SULCROM SHATTERS MARKET WITH SPRING BONUS Forum

[sunynp]

$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours:

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you

That's the thing. People go to these firms and might justify the prestige by thinking that the bonus will make sense if they don't go above 2,200 hour or some nonsense like that. Problem is that you will almost certainly bill more than 2,400 hours at these firms, and if you do, you might as well go to Boies, Susman, K&E, Quinn, etc., because you're going to be much more well compensated. I get that three of those firms don't really have decent corporate groups, but K&E's is quite good. You might end up doing more middle market deals than those massive $40 billion megadeals, but (a) when are the latter deals happening ITE? and (b) given the amount of diligence and shitwork involved in the latter, why would you not want to do the former?

Those are just my two cents. I'm being a little glib and facetious... choosing a firm isn't that simple. Some people just fit in better at other firms, but the $$$ point always gets me. And believe me, when you're paying taxes, rent, and your loans and you're seeing your monthly $$$ disappear so quickly, you're going to regret choosing those prestige points.

You think that Boies, Susman and Quinn aren't prestigious. huh. I know Quinn has detractors, but I still thought people considered them to be good lawyers. I know people think Quinn makes money because they have no solid support staff, but I have no clue what the real story is with them.

You cant assume that people who are working for Sullivan and Cromwell wanted to work at those firms or that they had offers at those firms.

[Blindmelon]

Now I am curious why people still continue to pick these Cravath/Sulcrom-scale bonus firms over the firms that pay more variable rate bonuses with the bottom of the scale equaling these other firms. I imagine not everyone has those choices, but I am sure quite a few people do and still chose the lockstep bonus firms.

How much more does KE and Quinn end up paying their associates. I'd imagine some of it is exit options, but damn, I don't know.

If midlevels start moving in droves to those firms, the lockstep firms will have to match.

What other firms pay significantly above market to a good chunk of their associates? Even Quinn is really just at market for 2100-2400 hours right? I know at least a couple V100 do bonuses that can go above market, but we are talking barely so, and only for a small number.

With KE and Quinn I think it can be 3-4 times market bonuses. Boeis pays above market, I think Ropes can pay above market. I am sure there are others I can't think of.

But when you think about it there aren't many firms that are going to be putting significant pressure on the top firms to change their compensation because there are just too many jobs at the Cravath-scale firms.

Ropes isn't above market. Compared to the other big Boston firms, they either match or are below. Maybe they're above market in other offices though, I'm unsure.

[Anonymous User]

So when I actually get into practice and work for my V5, am I going to have to worry about constant gloating from Kirkland associates in the real world around bonus time? If this thread is any indication, they might literally try to rub their extra bonus cash in my face, while yelling that this behavior has nothing to do with their tiny penises. My hunch is that this would more than likely come from NYC Kirkland bros, since from my experience, Chicago Kirkland bros don't have anything near the inferiority complex that the NYC guys have.

[Anonymous User]

$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours:

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you

That's the thing. People go to these firms and might justify the prestige by thinking that the bonus will make sense if they don't go above 2,200 hour or some nonsense like that. Problem is that you will almost certainly bill more than 2,400 hours at these firms, and if you do, you might as well go to Boies, Susman, K&E, Quinn, etc., because you're going to be much more well compensated. I get that three of those firms don't really have decent corporate groups, but K&E's is quite good. You might end up doing more middle market deals than those massive $40 billion megadeals, but (a) when are the latter deals happening ITE? and (b) given the amount of diligence and shitwork involved in the latter, why would you not want to do the former?

Those are just my two cents. I'm being a little glib and facetious... choosing a firm isn't that simple. Some people just fit in better at other firms, but the $$$ point always gets me. And believe me, when you're paying taxes, rent, and your loans and you're seeing your monthly $$$ disappear so quickly, you're going to regret choosing those prestige points.

You think that Boies, Susman and Quinn aren't prestigious. huh. I know Quinn has detractors, but I still thought people considered them to be good lawyers. I know people think Quinn makes money because they have no solid support staff, but I have no clue what the real story is with them.

You cant assume that people who are working for Sullivan and Cromwell wanted to work at those firms or that they had offers at those firms.

I think they're plenty prestigious. Just for many top law students, that isn't prestigious enough.

[Anonymous User]

So when I actually get into practice and work for my V5, am I going to have to worry about constant gloating from Kirkland associates in the real world around bonus time? If this thread is any indication, they might literally try to rub their extra bonus cash in my face, while yelling that this behavior has nothing to do with their tiny penises. My hunch is that this would more than likely come from NYC Kirkland bros, since from my experience, Chicago Kirkland bros don't have anything near the inferiority complex that the NYC guys have.

Not really sure why I'd have an inferiority complex. I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.

Anyways, I'm not trying to gloat. I regret that post (which is why I, too late, edited that post out). Some firms are better fit than others, and for some, fit>>>$$$. It's just such an individual choice.

But for people who choose on the basis of a sliver of higher prestige, yes, I'm gloating.

