2021 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Email went around at PW last night announcing a new discretionary special bonus program for "those of you whose contributions and sacrifices have been extraordinary". There will be one payment in November and another beginning of next year. Practice group leaders will be reaching out to individuals who receive separately. No mention of a scale or actual qualifications.

Is this just falling in line with other firms that offer bonus multipliers or additional $$$ for top billers/performers? I thought PW was previously lockstep bonus regardless of hours: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/11/paul-we ... uses-2020/.

Also I assume PW already matched this year's special bonus? Now with firms having different special bonus timing it's hard to compare intuitively --- for example, Skadden baked half of this year's market special bonus into their year end bonus, so still hasn't paid in full the bonuses that were announced earlier this year. If PW is now paying *another* bonus in Nov, they're effectively lapping Skadden. And then if you're cap markets or M&A at Skadden, next June you'll get a retention bonus which will then presumably more-than-catch-up for the PW bonus. It's really not as simple to follow comp as it used to be.

[Ultramar vistas]

Feels like a really bad move by PW right now. It’s like the opposite of a retention bonus for anyone who doesn’t get it - there are six figure signing bonuses out there for M&A associates, so if I missed out on a discretionary bonus at my firm because I billed 2150 and not 2250 or whatever the cutoff may be, you better believe I’m flipping my old firm the bird as I accept a signing bonus across the street.

[Anonymous User]

Also seems risky? I doubt that the market is going to match something like this...no posted hours cutoff or amounts ... so even if you wanted to match you really can't.

Seems like they're leaving themselves open to having to pay these AND additional bonsues across the board.

Feels like a really bad move by PW right now. It’s like the opposite of a retention bonus for anyone who doesn’t get it - there are six figure signing bonuses out there for M&A associates, so if I missed out on a discretionary bonus at my firm because I billed 2150 and not 2250 or whatever the cutoff may be, you better believe I’m flipping my old firm the bird as I accept a signing bonus across the street.

I wouldn't be shocked if this pretty much broke across groups with some exceptions.

[cornerstone]

Feels like a really bad move by PW right now. It’s like the opposite of a retention bonus for anyone who doesn’t get it - there are six figure signing bonuses out there for M&A associates, so if I missed out on a discretionary bonus at my firm because I billed 2150 and not 2250 or whatever the cutoff may be, you better believe I’m flipping my old firm the bird as I accept a signing bonus across the street.

Right, so this sounds more like the standard extra-work/extra-pay bonus that lots of other firms do than a retention bonus, especially since it seems to be department/associate specific. This is noise and someone else will properly raise the EOY bonus scale and/or offer true retention bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DPW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

[Anonymous User]

Former PW associate now at a fund so no direct skin in the game. Makes total commercial sense to retain the M&A/lev fin associates - probably cheaper to retain them than having to pay big signing bonuses to import new ones in this market. But still pretty shocked that they would move towards Kirkland-style discretionary bonuses based on hours. I wonder how the other associates will react.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

[Anonymous User]

Former PW associate now at a fund so no direct skin in the game. Makes total commercial sense to retain the M&A/lev fin associates - probably cheaper to retain them than having to pay big signing bonuses to import new ones in this market. But still pretty shocked that they would move towards Kirkland-style discretionary bonuses based on hours. I wonder how the other associates will react.

I’ve never worked at PW so I’m not qualified to have an opinion, but I too was a little surprised. PW doesn’t have non-equity partners, right? (Unlike, say, STB?) I guess more and more traditional white-shoe firms will wake up to the fact that the Kirkland-style way of doing things is better (better for partners, at least).

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

I’m dense but I don’t get this. If I bill 2000 and Jim bills 2300 why am I upset Jim gets cash? Especially when we’re all getting the same EOY bonus at market. I could have worked more if I wanted to (I don’t believe me). Sure if I’m at 2150 and Jim is at 2200 and he gets a bone and I don’t then I’d be annoyed. But we don’t even know what the payout is at this point so it’s hard to be preemptively upset.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

I’m dense but I don’t get this. If I bill 2000 and Jim bills 2300 why am I upset Jim gets cash? Especially when we’re all getting the same EOY bonus at market. I could have worked more if I wanted to (I don’t believe me). Sure if I’m at 2150 and Jim is at 2200 and he gets a bone and I don’t then I’d be annoyed. But we don’t even know what the payout is at this point so it’s hard to be preemptively upset.

