1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Litigation boutique firm will pay special…

Lawyer Pay

Litigation boutique firm will pay special bonuses as high as $60K

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 12:51 pm CDT

Litigation boutique law firm Wilkinson Stekloff will pay special bonuses to associates ranging from $25,000 to $60,000, the firm recently told employees in a memo.

The bonuses will be paid June 1, according to Above the Law, which obtained a copy of the April 11 announcement.

The bonuses are “separate and apart from end-of-year bonuses,” the bonus memo said.

Here is the bonus scale:

• Class of 2024: $25,000

• Class of 2023: $30,000

• Class of 2022: $35,000

• Class of 2021: $40,000

• Class of 2020: $45,000

• Class of 2019: $50,000

• Class of 2018: $55,000

• Class of 2017: $60,000

Nonlawyers will receive a $7,500 bonus.

The bonus memo said the firm continues to be in “a particularly busy stretch” as it prepares for upcoming trials.

“We are also grateful that many of us are working on essential matters to fight government overreach and defend the rule of law,” the memo said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 Irell & Manella lawyers should be sanctioned…

Ethics

2 Irell & Manella lawyers should be sanctioned after witness ‘was tricked’ with altered document, special master says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 3:02 pm CDT

An Irell & Manella associate who decided to alter a date on a schematic drawing to prove a point during a deposition should be sanctioned, along with a partner who missed an email revealing the plan, a special master has recommended.

The associate, Benjamin Manzin-Monnin, came up with the idea to show that such dates can be unreliable, according to the March 18 opinion by special master David Folsom. Manzin-Monnin questioned a witness about the document before revealing that it had been altered.

Law360 has the story.

Folsom noted that all lawyers from Irell & Manella attend in-house ethics seminars. Folson said Manzin-Monnin should be required to attend 30 additional hours of ethics courses, along with the partner he notified in an email chain, Jason Sheasby.

Folsom also recommended that Irell & Manella pay fees and costs incurred by the special master and defendant Samsung Electronics in connection with the sanctions motion. And he said Irell & Manella’s client, CogniPower, should lose an hour of trial time in its patent infringement case, filed against Samsung Electronics in federal court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The deposition witness was an executive at a company that, according to Samsung Electronics, had an invention that predates CogniPower’s patents, Law360 explains.

A law firm employee had advised Manzin-Monnin in September 2024 to “get clear directions” from a senior attorney regarding the “mocked up dates on evidence floating around.” Manzin-Monnin replied that he had emailed “Jason,” an apparent reference to Sheasby.

But Sheasby said he “missed” the email from Manzin-Monnin while acknowledging that it was his responsibility to read it.

In a declaration, Sheasby said during the deposition, Manzin-Monnin had shown the expert witness “the correct document, then later the altered version, and then immediately the correct and altered side by side, and then told the witness he altered on[e] of the documents.”

The witness “was tricked” and “obviously confused” by questions about the altered date, Folsom said in the opinion. The fact that Manzin-Monnin did not mark the altered document as an exhibit during the deposition “is immaterial,” Folsom said.

Sheasby said in the declaration Manzin-Monnin has been subject to “professional strictures” as a result of his behavior. In addition, the firm’s general counsel had scheduled a mandatory March 19 ethics seminar for all the firm’s attorneys to address the events and to “ensure that nothing of this nature happens again.”

Neither Manzin-Monnin nor Sheasby immediately responded to the ABA Journal’s email request for comment. Nor did a firm spokesperson immediately reply to a Journal email.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. This law firm will pay special spring bonuses…

Lawyer Pay

This law firm will pay special spring bonuses of up to $25K

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 19, 2025, 9:21 am CST

Knobbe Martens has announced that it will pay special spring bonuses of up to $25,000.

Law.com reported on the announcement, made in a Feb. 14 email.

Knobbe Martens will pay $2,500 to first year associates, $5,000 to second-year associates, $10,000 to third-year associates, $15,000 to fourth-year associates, $20,000 to fifth-year associates, and $25,000 to counsel and to associates with at least six years of experience.

The spring bonuses are in addition to year-end bonuses ranging from $5,000 to $30,000, according to Law.com.

