Fall bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Maybe this deserves its own post for discussion, but can someone explain to me why firms are racing to to give Fall and annual bonuses this year, while post-judicial clerk hiring appears to have a fallen off a cliff?

Just seems very odd to be throwing so much money around for retention while simultaneously being uninterested in attracting new talent.

*current clerk anon*

[cornerstone]

Maybe this deserves its own post for discussion, but can someone explain to me why firms are racing to to give Fall and annual bonuses this year, while post-judicial clerk hiring appears to have a fallen off a cliff?

Just seems very odd to be throwing so much money around for retention while simultaneously being uninterested in attracting new talent.

*current clerk anon*

Because litigation isn't where the money's at right now.

[NoLongerALurker]

Maybe this deserves its own post for discussion, but can someone explain to me why firms are racing to to give Fall and annual bonuses this year, while post-judicial clerk hiring appears to have a fallen off a cliff?

Just seems very odd to be throwing so much money around for retention while simultaneously being uninterested in attracting new talent.

*current clerk anon*

The simple answer is because they don't need "talent" -- they need the warm bodies who already know exactly what they're doing around marking up a prosupp, doing S-K rules checks and dealing with auditors (or, ideally, people slightly too senior to do that but necessary to guide the juniors -- aka, 3rd-5th years) to not ragequit-to-the-firm-across-the-street-paying-a-bonus after billing 2500 hours. Onboarding is logistically a nightmare right now, so not only do they not mind delaying hires (including clerks), they also just really don't want the already-onboarded-people throwing applications to DPW and Weil and having one foot out the door.

[LBJ's Hair]

Maybe this deserves its own post for discussion, but can someone explain to me why firms are racing to to give Fall and annual bonuses this year, while post-judicial clerk hiring appears to have a fallen off a cliff?

Just seems very odd to be throwing so much money around for retention while simultaneously being uninterested in attracting new talent.

*current clerk anon*

Because most large law firms don't want to grow their litigation departments and most law clerks want to be litigators.

The large firms that make real money litigating actually were hiring clerks during traditional clerk recruiting cycle. But there aren't a lot of 'em. (There was a thread on this a few months back. Pretty sure I posted in it, you can go through my history if you're curious.)

[Anonymous User]

I'm bored of hearing about what the Weil/KE announcements mean to you. Let's talk facts. Here's a table summarizing '18 and '20 bonus announcement timing and other relevant metrics for the V50 plus a few others that seem to play into the matching game. Firms that have matched/announced are bolded

Discuss and update as needed.

