Hours Targets and 2022 Forum

[POPTOP]

Not sure about everyone else but at my v20 the majority of the capital markets group is going to miss the hours target this year. Anecdotally across levfin and cap markets teams I understand this is not an uncommon situation. Thoughts on whether firms will waive the requirements this year?

[Anonymous User]

Not sure about everyone else but at my v20 the majority of the capital markets group is going to miss the hours target this year. Anecdotally across levfin and cap markets teams I understand this is not an uncommon situation. Thoughts on whether firms will waive the requirements this year?

I'm first year general corporate but mostly a mix of EC/VC and CapM. I'd be surprised if I cross 1200 hours this year.

[Anonymous User]

My V25 has an hours requirement, but I've heard that if an entire group is having trouble hitting hours they will sometimes fudge the threshold a bit. We're not talking full bonus for 1200 hours - more like full bonus for missing the threshold by ~50-100 hours. Cannot confirm personally, though.

[Anonymous User]

M&A midlevel at a V30 (secondary market). Only about 20% or so of the corp associates in our office are on track to hit our hours requirement, and they are only tracking above by a slim margin.

This is all after billing 2200+ for the past 3ish years. Feels nice to not be drowning, but I think folks are starting to get concerned by the lack of deals in the pipeline.

[2013]

I doubt firms will pay a bonus if there’s an hours requirement and you miss it by more than 100 or so. Old partner mentality is that associates should be grateful to have a job.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't that the point of the hours target?

[Anonymous User]

I'm glad I'm not the only one in this boat. I'm a mid-level M&A associate at a V5 and need to bill 220 hours per month for the rest of the year to hit my target. I'm currently on three deals that are taking weeks to get started and just took on a pro bono, but don't think it's going to be enough.

[Anonymous User]

Can anybody speak to historically if this has been done in the past? Is there a precedent (always looking for precedents...), and if so, which firms and generally how much leniency are we talking about?

I am 3rd year at a V50, probably on track to miss my target by about 100-200 hours (depending on how things go the next few months).

[Anonymous User]

Same here at my V10. Most of the juniors at my office are going to miss the target. We should start taking on some pro bono.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Can anybody speak to historically if this has been done in the past? Is there a precedent (always looking for precedents...), and if so, which firms and generally how much leniency are we talking about?

I am 3rd year at a V50, probably on track to miss my target by about 100-200 hours (depending on how things go the next few months).

My last firm would not only never pay a red cent to anyone below the cutoff, they’d actually audit the hours of anyone within like 10 or 20 hours of it, going through entries for identifiable bullshit or discernible statistical anomalies in the entries. Yes, this cost some people their entire bonus and yes, they were fucking furious and left immediately.

[Anonymous User]

The posts in this thread are concerning but I'm wondering if it's just selection bias (transactional people who aren't going to make their hours targets are posting in a thread about not meeting hours target). I'm at a V10 in lit. and I've had what I consider a normal year; I expect come in around 2,100 - 2,200, of which about 100 hours will be pro bono and the rest client. Lit. has been remarkably stable through COVID here.

For my colleagues in transactional, I personally think the firm should do everyone a square and make sure they get market bonuses this year. It would be asinine to do otherwise (which means there's a chance they'll do otherwise knowing biglaw partnerships). Transactional practices boom and bust and it would be lousy to take the same people who made the firm so much money in 2021 and ding them because there was a slowdown in 2022 when everyone knows things will cycle back.

[Anonymous User]

The posts in this thread are concerning but I'm wondering if it's just selection bias (transactional people who aren't going to make their hours targets are posting in a thread about not meeting hours target). I'm at a V10 in lit. and I've had what I consider a normal year; I expect come in around 2,100 - 2,200, of which about 100 hours will be pro bono and the rest client. Lit. has been remarkably stable through COVID here.

For my colleagues in transactional, I personally think the firm should do everyone a square and make sure they get market bonuses this year. It would be asinine to do otherwise (which means there's a chance they'll do otherwise knowing biglaw partnerships). Transactional practices boom and bust and it would be lousy to take the same people who made the firm so much money in 2021 and ding them because there was a slowdown in 2022 when everyone knows things will cycle back.

I’ll second the above. Regulatory in DC and I’m on track for hours despite some health issues holding me back.

[Anonymous User]

The posts in this thread are concerning but I'm wondering if it's just selection bias (transactional people who aren't going to make their hours targets are posting in a thread about not meeting hours target). I'm at a V10 in lit. and I've had what I consider a normal year; I expect come in around 2,100 - 2,200, of which about 100 hours will be pro bono and the rest client. Lit. has been remarkably stable through COVID here.

For my colleagues in transactional, I personally think the firm should do everyone a square and make sure they get market bonuses this year. It would be asinine to do otherwise (which means there's a chance they'll do otherwise knowing biglaw partnerships). Transactional practices boom and bust and it would be lousy to take the same people who made the firm so much money in 2021 and ding them because there was a slowdown in 2022 when everyone knows things will cycle back.

Anon from above asking about historical trends.

It is certainly possible there is a selection bias aspect, but I can attest that a lot of a people in my corporate group will not hit their hours (this is a relatively publicly known fact among the associates here). There are definitely people who have been able to keep busy, and certain corporate groups that have done well (I know a few associates in a difference corporate group who have been nonstop busy this year), but I do think this is generally a trend throughout.

[POPTOP]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

If this happens across Biglaw, I’ll print this thread out and eat it.

[SFSpartan]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

I doubt this is going to happen widely. Spot waivers for midlevels and seniors that are broadly liked and close to hitting hours? Sure, I'd bet we'll see that. But firms are unlikely to do firmwide waivers of hours reqs. Agree with mono on this one.

[attorney589753]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

I doubt this is going to happen widely. Spot waivers for midlevels and seniors that are broadly liked and close to hitting hours? Sure, I'd bet we'll see that. But firms are unlikely to do firmwide waivers of hours reqs. Agree with mono on this one.

Co-sign. Going to be a down year for a lot of partners too, so doubt they will feel generous.

[Anonymous User]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

absolutely not going to happen. it is not 08. it is like, a normal market year.

[Anonymous User]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

Another naïve soul that has yet to be broken by biglaw. Man, I wish I still had this kind of optimism after 5 years of this crap.

[Anonymous User]

I would not count on any sympathy. For years like the past few years where people have been billing like crazy, there have been eye-watering bonuses. Those bonuses don't establish a base line. 2022 is a new year, and if you don't hit your hours, tough luck, there's always next year.

[Anonymous User]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

Another naïve soul that has yet to be broken by biglaw. Man, I wish I still had this kind of optimism after 5 years of this crap.

I am a ninth year on partner track at my firm. I have an OK sense that this is going to happen in isolated spots in high profit teams like finance and capm. It’s going to cause retention issues otherwise

[Anonymous User]

my (extremely uninformed) view is that it is more likely than not that firms will waive hours requirements this year. i can't speak for lit or reg but having worked across two v5 firms and now at a v20 and having spoken to many colleagues out there (esp. at the senior level) hours are waaaaay down. like sub 1800 down for some. and with the funky financial years of some firms there is very limited runway to get out of this.

Another naïve soul that has yet to be broken by biglaw. Man, I wish I still had this kind of optimism after 5 years of this crap.

I am a ninth year on partner track at my firm. I have an OK sense that this is going to happen in isolated spots in high profit teams like finance and capm. It’s going to cause retention issues otherwise

I’m in a specialist group, and I know that I will be fine since replacing me is more costly than not giving me a bonus.

[gregfootball2001]

Niche transactional practice. Annualizing at 2700, and the rest of my group isn't far behind.