Now that the summer associate season is upon is, ATL has been devoting a bit more coverage to summer programs, and the ATL / Lateral Link surveys will do the same.

But does David Lat secretly hate summer? Here's a snippet from one of his recent columns over at the New York Observer:

When you stop and think about it, the summer associate programs at New York’s largest corporate law firms are a shockingly inefficient way to recruit talent.

The top firms pay their summers over $3,000 a week—a week!—to enjoy three-hour lunches and surf the Web, and do a little bit of work on the side, but just a little, on the firm’s most interesting and sexy matters. Don’t forget the cooking lessons, wine tastings, pool parties, a clambake or a cruise—all of it carefully designed to create in these future lawyers a Pavlovian association between Big Law and Big Pleasure.

Cutting back on these perks would seem to be an easy way for firms to save money without causing too much uproar. In fact, firms might earn brownie points with their clients for showing such restraint.

Oh noes! Did the Chuck Norris of Legal Gossip just deliver a roundhouse kick to recruiting tradition?

And he's not alone. Firms like Sonnenschein, Pillsbury, and Thelen Reid have decided to cap their summer programs at ten weeks or, in Thelen Reid's case, eight. And the NLJ has pointed out that some of the biggest firms in Big Law are hiring smaller summer classes. Worse yet, as Lat observes in the Observer:

A few midsize and regional firms, such as Gibbons Del Deo in Newark, have abandoned summer programs altogether in favor of focusing on poaching experienced attorneys from other firms.

Scrooge season has come early to Big Law and Regional Law alike.

But are they right? Should firms focus less on summer programs, and use the funds to hire laterals instead? Or perhaps provide signing bonuses or higher pay?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on whether summer programs should be trimmed. Add your two cents -- and decide if that should be next year's summer budget -- after the jump.

We received 1,669 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on children and careers.

Quite a few readers are pessimistic about the impact having a child would have on their careers. One comment summed it up:

Having a child would not, in itself, hurt anyone's career. Raising one almost certainly would, as would taking up stamp collecting or any other non-career-advancing hobby.

But just having a child, provided it was promptly deposited at a nearby orphanage (between conference calls), should not be too problematic.

Ouch. Another comment was a bit more hopeful:

I recently returned full-time from 5 months of maternity leave at my Vault 5 firm. At the end of the day, I don't think that the length of a single maternity leave is that big of a deal. No one is going to remember or care how long you were gone, particularly if you are junior and still more or less interchangeable with your peers. That said, my experience was that, with all of my matters having closed about 3 months before my due date, it was really tough to find work during that time because I looked like I was going to pop at any moment. So the time I was out of the game and not able to build skills was longer than the maternity leave alone. And reminding everyone of who I am and the good work that I do has had to happen a bit more since I returned, but none of this is career-ending. It just takes patience, but that kind of perseverance comes quite naturally to me now that I am a mother.

I worked until a week before the baby was born. Though 16-hour days or longer are possible for most of a normal pregnancy, they are not a good idea in the late stages (the last 6 weeks or so). Even a normal pregnancy is a lot of work, don't get me wrong, but, honestly, the talk [in the comments] about using surrogates because you don't want a pregnancy to slow you down is just silly, and clearly the idea of a childless person who has not seriously contemplated what surrogacy involves. A few months of being pregnant, and then taking maternity leave, in my experience, just isn't going to kill your career.

Read more -- the rest of this very thoughtful email, plus the overall survey results -- after the jump.

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey asks a question that a number of associates have been asking lately: Will your firm let you have children and a career at the same time?

Or, for that matter, are you even comfortable trying?

--
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

Last week, we posted Part Four of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses, covering the range of firms from Akin Gump to Young Conaway. We've also posted results from our surveys on relocation benefits and whether you have to pay it all back when you leave. And between survey responses, comments, and tips, we have a few thousand data points.

Today, we're consolidating the three tables in one place, so that we can start filling in more blanks and squeezing out some nuances.

The table below now shows six things for each firm:

  * which bar exam expenses the firm will reimburse (send us tips to fill in the blanks),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a summer stipend or a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts,

  * whether the firm provides any particular relocation benefits,

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year, and

  * whether the firm will make you pay it all back if you leave. As a general rule, payback requirements will apply to everything but a stub bonus, and will include clerkship bonuses.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the aggregated table of bar reimbursements, stipends and bonuses, salary advances, moving expenses, stub bonuses, and payback requirements. Check it out, after the jump.

We received over 1,600 responses to yesterday's ATL / Lateral Link survey on your law firm weight gain. Overall, you've gained a ton. Or more.

As one commenter put it:

NY to 350!

...lbs. that is...

Well, ok, it wasn't quite that bad, but two thirds of you who are currently practicing law have gained weight:

  * 13.78% of respondents gained 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 13.36% of respondents gained 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 14.13% of respondents gained 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 6.78% of respondents gained 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 6.71% of respondents gained 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 4.59% of respondents gained 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 7.35% of respondents -- and roughly a fifth of respondents who graduated in 2002 or earlier -- gained more than 30 pounds.

