2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:09 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:52 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
Agree on this. Seriously, ask yourself this when you get an assignment: could I have done this before law school? The answer will be yes, 99% of the time. It is why it's important to delegate down at times. Only reason biglaw pays a lot, is because you're on call 24/7. This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
Is this really what is like in transactional work? Because this has not been my experience with lit/regulatory work, or at least to the extent that anyone could do the assignments with a high school degree and moderate intelligence. I assume that at least the work requires a JD? If not, I am not sure how the business model makes any sense and why firms do not just hire directly out of college at IBanker rates.
It’s not that mystifying; the entire system of legal licensure (law school, bar admissions) exists the depress the supply of legal labor and thus raise rates
Well, bringing this off-topic discussion on how the entire legal labor supply system is sewn up to optimize profits for practitioners and decidedly not to optimize provision of affordable legal services to the consumer back to the thread topic: how coordinated are the firms on this sort of thing, i.e. compensation? I know there's open and routine discussion between firm leaders on things like their reopening plans during the pandemic (as in, they have group calls and such), but is it a step too far on things like bonuses? I guess you'd have cartel issues at that point (just assuming). Are firm managing partners sounding off at Scott Edelman like "WTF, man? Everything was FINE."

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:43 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
As many have pointed out, in this market in particular, you really don't have to work whenever they tell you. If you are willing to stand up for yourself and be slightly socially uncomfortable, you can protect a pretty substantial swath of your time. And there won't be any negative repercussions for the associates who just want to put in a few years and have no partnership dreams.

I think your take is pretty unhealthy in general and buying into it negatively affected my health (and life overall) as a very junior associate. I'm glad I came to the realization that I shared above.
Can someone please explain the potential "negative repercussions" of pushing back on work for associates who have partnership dreams? Is it really expected that associates who want to be partner cannot say no to work?

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:52 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
Agree on this. Seriously, ask yourself this when you get an assignment: could I have done this before law school? The answer will be yes, 99% of the time. It is why it's important to delegate down at times. Only reason biglaw pays a lot, is because you're on call 24/7. This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
Is this really what is like in transactional work? Because this has not been my experience with lit/regulatory work, or at least to the extent that anyone could do the assignments with a high school degree and moderate intelligence. I assume that at least the work requires a JD? If not, I am not sure how the business model makes any sense and why firms do not just hire directly out of college at IBanker rates.
The issue is that you’re working from “Requires JD” => “is sophisticated legal work” and trying to apply it “is sophisticated legal work” => “Requires JD”.

Transactional work is not rocket science, but the average person can’t reliably produce good work. It does take experience and skills to produce good work. Having a JD from a top school and being a lawyer at a top firm doesn’t guarantee this but it’s a good signal that you’re smart and hardworking. Which means the firm can teach you how to do the job. That’s all.

I could teach a really smart, hardworking high schooler how to do the job. But, you’d then have to pay that high schooler my salary to do the job or otherwise he’ll just leave for a better paying job.

That’s what I mean when I say the market doesn’t exist. Sure, hire a bunch of college grads to do the work and pay them low. All the good ones will leave within a year or two.

By the way, ibanking has this issue too. Their best talent leaves within 1-2 years.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:43 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
As many have pointed out, in this market in particular, you really don't have to work whenever they tell you. If you are willing to stand up for yourself and be slightly socially uncomfortable, you can protect a pretty substantial swath of your time. And there won't be any negative repercussions for the associates who just want to put in a few years and have no partnership dreams.

I think your take is pretty unhealthy in general and buying into it negatively affected my health (and life overall) as a very junior associate. I'm glad I came to the realization that I shared above.
Can someone please explain the potential "negative repercussions" of pushing back on work for associates who have partnership dreams? Is it really expected that associates who want to be partner cannot say no to work?
I don't really buy it. Yes, if you consistently turn down work while only billing 30-40 hours a week, it isn't a good look and will be remembered by senior associates/partners as they're looking to staff new matters and preparing your year-end reviews down the road. But if you're hitting 50ish or more hours a week (and thus on track to exceed the typical 1900-2000 hours per year threshold), then it's not unreasonable to tell people you might not have capacity to take on more work, caveated with "but let me know if you have trouble staffing someone else and I'm happy to chip in however I can".

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:08 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:55 pm
Wanderingdrock wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:07 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:48 am
As someone who has only had experience with lit/regulatory work, can someone explain the business model suggested by this thread?

