Add RSS RSS

Associate Bonus Watch: O’Melveny Makes It Rain, Baby
(At least outside New York. For 1950+ hours.)

law firm associate bonus watch 2008 biglaw bonuses.jpgUpdate (3:30 PM): Please note that this post has been revised in various respects since its original publication. The situation is fluid and we are investigating further. Thanks.

It’s moving day. Time for the elite firms to separate themselves from everybody else.

Multiple tipsters inform us that O’Melveny & Myers associates, in California and in Washington, DC, received voicemails today confirming that first year associate bonuses would be… $27,500. The bonus scale for OMM, in CA and DC, is believed to look like this:

2007 - 27,500
2006 - 30,000
2005 - 32,500
2004 - 35,000
2003 - 37,500
2002 - 40,000
2001 and 2000 - 45,000

A tipster adds, “Everyone is also eligible for additional bonus amounts on top of that based on hours and performance.”

We understand that OMM traditionally makes these announcements over voicemail. Bonuses will be paid on December 31st, with an official memo following in January. Oh, and just for good measure, class appropriate pay raises will proceed as planned. Eat your heart out, Latham.

Update (3:30 PM): It appears that these California and D.C. bonus levels are subject to a minimum hours requirement of 1950. In addition, it seems that O’Melveny’s New York office is on the Cravath scale.

Update (3:45 PM): Associate editor Kashmir Hill just spoke by phone with an O’Melveny spokesperson. The spokesperson confirmed that OMM’s California and DC offices are paying bonuses to associates that are higher than OMM in New York.

“For some time, we have set bonus levels at a competitive rate for local markets,” she said. And as ATL readers know, this year the local market in New York is weak in terms of bonuses. The OMM rep pointed out that last year New York bonuses were higher than non-NYC bonuses.

In addition, the spokesperson added, the California and DC bonus scales are subject to a minimum hours requirement of 1950. Bonuses in New York are not subject to such a minimum (although “hours and merit are taken into account,” according to OMM).

More after the jump.

Now, let’s say you’re an associate at Half-Skadden or Latham? How do you feel now?

Okay, don’t answer that. Today, if the first time in weeks, is a time for joy. Someone, somewhere is getting a piece of the profits pie, and that is a good thing.

Because the thing about entitlement is this: some people are “entitled” to certain things. In this case, associates who worked hard at the very best law firms in the country are entitled to share in the profits they generate. You simply can’t give out a bonus to a senior associate at one firm that is smaller than the bonus given to first years a peer firms, and expect everybody to just be “thankful that they have a job.”

Well done OMM. Now there is a clear separation among top firms. S&C, are you a contender or a pretender?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of associate bonuses

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Mad Furst!!! Why are we so competitive???!!!!

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiirst!

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

slather atl with bonus memos, make everyone forget you have horrible judgment! yayyyy

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Foyst!

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

1st

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

First

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:34 PM

FIRST!!!

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

Are their bonuses based on hours?

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

First

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

last!

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

FIRST!!!

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

shae in profits. proof it baby proof it

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

shae in profits. proof it baby proof it

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

I hate reading Elie's commentary.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:35 PM

FIRST to say blown out of proportion. A "clear sepEation among top firms"? Really man? SPELL CHECK

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:36 PM

How do you "shae" in the profits? Jesus. How did you ever get a job Elie?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:36 PM

S&C won't diverge from CSM and DPW. If it does, CSM and DPW will revise their bonuses and match S&C, so there's really no incentive for S&C to join Skadden.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:36 PM

I spelled his misspelled word incorrectly. Awesome.

- 14

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:37 PM

First to move to OMM

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:37 PM

8 - The bonus structure is a class bonus (eligible if make hours) with the chance to receive additional bumps for performance or hours.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:37 PM

Shae what?

SPELLCHECK for goodness sake!!!

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:37 PM

"Now there is a clear seperation "

I feel entitled to not read this stuff if you can't be bothered to spell check.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:38 PM

Why should he proof when we do it for him? Most errors are caught, and then fixed, in about 10-20 minutes.

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Skadden > OMM > The Rest

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Latham is so TTT

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Could not agree more:

"You simply can't give out a bonus to a senior associate at one firm that is smaller than the bonus given to first years a peer firms, and expect everybody to just be "thankful that they have a job.""

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Really? Things really are topsy turvy in this economy.

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

"piece of the profits pie."
A food reference!
Welcome back, tubby!

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

the people on this site are complete jerkoffs. would you rather get the news a day later? you're an immature bunch of idiots who give lawyers a bad name. if you hate elie and his commentary so much, go to a different website. idiots.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:39 PM

what a difference a year makes!

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM

um, that's wrong -- the bonuses are half-skadden. the good news is that OMM is raising salaries.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM

NY to profit SHAE-ING!

MysTTTal.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:40 PM

Insiders report that OMM bonuses are on Cravath scale, not the one made up in this post.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:41 PM

um, that's wrong -- the bonuses are half-skadden. the good news is that OMM is raising salaries.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:41 PM

THEN STOP READING THE WEBSITE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POSTINGS.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:42 PM

Insiders report that OMM bonuses are on Cravath scale, not the one made up in this post.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:42 PM

NY to profit SHAE-ING!

MysTTTal.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:42 PM

um, check your sources -- this info is wrong. Bonuses are half-Skadden -- the good news is OMM is not freezing salaries.

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:42 PM

29 -- how freaking long does it take to check spelling? It takes you an entire day? Seriously?

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

um, check your sources -- this info is wrong. Bonuses are half-Skadden -- the good news is OMM is not freezing salaries.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

um, check your sources -- this info is wrong. Bonuses are half-Skadden -- the good news is OMM is not freezing salaries.

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

um, check your sources -- this info is wrong. Bonuses are half-Skadden -- the good news is OMM is not freezing salaries.

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

FIRST to say good scoop of fake news.

This is why you are not a real journalist.

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

SAVED BY ZERO!!! SAVED BY ZERO!!!

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

I call shenanigans!

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:43 PM

29- I don't work at O'melvaney so when I get the information is completely arbitrary.

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:44 PM

OMM NY bonuses are on Cravath scale. Other offices get more.

avatar
48 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:44 PM

29 -- how freaking long does it take to check spelling? It takes you an entire day? Seriously?

avatar
49 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:44 PM

FIRST to say good scoop of fake news.

