Biglaw firms with best bonus multipliers? Forum

[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)

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?

" 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?"

99% of the time, that order of operations is the opposite of correct. I think that path only makes sense if you literally have no substantive preferences between practice groups (even a preference that is yet to be revealed) which is not very common imo. It also doesn't make sense because if there isn't a substantive preference, why even go to law school if you can, accounting for opportunity cost, make more money elsewhere (unless you somehow enjoy "the law" in the abstract with no regard for practice area). If the real goal is to make your financial goals, then I would probably drop out of law school and go into finance or sales because you wouldn't have to pay tuition and wouldn't have 0 income for 2 years

Otherwise, you can absolutely afford to target the firms that are good at what you like, that's what most people did at my OCI. Your best way of figuring out what practice area you like is figuring out what you like in law school. Are there any classes you enjoy? I loved one of my 1L doctrinals and that totally changed my career trajectory. And if you love law school generally, you probably prefer litigation and if you hate law school, then probably you prefer transactional

Of course, it's possible to do that analysis and still not be sure at the moment. That's not to say you have no preferences, but it's just that the preferences will reveal themselves later. So if you still have no revealed preference going into OCI, again I recommend going to firms that are generally strong and also allow you to try multiple things like Cravath rather than looking at what has the highest bonus at 2400 hrs because the flexibility of being able to react when your preference becomes known is much more valuable

[jotarokujo]

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]?

The biggest argument is that a much more important consideration is that you probably have some preference that will reveal itself later so you want to go to the firm that gives you flexibility when it does reveal itself. This could be flexibility in that the firm is strong in multiple areas and lets you try and choose between them, as well as flexibility in that the firm prestige will make it easy to lateral to where you want to go

[nealric]

It's easy to think about billing 2300 or 2600 in the abstract, but the actual reality of billing that much is absolutely brutal. 2,000 hours is no picnic from a work/life balance standpoint. Depends on the nature of your work and how many non-billable obligations you have, but in general:

Anything above 1,800 is going to feel like hard work. Roughly 1,600 would be close to a normal 40 hour work week, but biglaw is more intermittent so even a 1,600 hour biller may have periods when they are slammed.

Above 2,200 you are not seeing friends and family much. You'll be putting in a lot of weekends and evenings.

Above 2,500 you are basically doing nothing but eat/sleep work.

Above 2,800, you are severely compromised on the sleep part, mostly eating at your desk and working 7 days a week with very few days off.

Very few people can sustain the types of hours required to get those big bonus multipliers, and if you can you are likely destroying all of your relationships outside of work. Most burn out pretty quickly on that pace. Better to go to a place where you can actually stand sticking around in biglaw for a while if your goal is to maximizing earnings. It's good to come in hungry (you'll need that energy and then some), but remember your career will be a marathon, not a sprint.

[Anonymous User]

Coming from someone who received extra hours-based comp for for the last 5 years, I echo what everyone else is saying about it not being worth it. My firm pays fixed amounts for extra hours regardless of seniority, so as a first/second year I was able to roughly double my bonus, which was admittedly exciting. But as others have already said, the money is just not compensatory for your time. When I realized that (and for me, when extra bonuses become a much smaller portion of comp, which happens earlier if you're at a multiplier firm) the shine wore off pretty quickly. I'd gladly pay the entire $135k (pre-tax) I made back in exchange for all of the time I missed with friends, family, etc.

My colleagues tried to tell me this early on, but I had to figure it out myself for it to really resonate. Here's my best attempt at explaining it to you. Unless you have insanely expensive tastes, you'll quickly start making enough money to buy most things you want. Sure, you can't buy a $2m+ home and a Ferrari, but if you're looking to rent a comfortable apartment, drive a luxury car, wear name brand clothes, eat out at nice restaurants, and go on fun vacations without having to worry too much about the cost, an extra $5k-$25k isn't really going to make any of that more accessible to you. And if you DO have insanely expensive tastes, the extra money certainly isn't going to get you there, either. What I'm saying is if you want to do something that costs a lot (e.g., take two international trips instead of just one next year), the lack of an hours-based bonus isn't going to be the thing that holds you back. What WILL hold you back is time. I'd love to travel abroad more often, but it's such a pain scheduling that out with my teams that it's just not worth it. I make a boatload of money but I feel like I don't have enough time to spend it because I'm too busy working. So I don't work the hours I do for the extra $$$ because it doesn't change my spending habits.

