2020 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[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.

Good to hear it changed. I know a ton of people who bitched about it on their way out that we paved that road for you. But let's be clear: they already changed the policy once to reverse it before, and they could do it again randomly and fuck you over when you're due for a 65-100k bonus in a few years. That'll hurt like a bitch and you'll see why it is such bullshit. History does repeat itself. You've been warned.

[Anonymous User]

Turns out Hogan Lovells is not actually matching. To get market special bonuses, you have to have billed 2200 hours. It’s a sliding scale from 1900-2200, with just a small percent of the relevant class bonus if you have 1900-2000 hours.

Associates are not pleased.

[attorney589753]

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 think this is a fair point (and never thought of it this way), but also think this is overstating it a bit. I think it really comes down to personal preference. As others have pointed out, if you look at the math, the top firms may not have an hours requirement but it sure looks like associates are (on average) billing significantly more than 2,000 hours. That's certainly not uniform, probably applies less to specialists groups, good folks might have ability to coast at ~1700, etc. But would be a bit silly to go in as a junior associate expecting you'd be an exception on the low side; you could also be an exception on the high side.

The firms with strict hour requirements do have the added stress (as you say) of worrying about hitting your hours. But, on pure average #s, folks there may be billing less (I'm thinking 1900-2100) and still getting market bonuses. So I personally lean towards the earlier comment about "if there's no hours minimum you won't need one" and I prefer to plan my year around hitting pre-established hours.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that no hours minimum should absolutely be a key consideration for folks. I work at a firm with a reputation as a sweatshop that has no minimum, and have had several years where I was below or very close to cutoffs that most big firms use and still got a full bonus, including years where I took extended parental leave and still got a full bonus. I know of NSPs in specialist groups that have been well below any cutoff that any big firm uses for years and continued to be in good standing and gotten full bonuses b/c they do good work and have good relationships with important partners.

Never having to worry about hours is a huge benefit. You don't have to start worrying if there is an unexpected slow period caused by a general drying up of work b/c of an economic downturn or other extraneous factors out of your control. You don't have to worry about stacking up hours so that you can go on vacation without worrying if it is costing you a tremendous sum. If I switched firms it would be one of the handful of top criteria I would look at.

[PrinterInk]

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

Yeah, sounds like someone who has never stayed up all night making sure a document was perfect so that a deal could sign/close on time while his partner slept. I guess if I hadn’t done that dozens of times I could see how someone could be such a wimpy cuck like the above Sidley associate, but good associates who show up produce so much more value for their firms than they take and are significantly underpaid.

[MrTooToo]

Chiming in to say that no hours minimum should absolutely be a key consideration for folks. I work at a firm with a reputation as a sweatshop that has no minimum, and have had several years where I was below or very close to cutoffs that most big firms use and still got a full bonus, including years where I took extended parental leave and still got a full bonus. I know of NSPs in specialist groups that have been well below any cutoff that any big firm uses for years and continued to be in good standing and gotten full bonuses b/c they do good work and have good relationships with important partners.

Never having to worry about hours is a huge benefit. You don't have to start worrying if there is an unexpected slow period caused by a general drying up of work b/c of an economic downturn or other extraneous factors out of your control. You don't have to worry about stacking up hours so that you can go on vacation without worrying if it is costing you a tremendous sum. If I switched firms it would be one of the handful of top criteria I would look at.

Of course this is the case. The posters at firms with hours cut-offs are just trying to justify their shittier system (And where do you tend to see hours cut-offs? At the shittier firms). It may be true that firms without hours cut-offs are busier and therefore richer and therefore don't need to worry about dinging some 28 year old out of an extra $30,000 because he billed 1925 rather than 2000, but thinking that that means that you should seek out a firm with an hours cut off instead is assbackwards reasoning. No Cravath or Kirkland or Skadden associate has ever said "I wish we were mandatorily required to bill at least 2,000 hours" give me a break.

