2021 Special Bonuses Forum

[AureliusCapital]

Wait, so none of the OG California firms....Latham/OMM/Gibson Dunn....and none of MTO/Irell/HH/KVN...have matched? Man, maybe this is the year NYC actually starts paying their associates more than other markets.

Fenwick was one of the first to match, and Paul Hastings matched today. There's basically zero chance any of the CA firms with meaningful transactional practices will fail to match. They're all doing gangbusters and are dealing with the same lack of midlevel staffing as the NYC firms.

I have no idea why people always whip themselves up into a frenzy over firms dragging their heels on a match when it's obvious that they eventually will. There's absolutely nothing to be gleaned from it.

Lit boutiques are a different matter entirely, and I'm curious to see where that goes. They don't really have any reason to do it other than keeping up appearances, because lit is in a completely different place right now in terms of retention pressure as compared to transactional practices.

Means these firms consider associates even less of a priority than their peers. If they care enough, they would move fast. It can also mean their partners are not close-knit as they claimed to be

This is a ridiculous take. I've seen this happen multiple times now, where a firm takes an extra couple of weeks to match, leading to all manner of hysterical TLS screeching about how that firm is obsolete and TTT, and once the firm matches nobody cares or remembers. A two week gap before a firm publicly announces a match that everyone knows is coming anyways signifies nothing, and ginning up these narratives just sounds paranoid and bizarre.

Remember when Covington tried to sandbag DC to 180, and TLS declared it CovingTTTon, and that the firm was over, and it would have to pull from median at Cooley, and how that all totally happened?

Oh wait - that was a fart in the wind that basically disappeared once Covington matched, and it's at most a footnote at this point. And that was infinitely more egregious than slightly delaying the announcement of a match.

Out of all the abuses biglaw levies on associates, getting up in arms about this is hilarious, and I will never not be baffled by it.

So this is more relevant on fishbowl, where partners actually read the comments, and was more relevant when TLS was like an active forum that legal recruiters took seriously, etc., but basically dude, SHUT UP. It used to be that TLS and ATL would build pressure to get firms to match. Now they're both kind of shells of their former selves.

Is Fishbowl the go to source now? Anything better? I have heard terrible things about fishbowl.

[motojir]

Where my other DLA anons at?

Think the firm was shamed enough for not matching 2020 bonuses that they’ll get on board with this one, or are we just accepting our fate as a second-rate law firm?

Sort by profit margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... er_partner

Some partners make millions by billing associates out at high rates and collecting, others make millions by billing a lot more associates out at slightly lower rates, and collecting slightly less. DLA Piper is in the latter group. Bonuses are a lot more painful for partners in the latter group.

[Anonymous User]

Wait, so none of the OG California firms....Latham/OMM/Gibson Dunn....and none of MTO/Irell/HH/KVN...have matched? Man, maybe this is the year NYC actually starts paying their associates more than other markets.

Fenwick was one of the first to match, and Paul Hastings matched today. There's basically zero chance any of the CA firms with meaningful transactional practices will fail to match. They're all doing gangbusters and are dealing with the same lack of midlevel staffing as the NYC firms.

I have no idea why people always whip themselves up into a frenzy over firms dragging their heels on a match when it's obvious that they eventually will. There's absolutely nothing to be gleaned from it.

Lit boutiques are a different matter entirely, and I'm curious to see where that goes. They don't really have any reason to do it other than keeping up appearances, because lit is in a completely different place right now in terms of retention pressure as compared to transactional practices.

Means these firms consider associates even less of a priority than their peers. If they care enough, they would move fast. It can also mean their partners are not close-knit as they claimed to be

This is a ridiculous take. I've seen this happen multiple times now, where a firm takes an extra couple of weeks to match, leading to all manner of hysterical TLS screeching about how that firm is obsolete and TTT, and once the firm matches nobody cares or remembers. A two week gap before a firm publicly announces a match that everyone knows is coming anyways signifies nothing, and ginning up these narratives just sounds paranoid and bizarre.

Remember when Covington tried to sandbag DC to 180, and TLS declared it CovingTTTon, and that the firm was over, and it would have to pull from median at Cooley, and how that all totally happened?

Oh wait - that was a fart in the wind that basically disappeared once Covington matched, and it's at most a footnote at this point. And that was infinitely more egregious than slightly delaying the announcement of a match.

