Fall bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Cravath associate here. I think the firm's move can only be chalked up to protecting the size of the pie.

We have weekly checkin calls with our group (each group has 4/5 partners) and we're told the financial health of the firm is "robust" and "exceeds even pre-pandemic projections."

I guess the partners could just be straight up lying to us on those calls, or "pre-pandemic projections" weren't that high to begin with. Just seems unlikely because the hours are crazy in corporate (in fact M&A seems even busier than cap markets in the last two weeks). I know hours billed don't necessarily mean collections, but in the dozen or so of my closings this year where payment of counsel's fee is in the funds flow / a closing condition, I've literally seen the wires coming into the firm and there's no mismatch between how many hours I know were spent on this deal and what I'd expect to be paid.

Unless the lit group is literally twiddling their thumbs, not sure where the leak is.

eta: also, if the lit group really is just sitting there doing nothing, I can see why the partnership doesn't want to pay a bonus by class year. There is absolutely no room to deviate from lockstep for the December bonus, but seems silly to add salt to the wound when most people are trying to move away from lockstep...

I get that lockstep is special but the bolded seems to mistake something relevant to partner compensation as something relevant to associate compensation.

I believe whether to continue splitting up partnership profits lockstep is a contentious issue at Cravath/Cleary(still?)/pre-2021DPW/Debevoise(still?), but that is hardly relevant to associate compensation at those places. My practice group is one of the busiest at my (not Cravath) firm, but I still don't like the idea that a slow group of associates should get dinged or that anyone should deny them this (random, unforeseen, ostensibly-COVID-related-but-obviously-tactical) largesse. Unlike partners, it isn't the slow associates' fault that they're slow, and they're still litigation associates at Cravath, which I'm willing to bet is a bummer regardless of the hours.

Fair fair. I was talking about lockstep associate comp, though, and what I meant with people trying to move away from it, I was referring to the hours requirements or variation in bonuses based on hours, practice groups, location, etc. at other firms. At Cravath or STB(?) an associate who does 800 hours of doc review in the White Plains annex facility gets the same bonus as one who does 2400 hours of significantly more taxing, revenue-generating work as long as the two are the same class year, and will even get her own office (and Seamless delivery!) before the other if alphabetically her name is first.

That makes associate life a lot better and less competitive, but it's also hard to reward associates who may be more valuable to the firm. It's not like you can even pay in kind by way of over-the-top "closing dinners" or "deal team bonding" trips during a quarantine. . .

Agree with all this. I guess I was thinking that compensation for associates is kind of always "lockstep" (except it's called "market"), but your counterpoint about bonuses being increasingly individualized is a very good one (and underscored by the way Milbank, for example, did its Fall bonus, linking it to each associate's performance).

Relatedly, the way Weil equated a first year's time with a seventh's is fucking insanity, but suggests to me that a lot of these decisions are made by loud voices dominating ambivalent, busy zoom committees, weighing competing interests, and are determined in a way far more haphazard and ad hoc, and so are much less indicative of any real rhyme or reason than we might speculate in our peg-and-twine-covered-bulletin-board-storage-unit/thread.

eta: v impressed w milbank these last couple years I have to say

[Anonymous User]

Skadden has been on a pretty aggressive cost cutting push for the last few years. Things seem slower than usual, but plenty of people are extremely busy. I think this (no bonus yet; pushing start date) is less a result of poor performance and more just consistent with their approach to jump on any opportunity to cut back. We've received no communication regarding the bonus, but we have periodic video updates where they tell us how it's our best year ever, etc. Given that they only pay bonuses to people annualizing 1800, they wouldn't have to pay this to anyone that isn't profitable, even if they did match.

COVID response generally has been good. They sent out monitors and printers right away (phones later) and generally the official messaging has been "no need to come in until you feel safe to do so." Still have the lunatics who go in every day for no reason, but overall people have been pretty reasonable.

I don't think anyone here views us as a "compensation leader" by any stretch of of the imagination.

Agree that Skadden's COVID response has been good. Their communication has been great, they've been pretty supportive and flexible, etc. If not for the fact that peer firms have paid a bonus and Skadden has not, I'd say I was totally satisfied with Skadden's response so far. If they don't pay out bonuses, I should certainly expect that they should "true up" at year end. But I wouldn't be particularly optimistic that they properly would. Maybe since they have an hours minimum they figure if they bump the special bonus to the year end, it will allow them to pay out less to extent election dries up work?

