Jones Day Forum

[Anonymous User]

They make you wear suits everyday but that's cool I'm a lawyer I'm supposed to wear a suit! Bullshit.

I don't know about the rest of your post, but this is flat out wrong. I wore a suit during my 10 week summer associate stint exactly three times. And that's as a summer associate who wanted to get an offer and ultimately received an offer.

During the summer biz casual is everyday. During the rest of the year biz casual is Friday only and biz formal Monday - Thursday.

[Anonymous User]

You guys realize how black box compensation works right? You pay 5-10% above market tops so that there are these rumors of people making above market. Then you pay 50% slightly below market and they think this is the norm and it's not entirely worth leaving over. Then you pay 40% a chunk below market and they get the clue that it's time to get the fuck out. All in all, almost everyone makes below market. If you had a good salary structure that was good for associates you would clearly advertise it to the public and then you'd give some whopping discretionary bonuses to your top performers. Everybody strives their ass off to be one of the 5-10% getting slightly above market compensation. The 50% right below market think they are almost right there as they keep hearing in their reviews and keep striving their ass off until they realize it's much more likely they become one of the bottom tier associates after the old bottom teir leaves. It's much more likely your relative compensation goes down then up (relative to class year comp). They make you wear suits everyday but that's cool I'm a lawyer I'm supposed to wear a suit! Bullshit. Your senior associate that gives you all his work is guaranteed to be the most striver fuck there is because of the firm structure. This place is a shithole sweatshop that doesn't even compensate you for your efforts like other firms do, on average.

Thank you, this is the exact explanation. The whole system is designed to pay a large chunk of associates below-market compensation for market-level work. "Well those associates should just leave!" Yeah, but obviously there are costs to switching, and the secrecy surrounding the compensation is designed to create uncertainty and delay action.

[Anonymous User]

You guys realize how black box compensation works right? You pay 5-10% above market tops so that there are these rumors of people making above market. Then you pay 50% slightly below market and they think this is the norm and it's not entirely worth leaving over. Then you pay 40% a chunk below market and they get the clue that it's time to get the fuck out. All in all, almost everyone makes below market. If you had a good salary structure that was good for associates you would clearly advertise it to the public and then you'd give some whopping discretionary bonuses to your top performers. Everybody strives their ass off to be one of the 5-10% getting slightly above market compensation. The 50% right below market think they are almost right there as they keep hearing in their reviews and keep striving their ass off until they realize it's much more likely they become one of the bottom tier associates after the old bottom teir leaves. It's much more likely your relative compensation goes down then up (relative to class year comp). They make you wear suits everyday but that's cool I'm a lawyer I'm supposed to wear a suit! Bullshit. Your senior associate that gives you all his work is guaranteed to be the most striver fuck there is because of the firm structure. This place is a shithole sweatshop that doesn't even compensate you for your efforts like other firms do, on average.

Thank you, this is the exact explanation. The whole system is designed to pay a large chunk of associates below-market compensation for market-level work. "Well those associates should just leave!" Yeah, but obviously there are costs to switching, and the secrecy surrounding the compensation is designed to create uncertainty and delay action.

Isn't this an argument against all firms that don't do traditional lockstep (i.e. every firm but the most elite NYC firms)? An argument against merit-based compensation as a whole, which is becoming the prevailing compensation structure?

[Anonymous User]

You guys realize how black box compensation works right? You pay 5-10% above market tops so that there are these rumors of people making above market. Then you pay 50% slightly below market and they think this is the norm and it's not entirely worth leaving over. Then you pay 40% a chunk below market and they get the clue that it's time to get the fuck out. All in all, almost everyone makes below market. If you had a good salary structure that was good for associates you would clearly advertise it to the public and then you'd give some whopping discretionary bonuses to your top performers. Everybody strives their ass off to be one of the 5-10% getting slightly above market compensation. The 50% right below market think they are almost right there as they keep hearing in their reviews and keep striving their ass off until they realize it's much more likely they become one of the bottom tier associates after the old bottom teir leaves. It's much more likely your relative compensation goes down then up (relative to class year comp). They make you wear suits everyday but that's cool I'm a lawyer I'm supposed to wear a suit! Bullshit. Your senior associate that gives you all his work is guaranteed to be the most striver fuck there is because of the firm structure. This place is a shithole sweatshop that doesn't even compensate you for your efforts like other firms do, on average.

