Reading the Associate Compensation Tea Leaves
(And a Digression on Billable Hours)
We're a week or so into 2008, which raises the question: a new year, a new associate pay raise?
One might expect pay raises to be announced around fall recruiting time, to entice the 2Ls. Historically, however, the last two base salary increases were announced in January (perhaps in an effort to reduce the post-bonus exodus of associates). In January 2007, Simpson Thacher announced its new pay scale, with a $160,000 starting salary. The prior raise, by Sullivan & Cromwell to $145,000, was announced in January 2006.
But don't expect more of the same in January 2008. From the National Law Journal:
As law firms wrapped up operations for 2007, the associate compensation picture looked eerily similar to the boom before the bust seven years ago.The ratio of bonuses to base salaries for first-year associates at the nation's top law firms in 2007 was on par with the figures in 2000, a year that precipitated a dramatic plunge in those annual perks that help to make the punishing associate hours more tolerable.
For 2007, beginning associates made as much as $45,000 in bonuses in addition to the $160,000 in base pay at top firms in New York and on the West Coast, with some shops doling out "special bonuses" and getting bragging rights ahead of competitors.
But all that cheer in 2007 may become a distant memory as 2008 is looking increasingly leaner.
"There's more concern out there now than there was in the summer," said James Cotterman, an attorney-compensation consultant with Altman Weil. "There's more talk about a recession."
Indeed. If we're not already in a recession, we're about to enter one. Sure, some firms have strong countercyclical practices. But litigation and bankruptcy never make as much as transactional work and M&A in boom times.
More doom and gloom, plus the promised digression on billables, after the jump.
Still from the NLJ piece:
The last time that bonus amounts at top firms exceeded 2007's percentages was in 2000. That year, the perks for beginning lawyers equaled 24.2% of total compensation. Back then, beginning lawyers at major firms were making $125,000 in addition to bonuses of $40,000.Much of the good fortune in 2000 came from growth in the Internet sector, which buoyed a strong stock market and venture capital endeavors.
By March 2001, however, 10 years of sustained economic growth — the nation's longest period on record — officially had come to an end, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, sent an already faltering economy plummeting even further.
Bonuses in 2001 reflected the big changes. In sharp contrast to the previous year, first-year perks at top firms sank to 13.8% of total compensation, or $20,000. Bonus amounts fell again in 2002 to $17,500 for first-years and remained at that level in 2003. During that time and up to 2006, salaries for beginning lawyers remained at $125,000.
So batten down the hatches, Biglaw associates. We may be in for a few years of stagnant base pay and anemic bonuses (for people lucky enough to have jobs; layoff rumors are running rampant, and we'll be writing more about those shortly).
Of course, it's possible that a firm less hurt by the downturn could take the offensive:
But if the economy remains tepid, or grows worse, less homogeneity in bonus and salary structures is expected this year. Already, one firm, Washington's Williams & Connolly, has raised associate salaries for 2008 to $180,000. The firm generally does not provide year-end bonuses. The question is whether other firms will follow that salary hike or go even higher."It's a game of chicken," said William Henderson, a professor at the University of Indiana School of Law — Bloomington. His scholarship focuses on law firm operations....
Altman Weil's [consultant James] Cotterman agreed. He also expects new levels of market segmentation among law firms in 2008 and predicts that only "a handful" of firms this year will be positioned to raise pay again. He added that the stronger firms will see an advantage if the economy weakens in 2008 by hiking associate pay when they know that other firms will struggle or even fail to ante up.
"One of the times you want to play that card is when you know you have an upper hand in a challenging market," Cotterman said.
So a pay raise isn't out of the question -- but we wouldn't bet on that hand. We'd expect firms, even those that are weathering the storm relatively well, to sit tight.
We do agree about increased variation in law firm compensation structures. Check out this Chicago Tribune article, about Chapman & Cutler adopting a two-track system (already used by a number of firms, especially in D.C. -- e.g., Hogan & Hartson; Wiley Rein).
In short: Biglaw associates, put that bonus money in the bank, and fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy year.
