Top Law Schools

I am a 4-7th year range associate at a big law firm in the SF Bay Area.

Over the last few years, my hours have been materially in excess of the firm's minimum billable threshold (400-500 hours over) and my reviews have been extremely positive. Without saying more, I believe that I am on partner trajectory.

The firm is doing extremely well and by all accounts associates and partners alike are stretched incredibly thin. Especially in my group, a departure would be catastrophic right now given the void it would leave and we are aggressively trying to hire (though it doesn't appear that we have been successful in doing so).

Now, to my point: I want to ask for more money. The economic case is clear given the number of hours I am billing and I can't imagine a time in which associates have more leverage.

Has anyone done this? If so, were you afraid of the impact such an ask would have on partnership prospects?

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

Are you at a market-paying firm or a black box firm? If the former, I don’t think you will be able to negotiate a higher salary. 400-500 hours over minimum is a lot (I’m assuming you’re in the 2300-2400 ballpark), but those are not that astronomically high that. So, even at a black box firm, like JD, I doubt you’d be able to get that much more than market salary + bonus.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:22 pm

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

The "compensation" for a high performer is the possibility of partnership (and at a growing number of firms, a larger year-end bonus). I don't think meekness is the right answer to why the system is the way that it is: top performers decide they won't rock the boat, lower performing associates don't have a basis to ask for special treatment, and firms know that if they treated associates individually, the splintered market (with dozens and dozens of major players) would put upward pressure on employee compensation.

Biglaw is different than every other industry because it cannot consolidate into a "Big Four" like accounting (which itself was a "Big Eight" just twenty years ago) or any other similar service industry that is heavily consolidated.

The losers in this game are people who are high performers, who bill extra hours and work materially more than their colleagues, who then ultimately do not get partnership (voluntarily or not). But everyone else kinda gets what they want out of the deal.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:22 pm

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

The "compensation" for a high performer is the possibility of partnership (and at a growing number of firms, a larger year-end bonus). I don't think meekness is the right answer to why the system is the way that it is: top performers decide they won't rock the boat, lower performing associates don't have a basis to ask for special treatment, and firms know that if they treated associates individually, the splintered market (with dozens and dozens of major players) would put upward pressure on employee compensation.

Biglaw is different than every other industry because it cannot consolidate into a "Big Four" like accounting (which itself was a "Big Eight" just twenty years ago) or any other similar service industry that is heavily consolidated.

The losers in this game are people who are high performers, who bill extra hours and work materially more than their colleagues, who then ultimately do not get partnership (voluntarily or not). But everyone else kinda gets what they want out of the deal.

OP here - The ~10-25% chance at making partner 8-10 years in the future makes that extra "compensation" incentive fairly attenuated.

Plus, it isn't like major promotions don't exist in every job. The carrot of becoming more senior, making more money, etc. exists in every industry. I am not sure I follow why the inability to consolidate means we end up with more uniformity in compensation across our own industry and more uniformity than any other industry.

"Top performers decide they won't rock the boat" = "top performers accept being underpaid" = "meekness" to me, but maybe I am being semantic. Top performers in other jobs demand more pay and still get promoted down the road.

For what its worth, I have heard of a few more junior associates (3-5 year range) asking and receiving class bumps. I would expect that a spot bonus might be easier to stomach and seems pretty tough to argue against on the numbers. 400-500 hours over bonus thresholds earns out to $300k-500K more revenue for the firm relative to an associate billing the minimum. Tough to argue the associate would be out of line asking for....$30k of that?

We just saw firms hand out roughly that amount to every single associate because of COVID - all because one firm was first mover and the rest had to follow suit. A handful of the firm's best associates shouldn't receive that on a regular basis?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:22 pm

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

The "compensation" for a high performer is the possibility of partnership (and at a growing number of firms, a larger year-end bonus). I don't think meekness is the right answer to why the system is the way that it is: top performers decide they won't rock the boat, lower performing associates don't have a basis to ask for special treatment, and firms know that if they treated associates individually, the splintered market (with dozens and dozens of major players) would put upward pressure on employee compensation.

