Unlimited pro bono hours are a lot like unlimited vacation days. Everyone knows that they’ll never all get used, but it’s the principle of the thing. It’s a nice signal to associates that the firm cares about public service work or work-life balance respectively.
Linklaters used to have no limit on the number of pro bono hours that could count toward bonuses. But on Tuesday evening, associates received an update from firm leadership laying out the requirements for next year’s bonus and pro bono hours now have an upper bound.
Henceforth, only 400 hours of pro bono work will count toward billable requirements (or 200 if combined with business development or other non-billable activities).
That DEI language is still in there, huh? I guess some firms aren’t in a hurry to offer superficial allegiance to the administration.
Again, the limit on pro bono hours is not problem per se. Even with unlimited hours, Biglaw’s insatiable billing monster always ends up extracting its pound of flesh — sorry, Linklaters is UK-based — its stone of flesh. And a cap places the firm in line with industry norms. In fact, it still exceeds the cap imposed by some firms.
But the overlooked problem with installing a pro bono cap out of the blue is the signal that the firm is hoping to reduce the number of complex, potentially time-intensive pro bono fights it takes on. The firm policy notes that exceptions can be made for larger pro bono cases, but the burden now falls on attorneys to advocate for those exceptions — an effort many might just forego in favor of something quick and easy.
The timing couldn’t be worse given the legal and political climate, where access to pro bono representation is more critical than ever.
The new policy also tightens office attendance requirements:
Strongly encourage? At least? What kind of “policy” is this?
We’ve seen a lot of different approaches to back-to-the-office initiatives and say what you will about them, most firms can at least pick a definitive number when they formulate a policy. To quote from the cinematic masterpiece Office Space:
Joanna: You know what, Stan, if you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don’t you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?
Like the leadership of Chotchkie’s, this “management by guesswork” does not inspire confidence. When threatening year-end bonus reductions, the standards should be — to quote the very memo announcing these changes — “simple and predictable.” Based on this passage, it’s not clear that the firm is saying three days per week fulfills the office attendance requirement or if they need to be in 37 days per month like double-billing pretty boy Brian over there.
What happens when associates have matters requiring extended periods of offsite work? Who knows? If lawyers could understand how the firm kept account of attendance (keycards, logins, etc.) then they might be able to figure out when a meeting or deposition is going to require reaching out for special dispensation. But the memo remained silent on the particulars.
There’s plenty of opportunity for the firm to provide necessary transparency, but as of now, Linklaters might just end up with a lot of associates quitting while offering exactly the same hand gesture Joanna gave Chotchkie’s.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post Firm Caps Pro Bono Hours, Announces Vague In-Office Policy appeared first on Above the Law.
Unlimited pro bono hours are a lot like unlimited vacation days. Everyone knows that they’ll never all get used, but it’s the principle of the thing. It’s a nice signal to associates that the firm cares about public service work or work-life balance respectively.
Linklaters used to have no limit on the number of pro bono hours that could count toward bonuses. But on Tuesday evening, associates received an update from firm leadership laying out the requirements for next year’s bonus and pro bono hours now have an upper bound.
Henceforth, only 400 hours of pro bono work will count toward billable requirements (or 200 if combined with business development or other non-billable activities).
That DEI language is still in there, huh? I guess some firms aren’t in a hurry to offer superficial allegiance to the administration.
Again, the limit on pro bono hours is not problem per se. Even with unlimited hours, Biglaw’s insatiable billing monster always ends up extracting its pound of flesh — sorry, Linklaters is UK-based — its stone of flesh. And a cap places the firm in line with industry norms. In fact, it still exceeds the cap imposed by some firms.
But the overlooked problem with installing a pro bono cap out of the blue is the signal that the firm is hoping to reduce the number of complex, potentially time-intensive pro bono fights it takes on. The firm policy notes that exceptions can be made for larger pro bono cases, but the burden now falls on attorneys to advocate for those exceptions — an effort many might just forego in favor of something quick and easy.
The timing couldn’t be worse given the legal and political climate, where access to pro bono representation is more critical than ever.
The new policy also tightens office attendance requirements:
Strongly encourage? At least? What kind of “policy” is this?
We’ve seen a lot of different approaches to back-to-the-office initiatives and say what you will about them, most firms can at least pick a definitive number when they formulate a policy. To quote from the cinematic masterpiece Office Space:
Joanna: You know what, Stan, if you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don’t you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?
Like the leadership of Chotchkie’s, this “management by guesswork” does not inspire confidence. When threatening year-end bonus reductions, the standards should be — to quote the very memo announcing these changes — “simple and predictable.” Based on this passage, it’s not clear that the firm is saying three days per week fulfills the office attendance requirement or if they need to be in 37 days per month like double-billing pretty boy Brian over there.
What happens when associates have matters requiring extended periods of offsite work? Who knows? If lawyers could understand how the firm kept account of attendance (keycards, logins, etc.) then they might be able to figure out when a meeting or deposition is going to require reaching out for special dispensation. But the memo remained silent on the particulars.
There’s plenty of opportunity for the firm to provide necessary transparency, but as of now, Linklaters might just end up with a lot of associates quitting while offering exactly the same hand gesture Joanna gave Chotchkie’s.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
