2021 Special Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just here to remind everyone that MoFo still hasn’t matched. What a disgrace.

This whole week has been radio silence from the V40 except for Arnold and freaking Porter of all firms. Pretty pathetic, but I think MoFo, BSF, Hogan, and Quinn are the worst offenders at this point.

K&S is at over $3m ppp, so kind of embarrassing also.

[Anonymous User]

Just here to remind everyone that MoFo still hasn’t matched. What a disgrace.

This whole week has been radio silence from the V40 except for Arnold and freaking Porter of all firms. Pretty pathetic, but I think MoFo, BSF, Hogan, and Quinn are the worst offenders at this point.

K&S is at over $3m ppp, so kind of embarrassing also.

True, especially since A&B came out swinging yesterday: https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/alston- ... onus-2021/

[Anonymous User]

Hogan match for those on track for 1850 billables (can count 150 pro bono and 50 diversity and inclusion hours).

[Anonymous User]

Hogan match for those on track for 1850 billables (can count 150 pro bono and 50 diversity and inclusion hours).

And it'll be paid out on June 30 and November 30

[Anonymous User]

Hogan >>> TTT firms

[Anonymous User]

Hogan >>> TTT firms

Seriously, I thought Boies and Quinn were supposed to be leet.

[Anonymous User]

Hogan >>> TTT firms

Seriously, I thought Boies and Quinn were supposed to be leet.

Boies has matched, they just didn't run screaming to ATL like they've never seen a bonus before

[Anonymous User]

Just here to remind everyone that MoFo still hasn’t matched. What a disgrace.

This whole week has been radio silence from the V40 except for Arnold and freaking Porter of all firms. Pretty pathetic, but I think MoFo, BSF, Hogan, and Quinn are the worst offenders at this point.

K&S is at over $3m ppp, so kind of embarrassing also.

True, especially since A&B came out swinging yesterday: https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/alston- ... onus-2021/

Can't be cutting into Rod Rosenstein's stash.

[Anonymous User]

Norton Rose Fulbright matched for those on pace for 1950...pretty surprsied.

[marmot8]

Just curious: what’s the argument as to why people who are annualizing less than what some firms like Covington are requiring should be entitled to these special bonuses? Does everyone really think that all associates at a firm should get a bonus versus just those who have been busy? Understanding how busy one is often may be out of an associates control, so what? One associate had a lot of free time while the other grinded around the clock and in turn earned a lot for the firm.

1. Firms are entitled to shut associates out of a bonus by whatever they want. And associates are entitled to tell the firm to go fuck itself when there's a better option.

2. It sounds like you're proposing a system where comp is based on X percent of the revenue an associate is directly responsible for. I would love that, and I assure you, the fact that grinders would finally be getting compensated for going above and beyond is exactly why firms don't do it.

Agree with this on both counts. The poster above you I think is misguided in saying the point is to keep all associates happy. We’re not all unicorns and if I were in the position of dolling out special bonuses, I wouldn’t be worried about keeping someone who billed 1500 hours around because they might go somewhere else. I don’t think top talent at any major firm is billing below the thresholds such that they are a real flight risk, but maybe that’s naive (or everyone I know works way too much). 1850 isn’t much to ask from my experience.

[Anonymous User]

Just curious: what’s the argument as to why people who are annualizing less than what some firms like Covington are requiring should be entitled to these special bonuses? Does everyone really think that all associates at a firm should get a bonus versus just those who have been busy? Understanding how busy one is often may be out of an associates control, so what? One associate had a lot of free time while the other grinded around the clock and in turn earned a lot for the firm.

1. Firms are entitled to shut associates out of a bonus by whatever they want. And associates are entitled to tell the firm to go fuck itself when there's a better option.

2. It sounds like you're proposing a system where comp is based on X percent of the revenue an associate is directly responsible for. I would love that, and I assure you, the fact that grinders would finally be getting compensated for going above and beyond is exactly why firms don't do it.

