Who?

second loser!

somebody received Radiohead's "In Rainbows" disc box early. They have the bonus cd. It's supposed to be good.

The two new songs are just filler unfortunately.

Yo Latty Boy, are you so starved for real news that you are reporting the bonus structure of a tier 3 firm???

I have never heard of this firm. Please don't report bonus news from nonsense firms; I don't need to hear partners at my T50 firm proclaiming "WELL, BE THANKFUL, HUGHES HUBBARD ONLY GAVE OUT TWIZZLERS." Big news, big money, only.

Thanks.

My head asplode. Terrible.

What about King & Spalding do?

so, im just a law student and new to this whole thing...but what exactly is a 'special' bonus? why have 2 separate bonuses?

i disagree with 10.09. Although I am at a V5 firm it is interesting to see how ALL firms are dealing with the continuing increase in compensation - this memo from HHR clearly shows that there is some stress being felt in the market and that not all firms are going to match the top tier. It is interesting to see how these types of firms go about trying to craft their compensation system compared to the top tier firms.

Yes, what about King & Spalding do?

Hughes Hubbard and Reed sucks ass. The Vioxx litigation was driving the firm for five years, and now that he case has settled, expect to see some associate layoffs. Anyone trying to lateral out is going to have problems describing their experience, because deposition prep was the most substantive task. The Vioxx case had taken away any pretense of a "lifestyle" firm. Those not working on Vioxx are unlikey to have met the hour requirements. The firm is stingy across the board. The cafeteria is worse than a school cafeteria. Law students beware. Sinking ship.

Lat - Any word on Skadden's alleged bait and switch on special bonuses? It looked from the comments like it was pretty widespread

200 GO hours?? What, pray tell, are those? Sounds like there is a minimum amount of non-billable hours associates must spend on pro-bono or other matters. Is that right? That's messed up.

Atlanta to full-spectrum lighting!

Anyone hear anything about LW, OMM, and GDC? My cheapass firm is going to match them and won't announce anything until they do.

HHR has a cafeteria? How wasteful. I'm at a V50 firm and we don't have a cafeteria.

they should fall off the V100 just for making their bonus system so pathetic (and complicated)

10:30 = obviously a former HHR temp atty

this is a wierd system dude. And cheap.

what's required to reach the "tier 4" level? that seems to be closest to market.

This is mind-blowingly dismal.

I'm a 2005 associate, thankfully not at HHR. Last year I billed around 2050 and took home a bonus of $40K. I'm on track to bill the same this year. At HHR that would mean a 2007 bonus of $15K.

That, quite frankly, sucks.

Lat, you should also run bonus numbers for IP shops... those won't fall into the Vault or AmLaw 100

I'm a former HHR associate, and their below market bonuses is no different from any other year.

Previously, the highest tier was based on 2400 billible hours.

I would also like to know what about King & Spalding do?

I don't know, these bonus amounts don't sound that bad for (non-NY) mid-levels on up. I work at a V21 firm, and we don't pay bonuses outside of NY (where they are decidedly below market).

When will DLA finally raise their bonuses?

so at HHR, an associate needs to bill 2400 to get somewhere in the vicinity of a market bonus? sign me up!

What is a Hughes Hubbard? Is that the name of the character Eddie Murphy played in the Nutty Professor?

Lat, you should do the full AMLAW 250. Creating a public record of this stuff is important, and it's not like you have tons of other great material to post.

Odds that the "announced" bonuses for 2008 ever come to fruition.... I would say 5%.

That is classless. They will never give those bonuses next year. Everyone follows the market. This is a SHIFTY attempt to retain associates with a hollow promise that "we will do better next year."

How exactly is this way below market? How many Cravath, etc. associates do you suppose bill under 2400 hours? A 2006 Cravath associate billing 2400 gets $45K (35K standard and 10K "special") while a 2006 HHR associate billing 2400 gets $55K (45K "tiered" and 10K "special").

Sure, this may be unnecessarily complex, but the result is that HHR associates who work as hard as associates at Cravath/DPW/etc. are expected to work get paid more. Those who work less than their peers still get the obscenely high base salary plus a bonus and the added reward of a relatively pleasant place to work. That does not sound below market.

so schulte is still on top in terms of compensation if you hit the 2300 or 2500? what is it like to lateral there?