There are some variables and differences across offices, practices and individuals, but, generally speaking, this is not wrong. And it's terrible for morale. We all signed-up for big law and generally knew it would be tough...but there are firms that appreciate and respect associates more than others. At the junior level it's not about the money...so you make a few grand below market...sure you'd prefer not to, but big deal....but it's more about the signal that a few thousand is worth more to the firm than keeping you around.

[homestyle28]

You guys realize how black box compensation works right? You pay 5-10% above market tops so that there are these rumors of people making above market. Then you pay 50% slightly below market and they think this is the norm and it's not entirely worth leaving over. Then you pay 40% a chunk below market and they get the clue that it's time to get the fuck out. All in all, almost everyone makes below market. If you had a good salary structure that was good for associates you would clearly advertise it to the public and then you'd give some whopping discretionary bonuses to your top performers. Everybody strives their ass off to be one of the 5-10% getting slightly above market compensation. The 50% right below market think they are almost right there as they keep hearing in their reviews and keep striving their ass off until they realize it's much more likely they become one of the bottom tier associates after the old bottom teir leaves. It's much more likely your relative compensation goes down then up (relative to class year comp). They make you wear suits everyday but that's cool I'm a lawyer I'm supposed to wear a suit! Bullshit. Your senior associate that gives you all his work is guaranteed to be the most striver fuck there is because of the firm structure. This place is a shithole sweatshop that doesn't even compensate you for your efforts like other firms do, on average.

There are some variables and differences across offices, practices and individuals, but, generally speaking, this is not wrong. And it's terrible for morale. We all signed-up for big law and generally knew it would be tough...but there are firms that appreciate and respect associates more than others. At the junior level it's not about the money...so you make a few grand below market...sure you'd prefer not to, but big deal....but it's more about the signal that a few thousand is worth more to the firm than keeping you around.

While I think it's true that nearly every associate would like to make more money, pretty much none of the above is true about my office. The folks that stick around do so b/c they think the culture is worth the possible money trade-off. By and large people don't leave to go to other big firms that would pay them more. Also, despite the blackbox, associates do talk to each other and I think most associates know what their good friends make. It's still big law, so plenty of the things that suck about big law suck here too, but there are things that are consciously different here.

Also, unless JDM can drop some credentials, I'm pretty sure he's just making shit up.

[Anonymous User]

You guys realize how black box compensation works right? You pay 5-10% above market tops so that there are these rumors of people making above market. Then you pay 50% slightly below market and they think this is the norm and it's not entirely worth leaving over. Then you pay 40% a chunk below market and they get the clue that it's time to get the fuck out. All in all, almost everyone makes below market. If you had a good salary structure that was good for associates you would clearly advertise it to the public and then you'd give some whopping discretionary bonuses to your top performers. Everybody strives their ass off to be one of the 5-10% getting slightly above market compensation. The 50% right below market think they are almost right there as they keep hearing in their reviews and keep striving their ass off until they realize it's much more likely they become one of the bottom tier associates after the old bottom teir leaves. It's much more likely your relative compensation goes down then up (relative to class year comp). They make you wear suits everyday but that's cool I'm a lawyer I'm supposed to wear a suit! Bullshit. Your senior associate that gives you all his work is guaranteed to be the most striver fuck there is because of the firm structure. This place is a shithole sweatshop that doesn't even compensate you for your efforts like other firms do, on average.