Same anon. Oh you’re assuming these aren’t hours based bonuses? Why would that be? I have no idea one way or the other and I work at PW.

[Anonymous User]

Will be interesting to see what happens now. Will firms just keep bonuses level for everyone and do individual discretionary amounts on top of that (hours/group based)? It would be a pretty big change in the structure of some of the firms that have been more egalitarian in compensation - you get X, just like everyone else in your class.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

I’m dense but I don’t get this. If I bill 2000 and Jim bills 2300 why am I upset Jim gets cash? Especially when we’re all getting the same EOY bonus at market. I could have worked more if I wanted to (I don’t believe me). Sure if I’m at 2150 and Jim is at 2200 and he gets a bone and I don’t then I’d be annoyed. But we don’t even know what the payout is at this point so it’s hard to be preemptively upset.

It's hard to overstate the lockstep culture at these whiteshoe firms - they hammer the whole "culture" thing during recruiting and while you're there.

But think about it, let's say I'm a litigator or restructuring associate that has billed obscenely high hours in the past. Part of the reason I tolerate it is because we're all supposed to be paid the same no matter the hours. So on slow years i'll gain, on busy years i take a hit. But it's fair. But now all these corporate associates are getting paid special bonuses because it was a busy year in the market - well what about all the prior years where I was billing the same number of hours? Or future years? Why should I stick around when I could go to a firm like Kirkland that consistently rewards high hours? I'm not at PW anymore but I'd be pretty annoyed that they changed the rules--and one of the bedrock principles of the firm at that--for this one year in a way that doesn't benefit me.

[s1m4]

Why dont firms just not send these email annoucements? Why dont they reach out to high risk folks individdially and just give them bonuses?

[Anonymous User]

Maybe this isn't the case at PW but there are definitely firms with groups that are just ... busier than everyone else just about every year. Like at my last firm it was just known that the lit associates billed less. I don't think lockstep really washses out for the average associate: I think there are some who generally benefit and some who don't.

[Ultramar vistas]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

I’m dense but I don’t get this. If I bill 2000 and Jim bills 2300 why am I upset Jim gets cash? Especially when we’re all getting the same EOY bonus at market. I could have worked more if I wanted to (I don’t believe me). Sure if I’m at 2150 and Jim is at 2200 and he gets a bone and I don’t then I’d be annoyed. But we don’t even know what the payout is at this point so it’s hard to be preemptively upset.

You are dense (or you are still a law student).

The difference between 2200 hours and 2500 hours seems like a lot from the outside, but it is 42.3 hours a week vs 48 hours a week. If I knew in advance that 5.5 hrs a week was going to be important, sad to say that I could “find” those hours without anyone knowing or caring - I just don’t because I’m ethical and I’m not currently rewarded for it.

People pad their hours, people procrastinate more than you, people are slower than you, and yet they get rewarded. You may have suffered through a terrible international deal that required you to work from 5pm to 2am every night, and billed less than someone with a steady workflow from 9 to 7.

Maybe you took vacation, and now you feel punished for it.

White shoe biglaw has always operated on the assumption that everyone is pulling their weight and adding value, and that the billable hour, while necessary for clients and a good thing for the financial success of the industry, is not a good way of holistically judging someone’s contribution to the firm. If someone’s not contributing, they’ll be gone soon, no need to dock their bonus in an ungentlemanly manner.

Here, PW is saying that they are no longer one big team - some contribute more than others, pad your hours and cancel your vacation to make sure you get yours too. It’s probably inevitable but it is sad. And if I were a client I’d avoid firms that incentivize over billing like this.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

I’m dense but I don’t get this. If I bill 2000 and Jim bills 2300 why am I upset Jim gets cash? Especially when we’re all getting the same EOY bonus at market. I could have worked more if I wanted to (I don’t believe me). Sure if I’m at 2150 and Jim is at 2200 and he gets a bone and I don’t then I’d be annoyed. But we don’t even know what the payout is at this point so it’s hard to be preemptively upset.

