2020 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[cornerstone]

Does anyone know why Vault ranks Arnold & Porter higher than firms like Fried Frank, Orrick, and Shearman & Sterling? Is it the idea that DC-based firms are less profitable overall but can still attract good talent?

It's purely a reputation survey, right? Despite what this thread would imply, it's not all about the money. Litigation is typically less profitable than corporate work, but firms that get the best litigation will maintain a better reputation among their peers.

If you want rankings based on profits look at AmLaw.

[MrTooToo]

I think Sidley bonuses come in next paycheck on 12/18. Each group has a different system for letting associates know. Frankly pretty absurd IMO to be complaining about getting less than full special bonus for not meeting well-established hours reqs which haven't changed from past years (this from someone who didn't hit them). Sidley has been very open about providing partial bonuses so that scenario of missing hours by 25 and going from a 25k bonus to 0 doesn't happen, everything's case by case. I expect 80%+ of associates will receive a bonus in line with hours and very few will be surprised by the amount (good or bad), since the hours targets are the same as past years, and they're allowing for flexibility in how they determine it if people don't hit certain targets.

TL;DR not seeing all the drama over this, nothing's changed, they just add the special bonus onto the regular and determine it the same as past years. Also if you're making $200K+ by working remote in a pandemic and HAVEN'T been busy, maybe be a little appreciative rather than complaining about not getting a full additional special bonus when you haven't hit hours. Personally if I wasn't busy while working from home for 6 months I'd gladly let all the people toiling take home a special bonus in exchange for me still receiving a (high) paycheck.

lol at the Stockholm Syndrome in this post. Cravath associates are looking at you like "what the fuck is he talking about."

[Dcc617]

I think Sidley bonuses come in next paycheck on 12/18. Each group has a different system for letting associates know. Frankly pretty absurd IMO to be complaining about getting less than full special bonus for not meeting well-established hours reqs which haven't changed from past years (this from someone who didn't hit them). Sidley has been very open about providing partial bonuses so that scenario of missing hours by 25 and going from a 25k bonus to 0 doesn't happen, everything's case by case. I expect 80%+ of associates will receive a bonus in line with hours and very few will be surprised by the amount (good or bad), since the hours targets are the same as past years, and they're allowing for flexibility in how they determine it if people don't hit certain targets.

TL;DR not seeing all the drama over this, nothing's changed, they just add the special bonus onto the regular and determine it the same as past years. Also if you're making $200K+ by working remote in a pandemic and HAVEN'T been busy, maybe be a little appreciative rather than complaining about not getting a full additional special bonus when you haven't hit hours. Personally if I wasn't busy while working from home for 6 months I'd gladly let all the people toiling take home a special bonus in exchange for me still receiving a (high) paycheck.

Bootlicker.

[lolwutpar]

I think Sidley bonuses come in next paycheck on 12/18. Each group has a different system for letting associates know. Frankly pretty absurd IMO to be complaining about getting less than full special bonus for not meeting well-established hours reqs which haven't changed from past years (this from someone who didn't hit them). Sidley has been very open about providing partial bonuses so that scenario of missing hours by 25 and going from a 25k bonus to 0 doesn't happen, everything's case by case. I expect 80%+ of associates will receive a bonus in line with hours and very few will be surprised by the amount (good or bad), since the hours targets are the same as past years, and they're allowing for flexibility in how they determine it if people don't hit certain targets.

TL;DR not seeing all the drama over this, nothing's changed, they just add the special bonus onto the regular and determine it the same as past years. Also if you're making $200K+ by working remote in a pandemic and HAVEN'T been busy, maybe be a little appreciative rather than complaining about not getting a full additional special bonus when you haven't hit hours. Personally if I wasn't busy while working from home for 6 months I'd gladly let all the people toiling take home a special bonus in exchange for me still receiving a (high) paycheck.

lol at the Stockholm Syndrome in this post. Cravath associates are looking at you like "what the fuck is he talking about."

My thoughts exactly. It's a garbage system. Congrats, you make less than people at peer firms who bill as much as you do.

