2021 Special Bonuses Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

Yes, prestige is more amorphous than RPL or PPEP but we have pretty good data for RPL/PPEP metrics. We do not have good data for "prestige" so would you rather rely on good data that correlates well but not perfectly with prestige or just garbage data that attempts to measure "prestige"?

I think the answer is clearly good data but people can disagree.

We actually have really good data to measure general prestige. A survey called Vault is sent around to hundreds of law firms around the country and asks recipients to rank firms around the country based on their perceived prestige. Then, the survey asks practitioners in specific regions to rank firms in that particular regions. Then there’s a survey asking to rank firms by specialities. There’s another regarding the prestige of boutiques, etc.

Why would any sort of financial metric would be more probative of a firm’s prestige nationally and in its specific region than that? And what sort of missing data do you have in mind? And why is everyone anonymous?

I think it’s not super useful to consider the general prestige of a large firm to make decisions. But it’s certainly useful in some situations.

I think it’s definitely worth considering the financial strength of a firm you intend to stay long term (or even short term). And of course, there’s strong correlation between firms thought of as prestigious and super rich firms. But idk why PPEP or RPL or w/e would be a better indicator of firm prestige among lawyers than a survey sent to lawyers asking them to rank firms based on firm prestige.

But maybe I’m just dumb

On the one hand, I’m not sure how we (associates) could cause as much market-match pressure were it not for things like vault.

On the other hand, vault remains an imperfect mechanism even of doing this because you all (you all being associates in general) continue to let, for example, Jones day stay up there because law.com writes about its hiring of scotus Clerks annually...despite JD’s absolutely fleecing associates relative to market.*

*yes this is my second “how the hell does JD get away with this?” comment on this thread. No, I have never worked at, or even applied to, JD. It’s more than I just don’t understand how the vast majority of v30 always feels the match pressure and JD gets away with ignoring it. Just baffles me, that’s all.

[Anonymous User]

I did my part, I voted a 5 for Milbank, DPW, Wachtel and Wilkie and a 1 for every other firm.

I wonder what the response rate for the vault survey would be from each firm. If I had to guess, the V10 was close to 100% response rate and everyone out of the V100 were close to 2% response rate.

[2013]

I did my part, I voted a 5 for Milbank, DPW, Wachtel and Wilkie and a 1 for every other firm.

I wonder what the response rate for the vault survey would be from each firm. If I had to guess, the V10 was close to 100% response rate and everyone out of the V100 were close to 2% response rate.

You face those firms a 5? Why not 10?

[Anonymous User]

I did my part, I voted a 5 for Milbank, DPW, Wachtel and Wilkie and a 1 for every other firm.

I wonder what the response rate for the vault survey would be from each firm. If I had to guess, the V10 was close to 100% response rate and everyone out of the V100 were close to 2% response rate.

I don't see why you would give a 1 to every other firm. 1s should go to Cadwalader, Goodwin, Skadden etc. Milbank, DPW etc. should receive a 10.

[dyemond]

Imagine thinking historical vault rankings are a more sensible determination of prestige than PPEP rankings

But...they are? One literally measures perceived prestige irrespective of PPEP. The other measures PPEP. I would think that recent historical data of perceived prestige is likely more probative on the question of firm prestige in the marketplace than data that literally does not measure prestige. But who knows.

PPEP rankings get pretty close to measuring PPEP which is a data focused indicator of value per hour. I'm really not clear what Vault actually measures but whatever it is, sounds less correlated to prestige than value of a lawyer's time.

Imagine law school rankings stopped focusing on the LSAT/GPA and instead on a survey of law students.

(1) no idea why you are anon for this

(2) Vault rankings are litterally a survey sent out to associates that asks you to rank each firm 1 to 10 on how "prestigious" they are. Like, it literally only measures prestige.

And as we all know, Vault uses a flawless methodology that doesn't result in any nonsensical results, and everyone agrees that White & Case is the more prestigious of the "W&Cs", and that DLA Piper is more prestigious than Susman and MTO.

Now's the part where you bend over backwards to explain how name recognition in Topeka or whatever is a valid measurement of "prestige," and that the incredibly lengthy list of exceptions and caveats you have to concede don't render Vault rankings virtually worthless.

Here's a crazy notion for you - just because Vault claims to measure "prestige," which isn't really measurable to begin with, does not mean it does so effectively.

That's not to say PPEP is a meaningfully better metric, but it at least bears a semblance of reliability.

1. People saying PPEP is a bad metric because PI firms with $15m PPEP would top the chart are missing the point -- the question is getting at PPEP among large, corporate firms.

2. Vault literally just measures prestige -- that is exactly what it asks.

It's like USNWR -- putting aside rankings movement outside of the T25 or whatever, nitpicking whether NYU, UChi and Penn are in the same ballpark is idiocy, differences are marginal. Same applies to discussions regarding firms in the higher end of the vault/PPEP rankings.

