2021 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Legitimate question: Why don’t people just say no to the unreasonable work requests we’re seeing right now? I’ve seen in people in this thread and others, and have seen first hand at my firm, doing legitimate harm to their well being in the name of the firm. But considering how short staffed everyone is, it’s not like they’re going to fire you if you say no, right? I guess it could hurt partnership chances, but it kinda seems like people won’t make it that long anyway at this pace.

Just curious.

Do you work at one of these firms? There are strong sources of pressure not to say no, some of which are less servile than you might think (e.g., the other associates in your group are also slammed so you are effectively making their lives worse by saying no). And there is no shortage of the servile tendency either. It certainly doesn’t always feel like an option to say no, and for many people the mere fact that it would ruffle feathers is enough to prevent them from doing it. To say nothing of the fact that when the client calls me directly with another project because I am their point person at the firm, I need to be near-breakdown in order to ask for help, because bringing someone else up to speed would take a lot of time too and many associates value being the point person for a client in that way as advantageous to their careers. Some have also also an insane desire to prove to themselves and others that they are capable of doing this much work without breaking down. If your response to all of that is “why?” then I think your question is a broader one, i.e. why people are frequently irrationally afraid.

New first years and second years say no all the time at my v10. Hilarious new development. Then they are offline before everyone else. No one fired them.

[Definitely Not North]

New first years and second years say no all the time at my v10. Hilarious new development. Then they are offline before everyone else. No one fired them.

low millennial summer children don't know what ITE fear tastes like

[Anonymous User]

I hate to raise this, but are we possibly at the point where bonus announcements go away??

[Anonymous User]

Legitimate question: Why don’t people just say no to the unreasonable work requests we’re seeing right now? I’ve seen in people in this thread and others, and have seen first hand at my firm, doing legitimate harm to their well being in the name of the firm. But considering how short staffed everyone is, it’s not like they’re going to fire you if you say no, right? I guess it could hurt partnership chances, but it kinda seems like people won’t make it that long anyway at this pace.

Just curious.

Do you work at one of these firms? There are strong sources of pressure not to say no, some of which are less servile than you might think (e.g., the other associates in your group are also slammed so you are effectively making their lives worse by saying no). And there is no shortage of the servile tendency either. It certainly doesn’t always feel like an option to say no, and for many people the mere fact that it would ruffle feathers is enough to prevent them from doing it. To say nothing of the fact that when the client calls me directly with another project because I am their point person at the firm, I need to be near-breakdown in order to ask for help, because bringing someone else up to speed would take a lot of time too and many associates value being the point person for a client in that way as advantageous to their careers. Some have also also an insane desire to prove to themselves and others that they are capable of doing this much work without breaking down. If your response to all of that is “why?” then I think your question is a broader one, i.e. why people are frequently irrationally afraid.

New first years and second years say no all the time at my v10. Hilarious new development. Then they are offline before everyone else. No one fired them.

Same at mine and it’s annoying. But you have to basically get caught lying / similar trust issue to get fired from my v10 in the first few years. A first year only has so much value to offer anyways even if they’re working hard (prob less true in lit or cap markets where there’s ample grunt work), so it’s more on the group to teach them either to not be lazy/incompetent or tap them on the shoulder and point to the door if they haven’t gotten the picture after a few more years.

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Legitimate question: Why don’t people just say no to the unreasonable work requests we’re seeing right now? I’ve seen in people in this thread and others, and have seen first hand at my firm, doing legitimate harm to their well being in the name of the firm. But considering how short staffed everyone is, it’s not like they’re going to fire you if you say no, right? I guess it could hurt partnership chances, but it kinda seems like people won’t make it that long anyway at this pace.

Just curious.

Biglaw has depended forever on an unyielding onslaught of wildly risk-averse pussies with shockingly low levels of self-respect.

If too many people started consistently saying no, Biglaw would *eventually* move on to the hordes of underemployed Fordham 165 kids who would be absolutely thrilled to be Captain Boomer's bitchboy without ever dreaming of asking for a bonus at all. But you can get paid a lot more before that happens.

[Ultramar vistas]

(e.g., the other associates in your group are also slammed so you are effectively making their lives worse by saying no).