This all goes back to my earlier point which is that, if you're at a place that is dinging people out of compensation because they missed some arbitrary numerical cut-off, vote with your feet (if you can) and leave. It's no way to have to live each year when you're already in the generally shitty environment of biglaw. Money talks, bullshit walks.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that no hours minimum should absolutely be a key consideration for folks. I work at a firm with a reputation as a sweatshop that has no minimum, and have had several years where I was below or very close to cutoffs that most big firms use and still got a full bonus, including years where I took extended parental leave and still got a full bonus. I know of NSPs in specialist groups that have been well below any cutoff that any big firm uses for years and continued to be in good standing and gotten full bonuses b/c they do good work and have good relationships with important partners.

Never having to worry about hours is a huge benefit. You don't have to start worrying if there is an unexpected slow period caused by a general drying up of work b/c of an economic downturn or other extraneous factors out of your control. You don't have to worry about stacking up hours so that you can go on vacation without worrying if it is costing you a tremendous sum. If I switched firms it would be one of the handful of top criteria I would look at.

Of course this is the case. The posters at firms with hours cut-offs are just trying to justify their shittier system (And where do you tend to see hours cut-offs? At the shittier firms). It may be true that firms without hours cut-offs are busier and therefore richer and therefore don't need to worry about dinging some 28 year old out of an extra $30,000 because he billed 1925 rather than 2000, but thinking that that means that you should seek out a firm with an hours cut off instead is assbackwards reasoning. No Cravath or Kirkland or Skadden associate has ever said "I wish we were mandatorily required to bill at least 2,000 hours" give me a break.

This all goes back to my earlier point which is that, if you're at a place that is dinging people out of compensation because they missed some arbitrary numerical cut-off, vote with your feet (if you can) and leave. It's no way to have to live each year when you're already in the generally shitty environment of biglaw. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Fair warning I'm just a 2L, but does this also depend on the market? I'm particularly targeting Chicago and Sidley, Latham, Skadden, Winston, and a lot of others all have hours minimums. Skadden's is the lowest at 1800, I think Latham and Ropes are 1900, and I want to say everywhere else is 2000 and I remember one firm has 2000 to get a bonus and 2200 to get market bonuses. I think only Kirkland and Jenner don't have hours minimums, I had assumed that those were more of the exception.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to say that no hours minimum should absolutely be a key consideration for folks. I work at a firm with a reputation as a sweatshop that has no minimum, and have had several years where I was below or very close to cutoffs that most big firms use and still got a full bonus, including years where I took extended parental leave and still got a full bonus. I know of NSPs in specialist groups that have been well below any cutoff that any big firm uses for years and continued to be in good standing and gotten full bonuses b/c they do good work and have good relationships with important partners.

Never having to worry about hours is a huge benefit. You don't have to start worrying if there is an unexpected slow period caused by a general drying up of work b/c of an economic downturn or other extraneous factors out of your control. You don't have to worry about stacking up hours so that you can go on vacation without worrying if it is costing you a tremendous sum. If I switched firms it would be one of the handful of top criteria I would look at.

Of course this is the case. The posters at firms with hours cut-offs are just trying to justify their shittier system (And where do you tend to see hours cut-offs? At the shittier firms). It may be true that firms without hours cut-offs are busier and therefore richer and therefore don't need to worry about dinging some 28 year old out of an extra $30,000 because he billed 1925 rather than 2000, but thinking that that means that you should seek out a firm with an hours cut off instead is assbackwards reasoning. No Cravath or Kirkland or Skadden associate has ever said "I wish we were mandatorily required to bill at least 2,000 hours" give me a break.

This all goes back to my earlier point which is that, if you're at a place that is dinging people out of compensation because they missed some arbitrary numerical cut-off, vote with your feet (if you can) and leave. It's no way to have to live each year when you're already in the generally shitty environment of biglaw. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Fair warning I'm just a 2L, but does this also depend on the market? I'm particularly targeting Chicago and Sidley, Latham, Skadden, Winston, and a lot of others all have hours minimums. Skadden's is the lowest at 1800, I think Latham and Ropes are 1900, and I want to say everywhere else is 2000 and I remember one firm has 2000 to get a bonus and 2200 to get market bonuses. I think only Kirkland and Jenner don't have hours minimums, I had assumed that those were more of the exception.