FWIW, I'm not sure who continues to make these asinine arguments -- makes no sense to cling so desperately to the argument that "PPEP is not an appropriate measure of prestige but vault is similarly deficient in measuring prestige because firms outside of NYC are allowed to vote".

[Anonymous User]

Back to bonuses...what is K&S still waiting for? 15% increase in revenue and PPEP of $3.5 million+. They talk about how great of a year it was for the firm in every single meeting and still no announcement, even though A&B announced salary raises and special bonuses. Frustrating.

[Anonymous User]

Back to bonuses...what is K&S still waiting for? 15% increase in revenue and PPEP of $3.5 million+. They talk about how great of a year it was for the firm in every single meeting and still no announcement, even though A&B announced salary raises and special bonuses. Frustrating.

Completely agree. I didn't mind (too much) making less than the NYC/Houston offices as long as it was top of Atlanta market. But I'm not sticking around for less-than-market pay.

[Anonymous User]

Back to bonuses...what is K&S still waiting for? 15% increase in revenue and PPEP of $3.5 million+. They talk about how great of a year it was for the firm in every single meeting and still no announcement, even though A&B announced salary raises and special bonuses. Frustrating.

Completely agree. I didn't mind (too much) making less than the NYC/Houston offices as long as it was top of Atlanta market. But I'm not sticking around for less-than-market pay.

The firm should honestly be embarrassed that they let A&B beat them to the punch on moving Atlanta to the same scale as other offices. They need to do something to make up for it like make the raises effective in May rather than June like A&B. Waiting until now was not a smart move. They had to know a lot of people were ready to jump ship on April 1 after bonuses cleared and they probably could have gotten people to stay if they had moved earlier.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like Hunton matched, but is paying out later because of their fiscal calendar.
https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/hunton-special-bonuses/

[Auxilio]

...

And as we all know, Vault uses a flawless methodology that doesn't result in any nonsensical results, and everyone agrees that White & Case is the more prestigious of the "W&Cs", and that DLA Piper is more prestigious than Susman and MTO.

Now's the part where you bend over backwards to explain how name recognition in Topeka or whatever is a valid measurement of "prestige," and that the incredibly lengthy list of exceptions and caveats you have to concede don't render Vault rankings virtually worthless.

Here's a crazy notion for you - just because Vault claims to measure "prestige," which isn't really measurable to begin with, does not mean it does so effectively.

That's not to say PPEP is a meaningfully better metric, but it at least bears a semblance of reliability.

others have responded for me, but the point isn't that Vault is a good thing to rely on to make any decision whatsoever, but I don't get how you argue it's not a decent way of evaluating "prestige." Yes places like Susman, for those who know the firm are more prestigious than tons of firms above them, but if you aren't widely known as prestigious are you really prestigious?

[ExpOriental]

...

And as we all know, Vault uses a flawless methodology that doesn't result in any nonsensical results, and everyone agrees that White & Case is the more prestigious of the "W&Cs", and that DLA Piper is more prestigious than Susman and MTO.

Now's the part where you bend over backwards to explain how name recognition in Topeka or whatever is a valid measurement of "prestige," and that the incredibly lengthy list of exceptions and caveats you have to concede don't render Vault rankings virtually worthless.

Here's a crazy notion for you - just because Vault claims to measure "prestige," which isn't really measurable to begin with, does not mean it does so effectively.

That's not to say PPEP is a meaningfully better metric, but it at least bears a semblance of reliability.

others have responded for me, but the point isn't that Vault is a good thing to rely on to make any decision whatsoever, but I don't get how you argue it's not a decent way of evaluating "prestige." Yes places like Susman, for those who know the firm are more prestigious than tons of firms above them, but if you aren't widely known as prestigious are you really prestigious?

Yes. In fact, that only reinforces the point: some firms are elite to the point that only those in the highest echelons of the profession are expected to know of them. If you think that sounds absurd and snobby, know that I agree with you. But the very concept of prestige pays deference to those who are "in-the-know," doesn't it? To me, something is prestigious to the extent that it impresses other impressive people; meaning, the opinion of a SCOTUS Justice is far more probative of prestige than the opinion of a solo practitioner churning DUIs.

To offer an exaggerated comparison, the man off the street knows what McDonald's is, but on average has probably never even heard of The French Laundry. Does that mean the latter is not prestigious?

To some extent this is a matter of audience; if you're looking to go in-house at e.g. some random mid-market real estate company, you're assuredly better off coming from a RE transactions group at DLA Piper than you are from, like, Gupta Wessler or whatever. But that's really about utility (ignoring the self selection factor in that hypothetical), not whatever "prestige" is, which I think is something cognizably different.

