Biglaw Flex Work Arrangements Forum

[Anonymous User]

I’m curious to hear from folks who have opted for flexible working arrangements with their biglaw firms (I.E., lower hours target or other arrangement for less comp/bonus than typical folks). I’m particularly interested in hearing what the arrangement (hours threshold and effect on base/bonus) and how the arrangement is monitored / respected. Also interested in what happens when the hours threshold is exceeded or hit earlier in the year (like hit hours in Oct, do you just take rest of the year off?). Anon because I’m contemplating proposing an arrangement like this to my firm.

[Anonymous User]

My firm (Fenwick) offers two full time tracks: 1800 and 1950, and also offers part time tracks that are 60% or 80% of 1800. The overall comp for 1800 (and percentages of 1800) is not prorated 1950 comp. It is substantially (and I mean substantially) lower than 1950 market comp and the numbers aren't publicized. Depending on level and taking bonuses into account, working the extra 150 hours can mean taking home 70-80% more. I don't know about 60% or 80%, but for 1800 there are still bonuses, though they are small (like $30k for a 7/8th year versus $100k+ for 1950, before even considering recent retention bonuses, which only apply to 1950). It probably varies by practice group/partner, but from what I've observed, hours elections are generally respected. I don't know to what extent it impacts advancement--depends who you ask. Some partners are on reduced hours, though. I've never heard of anything taking weeks/months off after hitting their hours target and I don't think that would fly. I do think you could probably get away with scaling back a bit, and taking some vacation.

[almostperfectt]

My firm (Fenwick) offers two full time tracks: 1800 and 1950, and also offers part time tracks that are 60% or 80% of 1800. The overall comp for 1800 (and percentages of 1800) is not prorated 1950 comp. It is substantially (and I mean substantially) lower than 1950 market comp and the numbers aren't publicized. Depending on level and taking bonuses into account, working the extra 150 hours can mean taking home 70-80% more. I don't know about 60% or 80%, but for 1800 there are still bonuses, though they are small (like $30k for a 7/8th year versus $100k+ for 1950, before even considering recent retention bonuses, which only apply to 1950). It probably varies by practice group/partner, but from what I've observed, hours elections are generally respected. I don't know to what extent it impacts advancement--depends who you ask. Some partners are on reduced hours, though. I've never heard of anything taking weeks/months off after hitting their hours target and I don't think that would fly. I do think you could probably get away with scaling back a bit, and taking some vacation.

Why not just say what the numbers are? Also, that seems like a dumb decision to choose to bill 3 hrs a week less and get paid 70% less.

[Anonymous User]

Thread OP here

I think the point is if you are a mid or senior level associate, those “tracks” are typically the minimums to get bonus but the expectations would normally be much higher notwithstanding the minimums. So the difference isn’t really 150-200 hours (1800 v 1950-2000) but more like 600 hours (1800 v 2400). To me, that’s an appreciable difference for lifestyle and stress - average 150 hour months as the expectation for someone in those years as opposed to average 200 hour months is a huge difference.

I’d be interested in hearing about other folks’ experience with this as well, especially at some of the powerhouses. The Fenwick model is a good comparison for what I’ve been contemplating.

Should also state that this is for transactional and not litigation.

[Anonymous User]

I entered into an alternative arrangement briefly as a senior associate, before leaving biglaw entirely. I was burning out and my base pay and expected bonus was high enough that taking a cut still left me with more money than I really needed at the time. My firm did it as a straight proration, e.g., 1600 hour expectation for 80% pay and 80% bonus. If I went above the number substantially, then I would recoup some of the lost pay. This was done with buckets, making it quite firm-friendly. If you didn’t hit a target for a pay boost (say, you billed 1799 hours instead of 1800), the firm wouldn’t give you 89.99% pay, they’d give you 80% and pocket the extra 9.99%. The extra pay also came multiple months into the next billing year, so if you left before then you got zero.

The arrangement was, to be blunt, not respected at all. I noticed next to no decrease in workload or availability expectations, and the main partner I worked with - the one approved and supported my request for an alternative arrangement - told me a few months in that my real target to be in good standing at the firm was still 2000, that they still expected 8+ hours billed a day, and that I should be aiming for substantially more than that. Along with a veiled threat that if I wasn’t hitting those numbers, my good standing wouldn’t last forever. I left the firm not too long thereafter. With it, the firm pocketed a bunch of extra money because I’d left before the true-up payout date.

Granted, I worked for someone who I consider to be the single worst partner I’d met in biglaw across a couple firms and many years of practice. More reasonable partners would almost assuredly respect the agreement better. But going on an alternative arrangement won’t make a maniac boss any less of a maniac.

