Associate Bonus Watch Warning: Outlook Bleak
We’ve tentatively started the Associate Bonus Watch for 2008, with news of Orrick’s and McDermott’s bonus plans, and the not-really-news that Morgan Lewis will not make bonus decisions until after the holidays.
With the dismal economy and the widespread law firm layoffs, we speculated last month that regular bonuses may be less than last year, and “special” bonuses would likely disappear. The New York Law Journal agrees with us, and suggests two other reasons for it:
The scale of the expense and the almost compulsory nature of the market are widely resented by partners. But they also realize bonuses play a huge role in associate morale, recruitment and retention. Most managing partners who spoke to the Law Journal about bonuses cited potential problems with associates in requesting anonymity. But this year they all also mentioned another interest group keeping a watchful eye on bonuses: clients.
So, reason one: If they give you a bonus, you might tell someone, um, like Above The Law. And reason two: pressure from clients to control costs. Anonymous firm leaders say they fear the effect a big bonus announcement would have on their fee negotiations with belt-tightening clients, especially those in the financial sector.
Orrick chairman Ralph Baxter notes that while Orrick will still pay bonuses, “performance factors, including billable hours, will reduce the number of associates at the firm” who actually get a bonus.
The article suggests that the dismal economy could provide the opportunity that some firms have been looking to escape the bonus bidding war, and eliminate associate bonuses all together. We know you’re worried. In a recent Lateral Link survey by Justin Bernold, one out of every thirteen respondents was unsure when, or if, bonuses would be paid. But as The New York Law Journal notes:
Of course, much will depend on what Cravath and Sullivan & Cromwell do.
As always, we welcome bonus news and memos via email (subject line: “Associate Bonus Watch”).
Firms Rethink the Value Of Associate Bonuses [New York Law Journal]
Earlier: Associate Bonus Watch: McDermott Will & Emery is Sticking to the Plan … For Now
Associate Bonus Watch: Orrick Stands Behind Bonus Structure
Associate Bonus Watch: Morgan Lewis Pushes Back Bonus Decisions
Open Thread: Associate Bonus Speculation
(185) Comments
Comments
fourteenth
FIRSTTT ELIE MYSTTTAL
First!!!!!
ahh who cares what number i am, noone is getting paid!
the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling
Can we have a MysTTTal free day, please.
SkaddenDC bonuses to include food stamps and vouchers for government cheese. (No Mystal, you can not have a voucher)
Evan Chisler
Link that works:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426098505
"some firms have been looking for to escape the bonus bidding war"
Interesting that firms never seem to fear the effect that reports of their enormous PPP willl have on "belt-tightening clients."
If they get rid of bonuses altogether I am NOT going to work in New York.
Oh no, I write for a blog and there's no new to report.
Maybe I just recycle this conversation for the tenth time.
So all the times it's been said here that ATL provides a positive service to associates by publicizing bonuses to ensure that the be lock-step across firms, this downside of publicizing bonus news has been ignored. So now partners will horde their profits for themselves instead of giving associates bonuses that could be seen as exorbitant. Thanks again, ATL.
Cock. Just sayin'.
I still call BS on lowering bonuses because of "clients." What whill the clients say about a huge increase in PPP if they don't issue large bonsues??
And a second on #11.
a nice bonus would be a cock
MysTTTal
Bonus? You guys are lucky to have jobs.
This economy sucks. Serious question: Is it possible for a young associate litigator at a v50 firm to jump to an international (European) office of a v20?
even without paying bonuses there will be no "huge increasin in PPP" at pretty much every firm ... and the clients (some at least) are actually asking for reductions in costs because much of the work they are doing is commoditized, and cheaper firms can do it. At least in banking and finance, that is.
Oh no - less lawyers in New York!
SkaddenDC bonuses are a nice refrigerator box and a warm spot on a DC metro grate.
And some primo homeless cock.
Fuck partners. Someone slap them in the face with a big floppy cock.
Why does Lat keep commenting about what bonus he would like to have in his stocking for Christmas?
when goldman partners pass on bonuses, money goes to the till. when law firm partners pass on bonuses, money goes to the partners. i'm willing to see a decrease in pay so partners can keep current on their third homes.