[DoveBodyWash]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

[tyrant_flycatcher]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

I actually agree. There aren’t enough Milbanks to swallow the top 10%
of the T14. The best of the best will still go to Cravath and Kirkland, which still pay better than 99% of other big law firms and may be a better “fit” (e.g. due to practice area) for associates who are on the fence. Obviously it still sucks that they’re not matching the DPW scale.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

[esther0123]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

Maybe the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and Freshfields/Milbank/Cooley might be big (assuming you're not trying to specialise in certain practice, say international arbitration or start up, etc.), but the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and S&C/DPW/Weil, not so much. Many firms that have not come out deciding either way would be considered Cravath/Kirkland's peers for recruitment (e.g. Cleary, Wilmer, Ropes, Sidley, Covington, Skadden, Latham, Gibson, etc.). It will be interesting to see where they land.

I think the fact that they didn't issue a fall bonus says more about the firm's finances and/or culture, and I think that's more troubling and telling than the mere fact that you could get paid more in one firm or another. It either means the firm couldn't comfortably doll out $$$, or even if it could, then the partners were greedy and didn't care about attorney retention.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

Maybe the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and Freshfields/Milbank/Cooley might be big (assuming you're not trying to specialise in certain practice, say international arbitration or start up, etc.), but the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and S&C/DPW/Weil, not so much. Many firms that have not come out deciding either way would be considered Cravath/Kirkland's peers for recruitment (e.g. Cleary, Wilmer, Ropes, Sidley, Covington, Skadden, Latham, Gibson, etc.). It will be interesting to see where they land.

I think the fact that they didn't issue a fall bonus says more about the firm's finances and/or culture, and I think that's more troubling and telling than the mere fact that you could get paid more in one firm or another. It either means the firm couldn't comfortably doll out $$$, or even if it could, then the partners were greedy and didn't care about attorney retention.

I worked at DPW (now at a V50) and let me just say, the idea that DPW has better finances, or cares more about its associates, than Cravath/Skadden/PW, etc, is silly, and people know that.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

Maybe the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and Freshfields/Milbank/Cooley might be big (assuming you're not trying to specialise in certain practice, say international arbitration or start up, etc.), but the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and S&C/DPW/Weil, not so much. Many firms that have not come out deciding either way would be considered Cravath/Kirkland's peers for recruitment (e.g. Cleary, Wilmer, Ropes, Sidley, Covington, Skadden, Latham, Gibson, etc.). It will be interesting to see where they land.

I think the fact that they didn't issue a fall bonus says more about the firm's finances and/or culture, and I think that's more troubling and telling than the mere fact that you could get paid more in one firm or another. It either means the firm couldn't comfortably doll out $$$, or even if it could, then the partners were greedy and didn't care about attorney retention.

I worked at DPW (now at a V50) and let me just say, the idea that DPW has better finances, or cares more about its associates, than Cravath/Skadden/PW, etc, is silly, and people know that.

As an associate in the 2nd grouping you listed, the idea that DPW cares more about its associates is not silly...Cravath made it clear that associate happiness is not a priority and Skadden/PW have just straight up acted as though there is no need to communicate at all with their associates regarding something that numerous peer firms have taken a stance on one way or the other...

[shibonx69]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

Maybe the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and Freshfields/Milbank/Cooley might be big (assuming you're not trying to specialise in certain practice, say international arbitration or start up, etc.), but the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and S&C/DPW/Weil, not so much. Many firms that have not come out deciding either way would be considered Cravath/Kirkland's peers for recruitment (e.g. Cleary, Wilmer, Ropes, Sidley, Covington, Skadden, Latham, Gibson, etc.). It will be interesting to see where they land.

I think the fact that they didn't issue a fall bonus says more about the firm's finances and/or culture, and I think that's more troubling and telling than the mere fact that you could get paid more in one firm or another. It either means the firm couldn't comfortably doll out $$$, or even if it could, then the partners were greedy and didn't care about attorney retention.

I worked at DPW (now at a V50) and let me just say, the idea that DPW has better finances, or cares more about its associates, than Cravath/Skadden/PW, etc, is silly, and people know that.

I remember during the last summer bonus/raise thing, DPW was like dead last and got roasted.

[Anonymous User]

Isnt dpw like the only firm that allows associates to order dinner home (during the pandemic)? Not sure of any other firm allowing this.

[Anonymous User]

Isnt dpw like the only firm that allows associates to order dinner home (during the pandemic)? Not sure of any other firm allowing this.

