First Year Hours and Bonus Question Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do big law firms tend to award bonuses to first-year associates who miss the hours requirement by, say, 100 hours or so? I’m at a V100 in a satellite office, for what it’s worth.

Interested to hear a range of experiences, thanks in advance for any replies.

[Anonymous User]

Do big law firms tend to award bonuses to first-year associates who miss the hours requirement by, say, 100 hours or so? I’m at a V100 in a satellite office, for what it’s worth.

Interested to hear a range of experiences, thanks in advance for any replies.

Mine wouldn't if you missed it by 1 hour.

[papermateflair]

At my previous firm (V100), I missed it by 100 as a first year and did not get a bonus (also, you could have missed it by 10 and they wouldn't have given you a bonus unless someone really advocated for you). My current firm (another V100) is similarly serious about the hours threshold, although they claim that they take more than hours into consideration, so I guess it's theoretically possible to still get a bonus...but not if you're 100 hours below the threshold. Maybe if you were 25 hours below and you had spent a ton of time on a non-billable thing that had brought the firm a giant client or something, then sure, they might give you a bonus IF a partner in your group stands up and makes a case for you. But I think generally missing the threshold is missing the threshold, especially at firms in this tier who often don't give market bonuses anyway.

Also, I feel like this is a good thing to ask around about - are there any other associates you can ask? Knowing that like, 70% of firms in your peer group don't give bonuses to associates who don't hit their hours isn't as helpful as the associate in the office next door telling you that everyone always gets a bonus, or that the bonuses are based 100% on hours, or whatever.

[smokeylarue]

You're not going to get a bonus if you're 100 hours off

[barkschool]

I’ve heard of associates receiving bonuses where there is more than one target, like a billable and a “working” hour requirement. If they hit the billable target but don’t document time available based on the firm.

Missing billable is almost always no bonus. Why would it be different?

[Anonymous User]

Figured I’d keep the first-year bonus questions in one thread. Can anybody elaborate on how their firms typically go about giving above-market bonuses? Is it strictly a ratio based on hours above the bonus threshold?

Obviously this will be firm/office dependent. But interested in any data points available.

[Anonymous User]

Figured I’d keep the first-year bonus questions in one thread. Can anybody elaborate on how their firms typically go about giving above-market bonuses? Is it strictly a ratio based on hours above the bonus threshold?

Obviously this will be firm/office dependent. But interested in any data points available.

Kirkland's bonus amounts are a function of hours and merit as judged by your annual review. Every Kirkland associate gets a score of 1-5 in their review; 1 means "you are absolutely going to be a partner," 5 means "you will be fired very soon," most people get 3s. My understanding is that an associate who has median hours (1900-2000) and a 3 generally gets a 105% market bonus. Things vary from there based both on hours and the review score. I think a lot of (maybe all?) associates who get a 4 don't get a bonus, but a 4 typically means "you are going to get 'the talk' if you don't lateral on your own volition" anyway. And associates who get 2s and 1s get well above market bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

Figured I’d keep the first-year bonus questions in one thread. Can anybody elaborate on how their firms typically go about giving above-market bonuses? Is it strictly a ratio based on hours above the bonus threshold?

Obviously this will be firm/office dependent. But interested in any data points available.

Kirkland's bonus amounts are a function of hours and merit as judged by your annual review. Every Kirkland associate gets a score of 1-5 in their review; 1 means "you are absolutely going to be a partner," 5 means "you will be fired very soon," most people get 3s. My understanding is that an associate who has median hours (1900-2000) and a 3 generally gets a 105% market bonus. Things vary from there based both on hours and the review score. I think a lot of (maybe all?) associates who get a 4 don't get a bonus, but a 4 typically means "you are going to get 'the talk' if you don't lateral on your own volition" anyway. And associates who get 2s and 1s get well above market bonuses.

Anon for obvious reasons - seems from talking to people in my class and office that they do it in 100-hour bands (i.e., there's no benefit to billing 2180 instead of 2101 as bonus remains same).