It's hard to overstate the lockstep culture at these whiteshoe firms - they hammer the whole "culture" thing during recruiting and while you're there.

But think about it, let's say I'm a litigator or restructuring associate that has billed obscenely high hours in the past. Part of the reason I tolerate it is because we're all supposed to be paid the same no matter the hours. So on slow years i'll gain, on busy years i take a hit. But it's fair. But now all these corporate associates are getting paid special bonuses because it was a busy year in the market - well what about all the prior years where I was billing the same number of hours? Or future years? Why should I stick around when I could go to a firm like Kirkland that consistently rewards high hours? I'm not at PW anymore but I'd be pretty annoyed that they changed the rules--and one of the bedrock principles of the firm at that--for this one year in a way that doesn't benefit me.

Exactly this. I am at one of the other NY lockstep firms and billed over 2,500 hours in litigation last year.
Was I pissed that no additional money had come my way? A little, considering I would have received a bigger bonus if I were at Kirkland or some of our peer firms instead. But I accepted it because I figured there will be years where things are much calmer for me and crazier for others, and it's comforting that my pay will not fluctuate in those years either. This equality amongst peers, fosters collaboration, no sharp elbows blah blah blah is at the core of the firm's identity, or so they've claimed forever. So now the firm wants me to accept that, despite what looks to be another record financial year, they can't afford to pay all their associates a discretionary bonus and that I should just accept that it will go only to those with "extraordinary contributions" over the past six months? Screw that.

[Anonymous User]

I think people are generally expected to bill ethically whether or not bonuses are tied to hours so I’m not sure I understand the above poster’s point.

I do think this is bound to breed resentment even amongst corporate groups, including specialist groups. That said, it’s a tough position to be in because I also think it’s fair to pay more to corporate associates purely from a business perspective. Corporate associates bill much more per hour than litigators in general and it’s corporate laterals demanding 6 figure signing bonuses right now not litigators. This is just how the biglaw business model is developing since corporate is just insanely profitable.

[Anonymous User]

You are dense (or you are still a law student).

The difference between 2200 hours and 2500 hours seems like a lot from the outside, but it is 42.3 hours a week vs 48 hours a week. If I knew in advance that 5.5 hrs a week was going to be important, sad to say that I could “find” those hours without anyone knowing or caring - I just don’t because I’m ethical and I’m not currently rewarded for it.

People pad their hours, people procrastinate more than you, people are slower than you, and yet they get rewarded. You may have suffered through a terrible international deal that required you to work from 5pm to 2am every night, and billed less than someone with a steady workflow from 9 to 7.

Maybe you took vacation, and now you feel punished for it.

White shoe biglaw has always operated on the assumption that everyone is pulling their weight and adding value, and that the billable hour, while necessary for clients and a good thing for the financial success of the industry, is not a good way of holistically judging someone’s contribution to the firm. If someone’s not contributing, they’ll be gone soon, no need to dock their bonus in an ungentlemanly manner.

Here, PW is saying that they are no longer one big team - some contribute more than others, pad your hours and cancel your vacation to make sure you get yours too. It’s probably inevitable but it is sad. And if I were a client I’d avoid firms that incentivize over billing like this.

5.7 hours per week is...a lot? Especially when it's on top of 42+ hours per week *every week*. Sure in any given week it's not that big of a difference but over the course of a year? 300 hours is 1.6 months of work for the person doing 2,200. Actually insane to argue 2,200 and 2,500 aren't that different. You're pretty much saying that billing 8.5 hours M-F and then 5.7 hours every single Saturday is pretty much the same as billing 8.5 hours M-F and then taking all weekend off? Also...not everyone can just bill X hours every day or week. Most people will have a slow week here and there that makes it much harder to maintain a 2,500 pace.