[MrTooToo]

I think Sidley bonuses come in next paycheck on 12/18. Each group has a different system for letting associates know. Frankly pretty absurd IMO to be complaining about getting less than full special bonus for not meeting well-established hours reqs which haven't changed from past years (this from someone who didn't hit them). Sidley has been very open about providing partial bonuses so that scenario of missing hours by 25 and going from a 25k bonus to 0 doesn't happen, everything's case by case. I expect 80%+ of associates will receive a bonus in line with hours and very few will be surprised by the amount (good or bad), since the hours targets are the same as past years, and they're allowing for flexibility in how they determine it if people don't hit certain targets.

TL;DR not seeing all the drama over this, nothing's changed, they just add the special bonus onto the regular and determine it the same as past years. Also if you're making $200K+ by working remote in a pandemic and HAVEN'T been busy, maybe be a little appreciative rather than complaining about not getting a full additional special bonus when you haven't hit hours. Personally if I wasn't busy while working from home for 6 months I'd gladly let all the people toiling take home a special bonus in exchange for me still receiving a (high) paycheck.

lol at the Stockholm Syndrome in this post. Cravath associates are looking at you like "what the fuck is he talking about."

My thoughts exactly. It's a garbage system. Congrats, you make less than people at peer firms who bill as much as you do.

To be a little nicer to the guy, he sounds like a gold-hearted 2nd year who doesn't yet get how everything works. "Gee whiz guys, we made 200k in a pandemic, let's be nice to Sidley!" So my advice to him is: the firm makes six-to-seven figures off your back every single year. You're helping to buy the equity partners their new places in Tahoe and allowing them to maintain their alimony payments. You should demand the maximum available compensation in the marketplace. If your firm isn't giving it to you (including through ridiculous hours cut-offs that aren't in place at rival firms), you're at a non-peer firm and need to leave if you're able. HTFH

[nahumya]

Does anyone know why Vault ranks Arnold & Porter higher than firms like Fried Frank, Orrick, and Shearman & Sterling? Is it the idea that DC-based firms are less profitable overall but can still attract good talent?

It's purely a reputation survey, right? Despite what this thread would imply, it's not all about the money. Litigation is typically less profitable than corporate work, but firms that get the best litigation will maintain a better reputation among their peers.

If you want rankings based on profits look at AmLaw.

But they are competing against firms that run similar cases and actually pay market, and these firms will take all the good clerk talent. My guess is that they will continue to do worse in the Vault rankings.

[cornerstone]

Does anyone know why Vault ranks Arnold & Porter higher than firms like Fried Frank, Orrick, and Shearman & Sterling? Is it the idea that DC-based firms are less profitable overall but can still attract good talent?

It's purely a reputation survey, right? Despite what this thread would imply, it's not all about the money. Litigation is typically less profitable than corporate work, but firms that get the best litigation will maintain a better reputation among their peers.

If you want rankings based on profits look at AmLaw.

But they are competing against firms that run similar cases and actually pay market, and these firms will take all the good clerk talent. My guess is that they will continue to do worse in the Vault rankings.

I see--yeah I 100% agree A&P should take a hit on recruitment and reputation, and in turn a hit with clients. But the later will take time. Clients don't hire firms because they happened to get the best class of clerks this year. Also, despite what posters ITT might think, there will be some associates who vote on Vault that do not pay attention to which firms matched.

To your point about clerks, as I said, there are other factors than just money for new hires (including clerks). Lower leverage means higher partnership prospects, which will attract some strong talent. Plus, as long as A&P doesn't stop bleeding talented/well-connected partners, some prospects may pick the firm to work with particular people, for a good fit (whatever that is), or for a pathway to some government job.

[Elston Gunn]

Historically, A&P does a lot of the less profitable, but in a lot of ways more desirable government-focused work that draws students with good credentials to DC. (I haven’t paid much attention lately, so possible this is less true post-merger.) I knew plenty of COA clerk level students in LS who chose A&P over firms like Covington, Wilmer, Gibson DC etc. (This was early 2010s.) That would explain why the Vault survey still has it as relatively “prestigious” despite whatever issues it has.