Update / Digression: From the Tribune article about Chapman's new system:
Chapman and Cutler reluctantly increased starting salaries to $160,000 because the partners felt they had no other choice, Cosgrove said. Several years ago, it held the line on associate salaries, while the rest of the Chicago market went up. It ended up paying a price in recruiting, Cosgrove said.Before the most recent raise went into effect on Sept. 1, the firm polled associates and partners on some new approaches.
When it offered a choice of hours to third-years, the class of 2005, three of the nine associates chose to work 2,000 hours, Cosgrove said. Realistically, these lawyers likely will bill more than 2,100 hours, making the difference between the lower tier and higher tier significant, he added.
First-year associates still do not have a billable-hour requirement. Second-years are expected to bill at least 1,850 hours, which means about 37 hours a week, assuming a 50-week work year. To bill 37 hours a week, lawyers generally have to work about 47 to 50 hours.
So, ATL readers: How does that conversion rate of hours worked to hours billed sound to you? High, or low, or somewhere in between?
Leaner pay, bonuses may be reality in 2008 [National Law Journal]
Billable-hours choice eases rate pressure [Chicago Tribune via WSJ Law Blog]
(83) Comments
FLAVIA for everyone!
firsy
I miss Loyola2L
"But litigation and bankruptcy never make as [much] money as transactional work and M&A in boom times."
V10 to 190!
I am a 3L with an offer to do corporate at a V50. Am I in danger of losing my job?
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!
oh, and seventh.
I guess raising hysteria over future employment is one way of boosting a blog's readership.
Big Law is a business and right now the business environment sucks! Batten down the hatches, the storm is on the way
1:27, as of now, probably not. Firms are loath to rescind summer offers for economic reasons; it kills them with recruiting. That said, I would say that you should bust your ass your first year, because after that, all bets are off (assuming a recession or otherwise crappy economy).
There is, however, a decent chance (again, depending on how bad the economy is this september/october when you start) that you could be put involuntarilly into another practice area (lit, bankruptcy, etc.) that is busier. This can and does happen.
K&E corporate to (layoff) 190!
1:27, you will be fine. The ones screwed are present 1L's. If the layoffs and slowdown come, the summer's OCI season will be dismal.
Seriously, the hysteria on this blog is completely out of control.
The Market is down 10% in the last month. Do you need a law blog to tell you you're not getting a raise this year?
1:27 -- 1:50 is right. 1Ls are screwed, and 2nd and 3rd year associates who aren't performing.
1:53 -- you are right. Completely out of control. This blog has just gotten silly.
There may very well be many factors pointing to a downturn. However, if this prediction is based solely on the portion that bonus* represents of total compensation, that is a very simplistic analysis. Not only does correlation not imply causation, but the market for law firm compensation is affected by a lot of other factors.
* The article says "perks" a few times but it sounds like the author is talking about cash bonuses. If so, that is stupid. I don't know anyone who considers a cash bonus a "perk." It is, and should be evaluated as part of, cash compensation. A perk is a gym in the building, and only a real douchebag would make a career decision based significantly on that factor. $100k at the end of the year represents an important part of compensation.
Echoing 1:27--
LAT, how does this affect law school students and their prospects of keeping their jobs? Is there going to be a lower number of full-time offers for summers (especially given that some firms have much larger summer classes than usual)?
Do 3Ls need to worry, since they may be starting in the middle of a recession?
The analysis of economic conditions is pretty simplistic here. Even if a recession is likely, it's probably not going to last long. For example, Goldman's report predicted that we will have a recession, but that it will only last three quarters and won't be that bad.
2:12,
The only thing simplistic about the economic dicussion on here is your blind belief that Goldman is right.
"As law firms wrapped up operations for 2007, the associate compensation picture looked eerily similar to the boom before the bust seven years ago.
The ratio of bonuses to base salaries for first-year associates at the nation's top law firms in 2007 was on par with the figures in 2000, a year that precipitated a dramatic plunge in those annual perks that help to make the punishing associate hours more tolerable."
This is like saying "The weather in the Financial District of New York this morning is eerily similar to the weather in New York on the morning of September 11, 2001. Just like today, it was a brisk 55 degrees, a cold day for early September. The dramatic and tragic events that followed precipitated significant changes in our country."