Just under 12% of you stayed the same. And a fifth of you are bastards reported that you lost weight:

  * 5.72% of respondents lost 1 to 5 pounds.
  * 4.73% of respondents lost 6 to 10 pounds.
  * 3.82% of respondents lost 11 to 15 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 16 to 20 pounds.
  * 1.55% of respondents lost 21 to 25 pounds.
  * 0.71% of respondents lost 26 to 30 pounds.
  * 2.69% of respondents lost more than 30 pounds.

Most respondents are eating in the office, grabbing food from restaurants, and enjoying a sedentary lifestyle:

  * About three quarters of respondents who are currently practicing law eat at least five meals a week at their firms.
  * About two thirds get at least five meals a week from restaurants.
  * Although roughly two fifths of respondents said their firms have gyms (25% have free gyms, 15% are at firms with subsidized gyms, and 2% are at firms with no discount), 60% of these respondents "never" use their firm gym, and 20% work out only once or twice a week.

Law students fared better, but still not that well, with roughly 55% gaining weight, and just under a third losing weight. Law students were just about as likely as practicing attorneys to gain 15 or fewer pounds, but a bit less likely to gain more, and a bit more likely to lose 15 or fewer pounds. Clearly, there's room for more recruiting lunches.

So, overall, don't you feel better about yourself now?

Today's ATL / Lateral Link survey focuses on weighty matters. Literally.

In an interesting counterweight (as it were) to Kash's post about prison weight loss litigation yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had a story on a proposed law in Massachusetts that would ban discrimination based on weight. (Apparently, Michigan, the District of Columbia, San Francisco, and Madison, Wisconsin already have similar anti-discrimination provisions in place.)

Since Daily Kos has already "stolen" a poll on whether the law's a good idea, I won't ask that here -- although those of you with an appetite for debate can weigh in in the comments. But while weight debates hang heavy in the air, what I will ask is whether your time in law has expanded more than just your acumen.

So, have your salad days as an associate or law student yielded a beefier frame?

Has partnership given you more substance?

Last week, we posted Part Three of the results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses (which covered the range of firms from Akin Gump to Proskauer Rose). We got quite a few tips in response, as well as quite a few comments in person, at the NALP conference in Toronto.

Find out whether today's installment will at last make it to Wachtell, Weil, WilmerHale and beyond . . . after the jump.

But before we get there, let's quickly review what we said about the table last week:

The table below shows four things for each firm:

  * how the firm helps new associates with bar exam expenses (reimbursement of actual expenses or a fixed stipend),

  * whether the firm pays new associates a signing bonus or graduation bonus (not counting clerkship bonuses, which are discussed elsewhere),

  * whether the firm provides salary advances (i.e., loans) in any particular amounts, and

  * whether the firm provides a pro-rated bonus (a "stub bonus") for the period between your start date and the end of the year first year.

As always, please send us a tip if any of the details about your firm are missing or wrong or fraught with nuance. Also feel free to let us know whether these stipends and bonuses are subject to repayment if you leave, and whether your firm helps out with relocations, both topics of surveys last week.

And now, that introduction aside, read on to see the fourth batch of results from our ATL / Lateral Link survey on bar stipends and reimbursements, salary advances, and signing bonuses. Check it out, after the jump.

So far this year, our ATL / Lateral Link survey results have produced tables on clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses and bar expenses, and relocation benefits, as well as parental leave (kudos, by the way, to Akin Gump and Andrews Kurth for moving to 18 weeks maternity leave recently).

But for many of these charts, there's a worrisome question lurking in the background: will you have to pay the firm back if you leave?

We received almost 400 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on payback policies, and the most common answer appears to be "yes, but only if you leave relatively quickly." Most of you reported that your firms would require you to return clerkship bonuses, signing bonuses, bar stipends and expenses, and even moving expenses if you left your jobs within a year after starting. But relatively few firms imposed longer terms, and a fair number reported no payback requirement at all.

Find out which firms fall where, after the jump.

We received almost 500 responses to last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on relocation benefits, and it seems like another table-worthy set of results.

As with our running tables on clerkship bonuses, maternity leave, paternity leave, and signing bonuses and bar expenses, the moving-expenses table is a work in progress that will be updated from time to time, based on your greatly appreciated tips.

Is your firm missing? Spot an error? Please let us know.

In the meantime, last week's ATL / Lateral Link survey on whether you might have to pay everything back is still open.

Check out the full table, after the jump.

We received 3,846 responses to this month's ATL / Lateral Link survey on your student loans, mortgages, and credit card debt, and one thing's pretty clear: an awful lot of you owe an awful lot of money.

Roughly 40% of respondents owed at least $100,000 in outstanding student loans. Broken down by class, here's what your student loan debt looks like:

Survey Results: Student Loan Debt By Law School Class

Even as the amount of student loan debt begins to subside for members of the Classes of 2004 and 2003, mortgage debt starts to creep up:

Survey Results: Mortgage Debt By Law School Class

Credit card debt, in comparison, is relatively tame. Sixty-four percent of respondents had no credit card debt, and 21% had less than $10,000 in credit card debt. About two percent held $40,000 or more.

But how much does all this debt affect your career choices? Find out, after the jump.