Associate Life Survey: Time is on your side … or not.
We received over 2,200 responses to Monday’s ATL / Lateral Link survey, which asked you how many hours you billed last year.
In fact, we received more responses than most of you billed hours.
Although today’s Am Law Litigation Daily points out that litigation in federal courts actually rose by 9 percent last year, that doesn’t appear to have done much for your timesheets.
The table below compares your 2007 hours and predictions for 2008 (from our November survey) with the actual experience you reported on Monday.
Results: How many hours did you bill in 2007 and 2008?
| Billable Hours | 2007 | 2008 (predicted) | 2008 (actual) |
| Less than 1600 | 3.29% | 7.93% | 14.32% |
| 1600 - 1699 | 2.58% | 6% | 5.75% |
| 1700 - 1799 | 3.99% | 5.61% | 7.36% |
| 1800 - 1899 | 8.45% | 7.54% | 9.37% |
| 1900 - 1999 | 11.5% | 16.44% | 13.6% |
| 2000 - 2100 | 22.54% | 21.08% | 18.11% |
| 2100 - 2199 | 12.68% | 14.31% | 11.11% |
| 2200 - 2299 | 11.03% | 6.77% | 7.98% |
| 2300 - 2399 | 12.44% | 5.42% | 4.64% |
| 2400+ | 11.5% | 8.9% | 7.76% |
Back in 2007, roughly 70% of respondents billed at least 2000 hours last year (not counting associates with stub years), with over a third billing at least 2200. And over 11% — almost one in eight associates — were in the 2400+ zone.
But by November, almost 20% of associates thought they would fall short of 1800 hours for 2008. Even so, less than 8% feared they would not make 1600. And roughly 56% of associates still expected to hit at least 2000 hours in 2008. More than a fifth of respondents thought they would even reach 2200.
Reality was a bit less kind:
- A crushing 14% of respondents fell short of 1600 hours, almost twice the number predicted back in November.
- More than a quarter of respondents, 27%, could not make 1800.
- And a little less than half of associates, 49.6%, broke 2000.
But even these numbers may paint too rosy an economic picture. As one commenter pointed out:
I billed over 2000 hours, but had over 300 pro bono this year.
Another suggested that this year’s performance will be much weaker than last year’s:
Hitting 2000 hours for 2008 was doable because the bulk of the slow-down didn’t occur until September/October. Only because I had very high hours before then was I able to just barely hit 2000 hours for the year. 2009 will be much worse. I’m worried.
Feel free to share your own thoughts in the comments.
You know, as long as you’re not billing anything today.
—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.
(53) 
Comments
LAST!!!
I think I billed 112 hours in December.
This teriyaki beef jerky is scrumptious.
Poop
Sheep
2009 to shitshow
2010 to thebomb
cats are horrible creatures. please stop posting this filth
Interesting comments but the Ducktales rule all
I do patent litigiation: LOTS of hours for us. Slightly more than I would prefer actually.
What happens to someone named Bernold when they get old?
Interesting comments but the Ducktales rule all
Here's my response to annoying cat pictures:
http://fuckyoupenguin.blogspot.com/
MYSTTTAL!!!! STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT AND WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT THE CAHILL LAYOFFS!!!
Will BLOW me where the PAMPERS IS?
16% less than 1600 hours?!? That is craziness. Does not bode well for future layoffs.
In 2008 people will be lucky if they hit 500 hours for the entire year.
Who cares about Cahill and whether or not they have layoffs? Not me.
I Fucked that Cat.
from now on, for every asinine cat picture posted on this blog, i will shoot one neighborhood cat with a .22 and then post pictures on this site
Layoff, Hayoff. What's the difference. Bring in some work to increase your hours and your job is secure. That's what the firm owners do. Drum up the business, morons, in lieu of posting/blogging all day. Take heed and follow the 2009 direction or face the piper.
Somebody feed Mystal. He is hungry and its time for Second Lunch.
from now on, for every asinine cat picture posted on this blog, i will shoot one neighborhood cat with a .22 and then post pictures on this site
I just fed a cat to the ATM machine around the corner on 6th Ave. I don't think I can stop.
That 16% below 1600 figure doesn't even take into account the hundreds of attorneys that were laid off this year. Most were probably annualizing below 1600.
I'm on track to bill a lot less than that this year.
Just checked out the Spring OCIP at my T10 law school. A grand total of 3 firms have signed up to interview. I think next year's 2L's are fucked.
Are there seriously this many people billing in the sub 1600 category, I mean, seriously?? I have more work than I know what to do with in IP lit... this sucks ass, at least the sub-16ers (or shit, pretty much anyone under 2000) get to ride out the frozen money pipe without having to do much work, while us ip lit folks get hosed... awesome
25 - Are you referring to the laid off Cahill associates?
27: It is cyclical though. The sub-1600ers (like me) are the ones who were generally billing 2400+ at premium rates, thus making bank for their firms. I guess it's our turn to relax. Hopefully we won't get fired. Sucks though, any way you look at it.
27 - Ha Im in the same boat. All the hours suck but at least we don't have to worry about layoffs in patent-land. At my firm we were actually given some extra sugar, so at least there is that.
