I received an offer from a small boutique firm focusing on commercial lit and corporate transaction.
They say the billable rqmt is 1400ish but there is no fixed criteria to determine annual discretionary bonuses.
I calculated the total working hour based on working days of 245 days (365 minus weekends minus 3 weeks of vacation), which gives me working hours of 1900ish.
Does this mean that 1400 billable is essentially a bullshit and I will end up working 1900 hours per year?
Please do not quote this post. Thanks so much.
1400 billable but 9-6 office hour w/ no fixed bonus criteria? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Anonymous User
- Posts: 432496
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
-
Halp
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 2:29 am
Re: 1400 billable but 9-6 office hour w/ no fixed bonus criteria?
I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand how you’re saying you calculated the “total working hour.”
If you only have to bill 1400, that’s certainly a much easier life than having to bill 1900-2000. But you will always have to work more than the billable requirement because 1) you can’t (ethically) capture your time at 100% efficiency, 2) downtime/facetime requirements, and 3) internal or external pressure to self-cut time (happens at least some firms so might be a danger at a boutique). To be clear, you shouldn’t put up with 3, but as a practical matter it can be a real trap people fall into. 1) and 2) are the main things though. Lastly, 3 weeks vacation strikes me as a tad generous unless you mean the 3rd week to include a Friday or Monday off here and there for a long weeekend, doctor visit, etc.
ETA: if you have enough work to do at a steady rate, 1400 could be a very gentle experience practicing law. I still don’t understand your math. 1400/49 (3 weeks off) = approximately 28 hours a week.
If you only have to bill 1400, that’s certainly a much easier life than having to bill 1900-2000. But you will always have to work more than the billable requirement because 1) you can’t (ethically) capture your time at 100% efficiency, 2) downtime/facetime requirements, and 3) internal or external pressure to self-cut time (happens at least some firms so might be a danger at a boutique). To be clear, you shouldn’t put up with 3, but as a practical matter it can be a real trap people fall into. 1) and 2) are the main things though. Lastly, 3 weeks vacation strikes me as a tad generous unless you mean the 3rd week to include a Friday or Monday off here and there for a long weeekend, doctor visit, etc.
ETA: if you have enough work to do at a steady rate, 1400 could be a very gentle experience practicing law. I still don’t understand your math. 1400/49 (3 weeks off) = approximately 28 hours a week.
-
AVBucks4239
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:37 pm
Re: 1400 billable but 9-6 office hour w/ no fixed bonus criteria?
My first job was at a 25 lawyer firm with a similar 1,400 hour requirement.
As the above poster just mentioned, you are being silly if you don't think a 1,400 hour billable requirement is not vastly better than a 1,900 billable requirement.
A good rule of thumb to try and calculate actual total hours worked is to multiply the billable hours requirement by 1.33, as you will probably spend an hour of down time for every 2-3 hours you bill.
So 1,400 billable hours x 1.33 = 1862 actual hours worked, or about 40 hours a week. From my experience that's about right. I did come in on weekends when deadlines were looming, but if I was efficient it was generally a 9:00 to 5:30 type of job. I always tried to get to 1,600 billable hours, which meant billing about 6.5 hours a day. It was very comfortable living, and I was certainly less busy than I am now as a solo.
Conversely, 1,900 billable hours x 1.33 = 2,527 hours, or about 52 hours a week. It's more than that when things are due.
So no, the 1,400 billable requirement is not "bullshit." You just feasibly or ethically bill all your time at the office. And 1,400 is way less than 1,900, and if you'd like to have a life outside of practice, that's a good job.
As the above poster just mentioned, you are being silly if you don't think a 1,400 hour billable requirement is not vastly better than a 1,900 billable requirement.
A good rule of thumb to try and calculate actual total hours worked is to multiply the billable hours requirement by 1.33, as you will probably spend an hour of down time for every 2-3 hours you bill.
So 1,400 billable hours x 1.33 = 1862 actual hours worked, or about 40 hours a week. From my experience that's about right. I did come in on weekends when deadlines were looming, but if I was efficient it was generally a 9:00 to 5:30 type of job. I always tried to get to 1,600 billable hours, which meant billing about 6.5 hours a day. It was very comfortable living, and I was certainly less busy than I am now as a solo.
Conversely, 1,900 billable hours x 1.33 = 2,527 hours, or about 52 hours a week. It's more than that when things are due.
So no, the 1,400 billable requirement is not "bullshit." You just feasibly or ethically bill all your time at the office. And 1,400 is way less than 1,900, and if you'd like to have a life outside of practice, that's a good job.