Also weird to argue that taking a vacation doesn't count and that you could just as easily NOT take one and remain sane. Also, many (most?) biglaw associates have hours requirements...we have long since been accustomed to the reality that taking a vacation means putting up a 0 (or close to it) for a week, and those hours need to be made up elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

I’m dense but I don’t get this. If I bill 2000 and Jim bills 2300 why am I upset Jim gets cash? Especially when we’re all getting the same EOY bonus at market. I could have worked more if I wanted to (I don’t believe me). Sure if I’m at 2150 and Jim is at 2200 and he gets a bone and I don’t then I’d be annoyed. But we don’t even know what the payout is at this point so it’s hard to be preemptively upset.

It's hard to overstate the lockstep culture at these whiteshoe firms - they hammer the whole "culture" thing during recruiting and while you're there.

But think about it, let's say I'm a litigator or restructuring associate that has billed obscenely high hours in the past. Part of the reason I tolerate it is because we're all supposed to be paid the same no matter the hours. So on slow years i'll gain, on busy years i take a hit. But it's fair. But now all these corporate associates are getting paid special bonuses because it was a busy year in the market - well what about all the prior years where I was billing the same number of hours? Or future years? Why should I stick around when I could go to a firm like Kirkland that consistently rewards high hours? I'm not at PW anymore but I'd be pretty annoyed that they changed the rules--and one of the bedrock principles of the firm at that--for this one year in a way that doesn't benefit me.

Exactly this. I am at one of the other NY lockstep firms and billed over 2,500 hours in litigation last year.
Was I pissed that no additional money had come my way? A little, considering I would have received a bigger bonus if I were at Kirkland or some of our peer firms instead. But I accepted it because I figured there will be years where things are much calmer for me and crazier for others, and it's comforting that my pay will not fluctuate in those years either. This equality amongst peers, fosters collaboration, no sharp elbows blah blah blah is at the core of the firm's identity, or so they've claimed forever. So now the firm wants me to accept that, despite what looks to be another record financial year, they can't afford to pay all their associates a discretionary bonus and that I should just accept that it will go only to those with "extraordinary contributions" over the past six months? Screw that.

Same anon. Just wanted to add that the only thing worse than paying only certain associates a bonus is to ignore Skadden's and PW's bonuses entirely because of the rock/hard place that you're now stuck between, which I fear might be the case for the traditional lockstep white shoe crowd (notwithstanding PW's seeming inclusion in that group only 24 hours ago). Reward all your associates equally (as you've committed to do since forever) and still enjoy your record profits!

[Ultramar vistas]

You are dense (or you are still a law student).

The difference between 2200 hours and 2500 hours seems like a lot from the outside, but it is 42.3 hours a week vs 48 hours a week. If I knew in advance that 5.5 hrs a week was going to be important, sad to say that I could “find” those hours without anyone knowing or caring - I just don’t because I’m ethical and I’m not currently rewarded for it.

People pad their hours, people procrastinate more than you, people are slower than you, and yet they get rewarded. You may have suffered through a terrible international deal that required you to work from 5pm to 2am every night, and billed less than someone with a steady workflow from 9 to 7.

Maybe you took vacation, and now you feel punished for it.

White shoe biglaw has always operated on the assumption that everyone is pulling their weight and adding value, and that the billable hour, while necessary for clients and a good thing for the financial success of the industry, is not a good way of holistically judging someone’s contribution to the firm. If someone’s not contributing, they’ll be gone soon, no need to dock their bonus in an ungentlemanly manner.

Here, PW is saying that they are no longer one big team - some contribute more than others, pad your hours and cancel your vacation to make sure you get yours too. It’s probably inevitable but it is sad. And if I were a client I’d avoid firms that incentivize over billing like this.

5.7 hours per week is...a lot? Especially when it's on top of 42+ hours per week *every week*. Sure in any given week it's not that big of a difference but over the course of a year? 300 hours is 1.6 months of work for the person doing 2,200. Actually insane to argue 2,200 and 2,500 aren't that different. You're pretty much saying that billing 8.5 hours M-F and then 5.7 hours every single Saturday is pretty much the same as billing 8.5 hours M-F and then taking all weekend off? Also...not everyone can just bill X hours every day or week. Most people will have a slow week here and there that makes it much harder to maintain a 2,500 pace.