(I made up those numbers, of course.)
Also, "a year that precipitated a dramatic plunge in those annual perks that help to make the punishing associate hours more tolerable"? We call that "compensation." It shouldn't surprise anyone if fewer or no firms given out special bonuses at the same levels this year, but that's because the economy is in poor shape, not because the ratio of bonus to total comp has gotten too high. The reason that it's gotten so high is that firms want to separate themselves from the also-rans without locking themselves in to paying first years that kind of money.
A better analysis would look at the bonuses to total comp for senior associates, anyway.
NEWS ABOUT NOTHING--THANKS FOR WASTING MY .2 Billable Hour
Lat:
Should I fake my orgasms?
Q: So, ATL readers: How does that conversion rate of hours worked to hours billed sound to you? High, or low, or somewhere in between?
A: I find 80% efficiency (work 50 hours, bill 40 hrs) more than attainable and actually a bit low. In heavy litigation, I can manage a 90% bill to work ratio. I normally take 1 hr a day for lunch, surfing the web, etc. I also try to work (bring cases to read) during -- ahem -- exended B room breaks, and try to keep the extraneous interruptions down. If I spent 30 mins talking to that hot assoc that stopped by my office to get "advice" on that motion for summary judgment, I'll just surf the web less that day and eat at my desk while I work (which is what I do most days anyways). In by 9:30 or so and out by 7:30 equals about 9 hrs billed, leave at 6:30 = 8 hrs billed. Piece of cake.
"I also try to work (bring cases to read) during -- ahem -- exended B room breaks"
WTF? No reading on the crapper! C'mon!
2:31 - if you're talking to the "hot assoc" about a motion, that's billable time...whether or not you actually wanted/need the advice.
I totally bill time I spend reading on the crapper.
I think the "extended B room breaks" refer to masturbation breaks. I bring cases to read during those too! It's gotten to the point where I can't cum unless I'm reviewing documents.
2:39: Sure, if we actually talked about work. I would not bill for it if we were discussing where to go for dinner and which bar to hit afterwards (which is what I meant ... an example of friendly office chatter).
2:35: What's wrong with you? Why waste those 10 mins (or however long it takes you) when you can bill for it? Effective billing requires this sort of thinking... billing (if actually working) while on train? check. billing while eating lunch at my desk? check. billing when on the crapper? check
During the last M&A slowdown, circa 2001, firms still managed to basically double their PPP over a 3 year period.
These firms are well oiled machines that print money in good times and bad. Partners will use the economy as an excuse to cut bonuses perhaps, and use the surplus scouring the real estate listings to buy Manhattan properties off of C list bankers in the mortgage backed business.
F them all, right in their smelly two spots.
I'm with 2:31. An 1850 year is little more than a 9 to 5 job. That said, if you're going to set up tiers, you really ought to separate it by more than 150 hours. That's half and hour a day. I'm shocked that 6 out of 9 people took a huge pay cut for that. But set up the tiers as 2100 and 1600 and I'll gladly take "tier 2" and leave at 4 every day.
Does this make current 2L's less likely to get an offer at the end of the this summer?
3:06 -- Yup.
I agree, 3:05. I don't know why so many people bitch and moan about making 2000 hrs. I must be missing something, becuase it really is not hard at all (just bill 9 hrs a day = working 10!) without weekends (although we know those happen here and there, more if at trial) and you are comfortably over 2000 for the year without nary a sacrifice. Fly to take some deps or argue motions, rack up those 17 hr billed days and then your average for the rest of the year decreases. Now, those who bill 2500+ a year are in a completely different ballgame (that's about 12 hrs billed a day during the workweek on average, with no vacation). Getting home at 11 PM EVERY DAY on average would be ehausting. I can do that for a month or so (billing about 260-270 that month) and then I'll take a week "off" afterwards of leaving at 5pm to recover.
Working 10 hours a day (or even 12) is really not bad at all. We are getting paid very well, so don't be so lazy people!
Parental leave to 18 weeks!
