Is this really what you thought you would be doing with your life when you decided on law school?

I've personally been tough on Lat for several different reasons today, and I am strongly against his censorhip policy, but I respect this post and am generally appreciative of what he does.

Tomorrow's another day, Lat.

Go have a stiff drink tonight and then start fresh tomorrow.

So you had a bad day....

I have no appreciation for "first" comments (or frat stud, or anything else for that matter). Please keep up the deleting Lat! It has been getting pretty bad...

Making fun of Loyola2L or Hof, etc, however, should be encouraged.

Lat, please automate the deletion of the "first" posters. It really makes things so much better around here and will win you many fans, particularly among those who add value to the comments section.

I think OMM is doing the right thing; whether or not they will announce matching, the announcement should come at the appointed time, not in knee-jerk reaction to this blog jumping the gun.

Re: 5:40:

1. Lat corrected the STB story pretty quickly on Friday. Also, he can't just take whatever is posted anonymously in the comments as Gospel truth; he has to wait for identifiable sources to email or call him.

All kinds of crap appears in the comments, some true, some not. The whole point of having Lat around is validation / confirmation.

2. Censoring the comments makes Lat pay MORE attention to the comments (because he has to sift through them to censor).

Frat Stud I love; pirates v. ninjas I can tolerate; anyone who posts "first!" on message boards should be immediately deported to Sudan with a teddy bear named Muhammed strapped to his chest.

I like the first posters a lot more than the people who whine about the first posters. It takes a lot more time to dismiss those posts as garbage than it does to gloss over a single word entry at the top of the page. It's like it's some huge inconvenience or assault on your sensibilities with you people. It's a single freakin' word. Relax.

Lat will probably be vindicated. I doubt that the OMM - NY special bonuses will be paid to everyone, without an hrs. reqt.

Does the min billable requirement actually affect anyone?? Who is billing only, say, 1900 hours nowadays? Everyone at a decent firm will be above that unless they are about to get fired.

Does the min billable requirement actually affect anyone?? Who is billing only, say, 1900 hours nowadays? Everyone at a decent firm will be above that unless they are about to get fired.

Lat, don't you have better things to do than censor first posts? Like, say, making sure tomorrow doesn't suck as bad as today?

Haha, the idiot first apologists are really, really hilariously stupid.

LAT is laughing all the way to the bank with all these page views and postings, you drive up his ad revenue... IDIOTS

LAT is laughing all the way to the bank with all these page views and postings, you drive up his ad revenue... IDIOTS

Haha @ 6:13 is a total douche.

If you have a point then take the time to make it, dickhead.

Why is FIRST such a big fucking deal? Seriously, I'd rather have Lat spend his time finding leads on interesting posts, rather than personally filtering which posts stay or go.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that since the censoring started all the posts are lame. But really, Lat, there are better things for you to be doing right now.

6:19: Unfortunately, 6:13 is probably smarter than you. He was clearly baiting and you fell for it.

And I'm on your side of the issue.

Yes, the minimum billable requirements effects people. I know people who would miss it at firms that don't have a billables requirement.

For anyone getting fed a line like, "Don't worry about the minimum, everyone always hits it," you should ask why the firm has it in the first place (if everyone hits it).

Haha, 6:19, you are a pathetic loser. So sorry your first posts are not appearing any more.

"First" posts add character to the site.

For the STB thing, why didn't Lat cite the original XO post that broke the story (accurately or not) on Friday?

First would be fine if ONLY first posted, and the rest would be deleted... there is something about seeing no comments after new story -- heart leaps at attempt to be first... ah the memories.

Ex-first addict

Some of these rumors can be chalked up to rogue partners or administrative staff rather than firm policy. For example, at my firm women have been told they should not have kids if they want to make partner. Associates have been told that partners do not like associates who work part-time. Other have been told that they should not do pro bono. Or they shouldn't take vacation. Or if they aren't billing well over 2000 hours a year, they aren't pulling their weight. None of it is official firm policy, but that doesn't keep some people from saying it (and perhaps believing it, but they ultimately don't make the decisions so it doesn't matter).

