Firsty Mcfirsty!!

Firsty Mcfirsty!!

ha! you McLose.

Your job is your bonus

Imposter!!

So far, the comments are about as insightful as I expected them to be.

Number 5 is the winner of this thread.

Your job is your bonus. Anything else is mere discussion or trolling.

Any firm planning to pay more in bonuses than last year (in light of all the layoffs & salary cuts) would be extremely poorly run.

Why do people continue to crow about how rad it is that DLA piper set some sort of "bonus floor?" It's misguided. Right now, associates there are making less -- often dramatically less -- than their peers at other firms. Say you're a 4th year associate. Your salary was first frozen (effective Jan 1), and then slashed by 10% (effective sometime in the middle of the year). Taken together, that 4th year is making about 30k less than a typical person at a typical NY firm that did not freeze salaries.

So, please put the much-lauded "floor" in the proper context. It will almost certainly, no matter what the figures wind up being, not make up for the combined effect of the combination freeze & cut that took place in 2008.

There is no way bonuses will not be given regardless of the economy. There are some associates who are deserving of bonuses. Mmmmmk!

There's no incentive to meet mkt standard-- these firms aren't worried about attrition. In some ways, it would be irresponsible for firms to pay decent bonuses this year.

NYC to 190K!

No bonus, no pee pee in toilet

We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize?

Second prize is a set of steak knives.

Third prize is you're fired.

If be prescient, you mean, "completely wrong in every case but one firm," then, sure, you're prescient.

12,

Its not about attrition. Its about firms wanting clients to believe that they have the best associates. If the firm is paying significantly less in bonuses, clients believe that the high-quality associate will walk. It doesn't matter if the associates actually leave -- or if the higher paid associates are even better in the first place. (I often think they are not.) The perception is all that matters, and its there even if its inaccurate.

Bonuses? For lawyers? This year?

That's some funny shit right there Ellie.

High quality associates will walk? Where to?

The perception is that there is NO place to go to if you are an associate in a law firm.

I've heard rumors that Skadden and Half-Skadden bonuses will be the norms again.

If my bonus as a 4th year in a top three firm is a signed copy of A.S. Byatt's "Possession," I am walking.

17,

you don't think that clients might get annoyed by big bonuses paid to young associates when the clients are struggling to pay the lawyer fees?

19, when was the last time you saw a "high quaility associate." There's no such thing. Associates are filler, used to generate billable hours for the firm. They add nothing of value to the representation. As for DLA, they are home to the most worthless associates in the country. Just ask any lawyer who has ever been on the other side of DLA in anything.

The ship be sinking...

If the stock market continues to go up, firms will pay bonuses in line with last year. If the market falls apart again like it did last winter, we may see a lot of the big firms not pay bonuses, followed by another round of layoffs.

The work just isn't coming in the door the way that it used to.

"Any firm planning to pay more in bonuses than last year (in light of all the layoffs & salary cuts) would be extremely poorly run."

Signed,
Big Law Partner worried I might have to slum it in West Hampton next summer if I have to pay these damn slaves a year end bonus.

23 is the correct motorcycle.

who the fuck cares? the first to fifth-year lemmings in large law firms will gratefully accept whatever is thrown at them and then will return to their dreary, dull lives inside their corporate cage.

color me bored. yawn. let's talk about how the legal world is changing or more important things, like the color of my poop.

Any sane firm that hands out bonuses in today's economy better have a bulletproof clawback clause.

Your bonus is a $50 gift certificate to Applebee's.

This year, Squire Sanders is giving out a certificate good for one up-to 22lb turkey at local groceries. That's the bonus. No joke.

22 - Who said they would be big? Also, client concerns haven't stopped some law firms in v25 from raising rates over the past year.

Clients are more likely to complain about bills and demand alternative fee arrangements than to call a partner and ask about the 15k paid to a third year assoc.

The laws of economics may well apply here. The few firms that still believe their business is coming back and can afford to pay bonuses, will. The vast majority of others will not pay much, if any bonuses, and will continue to downsize.

