How much do you bill? Forum

[cambriabold]

Trying to get a sense of what's a normal amount to bill in biglaw litigation. I'm a junior in an office where people regularly bill 2500+, and I'm on track to bill 2600-2700 as a first year. Seems high to me, but I'm not sure how far above average it is.

Note also that I'm not talking about gunning for partner and doing big hours on purpose -- this is all just what people have to do based on what they get staffed on.

[RedNewJersey]

That's super-high, to the point that I suspect you are mistaken. A huge number of associates don't even hit 2000, and I don't know any biglaw shop where the average is over 2400.

That said, some people certainly do bill high amounts. My last few years were:
2350
2550
2990 (trial ...)
And I'm a bit past 1350 so far this year. I think only one associate in my office bills more than me though, and many bill far less.

[Anonymous User]

2150 as a 5th year in a V50 office in a secondary market. Discussions with other associates/feedback from my reviews has suggested that I am a relatively high biller, though not the highest.

[hangtime813]

Billing 2500+ is crazy high for any firm and at any level (and in my opinion completely unsustainable). You might do it for a year or two but it should be rare, especially for a 1st year. I think the average is closer to 2k (or whatever the bare minimum you need to get bonus these days).

[Anonymous User]

Trying to get a sense of what's a normal amount to bill in biglaw litigation. I'm a junior in an office where people regularly bill 2500+, and I'm on track to bill 2600-2700 as a first year. Seems high to me, but I'm not sure how far above average it is.

Note also that I'm not talking about gunning for partner and doing big hours on purpose -- this is all just what people have to do based on what they get staffed on.

The vast majority of first years do not bill 2000 hours at most firms. I’d say 1750 is typical.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

That's super-high, to the point that I suspect you are mistaken. A huge number of associates don't even hit 2000, and I don't know any biglaw shop where the average is over 2400.

That said, some people certainly do bill high amounts. My last few years were:
2350
2550
2990 (trial ...)
And I'm a bit past 1350 so far this year. I think only one associate in my office bills more than me though, and many bill far less.

2400? The annualized average for all FTE lawyers in a big survey was 1568 last year and in Q1 it was 1534.

There are *always* a bunch of people sitting around not doing much of anything. They're usually juniors. People above that with low hours typically don't last long if it's more than a year, but there's always some percentage. You don't hear about the low billers much because (1) they're gone quicker and (2) they don't tend to talk about it like super-high billers do (always a pissing contest in this industry). Even when things were very busy in 2021 there weren't a ton of firms averaging over 2000 per bonus-eligible attorney, which would be associates/counsel/NEPs (and the latter two smack the shit out of associates in hours). Some are structurally the most busy and some are just more concentrated in a particular industry, but well-diversified firms normally aren't climbing that high because it's not common for everything to be hot at once.

My first year (2017) 77% of bonus-eligible attorneys hit my firm's 2000 minimum but the average was still somewhere in the 1700s--the number of sub-1500s was multiple times higher than the number of over-2500s. Recall that at firms with minimums (which is all but like 15 now), Q4 regularly features people who need to hit hours siphoning work from people who aren't gonna hit it and basically taper off. So if you look at a histogram of hours it'll typically be very barren within a few hundred hours before the bonus cutoff and then you'll see a huge spike within the first 100 hours after the cutoff.

[Anonymous User]

The universe of individuals who can honestly bill 2500+ hours as an associate for any sustainable period of time beyond a year or two is incredibly small. It may be different for litigation (where I imagine you are billing in large blocks of time rather than 0.2 for an email to George and 0.2 for an email to Bob), but as a corporate associate who billed ~~ 2400-2500 each year of the pandemic, I found it unsustainable and was told that I was towards the very top of the billers for those years. The average at my firm for those years was ~1900. If the average at your firm is truly over 2400, that is insane.

[Anonymous User]

Keep in mind that the average hours firms share at town halls are usually all lawyers so you have partners bringing down the average.

I had one previous firm that actually broke out average hours between associates and partners and the difference was about 500 hours annually, which was explained as partners doing more non billable time on BD or whatever.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Keep in mind that the average hours firms share at town halls are usually all lawyers so you have partners bringing down the average.

I had one previous firm that actually broke out average hours between associates and partners and the difference was about 500 hours annually, which was explained as partners doing more non billable time on BD or whatever.

Equity partners are the lowest billing group but NEPs are usually the highest.

Associates in general tend to underestimate all the administrative bullshit at the partner level that takes a bunch of time, above and beyond BD. Some you already guessed might take a while (conflicts, matter management, billing etc.) and some you didn't know about (9000 stupid emails a day from the COO).

[Anonymous User]

I've billed between 1775-1975 hours every year in biglaw (six years so far). Usually around 1800 or a little over. Somehow still here, though I doubt it will last forever.

[Anonymous User]

Biglaw partner (class of 2013). My billable hours have always been between 2000 and 2200, and my total hours have always been between 2100 and 2600. I am an above-average biller at my firm but by no means the highest.

[Sackboy]

I've billed between 1775-1975 hours every year in biglaw (six years so far). Usually around 1800 or a little over. Somehow still here, though I doubt it will last forever.

