First Years' Hours Requirement for Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

V50 first year, got deferred and started 2nd week of January. My firm has hours requirements for both the special (i.e. "being on track") and year-end bonuses. After inquiring, they informed first-years that the hours requirement would only be pro-rated for the first two weeks of January and nothing more. With the weeks of training followed by an especially difficult ramp-up period (given we're not in the office), it's pretty much impossible for a first-year to get any bonus money this year. Obviously I'm mad--I get that we haven't been working as much as others, but we also got deferred for three months when, in hindsight, that wasn't at all necessary. Pro-rated bonuses with realistic hours targets isn't asking too much at this point. Is this happening at a lot of other firms with hours requirements?

[Anonymous User]

also at V50. This just comes down to which firms are cheap and which are willing to eat small costs to maintain more goodwill with their associates up and down the ranks. My firm delayed to January and also has an hours requirement for the special bonus that will be very hard for first years to meet.

To law students: rankings DO mean a lot as proxies for how cheap your firm is, despite people here always saying "vault doesn't matter". Interview with tons of firms and pick the one with the best combo of no/low hours requirements, history of paying bonuses, not deferring associates, and stipends instead of advances. Most people leave biglaw after only a few years. The work is mostly the same all over. Go where you will get paid the most.

[Anonymous User]

I’m in the same boat. Started the last week of January with a week of orientation (so basically, we started being available for billable projects starting on February 1). My firm decreased the hours requirement for first years just enough to not look totally heartless while still keeping the bonus out of reach for the vast majority of first years.

I maybe billed 50 hours all of February and finally started to get more integrated and ramp up in March, but I’m still not on pace to get the bonus. My firm isn’t doing special bonuses either. I’m pretty grumpy.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

Yeah don’t really care about how clients view it. It’s about the legal employment market. It’s about what my law school classmates are getting and what I’m missing out on. Here’s the thing. Kirkland and others gave stipends, no or little deferral, and have better special bonus structures. If you have multiple offers at OCI, go where the money is. Taking the “lifestyle” firm or whatever is just playing yourself.

Edit: your post also implicitly recognizes some firms are cheaper. Virtually every firm is taking a loss, but not all firms deferred till Jan and not all have strict hours requirements for first year special bonuses. That’s the point.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

Yeah don’t really care about how clients view it. It’s about the legal employment market. It’s about what my law school classmates are getting and what I’m missing out on. Here’s the thing. Kirkland and others gave stipends, no or little deferral, and have better special bonus structures. If you have multiple offers at OCI, go where the money is. Taking the “lifestyle” firm or whatever is just playing yourself.

Then go work at Kirkland.

[Anonymous User]

I mean, yeah, this is the reality of a hard hours floor and firms that will play games to avoid having to pay out bonuses.

If it’s important to you (which if it isn’t now, it almost assuredly will be as you go up in years and bonuses become a proportionally larger part of your total comp), then take it into consideration while interviewing or lateral out. Some firms are cheaper than others because they can’t afford not to be and/or the partners are stingy. If you didn’t have offers at firms that aren’t cheap, then it is what it is at that point.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

OP here, this is valid and it's why I said I understand we haven't been working as much as others this year. However, with our deferment, it does feel like some (please note I don't think most are asking for the full amount) bonus money would go a long way. The last year was rough and, at least for me, it's taken until now to tackle the debt I incurred during the deferment.

There's also now 0 incentive for first-years like me to go above and beyond hours-wise for the rest of the year, and creating that incentive is a big part of the hours requirement in the first place.

Also, FWIW, I know for sure that my corporate group is billing my time to clients.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

Yeah don’t really care about how clients view it. It’s about the legal employment market. It’s about what my law school classmates are getting and what I’m missing out on. Here’s the thing. Kirkland and others gave stipends, no or little deferral, and have better special bonus structures. If you have multiple offers at OCI, go where the money is. Taking the “lifestyle” firm or whatever is just playing yourself.