17 - wow. you know soooo much about the business and economics of law. maybe you should write a book or something about it. or maybe start your own blog so you can opine on why clients care so much about whether law firm associates are paid bonuses (as opposed to the clients being concerned about value added, quality of the representation, and the amount of the bill).

Clients concerned about associate bonuses! Get a clue.

19 -

The job market has turned around for associates in some areas already. We have had 5 or 6 leave to go either in house at banks or to other V25 firms in the last 6 weeks.

22, Everyone hate Congress but loves their Congressman. Everyone thinks lawyers aren't worth the money they are paid, until its their case on the line and they want to make sure they have the best. Unfortunately, most clients can't tell the difference between a good associate and a shitty one.

23, There are high-quality associates. But they are few and far between. That's why firms want to make clients believe that they are doing their best to keep them. Where clients (and firms) get it wrong is that there is virtually no correlation with the associate's "credentials." The some of the worst lawyers I have worked with went to some of the best schools.

The trick is to give generous bonus to the associates you want to keep, and the shaft to associates you want to walk.

Some or all of V10 will pay bonuses and some pretenders will follow. Easy prediction.

35

In corp, securities, real estate? Hello?

Dumbass.

If WALL STREET can pay bonuses why can't LAWFIRMS pay as well?

39: Exactly. And some will.

Hey 34, I never said that clients care about bonuses. I said that law firms think that clients care. Or more specifically, that clients care about the reputation (i.e. prestige) that comes from a firm paying high bonuses. And since its law firms that are paying the bonuses, and not the clients directly, that is all that matter.

Law firms have shitty business models. No argument. But its stupid to think that potential attrition is the only think driving bonuses.

The proof will be whether law firms pay them this year. If they do, I'm right. If they don't, you are right. Seems like we have a pretty easy way to keep score.

Everyone talking about firms raising rates needs to learn the difference between topline rates and effective billed rates. Almost no significant client is paying any firm's topline rate. Any increase is being swallowed in discounts and write offs.

I recently saw a bill in which EVERY junior associate hour was written off. Every one.

There is only one kind of high quality associate - one who has generated an appreciable amount of business or has shown the ability to do so. The rest are ALL replaceable.

if Goldman is paying out record bonuses, why can't its client S&C do the same?

"I recently saw a bill in which EVERY junior associate hour was written off. Every one."

Ouch. The junior associates are just asking to be laid off. Definitely not untouchables.

They should do a deferred bonus. Nothing this year, if you are still around next year, you get double.

24 - why do you even bother posting at all?

43 -- and part of generating an appriciable amount of business is developing a reputation as a good lawyer. A lot of associates are not good lawyers. Firms should try to keep the ones that are.

41, when you tried to find the most prestigious law school did you care whether the school paid market or zero Christmas bonuses to their teaching fellows? After all, those teaching fellows do the real work and some of them become full professors. Without bonuses they best ones will just go elsewhere or never join the school. Oh, what's that, you didn't care at all?

15= good pick!

can someone remind me of the appropriate bonus to give my secretary?

Marshall Dennehey Elkins Park to $38 k !

49 = Fail.

If that is your analogy, you are right. You are not an associate that deserves a bonus.

asslobster

53, name me one instance of people, besides your fantasy world's law firm clients, who believe that their service vendors' fixed-salary hired help should get high bonuses.

@53

Bonuses ties to production (and not, say, tenure)? Yeah that *is* stupid......

And it is an allusion, not an analogy. Dumbass.

32, the person i was responding to wasn't advocating small bonuses -- they were advocating market bonuses. most likely market bonuses will be low, so your point is taken. of course clients wouldn't care about a 15k bonus. but i also don't think they would look at a below market bonus and say "gosh, a bonus that small is clearly going to drive away the best associates -- you should really pay out bigger bonuses." i SERIOUSLY doubt clients care whether law firm associates get bonuses one way or the other, as long as the bonuses aren't so big that it looks wasteful.

36 - true, and that reinforces my point. i never said clients would be justified in not liking big bonuses paid to associates, just that some might feel that way in the current economy.