We probably should do this in a different thread but if you're in Chicago and have the grades / credentials, you should target Kirkland. It's incredibly financially healthy and it's also the most prominent firm in the city; Chicago is their headquarters.

Edit: Accidental anon. I'm the poster above you quoted.

[Anonymous User]

Turns out Hogan Lovells is not actually matching. To get market special bonuses, you have to have billed 2200 hours. It’s a sliding scale from 1900-2200, with just a small percent of the relevant class bonus if you have 1900-2000 hours.

Associates are not pleased.

There you go. DC firms are DC-ing.

[Elston Gunn]

This all goes back to my earlier point which is that, if you're at a place that is dinging people out of compensation because they missed some arbitrary numerical cut-off, vote with your feet (if you can) and leave. It's no way to have to live each year when you're already in the generally shitty environment of biglaw. Money talks, bullshit walks.

I broadly agree with what everyone is saying about hours requirements, but I do want to push back slightly. Maybe this is so obvious it just didn’t bear mentioning, but there are reasons other than money to prefer one firm to another. As just one example, I worked at an hours requirement firm in DC, and I would 100% do it again out of school because I was just doing very different work than I would have had to opportunity to do at the vast majority of firms that have no hours cutoff, which tend to be the uber profitable firms that do not do a lot of more interesting (imo) and more livable specialist work that is available at “prestigious” but cheaper and less profitable DC firms.

[Anonymous User]

It is absolutely insane to me that any firm in the V25 would create an arbitrary hours cutoff around the 2,000 hour mark in the middle of a pandemic. It is a true morale destroyer: "John, thanks for your hard work billing 1,975 hours in a global pandemic, but because you missed the mark by 25h, we're going to pay you $50,000 less than you otherwise would have gotten this year. But really, keep up the great work next year. Attaboy." It's why true peer firms have never used hours cut-offs, because the leadership is smart enough to realize that attorneys' years ebb and flow but having an across-the-board bonus keeps everyone generally motivated and avoids resentment.

TL;DR: Fuck places like Sidley and A&P and lol at anyone trying to OCI or lateral into them.

100% agree, A&P associate here. Had another phenomenal annual review this week, but wouldn't get bonus because a lot of my cases settled this year and it was tough to get fully staffed on new ones. Management just doesn't care. Leaving in a few weeks, going in-house, and glad to be able to finally take real vacations.

[Anonymous User]

It is absolutely insane to me that any firm in the V25 would create an arbitrary hours cutoff around the 2,000 hour mark in the middle of a pandemic. It is a true morale destroyer: "John, thanks for your hard work billing 1,975 hours in a global pandemic, but because you missed the mark by 25h, we're going to pay you $50,000 less than you otherwise would have gotten this year. But really, keep up the great work next year. Attaboy." It's why true peer firms have never used hours cut-offs, because the leadership is smart enough to realize that attorneys' years ebb and flow but having an across-the-board bonus keeps everyone generally motivated and avoids resentment.

TL;DR: Fuck places like Sidley and A&P and lol at anyone trying to OCI or lateral into them.

100% agree, A&P associate here. Had another phenomenal annual review this week, but wouldn't get bonus because a lot of my cases settled this year and it was tough to get fully staffed on new ones. Management just doesn't care. Leaving in a few weeks, going in-house, and glad to be able to finally take real vacations.

