2020 End of Year Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Amount of hours KE associates billing in their multiplier thread is scary af. Officially scared of their culture driving the market

[Anonymous User]

A different DLA anon here. I can tell you right now it is fucking MUTINY in the Associate Committee email chain. People are fucking PISSED. I'm sort of chuckling at how this entire thing is imploding. People are saying they will rage quit.

Apparently they'll convey the "concerns" that associates have over the bonus fiasco but I'm pessimistic that mgmt will just come back and tell us to pound sand.

Another DLA anon here. Has the Associate Committee said anything to the partners yet? Obviously furious and will look to leave if the issue isn’t addressed or, at a minimum, a reason isn’t provided for paying bonuses well below market.

Yet another DLA anon. The excuse our OMP gave us in the summer for not paying was that it would be unfair to staff who didn’t get their normal raises. This is obvious BS, the partners can both true up staff and give special bonuses, and besides why would the staff think it’s more fair for the partners to pocket that money?
Either the partners misunderstood the fallout of this decision (which is my hope, since it means they might reverse the decision), or they’ve finally accepted the top 50 firms dont all need to pay the same as true top tier firms and are fine signaling that DLA is not a top tier firm.

Sounds like Dla hasn’t given numbers or a memo yet, right? Is this standard, or do you think it’s possible that they gave themselves some cover to either 1) reverse their decision or 2) pay the whole amount without labeling it as special/covid (“what? We said we were gonna pay market* the whole time so we did”)? The second scenario would actually be pretty ideal because it might provide a step forward for the market to solidify the total standard amount as the new market bonus.

Thoughts?

*as a related observation, I’ve said from the beginning that labeling something covid bonuses in this climate with all the death and economic pain that’s being felt was optically a poor play from the beginning from a PR and I suppose a client relations perspective by all of the firms that did it. So given my point from a prior post re all of the resources Dla has put into being a v50 or whatever and staying at market throughout, I’m wondering if it is more the optics/labeling of these bonuses as such and less the extra 20k that turned them off.

(DLA anon) If I recall prior years correctly they never do an official memo - they just release your bonus number with your end of year rating sometime in January. Before then there may be similar vague oral announcements of matching market, but never an email with exact scale. Someone can correct me if I’m misremembering.
In other words, the oral announcement here is not for cover - its par for the course and came after a definitive decision on the issue from whatever partners make that decision. (Just a definitive decision that will hopefully be reversed.)

[Anonymous User]

Irell bonuses are out. Sum of spring bonus, COVID bonus, and end of year bonus:

1st year - $36,500
2nd year- $64,000
3rd year - $100,000
4th year - $129,500
5th year - $153,000
6th year - $170,000
7th year - $190,500

[Anonymous User]

Gibson Dunn announcing individual bonuses this week and early next. Unsurprisingly, market + for high billers.

Received special Covid bonus at my class year, earned normal bonus equivalent to year ahead of me.

What kind of hours makes a “high biller” at GDC who would earn a bonus like that?

GDC Anon

Only have my personal experience, but I was at ~2200.

I’ve never heard of the above market bonus at GDC and billed 2400 last year. Is it true for all class years or were my efforts not so exceptional?

Yes GDC generally gives above market bonuses to high billers but its case by case and usually not more than 10k additional.

[thelawyler]

A different DLA anon here. I can tell you right now it is fucking MUTINY in the Associate Committee email chain. People are fucking PISSED. I'm sort of chuckling at how this entire thing is imploding. People are saying they will rage quit.

Apparently they'll convey the "concerns" that associates have over the bonus fiasco but I'm pessimistic that mgmt will just come back and tell us to pound sand.

Sometimes I wonder how often people rage quit after getting cucked on the bonus by their cheap ass firms.

Considering how busy year end tends to be with all those closings, if a bonus gets paid on say, the 24th, I wonder if like 10 mid levels in a group quitting with zero notice right before the Dec 31 sign/close target date would cause, for example. I imagine people care too much about their professional reputation, but if I was moving far away or to a slightly different area of the law / industry, it might be worth it for a 100k+ fuck you back.

