Biglaw firms with best bonus multipliers? Forum

[Anonymous User]

1L going into OCI this summer. I want a firm with a strong bonus multiplier. By this I mean a firm that pays above the market bonus if you hit certain billable hours milestones (2300, 2600, etc). I realize that the economy is slugging and that, as such, the practical reality of multipliers is possibly muted at this time. However, it is still meaningful to me as, in the event the economy recovers and the hours are available, I intend to go after those hours (I'm not terribly interested in hearing debate about whether this is a wise idea). Sidley apparently has a strong multiplier. I've also heard that Kirkland and McDermott have multipliers. Technically, Jones Day has one since "black box" comp can go above market, even if not in bonus form. I'm all ears.

[Anonymous User]

1L going into OCI this summer. I want a firm with a strong bonus multiplier. By this I mean a firm that pays above the market bonus if you hit certain billable hours milestones (2300, 2600, etc). I realize that the economy is slugging and that, as such, the practical reality of multipliers is possibly muted at this time. However, it is still meaningful to me as, in the event the economy recovers and the hours are available, I intend to go after those hours (I'm not terribly interested in hearing debate about whether this is a wise idea). Sidley apparently has a strong multiplier. I've also heard that Kirkland and McDermott have multipliers. Technically, Jones Day has one since "black box" comp can go above market, even if not in bonus form. I'm all ears.

What's your location and practice are? The best paying firms overall for high billers are Wachtell / Kellogg / Susman. Some small plaintiffs-side firms may pay even better (e.g., Dovel & Luner), but there's greater uncertainty.

[Anonymous User]

--

[Anonymous User]

1L going into OCI this summer. I want a firm with a strong bonus multiplier. By this I mean a firm that pays above the market bonus if you hit certain billable hours milestones (2300, 2600, etc). I realize that the economy is slugging and that, as such, the practical reality of multipliers is possibly muted at this time. However, it is still meaningful to me as, in the event the economy recovers and the hours are available, I intend to go after those hours (I'm not terribly interested in hearing debate about whether this is a wise idea). Sidley apparently has a strong multiplier. I've also heard that Kirkland and McDermott have multipliers. Technically, Jones Day has one since "black box" comp can go above market, even if not in bonus form. I'm all ears.

What's your location and practice are? The best paying firms overall for high billers are Wachtell / Kellogg / Susman. Some small plaintiffs-side firms may pay even better (e.g., Dovel & Luner), but there's greater uncertainty.

Thanks for your response! I'm very flexible on geography. I'd do NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, etc. Re: practice area, I am open to either lit or corporate. I truly just want a firm doing sophisticated work that will pay me above market for working a ton of hours in a major city during my Associate years. School/grades will not be sufficient for Wachtell. I am gunning for a fed clerkship (I want the experience regardless of what I end up doing) so it's possible the lit route would be better, although I would assume the Susman / Kellogg of the world are equally if not more selective than Wachtell (but maybe, with the right clerkships, still possible). I have heard that lit boutiques can pay the best (albeit with more risk), but was honestly just thinking about standard large firms irrespective of litigation/corp. It seems like KE used to be the place to be but maybe is less so now. McDermott apparently has a multiplier as well. Boies apparently also paid out some massive bonuses — also a very selective shop. Would be happy to work at any of these places but ideally something slightly less selective than the lit boutiques. I.e., Fried Frank, McDermott, Hogan, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Always good to give kudos to the compensation leaders, so happy to see this thread, but (speaking as a mid/senior associate) keep in mind that it’s much better to work for a firm where you can stick around and make $300k+ year after year than one where you made an extra $5K as a first year but burned out. Bonuses are important, but should be pretty far down your list of considerations, and the “multipliers” at the firms that you listed aren’t going to be earth-shattering.

[existentialcrisis]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with anonymous above. Bonus multiplier should not be a huge factor (as long as the firm is market paying and lockstep). I think most firms will pay you extra once you start hitting the 2200 mark. My old firm used to only give an extra $2500 for every 100 hours though (I have heard they have increased it though). Kirkland used to make it worthwhile with a 1.5-2x type bonus, but it seems like it is much more like 1.1-3.x at most now.

