figgity firstorama

If you're making New York scale and not having to bill over 1,900 REAL hours, you have NOTHING to complain about.

I doubt there are many litigators at S&C or Cravath billing less than 2,300

No one who billed under 1900 deserves a bonus. At that level, your bonus is your nights and weekends. That's not even 40 hours a week.

but if you are hanging out at the firm, looking for work, not getting it and are anxious about not getting it, it might be tough to really enjoy all the unexpected free time. Maybe you would rather have the money?

Thank you 1:11 and 1:19. I am SO sick of the whiners!

"No one who billed under 1900 deserves a bonus."

I suppose then that you would also apply this rule to those firms that award bonuses lock-step, regardless of hours?

The point of what occured at CWT isn't merit. The point is the representations made to associates regarding the guideline for bonuses.

A firm is free to set whatever guideline it wishes for bonuses, whether that be hours based or not. But, to change those guidelines post year-end is fundamentally unfair to those associates who allocated hours to certain activities, here marketing and recruitment, to only have those hours discharged from bonus consideration.

That ain't working, that's the way you do it. Money for nothing and the chicks for free.

The point is if you're so underutilized that you haven't even billed 1,900 for the full year, you should be happy to have a job.

LOL. what a whiny narrative. If you couldn’t bill 1900 hours you really cant complain about not getting bonus, especially if the number includes pro bono. Actually sounds like cwt was more generous than most firms at their level.

What are they complaining about, exactly?? There have been numerous high-profile articles about how CWT is the new "business model" law firm. What does that mean? In hard times, no moolah! Obviously CWT is all about the money and cares not one sh!t about their partners or associates. The writing was on the wall long before this that if the firm started to get in trouble, it wasn't going to go all touchy-feely with it's associates. Gimme a break!

BEDBUGS!!!

Sheriff gonna get ya.

"Other marketing hours, and recruiting hours, were NOT counted."

This is why I don't do any marketing or recruiting.

If you can't hit 1900 hours in litigation for the full year with pro bono hours and some marketing counting towards the 1900 hours, then how exactly have you brought enough value to the table to justify a significant bonus. I understand the frustration with a change in policy midstream but obviously economics at the firm are not in good shape. Basically, it seems that the people most affected by the change in policy were the people who tried to hit the bear minimum to get their bonus (basically trying to play the game). I bet there are at least a few CWT associates who billed 2000+ who are actually not upset by the change in policy.

1:25 - You have a blackberry, right? Go home and wait for that red light to blink.

Problem at CWT litigation is that there isn't any work to be done, so billing under 1900 isn't about being lazy, its about the department not being able to provide work for you.

Are you friggin kidding me? If CWT hires people who complain about not getting a bonus for billing under 1900 hours, they deserve the bad rep. The REST of the world bills over 2200 or more real hours. If you bill under 1900 hours how do you even look yourself in the mirror when taking home your base pay? At under 1900 hours, you are pretty close to costing the firm money... well. . . not at CWT rates.

If you weren't so busy writting to ATL, you probably would have billed more hours, and wouldn't be so upset.

Get over it. Work harder. Develop some semblance of a work ethic.

What about New Jersey bonuses? Do national firms in Jersey give out bonuses?

What about New Jersey bonuses? Do national firms in Jersey give out bonuses?

I find it strange and scary that in our profession, you are perceived to be a loser if you are not worked to death at the office. I always thought simple and rational economics prescribe that we should all strive to get the maximum amount of return for the least amount of effort.

"I bet there are at least a few CWT associates who billed 2000+ who are actually not upset by the change in policy."

True.

Minimum number of bears?

I find it strange and scary that in our profession, you are perceived to be a loser if you are not worked to death at the office. I always thought simple and rational economics prescribe that we should all strive to get the maximum amount of return for the least amount of effort.

I find it strange and scary that in our profession, you are perceived to be a loser if you are not worked to death at the office. I always thought simple and rational economics prescribe that we should all strive to get the maximum amount of return for the least amount of effort.