Vault Ranking - Firm - 2018 Days from Milbank - 2020 Days from DPW - PPEP (mil) - RPL (mil) - Leverage - PPEP / Leverage (mil; i.e., profits per non-partner or the pool each bonus is paid from)
1 - Cravath - 7 - ? - $4.41 - $1.52 - 5.19 - $0.85
2 - Skadden - 10 - ? - $3.92 - $1.55 - 4.07 - $0.96
3 - WLRP - ? - ? - $6.33 - $3.33 - 2.12 - $2.99
4 - SC - 9 - 6 - $4.65 - $1.81 - 3.93 - $1.18
5 - LW - 18 - ? - $3.78 - $1.39 - 4.29 - $0.88
6 - KE - 10 - TBD - $5.20 - $1.60 - 4.77 - $1.09
7 - DPW - 10 - 0 - $4.51 - $1.48 - 5.08 - $0.89
8 - STB - 2 - 7 - $4.42 - $1.63 - 4.2 - $1.05
9 - Gibson - 18 - ? - $3.78 - $1.49 - 3.15 - $1.20
10 - Paul Weiss - 9 - ? - $4.70 - $1.36 - 5.66 - $0.83
11 - Sidley - 11 - ? - $2.82 - $1.22 - 5.14 - $0.55
12 - Weil - 10 - 9 - $4.03 - $1.35 - 5.7 - $0.71
13 - Quinn - 9 - ? - $4.56 - $1.51 - 4.27 - $1.07
14 - Cleary - 10 - ? - $3.07 - $1.00 - 5.68 - $0.54
15 - Covington - 21 - ? - $1.80 - $1.07 - 2.6 - $0.69
16 - Jones Day - 2 - ? - $1.12 - $0.83 - 1.77 - $0.63
17 - White & Case - 14 - ? - $2.60 - $0.99 - 5.64 - $0.46
18 - Debevois - 8 - ? - $3.72 - $1.48 - 4.16 - $0.89
19 - Ropes - 11 - ? - $2.82 - $1.53 - 3.86 - $0.73
20 - Williams & Connolly - ? - ? - $1.45 - $1.13 - 1.98 - $0.73
21 - Wilmer - 28 - ? - $2.31 - $1.40 - 2.46 - $0.94
22 - Paul Hastings - 23 - ? - $3.42 - $1.33 - 4.13 - $0.83
23 - MoFo - 22 - ? - $2.05 - $1.14 - 4.55 - $0.45
24 - Cooley - 14 - -1 - $2.54 - $1.32 - 3.43 - $0.74
25 - Milbank - 0 - 1 - $3.87 - $1.40 - 3.83 - $1.01
26 - O'Melveny - 21 - ? - $2.32 - $1.25 - 2.9 - $0.80
27 - Hogan - 18 - ? - $1.51 - $0.85 - 3.93 - $0.38
28 - Proskauer - 1 - ? - $2.75 - $1.35 - 3.4 - $0.81
29 - BSF - ? - ? - $3.37 - $1.35 - 4.77 - $0.71
30 - Goodwin - 11 - ? - $2.61 - $1.22 - 3.75 - $0.70
31 - Akin - 17 - ? - $2.60 - $1.25 - 4.1 - $0.63
32 - A&P - 32 - ? - $1.21 - $1.04 - 2.01 - $0.60
33 - Baker McKenzie - 16 - ? - $1.47 - $0.61 - 6.03 - $0.24
34 - Orrick - 17 - ? - $2.27 - $1.17 - 7.49 - $0.30
35 - DLA - 22 - ? - $1.95 - $0.80 - 8.32 - $0.23
36 - Morgan Lewis - 11 - ? - $1.47 - $1.09 - 1.81 - $0.81
37 - Wilson Sonsini - 11 - ? - $2.42 - $1.14 - 5.09 - $0.48
38 - King & Spalding - 24 - ? - $3 - $1.15 - 5.13 - $0.58
39 - Mayer Brown - 18 - ? - $1.81 - $0.91 - 4.91 - $0.37
40 - Winston - 1 - ? - $2.31 - $1.15 - 4.87 - $0.48
41 - K&L - ? - ? - $0.71 - $0.61 - 3.18 - $0.22
42 - Munger - 15 - ? - $1.87 - $1.49 - 1.1 - $1.70
43 - Perkins - 25 - ? - $1.37 - $0.90 - 4.76 - $0.29
44 - Willkie - 10 - ? - $3.17 - $1.25 - 3.7 - $0.86
45 - Clifford Chance - 11 - ? - $2.16 - $0.94 - 5.13 - $0.42
46 - Baker Botts - 21 - ? - $1.60 - $1.02 - 2.73 - $0.59
47 - Linklaters - 22 - ? - $2.27 - $0.93 - 4.31 - $0.53
48 - Fried Frank - 14 - ? - $3.79 - $1.44 - 4.19 - $0.90
49 - Shearman Sterling - 17 - ? - $2.46 - $1.14 - 5.31 - $0.46
50 - Allen & Overy - 25 - ? - $2.22 - $0.92 - 5.1 - $0.43
51 - Dechert - 17 - ? - $3.02 - $1.17 - 5.32 - $0.57
52 - Susman Godfrey - 22 - ? - - - 1.23 -
53 - Greenberg Traurig - 46 - ? - $1.80 - $0.79 - 5.66 - $0.32
54 - Alston & Bird - 25 - ? - $2.25 - $1.05 - 4.22 - $0.53
55 - Cadwalader - 24 - ? - $3.01 - $1.20 - 7.3 - $0.41
57 - McDermott - 22 - ? - $2.01 - $1.12 - 4.1 - $0.49
58 - Vinson & Elkins - 14 - ? - $2.80 - $1.21 - 4.25 - $0.66
60 - Jenner Block - 24 - ? - $1.59 - $0.97 - 3.22 - $0.50
63 - Norton Rose - 25 - ? - $0.91 - $0.58 - 4.06 - $0.23
65 - Freshfields - 11 - 8 - $2.49 - $1.33 - 3 - $0.83
66 - Cahill - 11 - ? - $3.84 - $1.36 - 3.49 - $1.10
69 - Irell - 3 - ? - $2.68 - $1.84 - 1.22 - $2.20
72 - Sheppard Mullin - 29 - ? - $1.80 - $1.03 - 4.21 - $0.43
73 - Fenwick - 18 - ? - $2.17 - $1.36 - 3.2 - $0.68
74 - Fish - 114 - ? - $2.03 - $1.38 - 2.45 - $0.83
80 - Katten - 29 - ? - $1.85 - $0.99 - 4.17 - $0.44
82 - Schulte Roth - 16 - ? - $3.05 - $1.34 - 3.58 - $0.85
90 - Gunderson - 13 - ? - - - -
94 - Kramer Levin - 15 - ? - $2.16 - $1.21 - 3.78 - $0.57
x - Hueston Hennigan - 0 - 2 - - - -
x - Barack Ferrazzano - 2 - ? - - - -
x - Selendy & Gay - 7 - ? - - - -
x - Holwell Shuster & Goldberg - 8 - ? - - - -
x - Kaplan & Company - 10 - ? - - - -
x - Keker - 11 - ? - - - -
x - Greenberg Gross - 12 - ? - - - -
x - Brown Rudnick - 15 - ? - $1.25 - $1.00 - 2.59 - $0.48
x - Fragomen - ? - ? - $2.35 - $1.21 - 8.94 - $0.26
x - Herbert Smith - 18 - ? - - - -
x - Stroock - 18 - ? - $2.10 - $1.06 - 7.1 - $0.30
x - Desmarais - 22 - ? - - - -
x - Lowenstein Sandler - 22 - ? - $2.42 - $1.12 - 5.14 - $0.47
x - Thompson & Knight - 24 - ? - $1.07 - $0.78 - 2.27 - $0.47
x - Patterson Belknap - 24 - ? - $1.76 - $1.19 - 2.85 - $0.62
x - Ahmad Zavitsanos - 24 - ? - - - -
x - Choate - 25 - ? - $2.70 - $1.50 - 2.35 - $1.15

