Featured Job Survey: Bonuses
Last week, our Associate Bonus Watch kicked back into high gear, with news (or teasers) from Ropes & Gray, Sidley Austin, Chadbourne & Pourke, Arnold & Porter, Wachtell, Fried Frank, and O'Melveny & Myers, as well as pay raise news from Boies Schiller. Today's ATL / Lateral Link Featured Job Survey keeps that thread alive.
More results from last week's survey, which inquired into billing rates, after the jump.
As promised, here are more results from last week's Featured Job Survey.
Although our Got Work? survey revealed that Harvard graduates were more likely than other law school alumni to be uncomfortable about their job security, it turns out that they are actually the most comfortable with their rates. Graduates of NYU and Columbia were more than twice as likely to believe their billing rates are too high.
Meanwhile, tax associates, among the busiest attorneys in our Got Work? survey, are the most likely to feel that their rates are too high. Real Estate and Structured Finance associates are actually more likely than any other attorneys to believe their rates are too high, despite the sinking demand for their services.
Thanks to everyone who responded. Check back tomorrow to see results from today's survey. Until then, please leave your thoughts about salaries, bonuses, and rates in the comments.
Comments
I don't understand today's chart at all.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 12:14 PM
BC Law first!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 12:25 PM
It's not that hard to understand - it's just whether you think that the hourly rate you are billed out at is too high / too low.
Not surprisingly, most of the Harvard people think that they are worth the $$$ that clients are charged for their services.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 12:26 PM
Today's survey is unreadable -- all the numbers are jumbled together at the bottom of the chart.
Posted by: Fix the survey! | December 17, 2007 12:38 PM
Can you please fix the chart so that we can actually READ it?
Thanks.
Posted by: Chart sucks | December 17, 2007 12:44 PM
Can you please fix the chart so that we can actually READ it?
Thanks.
Posted by: Come on now | December 17, 2007 12:45 PM
Today's survey is pointless without a field for how many hours people are billing. At many firms, bonuses are tied to hours. And for other firms, it's very relevant information if everyone is billing 2500 hours -- it makes the bonus (whatever it is) far less valuable. I'd really like to see numbers on average hourly wages across firms. My guess (based on anecdotal evidence from my HLS classmates) is that Cravath, Skadden and Kirkland are toward the bottom once you take hours into account.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 01:19 PM
Lat, please add Denver to your list of markets. Several V100 firms have office here.
Posted by: Denver | December 17, 2007 01:26 PM
Lat - instead of these surveys, please round up the DC bonus situation by discussing which firms here (mostly NY based so far) are offering market/special bonuses! Why are you abandoning DC??
Posted by: Anon | December 17, 2007 01:31 PM
have to agree with 1:19. Where the heck is the field for hours billed? That is key info as some places give staggered bonuses based on amount of hrs billed.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 01:45 PM
Lat - instead of these surveys, please round up the DC bonus situation by discussing which firms here (mostly NY based so far) are offering market/special bonuses! Why are you abandoning DC??
Posted by: Anon | December 17, 2007 01:55 PM
chadbourne and pourke?
Posted by: anon | December 17, 2007 02:03 PM
1:19, I agree. Some of us billed over 2000 and are still looking at no bonus despite working for a firm that claims to pay "market." Base salary is helpful in establishing what base tier the firm falls into, but just because your employer pays base doesn't mean it pays a bonus if you only billed 1500.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 02:16 PM
Chad was born and then he porked.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 02:18 PM
A better chart might be class year versus median bonus. That way an associate could see where he/she sat on that scale (i.e., whether more than half of associates earned more or less).
Posted by: suggestion | December 17, 2007 05:58 PM
please tell me I am not going to regret being stupid enough to answer with info that could out me.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 09:04 PM
I guess Chicago v100 firms think all sweet, nice midwest associates need to dedicate their lives to the their firms, but aren't going to care if they get a bonus. What a joke.
Posted by: Anon | December 18, 2007 09:34 AM