Seems like HHR does not include pro bono, recruiting, partner speeches, etc int heir calculation. Boy am I glad I turned down their summer offer.

11:31,

I know three. And an '05.

lat why are you limiting these posts to amlaw100? you have plenty of readers outside that range and you know these posts garner the most attention/hits. dont be bullied by a few negative nancys with sand in their vagina.

Who cares about bonuses? We need to be out there stopping manbearpig! I am totally serial.

11:31 --
I know plenty of people at top firms who will get market bonuses for billing well below 2400 hours (myself and most of my friends from law school and most of my colleugues at my firm included). Do you really think that the majority of people at top firms bill 2400 hrs? The Hughes Hubbard structure is below market.

Notice the "up to" language. That's code for -- "No one actually will get the maximum."

To the Hughes Hubbard partner who posted at 11:31--
Most firms matching market are not tying their bonus structure to tiered billable hours, resulting in an at-market firm associate (Cravath, DPW, etc) billing 2000, 2100, whatever, receiving a market level bonus.

A Hughes associate billing at, say, 2200 still comes in below market, regardless of how pleasant the working environment is. Which sounds like below market to me..And, truth be told, I've actually heard nice things about DPW, Simpson, Cadwalader (kidding!).

Also, if being a relatively pleasant place to work is the true 'bonus' at Hughes Hubbard, it should be highlighted in the bonus memo. (Otherwise associates may not realize how good they really have it.)

someone pls explain the tiers.

Great. This blog is so desparate for material that now we're getting bonus info from TTT firms. What was the name of that better law blog that Lat was trying to beat out in the online poll?

The only tiers at HHR are the tears in associates at the edges their associates' eyelids, and the tears in their a**holes from being screwed by their partners.

The only tiers at HHR are the tears at the edges of their associates' eyelids, and the tears in their a**holes from being screwed by their partners.

My toilet bowl firm actually secretly decides when to end the billable year so that you don't even know how to calculate your hours. And it's different every year.

12:08--and I bet they tell you that it is to better control the revenue stream and for tax planning

A 2L (11:34) had faulty info: Pro bono does generally count there, particularly if the pro bono work was signficant.

11:04=obviously written by a current HHR staff attorney whose job will shortly cease to exist.

12:19--Only reason I said that was because their memo said-"As before, eligibility for both bonus awards is based on client hours worked, quality of work and client service, intensity of effort, hardship and other discretionary factors."

11:31 = obviously written by an HHR partner. "obscenely high" salaries? really? for the NY market? amazing that this firm is on the Vault list.

what are the per partner profits? (also "obscenely high", i would guess)

FRAT STUD to a case of bush light and jager-bombs!

Please tell us what about King & Spalding do?

Wow.

A 2L (12:25), you apparently didn't ask for specifics on that during your interviews with HHR either, given that you "glad[ly]" (on both sides, probably) rejected their offer.

Not a partner. Associate who remembers when $125K seemed like an awful lot for someone with absolutely no experience. I have no complaints about current compensation, and that's my point. It is offensive to see the sense of entitlement at work here. Why should you be entitled to more than the very high compensation you already receive if you're providing no additional benefit to the firm?

I'm sure, by the way, that there are associates at "top tier" firms who bill below 2400, but they don't tend to stay there long or feel very welcome if their hours are consistently well below that mark.

None of this is a knock on those firms. Some (but definitely not all) seem to be filled with smart, interesting associates who enjoy their work and are respected by their partners. To characterize their bonuses as completely independent of hours is, however, naive. Firms with per-lawyer revenues in excess of $1 million necessarily have high expectations for billable hours. Those who don't meet the expectations may get the bonus for a year or two, but are unlikely to remain "in good standing" for long.

Feel free to reply with anecdotal examples to the contrary, but anecdotes cannot change economic realities.

i'll reply with the facts: at my nyc firm, avg. associates hours are less than 1900.

12:43--thanks for the editorializing

11:30,

So firms push people out because they billed 2100 hours in a year? Let's ee how this works:

Bill 2100 a year at say $450 an hour = $945,000

Tack on 300 more hours for an additional $135,000.

