I Got Stealthed - My 2022 Special Bonus Edition Forum

[Anonymous User]

I got the cagey version in my last review, then the explicit "time to pack it up" a few months later. I was given a date by which to leave. I will say I wasn't surprised it happened, but was a bit surprised at the timing.

Original OP here. Same as this poster. I got a talk and then a few months later, a date by which to leave. My hours were 150-170 a month. Told I did good work.

150-170 doesn’t seem slow. I don’t understand.

Something’s not adding up here. This would imply pacing at around 1,900 hours per year. Not “you’re gonna make partner!” hours but I’ve never heard of someone getting stealthed at that level of billables, and especially in this economy.

[Anonymous User]

Do y'all think we're seeing the start of layoffs due to the economy? If so, will this start effecting juniors/hiring at all?

would be very surprised if class sizes don't dramatically decrease at least this next cycle. I feel like my firm's NY office overhired over the past 2 years going into this market, and other midlevels I've spoken to share similar views.

have also read and heard that lateral hiring is already incredibly low compared to peaks over the past 1.5-2 years, and has been for at least a few weeks now.

also getting stealthed when averaging 150-170 is crazy. not trying to flame you at all op, but I would wager that means you pissed someone important off and/or reputational concerns generally.

[Anonymous User]

I got the cagey version in my last review, then the explicit "time to pack it up" a few months later. I was given a date by which to leave. I will say I wasn't surprised it happened, but was a bit surprised at the timing.

Original OP here. Same as this poster. I got a talk and then a few months later, a date by which to leave. My hours were 150-170 a month. Told I did good work.

150-170 doesn’t seem slow. I don’t understand.

Something’s not adding up here. This would imply pacing at around 1,900 hours per year. Not “you’re gonna make partner!” hours but I’ve never heard of someone getting stealthed at that level of billables, and especially in this economy.

Aware of midlevels in busy (M&A, debt, cap markets) who did 1700-1800 in 2021 but ducked a lot of work doing so who are now on the chopping block. Those guys did not do “good” work however, they were kept because bodies were needed.

[Anonymous User]

Do y'all think we're seeing the start of layoffs due to the economy? If so, will this start effecting juniors/hiring at all?

would be very surprised if class sizes don't dramatically decrease at least this next cycle. I feel like my firm's NY office overhired over the past 2 years going into this market, and other midlevels I've spoken to share similar views.

have also read and heard that lateral hiring is already incredibly low compared to peaks over the past 1.5-2 years, and has been for at least a few weeks now.

also getting stealthed when averaging 150-170 is crazy. not trying to flame you at all op, but I would wager that means you pissed someone important off and/or reputational concerns generally.

Since most of firms' overhiring was in corp, does that mean lit associates are relatively safe?

[Anonymous User]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

[nixy]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

[Anonymous User]

Do y'all think we're seeing the start of layoffs due to the economy? If so, will this start effecting juniors/hiring at all?

It's starting to happen in specific hard-hit sectors like fintech and housing. As interest rates rise it will be more widespread in the economy and eventually reach the legal sector. Juniors are generally relatively protected unless things get '08 level bad, which is unlikely. It will certainly be a tougher OCI season than the past few years though.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

But the second poster said they had 150-170 hours per month. The work was there for them…

My partner just jumped ship to another firm and is asking me to join her/recruiting me. I hesitate to do it now because if there’s a slowdown I won’t have as many people in my corner who can vouch for me.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

But the second poster said they had 150-170 hours per month. The work was there for them…

My partner just jumped ship to another firm and is asking me to join her/recruiting me. I hesitate to do it now because if there’s a slowdown I won’t have as many people in my corner who can vouch for me.

OP here... to be clear... half those hours were pro-bono... but if the firm is gonna give equal credit, don't hate it I take advantage (though apparently they did)

[Anon80085]

If half your hours were pro bono on a 160 hr/month rate, then that's a sign that things aren't going well for you (or your pro bono practice was especially heavy for that month). OP, what did you expect? Billing 80 client hours/month is no bueno.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

But the second poster said they had 150-170 hours per month. The work was there for them…

My partner just jumped ship to another firm and is asking me to join her/recruiting me. I hesitate to do it now because if there’s a slowdown I won’t have as many people in my corner who can vouch for me.

OP here... to be clear... half those hours were pro-bono... but if the firm is gonna give equal credit, don't hate it I take advantage (though apparently they did)

Firms know hours padding with pro bono. Pretty sure in a recession pro bono hours won't count when deciding lay offs irrespective of the pr schpiel hr loves to regurgitate.