@1:54- No, actually, that is not the case. No one was trying to pull anything over on anyone. The culture here is so bad and the partners dislike each other so much that they will not share associates, so whether or not you had hours depended entirely on whether the people you worked for were busy. If you tried to go through the assignment system to get more work, you were either ignored (literally, no one would respond to your emails or phone calls) or given marketing work that you were told would count towards your hours. No one is upset about there being an hours requirement. People are upset about the fact that there is no respect for people here and no communication. Everyone who billed 2000+ hours and got their bonus (including me) knows that it was luck and that they are no better off at this place in the grand scheme of things. They are just as upset as everyone else. Also, I think you meant "bare minimum."

2:00 - You are everything that is wrong with this profession. God have mercy on your soul.

Are you actually PROUD of the fact that your wife and kids never get to see you?! I can't believe people BOAST about how hard they work!

"Bow down and admire me - I bill so many hours that I never I see any friends/family; I never play a sport or watch TV; and I have had dinner on my office desk for the past 4 years! You know that I am great (the man, the strong, the big boy) because I have worked eevry Christmas, New Year's Day and Thanksgiving! Yeah!!

You are a loser (a wimp, a whiner) because all you do is leave at 8pm, have dinner with your wife/kids, relax and hang out with friends during the weekend."

Only in law....

Yesterday - 4 CMBS (1 special counsel and 3 associates) and 2 Real Estate (one special counsel and one associate) gave notice.

"The only reason we exist is that most of us bill at least 2000." It's not the catchiest motto, but every CWT partner and associate knows it's true. If you don't bill 2000, not only don't you deserve a bonus, but you don't deserve a job at Biglaw. CWT has the right idea.

This policy doesn't seem unusual to me. At my firm, it is 2000 or nothing for bonuses. Only pro bono counts. Marketing and recruiting don't count. If you have 1998, you get nada, zip zilch (of course, I don't see how that situation would arise as you can easily find enough billable work to do on the last day of the billable year to make sure you hit bonus). I am surprised that there are people at CWT that would expect bonuses below 1850.

advice for any students summering at CWT for '08?

i would imagine 3L hiring would not be very strong, especially in this economy!

which CMBS people gave notice - use initials?

There are a LOT of CWT associates over 1900 who did not get shit.

The firm is so full of shit, Bob Link's words come out brown and full of corn and peanuts.

2:53:

You will be fine for the first year or two. It is only the mid-levels that really get screwed when the economy goes south.

2:53 - don't worry about getting hired. cwt, as well as many other biglaws, already took the current woes of our economy into account by inviting fewer law students to spend the summer with them. it makes more sense for firms to reduce their number of higher-paid, pigeonholed mid-level associates than to deny jobs to new recruits.

2:43 I hope you get SUPERAIDS and get peed on by someone with highly contagious Hep.

To be somewhat fairer to our colleagues at CWT, moaning and crying about the bonus for sub 1900 won't get a lot of sympathy, but on the other hand I can understand being frustrated by an admin that would change policy after the fact. Perhaps if CWT had just come clean and said we are financially stressed and need to limit the bonus for 2007 it would have gone over better.

If I were at CWT I would start looking around for better opportunities because it doesn't sound like things will be getting a lot better. For the newbies to the profession who are at firms that have been harmed by the credit crunch, please remember that after the burst of the internet bubble there were a decent number of large prestigious firms with a high concentration of Internet based clients that went belly up. Not sure the same will happen this time but the precedent does exist.

advice for any students summering at CWT for '08?

i would imagine 3L hiring would not be very strong, especially in this economy!

"We would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling associates"

- Bob Link, Chris White & Greg Martel

Greg 'Martel?'

Ordinarily, I would agree that you shouldn't expect a bonus under 1900, but there really is no work in litigation. I don't know how this firm makes money. Also, the main point is that they changed the rules after the game and then lied about it.

As is generally the case at CWT, it wasn't what they did, but how they went about doing it. The bonus scale mentioned above is actually on par, if not better than other firms who based bonuses and special bonuses on hours. In fact, many firms did not give special bonuses for 2000 hours. The problem is the lack of transparency in criteria. It is unfair to base a 2007 bonus on criteria established in 2008. It is that simple. And as for people leaving, obviously CMBS people are going to leave if given the opportunity. People leave after bonuses at all firms every year.