This economy sucks. Serious question: Is it possible for a young associate litigator at a v50 firm to jump to an international (European) office of a v20?
Young associate litigators who are unable to press "Post Comment" only once will not find any work at V20s.
If partners take away our bonuses, we'll make the Prop 8 riots look tame. We'll take the cause to the streets!
if bonuses disappear, so will I, from new york, and will reappear in boston
I feel bad for entitled pricks who make$160k+ per year. You sold out, so what if your partners sell you out?
Ditto 28. Without my $60k, I am going Rodney King on dat ass.
The only bonus Texas wants is a cure for Texas Big AIDS.
I think this is great news. I hate receiving a bonus.
- Let's Be Frank
Without a bonus, I guess the incentive to bill that many hours per year would be merely to keep your job. Wow. That'll be excellent for morale.
30, a few quibbles:
(1) Entitled is not the same as self-entitled. I am *entitled* to $160k+ because I worked my ass off at a good law school. I feel no shame for that.
(2) I have a wife and a kid. I prefer to support them with the best salary I can earn, not some public service pittance. I feel no shame in that either.
(3) The partners are perfectly entitled to do with us as they please. That does not mean we have to be happy about getting shafted (largely for the reasons set forth in (1) and (2) above.
(4) Go fuck yourself.
30 - Not everyone who works in BigLaw is a sellout. Don't be a hater.
(No, I don't make anywhere near $160K, nor do I work in a firm that's remotely big enough to matter to readers of this blog)
35 = racist GULC grad
30: I work from 8:30/9 am until past midnight five or six days a week. You're goddamn right I'm entitled. If they want to pay me less, they'd better not expect my entire life to revolve around my work.
V5 Ass.
30: The people who sold out are the ones who avoided big law so that they could "do some good in the world." The best way for them to have a positive impact is to go to a big firm, work their asses off, get a fat bonus, and donate a ton of their money.
Instead, they choose jobs with short, easy hours so that they won't have to work hard, but get to feel like they're altruistic instead of lazy.
IF THEY DON'T PAY BONUSES, I WILL NOT GO TO NEW YORK. ALREADY IF YOU LOOK AT COST-OF-LIVING NYC IS FAR BEHIND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF PAY.
-2L FROM HYC
30 just got pwn3d by 35.
Don't worry guys, everything will be all better in 2009 once Obama raises taxes on law firm partners and other business owners.
Yes We Can!
30, What I pay in taxes and charitable donations almost certainly outstrips any benefit your shitty legal skills convey to their hapless beneficiaries.
Hey 35,
Why doesn't your wife get a job? I think the days when associates could afford a stay-at-home wife, two kids, a McMansion and a minivan are pretty much over.
41: I feel bad for entitled pricks who get so massively pwned by 35.
-39
Any possibility that someone could write a story on bonuses? I don't think anyone has reported on that yet. Not here, at least.
Cravath and S&C will both pay full 2007 level bonus, including special (making the market level $45,000 for the class of 2007).
Does anyone seriously think that the class of 2007 at ORRICK will be able to make more bonus than a Cravath or S&C associate of the same class?
35 -- Maybe if you weren't so racist your bonus wouldn't be in such jeopardy. I'm just sayin....
"You sold out, so what if your partners sell you out?"
This kind of self-righteousness always amuses me. On what did we sell out exactly by looking for steady income on which to support our families?
I vote 35 for best response. Its not selling out if you decide to take an ass-breaking position in return for higher pay. Actualy, its called capitalism.
35: Points 2 & 3 may be valid but are undercut by your use of "self-entitled" which is not a real word outside your world. Moreover, Point 1 is flawed in that you are entitled to your salary (160k+ or otherwise) for working your ass off NOW, not while in law school. You got compensation for that past achievement by getting a job post-graduation. Stop working your ass off now = no longer entitled to any salary. If you really do have a wife and a kid, please fast forward to real time and not when you were a law student.
