BSF (NY) v. Kellogg Hansen? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know people have commented on both firms in other threads, but I was wondering if people have thoughts about them as the only two choices, specifically.

Regarding location, I prefer NY to DC in terms of life outside work, but I likely won't have much of a social life either way, right? Will BSF hours be worse just b/c it's in NY, while KH is in DC?

Regarding $$$, BSF's year-end bonus is a black box, while KH at least for the first 2 years is pretty clear. BSF's bonuses this past year were really high, but as someone mentioned in another thread recently, that might be a one-off anomaly. KH doesn't give year-end for first 2 years, it's effectively the clerkship bonus lumped up as a set number.

Regarding work, I get the feeling BSF is a little more NY-style finance driven, while KH takes more varied commercial work. Both firms have a self-starter mentality, but KH did seem a little more relaxed.

Regarding culture, that's the hardest to tell. KH is much smaller; BSF had a reputation as a sweatshop in the past that I think might be alleviating now. Are people worried BSF may be in flux in the coming years?

Any thoughts on any of the above, or either firm in general, would be great.

[Anonymous User]

Both are excellent, selective, well-regarded, pay a lot, and will work you very hard. Based on what you've said here, I would probably choose BSF since you prefer NYC and BSF is especially strong there. But really you can't go wrong. I have worked alongside both of these firms in some capacity and have found the associates with whom I've worked to be incredibly competent and smart.

Additionally, I do not think BSF is NY finance-driven as you are worried about. Recently, their bread and butter has been moving towards white collar, crisis management, and general individual representation. Of course, they still do a decent amount of more traditional finance lit.

[Anonymous User]

One thing I do wonder about is whether either (or both) will work you harder than, say, a V5 like Cravath, S&C, or DPW. Obviously the leverage is different, and those firms have lockstep bonus not tied to hours. But in practice, it seems to me that a Cravath or DPW associate will easily work around 2300 hours, which would be around the same as a BSF / KH associate, right?

[2013]

I’m gonna say Kellogg just because I know people who have worked there and it seems like a great firm. Obviously boies is a great firm too. But Kellogg is on Susman level.

[cheaptilts]

Are you sure KH doesn’t give year-end bonuses for the first two years at the firm? I’ve heard otherwise, and this would be news to many if, indeed, the clerkship bonus was $175k, but with no year-end bonus until year after both your stub year and full first year at the firm.

[Samark45]

I’m gonna say Kellogg just because I know people who have worked there and it seems like a great firm. Obviously boies is a great firm too. But Kellogg is on Susman level.

This.

[Auxilio]

Are you sure KH doesn’t give year-end bonuses for the first two years at the firm? I’ve heard otherwise, and this would be news to many if, indeed, the clerkship bonus was $175k, but with no year-end bonus until year after both your stub year and full first year at the firm.

I've also never heard of this, as someone who looked into Kellogg a good bit and had a callback with them.

to OP: another consideration is I *think* Kellogg does a lot more appellate work, which could be a factor for you.

[Anonymous User]

Are you sure KH doesn’t give year-end bonuses for the first two years at the firm? I’ve heard otherwise, and this would be news to many if, indeed, the clerkship bonus was $175k, but with no year-end bonus until year after both your stub year and full first year at the firm.

I've also never heard of this, as someone who looked into Kellogg a good bit and had a callback with them.

to OP: another consideration is I *think* Kellogg does a lot more appellate work, which could be a factor for you.

Not OP, but one thing that leads me to believe OP's description is accurate is that Kellogg's recruiting letter to clerks this year said that (verbatim, after mentioned the clerkship start bonus), "We also pay substantial end-of-year bonuses to associates beginning with their second full year." That seems to imply they don't get any end-of-year bonuses before then. That also makes sense, given the huge clerkship bonus, which is functionally an advance. I mean, even Susman doesn't pay $175k.

[Anonymous User]

I’m gonna say Kellogg just because I know people who have worked there and it seems like a great firm. Obviously boies is a great firm too. But Kellogg is on Susman level.

This.

Including summers, I’ll have been at two of these three. Each of them is different. All are selective, lit-focused, and pay above market (depending on class year, boies will in general pay the most above market; for clerks, Kellogg and Susman obviously have comp advantages that can outweigh BSFs formula bonus structure). I do not think one can make the blanket proposition that two are in a different category (or “level”) of quality from the third.

