There are expectations embedded within the employer-employee relationship. For instance, when a Biglaw firm has customarily offered associates market rates for bonuses without stipulating hours requirements, the associates typically anticipate receiving the same pay as everyone else in the industry. Regrettably, we are hearing reports that a major Biglaw firm altered the prerequisites for bonuses abruptly. Amendments were introduced only a few days prior to their scheduled dispersal, leading to associates receiving less money than planned. You can find a detailed account of this instance in the article published by Above the Law.
Indeed, we have an account from an indignant associate at the firm who remarked that the firm had never before required a minimum number of hours for bonuses. However, associates were informed just two days before the bonuses were due to be paid that they would be receiving anywhere from 0 to 100 percent of what they were expecting. This sudden change was reportedly due to a firm-wide decision to implement an hours minimum. Regrettably, many associates were negatively affected, receiving 0-25% of the bonuses they had expected.
In these scenarios, it appears that associate rankings based on their class years’ hours played a role in determining group placements and payout amounts. The new hours requirement retroactively applied to all except first years and stub years, who reportedly received full bonuses.
This incident is not the first time a firm has been accused of retroactively altering the requirements for bonuses, though it is the latest case.
Regarding these bonus shenanigans, Above the Law seeks more information, advocating for transparency. Associates are encouraged to voice their experiences through several contact means, such as email and text message.