I heard O'Melveny canned a slew of people. Lat, can we get a post? You went from 24/7 OMM coverage to nada...what gives? Also, what other firing news is out there?

Even Quinn's piss-poor showing is better than MoFo...

So what was the QE "full bonus?" Was it the same as the NY bonus plus special bonus, only given in all their offices?

a first-year at Quinn billing 2100 hours gets a bigger bonus than a 6th (or even higher) year billing 2099 hours. great job, John Quinn!

Ivy should visit Quinn associates as a super special bonus. To chat, of course.

"So what was the QE "full bonus?" Was it the same as the NY bonus plus special bonus, only given in all their offices?"

This was posted a few weeks ago.

Class of 2007: Year-end bonus of $35,000 (pro-rated); no special bonus
Class of 2006: Year-end bonus of $35,000; special bonus of $15,000
Class of 2005: Year-end bonus of $40,000; special bonus of $20,000
Class of 2004: Year-end bonus of $45,000; special bonus of $25,000
Class of 2003: Year-end bonus of $50,000; special bonus of $35,000
Class of 2002: Year-end bonus of $55,000; special bonus of $45,000

****these are benchmark amounts which are subject to adjustment (up or down) to reflect individual performance.****

the special bonuses will be paid half this month and half in June 2008
----------------------------------
WEAK SAUCE

A friend of mine also told me that Simpson Thacher recently laid off like 40-50 juniors (i.e., 1st yeas through 3rd years). I was skeptical myself, since I read this blog regularly and don't recall seeing anything posted about it. But does anyone out there have any info that might tend to corroborate this allegation?

1:11 -- even MoFo's anemic showing is better than MWE

There's supposed to be a video conference firmwide at MWE on the 15th to address associate and income partner bonuses. I'm concerned they may decide that they overestimated the market, and will demand a partial refund of my bonus.

Also, I hear they're planning to submit invoices to retroactively bill us for all of the coffee we have drunk over the last year.

Wow, that's nearly as bad as Sidley's 20-25k across the board.

I guess if you're at Quinn you need to either (i) bill 2500 to make sure you hit whatever number they pull out of their ass without telling you until after the fact, or (ii) assume you aren't going to hit the number, and in that case there's not much point billing over 1700. A sizable number of associates choosing option 2 this year will teach Mr. Quinn to fuck with his moneymakers at his peril.

We need more organized info on CA bonuses. In particular, I still want to know whether MoFo is the only firm where NY associates get up to $115K in bonuses and CA associates get $0 for exactly the same work.

Lat - do a post on layoffs. Curious to hear what's up in the market.

Which practice area traditionally garners the largest bonus: sophisticated, cross-border transactional work or complex, bet-the-company litigation?

(T5-->V10)

hey lat, why zero news on the layoff stuff? it's been out there for quite a while now.

any laterals considering coming to Quinn's NYO should reconsider. this is par for the course - finding unique ways to screw over associates.

Not sure why everyone is still concerned with bonuses. Many people would more effectively spend their time worrying about keeping their job this year.

I agree with other posters here. A substantive focus on layoffs is incredibly timely, if not almost overdue.

Layoffs? I assume that associates doing either sophisticated, cross-border transactional work or complex, bet-the-company litigation are immune from layoffs, but please correct me if that is a misconception.

(T5-->V10)

quinn pays it's senior associates WAY under market, not counting their bonus problems. if people don't know that yet they need to wisen up. also, everyone I know that works at quinn in the CA offices works like a DOG.

I am thrilled I chose to summer at Kasowitz over Quinn--only thing about Kasowitz is they don't pay special bonuses unti June. What gives?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thetoad01/2163284161/

more kumari fulbright... is she white, looks like a mutt to me

Sweet tastin in the shower

Lat - bonus season may be over in NYC, but is barely underway in what I like to call the rest of the country. Is there any word on what CA firms other than OMM are doing with their home office associates, in particular Orrick? Orrick led the way on matching 160k in CA, anyone have any insight on whether they are going to man up once again? Or will they follow the pathetic lead of MoFo and give everyone the shaft?

The Quinn houdini act of trying to be at the top of the market and compete with upper echelon firms for the best of the best, but not treating its associates like these firms, is now transparent.

Pennywise, pound foolish: Quinn spends unbelievable amounts of $ recruiting, yet has now screwed their own loyal associates who are already here, doing good work, creating a culture of low morale and extreme bitterness towards Quinn's greed. It took FAR less than 50 hours shy of the (nebulous) benchmark to get screwed - people within 15-30 hours received 1/2 bonus. And more sour grapes? People within 10 hours (2490) of the next jump (2500 - which gave an additional 10k) were not given the additional bump for giving away their lives. This sweatshop is like the WalMart of law firms.

More frustrating - partners other than Quinn have no say in what The Man decides. Many are very upset by how their associates are being treated, but have no power to change it...

I agree with 1:55PM -- we need more CA info. I can't believe that the MoFo model -- i.e., "market" in NY and $0 in CA -- is the norm.

To add insult to injury, MoFo just informed everyone that 2007 was a great year financially. Really awful to be a non-NY associate there right now.

CWT has not yet let any of its associates know if bonuses are to be paid and how much they would be if paid.

Is there a MoFo california memo or email or is everyone just assuming they will be 2100 or nothing?

Britney Spears to 190!

T5->V10 is the best thing to happen to ATL since azn men put their members in white gals.

QE's way to do bonuses is seriously terrible. At (certain) other firms, the bonus cutoffs are announced in advance (2000, 2100, 2200, 2250, etc.), and the firm maintains flexibility by determining at bonus-time what dollar amounts are actually given to those who meet each level. The goal posts stay the same, however.

QE's way of doing things just seems like a way for the firm to screw associates.

Quinn Emanuel is a fiefdom. There may be many name partners, but there is one decisionmaker. Don't go there expecting any input into how the firm is run, or expecting that anyone other than Quinn himself will make decisions that affect your salary, bonus, etc. If you want a traditional firm structure, go to a traditional firm--OMM, L&W, GDC

2:24pm, MoFo CA is always 2100 for the guaranteed hours-based bonus, with a possible discretionary "merit based" bonus at 1950. So the average CA associate working 1950 gets $0, unless s/he gets the discretionary merit-based bonus.

The big difference this year is that MoFo associates in NY are guaranteed the "market" regular and special bonuses, creating a very large disparity between NY and CA associates doing the same work.

It is the disparity, not the absolute numbers, that I find problematic. Even allowing for some market-based or COL-based disparity between NY and CA, MoFo simply should not pay its home office associates so much less than it does its NY office associates.

That sucks about Quinn. My firm better not try anything like that.....

MoFo sent out a bonus memo in May (it was posted here) when the CA raise to 160K went around. It said there would be no bonuses below 2100, and then announced what the 2100, 2300, and merit bonus structure would be. It hasn't been revisited since then. It's possible that the firm will come to its senses and realize that top firms (which is how it styles itself) don't just not give bonuses. It's possible that it misread the market at the time, thought other CA firms would do the same, and is now going to pull its head out and give market bonuses.