This is why you are not a real journalist.

avatar
50 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:44 PM

You idiots...OMM DC and CA are not half-Skadden...OMM NY is half-Skadden...it sucks to be stuck in NY, but the post is right for the majority of domestic OMM offices

avatar
51 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Mystal, you find new ways to establish your idiocy. It's $17,500, just like everywhere else. Somebody typed "2" and you ran with it. And there won't be a memo; everybody but you knows OMM only sends out the voicemail.

Geez, give up this gig already, for all of our sakes.

avatar
52 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:45 PM

sepAration, not seperation, you complete fool. why did lat hire a poorly spelling 7th grader to run this stupid blog?

avatar
53 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Need siren for good firms - maybe different logos too. Grinch for all half-skaddens, money-bag for firms above half-skadden, and then scrooge mcduck into a pile of money for full skadden (a woo oo)

avatar
54 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:46 PM

You idiots, the story is not all wrong. OMM NY is half-Skadden...OMM DC and CA are full bonuses.

avatar
55 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:46 PM

omm ny on cravath scale; omm non-ny on higher scale

avatar
56 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:46 PM

Prediction: real memo will surface. Elie will have egg on his face, and will post some sort of correction that doesn't in any way acknowledge how stupid it was to post this without verifying sources. People will bitch. The earth will keep spinning. Lather, rinse, repeat.

What the hell is the point of posting this without a copy of the actual memo? Has Elie not noticed that someone tends to fire the thing off to ATL within 20 minutes of its actual release when announcements are really delivered? Duh, duh and duh.

avatar
57 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:46 PM

Need siren for good firms - maybe different logos too. Grinch for all half-skaddens, money-bag for firms above half-skadden, and then scrooge mcduck into a pile of money for full skadden (a woo oo)

avatar
58 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:46 PM

36: Can't speak for OMM NY, but for CA and DC, the reported range ($27,500 for first years, $2,500 class year jumps) is correct.

avatar
59 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:47 PM

39--how difficult is it for you and all the other haters on this site to realize that the whole point to blogging is so that you don't have to work in an office with jerks looking over your shoulder and expecting everything to be perfect. other bloggers on this site and others (and on news web pages) routinely make grammatical and spelling errors, but i don't see you or any of the other idiots on here cluttering their comments sections with complaints.

avatar
60 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:48 PM

The confusion is caused by the fact that OMM DC/CA do things differently then OMM NY. I believe this memo is based on what OMM DC/CA are doing.

avatar
61 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:48 PM

56 - the real memo doesn't come until January...so we'll have to wait to see, but the voicemails concerning full bonus and no salary freeze in OMM DC and CA are correct

avatar
62 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:50 PM

Do you guys just sit around in anticipation of grammar/spelling errors? I've seen some dumbass commentary on blogs before but you people are in a class of your own.

Why not just start a blog about the blog since you really don't have anything else of value to contribute.

avatar
63 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:51 PM

59- I think the point is more that Lat's errors were not remotely as bad as Elie. If Lat could do it, why can't Elie?

avatar
64 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:51 PM

first

avatar
65 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Elie please verify what commenters are saying about OMM NY - can't stand the suspense!

avatar
66 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Are we now going to call O'Melveny Hlf-Skadden + 10?

avatar
67 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:52 PM

Don't get me wrong, as a BIGLAW associate I'm glad to see OMM bucking the Cravath trend, but from a business perspective this is a dumb decision.

avatar
68 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:52 PM

First!

avatar
69 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:52 PM

HAHA

Batches

--OMM DC Midlevel

avatar
70 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:53 PM

Are we now going to call O'Melveny Half-Skadden + 10?

avatar
71 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:53 PM

THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. ASK ANYONE WHO WORKS AT OMM.

avatar
72 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:53 PM

THIS IS JUST LIKE DELIVERANCE

OMM = THE CRAZY REDNECK
LATHAM = DUDE WHO SQUEALS LIKE A PIG

avatar
73 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:53 PM

wow, the new york office has been treated like the wicked stepchild of OMM for some time now, but this is low.

... my voicemail said $17,500.

avatar
74 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:54 PM

Where's this "profits pie" you speak of?

-Mr. Fried

avatar
75 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:54 PM

"...associates who worked hard at the very best law firms in the country are entitled to share in the profits they generate. "
NO-- that is what partners are entitled to. (Hinit: That's why they call them "partnerships.")

avatar
76 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:55 PM

WHERE IS S&C? QUINN EMANUEL? MUNGER?

avatar
77 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:55 PM

wait, didn't OMM fire about 40 people this year? of course there's extra money floating around for bonuses.

avatar
78 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:55 PM

There is Skadden, 78.5/100 Skadden (OMM), and 1/2 Skadden (CSM and crew)

avatar
79 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:55 PM

wait, didn't OMM fire about 40 people this year? of course there's extra money floating around for bonuses.

avatar
80 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:55 PM

First!

avatar
81 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:56 PM

If NYC really just got a $10,000 shaft, it's time for associates, both incoming and current, to start finding other locations. Its like asking somone to go work in Tokyo, Moscow, or London without a COLA.

avatar
82 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:56 PM

First!

avatar
83 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:57 PM

67: Disagree

Like (most) everyone else, OMM is making cuts where it is hurting: NY.

