Always be padding? Forum

[NoLongerALurker]

Why would an associate ever make life easier for a duplicitous partner like that or stay at a firm where they wouldn’t be able to avoid working under such a person? And why do you keep recommending that people do? The answer to that situation isn’t to try and play along. It’s to leave.

I'm not recommending anything, just pointing out that billing can be tricky at times and that padding isn't a panacea. The example right above with the emails is one of many that shows how billing requires a deft touch.

It seems like the partner in the example above is literally directly going around his client's explicit instructions, which might be a "deft touch" but seems to be to be more directly and unambiguously unethical than some of the billing practices you've seemed to oppose in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Why would an associate ever make life easier for a duplicitous partner like that or stay at a firm where they wouldn’t be able to avoid working under such a person? And why do you keep recommending that people do? The answer to that situation isn’t to try and play along. It’s to leave.

I'm not recommending anything, just pointing out that billing can be tricky at times and that padding isn't a panacea. The example right above with the emails is one of many that shows how billing requires a deft touch.

I think there's a meaningful difference between a mandate from a client and a POS partner intentionally fucking their associates over to stat pad. We all inevitably deal with the former, whether through arbitrary billing rules or some other demand. No associate should put up with the latter unless they have no choice.

[motojir]

Why would an associate ever make life easier for a duplicitous partner like that or stay at a firm where they wouldn’t be able to avoid working under such a person? And why do you keep recommending that people do? The answer to that situation isn’t to try and play along. It’s to leave.

I'm not recommending anything, just pointing out that billing can be tricky at times and that padding isn't a panacea. The example right above with the emails is one of many that shows how billing requires a deft touch.

It seems like the partner in the example above is literally directly going around his client's explicit instructions, which might be a "deft touch" but seems to be to be more directly and unambiguously unethical than some of the billing practices you've seemed to oppose in this thread.

wth? The only two practices I was unambiguously opposed to were the two in the op, pasted below. I don't know what to do with that email situation. It's shitty. OTOH you need to read emails. OTOH partner wants you to not bill for them, or bill for them in a way that hides what you did. I don't know that's messed up. But this sort of things happens. Billing can be tricky if you work for crappy partners, firms, or clients.

You get to say you spent three hours on something when you spend an hour on it, then you can watch TV with your spouse or whatever.

I'm upset at the moment because I worked for hours on a markup, sent it to the senior to review, and the senior sent it 15 minutes later, unedited, to the partner, and now I see that the senior is billing hours to that markup too. They didn't do almost anything at all.

[NoLongerALurker]

Why would an associate ever make life easier for a duplicitous partner like that or stay at a firm where they wouldn’t be able to avoid working under such a person? And why do you keep recommending that people do? The answer to that situation isn’t to try and play along. It’s to leave.

I'm not recommending anything, just pointing out that billing can be tricky at times and that padding isn't a panacea. The example right above with the emails is one of many that shows how billing requires a deft touch.

It seems like the partner in the example above is literally directly going around his client's explicit instructions, which might be a "deft touch" but seems to be to be more directly and unambiguously unethical than some of the billing practices you've seemed to oppose in this thread.

wth? The only two practices I was unambiguously opposed to were the two in the op, pasted below. I don't know what to do with that email situation. It's shitty. OTOH you need to read emails. OTOH partner wants you to not bill for them, or bill for them in a way that hides what you did. I don't know that's messed up. But this sort of things happens. Billing can be tricky if you work for crappy partners, firms, or clients.

You get to say you spent three hours on something when you spend an hour on it, then you can watch TV with your spouse or whatever.

I'm upset at the moment because I worked for hours on a markup, sent it to the senior to review, and the senior sent it 15 minutes later, unedited, to the partner, and now I see that the senior is billing hours to that markup too. They didn't do almost anything at all.

Ah, Fair enough. I think I unintentionally mischaracterized your earlier posts.

[Anonymous User]

Best way to categorize .1 and .2 entries when you're keeping abreast of email chains? "Review correspondence re..." sounds good, but what about others?

[Anonymous User]

I have had partners ask me to join their matters after the litigation was fairly developed (past MTD stage) and instruct me to record the time I spend reading the pleadings and getting up to speed to a non-billable marketing code. Frustrating.

[Buglaw]

I have had partners ask me to join their matters after the litigation was fairly developed (past MTD stage) and instruct me to record the time I spend reading the pleadings and getting up to speed to a non-billable marketing code. Frustrating.

Does your firm condone this practice? Have you told anyone? I would bill this anyways.

