2020 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

W&S market match w/ special.

[ZVBXRPL]

W&S market match w/ special.

Wow nice - details?

[Anonymous User]

Covington market match + covid bonus

[Anonymous User]

W&S market match w/ special.

Wow nice - details?

A pleasant surprise.

Hours requirement for standard bonus. Then a gradient scale for the COVID bonus based on hours, but no one in good standing (i.e, not being counseled out) gets less than half the COVID bonus.

[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.

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.

this is some classic law student / junior associate shit. so many bad assumptions. and he's defending a dude who literally said "It's just not possible" for something that is actually not abnormal. must loooove his firm.

[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.

this is some classic law student / junior associate shit. so many bad assumptions. and he's defending a dude who literally said "It's just not possible" for something that is actually not abnormal. must loooove his firm.

More name calling and factually incorrect assertions. I see that's all you're good for. Read up on the difference between mean vs. median.

[Chrstgtr]

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.

this is some classic law student / junior associate shit. so many bad assumptions. and he's defending a dude who literally said "It's just not possible" for something that is actually not abnormal. must loooove his firm.

More name calling and factually incorrect assertions. I see that's all you're good for. Read up on the difference between mean vs. median.

You keep saying it is a mean vs. median issue, but it isn't. The mean is higher than the median. Billing outliers are much, much more likely to be high billers than low billers. Firms don't keep around associates who are billing less than 1000 hours a year. I don't know anyone who has billed anywhere remotely close to that. At most firms if you are billing 1400 hours you are on the chopping block (and very often told to leave before you can even finish a whole year). But there are a ton of 2400 hour billers. And, there are a decent number of people who far exceed that. Fact is that the median associate is not eligible for bonus at a 2000 hour requirement firm based solely on billables and it is the pro bono/other qualified non-billable hours that get associates over the bonus threshold.

[Anonymous User]

Gotta love all the no-minimum V10 folks chiming in about how good it is to work there while simultaneously trying to rip everyone who seems to like their non-V10 bonus minimum firm a new one because management just must always suck everywhere...

[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.

this is some classic law student / junior associate shit. so many bad assumptions. and he's defending a dude who literally said "It's just not possible" for something that is actually not abnormal. must loooove his firm.

More name calling and factually incorrect assertions. I see that's all you're good for. Read up on the difference between mean vs. median.

You keep saying it is a mean vs. median issue, but it isn't. The mean is higher than the median. Billing outliers are much, much more likely to be high billers than low billers. Firms don't keep around associates who are billing less than 1000 hours a year. I don't know anyone who has billed anywhere remotely close to that. At most firms if you are billing 1400 hours you are on the chopping block (and very often told to leave before you can even finish a whole year). But there are a ton of 2400 hour billers. And, there are a decent number of people who far exceed that. Fact is that the median associate is not eligible for bonus at a 2000 hour requirement firm based solely on billables and it is the pro bono/other qualified non-billable hours that get associates over the bonus threshold.

The whole reason I even bothered chiming into this silly argument is because lawyler said "your management has made an active decision that half the associates deserve ZERO bonus." I took issue with that assertion. You can't have it both ways and now claim that the vast majority of associates are clearing 2000 hours to meet their bonus targets, whether it be through billables or pro bono or otherwise. If what you're saying is true, then you've proved the point an hours threshold shouldn't be a big deal for the majority of associates.

That being said, all else equal, should someone take a no minimum hours firm over a threshold hours firm? Yes. But frankly, that doesn't tell you much because it's very very rarely all else equal, if ever. There are many factors that one should consider when choosing a firm that is best for them. Generally speaking, if you're willing to put in some work, 2,000 hours (including billable, pro bono, non-billable productive, or whatever else a firm counts towards your hours) isn't that difficult.

[Anonymous User]

Covington market match + covid bonus

Nice. Any hours restrictions/other modifications for the covid bonus?

Anon for posting history.

[dyemond]

Gotta love all the no-minimum V10 folks chiming in about how good it is to work there while simultaneously trying to rip everyone who seems to like their non-V10 bonus minimum firm a new one because management just must always suck everywhere...

A. Why are you anon?

B. We're ripping you for defending the minimum. I did 1900 hours last year and I did 2700 hours this year -- averages out to 2300. The whole point is I'm not getting stuck w/o a bonus because factors out of my control led to me being sub-2000 last year despite putting in hard work and late nights.

Again, I'm somewhat open to the argument to the notion that the special bonus was paid in recognition of the brutal demands on bankruptcy, cap markets and finance groups and so if you're coming in at 1600 it's harder to complain, but seems like there is a counterargument that the special bonus is just because 2020 sucked generally and WFH was hard on everyone. Could go either way there.

