Now that the summer associate season is upon is, ATL has been devoting a bit more coverage to summer programs, and the ATL / Lateral Link surveys will do the same.

But does David Lat secretly hate summer? Here's a snippet from one of his recent columns over at the New York Observer:

When you stop and think about it, the summer associate programs at New York’s largest corporate law firms are a shockingly inefficient way to recruit talent.

The top firms pay their summers over $3,000 a week—a week!—to enjoy three-hour lunches and surf the Web, and do a little bit of work on the side, but just a little, on the firm’s most interesting and sexy matters. Don’t forget the cooking lessons, wine tastings, pool parties, a clambake or a cruise—all of it carefully designed to create in these future lawyers a Pavlovian association between Big Law and Big Pleasure.

Cutting back on these perks would seem to be an easy way for firms to save money without causing too much uproar. In fact, firms might earn brownie points with their clients for showing such restraint.

Oh noes! Did the Chuck Norris of Legal Gossip just deliver a roundhouse kick to recruiting tradition?

And he's not alone. Firms like Sonnenschein, Pillsbury, and Thelen Reid have decided to cap their summer programs at ten weeks or, in Thelen Reid's case, eight. And the NLJ has pointed out that some of the biggest firms in Big Law are hiring smaller summer classes. Worse yet, as Lat observes in the Observer:

A few midsize and regional firms, such as Gibbons Del Deo in Newark, have abandoned summer programs altogether in favor of focusing on poaching experienced attorneys from other firms.

Scrooge season has come early to Big Law and Regional Law alike.

But are they right? Should firms focus less on summer programs, and use the funds to hire laterals instead? Or perhaps provide signing bonuses or higher pay?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on whether summer programs should be trimmed. Add your two cents -- and decide if that should be next year's summer budget -- after the jump.

We received 1,669 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on children and careers.

Quite a few readers are pessimistic about the impact having a child would have on their careers. One comment summed it up:

Having a child would not, in itself, hurt anyone's career. Raising one almost certainly would, as would taking up stamp collecting or any other non-career-advancing hobby.

But just having a child, provided it was promptly deposited at a nearby orphanage (between conference calls), should not be too problematic.

Ouch. Another comment was a bit more hopeful:

I recently returned full-time from 5 months of maternity leave at my Vault 5 firm. At the end of the day, I don't think that the length of a single maternity leave is that big of a deal. No one is going to remember or care how long you were gone, particularly if you are junior and still more or less interchangeable with your peers. That said, my experience was that, with all of my matters having closed about 3 months before my due date, it was really tough to find work during that time because I looked like I was going to pop at any moment. So the time I was out of the game and not able to build skills was longer than the maternity leave alone. And reminding everyone of who I am and the good work that I do has had to happen a bit more since I returned, but none of this is career-ending. It just takes patience, but that kind of perseverance comes quite naturally to me now that I am a mother.

I worked until a week before the baby was born. Though 16-hour days or longer are possible for most of a normal pregnancy, they are not a good idea in the late stages (the last 6 weeks or so). Even a normal pregnancy is a lot of work, don't get me wrong, but, honestly, the talk [in the comments] about using surrogates because you don't want a pregnancy to slow you down is just silly, and clearly the idea of a childless person who has not seriously contemplated what surrogacy involves. A few months of being pregnant, and then taking maternity leave, in my experience, just isn't going to kill your career.

Read more -- the rest of this very thoughtful email, plus the overall survey results -- after the jump.

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey asks a question that a number of associates have been asking lately: Will your firm let you have children and a career at the same time?

Or, for that matter, are you even comfortable trying?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

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 received over 1,600 responses to yesterday's ATL / Lateral Link survey on your law firm weight gain. Overall, you've gained a ton. Or more.

As one commenter put it:

NY to 350!

...lbs. that is...

Well, ok, it wasn't quite that bad, but two thirds of you who are currently practicing law have gained weight:

  * 13.78% of respondents gained 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 13.36% of respondents gained 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 14.13% of respondents gained 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 6.78% of respondents gained 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 6.71% of respondents gained 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 4.59% of respondents gained 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 7.35% of respondents -- and roughly a fifth of respondents who graduated in 2002 or earlier -- gained more than 30 pounds.