[Anonymous User]

I have had partners ask me to join their matters after the litigation was fairly developed (past MTD stage) and instruct me to record the time I spend reading the pleadings and getting up to speed to a non-billable marketing code. Frustrating.

Does your firm condone this practice? Have you told anyone? I would bill this anyways.

At my V10, we have a non-billable-but-useful-work code we can bill to, and up to a limit, these hours still count for bonus calculations. Not as good as just real billing but it helps soften the blow

[Anonymous User]

I have had partners ask me to join their matters after the litigation was fairly developed (past MTD stage) and instruct me to record the time I spend reading the pleadings and getting up to speed to a non-billable marketing code. Frustrating.

Does your firm condone this practice? Have you told anyone? I would bill this anyways.

At my V10, we have a non-billable-but-useful-work code we can bill to, and up to a limit, these hours still count for bonus calculations. Not as good as just real billing but it helps soften the blow

At my V10 the partner sent the senior to tell me (as a first year) to bill my time working on documents I was working for the time (i.e. all of them) as training/development. I did it sheepishly the first time, but then I realized it was going to be tens and tens of hours, and I told the senior that it was BS, and he said "yeah, but that's just how it goes, it's the same for everyone" and I never did it again (i.e. I billed it as billable). I wish I could say it was me being smart and calculated, but it was actually just good fortune. I mostly worked with other partners going forward. I suspect I was not requested.

[SCREWME567]

It's not exhausting at all. I just am fully aware of the work we do and who our clients are and fully acknowledge I sold out, which apparently a lot of people delude themselves into thinking they didn't.

+1. It's actually kind of liberating, if anything, because being honest with the fact that I spend all my working hours making the world a slightly shittier place (or at least not deluding myself into thinking I'm at all making the world a better place) at least makes me feel obligated to have a fuller life and hobbies outside of work, all while allowing me to afford to live in the neighborhood I want. It does make the actual work more of a grind, but eh, you have to live in a very narrow slice of reality to *actually* be doing work you want to do. Like, the dude making me a burrito at chipotle doesn't wake up in the morning super pumped about spreading beans on a tortilla for me, but we all get it. I feel like most associates openly feel this way overall, but every now and then you find a true believer who like legitimately loves the work and personally I always find those people a little weird. But, power to 'em.

For sure. I can probably count on one hand the number of legitimately "good" clients I've had - and they are always startups with founders that are not from money and are trying to actually make a product that will make lives better. Too many startup founders are rich from either family money or prior success, so they don't get my green stamp.

Like, I've seen litigators tell me with a straight face that they have no issue defending Deutsche Bank from claims for reparations from Jewish families that got their shit stolen in the Holocaust because the claim has no merit. I would respect you a hell of a lot more if you just said, "Fuck Deutsche Bank, but it's my job to defend them. So it goes." instead of trying to justify it.

Get a grip. How does a typical cap markets, M&A associate or fund formation associate make the world a worse place? For the most part Biglaw as a corporate associate is just pushing papers around and not making all that much of a difference to mankind, not some sort of Dystopian cabal.

Do you know what "realizing synergies" means? Congrats, your M&A deal closed, now hundreds to thousands of people are about to get shitcanned.

Half of the equation of cap markets is making the underwriters (big banks) richer. What a noble cause.

Who are the underlying limited partners in fund formation? What are the funds used for? It ain't for sunshine and rainbows.

Getting pushed out of an unproductive job so they can do something useful with their lives is no great tragedy. Adequately disclosing risks of securities offering isn't exactly the Devil's own work. Helping limited partners invest money to grow companies is actually a positive thing. Imagine that, feeling like your Biglaw job is actually contributing to society, what a crazy thought.

Sure sucks how they were wasting their lives putting bread on the table for their families when they really should have been doing something less redundant all along. Really, the resultant poverty that forces the oldest child to work two part time jobs in high school while his dad tries to learn to code is the real American dream -- it makes for a great college admissions essay, after all.

(I actually do agree that adequate disclosure on securities offerings is overall a net positive to society, though, I guess)

the risk disclosures section on the 10K is always way too fucking long & makes my life slightly worse as a hedge fund analyst who has to slog through them when initiating on a new name - yes your clients are forced to do it b/c securities class actions claims, but they're certainly not a net addition to the world

[NoLongerALurker]

+1. It's actually kind of liberating, if anything, because being honest with the fact that I spend all my working hours making the world a slightly shittier place (or at least not deluding myself into thinking I'm at all making the world a better place) at least makes me feel obligated to have a fuller life and hobbies outside of work, all while allowing me to afford to live in the neighborhood I want. It does make the actual work more of a grind, but eh, you have to live in a very narrow slice of reality to *actually* be doing work you want to do. Like, the dude making me a burrito at chipotle doesn't wake up in the morning super pumped about spreading beans on a tortilla for me, but we all get it. I feel like most associates openly feel this way overall, but every now and then you find a true believer who like legitimately loves the work and personally I always find those people a little weird. But, power to 'em.

