First
by First Again

First to say Sidley sucks.

Sidley Austin Sucks Cack

If they wanted to improve morale, they could have counted the meetings toward billables. No wonder the mood is sour.

Can someone identify what is "market level" in Los Angeles - and how exactly Sidley falls short?

two girls one cup always boosts my morale.

They should hire Kash to come to the office; she's sure to result in a rise in morale.

"They should hire Kash to come to the office; she's sure to result in a rise in morale"

Well, a rise in something anyway.

Sidley is definitely below market. I think their complicated bonus memo was posted on ATL previously.

"Market" in LA SHOULD be NY base plus supplemental; a number of firms paid that or more. But these firms were in the minority.

The majority, such as Latham, (I think) Gibson, and O'Melveny, paid NY base.

Only a fraction of associates at Sidley had combined merit and hours to meet the NY BASE level of bonus. Most associates received bonuses below the NY base numbers.

Here we go again. 3:45 and 3:55 - have either of you ever even seen an attractive woman? They don't look like Kash.

Can someone link to any previous discussions of non-NY Sidley bonuses, especially one where the levels of bonuses are described?

I heard that Chicago associates are also very pissed.

These kids make over $160K and their morale is low? Try feeding a family on $50K a year. Damn whiners.

"Market level" depends on class level. LA bonuses, unlike NY bonuses, tend to have a significant discretionary component. OMM does not pay market bonuses (the firm has hit a rough patch lately). Latham, GDC, PH, Kirkland, etc. do. Latham is a bit ahead of the others on the high end. Quinn says it is paying "above" market, although part of the amount is deferred and there is a 2100 hours requirement for receiving it, which makes it more like the discretionary bonus increases you can get at firms that purport to pay "market". (As always with Quinn, its more smoke and mirrors marketting, than substance.) Generally, LA is paying less than NY firms. LA branches of NY firms (Skadden) will pay the most on a non-discretionary basis. First year bonuses "market" ranges were ~35-70K, as I recall, with most clustered below 50K.

4:11, I suspect you have no appreciation for how hard these "kids" have worked and are working. To say nothing of their other valuable assets such as intelligence and creativity.

Sidley is the GULC of law schools. You go there only if you don't get a better acceptance.

Have you ever seen Sidley Austin associates use Internet?

They totally enjoy it.

So the answer to not spending money to give better bonuses is spending money on a non-billable retreat...?

4:18(1)--that statement is true no matter where one goes to law school. One goes to the best school that admits you!!

It is so lame that lawyers are discontent simply because their firm pays a little bit less than "market" or less than "NYC rate". If you are not in NYC, you should not expect to get paid NYC rate, why? Because as the name suggest, NYC rate is meant for people working in NYC.

I would feel a lot more sympathetic if the Sidley lawyers are unhappy due to other things, such as abusing partners, serious lack of investment from the firm or lack of upward mobility. Let's not get too greedy here.

booyah

-4:28

Interesting point about justification of different bonuses based on location, I don't think people here focus on that enough.

OMM does NOT pay market, 4:02. The OMM LA class of 2006 got a $27,500 bonus this year. Bingham McCutchen LA, which doesn't even claim to be in the "Big 3," gave the class of 2006 a $35,000 bonus.

4:28, the Sidley associates aren't being greedy. If they can get paid more for doing the same work at another firm in the city, it's only rational to switch firms.

I agree with 4:28 - why do people not living in NYC expect to make the same money? If you want NYC bonuses go live in NYC.

anyone who's worked in a big law firm for more than two years knows you never leave to make 10k or 20k or even 25k more somewhere else. you leave because your hours suck and you think theyll be better elsewhere or because your working for a jerk partner

sure associate are greedy, but ATL overstates how greedy... if someone likes working at sidley, i.e. he works for a decent partner, his hours dont concern him, and he doesnt do doc review all day, then i assume he'd stay even if he can make more elsewhere

4:44, I'd leave for a guaranteed 25K more - if you wouldn't, you are an idiot.

4:17 - ROFL

4:28 and 4:31: This topic has been beaten to death on this site. Please, dear god, don't resurrect it. If we don't stop talking about it now, every from Atlanta to St. Louis will start complaining about the injustice of it all.

anyone have any info associate satisfaction at sidley dc?