I want to be clear that I ultimately find the very idea of prestige annoying and pointless, but people definitely do care about this shit, and I'd be lying if I said I've never caught myself huffing my own prestigious farts. It can be a pretty tempting trap, especially if you weren't born into it or had to struggle for it.

[Anonymous User]

Back to bonuses...what is K&S still waiting for? 15% increase in revenue and PPEP of $3.5 million+. They talk about how great of a year it was for the firm in every single meeting and still no announcement, even though A&B announced salary raises and special bonuses. Frustrating.

Completely agree. I didn't mind (too much) making less than the NYC/Houston offices as long as it was top of Atlanta market. But I'm not sticking around for less-than-market pay.

The firm should honestly be embarrassed that they let A&B beat them to the punch on moving Atlanta to the same scale as other offices. They need to do something to make up for it like make the raises effective in May rather than June like A&B. Waiting until now was not a smart move. They had to know a lot of people were ready to jump ship on April 1 after bonuses cleared and they probably could have gotten people to stay if they had moved earlier.

Plus match the top NYC firms and scrap the hours requirement for special bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

Foley & Lardner announced special COVID bonuses - surprising since they didn't pay them last year. Paid May 31 and November 30, need to be annualizing 1950 hours to be eligible, though can catchup for the 2nd payment and receive full bonus in November. Scale appears to be market with everyone else, but I could be wrong. Doesn't appear there is a different scale for secondary markets.

[YA_Tittle]

To offer an exaggerated comparison, the man off the street knows what McDonald's is, but on average has probably never even heard of The French Laundry. Does that mean the latter is not prestigious?

Thanks to a little guerilla advertising from Gavin Newsom, French Laundry is very well known these days

[ExpOriental]

To offer an exaggerated comparison, the man off the street knows what McDonald's is, but on average has probably never even heard of The French Laundry. Does that mean the latter is not prestigious?

Thanks to a little guerilla advertising from Gavin Newsom, French Laundry is very well known these days

I forgot about that, point taken. Sub in Alinea or whatever.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the motivations here to rank firms that give big bonuses higher, but really, in the short term there is only an incentive to rank your own firm a 10 and every other firm 1. Even if you hate your firm, it's going to be on your resume. It's kind of confusing to me why people would take the survey seriously.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the motivations here to rank firms that give big bonuses higher, but really, in the short term there is only an incentive to rank your own firm a 10 and every other firm 1. Even if you hate your firm, it's going to be on your resume. It's kind of confusing to me why people would take the survey seriously.

You cannot rank your own firm in the Vault survey.

[objctnyrhnr]

I agree with the motivations here to rank firms that give big bonuses higher, but really, in the short term there is only an incentive to rank your own firm a 10 and every other firm 1. Even if you hate your firm, it's going to be on your resume. It's kind of confusing to me why people would take the survey seriously.

Law student tries to provide unique, yet anonymous, take. Fails miserably.

[RokosBasilisk2049]

With inflation back up to about 3% (w/potential to go higher because of Powell's Printer) we better see raises in base / continuation of these special bonuses.

Assuming no raise in the base law students interviewing for OCI right now will earn like ~12,000 less all-in comp once they actually begin working just due to inflation

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I agree with the motivations here to rank firms that give big bonuses higher, but really, in the short term there is only an incentive to rank your own firm a 10 and every other firm 1. Even if you hate your firm, it's going to be on your resume. It's kind of confusing to me why people would take the survey seriously.

Even if they actually let you rank your own firm, what kind of psycho thinks like this? You're gonna lie about your opinion of a hundred different firms so that your extremely, extremely marginal contribution to the average can boost your firm a spot or two, and you think that will reflect to any kind of perceivable degree on your ability to lateral down the line?

Multiple people at my firm--associates, mind you, not even recruiting--have told me not to say anything negative to interviewees, summers or juniors about the firm because "we want to keep good juniors around." Fuck that. I'm not a pawn in the firm's Ponzi scheme. My dignity is worth more than a lie to any of them, much less every single one I come across. What's gonna happen when everyone you lied to finds out you're full of shit?

Whenever I see a dodgy post about a specific firm on here I usually think it's just someone who has drank the Kool-Aid (there are definitely plenty of those everywhere). But sometimes in the back of my head I've wondered if someone doesn't even believe their own bullshit and is saying something, or leaving something out, purely for purposes of self-promotion. Thanks for confirming those kinds of people are actually on here, shitting up the forum.

[Anonymous User]

Yes hello I am an anonymous poster familiar with Monochromatic Oeuvre's posting and I can confidently say in my honest opinion that his posting is the best and all the other posters are awful.