[avenuem]

In preparation for tomorrow's "Holiday Toast" (short zoom thing in lieu of a holiday party) Paul Hastings sent us all bottles, which was a nice surprise.

Open it up, it's fucking juice.

GG PH, spending what has to be at least like $25 to courier (literally courier, not UPS or something) juice to associates. Just send us all Drizly cards and we could order our own champagne (or not, if we don't drink).

ETA: this feels bonus adjacent so just put it here.

Can you confirm if it is LITERALLY juice, or if it's just such weak alcohol/champagne that you consider it to be juice ("order our own champagne" makes it sound like that's what they got you)?

On topic, just read the DLA ATL article and feel bad for associates.

[Anonymous User]

Amount of hours KE associates billing in their multiplier thread is scary af. Officially scared of their culture driving the market

Yeah, but query how sustainable that is. Some of us unfortunately had years that broke us despite the great bonuses and we can’t really do another year like that again. Wonder whether the true elite firms will try to distinguish themselves by offering better lifestyle incentives (e.g., a certain amount of blackout days for associates each month).

[LawrenceGazebo]

Amount of hours KE associates billing in their multiplier thread is scary af. Officially scared of their culture driving the market

Wonder whether the true elite firms will try to distinguish themselves by offering better lifestyle incentives (e.g., a certain amount of blackout days for associates each month).

They will not.

[Anonymous User]

Deleted, misread post. No, there will not be blackout days.

[glitched]

Amount of hours KE associates billing in their multiplier thread is scary af. Officially scared of their culture driving the market

Holy shit you weren't kidding. Eat sleep work repeat.

[lawstudent212]

What is everyone's plan for their bonus money? Poll in link below. Add comments for any interesting plans not captured in the poll. Let's crowdsource some novel ideas, folks!

https://biglaw360.com/bonus-plans/

[sms18]

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.

Yes, because you can absolutely control this. You picked the most ideal situation. How about a situation where you bill 2100, 2100 and then 1800 during an off year. And that final year is your biggest bonus year at 90k (with special bonus, 120-130k). That's a lot of comp left on the table for factors completely out of your control.

Same anon. You're also cherry picking facts. As I said earlier ITT, I don't know anybody at my firm who didn't have a fair opportunity to hit their hours. Sure, you might have to pick up some more pro bono or work out of your practice group, but you still hit hours either way. My firm also doesn't punish you for a slow department department, either.

Listen, I 100% agree that it's infinitely better to go to a no minimum than a firm that docks bonuses for missing the minimum by 1 hour or punishes associates for slow practice groups without giving them an opportunity to make it up elsewhere (e.g., with small pro bono caps). But there are legitimate reasons why someone would pick a firm with a minimum and safeguards to help make sure you can hit that every year. Those include the ability to avoid 2700 hour years and higher comp in the event that you have one. And yes, a no minimum firm that compensates you higher for extra hours is the best of everything from a comp perspective. But again there are other factors that would push someone away from those firms, like the fact that most of those are sweatshops (think K&E).

No firm is perfect, so can we all just admit that there are benefits to each approach if implemented properly? We can go back to shaming A&P and DLA and any firm that punished associates in slow groups.

"I don't know anybody at my firm who didn't have a fair opportunity to hit their hours. Sure, you might have to pick up some more pro bono or work out of your practice group, but you still hit hours either way." So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

[Anonymous User]

So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh wow great point, I hadn’t thought of that! The fuck is going on ITT where actual lawyers presumably working at prestigious firms think using words like “simplistic” is the best way to change minds? Seriously every time someone makes a fair point about firms with minimums, folks ITT make the most idiotic, conclusive, subjective, or non-responsive arguments, and think they won! Really hoping my firm matches soon so I can be done with this nonsense.