Assuming all you have to do is billable time and you have enough work to keep you busy, you can bill 9/10...however, if you have to do client development writing/research/speaking/shmoozing and CLE and firm committees and practice group meetings and whatever other crap each day and that time is NOT counted toward billables, then you're easily only billing 80% of the time you "give" to the firm.
"For 2007, beginning associates made as much as $45,000 in bonuses in addition to the $160,000 in base pay at top firms in New York and on the West Coast, with some shops doling out "special bonuses" and getting bragging rights ahead of competitors."
The National Law Journal certainly hasn't been doing its fact checking (or at least not on ATL). There are plenty of firms that hosed associates anywhere from a little (OMM) to a lot (MWE, Jones Day) this year.......and plenty of 3rd-6th+ years did not recieve anywhere near a $45,000 bonus.
I agree with 3:05 and 3:21 but only in so far as you've got a very steady stream of work. It's the down/waiting time that messes with those calculations. So in litigation a big steady case can be preferable to a number of smaller, unpredictable ones. And a slow month or two can really kill the rest of the year.
I don't know if billing steadily is possible in transactional work. That work seems completely boom or bust, with lots of wasted hours spent at the office.
3:47, ask yourself: what is the meaning of "as much as"?
Billing, schmilling. Suppose I have to draft a brief, and I work on it all day. Well, quite honestly, I'm not reading and writing the entire time. Sometimes I'm staring at the wall or surfing the web to let my mind wander a bit and think about whatever argument I'm making. You bet your sweet ass that I bill 12 hours for that day. Tack on a few 0.1 phone calls, emails, etc., and I've got a 13+ hour day. I guess these donkeys who can't get their hours stop billing every time they sneeze.
4:07 -- dead on. If I spend all day, let's say from 9:00am until 10pm researching for and drafting a brief, I'll subtract the time I spent at lunch that day, and any other significant block of time wasted, and that's what I bill. These people who write sh*t down every 6 minutes are ridiculous. I get that if you're on 5 different matters in one day, but let's face it, at the bigger firms, most of us are on 1 primary case with some filler matters on the side. It isn't that flippin' hard to figure out how much to bill for each day. I love those who are like, "Okay, I have to stop the clock to stand up and stretch out my legs or rest my eyes for 30 seconds." Are you f**king kidding me? If I'm in my office working for 13 hours, but take a lunch for 1, I'll say I billed 11.5 (knock out 0.5 for Internet surfing, or more if I totally slack off that day) ... but that's it.
I'm with 4:07.
Obviously this conversation about what to bill and what not to bill could go on forever, so I'll try to keep it going on forever. I'm a 3L, getting ready to start in big law next fall. I'm wondering how particular you guys are with your billing. Do you actually look at your watch to see start and end time and record it? Or do you estimate (some might say "fudge") as fair as you can? I know I estimated as a summer but I knew that my hours weren't being passed onto the clients.
Also, as a litigator in particular, do you bill with all your background research? Obviously a partner might know something right away that you'd spend 2 hours researching---do you bill that? Do you bill for time spent merely getting to know the client's case?
4:34, I believe your post has been answered in full by the posts preceding it. In any case, the answer to all of the specific questions in your second paragraph is "of course."
4:34--and if it should have taken you 2 hours of research but for some reason you know the answer right away because of prior work you have done bill the 2 hrs--makes up for some of the time you may be forced to eat.
I don't even know what "background research" means. It's all research, and it all gets billed. And you are definitely a law student (no offense meant; we were all there one time). I have never met a partner who might "know something right way" that I would have to research. Litigation partners usually have some vague idea of some case they read 10 years ago that is "right on point", and then they want you to find it for them and draft their crappy argument. Ahhhh, good times.
How many hours per day do you try to bill when you're not really busy (and don't have a minimum)?
4:07 speaks the truth.
But, I'm drunk as write this.
Most firms have some kind of software that you can use to track your hours by clicking on the name of the matter you are currently working on, if you want to be accurate and don't want to keep watching the clock and making notes.
Also, yeah, you should bill everything, and the partner will reduce the bill before the client sees it if the partner thinks it's necessary.
