Always be padding? Forum

[Casper123]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?

This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

[Dcc617]

Obligatory mockery of conservatives saying that the diversity that really matters is conservative voices and at the idea that corporate biglaw partners are not conservative.

[AdieuCali]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?

This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

+1

[Anonymous User]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?

This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

This really was one of the most eye opening threads for me. I wish I had read it much earlier in my biglaw career.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The idea that being involved in M&A activity to rightsize company operations, and eliminate deadwood middle management (or even for a company to do this internally without an acquisition), is somehow the Devil's own work is nothing less than insane. People are put on this earth with talents, drive, ambition, the capacity to develop real skills. Being stuck in a job where you are producing little or no value, and having that job then be eliminated so you can do other more valuable things with your life, like starting your own business, working in a more lucrative role, or developing more robust skills, isn't some kind of terrible tragedy.

Poor people don't start businesses, work in more lucrative roles or develop more robust skills because they are *checks notes* trapped by gainful employment and *adjusts glasses* not having any money anymore will help them do those things.

I guess if you are the second coming of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or something, and you look at all corporations as evil, the working in Biglaw would be pretty miserable at a very fundamental level (beyond the hours and the personalities), but if that is the case you really should go do something else with your life. The people who make partner, and actually like the job to some extent, actually feel that they are providing crucial advice to help companies grow and succeed, not sitting there making the world a worse place or something.

Man, I thought your previous take was scorching, but "Partners making millions is just a side effect of their *real* motivation, which is taking pride in being the pistons in the engine of economic growth" is living on the surface of the sun.

[Barrred]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?

This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

+1

+2

[bigchiefhoho]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?

This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

+1

+2

+3

To return to an earlier comment/question in the thread, is it really normal/expected to bill for reading emails in your matters that you don't need to do anything with? I read everything that comes through my matters just to keep up with what's going on, but I don't bill for that time if I'm not expected to respond to it, especially if it's something not really related to my role on the matter. Am I just short-changing myself?

[Anonymous User]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?

This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

+1

+2

+3

To return to an earlier comment/question in the thread, is it really normal/expected to bill for reading emails in your matters that you don't need to do anything with? I read everything that comes through my matters just to keep up with what's going on, but I don't bill for that time if I'm not expected to respond to it, especially if it's something not really related to my role on the matter. Am I just short-changing myself?

I've always done the same as a lit associate, and this thread made me decide that I am,in fact, short changing myself. Going to start billing for every second I'm working, full stop. It's not like I'm reading those emails because I enjoy it.

[Sackboy]

I've always done the same as a lit associate, and this thread made me decide that I am,in fact, short changing myself. Going to start billing for every second I'm working, full stop. It's not like I'm reading those emails because I enjoy it.

Bill every. last. second. It makes life much more bearable. If the partners don't like it or want it to be cheaper for the client, they'll mark it down. That's their job, not yours.

[hdr]

Could some mod delete/move to the Lounge all this nonsense off-topic discussion?
This was one of the most helpful threads ever on this website.

+1

+2

+3
To return to an earlier comment/question in the thread, is it really normal/expected to bill for reading emails in your matters that you don't need to do anything with? I read everything that comes through my matters just to keep up with what's going on, but I don't bill for that time if I'm not expected to respond to it, especially if it's something not really related to my role on the matter. Am I just short-changing myself?

Yes you should bill for it. You ought to know what's going on in your matters, even if it's not relevant to your specific role, so you can certainly justify billing. The only time you might not want to bill is when you do nothing else on the matter that day. Some partners may push back on entries of 0.2 for "review correspondence re..." when you haven't generated any work product or been on any calls (but some partners don't care).

[Buglaw]

I've always done the same as a lit associate, and this thread made me decide that I am,in fact, short changing myself. Going to start billing for every second I'm working, full stop. It's not like I'm reading those emails because I enjoy it.

Bill every. last. second. It makes life much more bearable. If the partners don't like it or want it to be cheaper for the client, they'll mark it down. That's their job, not yours.