The year-end bonuses were bigger in BigLaw, according to Above the Law’s associate compensation scorecard. Many law firms paid up to $115,000 in year-end bonuses.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Facing a new lawsuit over the privacy of U.S. citizens, lawyers for the Justice Department insisted in a court hearing Wednesday afternoon that tech billionaire Elon Musk and members of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) do not have “unfettered” access to the sensitive personal data and financial information of Americans after being accused by labor unions and retired workers. Hours later, President Donald Trump‘s DOJ agreed to a temporary injunction blocking Musk and DOGE’s access anyway — claiming it would maintain the status quo.

“The allegations in the complaint are about whether or not information is being improperly disclosed under the Privacy Act in Section 6103,” said Brad Humphreys, senior trial attorney for the DOJ’s Federal Programs Branch, during a virtual status hearing on Wednesday afternoon. “And our factual confirmation so far this morning has been to try to assure ourselves in the court that information is not being illegally disclosed to our knowledge.”

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, was tasked Wednesday with weighing whether to block the Trump administration from allowing allies close to Musk and DOGE to share personal data and financial information with others after a lawsuit was filed Monday by Public Citizen Litigation Group on behalf of two labor unions and a retired workers’ advocacy group. The complaint names the U.S. Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service as defendants.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 BigLaw firms flip-flop on associate special…

Lawyer Pay

2 BigLaw firms flip-flop on associate special bonuses, agreeing to pay market rate

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 3:48 pm CST

Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie have decided to pay special bonuses at the market rate of $6,000 to $25,000 after associates were initially told that they wouldn’t receive the money as a matter of course.

The special bonuses will be paid in addition to year-end bonuses ranging from $20,000 for the class of 2023 to $115,000 for the most senior associates, report Law.com and Above the Law, which published the new bonus memos here.

“It’s not the first time a firm has changed its mind about associate bonuses,” Law.com reports, “and it likely won’t be the last. Backlash from associates, concerns from partners about losing key associate talent, and peer firm pressure are just some of the reasons why a firm may reverse a decision when it comes to associate bonuses, according to legal industry observers.”

Hogan Lovells initially said it wasn’t paying routine special bonuses but it would give additional money to associates who exceed minimum hours. Now, it will pay special bonuses “on top of the other associate bonuses awarded,” a spokesperson told Law.com. “This means that many of our associates who qualify for the hours-based bonuses can earn bonuses above the announced scale of many other top firms.”

The spokesperson told Law.com that Hogan Lovells decided to match the market rate for special bonuses “following discussions with associates, partners and other stakeholders. An important part of our culture as a firm is that we listen, and we have made this decision after careful consultation.”

A Perkins Coie spokesperson told Law.com that its decision “is consistent with our commitment to paying market-competitive compensation and reflects the firm’s strong financial performance this year.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 BigLaw firms reject routine special bonuses…

Lawyer Pay

2 BigLaw firms reject routine special bonuses as several boutiques match or surpass market rate

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 19, 2024, 11:00 am CST

Above the Law’s bonus tracker continues to expand, as an increasing number of boutique law firms announce associate bonuses that match or surpass market rates set by Milbank.

About 50 firms were on the bonus list when it was last updated Dec. 12, including nine boutique firms. At least five more boutiques announced bonuses since then, as chronicled in separate Above the Law posts.

One of them is Susman Godfrey, which “absolutely blows away the current market standard,” Above the Law reports.

Law.com and Law360 also have coverage.

The market rate for year-end bonuses is $15,000 to $115,000, while the going rate for additional special bonuses is $6,000 to $25,000. That makes the total bonus $21,000 for the class of 2024 to $140,000 for the class of 2016 and beyond.

Susman Godfrey is paying median bonuses ranging from $110,000 to $220,000. All 286 of the firm’s employees are also receiving bonuses.

Not to be outdone, midsize firm Boies Schiller Flexner previously announced that “multiple associates” at the firm are receiving bonuses of $1 million or more this year. In addition, “numerous associates” received above-market bonuses, including several who received $300,000 or more. The outsized bonuses are being paid to associates who opted for a bonus formula with a revenue-share component, rather than market-rate bonuses.

