Tracking COVID-19's effect on V100 associate pay/layoffs Forum

[Ultramar vistas]

Vault has its flaws, and there is certainly a strong correlation between Vault prestige and strong numbers, but the correlation isn't perfect. Prestige is a explanatory factor for what is going on and Vault measures that.

Agree. Obviously Vault has serious flaws. It penalizes non-NY-based firms, and it penalizes firms whose primary strength isn't corporate. Litigation boutiques like Irell and Munger, IP boutiques like Fish & Richardson, even regulatory powerhouse Covington are all disadvantaged by Vault.

CovingTTTon is disadvantaged by Vault because they tried to ruin the Milbank salary increase that one year. Or at least, that’s why I rank it a 1 on my vault survey every year.

[Wild Card]

Holland & Knight now publicly reported:

https://abovethelaw.com/2020/05/holland-knight-cuts/2/

[Cavalier]

Vault beats any other ranking, and law students who don't know what they want to do (i.e. most of them) are probably better off being at more profitable firms. At higher-ranked firms you can get away with 1800 billable hours + 200 pro bono and get a lockstep bonus and move up in salary. Lower-ranked firms (especially outside the 50) tend to give shit bonuses and find all sorts of ways to keep salaries down for midlevels and seniors, such as imposing revenue realization requirements. It makes a huge difference for someone spending 6-8 years in biglaw.

Obviously the rankings don't capture non-NYC prestige and practice area strength, but everyone knows that.

[cheaptilts]

Vault beats any other ranking, and law students who don't know what they want to do (i.e. most of them) are probably better off being at more profitable firms. At higher-ranked firms you can get away with 1800 billable hours + 200 pro bono and get a lockstep bonus and move up in salary. Lower-ranked firms (especially outside the 50) tend to give shit bonuses and find all sorts of ways to keep salaries down for midlevels and seniors, such as imposing revenue realization requirements. It makes a huge difference for someone spending 6-8 years in biglaw.

Obviously the rankings don't capture non-NYC prestige and practice area strength, but everyone knows that.

This post doesn’t need to be anonymous, and I’d argue that PPL/RPL, a widely accessible stat, is probably a better indicator of everything you’ve listed as important.

Vault is literally—literally—just a survey that ranks firms by “prestige,” not financial health. And everyone fills them out based on the little data points gathered from TLS, EIP/OCI, and older vault surveys.

[Anon115523]

Vault beats any other ranking, and law students who don't know what they want to do (i.e. most of them) are probably better off being at more profitable firms. At higher-ranked firms you can get away with 1800 billable hours + 200 pro bono and get a lockstep bonus and move up in salary. Lower-ranked firms (especially outside the 50) tend to give shit bonuses and find all sorts of ways to keep salaries down for midlevels and seniors, such as imposing revenue realization requirements. It makes a huge difference for someone spending 6-8 years in biglaw.

Obviously the rankings don't capture non-NYC prestige and practice area strength, but everyone knows that.

This post doesn’t need to be anonymous, and I’d argue that PPL/RPL, a widely accessible stat, is probably a better indicator of everything you’ve listed as important.

Vault is literally—literally—just a survey that ranks firms by “prestige,” not financial health. And everyone fills them out based on the little data points gathered from TLS, EIP/OCI, and older vault surveys.

According to Vault, White & Case is a more prestigious firm than Williams & Conolly, Troutman Sanders is a more prestigious firm than Kellog Hansen, and Cadwalader is a more prestigious firm than Susman. I could go on, but even if you're talking about straight "prestige," these rankings are such a joke and I would tell law students to look at literally any other ranking to make their decisions (Amlaw, Chambers, Law 360 Awards, etc.)

[Ultramar vistas]

Vault beats any other ranking, and law students who don't know what they want to do (i.e. most of them) are probably better off being at more profitable firms. At higher-ranked firms you can get away with 1800 billable hours + 200 pro bono and get a lockstep bonus and move up in salary. Lower-ranked firms (especially outside the 50) tend to give shit bonuses and find all sorts of ways to keep salaries down for midlevels and seniors, such as imposing revenue realization requirements. It makes a huge difference for someone spending 6-8 years in biglaw.

Obviously the rankings don't capture non-NYC prestige and practice area strength, but everyone knows that.

