Add RSS RSS

Associate Bonus Watch: Some Fried Frank Follow-Up

associate bonus watch 2007 law firm Above the Law blog.jpgWhen we posted the Fried Frank bonus memo last month, we noted that “whether this is a true market match is unclear, since the firm is a bit vague with respect to what percentage of associates will receive ‘special’ bonuses.” In its memo, the firm said that special bonuses would be paid out “on a discretionary basis based on performance.”

What we’re now hearing is that Fried Frank has reduced special bonus amounts for a significant number of associates who had low hours relative to their class. The news was conveyed to associates during their year-end reviews.

It’s hard to say how many associates had their special bonuses trimmed, but one source tell us that “it appears to be more than just a handful.” It may reflect, our tipster suggests, “a new policy of tying bonuses (to a certain extent) to hours.”

If Cravath was hoping to use the “special bonus” or bifurcated bonus structure to distinguish itself from other top firms, including firms that pay the same $160,000 starting salary, perhaps it has succeeded (at least in part). It appears that a number of major New York firms, such as Fried Frank and Cadwalader, will not be paying market-rate special bonuses to all associates on a lockstep basis (i.e., without regard to billable hours or performance).

The same may be true of major West Coast firms, but we’ll have to wait and see. Things should become somewhat clearer after the O’Melveny & Myers associates’ meeting in New York, which takes place today.

Update: We’re advised that some associates didn’t get any special bonus at all, but that most did receive some special bonus, just not at the levels set by Cravath. In addition, a few people received larger special bonuses.

Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: Fried Frank

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:00 AM

ROPES MATCHED!

avatar
2 Posted by Confirmed at FF | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:01 AM

First! And confirming FF's PR misstatements (esp. in D.C. office).

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:02 AM

Ropes confirmed.

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:03 AM

" It appears that a number of major New York firms, such as Fried Frank and Cadwalader, will not be paying market-rate special bonuses to all of their associates on a lockstep basis (i.e., without regard to billable hours or performance)."

If major firms like Fried Frank aren't matching Cravath's special bonus, can we still call Cravath's bonus the "market-rate" bonus? That seems odd. Seems better to say Cravath is just above market. And that makes sense: isn't there a sense that Cravath (and Wachtell) are a step above other NYC firms?

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:04 AM

Ropes NY or Boston also?

avatar
6 Posted by Ang Ree N. DC | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:06 AM

FF's D.C associates were told by a partner, in essence, that the bonus memo related only to FF NY associates--despite the fact that many FFDC associates work on FFNY matters.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:07 AM

rumor from multiple sources is that CWT may not being paying jack shit to a huge number of associates. and by jack shit, I mean no special, no ordinary, no bonus. zilch.

avatar
8 Posted by Anon | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:09 AM

10:03 - Cravath isn't the only firm that paid the full special bonus plus regular bonus lockstep. All of the other top-tier firms (S&C, Simpson, DPW, Cleary et al) in NYC, and a few others with top tier pretentions, paid the full bonus. That is the "market" and firms that pay less or don't pay lockstep are accepting that they are not in the same league and will justifiably be at a disadvantage in recruiting top tier talent. I think we've finally hit total comp numbers where the best and most profitable firms can separate themselves from the pack - a bump in base this spring will cement this development.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:12 AM

Ropes memo plz.

Enough NYC news, we get it. Let's hear what the big CA firms are doing, Boston, and D.C.

avatar
10 Posted by FF 2nd year | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:13 AM

Fried Frank pulled out (on my face)!!!

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:19 AM

I prefer my franks fried and with mustard.

avatar
12 Posted by Separation | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:19 AM

10:03 is right. You can check the ATL archives for this. Top tiers like Cahill, Cleary, DPW, Simpson, S&C, etc. did a full match. Cravath doesn't pay more than those guys. Only Wachtell is above the top-tier market rate.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:22 AM

NYC to fried franks with mustard.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:24 AM

ropes memo would be pretty helpful to associates at those remaining out of town firms that haven't announced yet.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:25 AM

Did Ropes match only in NY?