You're still there, because these are very normal hours. This forum is just like the college admissions forums with kids like "I have a 5.0 and cured cancer will I get into Brown?" but replace that with discussions about hours. High billers (and liars) come out of the woodwork, and people with fairly normal hours, like you, have little incentive to share.

[emc91]

Most people in my corporate V30 group bill between 1800-2100 (we can see everyone’s hours). I’m on pace for like 2010 hours this year (which is great because I want a bonus and don’t want to bill a second over what I need to to get it) and am currently one of the highest billers in the group.

I’ve had a bad month here and there and if I was consistently working such hours to get to 2600 I’d probably rage quit.

[Anonymous User]

I’m at a V10 (litigation) and am on pace for ~2600 and have gotten multiple messages from grinder partners to tell me to work less. Just one data point, but perhaps insightful.

(I’m not a hardo who loves work. Just been a weird year.)

[Anonymous User]

I'm in a specialized lit group that tends to have high hours as well (I think north of 2100 or 2200 average if you include pro bono) with many hitting north of 2500. A few miscellaneous thoughts:
(1) If you looked at a histogram of billers in my (and probably other) groups, it would be bimodal. Very few hit the average, and you end up with lots of overachievers/neurotic types who do way more and people who have a (read: protect their) life who do way less.
(2) High billers are the only ones who talk about their hours, so "normal" is going to seem higher than it actually is.
(3) If you find yourself billing a lot as a first year, there's a good chance it's because every task is new to you and you actually care to do it right. Rest assured that while practicing litigation doesn't change much after your first few years, you do get better at it. My highest billing years were early on, but as a midlevel I've learned how to be more efficient and my hours have come down.

[Sad248]

I feel like this thread is very eye opening for people. For me in law school, it was drilled in my mind that biglaw was going to be hell on earth. That I should be happy if I could survive with 60 hour work weeks, because a lot would be 80 hours.

I'm about 4 years in now, and I've gotten over 80 a couple times, but most of my weeks are just a standard 35 hours or less. Took me about two years before realizing that I didn't have to be on edge all the time, wondering when the hammer was going to hit. I still see so many of my peers being like "yeah, the work is going to come at any moment!" or "I am not billing enough! I am stressed, I need to ask for more work!" It's like they've all been indoctrinated that anything les that 60 hours a week is a sign of failure.

Of course, biglaw can be bad, but at this point I think it mainly has to do with the unpredictable nature of the job. My past weekend unexpectedly got blown up by work for example. But the hours in general have not been that bad, especially when accounting for the paycheck.

[Anonymous User]

I feel like this thread is very eye opening for people. For me in law school, it was drilled in my mind that biglaw was going to be hell on earth. That I should be happy if I could survive with 60 hour work weeks, because a lot would be 80 hours.

I'm about 4 years in now, and I've gotten over 80 a couple times, but most of my weeks are just a standard 35 hours or less. Took me about two years before realizing that I didn't have to be on edge all the time, wondering when the hammer was going to hit. I still see so many of my peers being like "yeah, the work is going to come at any moment!" or "I am not billing enough! I am stressed, I need to ask for more work!" It's like they've all been indoctrinated that anything les that 60 hours a week is a sign of failure.

Of course, biglaw can be bad, but at this point I think it mainly has to do with the unpredictable nature of the job. My past weekend unexpectedly got blown up by work for example. But the hours in general have not been that bad, especially when accounting for the paycheck.

Are you in NYC? (Not challenging your experience, just curious, b/c people do talk about cultural differences between NYC and other cities.)

[rk42]

I feel like this thread is very eye opening for people. For me in law school, it was drilled in my mind that biglaw was going to be hell on earth. That I should be happy if I could survive with 60 hour work weeks, because a lot would be 80 hours.

I'm about 4 years in now, and I've gotten over 80 a couple times, but most of my weeks are just a standard 35 hours or less. Took me about two years before realizing that I didn't have to be on edge all the time, wondering when the hammer was going to hit. I still see so many of my peers being like "yeah, the work is going to come at any moment!" or "I am not billing enough! I am stressed, I need to ask for more work!" It's like they've all been indoctrinated that anything les that 60 hours a week is a sign of failure.

Of course, biglaw can be bad, but at this point I think it mainly has to do with the unpredictable nature of the job. My past weekend unexpectedly got blown up by work for example. But the hours in general have not been that bad, especially when accounting for the paycheck.

How much are you billing?

[Anonymous User]

I feel like the 35 hour work week is pretty atypical in lit. People (read: partners/seniors, even if not the associate) inevitably push things like review off to the deadline, so you're going to end up with lots of variation.

[Anonymous User]

Anon as this is a very identifying question. After reading through this post I would like to ask everyone a question, but am not OP and don't mean to hijack.

I am currently working for a firm where the printed, stated yearly target (not bonus dependent) is between 1900-2000. This was explicitly told to me during the hiring process and is public info about this firm. Only a few months in I received a call from management saying that the true group target is higher than the firm target and that the expectation to maintain my spot in the group is to meet the group target.