Here's some "bone-ass" to go with the genital, uh, general, "cock" theme of this blog, which should be retitled "Above the Cock". Or "Cock the Law". Or simply "Cock cock Cock".
44, My wife has a job. Don't think I implied that she doesn't.
Sell outs = racists
51 - STFU. TY.
44 - You're an idiot. You wrote: "I think the days when associates could afford a stay-at-home wife, two kids, a McMansion and a minivan are pretty much over."
Associate salaries are at an all time high. 24 year olds are making 200k. If 200k isnt enough to support a family...then I guess 90% of america is f*cked.
Sorry, 50: with a near 50% effective income tax rate on NYC associates (Fed, state, city), working an ass-breaking position in return for higher pay is not capitalism.
It's supporting a socalist system with the sacrifice of your ever-decreasing youth.
90% of America doesn't pay ~50% of their income in taxes, while living in the most expensive city in the country, 56.
55 = homophobe.
56 - I think I read somewhere that associate salaries haven't risen much when adjusted for inflation
35 - this is 44. You implied that your wife doesn't have a job when you said that you support her and your child. That sounds like you are the sole wage-earner.
56 - YOU are the idiot. In most markets where associates make that kind of money (i.e., NYC, SF, Boston and Chicago), $200,000 is nowhere near enough to afford a mortgage and children. Sure, it's enough in Atlanta and Charlotte, but associates won't be making that kind of money in these cities anymore.
"...I worked my ass off at a good law school. I feel no shame for that. "
Ah, the joys of reliving your glory years.
The argument that announcing bonuses will have a negative impact on client relations (due to demands for discounts) is an interesting point, but I think the post misses the point. Controlling costs is not the issue: It is not that GCs will be mad that firms are paying associates too much, but what it implies about firm's total revenues, and how much the partners are making. The same general counsels that read about bonus increases are going to read about what the PPPs are for their peers (and the GC who has seen the value of his options plummet is going to bristle when Biglaw partners are still making PPPs north of $2mm this year), so managing partners of course want to keep the good news under wraps for as long as possible. Announcing (relatively) high bonuses could let the proverbial cat out of the bag about the current realities of life at biglaw (which is that revenues are stable or up and many partners are looking at a very good year). That could undercut rate negotiations.
In truth, GCs don't really give a sh*t what law firms pay associates. What GCs do care about, however, is when firms raise rates to keep PPPs up as a result of bonuses. Put another way, a GC doesn't care how the firms split up the pie, only how big the pie is and what his company has contributed to it.
So what is really going on? The managing partners are more worried about the reaction of the other partners, of course, who would be bitter about seeing associates get big bonuses because it would cut into their PPPs in a year where they don't have the leverage with clients to raise rates. Can't say I blame them too much.
Regardless of whether or not the money is necessary, there's no reason to call it "selling out" if one never subscribed to anything other than capitalism in the first place. Not everyone had that "out to change the world" mentality that some did entering law school.
Clients apparently have no qualms with partners seeing astronomical PPP increases but scream blood murder when associates get a meager pile of crumbs falling off the table.
58, why don't you look at the net take home pay of families who do live in New York, and notice how that is half or a third of what biglaw associates take home. Median household income in NYC is $80k.
If you make your $200k and live in Hoboken or Jersey City, you are still pretty well-off. If you live in the City, not so much.
Nor did 90% of America have to take on $120,000+ in debt for a JD that also required foregoing three years of work.
Of course, loan indebtedness is irrelevant to the income tax rate paid. Make $160,000 a year, even if you owe $150,000 in student loans? Fork over half, 'cuz you're ritch, bitch!
21 -- Fewer. Learn the fucking language.
57: So what you're saying is that the "sellouts" are routinely supporting their communities by making enormous monetary contributions, often times in excess of $100,000 a year?
To all the sellouts: Thank you.
Next public servant to argue against high associate bonuses gets his throat slit...by a diamond handled platinum dagger I pull from a ruby encrusted scabbard, spilling blood all over his mustard yellow armpitted white short sleaved dress shirt and ketchup stained clip on tie.
Go F yourself public servants.