There would be far less whining if associates actually knew what to expect, but the firm wanted to maintain this image that they were able to pay market bonuses when they absolutely were not.

Bump that hours were low-- I don't see how anybody can think it's not shady as hell to lie about the health of the litigation dept, lie about a bonus grid, retroactively deduct marketing hours to get out of giving the bonuses you already promised, and then leave for vacation the day that you are supposed to talk to associates one on one. Whether the minimum hours were 1600 or 2600 its messed up to change up the rules after the game.

"Whether the minimum hours were 1600 or 2600 its messed up to change up the rules after the game."

What are you talking about? In the past the rules have always been 2000 hours to get bonus, and pro bono gets capped at 100. If anything they changed the rules in your favor by lowering the requirement to 1900.

Grow up - even half of your bonus is more than your secretary's base pay - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Long live CWT!

Look, to hit 1900 hours you have to have a fair amount ot work throught the year. No matter how much you bill, two slow months can basically ruin your hours for the year. I'm a 3rd year in Capital Markets at a BigLaw firm and I came in just under 1900 because there were very few new deals in November and December. Based on my informal polling of others, even at V5 shops, the situation was similar across NYC transactional groups. Obvioualy some associates billed more, but it was not as easy to hit 1900 this year as past years because of the credit crunch.

Fortunately, my firm is lockstep so all associates here got a full bonus. And this is justified, because as a general matter, associates below 4th year (where reputation with parnters really matters because you begin running your own deals) really have no control over their hours. Anyone here arguing that associates billing below 1900 are lazy clearly is a law student with no idea what they are talking about.

Sucks to say, but Cadwalader has resigned itself to the second tier.

4:47

no, the secretaries should be ashamed of the laughably low expectations they have for themselves

4:47 - Sigh, the obligatory you should be happy you're not an assistant crack whore post. What does secretary pay have to do with this? Nothing, that's what.

A voice of reason from 4:51. You can't bill if you don't have work. Well, you can, and I suspect some of these people billing 2400+ do, but you shouldn't, at least.

We oldies will always remember Cadwalader for starting the salary wars that moved NY salaries from $104,000 to $125,000 back in 2000.

STFU and do some of the TONS of pro bono work that needy people need done and that your firm credits toward bonuses, 4:51. This "but the firm isn't busy" thing is such a ridiculous canard when pro bono work counts. Give me a break. You are lazy. Period.

I second 5:23's post. My firm also has strict hours-bonus cutoffs (and ones that are MUCH worse than CWT's), and also had a slow year. I did 400 hours of pro bono work to reach 2400 hours and a big bonus. If you *choose* to go home early and never work a weekend on your way to getting a combined billable/pro bono/marketing number in the low 1800s, then you *chose* a bonus of huge amounts of free time. That is a reasonable choice. But you made it and you shouldn't cry about not also getting the money bonuses that go to your colleagues who chose otherwise.

5:29 - no one does 400 hours of pro bono when they are already hitting 2000. You are a law student.

2000 hours in a year is about 40 billables/ at least 50 office time per week (assuming you take some vacation days). Manageable, but still a sufficiently long week that no one really cares enough about the needy on Friday afternoon to work through the weekend.

2400 hours is 48 billable per week, AT LEAST 60 hours office time (probably more like 70. That is five days of 12 hours in the office (9-9) unless you work weekends, and NO ONE voluntarily works weekends. EVERY WEEK OF THE YEAR. It happens of course, but IT IS NEVER VOLUNTARY.

Stop lying and go back to your casebooks. You clearly have no idea what the real world of law firm work is like.

5:29 - also a reasonable choice to choose a firm where you get a bonus even for being lazy and "settling" for whatever work is given to you. I didn't go to law school to make the world a better place, so I feel no need to work weekends on pro bono. I try to hit 2000 every year and will take pro bono projects if we're slow, but 2400? NFW. Either way, I'm getting paid.