Disclaimer: I did this as quickly as possible pulling from Vault, AmLaw, and couple other sources. If you spot a mistake, please just repost with the correction. I don't want to hear about it. Also, I was unable to get tables to work in BBC code - if you know how to do that please DM me, or better yet, repost it yourself.

FYI, Debevoise also matched the DPW scale.

[cornerstone]

Disclaimer: I did this as quickly as possible pulling from Vault, AmLaw, and couple other sources. If you spot a mistake, please just repost with the correction. I don't want to hear about it. Also, I was unable to get tables to work in BBC code - if you know how to do that please DM me, or better yet, repost it yourself.

FYI, Debevoise also matched the DPW scale.

[glitched]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

There are just so many factors going on right now, it's hard to say how this will all pan out. The partners at the top aren't stupid. I think someone above said that Weil's decision was based on valuing junior restructuring people over senior lit (or other slow practice area), and that's spot on. But at the end of the day, talent in the mid and senior level is actually very hard to find and retain. So if Weil's lit rainmakers lose their top talent, they're going to be pissed.

[Scallion]

Also, do firms not realize how much time is wasted on this site during the 2-3 week period between the first announcement and when my firm inevitably matches? They'd be more profitable if they just matched quickly because I stop following this stuff immediately after my firm shows up to play.

Thousands, maybe millions, of dollars in lost productivity.

To be fair, working from home is the real reason I spend more time on TLS. I could never get away with posting here on my work laptop, without my firm being able to monitor it.

Disclaimer: I did this as quickly as possible pulling from Vault, AmLaw, and couple other sources. If you spot a mistake, please just repost with the correction. I don't want to hear about it. Also, I was unable to get tables to work in BBC code - if you know how to do that please DM me, or better yet, repost it yourself.

FYI, Debevoise also matched the DPW scale.

Can you blame people from quoting you in excitement? You did just make yourself a cornerstone of this thread with that post. Well done.