Cannot be overstated. I think this may be why things started falling apart during WFH - if you can’t actually SEE Billy waking up in his office on Tuesday morning for the third week in a row, and you don’t actually bump into Rose crying in the hallway because she’s having a mental breakdown, you don’t get a good feeling for how much of a shit you are in their eyes for trying to keep your hours at a reasonable level at their expense.

[BottomOfTotem]

Legitimate question: Why don’t people just say no to the unreasonable work requests we’re seeing right now? I’ve seen in people in this thread and others, and have seen first hand at my firm, doing legitimate harm to their well being in the name of the firm. But considering how short staffed everyone is, it’s not like they’re going to fire you if you say no, right? I guess it could hurt partnership chances, but it kinda seems like people won’t make it that long anyway at this pace.

Just curious.

Do you work at one of these firms? There are strong sources of pressure not to say no, some of which are less servile than you might think (e.g., the other associates in your group are also slammed so you are effectively making their lives worse by saying no). And there is no shortage of the servile tendency either. It certainly doesn’t always feel like an option to say no, and for many people the mere fact that it would ruffle feathers is enough to prevent them from doing it. To say nothing of the fact that when the client calls me directly with another project because I am their point person at the firm, I need to be near-breakdown in order to ask for help, because bringing someone else up to speed would take a lot of time too and many associates value being the point person for a client in that way as advantageous to their careers. Some have also also an insane desire to prove to themselves and others that they are capable of doing this much work without breaking down. If your response to all of that is “why?” then I think your question is a broader one, i.e. why people are frequently irrationally afraid.

Not sure exactly what firms you’re referring to (maybe V10), but I work for a large firm in a major market. I was genuinely curious because my practice is not as crazy as corporate right now, so I wanted to hear what people’s thought processes are. I totally understand the pressures you mention and agree that they normally can be quite strong, but it seems that things have changed and people are getting destroyed to an unheard of degree. I would like to think, though I recognize it is easier said than done, that it might be time for some self preservation. Not saying go dark after billing 8 hours so that your colleague has to pick up the slack, but maybe say no to working on thanksgiving.

Fwiw, I’m an older associate with a prior career and a family, so maybe that sways my thinking.

Ps: Definitely not trying to talk shit. I’m just both curious for selfish reasons and genuinely worried about people’s sanity.

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Maybe I've just become jaded but I don't get how this is "hazing." We're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars. It ain't because you're a Chambers Senior Statesman with 30+ years of experience to draw on. It's because you're available when we want you to be and will work extraordinary hours. That's the basic bargain of biglaw for junior attorneys. Frankly, even when you do get those 30+ years of experience you'll still be expected to be available on demand for important clients of the firm--it's like this all the way to the top. This isn't "hazing" it's the reality of practicing at this level. Also, law is far from the only industry where there's this sort of expectation on junior people at the highest echelon of compensation.

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Sometimes it's okay to say no, sometimes it isn't. There are juniors who say no too much, judging mostly from the equitable distribution of work across the group of lawyers at the firm capable of doing that type of work.

On biglaw culture / hazing, keep in mind that most partners are risk-averse doormats to clients every bit as much as, if not more than, associates are to partners. If your position is that this whole culture needs to change including partners (even at the tip-top law firms) / there simply shouldn't be any client-services firms that have such high demands on their employees, I think you're imposing your own priorities for wellbeing and work/life balance on the entirety of the labor pool--there will always be people with unhealthy perspectives and this job to a large degree depends on rewarding them.

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Maybe I've just become jaded but I don't get how this is "hazing." We're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars. It ain't because you're a Chambers Senior Statesman with 30+ years of experience to draw on. It's because you're available when we want you to be and will work extraordinary hours. That's the basic bargain of biglaw for junior attorneys. Frankly, even when you do get those 30+ years of experience you'll still be expected to be available on demand for important clients of the firm--it's like this all the way to the top. This isn't "hazing" it's the reality of practicing at this level. Also, law is far from the only industry where there's this sort of expectation on junior people at the highest echelon of compensation.