Full market + special bonus for 1900 hours? That's not bad at all...

I'm a 4th year associate. My firm has bonuses that don't even kick in until 2100 hours. Once you're there, additional bonuses are paid out at 2200, 2300 and 2400, in amounts sufficient to rationally incentivize hitting 2400 if its within reach. I will happily concede that my firm's bonus structure sucks, and that I won't be sticking around to finish out my career here. But thanks for the all-caps garnished lecture on how many hours are in a year.

In any case, regardless of my particular circumstances, the point remains: if CWT counts pro bono hours, the fact that the firm did not have sufficient billable work to keep all associates at the extremely low number of 1900 hours is absolutely no excuse for failing to supplement those billable hours with the pro bono work that is always readily available.

To 4:51,

As others stated the fact that Pro Bono counted towards the hours requirement makes the 1900 easy to achieve.

Also as to your point of a couple of slow months killing your chances, you realize you could bill nothing for two months and still hit 1900 hours by averaging 190 hours for the remaining 10 months. 190 hours a month is not an insane level of work.

I suspect that a lot of younger people used up a bunch of vacation time during the summer months while things were busy and there was work. I can understand the anger about change in policy but I cannot get worked up over someone not getting a bonus because they took time off during the busy months and then were hurt by the fact things slowed down in November and December.

5:29/5:46 - that better have been some bonus. I hit 2400 when I was a second year and it nearly killed me. Of course, I don't pad as much as some. Whatever the stylistic faults of my post, the point remains that most readers of ATL are law students with no idea how much billing over 2000 in a year truly effects your life. An entire year of not getting home before midnight, working weekends, never seeing your family. And you do it voluntarily? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but jesus....

It's definitely not an ideal year, but it's not necessarily the 12 hours-every-weekday schedule you sketch. I had a couple of truly miserable nearly 300 hour months (and even those included some travel time--generally the most painless billable hours). Once you've got those two months accounted for, you're just talking about hitting 1800 hours in 10 months, which is not really that terrible (and which makes me even less sympathetic to people crying about not getting a bonus for failing to hit 1900 hours in *12* months). I even took 2 weeks of vacation.

And, if it wasn't clear, those two super-heavy months were full of billable work, not undertaken voluntarily. Had those not happened, I don't pretend I would have voluntarily taken up that much work voluntarily in other months. I would, however, voluntarily do 100 hours of pro bono if I was a CWT associate with only 1800 billable hours. You'd be a complete idiot not to.

cwt associate: 2000 hours plus 100 pro bono is the bonus standard from 4 years ago. Since then, no cap on pro bono and no 2000 min

I should add, I'm not sure if cwt put a cap on pro bono this year... I heard they may have.

cannot bill 2000? self-pwn3d no boni

try working next year instead of screwing over the 2300 a year folks

Concur with 5:30. No one does 400 pro bono hours in the real world and makes their real billable goals.

Counting pro bono toward billables must be a big city thing. In flyover country, we only put on the board what we can collect. Good feelings doesn't keep the lights on and pay the rent.

From my experience of being an ex-CWT associate (and experience at another firm since), I am not surprised at all at CWT's deceitfulness and callousness. It is simply a ruthless and heartless firm. Law school students should stay clear of CWT if they could.

I'm constantly amazed to read of 2d and 3r year associates on these posts talking about 2400 billable hours like it's nothing. 200 billable hours month after month is hard and grueling - - - if you do it legitimately. As go along, you get more adept at capturing time you missed as a younger atty, but that skill doesn't come in the 2d and 3rd years. Nevertheless, operating at 2200+ hours year after year is tough stuff. It wears you out. The fact of the matter is that most people aren't so much tough as they are creative about their billing.

Padding is much more pervasive than folks here want to admit. What's ironic is that it's rewarded, rather than investigated. Partners close their eyes to the 2d years putting up monsterous hours b/c to mark down the billing to fair levels to the client would cut into their profit.

1) Can't believe he stayed in St. Maarten. If he has any class he went on to St. Barth's.

2) How can you not be far beyond 2000 at a Wall Street firm?

