Does your biglaw firm’s 401(k) plan allow for Mega Backdoor Roth contributions? [POLL] Forum

[<(^-^<)]

Does anyone know which Boston firms allow this? Specifically WH, Goodwin, Mintz, Foley? Would be good to know for OCI.

[Anonymous User]

Updating this list.

Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): ?
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): ?
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Cleary (v14): NO
White & Case (v16): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Cadwalader (v56): YES

[Anonymous User]

Adding Weil as a no.


Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): ?
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): ?
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Cleary (v14): NO
White & Case (v16): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Cadwalader (v56): YES

[Anonymous User]

I think Fenwick does... Can anyone confirm that?

[Anonymous User]

What about Cravath/S&C/DPW?

[Anonymous User]

I'm at one of these firms. How exactly do I check and I can find out and post it.

[Anonymous User]

Any information on Willkie?

[Anonymous User]

I'm at one of these firms. How exactly do I check and I can find out and post it.

Ask the firm’s 401k provider (eg fidelity)

[Anonymous User]

Adding DPW as a no. No after tax 401k contributions, just roth 401k


Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): ?
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): NO
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Cleary (v14): NO
White & Case (v16): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Cadwalader (v56): YES

[Anonymous User]

As a STB associate who has talked to Fidelity about this the answer isn't a simple Yes.

You can make after tax contributions, but you can't roll them to a Roth while still employed unless you want to be barred from making new contributions. While those contributions sit in your 'normal' 401k, they incur a future tax obligation that would otherwise be avoided if they rolled into the roth.

Don't think the chart should be a simple 'yes' for STB given that situation.

[Anonymous User]

V&E is a no

[Anonymous User]

Adding V&E as a no.

Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): ?
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): NO
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Cleary (v14): NO
White & Case (v16): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Cadwalader (v56): YES
V&E(v62): NO

To the STB poster, it's generally true for Yes-to-Roth-IRA rollover--which they'd let you do a rollover only after you leave the firm. That's why the Yes-to-Roth-401k firms are slightly better.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody have info on the following firms?

- Perkins Coie
- Davis Wright Tremaine
- Cooley
- Wilson Sonsini
- Orrick
- K&L Gates
- Baker Hostetler
- Dorsey
- Fenwick

[Anonymous User]

Adding V&E as a no.

Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): ?
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): NO
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Cleary (v14): NO
White & Case (v16): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Cadwalader (v56): YES
V&E(v62): NO

To the STB poster, it's generally true for Yes-to-Roth-IRA rollover--which they'd let you do a rollover only after you leave the firm. That's why the Yes-to-Roth-401k firms are slightly better.

Greenberg Traurig is a yes

[Anonymous User]

Anything on Debevoise?

[Anonymous User]

Anything on Debevoise?

Debevoise does not allow

[Anonymous User]

Adding Greenberg Traurig and Debevoise.

Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): ?
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): NO
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Quinn (v13): ?
Cleary (v14): NO
Covington (v15): ?
White & Case (v16): NO
Debevoise (v17): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
WilmerHale (v19): ?
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
W&C (v22): ?
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Cooley (v24): ?
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Greenberg Traurig (v53): YES
Cadwalader (v56): YES
V&E (v62): NO

[Anonymous User]

Sullcrom is a yes, to Roth IRA.

[Anonymous User]

Adding SullCrom. I see a trend here: various groups of red together and various groups of green together.

Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): YES, to Roth IRA
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): NO
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Quinn (v13): ?
Cleary (v14): NO
Covington (v15): ?
White & Case (v16): NO
Debevoise (v17): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
WilmerHale (v19): ?
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
W&C (v22): ?
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Cooley (v24): ?
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Greenberg Traurig (v53): YES
Cadwalader (v56): YES
V&E (v62): NO

[Anonymous User]

Any ideas on how to best approach a "NO" firm on changing its policy? The 401(k) plan is separately managed or run through HR so it's not necessarily in an associate or compensation committee's control, depending on how the firm is organized. And it is probably just obscure enough that the "NO" firms don't feel much pressure to compete beyond maybe immediate peers (as shown by the inconsistency in which firms allow it per the rankings); this generally isn't considered part of paying market. But as anyone following this thread knows, it's a pretty significant thing. Just kind of at a loss in terms of how to use this information.

[Anonymous User]

Any ideas on how to best approach a "NO" firm on changing its policy? The 401(k) plan is separately managed or run through HR so it's not necessarily in an associate or compensation committee's control, depending on how the firm is organized. And it is probably just obscure enough that the "NO" firms don't feel much pressure to compete beyond maybe immediate peers (as shown by the inconsistency in which firms allow it per the rankings); this generally isn't considered part of paying market. But as anyone following this thread knows, it's a pretty significant thing. Just kind of at a loss in terms of how to use this information.

I'd say tie MBDR to recruiting and say law students care about this kind of stuff in their decision-making of picking a firm. And if law students start picking a peer firm over the firm at issue because of this perk, the partners at the firm at issue will all-of-the-sudden start caring about it. That's just the nature of the firms--they want to be competitive and attract the best and brightest law students.

[Anonymous User]

Any ideas on how to best approach a "NO" firm on changing its policy? The 401(k) plan is separately managed or run through HR so it's not necessarily in an associate or compensation committee's control, depending on how the firm is organized. And it is probably just obscure enough that the "NO" firms don't feel much pressure to compete beyond maybe immediate peers (as shown by the inconsistency in which firms allow it per the rankings); this generally isn't considered part of paying market. But as anyone following this thread knows, it's a pretty significant thing. Just kind of at a loss in terms of how to use this information.

I'd say tie MBDR to recruiting and say law students care about this kind of stuff in their decision-making of picking a firm. And if law students start picking a peer firm over the firm at issue because of this perk, the partners at the firm at issue will all-of-the-sudden start caring about it. That's just the nature of the firms--they want to be competitive and attract the best and brightest law students.

Anyone have info on Choate?

[Anonymous User]

Adding SullCrom. I see a trend here: various groups of red together and various groups of green together.

Cravath (v1): ?
Wachtell (v2): YES, to Roth IRA
Skadden (v3): YES, to Roth IRA
SullCrom (v4): YES, to Roth IRA
Latham (v5): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Kirkland (v6): NO
Davis Polk (v7): NO
Simpson (v8): YES, to Roth IRA
Paul Weiss (v9): YES, to Roth IRA
Gibson Dunn (v10): NO
Sidley (v11): NO
Weil (v12): NO
Quinn (v13): ?
Cleary (v14): NO
Covington (v15): ?
White & Case (v16): NO
Debevoise (v17): NO
Ropes (v18): NO
WilmerHale (v19): ?
Paul Hastings (v20): YES
Jones Day (v21): NO
W&C (v22): ?
Milbank (v23): YES, to Roth 401(k)
Cooley (v24): ?
MoFo (v25): YES
King & Spalding (v39): YES
Fried Frank (v46): NO
Greenberg Traurig (v53): YES
Cadwalader (v56): YES
V&E (v62): NO

Thanks to you and others for updating the list. I'm the OP and just edited the original post so that it includes the list, which is pretty robust by now tbh.

[Anonymous User]

Any ideas on how to best approach a "NO" firm on changing its policy? The 401(k) plan is separately managed or run through HR so it's not necessarily in an associate or compensation committee's control, depending on how the firm is organized. And it is probably just obscure enough that the "NO" firms don't feel much pressure to compete beyond maybe immediate peers (as shown by the inconsistency in which firms allow it per the rankings); this generally isn't considered part of paying market. But as anyone following this thread knows, it's a pretty significant thing. Just kind of at a loss in terms of how to use this information.

For me, my benefits team is under the HR umbrella, and seems to be totally immune from day-to-day associate influence, lol. So I agree that it's kind of a tough question.

I'd probably reach out to the person that runs your 401(k) plan and ask them whether they are familiar with that option/if they have considered it. In either case, I imagine that it would be helpful to first speak with the 401(k) coordinator beforehand, make them aware of your desire for that particular benefit, and ask whether there happens to be any kind of formal procedure in place to request a particular benefit. If not, then I imagine that you could then politely give them the head's up that you would like to present that request to some mixture of different people, perhaps starting with their boss (i.e. the HR leader) but also perhaps to folks that are more directly tied to associate life and recruitment (i.e., OCI/lateral recruitment team, the associates' committee, and even perhaps the office's hiring partners after that). I honestly think that sharing this thread (or at least screenshotting the poll results and the compiled list, at the very least) could be helpful. It would be great if we could somehow get ATL or Law360 or otherwise to write up an article on this, though I'm not really sure how to go about that.

[Anonymous User]

It would be great if we could somehow get ATL or Law360 or otherwise to write up an article on this, though I'm not really sure how to go about that.

Could probably get Joshua Holt of Biglaw Investor to write up an article then point to that.