6:25 - affects, not effects.

Whoooa! Not censored yet! Whoooa!

6:34, Thank you for your substantive comment (you'll do great on your journal, kid).

It's bad enough that they don't make any OMM associates in DC partner; if the DC associates get stiffed on the special bonus because of all the NY associates billing 1500 hours, the DC office should break off from the rest of the deadweight. And then match.

Ohhh, ouch, you got me there, 6:24.

Thanks for your insights on intelligence and the like, but unfortunately you're just as big a douche (even if you are of my side, which I could give a fuck about).

My point in that post is not so much that 6:13 is wrong, but that since the censoring started this site blows. Lat needs to get off his ass and stop being lazy. Part of that includes forgetting about stupid shit like FIRST comments or the "work" of JT, FRAT STUD, SLJ, etc.

Most people come to this site for INTERESTING updates and gossip. I could care less about the FIRST comments if there's worthwhile material on ATL.

Now go get a fucking life, shithead.

Why is nobody talking about Article VIII?

6:29(1): Lat did cite the XO / AutoAdmit post. Look back at the original post, blockquote, item #1: "Source: AutoAdmit."

Agreed, 6:38.

Who cares about first posts? You people do need to get a life!

6:38

Besides sounding like a complete tool (seriously, your use of "douche" is alarming - I'm guessing you drive a Firebird and live in Jersey as well), you miss the point.

Spotting a string of stupid "FIRST!!111!!2@@" posts when I go into the comments section really makes this site seem more like autoadmit or some trash than a site for discussion by adults. Seriously, most of us are adults here, yet you and your kind feel the urge to declare you posted "first" each time the chance arises? Grow the hell up.

This is hardly "censorship," and calling it such identifies you as a fool and a "firster" yourself. Removing utter tripe that irritates the vast majority of readers, harms the site's credibility, and adds absolutely zero to any discussion is an absolute welcome development. Other very popular discussion forums (slashdot, Fark) have done the same, while others (digg, reddit) have given users the ability to render stupid posts invisible. This is absolutely necessary given the vapidity of many users here, which, I am sad to say, you are among.

6:38: Touche. That was a well-reasoned and persuading response. With allies like you, I'm sure we'll get Lat to stop censoring soon.

If your point was not that 6:13 is wrong, then I have no idea what the first two sentences of your post mean. You remember in legal writing when you were taught to give guide posts and lead with your strongest arguments?

Guys in my high school made first posts on blogs which were censored all the time, it was no big deal.

Let me be the first to say this blog has officially jumped the shark. What a joke this site is these days. It's become no better than a bunch of little girls (or the functional equivalent, thereof, wink, wink) gossiping about unsubstantiated rumors.

6:48: He's among the vapidity?

6:56 - I generally save my efforts at grammatical perfection for "real" work, not this nonsense.

The only thing worse than the first posters are people who take time out of their day to justify the first posters. First-post haters like myself feel justified in taking a few minutes out of our day to hate on them because, day after day, post after post, they become tiresome. Unfortunately idiocy appears to have infinite energy, and they don't just die out on their own.

Lat is performing a fine service to us all by trimming the crap out of the comments, which can be as informative and thought-provoking as some of his posts. Please keep it up, and make the internets a better place.

6:56 - I generally save my efforts at grammatical perfection for "real" work, not this nonsense.

6:48

First, nice use of "vapidity. " Oh, and "utter tripe?" Keep trying, douche.
_______________
"a site for discussion by adults"

Are you new to this site? Take a glance at the posts and then come back to that statement. Make sure you update us on your results.
_______________
I don't give a shit about the FIRST posts, and I don't understand why people insist on trying to beat others to it, but it really doesn't matter. Get this blog back on track and Lat can do whatever the fuck he wants with the FIRSTERS. Until then, Lat needs to stop pushing Lateral Link surveys in substitution of worthwhile content.
_______________
Now go fuck yourself.

The only thing worse than the first posters are people who take time out of their day to justify the first posters. First-post haters like myself feel justified in taking a few minutes out of our day to hate on them because, day after day, post after post, they become tiresome. Unfortunately idiocy appears to have infinite energy, and they don't just die out on their own.