This post doesn’t need to be anonymous, and I’d argue that PPL/RPL, a widely accessible stat, is probably a better indicator of everything you’ve listed as important.

Vault is literally—literally—just a survey that ranks firms by “prestige,” not financial health. And everyone fills them out based on the little data points gathered from TLS, EIP/OCI, and older vault surveys.

According to Vault, White & Case is a more prestigious firm than Williams & Conolly, Troutman Sanders is a more prestigious firm than Kellog Hansen, and Cadwalader is a more prestigious firm than Susman. I could go on, but even if you're talking about straight "prestige," these rankings are such a joke and I would tell law students to look at literally any other ranking to make their decisions (Amlaw, Chambers, Law 360 Awards, etc.)

You’re misunderstanding the prestige that Vault is measuring. Think of Vault as the broadest industry measure possible.

You’re thinking “well, in the legal world, being an appellate litigator is the most nerdy and difficult thing you can do and thus the most “prestigious”, and therefore the nerdy and difficult boutiques are the most prestigious places you can be”.

And that’s a valid view. But vault’s view of prestige is, I would say, most closely correlated with what any given law firm’s brand does for your resumé for the broadest spectrum of jobs. Or, “What Would a Randomly Selected In House Recruiting Decision Maker Think Of This Firm”. And frankly, even the best lit boutiques fade in comparison to large biglaw firms on that metric.

Neither of y’all are wrong, but getting upset about it is pointless.

[Joachim2017]

Vault beats any other ranking, and law students who don't know what they want to do (i.e. most of them) are probably better off being at more profitable firms. At higher-ranked firms you can get away with 1800 billable hours + 200 pro bono and get a lockstep bonus and move up in salary. Lower-ranked firms (especially outside the 50) tend to give shit bonuses and find all sorts of ways to keep salaries down for midlevels and seniors, such as imposing revenue realization requirements. It makes a huge difference for someone spending 6-8 years in biglaw.

Obviously the rankings don't capture non-NYC prestige and practice area strength, but everyone knows that.

This post doesn’t need to be anonymous, and I’d argue that PPL/RPL, a widely accessible stat, is probably a better indicator of everything you’ve listed as important.

Vault is literally—literally—just a survey that ranks firms by “prestige,” not financial health. And everyone fills them out based on the little data points gathered from TLS, EIP/OCI, and older vault surveys.

According to Vault, White & Case is a more prestigious firm than Williams & Conolly, Troutman Sanders is a more prestigious firm than Kellog Hansen, and Cadwalader is a more prestigious firm than Susman. I could go on, but even if you're talking about straight "prestige," these rankings are such a joke and I would tell law students to look at literally any other ranking to make their decisions (Amlaw, Chambers, Law 360 Awards, etc.)

You’re misunderstanding the prestige that Vault is measuring. Think of Vault as the broadest industry measure possible.

You’re thinking “well, in the legal world, being an appellate litigator is the most nerdy and difficult thing you can do and thus the most “prestigious”, and therefore the nerdy and difficult boutiques are the most prestigious places you can be”.

And that’s a valid view. But vault’s view of prestige is, I would say, most closely correlated with what any given law firm’s brand does for your resumé for the broadest spectrum of jobs. Or, “What Would a Randomly Selected In House Recruiting Decision Maker Think Of This Firm”. And frankly, even the best lit boutiques fade in comparison to large biglaw firms on that metric.

Neither of y’all are wrong, but getting upset about it is pointless.

Some of your points are good ones. But the bolded I think underestimates the reach of some of the best lit boutiques. Even in-house corporate hiring folks know how good places Kellogg and Susman are. And they know that if a firm is really hard to get hired at, the associates hired there are probably some of the best available. (That's why YLS grads do well. Not because they would be better lawyers than CLS or UChicago grads, but because YLS is harder to get into.)

[Ultramar vistas]

Vault beats any other ranking, and law students who don't know what they want to do (i.e. most of them) are probably better off being at more profitable firms. At higher-ranked firms you can get away with 1800 billable hours + 200 pro bono and get a lockstep bonus and move up in salary. Lower-ranked firms (especially outside the 50) tend to give shit bonuses and find all sorts of ways to keep salaries down for midlevels and seniors, such as imposing revenue realization requirements. It makes a huge difference for someone spending 6-8 years in biglaw.