Yeah. If you are working on a deal/case bill for it. I'm not sure how many more ways people can say this, but if you are doing work for the deal/case (any work for the deal/case) that's billable. I'm not really sure where this idea came from that only some work you do on a deal/case is billable and others isn't. Whether or not the partner bills it is his decision.

I'm not sure what people think corporate lawyers do all day long, but if you can't bill reading emails and staying abreast of a deal, juniors would bill like 1400 hours a year. Staying organized for the deal time is like 50% of their job.

Same thing with the waiting question. If someone has requested you to be available at a time you otherwise wouldn't be available, and it is taking you away from doing other stuff (i.e. waiting up to turn commitment papers or a purchase agreement) that is work on that deal and billable. If you are out walking the dog during that time or eating dinner with your spouse, etc., that is not billable. If the partner doesn't want to bill it or the client doesn't want to pay for it, that is their decision. But it is 100% a billable hour.

[Sackboy]

Other recommendations for folks is to move to a firm that bills by the 0.25 on many matters and has clients with deep enough pockets where bills are rarely ever cost-sensitive. Pretty sure this is how it works in the entire V10. At my present firm, this is how it works, and I have NEVER been told to be sensitive about billing on a matter. At the V50 I used to work at, I worked on matters all the time where I was told "spend no more than X hours" or "if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

[motojir]

Billable and billed and client collected are three different concepts. Billable is what an attorney records. Billed is what a partner sends. Collected is what a client pays. You should record billable hours which does not vary by client. Partners bill whatever the hell they want and clients pay whatever they agree to pay. Whether or not a client is OK with paying it or a partner is OK with billing it has nothing to do with whether its billable. If he doesn't want you to record that time, he shouldn't ask you to stay up till 3:00 in the morning waiting for it. If he does, you record and he decides whether or not to bill it.

That makes sense but . . . partners don't like to see their realization rates go down. This might not be an issue at a super in-demand firm like K&E, but if you think all partners at all firms are OK with you billing every minute you spent on their task you have another thing coming. Partners have a lot of tricks to make sure you spent as little time as possible, so they can have a high realization rate on their bills. For example, they might invent a fake deadline ("this has to be done in two days!") or some simply tell you not to spend more than X hours on this. Or some write off your time and blame you for being inefficient. This isn't as simple as some make it seem.

[motojir]

At the V50 I used to work at, I worked on matters all the time where I was told "spend no more than X hours" or "if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

See?

[Anonymous User]

"if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

Belongs in worst partners thread. Imagine doing this work for free, sounds like an abusive partner trying to keep their collections rate up.

My rich V100 never says this and if they did I would 100% lateral the next day

Either that or just stop working on the matter at those hours.

[nixy]

At the V50 I used to work at, I worked on matters all the time where I was told "spend no more than X hours" or "if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

See?

So then you don't spend more than X hours. That's completely different from billing the time you do spend, in the absence of an actual direction to limit your hours.

[Buglaw]

Billable and billed and client collected are three different concepts. Billable is what an attorney records. Billed is what a partner sends. Collected is what a client pays. You should record billable hours which does not vary by client. Partners bill whatever the hell they want and clients pay whatever they agree to pay. Whether or not a client is OK with paying it or a partner is OK with billing it has nothing to do with whether its billable. If he doesn't want you to record that time, he shouldn't ask you to stay up till 3:00 in the morning waiting for it. If he does, you record and he decides whether or not to bill it.

That makes sense but . . . partners don't like to see their realization rates go down. This might not be an issue at a super in-demand firm like K&E, but if you think all partners at all firms are OK with you billing every minute you spent on their task you have another thing coming. Partners have a lot of tricks to make sure you spent as little time as possible, so they can have a high realization rate on their bills. For example, they might invent a fake deadline ("this has to be done in two days!") or some simply tell you not to spend more than X hours on this. Or some write off your time and blame you for being inefficient. This isn't as simple as some make it seem.