-22

55: When you hear that DLA is cutting bonuses, do you think that it means that DLA is struggling? Does it make you think that DLA is having a tough time getting clients to pay? Does it make you think that DLA would be doing better if it was a better firm? It does to me.

And again, your reading comprehension is poor. I did not say that clients necessarily think this way. But big firm lawyers do. And the big firm lawyers pay the bills. Talk to me when you work in big law.

My firm is instituting a reverse bonus policy. Associates will be required to pay to the firm between $15-60K (depending on seniority) to hold on to their jobs. Those who don't will be laid off.

56 -- You have proved your ignorance. Nice work.

al⋅lu⋅sion  /əˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. a passing or casual reference; an incidental mention of something, either directly or by implication: an allusion to Shakespeare.
2. the act of alluding.
3. Obsolete. a metaphor; parable.

a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy  /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics. a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.

5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

58, you're right, that's why bonus-cutting Cravath is obviously struggling and having a hard time getting paying clients.

When do firms normally announce the actual numbers?

57 -- see any I think that the perception is that clients will be outraged at the amount that associates are getting in bonuses (in general), but that when they go to hire firm for their own matter, they will want to hire the best and they have very little way to judge who the best is except how well the firm is perceived to be doing, quantified in part by how much money the firm is making and paying out.

Anyone who is happy their firm is paying bonuses at all after just laying off 10-40% of their associates is a prick.

call me a prick. there was a lot of dead weight.

There are a lot of pricks in Biglaw that are dead weight. I chortle with glee every time someone gets off because as JaKE says -- they were dilatory and inane. If you got laid off, you have a scarlet letter on your back -- incompetent dead weight.

63,

that's reasonable.

-22/57

@60.

Ignorance?

You are only confused because you do not know what the comment ALLUDES to. It won't be in your dictionary, and you have received enough free tuition from me.

Let me guess 2L at a TTT. Don't answer. I don't really care.

Bonuses will only be paid to 4th years and above.

68,
You are as wrong about my position as you are in your use of the word "alludes."

And just to be clear, because you probably still don't understand, that means that you are very wrong.

Why shouldn't law firms pay bonuses in line with last year if i-banks are expected to pay large bonuses, maybe even up to pre-depression standards. Don't biglaw firms and i-banks have the same clients? Why would these clients balk at lawyer and not those of i-bankers?

because not every biglaw lawyer is a corporate attorney with an i-bank as a client

64 -

If you've billed as much time as always, at the same rates or higher as always, and your realization rate is the same or higher, you should expect the same bonus as what you usually get. This is common sense.

If you're an IP litigator bringing in big cash, your compensation shouldn't be tied to the transactional guys who can't get their house in order. If more trannies have to be laid off to get the money to those who have earned it, so be it.

My job is my bonus!?!

Hell, at Eastern Motors, my job is my CREDIT.

Tell me, which one is it? Can it be both?

39/40 - Banks are paying out bonuses with taxpayer money. Law firms received no such bailout. Do not expect similarly high bonuses from law firms.

TBone Pickins

75 - I agree. Clearly lawyer lack any appreciation of economics and have no familiarity with business fundamentals. Its no wonder they make a fraction of what professionals in the finance industry earn.

I would be happy with a one-year membership to the "Jelly of the Month" club.

It's the gift that keeps on givin the whole year.

74 ftw!

@57's theory as to law firm partners' perception of potential client perception as a driver of bonuses may be the dumbest thing I've ever read in the ATL comments. The idea that law firm partners, who spend a considerable percentage of their time on client development and fee collection, have some bizarrely preposterous sense of client preferences is frankly retarded. Clients have only the most minimal concern about associates (limited largely to not having to deal with obviously terrible associates without adult supervision) and certainly could not care less what associates are paid as long as it is not at the client's expense.

93 is just flat out wrong.

Milbank will break the ice and announce half "half Skadden" bonuses. You heard it here first, y'all.

Half-Skadden will be the new Skadden.

Are the bonuses being paid based on any measurable metric, like billable hours, realization rate or business brought in, or are they just paid across the board if you happen to be still employed at the time the bonuses are paid?