[Cavalier]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

[NinerFan]

$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours:

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you

That's the thing. People go to these firms and might justify the prestige by thinking that the bonus will make sense if they don't go above 2,200 hour or some nonsense like that. Problem is that you will almost certainly bill more than 2,400 hours at these firms, and if you do, you might as well go to Boies, Susman, K&E, Quinn, etc., because you're going to be much more well compensated. I get that three of those firms don't really have decent corporate groups, but K&E's is quite good. You might end up doing more middle market deals than those massive $40 billion megadeals, but (a) when are the latter deals happening ITE? and (b) given the amount of diligence and shitwork involved in the latter, why would you not want to do the former?

Those are just my two cents. I'm being a little glib and facetious... choosing a firm isn't that simple. Some people just fit in better at other firms, but the $$$ point always gets me. And believe me, when you're paying taxes, rent, and your loans and you're seeing your monthly $$$ disappear so quickly, you're going to regret choosing those prestige points.

You think that Boies, Susman and Quinn aren't prestigious. huh. I know Quinn has detractors, but I still thought people considered them to be good lawyers. I know people think Quinn makes money because they have no solid support staff, but I have no clue what the real story is with them.

You cant assume that people who are working for Sullivan and Cromwell wanted to work at those firms or that they had offers at those firms.

I think they're plenty prestigious. Just for many top law students, that isn't prestigious enough.

Yeah, prestige is always relative. The real prestige whores aren't satisfied with clerking with some random SCOTUS associate justice, it would have to be Chief Roberts himself.

Kidding. I hope.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, prestige is always relative. The real prestige whores aren't satisfied with clerking with some random SCOTUS associate justice, it would have to be Chief Roberts himself.

That's the problem. There are plenty of these types in law school. For them, there's something in their heads that won't let them choose Boies over S&C. Anyways, my point is made. gotta run folks.

[Anonymous User]

So when I actually get into practice and work for my V5, am I going to have to worry about constant gloating from Kirkland associates in the real world around bonus time? If this thread is any indication, they might literally try to rub their extra bonus cash in my face, while yelling that this behavior has nothing to do with their tiny penises. My hunch is that this would more than likely come from NYC Kirkland bros, since from my experience, Chicago Kirkland bros don't have anything near the inferiority complex that the NYC guys have.

Not really sure why I'd have an inferiority complex. I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad.

And I had clerkship offers from many SCOTUS judges.

I'm not mad, I just think it's ridiculous that you (and other Kirkland people if there are multiple ones ITT) are just so goddamned attracted to threads like this. I'm not sure if you're in NYC, Chicago, or another office; but if you're in NYC (your reply seemed to imply that) and you're bragging about your wise, cash-driven decision--well, that's just hilarious. The guys at Sidley-Chicago are working fewer hours, taking home more money due to the lower COL, and are equal to or better than Kirkland-NYC in prestige points. Ah, but then you certainly wouldn't be annoyed if every single time a NYC thread appears, a Sidley-Chicago associate busts in and laughs at everybody's ridiculous decision to go to a NYC firm, right?

[angrybird]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

[Blindmelon]

I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.

So what? I had like 11 CBs and 10 offers from V5s.

[Georgiana]

$1,000 is somewhere between 5 and 7 billed hours.

So if you billed 2,005 or 2,007 hours:

If you billed anymore than that: LOLOLOL at you

Its more like < 3, 2011 bills out $350-400 and 2010 at $450-500. Pretty ridiculous. but free money is good...

[r6_philly]

All jobs in all professions require hard work to be successful. In law, you trade the hard work for a lower upside but bigger safety net. That is a great deal for people starting families or don't like a lot of risk. In a business, you trade the hard work for a bigger potential upside, but that also comes with a much bigger chance of failure.

Absolutely no.

[romothesavior]

I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.

So what? I had like 11 CBs and 10 offers from V5s.

lol

[RedBirds2011]

All jobs in all professions require hard work to be successful. In law, you trade the hard work for a lower upside but bigger safety net. That is a great deal for people starting families or don't like a lot of risk. In a business, you trade the hard work for a bigger potential upside, but that also comes with a much bigger chance of failure.

Absolutely no.

Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?

[r6_philly]

Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?

It sounds cliche but work smarter not harder. There are ultimate two factors for becoming successful: one is to bring/generate value to a business, the other one is having the interpersonal skills to get ahead. Those are not mutually exclusive, but either or may be sufficient.

The first one, generating value, has a strong correlation to hard work, but not a direct causal relationship. It is entirely possible that the least hardworking colleague is the one that's generating the most value (for whatever reason). In that sense, comparatively, working hard isn't the key to success. Also worth to note, sometimes (most of the time in many professions) working very hard will prevent you from being promoted because it is too hard to replace you. At some point you rise above from being a fungible part of the business machine, and your place is cemented into your current position. I suppose it depends on how you define success, but I tend to think people don't view strict job security as success, they view upward mobility as the determining factor.

The second one, I think is something that people don't want to admit, because most people don't like the fact that the most likeable person in the office may be the most successful. See in many professions there are no quantitative assessment. All professional assessments (I think as a predictor of success) are based on perception. So working hard may not translate into a perception of hard working. Whereas if you do just the right things at just the right time will allow you to look like you are the hardest working.