It seems like transactional associates are totally fungible to the extent that they can be replaced by international laterals. Is there something about transactional practice that transcends borders? If not, how can firms just scoop up international associates? Does junior-level transactional work require a J.D. (not that lit/reg work does)? If not, why not just tighten hiring and shunt a lot of stuff onto paralegals or other employees?
You can't bill out a paralegal at $1000/hr.
So some of the work could be done by paralegals? Are clients not sophisticated enough to demand lower rates for such work? Or are they paying so much anyway that they do not care?
Yes, but hard to demand a paralegal or assistant work through the night compiling sig pages. What would make more sense is for firms to start doing back offices where they have "attorneys" in a low COL location (where there is no prospect of a real office or clients because it is west virginia) who get paid enough or who are scheduled to be around at all hours of the night, but who are perpetual junior attorneys doing bullshit. Orrick already has something like this. (Oh hello Kirkland Salt Lake City office, didn't see you there.)

Not sure how this supports your point since the Kirkland Salt Lake office is paying the market rate DPW big law scale.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:08 pm
Yes, but hard to demand a paralegal or assistant work through the night compiling sig pages.
Not sure about your firm, but we have 22-hour secretarial support (and this has been true for literally decades), and it's not at all out of the ordinary to ask paralegals to produce work overnight. Certainly we don't need attorneys somewhere remote. The difference between an attorney and a paralegal is not the hours they work.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:04 pm

Agreed that the idea of utilizing low-cost support is nothing new.

Baker McKenzie has dedicated support offices in Manila, Belfast, and now Tampa. Not many, if any, attorneys work in those offices (at least no US attorneys when I was there). Very efficient for pushing bulk work down, plus global coverage for all time zones. The Manila office in particular was very prideful and eager to work hard -- yes it was often grunt work, but it's a fantastic job when compared to typical opportunities in the Philippines.

Many big firms also have in-house document processing groups, i.e., teams of people that work in shifts to turn documents fast. This is in addition to assistants and paralegals, some of which are happy to work late to earn overtime pay.

Another example: patent attorneys use patent agents to keep costs low. Especially in fixed fee arrangements.

Of course, attorney review is a very important piece of the puzzle.

Buglaw

Bronze
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:24 pm

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Buglaw » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:29 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:43 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
As many have pointed out, in this market in particular, you really don't have to work whenever they tell you. If you are willing to stand up for yourself and be slightly socially uncomfortable, you can protect a pretty substantial swath of your time. And there won't be any negative repercussions for the associates who just want to put in a few years and have no partnership dreams.

I think your take is pretty unhealthy in general and buying into it negatively affected my health (and life overall) as a very junior associate. I'm glad I came to the realization that I shared above.
Can someone please explain the potential "negative repercussions" of pushing back on work for associates who have partnership dreams? Is it really expected that associates who want to be partner cannot say no to work?
I don't really buy it. Yes, if you consistently turn down work while only billing 30-40 hours a week, it isn't a good look and will be remembered by senior associates/partners as they're looking to staff new matters and preparing your year-end reviews down the road. But if you're hitting 50ish or more hours a week (and thus on track to exceed the typical 1900-2000 hours per year threshold), then it's not unreasonable to tell people you might not have capacity to take on more work, caveated with "but let me know if you have trouble staffing someone else and I'm happy to chip in however I can".
You realize 50 hours a week is 2500 hours a year and 40 is 2000 hours a year, right? It's crazy to tell folks they can't say no until they are above a 2500 hour a year pace.

It's pretty common for most associates to come in between 1900-2200. So, if you are in that range it will be fine (if not at your firm, at any of the 50 other identical firms you could work for and make market).

Buglaw

Bronze
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:24 pm

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Buglaw » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:01 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:52 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
Agree on this. Seriously, ask yourself this when you get an assignment: could I have done this before law school? The answer will be yes, 99% of the time. It is why it's important to delegate down at times. Only reason biglaw pays a lot, is because you're on call 24/7. This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
Is this really what is like in transactional work? Because this has not been my experience with lit/regulatory work, or at least to the extent that anyone could do the assignments with a high school degree and moderate intelligence. I assume that at least the work requires a JD? If not, I am not sure how the business model makes any sense and why firms do not just hire directly out of college at IBanker rates.
The issue is that you’re working from “Requires JD” => “is sophisticated legal work” and trying to apply it “is sophisticated legal work” => “Requires JD”.

Transactional work is not rocket science, but the average person can’t reliably produce good work. It does take experience and skills to produce good work. Having a JD from a top school and being a lawyer at a top firm doesn’t guarantee this but it’s a good signal that you’re smart and hardworking. Which means the firm can teach you how to do the job. That’s all.

I could teach a really smart, hardworking high schooler how to do the job. But, you’d then have to pay that high schooler my salary to do the job or otherwise he’ll just leave for a better paying job.

