Last week, we posted Part Four of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, covering the range of firms from Akin Gump to Young Conaway. We've also posted results from our surveys on relocation benefits and whether you have to pay it all back when you leave. And between survey responses, comments, and tips, we have a few thousand data points.

Today, we're consolidating the three tables in one place, so that we can start filling in more blanks and squeezing out some nuances.

The table below now shows six things for each firm:

  * which bar exam expenses the firm will reimburse (send us tips to fill in the blanks),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a summer stipend or a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts,

  * whether the firm provides any particular relocation benefits,

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year, and

  * whether the firm will make you pay it all back if you leave. As a general rule, payback requirements will apply to everything but a stub bonus, and will include clerkship bonuses.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the aggregated table of bar reimbursements, stipends and bonuses, salary advances, moving expenses, stub bonuses, and payback requirements. Check it out, after the jump.

We've been hearing that the Los Angeles office of Sidley Austin suffers from perilously low morale. To address the situation and get feedback from associates, earlier this week the firm held what it called a "mini-retreat": three days of off-site meetings between management and associates, from Tuesday through Thursday. Fun fun.

For a "mini-retreat," the location wasn't terribly exotic. Associates were dragged across the street to the Biltmore Hotel, in batches: one day for senior associates, one day for midlevels, and one day for juniors. The meetings sucked up about half a day for each lawyer. There were no chair massages.

While some appreciated the firm's attempt to address the morale crisis, the meetings were not well-received in all quarters. The idea of mandatory, lengthy, and non-billable meetings didn't thrill associates who may have to make up the lost hours over the weekend.

The main source of discontent at Sidley - LA appears to be bonus levels. Their bonuses are described as a fraction of New York market, even for lawyers with strong reviews, and even below the market level for Los Angeles. We hear that a fair number of Sidley lawyers are interviewing around town in search of greener pastures.

We reached out to both Sidley and their outside PR firm, yesterday and today. We have not heard back from them yet, but we will let you know if we do.

Last week, we posted Part Three of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses (which covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Proskauer Rose). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person, at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today's installment will at last make it to Wachtell, Weil, WilmerHale and beyond . . . after the jump.

But before we get there, let's quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the fourth batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses. Check it out, after the jump.

Last week, we posted Part Two of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, and covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Kirkland & Ellis (or K&L Gates, depending on how you choose to alphabetize). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today's installment will make it to O'Melveny, Pillsbury, Quinn, Skadden, or all the way to Weil and beyond . . . after the jump.

But before we get there, let's quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the third batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, after the jump.

While we continue to update our ATL / Lateral Link tables on clerkship bonuses and signing bonuses and bar exam fees, a few of the clerks I have been working with lately have asked an interesting, but often critical question: "Do I have to give it back if I leave?"

Stay tuned for results next week, and, as always, please feel free to send us tips.

In the meantime, a quick shout-out to two firms making nice strides lately: Hogan & Hartson now offers a $50K clerkship bonus in all of their offices, and Fried Frank has increased their paid maternity leave to 18 weeks.

Both of our running tables have now been updated to reflect the good news.

We received over 1,200 responses to last week's our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, and we've definitely got the makings of another sweet, informative running table for you.

But it's going to take a little bit of time to mesh all the data, as some of you differ quite a bit on what, if anything, your firms provide. So while we work on getting you everything from A to Z, here are the results from Akin Gump to Drinker Biddle, or about 35 firms, to get the ball rolling. We'll post a bigger table next week.

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

Now, this is the first iteration of these results, and like another Episode I, it may have some room for improvement. It's entirely possible that we've got the right numbers in the wrong buckets, or are missing a number completely, or have otherwise managed to bork something.

For example, in a lot of cases, where associates have reported that their firms don't cover bar expenses, they may really have meant to say that the firms don't provide a stipend, but actually do reimburse the actual bar exam expenses when presented with a receipt. In other cases, reported salary advances or stub bonuses may differ from associate to associate, and we need more input so we can state a range instead of an amount certain.

