Top Law Schools

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/10/quinn-e ... l-bonuses/

Think biglaw will match?

No.

Yeah, no.

why not?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:28 pm

why not?

Quinn is not a "peer" firm for biglaw firms. It's entirely litigation, offers above-average clerkship bonuses, etc. There's simply no market pressure for them to match.

That said, these "bonuses" wouldn't nearly compensate the sheer nightmare that is 2700+ hours. Someone should run the math on how much that is per hour after you hit 2000 hours.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:28 pm

why not?

Quinn is not a "peer" firm for biglaw firms. It's entirely litigation, offers above-average clerkship bonuses, etc. There's simply no market pressure for them to match.

That said, these "bonuses" wouldn't nearly compensate the sheer nightmare that is 2700+ hours. Someone should run the math on how much that is per hour after you hit 2000 hours.

I work at another firm that gives notable but not compensatory bonuses for high hours. Doing the math, I'd make more driving Uber than I do for every hour over 2k.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:28 pm

why not?

Quinn is not a "peer" firm for biglaw firms. It's entirely litigation, offers above-average clerkship bonuses, etc. There's simply no market pressure for them to match.

That said, these "bonuses" wouldn't nearly compensate the sheer nightmare that is 2700+ hours. Someone should run the math on how much that is per hour after you hit 2000 hours.

This is so laughably wrong. I just can’t.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 26, 2023 7:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:28 pm

why not?

Quinn is not a "peer" firm for biglaw firms. It's entirely litigation, offers above-average clerkship bonuses, etc. There's simply no market pressure for them to match.

That said, these "bonuses" wouldn't nearly compensate the sheer nightmare that is 2700+ hours. Someone should run the math on how much that is per hour after you hit 2000 hours.

This is so laughably wrong. I just can’t.

I hope you're referring to the first point...

I'm a diehard Quinn hater (often adverse to them, they suck), but I think the first point about there being no "peer" for compensation is right. That's not to say they pay the most (they don't) or there are no other firms like them (there are), but I do think typical full-service biglaw sees lit only shops (particularly those that do a lot of P side work (like Quinn) as something different (see, e.g., W&C's run at above market comp, smaller lit boutiques, etc.). "Peer" firms for compensation are different from "peer" firms that compete for business.

[/quote]

This is so laughably wrong. I just can’t.
[/quote]

Care to explain this reaction? Genuinely curious. Seems like it’s general knowledge that lit shops like Quinn stand apart from other big firms whose revenue is dependent on deal flow, which is obviously down this year (and last). But if you truly just can’t, I understand.

I've been at Quinn for years. I love it. I work 2100/hours a year (have never hit 2200) fully WFH for about $100K more than Cravath scale due to profit-sharing awards and other special bonuses. I'm not convinced there's a firm that pays more per hour than Quinn does (Wachtell, Susman, and Kellogg pay more, but they expect north of 3,000 hours per year; I've done the math and believe I have a better deal). We also have an informal environment and generally have a lot more fun than you all.

Punish me, daddies.

We'll see if GDC matches Quinn. That's when it'll get interesting.

Edit: Realized this was weeks ago. Yeah this ain't happenin.

Anon thats my experience as well. Fully WFH, make more than my peers and the most I have ever billed is around 2300 (due to a number of trials). Sure we have some demanding partners here but by and large everyone I have worked with here is respectful of personal time and just wants you to get the work done without breathing down your neck.

We don't need to relitigate whether QE is a good place to work or not, the question is whether firms will match. Associates drinking the koolaid is not an indicator of whether a firm is a market setter or outlier. QE is different enough from standard biglaw (especially market setters like Cravath, Milbank, DPW, etc.) that it just won't trend. I haven't heard a single person at my firm suggest otherwise.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:34 am

We don't need to relitigate whether QE is a good place to work or not, the question is whether firms will match. Associates drinking the koolaid is not an indicator of whether a firm is a market setter or outlier. QE is different enough from standard biglaw (especially market setters like Cravath, Milbank, DPW, etc.) that it just won't trend. I haven't heard a single person at my firm suggest otherwise.