Also weird to argue that taking a vacation doesn't count and that you could just as easily NOT take one and remain sane. Also, many (most?) biglaw associates have hours requirements...we have long since been accustomed to the reality that taking a vacation means putting up a 0 (or close to it) for a week, and those hours need to be made up elsewhere.

It’s not a lot. Once you’ve worked in this industry for a few years you will see how wildly varied people’s billing practices are, to the extent that 20-30% swings are normal. If one person leaves their timer on for a couple bathroom and coffee breaks, and another is diligent about turning it off, that adds up to a seemingly large gap. I’ve seen people bill 300 hours in a month when all they did was shoot the shit with people in the hallway, and I’ve seen people bill 200 when they were crushed. Ignoring the inaccuracies of billing is willful blindness.

Not arguing that vacation isn’t meaningful, I’m saying that given how many firms are actually making real moves on wellness (Orrick, Willkie, etc.), PW making a chance that discourages healthy work practices seems like a regression, not a good move forward.

[Anonymous User]

What probably happened is that the Barshay and/or Ezring camps cried about it until they got what they wanted - expect to see a lot more of that going forward. Reality is that the non-litigation groups at PW have grown via lateral acquisitions so you have these fiefdoms that wield outsized influence. That's only going to get worse and trickle into decisions like bonuses and promotions.

Lockstep among PW partners was never really thing anyway (lol @ "modified lockstep") and all these firms are going to start looking more and more like Kirkland (RIP DPW) with maybe Cravath and Wachtell being the only survivors.

[Anonymous User]

Can’t say I’d be too happy if I were a PW associate, but this format seems like a shrewd move. As with the Skadden bonuses, it’s all very personalized / high touch / and secretive. Because it’s personalized, it can be targeted to wherever you highest flight-risk is. And because it’s secretive, it’s harder for a Milbank/DPW to swoop in and one-up you (not to mention, less ATL reporting and less pressure on Milbank/DOW to do that in the first place). It will be interesting to see what other firms do with this — I suspect a lot with have cover to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this.

The problem is it increases the flight risk of every associate who doesn't get one.

Not sure about this. Lateraling is a pain in the ass for a lot of people. (I can attest to this). If it's targeted towards the groups that can most easily lateral (corp) then there might not be much blowback, because lit associates and such can't as easily quit and find a new job instantly like those folks can.

[Anonymous User]

What probably happened is that the Barshay and/or Ezring camps cried about it until they got what they wanted - expect to see a lot more of that going forward. Reality is that the non-litigation groups at PW have grown via lateral acquisitions so you have these fiefdoms that wield outsized influence. That's only going to get worse and trickle into decisions like bonuses and promotions.

Lockstep among PW partners was never really thing anyway (lol @ "modified lockstep") and all these firms are going to start looking more and more like Kirkland (RIP DPW) with maybe Cravath and Wachtell being the only survivors.

Among the V20ish firms that still pay lip service to the lockstep & collegiality, which one are most committed vs. which are teetering closer and closer to EWYK and variable associate bonuses?

Most traditional: CSM, WLRK, S&C?, Deb?, Cleary?
Drifting away: PW, Skadden, STB (in addition to LW, KE, obviously)
Not sure: DPW, Weil, the others…

[Anonymous User]

You are dense (or you are still a law student).

The difference between 2200 hours and 2500 hours seems like a lot from the outside, but it is 42.3 hours a week vs 48 hours a week. If I knew in advance that 5.5 hrs a week was going to be important, sad to say that I could “find” those hours without anyone knowing or caring - I just don’t because I’m ethical and I’m not currently rewarded for it.

Possibly the worst thing I have read all week and clearly you have never worked a 2500 pace. 2200 is bearable. 2500 pushes you to an extreme no human being should have to suffer for any extended period of time.

[Anonymous User]

Anon (work in a busy group at one of the firms in question). How would we expect being on secondment to affect receipt of the “special” bonus?