Obviously the rankings don't capture non-NYC prestige and practice area strength, but everyone knows that.

This post doesn’t need to be anonymous, and I’d argue that PPL/RPL, a widely accessible stat, is probably a better indicator of everything you’ve listed as important.

Vault is literally—literally—just a survey that ranks firms by “prestige,” not financial health. And everyone fills them out based on the little data points gathered from TLS, EIP/OCI, and older vault surveys.

According to Vault, White & Case is a more prestigious firm than Williams & Conolly, Troutman Sanders is a more prestigious firm than Kellog Hansen, and Cadwalader is a more prestigious firm than Susman. I could go on, but even if you're talking about straight "prestige," these rankings are such a joke and I would tell law students to look at literally any other ranking to make their decisions (Amlaw, Chambers, Law 360 Awards, etc.)

You’re misunderstanding the prestige that Vault is measuring. Think of Vault as the broadest industry measure possible.

You’re thinking “well, in the legal world, being an appellate litigator is the most nerdy and difficult thing you can do and thus the most “prestigious”, and therefore the nerdy and difficult boutiques are the most prestigious places you can be”.

And that’s a valid view. But vault’s view of prestige is, I would say, most closely correlated with what any given law firm’s brand does for your resumé for the broadest spectrum of jobs. Or, “What Would a Randomly Selected In House Recruiting Decision Maker Think Of This Firm”. And frankly, even the best lit boutiques fade in comparison to large biglaw firms on that metric.

Neither of y’all are wrong, but getting upset about it is pointless.

Some of your points are good ones. But the bolded I think underestimates the reach of some of the best lit boutiques. Even in-house corporate hiring folks know how good places Kellogg and Susman are. And they know that if a firm is really hard to get hired at, the associates hired there are probably some of the best available. (That's why YLS grads do well. Not because they would be better lawyers than CLS or UChicago grads, but because YLS is harder to get into.)

True if everyone is as educated and informed about selectivity as 0Ls and recent law grads are.

But in my experience, older attorneys and business people do not keep tracking rankings and the ins and outs of who is selective and who is not; they just know brands, who does work for them, and who does big deals around town.

This is not unique to the legal industry; there are harder places to get a job In finance than Goldman and harder places to get a job in tech than Apple, and it is harder to get a job at Susman than Cravath, but in most situations, most people will on average be more impressed by those brands.

Those situations might not be the important ones, and the jobs you want might be better informed about your niche firm/experience, but vault isn’t interested in that.

[TMJ2017]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

[objctnyrhnr]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

[esther0123]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

I tend to agree. It's a little harsh but nothing he said is unexpected. Billable hours matter right now, law firms intend to generate business, associates are fungible. We just don't want to hear it but we all know it. Maybe I'm jaded...

[Sackboy]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

Yeah, the letter seemed fine to me. Reading between the lines, the message is basically "Hey, we're lucky that we have a lot of BK work, but the numbers this year are down. You need to get out there and make sure we don't leave any fees on the table. Our numbers don't magically just appear. You can't just sit around because your practice is slow; otherwise, we're not going to get the fees we need to make our pre-covid business model work and austerity measures are going to be necessary."

[target_corp]

Yeah, the letter seemed fine to me. Reading between the lines, the message is basically "Hey, we're lucky that we have a lot of BK work, but the numbers this year are down. You need to get out there and make sure we don't leave any fees on the table. Our numbers don't magically just appear. You can't just sit around because your practice is slow; otherwise, we're not going to get the fees we need to make our pre-covid business model work and austerity measures are going to be necessary."

+1

Did think it was a bit weird the author was so coy about writing the email when asked though.

[Ultramar vistas]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

Yeah, the letter seemed fine to me. Reading between the lines, the message is basically "Hey, we're lucky that we have a lot of BK work, but the numbers this year are down. You need to get out there and make sure we don't leave any fees on the table. Our numbers don't magically just appear. You can't just sit around because your practice is slow; otherwise, we're not going to get the fees we need to make our pre-covid business model work and austerity measures are going to be necessary."

Agree, anyone upset about this is being overly sensitive. If anything, Kirkland has to be delighted that AmLaw publishes an article publicizing that they have a bunch of work?