So you're saying that firms kick $945k out the door because it wasn't $1.08 million?

Of course if an associate got to 2400 hours, there'd be the bonus, which digs into the additional revenue so the difference is even less.

I think the economic realities are that the above doesn't seem like a good way to make money when things are busy, and cutting bonuses when times are slow (thinking people will leave) are basially layoffs.

1:03 > You

Do you all live in a box? Why would you say it's a disappointing day because you didn't get a $75,000 bonus?? The economy is about to tank, our profession does not exist in some sort of a bubble.

Get a clue. You're not entitled to $250,000 just for showing up. Many factors go into compensation, one of them being the economic outlook.

Um, how are they not providing additional benefit to the firm?

At top firms, junior associate hourly billing rates are going to be about $300/hr. So, even 1900 hours would bring in about $570,000 in revenue for the firm. Even writing off training expenses and overhead, it seems like they are generating significant benefit to the firm. Even if a firm were to write off a large percentage of the hours to favor a difficult client, I think there is plenty of benefit left over.

I work at King and Spalding and there has been no news about what King and Spalding do.

Dear 1:37 -

My firm is structured as a limited partnership. My firm, like many others, does not maintain significant cash reserves - it distributes profits to partners each year.

Ergo, I don't care if the economy is "about to tank." My compensation for this year is appropriately tied to this year's profitability. I will take a crap HHR-style bonus when my billable hours deserve one. But not when I've just billed 2150 for the year. Not on your life.

You, dear law student, must do a little waking of your own.

I don't think 11:31/1:03 works at a law firm. With the exception of Wachtell, I doubt there's a firm in the Vault 100 where median associate hours will be higher than 2400 in 2007.

Did anyone else find the content of today's lunch meeting at Jones Day New York to be oddly timed?

1.20 - thanks for the reality check. I am at a vault top 20 nyc firm and average associate hours last year were under 1900. The hardest working people I am aware of clock 2300-2400 and 2100 is more than plenty.

Either this board is full of the most tragic kind of blowhards or I got very lucky.

HHR is totally a lifestyle firm...I've got a friend who works there and it's well worth the reputation.

I envy the fact you can choose to work less and get paid less. All you Skadden douchebags who think it's great not to have billable targets seem to forget you all work 2400/yr - and there's no option to have a life if you want it.

Dear 2:45 -

Last time I checked, it was still November. With almost 10% of the calendar year left to go, an economic downturn now will still have a significant impact on a firm's 2007 overall profitability.

Perhaps firms are [rightly] not jumping to match associate bonuses because they know this year won't be like last, and chances are it will get much worse even before the year is up.

And by the way, I finished law school a while back. Gave up law to become a trader when I realized I didn't want to associate with pretentious snobs like you who actually use the word "Ergo" in all seriousness.

The myth that all top NYC firms are working their associates to death simply isn't true. Sure, some may do. But many have a longer term perspective.

I work at a one of the top firms---pays market (and quickly matches or starts the increases) and have no billable requirements. I'm in corporate, our busiest department this year, and most of us will average right around 2000. A few will hit 2100 and a very rare few will hit anything above that (mostly those that just can't balance their own workloads or are true workaholics and have nothing better to do anyway).

The difference isn't the total hours, it's that our clients want immediate responses. So when you're on a deal that blows up, you may not come up for air for a month or two, getting crushed billing 300 hours per month. But then there are other months where you're just cruising and you bill 50 and can appreciate the downtime because you have no billable requirements to meet. If you have a family, this sort of flexibility and immediate response time is difficult. But for those of us that are single or married without kids, it's doable. That's the tradeoff we get for the high compensation---the willingness to drop anything at a moment's notice and work your ass off for several weeks or months at a time. But we're not doing that 12 months of the year; too many would burn out and only the masochists or weakest willed in the bunch would remain. And then who would there be to run the deals at the mid or senior levels and support the partners directly? Exactly.

The truth of the matter is that secondary firms perpetuate this myth to frighten folks away from the top 10 firms so that those who could go to the top settle for less in compensation thinking that there is some trade-off in QOL. There isn't and those that can leave and do better, do just that.

6:00, I totally agree with you with one caveat. Some seniors can put up ridiculous numbers (but they're gunning for partnership).

Otherwise, you're dead-on.

Typical. I used to work with HHR (as support staff), and people were not super happy. I knew plenty of attorneys billing 2500 plus, and they're going to be even more miserable now that they're not being fairly compensated.

Oh, and 10:42: GO = general office. One of the classifications of hours at HHR.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for attorneys at second rate firms billing more than 2100. If you're going to bill more than that then you might as well do it at a top firm where you're compensated accordingly and your exit options are far more appealing.

If you're billing more than that a secondr ate firm, then you're a moron and shouldn't be given any meaningful bonus for such stupidity.

6:00, having worked at both a top ten firm and a top 100 firm, I would say that in my view the overall "lifestyle" is much better at the latter. Top ten firms have crazier partners, more gunner-types for associates, and more frazzled clients who are worried that the huge deals/cases will not go perfectly. All told, this is a recipe for a terrible lifestyle, regardless of what an associate's final hours tally looks like at the end of the year. And as you point out, there are long pockets of pure hell that are tough to avoid.

On the other hand, non top 10 firms, in my experience, seem to have less frazzled attorneys and clients b/c they have less significant matters. So even if the year end billables are close to those at Top 10 firms (in my experience, I bill about 10% less a year), the ride is much more enjoyable.

So I don't think it's a myth or a lie telling candidates that there are real advantages to choosing a non top 10 firm. Unless you are a gunner bent on making buckets of money or achieving world domination, I would always advise opting for the non Top 10 firm.

6:54 - I guess it depends on where in the spectrum you fall. If you're at a V95 firm, that may be true. But I think there are a lot of in-betweens (V15-V60---pretty much anyone that didn't meet the special bonus raise across the board) where there is no appreciable difference.

Folks at those firms are billing just as many hours, if not more, than those of us at many top 10 firms and there are just as many nutty partners (they just make less money and arguably are far greedier because they have less wealth to share). Plus mid-level firms are uber cheap, so you're constantly being nickel and dimed to death---and when you're pulling a lot of hours, that makes a huge difference. Not to mention that you're constantly getting hours knocked off to improve said firm partners' bottom line---they get turned into "training" or "business development". When you have a billable hours requirement to meet, it's essentially money/time coming out of the associate's pocket and being put directly into the partner's. I know that is a common occurence for many at mid-level "lifestyle" firms. They want to pretend that they're top tier, but they constantly act second class.

There is simply a lot more bullshit at the mid-level firms because every cent counts. The pace at such firms, from an associate's perspective, is only neglibly better---neither is the pace there or at a V10 firm sustainable in a meaningful way in the long term for the vast majority of associates (and especially for those that are not white males). So at the end of the day, the vast majority of people at the top 60 firms or so are going to have a pretty shitty life. The difference is at a top 10 firm, you're maximizing the return on the shittyness by getting paid more for the few years you're an associate. Those at the mid-level firms are getting royally screwed---less money with no increase in quality of life. Once you break a certain threshold (not really sure where that is, but for sake of the argument, let's say V60), your analysis probably holds true. I wasn't trying to compare a V10 firm with a V100 firm, but more a V10 firm with a V40 firm (those that sell the "lifestyle" bullshit line--no such thing).

6:54--And the crack about buckets of money or world domination shows your bias. It's about neither. It's simply about making the best business deal possible given your limitations. Why do the same work for less money in similar circumstances? The only reason you would is because 1) you can't do any better or 2) you don't know any better.

Anyone who purely wants to make buckets of money or dominate the world definitely wouldn't be in law. They'd be in banking, the PE world or an entrepreneur.

My firm is a non-V100 firm where I work just as much as my friends at V20 firms (and actually more, since at a V20 firm you're much less likely to waste time in the office because the work flow is more constant). 6:00 is absolutely right that there's no benefit to being here instead of being at a V10/V20 or something similar. Law students, don't make the mistake of buying the "lifestyle firm" bullshit that ANY midlevel firm tries to sell you. It's a lie.

I mean, I guess my shot at partnership here is "better" in the sense that a 10% chance of something is "better" than a 5% chance. Personally, I'd take the market bonus in exchange for that extra 5%, but I'm crazy and rational like that (with 20/20 hindsight I really could've used 4, 5 years ago).

