How does everyone feel about mandatory staff bonus contributions? Forum

[Anonymous User]

You also all seem to fail to realize that most of us won't be making 200/300K+ for ever. If Biglaw was sustainable, I'd be all for giving out 1k bonuses to staff from my pocket. Trying to save so I don't have to listen to you all forever. Moving on.

[papermateflair]

You also all seem to fail to realize that most of us won't be making 200/300K+ for ever. If Biglaw was sustainable, I'd be all for giving out 1k bonuses to staff from my pocket. Trying to save so I don't have to listen to you all forever. Moving on.

It'll take my assistant approximately 4 years to earn $300k at her current salary. We're talking about bonuses and gifts to people who will not EVER have a year at $100k, let alone $200k or $300k. If that extra $1,000 is really going to set back your exit plan, just stay an extra week after you plan to quit.

[Anonymous User]

You also all seem to fail to realize that most of us won't be making 200/300K+ for ever. If Biglaw was sustainable, I'd be all for giving out 1k bonuses to staff from my pocket. Trying to save so I don't have to listen to you all forever. Moving on.

Yeah, real imposition going from the 300k+ job to a $250k+ inhouse role where you work substantially less for slightly less money.

If you're going to be a miserable POS just own it instead of failing to argue your way out of paper bag.

So that we are abundantly clear, if you gave $100/class year every year of biglaw (which you should do and be shamed if you don't), and walked out right after your 6th year, you'd end up shelling out $2100 in total, which doesn't even approach 1% of the amount you'd make in bonuses during that period. Your lack of common decency is literally measurable.

[Anonymous User]

You also all seem to fail to realize that most of us won't be making 200/300K+ for ever. If Biglaw was sustainable, I'd be all for giving out 1k bonuses to staff from my pocket. Trying to save so I don't have to listen to you all forever. Moving on.

It'll take my assistant approximately 4 years to earn $300k at her current salary. We're talking about bonuses and gifts to people who will not EVER have a year at $100k, let alone $200k or $300k. If that extra $1,000 is really going to set back your exit plan, just stay an extra week after you plan to quit.

We aren’t even talking about giving $1k when you make $2-300k. At those levels of comp we are talking about giving $200 or $300. The $100 per class year very roughly tracks as 0.1% of comp. I’m sure the people who say they won’t do it would be embarrassed to defend their position in person around their colleagues so they write it here instead.

[Anonymous User]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine how far half of half a million gets you. And then half it again. That’s closer to what your secretaries are getting post-taxes, maybe substantially less in some cases.

For posterity's sake, no secretary anywhere at any level of Biglaw is making anything close to $125k post-tax unless they're blackmailing the partnership.

Yes. I meant half of half of half a million.

I know lawyers are bad at math, but half of half of half = 1/8 = 125,000.

jfc, 1/8 of 500,000 is 62.5k.

Lol this is hilarious. Half of half of half a million is $125K

Also, I gave my assistant the standard bonus folks here are talking about (class year multipled by $100) but in my Bay Area big law office, that seemed on the higher end. Also, I never used my assistant… might be a millennial thing but I did all administrative tasks on my own. All to say, it felt weird.

[Anonymous User]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money.

This is not remotely true, but I’m now imagining you as OC in one of my cases who likes to strawman like this in pleadings and discovery disputes.

[Buglaw]

I'm a senior associate and this will be the first year I give my secretary a bonus (and it will be consistent with custom). I am strongly against the idea of associates giving out bonuses for the reasons stated ITT, but my secretary got assigned to me during the pandemic and notwithstanding the fact that I've never met her, she's been extremely proactive, effective and helpful. So I'm going to do it because I like her and not because I feel obligated to.

Past secretaries have been completely useless (and one of them with a bad attitude) and I've had no problem giving them nothing. Was it my fault they were useless? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're in biglaw you know most secretaries are not helpful at all, and it's not always the associates fault.

I wouldn't call anyone cheap for not giving a bonus either. After taxes and HCOL "half a million" doesn't get you far in this clown world. And no not looking for sympathy, just agreeing with the point that the firm should be the one paying bonuses, not the associates.

Imagine how far half of half a million gets you. And then half it again. That’s closer to what your secretaries are getting post-taxes, maybe substantially less in some cases.

Most reputable law firms pay the staff bonuses. But you all make literally a quarter to half a million dollars a year and are balking in one thread about paying a pittance to staff—useless or not—while griping in another about how Cravath ~only~ threw $25k in your direction at the end of the year.