Let me make your argument for you to speed things up: I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, because I’d feel pretty nervous about my future at the firm working 100+ hours of PB each month. Is there really that much available at your firm? If so, sounds fairly uncommon to me and I doubt other firms (mine included) are the same. Sounds like your firm might have some unique safeguards that don’t apply to most firms with minimums. Besides, what about people who had family problems (e.g. many kids at home and no day care or a relative who got COVID) who theoretically could have hit their hours with billable work but in reality couldn’t due to those factors? Seems to me like they would be up a creek, which I think is unfair. Firms with no minimums would give those people a bonus.

[sms18]

So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh wow great point, I hadn’t thought of that! The fuck is going on ITT where actual lawyers presumably working at prestigious firms think using words like “simplistic” is the best way to change minds? Seriously every time someone makes a fair point about firms with minimums, folks ITT make the most idiotic, conclusive, subjective, or non-responsive arguments, and think they won! Really hoping my firm matches soon so I can be done with this nonsense.

Let me make your argument for you to speed things up: I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, because I’d feel pretty nervous about my future at the firm working 100+ hours of PB each month. Is there really that much available at your firm? If so, sounds fairly uncommon to me and I doubt other firms (mine included) are the same. Sounds like your firm might have some unique safeguards that don’t apply to most firms with minimums. Besides, what about people who had family problems (e.g. many kids at home and no day care or a relative who got COVID) who theoretically could have hit their hours with billable work but in reality couldn’t due to those factors? Seems to me like they would be up a creek, which I think is unfair. Firms with no minimums would give those people a bonus.

I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind, to be honest. I was just making an observation on how simplistic your (assuming you're the same anonymous poster making these weirdly defensive, emotionally-charged arguments about firms with minimums) worldview must be if you really think associates at your firm or peer firms have generally been given fair opportunities to meet their hours during this pandemic.

[Anonymous User]

So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh wow great point, I hadn’t thought of that! The fuck is going on ITT where actual lawyers presumably working at prestigious firms think using words like “simplistic” is the best way to change minds? Seriously every time someone makes a fair point about firms with minimums, folks ITT make the most idiotic, conclusive, subjective, or non-responsive arguments, and think they won! Really hoping my firm matches soon so I can be done with this nonsense.

Let me make your argument for you to speed things up: I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, because I’d feel pretty nervous about my future at the firm working 100+ hours of PB each month. Is there really that much available at your firm? If so, sounds fairly uncommon to me and I doubt other firms (mine included) are the same. Sounds like your firm might have some unique safeguards that don’t apply to most firms with minimums. Besides, what about people who had family problems (e.g. many kids at home and no day care or a relative who got COVID) who theoretically could have hit their hours with billable work but in reality couldn’t due to those factors? Seems to me like they would be up a creek, which I think is unfair. Firms with no minimums would give those people a bonus.

I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind, to be honest. I was just making an observation on how simplistic your (assuming you're the same anonymous poster making these weirdly defensive, emotionally-charged arguments about firms with minimums) worldview must be if you really think associates at your firm or peer firms have generally been given fair opportunities to meet their hours during this pandemic.

Do you really think that observation is valuable to others in this thread? You're right, I am getting emotionally charged. Why? Because I keep spending time trying to make valuable contributions to this thread by explaining my reasoning and providing details to let others kick the tires, and all people like you can do is post bullshit, poorly reasoned comments disagreeing because you feel like I'm being "simplistic" (or better yet, many of the others ITT who keep calling it something a junior would say and thinking the case is closed). It's like arguing with a two year old.

Why don't you tell me some actual details about your firm and try to make a point. I'll just respond that it's dumb because I know better than you. I'm sure you'll be really happy about that.

[Anonymous User]

In preparation for tomorrow's "Holiday Toast" (short zoom thing in lieu of a holiday party) Paul Hastings sent us all bottles, which was a nice surprise.

Open it up, it's fucking juice.