2:40 isn't quite right. I know MoFo doesn't always stiff everyone at the 1950 level. Before doing away with it with the raises, MoFo had an automatic contribution bonus for people working 1950.

2:46, the point is that MoFo is stiffing people now. In fact, if you take into account inflation, many people are making less in total compensation now than before last year's raises! Except the partners, of course.

What's that? Uh -- layoffs? Don't talk about -- layoffs? You kidding me? Layoffs? I just hope we can win a game!

2:46, you are right, but the MoFo contribution bonus was announced at the end of 2006 (supposedly to be paid for 2007), and then was taken back when salaries went to $160K. It had never existed before, and does not exist now.

omg - almost went to quinn. thank god i didn't!

White Girls With Asian Guys Doing Either Sophisticated Cross-Border Transactional Work or Bet-The-Company Litigation

Listen to yourselves. You drone on and on about the differences in your firms' compensation structures, all the while overlooking the fact that these firms are basically identical when it comes to the unhappiness of the associates they employ.

Instead of worrying about a few thousand dollars here or there, why not channel your energy toward finding a career that doesn't destroy your life?

Man, I sure am glad I went in house.

BOW DOWN TO THE M.B.A. WHO PAYS YOUR SALARIES.

jaw my meaty

What do people know about the bonuses at regional firms? . . . Wait. Are there bonuses at regional firms?

3:01 -- what is the better path to law firm happiness: sophisticated, cross-border transactional work or complex, bet-the-company litigation?

(T5-->V10)

No higher hours requirement at Fish. The requirement is still 1900; the first hours bonus kicks in at 2000, as before, but that first hours bonus is much increased.

2100 hrs has been the de facto cutoff for substantial bonuses at Quinn for years. you roll the dice by coming in lower that that. formally announcing cutoffs leads to bad behavior. although the NY assoc tend to be laterals that may not know the 2100 rule, my sense is that they are so busy they generally exceed that number. the people probably feeling screwed are west coast but they have little to complain about. they can be compensated like NY lawyers if they work the hours. if not, they can enjoy the special bonuses that most of their California peers won't get and can be out of the office by 7. that's not so bad.

Lat, can you do a thread on how lame MoFo is?

Loving the Jim Mora Layoffs tirade!

As are the hours bonuses at each 100 milestone thereafter. It is a complete reversal on the part of Fish. Back to the 2007 New York scale AND hefty increase in bonuses for each 100 hour increment above 1900.

Also, Fish *almost* matched the NY "special" bonuses in 2007 by announcing at the end of the year a large increase in the bonus pool. Bonuses for many 3-5 associates in the 300 hour over goal range were well above $50,000, paid this week.

Nobody in my office mentioned any higher hours requirements, though we were reimnded that 1900 is not a TARGET or a GOAL, but a MINIMUM requirement. No surprises there...

Loving the Jim Mora Layoffs tirade!

Loving the Jim Mora Layoffs tirade!

3:43: it wasn't funny the first time you said it, let alone the second and third. And it wasn't Jim Mora who said it. And you got the damn quote wrong the first time. Overall grade: F-.

3:36 - that is simply not true. John Quinn, in his state of the firm address last year, specifically said that if you billed 2000 (including pro bono) for 2006 you got the full bonus.

oh and go fuck yourself you worthless partner.

I did make the layoffs quote. The other quote (they were who we thought they were) was Dennis Green

3:52 - John Quinn did say that for 2006 (though he might have said 2050), but at Rookie School in September, we were told by John Purcell that 2100 was our hours target.

Any Buffalo Bills fans here? Do you realize that your team's assistant director of college and pro scouting is a GIRL? And Ralph Wilson's DAUGHTER?? Well-run team, that.

Do you biglaw folks really find billing 2100+ all that hard? I'm at a midsize firm and did 2200 last year. Of course, that didn't seem all that hard considering I had to travel a lot for hearings and depositions. I guess 2100 is pretty tough when all you do is doc review and binder assembly.

3:52 - i'm not a partner and i also know enough not to take those state of the firm addresses at face value. that's marketing, not reality.

3:36

It's not about whether billing 2100 is hard or not. It's about not knowing what you need to do in order to get the full bonus. I'm quite sure that all the associates who billed more between 2000-2100 would've hit 2100 had they known. This is the way things are at Quinn (or should I say, "quinn"). They WILL screw you. They screw laterals out of legit pro-rated bonuses all the time, they change the rules after the game has been played!

Thanks for letting me wear jeans, John, but I'd rather have $25,000 more dollars.

Complex, Bet-the-Company Litigation can KISS MY ASS!

Complex, Bet-the-Company Litigation can KISS MY ASS!!!

Purcell also told Rookie School that if you were on the cusp of the bonus, other factors would be considered. This was not the case - agreed 4:07, changing the rules after the game has been played.

There's nothing that makes my heart bleed more than people who make $160K+/year complaining that they need another $25K. Fuck off, you greedy douchebags.

4:22 - certainly missing the point. its not the amount of money. its the process. we never asked for this salary nor this bonus. its about a fair process.

I don't work at quinn, but I know a lot of people who do, and none of them were even close to being below 2100. For all its "casualness," quinn is well known as a sweat shop. I don't know anyone who's ever billed below 2250 there, and I know plenty of folks who have consistently billed *way* more than that. The only people I've ever heard of billing low there were the associates who partners decided were stupid and didn't want working on their cases (i.e., the people who the firm was pushing out). Anyone who failed to hit 2100 at quinn has much bigger things to worry about than only making $35k more than MoFo associates, rather than $70k.

This just in from Fish:

2008 Associate Salary & Bonus Scale

Year Base Salary 2000 Hr 2100 Hr 2200 Hr Anticipated Max

1st 160,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 50,000
2nd 170,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 50,000
3rd 185,000 25,000 32,000 40,000 60,000
4th 210,000 25,000 32,000 40,000 70,000
5th 230,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 80,000
6th 250,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 90,000
7th 265,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 100,000

4:22--We make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money.

4:25: You're missing the point. Sometimes life isn't fair. You're certainly not "suffering" as a result of this "injustice." So quit complaining and get back to your doc review.

You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

I agree with 4:22. You folks do make a lot of money considering what you actually do. But I am willing to bet there will be many layoffs in the next 6 months. Everything I've read on this site tells me most of you have had it too good for too long, and situations like that don't last in an economy like this. I hope you all stashed away some of that bonus money.

I've got a family to feed!

I've REALLY got a family to feed.

$20,000 is walking-around money FO SHO.

"Economist"-

Since when does economics ever give a shit about "make a lot of money considering what you actually do"?

