How much of a benefit is having no hours minimum? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Currently choosing between two v25 firms, one with a 2000 hour minimum ("2K") and one with no minimum ("NM").

I like both a lot, though I prefer the particulars of 2K's practice. 2K applies unlimited pro bono (and other ancillaries) to the minimum, and I gather that there's no informal expectation beyond 2000 hours.

NM has a bit more of a sweatshop reputation (though nothing out of the ordinary for NY biglaw), and it's likely that average annual hours will be higher there. But, no minimum, so no worries in the event of a slow year.

For people that have experienced both (or haven't and just have an opinion), just how much of a premium should I place on the lack of an hours minimum?

[Anonymous User]

Sometimes the lack of minimum simply means that the firm will be forcing so much work on you that there is no need for a minimum. If the hours matter, find out how many hours the no min attorneys actually work.

[Dcc617]

Is 2K hour minimum standard now? That seems high.

[Anonymous User]

I've felt very comfortable taking all 5 weeks of vacation 4 years in a row billing 2100 at my 2k billable firm. Having an expectation can be very helpful.

I've thankfully hit bonus easily every time and always dodged work in Nov/Dec but it would be frustrating if things got slow with bonuses getting high again

[Anonymous User]

A mid level, been at firms w/ billable req the entire time - I hit hours every year except last year and that cost me 70k. True that NM firms will work you hard (maybe harder than firms w/ billable req) and agree that other factors like practice area and culture should matter but just remember you can get slow, which can be beyond your control and you could be down significant amount of $$$.

[Anonymous User]

A mid level, been at firms w/ billable req the entire time - I hit hours every year except last year and that cost me 70k. True that NM firms will work you hard (maybe harder than firms w/ billable req) and agree that other factors like practice area and culture should matter but just remember you can get slow, which can be beyond your control and you could be down significant amount of $$$.

Brutal. Did you have a cap on pro bono?

[UnfrozenCaveman]

If you are gunning for partner, no minimum doesn’t matter because you should probably become attuned to the amount expected of you every year regardless of the bonus amount.

Slow years happen, but especially for service practice groups. So a no minimum form for those groups would be helpful.

[Anonymous User]

A mid level, been at firms w/ billable req the entire time - I hit hours every year except last year and that cost me 70k. True that NM firms will work you hard (maybe harder than firms w/ billable req) and agree that other factors like practice area and culture should matter but just remember you can get slow, which can be beyond your control and you could be down significant amount of $$$.

$70k in bonus, not $70k in your base annual, right? Please tell me that's the case.

Sucks either way but I might have to look for another profession if I'll lose out on $70k from my annual pay for not meeting billable req...

[Anonymous User]

A mid level, been at firms w/ billable req the entire time - I hit hours every year except last year and that cost me 70k. True that NM firms will work you hard (maybe harder than firms w/ billable req) and agree that other factors like practice area and culture should matter but just remember you can get slow, which can be beyond your control and you could be down significant amount of $$$.

Brutal. Did you have a cap on pro bono?

No cap for pro bono. Even without cap it is not that easy to just grind a significant number of hours (meaning 200 plus).

[Anonymous User]

I've been at both and the no-minimum is better for mental health for sure. Never having to worry about hitting hours is a great thing. One never knows when, for example, a pandemic will hit and dry up one's hours.

I will say I'm more okay with doing whatever busy work I might get in a billable hours situation. All goes to ensuring money in the pocket.

[Elston Gunn]

It makes a big difference, especially with a high minimum like 2,000, which is not that easy to hit every single year. Beyond the financial implications, don’t underestimate how much it sucks to be scrounging for pro bono work on December 23 when everyone else is relaxing unless something genuinely important is going down.

[Anonymous User]

I’m lateraling to a V25 that has a 2,000 hour minimum (probably the same one OP is referring to), and that limit is the one thing that really concerned me. I almost didn’t take the offer because of it. It’s strange when super profitable firms have insane hours minimums.

[Ultramar vistas]

I work at an alleged sweatshop and have billed a little south of 2000 hrs for the past two years, and taken home an above market bonus each year. Personally just don’t buy any arguments for high hours limits - if you’re billing honestly, at least in M&A, 2k hrs is a fairly miserable grind. If the choice is between a 1750 or 1800 hours limit and no limit, then it’s probably a wash because you will always hit that, but 2000 = no bonus if you take a long honeymoon, or if your work dries up in a pandemic, etc etc.

IMO it’s a red flag and shouldn’t be considered to be paying “market”.

[Anonymous User]

Someone made this point in another thread a few months ago, but it does kind of depend on the market. In Chicago, I think Kirkland is the only firm without an hours minimum. It's not like NY and DC where you might have a lot of options that don't have hours minimums. I don't know much about Cali firms, but a lot of TX firms also have hours minimums. If you're in NY or DC you may have a lot more options for no minimum firms, that might not be as easy to find in other markets.

[Anonymous User]

A mid level, been at firms w/ billable req the entire time - I hit hours every year except last year and that cost me 70k. True that NM firms will work you hard (maybe harder than firms w/ billable req) and agree that other factors like practice area and culture should matter but just remember you can get slow, which can be beyond your control and you could be down significant amount of $$$.

$70k in bonus, not $70k in your base annual, right? Please tell me that's the case.

Sucks either way but I might have to look for another profession if I'll lose out on $70k from my annual pay for not meeting billable req...

70k in bonus

[wldecisions]

Might be a dumb question, but is billable "target" synonymous with billable "requirement"?

[Anonymous User]

Might be a dumb question, but is billable "target" synonymous with billable "requirement"?

It really doesn't matter what the firm calls it. I'd just ask people at the firm or read up on bonus announcement at the firm on ATL to see whether bonus is paid to everyone or if there is some reference to bonus being subject to hours.

[Anonymous User]

The reason firms don't have a minimum is that, if they do, many associate work right up to the minimum and then coast. By removing the minimum, they'll get more hours out of the group overall.

It doesn't mean that they literally don't have a minimum, as if you could bill 10 hours a month and get your full salary.

[Anonymous User]

The reason firms don't have a minimum is that, if they do, many associate work right up to the minimum and then coast. By removing the minimum, they'll get more hours out of the group overall.

It doesn't mean that they literally don't have a minimum, as if you could bill 10 hours a month and get your full salary.

I just don't get this argument which gets repeated on this forum. I've been at billable requirement firms and never heard of anyone just refusing to work once threshold has been met. If you aren't busy and a partner puts you on a deal, then you have to bill. I don't think partners actively look at your hours and stop putting you on deals because you met the threshold. Partners put you on deals because they like working with you. Sure you can stop asking for work/come up with some reason for declining work but I don't see why you can't do the same at NM firm once you billed a respectable amount.

Re your second point, nobody is saying you can get away with billing 10 hours a month and nobody is saying you are even expected to work less than a firm with billable requirement. Argument for going to NM firm is that it provides a downside protection against a few months of unexpected slow period so you aren't punished just in case.

[Anonymous User]

The reason firms don't have a minimum is that, if they do, many associate work right up to the minimum and then coast. By removing the minimum, they'll get more hours out of the group overall.

It doesn't mean that they literally don't have a minimum, as if you could bill 10 hours a month and get your full salary.

I just don't get this argument which gets repeated on this forum. I've been at billable requirement firms and never heard of anyone just refusing to work once threshold has been met. If you aren't busy and a partner puts you on a deal, then you have to bill. I don't think partners actively look at your hours and stop putting you on deals because you met the threshold. Partners put you on deals because they like working with you. Sure you can stop asking for work/come up with some reason for declining work but I don't see why you can't do the same at NM firm once you billed a respectable amount.

Re your second point, nobody is saying you can get away with billing 10 hours a month and nobody is saying you are even expected to work less than a firm with billable requirement. Argument for going to NM firm is that it provides a downside protection against a few months of unexpected slow period so you aren't punished just in case.

Good points.

[Anonymous User]

I just don't get this argument which gets repeated on this forum. I've been at billable requirement firms and never heard of anyone just refusing to work once threshold has been met. If you aren't busy and a partner puts you on a deal, then you have to bill. I don't think partners actively look at your hours and stop putting you on deals because you met the threshold. Partners put you on deals because they like working with you. Sure you can stop asking for work/come up with some reason for declining work but I don't see why you can't do the same at NM firm once you billed a respectable amount.

Re your second point, nobody is saying you can get away with billing 10 hours a month and nobody is saying you are even expected to work less than a firm with billable requirement. Argument for going to NM firm is that it provides a downside protection against a few months of unexpected slow period so you aren't punished just in case.

At a minimum hours firm, I turn down work aggressively after I hit my bonus or know I will hit it. In reality that means 100 hour months with no vacation or 40 hour months with 2 weeks vacation. Partners aren't going to call me out because I always hit my hours every year.

If I were at a no minimum firm, I'd probably never turn down work at 2000 if I thought I had capacity, given the RPL is generally way higher so 2000 doesn't seem to be screw you level of hours there and leaves you replaceable if you push back on work.

NM = downside protection and Billable requirement = upside protection. It's always crazy NM folk are always so upset by the latter comment while working at very high RPL firms, which inevitably means high billables.

[Ultramar vistas]

I just don't get this argument which gets repeated on this forum. I've been at billable requirement firms and never heard of anyone just refusing to work once threshold has been met. If you aren't busy and a partner puts you on a deal, then you have to bill. I don't think partners actively look at your hours and stop putting you on deals because you met the threshold. Partners put you on deals because they like working with you. Sure you can stop asking for work/come up with some reason for declining work but I don't see why you can't do the same at NM firm once you billed a respectable amount.

Re your second point, nobody is saying you can get away with billing 10 hours a month and nobody is saying you are even expected to work less than a firm with billable requirement. Argument for going to NM firm is that it provides a downside protection against a few months of unexpected slow period so you aren't punished just in case.

At a minimum hours firm, I turn down work aggressively after I hit my bonus or know I will hit it. In reality that means 100 hour months with no vacation or 40 hour months with 2 weeks vacation. Partners aren't going to call me out because I always hit my hours every year.

If I were at a no minimum firm, I'd probably never turn down work at 2000 if I thought I had capacity, given the RPL is generally way higher so 2000 doesn't seem to be screw you level of hours there and leaves you replaceable if you push back on work.

NM = downside protection and Billable requirement = upside protection. It's always crazy NM folk are always so upset by the latter comment while working at very high RPL firms, which inevitably means high billables.

Not upset by it, just know that you are flat wrong about how people act at no-minimum firms.

You’re also an anon user, which hardly adds to your credibility.

The funny thing is that your example of an “absurdity” that wouldn’t happen, e.g. billing 10 hours and still getting full pay, quite literally happens at my own no-min firm and I know for sure at others. Your friends at Willkie or Kirkland or Weil aren’t sweating that random low hours month because there are no repercussions beyond being fed more hours at a later date.

Should you bill above 2000 as a mid level if you’re gunning for partner? Yes

Can you make non-equity partner and do good work and have people not be mad at you, and also get an above market bonus every year, and never have a year when you miss out on 70k per the poster above, and bill 1900 every year? Also yes

Don’t advocate for shit that doesn’t benefit you, just because you want to justify your own firm’s decisions, it’s sad and bad for associates everywhere.

[Anonymous User]

Oh look, another $1.6mm RPL firm associate trying to give advice on associate welfare.

[Ultramar vistas]

Oh look, another $1.6mm RPL firm associate trying to give advice on associate welfare.

What do you take issue with? No one is saying that lower RPL firms have no good reasons to make market bonuses contingent on high hours, but OP’s question was whether there is a reason to choose a firm with no minimums over a firm with minimums. The answer to that is yes, and no amount of pretending will alter that.

If you want to just say that firms with minimums are lower RPL firms that’s fine, but it’s a different conversation than comparing the bonus policies of peer firms who claim to pay market.

[Anonymous User]

Oh look, another $1.6mm RPL firm associate trying to give advice on associate welfare.

If you want to just say that firms with minimums are lower RPL firms that’s fine, but it’s a different conversation than comparing the bonus policies of peer firms who claim to pay market.

It's not a different conversation, that's the entire point. The lack of a minimum hours requirement is connected to a higher RPL firm on average and that is a central part of the analysis.

Yes, the best case scenario is a low RPL firm with no minimum hours requirement and market bonus. However I'd rather be at a mid-RPL firm with a minimum than high RPL firm with no minimum.

A few reasons why include bonuses are taxed at 46%+ in NYC, minimum hour firms create cultures where its not expected to bill substantially above the minimum, every hour of your life saved when you are working all of the time is worth that much more and when the legal market as a whole is slow (which is when the no minimum really shines), market bonuses plummet in value.