Thank you, this is the exact explanation. The whole system is designed to pay a large chunk of associates below-market compensation for market-level work. "Well those associates should just leave!" Yeah, but obviously there are costs to switching, and the secrecy surrounding the compensation is designed to create uncertainty and delay action.

Everyone I know well enough to get a sense from is happy with their compensation. At the end of the day that's all that f-ing matters. What I do know is that in my admittedly small circle relative to the Firm as a whole, I know only 3 associates who have left for other firms. Two left because the rainmaker passed away and the work dried up in their niche practice. The other left to follow a partner.

I also know that when I had partners leave and the new firm made me an offer, it included a 1 year bump in seniority and I would have still been taking a pay cut--signing bonus and year end market bonus included. Now, I suppose I could be part of that mythical 5%. But I am relatively certain that's not the case.

If you're one of those people who feels like you've been screwed because you might make a grand or two less than someone else at another firm, you're not likely to succeed here.

Finally, keep things in perspective. A K-JD walks into any big law firm and on day 1 makes the same base pay as fricking Major General/Rear Admiral (2 star) with over 20 years of service. 3-4 years in and you make more than any 4 star except the chairman/service chiefs/combatant commanders.

[Anonymous User]

Everyone I know well enough to get a sense from is happy with their compensation. At the end of the day that's all that f-ing matters. What I do know is that in my admittedly small circle relative to the Firm as a whole, I know only 3 associates who have left for other firms. Two left because the rainmaker passed away and the work dried up in their niche practice. The other left to follow a partner.

I also know that when I had partners leave and the new firm made me an offer, it included a 1 year bump in seniority and I would have still been taking a pay cut--signing bonus and year end market bonus included. Now, I suppose I could be part of that mythical 5%. But I am relatively certain that's not the case.

If you're one of those people who feels like you've been screwed because you might make a grand or two less than someone else at another firm, you're not likely to succeed here.

Finally, keep things in perspective. A K-JD walks into any big law firm and on day 1 makes the same base pay as fricking Major General/Rear Admiral (2 star) with over 20 years of service. 3-4 years in and you make more than any 4 star except the chairman/service chiefs/combatant commanders.

Based on your response, in particular the last paragraph, we're never going to agree. For me, it's much more of a philosophical objection to any workplace that has a formal rule prohibiting anyone from discussing compensation. People deserve to know. Transparency is good and promotes fairness.

If the average associate was making above market, the firm would certainly advertise it. I'm a former SA who declined an offer after it became obvious that the average associate was making below market.

[Anonymous User]

Transparency is good and promotes fairness.

Does it though?

A partner at a prominent "transparent" law firm told me that all transparency does is promote bitterness and resentment. Almost all lawyers think they should be making more than everyone else. The special snowflake syndrome. That means the vast majority of people at transparent firms are unhappy about their comp RELATIVE TO others. (e.g. "I do better work than Joe. Why does Joe get paid more than I do?" "I brought in that client last year. Bob didn't. Now why am I getting paid less?") Notice that I am not talking about total comp, but comp relative to others at the firm. I can't see how that is good for morale.

The same partner told me that he is sick and tired of his partners comparing the size of their dicks, hogging clients, and backstabbing each other over pay. He, for one, believes that JD's comp structure works FOR JD (read: not for everyone) because people who stay there buy into it (you might call it drinking the koolaid). He said he would work for JD because he would be happy to work in a place with less partner politics.

If you like this kind of comp structure and appreciate a culture where you are not constantly striving to one-up the other associate down the hall, then JD is for you. If you want to keep playing keeping up with the Jones's (no pun intended), then JD is probably not right for you. So it's good that you think it's a shithole. We don't want you anyway.

[homestyle28]

Transparency is good and promotes fairness.

If you like this kind of comp structure and appreciate a culture where you are not constantly striving to one-up the other associate down the hall, then JD is for you. If you want to keep playing keeping up with the Jones's (no pun intended), then JD is probably not right for you.