OP: at both firms you will likely work very hard. At BSF, your hours are tied to your comp, so obviously that incentive structure probably influences the culture. I do not agree with the perception that BSF is more “finance” driven in terms of its portfolio of cases; BSF as the larger firm certainly has the wider variety of cases, clients, and type of matters. Not would I br concerned that the firm is folding or anything of the sort. At Kellogg, appellate opportunities can feature as a higher percentage of your matters (if that is something you are pursuing), but you cannot do appellate exclusively at either firm. Kellogg makes a lot of financial sense if you are wrapping up a clerkship & class of 2018. It makes less sense the further out you are from law school (when I was a clerk and my coclerks and I were interviewing at and comparing these places we ran the math for different class years).

[Samark45]

I'm in the camp of those who are a little skeptical about BSF's long-term sustainability at the levels of comp they are known for now. Kellogg is very small, so their generous clerkship/end-of-year bonus levels are understandable. But BSF is huge, and it's growing. I don't see how they can sustain 6-figure bonuses for all associates who bill x amount at such a size, especially when Boies himself is out of the picture. I haven't been around the block as often as others have in terms of law firms as businesses, but that's my 2 cents.

(edit: this is Samark, didn't mean to abuse the anonymous button.)

[cheaptilts]

I'm in the camp of those who are a little skeptical about BSF's long-term sustainability at the levels of comp they are known for now. Kellogg is very small, so their generous clerkship/end-of-year bonus levels are understandable. But BSF is huge, and it's growing. I don't see how they can sustain 6-figure bonuses for all associates who bill x amount at such a size, especially when Boies himself is out of the picture. I haven't been around the block as often as others have in terms of law firms as businesses, but that's my 2 cents.

(edit: this is Samark, didn't mean to abuse the anonymous button.)

On the other hand, this is from The “Associates Review” section of KH’s vault profile (2 anecdotes):

"Overall, compensation at Kellogg Hansen is certainly competitive-especially when factoring in the up-front clerkship bonus. However, the firm has not kept pace with the increase in the [market] scale. As a result, a lot of associates are below-market for at least part of their time as associates at Kellogg Hansen. Moreover, the end-of-year bonuses-while a black box and variable from year to year-are trending below market, which is a big shift for Kellogg Hansen (which used to pay significantly above-market bonuses). In general, associates who billed under 2,300 hours got bonuses significantly below market."


"I am still paid above market for my year, but the difference between my salary and the market is lower, and the bonuses paid were barely above market. Given the intensity of the work load, the decreasing gap in pay makes it harder to justify staying. Having said that, we are very well compensated. And the firm matches 5% of our salary in a 401K contribution every year; last year it was over $12K for me."


Though you can mark me as someone also skeptical of Boies’s crazy bonuses

[Anonymous User]

i know of two BSF NY associates who got ~190k and ~150k bonuses respectively. the 190k guy billed i believe 2900 hours though. i don't know if that's just a one-off, but yeah, if you can work that hard and the firm keeps up you'll be significantly more handsomely compensated at BSF. KH has the 175k, but the vault associate reviews suggest comp is still somehow around market? maybe the reviews are from before the aug 2018 base salary increase.

both firms have a mix of plaintiff and defense side work, setting them apart from the other big firms in DC and NY. if you're interested in what types of cases they do, i suggest ignoring the heresay in this forum and going to bloomberglaw dot com and searching up each firm. a pie chart will summarize all federal court appearances the firms have made in the past 12, 5, 3, 1 years; you can also just look at the list they have of all the appearances in reverse chronological order -- super underused resource! you'll see that BSF has represented banks sometimes, but is certainly not finance-driven. you'll also see, as i'm sure you already know from having interviewed at KH, that KH is very driven by telecommunications. they began as a specialty lit shop for telecommunications. KH also does some plaintiff-side antitrust cases which, while few, are sprawling and involve many hands on deck. if you do not like telecommunications and antitrust, then it's an easy call for BSF.

otherwise, honestly, unless you think you want to try for partner, imo the difference in projected comp and work is outweighed by the day-to-day of being in NY or DC. you probably won't be socializing like everyday but being able to see your friends and do the activities you want even once a month makes a huge difference to your quality of life. best of luck.