In a way I respect this perspective, at least it's consistent. And it's actually how I personally view my job, I'm not going to say no unless I really can't do more, and then after a few years I'll switch to a lower paying job with WL balance. I'm mainly talking about the seniors who complain about the way they are treated then turn around and treat the next generation the same way.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Maybe I've just become jaded but I don't get how this is "hazing." We're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars. It ain't because you're a Chambers Senior Statesman with 30+ years of experience to draw on. It's because you're available when we want you to be and will work extraordinary hours. That's the basic bargain of biglaw for junior attorneys. Frankly, even when you do get those 30+ years of experience you'll still be expected to be available on demand for important clients of the firm--it's like this all the way to the top. This isn't "hazing" it's the reality of practicing at this level. Also, law is far from the only industry where there's this sort of expectation on junior people at the highest echelon of compensation.

We're changing the "reality" of practicing at this level, fuckface.

Everyone else who can do what I do is spoken for at the moment. So you're getting left on read while I eat Zaxby's and watch the Cowboys game.

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Sometimes it's okay to say no, sometimes it isn't. There are juniors who say no too much, judging mostly from the equitable distribution of work across the group of lawyers at the firm capable of doing that type of work.

On biglaw culture / hazing, keep in mind that most partners are risk-averse doormats to clients every bit as much as, if not more than, associates are to partners. If your position is that this whole culture needs to change including partners (even at the tip-top law firms) / there simply shouldn't be any client-services firms that have such high demands on their employees, I think you're imposing your own priorities for wellbeing and work/life balance on the entirety of the labor pool--there will always be people with unhealthy perspectives and this job to a large degree depends on rewarding them.

A lot of good points here, especially the part that it's client driven. Not sure how to solve that.

When is it reasonable to say no? Idk exactly but let's go with the golden rule of do onto others: when you were a junior, how many hours would you have liked to work? Or even now, if you had the guts to say no, when would you?

As to the concept of "equitable distribution", I'm not sure I agree. If the firm takes on work that equals (picking a number out of a hat) 3000/attorney, and I was hired with the understanding of working 2200 a year, I don't feel obligated to work more. I might do it anyway out of peer pressure and/or cowardice but it's not right. If everyone normalized saying no more, the firm would have to figure something out.

[Anonymous User]

Isn’t this a client services business? How is saying yes to a client being a doormat? If you don’t want hundreds of thousands of dollars for moving commas maybe do something else other than complain about being available to your firms clients… but I guess that makes me a beta cuck or something. Can we get back to the issue at hand? Where’s the fucking money?

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Maybe I've just become jaded but I don't get how this is "hazing." We're paying you hundreds of thousands of dollars. It ain't because you're a Chambers Senior Statesman with 30+ years of experience to draw on. It's because you're available when we want you to be and will work extraordinary hours. That's the basic bargain of biglaw for junior attorneys. Frankly, even when you do get those 30+ years of experience you'll still be expected to be available on demand for important clients of the firm--it's like this all the way to the top. This isn't "hazing" it's the reality of practicing at this level. Also, law is far from the only industry where there's this sort of expectation on junior people at the highest echelon of compensation.

We're changing the "reality" of practicing at this level, fuckface.

Everyone else who can do what I do is spoken for at the moment. So you're getting left on read while I eat Zaxby's and watch the Cowboys game.

Apparently Zeke is getting a sizable load this week. Enjoy americas team

[Anonymous User]

If you ever want biglaw culture to improve, normalize saying no. If you treat the juniors like the partners treat you, you're just perpetuating the same hazing.

Sometimes it's okay to say no, sometimes it isn't. There are juniors who say no too much, judging mostly from the equitable distribution of work across the group of lawyers at the firm capable of doing that type of work.

On biglaw culture / hazing, keep in mind that most partners are risk-averse doormats to clients every bit as much as, if not more than, associates are to partners. If your position is that this whole culture needs to change including partners (even at the tip-top law firms) / there simply shouldn't be any client-services firms that have such high demands on their employees, I think you're imposing your own priorities for wellbeing and work/life balance on the entirety of the labor pool--there will always be people with unhealthy perspectives and this job to a large degree depends on rewarding them.

A lot of good points here, especially the part that it's client driven. Not sure how to solve that.

When is it reasonable to say no? Idk exactly but let's go with the golden rule of do onto others: when you were a junior, how many hours would you have liked to work? Or even now, if you had the guts to say no, when would you?

As to the concept of "equitable distribution", I'm not sure I agree. If the firm takes on work that equals (picking a number out of a hat) 3000/attorney, and I was hired with the understanding of working 2200 a year, I don't feel obligated to work more. I might do it anyway out of peer pressure and/or cowardice but it's not right. If everyone normalized saying no more, the firm would have to figure something out.