This is dead on. It's definitely a kool-aid thing...which people speak openly about. Either you agree with the values the policies are designed to promote or you don't. There are other firms that do it differently, and plenty of them are fine places to work (caveat: for biglaw).

[Anonymous User]

Transparency is good and promotes fairness.

Does it though?

A partner at a prominent "transparent" law firm told me that all transparency does is promote bitterness and resentment. Almost all lawyers think they should be making more than everyone else. The special snowflake syndrome. That means the vast majority of people at transparent firms are unhappy about their comp RELATIVE TO others. (e.g. "I do better work than Joe. Why does Joe get paid more than I do?" "I brought in that client last year. Bob didn't. Now why am I getting paid less?") Notice that I am not talking about total comp, but comp relative to others at the firm. I can't see how that is good for morale.

The same partner told me that he is sick and tired of his partners comparing the size of their dicks, hogging clients, and backstabbing each other over pay. He, for one, believes that JD's comp structure works FOR JD (read: not for everyone) because people who stay there buy into it (you might call it drinking the koolaid). He said he would work for JD because he would be happy to work in a place with less partner politics.

If you like this kind of comp structure and appreciate a culture where you are not constantly striving to one-up the other associate down the hall, then JD is for you. If you want to keep playing keeping up with the Jones's (no pun intended), then JD is probably not right for you. So it's good that you think it's a shithole. We don't want you anyway.

As you said, to each their own. I'll let you in on a little secret though. The only thing that matters in terms of compensation, happiness, marriage satisfaction, etc. is your relative position. Any economist will tell you this. How do you learn to increase your value to the firm (and therefore your compensation) if you don't know what the firm compensates for? And why would that create strife? If it's objective and explainable, it shouldn't cause any problem at all.

Usually, blackbox compensation serves a darker purpose: The female partner is paid less than the male partner, even though they brought in the same amount of business, because the male partner plays golf with the Partner in Charge. The female partner can't complain about it if she doesn't know it's happening. So yes, it reduces strife, but in a way that I hope no one would applaud. Or, it's two associates with the same billables, one of whom is paid more because they're very cheerful and always going to happy hours and work parties. The other associate keeps their head down and goes home when they're finished. That second associate has no way to know if they're underpaid because of this, or their work product, or their total billables because they don't even know what the other associate is paid. How can they try to improve their standing in the firm when they don't know what qualities are rewarded?

[Anonymous User]

As you said, to each their own. I'll let you in on a little secret though. The only thing that matters in terms of compensation, happiness, marriage satisfaction, etc. is your relative position. Any economist will tell you this. How do you learn to increase your value to the firm (and therefore your compensation) if you don't know what the firm compensates for? And why would that create strife? If it's objective and explainable, it shouldn't cause any problem at all.

Usually, blackbox compensation serves a darker purpose: The female partner is paid less than the male partner, even though they brought in the same amount of business, because the male partner plays golf with the Partner in Charge. The female partner can't complain about it if she doesn't know it's happening. So yes, it reduces strife, but in a way that I hope no one would applaud. Or, it's two associates with the same billables, one of whom is paid more because they're very cheerful and always going to happy hours and work parties. The other associate keeps their head down and goes home when they're finished. That second associate has no way to know if they're underpaid because of this, or their work product, or their total billables because they don't even know what the other associate is paid. How can they try to improve their standing in the firm when they don't know what qualities are rewarded?

Please cite to any authority that says "the only thing that matters . . . is relative position." Economists do not hold the key to happiness. And even if that were true, relative to what? The guy in the office next door? Or the guy who sat next to you at your JD graduation who is working contract to contract for $20/hr? Or your kid's school teacher making $30k a year?

And your second paragraph is loaded with logical fallacy. Just because blackbox compensation can enable the "darker purpose," it does not mean that it is happening at Jones Day. Might it be? Sure. But you're painting with an awfully big paintbrush there, implying malfeasance where you have no evidence of it actually happening. We know it fosters a collegial environment because we live it every day.