See above, 9:10. Most people who have a 2400 hour year aren't putting in a steady 200 a month. They're getting caught in trial and putting in 250-300 a month for 2-3 months and then having totally normal months otherwise. It's not "nothing," but it's not what you make it out to be either.

910 - ORLY????

some of us actually put in 6 am till 10 pm days regularly WITH weekends and withOUT vacations. Suggesting 200+ hrs a month is per se fraud is ignorant of what your co-workers (that'd be those folks who don't suck and thus actually are in demand to do work) are sacrificing for their career.

10:18-

I don't suck and I imagine I've tried more cases to verdict than you.

What year are you? If you've got more than 10, I'm duly impressed. Also, you have a saint for a wife. I've worked that hard for 8 years and have a wife that barely speaks to me. I've missed birthdays, holidays, vacations, and weekends. When I was made a partner this last Christmas, it was anti-climatic. I wished I had been with my children at the beach last summer. I'm rich now, but it has come at a cost.

I'll do 2000-2100 this year. That's enough. Pace yourself brother, I'm telling you from personal experience, it wears on you. The law will take from you everything you will give it.

10:18 - You are pathetic. If you think that is anything to brag about, you have a sad, lonely life ahead of you. It's people like you who make this profession so miserable. And you know what the big irony is? When you're done working all those free hours, your firm will pass you over for partner, and you'll look back on 10 wasted years. Enjoy.

10:32-

Concur. Gunner personified.

Plus, at our firm, we are not "co-workers."

10:18

I find it very disturbing that you brag about working "6 am till 10 pm days regularly WITH weekends and withOUT vacations". You must be one of those people who scream, "YOu loser, you only skipped Christmas? Ha, look at me to learn how to be great - I skipped Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, wife's birthday and kid's birthday!! Beat that, sucker!"

10:18

You are clearly a lousy attorney and NOT in demand if you only work so little. I work from 6am till midnight 7 days a week, 365 days a year. No vacation and no holidays. I don't even need to rent an apartment because I have a sleeping bag in my office. I am BETTER than you! You will never beat me; you can never more in demand and more hardworking than me!!!

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that some billable hours are easy and some are not.

Mine have been. I'm a CWT associate, Cap Markets in NY. I billed about 2100 billable client hours, about 50 recruiting/pro bono ones and got the full and special bonus. I did not pad my hours, though I had a big fall off in hours in December due to the credit crunch and would have been tempted to pad if I was truly in danger in not meeting the hours requirements (as we then understood them to be). I took about three weeks of my vacation time this past year, and additionally was out sick for about a week. I usually worked from 9:30am to 10:00pm Monday through Thursday but was out the door by 7:00 on Fridays. Fortunately, I rarely had to work on weekends. My hours have only truly been insane during the days leading up to a closing or during a print of a prospectus. In short, I've had about as much of a "lifestyle" practice as you can have in structured finance while still meeting billable requirements.

But I recognize that I've been lucky. The nature of my practice involves work on longer-term projects (2 to 4 months), one or two at a time, where the schedules are generally fixed in advance. The work is highly efficient in terms of billing: i.e., I can work an entire week focused on a few discrete tasks that take many hours to complete. Except for lunch and a few internet and coffee breaks each day, nearly all my time is billable. My billable to time-at-work ratio hovers around 85%. Moreover, these deals are mostly flat fee, which means my hours only become an issue if I'm working inefficiently; my partners aren't concerned with nickel-and-diming their clients, or a backlash against that.

So, despite CWT's horrible reputation (most of it deserved, granted), I feel like my quality of life is relatively high compared to that of my friends' at many other firms (or even within CWT). But most other attorneys can't say that. They can feel busy all day, but when they log in their time (if they are honest), they can discover that it doesn't add up to many hours.

As I said, some hours come easy and some don't. So I can't say blanketly that I feel sorry or don't feel sorry for an attorney who billed 1825 hours and didn't get a bonus. It might be because they were lazy, but it might not be. I can feel bad for an attorney who joined a group whose work died in in the credit crunch earlier than mine did, and wound up only billing 1450 hours for the year. I can feel sorry that such an attorney didn't get a bonus. But at the same time, that doesn't mean he deserved one either.

