required Pro bono? Geesh...

Billy is right. This is a distinction without a difference.

last

lede:

the introductory section of a story

(from dictionary.com)

more laterals for us -- hope Bingham associates are pleasant to work with

Congrats Bingham- you've proven that you can't hang with the big boyz.

Well, its nice that I at least have Above the Law to learn about firm policies - this is the first I heard about it. I had heard that it was definately being discussed but, unless I just plain missed it, I haven't gotten an "official" memo or an email or anything yet.

As for your questions, yes Core Hours are already in place except it is 50 creditable towards 2000. Now it will be 50 creditable towards 2100.

it was "definately" being discussed?

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I hate bashing firms, but this place seems horrible in all respects. The people they sent to my school to give talks had huge inferiority complexes, the people they sent to interview were abrasive dorks who thought they were really cool, and the work I've seen from them now as an associate is embarrassing.

Are they still required to wear suits in all offices?

wtf is Bingham?

This posting is really unfair to Bingham. Several SF firms have a 1950-billable and 2100-total hours requirement.

10:49 (a.k.a.: Bingham lackey): Go back to scheduling interviews for the gullible 2Ls who are trying to get a job with your firm.

10:52, I don't work for Bingham. I work for a rival firm with the same total hours requirement.

What's with the line under the "A" in the logo? Is there a full version somewhere that includes an associate, dead by his own hands, swinging from the bottom?

Is Bingham a big Cali firm or something? Never heard of them...

10:49 works for MoFo. By "several SF firms" he means just MoFo, which was too cheap to match the $160 scale for real so it just eliminated $15k+ worth of bonuses/year to pay for it.

Are there other firms in Cali as cheap as MoFo?

The line beneath the A it meant to represent an arrow, pointing up in reference to the movement in the firm's billable hour expectations.

THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED ON BALCH'S WATCH.

What, a firm ratchet up billable requirements in light of recent raises (and perhaps in anticipation of another round of raises)? Can't be.

Wake up people, where do you think the money for the 160K scale salaries is going to come from? Do you honestly believe that partners will let it come out of their precious PPP#? The raises were a great thing for associates who were already working hellacious hours - but will only turn around and bite associates who weren't. Everyone's going to be expected to take the billables up a notch. If firms raise again, there will be very few associates who will bill under 2100 hours.

10:37,
you idiot. Bingham has a business casual dress policy, and jeans Friday every other Friday.

11:30

I am not a liar. I've never worked for them, but I remember distinctly in a job search panel at my school that the woman from Bingham said they're not business casual in NY. It was particularly embarrassing because the lawyers went down 1 by 1 all saying they're business casual, and then the woman had to admit something like "actually, we're new in town so we feel like we have to be a little more formal."

Also, bragging about jeans Friday "every other Friday?" I hope you see how pathetic that is. What could they possibly gain by having their associates not wear jeans every other Friday?

Wow, what a craphole.

Dubious on that use of "lede." Even if not flat-out wrong, seems a bit pedantic -- nobody was gonna get confused and think Merck was referreing to the type in the press that printed the entry if used "lead" instead.

My understanding of Bingham's bonus policy is that you get a bonus if you hit their core hours requirements, but that bonus is reduced by the pro rata amount of pro bono work that you did.

So if you hit 2100, but had 210 pro bono hours, you would only get 90% of the bonus.

Can anyone confirm? Does any other firm pull that kind of crap?

It's jeans EVERY Friday and business casual every Mon-Thurs. Just for those not in the know...

A Bingham partner spoke at my school about his pro bono work for Gitmo detainees. He was a total putz, completely self-righteous, and repeatedly referred to the opposing counsel - a federal prosecutor - in completely unprofessional, personally disparaging ways.

11:38 - Lat uses "lede" almost daily. So if you don't like it, please share the wealth.

11:49 - you are correct. So even though in their "official" statement Bingham tried to imply that the rise in billable hours is partly because they respect their associates' commitment to pro bono hours, they're full of sh*t. The 100 hour raise only allows for like 10 more hours of pro bono.

Also, 10:06 - pro bono is not required. In fact, if you hit 150 hours of pro bono, you get a call from a partner asking you wtf.