4:48 PM:

You're an idiot. An extra 25k after taxes is maybe 14k. You will take 14k extra to leave a job that you like, has reasonable hours, and not too demanding partners in order to go to a place where you risk working more, for a-holes, and doing more mundane work? You're f-king stupid. Changing jobs is a big deal.

I agree with 4:44 -- if you're doing well, don't leave. It takes a while to integrate into a new firm, so there's no way your hours will be as high as a lateral, at least not for a couple years. Therefore, you won't actually end up making more money.

And before everyone jumps all over me, sure a transfer from SAB to Cravath would be the right move for many people, but that's entirely different from a more lateral move to a roughly equivalent firm paying a slightly higher bonus. Firms rise and fall. Choose a generally solid firm and stick with it.

5:00, Your mom is f-king stupid. Maybe changing jobs is a big deal when you went to Loyola. Here's to you, Mr. Lifestyle Firm Guy - when buying a pre-owned certified BMW is 'ok' because I get to see my kid's crappy Christmas play.

4:48 is a bloody idiot. No one in his right mind should to to another firm simply because that new firms pays 25k more. Remember the principle of diminished return: once your salary reaches certain threshold, any additional money is worth a lot less. 25K on top of what associates already make is not a big deal and I would definitely stick with a solid firm that pays less if I am more comfortable there.

As for a move from Sidley to Cravath, well, it can be a good move, but I would not do it for prestige alone.

Sidley NY. we get paid very well and its not as bad as the other big shops in terms of hours and assholes and expectations.

sucks to be in LA i guess

All I know is that Sidley was good enough for the Obamas and the Weathermen terrorist couple. Maybe associates could score bigger bonuses by putting out some liberal scholarship, or bombing the Pentagon.

4:03, Kash is hot per se. You can't argue with it. She just is.

4:18 -- your post makes no sense. "Sidley is the GULC of law schools. You go there only if you don't get a better acceptance."

You idiot -- do you mean the "GULC of law firms"? Don't hate on GULC because you weren't smart enough to get in.

(Oh and your mother's a whore).

5:12 - Never use words like 'bloody' again unless you are talking about a failed abortion. You Brits are lucky we let you keep your shitty little island after kicking you out of America.

5:25, attractiveness is always subject to a balancing test / rule of reason. One man's trash...

-Dr. Miles

4:17 - What about people who work two dirty AND dull jobs for 60 hours a week at minimum wage or a little above it?

You work maybe 50% more than full-time workers. You are paid four times as much as first years between NY scale and bonus, and you get plush benefits. For those who stay in it, pay escalates from there. I'm pretty sure if you told a factory worker or white collar paper shuffler that if they worked twenty more hours a week their pay would quadruple, they would take it every time.

This is all utter nonsense.

I'd guess that at least 90% of the regular readers/posters here would have given their left arm to land a job at Sidley, at any office (let alone DC or Chi). Certainly 90%+ at GULC would (that's right folks, very few outside the top 10% at GULC or its peer schools land at firms that are superior to Sidley). Having graduated from GULC (top 20%) a few years ago, I can attest to this fact ; I'm kicking myself for not trying to lateral there at this time last year (ah...the salad days of deal work).

As for the complaining LA associates, I'd imagine you knew about the firm's bonuses (just as you knew about the positive points of that particular firm, which, assuming you had other options, which many of you no doubt did, is why you made your choice). If you're truly justified in complaining (because of your hours, skills/reviews, and demand in your practice area), then you should be able to lateral - regardless of the economy/legal market. If not, then...

5:49 - Nice comparison to low wage-earners with little to no education or alternative job opportunities. Very meaningful point you have there. Maybe you should advise your firm not to match the next raise (whenever that is) and see what happens. I'm sure all the associates will stick around because they're doing better than factory workers.

5:55 - well said. And don't kick yourself too hard about not lateraling to Sidley. I'm there now and I might trade my left arm NOT to be here.

I heard the associates at Sidley Austin really excel at Internet.

I dunno 5:55. As a second year at GULC I had call-backs from DPW, S&C, K&E, GD&C, Skadden, and many others. I was slightly higher than top 20%, but I think top 20% at GULC is pretty damned good place to be.