The morale among the associates has also been dogshit for the past 18 months (slamming juniors, deadeyed seniors refusing to leave, tons of good midlevels bouncing, partners in lit being pressured to leave or become a "member" rather than "partner"). So if you don't know that's going on and then see these bonuses, of course you might think "wow dpw is doing great!" But this is more of a "please don't leave, we promise things will get better."

[MrTooToo]

I enjoyed the hilarious attempt by some incoming 1st year ITT to analyze V25 law firm financial dynamics primarily through the lens of his class deferment / "totally not deferred guise, just hypothetical!" experience. Great popcorn fodder. In the real world, these decisions were made a long way back when things looked very apocalyptic and once they've been committed to there's often just organizational momentum toward keeping with that status quo, nothing more.

The biggest story that's coming out of the V25, certainly the V10 is that financial projections and real collections are significantly above where everyone thought they'd be back in March / April when we all thought the world was going to end because of COVID. Some firms have decided to celebrate this (and the hard work of their restructuring and cap markets groups) with a fall bonus and others haven't but I think the pearl clutching here about the idea that a firm that hasn't paid a fall bonus is on a path to financial ruin is pretty misguided. The fall bonus thing is a weird outlier; there's no historical precedent for it and it seems particularly odd in light of year end bonuses being just around the corner.

Don't get me wrong: every associate is entitled to try to get as much $$$ as they can from greedy as fuck partners. But I think there's going to be far more information conveyed in how firms behave with end of year bonuses than whether they decide to follow this odd blip of an autumn bonus being pushed out primarily by NY-based rx-heavy firms.

[everythingbagel]

Isnt dpw like the only firm that allows associates to order dinner home (during the pandemic)? Not sure of any other firm allowing this.

The morale among the associates has also been dogshit for the past 18 months (slamming juniors, deadeyed seniors refusing to leave, tons of good midlevels bouncing, partners in lit being pressured to leave or become a "member" rather than "partner"). So if you don't know that's going on and then see these bonuses, of course you might think "wow dpw is doing great!" But this is more of a "please don't leave, we promise things will get better."

Would the anonymous poster above (or someone else knowledgeable from DPW) please elaborate on the bolded text? Has DPW de-equitized litigation partners? If yes, which ones?

[legalpotato]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

Maybe the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and Freshfields/Milbank/Cooley might be big (assuming you're not trying to specialise in certain practice, say international arbitration or start up, etc.), but the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and S&C/DPW/Weil, not so much. Many firms that have not come out deciding either way would be considered Cravath/Kirkland's peers for recruitment (e.g. Cleary, Wilmer, Ropes, Sidley, Covington, Skadden, Latham, Gibson, etc.). It will be interesting to see where they land.

I think the fact that they didn't issue a fall bonus says more about the firm's finances and/or culture, and I think that's more troubling and telling than the mere fact that you could get paid more in one firm or another. It either means the firm couldn't comfortably doll out $$$, or even if it could, then the partners were greedy and didn't care about attorney retention.

This It would not be a downgrade in any sense to go from Kirkland RX (or corporate) to Weil RX (or corporate). And it is looking like that would in fact be the rational thing to do.

[JusticeSquee]

https://www.law.com/2020/09/30/fall-bon ... ts-emerge/

Tim Corcoran, law firm consultant and principal of Corcoran Consulting Group, said the war for talent among successful firms is too narrowly defined, and that a pandemic bonus probably won’t have a huge effect on associates long-term.

“Maybe there’s a competitive advantage for a bonus. But does anyone ever think that Kirkland and Cravath aren’t going to have their pick of the cream of the crop?” Corcoran said.

lol

This is entirely correct. Don't let anonymous rage posts of "I'm leaving Kirkland to join Freshfields agrgh!!" lead you to believe otherwise. There are major transaction costs to switching firms and bonuses *have already been paid out* by the firms who did so. The incentives to switch during a pandemic are also skewed in the wrong direction.

Maybe the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and Freshfields/Milbank/Cooley might be big (assuming you're not trying to specialise in certain practice, say international arbitration or start up, etc.), but the difference between Cravath/Kirkland and S&C/DPW/Weil, not so much. Many firms that have not come out deciding either way would be considered Cravath/Kirkland's peers for recruitment (e.g. Cleary, Wilmer, Ropes, Sidley, Covington, Skadden, Latham, Gibson, etc.). It will be interesting to see where they land.

