UPDATE (7/14/16 10:224 a.m.): Some associates are saying that a healthy touch of discretion in the policy makes it more tolerable than this suggests. Read on…
When we kick off our annual “Associate Bonus Watch” later this year, we’ll be furiously collecting and sharing the reported bonuses all across the legal landscape. But first-years at one firm won’t have any reason to celebrate. And we don’t just mean “first-years” in their stub year from mid-September on. This isn’t a story about a firm opting out of the traditional pro-rated bonuses for the new recruits. This is about a firm that does not pay bonuses to first-years for either their stub year or their full first year on the job.
After we reported on Foley & Lardner’s confusing raise structure last week, some tipsters came forward to share that the “newly enhanced bonus program” that so many of our sources criticized is uniquely rough on the first-years:
Free Attorney Time Tracking Template For Smarter Billing
Tired of messy time logs? This free attorney time tracking template helps you bill with confidence and accuracy. Learn more in the full article.
One thing the firm does is this: first-years are not bonus eligible. But nobody realizes this until after starting and working a few months. I didn’t realize until about halfway into my first year that first-years are not bonus eligible.
That’s tremendously rough on the first-years. Obviously the rookies aren’t contributing as much to the firm’s prosperity and clients balk at paying for what they view as “training,” but first-years still have bills to pay. Assuming Foley & Lardner matched the prevailing Biglaw bonus scale over the past two years, a first year would be shorted $20K compared to first-years at firms paying market (last year’s $15K plus $5K or so for a pro-rated, stub-year bonus). That’s certainly Foley & Lardner’s right, but prospective lawyers should be fully apprised of it, and our tipsters uniformly felt this compensation quirk was never really explained until it was too late.
Here’s the rub: Foley will “hold back” a first year if she doesn’t make her minimum hours, thereby paying her as a first year again during year two and AGAIN making her not bonus eligible. I made my hours as a first year, but I had been warned that if I didn’t make hours this would be my fate. I knew some who didn’t make their hours and were indeed “held back.”
Oh. Well, now that’s just cruel. Foley & Lardner has a reasonably lax 1900 minimum (as of last week), but there are a hundred ways an associate might miss their hours and there’s no need to punish them twice for it. Go ahead and keep this year’s bonus money, but don’t force them to do another year without the possibility of bonus just to earn the right to try to get a bonus the next year. I’m sure the firm is willing to waive this requirement sometimes on a discretionary basis, but for any prospects considering Foley & Lardner, they should be aware that they may need to be in someone’s good graces in case a billing disaster befalls them.
UPDATE (7/14/16 10:224 a.m.): Four associates or former associates wrote in about this policy, but two associates said it really isn’t as bad as it sounds.
I admit I was told a bonus was “rare” when I was a first year, but we were never told it wasn’t possible and, like I said, I know people who received one as first years. We generally have issues with how comp and promotion is handled by office/practice group
So with discretion and office-to-office variance, things aren’t as bleak for first-years as this may sound. Still, the possibility of missing your bonus for a year — or more — is scary even if there are safeguards against it.
Earlier: First-Years Get Raises… Everyone Else Gets A Warm Glass Of Confusion
Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.