Out of all the abuses biglaw levies on associates, getting up in arms about this is hilarious, and I will never not be baffled by it.

This is a bad take IMO. A day or two or three delay vs. the first mover is fine--we all understand there's some administrative process to this. But everyone talks these days; we all have friends at other firms. It's lousy to be at a firm that's dragging its heels while all your friends are reporting that they're getting bonus memos; it makes you feel like your firm doesn't particularly care one way or the other about its associates. There's also a practical element to it which is I know from talking with my friends that we are all distracted while we're waiting for this to play out. I'm not saying work grinds to a halt but there's definitely an element of that.

Is it the worst offense a firm could commit to take an extra week or two to match? No. There are worse things in biglaw. Is it shitty and does it make the associates at that firm feel lesser than? Yes. If you're a market-paying firm, follow the market, swiftly and confidently.

[motojir]

Do you think any law firm will try to pull that bullshit K&E/Paul Weiss pulled last fall, where they announced that they won't pay bonuses?

[alawyer2018]

[/quote]

This is a ridiculous take. I've seen this happen multiple times now, where a firm takes an extra couple of weeks to match, leading to all manner of hysterical TLS screeching about how that firm is obsolete and TTT, and once the firm matches nobody cares or remembers. A two week gap before a firm publicly announces a match that everyone knows is coming anyways signifies nothing, and ginning up these narratives just sounds paranoid and bizarre.

Remember when Covington tried to sandbag DC to 180, and TLS declared it CovingTTTon, and that the firm was over, and it would have to pull from median at Cooley, and how that all totally happened?

Oh wait - that was a fart in the wind that basically disappeared once Covington matched, and it's at most a footnote at this point. And that was infinitely more egregious than slightly delaying the announcement of a match.

Out of all the abuses biglaw levies on associates, getting up in arms about this is hilarious, and I will never not be baffled by it.
[/quote]

I agree with you re: your point about the time delay for announcing, but I dunno, I remember the Covington incident you described and it certainly changed my perspective on how that firm views/treats its associates. If someone has the qualifications to land Covington DC, I assume they'd also have many other fantastic options to choose from, and I'd certainly counsel them to at least consider Covington's prior conduct re: compensation as part of their decision making.

[Anonymous User]

Do you think any law firm will try to pull that bullshit K&E/Paul Weiss pulled last fall, where they announced that they won't pay bonuses?

Law firms always surprise me with the stupidity of some of their decisions, so it's possible, but I doubt it because of the timing. That move by a few firms in fall 2020 to just roll the fall bonus into the EoY one seemed mostly about administrative convenience since EoY wasn't far away. I just don't see the motivation to do something similar here: it would rob any such announcement of its retention effect--no associate is going to care about vague promises to pay more 9-10 months from now--while also ostensibly still committing the firm to having to pay that difference, so creating a financial hit for the partners. It's a worst of all possible worlds situation. I think a firm would be more likely to just not pay it than it would be to try to pull the trick you're describing.

[Anonymous User]

This is a ridiculous take. I've seen this happen multiple times now, where a firm takes an extra couple of weeks to match, leading to all manner of hysterical TLS screeching about how that firm is obsolete and TTT, and once the firm matches nobody cares or remembers. A two week gap before a firm publicly announces a match that everyone knows is coming anyways signifies nothing, and ginning up these narratives just sounds paranoid and bizarre.

Remember when Covington tried to sandbag DC to 180, and TLS declared it CovingTTTon, and that the firm was over, and it would have to pull from median at Cooley, and how that all totally happened?

Oh wait - that was a fart in the wind that basically disappeared once Covington matched, and it's at most a footnote at this point. And that was infinitely more egregious than slightly delaying the announcement of a match.

Out of all the abuses biglaw levies on associates, getting up in arms about this is hilarious, and I will never not be baffled by it.
[/quote]

I agree with you re: your point about the time delay for announcing, but I dunno, I remember the Covington incident you described and it certainly changed my perspective on how that firm views/treats its associates. If someone has the qualifications to land Covington DC, I assume they'd also have many other fantastic options to choose from, and I'd certainly counsel them to at least consider Covington's prior conduct re: compensation as part of their decision making.
[/quote]

agreed. I'm at CB and them having dragged their feet so much still rubs me the wrong way, despite finding the firm generally fine, if not good, for biglaw. it says something about the leadership.