For sure. I can probably count on one hand the number of legitimately "good" clients I've had - and they are always startups with founders that are not from money and are trying to actually make a product that will make lives better. Too many startup founders are rich from either family money or prior success, so they don't get my green stamp.

Like, I've seen litigators tell me with a straight face that they have no issue defending Deutsche Bank from claims for reparations from Jewish families that got their shit stolen in the Holocaust because the claim has no merit. I would respect you a hell of a lot more if you just said, "Fuck Deutsche Bank, but it's my job to defend them. So it goes." instead of trying to justify it.

Get a grip. How does a typical cap markets, M&A associate or fund formation associate make the world a worse place? For the most part Biglaw as a corporate associate is just pushing papers around and not making all that much of a difference to mankind, not some sort of Dystopian cabal.

Do you know what "realizing synergies" means? Congrats, your M&A deal closed, now hundreds to thousands of people are about to get shitcanned.

Half of the equation of cap markets is making the underwriters (big banks) richer. What a noble cause.

Who are the underlying limited partners in fund formation? What are the funds used for? It ain't for sunshine and rainbows.

Getting pushed out of an unproductive job so they can do something useful with their lives is no great tragedy. Adequately disclosing risks of securities offering isn't exactly the Devil's own work. Helping limited partners invest money to grow companies is actually a positive thing. Imagine that, feeling like your Biglaw job is actually contributing to society, what a crazy thought.

Sure sucks how they were wasting their lives putting bread on the table for their families when they really should have been doing something less redundant all along. Really, the resultant poverty that forces the oldest child to work two part time jobs in high school while his dad tries to learn to code is the real American dream -- it makes for a great college admissions essay, after all.

(I actually do agree that adequate disclosure on securities offerings is overall a net positive to society, though, I guess)

the risk disclosures section on the 10K is always way too fucking long & makes my life slightly worse as a hedge fund analyst who has to slog through them when initiating on a new name - yes your clients are forced to do it b/c securities class actions claims, but they're certainly not a net addition to the world

I think the driving force behind them (I.e., at least having disclosure) is a net positive, whereas the driving force behind a lot of other securities law work is actually just complete bullshit even at its core.

That said, the inevitable outcome of Risk Factor disclosure (it's just 50 pages of meaningless CYA boilerplate): definitely agree with you.

[Anonymous User]

Any views on reporting over billing? Not going to a partner and flagging it but mentioning a particular practice in a supervisor's review? I know it's a douche move but (i) the over billing is pretty egregious and (ii) the supervisor is generally a dick to work with.

The over billing practice this supervisor engages in is to call me at the end of the week and ask me how much I spent on a deal on any given day. I'm a midlevel, the supervisor is a 9th year associate about to be promoted to counsel. If I tell them I spent 8 hours on Tuesday, they record 6 hours for themselves; I tell them I spent 5 hours on Wednesday, they will record 3 hours for themselves etc. I would be amazed if they spent a full hour on the deal on either day based on the output I'm seeing from them (not actually reviewing docs and just telling me to send them on to the client, missing calls, yellow on Skype for most of the day, the few emails I get fro them are all sent from their cell phone etc.) to the point where I think their time entries are pretty close to being entirely fictional and this is the only way they're getting promoted / able to stick around at all.

[Anonymous User]

For sure. I can probably count on one hand the number of legitimately "good" clients I've had - and they are always startups with founders that are not from money and are trying to actually make a product that will make lives better. Too many startup founders are rich from either family money or prior success, so they don't get my green stamp.

Like, I've seen litigators tell me with a straight face that they have no issue defending Deutsche Bank from claims for reparations from Jewish families that got their shit stolen in the Holocaust because the claim has no merit. I would respect you a hell of a lot more if you just said, "Fuck Deutsche Bank, but it's my job to defend them. So it goes." instead of trying to justify it.

Get a grip. How does a typical cap markets, M&A associate or fund formation associate make the world a worse place? For the most part Biglaw as a corporate associate is just pushing papers around and not making all that much of a difference to mankind, not some sort of Dystopian cabal.

Do you know what "realizing synergies" means? Congrats, your M&A deal closed, now hundreds to thousands of people are about to get shitcanned.