[nixy]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

But the second poster said they had 150-170 hours per month. The work was there for them…

My partner just jumped ship to another firm and is asking me to join her/recruiting me. I hesitate to do it now because if there’s a slowdown I won’t have as many people in my corner who can vouch for me.

Okay. My point was that you asked what someone low on hours thought was going to happen, when they had already said that they pretty much expected this to happen.

[d3geny]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

But the second poster said they had 150-170 hours per month. The work was there for them…

My partner just jumped ship to another firm and is asking me to join her/recruiting me. I hesitate to do it now because if there’s a slowdown I won’t have as many people in my corner who can vouch for me.

Okay. My point was that you asked what someone low on hours thought was going to happen, when they had already said that they pretty much expected this to happen.

Would definitely be more helpful if, instead of getting piece-meal responses from OP, OP can clarify why specifically hours were low... was the pro-bono by choice? or was it that there's no work going around? (or not going specifically to you)??

[Helicopter]

So OP was on their way to about 920 billable hours…

I would love a self-reflective answer with some actual insight and not fear mongering. Otherwise, I just feel like OPs post was motivated more to get internet sympathy than it was to provide helpful information about firms beginning to stealth.

The phrase “getting stealthed” is too nebulous. I don’t think it applies here.

1. Getting stealthed: you were doing what you were supposed to do, but no fault of you, you got asked to leave so the firm could protect profits. The respectful trade is a talk, a few months, and then a formal date to depart.

2. Getting stealthed is ≠ choosing to do mostly pro-bono, costing the firm more and breaking the implicit and highly expected employment model of 1800+ billable hours.

My point is, getting provided a talk and then a few months of website time is because the economy is still good, right now.

A few months ago all the posts on this site were about lateraling and special bonuses and billing crazy hours and the red-hot in-house market. You lived through that OP and made a choice not to go in-house.

Until I hear more from OP answering how long they have been doing mostly pro-bono, how much their group was billing, if there were interpersonal conflicts, if they had reputational issues before, or any other potential reason other than using the commonly understood definition of “Getting Stealthed”, I’m gonna keep being suspicious.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the quoted poster. I didn't take a year cut and am in NY, stayed in NY.

I was under 100 hours a month for several months.

This explains it. That’s very low. What did you think was going to happen?

Both people who posted about being stealthed said they weren’t surprised, so it sounds like what happened was pretty much exactly what they thought was going to happen.

And if the work wasn’t there, not sure what you expect them to have done.

But the second poster said they had 150-170 hours per month. The work was there for them…

My partner just jumped ship to another firm and is asking me to join her/recruiting me. I hesitate to do it now because if there’s a slowdown I won’t have as many people in my corner who can vouch for me.

OP here... to be clear... half those hours were pro-bono... but if the firm is gonna give equal credit, don't hate it I take advantage (though apparently they did)

lmfao there's the key detail. To everyone reading this: Firms don't really give a shit about your pro bono hours and those hours aren't going to protect you when times get even moderately tough.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure the OP ever claimed they wanted to provide helpful information about firms beginning to stealth, or to have much more intent than looking for internet sympathy.

Your two definitions of stealth seem a little too binary - they don't account for someone who had low hours and went to pro bono because the paying work dried up. You also seem to be overlooking the fact that two people posted about being stealthed, and only one referenced doing a lot of pro bono.

The responses in this thread are weirdly eager to blame the people who've been let go. Maybe they were slacking or otherwise a bad performer, but if so, it's still notable that the need for warm bodies didn't outweigh any problems with their performance, which seems to have been what was happening during the crazy billing etc. time. Like even if you think the poster probably deserved it, no need to get so accusatory when both stealthees seem to have recognized their days were numbered.

edit: sorry, accidental anon, this is nixy

[Anonymous User]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

[Anonymous User]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

[Anonymous User]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

That's fair, although I think it's possible to take on the pro bono work to get some experience *and* try to lateral, especially depending on what experience you already have.

[Anonymous User]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

That's fair, although I think it's possible to take on the pro bono work to get some experience *and* try to lateral, especially depending on what experience you already have.

I'm the first poster from 8:55 AM. I agree that trying to lateral should be your number 1 priority if there is a sustained pattern of not having work despite attempts to find it (and it's not a situation where no one in your group has work but you are still a favorite associate). I still think it's a good idea to use pro bono to pad hours, get experience, and help people. Lateralling can take time, but it's not going to fill up the rest of your work-day hours, especially if you use a recruiter.