Lat is performing a fine service to us all by trimming the crap out of the comments, which can be as informative and thought-provoking as some of his posts. Please keep it up, and make the internets a better place.

The only thing worse than the people who take time out to justify first-posters (which are worse than the first posters) are those that take time out of their day to hate on those who hate on first posters.

6:59/7:01: The only thing I hate more than the people who post whiney comments about the "first" comments are people who double post.

7:00 - Haha, you fail. Seriously, massively, fail. It's funny that when the firsters speak, they only do so to bemoan the loss of the ability to post "first."

7:01 - FOR THE WIN.

Seriously, 7:00, lay off the use of "douche." I know it's cool on the Jersey Shore, but like, it is basically out of vogue elsewhere.

6:48-
I don't normally use the word, but in this case I agree with 7:00 ... you're a douche.

7:04 - Welcome to the internets. "First" posters have been and remain a plague on any and all boards where discussion takes place. See FARK, DIGG, or any other of the ancient interweb commenting hotspots. Those who hate people who post "first" far exceed those who apparently "justify" such posts (obviously because they are frequent offenders).

See: http://gadgetopia.com/post/6177

7:06 = 6:13

FIIIIIIIIRRRRSSSSTTTTTTTT FOR LIFE, BITCHES!

SUCK IT HATERS!

I have a strong, strong feeling that the people who post "FIRST" all the time aren't contributing much to this site. They likely aren't V10 associates. They most likely aren't top-tier law school students. I don't think they constitute Lat's target audience. I think people like myself (V10, T5) are tired of having to wade through that crap. At least those (like me) who are annoyed are tipsters at top firms and contribute... and value this site for putting pressure on firms to treat associates well (or at least pay us to be treated poorly).

Let's not jump on Lat. The bonus "error" was corrected quickly enough so that no harm will be done by other firms following what they perceived OMM as doing. But, as a commenter on the earlier story noted, the harsh backlash -- particularly from folks who clearly work at OMM -- might convince the firm, and those who will follow it, to reconsider the size of bonuses in NY and elsewhere. At the very least, it can't hurt.

7:06 = 6:13

FIIIIIIIIRRRRSSSSTTTTTTTT FOR LIFE, BITCHES!

SUCK IT HATERS!

I can't believe someone actually said this:

6:13 - Yeah, the "idiot first apologists" are stupid, unlike those refined first haters that can't be bothered by reading a one word post.

"Can't be bothered by reading a one word post." What. The. Hell.

7:11: Great. But the people who whine about it are still 10x more annoying. See how comparison works?

7:06 = 6:13

FFFFFFFIIIIIIIIRRRRSSSSTTTTTTTT FOR LIFE, BITCHES!

SUCK IT HATERS!

Also, "not accurate" *does* equal false. But the key is that it might have been false in some immaterial respect.

7:15 - I am not 7:12, but I am at a top firm, and I agree completely that the people who spend their time posting first are almost certainly not contributing to the site, the discussion, or, frankly, anything else. The only time you hear people complaining about "first" posts is when morons like the "douche-thrower" in this thread start yelling at Lat for "censorship" - give me a break. Removing content of ZERO value does NOT equal censorship. As for those who you think "whine" about first-posters, well, you're wrong. It was stupid of this site to let them run rampant as long as it did; I'm glad Lat is taking control and keeping things neat.

Please stop feeding the trolls.

7:20 - yeah, me too, i'm glad lat's "taking control" of the situation. its just too bad that this site, like, blows now. but you're right, cracking down on the firsts and "keeping things neat" is important, much more so than substantive posts.

have fun in your office tonight.

7:20: The closest you come to actually raising anything that contradicts my post is your second to last sentence, which basically comes down to "you're wrong." Well, no, you're wrong.

But congratulations for being at a top firm. That's super!

I will, 7:25, but more importantly, *you* have fun cruisin' in the Trans-Am/Firebird tonight. Enjoy getting some fat chick wasted and taking her back to your awesome crib in Weehawken. I hear smooth loving set to Bon Jovi is on the agenda tonight, yeah!!!!

