2022 Special (Retention) Bonuses Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any more insight on transactional v. litigation folk with regard to bonuses and/or work expectations?

[Anonymous User]

weird hate on australians in this thread. all the aussies i've worked with have been nice and very skilled. same goes for brits, canadians, etc.

Agreed. My firm’s lateral hires consist of 80%+ Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis. They’re largely a pleasure to work with and intelligent, capable lawyers. What does bum me out is that my firm has turned into a sweatshop and given up on its semblance of culture to the point that we can’t attract or retain US lawyers. That’s not a knock on the foreign lawyers, though I feel bad they’re walking into these hours with 2-4 years of class credit docked.

At the risk of going off topic, I'd say that the Brits/Aussies I've worked with have been as good if not better than a typical US corp associate. It's basically stealing talent from mostly non-US firms that have put in the time to train those people up. You're typically pretty driven to lateral internationally to London/NYC/etc. Or it might be that the firm can hold the visa sponsorship over their head, so it's more fear-based performance. In any case, there's no way that Biglaw can import enough Canadian/Brit/Kiwi/Aussie associates to jeopardize industry-wide retention bonuses. But this runaway train market isn't going to last forever. If we need more banter on the subject, we could all start speculating about when the market will slow down, deal flow will diminish, and retention bonuses are off the table. I'm guessing Spring 2023?

[Anonymous User]

weird hate on australians in this thread. all the aussies i've worked with have been nice and very skilled. same goes for brits, canadians, etc.

Agreed. My firm’s lateral hires consist of 80%+ Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis. They’re largely a pleasure to work with and intelligent, capable lawyers. What does bum me out is that my firm has turned into a sweatshop and given up on its semblance of culture to the point that we can’t attract or retain US lawyers. That’s not a knock on the foreign lawyers, though I feel bad they’re walking into these hours with 2-4 years of class credit docked.

At the risk of going off topic, I'd say that the Brits/Aussies I've worked with have been as good if not better than a typical US corp associate. It's basically stealing talent from mostly non-US firms that have put in the time to train those people up. You're typically pretty driven to lateral internationally to London/NYC/etc. Or it might be that the firm can hold the visa sponsorship over their head, so it's more fear-based performance. In any case, there's no way that Biglaw can import enough Canadian/Brit/Kiwi/Aussie associates to jeopardize industry-wide retention bonuses. But this runaway train market isn't going to last forever. If we need more banter on the subject, we could all start speculating about when the market will slow down, deal flow will diminish, and retention bonuses are off the table. I'm guessing Spring 2023?

Maybe the Chinese Lehman will get us out of this mess. I hope not for my investment accounts, but hope so for some work relief.

[Anonymous User]

though I feel bad they’re walking into these hours with 2-4 years of class credit docked.

They're still getting paid more here than back home. They're good lawyers though.

[Anonymous User]

weird hate on australians in this thread. all the aussies i've worked with have been nice and very skilled. same goes for brits, canadians, etc.

Pretty sure no one is hating on aussies etc. Point is how desperate once-selective firms are getting for bodies that they are recruiting off shores.

[Anonymous User]

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?

[Anonymous User]

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?

Just think about it. You happen to have qualified associates, with a couple of years of experience under their belt, in some common law jurisdictions (think Australia or the UK, but I've seen a good number from Israel as well in BigLaw) that can be hired as 1st year associates (either by lateraling or by recruiting done following their LLM degree), yet essentially they will produce a work product which is more akin to that of a 3-4 year associate. Note that the majority of foreign associates in BigLaw are actually highly accomplished and come with plenty of credentials (e.g., finished top 10% of their class in the respective country, local BigLaw experience or supreme sourt clerkship etc.) and on top of that, they will usually come with a more "gritty" attitude, as the employment opportunity in US BigLaw is quite unique from their standpoint (professionally and (mainly) financially).

[Wanderingdrock]

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.

[Anonymous User]

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?

post above is the credited response. To answer your other questions, no, who knows - they are just desperate at this point and seniors/midlevels will just continue to bear the burden, and no.

[Anonymous User]

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?

[Buglaw]

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?

I mean, most junior level work can be shipped off to non-juniors, but then where would mid levels come from? I can't imagine this is different from any other profession where 20 year veterans in menial jobs are better than people fresh out of college with no experience. I bet nurses are a whole bunch more useful than doctors in their first year of residency, for example. Everyone has to learn somewhere. I highly doubt this is any different in litigation or regulatory.

International associates from
Australia/Canada/UK are in high demand, because they are all based on the English law system and there deals are relatively similar to ours. Is an international associate as good as a domestic associate? No, which is why they are forced to take class year cuts. But, there are no more domestic associates (or corporate paralegals for that matter) so the next best thing are international associates. Something is better than nothing. International associates are also better than retraining a litigator, for example.

[Anonymous User]

Saw recruiting email offering among other things “guaranteed spring retention bonuses” at an “elite AmLaw 100 firm.” Didn’t really read like it was Skadden. Are spring and fall retention/special/COVID bonuses a thing now?