55/35 - why so pithy? 51 just internet-slapped you silly. Majority of the comments here are fluff, but 51 is spot on. Grow the f*ck up.
What an idiotic point. I'm sure no one will hire Wachtell to do their work, because their associates make too much money.
#63 just nailed it
44 - those days are not over. Just move to Texas. Can get a hot wife there too.
As the former Thelen and current Orrick partner that I am, I have to ask this question:
Would you rather have a bone ass or a glass cock?
I know what I'd prefer.
And no, my circumcision was not performed with a glass cutter. My rabbi flew in a crystal artisan from Prague for the event.
Kash, work on your reading comprehension. "Most managing partners who spoke to the Law Journal about bonuses cited potential problems with associates in requesting anonymity" means that the managing partners they spoke with asked to remain anonymous out of fear of upsetting their associates. It doesn't mean that they are concerned about associates telling other people what their bonuses are. Learn how to read.
This whole discussion is retarded. A GC is not gonna reject Wachtell b/c they pay associates too much. GCs are risk averse lawyers and will chose the best firm for the given issue if only to cover their ass. If a deal goes bad b/c of incompetent counsel, the Board will not be happy if the GC says, "Well, I chose Jones Day rather than Wachtell b/c Jones Day didn't give special bonuses and Wachtell did, and I thought that was cool given the crisis."
You get what you pay for. The "crisis" has not changed fundamental laws of economics.
61 - YOU are a Mangina. 90% of Americans dont make 200K, yet they own homes and have families. Yet, you erroneously say this isn’t possible.You also, assume that salaries dont increase, even though they go up between 20 -30k a year.
Please do the world some good and kill yourself. The sooner, the better.
the bonuses are really the only incentive to work in NYC and put up with the expectations that no other peer states have--to give up your life.
47--What is your source?
71 nailed it!
75 - Just nailed it. You got pwned 74. damn, that looks like it hurts.
71 - is your diamond handled platinum dagger glowing a soft blue?
As a person with a 99th percentile intellect (since first grade through the LSATS) I deserve to make $200k or more because I'm one of the smartest and hardest-working people in this country.
82, confused?
83 just nailed IT!
I don't undestand the "nailed it" posts? Someone please explain.
Just like in 2001 when Texas claimed to be immune to the stock market crash/dotcom bust only to be served a big fat Enron hubris sandwich - so too will $54 a barrel oil be a rude awakening. Lawyers included.
Kash: You left the following important quote from the original article out of your post:
"The subject of bonuses appears to have been the subject of some conversation at the August gathering of managing partners hosted by the Citigroup Private Bank. One firm head said his impression from that meeting was there would probably be no special bonus this year but that normal year-end bonuses would be paid in amounts unchanged from last year. "
This should help provide some balance to your post.
87 -- just nailed it, old school.
Gentlemen in my preparatory academy were often befuddled by comments relating to "nailing it:. It was not a conspicuous event.
Are law firms required to publish their PPP? What is keeping law firms from under-reporting their PPP? Isn't the survey optional anyways?
If Judge Halverson ate my boss , will I still get my bonus?
87 just nailed it!!
92, Biglaw firms usually have to disclose it in engagement letters with clients
95 just nailed it too, new jack style.
96, nailed it son, Tim Taylor style.
93 -- No ... and you will also starve to death.
So can we get back to the question of bonuses? Which firms (if any) will give the special? Which will give the same standard bonus as last year? Which will drastically cut bonuses? Which will not give bonuses at all? Which will dissolve?
TYIA
1-97 got nailed by it, Glass-Cock style.
100 has AIDS.
can we get a post about MBE scaled scores in NY
101 is a racist.
99:
*Cravath and S&C will pay regular + special in lockstep; Orrick, at least, will pay regular + special to any associates who hit all targets (probably none).
*Rest of the V10 will pay either regular + special, or just plain 2007 level regualr.
*Below that, anything is possible. Including an elimination of bonus.
*CWT will be gone by January 1, 2009.
103 Nick Naylored it, Texas style!
103 is a bigot in denial.
84: Guaranteed to fail the bar exam.