80 = Ms. Claire Voyant

I feel badly for everyone who was laid off, but many v10 firms have laid off few (if any) associates and are having good years. Associates have hours and expect bonuses. These firms could probably get away with not paying, but recruiters have started calling again. If you want your best associates to walk, don't pay. Otherwise, v10 firms with good finances should pay reasonable bonuses.

"Bonuses will most likely be smaller than they have been in the past. Not that there’s anything wrong with that."

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE FOR THE REST OF US YOU KNOW-NOTHING BASTARDS

79 - you're an idiot. 57 was a response to #17, who claimed that firms would pay market bonus to avoid perception from clients that the best associates would leave. 17 trumps 57 for dumbest post on ATL. htfh.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2008/11/25/smart-clients-care-about-bonuses-and-marketplace-value/

Bonuses won't exist this year. Firms are going to dare us to find employment elsewhere. Which we won't be able to.

15=perfect

87, you are just plain wrong and clearly don't work in biglaw. Our management committee has said specifically that we match bonuses of our peer firms. Why do they do that? Its surely not because they think all of us associates are going to leave and go to those firms. Its because they want the prestige of being considered part of that group. And the only reason to want that prestige -- say it with me now -- because they think that it will matter to clients.

The only person dumber may be 79, who wanted to make the same point as 87, but couldn't count.

91, that was precisely my point, dumbass. 17 was the one who said firms pay market bonus because [clients would think] associates might leave and go to those firms. not only do i not think that, but i expressly disagreed with it and think it's an idiotic suggestion. moreover, of course firms pay market to place themselves in line with peers. any jackass can see that, and nothing in my post was ever intended to suggest contrary motivation. please read 17.

thx, 87

92, so you are a simplistic moron and you want us to believe you work in-house. fair. Talk me through your logic. You agree that firms pay bonus to keep up with their "peer" firms. Why do firms want to pay more money to be seen as peer firms? There must be some benefit, right? Otherwise, firms would pay nothing. So do you believe that the firms that pay more want to give the impression that they have better quality associates? Probably. How would that work? Do people always get paid exactly what they are worth? Do law firms that pay a lot know exactly which law students will be the most valuable before they are even out of law school? Doubtful. So if firm A pays more than firm B for prestige, on what basis does firm A think that you will believe that it has better associates? Might it be because the best associates would leave to go to the firms that pay the most? At least, that is what firm A is hoping you believe when it pays a high bonus -- and what my firm is scared of when it matches.

93 is just flat out wrong.

>>So do you believe that the firms that pay more want to give the impression that they have better quality associates? Probably. >How would that work? Do people always get paid exactly what they are worth? Do law firms that pay a lot know exactly which law students will be the most valuable before they are even out of law school? Doubtful. So if firm A pays more than firm B for prestige, on what basis does firm A think that you will believe that it has better associates? Might it be because the best associates would leave to go to the firms that pay the most? At least, that is what firm A is hoping you believe when it pays a high bonus -- and what my firm is scared of when it matches.<<

you really went off on your own on that one, buddy.

94's analysis is unassailable. Clearly we are dealing with a legal mind on par with Marshall, Holmes or Brandeis.

94's analysis is unassailable. Clearly we are dealing with a legal mind on par with Marshall, Holmes or Brandeis.

95, not really. the market has consistently paid these bonuses. and will pay them this year. the question is, why? people like 94 and 92 have no explanation.

Unless name calling is an explanation.

98 -- i was actually trying to respond to the actual argument he ended up making, which he clearly thought was a preemptive strike at what i would say. unfortunately, ATL's website sucks and the rest of my post didn't go through ---- let me try again:

just my guesses, but:

i don't think bonus size signals anything about associate quality, nor do i think that's the reason why firms pay market.

re: the relationship between bonuses and peer-status -- if this board is any indication at all, a lot of biglaw attorneys equate higher salaries to prestige -- e.g. wachtell. firms pay market bonuses at least in part to prove that they CAN pay as much as the firms they consider peers. frankly, the second they don't pay top salaries/bonuses, the entire ATL community of douchebag junior associates goes crazy and declares the firm no longer worthy of "peer" status, or at least temporarily laughable (see 6 months worth of posts about "half-skadden"). i'm sure at least some of the lawyers on ATL would leave their firms (when jobs become available) if their firms started paying below-market bonuses. firms know this. so rather than risk losing talented lawyers to firms they view as competition, they pay the same salary's and bonuses -- takes compensation off the table as a deal-breaker with current and future talent

-87.