[Anonymous User]

Saw recruiting email offering among other things “guaranteed spring retention bonuses” at an “elite AmLaw 100 firm.” Didn’t really read like it was Skadden. Are spring and fall retention/special/COVID bonuses a thing now?

I would be surprised if we didn’t start hearing about this in October. Associates are starting to plan their moves in 2022 post-bonus. The promise of a retention bonus should be out there before those plans are finalized. It’s a a lot easier to convince an associate to shut down a job search than to renege on an accepted offer elsewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Burnt out mid-level here. A couple points about new crops of junior associates (which informs the culture-issue, which is pertinent to the idea of retention and related bonuses).

First, I think it is easy to forget how little law school does in actually preparing attorneys for practice, and people tend to lose sight of that. Somehow when I was a junior a handful of selfless mid-levels and seniors found time to take the time to show me the ropes. I personally wish I could provide more hands-on guidance to juniors, but everyone is drowning in work (and I feel like I've been drowning for five years straight) so taking time to voluntarily train juniors directly eats into time that should have been spent on X deal or Y brief, which directly eats into time spent with family and friends. It is really hard to self-sacrifice like that. That is a structural problem, not a junior problem.

Second, I also don't begrudge juniors for wising up to the game in some ways. Unfortunately when I was a junior I thought that every email needed to be responded to immediately and that every assignment was the most important thing on Earth (resulting in me rushing out of gyms, social events, bars, etc. the moment my cell pinged). The system thrives on people like me, people who take too long to realize the well-known refrain that it is a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie. I have no intention of staying in big law much longer if I can, but I have always found it incredibly difficult to let emails sit, to not feel like I need to give 110% to every detail (partners early on told me they "expect perfection"), probably just my conditioning. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that younger attorneys both have more access to information (like TLS) and are more in tune with their own mental health and how important that is. Of course, all shades of gray and screwing over fellow associates is not cool. But probably too simple to just say it can all be chalked up to "entitlement."

I agree with this. I just started my third year, as a transactional lawyer and in a lot of ways, I feel like I know barely any more than the day I walked in. This is partly due to the pandemic of course, and not really getting much guidance. So, I'm someone who does not have the expertise to do a lot nor someone who wants to crush it to get to that point (because, like you said, your prize is just more pie)

So, I've resorted to doing exactly what you're indicating in the second paragraph: I don't really know that well what I'm doing anyway, so if I spot anything off, I'll flag it to a senior. They can take the responsibility and I'll do whatever they say. They might dislike it, but I don't want to appear good at my job. And if I get a simple assignment, I try to pawn it off to a junior or the paralegals. I always finish my assignments early and then sit on them until I get asked for them: because I know that if I send it in early, it will just be subject to a ton of rounds of comments. Plus I sometimes send out e-mails really late or really early, to make it seem I was really busy, so my work product passes the eye test. If I see an e-mail come in that is not only addressed to me, I don't answer: let the other take care of it. If it is: I immediately respond I'm on it, to give the appearance I'm always hard at work. I then just go back to reading a book or watching Netflix. Every year I got around my billable requirement with this strategy. I think the idea of my colleagues and partners is that "He works really hard, but just not that smart or fast with his work." I'm fine with that. I don't want to impress people here and get crushed. I want to cruise to my paychecks.

[Anonymous User]

Saw recruiting email offering among other things “guaranteed spring retention bonuses” at an “elite AmLaw 100 firm.” Didn’t really read like it was Skadden. Are spring and fall retention/special/COVID bonuses a thing now?

I would be surprised if we didn’t start hearing about this in October. Associates are starting to plan their moves in 2022 post-bonus. The promise of a retention bonus should be out there before those plans are finalized. It’s a a lot easier to convince an associate to shut down a job search than to renege on an accepted offer elsewhere.

Good point but too late to shut down my search lol. I guess I’ll have to make sure my offer letter has language covering any future retention or special bonuses paid to peers.

[Anonymous User]

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?

To take this a step further - give me a high school student who can score above a 700 on the reading/critical reasoning portion of the SATs, and I can teach him how to do my job.

There's absolutely nothing about being a transactional lawyer that requires you to actually be a lawyer. It's mostly project management and experience (read: precedent).

Clients are sophisticated enough to ask for cheaper rates, but there isn't a market for it.

You can try and go to less credentialed sources for legal work, but most of the time their work won't be up to par. People who are capable of doing this job well, tend to become lawyers and not stay paralegals. This isn't a diss - I'm a former paralegal myself, but why would I sit around making 42k/year (yes, that is actually what I made as a paralegal when I started out) when I can just go chill in law school for 3 years and start getting paid $200k+. On top of this, no one invests time and money in training and building up a paralegal so they can't really move on to mid-level stage nor can they easily spot issues.

Senior paralegal who essentially function as junior lawyers aren't uncommon and do get paid decently.

As an aside, I have not seen any difference in the quality of British/Australian lawyers vs. American lawyers lol. If anything, I'd just say they're a bit lazier when they're at non-US firms because the expectation/pay isn't that they work 100% all the time. Once they come over here and get paid to work 100% of the time, they pretty much perform the same as their equivalent US counterpart.