[Anonymous User]

My firm (Fenwick) offers two full time tracks: 1800 and 1950, and also offers part time tracks that are 60% or 80% of 1800. The overall comp for 1800 (and percentages of 1800) is not prorated 1950 comp. It is substantially (and I mean substantially) lower than 1950 market comp and the numbers aren't publicized. Depending on level and taking bonuses into account, working the extra 150 hours can mean taking home 70-80% more. I don't know about 60% or 80%, but for 1800 there are still bonuses, though they are small (like $30k for a 7/8th year versus $100k+ for 1950, before even considering recent retention bonuses, which only apply to 1950). It probably varies by practice group/partner, but from what I've observed, hours elections are generally respected. I don't know to what extent it impacts advancement--depends who you ask. Some partners are on reduced hours, though. I've never heard of anything taking weeks/months off after hitting their hours target and I don't think that would fly. I do think you could probably get away with scaling back a bit, and taking some vacation.

I'm sorry - are you saying working 1800 hour pace only earns you 70-80% of market, or working 1950 hour pace earns you 70% more? Because the latter doesn't make any sense to me - it would mean that a third year billing 1800 hours would make like $120k. I know nothing about Fenwick, but that just doesn't sound right at all.

Tbh, I don't even believe that working 1800 hours gets you 70-80% of market only either. Using our third year example - 70% of base of 240 is 168k. I can't imagine anyone taking that deal when you can make more than that in-house with even less hours.

[Anonymous User]

My firm (Fenwick) offers two full time tracks: 1800 and 1950, and also offers part time tracks that are 60% or 80% of 1800. The overall comp for 1800 (and percentages of 1800) is not prorated 1950 comp. It is substantially (and I mean substantially) lower than 1950 market comp and the numbers aren't publicized. Depending on level and taking bonuses into account, working the extra 150 hours can mean taking home 70-80% more. I don't know about 60% or 80%, but for 1800 there are still bonuses, though they are small (like $30k for a 7/8th year versus $100k+ for 1950, before even considering recent retention bonuses, which only apply to 1950). It probably varies by practice group/partner, but from what I've observed, hours elections are generally respected. I don't know to what extent it impacts advancement--depends who you ask. Some partners are on reduced hours, though. I've never heard of anything taking weeks/months off after hitting their hours target and I don't think that would fly. I do think you could probably get away with scaling back a bit, and taking some vacation.

I'm sorry - are you saying working 1800 hour pace only earns you 70-80% of market, or working 1950 hour pace earns you 70% more? Because the latter doesn't make any sense to me - it would mean that a third year billing 1800 hours would make like $120k. I know nothing about Fenwick, but that just doesn't sound right at all.

Tbh, I don't even believe that working 1800 hours gets you only 70-80% of market either. Using our third year example - 70% of base of 240 is 168k. I can't imagine anyone taking that deal when you can make more than that in-house with even less hours.

[washdc2012]

My firm (Fenwick) offers two full time tracks: 1800 and 1950, and also offers part time tracks that are 60% or 80% of 1800. The overall comp for 1800 (and percentages of 1800) is not prorated 1950 comp. It is substantially (and I mean substantially) lower than 1950 market comp and the numbers aren't publicized. Depending on level and taking bonuses into account, working the extra 150 hours can mean taking home 70-80% more. I don't know about 60% or 80%, but for 1800 there are still bonuses, though they are small (like $30k for a 7/8th year versus $100k+ for 1950, before even considering recent retention bonuses, which only apply to 1950). It probably varies by practice group/partner, but from what I've observed, hours elections are generally respected. I don't know to what extent it impacts advancement--depends who you ask. Some partners are on reduced hours, though. I've never heard of anything taking weeks/months off after hitting their hours target and I don't think that would fly. I do think you could probably get away with scaling back a bit, and taking some vacation.

I'm sorry - are you saying working 1800 hour pace only earns you 70-80% of market, or working 1950 hour pace earns you 70% more? Because the latter doesn't make any sense to me - it would mean that a third year billing 1800 hours would make like $120k. I know nothing about Fenwick, but that just doesn't sound right at all.

Tbh, I don't even believe that working 1800 hours gets you only 70-80% of market either. Using our third year example - 70% of base of 240 is 168k. I can't imagine anyone taking that deal when you can make more than that in-house with even less hours.

What I mean is if you bill 1950 you can earn 70-80% more than if you bill 1800. To the earlier response re posting the exact amounts, I don't know them because non-1950 track is black box and it also changes every year. But the 1800 salary is roughly calculated as a prorated amount of 2016 market salaries. A third year billing 1800 won't make $120k--probably more like $190k. But the difference is mostly driven by bonuses. An 1800 third year will get a tiny EOY bonus, maybe $10k, and no special bonus, so their total comp is $200k. A 1950 third year's salary is $230k, but they will also get $32k special bonus + EOY bonus we can expect to be $60k+ based on last year. So $322k total. That's >60% more than 1800 track assuming no increase in EOY salaries. I think the comp difference increases the more senior you get, but like I said, I don't have all of the numbers.

Why would anyone do this? Well, not many people choose it anymore. The policies have changed over the past ~5 years to intentionally disincentive it, and the special bonuses really widened the gap. But if you miss your target by a certain amount, the firm will force the 1800 track. I chose it after returning from parental leave to be on the safe side, but am billing at 1950 pace and have been trued up on special bonuses and will be trued up on salary and EOY bonus.