The only reason to intentionally work extra hours is because you're gunning for partner. To be clear, billing a ton won't get you elected. However, it will demonstrate your commitment/resilience, and will give you an opportunity to impress more people. But partnership is such a crapshoot anyway it's debatable whether it's even a good reason.

[nealric]

The only reason to intentionally work extra hours is because you're gunning for partner. To be clear, billing a ton won't get you elected. However, it will demonstrate your commitment/resilience, and will give you an opportunity to impress more people. But partnership is such a crapshoot anyway it's debatable whether it's even a good reason.

Just anecdotal, but I've observed that being a megabiller (2,600+) isn't that great for becoming partner absent a one-off giant matter as a senior associate (which can help put you over the hump for partnership). The juniors and midlevels pulling those sorts of hours seem to always burn out, and are often just heaping on diligence or doc review and not necessarily building the skills they need for partnership any more than the regular 2,200-2400hr workhorses. Billing crazy hours can mean missing out on the business/skill/social development opportunities that can be important for partnership or other career advanement. The 2,200-2,400 range seems to be the sweet spot for making partner (again, absent a year or two with one-off mega projects), though I know plenty of people who made partner without ever getting that high.

[Anonymous User]

The only reason to intentionally work extra hours is because you're gunning for partner. To be clear, billing a ton won't get you elected. However, it will demonstrate your commitment/resilience, and will give you an opportunity to impress more people. But partnership is such a crapshoot anyway it's debatable whether it's even a good reason.

Just anecdotal, but I've observed that being a megabiller (2,600+) isn't that great for becoming partner absent a one-off giant matter as a senior associate (which can help put you over the hump for partnership). The juniors and midlevels pulling those sorts of hours seem to always burn out, and are often just heaping on diligence or doc review and not necessarily building the skills they need for partnership any more than the regular 2,200-2400hr workhorses. Billing crazy hours can mean missing out on the business/skill/social development opportunities that can be important for partnership or other career advanement. The 2,200-2,400 range seems to be the sweet spot for making partner (again, absent a year or two with one-off mega projects), though I know plenty of people who made partner without ever getting that high.

Makes sense. If I focused on the multiplier, I'd be prioritizing the short term cash gains over other considerations, I guess, including partnership. Which puts my preferences into a different light. If you're going to focus on multiplier, you're working MORE than required and it might actually distract from actual partnership considerations. It really puts into perspective the limited benefits of prioritizing the multiplier.

[Anonymous User]

The only reason to intentionally work extra hours is because you're gunning for partner. To be clear, billing a ton won't get you elected. However, it will demonstrate your commitment/resilience, and will give you an opportunity to impress more people. But partnership is such a crapshoot anyway it's debatable whether it's even a good reason.

Just anecdotal, but I've observed that being a megabiller (2,600+) isn't that great for becoming partner absent a one-off giant matter as a senior associate (which can help put you over the hump for partnership). The juniors and midlevels pulling those sorts of hours seem to always burn out, and are often just heaping on diligence or doc review and not necessarily building the skills they need for partnership any more than the regular 2,200-2400hr workhorses. Billing crazy hours can mean missing out on the business/skill/social development opportunities that can be important for partnership or other career advanement. The 2,200-2,400 range seems to be the sweet spot for making partner (again, absent a year or two with one-off mega projects), though I know plenty of people who made partner without ever getting that high.