Biglaw is different than every other industry because it cannot consolidate into a "Big Four" like accounting (which itself was a "Big Eight" just twenty years ago) or any other similar service industry that is heavily consolidated.

The losers in this game are people who are high performers, who bill extra hours and work materially more than their colleagues, who then ultimately do not get partnership (voluntarily or not). But everyone else kinda gets what they want out of the deal.

OP here - The ~10-25% chance at making partner 8-10 years in the future makes that extra "compensation" incentive fairly attenuated.

Plus, it isn't like major promotions don't exist in every job. The carrot of becoming more senior, making more money, etc. exists in every industry. I am not sure I follow why the inability to consolidate means we end up with more uniformity in compensation across our own industry and more uniformity than any other industry.

"Top performers decide they won't rock the boat" = "top performers accept being underpaid" = "meekness" to me, but maybe I am being semantic. Top performers in other jobs demand more pay and still get promoted down the road.

For what its worth, I have heard of a few more junior associates (3-5 year range) asking and receiving class bumps. I would expect that a spot bonus might be easier to stomach and seems pretty tough to argue against on the numbers. 400-500 hours over bonus thresholds earns out to $300k-500K more revenue for the firm relative to an associate billing the minimum. Tough to argue the associate would be out of line asking for....$30k of that?

We just saw firms hand out roughly that amount to every single associate because of COVID - all because one firm was first mover and the rest had to follow suit. A handful of the firm's best associates shouldn't receive that on a regular basis?

This was just explained to you by the previous poster. If you don't want to listen to the *correct* advice (or don't understand how consolidation affects compensation structures and how biglaw is not comparable to other industries) that you asked for, you should go ask for a raise and report back what happens. Maybe it will inspire others to stop being so meek?

jsnow212 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:22 pm

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

The "compensation" for a high performer is the possibility of partnership (and at a growing number of firms, a larger year-end bonus). I don't think meekness is the right answer to why the system is the way that it is: top performers decide they won't rock the boat, lower performing associates don't have a basis to ask for special treatment, and firms know that if they treated associates individually, the splintered market (with dozens and dozens of major players) would put upward pressure on employee compensation.

Biglaw is different than every other industry because it cannot consolidate into a "Big Four" like accounting (which itself was a "Big Eight" just twenty years ago) or any other similar service industry that is heavily consolidated.

The losers in this game are people who are high performers, who bill extra hours and work materially more than their colleagues, who then ultimately do not get partnership (voluntarily or not). But everyone else kinda gets what they want out of the deal.

OP here - The ~10-25% chance at making partner 8-10 years in the future makes that extra "compensation" incentive fairly attenuated.

Plus, it isn't like major promotions don't exist in every job. The carrot of becoming more senior, making more money, etc. exists in every industry. I am not sure I follow why the inability to consolidate means we end up with more uniformity in compensation across our own industry and more uniformity than any other industry.

"Top performers decide they won't rock the boat" = "top performers accept being underpaid" = "meekness" to me, but maybe I am being semantic. Top performers in other jobs demand more pay and still get promoted down the road.

For what its worth, I have heard of a few more junior associates (3-5 year range) asking and receiving class bumps. I would expect that a spot bonus might be easier to stomach and seems pretty tough to argue against on the numbers. 400-500 hours over bonus thresholds earns out to $300k-500K more revenue for the firm relative to an associate billing the minimum. Tough to argue the associate would be out of line asking for....$30k of that?

We just saw firms hand out roughly that amount to every single associate because of COVID - all because one firm was first mover and the rest had to follow suit. A handful of the firm's best associates shouldn't receive that on a regular basis?

This was just explained to you by the previous poster. If you don't want to listen to the *correct* advice (or don't understand how consolidation affects compensation structures and how biglaw is not comparable to other industries) that you asked for, you should go ask for a raise and report back what happens. Maybe it will inspire others to stop being so meek?

