Fall bonuses Forum

ChairmanKaga · Post by **ChairmanKaga** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:46 pm

The logistics argument is clearly spurious given most firms, including Kirkland as I understand it, paid every attorney a WFH allowance of a few hundred dollars during the lockdown. Why go to the trouble of doing that, and then not go to the trouble of paying fall bonuses (given, in the latter case, you expose yourself to a degree of reputational harm). The only answers are (a) because you can't afford to or (b) because you're willing to accept the reputational harm in order to benefit the equity partners. Kirkland's answer may be (c) because we were already planning to pay 2x market in December. But I don't think anyone seriously expects that's the case.

TLSposter1990 · Post by **TLSposter1990** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:48 pm

Does Cravath’s partnership meet Monday or Tuesday? I was really optimistic on these last week but I’m starting to worry that unique times may give traditional NY matchers an excuse to leave this as a weird DPW/Milbank bonus. Sort of how Cahill gives spring bonuses and no one really cares.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:10 pm

TLSposter1990 wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:48 pm
Does Cravath’s partnership meet Monday or Tuesday? I was really optimistic on these last week but I’m starting to worry that unique times may give traditional NY matchers an excuse to leave this as a weird DPW/Milbank bonus. Sort of how Cahill gives spring bonuses and no one really cares.

Cravath meets Monday afternoons I believe.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:31 pm

ChairmanKaga wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:46 pm
The logistics argument is clearly spurious given most firms, including Kirkland as I understand it, paid every attorney a WFH allowance of a few hundred dollars during the lockdown. Why go to the trouble of doing that, and then not go to the trouble of paying fall bonuses (given, in the latter case, you expose yourself to a degree of reputational harm). The only answers are (a) because you can't afford to or (b) because you're willing to accept the reputational harm in order to benefit the equity partners. Kirkland's answer may be (c) because we were already planning to pay 2x market in December. But I don't think anyone seriously expects that's the case.

Really not digging the entitlement ITT. Don't get me wrong - I'm 100% on team please pay me my bonus now. But I also understand that if I'm a partner concerned about client relations issues from upping rates amid a recession and an already strained finance group trying to collect on difficult clients (not to mention new associates who have a delayed start date), it's a no brainier to sweep the extra bonus under the rug with the regular year-end bonuses. Then it's easy to say "we're just paying market here, nothing out of the ordinary folks." Call me naive but I'm cautiously optimistic that's exactly what KE is doing, and I haven't heard any hard facts that contradict that. I suspect my firm will do the same, given that all of these things were concerning even before the fall bonus wars. And I'll be mad as hell if, come annual bonus time, my firm doesn't match inclusive of fall bonuses.

That being said, it's fair to voice concern over KE non-committal language. But I suspect that's a nod to uncertainty over the next couple months rather than a bad omen that, even if conditions continue as they are, market bonuses (including fall bonuses) still won't be paid. Why am I wrong?

NoLongerALurker · Post by **NoLongerALurker** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:42 pm

"Entitlement?" Respectfully, in a world where literally the only reason anyone does this shit is the pay*, I think it's entirely appropriate that associates have only one thought here: Fuck you, pay me.

It's one thing to say associates shouldn't be asking for raises or demanding bonuses when there isn't a first-mover, but here we have first-mover, a few followers, and everyone getting monthly updates from firms that everything is hunky dory. If they don't pay bonuses (and in line timing-wise, give two weeks or so, with DPW), then I'll absolutely be mad as hell with my firm (while continuing to subserviently lick boots and fix comma splices and put on a smile until my student loans are finally gone).

(* = unless they're literally fundamentally broken human beings, going even beyond the level of broken that results in someone willingly spending the vast majority of their waking hours thinking about corporate pencil pushing in exchange for pay)

TigerIsBack · Post by **TigerIsBack** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:56 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:42 pm
"Entitlement?" Respectfully, in a world where literally the only reason anyone does this shit is the pay*, I think it's entirely appropriate that associates have only one thought here: Fuck you, pay me.

It's one thing to say associates shouldn't be asking for raises or demanding bonuses when there isn't a first-mover, but here we have first-mover, a few followers, and everyone getting monthly updates from firms that everything is hunky dory. If they don't pay bonuses (and in line timing-wise, give two weeks or so, with DPW), then I'll absolutely be mad as hell with my firm (while continuing to subserviently lick boots and fix comma splices and put on a smile until my student loans are finally gone).

(* = unless they're literally fundamentally broken human beings, going even beyond the level of broken that results in someone willingly spending the vast majority of their waking hours thinking about corporate pencil pushing in exchange for pay)

100% agree. They're paying me for my time because the money is the only reason I would ever do this job, and currently, I'm being asked for (i) more of my time than usual, (ii) on top of weird/annoying home circumstances because of remote work/school closings/etc., and (iii) there's less I can do to destress/unplug because of (i) and (ii) and everything being closed because of COVID and the whole "living at the office" thing.