11:49 - you are correct. So even though in their "official" statement Bingham tried to imply that the rise in billable hours is partly because they respect their associates' commitment to pro bono hours, they're full of sh*t. The 100 hour raise only allows for like 10 more hours of pro bono.

Also, 10:06 - pro bono is not required. In fact, if you hit 150 hours of pro bono, you get a call from a partner asking you wtf.

to 11:30,

Do some more research you idiot. The purpose of Jeans Friday at Bingham is to raise $ for donations to Charity. The associates are encouraged to wear jeans and donate $5 to do so. They do this every other week to raise money for charities, and as an ancillary benefit, allow the attorneys to relax in jeans. I don't know why they don't do it EVERY Friday (although they did do it every Friday over the summer), but that may have something to do w/ how much Bingham wants to donate to charities.

Don't be a douche, they are doing two good things by having Jeans Friday and THEY ARE BUSINESS CASUAL EVERY OTHER DAY.

And before you start ragging on it even more in your ignorance, other huge firms (not even law firms) do the same $5 Jeans Friday to charity - See Deloitte & Touche LLP

oh wait, you're an ignorant law student who might not have even heard of one of the Big 4 Accounting Firms b/c it wasn't at your precious career services panel?

No matter Bingham's policies, their people are amazing. Their lawyers are smart and wonderful to work with. The firm's most tangible culture is still warm and friendly. I think that's worth something. I would much rather be billing 2100 at a place like Bingham than billing 1950 at any other of the sweatshops law firms, with mean and awful partners.

We can wear jeans every Friday and we donate $5 each to do so about three Fridays out of every month. The money is always donated to a charity.

Nice one, 12:02. Obviously untrue, but almost funny.

Wait, for real? You people have to pay money to wear jeans??? I'm allowed to wear them for free (again, just Fridays -- I'm not at Quinn) at my firm.

My apologies, 12:02.

BTW, 12:05, if you can bill 1950 at a firm, it is by definition not a sweatshop. Sorry.

yes, other SF law firms are just as cheap. and other SF law firms get to wear jeans every Friday without paying for it.

also, 12:13 is totally right; 1950, even with mean and awful partners, is not a sweatshop.

Oh, my, god. it keeps getting funnier and funnier. So yes, it is every other Friday and then you have to pay $5 for the privilege of wearing jeans.

At my firm as well you can wear jeans for free.

Hey Lat!! I think this deserves its own entry!

12:05 is in the Bingham recruiting office.

I don't get this fear over 100 extra hours. Who bills below that anyway? Slackers.

Bingham was a Boston firm, not a San Francisco firm. Bingham Dana merged with McCutchen Doyle, which was a San Francisco firm.

McCutchen wouldn't have pulled this kind of crap.

I've heard Bigham's leverage ratio is huge (i.e., upwards of 5 to 1) as well. That taken with this moronic policy makes it sound pretty terrible to be an associate there.

The problem with Bingham McCutchen is Bingham. Bingham is from Boston and, in general, people from the East coast are pompous douche bags. McCutchen used to be great but the douche bags from Boston are screwing up a good thing.

What's going on at Bingham? I've heard rumors of lay offs.

I heard rumors that Bingham is a TTT.

I work at Bingham and love the place. Couple things:

Don't know about other offices, but my office gets to wear jeans every Friday and we don't have to pay for the privilege.

The raise up to 2100 for a bonus isn't that big of a deal--most associates in biglaw firms are working those kind of hours anyways. Plus, we get to count up to 50 hours of "creditable" work toward that and unlimited pro bono hours. Now, the caveat is that (last year anyways) you had to hit 1800 billable hours in order to get the full bonus, which isn't difficult. If you didn't hit 1800 billable hours (i.e. you had lots of pro bono hours), then your bonus was pro rated. The reason for the 1800 billable requirement is simple: people inflate pro bono hours because no client gets billed. So, overall, I think Bingham's hours policy is reasonable and fair.

Finally, I personally have worked with some of the best and brightest attorneys here at Bingham. I've never worked with a screamer, I've never worked with a micromanager and I am regularly given assignments that are beyond what most associates my year get to do (i.e. the fun stuff). Now, my experience may not be representative of all associates, but I think more people at Bingham share my experience than folks at other firms.