OP - not trying to be argumentative, I don't understand the explanation given. Wouldn't fewer players lend itself to more uniformity, not less? Software engineers can work for any one of 600 SaaS companies, they don't all pay their engineers the same amount of money.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:22 pm

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

The "compensation" for a high performer is the possibility of partnership (and at a growing number of firms, a larger year-end bonus). I don't think meekness is the right answer to why the system is the way that it is: top performers decide they won't rock the boat, lower performing associates don't have a basis to ask for special treatment, and firms know that if they treated associates individually, the splintered market (with dozens and dozens of major players) would put upward pressure on employee compensation.

Biglaw is different than every other industry because it cannot consolidate into a "Big Four" like accounting (which itself was a "Big Eight" just twenty years ago) or any other similar service industry that is heavily consolidated.

The losers in this game are people who are high performers, who bill extra hours and work materially more than their colleagues, who then ultimately do not get partnership (voluntarily or not). But everyone else kinda gets what they want out of the deal.

OP here - The ~10-25% chance at making partner 8-10 years in the future makes that extra "compensation" incentive fairly attenuated.

Plus, it isn't like major promotions don't exist in every job. The carrot of becoming more senior, making more money, etc. exists in every industry. I am not sure I follow why the inability to consolidate means we end up with more uniformity in compensation across our own industry and more uniformity than any other industry.

"Top performers decide they won't rock the boat" = "top performers accept being underpaid" = "meekness" to me, but maybe I am being semantic. Top performers in other jobs demand more pay and still get promoted down the road.

For what its worth, I have heard of a few more junior associates (3-5 year range) asking and receiving class bumps. I would expect that a spot bonus might be easier to stomach and seems pretty tough to argue against on the numbers. 400-500 hours over bonus thresholds earns out to $300k-500K more revenue for the firm relative to an associate billing the minimum. Tough to argue the associate would be out of line asking for....$30k of that?

We just saw firms hand out roughly that amount to every single associate because of COVID - all because one firm was first mover and the rest had to follow suit. A handful of the firm's best associates shouldn't receive that on a regular basis?

If you thought this was a viable strat, you would've gone ahead and done it already. You already know it's likely not a great idea, so you're canvassing TLS to see if there are any datapoints to support you. If you want to argue with people telling you this won't work out, go ahead and try and let us know how it worked out.

dyemond wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:19 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:22 pm

I don't want to be short-sighted, but part of me thinks lawyers are just so meek that we're the only industry that pays average and high performers exactly the same and the high performers don't even think to ask for more. It happens in practically every other commercial industry, why not law?

The "compensation" for a high performer is the possibility of partnership (and at a growing number of firms, a larger year-end bonus). I don't think meekness is the right answer to why the system is the way that it is: top performers decide they won't rock the boat, lower performing associates don't have a basis to ask for special treatment, and firms know that if they treated associates individually, the splintered market (with dozens and dozens of major players) would put upward pressure on employee compensation.

Biglaw is different than every other industry because it cannot consolidate into a "Big Four" like accounting (which itself was a "Big Eight" just twenty years ago) or any other similar service industry that is heavily consolidated.

The losers in this game are people who are high performers, who bill extra hours and work materially more than their colleagues, who then ultimately do not get partnership (voluntarily or not). But everyone else kinda gets what they want out of the deal.

OP here - The ~10-25% chance at making partner 8-10 years in the future makes that extra "compensation" incentive fairly attenuated.

Plus, it isn't like major promotions don't exist in every job. The carrot of becoming more senior, making more money, etc. exists in every industry. I am not sure I follow why the inability to consolidate means we end up with more uniformity in compensation across our own industry and more uniformity than any other industry.

"Top performers decide they won't rock the boat" = "top performers accept being underpaid" = "meekness" to me, but maybe I am being semantic. Top performers in other jobs demand more pay and still get promoted down the road.

