The Law Firm Disrupted: It's Bonus Time
Once again, Milbank is the first mover, and peer firms will likely follow. But two questions remain. What figure are they going to match? And when?
November 14, 2024 at 08:33 PM
4 minute read
Many Big Law associates are already thinking about how they’re planning on putting their year-end bonuses to use, as I just learned on a jealousy-inducing visit over to Reddit. (Yes, I’m well aware of their long hours.)
Given the healthy year that most large firms are having, it’s safe to say that most of the usual suspects will, at the very least, match Milbank’s opening salvo, even if they’re not quite having the “record year” that Milbank chairman Scott Edelman highlighted in an internal memo.
But two questions remain. What figure are they going to match? And when?
For the first question, remember that Milbank—already coming off a record 2023, in which revenue grew nearly 18% to exceed $1.5 billion—has been bonus-happy this year. The year-end bonuses, which start at $15,000 for first years and top out at $115,000 for the most senior associates, follow a smaller round of summer bonuses that were not matched by peers. Putting them together, the firm’s first-year associates will have earned $21,000 beyond their base salaries, while the most senior associates will receive up to $140,000 in special pay.
If peers do elect to roll up the value of these summer bonuses into their year-end bonuses, that would lead to cumulative payments that would still trail the Big Law high water mark for yearly bonuses. That was back in 2021—when top firms, flush from a surge in work that followed the U.S. economy’s recovery from COVID lockdowns—delivered special bonuses on top of year-end bonuses, in addition to a previous round of summer bonuses. In total, these payments ranged from $31,000 to $202,000. And, remember, that year also saw a bump in associate base salaries.
With all that in mind, a full match certainly seems plausible.
But let’s dig into the timing. While there’s no doubt that managing partners have already run the math on what impact matching these bonuses will have on their own bottom line, they’re likely waiting on one more shoe to drop.
Once upon a time, Cravath Swaine & Moore was the market setter when it came to associate salaries and bonuses. Now that Milbank has usurped that role, Cravath still seemingly controls the floodgates. Only when that firm announces whether it’s matching (or, in some years, exceeding) the marker that Milbank laid down, will the rest of the market move.
Take last year, when Milbank made its announcement on Nov. 7 of both bonuses and associate raises, no other firms budged until Cravath largely matched Milbank’s package (with a slight salary bump for senior associates) on Nov. 28. That’s the second year in a row the firm has waited until after Thanksgiving.
But looking at the last six years, in three of those years, Cravath moved on the Monday before Thanksgiving, opening the door for its competitors promptly to follow suit. Good timing for those fiscally prudent associates to know exactly what kind of splurge they can make on Black Friday deals, even if they’re relying on credit until the bonuses hit their accounts by Dec. 31.
|
In the News
>> The firms in a position to deliver top-of-the-market bonuses tend to be particularly strong in the "money practices. " That means doubling down in both New York and London in pursuit of deals, restructuring, funds and finance work, according to a new story by my colleague Patrick Smith. “There’s only two markets that matter anymore," one recruiter said.
>> Does the litigation finance industry have anything to fear from GOP control of the White House and both chambers of Congress? Democrats, who are typically more supportive of the plaintiffs' bar, appear to be less enthusiastic about regulating the issue. But Republicans, who are typically more averse to the regulatory state, are also more in line with the corporate interests who end up as defendants in litigation. Jon Campisi digs into the issue for us.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElite Boutiques Competing More With Big Law Bonuses, With Several Going Above Market
9 minute readThe Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Topping Big Law, Litigation Firm the Latest to Dole Out Above-Market Bonuses
3 minute readBoies Schiller Increases Federal Clerkship Bonus to $150K Amid Hiring Uptick
Trending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250