[objctnyrhnr]

Yes hello I am an anonymous poster familiar with Monochromatic Oeuvre's posting and I can confidently say in my honest opinion that his posting is the best and all the other posters are awful.

I take it that this is satire directed at that anon user’s bad and misinformed take? If so I’ll allow it.

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the motivations here to rank firms that give big bonuses higher, but really, in the short term there is only an incentive to rank your own firm a 10 and every other firm 1. Even if you hate your firm, it's going to be on your resume. It's kind of confusing to me why people would take the survey seriously.

Even if they actually let you rank your own firm, what kind of psycho thinks like this? You're gonna lie about your opinion of a hundred different firms so that your extremely, extremely marginal contribution to the average can boost your firm a spot or two, and you think that will reflect to any kind of perceivable degree on your ability to lateral down the line?

I guarantee you there are people who rank all the other firms 1 in hopes of dragging their rank down. I have a co-worker who does that every year. I often wonder if they have a system to toss out obviously bad faith ballots like that, but who knows. I mean what's crazier: filling in a bunch of ones across the board or taking a the time to earnestly fill in the form with your actual opinions about each firm's prestige?

[lolwutpar]

I agree with the motivations here to rank firms that give big bonuses higher, but really, in the short term there is only an incentive to rank your own firm a 10 and every other firm 1. Even if you hate your firm, it's going to be on your resume. It's kind of confusing to me why people would take the survey seriously.

Even if they actually let you rank your own firm, what kind of psycho thinks like this? You're gonna lie about your opinion of a hundred different firms so that your extremely, extremely marginal contribution to the average can boost your firm a spot or two, and you think that will reflect to any kind of perceivable degree on your ability to lateral down the line?

Multiple people at my firm--associates, mind you, not even recruiting--have told me not to say anything negative to interviewees, summers or juniors about the firm because "we want to keep good juniors around." Fuck that. I'm not a pawn in the firm's Ponzi scheme. My dignity is worth more than a lie to any of them, much less every single one I come across. What's gonna happen when everyone you lied to finds out you're full of shit?

Whenever I see a dodgy post about a specific firm on here I usually think it's just someone who has drank the Kool-Aid (there are definitely plenty of those everywhere). But sometimes in the back of my head I've wondered if someone doesn't even believe their own bullshit and is saying something, or leaving something out, purely for purposes of self-promotion. Thanks for confirming those kinds of people are actually on here, shitting up the forum.

I'm always pretty honest with summers/juniors, to the point of telling them "If you get placed in X group or get stuck working exclusively with Y partner, I'd look for a new job ASAP". No point in hiding the ball.

[NoLongerALurker]

...

And as we all know, Vault uses a flawless methodology that doesn't result in any nonsensical results, and everyone agrees that White & Case is the more prestigious of the "W&Cs", and that DLA Piper is more prestigious than Susman and MTO.

Now's the part where you bend over backwards to explain how name recognition in Topeka or whatever is a valid measurement of "prestige," and that the incredibly lengthy list of exceptions and caveats you have to concede don't render Vault rankings virtually worthless.

Here's a crazy notion for you - just because Vault claims to measure "prestige," which isn't really measurable to begin with, does not mean it does so effectively.

That's not to say PPEP is a meaningfully better metric, but it at least bears a semblance of reliability.

others have responded for me, but the point isn't that Vault is a good thing to rely on to make any decision whatsoever, but I don't get how you argue it's not a decent way of evaluating "prestige." Yes places like Susman, for those who know the firm are more prestigious than tons of firms above them, but if you aren't widely known as prestigious are you really prestigious?

Yes. In fact, that only reinforces the point: some firms are elite to the point that only those in the highest echelons of the profession are expected to know of them. If you think that sounds absurd and snobby, know that I agree with you. But the very concept of prestige pays deference to those who are "in-the-know," doesn't it? To me, something is prestigious to the extent that it impresses other impressive people; meaning, the opinion of a SCOTUS Justice is far more probative of prestige than the opinion of a solo practitioner churning DUIs.

To offer an exaggerated comparison, the man off the street knows what McDonald's is, but on average has probably never even heard of The French Laundry. Does that mean the latter is not prestigious?

To some extent this is a matter of audience; if you're looking to go in-house at e.g. some random mid-market real estate company, you're assuredly better off coming from a RE transactions group at DLA Piper than you are from, like, Gupta Wessler or whatever. But that's really about utility (ignoring the self selection factor in that hypothetical), not whatever "prestige" is, which I think is something cognizably different.

I want to be clear that I ultimately find the very idea of prestige annoying and pointless, but people definitely do care about this shit, and I'd be lying if I said I've never caught myself huffing my own prestigious farts. It can be a pretty tempting trap, especially if you weren't born into it or had to struggle for it.

I think this is a pretty excellent take.