I'm a senior associate. I've worked at a v5 and a firm that is not a v5. At my current firm, not a v5, I see my hours billed and collected. Collections are normally north of 90%. You should certainly think about efficiency. I constantly tell people, I could do x but that is gobs of hours. Sometimes they tell me not to do it, sometimes they say they don't care. But I do bill ever second I end up working and no one has ever complained to me about efficiency.

Stop cutting your own hours. Don't work for anyone who asks you to do that.

[Anonymous User]

"if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

Belongs in worst partners thread. Imagine doing this work for free, sounds like an abusive partner trying to keep their collections rate up.

My rich V100 never says this and if they did I would 100% lateral the next day

Either that or just stop working on the matter at those hours.

When I was at a V5 this would happen often on matters coming from one client --- unfortunately one of the largest clients of the firm so I think it happened to more people than one might expect considering it was just one client. The kicker is that the same client would demand daily summaries and checklists for almost every call (but always different checklists, and checklists of sub checklists, and clearly no one at the client communicated with one another). Honestly I think I must have billed at least 1.5 hours every day for a year (no joke, so that adds up to lots of $$$$) on these completely unnecessary requests, only to also be routinely put on group emails that were like "Dear everyone working on this matter, plz bill more efficiently. Also plz rationalize this time entry. But also most importantly plz make sure you proof read checklist 3B again and run redlines against checklist 2A to make sure the phrasing is the same in the "Status" column. Thx"

[motojir]

"if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

Belongs in worst partners thread. Imagine doing this work for free, sounds like an abusive partner trying to keep their collections rate up.

My rich V100 never says this and if they did I would 100% lateral the next day

Either that or just stop working on the matter at those hours.

One way for a new/service partner to rise in a firm, is to screw associates over like this, show management their high collection rates, and get more responsibility than the other service partner. You'd think associate dissatisfaction would harm them in management's eyes, but sometimes (maybe often) it doesn't. Billing hours in a biglaw firm can be a complex game of incentives, penalties, and machinations.

[Anonymous User]

"if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

Belongs in worst partners thread. Imagine doing this work for free, sounds like an abusive partner trying to keep their collections rate up.

My rich V100 never says this and if they did I would 100% lateral the next day

Either that or just stop working on the matter at those hours.

When I was at a V5 this would happen often on matters coming from one client --- unfortunately one of the largest clients of the firm so I think it happened to more people than one might expect considering it was just one client. The kicker is that the same client would demand daily summaries and checklists for almost every call (but always different checklists, and checklists of sub checklists, and clearly no one at the client communicated with one another). Honestly I think I must have billed at least 1.5 hours every day for a year (no joke, so that adds up to lots of $$$$) on these completely unnecessary requests, only to also be routinely put on group emails that were like "Dear everyone working on this matter, plz bill more efficiently. Also plz rationalize this time entry. But also most importantly plz make sure you proof read checklist 3B again and run redlines against checklist 2A to make sure the phrasing is the same in the "Status" column. Thx"

Here's a question based on something I've seen happen kind of frequently (always just with one major client, mind you), in terms of ethics:

*Client tells partner "Look, don't put 10 associates on the emails, it costs too much"
*Realistically all 10 associates need to be on the emails
*Partner tells midlevel associate: "Midlevel, only CC me and one other partner. After the email is sent, please forward to all the other associates. If client responds, please forward responses to all other associates. If other associates have comments or thoughts, please collect them and send back to client without naming or making clear those associates are reading the emails."


Separately, partner would pressure associates with soft messaging (but never outright forbid them from) billing their time reading these emails, or at least indicate that the billing entry shouldn't refer to the emails because the client specifically said not to include these associates on the emails.

Further context: a few times the broader group was copied by the midlevel who wasn't thinking, and each time the client called the partner and got all mad.

Thoughts? This is a true statement of events, not a hypothetical.

[Buglaw]

"if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

Belongs in worst partners thread. Imagine doing this work for free, sounds like an abusive partner trying to keep their collections rate up.

