Fall bonuses Forum

[ChairmanKaga]

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.

This. It's amazing how personally some people take this industry. It's just a job. We're all doing it to get paid. There are no truly meaningful differences between any of the V20 (save possibly for WLRK). Fall bonuses are an exception because only some firms are paying them. That's why they're generating so much discussion.

[Anonymous User]

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.

This. It's amazing how personally some people take this industry. It's just a job. We're all doing it to get paid. There are no truly meaningful differences between any of the V20 (save possibly for WLRK). Fall bonuses are an exception because only some firms are paying them. That's why they're generating so much discussion.

Well at Cravath/Skadden/PW etc, it’s soothing to the extent it increases expected likelihood of a true-up in December. I think the busy lateral market makes it abundantly clear that loyalty / pride haven’t been part of the picture for at least a decade now...

[Anonymous User]

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.

This. It's amazing how personally some people take this industry. It's just a job. We're all doing it to get paid. There are no truly meaningful differences between any of the V20 (save possibly for WLRK). Fall bonuses are an exception because only some firms are paying them. That's why they're generating so much discussion.

Who here thinks it's a sports team? Fuck all these firms. Fuck you, pay me. I think the only point that people are trying to raise is that the decision to suddenly pay out a bonus a couple months before year-end is increasingly looking like some weird aberration by a handful of firms with very specifically busy practice groups and not any sort of industry compensation bellwether moment. I also think many associates at non-paying firms are trying, wishing, praying that there's some sort of moral force to the argument of "but DPW paid it!" But there's not, there's only the cold calculation of these firms' management committees about how much they need to pay to continue to retain talent and stay with their peers. The talent retention question will be answered more with year-end bonuses and most of the "peers" seem to just be bowing out of this weird fall payment. To the handful of firms (is KE the only one?) that have signaled "we'll make you whole year end" I guess the proof will be in the pudding and we should watch carefully to see if they try to play bullshit games or stick to their word.

[Anonymous User]

interesting re freshfields

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2020 ... t-down-21/

[Anonymous User]

PW has been radio silent on bonus news (not even bothering to tell us one way or the other) but did send out 2 emails this week titled "Special Memorandum" to play with our feelings (both announcing new hires or firm committee elections). So that was nice.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior over here growing more certain that the partners will just stay silent and wait to see what CSM does for annual bonuses next month.

[Pulsar]

What a trash email from Arnold & Porter. Low class.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior over here growing more certain that the partners will just stay silent and wait to see what CSM does for annual bonuses next month.

Agree, and that is more frustrating than just telling us they are waiting till end of year bonuses to decide.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior over here growing more certain that the partners will just stay silent and wait to see what CSM does for annual bonuses next month.

lol loved the “Special Memorandum from the Partners” email this morning.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior. All seems very odd, particularly given how the firm has generally been communicative during the pandemic, and that it appears to be quite busy.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior over here growing more certain that the partners will just stay silent and wait to see what CSM does for annual bonuses next month.

lol loved the “Special Memorandum from the Partners” email this morning.

I can't help but think that was their indirect way of telling us that they're not going to say anything.

PW senior. All seems very odd, particularly given how the firm has generally been communicative during the pandemic, and that it appears to be quite busy.

It's frustrating because the messaging we got in our group was that PW would push the button this week after CSM matched but now they've clearly re-evaluated in light of the Cravath curve ball.

[Joachim2017]

It's frustrating because the messaging we got in our group was that PW would push the button this week after CSM matched but now they've clearly re-evaluated in light of the Cravath curve ball.

It's pathetic that a firm that successful and self-characterized as "leading" would be so subservient to another law firm in makings its internal comp decisions, even if that other firm is Cravath. Grow a spine, PW, and make your own decisions. If DPW and KE and S&C can do it, so can you.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior over here growing more certain that the partners will just stay silent and wait to see what CSM does for annual bonuses next month.

lol loved the “Special Memorandum from the Partners” email this morning.

PW midlevel here. Yea that email this morning was so brutal. Almost feels like they're purposely trolling at this point. For a firm that prides itself on transparency and always matching (and just as importantly, matching quickly), this is kind of disgraceful. Especially since Brad is so in tune with what is going on and clearly reads ATL and has a direct line to them, etc.

The only thing I can assume at this point is that despite how busy everyone is, collections are down and they don't want to commit to something like this right now, and they've heard the negative backlash from associates in response to all of the other firms who have either outright said they weren't matching or sent a "thanks for the hard work email!" and intentionally didn't address not matching, and the brass has decided it would be best to say nothing at all. Frustrating as it is, I can't really disagree with that tactic. If they're not going to pay up, then avoiding this makes sense--especially while we're all still remote and Brad doesn't have to deal with Associates Committee questions (or worse, live questions) when he does Town Halls over the phone.