Amazing

Cool, i don't care about how much my secretaries make. That's on them. I spent a bunch of time, money for law school, studying for the bar, not to mention undergrad studies. They didn't.

Partner mentality right here:

“I don’t care how much my associates make. I spent my time paying my dues hustling for clients and making revenue for this firm. My associates didn’t. That’s on them. Small bonus this year.”

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate and this will be the first year I give my secretary a bonus (and it will be consistent with custom). I am strongly against the idea of associates giving out bonuses for the reasons stated ITT, but my secretary got assigned to me during the pandemic and notwithstanding the fact that I've never met her, she's been extremely proactive, effective and helpful. So I'm going to do it because I like her and not because I feel obligated to.

Past secretaries have been completely useless (and one of them with a bad attitude) and I've had no problem giving them nothing. Was it my fault they were useless? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're in biglaw you know most secretaries are not helpful at all, and it's not always the associates fault.

I wouldn't call anyone cheap for not giving a bonus either. After taxes and HCOL "half a million" doesn't get you far in this clown world. And no not looking for sympathy, just agreeing with the point that the firm should be the one paying bonuses, not the associates.

Imagine how far half of half a million gets you. And then half it again. That’s closer to what your secretaries are getting post-taxes, maybe substantially less in some cases.

Most reputable law firms pay the staff bonuses. But you all make literally a quarter to half a million dollars a year and are balking in one thread about paying a pittance to staff—useless or not—while griping in another about how Cravath ~only~ threw $25k in your direction at the end of the year.

Amazing

Cool, i don't care about how much my secretaries make. That's on them. I spent a bunch of time, money for law school, studying for the bar, not to mention undergrad studies. They didn't.

Partner mentality right here:

“I don’t care how much my associates make. I spent my time paying my dues hustling for clients and making revenue for this firm. My associates didn’t. That’s on them. Small bonus this year.”

Just a bizarre view of compensation principles. Bonuses are paid by the business or by the owners of the business, not be employees of the business. Do you expect the partners you work for to slip an extra $5k on your desk as a personal bonus? Of course not ,because there is a formalized bonus program, and that is it. If you aren't happy with the compensation then you transition into a different industry. Absurd that overworked and miserable associates are now required to compensate support staff who work maybe 1-2 hours a day, max.

[Anonymous User]

^^^^ PREACH

Maybe I'll contribute once I get my iPad too.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a senior associate and this will be the first year I give my secretary a bonus (and it will be consistent with custom). I am strongly against the idea of associates giving out bonuses for the reasons stated ITT, but my secretary got assigned to me during the pandemic and notwithstanding the fact that I've never met her, she's been extremely proactive, effective and helpful. So I'm going to do it because I like her and not because I feel obligated to.

Past secretaries have been completely useless (and one of them with a bad attitude) and I've had no problem giving them nothing. Was it my fault they were useless? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're in biglaw you know most secretaries are not helpful at all, and it's not always the associates fault.

I wouldn't call anyone cheap for not giving a bonus either. After taxes and HCOL "half a million" doesn't get you far in this clown world. And no not looking for sympathy, just agreeing with the point that the firm should be the one paying bonuses, not the associates.

Imagine how far half of half a million gets you. And then half it again. That’s closer to what your secretaries are getting post-taxes, maybe substantially less in some cases.

Most reputable law firms pay the staff bonuses. But you all make literally a quarter to half a million dollars a year and are balking in one thread about paying a pittance to staff—useless or not—while griping in another about how Cravath ~only~ threw $25k in your direction at the end of the year.

Amazing

Cool, i don't care about how much my secretaries make. That's on them. I spent a bunch of time, money for law school, studying for the bar, not to mention undergrad studies. They didn't.

Partner mentality right here:

“I don’t care how much my associates make. I spent my time paying my dues hustling for clients and making revenue for this firm. My associates didn’t. That’s on them. Small bonus this year.”

Just a bizarre view of compensation principles. Bonuses are paid by the business or by the owners of the business, not be employees of the business. Do you expect the partners you work for to slip an extra $5k on your desk as a personal bonus? Of course not ,because there is a formalized bonus program, and that is it. If you aren't happy with the compensation then you transition into a different industry. Absurd that overworked and miserable associates are now required to compensate support staff who work maybe 1-2 hours a day, max.