My rich V100 never says this and if they did I would 100% lateral the next day

Either that or just stop working on the matter at those hours.

When I was at a V5 this would happen often on matters coming from one client --- unfortunately one of the largest clients of the firm so I think it happened to more people than one might expect considering it was just one client. The kicker is that the same client would demand daily summaries and checklists for almost every call (but always different checklists, and checklists of sub checklists, and clearly no one at the client communicated with one another). Honestly I think I must have billed at least 1.5 hours every day for a year (no joke, so that adds up to lots of $$$$) on these completely unnecessary requests, only to also be routinely put on group emails that were like "Dear everyone working on this matter, plz bill more efficiently. Also plz rationalize this time entry. But also most importantly plz make sure you proof read checklist 3B again and run redlines against checklist 2A to make sure the phrasing is the same in the "Status" column. Thx"

Here's a question based on something I've seen happen kind of frequently (always just with one major client, mind you), in terms of ethics:

*Client tells partner "Look, don't put 10 associates on the emails, it costs too much"
*Realistically all 10 associates need to be on the emails
*Partner tells midlevel associate: "Midlevel, only CC me and one other partner. After the email is sent, please forward to all the other associates. If client responds, please forward responses to all other associates. If other associates have comments or thoughts, please collect them and send back to client without naming or making clear those associates are reading the emails."


Separately, partner would pressure associates with soft messaging (but never outright forbid them from) billing their time reading these emails, or at least indicate that the billing entry shouldn't refer to the emails because the client specifically said not to include these associates on the emails.

Further context: a few times the broader group was copied by the midlevel who wasn't thinking, and each time the client called the partner and got all mad.

Thoughts? This is a true statement of events, not a hypothetical.

This is the difference between billable and billed. Reading the emails is billable. What the partners bills is billed. You should 100% bill those hours because they are billable.

Obviously don't record "read emails - 4 hours". I wouldn't do that regardless of anything a client or partner says. Either write attend to deal (which is what I do for 90% of my entries) or review and correspond regarding x issue - 4 hours.

Obviously the partner should not bill for time he has not agreed to bill the client for. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't record it as billable. Its billable work, but work that shouldn't be billed.

[Anonymous User]

"if you spend more than X hours you can't bill it."

Belongs in worst partners thread. Imagine doing this work for free, sounds like an abusive partner trying to keep their collections rate up.

My rich V100 never says this and if they did I would 100% lateral the next day

Either that or just stop working on the matter at those hours.

One way for a new/service partner to rise in a firm, is to screw associates over like this, show management their high collection rates, and get more responsibility than the other service partner. You'd think associate dissatisfaction would harm them in management's eyes, but sometimes (maybe often) it doesn't. Billing hours in a biglaw firm can be a complex game of incentives, penalties, and machinations.

These are partner level issues and anyone decent at their job can lateral to one of dozens of other firms if they’re in a group with partnership so cheap and pathetic that associates are expected to preemptively cull their own legitimately billed hours when incentives like bonuses are contingent on them (and they legitimately worked those hours)

Why would an associate ever make life easier for a duplicitous partner like that or stay at a firm where they wouldn’t be able to avoid working under such a person? And why do you keep recommending that people do? The answer to that situation isn’t to try and play along. It’s to leave.

[motojir]

Why would an associate ever make life easier for a duplicitous partner like that or stay at a firm where they wouldn’t be able to avoid working under such a person? And why do you keep recommending that people do? The answer to that situation isn’t to try and play along. It’s to leave.

I'm not recommending anything, just pointing out that billing can be tricky at times and that padding isn't a panacea. The example right above with the emails is one of many that shows how billing requires a deft touch.

[Anonymous User]

Do you bill if you were on vacation for a week and spend a few hours going through the deal emails you missed while you were gone (even if you had nothing to do). The deal is still ongoing.

[Anonymous User]

Do you bill if you were on vacation for a week and spend a few hours going through the deal emails you missed while you were gone (even if you had nothing to do). The deal is still ongoing.

Yes.