Morale is low because management is not forthright about the identity of the firm or its committment to associates. Let there be no mistake, 2008 bonuses at Sidley were anywhere from 30% to 60% less than competitors in Los Angeles. Because of the intentional lack of transparency with compensation, there is no bonus schedule for the LA office. That being said, based upon conversations with Associates across all levels, standard bonuses, i.e., bonuses at 2000 hours, were between $20,000 and $30,000 depending on your class year. OMM got slammed because of its "below-market' bonuses. Sidley is significantly below OMM. Management always talks about Latham, Gibson and OMM as our competition. If this is the case, and Sidley aims to compete with these firms in terms of recruits, business and prestige, it needs to step up to the plate. The truth is, Sidley bonuses (at 2100 hours) were below those provided by Sheppard Mullin. Sidley never talks about Sheppard as its competition, but insofar as bonuses are concerned, Sheppared kicked our arses!

Commentators have questioned why individuals earning so much care about an extra $25,000+. Quite simply, because we put up with a lot of shiz-nit. Its OK, we expect it. It comes with the territory. That being said, to the extent that you will find shiz-nit wherever you go as an attorney working at a large law firm, its only logical to want to be at a firm which allows you to purchase a home faster, pay off your student loan debt earlier, or otherwise provide you with the ability to indulge when you are not working your arse off (Sidley is not a lifestyle firm - don't believe the hype).

Finally, associates in Los Angeles question:

Is Sidley one global firm, or a collection of regional fiefdoms?

Is Sidley committed to being and treating its associates as the best of the best, or does this principle only apply to particular offices (NY)?

Are management's assertions that, on average, associates in other Los Angeles firms work 300 hours more a year (and thus are better compensated) accurate or mere puffery?

And will anything come out of these mini-retreats other than management feeling good about itself for reaching out and providing associates the opportunity to vent (a little).

If Mangement wants to really 'do' something about morale, it should institute a supplemental bonus immediately OR be very clear with its associates and the legal market generally, that Sidley is not trying to be at the top of the legal market (in terms of recruits, business, prestige), and to the extent this is what an associate or law student is looking for, Sidley is the wrong firm for you.

If the Los Angeles office of Sidley owns up to its identity, people will know what to expect. Morale will inevitably improve.

"Is Sidley one global firm, or a collection of regional fiefdoms?"

It's a collection of fiefdoms, as are most firms in the world. Only a few firms are otherwise. Boo hoo.

I don't see what the big deal is...$160k/year for a first year associate, plus *any* bonus is still above what 99% of the entire world is making. The fact that someone else in that top 1% is making slightly (or even significantly) more doesn't change that. Anyone suffering from poor morale based solely on their pay really has nothing to complain about. I am a new attorney working for a government agency, and I am basically making 1/3 of the starting salary at Sidley, for about the same number of hours (I primarily do litigation, and deadlines are deadlines regardless of whether you are in the private or public sector). Somehow I survive...

5:49 - Bitching about what is exceedingly high pay by any standard other than hedge fund land for work that is, effectively, just dull (as opposed to dirty and/or dangerous) is weak. What about a first-year associate would warrant pay packages of ~ $200,000 + benefits for a 40 hour week of office work with no on-call?

That is four times what starting *engineers* make, and they are at least capable of some real work. It's also pushing five times what a medical resident makes, and his education cost more than yours did.

You, as a first-year Biglaw associate, probably have four years of mostly useless undergrad degree, three years of law school and perhaps six months of work experience, if you actually did real work during your summers. You don't know anything, and if you do, or if you do have meaningful prior work experience, there are plenty of people in your associate class who don't, but are paid the same as you in lockstep comp.

And you have the gall to complain about working 60 hour weeks, or marathon crunch periods? What, exactly, do you think you are being paid for?

Salary serves two purposes. It is money in your pocket, but it is also a gauge of how much your employer values your services. When a firm pays you less for your work then other firms pay for the same work, it significantly diminishes morale, even if the total amount is still high.