Half of the equation of cap markets is making the underwriters (big banks) richer. What a noble cause.

Who are the underlying limited partners in fund formation? What are the funds used for? It ain't for sunshine and rainbows.

Getting pushed out of an unproductive job so they can do something useful with their lives is no great tragedy. Adequately disclosing risks of securities offering isn't exactly the Devil's own work. Helping limited partners invest money to grow companies is actually a positive thing. Imagine that, feeling like your Biglaw job is actually contributing to society, what a crazy thought.

Sure sucks how they were wasting their lives putting bread on the table for their families when they really should have been doing something less redundant all along. Really, the resultant poverty that forces the oldest child to work two part time jobs in high school while his dad tries to learn to code is the real American dream -- it makes for a great college admissions essay, after all.

(I actually do agree that adequate disclosure on securities offerings is overall a net positive to society, though, I guess)

the risk disclosures section on the 10K is always way too fucking long & makes my life slightly worse as a hedge fund analyst who has to slog through them when initiating on a new name - yes your clients are forced to do it b/c securities class actions claims, but they're certainly not a net addition to the world

I think the driving force behind them (I.e., at least having disclosure) is a net positive, whereas the driving force behind a lot of other securities law work is actually just complete bullshit even at its core.

That said, the inevitable outcome of Risk Factor disclosure (it's just 50 pages of meaningless CYA boilerplate): definitely agree with you.

Getting pushed out of an unproductive job so they can do something useful with their lives is no great tragedy.

That is the most ass backwards, out of touch, sociopathic sentiment I have seen on TLS, which is saying a lot. The only thing that makes it slightly less terrifying is that it probably comes from some 20-something upper-middle class white boy who really has no clue about anything in general anyway.

[2013]

Any views on reporting over billing? Not going to a partner and flagging it but mentioning a particular practice in a supervisor's review? I know it's a douche move but (i) the over billing is pretty egregious and (ii) the supervisor is generally a dick to work with.

The over billing practice this supervisor engages in is to call me at the end of the week and ask me how much I spent on a deal on any given day. I'm a midlevel, the supervisor is a 9th year associate about to be promoted to counsel. If I tell them I spent 8 hours on Tuesday, they record 6 hours for themselves; I tell them I spent 5 hours on Wednesday, they will record 3 hours for themselves etc. I would be amazed if they spent a full hour on the deal on either day based on the output I'm seeing from them (not actually reviewing docs and just telling me to send them on to the client, missing calls, yellow on Skype for most of the day, the few emails I get fro them are all sent from their cell phone etc.) to the point where I think their time entries are pretty close to being entirely fictional and this is the only way they're getting promoted / able to stick around at all.

The partner probably won’t care. If anything, he will tell you mind your own business unless you have actual proof. If he thinks he can justify the bill to clients, why would he take less?

[Dcc617]

Yeah, why be a narc when you actually have no idea what that person is working?

[Barrred]

Any views on reporting over billing? Not going to a partner and flagging it but mentioning a particular practice in a supervisor's review? I know it's a douche move but (i) the over billing is pretty egregious and (ii) the supervisor is generally a dick to work with.

The over billing practice this supervisor engages in is to call me at the end of the week and ask me how much I spent on a deal on any given day. I'm a midlevel, the supervisor is a 9th year associate about to be promoted to counsel. If I tell them I spent 8 hours on Tuesday, they record 6 hours for themselves; I tell them I spent 5 hours on Wednesday, they will record 3 hours for themselves etc. I would be amazed if they spent a full hour on the deal on either day based on the output I'm seeing from them (not actually reviewing docs and just telling me to send them on to the client, missing calls, yellow on Skype for most of the day, the few emails I get fro them are all sent from their cell phone etc.) to the point where I think their time entries are pretty close to being entirely fictional and this is the only way they're getting promoted / able to stick around at all.

Do NOT do this. While the senior associate may in fact be over-billing and/or using poor time reconstruction methods (i.e., basing his time on yours), its not your job to investigate that. And the proof you think you have is likely not sufficient for the partner to take action. Juniors/Mid-Levels are notoriously unaware, at least in my experience, of the work that seniors do on the back-end/out of sight. If you were going to report something like this, you need to make damn sure you have evidence sufficient to get the senior fired, and it seems like you don't. As the saying goes, "when you strike at a king, you must kill him."

[Anonymous User]

Any views on reporting over billing? Not going to a partner and flagging it but mentioning a particular practice in a supervisor's review? I know it's a douche move but (i) the over billing is pretty egregious and (ii) the supervisor is generally a dick to work with.