[Anonymous User]

Disclaimer: I did this as quickly as possible pulling from Vault, AmLaw, and couple other sources. If you spot a mistake, please just repost with the correction. I don't want to hear about it. Also, I was unable to get tables to work in BBC code - if you know how to do that please DM me, or better yet, repost it yourself.

FYI, Debevoise also matched the DPW scale.

Obvious, one-off, unincorporated comment = lurking partner detected.

[Anonymous User]

Curious whether there's any interplay between fall bonuses and first year start dates. Are Debevoise/S&C/DPW/Milbank first years starting on time?

I’d imagine this has more to do with summer associate hiring/recruiting timing. With the recruiting largely pushed to early 2021, a special market bonus and then a strong EOY bonus will bode well for those firms in 2021.

I only ask bc Proskauer just delayed first year start dates to end of January. Unclear whether it's a move to make some additional room for fall bonuses, to dig in to the narrative that PR can't afford special bonuses, or just innocuous.

Can anyone at Proskauer speak to how the firm is doing? Wasn't happy to hear this as other firms bring up their start dates from January to the fall.

Will likely know more from a fall bonuses perspective following an "associate check-in" with the chairman tomorrow afternoon, which was (somewhat ominously) scheduled this past Friday. From an overall firm health perspective, it's hard to say. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we haven't had visibility into which groups slowed down and which, if any, picked up, and the impact on revenues overall during the past 6+ months. Big private credit and general finance practice on the lender side here, so the finance group was busy doing credit agreement amendments, borrower workouts, debt to equity swaps, hovering around bankruptcies (credit bids), etc. Labor and employment generally got busier. M&A generally slowed down. I don't know that restructuring picked up more than it otherwise had been (biggest case here is the Puerto Rico bankruptcy, which moved along at the same pace as always). Sports, litigation, cap markets: I'm just not sure overall. I believe partners reduced draws, and I wouldn't be surprised if the overall result was that we took a hit for ~6 months, which was somewhat mitigated by some groups picking up slack, but not enough to make 2020 better than 2019. May know more tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks for providing some insight. If you learn anything relevant tomorrow, I'd love it if you could report back. Thought the lack of salary cuts, layoffs, and otherwise reading about the firm was a good thing, but maybe they were just trying to maintain an image that things were good

Proskauer chair just announced at town hall that there will be NO FALL BONUSES. Will instead consider what other firms have paid when giving year end bonuses. Insinuated other firms are trying to grab headlines and are insensitive when many of our clients are struggling. All they are giving now is a very belated tech stipend of $500 - something most other firms did months ago.

[attorney589753]

Maybe this deserves its own post for discussion, but can someone explain to me why firms are racing to to give Fall and annual bonuses this year, while post-judicial clerk hiring appears to have a fallen off a cliff?

Just seems very odd to be throwing so much money around for retention while simultaneously being uninterested in attracting new talent.

*current clerk anon*

As others have said hiring a clerk with 1 year experience is a longterm investment but not necessarily immediate value for the firm. But you also have a good point that inevitably law firms are going to have retention issues (can only throw $ at it for so long) so they also need to be building the pipeline. I think the combination of uncertainty and busyness is creating a dynamic of less hiring but more retention measures.

[Anonymous User]

Curious whether there's any interplay between fall bonuses and first year start dates. Are Debevoise/S&C/DPW/Milbank first years starting on time?

I’d imagine this has more to do with summer associate hiring/recruiting timing. With the recruiting largely pushed to early 2021, a special market bonus and then a strong EOY bonus will bode well for those firms in 2021.

I only ask bc Proskauer just delayed first year start dates to end of January. Unclear whether it's a move to make some additional room for fall bonuses, to dig in to the narrative that PR can't afford special bonuses, or just innocuous.

Can anyone at Proskauer speak to how the firm is doing? Wasn't happy to hear this as other firms bring up their start dates from January to the fall.