Found this video of the mini-retreat on YouTube. Not too thrilling, but interesting how bored even the presenters look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Here is the junior associates session. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph_lkWUpl9w

I have friends at Sidley-LA and morale there is in the crapper for a variety of reasons. Junior associate bonuses seem reasonable to me (for 2006, $20k at 2000 hours); but unlike many firms, senior associate bonuses were not much higher than junior associates' (bonuses went up at roughly $1,000 per year).

Junior associates' morale is low because there are a number of tyrants in corporate, litigation and IP who are horrible to work for. On top of that, there is a lot of menial work. Litigation has a number of pharma cases that seem to be poorly run and involve inordinate amounts of doc review, much of which is done by associates, although some is done using contract attorneys.

I also hear that Sidley-LA mgmt isn't seriously concerned with its associates' well-being. There have been a series of meetings that inquire into associate morale, but there is no real effort at changing the work environment.

It's hard to tell if Sidley-LA is much worse than any other biglaw firm. It seems to me that there are more nasty/unreasonable partner stories from Sidley-LA than a typical law firm and you make less, so I wouldn't advise going there.

We feel their pain at Covington in D.C. Covington didn't even try to match the DC market (let alone the New York market). Our once-peer firm Wilmer paid bonuses that were about 50% bigger, and firm management at Covington has not said a word. (It turns out, with the release of the AmLaw data this week, per partner profits were up just under 15% nonetheless.)

For many classes, Covington DC might actually rival Sidley LA for lowest bonuses. Many of us are questioning why were are here.

2:18 - You are there because it was ranked higher when you signed up. Stop whining. You are paid with prestige.

We at Jones Day DC feel their pain as well. No bonuses. Zero. 2400 hours? Zero.

And most class levels are paid below market as well. Horrible situation and horrible morale problem for the attorneys that get stuck on projects with heavy work demands. It is a disincentive to do good work, because there is no reward for your contribution to the firm.

Morale at the Chicago office is low as well. The firm was hit badly by the economy and a lot of associates are without anything to do/ unable to meet their hours requirements.

Can anyone else confirm 4:13's comment?

4:13 --
Are you making that up? Are you in the Chicago office?

can anyone verify what 4:13 said?

How about NYC? I would expect the downturn to hit their NYC office a lot harder than Chicago.

Can't comment on 4:13's assessment of morale, but the comment that the firm was "hit badly by the economy" is not true. The firm met its targets for 2007 and has plenty of summer associates this summer. Yes, some transactional groups and the real estate group have been affected by the credit crunch. That is true for real estate groups and transactional groups at many other firms. Most Sidley groups are doing fine. That is the benefit of a diversified firm. I will confess that I am a transactional lawyer and I am not making my hours requirement. But I'm not all that concerned. My advice is enjoy the downtime, the market will come back. And for young lawyers out there, working extra time for a firm is generally not worth the money. Trust me, I've billed tons of hours over the years and I've never been proportionately compensated. E.g., 20% more hours, 10% more money. Live your life! Now back to drafting!

That Sidley LA and Sidley Chicago pay much less in total compensation then the firms they like to consider to be their peers is now fact. It is only a matter of time before this has an impact on recruiting. As an associate in the Chicago office, I could not make a good faith pitch for my firm over other comparable firms that pay more money for the same work and hours.
Nor is this just a one-year's misreading of the market. The gap between Sidley and its peers began to widen at the same time it stopped putting out the bonus chart and removed all transparency from its bonus structure. It has apparently decided to pay less than other firms and take its lumps.

how's gen lit doing in sidley chicago? anyone? anyone? bueller? cameron fry? fry?

11:56 - -

Gah! I just got rick rolled.

Sidley Chicago is fine. Of course some of their practice groups aren't making money like they were a year ago, no one's are, but they have so many that the firm still hit targets. Where do you think that AmLaw revenue comes from?

I'm a third-year at Sidley Chicago. Billables are totally dependent on your group, but overall, I think fewer people will hit 2000 hours this year.

I know associates were upset at the bonuses last year (especially at the mid-to-senior levels, as there was little-to-no increase over first-year associate amounts - 20K - at 2000 hours). I do hope they bump the bonuses up for the midlevels.

12:12 - Honest question. Why would someone choose Sidley over peer firms in Chicago like Kirkland, Skadden, or Latham if they are going to be paid significantly less?