So, yeah, pay me.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:05 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:42 pm
"Entitlement?" Respectfully, in a world where literally the only reason anyone does this shit is the pay*, I think it's entirely appropriate that associates have only one thought here: Fuck you, pay me.

It's one thing to say associates shouldn't be asking for raises or demanding bonuses when there isn't a first-mover, but here we have first-mover, a few followers, and everyone getting monthly updates from firms that everything is hunky dory. If they don't pay bonuses (and in line timing-wise, give two weeks or so, with DPW), then I'll absolutely be mad as hell with my firm (while continuing to subserviently lick boots and fix comma splices and put on a smile until my student loans are finally gone).

(* = unless they're literally fundamentally broken human beings, going even beyond the level of broken that results in someone willingly spending the vast majority of their waking hours thinking about corporate pencil pushing in exchange for pay)

I'm sorry you feel that way about your job and the profession. I don't. So I understand that may be why our opinions differ.

What I don't understand is how "fuck you, pay me" morphs into "fuck you, pay me now but client perception that keeps the lights on for me, hardship for my firm that would like to endure long after I pay my loans for future fuck-you-pay-me-lawyers, and first years who are delayed their typical start date be damned." Hating your job and wanting money to compensate you for that doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore every other complicating factor in the world. But entitlement does...

ChairmanKaga · Post by **ChairmanKaga** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm

There's no issue of entitlement here. Nobody would argue BigLaw bases and bonuses aren't excessive relative to societal value added. This discussion is merely industry commentary. And the top handful of firms in the industry have a very long history of broadly matching one another's compensation. No client is going to begrudge any major law firm, least of all a firm with a 5m PEP, for matching fall bonuses paid by its competitors.

NoLongerALurker · Post by **NoLongerALurker** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:05 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:42 pm
"Entitlement?" Respectfully, in a world where literally the only reason anyone does this shit is the pay*, I think it's entirely appropriate that associates have only one thought here: Fuck you, pay me.

It's one thing to say associates shouldn't be asking for raises or demanding bonuses when there isn't a first-mover, but here we have first-mover, a few followers, and everyone getting monthly updates from firms that everything is hunky dory. If they don't pay bonuses (and in line timing-wise, give two weeks or so, with DPW), then I'll absolutely be mad as hell with my firm (while continuing to subserviently lick boots and fix comma splices and put on a smile until my student loans are finally gone).

(* = unless they're literally fundamentally broken human beings, going even beyond the level of broken that results in someone willingly spending the vast majority of their waking hours thinking about corporate pencil pushing in exchange for pay)
I'm sorry you feel that way about your job and the profession. I don't. So I understand that may be why our opinions differ.

What I don't understand is how "fuck you, pay me" morphs into "fuck you, pay me now but client perception that keeps the lights on for me, hardship for my firm that would like to endure long after I pay my loans for future fuck-you-pay-me-lawyers, and first years who are delayed their typical start date be damned." Hating your job and wanting money to compensate you for that doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore every other complicating factor in the world. But entitlement does...

I will be the first to admit that I don’t view greasing the wheels of banks and public companies to be anything more than a transactional exercise on my part (and that I am quite satisfied finding “meaning” in life from other parts of my life outside of work rather than learning to derive meaning from what I do at work) — maybe that makes me an unfortunate candidate for big law but here we are. Overall I’m satisfied with the arrangement. I am happy for you to hear that you are less cynical on this point, but I truly cannot understand it.

More to the point: yes, I unapologetically feel “entitled” to the same comp as associates at Milbank or DPW, complicating factors and all.

Pulsar · Post by **Pulsar** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:05 pm

I'm sorry you feel that way about your job and the profession. I don't. So I understand that may be why our opinions differ.

It's not "the profession." It's biglaw specifically.

Get out here, idiot first year.

Dcc617 · Post by **Dcc617** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:37 pm

The argument re client perception is ridiculous on its face. You realize that they’re still paying the bills to the firm, right? You’re essentially arguing that it’s fine for biglaw partners to rake in huge amounts of money but somehow unseemly for that money to go to associates. Hard to believe how naive associates are. Biglaw is all about the money, for everyone.

byrdscales · Post by **byrdscales** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:50 pm

This bickering and name-calling is fun and all, but isn't news on bonus prospects what's actually important?

ATL is reporting Selendy & Gay punted to December: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/09/another ... -december/

Here's hoping Cravath confirms bonuses today.

sms18 · Post by **sms18** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:05 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:42 pm
"Entitlement?" Respectfully, in a world where literally the only reason anyone does this shit is the pay*, I think it's entirely appropriate that associates have only one thought here: Fuck you, pay me.

It's one thing to say associates shouldn't be asking for raises or demanding bonuses when there isn't a first-mover, but here we have first-mover, a few followers, and everyone getting monthly updates from firms that everything is hunky dory. If they don't pay bonuses (and in line timing-wise, give two weeks or so, with DPW), then I'll absolutely be mad as hell with my firm (while continuing to subserviently lick boots and fix comma splices and put on a smile until my student loans are finally gone).