I think the fact that they didn't issue a fall bonus says more about the firm's finances and/or culture, and I think that's more troubling and telling than the mere fact that you could get paid more in one firm or another. It either means the firm couldn't comfortably doll out $$$, or even if it could, then the partners were greedy and didn't care about attorney retention.

This It would not be a downgrade in any sense to go from Kirkland RX (or corporate) to Weil RX (or corporate). And it is looking like that would in fact be the rational thing to do.

Correct. Also there is a substantial risk of associates just leaving biglaw altogether. This isn't a case of "K&E is being cheap and greedy, I'm going to Milbank/Weil/DPW." This is a case of "K&E is being cheap and greedy, I'm going to go back home to flyover and try to get a midlaw job for less stress/money/hours and chill the fuck out for the rest of my days." Firms like Cravath/K&E want you to stay and bill tons of hours for like 6-8 years and then fuck off. If you fuck off too early, it's not good for the firm.

[Definitely Not North]

Firms like Cravath/K&E want you to stay and bill tons of hours for like 6-8 years and then fuck off. If you fuck off too early, it's not good for the firm.

[sms18]

I enjoyed the hilarious attempt by some incoming 1st year ITT to analyze V25 law firm financial dynamics primarily through the lens of his class deferment / "totally not deferred guise, just hypothetical!" experience. Great popcorn fodder. In the real world, these decisions were made a long way back when things looked very apocalyptic and once they've been committed to there's often just organizational momentum toward keeping with that status quo, nothing more.

The biggest story that's coming out of the V25, certainly the V10 is that financial projections and real collections are significantly above where everyone thought they'd be back in March / April when we all thought the world was going to end because of COVID. Some firms have decided to celebrate this (and the hard work of their restructuring and cap markets groups) with a fall bonus and others haven't but I think the pearl clutching here about the idea that a firm that hasn't paid a fall bonus is on a path to financial ruin is pretty misguided. The fall bonus thing is a weird outlier; there's no historical precedent for it and it seems particularly odd in light of year end bonuses being just around the corner.

Don't get me wrong: every associate is entitled to try to get as much $$$ as they can from greedy as fuck partners. But I think there's going to be far more information conveyed in how firms behave with end of year bonuses than whether they decide to follow this odd blip of an autumn bonus being pushed out primarily by NY-based rx-heavy firms.

Not only is this fall bonus thing a weird outlier with no historical precedent in biglaw context, it's also a weird outlier everywhere else - none of the wall street banks, PE funds, etc. are even considering doing an "appreciation" bonus for employees before the end of the year, let alone pay standard end of year bonus to employees (general sentiment on wall street seems to be that they'll get an end of the year bonus that is, at best, at the same level (or slightly lower) than last year's - nothing more than that). Some people are getting really upset and emotional about this stuff and while I agree with the above poster that every associate is entitled to try to get as much $ as possible, people shouldn't jump to drastic conclusions based on the fact that their firm either isn't doing a fall bonus or hasn't announced it.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

I enjoyed the hilarious attempt by some incoming 1st year ITT to analyze V25 law firm financial dynamics primarily through the lens of his class deferment / "totally not deferred guise, just hypothetical!" experience. Great popcorn fodder. In the real world, these decisions were made a long way back when things looked very apocalyptic and once they've been committed to there's often just organizational momentum toward keeping with that status quo, nothing more.

The biggest story that's coming out of the V25, certainly the V10 is that financial projections and real collections are significantly above where everyone thought they'd be back in March / April when we all thought the world was going to end because of COVID. Some firms have decided to celebrate this (and the hard work of their restructuring and cap markets groups) with a fall bonus and others haven't but I think the pearl clutching here about the idea that a firm that hasn't paid a fall bonus is on a path to financial ruin is pretty misguided. The fall bonus thing is a weird outlier; there's no historical precedent for it and it seems particularly odd in light of year end bonuses being just around the corner.

Don't get me wrong: every associate is entitled to try to get as much $$$ as they can from greedy as fuck partners. But I think there's going to be far more information conveyed in how firms behave with end of year bonuses than whether they decide to follow this odd blip of an autumn bonus being pushed out primarily by NY-based rx-heavy firms.