[Big Red]

understand not wanting to say that's "abusive" but for sure a pretty aggressive email that could have been blunted around the edges.

related point but are we expecting M&A midlevels to be reaching out for BK work? Seems like something realistically only juniors could be attached to

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

Well, y'all throw around the word "abuse" way too often around here, but this was a dickish and moronic email that reflected poorly on everyone involved.

1. The whole concept of Mr. Senior Partner bitching about having trouble staffing his deals is stupid because his job is to staff the fucking deal. If you don't have people who will take on your deals, hire them. It's a complaint about a situation from someone who has all the power to change it.

2. I've only ever worked at a central-assignment firm, but a firm constantly jacking off the "flexibility" and "efficiency" of its free market system seems to wind up with egg on its face when it tacitly admits a large chunk of its associates has zero interest in taking on its work.

3. Saying "the math is not going to work out well for you at the end of the year" is a boorish threat, as absolutely no one needs to be told that people who don't meet hours expectations don't last long, and it reeks of punching down.

4. Ducking work happens everywhere but I have a hunch Captain Kirkland's definition of associates who are "hiding" includes associates who would consider themselves quite busy. I've seen some real skidmarks in my firm chew out associates on pace for 2500 for daring to turn down a single deal, and this is a place with nowhere near the meat grinder reputation as the venerated K&E.

5. "Given the market you should feel extremely lucky to be in an institution with too much work" is the real cherry on the douchebag sundae of a multimillionaire implying associates, many of whom genuinely need Biglaw to pay their loans, will have nowhere to go and thus have to tolerate any horror show this sociopath cooks up.

6. Plenty of mentally ill partners across the industry love to see loans/mortgages/other bills chain associates to Amistad LLP, but few of them are dumb enough to put it in writing. I've seen some positively ludicrous partner email screenshots come through that I can't believe didn't crack the Internet. In the post-send lucidity of his impotent rage, it must've dawned on Andy that this was going to leak and make him look like, at best, an ill-tempered blowhard, and at worst, a limp-dicked lunatic deciding to take out the loss of his Palm Beach atrium renovation profits on every 26-year-old in the listserv. Or, at least, I would have thought so until "Some of that sounds genuine; some not. It seems embellished," a flabbergastingly obfuscatory piece of dumbfuckery even by Biglaw standards. It's not that complicated, Scrooge McPsycho; did you send the email or not?

So sure, it doesn't stack up to the lowest of the low you'll see in your career. But it's a pretty emblematic distillation of the treatment and attitudes that make this job so consistently miserable, above and beyond opposing counsel who "just wants to clean up a few commas" at 2 AM on July 4. And I'm not interested in pretending it's not a giant pile of dogshit just because the industry's pitbulls regularly pinch steamier loaves.

[Anonymous User]

There’s nothing wrong with that e-mail. In one of these threads (possibly this one), a Kirkland partner confirmed that the average associate billed 1940 or so hours. If hours are down, then associates are billing, on average, less than that.

If you’re going to Kirkland, you know what you’re signing up for.

I’m at a “lifestyle” firm and I’ve dealt with worse. I was on vacation when a partner e-mailed me to tell me he didn’t think I was pulling my weight that week. I find that far more egregious than the Kirkland e-mail. I had billed 20 hours that week, btw.

I feel bad that people have to deal with rude partners on top of coronavirus, but I don’t find the email newsworthy.

[Anonymous User]

1. The whole concept of Mr. Senior Partner bitching about having trouble staffing his deals is stupid because his job is to staff the fucking deal. If you don't have people who will take on your deals, hire them. It's a complaint about a situation from someone who has all the power to change it.

This is not what is happening here. The Houston corporate partner was asking Houston corporate associates to help out on restructuring matters. Restructuring matters are staffed independently, so it's a (rather aggressive) demand for corporate associates to help out on restructuring matters.

2. I've only ever worked at a central-assignment firm, but a firm constantly jacking off the "flexibility" and "efficiency" of its free market system seems to wind up with egg on its face when it tacitly admits a large chunk of its associates has zero interest in taking on its work.

Again, not really what's happening here at all. Corporate associates naturally want to do work in the corporate group. Because corporate deal activity is way down and restructuring activity is way up, obviously the distribution of work right now is lopsided, this particular corporate partner is just demanding that associates do work that they would not typically do.