[Anonymous User]

Gotta love all the no-minimum V10 folks chiming in about how good it is to work there while simultaneously trying to rip everyone who seems to like their non-V10 bonus minimum firm a new one because management just must always suck everywhere...

A. Why are you anon?

B. We're ripping you for defending the minimum. I did 1900 hours last year and I did 2700 hours this year -- averages out to 2300. The whole point is I'm not getting stuck w/o a bonus because factors out of my control led to me being sub-2000 last year despite putting in hard work and late nights.

Again, I'm somewhat open to the argument to the notion that the special bonus was paid in recognition of the brutal demands on bankruptcy, cap markets and finance groups and so if you're coming in at 1600 it's harder to complain, but seems like there is a counterargument that the special bonus is just because 2020 sucked generally and WFH was hard on everyone. Could go either way there.

It's fairly amusing that you're defending and promoting a firm that just worked you for 2700 hours this year, or for an average of 2300 hours for two years. Just saying...

[thelawyler]

Gotta love all the no-minimum V10 folks chiming in about how good it is to work there while simultaneously trying to rip everyone who seems to like their non-V10 bonus minimum firm a new one because management just must always suck everywhere...

Or you know, someone who has worked many years at both telling junior associates how it is (and who even thinks mean vs median is a hard concept or is even an issue here. jfc).

[thelawyler]

Gotta love all the no-minimum V10 folks chiming in about how good it is to work there while simultaneously trying to rip everyone who seems to like their non-V10 bonus minimum firm a new one because management just must always suck everywhere...

A. Why are you anon?

B. We're ripping you for defending the minimum. I did 1900 hours last year and I did 2700 hours this year -- averages out to 2300. The whole point is I'm not getting stuck w/o a bonus because factors out of my control led to me being sub-2000 last year despite putting in hard work and late nights.

Again, I'm somewhat open to the argument to the notion that the special bonus was paid in recognition of the brutal demands on bankruptcy, cap markets and finance groups and so if you're coming in at 1600 it's harder to complain, but seems like there is a counterargument that the special bonus is just because 2020 sucked generally and WFH was hard on everyone. Could go either way there.

It's fairly amusing that you're defending and promoting a firm that just worked you for 2700 hours this year, or for an average of 2300 hours for two years. Just saying...

He's not "defending" shit. He's saying that system is still better than the alternative, which is what YOU are defending. I suggested earlier an even better system (no formal requirement, but top up for high hours / top performers), which was plainly ignored because of your love affair with your firm.

In that poster's situation, if you were a 6th year and 7th year in those two years, at a firm with a billable cliff, you'd have made 70-90k less depending on what the top-up for the high hours are at these firms. And I know plenty of people who did 2600-3000 hours at my old firm with an hours cliff, but they just happened to "unfairly" lose out on market comp that a peer competitor across the street is paying on an off year (such as you know, a pandemic, or a rain marker partner leaving the firm halfway through the year). We're not talking just V10 competitors here. We're talking the Milbanks, Shearmans and Willkies, too.

[lolwutpar]

Also, it's not just V10 firms with no minimums. Y'all sound ignorant as hell between statements like that and asserting that not having a minimum doesn't really matter.

ETA: beat to the punch

[Anonymous User]

In that poster's situation, if you were a 6th year and 7th year in those two years, at a firm with a billable cliff, you'd have made 70-90k less depending on what the top-up for the high hours are at these firms.

You and others continue to ignore the argument that having a billable minimum gives you something to aim for (nothing more, nothing less). I'd much rather two years at just above 2k than one year at 1600 and another at 2400. If done properly, a billable minimum gives you the comfort to say hell no I'm not working 2700 in one year regardless of how light I'll be, while still knowing you'll get your bonus at year's end because you hit expectations.

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, to get back to the topic, KE bonus calls are starting to go out. It sounds like it's going to be a good year. I'm an NSP in lit, with class, billed about 2k, and I'll be getting about 1.3x market (market being 140k, I'll get about 180k) with the qualifier that about 40k of that will go directly into our retirement funding, which is something KE does for all NSPs. KE is acknowledging the fall bonus that happened and including it as part of everyone's comp. Great news and it sounds like the firm had a very successful year. I'm curious to hear what some of my colleagues doing more like 2,500, 2,750 hours over on the transactional side are going to get, I wouldn't be surprised to hear 2x market and it would be well deserved. Good luck to everyone.

[Anonymous User]

It's fairly amusing that you're defending and promoting a firm that just worked you for 2700 hours this year, or for an average of 2300 hours for two years. Just saying...

Seriously, 2700 is life ruining hours and yet here we are. Yes, in a vacuum, no billable hours requirement is good. However there is a clear material increase in correlation between firms RPL divided by their billable hour rate and those firms with no billable hour requirement for bonus. That is a clear negative.

What's worse, working more or potentially losing your bonus? That's a tough question but I can see reasonable minds disagree.