Some guy/gal a few weeks back put it best: We get paid what we get paid because if the firm doesn't pay well, we walk down the street to a firm that WILL pay us. Demand (law firms, banks, hedge funds, corporations) for top legal talent far outstrips supply (top students/top law schools/associates at top firms)-- hence the raises.

The market doesn't care that you don't attach the same value to our services.

4:37 - FUCK YOU.

1:55--Orrick's general bonus structure has been well documented by Lat. Hit 2000 hours, get a bonus ($25k for 2006 grads). The only question remaining is whether NY associates will get something more.

5:00: Thanks for proving "Economist's" point.

If Quinn had any fear that its associates would walk, it would have paid the big bonus. Most of his associates aren't going to leave and if they do, so what? They're easily replaceable by some other cocky lemming who draws the non-existent parallel between the offer of a $160K salary and the imprimateur of being "top legal talent."

Start facing the fact that, notwithstanding your law school's reputation or your grades, you're a fungible commodity. Which is why biglaw firms like Quinn can dick over their "top legal talent" without fear of reprisal.

Oooh, looks like we have some blockage up here.

5:00, settle down there. No need to get hostile just because I say BigLaw associates are overpaid. What you seem to be missing is that many of the associates on here are pissed about their bonuses, and they clearly can't ALL go crawling to Cravath or WLRK. Not all firms are keeping up with the latest pay increases because they can't or don't want to. So how can you say the market is entirely in your favor, and not tipping against you?

Law firms are beginning to put the brakes on unquestioned raises. Now we're hearing rumors (and some confirmations) of layoffs at BigLaw firms. Do you think that indicates the market is squarely in the hands of associates? You don't have to get pissed because of my comments, I'm simply making a point as to the market for associate attorneys.

Associates will just leave if they're not paid competitive bonuses. Sure they will. Just like, before going to law school, they were all going to be writers, journalists, etc.

Suck it up you risk-averse vaginas, and BOW DOWN TO THE M.B.A. WHO PAYS YOUR SALARIES.

BOW DOWN TO THE JD/MBA WHO STEALS YOUR WIVES.

5:12:

I didn't prove Economist's point. Economist's point was a moral one- i.e. that biglaw associates get paid too much for what they do. The market doesn't care whether what I do is "valuable" in some moral way to society- the market is amoral. I know that what I do is completely pointless other than shifting money from one rich guy to another. I also know I'm fungible. A cog is a cog. That's not the point. The point is that there's a limited number of cogs. If ONE firm deviates from the market, they will be punished. If the entire demand side of the labor market just decides to shift its price point, then you will likely see a reaction by the supply side (i.e. people jumping ship out of biglaw). A more likely scenario is business will slow, and associates will be fired, perhaps curbing demand and thereby putting downward pressure on prices (i.e. wages).

5:00/5:15-

I never said the market is entirely in my favor. The market may go against me (firms go under, lots of layoffs, oversupply of "top legal talent" and prices may go down). The legal labor market has so far been in my favor (resulting in two market-wide mid-year raises last year).

3:48 -- Jim Mora made the playoffs quote. And the quote in 2:50 was drawn directly from the transcript from his press conference (just leaving off the p). So please stop criticizing others for things you know absolutely nothing about. Overall grade -- STFU.

"Economist's" point was not a moral one. He is making a productivity argument. You make a lot of money for looking at documents and assembling binders all day long. Apparently, the powers that be are realizing that too.

However, may I suggest that Quinn's associates test your theory and quit their jobs. I guarantee they'll be replaced faster than they find new work, notwithstanding their "deviation." Moreover, I guarantee that the quitting associates will be "punished" much more harshly than the firm.

This is retarded. CA legal market is officially 4th tier behind NYC, CHI, and BOS. All these "big shot" firms out here pay cheap ass bonuses and expect people to say, "oh I live in sunny CA and it's sooo laid back here...I could never live in NY." Guess what, been both places, CA lawyers bust their ass just as much as NYC lawyers. The weather is nice, but I don't see that much of it anyway and is it really worth $40-100k pay difference? Norcal is just as expensive, but way dirtier and bumpkin than NYC (people here pay $2M for a crapass tract home next to a 7-11 in Palo Alto and think they're chic). In any case, $20-60k in take home a year buys a lotta Manhattan apartment, car, non-working spouse time. These bitches better recognize or I'm taking my dual-barred ass back to NYC. Anybody wanna split a u-haul?

5:58: Stop halfway and work in Dallas or Houston. You'll make CA money and it will go twice as far. Also, you'll work half as much. Trust me: I'm from the Northeast originally. But I make enough down here to live like a king AND make it back to NYC when I want to hang out. Problem is, when I go back, all my NYC friends are working.

6:01: You left out Texas's best feature: Attractive women. As I'm sure 5:58 will agree, girls look much better when there's no off-season for girls to get fat. Unless you find dumpy chicks in long sweaters and leggings really attractive, NYC is not the place for eye candy.

My argument isn't a moral one (though there is a moral argument to be made). While I recognize that BigLaw associates work long hours (as do many professionals), a firm can nonetheless attract extremely qualified associate talent for $150k, probably even $130,000. I think firms are beginning to realize that paying a premium to new associates who haven't even a clue how to file a pleading just doesn't make much sense. Now, I don't think the market will fall very far. But I do think you're beginning to see a stratification in pay, indicative of a more critical approach by firms that are really questioning whether they are getting any added value by paying associates special bonuses on top of generous bonuses. The fact is most firms can maintain their standards even if they pay their associates 90% what another firm might be offering. There are only so many hedge funds, PE firms and top-paying law firms out there. Partners realize that, and that's why they're not rushing out to match each other in the latest round of salary wars.

Hey 4:27,
Do the 2100 hour and higher bonuses amounts include the lower hour amounts (e.g., is a 1st year really getting $20,000 at 2,000 hours and an additional $25,000 at 2,100 hours, or is it really just an additional $5,000 at 2,100 hours)? That must be the case.

I know 4 people at Quinn. None of them made 2100. I hear a lot about a sweatshop mentality there, but a lot of people there are slackers too. Either way, it sounds like an absolute shithole.

I made the 2100 QE mark because I thought -- but didn't know -- that was the cut off (and also I got super busy towards the end). But honestly, I'm not sure why it wasn't more front and center. I feel bad for my brethren that got half the bonus, especially as I know many of them believed 2000 was the cutoff mark. I don't think it's a conscious decision to screw anyone over (although it may be an attempt to send a message that we have to take the rules seriously (then again, what rules??)), I think it is more an aversion to being organized and stating formal policies. But oh well -- where else can you make these salaries? Pretty short list.

Well said 6:45.