Every biglaw firm is going to have its issues--welcome to Corporate America. But, given my experience and what I've heard from friends, I'd never leave Bingham for another firm.

Is this really shocking? Of course the pay raises eventually will result in a higher hours requirement. Do you spoiled brats think that the firms just mint money in some sort of fairyland cash factory. Grow up!!!!

12:51, no the reason for the 1800 billable hour requirement is not that people inflate their pro bono hours, it's because pro bono doesn't help the bottom line. The "inflation" argument is silly and insulting. I'm ok with the financial side of the pro bono hours issue. But Bingham's new hours policy is not reasonable and fair.

I've been very happy here, but the door is now wide open to leave . . . and go to another big national firm.

And for Bingham associates to claim that most people are working at 2100 hours already? That's silly. At the current level (2000) the firm averages about 50% success over the years since the merger. Some firms in some markets average 2100 hours or more; Bingham has never been close.

n'picka: How about using "lede" because it's the right word?

But surely no one here would have a problem if Merck wrote, for example, "who's suit..." instead of "whose suit..." because choosing the correct synonym is just pedantic.

That logo:

o hai, im n ur binghamz, forgettin' ur principlez of good dzign.

1:10, It's certainly not inevitable for a firm paying $160K to raise the hour requirement. Over the past few years, most have been bumping up the billing rates at a much higher rate than the associate compensation. Even at 2000 hours, they are making an unbelievable amount of profit per associate, provided realization is decent.

So, far most Cali firms I know of are sticking with a 2000 hr requirement.

Bingham must be getting lower quality work (lower bill rates, lower realization) in order to have to distinguish itself with an above-market billing requirement.

It's preferable to them lowering salaries, imo. But reason enough for SAs to look for a job at a firm that pays market with a lower requirement.

Hey 1:35 ...

Assuming you work at a big firm, let's identify your job, helping corporations. Now, let's think what the corporate officers job is ... to increase earnings per share. One more step, how do they do that? Increasing revenue, and cutting costs. When all of these companies were growing like crazy there was much less scrutiny on their legal fees than the current market. Yes, the rates were increasing very rapidly, but that's why they can't continue to increase as rapidly. Corporations are actually starting to look at what they're paying firms. No, not to an extreme, but rampant excess billing is slowing down.

What does this mean? In order for partners to make the same amount of money they were making before, while paying people more, they have to generate more in bills. So either, they have to generate a ton more work, hire more people, and be more leveraged. Or their current models have to require their associates to bill more hours. Companies aren't very happy about paying first years 200K to revenue documents and organize signature pages ...

12:51 - I totally agree with you. This place is awesome and I'm happier here than ANY of my friends are at their firms. I would never leave Bingham for another firm.

Wow, 2100 is an issue in Cali? In NY, you would be called a slacker for billing 2100. 2300 is the *unofficial* expected minimum. 2500 means you're safe.

Let's all stop arguing. Summary: we all know Bingham sucks.
This bickering is going nowhere, it's not convincing people not to work there. Nobody ever wants to work there, they just get stuck there when they have no other options.

All the happy Bingham associates who would never leave Bingham for another firm, love the place, and are doing fun work - which Bingham office do you work at?

2:11, that's exactly right.

Could it be that the reason a firm like Bingham is now increasing hours is because they used to not work their people as hard as other bigger/better firms? I mean, if Cadwalader announced a "jump" in required hours to 2500 everyone there wouldn't even notice because they hit 2500 in September.

Maybe the reason people liked Bingham is that they were working less, and now they're simply going to work them as hard as everywhere else does...

it's not surprising that the vultures are circling the ATL comments again (though where's L2L? thought s/he'd be posting a resume offer somewhere in here). it's easy to take anonymous shots at a firm you haven't worked at based on incomlete nformation eeked out in a vacuum.