[LBJ's Hair]

i know of two BSF NY associates who got ~190k and ~150k bonuses respectively. the 190k guy billed i believe 2900 hours though. i don't know if that's just a one-off, but yeah, if you can work that hard and the firm keeps up you'll be significantly more handsomely compensated at BSF. KH has the 175k, but the vault associate reviews suggest comp is still somehow around market? maybe the reviews are from before the aug 2018 base salary increase.

No opinion generally, but the ATL on this in 2018 suggested that their comp system is awesome early on, but once you're a midlevel the total comp is actually worse than Cravath scale at 2,000 hours. (The natural response is "yeah but I won't be working just 2,000 hours" - maybe, maybe not. It's not always in your control.)

"A fourth-year associate at Cravath billing 2000 hours would stand to earn $300K in 2017 between their $235K base and a $65K bonus. Meanwhile, a BSF fourth-year associate billing 2000 hours on a normal case would earn on average, based on our tipsters, $290K. And that gap grows as the years go by, with fifth-years earning approximately $20K less than market and sixth-years making about $35K less.

Why is this not a greater source of frustration? Well, most Boies associates are working more than 2000 billables every year. At the 2200 hour level, Boies still exceeds the market scale until the sixth-year level when tipsters claim the firm mostly matches market. So for most BSF associates, this gap isn’t even noticeable.

But that compensation gap is still there even if lawyers aren’t feeling it. Associates billing what is generally considered the “good standing” baseline of 2000 hours are making less at BSF than they would at other Biglaw firms. That means Boies is technically underperforming the “market” bonus."

"UPDATE: One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

[Samark45]

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

[Anonymous User]

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

I don’t get the skepticism. Boies Schiller pays its associates on the basis of what they are earning for the firm. (The formula accounts for actual bills paid by clients, not just associate hours reported in the timekeeper software.). So the answer to “how can they afford to keep paying those bonuses” is that on average clients are paying the firm for those additional hours, so the firm generates more revenue and distributes a portion of that revenue to the associate who billed the extra amount for it. If the associate is not billing as much, the firm generates less revenue, and would not be paying that bonus. It seems pretty self explanatory.

So, if every Boies Schiller associate was billing 2500+, the firm would be making that much more money than if every associate was only billing 2400+ (Assuming the same modal distributions upwards). That’s how they can afford to pay it—because the firm is generating more revenue from the higher billables. Instead of partners pocketing all the extra profit, some of it is being distributed to the associates that brought that revenue into the firm.

[Anonymous User]

i know of two BSF NY associates who got ~190k and ~150k bonuses respectively. the 190k guy billed i believe 2900 hours though. i don't know if that's just a one-off, but yeah, if you can work that hard and the firm keeps up you'll be significantly more handsomely compensated at BSF. KH has the 175k, but the vault associate reviews suggest comp is still somehow around market? maybe the reviews are from before the aug 2018 base salary increase.

No opinion generally, but the ATL on this in 2018 suggested that their comp system is awesome early on, but once you're a midlevel the total comp is actually worse than Cravath scale at 2,000 hours. (The natural response is "yeah but I won't be working just 2,000 hours" - maybe, maybe not. It's not always in your control.)

"A fourth-year associate at Cravath billing 2000 hours would stand to earn $300K in 2017 between their $235K base and a $65K bonus. Meanwhile, a BSF fourth-year associate billing 2000 hours on a normal case would earn on average, based on our tipsters, $290K. And that gap grows as the years go by, with fifth-years earning approximately $20K less than market and sixth-years making about $35K less.

Why is this not a greater source of frustration? Well, most Boies associates are working more than 2000 billables every year. At the 2200 hour level, Boies still exceeds the market scale until the sixth-year level when tipsters claim the firm mostly matches market. So for most BSF associates, this gap isn’t even noticeable.

But that compensation gap is still there even if lawyers aren’t feeling it. Associates billing what is generally considered the “good standing” baseline of 2000 hours are making less at BSF than they would at other Biglaw firms. That means Boies is technically underperforming the “market” bonus."

"UPDATE: One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This information and these numbers are dated. Check the December 2018 ATL reports and tips. BSF updated its billing rates and now it is considerably more difficult to be below market at that firm.