Fellow A&P associate here. Congrats on getting out and good luck! Firm’s lack of transparency and inability to even acknowledge the existence of the special bonus is appalling. Also LOL at statement during the last town hall that the “bonus and hours” email that made ATL a few months ago was meant to make associates feel better, because associates had the opportunity to explain how being under hours because of COVID shouldn’t cause them to lose “good standing.” At least you won’t be subjected to any more town halls where the firm wastes everyone’s time with powerpoints on alumni LinkedIn networks and “winning cases” rather than the slightest mention of compensation.

[Anonymous User]

Turns out Hogan Lovells is not actually matching. To get market special bonuses, you have to have billed 2200 hours. It’s a sliding scale from 1900-2200, with just a small percent of the relevant class bonus if you have 1900-2000 hours.

Associates are not pleased.

Could you say what the percent is and what your source is? The email from management is kinda hard to understand but it mentions bonuses up to 40k, which would be market for the special bonus.

[Anonymous User]

100% agree, A&P associate here. Had another phenomenal annual review this week, but wouldn't get bonus because a lot of my cases settled this year and it was tough to get fully staffed on new ones. Management just doesn't care. Leaving in a few weeks, going in-house, and glad to be able to finally take real vacations.

Fellow A&P associate here. Congrats on getting out and good luck! Firm’s lack of transparency and inability to even acknowledge the existence of the special bonus is appalling. Also LOL at statement during the last town hall that the “bonus and hours” email that made ATL a few months ago was meant to make associates feel better, because associates had the opportunity to explain how being under hours because of COVID shouldn’t cause them to lose “good standing.” At least you won’t be subjected to any more town halls where the firm wastes everyone’s time with powerpoints on alumni LinkedIn networks and “winning cases” rather than the slightest mention of compensation.

Hogan Lovells here - sounds like we're pretty much in the same boat. Firm management's communication with associates has been ABYSSMAL in 2020. When they announced salary cuts back in Spring, they promised a monthly town hall with updates, but when everyone realized those meetings were just going to be the CFO telling us how revenue was *barely* down since 2019 while costs were also down and then channeling DJT saying "don't worry - the big one is coming - we KNOW next month will be when the s*** hits the fan and our revenue tanks so be happy we cut your salaries!" Of course that bad month never came, so they just stopped giving us updates until they finally, thankfully, restored our full salaries.

But they sure as hell didn't learn any lessons from that. On Friday they emailed us announcing special bonuses but with ZERO details, so associates had to learn through back channels that we actually had to hit 2200 hours to get anywhere close to market special bonuses. That reality will be announced during another glorious town hall on Monday, but it looks like they intentionally hid the ball on Friday to avoid the crappy news being in writing and ending up on ATL. Far more insulting to associates than if they had just been up front and said "look we're not going to pay market special bonuses to most of you."

[Anonymous User]

100% agree, A&P associate here. Had another phenomenal annual review this week, but wouldn't get bonus because a lot of my cases settled this year and it was tough to get fully staffed on new ones. Management just doesn't care. Leaving in a few weeks, going in-house, and glad to be able to finally take real vacations.

Fellow A&P associate here. Congrats on getting out and good luck! Firm’s lack of transparency and inability to even acknowledge the existence of the special bonus is appalling. Also LOL at statement during the last town hall that the “bonus and hours” email that made ATL a few months ago was meant to make associates feel better, because associates had the opportunity to explain how being under hours because of COVID shouldn’t cause them to lose “good standing.” At least you won’t be subjected to any more town halls where the firm wastes everyone’s time with powerpoints on alumni LinkedIn networks and “winning cases” rather than the slightest mention of compensation.

Hogan Lovells here - sounds like we're pretty much in the same boat. Firm management's communication with associates has been ABYSSMAL in 2020. When they announced salary cuts back in Spring, they promised a monthly town hall with updates, but when everyone realized those meetings were just going to be the CFO telling us how revenue was *barely* down since 2019 while costs were also down and then channeling DJT saying "don't worry - the big one is coming - we KNOW next month will be when the s*** hits the fan and our revenue tanks so be happy we cut your salaries!" Of course that bad month never came, so they just stopped giving us updates until they finally, thankfully, restored our full salaries.