I'm at CSM. True, we don't have any minimum hour targets, but that's a joke. Everyone works their asses off, and you won't last long if you don't keep up. Associates probably average 2700, which makes it easy to pay special bonuses across the board, even if a few 2400 slackers make the same.

I'd be pissed if I heard OMM matched our bonuses for all associates while only averaging 2000 hours as a class. That would mean they are clealry making more. Same pay for 500-700 hours of less work? NFW would that fly.

Basically, if a firm allows associates to stick around working under 2000 hours, then I'd call it a full match the firm used a minimum hour requirement in order to qualify for special bonuses.

Oh man. It's funny when someone calls it a "grammar" mistake to have used the word "effects" in their sentence when "affects" should have been used. That is not a grammar mistake; it is a mistake that belies a lack of understanding of the different definitions of two distinct words. You don't just accidentally type "e" when you should have typed "a."

Other examples that evidence near-illiteracy come to mind: their/there, its/it's, your/you're ...

To make those mistakes as a lawyer is unacceptable -- even on a blog.

Thanks, 7:28. I'll have fun in the Firebird, and you have fun backing up your posts in light of the responses by 7:28(1) and 7:28(2).

Tell me, how many petitions for divorce will you be working on tonight in your 'big law' office?

Should read: 7:25 and 7:28(1)

6:38 / 7:00 - Hmm, wait...doing divorce petitions 24/7 isn't prestigious? I WAS LIED TO.

No, it's prestigious, as long as you call it "Big Law" over the internet.

LAT- Just turn all comments OFF.

Guys at my high school used to delete posts on their blogs all the time, it was no big deal.

So now, instead of having to read a few posts that say "FIRST!!!11!," we have to read a whole string of posts by morons arguing over whether and to what extent getting rid of them was "censorship," as well as the merits of the word "douche." Much better.

7:41 - Whoa, you are a wellspring of knowledge....I can only assume you are either (1) a divorce lawyer, or (2) you've been through a few divorces in your time. Either way, you kept ahold of the Trans-Am -- ROCK ON!

Nice hedging, Lat, but I'm not buying the mea culpa. The initial post implied that no one, no matter how many hours worked, would get the full (special+bonus) amount ("Our condolences to the OMM associates." OMM's response - to quickly shoot down your rumor - indicates the most likely case is that OMM is matching, but with hours/rating strings attached. That's a long way from the "sorry, everyone is screwed," that you reported earlier. Several firms have announced hours minimums, and you didn't post condolences to their associates.

Very few people at Cravath got the full bonus-plus-special and worked under 2K; it's hard to blame OMM if they institute a 2K floor.

7:45-
doesn't every lawyer/little child know that family law sucks without being either a family law attorney or someone with a lot of divorces under their belt?

You rule, Lat. Screw the haters.

7:34, nice job conflating two comments. The effect/affect back and forth didn't mention grammar.

I'm sure your a grate lawyer two.

How much revenue does one generate with a site such as this with the current popularity?

-7:54-
Good question. I wonder how much Lat takes home. Anyone have an idea?

It's good to have you guys here, even the cool dude in the Firebird. You are like my online, latenight buddies as I work feverishly on these divorce petitions. WHEN WILL IT END?!

Guys on my T10 law review used to conflate comments all the time. It was no big deal.

slow day = no more sources willing to confide?

88th!!!!

With advertising, Lat told me he expects to take home about $96k in cash since he doesn't plan to report any of the income.

cravath's average billables are in the 2000-2100 range. anyone suggesting anything far north of that is lying for sport or just ignorant.

7:32 -- i call BS. in this market, who's been working enough to get 2400 hours, nevermind 2700? you may have started the year on that pace, but i haven't heard any big deals coming out of csm in the past few months.

2400 = "slackers"...that's laughable.

I can't believe that people (e.g. 7:12 and 7:20) actually say that because they went to a top law school and work at a top firm, they shouldn't have to wade through idiotic comments as much as other people should.

I would think cravath's average is more like in the 2400-2500 range?