12:30

Sidley is not a "peer" firm with Kirkland, Skadden or Latham, in Chicago or anywhere. Sidley is at best a distant second in Chicago, behind Kirkland.

Things are slow at Sidley. The fact that they have 95 summers coming is not a good thing. Associates joke that they are going to go on the Summer Associate project board to find work for themselves.

2:03 --
Where did you get that 95 figure? I heard that's how many were there last summer, but that there were fewer this summer. Seems like a lot, but maybe they expect to have the work.

That's how many they have coming this summer.

2:34--
Did you hear that from 2:03?

no, from the summer associate meeting a few weeks ago...

Wow @ 95. Kirkland has right around 50.

I'd consider Sidley to be a peer with anyone in Chicago. There's a reason it's Vault 16 and revenues in the top 6 in the world. It's one of the oldest and most prestigious firms coming out of Chicago. Kirkland is a great firm, but I think the ones who choose Sidley over Kirkland do so because there are so many rumors about Kirkland being filled with some A-holes. Again, these are rumors and I'm sure most are not merited. Every firm will work you and every firm has its share of d-bags. But for some reason, Kirkland got that rep. On a side note, is it true that women only accounted for like 20% of Kirkland's summer class last year in Chicago?

Best line on this whole board, whether true or fiction:

"Things are slow at Sidley. The fact that they have 95 summers coming is not a good thing. Associates joke that they are going to go on the Summer Associate project board to find work for themselves."

Any other firms thought of that?

2:48 speaks the truth re: Kirkland v. Sidley. Overall, Kirkland has that rep around Chicago (rightly or wrongly). Personally, I've had mixed experiences with Kirkland lawyers, which is certainly not unique to Kirkland. I haven't worked with Sidley as much, but my experiences were pretty positive. There is also a fundamental difference between the firms' respective strengths. As I see it, Kirkland is better for private equity, restructuring/bankruptcy and litigation. Sidley is better for banking/commercial finance and dirt real estate. I don't know all that much about the general corporate groups.

Sidley had 81 summer associates in Chicago last year. I can't believe they are upping the class size to 95 despite economic downturn. What were they thinking? It would suck to see some summers get no-offered simply because the firm took too many.

Sidley had 55 in NYC last year, and the number is about the same this year.

4:12 ---
Where are YOU getting your numbers?

The NALP directory lists Sidley -Chicago at 86 summer associates this summer, compared to 95 last year. And 7 of the summers this year are 1Ls.

Kirkland has a reputation as A-holes because they like to wear it as a badge of honor for their (excellent) litigation practice. It's a bit of a conscious act.

4:17

The Chicago numbers I got from NALP, the NYC #s I got from a friend of mine who works at Sidley

I heard that the Mayer Brown associates were going to get work off of the summer associates' board but then the summers' offers got rescinded.

Every firm is slow and most firms overhired for the summer because they generally gave out the same number of offers but got more acceptances than their historic trend told them they would. For example, a firm might have had a ratio of 5 offers for 1 acceptance but this year it was 4 to 1. Not sure why this happened because you would think if the number of offers remained unchange, so would acceptances.

So what exactly makes for a great firm? What would a firm have to do to make associates happy?

I thought Kirkland cut their program by about 35?

I think it is a great move by Kirkland to cut their program, and very irresponsible for a firm to take in summers if they do not have the capacity to potentially make offer to all summer associates.

But of course, we do not know anything about Sidley's summer program yet. Maybe despite the economy Sidley can still offer job to them all. If things pick back up quickly after the recession, Sidley might actually be happy that they did not cut the summer program.

I'm in Chicago. In answer to 7:39, Sidley does many nice things for associates. But the firm's world-class aspirations are inconsistent with the below-market compensation we've been seeing for the last couple of years.

Sidley's PPP isn't particularly high either, comparing to some of the firms it purports to compete with. I guess it would cost Sidley partners more pain to keep up with top of the market compensation. Maybe it is time Sidley drop out of the race to the top?

Former LA associate here - I can confirm morale was low in my group even before I left, and that was a while ago. While I'm sure bonuses are a part of the equation, I think the underlying cause is really a fundamental change in the character of the firm. This kind of structural shift will always leave some people out in the cold.