27: I think the survey results are biased downwards, because, to some extent, the people who spend the most time on this site, and those who have the time to respond to the survey, probably have less work to do and thus less hours.
This is not to say that we all bill few hours, just that there is some statistically-significant bias in that direction that has not been factored into the results.
what are these "billable hours" of which you speak? i keep hearing they're good to have, but i can't find them anywhere. i've looked under the rug and everything!
31: While you argument makes perfect sense, I still think the numbers are biased upwards. In my non-scientific study of friends and co-workers in the New York area, I know of almost no one billing over 2000 hours.
Maybe people with lower hours are ashamed of posting?
@28 : What? There have been layoffs at Cahill!?When?
27--How can there be so much work in IP/Litigation and Patent land if companies have no money to spend?
from now on, for every asinine cat picture posted on this blog, i will shoot one neighborhood cat with a .22 and then post pictures on this site
I know a lot of people billing under 1600. Almost anyone who's practice touches on real estate finance or securitizaiton is under 1600. Anyone heavily involved in a high yield debt offerings is probably under too. There were barely any IPOs in 2008, so I'd expect a some associates there to get caught too. Not to mention associates who's practice focuses on leveraged buyouts. That describes a LOT of associates at a lot of good firms in New York.
35--good question, but I can verify 27's comments, at least for my firm. The IP people aren't crazy busy, but they have a LOT more work to do than the others I know. The junior associates I know in Corp. and General Lit. are groveling for any work they can find.
Also, pro bono hours are way up, which is great for our day-to-day feeling of some accomplishment, but not as great for our future viability.
From now on, for every cat-hating nutbag posting here, I will shoot the left ball off of a Pomeranian or Labradoodle. Or a second-year.
It is hard to tell how busy associates really were based on this data. One problem is that "billable hour" may mean different things at different firms. At some firms "billable hour" = client billable hours only. But many firms give billable hours credit for pro bono, recruitment and professional development work. I would be curious to see how much CLIENT BILLABLE hours associates had in 2008 and what they are expecting for 2009.
39 = gay or ugly and lonely girl.
"[B]y November, . . . only 6% feared they would not make 1600."
Your chart says 7.93%.
"Reality was a bit less kind: A crushing 14% of respondents fell short of 1600 hours, more than twice the number predicted back in November."
7.93% x 2 > 14.32%.
Israeli politician calls for nuclear strike on Gaza
Bethlehem - Right-wing Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman proposed a "solution" to the war in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday saying, "Israel won't be secure so long as Hamas is in power, and therefore we need to come to a decision that we will break the will of Hamas to keep fighting."
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/63257/israeli-politician-calls-for-nuclear-strike-on-gaza.html
Israeli troops evacuated Palestinian civilians to a house in Gaza City and then shelled the building 24 hours later, killing 30 people inside http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm
Medical teams found four young children huddled by the bodies of their dead mothers in a shelled house. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1110212/Israel-faces-UN-war-crimes-probe-dozens-civilians-moved-safe-house--bombed-airstrike-24-hours-later.html
Watch this CBS news video to see what Israelis are doing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev6ojm62qwA
The Pope calls Gaza a concentration camp. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL8378047
what a bs survey --- ever consider that the more hours one bills, the less likely they are to respond to a survey like this --- don't think this one is going to make it in under FRE 807
what a bs survey --- ever consider that the more hours one bills, the less likely they are to respond to a survey like this --- don't think this one is going to make it in under FRE 807
31: While you argument makes perfect sense, I still think the numbers are biased upwards. In my non-scientific study of friends and co-workers in the New York area, I know of almost no one billing over 2000 hours.
Maybe people with lower hours are ashamed of posting?
Firms need to get rid of their pro bono policies ASAP; they skew all these poll results and bring no money into the firm. Pro bono "charities" should be the first ones to take the hit in the recession.
Personally, I think the survey should count up to 50 pro bono hours (because that's the most anyone should be legitimately doing -- any more than that and you're just using pro bono to cover up for your incompetence). No professional development/training hours should be counted.
48, I don't use pro bono to cover up for my incompetence, I use it to cover up for my total lack of billable work to do. As a first year, all I can do is ask everyone I know for work. If that yields nothing, I can either do pro bono work or sit around all day for weeks on end. If it weren't for pro bono work, most weeks I'd have no work.
What's the favorite lunch of a big firm associate who bills more than 1800 hours a year?
http://monzyummylunch.blogspot.com/2009/01/above-law-but-below-lunch-proving-that.html
2400 hours is crap. I'd like to see the time sheets. You literally spend 14 hours a day at work for an entire year? When I am here for 10 hours I usually bill 8 because I am honest. I have billed over 2 thousand hours several times and adding what in essence is 2.25 months of work on top of it just smacks of bull shittery.
45 - Maybe, but the survey is comparative in nature; comparing prior responses (2007) to current responses (2008). The value of the survey is seeing how hours have fallen in 2008, not what percentage of lawyers are billing how many hours (if that were the value, the survey would be useless for more reasons than the one you note).
last