Does anyone have any more info on the STB layoff rumor from the comments on the previous STB post? Is it completely without foundation?

idiocy + idiocy = more idiocy. Likewise, idiots + idiots = more idiots.

'nuff said for this website.

Honest mistake given the nonsense people say about hours, but from my experience until your fifth year or so 2100 hours seems about right on average at the top NYC firms.

7:54 & 7:56 good questions, but the true question on this site should be:
What are Lat's target hours? and does Lat give himself a special bonus from ATL?

Several of my friends at top 10 firms (I'm still just a 3L) told me that the avg associate hours is around 2250 at their firms.

OMM should have just bitten the bullet and said special bonuses across the board, no explanation necessary. But they didn't. This PR hit isn't going to clear up any time soon without that.

FWIW: I talked to an OMM associate who says that a lot of OMM associates think that Okun's explanation of the structure is going to include a pronouncement that special bonuses are based on hours...and since a lot of people did not make their hours (although the firm has no "required" hours, there is a ballpark range you "should" be in) a lot of people are NOT going to get the bonus.

So on paper there will be a bonus, but in reality, no special bonus.

BUT firms don't give bonuses and special bonuses to keep associates happy or even to keep associates, they give them to recruit new associates. So with that in mind, they should pony up and pony up FAST.

I don't know how this "explanation" is going to help the public image. The best thing OMM can do is just give bonuses, market and special, to everyone. AND QUICK.

Here's an idea: if you don't like what's written in either the blog postings or the comment threads, move along son. Nobody is forcing you to read this blog. Vote with your feet (or mouse) and leave - quite wasting everyone's time.

I told myself I wouldn't waste my time by actually posting a comment. Look what you idiots have done.

To all you commentors: my sense of irony requires me to repeat what is now the first non-deleted post here:

Is this really what you thought you would be doing with your life when you decided on law school?

Leaky, you know jack.

First, OMM has a hard 1950 hours requirement, which you could learn on any number of websites. I thus cast doubt on all of your so-called inside knowledge.

Second, you don't lure new associates with bonuses, because thisyear's bonus is no guarantee of next year's, and a new associate isn't eligible for this year's. Only a moron would go to a different firm based compensation she's not eligible for.

Third, what is so bad about tying bonuses to hours, Comrad? Maybe they don't have to do that at CSM because their associates have nothing to do but bill, so it's never come up. Personall,y I'd prefer to work at a place where compensation is tied to *gasp* productivitys. I love associates (and, no, I'm not a partner) who think they're entitled to some massive bonus for not spitting on the clients. Grow up.

Grow up.

Gosh why are we still talking about law firms. B-O-R-I-N-G

Why grow up?

Lately this blog is starting to resemble autoadmit.

hard 1950 req? i doubt that. soft 1950, maybe. but speaking anecdotally with friends at OMMNY i think a lot might not make it this year and not because they were slacking.

let's remember that the only thing on the table here is the special bonus - i would be pretty surprised if they didn't give out the basic/regular bonus to everyone regardless of hours. if they tie the special bonus to hours, so be it, but my friend said it would be really unfair given that people were willing to work but there wasn't work to do. how do you justify punishing junior associates for a lack of doc reviews?

This is fucking genius. Lat, knowing that OMM is likely to announce on Wednesday that it is matching special bonuses in NYC, posts a story on Monday claiming that they're not going to match. Then, when they do, he takes credit for coercing the mighty law firm into paying OVER A MILLION DOLLARS more in bonuses than they wanted to.

Decadent AND shrewd! Or just plain pathetic. You be the judge.

re 1950. Yes "soft" 1950: that's what I heard. There is no official: you have to make this many hours if you want to get a bonus and people well below it got a bonus. The 1950 is definitely SOFT and no one at the firm tells you that you HAVE TO make that. It's understood some years it's more and some years less. Bonus not affected.

The people who didn't make hours aren't slacking. THE WORK IS NOT THERE.

How can you penalize associates for not working if you don't give them work.

Esp if you ask for work and they don't give you any or a case goes into a lull for a few months and the partner doesn't want to release you to new work.