3. Saying "the math is not going to work out well for you at the end of the year" is a boorish threat, as absolutely no one needs to be told that people who don't meet hours expectations don't last long, and it reeks of punching down.

Agreed.

4. Ducking work happens everywhere but I have a hunch Captain Kirkland's definition of associates who are "hiding" includes associates who would consider themselves quite busy. I've seen some real skidmarks in my firm chew out associates on pace for 2500 for daring to turn down a single deal, and this is a place with nowhere near the meat grinder reputation as the venerated K&E.

Agreed.

5. "Given the market you should feel extremely lucky to be in an institution with too much work" is the real cherry on the douchebag sundae of a multimillionaire implying associates, many of whom genuinely need Biglaw to pay their loans, will have nowhere to go and thus have to tolerate any horror show this sociopath cooks up.

Agreed, and lol @ "douchebag sundae."

6. Plenty of mentally ill partners across the industry love to see loans/mortgages/other bills chain associates to Amistad LLP, but few of them are dumb enough to put it in writing. I've seen some positively ludicrous partner email screenshots come through that I can't believe didn't crack the Internet. In the post-send lucidity of his impotent rage, it must've dawned on Andy that this was going to leak and make him look like, at best, an ill-tempered blowhard, and at worst, a limp-dicked lunatic deciding to take out the loss of his Palm Beach atrium renovation profits on every 26-year-old in the listserv. Or, at least, I would have thought so until "Some of that sounds genuine; some not. It seems embellished," a flabbergastingly obfuscatory piece of dumbfuckery even by Biglaw standards. It's not that complicated, Scrooge McPsycho; did you send the email or not?

Agreed, and lol @ "Amistad LLP."

[Anonymous User]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

Agreed - I work in the Houston office and honestly the tone is not great, but nothing he is saying is wrong. I fall into the group of corp associates that have been staffed on RX matters and I am working way too much, I'm tired and I'm stressed, and it is upsetting to know there are other corp associates out there hiding out waiting for M&A work and billing less than 200 hours in a month while I am getting shat on and being asked to support rx and debt teams. I just wish his (and other similar emails we have been receiving) would be more targeted rather than blasted out to everyone.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, the letter seemed fine to me. Reading between the lines, the message is basically "Hey, we're lucky that we have a lot of BK work, but the numbers this year are down. You need to get out there and make sure we don't leave any fees on the table. Our numbers don't magically just appear. You can't just sit around because your practice is slow; otherwise, we're not going to get the fees we need to make our pre-covid business model work and austerity measures are going to be necessary."

+1

Did think it was a bit weird the author was so coy about writing the email when asked though.

I completely agree that the contents of the email were on point, albeit pretty tone deaf. I can't imagine getting that kind of email from the heads of my department. Every single email with that wide of a distribution should be written with the assumption that it will be leaked.

The most eyebrow-raising aspect of this whole episode is that the partner misrepresented his authorship of the email after being asked about it by the AmLaw journalist. Press relations (and ethics) 101 is that you don't try to throw smoke in the face of a journalist that has an unsavory email with your name on it.

[Joachim2017]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

Agreed - I work in the Houston office and honestly the tone is not great, but nothing he is saying is wrong. I fall into the group of corp associates that have been staffed on RX matters and I am working way too much, I'm tired and I'm stressed, and it is upsetting to know there are other corp associates out there hiding out waiting for M&A work and billing less than 200 hours in a month while I am getting shat on and being asked to support rx and debt teams. I just wish his (and other similar emails we have been receiving) would be more targeted rather than blasted out to everyone.

I don't understand this part. You signed up for a non-lockstep comp system. The more you work the more you are paid. The less you work the less you are paid. Some people have very good reasons for not ramping up right now, they're not necessarily "hiding out." And even if they were, why should you care? Again, isn't this exactly the sort of comp system you signed up for?

The way you're feeling would make perfect sense at a lockstep place like DPW or S&C, where everyone gets the same comp at the end of the year. But unless I'm misunderstanding something, it seems like you are not entitled to this specific complaint about your peers not working as hard as you at a place like Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

Getting an email like this is almost as stressful as a paycut: 'This Isn't a Gravy Train': The Curious Case of the Kirkland Email

This is super stressful no doubt and would stress me out if I got it of course.