That’s what I mean when I say the market doesn’t exist. Sure, hire a bunch of college grads to do the work and pay them low. All the good ones will leave within a year or two.

By the way, ibanking has this issue too. Their best talent leaves within 1-2 years.
I disagree with this take (even though you hear it all the time). Does not require a JD to do it, doesn't mean it's not hard or lots of people can do it. I think 98%+ of the population cannot reliably draft, negotiate or close a sophisticated M&A deal (especially on the ridiculous timelines we work on). Think of all the bad big law associates you see. Most juniors are bad or mediocre and don't make it to mid-level. A good chunk of mid level and seniors just aren't very good (and they have had 4-8 years of experience and training). Virtually everyone who gets hired into big law are smart and hardworking. Could signature pages and checklists be done by smart, diligent, hardworking folks without a legal education or higher education, sure. So could doc review...

Could drafting a purchase agreement, thinking through complex legal and structuring issues, counseling clients, negotiating documents, supervising foreign counsel, running process, etc. be done by 98%+ of the population, no. It doesn't require law school training, because law school training has nothing to do with transactional practice. But, M&A work is intellectually difficult. I just don't see how this is any different than any other field. First year bankers and doctors are also worthless and don't do super hard tasks.

I'd also point out that there are tons of fields where higher education isn't required, but it's still difficult and can't be done by just anyone. Coding has historically not required a higher education degree, but anyone who has tried it will tell you it is hard and can't be done by anyone at a high level.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:11 pm

Buglaw wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:21 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:01 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:52 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:18 am
Agree on this. Seriously, ask yourself this when you get an assignment: could I have done this before law school? The answer will be yes, 99% of the time. It is why it's important to delegate down at times. Only reason biglaw pays a lot, is because you're on call 24/7. This is also why I think everyone complaining about their hours and their balance is just getting it wrong. That is the whole job! You get your salary not because you're a smart cookie, you get it because you have to work whenever they tell you.
Is this really what is like in transactional work? Because this has not been my experience with lit/regulatory work, or at least to the extent that anyone could do the assignments with a high school degree and moderate intelligence. I assume that at least the work requires a JD? If not, I am not sure how the business model makes any sense and why firms do not just hire directly out of college at IBanker rates.
The issue is that you’re working from “Requires JD” => “is sophisticated legal work” and trying to apply it “is sophisticated legal work” => “Requires JD”.

Transactional work is not rocket science, but the average person can’t reliably produce good work. It does take experience and skills to produce good work. Having a JD from a top school and being a lawyer at a top firm doesn’t guarantee this but it’s a good signal that you’re smart and hardworking. Which means the firm can teach you how to do the job. That’s all.

I could teach a really smart, hardworking high schooler how to do the job. But, you’d then have to pay that high schooler my salary to do the job or otherwise he’ll just leave for a better paying job.

That’s what I mean when I say the market doesn’t exist. Sure, hire a bunch of college grads to do the work and pay them low. All the good ones will leave within a year or two.

By the way, ibanking has this issue too. Their best talent leaves within 1-2 years.
I disagree with this take (even though you hear it all the time). Does not require a JD to do it, doesn't mean it's not hard or lots of people can do it. I think 98%+ of the population cannot reliably draft, negotiate or close a sophisticated M&A deal (especially on the ridiculous timelines we work on). Think of all the bad big law associates you see. Most juniors are bad or mediocre and don't make it to mid-level. A good chunk of mid level and seniors just aren't very good (and they have had 4-8 years of experience and training). Virtually everyone who gets hired into big law are smart and hardworking. Could signature pages and checklists be done by smart, diligent, hardworking folks without a legal education or higher education, sure. So could doc review...

Could drafting a purchase agreement, thinking through complex legal and structuring issues, counseling clients, negotiating documents, supervising foreign counsel, running process, etc. be done by 98%+ of the population, no. It doesn't require law school training, because law school training has nothing to do with transactional practice. But, M&A work is intellectually difficult. I just don't see how this is any different than any other field. First year bankers and doctors are also worthless and don't do super hard tasks.

I'd also point out that there are tons of fields where higher education isn't required, but it's still difficult and can't be done by just anyone. Coding has historically not required a higher education degree, but anyone who has tried it will tell you it is hard and can't be done by anyone at a high level.
This was a lot of words to say the same thing I said. Plz read again.