It's a sensible business decision also to advertise that your past conservative moves (see reaction to last year's OMM bonus memo) were smart ones.

avatar
84 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:57 PM

wait, didn't OMM fire about 40 people this year? of course there's extra money floating around for bonuses.

avatar
85 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:57 PM

A whale of a bad post from a bad whale.

avatar
86 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:58 PM

A whale of a bad post from a bad whale. Fire Elie, because he won't harpoon himself.

avatar
87 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:58 PM

79: It's called trimming the fat. And it needed to happen. This ain't bean bag.

avatar
88 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:58 PM

Wow, so the NY firms are now paying less than DC?

avatar
89 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:58 PM

OMM NY assocs - are you sending tips to ATL? They may not get to the bottom of this otherwise

avatar
90 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:59 PM

Are we now going to call OMM Half-Skadden + 10?

avatar
91 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:59 PM

this is great news. the class bonus amounts are solid, and those who billed substantially above 1950 are likely to get rewarded with significant bumps. it would not surpise me if there are some six figure bonuses in the senior classes.

avatar
92 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:59 PM

NYC is for suckers

avatar
93 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:59 PM

Is this going to be the post that pushes it over the edge and gets ATL a new EIC?

avatar
94 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:00 PM

Wow, so if commenters are correct, bonuses were HIGHER in non-NY offices than in NY offices? Ouch.

avatar
95 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:00 PM

DEAR OMM NY,
I AM SENDING OUT MY RESUME TODAY. GOODBYE NY. I GUESS THIS IS A SATELLITE OFFICE AFTERALL.
THANKS

avatar
96 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:02 PM

Latham has this thing and it's F#8@ing stupid.

avatar
97 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:02 PM

How many of these firms pay the bonus ONLY if hours are met?

avatar
98 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:02 PM

How many of these firms pay the bonus ONLY if hours are met?

avatar
99 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:02 PM

OMM will be closing NY office (or downsizing its associate population by 50%). no layoffs, just a major slap in the face and everyone is heading for the exits. stay classy, OMM.

avatar
100 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:02 PM

How many of these firms pay the bonus ONLY if hours are met?

avatar
101 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:03 PM

73 -- isn't OMM NY a sinking ship?

avatar
102 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:03 PM

Nice timing, OMM. I had almost talked myself into my own bullshit about my salary freeze. I doff my cap.

avatar
103 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:03 PM

NYC PWNED!

avatar
104 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:04 PM

Getting paid is a forte. Each and every day, true OMM player way. I can't get it out of my mind (what) I think about my bomb bonus all the time (what what).

I like the way you work it. No diggity. OMM backed it up [Repeat 3x].

avatar
105 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:04 PM

THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. ASK ANYONE WHO WORKS AT OMM.

avatar
106 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:05 PM

what about paul hastings?

avatar
107 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:05 PM

Wow, OMM, who woulda thunk it? This is almost as shocking as what Latham pulled, but oh so much sweeter. Hate to be at Latham LA today!

OMM CA and DC, thank you!!

avatar
108 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:07 PM

OMM - the worm has definitely turned for you, my friends.

avatar
109 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:08 PM

Wow, so the NY firms are now paying less than DC?

avatar
110 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:09 PM

62 - No need to start a blog about the blog when you comment on the blog right here on the blog.

avatar
111 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:09 PM

OMM is just trying to keep pace with the big O!

avatar
112 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:10 PM

Yes, 109, why wouldn't they? Not much work to do in NYC anymore.

avatar
113 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:10 PM

Hey 95 -- let me see if I've got this right, you're getting the same bonus as Cravath, DPW, Simpson and about a dozen other firms; you're getting a class bump (unlike LW); but you're leaving because someone in LA will make $10-20K? Brilliant -- with thinking like that I'm sure the firm won't miss you. BTW, where exactly is it you're going?

avatar
114 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:11 PM

This is wrong. Does anyone check their facts??

avatar
115 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:11 PM

97 - I'm wondering the same thing. How many corporate and real estate associates made (anything close to) hours for 2008? I'm guessing its approaching 0, which is likely what they're (and my) bonus will be.

avatar
116 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:11 PM

Everyone better remember that 111 very well could be an Orrick FIRST YEAR who just got a $45,000 bonus.

avatar
117 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:12 PM

Is anyone else actually buying the idea that OMM is now better than Cravath or Davis Polk? I mean seriously?

avatar
118 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:13 PM

This is wrong. Does anyone check their facts??

avatar
119 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:14 PM

Shae Stadium

avatar
120 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:14 PM

113,

I'm going to my mom's house, obviously.

Duh.

Sincerely,

95

avatar
121 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:15 PM

OMM a top firm LOL

Clearly they crunched the numbers and saw only a couple of people were going to make billables

avatar
122 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:16 PM

Wow, if NYC is paying NUMERICALLY less than Cali or DC, then it's time to leave. NYC associates were already getting underpaid with COL and all, but this is too much if true.

avatar
123 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:17 PM

Comment removed by moderator.

avatar
124 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:17 PM

Wow, so if commenters are correct, bonuses were HIGHER in non-NY offices than in NY offices? Ouch.

avatar
125 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:17 PM

115 (this is 97), same for me. Bonus would be ? IF I made my hours. But that's not happening.

avatar
126 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:18 PM

Orrick > the rest

avatar
127 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:18 PM

115 (this is 97), same for me. Bonus would be ? IF I made my hours. But that's not happening.

avatar
128 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:18 PM

Reading this I wonder if maybe the structure is such:

OMM NYC: Guaranteed Half-Skadden bonuses for everyone.

OMM (other offices): Bigger bonuses, but only if you made hours. We all know what departments that means $0 for...

Wouldn't be the craziest system we've ever seen.

avatar
129 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:20 PM

Orrick > the rest

avatar
130 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:20 PM

I love the jealousy this inspires. Now everyone wants to find ways to make it sound like a bad thing that OMM announced this. NY got the bitch slap it deserves, both at OMM and at other offices. The fact that they are getting less is directly the result of them bringing in less. OMM had a good year, and is appropriately paying out a good bonus to those offices that earned it. The fact that OMM doesn't pay a bonus to those that don't make hours does not detract from the fact that they are fairly and appropriately compensating those that earned it. OMM just took a shit on your firm, so just accept it.

avatar
131 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:20 PM

Does OMM do a lot of entertainment law work out of its LA office? If that's the case, then it shouldn't be a surprise that their west coast office is faring better.

avatar
132 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:25 PM

116 - Orrick (at least NY) doesn't even do bonuses at all for first years, unlike every other firm that prorates them down.

avatar
133 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:27 PM

Orrick lawyers who hit 1950 are going to make out like bandits this year, but I wouldn't count on the firm keeping bonuses so high on the 2009 schedule.

avatar
134 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:27 PM

Word is S&C partners have reviewed and signed off on their memo. Don't know why it hasn't been sent out yet.

avatar
135 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:28 PM

123 - Do your own research for your student note. I suffered through mine years ago, and have no desire to help you with yours. On the other hand, you could just be "acting" yourself.

avatar
136 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:28 PM

132 = misinformed

avatar
137 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:31 PM

134 - what does the word tell you about what's in the memos??

avatar
138 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:31 PM

Elie's 3:30 correction!

avatar
139 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:32 PM

Maybe NY offices (and bonuses) generally will be hit harder than other cities (Chicago, LA, DC, etc.) when this all plays out. Might make sense considereing NY offices are likely much more tied to wall street while other offices are likely more diversified and able to weather the storm?

avatar
140 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:32 PM

Good for them. Class act.

avatar
141 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:32 PM

Why the f would associates in a non-NY office get paid more than the associates in the NY office if they have the same hours? That doesn't make any sense. COL and actual hours of particular associates should matter.