Nobody has put this in writing, but I receive consistent oral pressure to meet a billable target of 200-250/month. Several associates have taken up substances to help with the billable task load. On top of it, am being asked to do constant BD work streams (non billable). I was explicitly told that between 180-190 hours is considered "slow-average" and does not meet the group standard. Have any of you experienced something like this?

I am not the only person this has been told to. I have 3 other fellow close junior-mid level associates who have confided in me that they were told that unless they will start billing close to 200/month they will be called and condemned by the head of the group personally. I am only considered busy if I am billing close to 60/week. This seems extremely toxic, but honestly at this point think this is just how big law is? Am exhausted all the time and really just looking for some honest answers so I can plan my future for myself.

Could use advice as to whether this is truly normal and if no, what to do about it (if anything other than just putting my head down, saving the bag and leaving after a year and a half). Thanks all.

[Anonymous User]

Anon as this is a very identifying question. After reading through this post I would like to ask everyone a question, but am not OP and don't mean to hijack.

I am currently working for a firm where the printed, stated yearly target (not bonus dependent) is between 1900-2000. This was explicitly told to me during the hiring process and is public info about this firm. Only a few months in I received a call from management saying that the true group target is higher than the firm target and that the expectation to maintain my spot in the group is to meet the group target.

Nobody has put this in writing, but I receive consistent oral pressure to meet a billable target of 200-250/month. Several associates have taken up substances to help with the billable task load. On top of it, am being asked to do constant BD work streams (non billable). I was explicitly told that between 180-190 hours is considered "slow-average" and does not meet the group standard. Have any of you experienced something like this?

I am not the only person this has been told to. I have 3 other fellow close junior-mid level associates who have confided in me that they were told that unless they will start billing close to 200/month they will be called and condemned by the head of the group personally. I am only considered busy if I am billing close to 60/week. This seems extremely toxic, but honestly at this point think this is just how big law is? Am exhausted all the time and really just looking for some honest answers so I can plan my future for myself.

Could use advice as to whether this is truly normal and if no, what to do about it (if anything other than just putting my head down, saving the bag and leaving after a year and a half). Thanks all.

This is insane. It is not normal. And no one should be billing near 2500 for market pay. Partners like this are just scum, no other way to put it. At least have the balls to make your expectations clear. I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap.

[Anonymous User]

I'm an equity partner. I had some years way up where you are, but I typically was closer to 2400. Even that was too much, and I definitely can't sustain it anymore in my old age. If you're at 2200 or above, you're fine.

What's vastly more important is the quality of the work. Unfortunately quality and quantity tend to be correlated -- e.g. trials give quality and also tons of hours. But certainly cut low-quality hours wherever possible. Low-quality hours will just burn you out.

At your rate, burnout is a very serious risk, and you're probably also hurting the quality of your work.

[Anonymous User]

I'm on pace for 1700 and I'm actively trying to get fired. Not a joke.

[Anonymous User]

Anon as this is a very identifying question. After reading through this post I would like to ask everyone a question, but am not OP and don't mean to hijack.

I am currently working for a firm where the printed, stated yearly target (not bonus dependent) is between 1900-2000. This was explicitly told to me during the hiring process and is public info about this firm. Only a few months in I received a call from management saying that the true group target is higher than the firm target and that the expectation to maintain my spot in the group is to meet the group target.

Nobody has put this in writing, but I receive consistent oral pressure to meet a billable target of 200-250/month. Several associates have taken up substances to help with the billable task load. On top of it, am being asked to do constant BD work streams (non billable). I was explicitly told that between 180-190 hours is considered "slow-average" and does not meet the group standard. Have any of you experienced something like this?

I am not the only person this has been told to. I have 3 other fellow close junior-mid level associates who have confided in me that they were told that unless they will start billing close to 200/month they will be called and condemned by the head of the group personally. I am only considered busy if I am billing close to 60/week. This seems extremely toxic, but honestly at this point think this is just how big law is? Am exhausted all the time and really just looking for some honest answers so I can plan my future for myself.

Could use advice as to whether this is truly normal and if no, what to do about it (if anything other than just putting my head down, saving the bag and leaving after a year and a half). Thanks all.

This is insane. It is not normal. And no one should be billing near 2500 for market pay. Partners like this are just scum, no other way to put it. At least have the balls to make your expectations clear. I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap.

Agreed. It's one thing to stake partnership on working harder, but to tell juniors they'll get pushed out without high hours is insane, not only because it's evil but also because it makes bad business sense. An average biglaw midlevel/senior is way more profitable than a high-billing junior, but if your associates won't last long enough to be super profitable if you burn them out.

Does firm management/HR know about this? You should name the firm/group so we steer 2Ls away.

[Anonymous User]

Anon as this is a very identifying question. After reading through this post I would like to ask everyone a question, but am not OP and don't mean to hijack.

...

Could use advice as to whether this is truly normal and if no, what to do about it (if anything other than just putting my head down, saving the bag and leaving after a year and a half). Thanks all.

What market is this? It's NY, right?