But they sure as hell didn't learn any lessons from that. On Friday they emailed us announcing special bonuses but with ZERO details, so associates had to learn through back channels that we actually had to hit 2200 hours to get anywhere close to market special bonuses. That reality will be announced during another glorious town hall on Monday, but it looks like they intentionally hid the ball on Friday to avoid the crappy news being in writing and ending up on ATL. Far more insulting to associates than if they had just been up front and said "look we're not going to pay market special bonuses to most of you."

The salary cut should already have been a red flag to lateral. For people still there, I'd hardly be surprised or "insulted" that any special bonus from the firm comes with strings.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I'm at a V25 firm with a 2k minimum, and agree that there are a lot of pros to no hours minimums. However, I think this thread has been painting firms with minimums with broad brushstrokes, so I wanted to add a few points that makes the hours requirement at my firm more tolerable.

First, I agree that it's unfair to punish associates for a slow business year, but my firm doesn't do that. At my firm (outside of the recession) I have never heard of someone getting no-bonused because their practice group was slow. The firm tracks hours by group and will often ignore the hard minimum when most associates couldn't reach it. Sure, there are some that get no bonused in those groups, but they are probably well below the average.

Second, aside from slow practice groups, those who didn't hit their hours had ample opportunities to do so and chose not to, either because they said no to work or by mailing it in so much that nobody wanted to work with them anymore. My firm has no pro bono maximum and counts many times of non-billable work (e.g., business development) toward the bonus requirement, so there's plenty of less soul crushing work to pad your hours with. I know lots of people who gladly exchange more personal time for a less-than-market bonus.

Third, our hours requirement is not (and has never been) a hard bar. Bonuses have a discretionary component, so there's some wiggle room for high performers. If you have good ratings and miss 2k by a few hours for whatever reason, the firm may still give you a full market bonus. I wouldn't bank on it, but the firm recognizes that minimums are inherently arbitrary and unfair, and blurs the lines to account for that.

Fourth, my understanding is that most (but not all) firms have one bonus level per class year: nothing more, nothing less. That's not true at my firm. I've been busy (perhaps inhumanely so) since day 1, and my bonuses have reflected that. I know there are first and second years earning more than 2x market bonuses for high hours, and some more senior associates are awarded even more for exceptional ratings. The money isn't fully compensatory for my time, but I'm alright with that for now. I would probably work this hard anywhere, so I might as well get paid extra for it. I would feel slighted getting the same bonus as someone with 1k+ fewer hours.

Fifth, many ITT have described the comfort they take in knowing they'll still get a bonus with sub-2k hours. That sounds really nice, but consider the following: firms with an hours requirement give you a reason to put in 2k and nothing more. Many of my colleagues sneak in at 2000-2010 hours, and don't feel badly more refusing work since they know they did what's expected of them. They might feel more pressure to take on additional work with no minimum to aim for. I haven't worked at a no minimum firm, so I could be wrong there. Whether or not you would prefer the comfort of no minimum or the comfort of aiming for a minimum probably varies from individual to individual.

Finally, it's important to note that the business structure of no minimum firms is often different from those with minimums. Most of no minimum firms have much higher leverage (meaning lower partnership prospects) and do a lot of corporate work (for which they can often charge higher rates). Some people ITT have said you're still profitable working 1600 hours. That may be true in that the firm will make some money on you, but firms with lower leverage and smaller class sizes need you to be more profitable than that to maintain their revenue (and to cover their matters). If that doesn't jive with you, pick a different firm that gives you a bonus for being one of a sea of associates with sub-2k hours. I happily traded no hours minimums for a better shot at partner doing the non-corporate work I enjoy. Others probably feel differently.

Again, these points may not apply to all firms with an hours minimum. It sounds like Hogan, Sidley, and A&P lack some of the safeguards I described above. But not all firms (and applicants) are alike, so 2Ls/laterals should kick the tires when deciding where to land. I openly discuss any of these points with 2Ls/laterals who received an offer (it's tacky to ask while interviewing).