Agree with this on both counts. The poster above you I think is misguided in saying the point is to keep all associates happy. We’re not all unicorns and if I were in the position of dolling out special bonuses, I wouldn’t be worried about keeping someone who billed 1500 hours around because they might go somewhere else. I don’t think top talent at any major firm is billing below the thresholds such that they are a real flight risk, but maybe that’s naive (or everyone I know works way too much). 1850 isn’t much to ask from my experience.

Lots of firms are using bonus hour thresholds. Some of the very top firms aren't. There's a reason for that, and no, it's not to keep happy the 1500 people who are trying to stay under the radar and bounce. It's like even if you're top of your class at HYS, you're more likely to pick a firm with no hours requirement for bonus because you can't know what your position will be next year. Fewer strings on compensation is itself a form of compensation, or at the very least, a valuable benefit.

[marmot8]

Just curious: what’s the argument as to why people who are annualizing less than what some firms like Covington are requiring should be entitled to these special bonuses? Does everyone really think that all associates at a firm should get a bonus versus just those who have been busy? Understanding how busy one is often may be out of an associates control, so what? One associate had a lot of free time while the other grinded around the clock and in turn earned a lot for the firm.

1. Firms are entitled to shut associates out of a bonus by whatever they want. And associates are entitled to tell the firm to go fuck itself when there's a better option.

2. It sounds like you're proposing a system where comp is based on X percent of the revenue an associate is directly responsible for. I would love that, and I assure you, the fact that grinders would finally be getting compensated for going above and beyond is exactly why firms don't do it.

Agree with this on both counts. The poster above you I think is misguided in saying the point is to keep all associates happy. We’re not all unicorns and if I were in the position of dolling out special bonuses, I wouldn’t be worried about keeping someone who billed 1500 hours around because they might go somewhere else. I don’t think top talent at any major firm is billing below the thresholds such that they are a real flight risk, but maybe that’s naive (or everyone I know works way too much). 1850 isn’t much to ask from my experience.

Lots of firms are using bonus hour thresholds. Some of the very top firms aren't. There's a reason for that, and no, it's not to keep happy the 1500 people who are trying to stay under the radar and bounce. It's like even if you're top of your class at HYS, you're more likely to pick a firm with no hours requirement for bonus because you can't know what your position will be next year. Fewer strings on compensation is itself a form of compensation, or at the very least, a valuable benefit.

If you’re at the top of your class at HYS and you’re picking a law firm based on whether there is a bonus hours threshold (let alone one with respect to a “special” bonus), you’re either (x) not thinking rationally about your future career or (y) spending way too much time on TLS listening to people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

[Anonymous User]

Just curious: what’s the argument as to why people who are annualizing less than what some firms like Covington are requiring should be entitled to these special bonuses? Does everyone really think that all associates at a firm should get a bonus versus just those who have been busy? Understanding how busy one is often may be out of an associates control, so what? One associate had a lot of free time while the other grinded around the clock and in turn earned a lot for the firm.

1. Firms are entitled to shut associates out of a bonus by whatever they want. And associates are entitled to tell the firm to go fuck itself when there's a better option.

2. It sounds like you're proposing a system where comp is based on X percent of the revenue an associate is directly responsible for. I would love that, and I assure you, the fact that grinders would finally be getting compensated for going above and beyond is exactly why firms don't do it.

Agree with this on both counts. The poster above you I think is misguided in saying the point is to keep all associates happy. We’re not all unicorns and if I were in the position of dolling out special bonuses, I wouldn’t be worried about keeping someone who billed 1500 hours around because they might go somewhere else. I don’t think top talent at any major firm is billing below the thresholds such that they are a real flight risk, but maybe that’s naive (or everyone I know works way too much). 1850 isn’t much to ask from my experience.

Lots of firms are using bonus hour thresholds. Some of the very top firms aren't. There's a reason for that, and no, it's not to keep happy the 1500 people who are trying to stay under the radar and bounce. It's like even if you're top of your class at HYS, you're more likely to pick a firm with no hours requirement for bonus because you can't know what your position will be next year. Fewer strings on compensation is itself a form of compensation, or at the very least, a valuable benefit.