CAN ANYONE CONFIRM RUMOR THAT QUINN IS PAYING HUGE RETENTION BONUSES THAT VEST AFTER 18 MONTHS?
when was the last time Skadden raised 1st?
seriously. that place is a toilet.
off the top of my head, as i was typing this, i searched Skadden's lawyer list for "Wayne State" and came up with names. I came up with names!!!!
seriously. you douche-bags at Skadden need to raise.
But, i'm drunk as i write this.
The big firms are going to need to raise simply because if they don't they'll miss their recruiting targets. Unless they slow to the point that they actually want to downsize through attrition, it's too hard for them to pull people in when you can get McSalary at any other firm.
4:30, that is exactly my approach.
For those of you asking for a recomended approach at tracking your billable time there are many ways, including: 1) have your billing program opened and enter crap as you do it (I hate! this, and assumes you enter your own time; most firms secretaries enter time); 2) have a small pad of paper and write down the time, case/matter and a short hand description of what you are doing. Then at the end of the day either dictate a full description for your secretary to enter or type it yourself. You can also keep such pad for 1 week (like I do) and then entere all the time for one week at once. This makes it easier for the pre-bills to look more organized and make better sense for the client.
If I spent 12 hrs at wotk, I'll almost always take out 1 hrs for BS time (lunch) and maybe, depending of how much I chatted with hot associates, another .5 and bill the rest. Also, most young litigators at biglaw do doc review all day, and that is the easiest crap to bill: come in at 9:30 and leave at 7:30 - 1 hr lunch, = 9 hrs billed no question.
I did not bill the .1 for this post.
Exclamation points in briefs-- ok?
It's sad to hear people talking about padding their hours as if it's ok (e.g., "9 hours billed no question"). Not subtracting time for the hours spent staring at the wall is stealing. Sure, people steal through fluffed billing all the time, but at least recognize that your actions damage your character.
So, where do you draw the line? If your mind drifts for a few seconds, do you stop your timer? If you take 1 minute to walk to the coffee area and back, do you note that and subtract it from your time? If you get a personal call that lasts for 2.5 minutes, do you keep track of that too?
For most of those things you would waste more time writing it down and explaining to your secretary to subtract it from your time than it actually took in the first place. Wouldn't it make sense that if you bill in 6 minute increments and a distraction takes you less than 6 minutes, then you wouldn't need to subtract it from your time.
I know some people that keep their time by hand and others that use the timers on the billing software. The ones that bill by hand seem to have an easier time making hours because they just keep track of everything in large blocks, whereas the timers in the billing software let you keep track of every second with a simple click of the mouse.
7:25, you are a dumb ass. My post assumes that the person billed 9 hours "no question" if he/she ACTUALLY spent the whole day reviewing documents, except for lunch. No way this constitutes "fluff" billing of "padding." One bills what one works, nothing more and nothing less.
Look at my prior posts. You'll see where I clearly note that time not worked on a file is not billed (eg, "chatting" with hotties, websurfing, lunch, etc.). As noted by another poster, if you get a 1 min personal call, you don't have to account for that. A 25 min. call, however, is different (one would substract a .4) At least learn how to read before you go around accusing people of what amounts to fraud.
I'm not advocating an absurd adherence to the clock. Obviously, I don't calculate time spent going to the bathroom or the kitchen. I think the 6-minute rule is a good one.
My complaint was more towards 4:07, 5:53, and those who obviously don't subtract as much time as they should, and don't subtract time at all when no one would catch them (i.e., doc review).
I don't write my time down, I see how long I'm in the office and then approximate how much time I think I spent working. I just wouldn't want to spend much time with a person whose approximations always seem to end up in his/her favor.
3:21, I accuse you of fraud!! (also of being an ass hole)
Please save it, 7:25. "Staring at the wall" every so often during a 12-hour period of brief-writing is part of the writing process for most of us. If you turned the clock off every time your fingers stopped moving on the keyboard you'd have a hard time cracking 500 hours a year. Do you subtract time you spent writing any words/phrases/sentences that you later deleted? Also, the holier-than-thou preaching? Please save it. You're going to have a very hard time making me sympathize with the rich corporate clients I serve (who, ironically, often require my services because they have committed fraud).