If I am reading this correctly, an associate received a bonus if they had a 1900 combined billable and pro bono hours.

Does anyone know the amount of pro bono hours the litigation associates who did not receive a bonus generally billed? One might consider feeling sorry for an attorney with 1400 hard billables and 400 pro bono hours. Maybe the work wasn't there but at least they tried. But if we talking about attorneys with 1600 -1700 client billables and 50-75 pro bono hours, I have zero sympathy. Pro bono is always available, get off your lazy ass.

11:12 billed 2100 client hours????? How could you physically do that? In a Single Year?

I suppose if the credit crunch had not happened you'd have billed 2400 or some ridiculous number which 10:57 knows cannot be achieved ethically....

What's with the myth that pro bono work is always available? I'm at a West Coast law firm and any pro bono work you do has to be firm-approved. You can't just go out and do pro bono and expect to account for the time. Also, if you take on an enormous amount of pro bono work while your billable work is low, you'll still have all of that pro bono work when your billable work comes back. Guess which clients will get the shaft in that scenario?

How do investment banks and other companies in the real world decide bonuses?

I think they just pay their employees what they feel they are worth, regardless of the number of hours they worked. If someone doesn't receive a bonus or thinks the bonus they received was too small, they just leave.

Law firms are such weird little sheltered bubbles of self-entitlement. Employees who did not generate a sufficient amount of revenue for the firm are complaining that they did not get the bonus they "deserved" and it is not their fault because the work wasn't available. Gimme a break. If the work isn't there, you have no value to the company even if you are a great employee. Look at all the structured finance bankers being laid off or being paid next to nothing for a bonus. Some of these people are probably very talented but due to market conditions they will not be able to make a contribution to the bank worthy of a bonus or even a job.

But hey, that's just the real world. Lawyers should continue to feel justified complaining.

1:24, you admit that you're completely ignorant of how IBanks dole out bonuses, so why don't you shut up? Banks and funds pay out bonuses largely based on how much profit the individual (or that individual's small group) brought in to the firm. So it's actually exactly like a law firm paying associates bonuses based on hours (since hours = profit) -- though the better comparison would be to law firm partner payouts. You are a fool if you think that banks are just paying whatever they "feel" a trader or analyst "merits." Those folks' merit is tied directly to their profitability.

2:44, Aren't you just confirming the whole point of the 1:24 post?

"Banks and funds pay out bonuses largely based on how much profit the individual...brought in to the firm".

The individuals in question here are litigation associates that billed very little hours and therefore did not bring much profit to the firm.

Long live Neil Weidner...

This thread really demonstrates how overblown the cwt bashing is. CWTs bonus policy was the same or better than all similarly ranked firms (fried frank, dewey, white & case..even latham) and cwt still gets bashed as the worst firm around. Aside from the top firms which pay lockstep bonus, no firm’s bonus policy was better than cwt.

349 - This may have been true when CWT made money, now the firm cant pay bonuses because it has no work to give associates - CWT is a complete shithole.

3:49 has it correct -- aside from cravath and a couple others, cwt's bonus policy was comparable to or better than all other city firms. how many firms paid standard + special at 1900 hours?

the management of that policy, however, was truly poor and counterproductive, leading to most of the sturm and drang at a gossip site like this.

CWT did not, did not, did not, pay bonuses to 1900 hours as a matter of course.

Only a few select people got money at that total shithole. The rest got cockpunched by a mustachioed hayseed.

>>We oldies will always remember Cadwalader for starting the salary wars that moved NY salaries from $104,000 to $125,000 back in 2000.

Posted by: I'll always be thankful for Cadwalader... | February 1, 2008 05:11 PM <<

LOL, CWT went, kicking and screaming and not paying retro. You are a fucking ignorant liar.
CWT did move the market one year by a small increment, but that was not the Great Raise of 00. Davis Polk was the first to match.

You fucking ignorant liar.

Lawyers bashing other lawyers? Very amusing. It's like a homeless guy criticizing a prostitute.