Pulsar

Bronze
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Pulsar » Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:00 pm

As a lit associate whose life is only moderately destroyed by this job rather than totally killed (rest in peace transactional friends) I would like to hear more speculating about $$$ next year, as normalizing this level of comp would definitely make me stay longer. Going back to 2019 levels would feel like a downgrade

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:32 pm

Skadden senior associate here -- one thing I actually haven't seen mentioned on our retention bonuses is that there was a billable hours requirement attached: 3000 hours from 1/1/2021 thorough 6/30/22. With how busy 2021 has been, that's not a high bar or anything, which is maybe why I haven't seen it discussed, but there are plenty of practices where annualizing at 2000 might actually be tough. With how busy M&A has been lately (between PE growth, high valuations, cheap debt and the SPAC craze), the billables requirement underscores that some groups are worried about bleeding talent because everyone's under water, while others might not be eligible just based on hours.

As for the quality of juniors, it varies, and it's always varied. 5+ years ago I remember some juniors came in hungry/neurotic and desperate to do good work, while others just had other priorities in life. Some work product was flawless; some was worthless. Some folks were always available; others would be AWOL during a signing. My experience with juniors in the last ~18 months has been awesome, but I have colleagues who can't help but complain. Maybe WFH and the employees' market has exacerbated the issue, but I think there's always been some eager beavers and some folks who are half checked out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:32 pm
Skadden senior associate here -- one thing I actually haven't seen mentioned on our retention bonuses is that there was a billable hours requirement attached: 3000 hours from 1/1/2021 thorough 6/30/22. With how busy 2021 has been, that's not a high bar or anything, which is maybe why I haven't seen it discussed, but there are plenty of practices where annualizing at 2000 might actually be tough. With how busy M&A has been lately (between PE growth, high valuations, cheap debt and the SPAC craze), the billables requirement underscores that some groups are worried about bleeding talent because everyone's under water, while others might not be eligible just based on hours.

As for the quality of juniors, it varies, and it's always varied. 5+ years ago I remember some juniors came in hungry/neurotic and desperate to do good work, while others just had other priorities in life. Some work product was flawless; some was worthless. Some folks were always available; others would be AWOL during a signing. My experience with juniors in the last ~18 months has been awesome, but I have colleagues who can't help but complain. Maybe WFH and the employees' market has exacerbated the issue, but I think there's always been some eager beavers and some folks who are half checked out.
Maybe the hourly requirement was for your practice group? For Skadden CM/M&A, all you need is to be in good standing (so we gotta hit prorated hours, like 1800+900=2700 by June 2022) to get your June 2022 retention bonus. Not sure I've heard of the 3000 hour requirement.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:04 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:45 pm
Maybe the hourly requirement was for your practice group? For Skadden CM/M&A, all you need is to be in good standing (so we gotta hit prorated hours, like 1800+900=2700 by June 2022) to get your June 2022 retention bonus. Not sure I've heard of the 3000 hour requirement.
Original anon, I'm in M&A. Now that I actually look back at the confirmation email it just says still employed, in good standing and satisfying the hours requirement discussed. Partners have told me the retention bonus threshold is annualizing at 2000 rather than 1800 (Skadden's normal year-end bonus threshold). The partners I've talked to made it seem like that was the norm, but then again maybe it's case-by-case, the same as the actual bonus amount. It's kind of a moot point though because I don't know any midlevels active in our group who'd struggle to hit those targets after how insane things have been for the past year or so.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:46 pm

Resurfacing this as the local office leader at my firm (v5) mentioned the Skadden bonuses during our local office associates meeting, noting the associates committee had flagged the bonuses to the executive committee and further requesting that associates send the associates committee any additional announcements relating to special bonuses. It seemed the local office leader raised this on their own volition (i.e., not in response to an associate's question about the bonuses), so perhaps all hope is not lost.

Anon due to prior posts.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:55 pm

I have also heard retention bonuses being mentioned at my V25 firm because we’re hemorrhaging associates. No official word yet.

Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Oct 01, 2021 5:41 pm

In the coming weeks, I have to imagine we'll be hearing more concrete details about retention bonuses for next year. I know firms have historically announced year-end bonuses in November/December but seems like they could benefit a lot from announcing year-end bonuses + any retention bonuses sooner, since burned-out associates are starting to formulate exit plans.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 428105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:16 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:46 pm
Resurfacing this as the local office leader at my firm (v5) mentioned the Skadden bonuses during our local office associates meeting, noting the associates committee had flagged the bonuses to the executive committee and further requesting that associates send the associates committee any additional announcements relating to special bonuses. It seemed the local office leader raised this on their own volition (i.e., not in response to an associate's question about the bonuses), so perhaps all hope is not lost.

Anon due to prior posts.
Similar experience a few weeks ago, but also mentioned that they lacked concrete evidence of any retention bonuses.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”