99 -

Its a reasonable analysis, but it doesn't explain why firms would pay bonuses this year, when the market for laterals is significantly reduced. It should be a long time before the markets really pick up, and they would lose probably 1-2 associates at most in the near term (before next bonus season). Hardly worth paying a huge bonus -- especially with the amount of talent that has recently been laid-off. Simply put, even good associates are replaceable right now.

That said, I still think that firms will pay the big bonus. The system may be as stupid as you believe (and I might agree), but douchebag junior associates become douchebag partners. And douchebag junior associates that think bonuses are a sign of prestige become douchebag partners that think bonuses are a sign of prestige. And they think clients think the same way. Which leads me to my original point: partners think their firm's reputation will be hurt if they don't pay the bonuses, so they will. Even if associates aren't actually going to go anywhere, the partners think it says something about their firm to the clients.

/93

93/100

I agree with all of that. I also think that a lot of firms are trying to prove how well they can ride through the recession. we're all watching closely to see which firms "seem" to be doing great (e.g. Skadden's bonus last year; low numbers of layoffs), and which have been struggling (e.g. Latham layoffs; salary freezes; below-market bonuses).

You see posts all the time about how the recession will "separate the truly prestigious firms from the ones that were never really peers to begin with."

I think that firms want to signal that they are doing okay; or at least as well as their peers. Sure, all firms could decide not to pay bonuses. It'd make a lot of partners a little richer, and it'd probably make economic sense this year. But they won't do that, because it's just unrealistic to think that NO firms will pay bonuses.

The top firms will pay bonuses to show off how well they've come through the recession. The firms that want to be considered top firms will pay similar amounts to give the appearance of having been able to ride through the recession, even if it's all a load of crap. And pretty soon a market is set.

Few firms are at the level of Cravath in that it could depart dramatically from the top bonus and wind up setting a new market -- sure, people poked fun, but there was never going to be any permanent damage. Most firms would probably prefer to match market than to risk more long-term damage to reputation.

Anyway, who knows. I really have no idea, but that's sure what it looks like to me.

- 87/99

WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHETHER TRANSACTIONAL WORK IS COMING BACK AT ALL?

102 - depends on the firm

101 -- I think that absolutely gets at it. The extra point I've been trying to make is that firms do this prestige match because (rightly or wrongly) they think it signals to clients the quality of attorneys that they are. Since no one believes they always get it right just from hiring out of law school, they think that clients will believe that high bonuses will attract the best talent.

If it was just about prestige and showing that they were doing well, they could go burn a pile of money. (or just highlight their PPP). Because part of it is tied to bonus, they have to think that bonuses have some pay-off.

17/91/93/100

You fucking retards. If you are NY Biglaw, you're getting a bonus. Why? Because some areas, like bankruptcy, are red hot (GM, Chrysler, Lehman, to name but a few of the large cases in SDNY, not to even mention all the other stuff that filed in DE that keeps Amtrak above water with seemingly half the NY BK bar on the train on any given day) and will continue to be next year, and BK associates are banging out 2500+ hours without thinking about it. You can bet your ass that firms will pay to keep their BK associates from leaving because right now they're wicked profitable, and firms will think nothing of throwing them 5 digits because they'll make it back in a month. It is the economics of self interest.

When corporate work blew out back about 10 years ago or so, several firms paid half or 3/4 bonii to departments that weren't making hours (if you weren't stealth sacked first). If my bookie took bets on this kind of thing, I'd put my money on something similar this go round - think Skadden, Half-Skadden and Half-to-3/4-Skadden.