[Anonymous User]

This conversation about transactional attorneys and international attorneys is very interesting, but wildly off-topic. Can you guys take it somewhere else? The subject of this thread speculation about 2022 retention bonuses. Stop the clutter.

[Anonymous User]

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.)

[almostperfectt]

This conversation about transactional attorneys and international attorneys is very interesting, but wildly off-topic. Can you guys take it somewhere else? The subject of this thread speculation about 2022 retention bonuses. Stop the clutter.

If people had anything substantive to add on the topic it would be added.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Not Acually Off-Topic: LOL at crabs-in-buckets midlevels complaining the juniors are shifting the consequences upwards. Looks like the juniors learned faster than you did how few consequences there are for outright turning things down, 100%, as long as you're meeting expectations elsewhere. If you don't have the spine to stand up for what little free time you have left in *this* market, you'll never get it.

And here's why it's on topic: The more and more juniors do this, the more firms will have to hew to a model of just hiring many more people, which will, over time, reduce upward pressure on salaries and bonuses (and make it easier to fire people in downturns). That probably means hiring (and workloads) that look more like what it did in 2006-2007ish. I suspect almost no one still around here remembers the time when top third at the Hastings and Brooklyns of the world was a great shot at Biglaw.

The smart firms will hire at least some people fully remote and use office hoteling to keep their costs the same. The dumb ones will bleat one about "muh culture, muh coffee machine creativity!" and wonder why everyone is leaving.

[Anonymous User]

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?

To take this a step further - give me a high school student who can score above a 700 on the reading/critical reasoning portion of the SATs, and I can teach him how to do my job.

There's absolutely nothing about being a transactional lawyer that requires you to actually be a lawyer. It's mostly project management and experience (read: precedent).

Clients are sophisticated enough to ask for cheaper rates, but there isn't a market for it.

You can try and go to less credentialed sources for legal work, but most of the time their work won't be up to par. People who are capable of doing this job well, tend to become lawyers and not stay paralegals. This isn't a diss - I'm a former paralegal myself, but why would I sit around making 42k/year (yes, that is actually what I made as a paralegal when I started out) when I can just go chill in law school for 3 years and start getting paid $200k+. On top of this, no one invests time and money in training and building up a paralegal so they can't really move on to mid-level stage nor can they easily spot issues.

Senior paralegal who essentially function as junior lawyers aren't uncommon and do get paid decently.

As an aside, I have not seen any difference in the quality of British/Australian lawyers vs. American lawyers lol. If anything, I'd just say they're a bit lazier when they're at non-US firms because the expectation/pay isn't that they work 100% all the time. Once they come over here and get paid to work 100% of the time, they pretty much perform the same as their equivalent US counterpart.

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. We're not doing rocket science. This is why WFH is such a godsend: you can pass down work to 9-5pm support staff and then when they clock off, you can start doing the work in the evening when still necessary (and it often is, as the work product often isn't the best). 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 to the international vs US distinction: from my experience the JD graduates work harder as they were primed for it. That being said, the difference isn't huge and it's why I somewhat pity all the international lawyers who work in biglaw, as they get about 50% of the paycheck for about 90% of the work we have.

[Anonymous User]

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?

To take this a step further - give me a high school student who can score above a 700 on the reading/critical reasoning portion of the SATs, and I can teach him how to do my job.

There's absolutely nothing about being a transactional lawyer that requires you to actually be a lawyer. It's mostly project management and experience (read: precedent).

Clients are sophisticated enough to ask for cheaper rates, but there isn't a market for it.

You can try and go to less credentialed sources for legal work, but most of the time their work won't be up to par. People who are capable of doing this job well, tend to become lawyers and not stay paralegals. This isn't a diss - I'm a former paralegal myself, but why would I sit around making 42k/year (yes, that is actually what I made as a paralegal when I started out) when I can just go chill in law school for 3 years and start getting paid $200k+. On top of this, no one invests time and money in training and building up a paralegal so they can't really move on to mid-level stage nor can they easily spot issues.

Senior paralegal who essentially function as junior lawyers aren't uncommon and do get paid decently.

As an aside, I have not seen any difference in the quality of British/Australian lawyers vs. American lawyers lol. If anything, I'd just say they're a bit lazier when they're at non-US firms because the expectation/pay isn't that they work 100% all the time. Once they come over here and get paid to work 100% of the time, they pretty much perform the same as their equivalent US counterpart.

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. We're not doing rocket science. This is why WFH is such a godsend: you can pass down work to 9-5pm support staff and then when they clock off, you can start doing the work in the evening when still necessary (and it often is, as the work product often isn't the best). 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 to the international vs US distinction: from my experience the JD graduates work harder as they were primed for it. That being said, the difference isn't huge and it's why I somewhat pity all the international lawyers who work in biglaw, as they get about 50% of the paycheck for about 90% of the work we have.

^Aren't international LLMs paid the same rate as their corresponding local JDs (e.g., 205K for 1st year international associate)? If these internationals are paid only 50% of the regular salary, then there isn't a whole lot of point in making a transition to US BigLaw.

[Anonymous User]

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.

[Anonymous User]

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.

[Anonymous User]

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