If you’re at the top of your class at HYS and you’re picking a law firm based on whether there is a bonus hours threshold (let alone one with respect to a “special” bonus), you’re either (x) not thinking rationally about your future career or (y) spending way too much time on TLS listening to people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

It seems like you are totally missing the point. All else being equal, a firm with no hours requirement for a bonus is better (for associates) than one with such a requirement, and rational job seekers will act accordingly. There is a reason why Vault ranking correlates in some sense to lack of bonus hours requirement. The lack of such a requirement is good and valuable to all associates, not just the “bad” ones.

[Anonymous User]

It seems like you are totally missing the point. All else being equal, a firm with no hours requirement for a bonus is better (for associates) than one with such a requirement, and rational job seekers will act accordingly. There is a reason why Vault ranking correlates in some sense to lack of bonus hours requirement. The lack of such a requirement is good and valuable to all associates, not just the “bad” ones.

Really? I would rather work at a firm with a low-ish hours requirement and unlimited pro bono. No-hours firms are risky in that I could be massively overworked.

[Ultramar vistas]

It seems like you are totally missing the point. All else being equal, a firm with no hours requirement for a bonus is better (for associates) than one with such a requirement, and rational job seekers will act accordingly. There is a reason why Vault ranking correlates in some sense to lack of bonus hours requirement. The lack of such a requirement is good and valuable to all associates, not just the “bad” ones.

Really? I would rather work at a firm with a low-ish hours requirement and unlimited pro bono. No-hours firms are risky in that I could be massively overworked.

Why do the bootlickers/scabs/undercover partners/1Ls-assuming-they-will-be-rockstars who advocate for bonus hours requirements keep insist on this correlation? There is none.

Do you seriously think the risk of being massively overworked is limited to Cravath?

[BottomOfTotem]

It seems like you are totally missing the point. All else being equal, a firm with no hours requirement for a bonus is better (for associates) than one with such a requirement, and rational job seekers will act accordingly. There is a reason why Vault ranking correlates in some sense to lack of bonus hours requirement. The lack of such a requirement is good and valuable to all associates, not just the “bad” ones.

Really? I would rather work at a firm with a low-ish hours requirement and unlimited pro bono. No-hours firms are risky in that I could be massively overworked.

Why do the bootlickers/scabs/undercover partners/1Ls-assuming-they-will-be-rockstars who advocate for bonus hours requirements keep insist on this correlation? There is none.

Do you seriously think the risk of being massively overworked is limited to Cravath?

More puzzling is when people think it’s cute to call people names behind the security of their keyboards.

Maybe some people think differently than you; I don’t think that should come as that big of a surprise. There’s plenty of anecdotal support for believing a V10 will work you harder than a V100 (not a lot of threads on here about working 300 hours at Nixon Peabody or the horrible partners at Orrick). Is that enough of a reason to choose the latter over the former, maybe not. But it isn’t some crazy choice that only a bootlicker would try to defend.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Really? I would rather work at a firm with a low-ish hours requirement and unlimited pro bono. No-hours firms are risky in that I could be massively overworked.

Why do the bootlickers/scabs/undercover partners/1Ls-assuming-they-will-be-rockstars who advocate for bonus hours requirements keep insist on this correlation? There is none.

Do you seriously think the risk of being massively overworked is limited to Cravath?

1. There's absolutely a correlation, without a doubt.
2. Not everyone who disagrees with you is fake or disingenuous.

I'm on record as thinking that firms with hours requirements are generally better. I'm also on record as saying the no-minimum advocates made equally valid points and I begrudged no one for that view.

And I'm tired of this discussion coming up in six different threads. There's already a thread to debate this and can we please not do it again here? I'll bump it everyone wants to keep doing it over there.

[Anonymous User]

Norton Rose Fulbright matched for those on pace for 1950...pretty surprsied.