If Johnny is a fourth year and only billed 1600 hours (200 pro bono), but he was the primary brief writer and argued a 1983 case and won, he's in a much better spot than Joey the fourth year who billed 1400 hours with zero pro bono and zero major briefs where he was the primary drafter and didn't argue any motions. Even if Johnny decides he needs to lateral, he can brag his 1983 case in interviews. Having experience arguing motions and drafting entire merits briefs is something firms like when hiring, even if its pro bono. (I'm lit, so sorry my examples are going to be lit-focused)

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I'm not sure if partners even see pro bono on whatever report they look at. I took a pro bono criminal defense case to jury selection and it required 500+ hours of work. It was beyond stressful. The guy faced a 10 year mandatory minimum and was 100% going to sue me if he lost. He started to turn on me a few months before trial and I couldn't sleep I was so stressed. Counting pro bono I billed 200-250 hours a month for 6+ months straight. During that time I got some tacit shit for turning down work because I was only billing like 100 hours a month to paying clients.

(Sorry to derail; the pro bono discussion gave me flashbacks. I guess my point is that pro bono hours don't really get respect at some firms, but I think that's clear from other responses in here).

[Anonymous User]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

That's fair, although I think it's possible to take on the pro bono work to get some experience *and* try to lateral, especially depending on what experience you already have.

I'm the first poster from 8:55 AM. I agree that trying to lateral should be your number 1 priority if there is a sustained pattern of not having work despite attempts to find it (and it's not a situation where no one in your group has work but you are still a favorite associate). I still think it's a good idea to use pro bono to pad hours, get experience, and help people. Lateralling can take time, but it's not going to fill up the rest of your work-day hours, especially if you use a recruiter.

If Johnny is a fourth year and only billed 1600 hours (200 pro bono), but he was the primary brief writer and argued a 1983 case and won, he's in a much better spot than Joey the fourth year who billed 1400 hours with zero pro bono and zero major briefs where he was the primary drafter and didn't argue any motions. Even if Johnny decides he needs to lateral, he can brag his 1983 case in interviews. Having experience arguing motions and drafting entire merits briefs is something firms like when hiring, even if its pro bono. (I'm lit, so sorry my examples are going to be lit-focused)

Maybe (scratch that, definitely) it's the cynic in me but I honestly don't think this is the case. This sounds like something someone who does pro bono tells himself to convince himself there's a benefit to it (setting aside the human benefit of helping someone, which is legit, but we're talking from the perspective of law firm career advancement). The longer I've been in biglaw, the more I've become convinced that most partners, outside a small (and usually non-influential) set of "pro bono" partners, literally give 0 shits about pro bono and if anything see it as a distraction.

So to take your specific example about how Johnny is being interviewed to lateral over: I feel like if anything, his bringing up his pro bono work would be a negative for the interviewing partner who wants to find someone who's going to consistently churn bills and get client work done. "Oh, crap, he's one of those; no wonder he's trying to leave his old firm and they're not fighting for him to stay; this isn't the anecdote I want to hear."

Law firms are businesses, first and foremost. Pro bono work doesn't pay the bills and it doesn't line the partners' pockets. So most people most of the time don't care about it and don't want you to be wasting your time on it if there's a better (client-billable) use of your time you could be engaged in. Note, this entire post would be anathema to most law firms' recruiting committees who definitely want law students to know about their heartfelt commitment to pro bono work to try to cover over the fact that 99.9% of the firm's efforts are devoted toward defending international banks and gun manufacturers.

[Anonymous User]

I guess one question is whether the stealthee is looking only to lateral to another biglaw firm or if they're looking at other possible exit options.

[nealric]

It's weird that people are framing "choosing" to do pro bono as a problem here. I assume the poster who said they had half pro bono hours was doing pro bono because the billable work wasn't there. If things are slow, the first step is obviously to ask for work from partners and seniors. But I know some firms at least prefer you to fill slow periods with pro bono. All things being equal, if two associates being considered for a lay off, with the same low billable hours, but one one did everything to find work, including pro bono, then at least the one with the pro bono doesn't come across as lazy.

And even if it won't save you from the axe, at least you helped your pro bono client and hopefully got some substantive experience?

I think this take may be overly optimistic. The marginal value of a pro bono hour when you're in a situation where work has "dried up" in a semi-permanent way -- not talking about a month lull between cases but several months where you can't get work despite the firm being busy -- is probably negative in the sense that it's distracting you from what you should be doing, which is trying to lateral. My philosophy has always been that pro bono hours are meant to be "icing on the cake." They're a fine way to burnish credentials and build skill if you're billing above 2,000 hours or close to it. I don't know if ever in the history of law firm administration has a management committee said "well, Johnny only billed 800 hours this year but by God he had a great 1983 case." Partners don't care; they're too mercenary for this to matter even if they say otherwise for the NALP credential.