101 has super AIDS times infinity.
104: TITCR
AIDS to 190!
CWT will grant their own regular + special combo. Cockpunch + SUPERaids.
Top billers will get to help carry Bob Link's boxes out.
If I'd gone to that trash heap, I bet I'd be willing to take a few thousand dollars worth of my bonus in throwing Link out of the building.
Firms can't go back down the salary ladder (NY to 145?). That means the only options they have consist of (1) no bonuses and/or (2) cramdowns. Anyone experience a cramdown or expect to be held back a year?
112 has Adolph Hitler tendencies.
Firms can't go back down the salary ladder (NY to 145?). That means the only options they have consist of (1) no bonuses and/or (2) cramdowns. Anyone experience a cramdown or expect to be held back a year?
95, that's just dead wrong. Law firms don't have to disclose their PPP. What's more, most PPP numbers are grossly exaggerated due to the growing percentages of non-equity partners. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to report lower PPP numbers if firms chose to do so.
115, what's your version of a cramdown in this context?
This guy Bob I was with the other night asked me if I wanted to try a cramdown. I was a little tipsy, so I said ok. Turned out to be dissapointing, although he seemed to really get off on it.
This would never happen in Texas.
115 - why, exactly, can't firms cut salary? What else are you going to do with that law degree that pays remotely comporable to start? I hear the same argument about making the summer programs less fun and more work - who isn't going to take a summer job where they make 3K a week?
Who is going to walk away from a six figure job in this economy? No one who isn't independently wealthy, and those people are already difficult to motivate.
If this gets bad enough, there will be salary cuts. It might come in the form of elimination of "bonuses" (which have become Ibank compulsory) and lockstep, but it will happen. You don't need to compete with banks, hedge funds and private equity anymore.
You could slash pay for the next 1st year associate class to 145 tomorrow and you wouldn't have any effect on recruiting.
OMG, 35 actually wrote that he is entitled to $160k+ because "I worked my ass off at a good law school"??? A-holes like him only contribute to associates getting shafted.
121 hates asians.
122 hates himself
If a firm has an office in London, it has to disclose it's firmwide PPP's to some British agency. that's where you find most of the the public PPP figures.
120 - That's only if everyone does the same. What are the odds of that.
This just in -- only black associates will get a bonus this year as part of the Obamalama Initiative
ATL = autoadmit
"In my day only one person would get a bonus, and it was at the firm holiday party. It was so embarassing when it happened to me, standing there in front of everybody with that huge bonus in my hands."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZScHa_keU
127 = SUPERaids patient zero
Dude, your aids are like, super.
128, those guys like to hold each other's bonuses in their mouthes.
The firms should abolish the wasteful summer programs. 3K per week is plenty; nobody cares about free ice cream and fake lunches with associates.
everyone should jump on the Boies compensation system: 30% of billables to associates, about 33% to costs (staff, overhead, etc), the remainder to partners. this is the only justifiable system in the long term.
clients don't come to a firm, they come to a partner whose name they've heard.
ATL << autoadmit
133 takes autoadmit's bonus in her mouth.
"The subject of bonuses appears to have been the subject of some conversation at the August gathering of managing partners hosted by the Citigroup Private Bank. One firm head said his impression from that meeting was there would probably be no special bonus this year but that normal year-end bonuses would be paid in amounts unchanged from last year."
Who among us would opt out of an antitrust class action? Why?
Many good biglaw firms, like the one I work for, will end up with higher net incomes for 2008 than for 2007. Bonuses for such firms should (but may not if partners feel the economy is an excuse to rip off their associates) therefore, at the very least, remain at 2007 levels. Here's hoping!!!
"clients don't come to a firm, they come to a partner whose name they've heard"
Oh yeah, no general counsel has ever thought 'Fuck, I'm in a tight spot . . . someone get me WLRK/Cravath/S&C on the phone!'
None of us, 135. Because none of us would be in the relevant class--we're workers, not clients.
Someone get me SkaddenDC on the phone pronto! I am in a tough jam and need a firm with extensive experience in bet the firm litigation.