[cornerstone]

Historically, A&P does a lot of the less profitable, but in a lot of ways more desirable government-focused work that draws students with good credentials to DC. (I haven’t paid much attention lately, so possible this is less true post-merger.) I knew plenty of COA clerk level students in LS who chose A&P over firms like Covington, Wilmer, Gibson DC etc. (This was early 2010s.) That would explain why the Vault survey still has it as relatively “prestigious” despite whatever issues it has.

Proof it continues? https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/biden-g ... glaw-firm/

[Anonymous User]

Looks like Arnold & Porter is now paying below DC market...

HOGAN LOVELLS coming in with special bonuses scale “up to $40,000.” Won’t say that they’re matching Cravath exactly but looks like it. Same hours req as Hogan always has for regular bonuses - 2000. 1900 hour req for special bonuses.

[nahumya]

Looks like Arnold & Porter is now paying below DC market...

HOGAN LOVELLS coming in with special bonuses scale “up to $40,000.” Won’t say that they’re matching Cravath exactly but looks like it. Same hours req as Hogan always has for regular bonuses - 2000. 1900 hour req for special bonuses.

That's a pretty big deal with an RPL of $850k. Although that number probably reflects the verein structure.

[Anonymous User]

I think Sidley bonuses come in next paycheck on 12/18. Each group has a different system for letting associates know. Frankly pretty absurd IMO to be complaining about getting less than full special bonus for not meeting well-established hours reqs which haven't changed from past years (this from someone who didn't hit them). Sidley has been very open about providing partial bonuses so that scenario of missing hours by 25 and going from a 25k bonus to 0 doesn't happen, everything's case by case. I expect 80%+ of associates will receive a bonus in line with hours and very few will be surprised by the amount (good or bad), since the hours targets are the same as past years, and they're allowing for flexibility in how they determine it if people don't hit certain targets.

TL;DR not seeing all the drama over this, nothing's changed, they just add the special bonus onto the regular and determine it the same as past years. Also if you're making $200K+ by working remote in a pandemic and HAVEN'T been busy, maybe be a little appreciative rather than complaining about not getting a full additional special bonus when you haven't hit hours. Personally if I wasn't busy while working from home for 6 months I'd gladly let all the people toiling take home a special bonus in exchange for me still receiving a (high) paycheck.

Bolded is not the case at all unless things have changed since I left a couple years ago. I knew someone who was a third year who missed hours by 30 hours (1970 vs 2000 hours) and got ZERO back I think in 2017 or 2016. Insanity. And partners were pure suprised pikachu face that this associate was mad, and some associates (maybe rightfully) just said he was stupid to miss it by that much and should have lied. If that's how associates feel though, that's bad policy. Why are you defending it? So glad I left that place.

Also, yes, having a family to support while having massive debt was extremely stressful when slow. At my new firm (which doesn't have such outrageous requirements) I'll get the full COVID bonus even though I missed the hours. I had 250-350 hours per month since August and still missed it, but I'd say the periods of being slow were even more stressful due to the life and money factors when I knew so many of my friends being fired elsewhere. And not just my friends, but family members getting fired. And family friends in hospitals and some dying. I think I'd rather have been busy with 180~ hours on track for 2000 hours than having 20 hours a month. At least then I'd feel secure in the job (so one positive) instead of feeling like imminent financial doom was around the corner for 4-5 straight months, because then afterwards, I had to say yes to every assignment because of that stress about being fired only to almost die of work for the next 3-4 months. I'm not alone in feeling this way as every associate in my group who billed 250-350 per month in the fall has been very vocal about to our partners (who have since matched the bonus without issue).

But you know, there are just some people here so sheltered from the real problems people have they defend the firm at all costs.

[Anonymous User]

It's changed, that's been the new policy for at least 2 years now. Nobody is shilling here, just putting things in perspective. Ultimately the special bonus was matched with the same policy toward hours reqs. If peers did away with hours reqs and gave bonuses regardless, then yes Sidley's a step behind. I haven't seen that happening so far, but I could be uninformed.

And I get that it's stressful being slow - that was me for half the year. I agree that it sucks, and getting rid of an hours req will help mitigate that stress somewhat, and I'm all for it. I just never expected that to happen, as it seems pretty unrealistic when they've had that policy for years and it's a very basic business incentive. That is where most of the outrage is coming from so you'd hope they'd revisit it as a policy.