Economist (or Biglaw partner complaining about associate pay while pocketing millions a year off the sweat of our brow): What are you smoking? Are you some partner who is so out of touch with reality that you think you can attract Biglaw talent to work Biglaw hours for $130k? It's called New Jersey, and they pay their Hofstra and Rutgers grads $130k to do second rate work for second rate clients. Why don't you try it at your firm and watch it empty out of everyone except the bottom 10% retards within 1 year. What is this BS about firms' reticence to match each other in this latest round? Have you been under a rock? NYC moved to 160k, everybody and their mother, even the likes of Squire Sanders and IP boutiques moved to 160k. NYC moved to special bonus, all NYC firms and bigshot non-NYC firms (Kirkland, Quinn, Ropes) moved to some version of special bonus. Now everyone else is up in arms about the craptastic bonuses being paid in non-NYC locales and, in the next year or so, watch the firms respond as they realize that top tier talent will be moving to NYC-based firms, as those firms move higher up on the prestige/desirability ladder.

But if you're so sure that you don't need top tier legal talent to do top tier legal work, then I have some cousins at Concord Law who will draft pleadings for you for minimum wage. I'm sure they're just as clueless and useless as the average Biglaw associate in your eyes and can be molded to do bet the company litigation under your brilliant tutelage.

Maybe that's the case in some offices, 6:28. I don't know of anyone in quinn's sf office that has ever billed under 2100 (except for one class of '04 slacker in his first year who was then no-bonused and basically fired).

Good point 7:00 p.m. The monkey-like work you're doing can ONLY be done by the top graduates of top tier schools. As Peter Venkman said in Ghostbusters, "You're right...no human being could stack books like this."

7:00,
First off, not everybody matched the special bonuses. The pay is being stratified. Take a guess why.

Second, I love your quotation, "Why don't you try it at your firm and watch it empty out of everyone except the bottom 10% retards within 1 year."

I'd like to know where "everyone except the bottom 10%" is going to go? Do you not understand that there are a limited number of hedge funds out there. Are you all going to send your resumes to Wachtell? It's funny how you think everyone is going to move to NYC and land a job at the highest-paying firm. Honestly, do you really think the legal market is so fluid and dynamic that Big NYC Firms are just going to open up the door for all Californians? Get a fucking clue. Successful NY firms can't expand two-fold in January because a bunch of associates are pissed about their pay in December. Stop reading caselaw and get a fucking education in reality.

7:02 - If it makes you feel better, there is no difference in talent in this world. A monkey, an online law school grad, and a harvard law review editor are all the same. The litigation brief I'm drafting now could be done just as well by a monkey or someone with who scored 150 on their lsat, because we're all the same. Happy?

7:16 - If it makes you feel better, you're a pretentious snob. Although there are certainly differences in talent, I have no doubt that there are plenty of graduates at Rutgers or Hofstra that could do whatever it is you are doing just as well as you can.

I'm guessing that whatever you are working on isn't that important or difficult, considering you are posting to this blog on a Friday late-afternoon anyway.

7:22 - You're absolutely right. You and the Economist should round up all the Hofstra and Rutgers grads you can find and open your own Jersey firm paying $130k a year. It will be heaven on earth and all the problems in the legal world will be solved. You will be flooded with resumes from Wachtell associates wanting to make less money but you will reject them because it will be a Hofstra/Rutgers only shop. I am a pretentious tool and no one in our profession thinks like me.

7:22, are you even an attorney? I've never made a binder and don't do much doc review at all; that's what temps are for. Further, it's not the school per se that gives any particular student more talent than another, but the school is a proxy for how smart the student is. Having managed teams of temp attorneys, I can tell you firsthand that your Hofstras and Rutgers in fact can NOT do what I do, nor could they even keep up with the temp attorneys from good schools.

Finally, junior associates are paid our high salaries because the firm is betting that we'll quickly become valuable mid level and senior associates. That's when the pedigree differneces really start to show. Agan, lawyers from lesser schools, as a group, aren't as smart and aren't worth the initial investment.

CA--->NY,

You really should come to New York first, and THEN explain to us how the world works. I think California has confused you in that regard.

Dear Economist,

See 5:58. CA--->NY did work in NY first. So, I guess he or she can explain how the world works after all . . .

6:19: The amount listed at each hours level is a total, not an increment over the previous level. But there is also a possible merit bonus on top of those hours bonuses which can be quite substantial.

Losers.

(T1 --> V1)

8:34, get back to work before Herb finds out. P.S., sorry to hear about your wife leaving you.

Economist/Biglaw Partner: You get what you pay for. If your firm is ok with the type of associates below market bonus will attract (e.g., MWE associates), then great. My main disagreement with you is not over bonus amounts, but your assertion that a Biglaw firm can attract talent for 150k or 130k. Just look at the mess Fish & Richardson made when it tried to instituted a holdback system, not even a paycut mind you. They looked terrible, associates were up in arms, and the firm had to backtrack immediately. Even with bonuses, you can be sure no self-respecting law student or lateral associate will be going to MWE for years to come. I think I'm the one on planet earth when I say that if a Biglaw firm cut salaries, even to the old 145k scale (without cutting the hours requirement), that it would lose most of its marketable associates. Most of the fleeing associates would be taken in by other law firms paying market, not hedge funds. That is, unless you can orchestrate somekind of conspiracy to cut salaries at all firms at once.

Question, has Fish moved to a 5 year partnership track? A bunch of recently named partners at F&R graduated in 2002, one of them even graduated in 2003!

"Most of the fleeing associates would be taken in by other law firms paying market, not hedge funds. That is, unless you can orchestrate somekind of conspiracy to cut salaries at all firms at once."

These firms seem to be able to raise salaries like it's a cartel, so I'm sure they are smart enough to coordinate the limiting or total denial of any future raises. Also, I did say I don't believe firms will actually cut to 130k. In fact, I'm not sure they will cut at all. But I don't think you'll see raises as you've seen in the last few months. More likely, they'll just lay off some associates to contain the displeasure to a select and unfortunate few.

Regardless of our differences, I simply posted on here to say that I think the economy is about to tank, and I think the effects will be widespread. Good luck getting back to nyc.

"The school is a proxy for how smart the student is."

Of course it is. Because a person's undergraduate grades and LSAT score are the most certain predictors of intelligence and legal aptitude.

Get over yourself, you pretentious fuck.

9:40, that's not pretense. I don't believe anyone said that school is a "perfect" proxy for how smart the student is, but it's ridiculous to behave as if it's no proxy at all. Look at the people who progress most successfully in the legal profession. Yale, Harvard and Stanford grads actually do better, on average, than Loyola grads. Shocking, I know.

9:40, you're an idiot. Obviously, every major law firm in the country thinks school is a reasonably good proxy -- it's reflected in their recruiting policies and practices. Why do you think Skadden is a sure thing for someone in the bottom of the class at HLS, but is seen as an "elite" law firm by those at lower-ranked schools? How many people from Fordham are at Wachtell? Four. How many from Harvard? 43. But the members of WLRK's hiring committee are probably just "pretentious fucks" who aren't acting rationally.

9:53: I agree with you. Exceptionally smart and gifted people attend the most prestigious schools in the country. But exceptionally smart and gifted people also attend schools that are not as prestigious. I have no quarrel with labeling someone who attended a good school as "intelligent."