They shouldn't NOT give the special bonus because people didn't make hours UNLESS 99 percent of the people are busting their humps and 1 percent are no. And that's not what I'm hearing is the case.

Esp if you ask for work and they don't give you any or a case goes into a lull for a few months and the partner doesn't want to release you to new work.

They shouldn't NOT give the special bonus because people didn't make hours UNLESS 99 percent of the people are busting their humps and 1 percent are no. And that's not what I'm hearing is the case.

What a joke, seriously, "The Work is Not There" is such a load of crap. Where were those pukes when the credit markets was overheating the first 6 months or the litigation practice was insane the last 6. Non-sense and self-delusion.

And please, a bonus is not a god given right .

Wachtell to 200k. Now back to work.

The New York office's holiday party is on Thursday night. Not going to be very cheery if everyone is feeling f*d over (rightly or wrongly). I bet they're going to announce just before the party and make it into some kind of celebration thing.

Reading all these comments sure made me firsty!

"Released" by your partner to other cases? Partners should be giving you work until you can't take any more, not waiting for Partner 1 to give the go-ahead to Partner 2. Unless you're in real estate or some other bubble-related group, you're busy if you're good.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

115th, suckas!

It is a bit odd, but Grendal is right - that's how it works in that office. Some people are slammed but it's because their matter is hot, otherwise there's a lot of fishing going on and partners can be a bit territorial about keeping their people on ice in case the shiz hits the fan.

The work coordination system is territorial unless you fight it, and why the hell would you fight it if you're making market without giving up weekends and holidays? Only if you want to make partner yourself, I guess. Almost everyone I know (at any firm) claims to have no almost interest in making partner, so a rational actor would find the best firm with the least amount of work and ride the wave. IMHO.

this is a wonderful joke, right.....we're not all discussing first posters, are we?

ok, here's the truth:

1. first posters have tiny penises and use the first post as a way to generate attention because, again, they have itty bitty tiny tiny penises.

2. people who complain about first posters are the reason that first posters post first.

Lat, These posts are funnier already; stop censoring and let FIRSTS rule!

God - LAT - are you going to limit the comments that discuss first posters!!!!!?!?! The thing is, by censoring firsts, you've created more objectionable and more off-topic crapola.

FFFFIIIIRRRRSSSSTTTTT!!!!!!

1:07 I am a girl, I don't have a penis. But my husband has a really big one and I love it. It isn't itty bitty tiny.

Maybe yours is?

1:16 - I don't understand the meaning of your post at all. But if you must know, yes, my penis is tiny.

How long can this blog decline before it hits rock bottom? We are having like 10 bonus threads for every LEWW post. LOL!

LEWW Fan: eat shit and go to hell. Seriously. You are alone. No one likes you. Fuck off. That feature was by far the worst, and the moment it got some character (normal lawyer couples being chronicled) bitches like you bemoaned its death. So fuck off, slag.

Lat: Keep killing the first posts. This site has far too many infants (see above) and too many morons (also, see above).

Grendal and Agrees with Grendal are right.

The OMMNY office has had big discussions about the work assignment system because partners do not share the wealth. In spite of these discussions and surveys and "talking to the partners" it REMAINS BROKEN. Partners ARE territorial and unwilling to allow new associates into their practice areas no matter how busy they are.

They pound on a few associates, leaving the others in a vacuum. Even though they are SUPPOSED to go through the work coordinaters, they don't. Some associates are always swamped and some are doing nothing even though they ask and ask and ask. Some associates WANT to be busier because they want the experience.

How can you punish associates who are not working to capacity because you're not giving them work? They can't MAKE UP work and pad hours. So they lose for being available and having a work coordination system that DOES NOT WORK?

The holiday party is for staff and attorneys. I don't see attorneys celebrating in front of the staff.

The OMMNY work assignment system is broken and maybe bonuses or lack thereof will bring it to light.

No one has any excuse for missing hours at a firm that gives 100 percent credit for pro bono hours with NO limit.

Seriously, you can find 1950, if you're looking for it.

1:07, my anaconda begs to differ with you...