[wwwcol]

we have strayed pretty far from the ostensible topic of this thread. in any event, @ 2:32pm anon (and others), these comments about variations in bonus policy are not helpful if you do not identify the firm. which you should do, because you're anon anyways.

My firm has no pro bono maximum and counts many times of non-billable work (e.g., business development) toward the bonus requirement

that's great for associates at your firm but extremely unusual

those who didn't hit their hours had ample opportunities to do so and chose not to, either because they said no to work or by mailing it in so much that nobody wanted to work with them anymore.

this is an absolutely bonkers statement. plenty of great associates don't hit bonus for reasons totally unrelated to turning down work or their performance. big cases settle, a dispute or transaction doesn't materialize, etc.

If you have good ratings and miss 2k by a few hours for whatever reason, the firm may still give you a full market bonus

this is great, but nobody in their right mind is going to make decisions based on the possibility that the firm "may" be generous and overlook an associate missing hours, even if it's just by a little. many (most?) firms have hard deadlines (and again, we can't know which firm is yours because you didn't identify it, even though you were anon)

[Anonymous User]

...

[Anonymous User]

we have strayed pretty far from the ostensible topic of this thread. in any event, @ 2:32pm anon (and others), these comments about variations in bonus policy are not helpful if you do not identify the firm. which you should do, because you're anon anyways.

Same anon, and that's not true. I'm still not comfortable sharing ITT, but can PM you if you're really that interested and agree not to share. Regardless, you don't need to know which firm it is to see how other firms stack up. If you don't believe me because I didn't mention the name that's up to you, but it doesn't mean my comments "are not helpful."

My firm has no pro bono maximum and counts many times of non-billable work (e.g., business development) toward the bonus requirement

that's great for associates at your firm but extremely unusual

Isn't that the point of my post? Not all firms with hours requirements are alike, so it's helpful to know some firms implement it this way when considering where to land.

those who didn't hit their hours had ample opportunities to do so and chose not to, either because they said no to work or by mailing it in so much that nobody wanted to work with them anymore.

this is an absolutely bonkers statement. plenty of great associates don't hit bonus for reasons totally unrelated to turning down work or their performance. big cases settle, a dispute or transaction doesn't materialize, etc.

You clearly didn't read my post. When a case settles there's plenty of other work to go around. The last time my big case settled I was staffed up again in a matter of days. I also had some miscellaneous small maters on the backburner that I used to fill my time. Maybe your firm is different, but if you're an associate at my firm and need work for whatever reason there's pretty much always enough to go around (but see my comment about slow practice groups). It may be pro bono, business development, or something you're less keen on, but it's not hard to hit hours. Rather, most people I know spend their time trying not to go over.

If you have good ratings and miss 2k by a few hours for whatever reason, the firm may still give you a full market bonus

this is great, but nobody in their right mind is going to make decisions based on the possibility that the firm "may" be generous and overlook an associate missing hours, even if it's just by a little. many (most?) firms have hard deadlines (and again, we can't know which firm is yours because you didn't identify it, even though you were anon)

Again, proving my point. Firms vary. Don't shit on all firms with an hours requirement without knowing the facts. Other firms discussed ITT have hard hours minimums and that sucks. I openly agreed with that. But that's not all firms.

TL;DR I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. If you don't want anecdotal evidence on hours requirements at other firms then ignore it.

[MrTooToo]

we have strayed pretty far from the ostensible topic of this thread. in any event, @ 2:32pm anon (and others), these comments about variations in bonus policy are not helpful if you do not identify the firm. which you should do, because you're anon anyways.

Same anon, and that's not true. I'm still not comfortable sharing ITT, but can PM you if you're really that interested and agree not to share. Regardless, you don't need to know which firm it is to see how other firms stack up. If you don't believe me because I didn't mention the name that's up to you, but it doesn't mean my comments "are not helpful."

My firm has no pro bono maximum and counts many times of non-billable work (e.g., business development) toward the bonus requirement

that's great for associates at your firm but extremely unusual

Isn't that the point of my post? Not all firms with hours requirements are alike, so it's helpful to know some firms implement it this way when considering where to land.

those who didn't hit their hours had ample opportunities to do so and chose not to, either because they said no to work or by mailing it in so much that nobody wanted to work with them anymore.

this is an absolutely bonkers statement. plenty of great associates don't hit bonus for reasons totally unrelated to turning down work or their performance. big cases settle, a dispute or transaction doesn't materialize, etc.

You clearly didn't read my post. When a case settles there's plenty of other work to go around. The last time my big case settled I was staffed up again in a matter of days. I also had some miscellaneous small maters on the backburner that I used to fill my time. Maybe your firm is different, but if you're an associate at my firm and need work for whatever reason there's pretty much always enough to go around (but see my comment about slow practice groups). It may be pro bono, business development, or something you're less keen on, but it's not hard to hit hours. Rather, most people I know spend their time trying not to go over.

If you have good ratings and miss 2k by a few hours for whatever reason, the firm may still give you a full market bonus

this is great, but nobody in their right mind is going to make decisions based on the possibility that the firm "may" be generous and overlook an associate missing hours, even if it's just by a little. many (most?) firms have hard deadlines (and again, we can't know which firm is yours because you didn't identify it, even though you were anon)

Again, proving my point. Firms vary. Don't shit on all firms with an hours requirement without knowing the facts. Other firms discussed ITT have hard hours minimums and that sucks. I openly agreed with that. But that's not all firms.

TL;DR I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. If you don't want anecdotal evidence on hours requirements at other firms then ignore it.

Wow. Thanks for this full-throated defense of your firm's shitty hours policy lol. Anytime you need to justify a policy with the observation that, in essence, "it can [at the whims of a random group of equity partners] be bent!" you're doing it wrong. Your post, by the way, encapsulates a lot that is wrong with the groupthink of young (which I'm presuming you are) associate attorneys in many areas of biglaw. Everyone--all of us--regardless of what firm we're at should be arguing for no hours cutoffs. It's a labor-unfriendly practice no matter how much you dress it up, including in your 95 Theses style.

[Anonymous User]

Wow. Thanks for this full-throated defense of your firm's shitty hours policy lol. Anytime you need to justify a policy with the observation that, in essence, "it can [at the whims of a random group of equity partners] be bent!" you're doing it wrong. Your post, by the way, encapsulates a lot that is wrong with the groupthink of young (which I'm presuming you are) associate attorneys in many areas of biglaw. Everyone--all of us--regardless of what firm we're at should be arguing for no hours cutoffs. It's a labor-unfriendly practice no matter how much you dress it up, including in your 95 Theses style.

Same anon. This is a great post, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I had not realized the policy was "shitty" until you labeled it so. Also, I'll definitely push for no hours cutoffs because you said so, to the detriment of my astronomical bonuses. I work hard solely for the benefit of my free rider colleagues.

If your best argument against a policy that's meant to reward hard work (and does a good job at it) is that it's "labor-unfriendly" you're doing it wrong. These are firms we're talking about, not communes.

Again, my point stands. If you want to slack off, get your bonuses, and then leave after 2-5 years don't go to a firm with an hours requirement. If you want to rest assured that a tough year--personally or for the firm--won't deprive you of large sums of money, don't go to a firm with an hours requirement. But there are reasons why I (and others) pick firms with hours requirements over those without them. If that were not the case then I don't see why the law review, clerkship, and HYS type people end up anywhere else. Oh, and the answer can't be that you're just smarter than all of them.

[Dcc617]

Man, I can’t get over the Stockholm syndrome we’ve been seeing over and over again lately.

[MrTooToo]

Wow. Thanks for this full-throated defense of your firm's shitty hours policy lol. Anytime you need to justify a policy with the observation that, in essence, "it can [at the whims of a random group of equity partners] be bent!" you're doing it wrong. Your post, by the way, encapsulates a lot that is wrong with the groupthink of young (which I'm presuming you are) associate attorneys in many areas of biglaw. Everyone--all of us--regardless of what firm we're at should be arguing for no hours cutoffs. It's a labor-unfriendly practice no matter how much you dress it up, including in your 95 Theses style.

Same anon. This is a great post, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I had not realized the policy was "shitty" until you labeled it so. Also, I'll definitely push for no hours cutoffs because you said so, to the detriment of my astronomical bonuses. I work hard solely for the benefit of my free rider colleagues.

If your best argument against a policy that's meant to reward hard work (and does a good job at it) is that it's "labor-unfriendly" you're doing it wrong. These are firms we're talking about, not communes.

Again, my point stands. If you want to slack off, get your bonuses, and then leave after 2-5 years don't go to a firm with an hours requirement. If you want to rest assured that a tough year--personally or for the firm--won't deprive you of large sums of money, don't go to a firm with an hours requirement. But there are reasons why I (and others) pick firms with hours requirements over those without them. If that were not the case then I don't see why the law review, clerkship, and HLS type people end up anywhere else. Oh, and the answer can't be that you're just smarter than all of them.

Listen, I'm not here to argue with you. We're not exchanging briefs. I don't like how you call your colleagues "free riders" that's not a great attitude to start your post with. I think you're betraying a sophomoric understanding of the dynamics of biglaw firms, especially in terms of long-term career development within them & the incentives that motivate your fellow attorneys at both the associate and partner levels.

How many years have you practiced? I've had years where I've billed 2,600 and years where I've billed 1,800 and many in-between. Because I'm not at your V25 with a really not really hours cutoff as you claim but a V10 without one that doesn't play games with its attorneys compensation curves, I've never had to sweat the years where I've come in under 2k--will the powers that be grant me a reprieve this year?! It's a nice place to be at and it's something I wish for all of my colleagues across biglaw. Arbitrary is arbitrary, no matter how you dress it up.

Edit: Also, why the fuck are you anonymous? You aren't providing "sensitive employment related information about a firm."

[MrTooToo]

Man, I can’t get over the Stockholm syndrome we’ve been seeing over and over again lately.

It's pretty bad and what's ironic is these sort of guys usually burn out after a few years of practice; biglaw and true believers don't typically mix well.

[Anonymous User]

Man, I can’t get over the Stockholm syndrome we’ve been seeing over and over again lately.

Can't get over the well-reasoned arguments in the posts here. Clearly, no-minimum firms do hire the best legal minds. Case closed. Excuse me while I just tell the judge I should win because the other firm's arguments are "shitty" and they've got Stockholm syndrome from working with their client for too long.

Listen, I'm not here to argue with you. We're not exchanging briefs. I do like how you call your colleagues "free riders" that's a great attitude to start your response with. My best argument is that you betray a sophomoric understanding of the dynamics of biglaw firms. How many years have you practiced? I'm guessing not many. I've had years where I've billed 2,600 and years where I've billed 1,800 and many in-between. Because I'm not at your V25 with a really not really hours cutoff as you claim but a V10 without one that doesn't play games with its attorneys compensation curves, I've never had to sweat the years where I've come in under 2k--will the powers that be grant me a reprieve this year?! It's a nice place to be at and it's something I wish for all of my colleagues across biglaw. Arbitrary is arbitrary, no matter how you dress it up.

I don't disagree with you--that does sound great. I never said hours requirements aren't arbitrary or never suck. But there are some reasons it works out for me (and others). If you disagree, enjoy your time at your V10. FWIW I'm not a junior.

I'm pretty done with this. I've made my point and others can feel free to agree, disagree, or blow smoke if they want. Thank you TLS for yet another conversation that's devolved into V10 juniors trying to find a reason to hold their superiority over others.