The only firm that is truly special with bonuses is Wachtell.

[Anonymous User]

Always good to give kudos to the compensation leaders, so happy to see this thread, but (speaking as a mid/senior associate) keep in mind that it’s much better to work for a firm where you can stick around and make $300k+ year after year than one where you made an extra $5K as a first year but burned out. Bonuses are important, but should be pretty far down your list of considerations, and the “multipliers” at the firms that you listed aren’t going to be earth-shattering.

Thank you for this response! I think this is a very reasonable point. Regardless of what multiplier you get, it isn’t going to be a massive one, so it shouldn’t be the top factor. I definitely don’t want to burn out, so I’d only work the extra hours if it really meshed with the circumstances and was a beneficial opportunity. It seems a multiplier is a “nice to have” under certain circumstances.

[Anonymous User]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with anonymous above. Bonus multiplier should not be a huge factor (as long as the firm is market paying and lockstep). I think most firms will pay you extra once you start hitting the 2200 mark. My old firm used to only give an extra $2500 for every 100 hours though (I have heard they have increased it though). Kirkland used to make it worthwhile with a 1.5-2x type bonus, but it seems like it is much more like 1.1-3.x at most now.

The only firm that is truly special with bonuses is Wachtell.

This is great insight. Thank you! It seems like the “multiplier” is, in most cases, just a “nice to have” in case you get absolutely slammed in work and are 500 hours above the 2000 mark.

[existentialcrisis]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

I mean, I don't think this is totally unreasonable, but my real takeaway from this is that you really need to focus on figuring out during your SA whether you want to do lit or transactional work, because they really have almost nothing in common and I don't see how one could be truly agnostic on that front.

Similarly, I would try to think about what type of job you'd like to have after working at a firm (DOJ, SEC, in house at a Bank, in house at a F500, in house at a startup) as these can really help inform your firm/practice group decision.

Like Cahill sort of fits your description of ideal firm to a T, but I'm pretty hesitant to tell you to target working there unless you're pretty sure you want to represent underwriters of junk bonds and work in house at an bank some day, as they are pretty hyper focused on one specific type of transactional work that has extremely narrow exists.

Generally speaking, setting aside macroeconomic conditions at the moment, if you are truly group agnostic and seemingly willing to bill infinite hours (we'll see how that actually goes once you start) I'd probably tell you to do M&A or Capital Markets, as those will likely lead the broadest exits combining relatively high pay and low hours.

[Casper123]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

I mean, I don't think this is totally unreasonable, but my real takeaway from this is that you really need to focus on figuring out during your SA whether you want to do lit or transactional work, because they really have almost nothing in common and I don't see how one could be truly agnostic on that front.

Similarly, I would try to think about what type of job you'd like to have after working at a firm (DOJ, SEC, in house at a Bank, in house at a F500, in house at a startup) as these can really help inform your firm/practice group decision.

Like Cahill sort of fits your description of ideal firm to a T, but I'm pretty hesitant to tell you to target working there unless you're pretty sure you want to represent underwriters of junk bonds and work in house at an bank some day, as they are pretty hyper focused on one specific type of transactional work that has extremely narrow exists.

Generally speaking, setting aside macroeconomic conditions at the moment, if you are truly group agnostic and seemingly willing to bill infinite hours (we'll see how that actually goes once you start) I'd probably tell you to do M&A or Capital Markets, as those will likely lead the broadest exits combining relatively high pay and low hours.

Yeah, bonus multiplier really should not be a consideration.

Anyways, see here for some datapoints: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/12/biglaw- ... cker-2022/

[nixy]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

I mean, I don't think this is totally unreasonable, but my real takeaway from this is that you really need to focus on figuring out during your SA whether you want to do lit or transactional work, because they really have almost nothing in common and I don't see how one could be truly agnostic on that front.