Everyone knows there was a tech bubble. There was a real estate bubble. Was there an AbovetheLaw bubble? And now it is worthless and about to be foreclosed?
And now for your Black-u-weather forecast:
"Its gunna rain!"
autoadmit >>> ATL
132--- is this how firms set billable targets for associates loosely? i've gotten some grief about my hours this year -- that they don't fit the matrix. i think some firms expect $ to be more like 20-25% of billables to associates.
141 = NERD
144 = JERK
"I work from 8:30/9 am until past midnight five or six days a week. You're goddamn right I'm entitled. If they want to pay me less, they'd better not expect my entire life to revolve around my work."
HAHAHAHA!!! Don't wet it man. There's plenty to look forward to. Like, ya know, old age and death.
145 = Ellie
145 = Judge Halverson's Husband
Prison guards and janitors work long hours too and their jobs are much more dangerous/icky than ours and they get paid a whole hell of a lot less. Campaign staffers work long hours and 100 hour weeks and are not "entitled" to six-figures either. So do medical residents. Working long hours does not entitled you to anything. Lots of other people do it in lots of other professions. Lawyers seem to forget that.
149 - I don't think its so much that lawyers forget "that", but rather we just don't care.
I want my money, I want a lot of it and I want it NOW!
Phew, I just escaped NYC biglaw. Lived modestly, hoarded my paychecks and bonuses, and paid off all the school debt. Took my cash and moved to where it goes a very very long way. I can afford to not work for a while if I so choose, or to travel, or write a book or do some non-profit work or government work while the economy is recovering.
Dude, think about it. Don't get caught up in the rat race and turn into the partners you hate. Pay off your debt ASAP and go live your life and be happy. Don't deny yourself until you are too old to enjoy it.
I would be happily surprised if the T5 firms pay regular plus special bonuses. My bet is that the firms will give the regular bonus - with many firms falling in line. (For firms with target hours - it will be good pr - they can say they gave the bonuses but only a few associates will actually get them.)
149 worked long, filthy hours as a mopjockey at Peepworld during David Dinkins glorious reign. His pay was low, but he never went hungry.
There will be bonuses, but only for the associates who survive the bloodbath that is coming in January.
50% of us will be laid off. Mark this post.
115 here.
Cramdown situation: You're a transactional associate who just billed 1,600 hours this year doing nothing but doc review. No bonus, no raise and no advancement in class year (basically held back a year for partnership eligibility purposes).
Firms could reduce salaries, but I don't think I can think of anyone who has ever done that in the last decade. In any event, firms could hold whole ranks of associates back a year and thereby effectively put people on a 145 scale from their original 160 scale (for example). It would be less public than an explicit salary retraction and dupe law students into being wowed by high salaries.
151 - If you have to write and tell people about how happy you are, the chances are you're not that happy of a person. Just because you couldn’t cut Biglaw doesn’t mean other associates (including myself) aren’t completely happy with it in terms of a career. I suggest next time you think you stumble upon the secret of life, keep it to yourself.
I make $160k a year and I AM a sell-out, and can vouch for most of the people I know in the same situation. Now I'm so fucked because I get paid this ridiculous salary to do the same work as a paralegal, contract attorney, secretary, etc.
Here's a question:
Did you firm make more partners this year then they did last year? Take that as an indication of what will happen to your bonus.
All you associates suck - you aren't really rich ($160k a year, give me a break), you don't have any real skills ("I sat in on a depo once" or "I filed that motion with the court"), you are all steadily growing more fat as your metabolism slows down and your hours spent in a chair go up (not to mention your posture is all fucking ugly), and you are all perfect models of self-congratulatory striving, struggling, failing fools. You really thought you made it when you started working at a business with an "&" in the title, but you're just a little overpaid bitch (not that you are rich). Now we are entering a depression, and you realize you have no job security because you have no skills, you have no money because you're still paying off debt for law school, and nobody finds you attractive because your 'workout' regimen consists of 7 minutes on the swiss ball once or twice a month. Go drown your sours with pastries during the day and scotch at night, go make snide comments on ATL to try and drag everyone down to your level, but you are still just a little bitch, you know it, and it KILLS you to know that! lol!
