The debate over bonus targets rages on, with many City lawyers condemning the practice of rewarding assistants for billing increasingly high numbers of hours.

This week's Legal Week/ EJ Legal Big Question survey found that while 78% of UK lawyers said their firm operated a bonus system linked to billable hours, the vast majority (95%) said their scheme was not weighted in favour of assistants who bill 2,500 hours a year.

The results come after SJ Berwin last month sparked controversy by announcing a new bonus scheme, based on billable hours, where associates are rewarded on an increasing scale for billing up to a limit of 2,500 hours. The move was criticised by some lawyers who felt that such a move could encourage associates to work too many hours.

Simmons & Simmons head of litigation Colin Passmore commented: "By putting in place an upper limit you are at danger of suggesting that if people do not reach it they have in some way failed. While a minimum target makes business sense, setting a maximum can lead to work hogging."

Of the partners questioned who felt there should be a maximum billable hours limit, not one advocated a cut-off point of 2,500. The majority (21%) felt that a maximum value of 2,000 hours would be suitable. An additional 15% thought the limit should be below 1,900 hours.

Nevertheless, more than half (52%) felt there should be no limit on individual billings.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer finance co-head Simon Hall said: "The issue of bonuses is a perennial concern for firms. There is always a concern that for firms that have bonuses weighted towards billable hours, padding could be encouraged."

Passmore added: "There is a lot of work around, but 2,000 hours should always be exceptional, not expected. It takes its toll and for the last couple of hundred hours you are absolutely ragged."

More than 80% of respondents said that their firms operated a bonus scheme, of which 91% said the system was performance-related rather than paying out a fixed rate.

The majority (73%) of respondents said that of the performance-related schemes, most were linked in part to recorded billable hours. Twenty-two percent said that there was no association with the number of hours billed, while the remaining 5% said their scheme was entirely based on billable hours.

Only 5% said their system rewarded assistants who billed as much as 2,500 hours a year. CMS Cameron McKenna managing partner Dick Tyler said: "There are many ways of skinning a cat, and what works for some firms will not work for others. A high number of chargeable hours does not mean a high level of performance."

He added: "Whichever method you operate, it has to be done in a transparent way and you have to remember that most people want a broader relationship and greater rewards at work than just money."

Slaughter and May litigation partner Sarah Lee said: "Bonuses are only one aspect of how firms can motivate and incentivise their employees. Performance is not linked to overall hours put in. Just because you have put in a lot of hours on a job does not necessarily mean that you have done it any better."

TALKBACK

SHOULD THERE BE AN UPPER BILLABLE HOURS LIMIT IN BONUS SCHEMES? POST YOUR COMMENTS ONLINE AT: legalweek.com/talkback