Top Law Schools

Would there be a huge difference in the day-to-day work life between firms that "target" 1900 billable hours vs. those that require 2160?

Anonymous User wrote:Would there be a huge difference in the day-to-day work life between firms that "target" 1900 billable hours vs. those that require 2160?

That is roughly 11 full 24 hour days difference. 33 more days if you break it down into 8 hour days.

If those are accurate numbers, yes. The real question is whether those are realistic

Anonymous User wrote:Would there be a huge difference in the day-to-day work life between firms that "target" 1900 billable hours vs. those that require 2160?

Well, there's definitely a QOL difference between 1900 and 2160 billed hours. But that only matters if there is some relationship between the purported "target" and what the associates actually bill. Usually, there isn't.

What firm "requires" 2160? That seems bizarre.

My impression of every major market firm is that you're going to blow through 1900.

If you're looking at a secondary/tertiary market firm advertising 1900 v. major market advertising 2160, there's probably a real difference there.

rpupkin wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Would there be a huge difference in the day-to-day work life between firms that "target" 1900 billable hours vs. those that require 2160?

Well, there's definitely a QOL difference between 1900 and 2160 billed hours. But that only matters if there is some relationship between the purported "target" and what the associates actually bill. Usually, there isn't.

What firm "requires" 2160? That seems bizarre.

Sorry. I meant target for bonus consideration.

how much time you need to actually put in in order to bill one hour?

Anonymous User wrote:how much time you need to actually put in in order to bill one hour?

I assume this is sarcasm but 54:01.

mr.hands wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:how much time you need to actually put in in order to bill one hour?

I assume this is sarcasm but 54:01.

I think the poster meant what is a typical hours-in-office to hours-billed ratio.

rpupkin wrote: What firm "requires" 2160? That seems bizarre.

Not sure if you're focusing on requirement aspect of that or the actual number. I've seen a number of firms where that's the target. It's 41.5 billable/work week (assuming no vacation).

As far as the OP's question about how it compares to 1900, it's one extra hour billed for each of the 260 weekdays of the year.

BVest wrote:

mr.hands wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:how much time you need to actually put in in order to bill one hour?

I assume this is sarcasm but 54:01.

I think the poster meant what is a typical hours-in-office to hours-billed ratio.

original anon. yes, i was asking about hours-in-office to hours-billed ratio

Anonymous User wrote:

BVest wrote:

mr.hands wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:how much time you need to actually put in in order to bill one hour?

I assume this is sarcasm but 54:01.

I think the poster meant what is a typical hours-in-office to hours-billed ratio.

original anon. yes, i was asking about hours-in-office to hours-billed ratio

Why are you anonymous? And the answer depends on what you're doing and how efficient you are. Starting out, 1.5 - 2 hours to bill one hour probably isn't too far off.

Is there any site that actually provides avg billed hrs? NALP has a question for it, but it's normally blank...

Anonymous User wrote:Is there any site that actually provides avg billed hrs? NALP has a question for it, but it's normally blank...

No. And even if you got an answer firmwide, a lot depends on office, practice group and even the partner you're working for.

zweitbester wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Is there any site that actually provides avg billed hrs? NALP has a question for it, but it's normally blank...

No. And even if you got an answer firmwide, a lot depends on office, practice group and even the partner you're working for.

And average hours are brought down by maternity leave, first years, and people coasting til they get fired.

I would rather have median hours.

Yeah they told us our "average" associate billable once and I think I've already exceed it this year. Either it's a totally meaningless number or I am getting royally screwed.

Gunner associates drive it up to.

My take on these things is to do what is standard and do it well. I think "normal" billable hours (i.e., what you can reasonably expect me to bill) is 2,000-2,100. I think "very busy" is 2,300-2,400. And I think anything above that and I don't learn and that my work product suffers.

I can excuse the occasional 2,300-2400 hour year. These things are hard to plan. In exchange, there might be the occasional 1800-1900 hour year.

But if anyone expects me to bill above that amount, guilts me to do it, or punishes me for not doing it, I don't tolerate it. I think my expectations are professionally reasonable. If the firm's ethos doesn't align, then I understand that I might be the problem and I will happily work somewhere where I'm aligned.

When looking for a job, up to you to do your diligence and find a firm that fits your mentality regarding these things (while also being realistic). Not difficult to sense a micro-managing, workhorse partner in an interview IMO.