So, if details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance, please send us a tip.

Those caveats aside, we bring you the first batch of results. Check out the table, after the jump.

The Brokeback Lawfirm scandal folded its pup tent months ago. But there's still stuff to cover at one of ATL's favorite firms, the venerable Sullivan & Cromwell.

Here are two items. First, from a tipster:

If I recall correctly, Sullivan & Cromwell sent out a memo in December or January saying that even though they paid the "special bonuses" in December, they still intended to pay additional profit-sharing bonuses in February. [February is over] and as far as I know, not a word from S&C. Can you guys please make a big deal over this?

The tipster's memory is slightly off. From chairman H. Rodgin Cohen's earlier bonus memo:

[T]he Firm will pay senior associates compensation in addition to salary and bonus through our new Senior Associate Supplemental Bonus Plan ("the Plan"). We have decided to accelerate payments under this new Plan to result in the following [market-matching bonuses] being paid on December 14 to our senior associates, with final supplemental payments to be made in the Spring of '08.

We are now officially into spring 2008. So ATL hereby "make[s] a big deal over this." Has S&C paid the supplemental bonuses to its senior associates? If so, can someone please give us the skinny?

Second, here's an interesting rumor of a partner departure from S&C, from a different tipster:

Carlos Spinelli-Noseda is a partner at S&C (do a Google search and check the cached website). At this point, however, you can't find him on the firm's external or internal website anymore. No idea what's up with him, but apparently he [was] involved in a firm event about 10 days ago...

We're intrigued. Partner departures are more common farther down the Am Law 100, but they're rare at a place like Sullivan & Cromwell.

We did some preliminary poking around, but didn't learn anything. A firm spokesperson didn't respond to multiple telephone and email messages. The usual news sources have no stories about his defection to another firm. On LinkedIn, he's still listed as an S&C partner (although it's true, as noted by the tipster, that his bio is gone from the S&C website).

We tried contacting Mr. Spinelli-Noseda directly. Our email didn't bounce back, but we didn't get a response either. When we dialed his direct extension, a receptionist answered the telephone with the firm name, not his name. When we asked to speak with him, the secretary asked us -- in a vaguely hostile tone -- who we were and why we were calling. She took down our contact info, but did not offer to put us into voice-mail, and we never received a return call.

If you know what's going on, please email us. Thanks.

The powers-that-be at Mayer Brown have made their decisions on bonus and salary adjustments, as announced in an email last night. And it appears that they've taken a page from the Dechert playbook, according to one associate:

"The second paragraph [of the memo] is a shock. We were never informed of financial ramifications for failing to enter our time."

It might be slightly annoying, but it's the growing trend. Expect more firms to adopt policies that tie compensation to timely time entry. Email exhortations without financial consequences don't seem to be very effective.

(And it's arguably not that big an imposition. You already slave away at the firm for ten or twelve hours a day -- so what's another five minutes at the end, to enter your time before heading home? It's just a matter of getting into the habit of doing it, instead of letting a backlog build up.)

The Mayer Brown memo, after the jump.

Last week we put up a post about associate compensation issues at Jones Day. It generated a torrent of comments. As always, some were negative, some positive.

A few readers were upset by the negative comments and came to their firm's defense. Here's what one wrote:

I am a third year lawyer at Jones Day. I enjoy my job and am paid well (and I mean darn well) above market. I hesitate to respond to such mudslinging by persons who are either disgruntled or misinformed, but as a current happy third year lawyer at Jones Day, I felt the need to set the record straight.

People who are unhappy with their compensation at Jones Day are in fact underperformers. Believe me, if I were in charge, I would fire those people rather than giving them a $160,000 "hint" that they aren't Jones Day material and should consider a career change. Because anyone who thinks that paying a third year lawyer the published salary of a first year lawyer is not a "message" about work quality is delusional. In no other profession do competent, mature people complain about being compensated based on their performance (or lack thereof).