[Anonymous User]

This is a ridiculous take. I've seen this happen multiple times now, where a firm takes an extra couple of weeks to match, leading to all manner of hysterical TLS screeching about how that firm is obsolete and TTT, and once the firm matches nobody cares or remembers. A two week gap before a firm publicly announces a match that everyone knows is coming anyways signifies nothing, and ginning up these narratives just sounds paranoid and bizarre.

Remember when Covington tried to sandbag DC to 180, and TLS declared it CovingTTTon, and that the firm was over, and it would have to pull from median at Cooley, and how that all totally happened?

Oh wait - that was a fart in the wind that basically disappeared once Covington matched, and it's at most a footnote at this point. And that was infinitely more egregious than slightly delaying the announcement of a match.

Out of all the abuses biglaw levies on associates, getting up in arms about this is hilarious, and I will never not be baffled by it.
[/quote]

I agree with you re: your point about the time delay for announcing, but I dunno, I remember the Covington incident you described and it certainly changed my perspective on how that firm views/treats its associates. If someone has the qualifications to land Covington DC, I assume they'd also have many other fantastic options to choose from, and I'd certainly counsel them to at least consider Covington's prior conduct re: compensation as part of their decision making.
[/quote]

I don't think Covington associates forgot about the CovingTTTon DC 180 situation. We always bring it up everytime compensation issue comes up -- "remember when the associates revolted?" Neverforget. That was hopefully a wakeup call for the firm and the industry, and no similar situation will repeat again. I am generally happy at the firm, but I haven't forgotten.

[Anonymous User]

Guys sorry, this is off topic but can you please edit your posts to properly quote? Or just pull out the parts that won't properly format? It's messing up the flow of the conversation.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with you re: your point about the time delay for announcing, but I dunno, I remember the Covington incident you described and it certainly changed my perspective on how that firm views/treats its associates. If someone has the qualifications to land Covington DC, I assume they'd also have many other fantastic options to choose from, and I'd certainly counsel them to at least consider Covington's prior conduct re: compensation as part of their decision making.

I don't think Covington associates forgot about the CovingTTTon DC 180 situation. We always bring it up everytime compensation issue comes up -- "remember when the associates revolted?" Neverforget. That was hopefully a wakeup call for the firm and the industry, and no similar situation will repeat again. I am generally happy at the firm, but I haven't forgotten.

Maybe it’s just because I was in a practice group that I knew wasn’t making anywhere near as much money for the firm as like NY M&A (and was correspondingly more humane), but it never bothered me *that* much. But if you just want to do generic litigation or other work you can do at any firm, I agree it’s something that people should remember, especially since it’s not like Covington litigators works any less. Also, fwiw PPP is now like 1.5x what it was when they did that, so maybe that changes things. And all the committed seniors I worked with are making partner now, so there’s that.

[ExpOriental]

This is a bad take IMO. A day or two or three delay vs. the first mover is fine--we all understand there's some administrative process to this. But everyone talks these days; we all have friends at other firms. It's lousy to be at a firm that's dragging its heels while all your friends are reporting that they're getting bonus memos; it makes you feel like your firm doesn't particularly care one way or the other about its associates. There's also a practical element to it which is I know from talking with my friends that we are all distracted while we're waiting for this to play out. I'm not saying work grinds to a halt but there's definitely an element of that.

Is it the worst offense a firm could commit to take an extra week or two to match? No. There are worse things in biglaw. Is it shitty and does it make the associates at that firm feel lesser than? Yes. If you're a market-paying firm, follow the market, swiftly and confidently.

Imagine trying to explain to the man off the street that even though you'll be receiving the exact same bonus at the same time as all your peers, you're upset because your firm took an extra week or two to announce it.

Does it not embarrass you to feel this way? You're basically admitting that you only care because you don't want to be seen as less preftigious than your peers.

This is like a perfect distillation of the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses neurosis, except it's somehow even dumber than being miffed over your neighbor having a nicer lawnmower than you. It's more like: you have an identical lawnmower in the mail, but you're upset because your neighbor got his a week earlier.

[Anonymous User]

This is a bad take IMO. A day or two or three delay vs. the first mover is fine--we all understand there's some administrative process to this. But everyone talks these days; we all have friends at other firms. It's lousy to be at a firm that's dragging its heels while all your friends are reporting that they're getting bonus memos; it makes you feel like your firm doesn't particularly care one way or the other about its associates. There's also a practical element to it which is I know from talking with my friends that we are all distracted while we're waiting for this to play out. I'm not saying work grinds to a halt but there's definitely an element of that.

