Add RSS RSS

Associate Bonus Watch: All Quiet on the Eastern Front

stack of bills cash money.jpgIt looks like we'll have to wait until next week for any major associate bonus announcements. Nothing exciting has happened since the brouhaha over the supposed Milbank Tweed bonus memo, which turned out to be fake.

As soon as you hear anything, please let us know ASAP, by email (subject line: "Associate Bonus Watch"). As always, anonymity is guaranteed -- unless you want to be fired from your Biglaw job so badly that you WANT public credit for leaking your firm's bonus memo.

We need your tips because we don't want to be entirely dependent upon the different message boards (Greedy Associates, Infirmation, AutoAdmit.com, etc.). While we do check them from time to time, we don't do so as much as we should. Why? They annoy the crap out of us. You have to wade through so much juvenile junk to find anything that's borderline interesting. And once you do find something, you can't even be sure that it's true (e.g., the Milbank memo).

So no big bonus announcements yet. But we have gathered a few tidbits from sources that we know and trust (as opposed to anonymous posters on message boards).

Check 'em out, after the jump.

Here's some of the bonus scuttlebutt that we've received from our tipsters:

* Skadden Arps: "I think we'll find out next week, after everyone is done getting their reviews. We are all supposed to get reviewed by Friday [today]."

* Gibson Dunn: "The Associates' Committee sent out a 'holiday' email to associates, looking for comparative bonus information. So it seems like we are just waiting to see what the market-setters do..."

* Kirkland: "No word on bonuses yet. It's a little early for us. We'll probably find out closer to Christmas."

* Dewey Orrick (aka Dewy Orifice): "We haven't heard too much about bonuses except for some vague reassurance regarding the differences in our fiscal years. Dewey goes by an October 31 fiscal year, and Orrick by a calendar year... and it seems likely that we'll be going with Orrick's year."

If you have some news or gossip about bonuses to share, please send it to us by email.

While you're also free to post what you know in the comments, we make no representations or warranties concerning the accuracy of anything appearing therein. In contrast, if you send us an email, we'll generally make some effort to ascertain its reliability before printing it.

(That's no guarantee of 100 percent accuracy -- even the MSM, with its professional fact-checkers, screws up sometimes -- but it's better than nothing.)

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of bonuses (scroll down)

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 4:39 PM

>As explained above, the email tips are more accurate because Lat verifies them with sources -- people he knows personally, at the law firms in question -- before reprinting them.

>It's called fact-checking. That's how the falsity of the Milbank memo was uncovered.

actually the fraudster admitted the prank before any "fact-checking" was done

avatar
2 Posted by Anony2 | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 5:28 PM

If Lat can verify the tips with his contacts at the law firms, why doesn't he just have those contacts send him information when it comes out?

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 8:40 PM

Hi, I'm David Lat. In this post I kowtow to my more sophisticated readers by diassociating myself from the "juvenile crap" (See "Dewey Orifice, infra) on message boards, although I seem to report their findings curiously quickly for one who so desperately hates to "wade" through them.

avatar
4 Posted by Autoadmit | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 8:45 PM

Your Gibson email may be bogus.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=537107&forum_id=2#7111795

avatar
5 Posted by GTO's Evil Twin | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 8:59 PM

I'm not sure I understand why you think email tips will be any more reliable than message boards.


Also, given the tone of your blog, I find it a bit ironic you are criticizing Greedy and XO for having too much juvenile junk to wide through (Dewey Orifice, that ERISA hottie contest from a while back, etc.)

avatar
6 Posted by Gibson associate | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 9:01 PM

Gibson email definitely went out to some associates - it was sent by the ASsociates committe, not management...

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 9:07 PM

GTO's Evil Twin: As explained above, the email tips are more accurate because Lat verifies them with sources -- people he knows personally, at the law firms in question -- before reprinting them.

It's called fact-checking. That's how the falsity of the Milbank memo was uncovered.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 9:16 PM

At least the juvenile crap on ATL is entertaining (and intentionally so).

The juvenile crap on the message boards consists of flame wars between anonymous morons. This is of no interest to anyone except the participants.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, December 1, 2006 9:20 PM

He could fact check statements on a message board in exactly the same way as a random email.

avatar
10 Posted by Anonymous | Permalink Saturday, December 2, 2006 9:44 AM

The Gibson e-mail may have been NY office only...

Post Your Comment