[Anonymous User]

It's changed, that's been the new policy for at least 2 years now. Nobody is shilling here, just putting things in perspective. Ultimately the special bonus was matched with the same policy toward hours reqs. If peers did away with hours reqs and gave bonuses regardless, then yes Sidley's a step behind. I haven't seen that happening so far, but I could be uninformed.

And I get that it's stressful being slow - that was me for half the year. I agree that it sucks, and getting rid of an hours req will help mitigate that stress somewhat, and I'm all for it. I just never expected that to happen, as it seems pretty unrealistic when they've had that policy for years and it's a very basic business incentive. That is where most of the outrage is coming from so you'd hope they'd revisit it as a policy.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

In the Sidley guy's defense, the saying goes that if a firm doesn't have an hours minimum, you won't need one. You can *usually* get away with more at firms that have them, and *most* associates can structure their work to make sure they either hit the cutoffs/plateaus or otherwise be far enough away that it doesn't piss them off. Sometimes it's less money than no-cutoff peers but often times it extends your career before burnout/shitcanning.

[Anonymous User]

Mayer Brown paying special bonuses. No minimum hours requirement.

[Definitely Not North]

Mayer Brown paying special bonuses. No minimum hours requirement.

all offices though?

[Anonymous User]

Mayer Brown paying special bonuses. No minimum hours requirement.

all offices though?

All US offices.

[Anonymous User]

In the Sidley guy's defense, the saying goes that if a firm doesn't have an hours minimum, you won't need one. You can *usually* get away with more at firms that have them, and *most* associates can structure their work to make sure they either hit the cutoffs/plateaus or otherwise be far enough away that it doesn't piss them off. Sometimes it's less money than no-cutoff peers but often times it extends your career before burnout/shitcanning.

At my previous firm with no hours requirement, I received a full bonus for barely over 1k and 1800 and was on pace for maybe 1700 when I left. Literally everyone gets a bonus. It's less about you're guaranteed to be busy and more about ~~tradition~~, at least at that firm.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

In the Sidley guy's defense, the saying goes that if a firm doesn't have an hours minimum, you won't need one. You can *usually* get away with more at firms that have them, and *most* associates can structure their work to make sure they either hit the cutoffs/plateaus or otherwise be far enough away that it doesn't piss them off. Sometimes it's less money than no-cutoff peers but often times it extends your career before burnout/shitcanning.

At my previous firm with no hours requirement, I received a full bonus for barely over 1k and 1800 and was on pace for maybe 1700 when I left. Literally everyone gets a bonus. It's less about you're guaranteed to be busy and more about ~~tradition~~, at least at that firm.

Sure. I don't doubt that in some cases you can bill 1600-1700 for three years at Cravath before you get The Talk and for my money that's an optimal outcome. I also think the peer of someone doing 2000 at Sidley is more likely to be at 2300-2400 at S&C. Figuring out who makes the most money per hour probably winds up being dependent on how busy the practice is.

I think law firms have torched enough "tradition" over the past few decades to make me doubt any move is made for something besides the personal whims of millionaires and increasing those millions. On that front, having someone not get a bonus is obviously an easy way to save money; it's also the fastest way to make someone leave who is expensive to replace.

[Anonymous User]

In the Sidley guy's defense, the saying goes that if a firm doesn't have an hours minimum, you won't need one. You can *usually* get away with more at firms that have them, and *most* associates can structure their work to make sure they either hit the cutoffs/plateaus or otherwise be far enough away that it doesn't piss them off. Sometimes it's less money than no-cutoff peers but often times it extends your career before burnout/shitcanning.

At my previous firm with no hours requirement, I received a full bonus for barely over 1k and 1800 and was on pace for maybe 1700 when I left. Literally everyone gets a bonus. It's less about you're guaranteed to be busy and more about ~~tradition~~, at least at that firm.