The over billing practice this supervisor engages in is to call me at the end of the week and ask me how much I spent on a deal on any given day. I'm a midlevel, the supervisor is a 9th year associate about to be promoted to counsel. If I tell them I spent 8 hours on Tuesday, they record 6 hours for themselves; I tell them I spent 5 hours on Wednesday, they will record 3 hours for themselves etc. I would be amazed if they spent a full hour on the deal on either day based on the output I'm seeing from them (not actually reviewing docs and just telling me to send them on to the client, missing calls, yellow on Skype for most of the day, the few emails I get fro them are all sent from their cell phone etc.) to the point where I think their time entries are pretty close to being entirely fictional and this is the only way they're getting promoted / able to stick around at all.

Do NOT do this. While the senior associate may in fact be over-billing and/or using poor time reconstruction methods (i.e., basing his time on yours), its not your job to investigate that. And the proof you think you have is likely not sufficient for the partner to take action. Juniors/Mid-Levels are notoriously unaware, at least in my experience, of the work that seniors do on the back-end/out of sight. If you were going to report something like this, you need to make damn sure you have evidence sufficient to get the senior fired, and it seems like you don't. As the saying goes, "when you strike at a king, you must kill him."

Your instincts are probably correct, based on what you observe and the skewed incentives created by the billable hour model. I have been in this exact situation where I am almost certain that the vast majority of time entries were grossly exaggerated or outright fabricated, based on seeing very minimal comments, e-mails, etc. from the person, but how do you prove that? I've seen the senior partner cut the person's hours significantly off of a bill, but to my knowledge there were not repercussions for the person whose hours were cut. There is not a terribly strong incentive to do so and it is awkward to accuse someone of fraud without hard proof, which is almost impossible to find.

[Anonymous User]

If the senior is dumb enough to put what they're doing in writing (i.e., "well, I didn't really work 5 hours that day, but based on what you're saying I think I can get away with putting that down") then I would go to the firm's GC, not the partner who likely thinks well of the about-to-be-promoted senior and has a vested interest in shoving this under the rug to avoid the irreparable damage that telling a client "oops, the important senior who billed hundreds of hours on your deals was making it all up" would cause. But like everyone else has said, you don't really know what all they are doing that you just aren't seeing. Just because someone goes yellow on Skype doesn't mean they aren't working; they may be on a long call, reading hardcopies, etc. Unless you're about to bail from the firm and quit law entirely, it would be incredibly unwise to escalate something like this without rock solid and unmistakable proof.

[Dcc617]

Also even if they are padding it’s really not your business or concern to investigate. Why do you even care? It has zero impact on your life. Don’t be such a narc.

[thisismytlsuername]

The correct thing to do is relentlessly gossip and talk shit until it becomes an open secret in your group.

[Definitely Not North]

Also even if they are padding it’s really not your business or concern to investigate. Why do you even care? It has zero impact on your life. Don’t be such a narc.

TCR

[Definitely Not North]

The correct thing to do is relentlessly gossip and talk shit until it becomes an open secret in your group.

Also TCR if you’re feeling spicy

[Anonymous User]

This thread is so informative and incredibly entertaining.

Can someone share how billing practices differ from firm to firm? Particularly useful to have input from people that have worked at more than one firm. Maybe this should be its own thread but just curious!

[Anonymous User]

I have had partners ask me to join their matters after the litigation was fairly developed (past MTD stage) and instruct me to record the time I spend reading the pleadings and getting up to speed to a non-billable marketing code. Frustrating.

Does your firm condone this practice? Have you told anyone? I would bill this anyways.

I've had this happen before with the same partner. The first time I just went ahead and did it but the second time I said no. Have not worked with that partner since and am honestly much better off for it. If they want to write off the time that's fine but I should not be asked to do work that I'm not credited for.

[Anonymous User]

I have had partners ask me to join their matters after the litigation was fairly developed (past MTD stage) and instruct me to record the time I spend reading the pleadings and getting up to speed to a non-billable marketing code. Frustrating.

Does your firm condone this practice? Have you told anyone? I would bill this anyways.

I've had this happen before with the same partner. The first time I just went ahead and did it but the second time I said no. Have not worked with that partner since and am honestly much better off for it. If they want to write off the time that's fine but I should not be asked to do work that I'm not credited for.

Agree...unless you're absolutely desperate for hours you should not agree to this arrangement. Getting up to speed on a matter is 100% billable and it's extremely shady for a partner to ask you to essentially cut your own time (presumably to make their metrics look better, as I'm guessing they'd have to write that time off).