GG PH, spending what has to be at least like $25 to courier (literally courier, not UPS or something) juice to associates. Just send us all Drizly cards and we could order our own champagne (or not, if we don't drink).

ETA: this feels bonus adjacent so just put it here.

Can you confirm if it is LITERALLY juice, or if it's just such weak alcohol/champagne that you consider it to be juice ("order our own champagne" makes it sound like that's what they got you)?

On topic, just read the DLA ATL article and feel bad for associates.

Confirming it is 0.0% alcohol literal juice.

[nahumya]

So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh wow great point, I hadn’t thought of that! The fuck is going on ITT where actual lawyers presumably working at prestigious firms think using words like “simplistic” is the best way to change minds? Seriously every time someone makes a fair point about firms with minimums, folks ITT make the most idiotic, conclusive, subjective, or non-responsive arguments, and think they won! Really hoping my firm matches soon so I can be done with this nonsense.

Let me make your argument for you to speed things up: I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, because I’d feel pretty nervous about my future at the firm working 100+ hours of PB each month. Is there really that much available at your firm? If so, sounds fairly uncommon to me and I doubt other firms (mine included) are the same. Sounds like your firm might have some unique safeguards that don’t apply to most firms with minimums. Besides, what about people who had family problems (e.g. many kids at home and no day care or a relative who got COVID) who theoretically could have hit their hours with billable work but in reality couldn’t due to those factors? Seems to me like they would be up a creek, which I think is unfair. Firms with no minimums would give those people a bonus.

I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind, to be honest. I was just making an observation on how simplistic your (assuming you're the same anonymous poster making these weirdly defensive, emotionally-charged arguments about firms with minimums) worldview must be if you really think associates at your firm or peer firms have generally been given fair opportunities to meet their hours during this pandemic.

Do you really think that observation is valuable to others in this thread? You're right, I am getting emotionally charged. Why? Because I keep spending time trying to make valuable contributions to this thread by explaining my reasoning and providing details to let others kick the tires, and all people like you can do is post bullshit, poorly reasoned comments disagreeing because you feel like I'm being "simplistic" (or better yet, many of the others ITT who keep calling it something a junior would say and thinking the case is closed). It's like arguing with a two year old.

Why don't you tell me some actual details about your firm and try to make a point. I'll just respond that it's dumb because I know better than you. I'm sure you'll be really happy about that.

Gentlemen, come on now. It's Christmas. There are hours to be billed.

[sms18]

So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh wow great point, I hadn’t thought of that! The fuck is going on ITT where actual lawyers presumably working at prestigious firms think using words like “simplistic” is the best way to change minds? Seriously every time someone makes a fair point about firms with minimums, folks ITT make the most idiotic, conclusive, subjective, or non-responsive arguments, and think they won! Really hoping my firm matches soon so I can be done with this nonsense.

Let me make your argument for you to speed things up: I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, because I’d feel pretty nervous about my future at the firm working 100+ hours of PB each month. Is there really that much available at your firm? If so, sounds fairly uncommon to me and I doubt other firms (mine included) are the same. Sounds like your firm might have some unique safeguards that don’t apply to most firms with minimums. Besides, what about people who had family problems (e.g. many kids at home and no day care or a relative who got COVID) who theoretically could have hit their hours with billable work but in reality couldn’t due to those factors? Seems to me like they would be up a creek, which I think is unfair. Firms with no minimums would give those people a bonus.

I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind, to be honest. I was just making an observation on how simplistic your (assuming you're the same anonymous poster making these weirdly defensive, emotionally-charged arguments about firms with minimums) worldview must be if you really think associates at your firm or peer firms have generally been given fair opportunities to meet their hours during this pandemic.

Do you really think that observation is valuable to others in this thread? You're right, I am getting emotionally charged. Why? Because I keep spending time trying to make valuable contributions to this thread by explaining my reasoning and providing details to let others kick the tires, and all people like you can do is post bullshit, poorly reasoned comments disagreeing because you feel like I'm being "simplistic" (or better yet, many of the others ITT who keep calling it something a junior would say and thinking the case is closed). It's like arguing with a two year old.