12:51 is right about the pro bono/bonus connection, but i don't agree that it necessarily relates to inflating hours.

i do agree that bingham is amazing place to work. the people* are incredible - intelligent, friendly, dedicated to the practice, don't take themselves too seriously, invested in mentoring attys more junior to them.

the raise in core hours shouldn't come as a shock - of course it's about the bottom line, and of course partners don't want to take that money out of their own pockets. how is that scandalous, or even surprising?

while it might be true that i could move laterally and pull the same salary for fewer expected hours, the decision is more complicated than that fact alone. i don't think there's another firm that could offer the experience that bingham does. i'm having fun here; i actually enjoy getting to the office.

the news about 2100 core hours means nothing more to me than a reminder that bingham is a corporate entity looking at its bottom line, requiring me to work a few more hours than i'd probably otherwise want to. but i love the work, and i love this place, and i'll take 2100 here over 1900 at most other competitors.

*: by "people" i mean associates and partners working on cases, the boots on the ground with whom any associate might expect to work on a day-to-day basis.

Bingham is an also-ran crap firm. Let's face it, if you are a Cali lawyer and do not work for O'Melveny, Gibson, or Latham, you are pretty much out of the big leagues.

I know, there are other large Cali firms (PH, MoFo, etc.) plus some large Cali midlaw firms (Allen Matkins) and a number of prominent NY firms are out there (Skadden, Milbank, S&C) as well. All of those firms are not in the top tier market. I know I'm crushing literally hundreds of egos with this observation, but if you are at PH, MoFo, Skadden, or Milbank in LA or SF, you are just not doing as well as your peers at O'Melveny. Sorry, but it is the truth.

Bingham??? Please, they're not even on the list! Who cares what they do to the 30 associates too stupid to lateral elsewhere?

How do you know you could move laterally, 2:32? As a general matter, Bingham lawyers don't have the backgrounds (law school, grades, clerkship, etc) of lawyers at higher-ranked firms. Of course, you may be an exception.

But 2:03, the point is that other firms in CA are *not* raising their minimums. So obviously, this isn't a matter of logical, or even economic, necessity. As others here have pointed out, firms have raised billing rates at least annually for years now, and will continue to do so. That alone should guarantee that partners will see the same profits (or better) despite the piddly 15k raises that went to associates. (This is, of course, the same reason that the sudden in-house "outrage" over associate comp and "consequent" fear of increased billing rates is total bullshit; the billing rates have gone up purely for the sake of increased partner comp for years.)

I agree that rates have continued to increase, but I also think that intelligent people aren't short-sided to believe that a "minimum billing requirement" at most of the "top tier firms" is a useless gesture.

Sure, Skadden may have a 2000 billable hour requirement. But it doesn't matter, everyone bills 3000. If they upped the requirement to 2300 it would have no effect on anyone's job.

I think the important thing to take from this is that Bingham actually had people making the same salary as the top firms that were actually only working 2000 hours a year. And that's pretty remarkable, of course they need to increase that, 2100 is still a lot less than a lot of places, and I would be incredibly happy if i was actually only working 2100 hours

The only places that need to make noise about a billable hour requirement, are the ones that actually have a substantial amount of people billing under that hours mark.

There's the stated hours requirement and then there's the real hours requirement. Even if most other firms in SF are staying at the 2000 level, associates who aren't hitting at least 2100 can expect to receive phone calls, poor reviews, and a forced-out-the-door pink slip within a few years. At least Bingham is being honest about its expectations so associates can know where they stand (and no, I don't work there).

3:19, "most firms" in SF aren't at 2000. They're at 1900 or 1950. And I don't know anyone at MoFo, Heller, Orrick, or Fenwick who's getting a talking to for coming in under 2000, much less 2100 (though for other than those at Orrick, they're not getting any bonus for those kinds of numbers).

2:42 -- Since Orrick started the West Coast raises to $160k, and still appears to have the best West Coast-style bonus package, I think it should be at least above PH and Mofo, if not moving into the Big 3 in California.

Yes, I work at Orrick, but I think the objective evidence supports this treatment.

Can't speak for Heller or Orrick, but I don't know of anyone/can't imagine anyone at MoFo who is coming in under 2000. And yes, they would get a phone call if they were. (As they should -- not fair for their peers to pick up all the slack.)

I heard that Mofo told their associates that billing 1950 was like earning a "C" in law school, and that they should all aim to be "A" students.

I have a question, is there as much work at these firms as you could possibly bill? Is working 2100 or 3000 hours just a matter of putting in the hours and there is more than enough work there, or do you have to hunt for the work bill? Hopefully my question makes sense. Thanks.