Similarly, I would try to think about what type of job you'd like to have after working at a firm (DOJ, SEC, in house at a Bank, in house at a F500, in house at a startup) as these can really help inform your firm/practice group decision.

Like Cahill sort of fits your description of ideal firm to a T, but I'm pretty hesitant to tell you to target working there unless you're pretty sure you want to represent underwriters of junk bonds and work in house at an bank some day, as they are pretty hyper focused on one specific type of transactional work that has extremely narrow exists.

Generally speaking, setting aside macroeconomic conditions at the moment, if you are truly group agnostic and seemingly willing to bill infinite hours (we'll see how that actually goes once you start) I'd probably tell you to do M&A or Capital Markets, as those will likely lead the broadest exits combining relatively high pay and low hours.

Absolutely agree with all of this. It is very easy to say that you’d be fine with any biglaw work before you’ve actually done any biglaw (or really any legal) work.

[Anonymous User]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

I mean, I don't think this is totally unreasonable, but my real takeaway from this is that you really need to focus on figuring out during your SA whether you want to do lit or transactional work, because they really have almost nothing in common and I don't see how one could be truly agnostic on that front.

Similarly, I would try to think about what type of job you'd like to have after working at a firm (DOJ, SEC, in house at a Bank, in house at a F500, in house at a startup) as these can really help inform your firm/practice group decision.

Like Cahill sort of fits your description of ideal firm to a T, but I'm pretty hesitant to tell you to target working there unless you're pretty sure you want to represent underwriters of junk bonds and work in house at an bank some day, as they are pretty hyper focused on one specific type of transactional work that has extremely narrow exists.

Generally speaking, setting aside macroeconomic conditions at the moment, if you are truly group agnostic and seemingly willing to bill infinite hours (we'll see how that actually goes once you start) I'd probably tell you to do M&A or Capital Markets, as those will likely lead the broadest exits combining relatively high pay and low hours.

I'm only agnostic until I see what their practice groups really are. It depends on the strength of the Firm and the strength of the practice. Cahill, as described, sounds not ideal. I don't generally want to be pigeonholed. But I think you raise a good point - it is better to think longer term than to worry about payouts as an associate. I have a somewhat unique financial goal during my Associate years (involving property investments) where the extra cash could be useful (again, very unique, hence my focus on the multiplier). However, at the end of the day, I agree with you that long-term is important.

The reality is that it's hard to get honest advice like you are giving about Cahill. Every firm portrays themselves as relatively broad and sophisticated. Hence my looking to "objective" factors like multipliers.

[Anonymous User]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

I mean, I don't think this is totally unreasonable, but my real takeaway from this is that you really need to focus on figuring out during your SA whether you want to do lit or transactional work, because they really have almost nothing in common and I don't see how one could be truly agnostic on that front.

Similarly, I would try to think about what type of job you'd like to have after working at a firm (DOJ, SEC, in house at a Bank, in house at a F500, in house at a startup) as these can really help inform your firm/practice group decision.

Like Cahill sort of fits your description of ideal firm to a T, but I'm pretty hesitant to tell you to target working there unless you're pretty sure you want to represent underwriters of junk bonds and work in house at an bank some day, as they are pretty hyper focused on one specific type of transactional work that has extremely narrow exists.

Generally speaking, setting aside macroeconomic conditions at the moment, if you are truly group agnostic and seemingly willing to bill infinite hours (we'll see how that actually goes once you start) I'd probably tell you to do M&A or Capital Markets, as those will likely lead the broadest exits combining relatively high pay and low hours.

Absolutely agree with all of this. It is very easy to say that you’d be fine with any biglaw work before you’ve actually done any biglaw (or really any legal) work.

See, I agree with all of this. It's just that figuring out what a firm "really" does is, in my view, pretty time intensive work as a 1L, though not impossible. It is easier to simply set a financial goal and figure out who will get you there. However, I definitely take the general point that if you hate the work, you're not going to be wanting to bill a lot. The question is, how to figure out honestly what a firm really does — that is hard advice to get.