Not only is this fall bonus thing a weird outlier with no historical precedent in biglaw context, it's also a weird outlier everywhere else - none of the wall street banks, PE funds, etc. are even considering doing an "appreciation" bonus for employees before the end of the year, let alone pay standard end of year bonus to employees (general sentiment on wall street seems to be that they'll get an end of the year bonus that is, at best, at the same level (or slightly lower) than last year's - nothing more than that). Some people are getting really upset and emotional about this stuff and while I agree with the above poster that every associate is entitled to try to get as much $ as possible, people shouldn't jump to drastic conclusions based on the fact that their firm either isn't doing a fall bonus or hasn't announced it.

Biglaw bonuses serve a different function than banker bonuses.

[sms18]

I enjoyed the hilarious attempt by some incoming 1st year ITT to analyze V25 law firm financial dynamics primarily through the lens of his class deferment / "totally not deferred guise, just hypothetical!" experience. Great popcorn fodder. In the real world, these decisions were made a long way back when things looked very apocalyptic and once they've been committed to there's often just organizational momentum toward keeping with that status quo, nothing more.

The biggest story that's coming out of the V25, certainly the V10 is that financial projections and real collections are significantly above where everyone thought they'd be back in March / April when we all thought the world was going to end because of COVID. Some firms have decided to celebrate this (and the hard work of their restructuring and cap markets groups) with a fall bonus and others haven't but I think the pearl clutching here about the idea that a firm that hasn't paid a fall bonus is on a path to financial ruin is pretty misguided. The fall bonus thing is a weird outlier; there's no historical precedent for it and it seems particularly odd in light of year end bonuses being just around the corner.

Don't get me wrong: every associate is entitled to try to get as much $$$ as they can from greedy as fuck partners. But I think there's going to be far more information conveyed in how firms behave with end of year bonuses than whether they decide to follow this odd blip of an autumn bonus being pushed out primarily by NY-based rx-heavy firms.

Not only is this fall bonus thing a weird outlier with no historical precedent in biglaw context, it's also a weird outlier everywhere else - none of the wall street banks, PE funds, etc. are even considering doing an "appreciation" bonus for employees before the end of the year, let alone pay standard end of year bonus to employees (general sentiment on wall street seems to be that they'll get an end of the year bonus that is, at best, at the same level (or slightly lower) than last year's - nothing more than that). Some people are getting really upset and emotional about this stuff and while I agree with the above poster that every associate is entitled to try to get as much $ as possible, people shouldn't jump to drastic conclusions based on the fact that their firm either isn't doing a fall bonus or hasn't announced it.

Biglaw bonuses serve a different function than banker bonuses.

In what way? A banker's total comp generally depends a lot on the end of year bonus while a biglaw associate's comp depends moreso on the base salary rather than bonus, but still, bonus is a bonus.

[M458]

Not only is this fall bonus thing a weird outlier with no historical precedent in biglaw context, it's also a weird outlier everywhere else - none of the wall street banks, PE funds, etc. are even considering doing an "appreciation" bonus for employees before the end of the year, let alone pay standard end of year bonus to employees (general sentiment on wall street seems to be that they'll get an end of the year bonus that is, at best, at the same level (or slightly lower) than last year's - nothing more than that). Some people are getting really upset and emotional about this stuff and while I agree with the above poster that every associate is entitled to try to get as much $ as possible, people shouldn't jump to drastic conclusions based on the fact that their firm either isn't doing a fall bonus or hasn't announced it.

No historical precedent in biglaw context?

In 2018, Milbank raised salaries, STB matched the raise and offered special bonuses, then the majority of the V50 matched that within a couple weeks.

[Anonymous User]

The proof really is in the pudding in this case. If firms were doing so spectacularly well, they would be able to keep up on bonuses and start dates, as they were able to do as recently as 2018.

People can say as much as they want about how they oh so special top secret information about how well their firm is doing. We have no way of knowing if this information is reliable. We do have reliable information, however, and this evidence comes when we see whether the firm is able to pay its people at the market bonus rate and start its people at the normal time for the market. Only Debevoise and Freshfields did both.

That is the information we have, the rest is just speculation. I would be skeptical of these so-called insiders telling you to disregard the publicly available information in front of you, and claiming that the firm has so much money, but it just didn't want to pay this time. It is dubious at best, and disinformation at worst.

Mid year bonuses are not unusual considering that they were done universally as recently as 2018.

Speaking of emotiveness, it does seem that the posts defending the firm's financial position here are far more emotional and aggressive than any of my posts were, but people can make their own minds up on that.

[MrTooToo]

The proof really is in the pudding in this case. If firms were doing so spectacularly well, they would be able to keep up on bonuses and start dates, as they were able to do as recently as 2018.