(* = unless they're literally fundamentally broken human beings, going even beyond the level of broken that results in someone willingly spending the vast majority of their waking hours thinking about corporate pencil pushing in exchange for pay)
I'm sorry you feel that way about your job and the profession. I don't. So I understand that may be why our opinions differ.

What I don't understand is how "fuck you, pay me" morphs into "fuck you, pay me now but client perception that keeps the lights on for me, hardship for my firm that would like to endure long after I pay my loans for future fuck-you-pay-me-lawyers, and first years who are delayed their typical start date be damned." Hating your job and wanting money to compensate you for that doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore every other complicating factor in the world. But entitlement does...

Your opinion differs from everyone else's on this thread not because of how we view our jobs, but because of your unsupported (and, to be honest, ridiculous) assumption that K&E (and potentially other firms that haven't spoken up) is deciding not to pay fall bonuses because they care about client perception and the predicament of the delayed first year associates. Folks who have been in this industry long enough know that biglaw (and KE in particular) DO NOT take into account those things when making the decision on stuff like associate bonuses, regardless of what they say on paper.

TigerIsBack · Post by **TigerIsBack** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:05 pm

Getting back to the topic at hand, in 2018 when summer bonuses were announced, Cravath announced on a Monday. The article hit ATL at 4:42pm (37 minutes from now).

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/cravath ... ssociates/

NoLongerALurker · Post by **NoLongerALurker** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:09 pm

TigerIsBack wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:05 pm
Getting back to the topic at hand, in 2018 when summer bonuses were announced, Cravath announced on a Monday. The article hit ATL at 4:42pm (37 minutes from now).

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/cravath ... ssociates/

This is the quality content we need right now.

Joachim2017 · Post by **Joachim2017** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:38 pm

I really don't understand the "entitlement" argument. Associates are not asking for clients to pay more money. They are asking for partners at their firms to share the wealth that the partners, having received from clients, are pocketing. I can see why firms would be wary to raise salaries or throw around splashy figures at the same time that collections are down and clients are balking at their bills; but what associates here and elsewhere are pointing out is that if a law firm is already down well right now, the right thing to do is what DPW did, given all the circumstances.

If firms like KE are having a similar level of financial success, they should behave similarly (the "it's too hard to facilitate from a logistics pov" argument is laughable on its face). And if they're not having a similar level of financial success, they should not misrepresent that they are.

Lukky · Post by **Lukky** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:53 pm

I don't understand all this bickering about Kirkland's decision. You are debating over information that is verifiable in a relatively short amount of time. In a few months, we'll hear about what the average Kirkland associate is making.

To all those claiming that this is a way of Kirkland screwing over its associates: If Kirkland ends up paying 1.5x at a minimum for the year-end bonus, wouldn't that make you look really stupid? And, if they do end up just factoring the fall bonus into their year-end bonus, these arguments about logistical simplicity and/or client perceptions will make a lot of sense.

On the flip side, if Kirkland pays the same bonuses as it always does, it'll make the Kirkland stans look pretty stupid.

I personally think that Kirkland will probably make their associates whole just because of how profitable they are / how well they seem to be doing during this pandemic (rx practice). It would be a little silly to send out the email that they did if they don't intend to stick with their promise. That being said, my opinion shouldn't be worth much (I have no idea what goes on at Kirkland), and that's also probably true for most of you. Might as well wait.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:40 pm

S&C bonus email went out

TigerIsBack · Post by **TigerIsBack** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:41 pm

Phew. I was getting nervous we'd have another day without movement. I suspect if Cravath met today they were waiting for 1 or 2 more of the S&C level firms to announce before making their announcement.

Scallion · Post by **Scallion** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:37 pm
The argument re client perception is ridiculous on its face. You realize that they’re still paying the bills to the firm, right? You’re essentially arguing that it’s fine for biglaw partners to rake in huge amounts of money but somehow unseemly for that money to go to associates. Hard to believe how naive associates are. Biglaw is all about the money, for everyone.

This.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:31 pm
But I also understand that if I'm a partner concerned about client relations issues from upping rates amid a recession and an already strained finance group trying to collect on difficult clients (not to mention new associates who have a delayed start date), it's a no brainier to sweep the extra bonus under the rug with the regular year-end bonuses.

Also, who said that firms have to increase rates in order to give us bonuses?

TigerIsBack · Post by **TigerIsBack** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:40 pm
S&C bonus email went out

Details? Standard match?

NoLongerALurker · Post by **NoLongerALurker** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:03 pm

Is S&C claim flame or real?

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:20 pm

S&C associate here, bonuses are real. Matched DPW.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:24 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:03 pm
Is S&C claim flame or real?

Ominous silence...nothing from ATL either.

Anonymous User · Post by **Anonymous User** » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:24 pm

NoLongerALurker wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:03 pm
Is S&C claim flame or real?
Ominous silence...nothing from ATL either.

One can only assume that S&C associates are too busy popping bottles

Fall bonuses Forum

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Register for access!

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Register now!

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Re: Fall bonuses

Seriously? What are you waiting for?