Comments on: Associate Bonus Watch: Boies Will Be BoiesGenerous bonuses, above-market base salaries.

By: guest

guest — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:14:52 +0000

This article and the posted comments, not to mention the American Lawyer article linked above, have so much fantasy that I was expecting to see references to “golden snitches” and “muggles.” The Boies compensation system has 3 components, 1) a base salary, 2) a fixed percentage of your overall billing at the rate it was billed, and 3) (assuming #2 exceeds #1) your bonus, which is the difference between the two. In other words, you get to keep a fixed percentage of your gross billings, and to the extent that sum exceeds your bonus, that becomes your bonus. Therefore, an increase in the base salary of a Boies associate has no practical effect whatsoever as it will just come out of the overage that is your bonus. The only people who will see a pay increase are those who fail to bill enough to cover your base, which has become increasingly common in the past few years, and guess what happens to people who are actually COSTING the firm money by not covering their salaries?? Considering that the work flow started to dry up well long before the economic collapse, hours have been down and the bonuses, if any, have been minimal, and certainly not the windfalls speculated above. As far as the associates who got million dollar bonuses from the antitrust settlement, it is simply fiction for reasons too numerous and complex to waste an explanation on but lets just say the number of people who got rich off that deal could fit in a summer associate’s office.

By: guest

guest — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:40:19 +0000

75: Incorrect. See, e.g., http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1199986621331&hbxlogin=1 and http://www.chambers-associate.com/hours.aspx?fid=66

By: guest

guest — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:39:25 +0000

73-I don’t think your response is fair in that it assumes lawyers who want to work in DC–given that W&C only operates from the nation’s capital. So clearly, as between W&C and BSF-DC, a law student would probably choose W&C. But BSF is a NYC firm, and therefore the best cases and top talent it attracts all come through New York. So you’d really have to compare BSF-NYC to W&C, in which case, I think you have a very difficult decision. At my top 3 law school, there has been a recent surge in students choosing BSF-NYC over the usual suspects, Cravath, Davis etc.

By: guest

guest — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:37:26 +0000

72, 99% of associates won’t make partner at any big law firm. So if their interest is in making big $ for the few years that they can be leveraged, why is it unwise to go for Boies rather than OMM, Latham, O’Melveny, Gibson at all? They’ll make more as a first year at Boies than fifth (or maybe even sixth) years at these other places–and its not like litigation associates at OMM et al are billing a lot less.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:25:05 +0000

74: Not correct on 401(k) contributions. The firm has for many years done a “safe harbor” contribution for all employees. I think it’s 3% of salary up to the legal max.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:44:55 +0000

Irell survived the death of its founders, but it won’t survive the death of Morgan Chu.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:10:17 +0000

They no offered about half of their summers, after not telling a number of people for over a month whether or not they’d have a job (almost october). They handled it incredibly poorly.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:57:49 +0000

Actually BSF contributes 3% up to the ceiling to 401(k)s, no matching required.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:38:28 +0000

Any idea how they would go for lateral associates who are not top tier material, but have brought in several big ticket verdicts? I was born to litigate, but do not have the credentials in education to otherwise qualify as a class of 2005 associate. I haven’t seen enough of the pie that I have brought in for my firm . . .

By: guest

guest — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:24:07 +0000

And remember that at BS, associates bear the risk, just like partners, of non-payment from a client or of a contingency case not paying or working out. So some associates get hammered even when they bill biglaw hours