However, I take issue with the claim that someone who went to a less prestigious school is categorically "less intelligent."

Statements like, "I can tell you firsthand that your Hofstras and Rutgers in fact can NOT do what I do, nor could they even keep up with the temp attorneys from good schools" cannot be taken seriously.

9:59, presumably then you'd be happy if that previous poster's comment (which I agree is silly) were amended to "I can tell you firsthand that THE MAJORITY of your Hofstras and Rutgers . . . ." Because aside from a very small percentage of people with whatever odd circumstances, exceptionally smart and gifted people actually *don't* tend to attend unprestigious schools. The majority of NYU law students did not get accepted at HLS. The numbers are obviously far more skewed when you get down to Hofstra and Rutgers (or wherever).

10:12: I agree with you as well. I entered this debate to counter the assertions that the junior associates who are complaining about their bonuses somehow have "leverage" in the marketplace because biglaw could not survive without "top tier legal talent to do top tier legal work."

While it is totally understandable why the top students from the top schools are offered great opportunities at biglaw firms, I don't believe that the students who have been offered those positions are the only ones capable of performing their assigned tasks.

If we are talking MAJORITIES, I'm willing to bet the MAJORITY of students who attend prestigious law schools come from fairly privileged and academic families. We don't all have the same advantages. But some of us end up at BigLaw firms nonetheless, only to witness first hand that the dude down the hall from HLS really SUCKS at being an associate while the person who was top of his class at a less prestigious school kicks butt.

In other words, once the playing field is level, the prestigious school person really isn't smarter after all. Or at least is no better at doing his job.

10:48 -- Look at where the partners at V10 firms went to law school. They are *mostly* from the top 10 law schools. A small minority are from other schools. The point here is that even after "the playing field is level," graduates of top law schools tend to excel over other law firm associates. This should not be a surprise, since those same people had the drive to succeed at a top law school to begin with.

ORRICK BONUS:

2006 - $25K to $45K
guaranteed at least $35K at 2100

Every figure above goes up by $5K or more per year thereafter.

ORRICK BONUS:

2006 - $25K to $45K
guaranteed at least $35K at 2100

Every figure above goes up by $5K or more per year thereafter.

I imagine NY is getting special bonuses too.

7:01 --- obviously you don't know many quinn associates. There are plenty who, on any given year, don't hit 2100 hours. and it's not b/c they're slackers.

Aside from the fact that many have substantial hours spent on (non-billable) client pitch work (which, if they weren't working on, they would be doing actual billable work), hitting 2100 isn't always as easy as it sounds. Especially for junior associates. You don't bill 2100 hours at an even pace over 12 months (i.e. 175 per month). That would be easy, but it's not the case. Instead, especially for junior associates, you often have several super-busy 200+ months, coupled with a few incredibly slow months when you're between cases and stressing out about finding new work to hit your hours. So in the end, you might come out at 2050, which feels like a lot b/c all of the preceding 12 months were either stressful from tons of work or stressful because you were constantly bugging partners for work and worried about billing enough. And then, just before Christmas, you get your much-hyped bonus check and open the envelope only to find that it's been slashed by 50%. Talk about a morale booster.

Am I the only person who understands what's happening in this market? Why would Cravath, already a market leader, decide to throw down on bonuses in a DOWN market? Because it KNOWS that most of the other firms will not be able to match, and it's trying to separate itself from the rest of the top 20 (WLRK excluded).

For several years compensation at the top 20 firms (WLRK excepted) has been relatively flat, and associate candidates have been able to focus exclusively on soft factors (prestige, life style, experience, gut feeling, etc.) when choosing a firm.

Now, if you're Cravath, and want to change that because you know, in the end, you can pay more than most others, you're better off moving in a down market when fewer firms can afford to match even a reltively modest bump. In an up market, you might have to keep throwing down before the others start falling.

If this works (and the early exit polls look good for the Cravath strategy) the the top talent (however the market defines it) will be even more concentrated at a smaller group of firms, and the divide between the T20 haves and have-nots will grow. The Cravaths of the world will become imminently more desirable to clients than even the K&Es of the world, and the demand curve will shift accordingly.

In poker terms, Cravath has used some of it's fat pile to make other firms either fold or go all in. Brillaint. But what is amazing, is that none of the other firms seem to get it.

You are exactly right. It's laughable that a firm like QE is trying to keep up with the likes of Cravath and recruit from the same talent pool. Apparently the only way they can afford to do so is by screwing over certain associates. What they did is worse than "folding," to use your poker terminology.

Quinn promote to partner after the sixth year. How does that compare to spending two more years carting buckets at Cravath?

Welcome to a competitive marketplace you whining ninnies.

Am I the only person who understands what's happening in this market? Why would Cravath, already a market leader, decide to throw down on bonuses in a DOWN market? Because it KNOWS that most of the other firms will not be able to match, and it's trying to separate itself from the rest of the top 20 (WLRK excluded).

For several years compensation at the top 20 firms (WLRK excepted) has been relatively flat, and associate candidates have been able to focus exclusively on soft factors (prestige, life style, experience, gut feeling, etc.) when choosing a firm.

Now, if you're Cravath, and want to change that because you know, in the end, you can pay more than most others, you're better off moving in a down market when fewer firms can afford to match even a reltively modest bump. In an up market, you might have to keep throwing down before the others start falling.

If this works (and the early exit polls look good for the Cravath strategy) the the top talent (however the market defines it) will be even more concentrated at a smaller group of firms, and the divide between the T20 haves and have-nots will grow. The Cravaths of the world will become imminently more desirable to clients than even the K&Es of the world, and the demand curve will shift accordingly.

In poker terms, Cravath has used some of it's fat pile to make other firms either fold or go all in. Brillaint. But what is amazing, is that none of the other firms seem to get it.

12:08 - It is late and I just have to comment though I will keep it brief. You are also late to this game and your explanation is like that of child. Lots of people understand what Cravath is doing. Yes this is the start of separation. Though you do yourself a disservice by comparing Cravath to K&E. K&E had this figured out a long time ago. They started paying above market in NY about ten years ago. This allowed them to get top summer associates and top lateral candidates. That has been one of the things that has helped put them at a top 15 PPP despite not being concentrated in NY. Many others understand what is going on as well. The surprising thing (for Cravath) is that many firms have continued to follow Cravath with these special bonuses even though it seems clear that 2008 is going to be a bad year for corporate firms. Cravath (and Sullivan and so on) continue to underestimate the financial abilities of their competitors. Maybe Cravath has set the bar at the right level to squeeze these guys out. But the more likely situation is that this is too little too late. Cravath is stuck with no foreign offices and limited resources. Now that the Asian offices are actually profitable for all the firms and London offices are firm leaders, it might not be a good thing to have 80%+ of your lawyers in NY city. These other firms are here to stay. There may only be 20 or 30 of them when the dust settles, but they are going to compete against Cravath in ways that Cravath isn't going to like.