One thing that people forget when discussing the confidential compensation policy is that although the determination of the number and the number itself are confidential, the process as a whole is not. We understand the value that the Firm puts on its culture and how the confidential compensation helps to that end. We know the partners who are on the committee, know that they are good people and genuinely trust that they have the best interests of the Firm and its people in mind. The system depends on trust and the Firm has earned that trust. (It did not lay off Associates or cancel summer classes due to the recession, for example). If they ever blow that trust, the system will be lost. The committee knows this and thus they do not burn that trust for the sake of sending a few thousand dollars more to the cheerful associate over the gloomy one.

Clearly we are never going to agree. I for one don't understand why anyone who doesn't like the confidential compensation policy and opted to go elsewhere spends their time railing against it on TLS.

[Anonymous User]

As you said, to each their own. I'll let you in on a little secret though. The only thing that matters in terms of compensation, happiness, marriage satisfaction, etc. is your relative position. Any economist will tell you this. How do you learn to increase your value to the firm (and therefore your compensation) if you don't know what the firm compensates for? And why would that create strife? If it's objective and explainable, it shouldn't cause any problem at all.

Usually, blackbox compensation serves a darker purpose: The female partner is paid less than the male partner, even though they brought in the same amount of business, because the male partner plays golf with the Partner in Charge. The female partner can't complain about it if she doesn't know it's happening. So yes, it reduces strife, but in a way that I hope no one would applaud. Or, it's two associates with the same billables, one of whom is paid more because they're very cheerful and always going to happy hours and work parties. The other associate keeps their head down and goes home when they're finished. That second associate has no way to know if they're underpaid because of this, or their work product, or their total billables because they don't even know what the other associate is paid. How can they try to improve their standing in the firm when they don't know what qualities are rewarded?

Please cite to any authority that says "the only thing that matters . . . is relative position." Economists do not hold the key to happiness. And even if that were true, relative to what? The guy in the office next door? Or the guy who sat next to you at your JD graduation who is working contract to contract for $20/hr? Or your kid's school teacher making $30k a year?

And your second paragraph is loaded with logical fallacy. Just because blackbox compensation can enable the "darker purpose," it does not mean that it is happening at Jones Day. Might it be? Sure. But you're painting with an awfully big paintbrush there, implying malfeasance where you have no evidence of it actually happening. We know it fosters a collegial environment because we live it every day.

One thing that people forget when discussing the confidential compensation policy is that although the determination of the number and the number itself are confidential, the process as a whole is not. We understand the value that the Firm puts on its culture and how the confidential compensation helps to that end. We know the partners who are on the committee, know that they are good people and genuinely trust that they have the best interests of the Firm and its people in mind. The system depends on trust and the Firm has earned that trust. (It did not lay off Associates or cancel summer classes due to the recession, for example). If they ever blow that trust, the system will be lost. The committee knows this and thus they do not burn that trust for the sake of sending a few thousand dollars more to the cheerful associate over the gloomy one.

Clearly we are never going to agree. I for one don't understand why anyone who doesn't like the confidential compensation policy and opted to go elsewhere spends their time railing against it on TLS.

+1. Thank you. You phrased it better than I could have. I'm the earlier anon.

The female partner is paid less than the male partner, even though they brought in the same amount of business, because the male partner plays golf with the Partner in Charge. The female partner can't complain about it if she doesn't know it's happening. So yes, it reduces strife, but in a way that I hope no one would applaud.

7 out of 16 Jones Day offices in the U.S. have a woman as partner-in-charge. I just find it hard to believe that such a firm is plotting to oppress women through blackbox compensation. But hey, maybe it's happening and the joke's on us.

Oh and also, the partner-in-charge does not make compensation decisions. The committee does...

[greenchair]

The only thing that matters in terms of compensation, happiness, marriage satisfaction, etc. is your relative position. Any economist will tell you this.