At one time, Sidley LA was a lifestyle firm, a place known for lower hours, lower bonuses, respect and collegiality, and also with a reputation for lawyers who were smart and firm but genuinely nice people with bulletproof integrity.

Those days are no more; I think there are still some left who practice that way, but unfortunately they seemed few and far between in my last days there. Stress cases who bring that to their work and heap it on their underlings are encouraged; partners who are widely known to be disrespectful, backstabbing and otherwise intolerable for associates are welcomed by the partnership; clients who are unpleasant to work for are actively sought and encouraged because those are the ones most willing to pay skyrocketing billing rates, feeding profits which have been growing at an unsustainable pace, while the less demanding clients start to look for cheaper alternatives.

In short, the collegial and professional culture of the firm, which was once a pride and focus, has been allowed to disintegrate in the drive for ever increasing profitability. While I was there I heard partners complain repeatedly about associate comp going up, completely ignoring that PPP had increased much, much faster than associate salaries - they were really complaining that they're not making Cravath partner money, and trying to figure out how to make that happen. Perhaps it can, but they're going to have to give up trying to maintain even the image of personal life or family friendliness, which have been a fiction for quite some time in many groups anyway.

The only way to make this model work is to recruit the best, brightest, and hardest working to bill those big numbers and tolerate the BS at high rates - like other firms at the top of the profits game. If Sidley does not want to pay its associates competitively, the attempt to shift to a more hardcore firm model will fail, because the associates who choose to join, rather than those making a lifestyle choice as in the past, when they got plenty of recruits from the top schools, etc., will be the ones who couldn't get jobs higher up the food chain, and will not be up to the standards of prior years or of other firms. Quality will necessarily suffer, and clients will choose other megafirms if they're going to pay the big rates. If my sources are correct, the recruiting aspects of this are already beginning to play out, and it's likely going to get worse before it gets better.

This is what it all comes down to - management seems to be trying to change the firm over time into a model which is less friendly and more purely profit driven and profitable. The old focus on the "Sidley way" has been lost. That change is of course going to result in unhappy associates who thought they were signing up for one thing but in fact got another. If the partners want to pull off a switch like this successfully, they're going to need to stand up, pay the money for the best associates to take the crap, and let the people who selected the firm for the old regime disappear by attrition over time. It might work, but it'll take a while, and they're going to have to pay. Failing that, I can't imagine morale improving much - they've lost too much clarity of mission.

And in the meantime, if you're looking for that firm which is not only prestigious and filled with the very best people but also a respectful and genuinely nice place to work, think again - that ship has sailed.

To 8:37, If the statements on this site are true that firms like Covington, Sidley, OMM and others pay "below market", associates still work there. People on this board post as though they are talented and have options, yet they have not left. So the proof is on this site that firms DO NOT have to pay market for associates to stay and when associates leave, there are always others willing to take the job. If you make demands that are not backed by action, then who cares? No one. If you elect to leave and you are great, firms DO pay up usually with better bonus at the end of the year and maybe a little something to keep you. If you play this card, you better be sure of your talent because you might be surprised to find out that the firm really doesn't value you like you value yourself and tell you "good luck" as you head out the door.

4:48, This is true at McDermott too. I think it happens because of all the laterals who have no investment in what used to make the place somewhere you want to work and Big Chicago's desire to be Big New York.

Why is it bad for partners to want to maximize PPP? It is no different than associates wanting to maximize their comp.

7:46 - That very well may be true, but I question your suggestion that there are always others willing to take the job. It may very well be true that you will find a warm body for the position, but people with options will look elsewhere if they can. It seems like Sidley would want to recruit the person with options. I agree though that it would take more to get a person to leave a job. I just disagree that you can pay below market and still have success getting the people you want to take the job in the first place.

Sidley is the step-child of the DC legal community. Its like an AU or a GULC of law firms.

firms that pay below market are TTT and anyone with 1/2 a brain will leave said TTT for firms that pay more. none of us are at the big firm for the "stellar work" or quality of life-- be real. we are here only for the money and, so, it makes complete sense to go to the firm that pays the most.

any firm that doesn't pay market will wither away-- like AU law's accredidation.

Sidley is a great place to work as a staff attorney.