The point is that standing on principle about this is incredibly shitty behavior. If you want change to be made, raise it to the partnership. Otherwise the only people who get screwed by this are the people who are towards the bottom rung of the compensation scale in your firm and those people are going to blame you, not the enterprise, because this is an expectation and tradition in the business for 15+ years.

[Buglaw]

I'm a senior associate and this will be the first year I give my secretary a bonus (and it will be consistent with custom). I am strongly against the idea of associates giving out bonuses for the reasons stated ITT, but my secretary got assigned to me during the pandemic and notwithstanding the fact that I've never met her, she's been extremely proactive, effective and helpful. So I'm going to do it because I like her and not because I feel obligated to.

Past secretaries have been completely useless (and one of them with a bad attitude) and I've had no problem giving them nothing. Was it my fault they were useless? Maybe, maybe not. But if you're in biglaw you know most secretaries are not helpful at all, and it's not always the associates fault.

I wouldn't call anyone cheap for not giving a bonus either. After taxes and HCOL "half a million" doesn't get you far in this clown world. And no not looking for sympathy, just agreeing with the point that the firm should be the one paying bonuses, not the associates.

Imagine how far half of half a million gets you. And then half it again. That’s closer to what your secretaries are getting post-taxes, maybe substantially less in some cases.

Most reputable law firms pay the staff bonuses. But you all make literally a quarter to half a million dollars a year and are balking in one thread about paying a pittance to staff—useless or not—while griping in another about how Cravath ~only~ threw $25k in your direction at the end of the year.

Amazing

Cool, i don't care about how much my secretaries make. That's on them. I spent a bunch of time, money for law school, studying for the bar, not to mention undergrad studies. They didn't.

Partner mentality right here:

“I don’t care how much my associates make. I spent my time paying my dues hustling for clients and making revenue for this firm. My associates didn’t. That’s on them. Small bonus this year.”

Just a bizarre view of compensation principles. Bonuses are paid by the business or by the owners of the business, not be employees of the business. Do you expect the partners you work for to slip an extra $5k on your desk as a personal bonus? Of course not ,because there is a formalized bonus program, and that is it. If you aren't happy with the compensation then you transition into a different industry. Absurd that overworked and miserable associates are now required to compensate support staff who work maybe 1-2 hours a day, max.

You are aware the individual partners you work for don't set comp either, right? They are very small minority owners (as I am in public companies). So it is the same mentality... I also typically get very nice gifts from the partners I work for at the end of the year.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine how far half of half a million gets you. And then half it again. That’s closer to what your secretaries are getting post-taxes, maybe substantially less in some cases.

For posterity's sake, no secretary anywhere at any level of Biglaw is making anything close to $125k post-tax unless they're blackmailing the partnership.

Yes. I meant half of half of half a million.

I know lawyers are bad at math, but half of half of half = 1/8 = 125,000.

jfc, 1/8 of 500,000 is 62.5k.

Lol this is hilarious. Half of half of half a million is $125K

It's starting to feel like that legendary bodybuilding thread about how many days there are in a week.
125k is correct.

"half of half of half a million" = 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1,000,000. Put another way, it's half of half of (half a million). Half of 500k is 250. Half of that is 125k.

"1/8 of 500,000 is 62.5k" is a misreading, that would be half of half of half of half a million.

[Anonymous User]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

It's a gift. To a person that you presumably know and with whom you have a professional relationship. It is not a charitable donation. Do you not give gifts to your family members because of the impossibility of drawing the line between a holiday gift for your grandmother and giving $1 to every homeless person or charity that asks for a donation? But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

It's a gift. To a person that you presumably know and with whom you have a professional relationship. It is not a charitable donation. Do you not give gifts to your family members because of the impossibility of drawing the line between a holiday gift for your grandmother and giving $1 to every homeless person or charity that asks for a donation? But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

I don't hand my grandmother an envelope with $600 in cash, no.

[Anonymous User]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

It's a gift. To a person that you presumably know and with whom you have a professional relationship. It is not a charitable donation. Do you not give gifts to your family members because of the impossibility of drawing the line between a holiday gift for your grandmother and giving $1 to every homeless person or charity that asks for a donation? But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

What gifts do you get from the equity partners you work with, who are making $5 million a year and own 3 mansions? Maybe they should be the ones giving out the gifts.