[Anonymous User]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

[Anonymous User]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Covington NY has no hours requirement. They retain “discretion” to give you a smaller bonus if you’re way under the target, but I don’t have any knowledge of how/when that’s actually implemented.

[smokeylarue]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

[Splurgles23]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

I'd be curious how "common" this truly is for "top top" firms, especially in NY. If you're at a S&C or Cravath or DPW, is *anyone* else billing only 1700 hours? Seems like maybe an outlier associate here or there might do that and reap the benefits of the full-bonus-no-minimum-hours structure, but I think most associates at these very top firms face the opposite: they bill much more, but still only get the same lockstep bonus.

[Elston Gunn]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

I'd be curious how "common" this truly is for "top top" firms, especially in NY. If you're at a S&C or Cravath or DPW, is *anyone* else billing only 1700 hours? Seems like maybe an outlier associate here or there might do that and reap the benefits of the full-bonus-no-minimum-hours structure, but I think most associates at these very top firms face the opposite: they bill much more, but still only get the same lockstep bonus.

Think you’d be surprised how common it is for first years. By the time you’re a mid level, of course you’re probably in that situation you’re describing, but it sometimes takes a long time to integrate juniors in corporate everywhere.

[Anonymous User]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

I'd be curious how "common" this truly is for "top top" firms, especially in NY. If you're at a S&C or Cravath or DPW, is *anyone* else billing only 1700 hours? Seems like maybe an outlier associate here or there might do that and reap the benefits of the full-bonus-no-minimum-hours structure, but I think most associates at these very top firms face the opposite: they bill much more, but still only get the same lockstep bonus.

Can't speak for any of those firms, but I know people at KE that got market billing in that range. Not that you should expect for those type of hours, but they do happen, especially for some juniors.

[Anonymous User]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

I'd be curious how "common" this truly is for "top top" firms, especially in NY. If you're at a S&C or Cravath or DPW, is *anyone* else billing only 1700 hours? Seems like maybe an outlier associate here or there might do that and reap the benefits of the full-bonus-no-minimum-hours structure, but I think most associates at these very top firms face the opposite: they bill much more, but still only get the same lockstep bonus.

Think you’d be surprised how common it is for first years. By the time you’re a mid level, of course you’re probably in that situation you’re describing, but it sometimes takes a long time to integrate juniors in corporate everywhere.

I don't want to hijack this thread but, on this point, I'd appreciate the opinions of people who have experience as junior associates: I have the option to go to Firm A, which is a big V10 where bonus is lockstep based on class year, not tied to hours billed (and bonus is on Cravath scale); or Firm B, which is a smaller boutique where bonus is a pretty direct function of hours billed (and the bonuses can be quite high if you bill a lot). Based on your experience / knowing what you know now, which would you pick?

With Firm A, the nice thing is you might have to work only light hours and still get the same bonus as someone who has to work much more, and not worry about things; the drawback is you can get saddled with lots of hours but the bonus won't be any higher; with Firm B it's the opposite: the more you work the more you make, but then maybe the feeling will be "I gotta keep working if I want to make more $$." Which do you pick? (my thought is to leave in 2-3 years for either gov or in-house or maybe even academia).

[barkschool]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

I'd be curious how "common" this truly is for "top top" firms, especially in NY. If you're at a S&C or Cravath or DPW, is *anyone* else billing only 1700 hours? Seems like maybe an outlier associate here or there might do that and reap the benefits of the full-bonus-no-minimum-hours structure, but I think most associates at these very top firms face the opposite: they bill much more, but still only get the same lockstep bonus.

Think you’d be surprised how common it is for first years. By the time you’re a mid level, of course you’re probably in that situation you’re describing, but it sometimes takes a long time to integrate juniors in corporate everywhere.

I don't want to hijack this thread but, on this point, I'd appreciate the opinions of people who have experience as junior associates: I have the option to go to Firm A, which is a big V10 where bonus is lockstep based on class year, not tied to hours billed (and bonus is on Cravath scale); or Firm B, which is a smaller boutique where bonus is a pretty direct function of hours billed (and the bonuses can be quite high if you bill a lot). Based on your experience / knowing what you know now, which would you pick?