7:25, you just exposed yourself as nothing more than a resentful prick. You admit that you don't write your time down, and approximate it instead. Your gripe is simply that others are less accurate than you (you think -- maybe you're under-billing; no way to check since you don't actually keep track). That's not a basis for you to launch into a moral argument. It would be one thing if you used the software religiously, but for you to praise the "six minute rule" while blithely going about your day without looking at a clock or keeping track of your time is completely absurd. How many "six minute" increments, total, did you spend not billing yesterday? You can't even pretend to have an "accurate" response.
7:25, even if your approximations end up in the client's favor more often than not, are you saying that it's ok to make your firm eat time that you actually billed because your "billing system" is to guess at the end of the day how long you spent working on things? Sounds like stealing from the firm instead of the client, but maybe you feel that your firm gets enough out of you as it is.
Note that this is not an argument in favor of keeping poor time records and/or padding bills. But, I agree with 8:09 that it seems odd that you think that your system is superior to padding one's time flat out. Sounds more like willful ignorance of how long you spent on ATL and doing other activities to me.
8:02, you apparantly either can't read and bill at the same time or you spend dozens of minutes at a time staring at the wall. Small breaks of less than 6 minutes are de minimus. Also, your last sentence betrays your true feelings. "[I can overbill because my clients are rich frauds.]"
8:09, I never said I didn't look at the clock or keep track of my time, I said I don't write it down. Because I don't write it down, any final calculation is necessarily an approximation. And you are necessarily a turd.
9:22, interesting point re your first paragraph. Is underbilling "stealing?" I don't think so. To me, my firm pays me a salary in exchange for hitting a minimum number of hours. I will always give them at least that many hours. But what I do during my "free" time is my business, even if it's an activity that would otherwise make the firm money were it billed. That's how I justify potentially underbilling. If you think my reasoning is flawed, I'd love to hear why.
NYC Bonus List of Shame
2008 Vault Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Latham & Watkins LLP
9
10
*11 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Punted)
12
13
14
15 Wilmer Cutler
16 Williams & Connolly LLP
17
18 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
19 O'Melveny & Myers LLP
20
21 Arnold & Porter LLP
22 Jones Day
23 Morrison & Foerster LLP
24
25
*26 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (Punted)
27 Hogan & Hartson LLP
28 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
29
30 Ropes & Gray LLP
31 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
32
33 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
34 Winston & Strawn LLP
35
36 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
37 Linklaters
38 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
39
40
41 King and Spalding
*42 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Punted)
43
44 Baker & McKenzie
45 Baker Botts LLP
46 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
47 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
48 Dechert LLP
49 Irell & Manella LLP
*50 McDermott, Will & Emery (Punted)
51 Jenner & Block LLP
52
53
54 DLA Piper
55
56 Fish & Richardson P.C.
57 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
58 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
59 Goodwin Procter LLP
60 Cooley Godward LLP
61 Alston & Bird
62 Heller Ehrman
63 Vinson & Elkins
64 Bingham McCutchen
65 Sonnenschein Nath
66 Greenberg Traurig
67
68 Holland & Knight
69 Steptoe & Johnson
70 Foley & Lardner
71 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
72 Chadbourne & Parke
73 Hunton & Williams
74 Nixon Peabody
75 Thacher Proffitt
76 Bryan Cave
77
78 Perkins Coie
79 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
80 Patton Boggs
81 Howrey
82 Reed Smith
83 Crowell & Moring
84 McGuireWoods
85
86 Arent Fox
87 Katten Muchin Rosenman
88 Finnegan, Henderson
89
90 Thelen Reid & Priest
91 Baker & Hostetler
92
93 Venable
94 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
95 Kelley Drye & Warren
96 Dickstein Shapiro
97 Fenwick & West
98 Kilpatrick Stockton
99
100 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Updated to remove Ropes
NYC Bonus List of Shame
2008 Vault Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Latham & Watkins LLP
9
10
*11 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Punted)
12
13
14
15 Wilmer Cutler
16 Williams & Connolly LLP
17
18 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
19 O'Melveny & Myers LLP
20
21 Arnold & Porter LLP
22 Jones Day
23 Morrison & Foerster LLP
24
25
*26 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (Punted)
27 Hogan & Hartson LLP
28 Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
29
30
31 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
32
33 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
34 Winston & Strawn LLP
35
36 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
37 Linklaters
38 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
39
40
41 King and Spalding
*42 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Punted)
43
44 Baker & McKenzie
45 Baker Botts LLP
46 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
47 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
48 Dechert LLP
49 Irell & Manella LLP
*50 McDermott, Will & Emery (Punted)