People can say as much as they want about how they oh so special top secret information about how well their firm is doing. We have no way of knowing if this information is reliable. We do have reliable information, however, and this evidence comes when we see whether the firm is able to pay its people at the market bonus rate and start its people at the normal time for the market.

That is the information we have, the rest is just speculation. I would be skeptical of these so-called insiders telling you to disregard the publicly available information in front of you, and claiming that the firm has so much money, but it just didn't want to pay this time. It is dubious at best, and disinformation at worst.

Mid year bonuses are not unusual considering that they were done universally as recently as 2018.

Speaking of emotiveness, it does seem that the posts defending the firm's financial position here are far more emotional and aggressive than any of my posts were, but people can make their own minds up on that.

To you and the other guy above you, these aren't "mid-year" bonuses. There have been summer bonuses before, several times over the last couple decades, and they play a very specific retention function as a mid-way point between the start of the year and the end of the year reward; they tend to crop up when there is a lot of talent competition from parallel industries like tech or banking. This isn't that. This is a random point of compensation two months before full bonuses are announced and I don't think as far as I can remember it's *ever* happened before in the industry. There's a specific reason they're happening and that's mostly because restructuring & cap markets associates are billing 2500 hours per year and those groups don't want their people to check out in the middle of a pandemic while they're being crushed. That's it.

[sms18]

Not only is this fall bonus thing a weird outlier with no historical precedent in biglaw context, it's also a weird outlier everywhere else - none of the wall street banks, PE funds, etc. are even considering doing an "appreciation" bonus for employees before the end of the year, let alone pay standard end of year bonus to employees (general sentiment on wall street seems to be that they'll get an end of the year bonus that is, at best, at the same level (or slightly lower) than last year's - nothing more than that). Some people are getting really upset and emotional about this stuff and while I agree with the above poster that every associate is entitled to try to get as much $ as possible, people shouldn't jump to drastic conclusions based on the fact that their firm either isn't doing a fall bonus or hasn't announced it.

No historical precedent in biglaw context?

In 2018, Milbank raised salaries, STB matched the raise and offered special bonuses, then the majority of the V50 matched that within a couple weeks.

I guess I wasn't clear enough - I was thinking moreso in the context of a global pandemic/recession (or at least a downturn in the market, if you don't see this as a fullblown recession). The summer bonus from 2018 doesn't really seem comparable to this.

[NoLongerALurker]

Also, as an associate, I only care about the health of my firm to the extent it impacts whether I’m getting cash or not. It’s not a sports team. I’m not going to be “proud” if my V10 is better than some other V10 in some intangible manner.

So if I’m not getting a bonus or not or if my pay or job security is at stake or not, I don’t really care if the firm is doing well as an independent matter. If it’s doing well enough to get a bonus, I should get a bonus. If it’s doing well enough to get a bonus and I don’t get a bonus, then that sucks because I don’t get a bonus. If it’s not doing well enough to give a bonus, and I don’t get a bonus, well, that sucks because I don’t get a bonus.

I don’t understand why associates at a firm will be like “ackshually I don’t get a bonus but its ok because my firm is doing very strong thx hahah”

[sms18]

The proof really is in the pudding in this case. If firms were doing so spectacularly well, they would be able to keep up on bonuses and start dates, as they were able to do as recently as 2018.

People can say as much as they want about how they oh so special top secret information about how well their firm is doing. We have no way of knowing if this information is reliable. We do have reliable information, however, and this evidence comes when we see whether the firm is able to pay its people at the market bonus rate and start its people at the normal time for the market. Only Debevoise and Freshfields did both.

That is the information we have, the rest is just speculation. I would be skeptical of these so-called insiders telling you to disregard the publicly available information in front of you, and claiming that the firm has so much money, but it just didn't want to pay this time. It is dubious at best, and disinformation at worst.

Mid year bonuses are not unusual considering that they were done universally as recently as 2018.

Speaking of emotiveness, it does seem that the posts defending the firm's financial position here are far more emotional and aggressive than any of my posts were, but people can make their own minds up on that.

I'm not one of those posters above that are saying firms are generally doing fantastic - I honestly am not sure, even for the firm that I work at. So I don't have much to say in response to this but just to note, the fall bonus is not yet considered "market" under any metric. (Also, you say mid year bonuses are not unusual, but how many times did firms "universally" pay mid year bonuses in the last 10 years?)