Why don't you tell me some actual details about your firm and try to make a point. I'll just respond that it's dumb because I know better than you. I'm sure you'll be really happy about that.

Gentlemen, come on now. It's Christmas. There are hours to be billed.

LOL exactly, especially if you have a minimum billable threshold that you have to meet by year end!

[Anonymous User]

So from your view, if anyone at your firm didn't manage to hit their hours during this pandemic, it's entirely their own fault since they've had a fair opportunity to do so and could've just billed over 100 hours of pro bono each month? Seems like a very simplistic way of looking at things.

Oh wow great point, I hadn’t thought of that! The fuck is going on ITT where actual lawyers presumably working at prestigious firms think using words like “simplistic” is the best way to change minds? Seriously every time someone makes a fair point about firms with minimums, folks ITT make the most idiotic, conclusive, subjective, or non-responsive arguments, and think they won! Really hoping my firm matches soon so I can be done with this nonsense.

Let me make your argument for you to speed things up: I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, because I’d feel pretty nervous about my future at the firm working 100+ hours of PB each month. Is there really that much available at your firm? If so, sounds fairly uncommon to me and I doubt other firms (mine included) are the same. Sounds like your firm might have some unique safeguards that don’t apply to most firms with minimums. Besides, what about people who had family problems (e.g. many kids at home and no day care or a relative who got COVID) who theoretically could have hit their hours with billable work but in reality couldn’t due to those factors? Seems to me like they would be up a creek, which I think is unfair. Firms with no minimums would give those people a bonus.

I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind, to be honest. I was just making an observation on how simplistic your (assuming you're the same anonymous poster making these weirdly defensive, emotionally-charged arguments about firms with minimums) worldview must be if you really think associates at your firm or peer firms have generally been given fair opportunities to meet their hours during this pandemic.

Do you really think that observation is valuable to others in this thread? You're right, I am getting emotionally charged. Why? Because I keep spending time trying to make valuable contributions to this thread by explaining my reasoning and providing details to let others kick the tires, and all people like you can do is post bullshit, poorly reasoned comments disagreeing because you feel like I'm being "simplistic" (or better yet, many of the others ITT who keep calling it something a junior would say and thinking the case is closed). It's like arguing with a two year old.

Why don't you tell me some actual details about your firm and try to make a point. I'll just respond that it's dumb because I know better than you. I'm sure you'll be really happy about that.

I'll bite. I haven't completely followed the entire thread but what is the crux of your argument for a billable requirement? Is it 1) you are likely to work less compared to a no req firm, 2)having a target provides (a) some sort of psychological comfort or (b) ability to turn down work once reached?

Let me respond: even if you are likely in general to work more at no req firm, there will be people who bill less than the mean/median at such firm. Not everyone will bill a lot. People/law school students just assume biglaw will work you to death but soon realize not everyone will be equally busy and there will be downtime. Maybe ke is the outlier, but I know many who billed less than 2k at no req firms for various reasons. I think you already mentioned some reasons why that may be out of ones control. Why risk leaving 50/65k or w/e amount on the table? It's an insurance policy, a lot of people will be willing to take on even if there is some chance of working more hours (esp those who are in biglaw for 3-5 years to maximize earnings).

even if you were low on hours cuz you were slacking off and you actually had the opportunity to hit the billable req, how is this an argument for a bill req, from associate perspective? That same person could've received bonus at no req firm and that would have zero impact on you getting a bonus yourself. Getting bonus is not a zero sum game. Is this some sort of "i worked harder than you so it is only fair that you make less than me" mentality? If no req gives an associate flexibility to work less for same compensation, isn't that great?

