Fall bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

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.

Maybe Proskauer can save face by hiding within the ambiguity of the process to new recruits but the main reason I never decided to lateral as a mid-level was because I always thought my T25 PEP firm would always match market compensation. If that is no longer true, there is now finally a very tangible reason to look elsewhere.

[NoLongerALurker]

At this point I would expect whatever approach Cravath takes will govern. Since Cravath doesn’t live or die by cap markets practice (like DPW) or RX (like Weil), it won’t come over the top. And Cravath being Cravath, I’m sure they will take the white shoe approach of class year distinctions rather the hours approach of Weil (or Milbank). And they aren’t going to defer a la Kirkland when S&C and DPW and STB aren’t deferring.

Tldr: Cravath will match DPW and that will then trickle down to the other firms who are holding off (except firms who decide to be weak lamers like PR)

[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.

Anon above, sorry for not reading. Please see below with a few corrections. I definitely think we all should try to keep this list updated to organize the conversation a little better, especially given the inconsistency of firms on these bonuses.

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 - WLRK - ? - ? - $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 - Debevoise - 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

[Anonymous User]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

[Anonymous User]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

Can the lit department make this clear to the legal personnel team? Bc there are incoming first years that are trying to start as soon as possible but they're being delayed until December...

[Anonymous User]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

Can the lit department make this clear to the legal personnel team? Bc there are incoming first years that are trying to start as soon as possible but they're being delayed until December...

As others have said, that's an onboarding issue. Not easy to get everyone up to speed and remotely conduct all the trainings and other things that would need to happen. If we were in normal times you would have gotten several emails already asking if anyone wants to volunteer to start earlier.

[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]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

Former litigator, switched to transactional practice. Strongly agree the viability and profitability of litigation is a firm-by-firm thing. It is dying at firms that long ago de-prioritized litigation in favor of their transactional practices, but a handful of elite firms have very profitable practices (and continue to poach rainmakers from firms that neglect their lit practices).

[Anonymous User]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

Lit associate at a certain V20 here that does not pay bonuses (I’m in here to remind myself what might have been) and lit has been utterly slammed. Though I’d venture to say that JD has a more robust lit practice than a lot of the NYC-centric corporate-focused firms.

[Lawsohard1189]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

LW NY midlevel here. Our litigation department is also extremely slammed, in NY, DC and SF. Lit is busier than a lot of the trx groups with the obvious exception of restructuring and caps as the outliers. They have hired and onboarded multiple midlevel lit laterals since quarantine hit.

[cornerstone]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anybody is saying lit is “dead.” There are certainly firms that have a busy and profitable lit department. But the context here is special fall bonuses. I haven’t heard of any firm where lit has picked up so much since March that fall bonuses are needed for retention. That also may be why clerkship hiring is down (haven’t heard that so can’t confirm) - firms don’t need to onboard for work that’s kept pace with pre-COVID levels.

[Anonymous User]

LW midlevel here. Our litigation department is seriously slammed right now; arguably busier than the bulk of the trx practices with the obvious exception of restructuring and caps. The firm has actually hired and onboarded quite a few lit seniors and midlevels since pandemic hit.

[Anonymous User]

Proskauer told us that they were having their best financial year ever too. Pep going up

[Anonymous User]

PW assoc here. To all the posters saying lit is dead—it isn’t here. To be fair, the pandemic has helped, but it has helped all the other groups too. We have 3 or 4 trials coming up in the next few months, and the department is desperate for first years to start because we need more people. We’ve even recently had to abandon certain pro bono projects because everyone is too busy on paid matters.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anybody is saying lit is “dead.” There are certainly firms that have a busy and profitable lit department. But the context here is special fall bonuses. I haven’t heard of any firm where lit has picked up so much since March that fall bonuses are needed for retention. That also may be why clerkship hiring is down (haven’t heard that so can’t confirm) - firms don’t need to onboard for work that’s kept pace with pre-COVID levels.

Weil just made the decision that restructuring juniors and midlevels (not at Weil but believe me all of them are crushed) are more important to retain right now than 7th year litigators twiddling their thumbs. Not more complicated than that.

Agreed. Dove is the smartest dude in this thread BTW.

These bonuses were designed to compensate teams which are busy (not saying this is group-specific, since large chapter 11 cases require litigators as well as various other support teams)

Seconded and thirded. Please, salty non-transactional lawyers in this thread, take it from me as I’ve heard it from the mouths of equity partners at my previous V5 and my current V20 - the rainmakers in your firm don’t give a shit about you. It’s 2020. Litigation is dead outside of the boutiques. These bonuses exclusively relate to finance / RX / M&Az

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.

I'm the anon you quoted. Some certainly seem to be saying lit is dead. You may be saying "it's not where the money is at," though not sure the difference. Lit is super busy here. As busy or busier than any other group.

As far as retention goes, I really don't understand the retention argument generally. Anecdotal sure, but not a single one of the dozen+ mid-levels I've spoken to has the attitude of "we're going to stay if we get our bonuses!" The attitude is almost always, "we're gtfo of big law as soon as we get our bonuses." To me, if your goal is really retention, you need to make the bonus based on retention. Make it payable a year or two from now, or make it permanent. I don't see how a one-time COVID bonus that is paid next month and will likely never be paid again will help retain associates. And if it is supposed to prevent lateraling to peers, the amount of midlevel big law lateraling seems to be way overestimated itt. It's not like your average 5th year at pick your v20 is just like "I think I may get better random bonuses in the future at a diff v20 so I'm going to pick up and leave." Even if they wanted to, gl being able to switch over to the v20 you want. Most midlevels in all practice groups leave big law entirely. The ones who switch to peer firms usually do it for better partnership prospects or to work in a different practice group. Yes, there are v75 associates who look to go to v30, but, they were probably interested in doing that long before COVID bonuses, and usually have prestige reasons that go way beyond compensation.