Just under 12% of you stayed the same. And a fifth of you are bastards reported that you lost weight:

  * 5.72% of respondents lost 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 4.73% of respondents lost 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 3.82% of respondents lost 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 0.71% of respondents lost 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 2.69% of respondents lost more than 30 pounds.

Most respondents are eating in the office, grabbing food from restaurants, and enjoying a sedentary lifestyle:

  * About three quarters of respondents who are currently practicing law eat at least five meals a week at their firms.
  * About two thirds get at least five meals a week from restaurants.
  * Although roughly two fifths of respondents said their firms have gyms (25% have free gyms, 15% are at firms with subsidized gyms, and 2% are at firms with no discount), 60% of these respondents "never" use their firm gym, and 20% work out only once or twice a week.

Law students fared better, but still not that well, with roughly 55% gaining weight, and just under a third losing weight. Law students were just about as likely as practicing attorneys to gain 15 or fewer pounds, but a bit less likely to gain more, and a bit more likely to lose 15 or fewer pounds. Clearly, there's room for more recruiting lunches.

So, overall, don't you feel better about yourself now?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on weighty matters. Literally.

In an interesting counterweight (as it were) to Kash's post about prison weight loss litigation yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had a story on a proposed law in Massachusetts that would ban discrimination based on weight. (Apparently, Michigan, the District of Columbia, San Francisco, and Madison, Wisconsin already have similar anti-discrimination provisions in place.)

Since Daily Kos has already "stolen" a poll on whether the law's a good idea, I won't ask that here -- although those of you with an appetite for debate can weigh in in the comments. But while weight debates hang heavy in the air, what I will ask is whether your time in law has expanded more than just your acumen.

So, have your salad days as an associate or law student yielded a beefier frame?

Has partnership given you more substance?

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.

So far this year, our ATL / Lateral Link survey results have produced tables on clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses and bar expenses, and relocation benefits, as well as parental leave (kudos, by the way, to Akin Gump and Andrews Kurth for moving to 18 weeks maternity leave recently).

But for many of these charts, there's a worrisome question lurking in the background: will you have to pay the firm back if you leave?

We received almost 400 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on payback policies, and the most common answer appears to be "yes, but only if you leave relatively quickly." Most of you reported that your firms would require you to return clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses, bar stipends and expenses, and even moving expenses if you left your jobs within a year after starting. But relatively few firms imposed longer terms, and a fair number reported no payback requirement at all.

Find out which firms fall where, after the jump.

We received almost 500 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on relocation benefits, and it seems like another table-worthy set of results.

As with our running tables on clerkship bonuses, maternity leave, paternity leave, and signing bonuses and bar expenses, the moving-expenses table is a work in progress that will be updated from time to time, based on your greatly appreciated tips.

Is your firm missing? Spot an error? Please let us know.

In the meantime, last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you might have to pay everything back is still open.

Check out the full table, after the jump.

We received 3,846 responses to this month's ATL / Lateral Link survey on your student loans, mortgages, and credit card debt, and one thing's pretty clear: an awful lot of you owe an awful lot of money.

Roughly 40% of respondents owed at least $100,000 in outstanding student loans. Broken down by class, here's what your student loan debt looks like:

Survey Results: Student Loan Debt By Law School Class

	Before 2000	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	Still in school
None.	62%	46%	32%	24%	16%	15%	10%	13%	8%	11%
Less than $10,000	2%	2%	2%	2%	1%	1%	2%	1%	1%	1%
$10,000 to $19,999	3%	7%	5%	3%	2%	1%	1%	1%	1%	2%
$20,000 to $29,999	5%	4%	7%	6%	3%	3%	3%	2%	2%	2%
$30,000 to $39,999	6%	7%	6%	8%	5%	5%	4%	2%	2%	3%
$40,000 to $49,999	7%	5%	6%	6%	8%	4%	5%	4%	3%	3%
$50,000 to $59,999	6%	5%	6%	15%	15%	15%	10%	7%	6%	6%
$60,000 to $69,999	1%	5%	7%	5%	9%	7%	7%	7%	5%	5%
$70,000 to $79,999	1%	-	10%	10%	7%	7%	5%	8%	6%	6%
$80,000 to $89,999	4%	4%	5%	3%	8%	5%	6%	7%	5%	6%
$90,000 to $99,999	1%	7%	5%	6%	7%	5%	5%	5%	5%	6%
$100,000 or more	5%	10%	12%	12%	18%	35%	43%	44%	54%	51%