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:26 AM

When one of my colleagues forwards the memo to Lat you'll see that it is unclear whether Ropes has matched.

It breaks my heart to write this, as I was certain Uncle Ropes would not let us down.

In short, it appears Ropes is paying the "market" special bonus in NY and to certain associates in other offices. But the memo is very slippery. We won't know how much of the special bonus we're paid until it hits our accounts on 12/21.

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:26 AM

Linklaters also matched without reservation. where's that list of shame guy to give us a new list of prestige?

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:31 AM

10:26, thank god he's gone.

avatar
19 Posted by Ropes | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:35 AM

Re: Ropes

I wouldn't be at all upset if Ropes matched NYC full-on but only paid NYC-type special bonuses to top billing associates in Boston/D.C. My guess is that in Boston and D.C. there are more associates than in NYC that put in lackluster numbers. To give someone in Bos/DC a NYC bonus even if they billed 1850, would be an insult to the associates who billed 2200 in those cities.

I will be very interested to see the memo.

avatar
20 Posted by Mr. Roper | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:37 AM

10:26 is right - R&G matched special bonus in NYC, and then made a cryptic reference to giving special bonuses to non-NYC associates who make contributions to the firm that are comparable to contributions made by associates at NY-based firms. No idea what that means, but my guess is 2200-2400 hours.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:39 AM

Just wait until the bottom falls out of the market. This system can't be maintained forever.

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:44 AM

Seems that FF did pay above the stated amount to certain associates and it's not clear whether it was entirely hours based (if it was, I don't know what the cutoffs were). In general, if you're a great associate, you probably would have had enough work anyway.

avatar
23 Posted by anon | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:49 AM

10:35: I'm not so sure that assumption is accurate.

avatar
24 Posted by 10:26 | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:52 AM

@ 10:35 -

There is little reason to think that R&G NY associates bill more than other R&G associates. Our NY office is certainly growing, but our work originates, and deals are run, across all offices.

And frankly, you have your head on backwards. The insult would be pay a NY R&G associate a "special bonus" for 1850 and not to pay it to his/her counterpart in Boston/DC/San Fran billing 2000.

I hope Uncle Ropes does the right thing and comes through. On 12/21 I'll post my final hours and bonus amount.

avatar
25 Posted by Billin' Villain | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:54 AM

And that's the way it should be. I'm sorry, but you should NOT get a "retention bonus" as a lawyer, just for sitting at a desk. There are far too many colleagues of mine who just surf the web half the time ... pisses me off to think they'll get a special bonus.

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:58 AM

Is Ropes a prestigious firm?

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:07 AM

10:58 - Yes.

avatar
28 Posted by The grass is always greener . . . | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:10 AM

Can someone please tell me how much pls law associates make at the big firms like Labaton Sucharow, Lieff Cabraser, Phillips & Cohen, & Grant & Eisenhofer? Is the grass any greener over there?

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:17 AM

David,

Could you please put up a post with a consolidted list of the firms that have matched Cravath?

I doubt any more firms will be matching them in the true sense of the word (lockstep, no hours target, all offices).

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:17 AM

11:07 -- But is Ropes worth interviewing for outside of Boston?

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:19 AM

Are Fried Frank attorneys now part of the poors? Gross.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:22 AM

Retention bonuses make sense in a cyclical profession. I'm sure a lot of firms with diversified practices are happy they were paying full bonuses to associates in areas that have been slow in the last few years but may help carry the firm for the next few years.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:22 AM

10:07 - What are your sources re CWT? Do you work there?

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:43 AM

11:22 - multiple transactional, non-securitization associates were the source. i wouldn't take it as gospel truth yet, but i think the rumor has legs.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:48 AM

didn't skadden impose extra house reqs for the special too? can someone settle this once and for all?

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:27 PM

Kyba Thai to 190!

avatar
37 Posted by Lockstep Associate | Permalink Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:42 PM

This is exactly why I chose a lockstep firm.

Post Your Comment