[Anonymous User]

As far as retention goes, I really don't understand the retention argument generally. Anecdotal sure, but not a single one of the dozen+ mid-levels I've spoken to has the attitude of "we're going to stay if we get our bonuses!" The attitude is almost always, "we're gtfo of big law as soon as we get our bonuses."

Third year here annualizing above 3k hours. There’s an inverse relationship between how much more I’m paid above last year’s market and how much I hate my firm for how busy I am now. The less I hate them, the less I want to leave. That’s called retention.

[Anonymous User]

As far as retention goes, I really don't understand the retention argument generally. Anecdotal sure, but not a single one of the dozen+ mid-levels I've spoken to has the attitude of "we're going to stay if we get our bonuses!" The attitude is almost always, "we're gtfo of big law as soon as we get our bonuses."

Third year here annualizing above 3k hours. There’s an inverse relationship between how much more I’m paid above last year’s market and how much I hate my firm for how busy I am now. The less I hate them, the less I want to leave. That’s called retention.

That's fine, except I think you're in the vast minority if it really makes a difference to you. I think most mid levels making 300k+ a year need something a lot larger or more guaranteed than an extra 20-30k one time hit to make it actually affect their chances of staying.

[Anonymous User]

That's fine, except I think you're in the vast minority if it really makes a difference to you. I think most mid levels making 300k+ a year need something a lot larger or more guaranteed than an extra 20-30k one time hit to make it actually affect their chances of staying.

Maybe, but getting paid $30k ($15k after taxes) less than some other schmuck for doing essentially the same thing is reason enough to think about leaving.

[Anonymous User]

That's fine, except I think you're in the vast minority if it really makes a difference to you. I think most mid levels making 300k+ a year need something a lot larger or more guaranteed than an extra 20-30k one time hit to make it actually affect their chances of staying.

Maybe, but getting paid $30k ($15k after taxes) less than some other schmuck for doing essentially the same thing is reason enough to think about leaving.

Only if you're going to one of those places where you would get that extra money, and for the reasons I've explained above--good luck with that. Not to mention that cycles change. Next time firms are in a position to give out bonuses like these, maybe Weil isn't valuing their bankruptcy dept. so much anymore, and their bonuses are no longer structured to give them an extra boost. Midlevel bankruptcy assocs who lateraled to Weil in light of the news this week may find themselves wishing they were back at their old firm.

[malibustacy]

At this point I would expect whatever approach Cravath takes will govern. Since Cravath doesn’t live or die by cap markets practice (like DPW) or RX (like Weil), it won’t come over the top. And Cravath being Cravath, I’m sure they will take the white shoe approach of class year distinctions rather the hours approach of Weil (or Milbank). And they aren’t going to defer a la Kirkland when S&C and DPW and STB aren’t deferring.

Tldr: Cravath will match DPW and that will then trickle down to the other firms who are holding off (except firms who decide to be weak lamers like PR)

The days when everyone looked upon Cravath to set the market is over. It's pay up or cheap out, each firm has to make its own decision. The future is now!

[transferquestiontls]

At this point I would expect whatever approach Cravath takes will govern. Since Cravath doesn’t live or die by cap markets practice (like DPW) or RX (like Weil), it won’t come over the top. And Cravath being Cravath, I’m sure they will take the white shoe approach of class year distinctions rather the hours approach of Weil (or Milbank). And they aren’t going to defer a la Kirkland when S&C and DPW and STB aren’t deferring.

Tldr: Cravath will match DPW and that will then trickle down to the other firms who are holding off (except firms who decide to be weak lamers like PR)

The days when everyone looked upon Cravath to set the market is over. It's pay up or cheap out, each firm has to make its own decision. The future is now!

Strongly agree...their numbers (PPP, RPL, and profit margin) are not looking so great either compared to other white-shoe firms like S&C, DPW, and Milbank.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to dispel the notion that lit is dead - I'm in lit at a V50 transactional heavy firm and we have been absolutely slammed like I have never seen before. It's to the point where staffing emails basically begin with "Sorry..."

[Scallion]

At this point I would expect whatever approach Cravath takes will govern. Since Cravath doesn’t live or die by cap markets practice (like DPW) or RX (like Weil), it won’t come over the top. And Cravath being Cravath, I’m sure they will take the white shoe approach of class year distinctions rather the hours approach of Weil (or Milbank). And they aren’t going to defer a la Kirkland when S&C and DPW and STB aren’t deferring.

Tldr: Cravath will match DPW and that will then trickle down to the other firms who are holding off (except firms who decide to be weak lamers like PR)

The days when everyone looked upon Cravath to set the market is over. It's pay up or cheap out, each firm has to make its own decision. The future is now!

Strongly agree...their numbers (PPP, RPL, and profit margin) are not looking so great either compared to other white-shoe firms like S&C, DPW, and Milbank.

Not quite. Cravath is right there with those firms.

2020 PPP is as follows.
1. Wachtell (6.3M)
2. Kirkland (5.2M)
3. Paul Weiss (4.7M)
4. Sullivan (4.65M)
5. Quinn (4.55M)
6. Davis Polk (4.5M)
7. Simpson (4.4M)
8. Cravath (4.4M)
9. Weil (4M)
10. Skadden (3.9M)
11. Milbank (3.8M)

Cravath is also beating Milbank and Davis Polk in RPL. Only on profit margins is Cravath notably behind.

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... 00-report/

[Usernameavailable]

.

[Anonymous User]

Dechert just sent a firm-wide email thanking everyone for their hard work during these hard times and that 2020 is not what anyone expected. No mention of bonus.

[tbp140]

Any official confirmation for Proskauer?