156: Uh-oh, I fear you are getting NYC crabby lawyer-itis already. Try being open-minded. Different strokes for different folks.
It's all about being in control of one's career, having choices, having the American dream as one defines it personally. Sounds like you are loving your choices so go for it, and don't worry about whether you *approve* of others' chosen paths; so long as you are following your own personal dream, what's to begrudge others who are pursuing theirs? Leaving BigLaw is a chosen path for so many of us, not a sign that we couldn't cut it, silly, and no one should feel obligated to stick it out in a job they *can* do but would rather not do, just to impress other people. Sometimes a particular job serves a purpose in our lives and we move on to new things that help us grow and develop other skills and dreams. I love that freedom.
158 has a good point!
159 has a good point.
For me to poop on.
149, 159, & 160 should be re-read. The comments get smarter as the day progresses.
Who do you think y'all are fooling, other than yourselves I guess.
No, being born smart, and/or with the ability to score highly on a standardized test, does not entitle you to riches.
Nor does working long hours.
The proof of your irrelevance is the mere fact of your frequenting this site, let alone posting dumbass comments all day.
You know your lives are miserable and the only thing you can "enjoy" is your inflated salaries. So the prospects of losing the one thing you can cling to will probably just make you more bitter.
Shit, doctors work much harder, often for less pay, and they actually do something that has per se value. I wonder if they sit around a hospital all day making bitchass comments about how smart they think they are.
Time to start working on those resumes.
Jesus saves!
156 = bitter
159 - is clearly bitter about making $65k at a mom and pop law firm. Sucks to be you....
166 - the only thing more sad than an associate defending his miserable condition, is a law student defending that position which he hopes to attain. your use of the word 'clearly' suggests you are some 1L prick who hasn't wised up to reality yet...best of luck to you
haha...163 is wishing they could ever have a big firm job making market salary...instead stuck at a PI firm making crap salary
168 -- 50% of us won't be earning market salary after Black January 2009.
159, I MUST be rich. Why? Well, Obama's gonna tax me like I'm rich!
168, you ignorant slut.
170 - lol, you wish you overweight loser...go drop some more anonymous truth bombs on the interwebs 'lawyer'
Um, ok 172.
Assuming 170 was a single first year associate at a V10, (s)he would have $160k in income + whatever the bonus was (let's say $30k). I'm pretty sure that 170, as a single making $190,000 a year, will get hit by an Obama tax increase. If not in 2009, then for 2010, 2011, and 2012.
But you go ahead and 'lol' all you want, mmmkay?
173 - wow, your sarcasm is used to great effect...i am truly not worth to engage in a debate of high policy issues with someone whose command of the facts is so thorough(!)....you really make me feel shame for my small and poorly-thought-out opinions...i should really have gone to the Tax Policy Center's website and done the calculations, unless i was referring to 170's statement that "(s)he" "MUST" be rich, you stupid whore! Go back to trolling for ass in disney chat rooms and leave these discussions for the adults, mmmmkay?
I see from 174's post that the AutoAdmit bleedover to ATL is complete.
FYI, 174, if you weren't objecting to 170's tax statement, then you sorta missed 170's sarcasm.
175 - ohhh, you're right, i completely missed that! thank you for pointing out the nuances of atl comments, it really is more difficult than it seems. i'm sort of a 'newb' if you know what i mean...just got here from autoadmit, hope i'm not dragging down the otherwise-high-minded and intellectual discussion...
As an associate at a V10 who will end up with around 2500 for the year, I sincerly hope that the top firms can use this economic situation to distinguish themselves from the also rans.
It is absurd that I make the same as someone at . . . well . . . I will have the good taste to not name names, but when the partners over there make half or less of what the partners here make yet associates make the same, something is not quite right.
Bottom line is if a firm's PPP is still north of $2m, associates should get the same as last year, including special. The also rans could not or would not match.
I and my fellow workaholics would not be adverse to having an hours requirement of 2000, 2200 or even more for the "special" portion of the bonus, but the guys in corp fin might not agree.