I agree, the other firms probably won't match at this point. The reason I defended QE is I was getting irked by the endless misinterpretations of this bonus, including in this thread. I'm seeing a lot of motivated reasoning. People hate QE, so they strain for ways of presenting extra comp as a bad thing. This is not some unattainable bonus tied to abnormally high hours or designed to make people work extra hours for McDonald's wages. We're not that dumb. It's just extra money for everyone billing 2100 (which we all need to do to get our typical year-end bonus anyway), pro-rated if you're below that. In other words: everyone gets free money regardless of what they're currently billing. The higher tiers are of course not great comp for the extra hours. But if for some reason you are working those hours anyway (I never have), it's better than getting zero for them like you would elsewhere.

Since the topic of QE's comp was on the table, I wanted to share my experience of consistently billing only 2100 and getting excellent per-hour comp (and also just generally liking the firm). There are a lot of misconceptions about QE on the forums. I understand that everyone hates us because we're thought to be unpleasant as opposing counsel but that's no reason to mislead law students and laterals by just making stuff up about the firm and its comp.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 12:02 pm

It's just extra money for everyone billing 2100 (which we all need to do to get our typical year-end bonus anyway), pro-rated if you're below that.

Isn’t PPP at Quinn north of $5m? Why is the bonus threshold so high / why have one at all?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 12:02 pm

It's just extra money for everyone billing 2100 (which we all need to do to get our typical year-end bonus anyway), pro-rated if you're below that.

Isn’t PPP at Quinn north of $5m? Why is the bonus threshold so high / why have one at all?

All our bonuses are tied to the expectation that we will bill at least 2100 hours a year. The reason to have a bonus threshold is to be transparent about what the firm expects us to bill in exchange for our salary (which I appreciate; I know people at firms with "no formal minimum" where work magically appears if you're below 2500 or even 3000 hours). We have a 100% free-market assignment system, so it's up to us to hit that target however we want. I don't think the target is that high. I think all big law firms expect their attorneys to bill somewhere in the neighborhood of 1800-2200 hours and find ways to ensure they generally do so. So 2100 is not outlandish. There may be low-tier big law firms (like V50-V100) where you can consistently bill 1800 rather than 2100, but no peer firms, I don't think. I'm all ears if people know otherwise, but I don't think there are lit associates at V20 firms consistently billing less than 2000. For litigation in particular I think it's fair to say QE is a top ten firm globally, perhaps top five. I don't think lit associates at the other top 5 (or 10) firms are regularly billing 1800 hours. I would venture to guess that the average across those firms is actually far higher than 2100.

So I'm happy getting about $100K/year more than Cravath scale while billing hours that basically just amount to a normal job (42 hours a week, assuming 2 weeks of vacation). We also get to count recruiting, pitches, and up to 100 hours of pro bono toward the 2100.

A more direct answer to your question is, of course, that the reason for the target is to make a lot of money for the partnership. I don't deny that. That's clearly the business model of any big law firm. I just think peer firms are extracting similar if not higher hours, even if they don't announce formal minimums.

When I was at other firms I was creeped out by their efforts to inculcate a mentality of just "sharing the work" or whatever, so they can leanly staff cases and then work you to the bone as if it's natural and inevitable. I like the clarity of knowing that I'm in good standing so long as I bill X hours, regardless of what the firm has going on. If they need more work done, they can hire more people to do it. I think it comes down to treating associates like adults.

Can someone explain this profit sharing? First I'm hearing of it.

The reason I ask is because I work at a firm that, up until now, I thought compensated more hour per hour when you compare on the basis of bonus memos. That was part of (but not the only reason) why I hate on QE just as I do KE - people brag on here about comp yet don't even beat my firm which isn't known as a comp leader. Sounds like I might be mistaken re: QE.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:16 pm

Can someone explain this profit sharing? First I'm hearing of it.

The reason I ask is because I work at a firm that, up until now, I thought compensated more hour per hour when you compare on the basis of bonus memos. That was part of (but not the only reason) why I hate on QE just as I do KE - people brag on here about comp yet don't even beat my firm which isn't known as a comp leader. Sounds like I might be mistaken re: QE.