The firm treats us well, does not expect us to "beg" for work, pays NYC-market bonuses in DC (which is not much below associate bonuses), hires only from the best area law schools (we have a few GULCers, GW, Catholic, UDC, UVA -- we don't hire from AU), and even matches 5% of our 401k. Sidley outsiders should not knock this firm for being "TTT" -- it isn't -- and should go trolling somewhere else.

8:46. Are you trying to hype up the position of "staff atty" in the same sentence that you are knocking on AU law? If so, you are an idiot and yo mama is a hooker. If not, sorry for the "yo mama" comment.

8:46.
great schools like UDC?

re: "low" bonuses for mid/senior associates: Ever consider that they are signposting that you aren't going to make partner?

Also, 4/5/6 years ago (or so), Sidley paid better bonuses that K&E in Chicago at most hour levels. That K&E paid well the last couple years is no indication of what will happen next year, or esp. in 09 when they move into the new building.

Also, if every non-NYC firm paid full NYC comp in all offices, then the NYC ass.es would whine, bitch and moan until NYC was paid more and you'd never get parity. Unless your office (a) bills at the same rates as the NYC office across (almost) all practice groups and (b) generates similar RPL as NYC across practice groups and (c) has comparable client relationships serviced out of your office and (d) is in a city with enough competitive firms paying NYC comp, forget about pay parity with NYC. Look at Skadden, they pay more in our city, you say? Get a job at Skadden, then, I (and your partners) say.

As a Sidley associate, I assure you that I received an end-of-the-year bonus higher than the highest bonus level offered by Latham to its highest bonused associate my same year. So, the idea that Sidley does not pay market rate is just false. Rather, Sidley has chosen not to pay the "special" bonus outside its New York office, but who says that Sidley's bonuses (which were not published) were otherwise not higher than other firms. I suspect that those on this website commenting are those that did not do much work and did not get a bonus they did not otherwise deserve--which is how it should be.

11:22. You are a bitch.

Sidley associate in DC here, definitely in a slow patch, and in good company. Not a transactional lawyer, and really not being picky about assignments these days. I've been taking on work from other practice areas where possible but 2000 hours is still looking out of reach.

11:40

How is the slow down affecting other firms in DC area? Is Sidley unique?

4:48, current Sidley LA associate here, and culture failure is affecting other firms too, esp.after mergers - witness what's going on at Heller, from today's law.com:

http://tinyurl.com/6h3zqa

The trick is, can it be saved? You point only to the possibility of completing the switch to a "hardcore" model. But mightn't they also attempt to reverse the cultural decline?

I admit that it doesn't seem likely under the circumstances, or like they've done anything at all to date to address the situation, but some of us are still holding out hope that the powers that be realize they really don't want to be indistinguishable from Sullivan or Skadden.

Of course, whatever happens, they can't have the associates so pissed about their bonuses and treatment that they're leaving in droves - I know a surprisingly large number of people already actively interviewing. It's like watching a train wreck - slow and painful.

12:13. if i were your supervising partner, knowing that you are crying on this website rather than billing, i would see to it that you are no-bonused. you are a waste of space.

12:13. if i were your supervising partner, knowing that you are crying on this website rather than billing, i would see to it that you are no-bonused. you are a waste of space.

Not sure whether this really needs to be said or not, but I think it's notewortthy that Sidley, unlike it's MBS peer firms--e.g., Cadwalader, Thacher Proffitt, McKee Nelson--has yet to fire anyone. Apparently, and contrary to what's been suggested on this board, the firm isn't entirely driven by the bottom line.

I think a thread of the discussion here is applicable to a lot of Amlaw 100 firms. Unless there's some intangible aspect (lower hours, more reasonable hours, prospect of counsel/partnership, ability to develop own client base, collegial environment, substantive work, interesting work, etc.) to working at a firm that's paying you less than "peer" firms, then you feel "cheated" (assuming you had the credentials to get into or lateral to one of those higher paying firms). As even the "lifestyle" biglaw firms become all about PPP, it makes you wonder why you would choose to work at a firm/office that doesn't match NYC mid/senior level salaries and give high NYC bonuses (regardless of billables) when given the choice.

