Biglaw partnership: generational shift or misinformation?

[Anonymous]

When I was a law student and baby associate, people talked about partnership like something anyone who had a shot at it would want. Any claim that someone *could* have made partner but chose not to was met with not just skepticism but incredulity. It was presented as any associate's end game, if at all possible.

Now I'm a 7th year associate and I know a LOT of associates who had a decent shot at partnership and quit anyway. Some seemed to accelerate their exit after recognition/efforts at grooming that started to really crystalize for them they were likely to be promoted. Recently a friend was told, point blank, by a managing partner that she was almost certainly going to be elected to partnership because the associates who were their first and second choice for promotion in her group quit.

It also seems like associates junior to me are just way less invested in building their reputation and practice. Recently I offered a junior associate an opportunity to build their resume with experience I had to work really hard to get (oral argument), and they told me they didn't want to do it.

Did we have the wrong idea as junior associates, or is this a real change?

[Anonymous]

I'll bite. This is a real change. Among people I know, factors driving the change include:

1. Making partner used to be viewed as an opportunity for security and a rest from the grind of biglaw. In recent downturns, we have seen big firms de-equitize and fire partners, undermining the idea that partnership means security. As for rest, billable and other expectations for partners are ever expanding, and people are increasingly realizing that there will be no rest.

2. The biglaw model of working 24/7 really only works if you are single, have a stay-at-home spouse, or have no kids. The SAH spouse model is pretty rare among the younger set, and I think people are generally souring on 24/7, always-on working models. Combined with #1 above, sticking around in biglaw to make partner increasingly seems like throwing away your life for work in a pretty miserable environment.

[Anonymous]

whoa an associate turned down an oral argument? that’s … crazy. did you encourage them to reconsider? I wonder if they have a big fear of public speaking.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t the idea that it’s like the prize for the pie-eating contest is more pie? Your reward for working really hard for many years as an associate is working really hard for many years to come as a partner. Not sure I see the glory in that.

[Anonymous]

People's relationship with corporate America has dramatically changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:whoa an associate turned down an oral argument? that’s … crazy. did you encourage them to reconsider? I wonder if they have a big fear of public speaking.

They told me point-blank it was because prep would be too much work with only a week's notice! I never would have said that at the same seniority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was a law student and baby associate, people talked about partnership like something anyone who had a shot at it would want. Any claim that someone *could* have made partner but chose not to was met with not just skepticism but incredulity. It was presented as any associate's end game, if at all possible.

Now I'm a 7th year associate and I know a LOT of associates who had a decent shot at partnership and quit anyway. Some seemed to accelerate their exit after recognition/efforts at grooming that started to really crystalize for them they were likely to be promoted. Recently a friend was told, point blank, by a managing partner that she was almost certainly going to be elected to partnership because the associates who were their first and second choice for promotion in her group quit.

It also seems like associates junior to me are just way less invested in building their reputation and practice. Recently I offered a junior associate an opportunity to build their resume with experience I had to work really hard to get (oral argument), and they told me they didn't want to do it.

Did we have the wrong idea as junior associates, or is this a real change?

The bolded part really surprises me. In my biglaw firm, it is definitely true that a lot more associates are very open about the fact that making partner is not something that interests them at all, and people are also very open about the fact that the lifestyle of a partner is not particularly desirable, and when they quit, they mostly go for jobs that are much more lifestyle-friendly. But it is still really difficult to make partner and there are plenty of disappointed associates each year in my firm who don't make it (or who are pushed out).

[Anonymous]

DH and I are both lawyers; he's a BigLaw partner and I work for an NGO. Our oldest son is a baby lawyer (clerking now and next year too); neither he nor any of his friends who are going to BigLaw expects to make partner. They see BigLaw as a training ground and a way to pay off their loans, which is exactly what it is now. Most of them are looking for work-life balance. So, if offered an oral argument opportunity, my guess is they would jump at it earlier in their careers, but be less inclined to do so as they get older and are more likely to be in relationships and to have children.

[Anonymous]

One thing I've noticed when interviewing for my biglaw firm is how many students ask questions about work/life balance and having a family, etc. These were questions I (only 12 years further on) would never have asked - they would have guaranteed no offer. Now, we have tons of info to give them on all the work/life balance initiatives we have. But the fact is that at a junior level, in many practice areas, there isn't much balance and work is going to have to come first - that is kind of what we pay the big $$$ for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I are both lawyers; he's a BigLaw partner and I work for an NGO. Our oldest son is a baby lawyer (clerking now and next year too); neither he nor any of his friends who are going to BigLaw expects to make partner. They see BigLaw as a training ground and a way to pay off their loans, which is exactly what it is now. Most of them are looking for work-life balance. So, if offered an oral argument opportunity, my guess is they would jump at it earlier in their careers, but be less inclined to do so as they get older and are more likely to be in relationships and to have children.

I'm OP and that's what me and my classmates thought at that stage--but because we thought partnership wasn't likely to be possible, not because we thought we would turn it down once we got there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing I've noticed when interviewing for my biglaw firm is how many students ask questions about work/life balance and having a family, etc. These were questions I (only 12 years further on) would never have asked - they would have guaranteed no offer. Now, we have tons of info to give them on all the work/life balance initiatives we have. But the fact is that at a junior level, in many practice areas, there isn't much balance and work is going to have to come first - that is kind of what we pay the big $$$ for.

Wow. Yes when I was interviewing at OCI, there is no freaking way I would have asked that.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s not necessarily seen as something you’d want. Truth is out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing I've noticed when interviewing for my biglaw firm is how many students ask questions about work/life balance and having a family, etc. These were questions I (only 12 years further on) would never have asked - they would have guaranteed no offer. Now, we have tons of info to give them on all the work/life balance initiatives we have. But the fact is that at a junior level, in many practice areas, there isn't much balance and work is going to have to come first - that is kind of what we pay the big $$$ for.

The point is that people understand that and use big law as a stepping stone. A few years can wipe out loans and give you a bit of a nest egg after which you seek out somewhere with work life balance.

[Anonymous]

Real change. Being a partner used to be a pretty awesome gig. Tons of money. Tons of associates to do the work. Rock solid client relationships and firm/client relationships. Secretaries that stayed forever and were amazing at their jobs. Getting fired or pushed out was rare. Now being a partner looks like it sucks for most of them. You work hard. Clients expect lean staffing. Secretaries are twenty somethings looking for their next move. Clients are no longer loyal for life. You have to hussle and sell and hussle and sell. If you underperform firm is ruthless. Looks like it sucks. I don’t need a million a year if those are the terms. Our fam can live a great life on $350k.

[Anonymous]

When I was an associate decades ago most associates left the firm before becoming senior associates and every associate I ever talked to said they weren't really interested in being a partner even if they "had a shot at it." Then, like now, it was often a defense mechanism because the odds were so low. And now the odds are even lower. So, yea, you're not going to hear a lot of junior associates admit that they want to be partners -- but every senior associate still at the firm is there because, at least in part, they think they have a shot. And no associate who is actually offered partnership will turn it down.

New century, same way of thinking.