Makes sense. If I focused on the multiplier, I'd be prioritizing the short term cash gains over other considerations, I guess, including partnership. Which puts my preferences into a different light. If you're going to focus on multiplier, you're working MORE than required and it might actually distract from actual partnership considerations. It really puts into perspective the limited benefits of prioritizing the multiplier.

Original quoted anon here. I work in lit so YMMV in corporate or at other firms, but I've been told that nobody has made partner from my group with fewer than 2400+ in the couple years leading up to election. I don't think it's a formal requirement, but rather a symptom of the fact that to take on (read: earn) the roles in cases you need to make a good impression on partners/clients, you're inherently going to be working your ass off (e.g., multiple trials in a year, etc.). I do agree that high hours alone mean nothing though, and that you should never choose quantity over quality. If you can't do good work at 2400+ hours, you're definitely not going to make partner.

[nealric]

The only reason to intentionally work extra hours is because you're gunning for partner. To be clear, billing a ton won't get you elected. However, it will demonstrate your commitment/resilience, and will give you an opportunity to impress more people. But partnership is such a crapshoot anyway it's debatable whether it's even a good reason.

Just anecdotal, but I've observed that being a megabiller (2,600+) isn't that great for becoming partner absent a one-off giant matter as a senior associate (which can help put you over the hump for partnership). The juniors and midlevels pulling those sorts of hours seem to always burn out, and are often just heaping on diligence or doc review and not necessarily building the skills they need for partnership any more than the regular 2,200-2400hr workhorses. Billing crazy hours can mean missing out on the business/skill/social development opportunities that can be important for partnership or other career advanement. The 2,200-2,400 range seems to be the sweet spot for making partner (again, absent a year or two with one-off mega projects), though I know plenty of people who made partner without ever getting that high.

Makes sense. If I focused on the multiplier, I'd be prioritizing the short term cash gains over other considerations, I guess, including partnership. Which puts my preferences into a different light. If you're going to focus on multiplier, you're working MORE than required and it might actually distract from actual partnership considerations. It really puts into perspective the limited benefits of prioritizing the multiplier.

Original quoted anon here. I work in lit so YMMV in corporate or at other firms, but I've been told that nobody has made partner from my group with fewer than 2400+ in the couple years leading up to election. I don't think it's a formal requirement, but rather a symptom of the fact that to take on (read: earn) the roles in cases you need to make a good impression on partners/clients, you're inherently going to be working your ass off (e.g., multiple trials in a year, etc.). I do agree that high hours alone mean nothing though, and that you should never choose quantity over quality. If you can't do good work at 2400+ hours, you're definitely not going to make partner.

Might be more of a symptom of an overworked department. It could be that anybody working less than 2,400 was being disfavored for work because they weren't very good or actively shirking it/letting people down.

[Anonymous User]

Might be more of a symptom of an overworked department. It could be that anybody working less than 2,400 was being disfavored for work because they weren't very good or actively shirking it/letting people down.

I think this is part of it, but there's also a weird sweatshop vibe to the group.

Anyway, sorry to derail. OP I know you said you don't want advice on whether picking a firm based on multipliers is a good thing, but there you have it. The best financial decision is to pick a firm you're most likely to stick at longer term - the one you like that has the practice area(s) you're interested in. A few tens of thousands over the years isn't going to make you much better/worse off, but quitting a year earlier because you just can't take it anymore will.

[Anonymous User]

Might be more of a symptom of an overworked department. It could be that anybody working less than 2,400 was being disfavored for work because they weren't very good or actively shirking it/letting people down.

I think this is part of it, but there's also a weird sweatshop vibe to the group.

Anyway, sorry to derail. OP I know you said you don't want advice on whether picking a firm based on multipliers is a good thing, but there you have it. The best financial decision is to pick a firm you're most likely to stick at longer term - the one you like that has the practice area(s) you're interested in. A few tens of thousands over the years isn't going to make you much better/worse off, but quitting a year earlier because you just can't take it anymore will.

Yep. It’s a nice to have if you’re already working longer hours. Otherwise, not worth getting worked up over.