Low RPL and no hours requirement is the best case scenario and those firms should be celebrated.

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, to get back to the topic, KE bonus calls are starting to go out. It sounds like it's going to be a good year. I'm an NSP in lit, with class, billed about 2k, and I'll be getting about 1.3x market (market being 140k, I'll get about 180k) with the qualifier that about 40k of that will go directly into our retirement funding, which is something KE does for all NSPs. KE is acknowledging the fall bonus that happened and including it as part of everyone's comp. Great news and it sounds like the firm had a very successful year. I'm curious to hear what some of my colleagues doing more like 2,500, 2,750 hours over on the transactional side are going to get, I wouldn't be surprised to hear 2x market and it would be well deserved. Good luck to everyone.

Great news, congrats! Did you get a bonus memo also or was it a phone call? My stats are similar though I'm not an NSP yet so I'll be pretty happy if that scale holds true for people in other class years.

[Anonymous User]

Covington market match + covid bonus

Nice. Any hours restrictions/other modifications for the covid bonus?

Anon for posting history.

The usual bonus eligibility requirement applies. Not tied to hours beyond what is customary.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

B. We're ripping you for defending the minimum. I did 1900 hours last year and I did 2700 hours this year -- averages out to 2300. The whole point is I'm not getting stuck w/o a bonus because factors out of my control led to me being sub-2000 last year despite putting in hard work and late nights.

Nobody is, in strict terms, "pro-minimum"--they're just anti-2700 hours to varying degrees, and I just think it's a significantly more common thing at no-minimum places. Can tell you with confidence that in each of the past few years 2700 would've made you one of the top five highest-billing associates/counsel in my entire (minimum'd) firm and that's plainly not the case at the Weils and Simpsons of the world. Can also say that at any minimum places it would be highly uncommon to miss bonus at 1900, simply because people who are anywhere close take steps to hit the threshold (e.g. a 1950-minimum place winds up with very few people between 1750 and 1949). I have spent years arguing that K&E associates who bill absurd hours and say their multiplier is "nice when you're expected to bill huge hours anyway" could just...go somewhere they're not expected to bill huge hours (and I am sure I have not changed a single mind). I did not get a cent of bonus my first two years, and I would still confidently compare my total per-hour take-home pay over the years to 95% of NY associates.

I am not posting this you to attack you or anyone else who thinks minimums are ridiculous--you clearly know where I stand, but I already said upthread that you can make a good case for any of these views, and I think people might reasonably place different premiums on financial assurances. I'm only opposing the "ripping" or the idea there's not a good argument on the other side. I know people have already covered a lot of the good arguments ITT but I'm only fleshing it out because I think this *is*, in fact, a very good issue on which to base your firm selection, compared to the 50 other bullshit reasons that get posted here every week.

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, to get back to the topic, KE bonus calls are starting to go out. It sounds like it's going to be a good year. I'm an NSP in lit, with class, billed about 2k, and I'll be getting about 1.3x market (market being 140k, I'll get about 180k) with the qualifier that about 40k of that will go directly into our retirement funding, which is something KE does for all NSPs. KE is acknowledging the fall bonus that happened and including it as part of everyone's comp. Great news and it sounds like the firm had a very successful year. I'm curious to hear what some of my colleagues doing more like 2,500, 2,750 hours over on the transactional side are going to get, I wouldn't be surprised to hear 2x market and it would be well deserved. Good luck to everyone.

Potentially huge news at KE if with class rating/2000 hours are getting 1.3x multiplier with the special bonus included in the multiplier, like you got. It’s also possible you got a 1.4x on the “base” with the special added on top. Both would be welcome upturns for median associates and NSPs (with 3s and billing 2000).

Tomorrow will be the Kirkland day of reckoning...

[glitched]

Damn at a minimum firm for the first time and got shafted on my bonus :'( feels bad

Though at the same time I billed around 1150 this year so can't really complain... but it sucks leaving money on the table when I had offers at no minimum firms. I could've bought a Tesla cash with that money!! Now I'm going to have to buy a Nissan Leaf.

[lolwutpar]

Damn at a minimum firm for the first time and got shafted on my bonus :'( feels bad

Though at the same time I billed around 1150 this year so can't really complain... but it sucks leaving money on the table when I had offers at no minimum firms. I could've bought a Tesla cash with that money!! Now I'm going to have to buy a Nissan Leaf.

You're joking but I billed less than 1k and got a bonus at a no minimum firm. I was a junior so it wasn't a lot...but it was a lot for how little I worked.

[Anonymous User]

looooooool shoutout to whoever the morons were at DLA who decided announcing they were going to fuck everyone out of the special COVID bonus the week before Christmas was a good idea.


Funny how who they consider peer firms changes when we're talking about comp...