Sure. I don't doubt that in some cases you can bill 1600-1700 for three years at Cravath before you get The Talk and for my money that's an optimal outcome. I also think the peer of someone doing 2000 at Sidley is more likely to be at 2300-2400 at S&C. Figuring out who makes the most money per hour probably winds up being dependent on how busy the practice is.

I think law firms have torched enough "tradition" over the past few decades to make me doubt any move is made for something besides the personal whims of millionaires and increasing those millions. On that front, having someone not get a bonus is obviously an easy way to save money; it's also the fastest way to make someone leave who is expensive to replace.

Same anon. FWIW I saw people last to their 6+ year never getting The Talk for their hours. But I also wasn't in the NYC office. Maybe the secret is to work for a NY white shoe with no hours requirement in a satellite office.

[Anonymous User]

Same anon. FWIW I saw people last to their 6+ year never getting The Talk for their hours. But I also wasn't in the NYC office. Maybe the secret is to work for a NY white shoe with no hours requirement in a satellite office.

At some point the RPL is the RPL and there's a pretty solid correlation between high RPL and no hours requirement for bonuses. Unless a few lawyers are carrying everyone else at these firms (and even more so than at other firms), people are just working more.

Rates could be higher though from what I've seen that is usually not the case or not high enough to make up a significant amount of the RPL difference.

[Anonymous User]

At my previous firm with no hours requirement, I received a full bonus for barely over 1k and 1800 and was on pace for maybe 1700 when I left. Literally everyone gets a bonus. It's less about you're guaranteed to be busy and more about ~~tradition~~, at least at that firm.

Yeah this is a point worth emphasizing if any 2Ls/3Ls are reading. At a firm without an hours requirement, maybe it's true that "you don't need one," but it's hard to overstate how great it is that you don't have to care. In any review I got when I was at Davis Polk, I never got the sense a partner even knew my hours, much less that they cared. I think I was probably billing around 2,000 when I left, maybe a little above, but I truly didn't know (and didn't even know how to figure it out).

I know of two juniors in my group who got the Talk , and I know their hours were low because I routinely saw them leave at 5, but their hours were low because they were no good and that's why they got the Talk. To my knowledge, everybody who got the Talk in my group did so after a few different seniors told partners they were unwilling to work with the juniors because they kept messing up, which was well after their hours started dipping.

I'm now at Kirkland and sure it's a meat grinder, but the firm has consistently made it clear as long people get a "3" rating, they'll get at least a market bonus even if my hours are low. And sure enough, last year I had like 1,800 and still got +10% (and I was at a level where 10% is a material amount of money). At Sidley, I'd apparently have gotten a goose egg. Even a 5th year who only bills a thousand hours is bringing in like a million dollars of revenue at any of the firms we're talking about, so screwing them on their bonus is just pure greed because they're more than covering their costs.

[Anonymous User]

At my previous firm with no hours requirement, I received a full bonus for barely over 1k and 1800 and was on pace for maybe 1700 when I left. Literally everyone gets a bonus. It's less about you're guaranteed to be busy and more about ~~tradition~~, at least at that firm.

I know of two juniors in my group who got the Talk , and I know their hours were low because I routinely saw them leave at 5, but their hours were low because they were no good and that's why they got the Talk. To my knowledge, everybody who got the Talk in my group did so after a few different seniors told partners they were unwilling to work with the juniors because they kept messing up, which was well after their hours started dipping.

Yep, if you're well liked and even mildly competent you can cruise for quite a while and make as much as your peers billing 2100 or something.

[Elston Gunn]

Yeah this is a point worth emphasizing if any 2Ls/3Ls are reading. At a firm without an hours requirement, maybe it's true that "you don't need one," but it's hard to overstate how great it is that you don't have to care. In any review I got when I was at Davis Polk, I never got the sense a partner even knew my hours, much less that they cared. I think I was probably billing around 2,000 when I left, maybe a little above, but I truly didn't know (and didn't even know how to figure it out).

Tbf, I was at an hours requirement firm, and it was equally true that the partners I worked for appeared to have no sense of what my hours actually were, and it didn’t seem to affect perceptions at all. But it reallllly sucked my first year having to scrounge for pro bono work to barely get over the bonus hump between Christmas and New Years when basically no one in my group was working.