This: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... fter_three

It's usually about $70,000/year and is in addition to all other comp, including the market (above market for high billers) year-end bonus. It's a retention bonus so it takes 3 years to vest (point is to incentivize people to stay). Sure I'd rather get it right away but I'm still enjoying it.

We also pay zero dollars for health insurance which I gather isn't the case everywhere.

All in all it's a great deal in my opinion, esp. if you like the firm culture (which I happen to, YMMV I guess).

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:16 pm

Can someone explain this profit sharing? First I'm hearing of it.

The reason I ask is because I work at a firm that, up until now, I thought compensated more hour per hour when you compare on the basis of bonus memos. That was part of (but not the only reason) why I hate on QE just as I do KE - people brag on here about comp yet don't even beat my firm which isn't known as a comp leader. Sounds like I might be mistaken re: QE.

This: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... fter_three

It's usually about $70,000/year and is in addition to all other comp, including the market (above market for high billers) year-end bonus. It's a retention bonus so it takes 3 years to vest (point is to incentivize people to stay). Sure I'd rather get it right away but I'm still enjoying it.

We also pay zero dollars for health insurance which I gather isn't the case everywhere.

All in all it's a great deal in my opinion, esp. if you like the firm culture (which I happen to, YMMV I guess).

Setting aside that $70k with a 3 year vest is different from the originally advertised $100k, that's still a pretty sweet deal. FWIW health insurance isn't a big part of the pot - my firm pays only 30% of my $4k+ high deductible family-of-three plan. Your first $70k profit share more than compensates for that.

I'm curious - how does QE handle the profit sharing for clerkships/parental leave? Does QE count the clerk year toward time at the firm, treat the clerkship year as if it didn't exist (so a 3rd year with 1 year off is really like a 2nd year for purposes of vesting of the 1st year bonus), neither? Do folks get pro-rated profit sharing if they have parental leave which causes them to fall short of 2100 in the year the award was granted/vested/any intervening year?

I still hate QE for other reasons, but comp-wise this is well above even what other firms with hours-based bonuses pay. If it truly incentivizes 2100 and nothing more/less, that's a pretty good deal for the associates and the firm. It sure as hell beats the bimodal hours distribution in my group (many well below 2100, many well above it).

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2023 7:19 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:16 pm

Can someone explain this profit sharing? First I'm hearing of it.

The reason I ask is because I work at a firm that, up until now, I thought compensated more hour per hour when you compare on the basis of bonus memos. That was part of (but not the only reason) why I hate on QE just as I do KE - people brag on here about comp yet don't even beat my firm which isn't known as a comp leader. Sounds like I might be mistaken re: QE.

This: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... fter_three

It's usually about $70,000/year and is in addition to all other comp, including the market (above market for high billers) year-end bonus. It's a retention bonus so it takes 3 years to vest (point is to incentivize people to stay). Sure I'd rather get it right away but I'm still enjoying it.

We also pay zero dollars for health insurance which I gather isn't the case everywhere.

All in all it's a great deal in my opinion, esp. if you like the firm culture (which I happen to, YMMV I guess).

Setting aside that $70k with a 3 year vest is different from the originally advertised $100k, that's still a pretty sweet deal. FWIW health insurance isn't a big part of the pot - my firm pays only 30% of my $4k+ high deductible family-of-three plan. Your first $70k profit share more than compensates for that.

I'm curious - how does QE handle the profit sharing for clerkships/parental leave? Does QE count the clerk year toward time at the firm, treat the clerkship year as if it didn't exist (so a 3rd year with 1 year off is really like a 2nd year for purposes of vesting of the 1st year bonus), neither? Do folks get pro-rated profit sharing if they have parental leave which causes them to fall short of 2100 in the year the award was granted/vested/any intervening year?

I still hate QE for other reasons, but comp-wise this is well above even what other firms with hours-based bonuses pay. If it truly incentivizes 2100 and nothing more/less, that's a pretty good deal for the associates and the firm. It sure as hell beats the bimodal hours distribution in my group (many well below 2100, many well above it).

