Raging bonuses

The only thing dumber than the collective rush of BigLaw firms to all match salary increases in lockstep is the strange New York quirk of setting associate bonuses in lockstep. I have never understood this concept, primarily because I thought bonuses were about two things: rewarding someone for working and billing more hours than expected by the firm, and rewarding someone for the high quality of their work. If every single associate who hits their 2000 hour target gets the same $25,000 bonus, why bother to work harder than anyone else? Why bother to care about putting out the best work product you possibly can?

Well, New York is at it again as Associate Bonus Watch 2007 is in full swing. There's daily updates of who has matched, who will match, which firms are paying "special" bonuses somewhat akin to profit-sharing, etc.

It should probably horrify everyone to learn that fresh out of law school associates in New York are now going to make $195K guaranteed (with that fat lockstep bonus) for their first full year of work, some even topping $200K if their firm pays a "special" bonus. Baby lawyers, barely able to write a memo or review a document without considerable guidance from their senior associate mentors, are going to be in the top tax bracket this year. That's insane.

Also insane is that associates at my level at these firms are set to collect $110K bonuses when all is said and done. Will it make up for not seeing their friends or families more than twice a year? Probably not.

As I've said a time or two before, I'd gladly take a 25% or more pay cut if it meant I could only bill 1800 hours a year and still keep my job. I'd like the un-bonus model, please.