Other boutiques that have announced above-market bonuses include Selendy Gay (with combined bonuses ranging from $23,250 to $157,250) and Wilkinson Stekloff (with combined bonuses ranging from $28,500 to $197,500).

While above-market bonuses by those firms are “not a new phenomenon,” Law.com reports, the number of others offering “eye-popping bonuses appears to be growing.”

Boutique firms are in a better position to offer above-market bonuses because their overhead is lower than that of BigLaw firms, said Jeff Lowe, a Washington, D.C., recruiter with legal search company CenterPeak, in an interview with Law.com The pool of associates who will receive the bonuses is also smaller, Lowe pointed out.

Some BigLaw firms, meanwhile, are not falling in line with the standard special bonuses that range from $6,000 to $25,000, report Bloomberg Law and Above the Law (here and here). The latest firms that aren’t paying routine special bonuses are Perkins Coie and Hogan Lovells.

While Hogan Lovells isn’t paying the routine special bonuses, it will pay additional bonuses to associates who exceed minimum hours.

Other firms requiring an hourly minimum for special bonuses include Covington & Burling, Fish & Richardson, Katten Muchin Rosenman, Norton Rose Fulbright, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (paying “super bonuses” to high billers), Seward & Kissel and Sidley Austin, according to previous coverage.

Bonus decisions are being made amid a “muted” market for associates following talent wars in 2021, Bloomberg Law points out. Then came a period of cutbacks that brought some associate layoffs.

Now, firms are realistically looking at what they can afford, said Katherine Loanzon, a managing director at search company Kinney Recruiting, in an interview with Bloomberg Law.

“Firms just don’t feel the pressure anymore to follow,” Loanzon told Bloomberg Law.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. More BigLaw firms match Milbank’s year-end…

Lawyer Pay

More BigLaw firms match Milbank’s year-end and special bonuses for associates, make no mention of pay hikes

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 20, 2024, 10:12 am CST

Updated: Associates at several BigLaw firms will be getting year-end and special bonuses that total $21,000 to $140,000, the amount being paid by Milbank.

Milbank was the only BigLaw firm that paid special summer bonuses this year. The law firm announced its year-end bonuses last week.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore was the first BigLaw firm to match Milbank’s special and year-end bonuses, Above the Law reported Tuesday evening.

“Virtually all” of Cravath’s associates will receive bonuses because there is no billable-hours requirement, Cravath said.

Two other firms confirmed Wednesday morning that they will also match the Milbank scale, Law.com reports. The two firms are Paul Hastings (also reported by Above the Law) and McDermott Will & Emery.

By Thursday afternoon, these firms had also announced they are matching the bonus scale: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; and Ropes & Gray, according to reporting by Above the Law.

McDermott is also paying merit-based bonuses in addition to year-end and special bonuses, Above the Law reports. Ropes & Gray partnership-track associates will also enjoy additional bonus money if they are credited with at least 1,900 hours but less money if they have fewer hours, according to the blog.

In addition, Fried Frank has said some associates and special counsel may earn a “premium” of $3,000 to $34,500, Law.com reports, citing Above the Law information.

So far, no BigLaw associates are getting raises next year, however. Cravath announced in its bonus memo that associate base salaries will remain the same in 2025. They range from $225,000 to $420,000.

Here is the Milbank bonus scale:

  • Class of 2024: $15,000 year-end, $6,000 special, $21,000 total (prorated)

  • Class of 2023: $20,000 year-end, $6,000 special, $26,000 total

  • Class of 2022: $30,000 year-end, $10,000 special, $40,000 total

  • Class of 2021: $57,500 year-end, $15,000 special, $72,500 total

  • Class of 2020: $75,000 year-end, $20,000 special, $95,000 total

  • Class of 2019: $90,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $115,000 total

  • Class of 2018: $105,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $130,000 total

  • Class of 2017: $115,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $140,000 total

  • Class of 2016 and higher: $115,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $140,000 total

Updated Nov. 21 at 8:45 a.m. to add information on the McDermott Will & Emery bonuses. Updated Nov. 21 at 3:35 p.m. to add additional law firms to the list.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Friday urged the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case to enforce certain redactions on two court filings recently submitted by former President Donald Trump’s valet Waltine “Walt” Nauta.