[Samark45]

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

I don’t get the skepticism. Boies Schiller pays its associates on the basis of what they are earning for the firm. (The formula accounts for actual bills paid by clients, not just associate hours reported in the timekeeper software.). So the answer to “how can they afford to keep paying those bonuses” is that on average clients are paying the firm for those additional hours, so the firm generates more revenue and distributes a portion of that revenue to the associate who billed the extra amount for it. If the associate is not billing as much, the firm generates less revenue, and would not be paying that bonus. It seems pretty self explanatory.

So, if every Boies Schiller associate was billing 2500+, the firm would be making that much more money than if every associate was only billing 2400+ (Assuming the same modal distributions upwards). That’s how they can afford to pay it—because the firm is generating more revenue from the higher billables. Instead of partners pocketing all the extra profit, some of it is being distributed to the associates that brought that revenue into the firm.

But given that the firm's earnings are much more relatively tied to contingency cases, hours billed doesn't correlate to revenues generated. So the recent large bonuses seem more likely to be the product of one-off outcomes, not hours. More hours will just cut into the outcomes even if there are similar outcomes in the future, but with more people to divide them among.

[Anonymous User]

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

I don’t get the skepticism. Boies Schiller pays its associates on the basis of what they are earning for the firm. (The formula accounts for actual bills paid by clients, not just associate hours reported in the timekeeper software.). So the answer to “how can they afford to keep paying those bonuses” is that on average clients are paying the firm for those additional hours, so the firm generates more revenue and distributes a portion of that revenue to the associate who billed the extra amount for it. If the associate is not billing as much, the firm generates less revenue, and would not be paying that bonus. It seems pretty self explanatory.

So, if every Boies Schiller associate was billing 2500+, the firm would be making that much more money than if every associate was only billing 2400+ (Assuming the same modal distributions upwards). That’s how they can afford to pay it—because the firm is generating more revenue from the higher billables. Instead of partners pocketing all the extra profit, some of it is being distributed to the associates that brought that revenue into the firm.

But given that the firm's earnings are much more relatively tied to contingency cases, hours billed doesn't correlate to revenues generated. So the recent large bonuses seem more likely to be the product of one-off outcomes, not hours. More hours will just cut into the outcomes even if there are similar outcomes in the future, but with more people to divide them among.

That's not quite right. Associates working on contingency cases at BSF typically share in the contingency fees generated by the case--their hours billed on those cases do not factor into the year-end bonus, and those fees do not go into the formula compensation described above. Plus, it isn't true that most, or even a big slice, of BSF's fees come from contingency cases: rather, a small percentage of BSF's money comes from contingency cases, maybe around 15-20 percent. So even if those fees did factor into year-end bonuses, which they don't, I don't think it would upset the apple cart appreciably.

In any event, I can confirm that the latest crop of large bonuses were not tied to contingency cases.

[cheaptilts]

My understanding is that most of KH work is telecommunications (defense) and plaintiff’s-side antitrust work/some securities/some class actions, all on contingency. David Frederick seems to be as integral to the firm as Boies is recently, too, given that he’s lead counsel on most of the big matters RN.

[Anonymous User]

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

I don’t get the skepticism. Boies Schiller pays its associates on the basis of what they are earning for the firm. (The formula accounts for actual bills paid by clients, not just associate hours reported in the timekeeper software.). So the answer to “how can they afford to keep paying those bonuses” is that on average clients are paying the firm for those additional hours, so the firm generates more revenue and distributes a portion of that revenue to the associate who billed the extra amount for it. If the associate is not billing as much, the firm generates less revenue, and would not be paying that bonus. It seems pretty self explanatory.

So, if every Boies Schiller associate was billing 2500+, the firm would be making that much more money than if every associate was only billing 2400+ (Assuming the same modal distributions upwards). That’s how they can afford to pay it—because the firm is generating more revenue from the higher billables. Instead of partners pocketing all the extra profit, some of it is being distributed to the associates that brought that revenue into the firm.

But given that the firm's earnings are much more relatively tied to contingency cases, hours billed doesn't correlate to revenues generated. So the recent large bonuses seem more likely to be the product of one-off outcomes, not hours. More hours will just cut into the outcomes even if there are similar outcomes in the future, but with more people to divide them among.