I'm a California lawyer and there's no way I'd want to be at GDC, LW, or OMM. Just not my style.

(And, although I don't work at Orrick, people there seem to like it. Plus don't they pay more than OMM, GDC, and LW? So agree with 3:25.)

Yes, but MoFo gets to count 100% of their pro bono toward those hours. You could bill 500 hours there and hit your numbers.

I don't understand this fear of having to bill 2100 instead of 2000 hours when you are factoring in pro bono and business development hours. 2100 hours is not at all bad for a big firm. If I can bill 2100 it would be a pretty sweet life (especially when you factor in pro bono and crap like going to lunch with some prospective summer which a lot of firms count as non-billable firm citizen bullshit).

4:03: Can't speak for the other firms, but at MoFo in the litigation department you won't have any problem hitting 2100 or 3000 if that's the way you want to go. So yes, there is more than enough work there. Which is why associates only hitting the minimums would be frowned upon -- it just means that other associates are having to bill way more.

2000 hours per year is too much work

Its so unfair that we can't bill 1100 hours and get paid a starting salary of $160K. Grow up!

4:03, that's a very good question. It really does vary by firm and by time -- some firms almost always have an unlimited supply of billable work on hand. Many do or do not depending on how many rainmakers the firm has bringing in work, whether business is slow for particular groups, etc. Ultimately, it can be a bad situation (for associates) if there isn't enough work coming in and the firm chooses to pay for associate raises by raising hours requirements... Then, not only are you stressing about the hours requirements, but you have to waste hours and hours of (non-billable) time figuring out your workload. It's a crappy system.

4:03, that's a very good question. It really does vary by firm and by time -- some firms almost always have an unlimited supply of billable work on hand. Many do or do not depending on how many rainmakers the firm has bringing in work, whether business is slow for particular groups, etc. Ultimately, it can be a bad situation (for associates) if there isn't enough work coming in and the firm chooses to pay for associate raises by raising hours requirements... Then, not only are you stressing about the hours requirements, but you have to waste hours and hours of (non-billable) time figuring out your workload. It's a crappy system.

3:41, Cs get degrees.

Oh man. I would pay to hear an associate say that if a partner tried to give them a bullshit line like that.

4:08, I'm a CA lawyer at a firm who cut their already-pathetic bonus structure to "pay for" the raises (total bs considering how PPP at EVERY firm have been skyrocketing). For hitting our hours, we get our salaries. I eye my friends at OMM et al. with bitter jealousy at the fact that, although we ultimately end up working about the same, they get an extra 15K or so just for hitting their damn hours. And at 2000 and 2100 they get real bonuses, rather than a pittance. I would most definitely accept an offer from GDC or OMM, even though I don't particularly *want* to work either place. After a few years, a 30k salary difference is pretty freaking huge.

4:15, yeah, because the only option besides 2000 is 1100.

Surveys consistently show that most lawyers would take a pay cut for a cut in hours. Our asshat firms just don't give us a realistic option like that. And don't tell me it "isn't feasible" because just twenty years ago hours were much more reasonable, yet somehow law firms magically managed to stay afloat.

To Anon at 2:03pm:

You said, "Assuming you work at a big firm, let's identify your job, helping corporations. Now, let's think what the corporate officers job is ... to increase earnings per share. One more step, how do they do that? Increasing revenue, and cutting costs...."

I beg to differ. The stated baseline goal of a firm is to maximize shareholder profits. It is ONLY the United States that worries about EPS so much. Most folks that are well-versed in accounting know that earnings are easily manipulated and actually take measures such unlevered free cash flow generation as a much better proxy of a firm's profits. Undiluted EPS is so easily gamed that it really means nothing, and obviously, if you play with the denominator (common shares outstanding), you can make the number look better by doing simple things, like a share buyback, which in no way reflect the health of the firm.

That's not to say the Street doesn't react to EPS. But it is not, ANYWHERE, the stated goal of a firm. Maximizing shareholder profits is. For more info, pick up a copy of Brealy Myers or Ross Westerfield Joffe.

Thanks for reading my corpfin tutorial.

5:09:

If the shareholders own the company, and the street reacts to EPS, and the shareholders make money when the stock goes up, and the management works for the company, who in turn is owned by the shareholders, then i'm confused where managements job isn't making the share price increase ...

Bingham to 190!

I agree with 5:35, although I understand 5:09's point.

I own stock. And the only think I care about is that my stock increases in price. That's the only thing I care about management doing, and my simplistic mind believes it's done by raising revenue and cutting costs.

As long as stock prices are make believe and arbitrary anyway, pick your marker if you don't like his use of EPS, I think you should have understood 2:03's point.

5:09 ... how's the JD/MBA coming along? Just two more years of school left and you'll be ready for work ... congratulations ...

The only reason that billable hours COULD be increased is because too many associates don't stop and think about this stuff as critically as they think about their legal work. Let's review--firms are having trouble recruiting the top associates they are looking for. Associates think their jobs suck, in part because there's no future, in part because of the hours, and in part whatever other reason (other opportunities, etc.). So the top firms raise salaries so they can get more of the limited number of "top" grads available. Why do you think they do this? Because they are in some powerful market position?

They do it because they have to just to keep their business model going. They do it because they are losing the ability to do that. They know that they have to spread the wealth around more, and that kills them. So they raise billable rates to pass some or all of their increased cost along.

Then the greedy bastards get the idea that they can get more out of the naive people generating their revenue for 1/10 of a partner's pay. They issue some proclamation that associates need to bill an additional 100 hours. Excuse me? If it were so easy to find associates, they wouldn't have given us raises. Screw them. Any associate that bills significantly more than, say, 2000 hours because the firm told them they "have to" is a moron that ruins it for the rest of us. What do you think you're getting for it? Job security? Opportunity for advancement? Substantial additional compensation? No. You're getting ulcers, divorces, or some other nice things.

Put it this way. You own a convenience store. I come in to buy a can of soda and fork over the dollar I have paid every day for the past year. You tell me that costs went up and you are charging $1.25 now. So I say, ok, but for $1.25 I'm taking the 20 ounce bottle instead of the 12 ounce can. Are you really telling me you would let me take it?

Don't believe that everything that some no talent asshat who made partner at a time whenever EVERYONE made partner, never made a real equity contribution to the firm, and never had to be an entrepeneur tells you.

3:14, the worst part is that to get As the MoFo associates also have to wear at least 15 pieces of flare.

2:42 -- GDC and OMM aren't all that hard to get hired at and aren't all that profitable.

Big leagues, my ass. When other CA firms pay more and are about as profitable, it's hard to buy the "Big 3" crap.

The world is changing...

1:26-- It's called a homonym.

4:52

GDC and OMM are very hard to get hired at compared to the non "big league" firms. What firms are you speaking of in CA that pay more and are about as profitable?

Almost across the board, at least in LA, the clear consensus of the big leagues are:
Latham, Gibson, OMM, Skadden, Munger, Irell in no particular order.

Hey, well this is embarrassing. I'm the guy who was talking about Bingham being non-business casual. Well it turns out I was thinking of Baker Hostetler. I must have mixed up the firm names in my head. My apologies to Bingham and their recruiting department. In fact, I know nothing about Bingham.

P.S. Baker Hostetler sucks.

Orrick should definitely be lumped in with the former Big-3.

Just look at the compensation and the associate satisfaction levels - by far the best combo in CA.

Then blend in the fact that Orrick typically will only select newcomers from top-ten schools(typically), particular in SF...

9:04,
took you long enough to realize your mistake, especially after 5-10 people incessantly corrected you on Bingham's business casual dress policy.

4:27, I don't disagree that it can be very demoralizing to know that peers at other firms are pocketing approx. $30K more for the same number of hours. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think the discrepancy -- at least between certain firms -- is going to last.

A place like MoFo is currently as competitive to get an offer at as OMM, GDC, LW, and K&E and likely more competitive than Orrick, Paul Hastings, DLA Piper, etc. MoFo's PPP is probably about mid-range in this group. And yet, with the restructuring of MoFo's bonuses, all of these firms pay more in total compensation. If MoFo continues to pay below market, it will find itself losing laterals and summer recruits to these places, which I don't think it wants.