Is it the worst offense a firm could commit to take an extra week or two to match? No. There are worse things in biglaw. Is it shitty and does it make the associates at that firm feel lesser than? Yes. If you're a market-paying firm, follow the market, swiftly and confidently.

Imagine trying to explain to the man off the street that even though you'll be receiving the exact same bonus at the same time as all your peers, you're upset because your firm took an extra week or two to announce it.

Does it not embarrass you to feel this way? You're basically admitting that you only care because you don't want to be seen as less preftigious than your peers.

This is like a perfect distillation of the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses neurosis, except it's somehow even dumber than being miffed over your neighbor having a nicer lawnmower than you. It's more like: you have an identical lawnmower in the mail, but you're upset because your neighbor got his a week earlier.

lol the man on the street hasn't billed 140 hours in the last two weeks including two all-nighters. I don't get your cuck mentality. This has nothing to do with prestige. This is about money, the same as it is for partners if they're being honest. Supposed peer firms are announcing. Make your announcement. Give it to us, now, and we'll go back to billing for you.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with you re: your point about the time delay for announcing, but I dunno, I remember the Covington incident you described and it certainly changed my perspective on how that firm views/treats its associates. If someone has the qualifications to land Covington DC, I assume they'd also have many other fantastic options to choose from, and I'd certainly counsel them to at least consider Covington's prior conduct re: compensation as part of their decision making.

I don't think Covington associates forgot about the CovingTTTon DC 180 situation. We always bring it up everytime compensation issue comes up -- "remember when the associates revolted?" Neverforget. That was hopefully a wakeup call for the firm and the industry, and no similar situation will repeat again. I am generally happy at the firm, but I haven't forgotten.

Maybe it’s just because I was in a practice group that I knew wasn’t making anywhere near as much money for the firm as like NY M&A (and was correspondingly more humane), but it never bothered me *that* much. But if you just want to do generic litigation or other work you can do at any firm, I agree it’s something that people should remember, especially since it’s not like Covington litigators works any less. Also, fwiw PPP is now like 1.5x what it was when they did that, so maybe that changes things. And all the committed seniors I worked with are making partner now, so there’s that.

practice groups like yours exist at other firms, too

don't sell yourself short, fellow CB anon!!

[objctnyrhnr]

How is it that Jones day always gets away with doing nothing in these situations?

Compare, eg, Dla which always seems to get skewered cause it didn’t commit to 100% matches of covid bonuses even though it openly pays market and seems to typically match everything otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with you re: your point about the time delay for announcing, but I dunno, I remember the Covington incident you described and it certainly changed my perspective on how that firm views/treats its associates. If someone has the qualifications to land Covington DC, I assume they'd also have many other fantastic options to choose from, and I'd certainly counsel them to at least consider Covington's prior conduct re: compensation as part of their decision making.

I don't think Covington associates forgot about the CovingTTTon DC 180 situation. We always bring it up everytime compensation issue comes up -- "remember when the associates revolted?" Neverforget. That was hopefully a wakeup call for the firm and the industry, and no similar situation will repeat again. I am generally happy at the firm, but I haven't forgotten.

Maybe it’s just because I was in a practice group that I knew wasn’t making anywhere near as much money for the firm as like NY M&A (and was correspondingly more humane), but it never bothered me *that* much. But if you just want to do generic litigation or other work you can do at any firm, I agree it’s something that people should remember, especially since it’s not like Covington litigators works any less. Also, fwiw PPP is now like 1.5x what it was when they did that, so maybe that changes things. And all the committed seniors I worked with are making partner now, so there’s that.

practice groups like yours exist at other firms, too

don't sell yourself short, fellow CB anon!!

Oh I’m long gone for in-house—and I keep trying to poach people who want to stay at Covington for some strange reason.

[ExpOriental]

This is a bad take IMO. A day or two or three delay vs. the first mover is fine--we all understand there's some administrative process to this. But everyone talks these days; we all have friends at other firms. It's lousy to be at a firm that's dragging its heels while all your friends are reporting that they're getting bonus memos; it makes you feel like your firm doesn't particularly care one way or the other about its associates. There's also a practical element to it which is I know from talking with my friends that we are all distracted while we're waiting for this to play out. I'm not saying work grinds to a halt but there's definitely an element of that.