With Firm A, the nice thing is you might have to work only light hours and still get the same bonus as someone who has to work much more, and not worry about things; the drawback is you can get saddled with lots of hours but the bonus won't be any higher; with Firm B it's the opposite: the more you work the more you make, but then maybe the feeling will be "I gotta keep working if I want to make more $$." Which do you pick? (my thought is to leave in 2-3 years for either gov or in-house or maybe even academia).

High likelihood you may end up working the same at both. Go to whatever firm you enjoyed your interviews at more, Unless you know for certain one firm is a sweatshop and the other is way under a standard hour target (knowing these things is probably rare) then I’m not sure you’re looking at the right metric to pick a firm.

[justanotherlurker]

I don't want to hijack this thread but, on this point, I'd appreciate the opinions of people who have experience as junior associates: I have the option to go to Firm A, which is a big V10 where bonus is lockstep based on class year, not tied to hours billed (and bonus is on Cravath scale); or Firm B, which is a smaller boutique where bonus is a pretty direct function of hours billed (and the bonuses can be quite high if you bill a lot). Based on your experience / knowing what you know now, which would you pick?

With Firm A, the nice thing is you might have to work only light hours and still get the same bonus as someone who has to work much more, and not worry about things; the drawback is you can get saddled with lots of hours but the bonus won't be any higher; with Firm B it's the opposite: the more you work the more you make, but then maybe the feeling will be "I gotta keep working if I want to make more $$." Which do you pick? (my thought is to leave in 2-3 years for either gov or in-house or maybe even academia).

I wouldn't choose based on hypothetical hours vs. pay -- you really can't predict with absolute certainty what your QOL will be at either place.

Honestly, if you're looking to only be there for 2 or 3 years before moving elsewhere, I'd choose the place that sets you up best to do that. If you want to go into government (e.g., AUSA/DOJ), pick the place with the most former AUSAs and the strongest white collar practice. (Or, if you want to go into an agency, pick the firm with the most former agency lawyers.) If you want to go in-house, which firm has the strongest ties to the industries and clients you'd want to work at.

[yodamiked]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

Yes, underrated part of choosing a firm that students don't realize. Most top top firms don't have a billable requirement and it is common for associates to get full bonus billing just 1600-1700 hours.

I'd be curious how "common" this truly is for "top top" firms, especially in NY. If you're at a S&C or Cravath or DPW, is *anyone* else billing only 1700 hours? Seems like maybe an outlier associate here or there might do that and reap the benefits of the full-bonus-no-minimum-hours structure, but I think most associates at these very top firms face the opposite: they bill much more, but still only get the same lockstep bonus.

Think you’d be surprised how common it is for first years. By the time you’re a mid level, of course you’re probably in that situation you’re describing, but it sometimes takes a long time to integrate juniors in corporate everywhere.

I don't want to hijack this thread but, on this point, I'd appreciate the opinions of people who have experience as junior associates: I have the option to go to Firm A, which is a big V10 where bonus is lockstep based on class year, not tied to hours billed (and bonus is on Cravath scale); or Firm B, which is a smaller boutique where bonus is a pretty direct function of hours billed (and the bonuses can be quite high if you bill a lot). Based on your experience / knowing what you know now, which would you pick?

With Firm A, the nice thing is you might have to work only light hours and still get the same bonus as someone who has to work much more, and not worry about things; the drawback is you can get saddled with lots of hours but the bonus won't be any higher; with Firm B it's the opposite: the more you work the more you make, but then maybe the feeling will be "I gotta keep working if I want to make more $$." Which do you pick? (my thought is to leave in 2-3 years for either gov or in-house or maybe even academia).

