King & Spalding’s ‘Productive Hours’ Memo Sparks Outrage: Is It an Industry Outlier or New Normal?
A recently leaked internal memo from King & Spalding, one of the nation’s top-tier law firms, has ignited a firestorm among its associates and sent ripples through the legal industry. The memo, which mandates that associates log 2,400 “productive hours” annually—including at least 2,000 billable hours—to remain in good standing and qualify for bonuses, has been met with fierce criticism. Associates have labeled the policy “insane,” “inhumane,” and “not doable,” citing the crushing workload and lack of transparency in its mid-year rollout. As of August 22, 2025, the controversy, first reported by Above the Law, has sparked a broader debate: does this policy break with Big Law’s industry standards, or is it a sign of evolving expectations in a high-pressure profession?
Trending Subheading: “From Billable Hours to ‘Productive Hours’: A Seismic Shift in Big Law Expectations”
The memo, detailed in reports from Bloomberg Law and Law.com, outlines a significant departure from King & Spalding’s previous policy, which required 1,950 billable hours for bonus eligibility. The new mandate adds approximately 450 non-billable hours, encompassing activities like business development, recruiting, training, and other “firm citizenship” tasks, bringing the total to 2,400 “productive hours.” This translates to over 46 hours per week without accounting for vacation or sick days, a threshold many associates argue is unsustainable. The policy’s mid-year introduction, with ambiguous criteria for non-billable hours, has further fueled frustration, leaving attorneys feeling blindsided and set up to fail.
Is This an Industry Standard?
To determine whether King & Spalding’s policy diverges from industry norms, it’s essential to examine Big Law’s typical expectations. Most top-tier law firms set billable hour targets between 1,800 and 2,000 hours annually for bonus eligibility. For instance:
- Cravath, Swaine & Moore: Requires approximately 1,800 billable hours, with flexibility for pro bono and firm contributions.
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz: Targets around 1,850 billable hours, emphasizing efficiency over raw hours.
- Davis Polk & Wardwell: Sets a 1,900-hour threshold, with additional credit for non-billable work like pro bono.
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom: Typically expects 2,000 billable hours, though firm culture encourages non-billable contributions without strict mandates.
King & Spalding’s previous 1,950 billable-hour requirement was already on the higher end, but the new 2,400 “productive hours” target, including 2,000 billable hours, exceeds most peers’ expectations. According to a 2023 NALP report, only a handful of elite firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis, routinely push for 2,000+ billable hours, but even these firms rarely formalize non-billable hour requirements to this extent. A Law.com industry consultant noted, “While firms may track nonbillable contributions like business development and recruiting, they typically don’t mandate specific thresholds for these activities.” This suggests that King & Spalding’s policy is an outlier, particularly in its explicit inclusion of 450 non-billable hours.
Why the Backlash?
The backlash stems from several factors. First, the mid-year rollout—more than halfway through 2025—has been criticized as unfair, giving associates limited time to adjust. Second, the vague definition of “productive hours” creates confusion. Non-billable tasks like mentoring or firm committees lack clear tracking mechanisms, leaving associates uncertain about what qualifies. Legal ethics professor Steven Gillers of NYU School of Law warned in a ZoomBangla report that such opacity risks incentivizing unethical behavior, like time-padding, or discouraging pro bono work, which is often credited differently.
Associates have voiced extreme stress, with one anonymously telling ZoomBangla, “This isn’t development—it’s exploitation.” The policy’s demand for 46+ hours weekly without breaks is seen as particularly grueling, especially in a profession where 78% of associates cite workload as a top reason for leaving firms, per the NALP 2023 Report. The mental health toll is also significant, with lawyers already suffering depression at twice the national rate, according to a CDC/ABA study.
King & Spalding’s Defense and Industry Context
King & Spalding defends the policy as a means to foster professional growth and ensure client needs are met. A firm source told Law.com that the expectations were “communicated over time” through practice meetings and planning documents, emphasizing a “thriving career” at the firm. The firm also maintains that the policy isn’t new, though associates dispute this, pointing to the formalization of the 2,400-hour target as a significant shift.
In context, Big Law has faced increasing pressure to maximize profitability. King & Spalding, with $2.02 billion in gross revenue in 2022 (ranking 17th in the Am Law 100), operates in a competitive market where firms like Milbank and Davis Polk set the pace for bonuses and salaries. Milbank’s 2025 summer bonuses, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, have prompted expectations of year-end matches across the industry, with King & Spalding offering additional bonuses for every 100 hours billed over 1,950. However, the new 2,400-hour mandate raises the bar significantly, tying financial rewards to an unprecedented workload.
Potential Fallout: Talent Exodus and Cultural Shifts
The policy has sparked fears of a talent exodus. Legal recruiters note that associates are actively discussing exits, with firms like Cravath and Wachtell, which offer lower hour thresholds and clearer policies, poised to benefit. A ZoomBangla report suggested that King & Spalding’s approach exemplifies a “broken culture prioritizing profit over people,” potentially alienating top talent in a market where retention is already a challenge.
Posts on X reflect mixed sentiment. Some users, like @JeffYoungerShow, argue that workplace friction, not malice, drives such policies, while others, like @uiuxadrian, advocate for “working smarter, not longer” to preserve sanity. These posts, while not conclusive, highlight a broader cultural pushback against grueling work expectations.
What’s Next for King & Spalding and Big Law?
The controversy raises critical questions about the sustainability of Big Law’s business model. As firms chase higher profits, policies like King & Spalding’s may become more common, but they risk alienating associates and exacerbating burnout. For now, the firm’s associates face a daunting challenge: meeting the 2,400-hour target or risking their bonuses and standing. The legal industry, meanwhile, must grapple with balancing client demands, profitability, and attorney well-being.
King & Spalding’s policy may not be entirely unprecedented, but its formalization of non-billable hours and high threshold set it apart from most peers. Whether this marks a new standard or a misstep remains to be seen, but the uproar suggests a need for greater transparency and a reevaluation of what it means to thrive in Big Law.
Sources: Law.com, Bloomberg Law, ZoomBangla, Above the Law, NALP 2023 Report, CDC/ABA Study