To reiterate: I did not clerk. I have never billed more than 2100 hours. I have received bonuses despite billing slightly under 2000 hours. I have had many fantastic substantive opportunities (read: not two years of document review). I enjoy my job and colleagues. I am paid based on the quality (again, not quantity) of my work, which turns out to be more than most 4th year lawyers billing 2000-2100 hours at big firms in NY.

And the beauty of our confidential system is that other greedy jealous underperforming associates aren't blogging about my pay stub. Instead, those "lawyers" have gotten the Jones Day "hint," and are now spending their time at a new employer - not representing clients, but blogging about their ex-employer who figured out that they were worthless.

Ouch. That was way harsh, Tai.

But it's a fair point. Why shouldn't a firm pay associates what it thinks they're worth on an individual basis, and if the associates don't like it, they can leave? This is effectively what investment banks do with their personnel.

Additional commentary about JD, plus a photo of some of their paralegals at play, after the jump.

Our latest associate bonus news comes from Heller Ehrman. On Monday, we were alerted to their bonus meeting:

Heller has an all-associate video conference tomorrow (Tuesday, 9 a.m. PST) where, among other things, associate compensation will be discussed. Bonus checks are due on Friday, and no one knows what they'll get in advance. (You have an idea based on last year's grid, but that doesn't account for the discretionary bonus, if there is any.)

They've been very quiet, but at a retreat at the Claremont in the Bay Area this past weekend, the opening presentation was extremely negative (although 2008 looks very good so far). A test run?

I don't know if they've done it in the past, but this year associates were asked to justify the non-hours based portion of their bonus in a memo. I would not be surprised, given the recent Heller-related press, to see them go to a non-transparent bonus system.

Heller isn't the only firm where associates are called upon to justify their bonus love. See also Akin Gump (item #2; outside New York).

Oh yes, so the Heller videoconference took place yesterday. If you're interested in what transpired, it's described after the jump.

We have confirmed, with a reliable source at the firm, the rumor that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher now pays a $50,000 clerkship bonus, as of January 1 of this year. We don't know the firm's policy for multiple clerkships of years of clerking; if you happen to know, email us, and we'll update this post with the information once it's confirmed.

Over the weekend, there was some discussion about a possible slowdown in terms of law firms hiring law clerks. Could sizable clerkship bonuses be contributing to this, by making law clerks more expensive for firms to hire?

Update: Two pieces of additional information. First, the $50,000 bonus is "flat"; it does not increase for multiple clerkships or years of clerking. Second:

I love Gibson Dunn, but don't be fooled. They just eliminated the bar stipend amount ($15,000), and then tell you that you are getting a $50,000 bonus for clerking. You can get $15,000 in the summer before you start your clerkship (like all of the other new associates) to help pay for the bar, but then your bonus really is only $35,000. So, they didn't really up their bonus, they just called your bar stipend something different.

We previously reported on bonuses in the New York office of Winston & Strawn. Now it's Washington's turn:

Winston & Strawn's DC associates recently received their bonuses. Associates received individualized bonus memos, so there is nothing that can be posted (this has been firm policy for years).

Bonuses were up significantly over previous years, and every associate seemed to be very happy with what they received. The general feeling is that the firm stepped up to the plate and is committed to paying market bonuses.

We do have one data point to pass along. One source (whose class year we won't reveal) received a bonus that was higher than the NYC market year-end bonus, but lower than the NYC market-plus-special bonus, for someone of their seniority. Pretty good (although this person did bill north of 2400 hours).

Speaking of Winston & Strawn in D.C., we hear that a very interesting meeting took place on Monday morning, concerning controversial remarks made by managing partner Tom Mills to the Wall Street Journal. We're working on a post. If you can enlighten us about what transpired, please drop us a line. Thanks.

How can law firm administrators get associates to enter their time on time? Here's one idea: link time entry to those beloved bonuses.