[existentialcrisis]

I know you specifically said not to address whether this is a wise idea, but I still can't help it.

This is a horrible way to think about picking a firm, and I guarantee that if you end up working in big law you'll immediately come to realize this. Like an extra 30k for billing 2400 hours is just not that meaningful QOL wise to a 3rd year associate making 300k and almost everybody would give that money back to get 400 hours of their life back.

Even more so, the distinguishing factor between Sidley or McDermott or Fried Frank should be what type of work you want to do and where you want to live, all of which are infinitely more important than an extra 15k after taxes every year.

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

I mean, I don't think this is totally unreasonable, but my real takeaway from this is that you really need to focus on figuring out during your SA whether you want to do lit or transactional work, because they really have almost nothing in common and I don't see how one could be truly agnostic on that front.

Similarly, I would try to think about what type of job you'd like to have after working at a firm (DOJ, SEC, in house at a Bank, in house at a F500, in house at a startup) as these can really help inform your firm/practice group decision.

Like Cahill sort of fits your description of ideal firm to a T, but I'm pretty hesitant to tell you to target working there unless you're pretty sure you want to represent underwriters of junk bonds and work in house at an bank some day, as they are pretty hyper focused on one specific type of transactional work that has extremely narrow exists.

Generally speaking, setting aside macroeconomic conditions at the moment, if you are truly group agnostic and seemingly willing to bill infinite hours (we'll see how that actually goes once you start) I'd probably tell you to do M&A or Capital Markets, as those will likely lead the broadest exits combining relatively high pay and low hours.

I'm only agnostic until I see what their practice groups really are. It depends on the strength of the Firm and the strength of the practice. Cahill, as described, sounds not ideal. I don't generally want to be pigeonholed. But I think you raise a good point - it is better to think longer term than to worry about payouts as an associate. I have a somewhat unique financial goal during my Associate years (involving property investments) where the extra cash could be useful (again, very unique, hence my focus on the multiplier). However, at the end of the day, I agree with you that long-term is important.

The reality is that it's hard to get honest advice like you are giving about Cahill. Every firm portrays themselves as relatively broad and sophisticated. Hence my looking to "objective" factors like multipliers.

Some other firms in this tier of selectivity that are strong across core corporate practice groups, while also having (what I understand to be) decent lit groups are Willkie and Fried Frank. I would've said Shearman too, but they seem to have fallen on extremely hard times. Latham and Kirklandare more selective at a T14 but are elite(ish) at all of the core corporate groups while still being very strong in lit as well and are possibly attainable for median folks at a T14. I'm sure I'm missing a few others.

I'm sure quite a few West Coast and Texas firms fit as well, but I'm not quite as familiar.

Also I'm sure you've thought of this, but it will be extremely difficult to maintain a real estate side hustle, at least one that would require you to be involved day to day, with the amount of time you'd be expected to be working/on call at one of these firms.

[Sackboy]

I stopped reading after you said you don't want a debate whether it's a wise idea. Why? Because it's such an incredibly stupid idea. Have fun wrecking your 20s and 30s for immaterial compensation increases.

[existentialcrisis]

I stopped reading after you said you don't want a debate whether it's a wise idea. Why? Because it's such an incredibly stupid idea. Have fun wrecking your 20s and 30s for immaterial compensation increases.

This OP seems to be willing to listen to actual advice though. So that's something.

[jotarokujo]

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

Since you don't know what you want to do, I'd go to a firm with rotations like milbank or cravath.

"you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon" is not very good advice. Firms have pretty acute areas of strength (which, btw are pretty obvious just by googling the firm and going to this forum and chambers, so I don't think it would take too much time to do this). Since people pick their firm quite early, 1L summer, it's good to know what practice area you want to do quite early. If you want litigation, you'd go for completely different firms than if you wanted to do m&a (or at least you should)

[Anonymous User]

1L going into OCI this summer. I want a firm with a strong bonus multiplier. By this I mean a firm that pays above the market bonus if you hit certain billable hours milestones (2300, 2600, etc). I realize that the economy is slugging and that, as such, the practical reality of multipliers is possibly muted at this time. However, it is still meaningful to me as, in the event the economy recovers and the hours are available, I intend to go after those hours (I'm not terribly interested in hearing debate about whether this is a wise idea). Sidley apparently has a strong multiplier. I've also heard that Kirkland and McDermott have multipliers. Technically, Jones Day has one since "black box" comp can go above market, even if not in bonus form. I'm all ears.