For what its worth, I have heard of a few more junior associates (3-5 year range) asking and receiving class bumps. I would expect that a spot bonus might be easier to stomach and seems pretty tough to argue against on the numbers. 400-500 hours over bonus thresholds earns out to $300k-500K more revenue for the firm relative to an associate billing the minimum. Tough to argue the associate would be out of line asking for....$30k of that?

We just saw firms hand out roughly that amount to every single associate because of COVID - all because one firm was first mover and the rest had to follow suit. A handful of the firm's best associates shouldn't receive that on a regular basis?

If you thought this was a viable strat, you would've gone ahead and done it already. You already know it's likely not a great idea, so you're canvassing TLS to see if there are any datapoints to support you. If you want to argue with people telling you this won't work out, go ahead and try and let us know how it worked out.

I came on TLS because I lack the data points to support the ask, as you said. It's also very surprising to me this is how things are, as it is to anyone you explain our compensation structure to.

I don't know why I am being flamed because I asked a question to learn more about a compensation structure that is totally unique to biglaw.

You didn’t come on here wanting to learn how biglaw compensation works. We all know what the Cravath scale is and how it functions.

It’s not that complicated unless you’re at JD or Boies.

It’s not a good idea to ask for a raise or some special bonus, but if you want to be the test case, so be it.

2013 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:10 pm

You didn’t come on here wanting to learn how biglaw compensation works. We all know what the Cravath scale is and how it functions.

It’s not that complicated unless you’re at JD or Boies.

It’s not a good idea to ask for a raise or some special bonus, but if you want to be the test case, so be it.

I know how it works, I am wondering why it works that way. To put it another way, I want to know why top performers in biglaw don't ask for more money when top performers do so in every other industry. What makes these associates accept this obviously short end of the stick?

I appreciate the responses, and I replied with questions when I had them. For example, someone said the chance at partnership is the compensation and I replied with my analysis of that explanation.

Why is not a good idea? I asked that, too. Do people think that it hurts partnership chances or job security? I am interested to hear if people believe that, because it doesn't hurt promotion prospects or job security in other industries.

One possible explanation I considered that hasn't been mentioned here - our structure lends itself to risk averse people and therefore helps recruit associates that will stay at the firm long term. If you were a 3L would you take the job that gave you $190k guaranteed, or a range between $150-$230 depending on how you performed? I would guess lawyers would skew toward the former and that makes sense to me.

However, it wouldn't explain why no one *asks* for more unless there's some risk associated with that. I admit that I sense that risk if its true that no one ever does it - and that's why I am here asking if anyone has heard of anyone doing it.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:18 pm

2013 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:10 pm

You didn’t come on here wanting to learn how biglaw compensation works. We all know what the Cravath scale is and how it functions.

It’s not that complicated unless you’re at JD or Boies.

It’s not a good idea to ask for a raise or some special bonus, but if you want to be the test case, so be it.

I know how it works, I am wondering why it works that way. To put it another way, I want to know why top performers in biglaw don't ask for more money when top performers do so in every other industry. What makes these associates accept this obviously short end of the stick?

I appreciate the responses, and I replied with questions when I had them. For example, someone said the chance at partnership is the compensation and I replied with my analysis of that explanation.

Why is not a good idea? I asked that, too. Do people think that it hurts partnership chances or job security? I am interested to hear if people believe that, because it doesn't hurt promotion prospects or job security in other industries.

One possible explanation I considered that hasn't been mentioned here - our structure lends itself to risk averse people and therefore helps recruit associates that will stay at the firm long term. If you were a 3L would you take the job that gave you $190k guaranteed, or a range between $150-$230 depending on how you performed? I would guess lawyers would skew toward the former and that makes sense to me.

However, it wouldn't explain why no one *asks* for more unless there's some risk associated with that. I admit that I sense that risk if its true that no one ever does it - and that's why I am here asking if anyone has heard of anyone doing it.