The chickens will come home to roost eventually though.

[Anonymous User]

PW senior over here growing more certain that the partners will just stay silent and wait to see what CSM does for annual bonuses next month.

lol loved the “Special Memorandum from the Partners” email this morning.

Accidental double post.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

[Anonymous User]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

Ah yes, a classic attempt to strike down a strawman of my actual argument. I am not saying that these firms are about to go defunct, I am saying that they are choosing to do one or the other precisely because the financial pie is smaller this year than in 2018, meaning that their financial performance is worse now than two years ago. It is indeed because they don't want to do both, but this desire not to do both comes from, in my opinion, a tight financial situation on the part of the firm.

I am merely noting that firms easily did both as recently as 2018, with little to no delay, but weren't able to do so this time, and providing an opinion as to why this might be the case. It's interesting that the firms did not want to take a reputational hit to their prestige in 2018 by not paying the bonus, but were so willing to do so now. We need to ask, what changed? I argue the finances changed.

Not to mention that firms such as Debevoise and Freshfields were still able to successfully do both this time as well, meaning that some firms did still want to keep (and improve) their reputation in the market.

I feel I have used anon exactly appropriately. I am pointing to certain trends which I believe exist among certain firms, and the conversation is sensitive given that I am discussing that some firms may be making less money than before, and therefore may be trying to keep partner compensation up as opposed to fully executing their obligations to associates. You may disagree, perhaps strongly, as others have, but that doesn't make my usage of the anon function wrong, simply because you disagree.

The anon function exists precisely to allow these conversations to take place, whether you like them or not.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

Ah yes, a classic attempt to strike down a strawman of my actual argument. I am not saying that these firms are about to go defunct, I am saying that they are choosing to do one or the other precisely because the financial pie is smaller this year than in 2018, meaning that their financial performance is worse now than two years ago. It is indeed because they don't want to do both, but this desire not to do both comes from, in my opinion, a tight financial situation on the part of the firm.

It's not a strawman. You literally said Cravath "has to worry about making payroll." You used the phrases "inability to give bonuses" and "not able to fully meet their normal obligations." All of those are wildly inaccurate. Now you're saying they are "choosing" not to pay bonuses/start on time. That's correct, but it's the opposite of what your last post said.

I feel I have used anon exactly appropriately. I am pointing to certain trends which I believe exist among certain firms, and the conversation is sensitive given that I am discussing that some firms may be making less money than before, and therefore may be trying to keep partner compensation up as opposed to fully executing their obligations to associates. You may disagree, perhaps strongly, as others have, but that doesn't make my usage of the anon function wrong, simply because you disagree.

The anon function exists precisely to allow these conversations to take place, whether you like them or not.

This is absolutely not what the anon function is for. Anon is for posts that reveal personal information, and would thus risk identifying the poster under their username. Your post does nothing of the sort. It is not for any conversation about a "sensitive" topic (and talking about why firms are or are not paying bonuses is not a "sensitive" topic anyway), and it wouldn't matter what you "feel" is appropriate if the mods were doing their jobs.

[JusticeSquee]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

[...]

I am merely noting that firms easily did both as recently as 2018, with little to no delay, but weren't able to do so this time, and providing an opinion as to why this might be the case. It's interesting that the firms did not want to take a reputational hit to their prestige in 2018 by not paying the bonus, but were so willing to do so now. We need to ask, what changed? I argue the finances changed.

[...]

I think the notion that Freshfields/Cooley is in a more financially stable position that Cravath/Skadden/Kirkland is a little silly. The firms that skipped the Fall Bonus did a cost-benefit. They said that associates would put up with getting paid less than peers at Milbank/DPW/Cooley/Freshfields/SullCrom and not leave in meaningful numbers. They are probably correct that a meaningful number of associates won't leave purely based off this greedy choice. My prediction though, is that firms like Cravath/Skadden/Kirkland will experience higher than usual turnover Winter/Spring 2021 in part due to the stinginess we've seen here.

I may be wrong, but just my 2 cents.

[Anonymous User]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

[...]

I am merely noting that firms easily did both as recently as 2018, with little to no delay, but weren't able to do so this time, and providing an opinion as to why this might be the case. It's interesting that the firms did not want to take a reputational hit to their prestige in 2018 by not paying the bonus, but were so willing to do so now. We need to ask, what changed? I argue the finances changed.

[...]