That's not quite right. Associates working on contingency cases at BSF typically share in the contingency fees generated by the case--their hours billed on those cases do not factor into the year-end bonus, and those fees do not go into the formula compensation described above. Plus, it isn't true that most, or even a big slice, of BSF's fees come from contingency cases: rather, a small percentage of BSF's money comes from contingency cases, maybe around 15-20 percent. So even if those fees did factor into year-end bonuses, which they don't, I don't think it would upset the apple cart appreciably.

In any event, I can confirm that the latest crop of large bonuses were not tied to contingency cases.

do they tell everyone the formula ahead of time, such that you know what you're getting paid before bonuses are announced? or is this "formula" just a sort of explanatory thing--like it's directionally accurate insofar as "the more hours you work the more you get paid" but BSF can ultimately kinda do whatever it wants

[Anonymous User]

do they tell everyone the formula ahead of time, such that you know what you're getting paid before bonuses are announced? or is this "formula" just a sort of explanatory thing--like it's directionally accurate insofar as "the more hours you work the more you get paid" but BSF can ultimately kinda do whatever it wants

The second. That's part of the hesitation with choosing BSF if you have similar options. The formula that decides how much you get in bonus is a black box.

[Anonymous User]

do they tell everyone the formula ahead of time, such that you know what you're getting paid before bonuses are announced? or is this "formula" just a sort of explanatory thing--like it's directionally accurate insofar as "the more hours you work the more you get paid" but BSF can ultimately kinda do whatever it wants

The second. That's part of the hesitation with choosing BSF if you have similar options. The formula that decides how much you get in bonus is a black box.

This is incorrect. BSF associates are told the formula (with the last years’ numbers for estimated collection rate) when they join the firm. You can calculate in advance how much you will make. Final say on formula comp has some discretion (usually to account for e.g. pregnancy leave and other situations where the raw annual hours count would misrepresent the attorney’s work), but you can get a pretty good sense.

A lot of misinformation here. I wonder how many posters ITT has ever worked at Kellogg or BSF.

[Anonymous User]

From the current Vault page on BSF:

"There is no annual billable-hours requirement or target, but our compensation is based largely on our hours (through a compensation formula that is not disclosed to the associates). Pro bono counts toward our hours for formula compensation purposes, but business development and training do not. Associates who bill a low number of hours may receive a bonus that is lower than the Cravath market scale. Associates who bill a high number of hours are likely to receive a bonus that exceeds the Cravath market scale. However, it is hard to say for certain, because the components of the formula (how the formula is calculated) have never been disclosed to associates."

[Anonymous User]

From the current Vault page on BSF:

"There is no annual billable-hours requirement or target, but our compensation is based largely on our hours (through a compensation formula that is not disclosed to the associates). Pro bono counts toward our hours for formula compensation purposes, but business development and training do not. Associates who bill a low number of hours may receive a bonus that is lower than the Cravath market scale. Associates who bill a high number of hours are likely to receive a bonus that exceeds the Cravath market scale. However, it is hard to say for certain, because the components of the formula (how the formula is calculated) have never been disclosed to associates."

Fair, I see why someone would rely upon this.

It is not accurate anymore (if it ever was).

No associate can know with certainty what his or her bonus will be, but the mechanics of the formula have been fully disclosed to associates.

[Anonymous User]

One point that a tipster made is that part of the issue is so MANY attorneys are billing in the higher register and earning the bigger bonuses that the firm simply can’t afford to be meeting market for those only billing 2000. It’s a fair point that speaks to knowing the nature of the firm you’re walking into — knowing that your bigger bonus for exceeding 2200 (or 2400) hours trades off with a market bonus for 2000 may be more than worth it."

This is sort of related to my skepticism about BSF's bonuses moving forward. Whatever the justification (or need) for BSF to pay associates only market if they bill only ~2000 hours, given the large number of associates billing way more than that, how much longer can they afford to keep paying that large number of associates that much larger a bonus? The worry is that soon even the high-billing associates' bonuses will trend back down, just because of how big BSF is, and how many people they have to pay.

BSF is really not that large of a firm (~320 attorneys). And I'm not sure why people are still skeptical of the firm's longevity. Sure, if this was 2005 I could see the concern. But from everything I've read, the firm has a solid transition plan in place and isn't nearly as tied to Boies as it was a decade ago. They've also had twenty two years to build a solid bench of extremely bright, ambitious attorneys who should have no problem maintaining and generating new business.