2:23 - jerk-off, what exactly do you think is the purpose of ATL? Let me break it down - its entertain, not to educate. So Douche bag, all posts that are entertaining should be continued and LEWW is definitely one such post, jerk-off - now here's a dude with a small dick or a gal with small boobs, which would explain the vitriol...

2:23, what an idiot. If you want to see "normal lawyers couples" getting married, just make some friends with people at whatever non-elite law school you went to or whatever non-top firm you work at and hopefully you'll get invited to a few middle class lawyer weddings. The rest of us care about the most prestigious lawyer couples who get married.

If you have a pro bono project and IT is not at a stage where it requires hours you can't go around taking on more and more pro bono except for discrete projects. No one is going to be happy if your billable work is all in the pro bono sector or if your pro bono commitment keep you from taking on billable work. Even with 100 percent billable pro bono there is a limit to what you can take on.

WHO THE FUCK CARES?!

6:52: I would bet my "special" bonus that at least 1/2 of the associates (Classes 2002 - 2006) did not make 1950 in the NY office this year. On the other hand, most people did get to go on vacation and I've never seen anyone cry or yell. It's a nice place to work. You can do a lot of pro bono, but officially you cannot be staffed on two major pro bono cases at the same time unless there are special circumstances.

It might be "fair" for the partners to decide not to give out the bonus, but they know full well they had associates harassing work coordinators for assignments and getting nothing. This market isn't about fairness - every year people get paid "market" without working "market" hours. it's pissing contest, not a communist utopia.

Does it have to be firm-approved or sponsored pro bono to count? If not, aren't there legal aid clinics (e.g. drafting wills for the poor) that you can go work at for a discrete three hour segment with no long-term commitment?

So is this a serious law blog or not?

I still don't understand how you justify a large (35k plus) "special bonus" for mid levels to senior associates based on cost of living grounds. A fine New York apt is simply not $2,000 more per month in rent than a fine one in DC and Chicago. The more senior you get, the less justifiable the cost of living argument becomes. I call BS.

LOL@"The rest of us care about the most prestigious lawyer couples who get married."

Bitch, please. "We" don't care about any lawyer couples getting married: you do--the end.

Truth be told, NY OMM associates who don't get a special bonus for not making their hours will leave if they don't get the special bonus and their friends at other NY firms do. NY OMM will also have an even tougher time recruiting quality candidates.

But you want to know the saddest part? NY OMM partners don't care. They don't care if associates leave. And they don't care if they don't get the best candidates.

Special bonus or no special bonus - the saddest part is that the NY OMM associates are not valued by their partnership.

it has to be firm-approved pro bono and they are not going to approve you for a lot of pro bono projects esp if they have the potential to heat up at the same time. One is usual, two is max. If you sign up for two and neither go anywhere, you're sitting again with no pro bono and no billables.

Associates have been hounding work coordinators but work is not being distributed evenly or fairly.

glad that atl considers a "billable" requirement to be NOT MATCHING. thanks guys.

@ 8:14 and 8:38 (same person, obviously)

DOUBLE-LOL@"The rest of us care about the most prestigious lawyer couples who get married."

Are you out of your f**king mind? Listen slag, if you want to read about marrying guys who wouldn't give you the time to drop a deuce on your head, browse through the weekend Times. This is a legal gossip site - not a venue for onanism over "most prestigious lawyer couples." Slag.

I work at OMM. And I'll will tell you exactly how it works. First of all, there is no official billable hours requirement. The 1950 is the firm-wide average. The policy for first years last year, was that everyone received a full bonus, even those who billed 1500 hours or less, as long as their review wasnt horrid. And by horrid I mean really bad. One girl was basically told she was had low intelligence, and she still got a full bonus.

OMM NY is falling apart. There are no midlevels and the only ones lateraling over are from second tier countries like australia and england. The few competent midlevel left are billing twice as many hours as the juniors.

And as one commentor said earlier, the partners do not care. You have to understand that most of the corporate partners are from Osullivan, and they have their guarantees from the merger, so they are insulated.

Most importantly there is simply no work. OMM NY has one corporate client. Apollo, thats it and thats all. We are clearly overstaffed. Even the top performer in the first year class, the guy every partner and senior associate loved, only billed 1900 hours and a bulk of it was pro bono.