I disagree.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the anon who is apparently "bashing" Jones Day's compensation system. In terms of the economics of happiness, just google "relative income key to happiness" and you'll find dozens of studies. The concept is an offshoot of the Easterlin paradox.

I did not mean to imply that Jones Day was engaging in malfeasance. I have no clue one way or the other. I appreciate you that you are being sincere and really do trust that the Committee looks out for the best interests of associates. I have never worked there as an associate and have no reason to doubt you.

I don't mean to spend my time "railing" on it. TLS readership is made up primarily of people who haven't decided what firm they will summer at yet. I was just engaging in one side of the conversation to provide information.

Anyway, I've said my piece and best of luck to everyone involved.

[Anonymous User]

The only thing that matters in terms of compensation, happiness, marriage satisfaction, etc. is your relative position. Any economist will tell you this.

What the hell kind of marriage are you in, or hope to be in? Your marital satisfaction depends on your relative position to others around you?

The economics of marriage selection is well established by a trove of research. I hate to break your heart, but most people are trying to get the "best" partner they can (based on a variety of characteristics).

[PvblivsScipio]

I will say that I have a pretty negative impression of Jones Day (and Mayer Brown, but that's for a different time). Plus, one of the attorneys I used to work for and absolutely respect passionately hates Jones Day. He abhors working with or against their attorneys, and he's a pretty mild mannered and even-keeled dude. But if you bring up Jones Day he gets heated.

All right. This is getting stupid. Really? The attorney you "absolutely respect" makes sweeping generalizations about 2,400 attorneys in a firm? I don't even know what to say to that other than laugh at your choice of people you decide to respect.

I, for one, worked in a large Midwest office and enjoyed almost everyone I worked with.

Fair point. Should've specified Jones Day LA.

[Anonymous User]

How do you learn to increase your value to the firm (and therefore your compensation) if you don't know what the firm compensates for? . . . How can they try to improve their standing in the firm when they don't know what qualities are rewarded?

Yes, because paying all associates in a class the same amount really tells them what qualities the firm values and compensates for.

[Anonymous User]

How do you learn to increase your value to the firm (and therefore your compensation) if you don't know what the firm compensates for? . . . How can they try to improve their standing in the firm when they don't know what qualities are rewarded?

Yes, because paying all associates in a class the same amount really tells them what qualities the firm values and compensates for.

Quoted Anon Here: Are you seriously a lawyer? No, it doesn't tell them what qualities the firm values and compensates for. But, as I would have thought anyone could see, that isn't nearly as relevant for associates if they are being paid the same regardless.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience at the DC office? Are SA's expected to wear suits, or is biz casual the norm? Is facetime a big deal for lit associates? As in will working 8-6 and finishing up later at home lead to senior associates and partners talking shit about you behind your back?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience at the DC office? Are SA's expected to wear suits, or is biz casual the norm? Is facetime a big deal for lit associates? As in will working 8-6 and finishing up later at home lead to senior associates and partners talking shit about you behind your back?

DC associate here. Suits in the office every day but unless you're in a formal setting (e.g. Client meeting, deposition) it's really shirt/tie. No one wears the jacket around the office.

As for facetime, it is dependent on who you are working for, but as a general rule, partners are very reasonable. Get your work done well and on time is the most important factor. But there are times when the team needs to be in. Also, if you show up at 8, you will be practically alone in the office. I normally roll in at 9 and I'd say even that is about median. Of course YMMV if you work for one of the early bird partners, but even then I don't think their associates are "expected" to be there.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience at the DC office? Are SA's expected to wear suits, or is biz casual the norm? Is facetime a big deal for lit associates? As in will working 8-6 and finishing up later at home lead to senior associates and partners talking shit about you behind your back?

DC associate here. Suits in the office every day but unless you're in a formal setting (e.g. Client meeting, deposition) it's really shirt/tie. No one wears the jacket around the office.