Even as the amount of student loan debt begins to subside for members of the Classes of 2004 and 2003, mortgage debt starts to creep up:

Survey Results: Mortgage Debt By Law School Class

	Before 2000	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	Still in school
None.	20%	29%	26%	33%	36%	42%	62%	72%	81%	87%
Less than $50,000	2%	1%	-	-	-	-	1%	1%	1%	1%
$50,000 to $99,999	1%	-	-	1%	1%	2%	1%	1%	2%	1%
$100,000 to $149,999	4%	1%	2%	3%	2%	3%	1%	2%	3%	3%
$150,000 to $199,999	8%	8%	4%	5%	3%	5%	2%	3%	3%	3%
$200,000 to $249,999	8%	10%	9%	3%	6%	5%	4%	4%	2%	2%
$250,000 to $299,999	10%	9%	6%	5%	9%	7%	5%	4%	3%	3%
$300,000 to $349,999	11%	9%	10%	9%	7%	8%	6%	4%	3%	2%
$350,000 to $399,999	4%	1%	7%	8%	8%	8%	5%	4%	2%	1%
$400,000 to $449,999	6%	8%	3%	5%	7%	4%	4%	3%	2%	1%
$450,000 to $499,999	6%	4%	11%	8%	5%	6%	4%	2%	1%	1%
$500,000 or more	26%	25%	25%	25%	20%	16%	12%	6%	4%	2%

Credit card debt, in comparison, is relatively tame. Sixty-four percent of respondents had no credit card debt, and 21% had less than $10,000 in credit card debt. About two percent held $40,000 or more.

But how much does all this debt affect your career choices? Find 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.

Results and tips are still flowing in from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on signing bonuses and bar expenses, but we've noticed that quite a few of you have been asking to include information about your firms' relocation benefits as well. Sometimes, those benefits overlap, but often they don't (e.g., for lateral hires).

So today's survey focuses more specifically on how your firms help you move.

We received 1,274 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on attorney morale. And it looks like the glass is about half full.

In all, about two fifths of respondents were pretty happy:

* 25.8% of respondents said their morale was "good."
* 11.5% said their morale was "great."
* And 3.3% of respondents think their morale "couldn't be better."

nergy and investment management attorneys were the gloatiest, with two thirds of respondents in each field describing their morale as "good" or better. They were followed by tax (60%), bankruptcy (57%) and patent lawyers (48%).

But a smidge over two-fifths of respondents were pretty unhappy:

* 9.6% of respondents said their morale "couldn't be worse."
* 11.2% said their morale was "awful."
* And 21% said their morale was merely "bad."

Not surprisingly, structured finance and real estate attorneys were the most likely to feel down, with 66% of structured finance respondents and 56% of real estate respondents declaring their morale to be "bad" or worse.

More findings and discussion, after the jump.

Last week, we posted Part One 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 Drinker Biddle. We got quite a few tips in response, as well as one of my favorite comments of the week:

Nooooo. I need to know about firms in the 'W's! I hate waiting.

Find out whether today's installment will get far enough to satisfy our poor reader at Weil, WilmerHale, Wachtell, Winston, or Whatnot . . . 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. (Or, if you're going to be at this week's NALP conference in Toronto, feel free to say hello in person.)

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

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.

Most of the time, our ATL / Lateral Link surveys have been about market conditions like clerkship bonuses and maternity leave policies.

But today, let's just talk about you. How's your morale?