And partners who do have work give it only to certain associates.

Laterals are not allowed into certain practice group and aren't told that when hired. So the "good" work isn't given to people who lateral in.

Isn't that true?

There is a soft 1950 requirement in OMM NY, and a hard 1950 requirement in all other offices. We cross staff on cases from all offices, so the no work excuse is ridiculous. We also get full credit for pro bono projects, and although they won't let you staff on multiple huge pro bono projects at one time (when it is clear you won't be able to handle it) they will let you work on multiple pro bono matters, especiallly a large and several small matters.

re: 1:15

You're a partner, aren't you. If the no work excuse was RIDICULOUS then the associates would be working, now wouldn't they? How is it that half the office isn't making hours?

And NO they won't let you work on multiple pro bonos just to fill up time.

1:32: I agree. It is up to partners and counsel level associates to ensure the junior associates are fully occupied. There is only so much I'm willing to do to get work. I WILL NOT beg for work, as I wasn't cajoled by the summer program of free booze and food to think that I need to beg for work. I will send around e-mails to document my requests and give a few calls, but if you're not keeping me busy, then it's the work coordination system that is ridiculous, and I will expect full compensation and bonuses even if I have to leave early. Hell, the upshot is at least I can actually have time to spend the money I make.

And not to knock on pro bono work, but I do not want to have to rely on it to get my hours. If I wanted to work primarily on immigration issues, fair housing and non-profit work, I wouldn't have decided to work at a big firm (not to say bankruptcy and certain corporate matters are interesting either).

The funny thing is - all the attorneys at OMM who didnt know about ATL will now be reading (and posting) thanks to the email from firm management!

OMM NYer:

If the above comments on OMM NYC are correct, it's pretty sad.

I work in a CA firm, and for a time my practice group was going through the same thing. And then a bunch of associates left for another firm - they left because the didn't have enough work.

Anyway, here's my question. Are the laterals from Australia and England objectively bad lawyers, or are they just taking a bit of time to get up to speed on how things are done in the States?

I ask because while I get the sense that Aussie lawyers think highly of themselves, given that they work less than we do, and given that university is a breeze there, I wonder whether they'd have a subpar work ethic.

SECOND!!!!

Of course 1:15 is partner, either that or the douchey first year who billed the most at 1900 with probably about 200 from pro bono.

And I agree with 1:51. Pro bono!? If I wanted to pro bono, I wouldnt have sold my soul for a measily six-figures plus change.

If "there is no work" is a ridiculous excuse, then why did not one single first year in corporate make 1950 this year (pro bono included)? Because the ENTIRE first year class sucks that bad? If you think that then I blame the partners for hiring such losers.

Guys in my highschool use to bicker back and forth like old women in a fish market, it was no big deal.

If first years aren't making the hours then there is a problem.

The prob is not just in corporate. It's in litigation as well. Maybe first year lit associates make the hours but the work assignment and stagnating laterals issue holds true in litigation as well.

I made my hours, it was no big deal. For example, it would only take me 20 billable hours to write a 2 page internal memo. But the grammar was perfect, although I spelled definitely, "definately." I hope that is not bad.

I also spent 18 hours looking for case law to support a highly specific statement we made in a brief and found nothing. I love when partners say, "we need support for the following." You know there is none, and all you can find is a "cf." which is even a stretch.

2:11 - The above comments about OMM NY are not true. People who moan about overstaffing are the people no-one wants to work with so I wouldn't give them too much credit.

To 2:11 - Then no one must want to work with any first years.

To 2:11 - Then no one must want to work with any first years.

Lat: "We are big believers in owning up to our mistakes around here; it's critical to maintaining our credibility."

I love this. Your subsequent post surely doesn't "own up" to any mistakes - you sound like I did when I was in high school:
"Dad, I'm really sorry that I was drinking at the party, but it's not my fault, I thought it was just soda."

"We're sorry we were inaccurate, but let's get these partners on a technicality and maintain our innocence."

This blog gets worse by the day.