Generally agree with you, except I'd flag that "how many hours I would have liked to work" is approximately zero (makes me want to re-read Bartleby). If you mean "how many I would think is fair" or something like that, I think you're probably right on with the golden rule approach, that's the best metric we have. This still has the problem that a lot of people in this industry are workaholics but that's at least better than "do as I say, not as I do." I'm also probably not representative because I personally DO say no -- my personal rule is that I need to be averaging 8 hours of sleep and I should have at least 10-20 hours of leisure time/week on average. Once I dip below either of those, I stop taking on work (I've never billed over 2700/year). But because that threshold is still high-ish compared to some, I see juniors pushing away work at much lower numbers (I know because we talk about it) and that's where even the golden rule leaves me feeling like they could pull their weight more.

[Kikero]

If you’re on track for 2000+ hours, you should feel free to turn down additional work. I’m not talking about turning down work on ongoing projects obviously, but new assignments. If some people want to bill 2400 or 3000 per year, good for them, but the basic compromise is 2000 hours for salary and market bonus. Beyond that, firms should either be incentivizing people to choose to be higher billers with extra bonuses (like many do), and/or hire more lawyers so that nobody gets overloaded.

[Anonymous User]

I feel like we're the people in hell in that sequence in Event Horizon, damned to endlessly argue with each other over neebish bullshit because neither Daddy DPW nor Papa Milbank will pull the trigger and release its bonus news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8YObV6i_Yc

Liberate tutame ex bonus season

[TigerIsBack]

If you’re on track for 2000+ hours, you should feel free to turn down additional work. I’m not talking about turning down work on ongoing projects obviously, but new assignments. If some people want to bill 2400 or 3000 per year, good for them, but the basic compromise is 2000 hours for salary and market bonus. Beyond that, firms should either be incentivizing people to choose to be higher billers with extra bonuses (like many do), and/or hire more lawyers so that nobody gets overloaded.

I've thought a lot about this. The big problem I see is that if all firms, or at least the "good" / "worklife balance" firms, decided to staff up sufficiently to avoid crushing anyone (and assuming they were able to do so), those firms would either (a) fall way down in [whatever relevant rankings make a law student want to work there] in a downturn because they'd have so much dead weight and PPP would drop, or (b) fall way down in those same rankings because TLS and ATL exposed their mass layoffs.

I also wonder if a firm like this would have less talented midlevels. Based on the 10,000 hours concept and all else being equal, a midlevel that did 4 years at a 3000 hour pace (12,000 hours) is going to be way better at this job than a midlevel that did their 4 years at a 1900 hour (7,600 hours) pace.

[LawMaster97]

I’m a mid level in corporate and I routinely turn down work if I’m swamped on a bunch of other active deals. I’m already annualizing over 2400 hours, so I see no need to further line the partners’ pockets. If they need more people to do the work, they need to hire more people and pay for them. Most people are not going to make partner, so why kill yourself billing 3,000 hours per year just to please a staffing coordinator or junior partner? I’ve seen a lot of superstar associates burn out after two or three years because they can’t say no. It’s better for both you and the firm to say no if that prolongs your life in BigLaw. There are no medals for crazy hours, and the extra 30-50% of bonus really isn’t worth it (unless you’re already near the cutoffs).

Oh, and to stay on topic, DPW will announce a moderate increase to the scale and special spring bonuses tomorrow afternoon. Enjoy!

[Anonymous User]

If you’re on track for 2000+ hours, you should feel free to turn down additional work. I’m not talking about turning down work on ongoing projects obviously, but new assignments. If some people want to bill 2400 or 3000 per year, good for them, but the basic compromise is 2000 hours for salary and market bonus. Beyond that, firms should either be incentivizing people to choose to be higher billers with extra bonuses (like many do), and/or hire more lawyers so that nobody gets overloaded.

I've thought a lot about this. The big problem I see is that if all firms, or at least the "good" / "worklife balance" firms, decided to staff up sufficiently to avoid crushing anyone (and assuming they were able to do so), those firms would either (a) fall way down in [whatever relevant rankings make a law student want to work there] in a downturn because they'd have so much dead weight and PPP would drop, or (b) fall way down in those same rankings because TLS and ATL exposed their mass layoffs.

I also wonder if a firm like this would have less talented midlevels. Based on the 10,000 hours concept and all else being equal, a midlevel that did 4 years at a 3000 hour pace (12,000 hours) is going to be way better at this job than a midlevel that did their 4 years at a 1900 hour (7,600 hours) pace.

You’re assuming no attrition resulting from the markedly higher hours (or maybe you are just ignoring for sake of the comparison)

Talent/raw number of hours in dealwork doesn’t necessarily translate into more talented seniors if they all start to leave around year 4-5 because billing 3k over and over is unsustainable

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V10 6th year who has billed between 1800 and 1900 every year. I have received my full bonus and received good reviews every year. Every time I'm on track for more than 150 hours in a month, I turn down new staffing. Sometimes I hit a 170 hour month, but then I purposely just shoot for like 130 the next month (I won't turn down staffing if I'm tracking to 130, but I'll also never seek out more work to get "more" than 130 if I just had a 170 month prior). When I have several 160 or 170 hour months in a row, such that I'm like 40 hours ahead, I take a week vacation to reset.

I did this by just developing really good relationships with like 2 or 3 partners (just enough that I can claim to each that I'm busy with the other without entirely lying, but not so many that I have too many mouths to feed and not so few that I can't say "oh i'm too busy" just for them to call me on not being overly busy).

I've received phone calls about my hours like, what? Once every 8-9 months? ("Hey, your hours are technically fine but you're tracking low..Just make sure you get your hours in").

WIll I ever make partner? No. Nor would I want to. Have I functionally turned this into a job where I've made over a million dollars in income over my late 20s without losing sleep or becoming jaded and cynical? Yes. Will I ride this out until they literally ask me to leave? Absolutely.

Will I still be annoyed if they don't double the scale? Yes, yes I will.

Do my colleagues hate me while they drown? I mean probably a little, but whatever, I still pitch in and help them whenever they ask (which I incidentally am able to do with some frequency because my plate is never really overflowing, so if anything I think most of them probably have somewhat neutral-to-positive views of me)

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V10 6th year who has billed between 1800 and 1900 every year. I have received my full bonus and received good reviews every year. Every time I'm on track for more than 150 hours in a month, I turn down new staffing. Sometimes I hit a 170 hour month, but then I purposely just shoot for like 130 the next month (I won't turn down staffing if I'm tracking to 130, but I'll also never seek out more work to get "more" than 130 if I just had a 170 month prior). When I have several 160 or 170 hour months in a row, such that I'm like 40 hours ahead, I take a week vacation to reset.

I did this by just developing really good relationships with like 2 or 3 partners (just enough that I can claim to each that I'm busy with the other without entirely lying, but not so many that I have too many mouths to feed and not so few that I can't say "oh i'm too busy" just for them to call me on not being overly busy).

I've received phone calls about my hours like, what? Once every 8-9 months? ("Hey, your hours are technically fine but you're tracking low..Just make sure you get your hours in").

WIll I ever make partner? No. Nor would I want to. Have I functionally turned this into a job where I've made over a million dollars in income over my late 20s without losing sleep or becoming jaded and cynical? Yes. Will I ride this out until they literally ask me to leave? Absolutely.

Will I still be annoyed if they don't double the scale? Yes, yes I will.

Do my colleagues hate me while they drown? I mean probably a little, but whatever, I still pitch in and help them whenever they ask (which I incidentally am able to do with some frequency because my plate is never really overflowing, so if anything I think most of them probably have somewhat neutral-to-positive views of me)

Exactly this, and a fifth year in capmkts in v10. Only positive reviews and never above 2000 (even in 2020 and 2021).

[Anonymizer]

Today’s the day! Announcements are imminent and everyone then everyone can take a break from this thread to focus their neurosis on other feckless endeavors.

[Anonymous User]

Oh, and to stay on topic, DPW will announce a moderate increase to the scale and special spring bonuses tomorrow afternoon. Enjoy!

I think DPW will come over the top of Cravath EOY numbers to the tune of $10-15k per class year.

I agree they will also announce spring bonuses but that’s trickier. Either they go with their lower April ‘21 payout scale ($4.5k to $24k) or their higher September ‘21 scale ($7.5k to $40k). Hard to say.