SJ Berwin faces mounting dissent over 2,500-hour bonus incentive
SJs stands firm on controversial bonus despite assistant unrest and cool reception from corporate counsel
December 07, 2006 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
SJ Berwin is standing firm over its controversial bonus scheme despite mounting internal unrest over its decision to reward assistants for billing up to 2,500 hours a year.
The top 20 UK firm this week vowed to stick by the scheme, which is generating intense anger among the firm's assistants for focusing the bulk of incentives on lawyers billing more than 2,000 hours annually.
Under the scheme, top performers can receive as much as 75% of their basic salary through the bonus, despite the firm operating a much lower annual billing target of 1,575 hours.
Critics have accused the firm of 'institutionalising' high targets with the bonus, with a series of assistants posting critical responses on Legal Week's web-site after the bonus package was announced on 24 November.
One SJ Berwin lawyer posted: "I work there and can tell you from the horse's mouth that associates there feel insulted by the suggestion that they should work so hard for a bonus when other firms are handing out pay-rises."
A firm-wide email from senior partner Jonathan Blake on 1 December in response to press coverage of the bonus has also been poorly-received internally.
Commenting on an article on the website RollOnFriday, Blake wrote: "The picture in the attached article is so funny I just have to share it with you. [The SJ Berwin bonus scheme] is being misinterpreted as an inducement to overwork… the 75% is just a maximum the press have focused on."
The firm this week reiterated its claim that the scheme was designed to reward high-billers rather than encourage assistants to aim for 2,000 hour-plus billing.
Managing partner Ralph Cohen told Legal Week: "Our targets have not changed, but we feel that if a lawyer has done that level of hours they should be recognised and rewarded. The great majority of people will be doing far fewer hours, but will still be getting considerably more than under the previous scheme."
However, SJ Berwin's package has been widely criticised as an own-goal by rivals.
One head of corporate at a top 20 UK firm said: "Rewarding people for hours over and above the benchmark is sensible – rewarding people for billing 2,500 a year is sending out entirely the wrong message."
The move comes against a backdrop of mounting unease from corporate counsel at the prospect of commercial firms using aggressive bonus schemes to squeeze more work out of their assistants.
Barclays general counsel Mark Harding said: "As a matter of practice there will be associates at a firm like SJ Berwin who bill that many hours. Should they be rewarded? Yes, they should. Am I in favour of this culture? No, I am not. We would be concerned if any firm was working its associates so hard they could not perform."
Richard Hoare, general counsel at Gulf Oil International, added: "It is unrealistic and encourages people to create results which are unrealistic. Frankly, I doubt if an assistant who bills 2,500 hours a year will have any brain left."
However, with firms increasingly desperate to recruit and retain talented lawyers, pay pressure is mounting in the City legal market.
As exclusively revealed on 5 December by legalweek.com, US giant Jones Day has just agreed to hike its starting UK salaries from £60,000 to £70,000.
Talkback: Should assistants be given incentives to bill 2,500 hours? Post your comments below.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllRoyal London Asset Management cuts real estate legal panel by a third following review
DLA job cuts, lateral partner hiring frenzies and KWM's City rent hike – the best of Legal Week last week
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1I’m A Lawyer, What Can I Sell?
- 2Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Don’t Be an Opportunity Killer,' Says Thomas Haskins of Barnes & Thornburg
- 4People in the News—Feb. 7, 2025—Gawthrop Greenwood, Lamb McErlane
- 5NY No-Fault Insurance Adopts Worker’s Compensation Fee Schedule
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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