51 Jenner & Block LLP
52
53
54 DLA Piper
55
56 Fish & Richardson P.C.
57 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
58 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
59 Goodwin Procter LLP
60 Cooley Godward LLP
61 Alston & Bird
62 Heller Ehrman
63 Vinson & Elkins
64 Bingham McCutchen
65 Sonnenschein Nath
66 Greenberg Traurig
67
68 Holland & Knight
69 Steptoe & Johnson
70 Foley & Lardner
71 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
72 Chadbourne & Parke
73 Hunton & Williams
74 Nixon Peabody
75 Thacher Proffitt
76 Bryan Cave
77
78 Perkins Coie
79 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
80 Patton Boggs
81 Howrey
82 Reed Smith
83 Crowell & Moring
84 McGuireWoods
85
86 Arent Fox
87 Katten Muchin Rosenman
88 Finnegan, Henderson
89
90 Thelen Reid & Priest
91 Baker & Hostetler
92
93 Venable
94 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
95 Kelley Drye & Warren
96 Dickstein Shapiro
97 Fenwick & West
98 Kilpatrick Stockton
99
100 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
A couple firms should no longer be on that list (Mayer Brown, Linklaters, etc.)
NYC Bonus List of Shame
2008 Vault Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Latham & Watkins LLP
9
10
*11 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Punted)
12
13
14
15 Wilmer Cutler
16 Williams & Connolly LLP
17
18 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
19 O'Melveny & Myers LLP
20
21 Arnold & Porter LLP
22 Jones Day
23 Morrison & Foerster LLP
24
25
*26 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (Punted)
27 Hogan & Hartson LLP
28
29
30
31 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
32
33 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
34 Winston & Strawn LLP
35
36 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
37
38 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
39
40
41 King and Spalding
*42 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Punted)
43
44 Baker & McKenzie
45 Baker Botts LLP
46 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
47 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
48 Dechert LLP
49 Irell & Manella LLP
*50 McDermott, Will & Emery (Punted)
51 Jenner & Block LLP
52
53
54 DLA Piper
55
56 Fish & Richardson P.C.
57 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
58 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
59 Goodwin Procter LLP
60 Cooley Godward LLP
61 Alston & Bird
62 Heller Ehrman
63 Vinson & Elkins
64 Bingham McCutchen
65 Sonnenschein Nath
66 Greenberg Traurig
67
68 Holland & Knight
69 Steptoe & Johnson
70 Foley & Lardner
71 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
72 Chadbourne & Parke
73 Hunton & Williams
74 Nixon Peabody
75 Thacher Proffitt
76 Bryan Cave
77
78 Perkins Coie
79 Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
80 Patton Boggs
81 Howrey
82 Reed Smith
83 Crowell & Moring
84 McGuireWoods
85
86 Arent Fox
87 Katten Muchin Rosenman
88 Finnegan, Henderson
89
90 Thelen Reid & Priest
91 Baker & Hostetler
92
93 Venable
94 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
95 Kelley Drye & Warren
96 Dickstein Shapiro
97 Fenwick & West
98 Kilpatrick Stockton
99
100 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
What if the global economy stagnates -- or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India -- these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world than Germany and Japan did in the 30's.
7:25, your reasoning is quite flawed, actually. The problem is the premise that you're "free" to donate legal work to the firm's clients on matters for which the firm has been engaged. This is basic Coase Theorem stuff -- you took torts, right? The work you are donating to the client (which you'd have no opportunity to do had the partners at your firm not scored an engagement) is work for which the firm would otherwise collect fees. Your salary may be the same, but you are essentially stealing money from your partners and handing it to your clients. (By overbilling, you'd be doing the opposite.)