While the results are still flowing in from last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends, signing bonuses, and salary advances (1,130 responses and counting), today's survey looks at money flowing in the opposite direction: from individual associates to great big institutions.

In other words, let's talk about your student loans and other big debts.

Over the past few months, we've devoted several of our ATL / Lateral Link survey posts to compensation issues like base salaries, bonus amounts, and clerkship bonuses. But we've received quite a few requests to do another survey or open thread on another compensation issue: starting bonuses and stipends.

Associates at four New York firms (anonymized) have recently e-mailed the same general question:

Next year top law firms in New York, as well as those around the country (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.), will pay their incoming associates $160,000 plus a $10,000 STARTING BONUS. [My v5 firm], on the other hand, will pay incoming associates $160,000 with a $10,000 SALARY ADVANCE. Simply put, I will be going on a bar trip this summer with money I loaned myself from my first year salary! I find this very strange considering that [my firm] considers itself to be the cream of the crop in New York in terms of pay.

i'm wondering if you can post a thread on firms giving incoming associates stipends for the summer. i'm at a v5 nyc firm and just learned that they don't offer a summer stipend but do allow an advance (up to 12k, i believe). some friends i know at peer firms mentioned that they'll be receiving stipends (10k from what i hear) as opposed to advances. any assistance in shedding some light on this would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

I read your blog and I have a suggestion for a thread - the types of loan/stipend firms give to cover studying for the bar. I've heard that some firms give out-right cash bonuses, whereas others (including my Vault Top 5 firm) give a no-interest loan that you must then repay over your first year. Since these amounts are usually around $10,000, it can make a not insignificant difference in first year compensation.

Thought you might want to run a story on advances/stipends offered by law firms for incoming associates. I'm an incoming associate at [big prestigious firm], and was frustrated when I heard that most other top law firms pay a stipend of $10,000 to their associates for the summer of the bar, while [big prestigious firm] is offering only a "$3,000 signing bonus" and a 7k loan, which will be deducted from our first 6 months of salary.

I know several other incoming associates who are surprised to see [big prestigious firm] below market, but are afraid to communicate this to the firm.

About a year ago, when ATL previously posted an open thread on the subject, commenters suggested that firms in New York were more likely than non-NY firms to pay stub bonuses (first year bonuses pro-rated for the number of months worked), which made up for the lack of a signing bonus. But is that true today?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey will probe your firm's policy on signing bonuses and salary advances. Feel free to speak up in the comments, too. Or send us information by email. If we get enough responses, we'll put together a table like the clerkship, maternity, and paternity leave tables (each of which will be updated this weekend, by the way, so feel free to send tips about those as well).

We received 1,036 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on where you'd most want to work, which, in turn, was based on your nominations last month.

Here's how it turned out:

Survey Results: Which Firm Would You Most Want To Work For?

Overall, Latham & Watkins dominated the field, pulling in almost one fifth of all votes. Latham was the most popular choice among voters in L.A., the Bay Area, and Washington, DC, and was particularly favored by tax lawyers and litigators.

Runner-up Wachtell was actually the top choice of respondents in New York, narrowly besting Davis Polk and Latham. It was also, by far, the most popular pick among M&A lawyers, with roughly 30% of their vote.

Kirkland placed third overall, but was the top choice of Chicago respondents and patent lawyers, with almost twice as many votes as the next most popular firm in Chicago (Latham) and almost as many patent votes as the next two firms combined (Latham and Quinn).

Williams & Connolly, Ropes & Gray, and Davis Polk tied for fourth, with Ropes & Gray dominating the Boston vote, Williams & Connolly pwning DC (and gaining the second highest vote from litigators after Latham), and Davis Polk rocking the investment management scene (with Ropes & Gray running second best in that field).

Paul Hastings was the clear winner among labor & employment attorneys, winning almost 70% of the vote, and was also the most popular choice among real estate attorneys and lawyers in Atlanta.

On the Magic Circle front, Linklaters proved more popular than Allen & Overy, and was actually the most popular choice among securities lawyers. Allen & Overy was the most popular choice among structured finance attorneys.