A couple of things may happen. First, these other firms may change their bonus structure or hours requirements now that they have increased the base. Alternatively, MoFo (or another firm in the same position) will have to figure out how to distinguish itself. Some of the ways it can do so may be through lifestyle attributes. However, those distinctions can only go so far (and won't, as you point out, compensate for a $30K+ compensation difference year in and year out). Other ways it can distinguish itself are through (1) giving out more merit bonuses at higher levels to top performing associates; (2) making partnership more realistic for top performing associates than at other firms (and rewarding its homegrown associates instead of hiring laterals from other higher paying firms to take those partnership slots); and (3) not laying off associates when the market goes through a downturn.

Seems like this is a transitional year for firms (MoFo, Heller, Bingham) that are playing around with different bonus structures; if in December they see a lot of summers decline their offers and then in January/February/March they start seeing a lot of people lateraling out, they will likely revisit their bonus policies.

The days of MoFo having any sort of "lifestyle attributes" are long gone.

They simply have pumped tons of money into PR over the last 5-10 years to keep up that image.

"if you are a Cali lawyer and do not work for O'Melveny, Gibson, or Latham, you are pretty much out of the big leagues."

This statement may be true in LA, but it's certainly not true in SF.

I know all you LA people think that OMM, GDC and LW are the end all and be all, but that's just not true in SF.

In SF the big 3 are Orrick, MoFo and Heller (probably in that order). Those are the firms with the best and longest standing SF reputation. Maybe they don't have the same national reputation as the LA firms but for lawyers seeking to build thier legal career in SF, those are your best options. After those three maybe Bingham, Pillsbury or Howard Rice.

Right on 1:26.

The so-called "Big 3" are second tier in SF.

4:18 is right. I'm at a firm now that's pretty slow and it makes for pretty low morale because we have a minimum billable hours expectation and our bonus is hours-based. I truly don't understand how people have the work to bill north of 3000 hours anywhere, especially in litigation, but I suppose it can be done. You're essentially billing (not working - billing) 8+ hours absolutely every day of the year.

Okay...so here's a question. At what point is it just NOT believable that a person is really BILLING that many hours. Even assuming there is unlimited work...if someone claims to be billing 3000 per year...is is credible? Is the number higher or lower?

I think it would be pretty hard to "fake-bill" 3000 hours: someone needs to churn out a lot of work product and in the office to justify those time sheets. Even the extremely dishonest would have a hard time padding their hours THAT much. Especially since so much associate time gets written off in the normal course -- those who pad just get more written off, and look worse to evaluating partners.

[There are those who brag about working all of the time, but actually are only average performers. Those people aren't credible. Not to mention annoying.]

But, in general, a busy litigation department can definitely produce people legitimately billing 3,000 hours/year. That's only 250 a month (assuming limited vacation). I was billing close to that -- no padding -- and I wasn't even on any trial teams. A long trial will give you several hundred hours in the span of a few months.

office rocks - seriously. Unlike top firms, people really do bill just right above the minimum billable hour requirement, and get their 40k bonus (first year). All this did was take 10k per bonus away, because now we'll get 40k after billing 2100 hours instead of 50k after billing 2100 hours (100 extra hours gets you 10k). if you want to bill 3000 hours you don't work here. I prefer to work at Bingham and walk my dog and get laid once and a while. People are friendly as hell too.

8:07: "I prefer to ... walk my dog and get laid once and a while. People are friendly as hell too."

Not as friendly as 8:07's dog, it would seem .....

i'm # 100!

billing 2100 minimum in NY is fine, but billing 2100 minimum in Cali? that's ridiculous.

I agree. The problem with the McCutchenites is that it was inevitable that your firm was going to get acquired - if not for Bingham you all would have lost your jobs. Bingham saved you - well more saved your partners. You might not care about them, but without them you don't have a job so be happy and suck Boston's balls for a while until you can lateral if its so horrible. If its not that horrible then live with the fact that your previous life at McCutchen couldn't last and is gone forever.

Hey, Bingham Assoc, Another Bingham, and Bingham Midlevel. Can you send some of whatever hallucinogenic substance you're ingesting to the west coast offices? Maybe if we're high we will stop noticing about our colleagues leaving in droves and will stop bitching about the increased hour requirements.