"low" hours relative class year, apparently Forum

[Anonymous User]

Staffing partner called me to inform me that since my hours are "low relative to my class year" I would probably have to take on additional work that's piling up in another office of my same firm with partners I don't know (and who I've heard bad things about, but whatever).

I told staffing partner "I mean my hours aren't objectively low, but I'm fine to take on more and share the burden with others -- team effort and all that."

Staffing partner: "Well, "low" is relative. You're annualizing 2300, and the average associate in the group is at 2500, so you have slack to pick up and have certainly had capacity."

Me: "Look, in all honesty, I'm not going to apologize for 'only' annualizing 2300 hours -- especially when I didn't sleep last night. But if you need me on something then whatever I get it, but I wouldn't call it 'slack to pick up'."

Staffing partner: "Ok, well, I'll let you get back to not sleeping then" and hung up without even saying bye.

So overall it felt like the call went poorly, haha. But also given that the group is busting at the seams, it also feels like I have the job security to have a bit of a backbone, surely? Biglaw is dumb.

[objctnyrhnr]

Wow this sounds fairly toxic. I’m in market biglaw and I cannot envision this happening to anybody I know...especially when that hours # is factored in.

Also, frankly, doesn’t seem like that partner thinks super highly of you (regardless of whether it’s deserved).

I’d look to lateral.

I’m interested in what firm this is. I’ll go ahead and guess it’s Kirkland, Quinn being my second guess.

But I won’t even ask you to out them for obvious reasons.

[lolwutpar]

lmao anyone who says billing 2300 hours isn't enough can go fuck themselves.

[jotarokujo]

honestly you handled that quite well. I think that amount of backbone is absolutely fine. if you start insulting people, that's crossing the line but what you did is perfect.

[hdr]

You handled it well. No one billing 2300 gets fired; you don't have to worry about a thing until you're on track to bill ~1700 or less. Also, there's a good chance the partner was BSing about how busy everyone else is.

[2013]

You handled it well. No one billing 2300 gets fired; you don't have to worry about a thing until you're on track to bill ~1700 or less. Also, there's a good chance the partner was BSing about how busy everyone else is.

Yeah, partner is probably just trying to find someone to work with the terrible partners in the other offices. However if your assigning partner and the partners in the other office are all terrible, not sure why you’d want to stay there anyway.

[Anonymous User]

I’m interested in what firm this is. I’ll go ahead and guess it’s Kirkland, Quinn being my second guess.

I’m aware of a junior at one of those firms who was told by a partner that the junior was expected to target 230 hours billed per month.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, that partner is an a-hole. Good for you for speaking up and defending yourself.

2300 annualized hrs is a crap ton of hrs. More than I’ve ever billed in a year.

Also, beware if you’ve been warned about that partner in the different office. Bad partners can make your life hell. If I were you, I would try to do everything I could to get out of working with that partner.

[Anonymous User]

For those saying Kirkland, they don’t have staffing partners at Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

Had a similar thing happen and gave a much more pointed response than you did (along with saying no to the added work)...so you have me beat.

[target_corp]

You should lateral.

[Sackboy]

You should lateral.

[Anonymous User]

GTFO of that firm

[bob311]

You should out the firm. 100% think it’s Quinn but that’s egregious behavior.

[DiligentSage]

Yeah, this is psychotic. 2300 hours is busy even relative to biglaw standards. I think you took the right approach -- say you're willing to do whatever's necessary to be a team player and keep up with the joneses but you don't need to apologize for how hard you're working.

[Itcamefromthesea]

That does not seem like a healthy work environment. It costs the partner nothing to approach this conversation humanely with, “We know everyone is working a lot and we really appreciate your hard work, but we need you to do X.” 2300 is not lazy by any standard, so there is no reason to treat it that way even if every other attorney is billing more. Unless you are a senior or an established mid-level, the staffing partner knows you can’t turn down the work, so why do they need to be sassy about it? It is literally part of their job to help manage workflow.

[Anonymous User]

Staffing partner called me to inform me that since my hours are "low relative to my class year" I would probably have to take on additional work that's piling up in another office of my same firm with partners I don't know (and who I've heard bad things about, but whatever).

I told staffing partner "I mean my hours aren't objectively low, but I'm fine to take on more and share the burden with others -- team effort and all that."

Staffing partner: "Well, "low" is relative. You're annualizing 2300, and the average associate in the group is at 2500, so you have slack to pick up and have certainly had capacity."

Me: "Look, in all honesty, I'm not going to apologize for 'only' annualizing 2300 hours -- especially when I didn't sleep last night. But if you need me on something then whatever I get it, but I wouldn't call it 'slack to pick up'."

Staffing partner: "Ok, well, I'll let you get back to not sleeping then" and hung up without even saying bye.

So overall it felt like the call went poorly, haha. But also given that the group is busting at the seams, it also feels like I have the job security to have a bit of a backbone, surely? Biglaw is dumb.

“the group” doesn’t sound like quinn since there aren’t formal groups. i know rank speculation as to firm isn’t productive, but i am now curious...

[Anonymous User]

Nearly identical thing happened to two friends at Debevoise. Apparently it’s fairly common there.

[Anonymous User]

Just tell this story when you lateral and you’ll be off the market in no time. If any partner at our firm did this, HR would be in their office within a week.

[Anonymous User]

Just tell this story when you lateral and you’ll be off the market in no time. If any partner at our firm did this, HR would be in their office within a week.

It's shitty biglaw behavior to be sure, but what is the HR issue? The staffing partner had an assignment, sought out the lowest hours associate - with very high hours, because the partners are cheap and are understaffing their group (but HR cannot correct that) - and then was curt. Is this really a go to HR situation?

[Anonymous User]

Just tell this story when you lateral and you’ll be off the market in no time. If any partner at our firm did this, HR would be in their office within a week.

It's shitty biglaw behavior to be sure, but what is the HR issue? The staffing partner had an assignment, sought out the lowest hours associate - with very high hours, because the partners are cheap and are understaffing their group (but HR cannot correct that) - and then was curt. Is this really a go to HR situation?

Our firm cares a lot about retention. We’re not a top 10 firm, but many associates are laterals bought from top 10 firms with the promise of work life balance. Partners are given additional headcount whenever their hours per associate are averaging higher than 2200, so if instead of hiring, you are discovered pressuring an already busy associate to take more work, you get a reminder from HR to use your extra headcount. The upside is that we keep most of our midlevel/ senior associates, and occasionally get in-house counsel coming back to corporate law.