Top Law Schools

Are there any private firms that don't require billable hours? Personally, I don't feel like dealing with 6 minute billing and 2200 yearly minimums (this translates to at least 3,000 real working hours).

Not really dude. Almost all firms make you track your time regardless of the billing system eventually passed on to the client. 60 hours a week with four weeks off is 2880. That's what professionals work.

None that I've ever heard of.

Also, billable hours are frequently INflated, not DEflated.

There are some firms that don't have minimum billables (e.g., W&C), but everyone bills.

tengorazon wrote:There are some firms that don't have minimum billables (e.g., W&C), but everyone bills.

There is still a minimum, dude.

PKSebben wrote:

tengorazon wrote:There are some firms that don't have minimum billables (e.g., W&C), but everyone bills.

There is still a minimum, dude.

Yeah, they just don't tell you what it is until you're below it and they're showing you the door.

Renzo wrote:

PKSebben wrote:

tengorazon wrote:There are some firms that don't have minimum billables (e.g., W&C), but everyone bills.

There is still a minimum, dude.

Yeah, they just don't tell you what it is until you're below it and they're showing you the door.

No, it's more like anyone who doesn't bill like 2300 hours knows the place isn't for them.

I don't know if you had only biglaw in mind with your question, but I believe one of the pros of working in a personal injury firm is no billable hour system--just result/contingency based compensation.

some immigration firms, as well, do not use billable hours.

PKSebben wrote:

tengorazon wrote:There are some firms that don't have minimum billables (e.g., W&C), but everyone bills.

There is still a minimum, dude.

I can confirm that this is true. There is definitely a minimum.

Even many public sector positions require you to track time and/or work or be at the office a minimum number of hours...

.

JD'izzle wrote:2200 yearly minimums (this translates to at least 3,000 real working hours).

You have never worked at a firm.

.

TTT-LS wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:

JD'izzle wrote:2200 yearly minimums (this translates to at least 3,000 real working hours).

You have never worked at a firm.

I don't think a 2200/3000 ratio is all that out of line, based on what I have seen myself as a SA and on what I've heard from junior associates. Yes, you will get more efficient with time, but there's no question that one cannot bill all of one's time, particularly early on.

There's a difference between not billing all of one's time and suggesting that you will only be billing 2 of every 3 hours.

Kohinoor wrote:

TTT-LS wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:

JD'izzle wrote:2200 yearly minimums (this translates to at least 3,000 real working hours).

You have never worked at a firm.

I don't think a 2200/3000 ratio is all that out of line, based on what I have seen myself as a SA and on what I've heard from junior associates. Yes, you will get more efficient with time, but there's no question that one cannot bill all of one's time, particularly early on.

There's a difference between not billing all of one's time and suggesting that you will only be billing 2 of every 3 hours.

That's very much in line with what I saw at my firm. 66-75% efficiency. There is a metric fuckload of shit you can't bill for, but has to get done. And god help you if you get a task-based billing client. Efficiency drops like crazy.

PKSebben wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:There's a difference between not billing all of one's time and suggesting that you will only be billing 2 of every 3 hours.

That's very much in line with what I saw at my firm. 66-75% efficiency. There is a metric fuckload of shit you can't bill for, but has to get done. And god help you if you get a task-based billing client. Efficiency drops like crazy.

What you saw at your firm for yourself as a SA? For first years? For senior associates?

Kohinoor wrote:

PKSebben wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:There's a difference between not billing all of one's time and suggesting that you will only be billing 2 of every 3 hours.

That's very much in line with what I saw at my firm. 66-75% efficiency. There is a metric fuckload of shit you can't bill for, but has to get done. And god help you if you get a task-based billing client. Efficiency drops like crazy.

What you saw at your firm for yourself as a SA? For first years? For senior associates?

I understand you're being a patronizing fuckstick, but I'll dignify you with a response so that other people in here can get a real sense of the world.

I had nowhere near that because summers are a whole other world. I was paired with a 3rd year officemate and a senior associate mentor who were required to send in their time sheets to for the summer so I could see what they worked, what they billed, and what was eventually billed to the client. You eventually get a report on what percentage they collected, but our billing cycle was shorter than my time at the firm. I paid very close attention to these numbers. The senior associate was certainly more efficient, but I don't know if that's a function of him having more work, being better at his job, his billing strategy (billing in chunks vs. small time increments), clients, or a combination of any/all of those factors.

PKSebben wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:

PKSebben wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:There's a difference between not billing all of one's time and suggesting that you will only be billing 2 of every 3 hours.

That's very much in line with what I saw at my firm. 66-75% efficiency. There is a metric fuckload of shit you can't bill for, but has to get done. And god help you if you get a task-based billing client. Efficiency drops like crazy.

What you saw at your firm for yourself as a SA? For first years? For senior associates?

I understand you're being a patronizing fuckstick, but I'll dignify you with a response so that other people in here can get a real sense of the world.

I had nowhere near that because summers are a whole other world. I was paired with a 3rd year officemate and a senior associate mentor who were required to send in their time sheets to for the summer so I could see what they worked, what they billed, and what was eventually billed to the client. You eventually get a report on what percentage they collected, but our billing cycle was shorter than my time at the firm. I paid very close attention to these numbers. The senior associate was certainly more efficient, but I don't know if that's a function of him having more work, being better at his job, his billing strategy (billing in chunks vs. small time increments), clients, or a combination of any/all of those factors.

I didn't realize that asking for clarification makes one a patronizing fuckstick, but ok! It's even harder to be patronizing when I literally had no idea whether you had, as you actually did, seen timesheets for other attorneys.

Allow me to summarize why I thought, and still think, you're being an effstick.

JD'izzle: I don't want to work 3000 hours. His targets (2200 billable and >3000 worked backed up by Yale Study) http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/C ... e_hour.pdf

You: You have never worked at a firm (translation: you don't know what you're talking about)(fuckstick comment #1)

TTT-TLS: Actually that's accurate and I worked at a firm

PKSebben: Me too -- that's what I saw at my firm

You: Nuh-uh -- were you talking about you or other associates? -- but what about the seniors? (fuckstick comment number #2 -- taken in context of comment #1) (Aside: why would I give you information about a summer associate's hours? How is that relevant? Give me some credit)

PK: You are a fuckstick.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

TTT-LS wrote:

tengorazon wrote: No, it's more like anyone who doesn't bill like 2300 hours knows the place isn't for them.

Which is why I turned them down.

which is why i turned down wlrk

.

latter

I think he meant both

Renzo wrote:

PKSebben wrote:

tengorazon wrote:There are some firms that don't have minimum billables (e.g., W&C), but everyone bills.

There is still a minimum, dude.

Yeah, they just don't tell you what it is until you're below it and they're showing you the door.

Do they even hire people at W&C who wouldn't naturally, and without any coercion or encouragement, work at least 1800 hours?

I find such a proposition highly unlikely.