Is it the worst offense a firm could commit to take an extra week or two to match? No. There are worse things in biglaw. Is it shitty and does it make the associates at that firm feel lesser than? Yes. If you're a market-paying firm, follow the market, swiftly and confidently.

Imagine trying to explain to the man off the street that even though you'll be receiving the exact same bonus at the same time as all your peers, you're upset because your firm took an extra week or two to announce it.

Does it not embarrass you to feel this way? You're basically admitting that you only care because you don't want to be seen as less preftigious than your peers.

This is like a perfect distillation of the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses neurosis, except it's somehow even dumber than being miffed over your neighbor having a nicer lawnmower than you. It's more like: you have an identical lawnmower in the mail, but you're upset because your neighbor got his a week earlier.

lol the man on the street hasn't billed 140 hours in the last two weeks including two all-nighters. I don't get your cuck mentality. This has nothing to do with prestige. This is about money, the same as it is for partners if they're being honest. Supposed peer firms are announcing. Make your announcement. Give it to us, now, and we'll go back to billing for you.

It's explicitly not about money. You're getting the same money at the same time as everyone else; it just hasn't been announced yet. If a firm doesn't match, or imposes some obscene requirement, that is an entirely different matter.

It's purely about your absurdly fragile ego. You said it yourself - it makes you (vis a vis your firm) feel "lesser than."

[Anonymous User]

lol the man on the street hasn't billed 140 hours in the last two weeks including two all-nighters. I don't get your cuck mentality. This has nothing to do with prestige. This is about money, the same as it is for partners if they're being honest. Supposed peer firms are announcing. Make your announcement. Give it to us, now, and we'll go back to billing for you.

Save your ammo and/or anger for things that matter. Once this many firms match, most of us are all but certain we know if our firms will match.

[wwwcol]

can we please stop with all these tangential side conversations and limit this to actual boneus news

It is extremely annoying to tab over from billable work to pages of new posts, only to find you clowns talking about how TTT Covington is from something that happened years ago

[Anonymous User]

Willkie just matched the DPW bonus scale. See below.

Class of 2020: $12,000
Class of 2019: $16,000
Class of 2018: $32,000
Class of 2017: $44,000
Class of 2016: $52,000
Class of 2015: $59,200
Class of 2014 and senior: $64,000


Half of the bonus amount will be paid on June 30, 2021. The second half will be paid on September 30, 2021. Bonuses will be paid to those employed and in good standing on the payment dates consistent with our customary practices. We expect to pay our regular year-end bonuses in December.

[Anonymous User]

Shoutout to Willkie and DPW for getting (most) us paid.

[Anonymous User]

Do you think any law firm will try to pull that bullshit K&E/Paul Weiss pulled last fall, where they announced that they won't pay bonuses?

Law firms always surprise me with the stupidity of some of their decisions, so it's possible, but I doubt it because of the timing. That move by a few firms in fall 2020 to just roll the fall bonus into the EoY one seemed mostly about administrative convenience since EoY wasn't far away. I just don't see the motivation to do something similar here: it would rob any such announcement of its retention effect--no associate is going to care about vague promises to pay more 9-10 months from now--while also ostensibly still committing the firm to having to pay that difference, so creating a financial hit for the partners. It's a worst of all possible worlds situation. I think a firm would be more likely to just not pay it than it would be to try to pull the trick you're describing.

I agree with all of this. I also know at KE last fall some partners mentioned they were worried about optics with their clients struggling financially during COVID if they saw Kirkland paying a special extra bonus to associates. I think that’s pretty much bullshit seeing as every peer firm (and many firms not on the same level as KE) paid the bonus, but I know that message was being communicated among partners with some associates. I don’t think the same optics concerns apply quite as much right now - the economy is turning the corner.

I agree that the main reason why KE will pay in some combo of April/June/September this time is for the retention effect. I imagine we will hear about a KE match within a few business days.

[Anonymous User]

HH matched the DPW scale. Paying in June and September. Contingent on being on track for 2,000 hours (which basically everyone is) and prorated based on start date.

[Anonymous User]

Where Weil at tho

[Anonymous User]

So what’s the total all in now for a first year, assuming firms matched the fall bonus and the new DPW one?

[ExpOriental]

I'm calling it now, I think Kirkland will come over the top in some way.

I have no inside knowledge on this whatsoever, I'm just basing this on Kirkland's past maneuvering and where it's currently situated.