This is probably shaped by your experience at biglaw. If you have been mostly billing 2k plus hours consistently and surrounded by similar people then you probably think billable req is not important cuz you will hit it anyway. If your hours been more volatile, then you probably appreciate no req more.

Another important point - I think someone mentioned there are many reasons to pick a firm over another and unless everything is equal, hours req should not be a factor. What are these many reasons? Firms w/o billable req are generally top firms with top practice groups. If location is important, then I get it. If you are a niche practice group, I get it. If you are looking at more "lifestyle" boutique/smaller firms, I get it. Otherwise, for when comparing vanilla biglaw firms, no req should be a very important factor you should consider before joining. Think of it this way, while most firms pay the same base salary, the expected total compensation (ie base plus probability of getting bonus times bonus) vary among firms. Don't most people consider total compensation as a top factor when deciding to join a company?

On 2)(a), if you are at no req firm, you can just make up a number. I think 2)(b) is not unique to bill req firms, this is probably practice group/partner dependent.

[alawyer2018]

I was the one who made the "all else equal" comment. You asked about the factors one should evaluate when choosing a firm (other than an hours requirement or no hours requirement). Some of those factors include the very ones you mentioned, i.e., quality of practice group, location, niche practice group, and quality of life ("lifestyle" boutique/smaller firms). Off the top of my head, additional factors would include, the partners/counsel/senior associates in the group that you'd likely be working with a lot -- and relatedly, the conversations that you've had with all attorneys in the group, including junior associates (did they seem like decent/happy people, or frazzled/overworked, were they friendly, did you get along with them, would you have a drink with them, etc.), additional compensation structure information (does the firm include additional bonus amounts for high billers, are there additional discretionary bonuses available that are not explicitly tied to billable hours), maternity/paternity leave policies, the size of the practice group relative to other practice groups and overall head count within the firm (this is meant to get at the relative "importance" of the group within the firm, although it's merely a proxy and not a perfect metric), the statistics regarding how many homegrown or long term associates get promoted to counsel or partner (as opposed to those who merely lateral in), the overall growth trajectory of the practice group and recent performance of the group, average and median hours worked by associates within the group, etc., and how all of those metrics compare to the corresponding firmwide metrics. The list goes on. To the extent that such information is available, this is what I would tell someone to evaluate if they were a law student or young associate trying to evaluate firm choices. Also, as I said, some or all of the above may not apply if you just want to coast in big law for a couple of years and then move on with you life. If you want to coast, absolutely select the most prestigious no minimum hours firm/group you can get in to.

[Anonymous User]

I was the one who made the "all else equal" comment. You asked about the factors one should evaluate when choosing a firm (other than an hours requirement or no hours requirement). Some of those factors include the very ones you mentioned, i.e., quality of practice group, location, niche practice group, and quality of life ("lifestyle" boutique/smaller firms). Off the top of my head, additional factors would include, the partners/counsel/senior associates in the group that you'd likely be working with a lot -- and relatedly, the conversations that you've had with all attorneys in the group, including junior associates (did they seem like decent/happy people, or frazzled/overworked, were they friendly, did you get along with them, would you have a drink with them, etc.), additional compensation structure information (does the firm include additional bonus amounts for high billers, are there additional discretionary bonuses available that are not explicitly tied to billable hours), maternity/paternity leave policies, the size of the practice group relative to other practice groups and overall head count within the firm (this is meant to get at the relative "importance" of the group within the firm, although it's merely a proxy and not a perfect metric), the statistics regarding how many homegrown or long term associates get promoted to counsel or partner (as opposed to those who merely lateral in), the overall growth trajectory of the practice group and recent performance of the group, average and median hours worked by associates within the group, etc., and how all of those metrics compare to the corresponding firmwide metrics. The list goes on. To the extent that such information is available, this is what I would tell someone to evaluate if they were a law student or young associate trying to evaluate firm choices. Also, as I said, some or all of the above may not apply if you just want to coast in big law for a couple of years and then move on with you life. If you want to coast, absolutely select the most prestigious no minimum hours firm/group you can get in to.

