Yet again, we’re hearing about another round of “black box bonuses” determined using some arcane formula. Unlike the old school model of transparent, lockstep bonuses, these firms invoke a lot of “entrepreneurship” rhetoric to convince associates that they should adore the firm’s opacity because it really means a motivated associate could take home far more than their peers at traditional powers. All they have to do is give up any sense of certainty that their compensation will necessarily match.
The firm always promises that, “for most people,” the bonuses meet or exceeded the market overall, but by shrouding the process in secrecy, individual associates never really know whether or not they’re getting the shaft compared to the rest of their class. And the firm banks on the sense of private shame to keep these associates from comparing notes lest they find out they really are the only one taking home half of a bonus.
DLA Piper follows this model and its announcement hit all the familiar notes:
2018 Bonuses: Bonuses again were determined based on seniority, performance rating and total bonus hours (including billable, billable equivalent, shadowing, and pro bono hours), with the top bonuses being awarded to the highest rated associates with the highest hours. The vast majority of our high performing associates will receive bonuses at or above the widely published “market” scale. In addition, Associates who did not meet the requirements for the 2018 mid-year bonus as of June 30, 2018, but who met those requirements at year-end will receive increased payments reflecting those bonuses. As in the past, bonuses may be adjusted due to certain performance or other management concerns.
Seniority, performance ration, and hours are standard qualifiers. Even if performance rating introduces a lot of subjectivity to the equation, it’s unavoidable if the firm’s not ready to just give everyone their bonus like the traditionalist firms. But just when you thought the formula made a bit of sense, check out that “As in the past, bonuses may be adjusted due to certain performance or other management concerns” kicker.
It’s not so much whether or not DLA Piper really shafts people out of the blue as the fact that they build into their official announcement their willingness to do so. High performance ratings and great hours may still land an associate on the sad end of bonus season based on “other management concerns”? What the hell do performance ratings even mean then? It just smacks of shenanigans and that’s never a good look for a firm.
Because now we’re forced to ask “what would constitute an ‘other’ concern?” Is this where the firm decides they’re worried a female associate might be planning to have a baby? Implicit biases get translated into vague conclusions about “fitting in”? Or is this really just the firm’s cold offer move to get otherwise solid associates to move on without honestly telling them that partnership might be out of reach. We have no idea, but firms that level with their associates don’t have vague catch-all provisions when it comes to comp.
Hopefully, all of you folks at DLA Piper really did get a quality bonus this year and this shady language is just an unfortunate side effect of letting lawyers draft their own memos. But if you didn’t, let us know. We can only explode these black boxes if you come forward.
Please help us help you when it comes to bonus news at other firms. As soon as your firm’s bonus memo comes out, please email it to us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus”) or text us (646-820-8477). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.
And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish.
Another Round Of Black Box Bonuses Spark Grumbles curated from Above the Law
No comments:
Post a Comment