That's fair, although I think it's possible to take on the pro bono work to get some experience *and* try to lateral, especially depending on what experience you already have.

I'm the first poster from 8:55 AM. I agree that trying to lateral should be your number 1 priority if there is a sustained pattern of not having work despite attempts to find it (and it's not a situation where no one in your group has work but you are still a favorite associate). I still think it's a good idea to use pro bono to pad hours, get experience, and help people. Lateralling can take time, but it's not going to fill up the rest of your work-day hours, especially if you use a recruiter.

If Johnny is a fourth year and only billed 1600 hours (200 pro bono), but he was the primary brief writer and argued a 1983 case and won, he's in a much better spot than Joey the fourth year who billed 1400 hours with zero pro bono and zero major briefs where he was the primary drafter and didn't argue any motions. Even if Johnny decides he needs to lateral, he can brag his 1983 case in interviews. Having experience arguing motions and drafting entire merits briefs is something firms like when hiring, even if its pro bono. (I'm lit, so sorry my examples are going to be lit-focused)

Maybe (scratch that, definitely) it's the cynic in me but I honestly don't think this is the case. This sounds like something someone who does pro bono tells himself to convince himself there's a benefit to it (setting aside the human benefit of helping someone, which is legit, but we're talking from the perspective of law firm career advancement). The longer I've been in biglaw, the more I've become convinced that most partners, outside a small (and usually non-influential) set of "pro bono" partners, literally give 0 shits about pro bono and if anything see it as a distraction.

So to take your specific example about how Johnny is being interviewed to lateral over: I feel like if anything, his bringing up his pro bono work would be a negative for the interviewing partner who wants to find someone who's going to consistently churn bills and get client work done. "Oh, crap, he's one of those; no wonder he's trying to leave his old firm and they're not fighting for him to stay; this isn't the anecdote I want to hear."

Law firms are businesses, first and foremost. Pro bono work doesn't pay the bills and it doesn't line the partners' pockets. So most people most of the time don't care about it and don't want you to be wasting your time on it if there's a better (client-billable) use of your time you could be engaged in. Note, this entire post would be anathema to most law firms' recruiting committees who definitely want law students to know about their heartfelt commitment to pro bono work to try to cover over the fact that 99.9% of the firm's efforts are devoted toward defending international banks and gun manufacturers.

I wouldn't say pro-bono has zero value to a firm, but I would consider it part of the firm's marketing efforts. Why do you think firms go through the trouble to have a pro-bono partner? That person isn't there out of altruism. That person is there to sell the firm. To a lesser extent, a pro bono partner can also reduce the firm from getting flooded with pet projects of various partners that don't have marketing value, and to prevent associates from getting flooded with pro-bono work so they can't do paying work.

An associate can leverage pro bono to get a level of responsibility that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get, so they can move up to that responsibility on a paid client. On the right case, it can be a good way to get visibility as an associate.

But I've certainly seen junior associates getting pro-bonoed to death. Associate has low hours for one reason or another (maybe a case settled or a deal died), and there's not a ton of urgent work floating around, so they get assigned a big pro bono project. Pro bono project ends up taking up a bunch of their time, limiting their ability to take more billable work (or worse causing their billable work quality to suffer as they race to meet deadlines and learn new things), so their hours are low. Since their billable hours are low, they get assigned more pro-bono. It can be a self-reinforcing cycle of pro bono and other non-billable work that can be difficult to escape from.

[Anonymous User]

But I've certainly seen junior associates getting pro-bonoed to death. Associate has low hours for one reason or another (maybe a case settled or a deal died), and there's not a ton of urgent work floating around, so they get assigned a big pro bono project. Pro bono project ends up taking up a bunch of their time, limiting their ability to take more billable work (or worse causing their billable work quality to suffer as they race to meet deadlines and learn new things), so their hours are low. Since their billable hours are low, they get assigned more pro-bono. It can be a self-reinforcing cycle of pro bono and other non-billable work that can be difficult to escape from.

My v20 seems to have some genuine care in pro bono, but only to the extent of hitting a recommended threshold (which is less than 50 hours per year). The reason I don't do any pro bono is because, as in your example above, when billable work comes I want to be available to jump on it.