I’m mulling over a lateral offer there and I’m pleasantly surprised by this too.

[Anonymous User]

Why do the bootlickers/scabs/undercover partners/1Ls-assuming-they-will-be-rockstars who advocate for bonus hours requirements keep insist on this correlation? There is none.

That is completely false. Like absolutely false. And especially for non-NYC markets.

Do you seriously think the risk of being massively overworked is limited to Cravath?

For people who are willing to say "No," it is pretty much limited to Cravath and similar firms. Otherwise people would not be making target by billing ridiculous numbers of pro bono hours.

[Anonymous User]

Who's left? Expanding to V60 and leaving off firms that do their own crazy thing (e.g. Wachtell, JD, and W&C):

13 - Quinn
23 - MoFo
32 - Baker McKenzie
38 - K&S
40 - K&L Gates
42 - Munger Tolles
45 - Baker Botts
46 - Linklaters
47 - Allen & Overy
49 - Perkins Coie
53 - Susman
55 - Dentons
56 - Greenberg Trauring
60 - Jenner

So basically a bunch of notoriously cheap/poor firms (K&L, GT, Dentons), some real embarrassments (Quinn, MoFo) and then places where associates must genuinely be on the edge of their seats to find out on which side their firm will land (Baker x2, Munger, Linklaters, et al.)

[cavalier1138]

53 - Susman

Does Susman belong on this list? I thought they had a non-standard comp structure.

[ExpOriental]

Who's left? Expanding to V60 and leaving off firms that do their own crazy thing (e.g. Wachtell, JD, and W&C):

13 - Quinn
23 - MoFo
32 - Baker McKenzie
38 - K&S
40 - K&L Gates
42 - Munger Tolles
45 - Baker Botts
46 - Linklaters
47 - Allen & Overy
49 - Perkins Coie
53 - Susman
55 - Dentons
56 - Greenberg Trauring
60 - Jenner

So basically a bunch of notoriously cheap/poor firms (K&L, GT, Dentons), some real embarrassments (Quinn, MoFo) and then places where associates must genuinely be on the edge of their seats to find out on which side their firm will land (Baker x2, Munger, Linklaters, et al.)

Jones Day should not be excluded from this list. Arguably Williams & Connolly shouldn't be either, but at least there's a known money-for-prestige exchange that everyone buys into if they go there.

I will also second Susman not belonging on the list.

[Anonymous User]

Who's left? Expanding to V60 and leaving off firms that do their own crazy thing (e.g. Wachtell, JD, and W&C):

13 - Quinn
23 - MoFo
32 - Baker McKenzie
38 - K&S
40 - K&L Gates
42 - Munger Tolles
45 - Baker Botts
46 - Linklaters
47 - Allen & Overy
49 - Perkins Coie
53 - Susman
55 - Dentons
56 - Greenberg Trauring
60 - Jenner

So basically a bunch of notoriously cheap/poor firms (K&L, GT, Dentons), some real embarrassments (Quinn, MoFo) and then places where associates must genuinely be on the edge of their seats to find out on which side their firm will land (Baker x2, Munger, Linklaters, et al.)

Jones Day should not be excluded from this list. Arguably Williams & Connolly shouldn't be either, but at least there's a known money-for-prestige exchange that everyone buys into if they go there.

I will also second Susman not belonging on the list.

Other than MoFo, Baker Botts and K&S, have these firms been genuinely on fire in terms of work? Putting aside the silly "market" argument (makes as much sense as arguing "precedent" in a deal), the bonuses were issued because certain firms are slammed with work -- these bonuses are retentive and issued as a show of goodwill given how rough it's been for 12 months.

If your firm hasn't been crushed/just been "normal" busy, then it doesn't make any sense. And the "associates will see which firms are paying market and which ones aren't" argument doesn't hold -- no corp associate at Perkins Coie in Seattle billing 1800 is going to lateral to Gibson NY to bill 2400 for an additional $64k. And no one is lateralling from litigation in Munger LA to go be a cap markets associate at DPW for an additional 400 hours on their plate.