These posts are just rank speculation, but here are some facts for perspective. Firms don't pay bonuses to associates in order to siginal clients about how great their associates are. That's not how firms send that signal. They send it by giving the associates meaningful opportunities of which the client is aware. Firms pay bonuses almost entirely for a single reason: not to lose talent. This is why deparating associates not leaving to go in-house rarely get much of a bonus. In the current economic climate, do firms really need to pay bonuses -- at all -- to retain talented associates? Put another way, if a talented associated does not get a bonus, where is that associate going to go work?

My speculation is that bonuses will be small or nonexistent this year.

These posts are just rank speculation, but here are some facts for perspective. Firms don't pay bonuses to associates in order to siginal clients about how great their associates are. That's not how firms send that signal. They send it by giving the associates meaningful opportunities of which the client is aware. Firms pay bonuses almost entirely for a single reason: not to lose talent. This is why deparating associates not leaving to go in-house rarely get much of a bonus. In the current economic climate, do firms really need to pay bonuses -- at all -- to retain talented associates? Put another way, if a talented associated does not get a bonus, where is that associate going to go work?

My speculation is that bonuses will be small or nonexistent this year.

I love how now people are re-stating the same arguments that have been beaten to death for the past 20 posts, except they are claiming to offer new information by saying (a) the most prestigious firms are still making money, and (b) law firms pay bonuses to keep people from leaving.

considering these are all the same points made in 99-101, i think we have to agree with you.

what i don't quite get is how restating our "speculation" becomes "facts for perspective" when you all say it. or how adding details that don't contradict anything said, but does make it more plausible, renders the less-detailed comments "retarded."

anyway, this has been fun.

Wow, the egos on this comments thread are incredible.

Right now, clients care about only 2 things right now: (1) cost and (2) good results. (Want proof? Check out the AmLaw story on the recent ACC summit in Boston). And many of them are realizing that they can hire a small to mid-size firm for half the cost of a big firm and get the same if not better result than if they hired the big firm.

LESSON: ***The only dick measuring going on right now between in-house counsel is over who got the highest quality lawyer and best outcome for best price.***

Expect a small bonus, unless you're in BK or work at Wachtell, and be happy you're employed.

MAYBE PARTNERS should hire someone to run some models to figure out whether 1.5 mil/year/equity partner is actually sustainable??? Lawyers are not bankers. PPP, just like salaries, inflated during the "good years" and must deflate proportionately.

Maybe more firms should/will move to a quality and quantity metric for bonuses like other industries. If you're out there working 2200 hours or more and your colleagues are making exactly the same for a 1900-2000 hour year don't you deserve a bonus? Using quality quantity is the best way to incentivize hard work down the line a d keep your stars from leaving if they can. Those associates who only worked 1850 or 2000, your free time is your bonus. I'm hoping that firms will use this down time to look at the intelligence of offering lockstep bonuses to all after the first couple years.

Clients by and large couldn't care less what associates are paid. Anybody telling themselves differently is fooling themselves.

In a lot of cases they don't even care about prestige (to a point). A non-lawyer is familiar with about as many law firms as lawyers are with investment banks and hedge funds--They know a handful and that's it. A client's familiarity with the Vault rankings or Amlaw is nil.

Their counsel presumably knows about it, but even then, out of the work that's farmed out to their outside counsel, usually many firms are interchangeable. What they'll ask themselves beyond "is it a firm that can handle the work" is 1.) are we hurting for money? 2.) can we demand cheaper bills? and 3.) how about let's just do this internally?

What a firm does to help them answer all those questions in its favor is up to firm.

111 see 42.

42

Clients do care about associate pay/bonuses to the extent they are overinflated, and can be used as negotiating leverage to push down rates/bills.

That is all.

"Clients do care about associate pay/bonuses to the extent they are overinflated, and can be used as negotiating leverage to push down rates/bills."

True.

-112

cravath secure

YAWN. the top firms will always pay bonuses because they work in top markets where bonuses are the norm for everyone - all the way from back office support staff to, yes, lawyers). it is all the pretender firms in markets that don't have a culture of GETTIN' PAID (and have been pretending for the last 7-8 years) that will stop paying the $$$$.