Will likely know more from a fall bonuses perspective following an "associate check-in" with the chairman tomorrow afternoon, which was (somewhat ominously) scheduled this past Friday. From an overall firm health perspective, it's hard to say. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we haven't had visibility into which groups slowed down and which, if any, picked up, and the impact on revenues overall during the past 6+ months. Big private credit and general finance practice on the lender side here, so the finance group was busy doing credit agreement amendments, borrower workouts, debt to equity swaps, hovering around bankruptcies (credit bids), etc. Labor and employment generally got busier. M&A generally slowed down. I don't know that restructuring picked up more than it otherwise had been (biggest case here is the Puerto Rico bankruptcy, which moved along at the same pace as always). Sports, litigation, cap markets: I'm just not sure overall. I believe partners reduced draws, and I wouldn't be surprised if the overall result was that we took a hit for ~6 months, which was somewhat mitigated by some groups picking up slack, but not enough to make 2020 better than 2019. May know more tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks for providing some insight. If you learn anything relevant tomorrow, I'd love it if you could report back. Thought the lack of salary cuts, layoffs, and otherwise reading about the firm was a good thing, but maybe they were just trying to maintain an image that things were good

Proskauer chair just announced at town hall that there will be NO FALL BONUSES. Will instead consider what other firms have paid when giving year end bonuses. Insinuated other firms are trying to grab headlines and are insensitive when many of our clients are struggling. All they are giving now is a very belated tech stipend of $500 - something most other firms did months ago.

Every PR associate that I have spoken to is extremely disappointed by this news. PR has always told its associates that they match market comp and now it appears that is no longer the case.

[NoLongerALurker]

Super weak, PR. Where’s Cravath at.

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer really just framed not paying fall bonuses as taking a moral stand and said shame on other firms for paying them in a pandemic. But don’t worry, we’re having a banner year for profits!

[Anonymous User]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

That anon again. lol at you for contributing nothing and just trying so hard to fit in with the crowd. How does any of what you just said contradict any of what I said? lol at "you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area" What does that matter? Did anybody ask you that? Did anybody say anything that goes against what you just said? If anything, I explained in detail how that Vault survey gets filled out. I was trying to be informative. Nobody in the discussion ever said the Vault rankings are accurate or have any value to attorneys. If you know how to read, you should have read the part where I said the rankings' target audience is law students, not lawyers, and the part where I said the rankings matter only insofar as law students care about them regardless of their inaccuracy. I give up. You don't know how to read or process information.

[glitched]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

That anon again. lol at you for contributing nothing and just trying so hard to fit in with the crowd. How does any of what you just said contradict any of what I said? lol at "you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area" What does that matter? Did anybody ask you that? Did anybody say anything that goes against what you just said? If anything, I explained in detail how that Vault survey gets filled out. I was trying to be informative. Nobody in the discussion ever said the Vault rankings are accurate or have any value to attorneys. If you know how to read, you should have read the part where I said the rankings' target audience is law students, not lawyers, and the part where I said the rankings matter only insofar as law students care about them regardless of their inaccuracy. I give up. You don't know how to read or process information.

I don't know which anon you are, but I was talking about the guy that said he ranks his own firm in the surveys, when clearly that's not how it works. Discussing value of vault is fine, but bs'ing about how it works was funny to me. You might need to cool off a bit, but I also take blame in not making my post very clear.

[Anonymous User]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

That anon again. lol at you for contributing nothing and just trying so hard to fit in with the crowd. How does any of what you just said contradict any of what I said? lol at "you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area" What does that matter? Did anybody ask you that? Did anybody say anything that goes against what you just said? If anything, I explained in detail how that Vault survey gets filled out. I was trying to be informative. Nobody in the discussion ever said the Vault rankings are accurate or have any value to attorneys. If you know how to read, you should have read the part where I said the rankings' target audience is law students, not lawyers, and the part where I said the rankings matter only insofar as law students care about them regardless of their inaccuracy. I give up. You don't know how to read or process information.

I don't know which anon you are, but I was talking about the guy that said he ranks his own firm in the surveys, when clearly that's not how it works. Discussing value of vault is fine, but bs'ing about how it works was funny to me. You might need to cool off a bit, but I also take blame in not making my post very clear.

I had to explain how that survey works as many people on this forum seem to be talking out of their asses. I just don't like it when there's false information about anything. I also personally don't like it when people try to fit in with the crowd without any thought of their own. Regarding that last comment I made, I was just a bit frustrated as I took the time to write those few posts and I thought my message was getting misinterpreted.