Edit: your post also implicitly recognizes some firms are cheaper. Virtually every firm is taking a loss, but not all firms deferred till Jan and not all have strict hours requirements for first year special bonuses. That’s the point.

This is why I chose Cravath. The idea that you're going to have "lifestyle" and "work life balance" in biglaw is a joke. If you do, you're probably at the end of the AM 100/200 at a firm that cuts people the moment economic outlook appears negative (or you're coasting and see how far that gets you).

Doesn't matter if it feels like a sweatshop. I'll always get my bonus.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

Yeah don’t really care about how clients view it. It’s about the legal employment market. It’s about what my law school classmates are getting and what I’m missing out on. Here’s the thing. Kirkland and others gave stipends, no or little deferral, and have better special bonus structures. If you have multiple offers at OCI, go where the money is. Taking the “lifestyle” firm or whatever is just playing yourself.

Edit: your post also implicitly recognizes some firms are cheaper. Virtually every firm is taking a loss, but not all firms deferred till Jan and not all have strict hours requirements for first year special bonuses. That’s the point.

This is why I chose Cravath. The idea that you're going to have "lifestyle" and "work life balance" in biglaw is a joke. If you do, you're probably at the end of the AM 100/200 at a firm that cuts people the moment economic outlook appears negative (or you're coasting and see how far that gets you).

Doesn't matter if it feels like a sweatshop. I'll always get my bonus.

You didn't need to choose Cravath to ensure you get a bonus lmao.

[Sackboy]

You didn't need to choose Cravath to ensure you get a bonus lmao.

OP was obviously commenting that Cravath was chosen, in part, due to not being stingy on bonuses, not that it's the only firm that isn't stingy. C'mon now.

[Anonymous User]

I'm gonna put on my grumpy old man pants and say ya'll should realise that virtually every firm is taking a loss on employing you at all. Clients over the last 10-12 years have pretty much universally started demanding not to pay for first year associate work, so even to the extent you have hours much of it is being written off. And first year salaries are massive compared to what you are actually worth.

I really would worry a lot more about setting yourself up to get a bonus next year (which is a lot more money) and figure out what your practice is going to be long term, than worying about whether you will get one this year. You are a larva, you don't even know what you are going to be yet.

Yeah don’t really care about how clients view it. It’s about the legal employment market. It’s about what my law school classmates are getting and what I’m missing out on. Here’s the thing. Kirkland and others gave stipends, no or little deferral, and have better special bonus structures. If you have multiple offers at OCI, go where the money is. Taking the “lifestyle” firm or whatever is just playing yourself.

Edit: your post also implicitly recognizes some firms are cheaper. Virtually every firm is taking a loss, but not all firms deferred till Jan and not all have strict hours requirements for first year special bonuses. That’s the point.

This is why I chose Cravath. The idea that you're going to have "lifestyle" and "work life balance" in biglaw is a joke. If you do, you're probably at the end of the AM 100/200 at a firm that cuts people the moment economic outlook appears negative (or you're coasting and see how far that gets you).

Doesn't matter if it feels like a sweatshop. I'll always get my bonus.

[Anonymous User]

You didn't need to choose Cravath to ensure you get a bonus lmao.

OP was obviously commenting that Cravath was chosen, in part, due to not being stingy on bonuses, not that it's the only firm that isn't stingy. C'mon now.

Thank you. You're right. Obviously people can get their bonuses at other top firms. But that's my point. I chose Cravath just like I would have chosen any other top firm, rather than a "work life balance" shop with weaker finances.

Also, I'm not OP. Doesn't sound like OP is at Cravath but maybe you use "OP" without regard to the original poster/thread creater.

[Sackboy]

Also, I'm not OP. Doesn't sound like OP is at Cravath but maybe you use "OP" without regard to the original poster/thread creater.

That is correct. OP was used in reference to the original poster in the comment chain (you) and not of the thread.