If the top-flight associates all go to the highest paying firms (since everything else is equal), then how do the non-market paying firms expect to have the talent to service the high-paying clients they desire?

12:56-they fired me but only about 20% of the firing was due to the economic firing. The other 80% was due to the fact that I wore a cape everyday. Total BS!

Note to self: Do not wear cape on my first day as a summer associate.

Nonsense 11:20 - you speak as though NY has always been paid more, and that is simply untrue. Lest you forget, the salary wars in 2000-01 were begun in CA, not NYC.

Still, your point about bonuses is correct - if you're reading this and you didn't get a full match of at least the non-special bonus, they are as clearly as possible telling you that you aren't making it. Be thankful for the communication and act on it.

11:20 here:

Yes, the 2000 salary wars were begun in CA. How many years did Gunderson (the first mover) pay the same base+bonus as Sullivan/Cravath? What happened to Brobeck? How much did people complain (on the internet at least) that Orrick's hours-based bonus system was not a true match?

Do you, 2:04, recall at all how much the NYC ass.es whined and cried about not being paid a premium over other markets?

I DO NOT agree that NYC offices should, by default, pay associates more than other offices. But many (perhaps most) non-NYC based firms do charge higher rates across the board for their NYC-based attorneys (or for NYC-sourced matters), and this leads to higher RPL and therfore justifies higher salaries.

Also, apropos of little, remember that, prior to last year's raises, Skadden paid their Chicago and Wilmington associates slightly less in a couple of class years. Just an example of NYC associates being paid more for no good reason.

I am pretty sure Sidley cut the size of its summer class for 2008- last year I think they had close to 60, give or take, this year i think that number if 45 (im an incoming summer associate and I am going off the emails theyve been sending...)

at my T5 law school, sidley turned down alot of great people so I am pretty sure they wanted to tighten up their summer class- should i be concerned? ive loved everything about sidley so far but with this economy and these haters on these boards...

Loving the partner comments, keep it coming!

3:21, Sidley's summer classes in Chicago and DC are larger than in years past, so no need to be concerned. The hours per lawyer in DC are slightly up this year from last, if that helps. By the size of your summer class, I suspect you are going to NY, no reason to be concerned there either. Things may be slower in NY than in years past, but there is plenty of work. Besides, you are a summer associate looking at a start date no earlier than Fall '09, the firm looks at the big picture and plans for the future.

Two best comments in this thread (seem to have inside info):

-- Friday, May 2, 2008 6:50 PM

-- Monday, May 5, 2008 4:48 AM

If I were you all, I'd avoid White & Case in Los Angeles. They hate women, they hate minorities, they are partner-heavy and work (especially the lit. department) is extremely slow.

5/5@4:48am: Stress cases who bring that to their work and heap it on their underlings... partners ... widely known to be disrespectful, backstabbing and otherwise intolerable for associates... result in unhappy associates who thought they were signing up for one thing but in fact got another"

SH*T, sounds like my old firm and me! Left as soon as I could

Current mid-level Sidley LA associate here. I can only speak for my own experience at Sidley LA. Sidley LA has bent over backwards to accomodate my schedule which includes a young family. The quality of the work and clients have been absolutely top notch. The work environment varies depending on your group and the individual folks you work with but I have yet to encounter a screamer. In my opinion, if you are going to work at a big firm, Sidley LA is as good as, if not better than many firms in the same caliber with regard to work quality and work environment. Clearly Sidley management needs to address the discontent over bonuses. Quite honestly when I accepted my position at Sidley I did so knowing full well that their bonuses were comparatively low and personally I have found the intentional tradeoff to be worth it. 3:21 PM--come and make up your own mind. You summer experience at Sidley LA will greatly depend on the folks you interact with and what you put into it. These boards can pick apart literally any firm because every firm has things that it should work on. As I said, I can only speak to my own experience at Sidley LA which has been a positive one that has greatly enhanced my career (whether or not I stay at Sidley LA or decide to pursue other avenues).

9:26, I agree in part. The quality of the work has been very good in general - top end, interesting stuff. Clients are very hit and miss, but that's probably true everywhere.

Environment-wise, I think this may vary widely - it seems maybe your group is mellower than others, and there are also definitely some groups and partners here where the description offered by 4:48 is right on.