[lolwutpar]

Who's left? Expanding to V60 and leaving off firms that do their own crazy thing (e.g. Wachtell, JD, and W&C):

13 - Quinn
23 - MoFo
32 - Baker McKenzie
38 - K&S
40 - K&L Gates
42 - Munger Tolles
45 - Baker Botts
46 - Linklaters
47 - Allen & Overy
49 - Perkins Coie
53 - Susman
55 - Dentons
56 - Greenberg Trauring
60 - Jenner

So basically a bunch of notoriously cheap/poor firms (K&L, GT, Dentons), some real embarrassments (Quinn, MoFo) and then places where associates must genuinely be on the edge of their seats to find out on which side their firm will land (Baker x2, Munger, Linklaters, et al.)

Jones Day should not be excluded from this list. Arguably Williams & Connolly shouldn't be either, but at least there's a known money-for-prestige exchange that everyone buys into if they go there.

I will also second Susman not belonging on the list.

Other than MoFo, Baker Botts and K&S, have these firms been genuinely on fire in terms of work? Putting aside the silly "market" argument (makes as much sense as arguing "precedent" in a deal), the bonuses were issued because certain firms are slammed with work -- these bonuses are retentive and issued as a show of goodwill given how rough it's been for 12 months.

If your firm hasn't been crushed/just been "normal" busy, then it doesn't make any sense. And the "associates will see which firms are paying market and which ones aren't" argument doesn't hold -- no corp associate at Perkins Coie in Seattle billing 1800 is going to lateral to Gibson NY to bill 2400 for an additional $64k. And no one is lateralling from litigation in Munger LA to go be a cap markets associate at DPW for an additional 400 hours on their plate.

i dont get the cuck mentality ITT

[Anonymous User]

Who's left? Expanding to V60 and leaving off firms that do their own crazy thing (e.g. Wachtell, JD, and W&C):

13 - Quinn
23 - MoFo
32 - Baker McKenzie
38 - K&S
40 - K&L Gates
42 - Munger Tolles
45 - Baker Botts
46 - Linklaters
47 - Allen & Overy
49 - Perkins Coie
53 - Susman
55 - Dentons
56 - Greenberg Trauring
60 - Jenner

So basically a bunch of notoriously cheap/poor firms (K&L, GT, Dentons), some real embarrassments (Quinn, MoFo) and then places where associates must genuinely be on the edge of their seats to find out on which side their firm will land (Baker x2, Munger, Linklaters, et al.)

Jones Day should not be excluded from this list. Arguably Williams & Connolly shouldn't be either, but at least there's a known money-for-prestige exchange that everyone buys into if they go there.

I will also second Susman not belonging on the list.

Other than MoFo, Baker Botts and K&S, have these firms been genuinely on fire in terms of work? Putting aside the silly "market" argument (makes as much sense as arguing "precedent" in a deal), the bonuses were issued because certain firms are slammed with work -- these bonuses are retentive and issued as a show of goodwill given how rough it's been for 12 months.

If your firm hasn't been crushed/just been "normal" busy, then it doesn't make any sense. And the "associates will see which firms are paying market and which ones aren't" argument doesn't hold -- no corp associate at Perkins Coie in Seattle billing 1800 is going to lateral to Gibson NY to bill 2400 for an additional $64k. And no one is lateralling from litigation in Munger LA to go be a cap markets associate at DPW for an additional 400 hours on their plate.

i dont get the cuck mentality ITT

1. Annoying to watch people try to equate compensation between someone billing 1700 at a v100 vs. someone cranking 2800 at a v5 as though they're remotely the same experience.
2. Equally annoying to watch TLS endlessly whine about comp. If you want to be paid more, go lateral to Latham/Skadden M&A and demand to get paid. If you went to a firm for the "culture" or "lifestyle" seems like you didn't go for the "comp".