This is the year where the cream firms will rise to the top. Everyone else will be unemployed.
V10 OR NOTHING!
I think there is not a chance at the special bonus.
Some people talk about being busy but I suspect they are primarily litigators. For those litigators I'd like to point out, in case you haven't noticed, the corporate associates are slow. You may not realize this, but that that is where the real money in your firm comes from. You guys don't run the firms because you don't pull in the big bucks like the M&A guys. You also don't have the long term relationships like the corporate guys as you are often hired on a one-off basis. It is nice that you are still busy in this down market, I appreciate it because it will help me get a bonus, but you aren't the firm, you aren't the reason that firm is large and has PPP over $2 million a year, and the bills from your document review projects will not be enough to tied us over during the recession.
Let me put it another way, the special bonus was not paid so that firms could lower the turnover rate of their litigator associates. Litigators never go anywhere because they don't really have very many exit opportunities. Also, better litigators can always be hired from the D.A.'s office. You know, litigators that actually have trial experience. You are underskilled (unless you got the experience from your cute pro bono projects) and replaceable. The special bonus was to keep the corporate associates in place for a few more years, so they wouldn't jump ship to a hedge fund or Goldman Sachs. That need no longer exists because the corporate associates have nowhere to go (and no reason to leave now that they aren't working weekends). So there is no need for the special bonus. Firms are looking to layoff, they don't need to do anything special to improve retention.
There will be the regular bonus, if only because some firms that base their bonus on hours billed have already announced. Those firms use the bonus as a clear incentive to their associates, so they are announced at the beginning of the year. Firms can distinguish themselves by not tying it to billable hours. That will really mean something this year as many associates are going come in less than 2,000 hours this year. So we are finally going to see some real compensation differences in Biglaw. But, I predict that some firms will tie their bonus to hours for the first time.
179 - right on, man, right on. As a corporate associate, I hate hearing litigation associates' tips on how to stay busy. It's really not applicable.
179 sounds right. Special bonuses were "special" to 2007. Regular bonuses will be paid in 2008 to those meeting minimum billable requirements. Those firms that fail to pay usual bonuses for 2008 will shed a great number of associates. How quickly the economy turns around will dictate whether that's a good business decision or a bad business decision.
I love all this talk about the economy "turning around". That is so pre depression.
No recovery until 2020.
179, I have news for you: with the economy in the state that it is, it is YOUR exit opportunities that are limited, not litigators' exit opportunities. Although it's extremely hurtful to see that corporate associates think so highly of us unskilled document reviewers who are less valuable than your run-of-the-mill ADA, I suppose I'll take comfort in the fact that I am not the one staring a pink slip in the face right now. How does that feel ya big Cap Markets / M&A superstars?
re 177 -- your suggestion misses the basic fact that the reason that some firms are substantially more profitable than others has very little to do with the quality of the associates working at the firm. Profitable firms are such because the firms (or certain partners at the firm) have superior client relationships and/or because the firms have superior reputations and/or because the firms are well diversified to protect against slowdowns in one area or another and/or because they hired associates sensibly. (Obviously partner profits are dependent on having associates work hard, etc., but -- at least today -- every firm that wants a reasonably smart associate who is willing to work 2000-2500 hours can find one. That wasn't true 18 months ago (and so salaries went up to compete for talent), but today there is a glut of associate talent.)
It isn't absurd that you make the same as someone at a less profitable firm -- you have very, very little to do with the differientating factors that makes one firm profitable and one firm less profitable. Ultimately, if you have a desire to remain in the law, you will be attracted to remain at the more profitable firms, regardless of where their bonus ends up.
At the end of the day, a firm could pay associates more to vault itself ahead of the pack -- but no firm needs to do so. There is no talent shortage, and the marginal difference that a firm could identify between top law school candidates isn't sufficiently great to be worth the additional compensation expense.
You'll get at least as much as your colleagues at so-called lesser firms. You may not be happy about it, but right now there is no need to pay you more.
This all seems so quaint now in light of subsequent developments.