As for facetime, it is dependent on who you are working for, but as a general rule, partners are very reasonable. Get your work done well and on time is the most important factor. But there are times when the team needs to be in. Also, if you show up at 8, you will be practically alone in the office. I normally roll in at 9 and I'd say even that is about median. Of course YMMV if you work for one of the early bird partners, but even then I don't think their associates are "expected" to be there.

So for an SA is 9 the credited time to show up?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience at the DC office? Are SA's expected to wear suits, or is biz casual the norm? Is facetime a big deal for lit associates? As in will working 8-6 and finishing up later at home lead to senior associates and partners talking shit about you behind your back?

DC associate here. Suits in the office every day but unless you're in a formal setting (e.g. Client meeting, deposition) it's really shirt/tie. No one wears the jacket around the office.

As for facetime, it is dependent on who you are working for, but as a general rule, partners are very reasonable. Get your work done well and on time is the most important factor. But there are times when the team needs to be in. Also, if you show up at 8, you will be practically alone in the office. I normally roll in at 9 and I'd say even that is about median. Of course YMMV if you work for one of the early bird partners, but even then I don't think their associates are "expected" to be there.

So for an SA is 9 the credited time to show up?

The summer program folks will give you all the details you'll need. But 9 will be fine.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience at the DC office? Are SA's expected to wear suits, or is biz casual the norm? Is facetime a big deal for lit associates? As in will working 8-6 and finishing up later at home lead to senior associates and partners talking shit about you behind your back?

DC associate here. Suits in the office every day but unless you're in a formal setting (e.g. Client meeting, deposition) it's really shirt/tie. No one wears the jacket around the office.

As for facetime, it is dependent on who you are working for, but as a general rule, partners are very reasonable. Get your work done well and on time is the most important factor. But there are times when the team needs to be in. Also, if you show up at 8, you will be practically alone in the office. I normally roll in at 9 and I'd say even that is about median. Of course YMMV if you work for one of the early bird partners, but even then I don't think their associates are "expected" to be there.

So for an SA is 9 the credited time to show up?

The summer program folks will give you all the details you'll need. But 9 will be fine.

In my non-DC office, I came in between 8 and 10. No one appeared to care if I came in at a certain time, so sometimes I would come in closer to 8 and sometimes closer to 10. As long as you do good work on-time, people don't keep tabs on when you come into work. They have better things to do, like their own work.

FWIW, on the internal messaging system, you can tell when SAs are online, and they all usually seemed to be online by around 9:15-9:30. As a SA, unless I was put on a special, pressing project (whether litigation or corporate), people did not expect me to work outside 9-6. On a few occasions, I came in at 6am and/or stayed to midnight, but that was largely due to my own lack of planning.

[Anonymous User]

In my non-DC office, I came in between 8 and 10. No one appeared to care if I came in at a certain time, so sometimes I would come in closer to 8 and sometimes closer to 10. As long as you do good work on-time, people don't keep tabs on when you come into work. They have better things to do, like their own work.

FWIW, on the internal messaging system, you can tell when SAs are online, and they all usually seemed to be online by around 9:15-9:30. As a SA, unless I was put on a special, pressing project (whether litigation or corporate), people did not expect me to work outside 9-6. On a few occasions, I came in at 6am and/or stayed to midnight, but that was largely due to my own lack of planning.

I would just leave myself signed in all the time on that messaging thing. I was also in a non-DC office and would say that I actually felt like you had to be there by 9 (as opposed to other firms I've worked at). We had a lot of events that started at 9 (or earlier) and attorneys would also come by my office early.

I often I had to stay late or go back to the office after a happy hour but that was definitely not expected and was due to my being lazy during the day.

[Anonymous User]

What is the firm's policy on transferring offices? I'll be going to one of the offices with a larger class size this summer, but I would like to end up in one of the smaller offices if I could transfer.