So I hate to be that guy, but isn’t this type of thing (or rather the risk that this type of email might get sent around) exactly what we all knowingly signed up for by going to a v50 or whatever? To me (although I would never personally be that kind of partner and I do not personally approve of the behavior) there’s nothing in it that even arguably crosses the line to abuse or anything in that letter. Do others disagree?

Agreed - I work in the Houston office and honestly the tone is not great, but nothing he is saying is wrong. I fall into the group of corp associates that have been staffed on RX matters and I am working way too much, I'm tired and I'm stressed, and it is upsetting to know there are other corp associates out there hiding out waiting for M&A work and billing less than 200 hours in a month while I am getting shat on and being asked to support rx and debt teams. I just wish his (and other similar emails we have been receiving) would be more targeted rather than blasted out to everyone.

I don't understand this part. You signed up for a non-lockstep comp system. The more you work the more you are paid. The less you work the less you are paid. Some people have very good reasons for not ramping up right now, they're not necessarily "hiding out." And even if they were, why should you care? Again, isn't this exactly the sort of comp system you signed up for?

The way you're feeling would make perfect sense at a lockstep place like DPW or S&C, where everyone gets the same comp at the end of the year. But unless I'm misunderstanding something, it seems like you are not entitled to this specific complaint about your peers not working as hard as you at a place like Kirkland.

Same anon associate. The discretionary amount of the year-end bonus is not enough to make working more worth it. I care because I am being asked to do more work (and my life is therefore worse) as a consequence for being a team player, work that could be given to others who are doing less. I have enough hours for the billable year already, this is about sharing in the sh*t work that is coming through the door right now instead of hiding out until M&A deals return.

Edited to add: BTW, it is a huge flaw of the K&E houston office that you are essentially punished for being a good citizen.

[Sackboy]

I don't understand this part. You signed up for a non-lockstep comp system. The more you work the more you are paid. The less you work the less you are paid. Some people have very good reasons for not ramping up right now, they're not necessarily "hiding out." And even if they were, why should you care? Again, isn't this exactly the sort of comp system you signed up for?

The way you're feeling would make perfect sense at a lockstep place like DPW or S&C, where everyone gets the same comp at the end of the year. But unless I'm misunderstanding something, it seems like you are not entitled to this specific complaint about your peers not working as hard as you at a place like Kirkland.

This is a bad take.

Kirkland has lockstep base and bonus compensation with generally relatively minor multipliers on the latter component. This means that the outlay on a 1st year associate is 100-110% the outlay on a 1st year at Cravath. At minimum, you better be working as hard as a Cravath attorney then. "Hiding out" is not doing that.

It's pretty clear from every Kirkland data point ever posted on this site that Kirkland's above-market bonus is not proportionate to hours billed. Someone billing 2300 might get 1.3x while someone billing 2700 is also getting 1.3x. Kirkland's compensation system stops rewarding more $ for more hours at a certain point and relies on other metrics to determine an associate's multiplier.

OP has every right to complain. OP signed up for more hours at Kirkland; OP, nor does any lawyer, sign up to have to take on more work than is reasonable due to lazy co-workers.

[QContinuum]

I care because I am being asked to do more work (and my life is therefore worse) as a consequence for being a team player, work that could be given to others who are doing less. I have enough hours for the billable year already, this is about sharing in the sh*t work that is coming through the door right now instead of hiding out until M&A deals return.

You're claiming that you've already billed, what, 2000 hours in the first four-and-half months of 2020? That's what, 450 billables per month? Meaning >5300 billables per year? I find it difficult to believe that, especially with the K&E partner who recently confirmed that K&E associates average under 2000 billables per year.

[Anonymous User]

I care because I am being asked to do more work (and my life is therefore worse) as a consequence for being a team player, work that could be given to others who are doing less. I have enough hours for the billable year already, this is about sharing in the sh*t work that is coming through the door right now instead of hiding out until M&A deals return.

You're claiming that you've already billed, what, 2000 hours in the first four-and-half months of 2020? That's what, 450 billables per month? Meaning >5300 billables per year? I find it difficult to believe that, especially with the K&E partner who recently confirmed that K&E associates average under 2000 billables per year.

billable year =/= calendar year. billable year starts in august.