From a source at Dechert:

Attached is an email that all the attorneys at Dechert LLP received today regarding associate bonuses and potential penalties. According to the policy outlined below, an associate's bonus may be reduced by up to 10% due to the late submission of billable time over the past year. I thought this might be of some interest to your readers.

We agree. Might this become a Biglaw trend? Nagging emails about timely time entry are easily ignored. Slashing bonuses, on the other hand, tends to grab associates' attention.

In fairness to the firm, it's worth noting that the policy is not super-draconian. Most of the bonus reductions were under 5 percent, and delinquent associates have the opportunity to redeem themselves: "[E]very associate whose 2007 bonus is reduced will have the opportunity to earn the amount of bonus reduction back, if he or she remains in good standing and complies fully with our time-recording policy in 2008."

Check out the full memo, after the jump.

A number of you have requested, in comments and via email, a post to talk about compensation issues at Jones Day. So here you go.

We'll kick off the discussion with this message we received:

I have recently noticed a number of postings relating to Jones Day D.C.'s lack of a bonus and non-competitive / non-transparent salary scale. For what it's worth, a friend of mine left Jones Day as a third year associate. Compensation as a third year: $175k. My friend knew of others that were in the third year class making $175k; however, my friend knew of a few other associates making $170k, and even one third year associate that was making $160k. This was AFTER Jones Day D.C. made the move to $160k.

Talk about compression, $5k between a first year and third year. Maybe some of these Jones Day posters do have something to gripe about?

We don't really know, due to Jones Day's overall lack of transparency when it comes to associate compensation (beyond the first year). But let's try and find out what the deal is. If you have associate compensation information about Jones Day, including but not limited to the Washington D.C. office, please share what you know in the comments, or email us. Thanks.

We've spent a ridiculous amount of time and energy trying to get to the bottom of the bonus situation at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. We've heard all sorts of conflicting rumors, but we think we've finally figured things out -- to the extent that they can be figured out. This post supersedes all prior coverage of CWT bonuses.

In Litigation, we think that bonuses were fairly straightforward. This is our understanding, on very good authority:

1. 1900 hours and above = full, market-level, year-end and special bonus.

2. Between 1850 and 1900 = 75 percent of the regular year-end bonus, but NO special bonus.

3. Below 1850 = nothing, nada, zilch. Unless you were a first-year from the class of 2006 (first full year at CWT), in which case you got 50 percent of a year-end bonus.

4. For purposes of calculating hours, only client billable, pro bono, and "pre-approved" marketing hours counted. Other marketing hours, and recruiting hours, were NOT counted.

Read more -- including a dramatic epic narrative from a CWT associate, describing how the firm epically mishandled the bonus situation -- after the jump.

Today brings us bonus and salary news from DLA Piper, the biggest of all Biglaws. Back in November, the firm was crowned by the National Law Journal as the nation's largest law firm (with a whopping 3,623 attorneys).

DLA Piper may be the biggest -- but not when it comes to bonuses. From a disgruntled tipster:

It's official: no special bonuses for DLA Piper's New York office. But first year associates in our secondary offices got raise to a $160,000 start. I attach the chart. [Ed. note: It's after the jump.]

The firm did it in a very slimy way with no official announcement, just individual notices of bonuses. Pretty funny after last year's heralded promises to stay with the New York market... I guess Frank and Lee thought: "never mind."

So was DLA Piper managing expectations when it issued a somewhat gloomy email earlier in the month? From a few weeks ago (around January 8):

I'm an associate at DLA Piper and we got a firmwide email discussing the firm's 2007 finances and applauding us all on a job well done. They exceeded expectations and last year's totals. However, the email closes with this paragraph:

"While we are pleased with the results for 2007, we approach 2008 with caution, given the uncertain economic outlook. We intend to be conservative in both our budgeting for 2008 and in our financial management."

It may be nothing... but I feel like they are bracing us for something, whether it's crappy bonuses or no pay increase. Good times!

Today's bonus and salary memo, plus the firm-wide salary chart, after the jump.