[DoveBodyWash]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

That anon again. lol at you for contributing nothing and just trying so hard to fit in with the crowd. How does any of what you just said contradict any of what I said? lol at "you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area" What does that matter? Did anybody ask you that? Did anybody say anything that goes against what you just said? If anything, I explained in detail how that Vault survey gets filled out. I was trying to be informative. Nobody in the discussion ever said the Vault rankings are accurate or have any value to attorneys. If you know how to read, you should have read the part where I said the rankings' target audience is law students, not lawyers, and the part where I said the rankings matter only insofar as law students care about them regardless of their inaccuracy. I give up. You don't know how to read or process information.

When i fill out the Vault survey -- if i fill it out at all-- i just rank Milbank/Simpson as very prestigious out of gratitude for salary and bonuses raises and Kirkland/Wachtell as "not at all prestigious" for shits and giggles and call it a day.

Can we stop this discussion and get back to the important work of shaming Proskauer and Kirkland? Anyone from Cravath have any news?

[Anonymous User]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

That anon again. lol at you for contributing nothing and just trying so hard to fit in with the crowd. How does any of what you just said contradict any of what I said? lol at "you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area" What does that matter? Did anybody ask you that? Did anybody say anything that goes against what you just said? If anything, I explained in detail how that Vault survey gets filled out. I was trying to be informative. Nobody in the discussion ever said the Vault rankings are accurate or have any value to attorneys. If you know how to read, you should have read the part where I said the rankings' target audience is law students, not lawyers, and the part where I said the rankings matter only insofar as law students care about them regardless of their inaccuracy. I give up. You don't know how to read or process information.

When i fill out the Vault survey -- if i fill it out at all-- i just rank Milbank/Simpson as very prestigious out of gratitude for salary and bonuses raises and Kirkland/Wachtell as "not at all prestigious" for shits and giggles and call it a day.

That anon again. I just don't fill out that survey. It's a big waste of time. It's not worth anyone's time tbh.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

Can we stop this discussion and get back to the important work of shaming Proskauer and Kirkland?

I agree with this guy. But when and why did Proskauer enter the discussion? It seems like there are at least 15 other firms that should be drawing our ire over Proskauer.

[PourMeTea]

Can we stop this discussion and get back to the important work of shaming Proskauer and Kirkland?

I agree with this guy. But when and why did Proskauer enter the discussion? It seems like there are at least 15 other firms that should be drawing our ire over Proskauer.

But the other firms haven’t affirmatively announced nobonus yet

[Anonymous User]

Still silent at Skadden and Cleary. Cravath is my only hope for that to change.

[DoveBodyWash]

Can we stop this discussion and get back to the important work of shaming Proskauer and Kirkland?

I agree with this guy. But when and why did Proskauer enter the discussion? It seems like there are at least 15 other firms that should be drawing our ire over Proskauer.

I dunno something about Proskauer framing it as a moral issue just rubs me the wrong way. As if paying associates less will somehow alleviate the hardships outside -- all the money they save is going into their own pockets.

[Anonymous User]

Can we stop this discussion and get back to the important work of shaming Proskauer and Kirkland?

I agree with this guy. But when and why did Proskauer enter the discussion? It seems like there are at least 15 other firms that should be drawing our ire over Proskauer.

I dunno something about Proskauer framing it as a moral issue just rubs me the wrong way. As if paying associates less will somehow alleviate the hardships outside -- all the money they save is going into their own pockets.

It is a moral issue. If they pay associates more, they will have to pay partners less. And how is that fair?

[Anonymous User]

Lol at the anon above bs'ing about rankings. Vault might matter to law students, but once you start practicing, you quickly learn who the real players are in your practice area.

There are just so many factors going on right now, it's hard to say how this will all pan out. The partners at the top aren't stupid. I think someone above said that Weil's decision was based on valuing junior restructuring people over senior lit (or other slow practice area), and that's spot on. But at the end of the day, talent in the mid and senior level is actually very hard to find and retain. So if Weil's lit rainmakers lose their top talent, they're going to be pissed.

If Weil feels this way (and I'm sure you're right) then Kirkland must, too. I would be more wary of firms that pay market year-end bonuses than I would of Kirkland not ultimately truing up. The Proskauers of the world might say they're watching everything and then just match Cravath scale in December, even if Cravath ends up paying fall ones, too. Kirkland will at least go "above market" even if that's ultimately a fall+year-end match.