Nauta faces charges of conspiracy to obstruct, making false statements to the FBI, and withholding documents — connected to an alleged scheme to delete Mar-a-Lago camera footage and conceal boxes of classified documents from a grand jury. In reply briefs, he argued the indictment should be thrown out because he was singled out via vindictive prosecution and impermissibly retaliated against via prosecution because he declined to testify in front of a grand jury.

On Wednesday, Smith’s office addressed several alleged substantive and procedural deficiencies in Nauta’s arguments, categorizing them as “deeply flawed” and “meritless” and simply filed too late.

The government’s Friday filing asks U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to intervene in a dispute over whether Nauta can publicize the names of potential government witnesses and other information.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Does narrowed question in Trump immunity…

U.S. Supreme Court

Does narrowed question in Trump immunity case benefit special counsel? Some commentators think so

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 29, 2024, 3:09 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court avoided former President Donald Trump’s most extreme arguments—including that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for any acts while in office—when it crafted the question presented in its grant of certiorari Wednesday in the special counsel’s case over efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

This is the question presented as crafted by the Supreme Court: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

What is the significance of the narrowed question? Some commentators think that it benefits special counsel Jack Smith.

In a social media thread on X, formerly known as Twitter, Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, noted that the question focuses on official acts and presidential immunity, rather than absolute immunity.

Goldsmith sees the language as indicating that the high court might be considering a subset of official acts for which a president might get immunity. Those acts could be core functions under Article II or a subset of presidential powers. He speculates that acts carrying immunity might include pardons, firing of officials and self-defensive military action.

“But such a ruling wouldn’t come close to giving POTUS a blank check in office since most official acts would not be core Article II functions,” Goldsmith wrote.

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, also attributes significance to the phrasing of the question presented.

“My own view is that the [question presented] is written rather carefully to narrow exactly what the court is doing, both to cut out of the case entirely some of Trump’s more … extreme … arguments (like double jeopardy) and to also signal that the court is focused on the official acts question (strongly implying that it has no interest in recognizing any broader immunity),” Vladeck wrote in a Q&A on his One First Substack site.

Even if Trump wins on the narrowed question, there is room for Smith to go forward with the prosecution based on nonofficial acts, Vladeck wrote.

A column in the Washington Post agrees that the “official acts” language means that the Supreme Court could rule for Trump and still leave discretion for Smith to argue that trying to overthrow an election is not an official act.

In a Lawfare blog post written before the cert grant, Martin S. Lederman, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, elaborates on why he thinks that there is no serious argument that Trump was acting in his official capacity when he engaged in the alleged conduct.

“For starters,” Lederman wrote, “all but one of the counts of the indictment allege that Trump conspired with others to violate the law through fraudulent conduct. And, with one discrete exception, Trump’s alleged agreements to commit such fraud were with persons outside the government”—including, apparently, four lawyers.

“It’s very hard to see how Trump’s agreements with the five private parties might have been undertaken in his official capacity as president of the United States,” Lederman wrote.

Even if there was such a rare case, “under no possible understanding of a president’s proper role” would an official presidential duty include entering into an agreement to defraud the United States and obstruct its proceedings, he wrote.

Even if the Supreme Court paves the way for prosecution, the timing of its decision could be critical, according to three commentators writing at MSNBC. If the Supreme Court rules in late June, the trial might not begin until September, “making a verdict before the election difficult, if not impossible.”

The MSNBC authors are Norman Eisen, a former House Judiciary Committee impeachment counsel; Joshua Kolb, a former Senate Judiciary Committee law clerk; and Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21.

When Donald Trump goes on trial next year for his alleged criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, special counsel prosecutors want to ban him from invoking any defense laden in conspiracy theories about the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and if not, they note, they may be forced to call Trump’s bluff and — among other things — show “that people whom the defendant alleges were undercover actors actually were his vehement supporters.”

The conspiracy theory that the Capitol attack was the responsibility of undercover FBI agents, leftists and members of “antifa” has long been debunked in the fallout of Jan. 6, 2021.

Nonetheless, these theories have remained a mainstay of Trump’s defense when he discusses his indictment in Washington, D.C., publicly and it is also a false theory invoked regularly by his allies including far-right lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate.