2020 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

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

If you work at my firm and were to read my posts in this thread and elsewhere, you would easily be able to identify who I am. I don't want people at my firm to know I'm sharing all this information. I continue to post anon because it's worth holding the line as the same poster, rather than pretending to chime in as someone else.

[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.

No offense but you come off as a very junior attorney in some of your responses here; or else you're just super passionate about your firm which I guess is fine. I'm not a junior either I've practiced for about a decade. And I'm not trying to be superior about anything but it's worth pointing out that there's a correlation between the strongest and healthiest firms in the field not having these cut-offs vs. the bullshit and games that tend to be played as you move farther down the vault ranks.

Edit: Accidental anon, this site's posting system is terribly clunky I'm MrTooToo.

[Dcc617]

No, biglaw sucks and treats associates like shit. You're not valued or respected beyond the billable hour. The system is bad and is solely about extracting as much wealth from you as possible.

There's this weird mindset that a lot of associates have where they identify with the (greedy, exploitative) partners more than their fellow associates, to their own detriment. I assume it's because they think they'll be a partner.

You should always support policies that end up with associates getting a bigger piece of the pie. But instead you're coming up with weird unconvincing arguments about how really the boot is good.

[dyemond]

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.

Without buying into the defense of minimums myself, seems like the people defending the policy are the ones putting in heavy hours at lockstep firms and then being annoyed when they get the same compensation as their colleague who came in several hundred hours lighter.

Obvious solution is to go look for a shop that doesn't do lockstep bonuses but pays on hours, but people are weirdly susceptible to the line of thinking that you should defend the policy, same way people making $9.50 an hour argue against increases of the minimum wage.

Might be a little more defensible if you're coming in light (think <1800) that the special bonus really was to compensate for the brutal volume of work in certain practices (that was why Milbank, DPW and Weil paid originally), so bifurcation there might make sense (but even then minimums should be a sliding scale, not yes/no), but otherwise defending minimums is weird for an associate.

[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.

To echo what this poster said, Skadden does have an hours minimum and I'd agree that this seems to be pretty NY focused. If you're trying to be in Chicago, or DC/LA/TX you're not going to have as many options when it comes to firms with no hours minimums and the vast majority of biglaw have hour minimums. I'm sure it is better to be at a firm that doesn't have one, I think that would definitely lead to some less stress, but the vast majority of students also aren't going to be able to land a lot of the no hours firms. Not saying they shouldn't try for them, but doesn't this whole debate only really matter for certain people? I'm also just wondering if someone should make a new thread to discuss this, because I do think it's something students who are in the position to decide should consider.

[Anonymous User]

Kirkland townhall bonus meeting set for Friday 10:00AM ET

[Anonymous User]

Sheppard Mullin announced. No special bonus. We can’t all be the Kramer Levins/Freshfields of the world I guess.

[cornerstone]

Sheppard Mullin announced. No special bonus. We can’t all be the Kramer Levins/Freshfields of the world I guess.

This is surprising to me. They have higher RPL and PPP than firms like Baker. Shame on them.

[Anonymous User]

Sheppard Mullin announced. No special bonus. We can’t all be the Kramer Levins/Freshfields of the world I guess.

This is surprising to me. They have higher RPL and PPP than firms like Baker. Shame on them.

I had a rough year both at work and at home and this is definitely disappointing.

[Anonymous User]

What % of the V50 is even left to announce anymore? 25%? Less?

[thelawyler]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

[Anonymous User]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard data (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

[Anonymous User]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard data (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

Dont think a simple average of billables really give the full picture. You'd need to know the most likely billable at these firms (ie median not mean) and distributions at either end of the curve (low and high billers). Both no req firm and req firm will have those (not insignificant %)that bill below and above the reported average billable.

Guess it is really up to you to decide whether you will prefer guaranteed bonus but a higher (unclear what %) chance of working longer hours or non guaranteed bonus but a higher chance of (again unclear what %) working less hours. Id guess that for most people who want to spend 3-5 years at biglaw with a goal of earning as much as possible, the first option makes more sense.

[Anonymous User]

Arnold & Porter anon here. Partnership announcement today - 6 new partners (compared to 12 last year).

50% reduction, coupled with complete silence on special bonus, makes me wary that COVID has affected firm far more than the vague “Everything is great” messages at town halls suggest.

[Anonymous User]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard ex post (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

[cornerstone]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard ex post (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Just curious - which V10? Also, do these average hours include pro bono, firm work, etc. or just client billable hours?

[Anonymous User]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard ex post (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Just curious - which V10? Also, do these average hours include pro bono, firm work, etc. or just client billable hours?

Not OP but I'm at KE and can confirm the same is true there. I think our number includes pro bono and client work, but hovers around 1900-1950ish. Personally, this does not reflect my sense of people's hours, but it may include outliers (i.e. laterals on a non-annualized basis, parental leave, etc). That being said, I had a friend bill 1400 one year and still get the market bonus. They didn't even get a lecture about hours. Probably not representative but the lack of billable requirement is probably the single best thing about KE.

[Anonymous User]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard ex post (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Just curious - which V10? Also, do these average hours include pro bono, firm work, etc. or just client billable hours?

Not OP but I'm at KE and can confirm the same is true there. I think our number includes pro bono and client work, but hovers around 1900-1950ish. Personally, this does not reflect my sense of people's hours, but it may include outliers (i.e. laterals on a non-annualized basis, parental leave, etc). That being said, I had a friend bill 1400 one year and still get the market bonus. They didn't even get a lecture about hours. Probably not representative but the lack of billable requirement is probably the single best thing about KE.

The 1900 thing never made sense to me, unless they're generously counting stub years, people on leave, shown the door already, etc. in that calculation. Virtually I know at K&E bills a LOT more than that, and I don't think its the usual "oh I'm working hard" BS you always say to your co-workers.

[Anonymous User]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard ex post (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Just curious - which V10? Also, do these average hours include pro bono, firm work, etc. or just client billable hours?

Not OP but I'm at KE and can confirm the same is true there. I think our number includes pro bono and client work, but hovers around 1900-1950ish. Personally, this does not reflect my sense of people's hours, but it may include outliers (i.e. laterals on a non-annualized basis, parental leave, etc). That being said, I had a friend bill 1400 one year and still get the market bonus. They didn't even get a lecture about hours. Probably not representative but the lack of billable requirement is probably the single best thing about KE.

The 1900 thing never made sense to me, unless they're generously counting stub years, people on leave, shown the door already, etc. in that calculation. Virtually I know at K&E bills a LOT more than that, and I don't think its the usual "oh I'm working hard" BS you always say to your co-workers.

Different anon (how many freaking KE attorneys do we have here lol) but I actually tend to believe it with the qualifier that the people below 2,000 each year are much more likely to be in lit or niche / specialist practices and not the broadly defined "transactional / corporate" groups which constantly gets hammered (though they get paid for it). Our culture is that people talk if they're billing 2,400 hours but they keep quiet if they're having a slower year 1,700, 1,800, 1,900. So you don't tend to hear those experiences except if it's a close friend. The great thing about KE's attitude and lack of a cut-off like everyone is discussing is that it's no sweat as long as it's not a consistent thing -- I feel like the powers that be get that the lit. associate billing 1,800 one year may be at 2,500 the next and so they're not going to screw that guy for a random off year. It's a big morale boost to work at a place like that like the above anon said.

[Anonymous User]

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Average is a very manipulated term. They aren't taking a comb to the data so as to really show the average associate.

Our top 25 PPP shop averages around 1800 hours and I've always billed 2100-2400. 1950 average is high. In any event, that's why comparing RPL at similar billable hour firms is likely a less manipulated metric.

I'm amazed how high RPL firms with very similar billing rates as other firms are trying to convince themselves they work the same hours as others. It's just not possible.

[Anonymous User]

Different anon (how many freaking KE attorneys do we have here lol) but I actually tend to believe it with the qualifier that the people below 2,000 each year are much more likely to be in lit or niche / specialist practices and not the broadly defined "transactional / corporate" groups which constantly gets hammered (though they get paid for it). Our culture is that people talk if they're billing 2,400 hours but they keep quiet if they're having a slower year 1,700, 1,800, 1,900. So you don't tend to hear those experiences except if it's a close friend. The great thing about KE's attitude and lack of a cut-off like everyone is discussing is that it's no sweat as long as it's not a consistent thing -- I feel like the powers that be get that the lit. associate billing 1,800 one year may be at 2,500 the next and so they're not going to screw that guy for a random off year. It's a big morale boost to work at a place like that like the above anon said.

Yet another K&E attorney chiming in. My office had a check in meeting about a month ago where they showed a chart with average billable hours firmwide for the past 7 years. They also had average hours for my office but I'm not showing that to preserve a little more anonymity. The hours were as follows:

• 2013: 1,998
• 2014: 2,004
• 2015: 2,044
• 2016: 2,005
• 2017: 2,014
• 2018: 1,996
• 2019: 1,931
• 2020: 2,021 (annualized based on actual hours 1/1/20 through 10/31/20)

The tone of the conversation was the partner being happy that my office's hours were in line with the firm's as a whole because they wanted to make the point that we were just as profitable as the power centers in NY and Chicago, so I don't think they had applied some sort of cute math to make the firm look more humane. I think people in M&A and restructuring really drive the conversation around terrible hours. While some of them work substantially more than the hours above, clearly the firm is a whole is not full of people billing in the mid-2000s.

Average is a very manipulated term. They aren't taking a comb to the data so as to really show the average associate.

Our top 25 PPP shop averages around 1800 hours and I've always billed 2100-2400. 1950 average is high. In any event, that's why RPL comparing similar billable hour firms is likely a less manipulated metric.

I'm amazed how high RPL firms with very similar billing rates as other firms are trying to convince themselves they work the same hours as others. It's just not possible.

For what it's worth, I get the sense that K&E's billable rates are really high, even compared to other peer firms. I lateraled from a V5 and my billable rate was higher at K&E than it was at my old firm even before my class year went up. Also K&E's class year goes up in June for billing purposes, while I think at my last firm it went up in September. Fourth-year associates bill out above 1,000 and fifth years are nearly 1,100.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

Sheppard Mullin announced. No special bonus. We can’t all be the Kramer Levins/Freshfields of the world I guess.

This is surprising to me. They have higher RPL and PPP than firms like Baker. Shame on them.

I had a rough year both at work and at home and this is definitely disappointing.

You're not alone. The Sheppard associates quoted in this ATL article are super mad: https://abovethelaw.com/2020/12/sheppard-bonuses/

[Glord]

What associates who defend the minimum hour requirement fail to also understand is that no hours requirement for associates also provides good incentive to the partner to run their business well so that (i) you develop a proper work management and allocation system so all associates are billing, (ii) because all associates are all being utilized, develop good standards and practices to train every associate well, and (iii) to bring in biz enough to compensate for the bonus liabilities you gotta pay out in year end. Why would an associate argue against that system.

Now, if you want to be rewarded for more hours so you dont have associates “free riding” (lol...) then advocate for a “modified lockstep” bonus where the top performers get a bit of extra juice over the standard market bonus even if everyone gets full bonus. Done.

Thats what we should all be arguing for.

Yes, clearly no billable minimum only works in and creates incentives for partners to foster an environment where the majority bill more hours than another market threshold firm. Hard ex post (i.e. average billable hours when reported, RPL divided by billable rates) supports this. The only question is if you think this is a positive or a negative.

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Just curious - which V10? Also, do these average hours include pro bono, firm work, etc. or just client billable hours?

Not OP but I'm at KE and can confirm the same is true there. I think our number includes pro bono and client work, but hovers around 1900-1950ish. Personally, this does not reflect my sense of people's hours, but it may include outliers (i.e. laterals on a non-annualized basis, parental leave, etc). That being said, I had a friend bill 1400 one year and still get the market bonus. They didn't even get a lecture about hours. Probably not representative but the lack of billable requirement is probably the single best thing about KE.

The 1900 thing never made sense to me, unless they're generously counting stub years, people on leave, shown the door already, etc. in that calculation. Virtually I know at K&E bills a LOT more than that, and I don't think its the usual "oh I'm working hard" BS you always say to your co-workers.

They are counting everyone including people who checked out, on parental leave, or are who were told to leave. I have access to associate hours for my department. People on track not to leave who didn’t take leave are all well over 2000. Two people billing 2400 and one billing 1200 because they are going to clerk averages to 2000.

If you didn’t bill 200 last month, there is a risk someone will cold call you about staffing you on their matter.

If you are constantly billing 140 a month and nobody cares, it’s a bad sign.

That said if your group is slow, it’s slow. No need to worry. You’ll get a 1.03x Cravath boneus just for being above room temp.

[thelawyler]

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Average is a very manipulated term. They aren't taking a comb to the data so as to really show the average associate.

Our top 25 PPP shop averages around 1800 hours and I've always billed 2100-2400. 1950 average is high. In any event, that's why comparing RPL at similar billable hour firms is likely a less manipulated metric.

I'm amazed how high RPL firms with very similar billing rates as other firms are trying to convince themselves they work the same hours as others. It's just not possible.

But it is. I’m a nerd about these things and helped collect the hours to propose an end to the hours at an associate committee meeting at one of the top firms that has a requirement. Got a good sample of average hours from the top competitors in nyc (think top 20 firms). Basically all were at or below 2000 hours on average. That means if you are at a firm with a target around there, your management has made an active decision that half the associates deserve ZERO bonus. And you defend it.

Gotta wake up bruh.

If you are like this in real life, this is why you’re so clueless. Nobody giving it to you real i person because they know you’ll unfairly judge them.

[alawyer2018]

What are you talking about? I'm at a V10 firm with a "no hours" cutoff. Every year at the partnership level we receive a presentation going over average billables for the firm's associates both across the board and then by practice group. There has NEVER been a year where the average associate billable has cracked 2,000 -- it's always somewhere in the 19xxs. Some practice groups will be below this and others above it and which group is where varies year on year. So I have "hard data" directly contradicting what you're saying. We make our money by our billing rates, which we're able to command because of our position in the marketplace, not by squeezing an extra 100 hours out of the associates.

There's a lot of weird thinking going on in these comments from lawyers at firms with a hard cut-off. It reads like ex post facto justification to me. And it's bizarre because, as has already been pointed out, no one should reasonably be championing a system where there are arbitrary "cliffs" around which if you don't meet a certain threshold a big chunk of your compensation simply falls away. It's a stupid idea that's solely designed to push up billing to a minimum threshold regardless of circumstance and to the detriment of associates.

Average is a very manipulated term. They aren't taking a comb to the data so as to really show the average associate.

Our top 25 PPP shop averages around 1800 hours and I've always billed 2100-2400. 1950 average is high. In any event, that's why comparing RPL at similar billable hour firms is likely a less manipulated metric.

I'm amazed how high RPL firms with very similar billing rates as other firms are trying to convince themselves they work the same hours as others. It's just not possible.

But it is. I’m a nerd about these things and helped collect the hours to propose an end to the hours at an associate committee meeting at one of the top firms that has a requirement. Got a good sample of average hours from the top competitors in nyc (think top 20 firms). Basically all were at or below 2000 hours on average. That means if you are at a firm with a target around there, your management has made an active decision that half the associates deserve ZERO bonus. And you defend it.

Gotta wake up bruh.

If you are like this in real life, this is why you’re so clueless. Nobody giving it to you real i person because they know you’ll unfairly judge them.

Anon said the average hours billed is not a reliable metric, and you come back with a "good sample of average hours from the top competitors in nyc?" You then proceed to demonstrate your total lack of comprehension of basic statistics and the difference between median and mean (average). And you top your post off with some slang and some name calling. Yikes.

I don't really care about whether firms with no hours requirements are "better" than those with hours requirements. Frankly, I expect to put up enough hours each year to hit a firm's bonus target, but then again, I'm not someone who just wants to coast for a couple of years in big law and then wash out. Moreover, if you really care about quality of life, I'd recommend looking beyond the V5/V10 in NYC.