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office, but I do know that it's the reality of many other professions.

If you must have an example, think of gov. & agency work, where self-maintenance is a higher priority than productivity (yes they teach that in public admin classes).

ETA: I suppose you can define other types of busy work necessary for getting ahead as "working hard" but I doubt that's what OP meant, even if it literally applies.

[RedBirds2011]

Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?

It sounds cliche but work smarter not harder. There are ultimate two factors for becoming successful: one is to bring/generate value to a business, the other one is having the interpersonal skills to get ahead. Those are not mutually exclusive, but either or may be sufficient.

The first one, generating value, has a strong correlation to hard work, but not a direct causal relationship. It is entirely possible that the least hardworking colleague is the one that's generating the most value (for whatever reason). In that sense, comparatively, working hard isn't the key to success. Also worth to note, sometimes (most of the time in many professions) working very hard will prevent you from being promoted because it is too hard to replace you. At some point you rise above from being a fungible part of the business machine, and your place is cemented into your current position. I suppose it depends on how you define success, but I tend to think people don't view strict job security as success, they view upward mobility as the determining factor.

The second one, I think is something that people don't want to admit, because most people don't like the fact that the most likeable person in the office may be the most successful. See in many professions there are no quantitative assessment. All professional assessments (I think as a predictor of success) are based on perception. So working hard may not translate into a perception of working. Whereas if you do just the right things at just the right time will allow you to look like you are the hardest working.

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office, but I do know that it's the reality of many other professions.

If you must have an example, think of gov. & agency work, where self-maintenance is a higher priority than productivity (yes they teach that in public admin classes).

ETA: I suppose you can define other types of busy work necessary for getting ahead as "working hard" but I doubt that's what OP meant, even if it literally applies.

Oh ok, yea I see where youre coming from now.

[kaiser]

I had offers at many of the V5. You just seem really mad. And ironically, your post makes you seem insecure.

So what? I had like 11 CBs and 10 offers from V5s.

Got ya beat: 10 CB's that led to 11 offers from V5's

[Helmholtz]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

[angrybird]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

maybe i read this wrong, but i thought he was talking about the people in this thread, not the bonuses.

never mind, i misread your post.

[r6_philly]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

It would seem like they'd done better by not giving a "bonus." Someone needs to hire a PR staff.

[IAFG]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

It would seem like they'd done better by not giving a "bonus." Someone needs to hire a PR staff.

They had all but promised to give a spring bonus, they realistically had no choice in this.

[kaiser]

This thread should be shown to people considering the legal profession.

Best read in conjunction with the Dewey thread where they're discussing the summer class being canceled. Okay, you guys can get back to complaining about only receiving a $1000 spring bonus.

It would seem like they'd done better by not giving a "bonus." Someone needs to hire a PR staff.

Thats what I was thinking. I used to work as a waiter, and when someone would give a super cheap low-ball tip, I would think to myself, he might as well have just not given a tip, because this is a joke.

[r6_philly]

They had all but promised to give a spring bonus, they realistically had no choice in this.

I understand this, but talk to your PR rep and see if the saving is worth being made the laughing stock. It would be easier to understand if they were doing poorly financially.

[Lawl Shcool]

Can you give me an example of a job that doesn't require hardwork to be successful? Did I miss something here?

It sounds cliche but work smarter not harder. There are ultimate two factors for becoming successful: one is to bring/generate value to a business, the other one is having the interpersonal skills to get ahead. Those are not mutually exclusive, but either or may be sufficient.

The first one, generating value, has a strong correlation to hard work, but not a direct causal relationship. It is entirely possible that the least hardworking colleague is the one that's generating the most value (for whatever reason). In that sense, comparatively, working hard isn't the key to success. Also worth to note, sometimes (most of the time in many professions) working very hard will prevent you from being promoted because it is too hard to replace you. At some point you rise above from being a fungible part of the business machine, and your place is cemented into your current position. I suppose it depends on how you define success, but I tend to think people don't view strict job security as success, they view upward mobility as the determining factor.

The second one, I think is something that people don't want to admit, because most people don't like the fact that the most likeable person in the office may be the most successful. See in many professions there are no quantitative assessment. All professional assessments (I think as a predictor of success) are based on perception. So working hard may not translate into a perception of hard working. Whereas if you do just the right things at just the right time will allow you to look like you are the hardest working.

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office, but I do know that it's the reality of many other professions.

If you must have an example, think of gov. & agency work, where self-maintenance is a higher priority than productivity (yes they teach that in public admin classes).

ETA: I suppose you can define other types of busy work necessary for getting ahead as "working hard" but I doubt that's what OP meant, even if it literally applies.

You seem to be missing my point, in both your examples people are working very hard. Perhaps that is the disconnect, I see working hard as a total encompassing thing, not just billing hours. You work hard to bring in business, you work hard to maintain the business, to give the perception that you are working hard, and you generally have to work hard on the legal work for the business. Lawyers absolutely place high value on job security, hence why we are lawyers, not entrepreneurs.

Also, this:

I don't pretend to know if any of this applies to the legal office