Your bonuses are like pocket change... you lawyers are pretty useless...

QE kept telling me during recruiting season how it was a better firm than Munger.

So glad I made the decision I did in turning down QE.

Turning down QE for Munger is like breaking up with Uma Thurman for a date with Rosanne Bar because you don't like blonds.

I can't believe more people aren't talking about Dickstein Shapiro. They pulled a switch, where they told their associates they would pay 'market' bonuses at 1950, then informally instituted a very strict hours based bonus system. Unfortunately, they never told their associates what the hours based system was. I suppose it's a good way of keeping profits high for the partners...

I really think those of you here that truly are associates at top paying firms are going to be in for a rude surprise in a few years (assuming you want to stick it out that long at your current employ). There was an interesting article I read not too long ago discussing the true effect of this associate compensation explosion. In the end, the associates themselves are going to pay a heavy price. You think clients are going to absorb these increases with higher billable hour rates or fixed fees? Nope. You think PARTNERS are going to absorb these costs with lower compensation? Nope. It will be accounted for by increased hours from you, the worker bees. And it won't be sustainable.

Really, the only ones that are going to benefit from this are those law school grads that sign on as indentured servants to a megafirm with the intention of quitting once their student loans are paid off in 3-ish years to do "what they really want to do" at a third of the salary and half the time commitment. And the top firms are going to be putting more and more attention into weeding those people out early, before they have the chance to turn into true moneypits.

"Issue of notice" my tonsils. They said its usually 2100 but that last year was 2000. if you were between 2000 and 2100 you were playing with fire and you knew it.

I work for Quinn and I'm loaded. Time to reload on the blow.

~#%#~

Truth is, 5:15 AM, both QE and Munger are top firms, often against each other. both will give you experience. The biggest different is not quality of work experience or lawyering, but attitude. munger is more old school and less extroverted. QE is a little more fun and a little less of a drag at 11 pm on a friday.

You can feel which one is right for you, so i'm sure you made the right choice.

Seems like a good time to remind the world that JONES DAY DC PAYS NO BONUSES!!!

Kasowitz blows Quinn and these other toilets away ... ain't even close, kids. We print the money on the 21st floor. Job security here is rock solid.

FCHS made a lot of associates upset by shorting them by 5 or 10 from their bonus based on a new, previously undisclosed bonus calculation method.

Fitzpatrick has two bonuses, a longevity bonus (25, 30 or 40) depending on how many years you are there (that's right, watch out 4th year laterals, you will be bonused like a 1st year unless you negotiate otherwise) This has remained unchanged.

Then there is a bonus based on hours, the "war" bonus. Hours have always been calculated using the average of January through November multiplied by 12, so December never counted or mattered.

So everyone calculated their bonuses based on longevity and January through November hours

So when bonus meetings occured, many associates are told they will receive 5 or 10 under their calculation. Why? Because as of this late December 2007, bonuses are calculated from December through November. So last December counts for this year and this December counts for next year, no more extrapolating.

The problem, and why is everyone upset? The lack of notice. We were expecting the representations made to us to would hold and they could have at least told us the new structure in the beginning of this December since it will count toward next year.

Associates are now wondering what is going on with FCHS, and why would the partnership foster should bad will over a couple thousand dollars in this environment of special bonuses when many associates leave every year. Associates that left to other firms are making 60 - 80 more with salary and bonuses than the people in the same year who have stayed.

Anyway, I hear a lot of people are looking

P.S. FCHS never gives out memos, everything is always verbal, probably because they ar every private and do not want to be held to anything they say (and of course want to be able to change the bonus structure without notice)

Well, at least new hires at places like JD DC, Quinn and similar shops can no longer say they didn't know about the bonus structure. Thanks, ATL, for spreading the word.

12:43, it's more than just the lack of notice re: the hours cut-off. it's the lack of notice re: how much you'd be docked. from what i've heard, in years past, people who missed the cutoff were sometimes docked, and if so, only by about $5k.
this is a weak showing from qe, and i've been told that even the people who got the full bonus are a bit outraged because of what it says about the firm in general and how they might continue to treat their associates in the future. i hope laterals and 2Ls are paying attention.

Lat -- I can't believe you have not done a Jones Day post yet. One of the largest and arguably most successful and prestigious firms in the country historically gives no bonuses, and now gives bonuses (of unclear sizes) to all offices except DC. The whol thing is just bizarre and completely lacking in logic.

So, Jupa, these raises are going to come at a cost to associates, huh? How is that? Are the partners going to make us work longer hours? Let's see how do they do that? Are they suddenly going to have more deals and cases come in? Do you think that earlier this year, before the special bonus was announced, the partners were telling their clients, "No I can't take on that deal because I've already made enough profit and my associates are already working hard enough for their pay." I doubt that conversation happened too many times. Yet you think next year the partner is now going to take on work that they would not otherwise have taken so they can make up the money to cover the special bonus. Meaning the partner thinks, "Hmm, I wouldn't normally take on this case because we are too busy, but since that associate got another $30k, he owes me and I'm going to take it." I don't think that will be a likely thought process either. Frankly, I think next year law firms will be looking for anything they can get as we enter into a recession.

Are these bonuses going to result in decreased profits for partners? When was the last time you saw the PPP in a top 30 law firm go down year over year? Will this cut into another year of record profits at Cravath? Yes, a bit, but it will still be a record year of profits. And Cravath will raise its billing rates by over 5%, just like they do every year. Resulting in the ability to make up these special bonuses with the same number of hours (which of course means that the work has to be there) and setting them up for another record year in 2008 (if the work is there). Will it squeeze some of the slightly less profitable firms and thereby slow their climb to $2 million PPP? Yes, that was the point of this aggressive special bonus. But are these firms all going to have record PPP? I bet all the top 30's PPP is going up. And for most of the firms that will be a PPP computed after paying the special bonus.

Basically, I don't think the associates can trade back this money for a better lifestyle. The economics just aren't there that allow for that. And I think our lifestyle is much more dictated by the eb and flow of market forces and deal and case flow. And, in some cases, the individual attitudes of the partners one works for. So you might as well get paid. Especially since the shelf life in big law is so short.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Greenberg T. will use their decision to not pay the special bonus as a recruiting tool. "We saved money so you won't have to work as hard." I'd love to see that happen, but I don't think I ever will. I think more likely is that a good percentage of the top associates at GT will be moving next year probably resulting in more work for the associates who remain. (Again, depending on how the market does, there may not be that much work for anyone by the end of 2008.)

Market Explainer-

You may be surprised, but I have heard words very similar to ""Hmm, I wouldn't normally take on this case because we are too busy . . . " from a major partner at my biglaw firm. The second half of your statement won't exactly be what he's thinking when he takes on the extra work next year, but it probably won't be far off. He was explaining that the firm does in fact leave money on the table in the form of declined cases because we don't have enough attorneys (and hiring good associates is MUCH easier said than done).