You can't limit the conversation to the V10 (which is an asinine ranking system anyway). There are a number of firms in the AmLaw 50 that pay lock-step bonuses to all assoicates (and offices) regardless of hours (PW, Debevoise, Willkie, Milbank etc.). Limiting it to V10 makes you sound like a prestige whore.

7:33---okay, call it market leaders---those that matched the special bonuses and will continue to initiate or very quickly match any increase in the market while having no billables requirement. I simply picked V10 because ithose characteristics are a lot more common in the V10 than outside of the V10 and it's a hell of a lot easier to write V10 than that long description. Everyone that isn't caught up on the prestige label understands this---that there are exceptions to every rule. Latham is a prime example---they're what, 8? And still have made no announcement. Posers and their associates should be up in arms.

I've also worked at a v10 shop and a v50 shop. I actually think life is BETTER at a v10 shop for a couple of reasons. First, a deal is a deal and downtime is downtime. However, the point that a lot of people miss (and I'm sure that I'm going to take a lot of heat for saying this) but the younger associates at my v10 were by far better than at my v50 firm. So, at my current firm, I end up doing more work simply because the younger associates are unable to do it or because the quality of their work blows.

Also, its easier for a v10 firm to hire laterals (those that will) to replace associates that have left. Lower ranked firms have a harder time which further aggrevates the situation.

Right on. I got the shorthand, its just that there are just so many law students on here who only care about the Vault. Its irritating.

When you think about the group of market leaders, its really NYC based firms. Everyone else pretty much follows (Latham again as a prime example (with Kirkland as the main exception)).

7:48---I think you're right about the firm distinction for sure. The vast majority of law firms depend upon the naivete and misconceptions of law students for recruiting and later retention purposes. The V10 distinction is going to be one of the lesser evils in that regard.

7:44---I also agree with you. I have been at both a V35ish firm and V10 and my experience at the V10 is much, much better. I think the only time that may change is if you're really considering partner, then the lower ranked firms might have an advantage. But from what I observed, it seemed that many of the same problems for associates ran all the way through the ranks of the partnership---just with more money on the table. So unless you were one of the true top dogs at such a shop, it still isn't worth it.

If you're not planning on partner, then there is absolutely no reason to not go to a top firm, unless you literally can't do so.

ATL is slipping. We need a BONUS LIST OF SHAME! Many firms (including the CA big three Kirkland Ropes etc) have not matched and in some cases not made announcements, so we at ATL must keep the pressure on.

With luck even Robert O. Link will be shamed into digging deep and coughing up market bonuses! (One can dream :)

This site sucks. Congrats to the underachievers who successfully drove LEWW away by complaining about "elitism", y'all are still losers no matter what.

DC?

Step UP!

How do you possibly explain V10 per-lawyer revenues other than more hours? Cravath has $1.3 million in revenues per lawyer. Sure, you may have some partners billing at near $1000, but you have a lot more juniors billing at $300 (most firms still have a basic pyramid structure among associates; it's really more of a ziggurat if you take partners into account). When you have plenty of work to go around (and that was the case, I think, at most V100 firms this past year), you get higher per-lawyer revenues by having lawyers who bill more hours. It's that simple. (Okay, it gets a little more complicated if you consider other revenue streams like temps, but that cannot possibly explain the difference)

You don't see V10 associates posting here about billing 3000 hours because the ones who are doing it are too busy doing it and, besides, they probably figure that they're killing themselves for partnership, so why poison the well from which they will one day drink?

As for the posters who say you can wind up billing just as many hours at a firm like HHR, that's absolutely right. Under this bonus structure, though, if you do that, you get a bigger bonus than the folks at V10 firms. It's not expected, but its rewarded. How is that a bad deal?

It's not that simple. High RPL suggests that the firm is billing at premium rates, which is sort of like a bonus awarded for high-quality work. This is how places like Wachtell stay so profitable. It's not like they're doing an obscenely high volume of deals per year, but a select number of very lucrative ones.

In contrast, a place like Cadwalader is profitable b/c they do flat fee work (ie securitization deals). These deals pay a fixed amount upon completion. So obviously the more deals you churn out, the more money you get.

I think you're confused b/c you assume that firms are blindly chasing billable hours in order to stay profitable. But between premium billing and high-volume flat fee work, billable hours are a peripheral concern.

Of course, note that the high-volume method almost necessarily implies that you'll be billing a lot. Also note that firms with strict billable requirements, by this reasoning, do not command strong enough premium rates to offset billable hour pressure.

Hope this helps.

Nicely done, 8:39.

2485 billed hours this year, and bonus below market coming ... awesome! To the a-hole who said we're morons for not going to a better firm that pays market, take your elitist mentality and shove it up your ass. Some of us can't get those jobs because we went to certain law schools, regardless of the fact that we're just as capable and in many cases smarter than you. Some of us went to a particular law school for a reason other than to look cool or get the big NYC job.

7:22 and 6:00 are dead, dead on. I would advise anybody who has a chance to go to a firm with no (articulated) billable hours requirements and a lockstep bonus to do so, regardless of how (allegedly) sweatshoppy the conditions are. At places where there's a minimum, slow periods aren't enjoyable, they're full of stress. If you're working fewer hours, you will pay for it with your bonus. Also, if things are busy at "lifestyle" firm, believe me, you will be required to be there morning, noon, and night to get the job done. Clients are clients are clients, regardless of where you practice law. May as well get the financial/prestige guarantee, if you can. If it's hell, then start looking for another job ASAP. I'd only go to a firm with a minimum/non-lockstep bonus if there was a practice group that I loved that was non-existent that I was guaranteed to get all my work from. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

10:52 -- No one is buying that bullshit that you're just as capable, blah, blah, blah. Sure, there may be some exceptions to the rules, but the vast majority of the time, that simply isn't the case, especially once you get past the 3rd year as many of the wastes of human flesh that happened to get into a good law school have dropped out of the ranks by then. And if you chose a lower ranked law school for other reasons, fine. But that was YOUR choice. Live with the consequences. Don't bitch about them as being unfair. If you're billing over 2500 hours and getting a below market bonus while supposedly being just as capable, you're either 1) a moron, 2) being paid in some sort of additional intangibles (i.e. "I really love my work!"--then stop bitching about the lack of $$) or 3) you're missing other key intangibles that make you an undesireable candidate (baseline social skills, ability to verbally articulate ideas, etc.)

Actualy, 1:30, there are people out there who were Phi Beta Kappa in undergrad, magna cum laude at a tier 2 law school (by choice), give public speeches regularly both law-related and otherwise, are considered more engaging than 99% of the rest of their firm combined, etc. who simply don't get interviews at the V25 because of the piece of paper they submit that includes the law school they attended. To say it's bullshit that someone is just as capable because they are not at a top tier firm in NYC is the type of self-centered, I think I'm more important than God approach that so many of you pricks possess. I've been on both sides -- I started at a V20 firm (only 1 out of the 20 that even granted me an interview -- and once they met me, they realized that the school you go to isn't always the full story), but came to a smaller place for the quality of life aspect, and I'm glad I'm not doing doc review as a mid-level associate. Bonuses aside -- and yes, I think someone who bills close to 2500 hours doing meaningful work has a right to complain if he works much harder than those who sit and rot at a desk billing 1900-2000 on doc review -- your post is typical of a top-tier law school grad in a big NYC firm who has likely been handed everything in life as opposed to truly growing up working for things.

1:30 just got OWNED! Rack 'em!

10:52 and 1:45 -- You guys just don't get it. It's not about who is or isn't "better". It's about making smart business decisions. Everyone knows, or should know, that law firms, like many other fields, are status whores. Whether that's because it's client-driven (i.e. better able to rationalize paying $500/hr to a guy from Harvard, Yale, etc. as opposed to a law school that they don't recognize), just a perpetuation of their own ego (i.e. went to a top 10 school themselves and want more from their alma mater or tier of schools) or there is a discernible difference between candidates from different law schools, it's the reality. You don't go into a profession where such things matter, whether they should or not, and then whine about the system being unfair. If you don't like where you are and don't feel that you're being compensated accordingly, then leave. You're like the fat person that bitches about being fat as he/she shoves another twinkie into his/her mouth while doing nothing else to change his/her reality. There are actions and there are consequences for those actions. You can rail against them all you want, but it won't change the reality until you do something to change it.