I think the notion that Freshfields/Cooley is in a more financially stable position that Cravath/Skadden/Kirkland is a little silly. The firms that skipped the Fall Bonus did a cost-benefit. They said that associates would put up with getting paid less than peers at Milbank/DPW/Cooley/Freshfields/SullCrom and not leave in meaningful numbers. They are probably correct that a meaningful number of associates won't leave purely based off this greedy choice. My prediction though, is that firms like Cravath/Skadden/Kirkland will experience higher than usual turnover Winter/Spring 2021 in part due to the stinginess we've seen here.

I may be wrong, but just my 2 cents.

Ok, but wouldn't that have equally been the case in 2018 as well? It still doesn't answer what changed this time.

[Anonymous User]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

Ah yes, a classic attempt to strike down a strawman of my actual argument. I am not saying that these firms are about to go defunct, I am saying that they are choosing to do one or the other precisely because the financial pie is smaller this year than in 2018, meaning that their financial performance is worse now than two years ago. It is indeed because they don't want to do both, but this desire not to do both comes from, in my opinion, a tight financial situation on the part of the firm.

It's not a strawman. You literally said Cravath "has to worry about making payroll." You used the phrases "inability to give bonuses" and "not able to fully meet their normal obligations." All of those are wildly inaccurate. Now you're saying they are "choosing" not to pay bonuses/start on time. That's correct, but it's the opposite of what your last post said.

I feel I have used anon exactly appropriately. I am pointing to certain trends which I believe exist among certain firms, and the conversation is sensitive given that I am discussing that some firms may be making less money than before, and therefore may be trying to keep partner compensation up as opposed to fully executing their obligations to associates. You may disagree, perhaps strongly, as others have, but that doesn't make my usage of the anon function wrong, simply because you disagree.

The anon function exists precisely to allow these conversations to take place, whether you like them or not.

This is absolutely not what the anon function is for. Anon is for posts that reveal personal information, and would thus risk identifying the poster under their username. Your post does nothing of the sort. It is not for any conversation about a "sensitive" topic (and talking about why firms are or are not paying bonuses is not a "sensitive" topic anyway), and it wouldn't matter what you "feel" is appropriate if the mods were doing their jobs.

To your first point, it really depends on how you choose to interpret the words used in those statements. I don't want to get too much into semantics if we generally agree, but I would argue that any organization "has to worry" about any expenses, and that the payment of such expenses may reduce the amount of money available for other things, which was my original point. As for the second two phrases, it is self-evident that Cravath has not been able to fully meet its normal obligations, as it has not paid a market bonus in this fall season. By definition, therefore, that firm was "not able to fully meet its normal obligations". "Inability to give bonuses" was again, meant relatively speaking, as it is self-evident that no firm is going defunct here, so no one should be thinking along those lines.

To your second point, I would argue that my use of anon correctly falls under "sensitive employment related information about a firm" when a broad interpretation is taken of that definition. As you have alluded to, the practical usage of anon on this forum has expanded, and I would argue that talking about financial situation of a firm is "sensitive employment related information about a firm". In any case, I believe that I am entitled to a consistent application of the rules by the moderators, and given the frequent usage of anon for far less, I believe my usage of anon is appropriate.

To not allow anon in this circumstance would have a chilling effect on controversial and sensitive discussions, the exact opposite of the purpose of this forum.

[legalpotato]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

Ah yes, a classic attempt to strike down a strawman of my actual argument. I am not saying that these firms are about to go defunct, I am saying that they are choosing to do one or the other precisely because the financial pie is smaller this year than in 2018, meaning that their financial performance is worse now than two years ago. It is indeed because they don't want to do both, but this desire not to do both comes from, in my opinion, a tight financial situation on the part of the firm.

It's not a strawman. You literally said Cravath "has to worry about making payroll." You used the phrases "inability to give bonuses" and "not able to fully meet their normal obligations." All of those are wildly inaccurate. Now you're saying they are "choosing" not to pay bonuses/start on time. That's correct, but it's the opposite of what your last post said.

I feel I have used anon exactly appropriately. I am pointing to certain trends which I believe exist among certain firms, and the conversation is sensitive given that I am discussing that some firms may be making less money than before, and therefore may be trying to keep partner compensation up as opposed to fully executing their obligations to associates. You may disagree, perhaps strongly, as others have, but that doesn't make my usage of the anon function wrong, simply because you disagree.

The anon function exists precisely to allow these conversations to take place, whether you like them or not.

This is absolutely not what the anon function is for. Anon is for posts that reveal personal information, and would thus risk identifying the poster under their username. Your post does nothing of the sort. It is not for any conversation about a "sensitive" topic (and talking about why firms are or are not paying bonuses is not a "sensitive" topic anyway), and it wouldn't matter what you "feel" is appropriate if the mods were doing their jobs.