I think I give enough of my life away already, and I don't plan to line up for more work, but it's the natural consequence of these raises and bonuses.

I miss the days of government work. I was paid crap as a COA clerk (in an unfortunately expensive major city), but I don't think I "billed" at least 8 hours in a day more than a dozen times that year.

1:48
Dickstein did something similar. They eliminated the "hours based deferred compensation" and promised a bonus based on the market, firm profitability, and performance. Guess what, NOTHING mattered except PPP. The market is clearly a bonus and special bonus in NY. Those that billed hours got some money, everyone else got $0.

Dickstein, it is time to say goodbye to the V100, AmLaw 100, Associate satisfaction survey....

You're all so concerned about pay. Jesus, if you wanted to make a pile of money so bad, you're pretty stupid to have gone into law in the first place. For those who are earning 200k+ and still bitching about your circumstances, you deserve whatever measly bonus you got. Find a job where you actually contribute something rather than just paper-piling and then you'll have some pull come bonus time. Until then, write your pointless memos and shut up.

Yes, firms turn down work because they are too busy. But is it because they feel sorry for their associates or is it because they just can't do more work. You can't take on a new case/client and inform the client that they only get to line up conference calls with their lawyers after 10 p.m. because we are too busy during the day. You can't take on a client when you don't have the associates who can make the meetings and put in the 10 or 20 hours during a day that the deal/case requires. We can't be in two places at the same time even if the partners don't feel like we need to be home ever.
Now partners may feel that with the higher pay there may be the ability to push associates harder without them quitting. And that is probably true. But probably not by that much.

Anyway, I've heard the argument that with lower pay we don't have to push the associates as hard, but for that to work you have to assume that the partners are turning down work that they have the capacity to do. Not sure how much that actually happens. I think usually they turn down work because they are afraid of burning out associates or not being able to deliver quality service.

FYI, F&R probably more than matches NY if you count the 401(k), etc, etc that they give that other firms don't.

4:27: Isn't that the old, revised (read: shitty) pay scale? I thought NY went 175/190 in 2 & 3?

6:45 --

What does F&R do for 401(k)? Matching or safe harbor? Details?

Market Explainer - yes the partners are going to make associates work longer hours. And no, they don't have to go find more work in order to do that, so the theory of "what were they turning down work before?" isn't really valid.

Option #1 (and the current favorite among my fellow partners): Partners will work less. When partners work less, who works more? (hint - it isn't the paralegals). Partner will go out and "market the firm" more (e.g., attend conferences in Florida, travel to NYC to take their client out to dinner), rather than sit in their office and bill hours. Because they have these associates who demanded better pay, and got it, and now they have to work that much harder.

Option #2 (not the favorite at my law firm but we are "nice"): associates will have to compete amongst themselves for the hours. Example: let's say you have 10000 billable hours to spread between 4 associates. They all are required to bill 2500 hours, and they do. Now, you have the same 10000 billable hours, but the 4 associates have to work 2700 hours. The partners will sit back and watch which 3 associates "win". And which one gets canned.

And if we really do enter into a recession, and it hits law firms, who do you think are going to be the first ones to go? I'll just eliminate the guesswork and tell you - the highly paid, underskilled, junior associates.

10:48, 11:01

To beat a dead horse, the "playing field" is never "really" level in BigLaw when comparing junior associates who went to elite law schools with those who went to non-elite law schools. One of the best benefits of attending an elite institution is that the presumption of being elite attaches to your professional identity and work product. Therefore, while it may be true that the reason why most V10 partners come from T10 schools is due to the types of hardworking, exceptionally intelligent that those schools attract, it's certainly only part of the equation.

And to add to my post above, to all the other posters going on about one's law school as a reasonable proxy for intelligence or what have you, isn't this a difficult argument to make in the face of the law school admissions process?

I would submit that at the extremes this proposition may hold some truth, but for the vast majority of those individuals attending law schools that fall in between those extremes..? I don't think so.

Let me give you a little lesson in law firm economics. The best firms don’t increase PPP by bringing in more business – they have more business than they can handle. They increase PPP by hiring more associates – it’s called leverage and it’s how law firms print money. And currently, they can’t hire enough associates. It’s a labor intensive business model. Look at the front page of every major law firm’s website. “Careers” is right up there next to “Practice Areas”. Doing anything that could jeopardize a firm’s ability to hire more associates (e.g. firing associates) would be suicide. This isn’t the dot com era. Firms are FAR from overstaffed (check the “Careers” section of any major firm – they’re falling all over each other to get laterals in the door).

The other firms don’t have to be able to absorb all Firm X junior associate classes. They just have to be able to absorb me and those like me (top law school, top undergrad, top grades, top journal, top clerkship). There are some people that consider themselves lucky to work at Firm X. They’ll stick around. As many calls as I get from headhunters, I can assure you that moving won’t be a problem. There will always be someone willing to accept Firm X’s offers. Anyone with a choice, though, won’t think twice about either.

You can almost see the wheels spinning in their heads: “Don’t tell the associates anything. What if we make the cut-off 2,000 hours? No? How about 2,100 hours? What if, instead of pro rating for hours below 2,100, we slash bonuses by 50%? Just give me the number that puts an extra $10,000 in every partner’s pocket.”

“And we told everyone we were giving a $15,000 special bonus, I’m sure they won’t read the fine print.”

“What if we just pay them the same thing as last year? As long as we don’t make a big deal about the year over year increase in PPP, no one will bat an eye.”

This past fall, there was very little bonus info on ATL for law students to see. If you don’t think EVERY SINGLE LAW STUDENT WILL READ THIS BLOG next year and see what Firm X did to its associates, you are kidding yourself. If you were a top law student with choices, would you think twice about even accepting a callback from Firm X?

Junior lawyers and law students aren’t fungible. Law firms are. They’re a commodity. Who on earth would go to one that screws its associates when they could go to an identical firm that doesn’t?

This one killed me:

"One of the best benefits of attending an elite institution is that the presumption of being elite attaches to your professional identity and work product."

This is not true. As an attorney you are your work product. There is no presumption that attaches to a draft. No one reads an incoherent draft and thinks, "Well, this doesn't make any sense, is internally inconsistent and doesn't capture the busines terms that have been agreed to, but the second -year who drafted it went to Harvard, so I must just be too dumb to understand."

A good school is an admission ticket. No one gives a shit in practice where you went to school if you're bad (or great) at your job.

I agree that almost every firm is or at least was hiring this year. I'm not sure if that will continue through 2008. Certainly the structured finance groups are not going to be hiring in 2008. I think at the top 10 places (which set the market) the firms are generally turning away work. But once you get down to, let's say, the top 30 - 50 (let's call these the bubble firms where paying the special bonus was actually an issue and a question), they are looking for more high fee work. Those firms are in general looking for more work from clients who will pay the full fees and not cap them or negotiate discounts. Leverage helps them as well, but that is where you will find slow departments and associates billing 1700.