A little follow-up on Kaye Scholer, whose bonus memo we posted back in November. From a source at the firm:

Just found out that despite the memo sent to associates last year, Kaye Scholer has decided to tie the special bonus to hours. Requiring 2200 hours to receive the special bonus.

There was no mention of this hours requirement in the original memo. Of course, it was designed to appear that Kaye Scholer was paying market when they had no intention of doing so.

But in fairness to the firm, they did leave themselves with some wiggle room, stating that special bonuses would be paid on a "discretionary" basis. It just seems that 2200 was the magic number required to trigger the exercise of said discretion.

Some associates aren't happy about how that requirement was communicated (or not communicated, as the case may be). One associate claims that managing partner Barry Wilner, at a meeting held last year to discuss the bonus situation, did not disclose that 2200 hours would be the cutoff. As a result, "[a]ll the associates had to go on were rumors, which caused many associates to scramble at the last minute to achieve what they thought would be a sufficient amount of hours.... I'm not so much concerned about the amounts involved as much as I am concerned about the lack of information that floats through this firm."

Two other bizarre bits of news about Kaye Scholer -- involving "a giant Care Bear" and a roller derby queen named "She Raw," which would seem to take the firm to Venable-level heights of weirdness -- after the jump.

Here are a few quick updates on the associate bonus front:

1. Wilson Sonsini: On Monday night, the firm issued a long and complicated memo, which we've posted in all its glory after the jump. Since we haven't taken math since high school calculus, it went a bit over our head.

General reaction to the WSGR bonus news was less than positive. From one tipster: "My friends there are pretty pissed in light of Latham's bonuses." From another:

"Some constituent groups (those with low hours) are happy. Other groups (people who work for a living) are less happy. All associates outside of New York are upset that New York special bonuses were paid without a minimum hours requirement."

Under the WSGR bonus system, in certain class years, a lawyer in New York who billed 500 hours less than her counterpart outside New York could wind up with a bigger bonus.

2. Akin Gump (Washington, DC): On rather short notice -- the email went out at around 1 p.m., announcing a meeting at 5 p.m. -- a meeting to talk about bonuses was held on Monday in the D.C. office of Akin Gump. Here's the bottom line:

[T]he gist was that bonuses "ranged from $1,000 to 75,000," which basically means that if you are a first year (or any associate who started in the fall) you got $1,000, and the most senior associates who are most valued got $75,000. Associates were also told that the average was $25,000. This was not broken down by class year, hours, or any other details that may tell you whether you'll be compensated well or terribly.

Lovely. Guess they think transparency is overrated

3. Quinn Emanuel: At Quinn Emanuel, in contrast, management is fairly transparent, and communication is relatively open (at least by Biglaw standards). How many senior partners of major law firms write open letters to ATL, as John Quinn did recently?

Anyway, two pieces of news. First, yesterday QE gave supplemental bonuses today to laterals, recalculating how they pro-rated (a subject of prior controversy). Second, they provided some information -- albeit not terribly specific information -- about billable hours and 2008 bonuses. Memo after the jump.

Before the New Year, associates in the New York office of Morrison & Foerster received their bonus news. Now it's time for their colleagues outside of NYC to collect their cash.

In addition to the firm's "standard productivity bonuses under the published 2007 compensation program," MoFo is paying out (1) "a one-time bonus" (it sounds "special" to us), ranging from $10,000 - $20,000, to associates and certain of counsel who met or exceeded their hours requirements, and (2) merit bonuses, for "exemplary lawyering and exceptional teamwork," ranging from $15,000 - $30,000.

Full memo, after the jump.

We don't really have any major bonus news to pass along. Here are a few items following up on previously reported developments:

1. Latham & Watkins: On Friday we reported on the LW bonuses, which were well-received by associates. We now have more detailed information, which appears after the jump.

2. McDermott Will & Emery: We wrote here about their decision to issue supplemental bonuses. Those bonuses have now been paid, and people are happy. More details after the jump.

3. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft: As previously reported, the bonus situation over there is rather vague. An addendum, also after the jump.