Add RSS RSS

Associate Bonus Watch: Wednesday Open Comment Thread

stack of bills cash money.jpgAs you can see from the time of our first post of the day, we've been in front of our computer for about twelve hours. Our eyes hurt. And we're hungry.

We need to stand up. Maybe we'll be really daring and leave our apartment.

Hence this open comment thread. Some of the biggest Biglaws -- Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Paul Weiss -- have already announced their bonuses. But if Skadden comes along and blows the top off the bonus market while we're gone, please post it in the comments (along with a link to your source).

We'll follow up when we return. Thanks.

P.S. We realize this is unlikely. First, Skadden will probably do what everybody else has done, and match the market bonuses (as set last week by Milbank). Second, based on the buzz over at Greedy NY, it seems that a Skadden announcement will probably come tomorrow.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of bonuses (scroll down)

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:17 PM

David - Who are the rest of you? You always refer to yourself as "we." Are you using the royal "we" to imply that you are all-powerful and important, or do other people accompany your every move?

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:23 PM

From the Legal Times, http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1161162315435

"The Darwinian struggle for page views is an increasingly structured, and possibly lucrative, survival of the readable. And Lat is readable. His writing voice has remained very close to A3G, despite dropping the feminine pretenses (he uses the “royal we” although flanked by only an occasional intern, something he says is a satirical nod to keeping the writing light)."

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:27 PM

I think Lat's referring to all the voices inside his head.

avatar
4 Posted by Ron | Permalink Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:48 PM

I suspect that Lat's use of "we" in his writing is an homage to opinions delivered by appellate courts, which regularly use "we" or "this court" when referencing the multiple judges/justices who join in a given opinion.

David? Care to come clean on this one?

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:10 AM

more importantly, where do "we" live?

cleveland park, represent!

avatar
6 Posted by Bonus Lover | Permalink Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:51 AM

The depression is sinking in. It looks like bonus season is over... and law firm partners have decided not to reward us appriopriately. You cheap bastards!

Those headhunter calls will sound all that more appealing come January.

Post Your Comment