117 is on the money. There is a small group of firms that have not frozen, delayed, or reduced salaries and have fired only a small number of associates, if any. That group (almost entirely within the Vault 15), remains the core top tier. Strong before, during, and after the recession. The rest of the V50 are in various stages of disarray and will likely not realign their compensation with the top tier firms for some time, if ever.

This is not a "bonus" in the way that you 'no mare than 37.5 'ourrs a week, hoss, or yer gonna pay me time an' a half' mouthbreathers that make up middle America think of a bonus. This is deferred compensation that makes up for the insane hours required by the task at hand.

Take on $120k in debt, sacrifice 3 years of income, and work 80+ hour weeks including regular weekends in exchange for a skyhigh cost of living and $160k a year before a ~40% effective tax on income (Fed, state, city income + SSI/medicare)? Gee, sign me the fuck up.

What a bunch of pathetic, innane comments. Not much more than immature kids arguing with one another.

120, on the other hand, is much more mature and spends his or her time saving the gay baby whales for Jesus.

I agree with 118, as there are a number of firms that haven't made any real news on this site, haven't cut salaries, haven't frozen salaries, haven't had mass layoffs (although I think every firm has pushed some people out of the door to some extent), haven't delayed start dates, etc. These firms are predominantly NYC-based, lock-step firms, and I expect these firms will pay some bonus. I think this is the year that a lot of pretender firms get exposed.

Despite efforts to conceal or obscure their identity, it appears that this entire comment thread is chock full of short-armed, deep-pocketed partners.

And to all you partners, a few things to consider:

(1) Despite what you may think, both the demand for legal services (and with it, the lateral market) is coming back faster than you think. I've had at least a dozen headhunters call me in the last few months with open job opportunities in hand, as have many of my senior associate and mid-level associate friends and colleagues. It's still tough to find a job in this economy, but it's not impossible, and while YOUR firm may not be hiring laterals in this market just yet, other firms are. Trust me, if you're not paying your employees a market salary/market bonus in 2010, as the lateral market continues to improve, you WILL lose timekeepers...perhaps more timekeepers than you can afford to lose once the deal work returns.

(2) As someone who worked for a leading financial institution several years before law school, I can assure you that clients in the financial sector who are paying their employees $300k-$3M+ in year-end bonuses could not care less about outside counsel giving paltry $20k-$80k bonuses to their associates, provided those associates are productive, efficient, and the firm provides results and saves the client money in the long run. Stop using "client demands" as your cheap excuse to underpay the workhorses who help send your kids to private school and pay for the mortgage on your boat and beach house. In the event you're unfortunate enough to have the kinds of cheap clients who would raise concerns about your associates' salaries, you may want to consider going to bat for your team, and politely informing your clients that lawyers (not just partners) need to make a living too. Associates did not spend three years in law school or take out $200k in Ivy League loan debt just to have a bunch of twenty-something i-bankers with no more than a college degree dictate their salaries to them.

Playoffs? Playoffs!?! Are you kidding me? I just hope we can win a game.

I'm in a suburban market about an hour from a major city. I work for a less than 100 lawyer firm. They did no layoffs and I am a first year associate. The buzz around the office is "bonuses as usual, including first years." So, as a first year I have no idea if this means $1,000 or $50,000. What is the norm?

125 -- that's about zero info to go on. Why not just asking, say, a second year at your firm what they paid last year?

The people above who write that firms will pay to keep talent are right. My firm has a bankruptcy practice that's so busy it has overflowed into the corporate department and as a result all the bankruptcy people and not a few corporate are over 2000 already. All summers got offers and no one was deferred. Are you telling me they won't pay bonuses? I'll bet they do. With a few bankruptcy partners having already left, they'd better, and I'll bet they see this as a golden opportunity to strike a PR blow by paying out to people who deserve them when others don't. My guess? Bill 2000+, or whatever the usual limit is, and you'll see a bonus this year. Bill 1400 or 1700, as some people in my department still do, then you won't. And, honestly? You shouldn't.