Basically, OMM is saying since Wall St. collapsed NY is headed for the shitter so we can pay that office less.

avatar
142 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:33 PM

This is not too surprising. OMM has a lot of white collar, commercial, IP litigation work in CA/DC. Those practices are somewhat countercyclical. OMM doesn't rise as high as NY firms when wall st goes up, but they don't fall as fast either when wall st goes down.

avatar
143 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:34 PM

"We expected this. Skadden has announced that they will discontinue the 'special' bonuses from last year. Instead, they'll be giving out the 2006/2007 standard package. That should pretty much set the market."

-Elie Mystttal, Nov. 19, 2008

avatar
144 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:34 PM

LOL @ Elie.

But beyond that, is it so unreasonable for a firm to expect over 1950 hours before paying out a bonus to someone?

You're not pulling your weight if you don't get at least that much (even 2100 would be a reasonable requirement) - poor economy or otherwise.

avatar
145 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:35 PM

Hey MysTTTal:

Get off your fat ass and figure out the bonus situation over at CWT. NOW.

avatar
146 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:36 PM

Uh oh--it's ON now.

avatar
147 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:36 PM

143 -- but to his defense, everyone was saying that.

avatar
148 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:37 PM

"Orrick > the rest"

Hahaha. I am sure all those folks Orrick laid off would beg to differ....

avatar
149 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:37 PM

I have it on good authority that 7 Times Square is a cursed building

avatar
150 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:38 PM

"Update (3:30 PM): It appears that these California and D.C. bonus levels are subject to a minimum hours requirement of 1950. In addition, it seems that O'Melveny's New York office is on the Cravath scale."

avatar
151 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:38 PM

"Because the thing about entitlement is this: some people are "entitled" to certain things. In this case, associates who worked hard at the very best law firms in the country are entitled to share in the profits they generate. You simply can't give out a bonus to a senior associate at one firm that is smaller than the bonus given to first years a peer firms, and expect everybody to just be 'thankful that they have a job.'"

Entitlement? Um, no, sorry. No such thing. Associates are employees at will. That's no less true in Biglaw than it is anywhere else. No such thing as entitlement. Associates are paid what the market will bear.

avatar
152 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:39 PM

Why would ANYONE go to Latham over OMM or GDC in LA now?

avatar
153 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:39 PM

We don't make it rain. We changin' the game. What once came down, now goes goes up in flames.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybXc-2iEOTw

avatar
154 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:40 PM

141, COL is completely irrelevant to how much you're paid. All that matters is the supply and demand of associates. For obvious reasons, the supply of associates in NYC is higher than usual.

If COL mattered, an oil worker in Alaska would be paid less than an oil worker in NYC. But supply and demand makes it the inverse.

avatar
155 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:40 PM

I have it on good authority that 7 Times Square is a cursed building

avatar
156 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:40 PM

"You simply can't give out a bonus to a senior associate at one firm that is smaller than the bonus given to first years a peer firms, and expect everybody to just be "thankful that they have a job.""

This is so obviously wrong. You can and you will. Especially after the January layoff bloodbath. It's really not that hard to figure out that supply now outstrips demand...really it's not Elie. It's just not.

avatar
157 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:40 PM

OMM-NY got more than CA and DC when the NY market was rocking -- what comes around goes around

avatar
158 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:41 PM

117 - Only idiots are saying OMM is 'better' than DPW or Cravath just because they have higher bonuses. Of course, it's just another type of idiocy to maintain that DPW or Cravath are 'better' than OMM because they have a higher Vault ranking.

avatar
159 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:41 PM

141 -- Supply/Demand explains it. COL does not factor into a firm's compensation decisions, except insofar as that might lead associates to move to a new city. Right now, there appears to be an oversupply of associates in NYC. Accordingly, NYC compensation should stagnate or decline.

avatar
160 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42 PM

152- I can't think of any reason. Can I get a mulligan on that one?

avatar
161 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Woohoo, bill in the top 1% of associates at OMM, get a not-quite-Skadden bonus that also lags behind similar billers at Orrick, K&E and others. Won't be any 1600 hour billers getting these amounts, or even half-Skadden, so who cares?

avatar
162 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:44 PM

live by the NY bonus trends, die by it.

Last year NY market had special bonuses, and OMM NY followed suit. This year, Half-Skadden is NY market and OMM NY followed suit. It would be nice to have it both ways, but it's not happening.

OMM LA/DC is 27.5k for first years.

avatar
163 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:44 PM

1. Hopefully this breaks the march to half-skadden for other firms
2. Why is NYC office getting screwed? Is the NYC actually the least profitable? Normally the NYC office (of a lot of firms, maybe not OMM) carries the firm (and bonuses for all offices) and sets the market. Now NYC sets the bottom and the rest of the offices dont bother carrying NYC?

avatar
164 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:44 PM

HAHAHA. new york is in the shitter.

avatar
165 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:44 PM

113 says, "Hey 95 -- let me see if I've got this right, you're getting the same bonus as Cravath, DPW, Simpson and about a dozen other firms; you're getting a class bump (unlike LW); but you're leaving because someone in LA will make $10-20K?"

In substance this makes sense: why should I care if someone elsewhere is making more as long as I'm matching the New York market, especially since, frankly, I didn't bill that much. But this announcement reinforces the feeling that OMM's upper management views the New York office as a cost center, not an engine of the firm or even a strategic necessity. It makes me nervous that the firm will be all too happy to swing the axe come review time.

avatar
166 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:45 PM

Funny how NYC gets the shaft. Their associates face easily the highest COL (and worst QOL) and in most years, have the most billables.

avatar
167 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:46 PM

live by the NY bonus trends, die by it.

Last year NY market had special bonuses, and OMM NY followed suit. This year, Half-Skadden is NY market and OMM NY followed suit. It would be nice to have it both ways, but it's not happening.

OMM LA/DC is 27.5k for first years.

avatar
168 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:47 PM

Any word on Kirkland?

avatar
169 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:48 PM

Update (3:45 PM): Associate editor Kashmir Hill just spoke by phone with an O'Melveny spokesperson. The spokesperson confirmed that OMM's California and DC offices are paying bonuses to associates that are higher than OMM in New York. "For some time, we have set bonus levels at a competitive rate for local markets," she said. And as ATL readers know, this year the "local market" in New York is weak in terms of bonuses. (The OMM rep pointed out that last year New York bonuses were higher than non-NYC bonuses.)"

In addition, the spokesperson added, the California and DC bonus scales are subject to a minimum hours requirement of 1950. Bonuses in New York are not subject to such a minimum (although "hours and merit are taken into account," according to this representative).

avatar
170 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:48 PM

There is NO WAY that NY winds up paying less. S&C will at least match OMM CA/DC if not Skadden.

avatar
171 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:48 PM

The red/blue siren only appears on your ATL page if your IP address is from DC or CA.

If you are from NY, no siren for this post.

avatar
172 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:49 PM

good news for the 10 OMM associates not in NY who billed over 1950.

avatar
173 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:49 PM

Ohhhhhhh here we go.

1. Count Layoffula, GO!
2. Where's that guy who does the "Cravath = Skadden/2 - sweet red website" math, because I need the new equation laid out.

avatar
174 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:50 PM

165 - You have it right on the money. OMM NY is a cost center and they either need to step up or go home. Last year, when they got higher bonuses than the rest of the firm and got pro-rated bonuses even when the rest of the firm didn't, they were still a cost center. Hopefully this isn't a one time thing because of the market and OMM starts enforcing the idea that you either bring it or you're gone.

avatar
175 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:50 PM

BAHAHAHAH...171 = post of the day!

avatar
176 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:50 PM

O'Melveny would be a great name for a sugar cookie company.

avatar
177 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:50 PM

Ohhhhhhh here we go.

1. Count Layoffula, GO!
2. Where's that guy who does the "Cravath = Skadden/2 - sweet red website" math, because I need the new equation laid out.

avatar
178 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:51 PM

BAHAHAHAH...171 = post of the day!

avatar
179 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:51 PM

155, that's for damn sure.

avatar
180 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:55 PM

If the new regime says NY lawyers get paid less, than the system is broke as fuc&.

D.C. here I come.

avatar
181 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:57 PM

When are the big D.C. firms going to announce? If they go higher than half-Skadden, these comments are going to get ugly.

I look forward to the meltdown.

avatar
182 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:59 PM

Yep, OMM NY associates are getting their butt cheeks spread, sniffed at, and it sure as hell ain't a nose going up there....

avatar
183 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:59 PM

"For some time, we have set bonus levels at a competitive rate for local markets,"

Good thing in America we can actually move to other states.

2009-the year of the NYC exodus

avatar
184 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:59 PM

This is the problem with what Cravath started. It was bound to end with someone (well, lots of associates) feeling like they'd been had.

I blame Cravath for this.

avatar
185 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:00 PM

176/178 -- why thank you. It's funny, 'cause it is probably true.

Sigh.

- 171, a sad New Yorker

avatar
186 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:09 PM

Blood on the streets, my friends. A sign of the apocalypse.

Stock up on food and PS3s. You'll need it -- collecting unemployment checks.

avatar
187 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:09 PM

And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about when it was revealed on ATL that DC and LA associates were given larger bonuses than their NY counterparts. And then the world ended. Poof.

avatar
188 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:10 PM

Every associate in NYC should remember that Evan Chesler violently pentrated their dirt road without even spitting on the rosebud.

avatar
189 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:10 PM

It's not too late to right the ship, LW - you do realize that this will set the firm back a decade or more in terms of recruiting/prestige/etc., right?

avatar
190 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:11 PM

It's not too late to right the ship, LW - you do realize that this will set the firm back a decade or more in terms of recruiting/prestige/etc., right?

avatar
191 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:11 PM

183 is highly credited, though mainly for tax/COL/quality of life reasons.

avatar
192 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:13 PM

These bonus cuts and pay freezes are nothing.

Imagine being this chick:

http://www.marieclaire.com/world/news/warren-buffett-granddaughter-nicole-buffett?src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=mar&ha=1&kw=ist

avatar
193 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:13 PM

SHAE THE LOVE PEOPLE!

MYSTTTAL IS NOT THAT BAD.

avatar
194 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:14 PM

Ha ha ha....NYC is a TTT in decline!

avatar
195 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:15 PM

btw...did I forget to mention...

ORRICK > the resTTT

avatar
196 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:16 PM

By the way, did I forget to mention:

Orrick laid off a ton of folks recently?

avatar
197 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:17 PM

Why was comment 123 taken OFF?!?!

avatar
198 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Orrick laid off 40 in down practice areas...and hired 200+ last year in booming areas...what a shocking business model!

avatar
199 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Why was comment 123 taken OFF?!?! What did it say??!?!?

avatar
200 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Why was comment 123 taken OFF?!?! What did it say??!?!?

avatar
201 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Why was comment 123 taken OFF?!?! What did it say??!?!?

avatar
202 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:18 PM

Why was comment 123 taken OFF?!?! What did it say??!?!?

avatar
203 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:18 PM

I believe Orrick also has minimum billables of 2100. Good luck getting that bonus.

avatar
204 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:19 PM

Oh well. If you're in NYC, you're doing transactional work, which is slow right now. You'll boom in the boom times and bust in the bust times. No big deal.

avatar
205 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:19 PM

This shows what I've been suspecting.

Latham is an outlier. They will set the market as much as Proskauer would set the market with their actions of canning new associates. Does anyone reallly think anyone would follow what Proskauer did and cut new associates?

Latham is like a "top tier" Proskauer, nothing but an outlier.

avatar
206 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:23 PM

203 needs to check their facts...2000 hrs for Orrick standard bonus

avatar
207 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:24 PM

163 -- OMM NY is a liability for OMM as a whole. The O'Sullivan merger never worked out and the NY office's been struggling to establish any meaningful presence. OMM NY absolutely did not deserve the "special bonus" last year, especially when the NY office is consistently the under-performing office year after year.

avatar
208 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:25 PM

205- Magic 8 Ball says "Cannot predict now."

avatar
209 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:26 PM

The fate of New York law firms and their ability to recruit top talent is now in the hands of W&C, Cov, Wilmer, Hogan and A&P.

If they go higher than top NYC firms, than the show is over folks. DC wins.

avatar
210 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:27 PM

Wow, the price of oil just dropped to FREE.

Sweeeeet.

avatar
211 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:31 PM

Guys at my high school used to shae chicks all the time. It was no big deal.

avatar
212 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:32 PM

Guys at my high school used to shae chicks all the time. It was no big deal.

avatar
213 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:32 PM

I guess SkaddenDC is not spinning out of control thanks to OMM NY.

Oh well.

avatar
214 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:35 PM

Is big three in LA now GDC, OMM and PH? Has LW been relegated to TTT status?

Could I have included more abbreviations in this comment? AFAIK, I couldn't. HTH.

avatar
215 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Kash to EIC

avatar
216 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:37 PM

NY to $1.90!

avatar
217 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:37 PM

I guess SkaddenDC is not spinning out of control thanks to OMM NY.

Oh well.

avatar
218 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:39 PM

214 - It depends what Paul Hastings and Gibson do. Have we heard about either yet?

avatar
219 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:41 PM

BITCH SPREAD THE BUTT CHEEKS SO I CAN SMELL THE JUICY INSIDES!

avatar
220 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:49 PM

tyvmft, 214

avatar
221 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:51 PM

207 - What does that even mean? How is the office a "liability"?

avatar
222 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:53 PM

Orrick has a minimum billable of 2,000, which gets you about 80% of Full Skadden. The next 100 hours gets you the last 20% of Full Skadden (or about 10,000). Then you can, theoretically, do better based on merit and big time hours. That extra is hard to get even during the good times, but is probably going to be nearly impossible this year.

As someone who is looking like they will hit 2,100, I'm going to be laughing all the way to the bank at my Cravath counterparts. Glad you all have lockstep bonuses, but for productive associates like myself it is better to be at a firm that can and will reward me.


avatar
223 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:55 PM

is that buttcheek line from a movie?

avatar
224 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:56 PM

"Don't get me wrong, as a BIGLAW associate I'm glad to see OMM bucking the Cravath trend, but from a business perspective this is a dumb decision."

Agreed. This will really kill them in recruiting top talent. Oh, no wait; I mean it'll really help them.

They're so stupid.

avatar
225 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:56 PM

First no siren, then there was a siren, and now no siren. What's going on here?

avatar
226 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:56 PM

What is this shit? I'd quit if I were an OMM associate in NYC.

avatar
227 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:58 PM

What is this shit? I'd quit if I were an OMM associate in NYC.

avatar
228 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:12 PM

227: But where would you go?

avatar
229 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:13 PM

227-
No one would care.

avatar
230 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:16 PM

76-

Munger's bonuses are usually meager. As with Cravath, you get paid with prestige points for working there.

avatar
231 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:19 PM

10
10 thousand
10 thousand pay cut

At Laaaaathaaaaam.

avatar
232 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:20 PM

76: NY, LA, DC

avatar
233 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:21 PM

NYC exodus!

avatar
234 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:28 PM

228: To another firm, as soon as they start hiring laterals.

229: No, but they'd care if a whole bunch of people left.

- 227

avatar
235 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:31 PM

Did Latham ding Elie at some point in the past? Why so much neener-neener towards LW?

avatar
236 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:33 PM

Orrick's minimum billable is 1950 in CA, not 2000.

avatar
237 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:34 PM

Orrick's minimum billable is 1950 in CA, not 2000.

avatar
238 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:36 PM

235 - because LW just dropped the biggest bomb on associates' heads in the last 20 years.

avatar
239 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:36 PM

NYC is TTT. Get ready for the return of the 70s glory days!! Buy your rat traps keep your glock loaded!

avatar
240 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:38 PM

Dat OMM izz CRAZEEE!

Noo Yawk to wun-twenny-fahv!

avatar
241 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:41 PM

Orrick has a minimum billable of 2,000, which gets you about 80% of Full Skadden. The next 100 hours gets you the last 20% of Full Skadden (or about 10,000). Then you can, theoretically, do better based on merit and big time hours. That extra is hard to get even during the good times, but is probably going to be nearly impossible this year.

As someone who is looking like they will hit 2,100, I'm going to be laughing all the way to the bank at my Cravath counterparts. Glad you all have lockstep bonuses, but for productive associates like myself it is better to be at a firm that can and will reward me.


avatar
242 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:43 PM

No, 238, a salary freeze isn't the "biggest bomb" to be dropped "on associates' heads in the last 20 years." People are actually LOSING THEIR JOBS right now. Layoffs are happening all over the country, and at major firms. OMM laid off 40 associates a few months ago, including first years - and blamed it on their hours. But does Elie pepper every other post with all kinds of hate and nyah-nyah directed towards OMM? No. Today, they announce decent bonuses, and Elie can't get OMM's dick out of his mouth long enough to think through the past few months.

Whatever. This site used to be excellent; it is now utterly worthless.

avatar
243 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:47 PM

241 - NO. Orrick has minimum billable of 1950. At 2000, you earn your first standard bonus, which is a set number for each year, starting with 2007 graduates (for this year).

avatar
244 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:50 PM

242 - Give it one month, maybe two, and you'll see the exact same boot be given to people at Latham. As soon as reviews hit, the firings begin... That is, if Latham is still around at that point.

avatar
245 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:55 PM

Anybody currently in D.C. happy with cost/quality of living there? I'm seriously ready to call it quits in new york.

avatar
246 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:56 PM

242 - 40 associate layoffs? You're a dbag. Flame. You should be flogged.

avatar
247 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:09 PM

LAYOFFS ARE MUCH WORSE THAN SALARY FREEZE. Assumptions that only lazy people get canned are incorrect. People with slow practice areas or that some dbag partner has an arbitrary problem with get leg go too. SALARY FREEZE IS AND REVERSIBLE and will be reversed once market pressures dictate. LAYOFFS SCREW PEOPLE MUCH HARDER.

avatar
248 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:10 PM

242 - sorry, but the salary freeze is the biggest bomb in 20 years. Layoffs are nothing new.

avatar
249 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:26 PM

218 -- PH raises salaries Feb.1 and gives bonuses in early March. They typically follow market. In years past, this meant Latham/GDC pay. OMM bonuses have been lower than PH and market in recent years. This year it should mean GDC/OMM pay, but anything is possible. I would expect an announcement re regular yearly pay increases in Jan. and bonuses in Feb.

avatar
250 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:32 PM

235 - good stuff.

avatar
251 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:44 PM

245: Stay in NY. Property values are way too high still here.

avatar
252 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:44 PM

New Yorkers love to suck my cock....and apparently they like to take it in the ass also.

avatar
253 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:45 PM

New Yorkers love to suck my cock....and apparently they like to take it in the ass also.

254 Posted by Glass Cock | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:51 PM

Did someone call me, the Glass Cock of Orrick? All I can say is that there are some who get the glass cock in the bone ass, and some who don't.

avatar
255 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:02 PM

It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a Zero Sum game - somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply, transferred - from one perception to another. Like magic.

avatar
256 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:09 PM

255 is an example of someone who didn't spend enough time at the Pierian spring. Shame.

avatar
257 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:23 PM

Can all the people who think this site (or Elie) is worthless and constantly complain stop visiting and commenting? You lose all credibility when 25% of the comments in every thread are dedicated to bashing this site (or Elie) and vowing to never visit it again.

Not too long ago, when Lat was editor, he used the phrase "comment clusterfuck" to describe a posting that generated over 100 comments. It was an irregularity back then. Now, with Elie, it's very common. So y'all might hate Elie, but I'm sure the owners of this site are more than happy to have you continually visit it to post your complaints. I'll bet this site is doing better than ever.

avatar
258 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:31 PM

257 - what would they do during Con Law then?

avatar
259 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:40 PM

s&c to $27,500!!!!

There is just no way NYC boni can be less than DC.

avatar
260 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:01 PM

251,

You idiot! Don't we want more people to move here and buy to keep the propery values inflated?

To all NYC folk looking to come to DC:

C'mon down and buy, buy, buy!!!!!

avatar
261 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:17 PM

Am I wrong to read into this move some resentment by OMM to the New York market in general? New York firms consistently representing the cream of the compensation crop, while California firms matched, at best. Now OMM has declared that Cali and DC associates are worth more, despite lower COL.

Should this do more to shame Cravath, et al. to up their bonuses to at least the OMM DC level than would have been the case had OMM put their NY office on par with OMM DC? As the landscape sets today, top notch legal talent should be looking west and leave NY out of consideration completely.

OMM has essentially laid all blame for low NYC bonuses at Cravath & Co.'s feet. And now firms like David Polk are looking at paying their DC offices bonuses below not only Skadden (which everyone seemed content to write off as having jumped the gun), but also a California upstart like OMM.

Big Firm NY partners might value their PPP over all else, but don't they have any pride? They'll really let OMM say, essentially, that the NY market is a lost cause and should be compensated comparatively less?

avatar
262 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:22 PM

260: No, I'm still renting.

--251

Stay away, NYers, stay away.

avatar
263 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:51 PM

261 and all of you others out there without a brain:

OMM has consistently followed market and paid bonuses differently in different markets. Last year they paid NY bonuses, including the special bonuses, to NY associates while keeping to non NY market bonuses for those outside of NY. They clearly made the decision this year to maintain that strategy by paying their NY associates a NY bonus as dictated by Cravath and all those who followed. And then, as is normal, led out in the non NY market with bonuses that were not dictated by NY. Give them credit for taking the lead outside of the NY as saying we won't reduce. OMM NY associates get screwed, but have reaped the rewards in past years.

OMM a california upstart? Get a clue!

If you think OMM bonuses outside of NY are less than Skadden, you don't understand the bonus system. There are several OMM associates, outside of NY, who will get bonuses in excess of 100K. Tell me which Skadden associate will recieve that much. Beyond the base, OMM compensates for performance and hours.

You think OMM is trying to make a statement to NY firms about comp? Get a clue 1st year associate!

avatar
264 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:18 PM

251 and 262,

We shouldn't you buy now before all of the new yorkers get here?

Go on. Buy Buy Buy.

avatar
265 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:39 PM

264 here noticing a typo.....D'OH!!!

251 and 262,

Well shouldn't you buy now before all of the new yorkers get here?

Go on. Buy Buy Buy.

avatar
266 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:44 AM

Why are there so many people commenting about Orrick's hours and bonus policy who don't know what they're talking about?

Just to clarify, Orrick has a standards hours and bonus policy in all of its offices. The "minimum" billable requirement is 1950. But you don't get a bonus at 1950. There are two levels of hours bonuses you can reach. The first is at 2000 hours, where you get the bigger chunk. By way of example, first years get $25,000 at 2000 hours, second years get $30,000. Beyond that, all bonuses are discretionary. But if you hit 2100 hours, then you're guaranteed a partial amount of additional bonus. FIrst and second years get an extra $10,000, and third years get an additional $15,000 I think.

So, if you're a second year and you hit 2100 hours, you'll get $40,000.

Note that all "client representation" hours are counted toward the bonus, which includes all pro bono hours and all hours on matters where the firm is the client (e.g., working on the firm's own legal matters, like say responding to a subpoena).

So if you only "bill" 1900 hours, but you have an extra 200 in pro bono, you will get the full bonus of $35,000 as a first year or $40,000 as a second year. I know a number of people who have done that.

avatar
267 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:45 AM

Why are there so many people commenting about Orrick's hours and bonus policy who don't know what they're talking about?

Just to clarify, Orrick has a standards hours and bonus policy in all of its offices. The "minimum" billable requirement is 1950. But you don't get a bonus at 1950. There are two levels of hours bonuses you can reach. The first is at 2000 hours, where you get the bigger chunk. By way of example, first years get $25,000 at 2000 hours, second years get $30,000. Beyond that, all bonuses are discretionary. But if you hit 2100 hours, then you're guaranteed a partial amount of additional bonus. FIrst and second years get an extra $10,000, and third years get an additional $15,000 I think.

So, if you're a second year and you hit 2100 hours, you'll get $40,000.

Note that all "client representation" hours are counted toward the bonus, which includes all pro bono hours and all hours on matters where the firm is the client (e.g., working on the firm's own legal matters, like say responding to a subpoena).

So if you only "bill" 1900 hours, but you have an extra 200 in pro bono, you will get the full bonus of $35,000 as a first year or $40,000 as a second year. I know a number of people who have done that.

avatar
268 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:23 AM

Sheppard Mullin has told associates that it will be paying bonuses at the same level as last year, which is higher than OMM's bonus structure. However, Sheppard will only be paying the bonus to associates who billed 2100 hours plus.

avatar
269 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:42 AM

CA and NY bonuses have always been different, even within the same firm, so this really is not some kind of earth-shattering event. I expect we will see something similar from MoFo soon, with the NY bonuses on the half-Skadden scale, and CA bonuses (which are based on hours and performance) on the scale MoFo announced back in March and confirmed again a couple months ago.

Yes, that means that for once CA MoFo associates who make their hours and get good reviews will get bigger bonuses than NY associates, but that apparently is what the market dictates. All the years that NY associates got far more money for the same hours than CA associates, MoFo told associates that was what the market was, so why should it be different now?

avatar
270 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:37 AM

104 - nice old skool reference - Blackstreet!

avatar
271 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:41 AM

So is the takewaway from all this is that these firms with minimum billables won't be paying bonuses to a fair share of associates? Are we talking 75%? 50%?

avatar
272 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:32 AM

269, MoFo-NY didn't start matching the NY market base salary and bonus structure until 2004, so whither "all the years that NY associates got far more money for the same hours than CA associates." Is three a staggering amount on your home planet or something?

avatar
273 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:32 AM

269, MoFo-NY didn't start matching the NY market base salary and bonus structure until 2004, so whither "all the years that NY associates got far more money for the same hours than CA associates?" Is three a staggering amount on your home planet or something?

avatar
274 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:33 AM

271, I think that is right, to the extent that 2008 was a bad year in terms of associates making their minimum hours. I have no idea what the percentage is.

I'm just glad to see from the example of Orrick and OMM that the hours-based bonus firms/offices are not trying to double dip by both paying bonuses to fewer associates based on the hours requirement AND lowering bonuses for those who do make their hours. That would be lame.

As a non-NY MoFo associate, I am optimistic that those of us who did make their hours will get full bonuses as promised earlier in the year, just like associates at Orrick and OMM.

avatar
275 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:49 AM

273, "all the years" means all the years, whatever number that may be. Not sure where "staggering amount" came from. And, by the way, the number of years at issue is 4, not 3 -- 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

avatar
276 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:56 AM

They made the switch in 2004, it was not retroactive, and the 2004 bonus doesn't get paid until 2005, as I'm sure you know, so California has only been suffering this grave injustice for three years, thanks.

avatar
277 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:58 AM

Right, dumbass, like s/he said, that's four years -- that's bonuses paid out in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

avatar
278 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:47 PM

I'd never move to DC. It is one spooky shithole.

avatar
279 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:45 PM

I’m appalled, but not surprised, by the level of ignorant comments on this blog. The expressed entitlement to high salaries and bonuses is embarrassing. I’m sure you are not, but you should be ashamed.

avatar
280 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:37 PM

Whatever 279, I didn't sell my soul for nothing.

If firms don't want us feeling entitled to high salaries, then they shouldn't feel entitled to having us on call 24/7 to deal with their bs work.

avatar
281 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:08 PM

I know NYers will be upset about this, but for the past several years, the NY lockstep model put them waaaayyy ahead of the CA and DC bonuses (and therefore ahead of total compensation -- first years in NY were earning more than mid-levels in CA). This is the first year that the CA model (which is announced prospectively) will beat the NY lockstep model. Over the years, NY associates will still likely average a higher total compensation package.

avatar
282 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:21 PM

162 asked: "Why is NYC office getting screwed? Is the NYC actually the least profitable? Normally the NYC office (of a lot of firms, maybe not OMM) carries the firm (and bonuses for all offices) and sets the market. Now NYC sets the bottom and the rest of the offices dont bother carrying NYC?"

I think the answer to this is that many of the so-called "California based firms" set their CA and DC compensation prospectively and follow a non-lockstep model of bonuses (part based on class year, part on hours, part on a merit-figure). See OMM, MoFo, Orrick, Gibson, and (I thought) Latham. In the last several years, this has meant that CA and DC associates were paid a lot less then their NYC counterparts. (And, in some cases, ended with total compensation less than NYC associates who were junior to them and working on the exact same cases and/or billing less hours.) This year, by sticking to the previously announced metric, these figures are ending up higher than the NYC market.

As someone who considered both NYC and CA offices, I think there is merit to the CA system of announcing in advance. People who want to can work the extra long hours (or even if they don't want to, they know that the hours will be acknowledged). It almost ends up as sort of a multi-tiered system. But this is the first year where it results in some associates being paid more (I say some, because you do have to hit minimums).

avatar
283 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, December 19, 2008 12:41 PM

This is not the first year CA firms have paid more than NY. CA firms like irell and quinn have paid at NY or MORE for the past few years. (I know , for example, that Quinn paid their first years 5k more total compensation last year... not sure about the other classes)

avatar
284 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:04 AM

last!!!!!!!!

*farts*

avatar
285 Posted by guest | Permalink Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:12 PM

Has everyone forgot that first-year Orrick bonuses START at $25k and go up to $45k? Why does O'Melveny "make it rain" at $27k yet Orrick gets barely a passing nod for its bonus structure?

avatar
286 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:32 PM

What is the KE structure?

avatar
287 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:32 PM

What is the KE structure?

avatar
288 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:33 PM

What is the KE structure?

avatar
289 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:35 PM

What is the KE structure?

avatar
290 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:35 PM

What is the KE structure?

avatar
291 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:56 PM

all the law firms r giving big bounus and laying off alot of others . I think they all all a bunch of.... including omm

avatar
292 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:57 PM

all the law firms r giving big bounus and laying off alot of others . I think they all all a bunch of.... including omm

Post Your Comment