[Anonymous User]

Totally missing the point. Maybe the equity partners give gifts, maybe they don't, I really don't know. But again, a gift is freely given, and if you don't want to give a gift until you have tabulated exactly what everyone else is giving to ensure that it comports with your notion of what is just, then that's not really a gift, is it? Obviously people can do what they want with their money, but the total inability of people in this thread to think of others is really sad. And the person above with the $600 in cash to your grandmother comment is also totally missing the point. I assume that person wouldn't give their grandmother the same gift they give their best friend or their nephew - that you give different gifts to different people doesn't relate at all to the question of whether a gift should be given at all.

[Buglaw]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

It's a gift. To a person that you presumably know and with whom you have a professional relationship. It is not a charitable donation. Do you not give gifts to your family members because of the impossibility of drawing the line between a holiday gift for your grandmother and giving $1 to every homeless person or charity that asks for a donation? But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

I don't hand my grandmother an envelope with $600 in cash, no.

I give my family members nice gifts. Certainly more than $600 throughout the year. You sound cheap.

[Anonymous User]

I remember when I was expected to doll out like 400 dollars but I wasn't given a bonus due to not hitting my hours after an extended leave. If I'm not getting a bonus, why would I give one.

[Anonymous User]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

It's a gift. To a person that you presumably know and with whom you have a professional relationship. It is not a charitable donation. Do you not give gifts to your family members because of the impossibility of drawing the line between a holiday gift for your grandmother and giving $1 to every homeless person or charity that asks for a donation? But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

I don't hand my grandmother an envelope with $600 in cash, no.

I give my family members nice gifts. Certainly more than $600 throughout the year. You sound cheap.

My point is that it's not a gift, it's a cash bonus.

[Buglaw]

Okay - so the only argument the “you’re cheap” side has is that it is a comparatively small sum of money. That’s fine, I’m glad you feel that way for yourself.

That argument has pretty obvious limitations though, doesn’t it? Every sum of money is small until there’s enough of them - do you all give a dollar to every homeless person? Why not? It’s very small compared to your salary. Do you give to every charity that solicits you? Why not?

If you can’t have a good faith discussion about the principle of whether it’s appropriate to cost shift onto non-profit-sharing employees that’s fine, but don’t act as though you have moral high ground because you choose to prioritize your staff bonus pool over any number of other charitable endeavors.

It's a gift. To a person that you presumably know and with whom you have a professional relationship. It is not a charitable donation. Do you not give gifts to your family members because of the impossibility of drawing the line between a holiday gift for your grandmother and giving $1 to every homeless person or charity that asks for a donation? But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

I don't hand my grandmother an envelope with $600 in cash, no.

I give my family members nice gifts. Certainly more than $600 throughout the year. You sound cheap.

My point is that it's not a gift, it's a cash bonus.

OK. Buy your secretary a $600 spa package then. I assume you do that since the issue is not the amount, it's the form? Or do you have some other reason why that too would be innapropriate? Is there any end of the year $600 expenditure you make for your secretary?

[Anonymous User]

But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

That’s EXACTLY the point - if you harass and shame people into giving a “gift”, it’s now not a gift, it’s a mandatory contribution to another employee’s bonus, which the firm would otherwise be responsible for.

Just like a mandatory charitable contribution is called “income tax”, doesn’t feel so good, and has spawned whole industries of people trying to avoid paying them.

[Anonymous User]

But it's beside the point, because a gift is that which is given freely and from a spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, which seems to be sorely lacking in this thread.

That’s EXACTLY the point - if you harass and shame people into giving a “gift”, it’s now not a gift, it’s a mandatory contribution to another employee’s bonus, which the firm would otherwise be responsible for.

Just like a mandatory charitable contribution is called “income tax”, doesn’t feel so good, and has spawned whole industries of people trying to avoid paying them.

You are really bad at making analogies.

[thisismytlsuername]

This is why everyone thinks lawyers are annoying, this thread happens every year with the same complaints (even less relevant now that associates make so much goddamn money -- the "hundred dollars per class year" guideline hasn't increased in a decade, has your salary?), and everyone bitching about giving their support staff a small bonus is cheap. Can we all go home now?

[Sackboy]

Lots of bootlickers in this thread demanding higher earning wage slaves pay lower earning wage slaves money instead of the equityholders who are exploiting the labor of both classes of wage slaves to the tune of millions of dollars a year.