To make the point a bit sharper for you, imagine that, rather than simply donating legal work to your client during your "free time," you charged the client (at a rate significantly lower than what your firm charges). The principle is exactly the same: the parters are impoverished by exactly the same amount whether you profit from it or not. But I can't imagine you'd assert that the hypothetical situation was acceptable. Right?
DOES THIS MEAN THAT CURRENT 2L'S ARE UNLIKELY TO RECEIVE FULL TIME OFFERS AT THE END OF THE SUMMER?
I'M SO AFRAID.
You law students that actually find jobs while you are in law school are wusses. If you weren't such a wuss you would finish law school, take the bar, and then go out and find a job. That takes balls that clank. In fact, you all should have been working full time during law school as well. You lazy bastards.
fuck
10:42 is right, 7:25. You are not only defrauding your firm--you are also interfering with its economic relations. To the extent liability is a proxy for moral turpitude, you'd be morally superior if you were overbilling. And I think you're eligible for double moral disapprobation considering your holier-than-thou stance in these posts.
Please promptly admit that you're a douche.
10:42 & 11:22 - Nope. The firm is my retailer and I'm the wholesaler. Although the firm is the exclusive SELLER of my goods, I am perfectly free to give samples out for FREE. 10:42's patronizing "sharper point" is not on point at all. By collecting money myself, the firm would no longer be the exclusive seller.
(btw you are both turds)
Also, 11:22, liability is a horrible proxy for moral turpitude. It's both overinclusive (e.g., prostitution, drugs, stealing to feed your family) and underinclusive (e.g., cheating on a boy/girlfriend, not saving someone who is drowning when you easily could).
7:25 was the kid at recess who always wanted to be the "ref"
Go play in traffic chief.
I would think 2Ls would still receive offers since the economy is expected to pick back up in 2009 when they are graduating...I would think 3Ls and current underperforming junior associates should be more worried. Only time will tell though.
Just curious- why does everyone keep saying underperforming junior associates should be worried? Don't mid-levels cost more to the firm, especially if they aren't kept busy? My firm is lacking in juniors and has more mids than it knows what to do with. If you get rid of the juniors, who does all of the research damn memos? Clients won't pay for a mid to do that...
i mean damn research memos
MoFo matched in NY, so technically should be taken off the "NYC Bonus" list of shame. However, it should be on any CA list of shame twice based on the fact that MoFo CA associates are getting reamed. The disparity between MoFo NY compensation and MoFo CA compensation is ridiculous.
Agreed. MoFo's bonuses in CA are nowhere near those of the other large CA based firms. Unless they change it, associates who bill under 2100 get zero bonus.
Major layoff's at CWT today
7:25, this is the last point I'll make: you are an idiot.
My "sharper point" is directly on-point. You are interfering with your firm's business by undercutting its contracted sale of services to clients. You are taking advantage of your insider status to do so. It doesn't matter whether you're charging $0/hour, $100/hour, or just pennies less than your firm would charge. If you weren't cutting in on your firm's work for its client, *some other associate* at your firm could do that work pursuant to the firm's contract with the client. Your retailer/wholesaler analogy is asinine. Your "free samples" are all engagement-specific and derive from your firm's confidential attorney work product.
I can't believe any associate is so insistent on arguing for the virtues of underbilling time.
7:25, this is the last point I'll make: you are an idiot.
My "sharper point" is directly on-point. You are interfering with your firm's business by undercutting its contracted sale of services to clients. You are taking advantage of your insider status to do so. It doesn't matter whether you're charging $0/hour, $100/hour, or just pennies less than your firm would charge. If you weren't cutting in on your firm's work for its client, *some other associate* at your firm could do that work pursuant to the firm's contract with the client. Your retailer/wholesaler analogy is asinine. Your "free samples" are all engagement-specific and derive from your firm's confidential attorney work product.
I can't believe any associate is so insistent on arguing for the virtues of underbilling time.