For the record, I'm not saying that there aren't capable people at lower level firms. Of course, there are. However, when people choose to go to such places, they can't expect the same treatment (especially in regards to financial compensation) that they'd get at a top firm. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. And because I worked my way through both a top undergrad and a top law school (no need-based financial awards--just merit based scholarships, loans and my own grit), I understand the very basic principle of the law of actions and consequences. It's folks like you that are asking for the hand-outs and for reality to cease to function properly.

"(no need-based financial awards--just merit based scholarships, loans and my own grit)"

Oh, my God. You are truly insufferable.

3:06--why? 2:07 is no doubt a bit melodramatic, but as I too put my through both college and law school, doesn't sound insufferable to me. Working 40-50 hrs while still keeping up in good schools is borderline insufferable. Seems like he's earned his accomplishments, though he could tone it down a tad. But what fun is toning it down on ATL?

3:15: It's just stupid to use "grit" when referring to attending law school or some fancy undergrad. Way too many posters claim to have kept it real in undergrad/law school. Yay for you - you didn't qualify for need-based financial aid.

2:07 -- I'm not complaining about my job, so perhaps you should read the damn messages before you start typing. I was more concerned with that clown who took the position that he's more capable as an attorney than someone not at a V10 firm, when fact of the matter is, most associates at small firms get more experience in 6 months than V10 associates get in their first 5 years.

5:00 -- I didn't think grit referred to attending law school, but the work required to finance that while still keeping up with the rest that were just going to school. And at today's prices (hopefully that guy attended in the last decade or so), that's no easy feat. Personally, I'm very thankful for the need-based aid I received, but I don't pretend that that wasn't a hand-out of sorts----just from the government or school instead of parents. If I had to come up with that much extra money during law school personally, I may have not decided to go at all.

It does seem intellectually disingenuine to complain about those that were handed everything to them by rich parents while at the same time disparaging someone that actually paid for school themselves (unlike the vast majority of the rest of us who relied on the govt/school when family couldn't provide).

A notable exception to the "Special Bonus" seems to be Morrison & Foerster - New York. Has anyone heard if they plan to offer this bonus?

I am not a lawyer, but work with many lawyers on a daily basis (I'm a VP in investment banking). Recently, I was asked by a friend of mine (who is at a top 5 law school) what I thought of the law firms with which I work. I do have some views, but I also wanted to do some internet research and ran into the Morrison & Foerster "Special Bonus" question. Interesting ... I had initially thought about recommending the firm, but this throws a wrench into that plan.

All that said, I'm not convinced that my internet research is exhaustive enough to figure out if Morrison & Foerster pays fairly and values its employees as much as other firms do. While not the only criteria for picking a law firm, pay is certainly important.

Can someone let me know if Morrison & Foerster has announced the "Special Bonus"? If not, what do others think of this?

This just came in - apparently at 5PM EST today, a press conference will be held to try to get us some answers with respect to what about King & Spalding do. Stay tuned.

Ask yourself: do you really deserve your obscenely high salary for such inexperience? Having been a lawyer at a Top 10 firm and a Fortune 500 company for over 15 years it's clear from experience that associates really don't start producing good work -- work that doesn't need to be redone by a more senior lawyer, or worse, a client -- until, maybe, their fourth year, and it's not until about the sixth year when associates have enough experience under their belts to really be able shoulder all the responsibility and take the lead on their assignments. I spent countless hours in-house redoing work product produced by low- and mid-level "top firm" associates. It's also clear that the work ethic has changed substantially in the last 10 or so years -- if you don't work as hard as the associates who were working when the big firms started the wage inflation in the mid-80's, when 2000 billable hours was at the low end of the expected MINIMUM, 2400 was average and 3000 was not unheard of, then don't whine about your salaries that put you in the top 3% of wage earners in the country and the top 4% of wage earners in NYC (and those are conservative figures). Mediocrity should not be rewarded. The people who came before you created a wage custom, that they earned, and from which you benefit so you have no basis for a chip on your shoulder. Pay your dues. Why not start by showing a little professionalism in your communication style.