Ah- I meant that the attorneys pay zero in premiums, meaning the health insurance is provided to us by the firm at no expense to us. So it’s another way we get a bit of extra comp. We also randomly get like $10,000/year deposited into our 401ks. Equinox membership also free. Put those things together with the approx. $70K profit-sharing award and I think its close to 100K above-market (more if you qualify for those high-hours bonus kickers), even without including these fall special bonuses which apparently nobody is matching.

Also- full WFH. That is huge for me.

Not sure how they handle parental/clerkship leave w/r/t the profit sharing awards.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:06 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2023 7:19 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:16 pm

Can someone explain this profit sharing? First I'm hearing of it.

The reason I ask is because I work at a firm that, up until now, I thought compensated more hour per hour when you compare on the basis of bonus memos. That was part of (but not the only reason) why I hate on QE just as I do KE - people brag on here about comp yet don't even beat my firm which isn't known as a comp leader. Sounds like I might be mistaken re: QE.

This: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... fter_three

It's usually about $70,000/year and is in addition to all other comp, including the market (above market for high billers) year-end bonus. It's a retention bonus so it takes 3 years to vest (point is to incentivize people to stay). Sure I'd rather get it right away but I'm still enjoying it.

We also pay zero dollars for health insurance which I gather isn't the case everywhere.

All in all it's a great deal in my opinion, esp. if you like the firm culture (which I happen to, YMMV I guess).

Setting aside that $70k with a 3 year vest is different from the originally advertised $100k, that's still a pretty sweet deal. FWIW health insurance isn't a big part of the pot - my firm pays only 30% of my $4k+ high deductible family-of-three plan. Your first $70k profit share more than compensates for that.

I'm curious - how does QE handle the profit sharing for clerkships/parental leave? Does QE count the clerk year toward time at the firm, treat the clerkship year as if it didn't exist (so a 3rd year with 1 year off is really like a 2nd year for purposes of vesting of the 1st year bonus), neither? Do folks get pro-rated profit sharing if they have parental leave which causes them to fall short of 2100 in the year the award was granted/vested/any intervening year?

I still hate QE for other reasons, but comp-wise this is well above even what other firms with hours-based bonuses pay. If it truly incentivizes 2100 and nothing more/less, that's a pretty good deal for the associates and the firm. It sure as hell beats the bimodal hours distribution in my group (many well below 2100, many well above it).

Ah- I meant that the attorneys pay zero in premiums, meaning the health insurance is provided to us by the firm at no expense to us. So it’s another way we get a bit of extra comp. We also randomly get like $10,000/year deposited into our 401ks. Equinox membership also free. Put those things together with the approx. $70K profit-sharing award and I think its close to 100K above-market (more if you qualify for those high-hours bonus kickers), even without including these fall special bonuses which apparently nobody is matching.

Also- full WFH. That is huge for me.

Not sure how they handle parental/clerkship leave w/r/t the profit sharing awards.

I see. Kudos to QE for this at least. Anyway, circling back to the original topic, these are all additional reasons why the traditional market makers won't see QE as a peer for purposes of bonuses.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:02 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 29, 2023 9:16 pm

Can someone explain this profit sharing? First I'm hearing of it.

The reason I ask is because I work at a firm that, up until now, I thought compensated more hour per hour when you compare on the basis of bonus memos. That was part of (but not the only reason) why I hate on QE just as I do KE - people brag on here about comp yet don't even beat my firm which isn't known as a comp leader. Sounds like I might be mistaken re: QE.

This: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... fter_three

It's usually about $70,000/year and is in addition to all other comp, including the market (above market for high billers) year-end bonus. It's a retention bonus so it takes 3 years to vest (point is to incentivize people to stay). Sure I'd rather get it right away but I'm still enjoying it.

We also pay zero dollars for health insurance which I gather isn't the case everywhere.

All in all it's a great deal in my opinion, esp. if you like the firm culture (which I happen to, YMMV I guess).

Quoted anon, would you be willing to PM me? I have a few questions about your experience. Thanks!