Related Posts
More Posts
Do you buy the fundamentals for a MBS sell-off?
I'm thinking about cutting off my beard.
Most Used Documents By Product Managers
Rising Star
Additional Posts in Law
How hard is the path from lit to GC?
Pro
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Would this mean no billable requirement? Because I’m listening right there. But aside from the obvious competitive package of salary/benefits, I think maximum flexibility in terms of WFH or work hours in general is going to be key for firms hiring and retaining young new talent moving forward.
No billable requirement except for a few matters we charge hourly for. Tracking which projects you’re supposed to bill hourly for is sometimes annoying, but way better than billing all the time. But because we’re not tracking hours, would probably structure pay-for-performance for a partner who could manage clients completely on their own, or for an associate that needs some supervision, a high amount of intrinsic motivation to work a lot to develop the skills (i.e. not just grind) so that they cab become partner as quickly as possible and isn’t looking to just do the bare minimum.
Tons of flexibility in terms of WFH and work hours. Remote-first before the pandemic and work hours are pretty flexible (don’t have to be on at any specific time, no expectation of working nights or weekends, just be generally responsive and get work done to keep clients happy).
Given the above, what would be a competitive comp if structured as (a) salary and bonus or (b) pay-for-performance (x% on originated work, y% on non-originated work)? Benefits are solid with 100% medical/dental/vision for employee + dependents, 4% 401k matching, team lunches, and generous expensing policy.
Tie compensation to what you want them to do well. Good base salary, but make bonuses monthly, and related to the metrics you want them to hit. I’m ECVC at a boutique firm (so still have a billable requirement) but tying compensation to the success of the firm/the associate’s hard work is a great motivator for the kind of person you likely want.
Thnx, super helpful. Would you be able to share what your billable targets are for just hitting base and hourly rate? Feel free to DM me if that’s easier.
FWIW, goal is to be better than both Clerky and GD. Clerky with legal review (I just had a client that somehow previously issued 51M shares when 10M were authorized and had none of the shares subject to vesting. I mean, WTF? why is Clerky not able to catch this?) and GD with efficiency (using streamlined forms, document automation tools, checklists, project management tools, closing tools, etc.). I think we can do everything that Clerky does but with legal review at a price point lots of founders are willing to and very satisfied paying for. With GD, I doubt we’ll ever do as many deals as them and just won’t be able to handle all the complex transactions like M&As, IPOs, SPACs, etc. but for all the core general and corporate counsel work, I think we’ll be able to be cheaper, faster, and actually more profitable.
Pro
And if you want someone to help with overflow, DM. Im in house in the Bay Area at a late stage unicorn, but often have extra time. Pre-law school I was that senior transactional para!
Thnx! Will DM you. Mainly looking for someone who is interested in full-time opps, but always looking to connect with good people.
Pro
Honestly, if EC/VC, I'd hire a strong senior paralegal well-versed at incorporations, closing financings, and cap admin. That's how big Valley firms best leverage flat pricing in the space.
Right on - have multiple paralegals already, but hitting capacity on attorney-level work, so with expected growth will likely need another attorney. But mainly think adding the right attorney to the mix would make work more fun - comfortable as solo, but feel like can achieve a lot more with someone aligned on vision.
I've been doing this type of stuff in the IP space for a while, and I've spoken with a lot of firms like yours over the past few years, and ultimately stayed where I am. To me, it usually came down to the firms ability to offer a sufficient salary while my practice transferred over and ramped up.
I've thought a lot about flat-fee pricing for patents in the startup space, and offering IP "packages," like a provisional patent application + TM applications + a few other things for some flat fee, and it really just doesn't work. It shifts incentives for the companies, and it means I can't make a fair assessment of whether a quick and dirty provisional is appropriate or if the client needs something more sophisticated. subscriptions don't really work for the same reason.
Instead, I've settled on a few other billing strategies, which I execute through local tech incubators. I think flat fee works better for corporate docs and things like that.
Happy to chat about working with startups, if you think my experience could be helpful - I don't know if you are looking to move into IP. I'm not looking to move anywhere, but always like to meet startup facing attorneys.
A lot going on here, and I'll send you a DM from the app - I don't do long posts unless I'm at my computer, and the website doesn't seem to allow DMs. Odd.
I've seen firms offering TM and patent packages to startups, and what they usually offer through that is some provisional filing strategy and 1-2 stock TM apps. The problem is they then cap their hours for patent, and on the TM side, they either search when not necessary or don't search when they should. They then have to explain pricing all over again if a TM should be filed in multiple classes, etc. For corporate docs, in most basic situations, you can estimate within 10% of the cost sight unseen. For IP, you just can't.
For patents, if you do a package you end up with very different levels of sophistication all getting shoehorned into the same number of attorney hours. Instead, I'm very generous with my time before engagement, and set a range and a cap for a first project before taking any money. In the before times, I used to do a lot of meetings at bars, where I would talk as long as the potential client was buying. I also hold office hours with incubators (which have separate corporate partners).
My book is hard to estimate, since it breaks down as about 1/3 my own origination and work, 1/3 my own work, but firm originations (with the client never being in contact with any other attorney), and 1/3 legacy relationships that I service. It's tough to tell how much of that middle 1/3 would follow me, and I haven't really thought through it, since I'm not actively looking to move.
As far as comparing specialists, you are right. We have a wide international network that we know personally. We go to conferences to meet in person (or used to), and we've learned that it generally takes at least a few years to develop a business relationship. that means a lot of work develops very slowly and then all of a sudden.
Rising Star
I'm a 2nd year who would love to join a firm like this in a few years. Aside from the remote work and low face time requirements already mentioned, my big concern would be job stability... how likely is it that the firm can sustain a book of business large enough to support everyone, especially if the venture economy takes a dip.
Base salary is not particularly important to me, though I'd expect bonuses or revenue sharing or something based on contributions made to the firm like number of hours billed, revenue from clients originated, etc.
Totally. What would convince you re: job stability? Year over year growth? Sources of new clients? Explanation of firm’s plan during a downturn? And if you were to design your own market competitive comp, what specifically would you negotiate via base and bonus? Greater specificity helps me understand what folks are truly motivated by - upside for working hard (hours billed) vs. generating new business (rainmaker) vs. profit margin (efficiency) vs. client NPS (having happy clients), etc.