If you know the scale, and you know that scale is not flexible, asking a partner for flexibility on that scale makes you look stupid. It has nothing to do with being risk averse. Cravath famously doesn’t pay above market bonuses to anyone.

People who think they are high achievers can leave and go to one of the lit boutiques or Kirkland and get market shattering bonuses.

The one-time bonus thing may make sense. But I would do this with an actual offer in hand so they don’t call your bluff or anything. Since firms have to expend tens of thousands of dollars to replace you (including offering a signing bonus), maybe a one-time bonus could work. I don’t think this will hurt your chances at partnership per se, but if the economy slows and they need to trim the fat (and there isn’t room to promote anyone to partner), I’d be a bit worried.

Biglaw also isn’t like any other industry in that it has a set salary floor. Everyone who gets into a particular kind of firm (in the same market) gets paid the same. That doesn’t happen in any other industry, either. (I guess barring very rigid unionized shops where salary is determined only by seniority - but you can’t ask for a merit boost in those, either.) And very few other industries have partnerships where once you get there, you’re basically set. So I’m not sure why you think it would follow other industries in that high performers should get paid more. High performers make partner; many many people won’t.

I agree that you should ask and see what happens, though.

Or if it disturbs you so much, quit and find another job that will pay you comparably.

2013 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:18 pm

2013 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:10 pm

You didn’t come on here wanting to learn how biglaw compensation works. We all know what the Cravath scale is and how it functions.

It’s not that complicated unless you’re at JD or Boies.

It’s not a good idea to ask for a raise or some special bonus, but if you want to be the test case, so be it.

I know how it works, I am wondering why it works that way. To put it another way, I want to know why top performers in biglaw don't ask for more money when top performers do so in every other industry. What makes these associates accept this obviously short end of the stick?

I appreciate the responses, and I replied with questions when I had them. For example, someone said the chance at partnership is the compensation and I replied with my analysis of that explanation.

Why is not a good idea? I asked that, too. Do people think that it hurts partnership chances or job security? I am interested to hear if people believe that, because it doesn't hurt promotion prospects or job security in other industries.

One possible explanation I considered that hasn't been mentioned here - our structure lends itself to risk averse people and therefore helps recruit associates that will stay at the firm long term. If you were a 3L would you take the job that gave you $190k guaranteed, or a range between $150-$230 depending on how you performed? I would guess lawyers would skew toward the former and that makes sense to me.

However, it wouldn't explain why no one *asks* for more unless there's some risk associated with that. I admit that I sense that risk if its true that no one ever does it - and that's why I am here asking if anyone has heard of anyone doing it.

If you know the scale, and you know that scale is not flexible, asking a partner for flexibility on that scale makes you look stupid. It has nothing to do with being risk averse. Cravath famously doesn’t pay above market bonuses to anyone.

People who think they are high achievers can leave and go to one of the lit boutiques or Kirkland and get market shattering bonuses.

The one-time bonus thing may make sense. But I would do this with an actual offer in hand so they don’t call your bluff or anything. Since firms have to expend tens of thousands of dollars to replace you (including offering a signing bonus), maybe a one-time bonus could work. I don’t think this will hurt your chances at partnership per se, but if the economy slows and they need to trim the fat (and there isn’t room to promote anyone to partner), I’d be a bit worried.

I guess that's the point of my question - do we know its inflexible or is it just that compensation is naturally a private/taboo topic so no one hears about deviations? Maybe that's another explanation for the existing structure - if you tell people what it is and keep promoting them to make more money as a matter of course, people are less inclined to ask questions about comp.

As I said before, I do know of 2 associates that did it. A 3rd year that got asked to be paid as a 4th year and a 4th year that got asked to be paid as a 5th year. Both were successful, but I am just looking for more data points to test my hypotheses.

In terms of the form the money would take, I wouldn't think a bonus pegged to a higher hours threshold would be controversial. The partners will know almost exactly how much more revenue those hours will result in and can make the cost/benefit analysis easily.