To stay on topic, King & Spalding pays an extra 5% of base bonus for every 100 hours above 1950. It's not worth it.

[Anonymous User]

Keep in mind is that a lot, if not all, of the firms that give above-market multipliers also have billable hour requirements. If you miss even a single year of bonus, you'll likely be giving back all the gains you get from the multipliers and then some. This is especially the case as you get more senior. Many first years don't bill 1800-2000 hours in their first year, so that puts you 15k behind lockstep firms (that don't pay extra) right off the bat.

[Anonymous User]

If maximizing pay is your top concern take taxes into account. CA / NY have 10% income taxes. Chicago has 5%. Houston / Dallas have 0%. That will impact the amount of money in your bank account more than a bonus multiplier.

[Anonymous User]

I stopped reading after you said you don't want a debate whether it's a wise idea. Why? Because it's such an incredibly stupid idea. Have fun wrecking your 20s and 30s for immaterial compensation increases.

Well, I suppose I'm open to debating it, I'd just rather not. If you have a specific goal or project in mind where the present value of cash is high, then a small bonus bump might make an outsize impact. It really depends on the time value of money, in my view. Additionally, I aspire to at least have a shot at partnership and I think the bumper bonus hours hurdles are basically the minimums for partners anyways. If I'm going to work hard, I might as well get paid more. Of course, you can't predict who will make Partner. But one thing that seems fairly certain is that one is not going to make partner working 2000 hours per year.

[Anonymous User]

I appreciate you leading with the acknowledgement of my disclaimer — I think this is really reasonable. One of the reasons I am turning to the multipliers is that I’m having a hard time “picking” an area — a lot of the advice (which I think is good) seems to be that you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon. So that’s why I look to multipliers since I’m genuinely interested in basically everything that big firms do so long as there is ample work to do in the area. I don’t mean to downplay that the firms have different strengths. For me it’s just that whatever a firm’s strengths, I’m fine going that route or at least reasonably believe I will be fine doing so based on knowledge of myself.

Since you don't know what you want to do, I'd go to a firm with rotations like milbank or cravath.

"you shouldn’t worry too much about a practice area too soon" is not very good advice. Firms have pretty acute areas of strength (which, btw are pretty obvious just by googling the firm and going to this forum and chambers, so I don't think it would take too much time to do this). Since people pick their firm quite early, 1L summer, it's good to know what practice area you want to do quite early. If you want litigation, you'd go for completely different firms than if you wanted to do m&a (or at least you should)

I agree that when you look at a Firm, you can tell what it's top area is. For example, Weil is known for restructuring. But that doesn't mean I want to go into restructuring. However, it does mean that if I got a job at Weil, I'd pursue restructuring. I think as a 1L, all you can do is try to get into a top firm with people you like. Then you work your way into a top area. Am I wrong?

[Anonymous User]

Keep in mind is that a lot, if not all, of the firms that give above-market multipliers also have billable hour requirements. If you miss even a single year of bonus, you'll likely be giving back all the gains you get from the multipliers and then some. This is especially the case as you get more senior. Many first years don't bill 1800-2000 hours in their first year, so that puts you 15k behind lockstep firms (that don't pay extra) right off the bat.

I hadn't thought of this! This makes a TON of sense. I agree there is a real risk in turning down a firm without a billable hours minimum.

Considering everything, the biggest arguments AGAINST prioritizing a firm's bonus multiplier is that (1) in a downturn year, you might not get any bonus and (2) even if you do get the bonus, it really isn't going to be that big [unless, maybe, you are the absolute top associate]?