Honestly time for this disgruntled and deferred stub year to be shown the door. Sorry this happened to you, but there is a separate thread for you to speculate and complain about your deferral. This is for current associates to complain about not getting bonuses and share news about bonuses, and you are just spamming now.

[ChairmanKaga]

Ok, but wouldn't that have equally been the case in 2018 as well? It still doesn't answer what changed this time.

I normally get extra caramel with my frappuccino. But every so often I decide not to and I pocket the extra quarter.

[Anonymous User]

It is clear that some firms simply cannot afford these bonuses. A firm like Cravath, for instance, has to worry about making payroll in the fall with its incoming class, and this likely drives its inability to give bonuses. All this means that it is clear that most firms in the market, at present, are not able to fully meet their normal obligations of giving market bonuses, starting all staff on time, and maintaining their structures. At least, that seems to be what the evidence so far is pointing to.

Who let Anon get away with posting this?

Cravath, and any firm even remotely similar, has hundreds of millions in cash on hand this late in its fiscal year and also has access to tens of millions in revolving credit. No firm mentioned in this thread has anything close to a problem making payroll.

Any implication that firms *can't* pay fall bonuses and start their associates on time is bullshit. It's all a matter of being willing to part with a few percent of profits in the short-term and nothing more than that. Don't let anyone tell you firms didn't have a choice.

Ah yes, a classic attempt to strike down a strawman of my actual argument. I am not saying that these firms are about to go defunct, I am saying that they are choosing to do one or the other precisely because the financial pie is smaller this year than in 2018, meaning that their financial performance is worse now than two years ago. It is indeed because they don't want to do both, but this desire not to do both comes from, in my opinion, a tight financial situation on the part of the firm.

It's not a strawman. You literally said Cravath "has to worry about making payroll." You used the phrases "inability to give bonuses" and "not able to fully meet their normal obligations." All of those are wildly inaccurate. Now you're saying they are "choosing" not to pay bonuses/start on time. That's correct, but it's the opposite of what your last post said.

I feel I have used anon exactly appropriately. I am pointing to certain trends which I believe exist among certain firms, and the conversation is sensitive given that I am discussing that some firms may be making less money than before, and therefore may be trying to keep partner compensation up as opposed to fully executing their obligations to associates. You may disagree, perhaps strongly, as others have, but that doesn't make my usage of the anon function wrong, simply because you disagree.

The anon function exists precisely to allow these conversations to take place, whether you like them or not.

This is absolutely not what the anon function is for. Anon is for posts that reveal personal information, and would thus risk identifying the poster under their username. Your post does nothing of the sort. It is not for any conversation about a "sensitive" topic (and talking about why firms are or are not paying bonuses is not a "sensitive" topic anyway), and it wouldn't matter what you "feel" is appropriate if the mods were doing their jobs.

Honestly time for this disgruntled and deferred stub year to be shown the door. Sorry this happened to you, but there is a separate thread for you to speculate and complain about your deferral. This is for current associates to complain about not getting bonuses and share news about bonuses, and you are just spamming now.

Can you present any evidence that I am who you claim I am, and am not a current associate, or a non-deferred incoming associate? If not, then it seems a bit of a stretch to attempt to have me kicked out based on your speculation (which you are entitled to, but which does not govern this forum.)

In any case, I am happy to bow out if people want to stop engaging with my original points. Considering that they continue to, I fail to see how I am spamming.

[Anonymous User]

Ok, but wouldn't that have equally been the case in 2018 as well? It still doesn't answer what changed this time.

I normally get extra caramel with my frappuccino. But every so often I decide not to and I pocket the extra quarter.

When was the last time the firms did that, before this?

[Anonymous User]

If I'm a mid-level associate at one of these top NYC Big law firms -- which I am -- then unless I have an unusually GREAT relationship with bigwig partners, I would absolutely lateral to a peer firm that (a) communicates better with its employees during a pandemic; (b) shares the wealth, or, at least, spreads the pain around during tough times; and (c) generally demonstrates in intangible but also TANGIBLE ways that we're in this together, and that hard work during extraordinary circumstances merits generosity from these millionaire partners.

And if you're on of those millionaire partners betting that this is just a blip that will be forgotten in 3 months, then make no mistake, your best associates may not leave your firm just b/c you didn't give them a special fall bonus that one time, but if not giving that bonus is indicative of deeper trends at your firm like stinginess and lack of empathy, than many associates should and will leave. You reap what you sow.