I also just have a hard time believing that "associate X wanted to make more money" would be a demerit for partnership. I would be concerned if that was part of my firm's analysis for making partners. The most important thing to the firm is retaining strong associates as long as possible and making partners out of the ones that will increase the size of the pie. If an associate, knowing how rare the ask is, comes to the firm asking for more money then they have an opportunity to keep that associate very happy by accommodating. On the flip side, they run the risk of losing the associate to another firm that will pay a signing bonus. Lateraling is insanely easy right now and At the end of the day, it seems that it should come down to how valuable of an asset you are to the firm.

Its well known that people negotiate lateral offers (signing bonuses, moving expenses, guaranteed vs pro rated bonuses, etc.) Is that also a risky move for your long term career prospects at the firm?

Do doctors get paid based on performance within their specialty ?

Don't all surgeons get paid the same for removing a gall bladder ?

Many industries pay high & moderate & poor performers the same base salary. The difference is in the year end bonus, amount of commission, or whether one gets to keep his or her job.

Promotions in a lockstep compensation system is in just being retained. Eventually partnership becomes a possible reward.

CanadianWolf wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:01 pm

Do doctors get paid based on performance within their specialty ?

Don't all surgeons get paid the same for removing a gall bladder ?

Many industries pay high & moderate & poor performers the same base salary. The difference is in the year end bonus, amount of commission, or whether one gets to keep his or her job.

Promotions in a lockstep compensation system is in just being retained. Eventually partnership becomes a possible reward.

I am fairly certain surgeons don't get paid the same for removing a gall bladder, but the better question would be if you paid 2 surgeons the same if 1 person removed 2,000 gallbladders and the other removed 2,500.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:19 pm

As I said before, I do know of 2 associates that did it. A 3rd year that got asked to be paid as a 4th year and a 4th year that got asked to be paid as a 5th year. Both were successful, but I am just looking for more data points to test my hypotheses.

I'm not sure the risk is worth the reward here. Assuming you interviewed and had a lateral offer in hand, you asked for more money with the current firm and succeeded, then you already ruined the relationship with the current firm/partners. Introducing cracks into a previously unbroken mirror is bad because we don't know whether the short-term profits would outweigh the long-term reward (potential partnership). Say, despite being a high performer, you later end up not making partner, wouldn't you be always asking yourself what if (you didn't ask for a higher salary that one year)?

I feel like most of the responses here don't truly understand what it means for a group to be stretched razor thin and for an associate to be central to short term success. OP, given everything here (and I'm in a similar situation), I'd be shocked if they didn't pay you more if you asked, especially if you are in a hot group every firm is recruiting for and your firms PPP is high.

However in my case at least I'm just afraid it may create bad blood going forward because it isn't something people ask for or will create an expectation you work excessive hours and that doesn't seem worth it. FWIW my firm already pays ~40k above market bonuses but still doesn't feel enough.

If your firm doesn't pay above market for your hours threshold, maybe asking a partner you like very inoculously if the firm offers anything like X other firms compensation as on Y deal you were chatting with their associate and for hitting Z hours, they offer $[] extra bonus. Getting $20-40k should be easy enough. Getting more is probably uncharted waters.

I work at a top firm that pays differentiated bonuses, and know of someone who is in a position similar to you (well above average hours, great reputation in the group) who negotiated a bonus minimum well in excess of the market bonus. The associate ended up getting paid a bonus that was significantly higher than the negotiated bonus, as well; well over 2 times market.

I think it's worth a try, esp. given your other data points and the difficulties firms have retaining mid-levels.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:06 pm

I work at a top firm that pays differentiated bonuses, and know of someone who is in a position similar to you (well above average hours, great reputation in the group) who negotiated a bonus minimum well in excess of the market bonus. The associate ended up getting paid a bonus that was significantly higher than the negotiated bonus, as well; well over 2 times market.

I think it's worth a try, esp. given your other data points and the difficulties firms have retaining mid-levels.

Thanks for this info - do you have any insight into how he/she approached that conversation?