrote:This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.


Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

maybe i read this wrong, but i thought he was talking about the people in this thread, not the bonuses.

never mind, i misread your post.
Last edited by angrybird on Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby r6_philly » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:10 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
Cavalier wrote:This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.


Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.


It would seem like they'd done better by not giving a "bonus." Someone needs to hire a PR staff.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby IAFG » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:11 pm

r6_philly wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
Cavalier wrote:This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.


Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.


It would seem like they'd done better by not giving a "bonus." Someone needs to hire a PR staff.

They had all but promised to give a spring bonus, they realistically had no choice in this.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby kaiser » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:12 pm

r6_philly wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
Cavalier wrote:This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.


Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.


It would seem like they'd done better by not giving a "bonus." Someone needs to hire a PR staff.


Thats what I was thinking. I used to work as a waiter, and when someone would give a super cheap low-ball tip, I would think to myself, he might as well have just not given a tip, because this is a joke.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby r6_philly » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:17 pm

IAFG wrote:They had all but promised to give a spring bonus, they realistically had no choice in this.


I understand this, but talk to your PR rep and see if the saving is worth being made the laughing stock. It would be easier to understand if they were doing poorly financially.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS

Postby Lawl Shcool » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:57 pm

r6_philly wrote:
RedBirds2011 wrote:Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?


It sounds cliche but work smarter not harder. There are ultimate two factors for becoming successful: one is to bring/generate value to a business, the other one is having the interpersonal skills to get ahead. Those are not mutually exclusive, but either or may be sufficient.

The first one, generating value, has a strong correlation to hard work, but not a direct causal relationship. It is entirely possible that the least hardworking colleague is the one that's generating the most value (for whatever reason). In that sense, comparatively, working hard isn't the key to success. Also worth to note, sometimes (most of the time in many professions) working very hard will prevent you from being promoted because it is too hard to replace you. At some point you rise above from being a fungible part of the business machine, and your place is cemented into your current position. I suppose it depends on how you define success, but I tend to think people don't view strict job security as success, they view upward mobility as the determining factor.

The second one, I think is something that people don't want to admit, because most people don't like the fact that the most likeable person in the office may be the most successful. See in many professions there are no quantitative assessment. All professional assessments (I think as a predictor of success) are based on perception. So working hard may not translate into a perception of hard working. Whereas if you do just the right things at just the right time will allow you to look like you are the hardest working.

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office, but I do know that it's the reality of many other professions.

If you must have an example, think of gov. & agency work, where self-maintenance is a higher priority than productivity (yes they teach that in public admin classes).

ETA: I suppose you can define other types of busy work necessary for getting ahead as "working hard" but I doubt that's what OP meant, even if it literally applies.


You seem to be missing my point, in both your examples people are working very hard. Perhaps that is the disconnect, I see working hard as a total encompassing thing, not just billing hours. You work hard to bring in business, you work hard to maintain the business, to give the perception that you are working hard, and you generally have to work hard on the legal work for the business. Lawyers absolutely place high value on job security, hence why we are lawyers, not entrepreneurs.

Also, this:

r6_philly wrote:I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.