Having been on this forum for a while now, as well as having been at my lock-step firm for a few years, I would lean towards lock-step. I'm amazed at all of the questions or statements related to people being concerned about their job security. If I have a slow month or year, it's a blessing, not something that makes me think I'm going to get the boot. I've never once worried about whether I'm going to have a job next year. I think not having that stress in your life (when this job is PLENTY stressful enough) is quite valuable in itself. The other thing to consider is that often the number of hours you bill is completely out of your control. So to have my job security threatened by something I can't even control is disconcerting to say the least.

[Elston Gunn]

^Is that really about lockstep/not-lockstep though? For example, doesn’t Latham do lockstep bonuses? From what I’ve heard they nonetheless push our associates quite aggressively.

[Anonymous User]

I always highly recommend students go to a lock-step firm with no minimum hours requirement for bonus if possible (and all other factors being close, always choose this option). As a junior you have way less control about your work stream and this can add up to real differences in compensation. I billed under 1700 as a first year and still got full bonus whereas peers at v10 billed under 1800 and missed their bonus. You can totally crush it and be a good first year and still get great reviews with low hours.

This doesn't mean you can underbill indefinitely but it definite eases a lot of your stress. I think you can probably get away with it as a second year too if it is not egregious (as in you're not the outlier lagging by a lot compared to everyone in your class) and looks like an upward trend.

[ghostoftraynor]

^Is that really about lockstep/not-lockstep though? For example, doesn’t Latham do lockstep bonuses? From what I’ve heard they nonetheless push our associates quite aggressively.

Same thought. I can't imagine Kirkland is pushing people out more than they otherwise would because their associates get marginally higher bonuses. It's all a drop in the bucket for these firms. Obviously different when you get into partnership, but don't see this having a meaningful impact on associate longevity.

For what its worth, it does seem like New York white shoe firms are more adverse to giving people the boot, but there are probably better explanatory variables like high enough natural turnover, conservative culture, more aversion to laterals (largely making this up, but you get the point).

*To poster above, you are just describing difference between firms with and without bonus hour requirements. Virtually every firm is lockstep with associate salary, and the bonus differences are very marginal in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous User]

*To poster above, you are just describing difference between firms with and without bonus hour requirements. Virtually every firm is lockstep with associate salary, and the bonus differences are very marginal in the grand scheme of things.

I know for a fact some firms (i.e. Cahill) give lock-step above market bonuses with no hours requirements. So if there is a special bonus, everyone gets it. You don't get an extra bonus for billing 2700 hours or anything though conversely speaking. Also, I wouldn't say it's necessarily marginal getting like 20k extra as a third year (and more as you go up).

[ghostoftraynor]

*To poster above, you are just describing difference between firms with and without bonus hour requirements. Virtually every firm is lockstep with associate salary, and the bonus differences are very marginal in the grand scheme of things.

I know for a fact some firms (i.e. Cahill) give lock-step above market bonuses with no hours requirements. So if there is a special bonus, everyone gets it. You don't get an extra bonus for billing 2700 hours or anything though conversely speaking. Also, I wouldn't say it's necessarily marginal getting like 20k extra as a third year (and more as you go up).

Marginal to the third year who gets the bonus? No. But in terms of why some firms would push people out more aggressively? Yes.

Accidental anon. This is ghostoftranyor.

[Anonymous User]

Yes agree - didn't realize that was your point. I don't think the above factors into associates getting pushed out more aggresively. If they wanted you out, they could just not pay you a bonus and you would probably get the point and lateral of your own volition. I agree with a post above that it depends on many factors including how profitable you are, what the hiring needs and work demands are given natural attrition and hiring of laterals, and just how much you suck (i.e. if hours are low because you haven't been hustling vs. no one wants to work with you because of your work product or attitude/laziness).

[associate705]

Can others chime in at firms with no hours requirement like Weil? I started off at a firm with no hours target and I got a bonus and was well under any realistic target if one existed.

I work at Weil and from what I know everyone receives 100% bonus regardless of hours. I am a junior associate and got my full bonus with 1500 billables hours. I think it's so important to be somewhere where there is no requirement, because it's often out of your control how much work gets sent your way