7:25am:

I think you're mostly right, but not completely. It's not true that you are your work product. You are your perception. Of course, over time, your work product becomes a hugh part of your perception. But don't kid yourself, the fact that attorney A with to Harvard and attorney B went to Cardozo will, in the end, play a part of it too, especially because attorney A will have more chances early on to position herself in a high place, whereas attorney B will be constantaly having to show that she's a quality lawyer, worthy of a shot, EVEN THOUGH she went to Cardozo. She may spend 10 years fighting to get the opportunities attorney A had as a 2L.

Right or wrong, clients and prospective employers (on the whole) prefer Harvard grads over Cardozo grads, and that simple realty colors an attorney's entire career -- even after people stop asking what law school the attorney attended.

1:42, I think you hit on one of the subtleties of the legal market. While I simply can't accept that my success as a lawyer is predicated ENTIRELY on the name of my law school, there is no doubt a foolish resistance in our "profession" to giving people a chance if they didn't go to Harvard or Yale. The name on your degree will follow you around for life. Period.

The effects of this system are serious. First, as you pointed out, talented second-tier law grads will have to work doubly as hard to "prove" themselves, and perhaps hope for a bit of good luck along the way. Some will rise to the top. But other talented T2 grads may just say, "The hell with this, I'm not waiting until I'm 40 to earn 6 figures." This latter group will leave the law within 5 years to pursue more personally rewarding fields that offer a greater likelihood of financial success. In that way, law firms are effectively doing the job that law schools never did -- rejecting applicants.

The shame of it is that many lawyers who would do a fine job in the profession leave only AFTER having attained their law licenses. It's really up to law schools and/or the ABA to address this imbalance, as it creates a huge market inefficiency to have smart, able young people pursuing careers in a field that effectively rejects them after they've invested in three years of law school and passed a bar exam.

This is one thing that bothers me tremendously about the legal profession. It's an industry that is name-driven far more than it is merit-driven. It seems odd that a group of professionals as supposedly smart as lawyers would subscribe to this name-driven system. I suppose that's why I've lost so much respect for this field ever since I entered it 3 years ago.

At this point in this market, good midlevel to senior associates are not fungible. Ask any biglaw partner and they will tell you that good help is VERY hard to find right now. Sure they can try to push for more hours (assuming they have enough work this next year) but are they going to fire or push out a high performing midlevel who works hard (but not 2800 hours hard), does high quality work and is well liked by clients. I don't think so, not unless they got a bucket of similar associates sitting around without enough work. The ones who will get hit the most is the junior associates - the shitty ones will not get a free pass anymore. The really bad ones will be out in 6 months and the mediocre ones will be out in 1 year (rather than 2 or 3). This will mean that the top firms will actually get smaller which will enable them (or force them to) be more selective in what matters they can take on. The truly top firms will become Cravath like. This is the ONLY way to continue increasing the PPP year after year. The ranks of 2T firms will grow and they will pick up the slack, hiring the mediocre associates and taking the large amount of leftover matters.

7:25 "No one gives a shit in practice where you went to school if you're bad (or great) at your job."

You are right but if you fall between bad and great, then people do give a shit where you went to school. Sorry but it is the reality. A mediocre attorney from Boalt or Stanford will do much better than a mediocre attorney from Pepperdine or Loyola based on opportunities presented (no so much on merit).

Re: 8:58pm
The new partners with fairly recent JD dates at F&R are probably former tech specs/student associates who worked at Fish while in law school. Most firms with such programs give seniority credit for your pre-JD years - for example, someone who spent four years as a student associate while attending LS part-time would be considered a third-year associate after graduating.
I have no idea if such arrangements exist outside of IP practices...

To answer the question, "Who on earth would go to one that screws its associates when they could go to an identical firm that doesn’t?":

I think we're really losing our perception of reality if we believe that an associate making $160K+ in base salary is "screwed" if he or she doesn't get an elaborate bonus as well. Granted, one might consider the lack of a bonus "unexpected" -- and maybe even "unfair" -- but given the amount of money we're talking here, it seems unlikely that anyone -- be they partners or clients -- will be particularly sympathetic to these cries.

This article has featured a lot of posts about whether top students from top schools are "fungible" at biglaw. Although a lot of us LAWYERS have discussed whether a HLS student should be presumed to be of higher performance capacity than a (for example) Fordham Law student, one question that no one has addressed yet is: do the CLIENTS care? In other words, to what extent are the clients hiring the expertise of the PARTNERS --- as opposed to the pedigree of the associates?

For example: If someone went to a second-tier law school but had the respect of Martin Lipton and earned himself a job at WLRK, do you think a client would leave WLRK thinking that Lipton lost his mind and take his business elsewhere?

If the answer to that question is "no," then it would seem that the firms can lower (or not raise) their salaries and bonuses with impunity. If the top grads at HLS won't accept less than 200K, but the top firms can pay someone 130K and not lose their clients, what's the incentive to keep pushing the salaries higher?

Granted, there is some incentive for a firm to say, "We have the top grads in the country." But at some point, diminishing returns has to set in. Perhaps the latest round of bonus news is an indication that clients recognize what a lot of us have --- that law school pedigree is a predictor, but not determinitive of professional potential. If law firms can lower overhead and keep income AND quality of work at the same rate, what's their incentive to match the salaries of their competitors?

any news on Irell's bonuses?

9:57: The biglaw clients do care otherwise why would they pay our rates when they could go to a TTT firm with much lower rates. Our clients care because if something gets fucked up they can say, hey I hired the best firm out there so it wasn't my fault. They want perfection and and for the most part biglaw delivers. Have you seen the court filings and contracts drafted by TTT lawyers. It makes you wonder how they passed the bar.

And the expertise of the PARTNERS doesn't mean shit if their associates are fucking up their cases and deals. It's not just about bragging rights on hiring tops grads, its about hiring the best legalminds (or grunts) available. PARTNERS make more money when they can push work down to dependable associates. PARTNERS make more money when their clients are impressed by the associates handling their matters. PARTNERS need associates - otherwise why would they have raised to 160. They know damn well if they stayed at 125, they would lose out on legal talent and they need that talent to keep their clients and make more money. So long as a few top firms keep raising, the rest of big law will keep matching. Some firms will allow themselves to become TTT and some firms will go under but that is capitalism and life in the big city.

Kasowitz bonuses just came out and they seem to be entirely fair. People who came late in the year were pro-rated to some unknown formula. The checks were very precise to the dollar. If you worked a little less than other folks, you got a little less main bonus, but special bonus was unaffected. No bright-line here. Maybe you got 35K or 45K instead of 40K or 50K, but seems to be directly related to how many hours you put in, again, on some unknown formula. Not hearing any complaints at all.