Angry anon from above emphasizing the partnership point. Firms that can pay bonuses to all regardless of hours typically have super high leverage which enables them to do that in the first place. That high leverage also means partnership prospects are miniscule. If I know I'm going to work hard (and thus likely hit the min every year) I'd rather do that at a place that gives me (1) extra merit bonus for my extra efforts and (2) a better shot a partner.

[Anonymous User]

I was the one who made the "all else equal" comment. You asked about the factors one should evaluate when choosing a firm (other than an hours requirement or no hours requirement). Some of those factors include the very ones you mentioned, i.e., quality of practice group, location, niche practice group, and quality of life ("lifestyle" boutique/smaller firms). Off the top of my head, additional factors would include, the partners/counsel/senior associates in the group that you'd likely be working with a lot -- and relatedly, the conversations that you've had with all attorneys in the group, including junior associates (did they seem like decent/happy people, or frazzled/overworked, were they friendly, did you get along with them, would you have a drink with them, etc.), additional compensation structure information (does the firm include additional bonus amounts for high billers, are there additional discretionary bonuses available that are not explicitly tied to billable hours), maternity/paternity leave policies, the size of the practice group relative to other practice groups and overall head count within the firm (this is meant to get at the relative "importance" of the group within the firm, although it's merely a proxy and not a perfect metric), the statistics regarding how many homegrown or long term associates get promoted to counsel or partner (as opposed to those who merely lateral in), the overall growth trajectory of the practice group and recent performance of the group, average and median hours worked by associates within the group, etc., and how all of those metrics compare to the corresponding firmwide metrics. The list goes on. To the extent that such information is available, this is what I would tell someone to evaluate if they were a law student or young associate trying to evaluate firm choices. Also, as I said, some or all of the above may not apply if you just want to coast in big law for a couple of years and then move on with you life. If you want to coast, absolutely select the most prestigious no minimum hours firm/group you can get in to.

Sure - not going to disagree that those are factors you should consider in theory. Just reality is that we dont have perfect information and it is going to be difficult to obtain accurate and reliable information - how are you going to know how partners/associates are like? How the median/mean billable were in the past and will be in the future in a particular group? How are you supposed to know the growth trajectory of a particular group? Based on some limited conversations and data available online?

It is unclear to me how other factors you mentioned are more important whether a firm has no billable req or not. If you are considering additional compensation as a factor, then i am assuming no req is also important to you. Unless you are considering partnership (which a lot of associates dont) home grown partners metric seems irrelevant. Why does how "important" a group is in the firm matter from associate perspective? Pat/mat policies? Really? This is more important than whether a firm has billlable req for an average associate?

Given the issues with getting accurate and reliable information on a lot of factors you mentioned, shouldn't a hard fact like no req be an important factor? Maybe i am wrong here but isnt money a big factor for a lot of folks in biglaw (not just those who just want to coast in biglaw)?

[alawyer2018]

Honestly, you asked a number of questions, and I'm not going to answer them specifically, but my general answer is to apply common sense and understand that you'll never have perfect information. I've devoted too much time to the debate of minimums vs. no minimums. I provided my input, and I understand that others strongly disagree with me.

[Anonymous User]

Is Alston & Bird now the top firm not to give any COVID bonuses, displacing Sheppard Mullin?

[Anonymous User]

Is Alston & Bird now the top firm not to give any COVID bonuses, displacing Sheppard Mullin?

LOL, no. While I can't speak for every office as bonuses are individualized, Greenberg Traurig hasn't even announced bonuses let alone given the inevitable (individualized) announcements that it is not paying COVID bonuses, and in many cases also paying far less than market bonuses. GT is higher on every list (Vault, Am Law, etc.) and by every metric (number of attorneys, PPEP, revenue) than Alston. GT is a joke, and why they don't get more negative press is beyond me given how well the firm does year after year.