Is making biglaw income partner worth it?

[Anonymous]

I’ve head big law income partner only get paid a salary slighlt higher than senior associates (think 100k) but have significantly more responsibility. Just wondering if people have experience with this subject? It this true? If so, why do it and what makes it worth it?

[Anonymous]

If you enjoy money and power and willing to sacrifice time with your spouse and kids, yes its worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you enjoy money and power and willing to sacrifice time with your spouse and kids, yes its worth it.

For $100k more than a senior associate??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve head big law income partner only get paid a salary slighlt higher than senior associates (think 100k) but have significantly more responsibility. Just wondering if people have experience with this subject? It this true? If so, why do it and what makes it worth it?

What are your other options?

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure the partners in my firm are clearing more like 1.5 million which is double an associate, even senior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure the partners in my firm are clearing more like 1.5 million which is double an associate, even senior.

These are equity partners. Income partners often make about the same as senior associates. I’m finding it hard to believe you work at a firm and don’t know the difference.

[Anonymous]

So I’ve been in biglaw for over a decade, just got elected partner, and never heard the phrase “income partner.” I assumed before seeing the numbers OP meant equity - usually you say “non-equity” for what you are referring to as income partners.

But anyway, it highly depends on the firm and your personal situation re whether it’s worth it. Some firms are lockstep in partnership, so you have to go through a defined period of non-equity before becoming equity. Others require variable amounts of time as non-equity before equity. Others can be indefinitely at non-equity. And yet others elect straight to equity and non-equity depending on various factors. So you could be looking at anything from 0-forever as non-equity. It helps to know the average for your firm. I would say a couple years non-equity to get to equity is probably worth it, if you find the work rewarding and/or need the money. I would say 5+ isn’t unless you truly love the firm and work.

Another variable is how much equity and nonequity partners make at the firm. Some of that will also turn on how equity portions are determined (eat what you kill vs lockstep vs mix vs even split across the board). It of course also turns on your firm’s PPPs. At my firm, equity partners are making several million per year. Non-equity are making over a million. So again, probably worth it at a firm like mine, unless you are truly miserable. But may not be worth it if you’re at a firm (which is most) where non-equity make little more than the top paid senior associates/counsel, in which case, I personally would prefer to just be parked in a comfy counsel role.

Another thing that matters is job security. If you aren’t going to get some job security comfort as a non-equity partner, that’s tough to keep doing for many more years than most already have.

In addition, your trajectory matters. If you are super close to non-equity, it is HELLA worth it to push through to get regardless of how much you will enjoy being a partner. 10/10 times it’s worth getting that title solely for the ridiculous number of doors it will open for you for the rest of your career. If you’re close, at least grab it then leave, if staying to make equity isn’t worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I’ve been in biglaw for over a decade, just got elected partner, and never heard the phrase “income partner.” I assumed before seeing the numbers OP meant equity - usually you say “non-equity” for what you are referring to as income partners.

But anyway, it highly depends on the firm and your personal situation re whether it’s worth it. Some firms are lockstep in partnership, so you have to go through a defined period of non-equity before becoming equity. Others require variable amounts of time as non-equity before equity. Others can be indefinitely at non-equity. And yet others elect straight to equity and non-equity depending on various factors. So you could be looking at anything from 0-forever as non-equity. It helps to know the average for your firm. I would say a couple years non-equity to get to equity is probably worth it, if you find the work rewarding and/or need the money. I would say 5+ isn’t unless you truly love the firm and work.

Another variable is how much equity and nonequity partners make at the firm. Some of that will also turn on how equity portions are determined (eat what you kill vs lockstep vs mix vs even split across the board). It of course also turns on your firm’s PPPs. At my firm, equity partners are making several million per year. Non-equity are making over a million. So again, probably worth it at a firm like mine, unless you are truly miserable. But may not be worth it if you’re at a firm (which is most) where non-equity make little more than the top paid senior associates/counsel, in which case, I personally would prefer to just be parked in a comfy counsel role.


Op here - thank you for this I appreciate this response. Yes, I think at my firm on equity partners make a littler more than senior associates which is why I’m wondering why would someone want to be a non equity partner barely making more than an associates but significantly more responsiblility

Another thing that matters is job security. If you aren’t going to get some job security comfort as a non-equity partner, that’s tough to keep doing for many more years than most already have.

In addition, your trajectory matters. If you are super close to non-equity, it is HELLA worth it to push through to get regardless of how much you will enjoy being a partner. 10/10 times it’s worth getting that title solely for the ridiculous number of doors it will open for you for the rest of your career. If you’re close, at least grab it then leave, if staying to make equity isn’t worth it.

[Anonymous]

It's worth it if:
- You eventually want to be equity partner and income partner is a step on the way there.
- Income partners make significantly more at your firm than associates or counsel (100k may or may not be that to you).

It's not worth it if:
- You could be in a counsel role and not take on the additional responsibilities of being an income partner (bus dev, management, committees).

As for whether having a "partner" title helps for in-house jobs, I have heard varying things. A partner title gives you credibility, but may also cause in-house people to think you're too senior and would have to take too much of a pay cut to want to take an in-house job.

[Anonymous]

The good firms don’t have non equity partners, and at them, it’s far more than double the salary for of counsel/senior associate - from 450 plus bonus to 950 plus bonus. So, yes, it’s worth it at those firms. Maybe not at yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The good firms don’t have non equity partners, and at them, it’s far more than double the salary for of counsel/senior associate - from 450 plus bonus to 950 plus bonus. So, yes, it’s worth it at those firms. Maybe not at yours.

Most top firms have NE partners now. The model is shifting to more NE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I’ve been in biglaw for over a decade, just got elected partner, and never heard the phrase “income partner.” I assumed before seeing the numbers OP meant equity - usually you say “non-equity” for what you are referring to as income partners.

But anyway, it highly depends on the firm and your personal situation re whether it’s worth it. Some firms are lockstep in partnership, so you have to go through a defined period of non-equity before becoming equity. Others require variable amounts of time as non-equity before equity. Others can be indefinitely at non-equity. And yet others elect straight to equity and non-equity depending on various factors. So you could be looking at anything from 0-forever as non-equity. It helps to know the average for your firm. I would say a couple years non-equity to get to equity is probably worth it, if you find the work rewarding and/or need the money. I would say 5+ isn’t unless you truly love the firm and work.

Another variable is how much equity and nonequity partners make at the firm. Some of that will also turn on how equity portions are determined (eat what you kill vs lockstep vs mix vs even split across the board). It of course also turns on your firm’s PPPs. At my firm, equity partners are making several million per year. Non-equity are making over a million. So again, probably worth it at a firm like mine, unless you are truly miserable. But may not be worth it if you’re at a firm (which is most) where non-equity make little more than the top paid senior associates/counsel, in which case, I personally would prefer to just be parked in a comfy counsel role.

Another thing that matters is job security. If you aren’t going to get some job security comfort as a non-equity partner, that’s tough to keep doing for many more years than most already have.

In addition, your trajectory matters. If you are super close to non-equity, it is HELLA worth it to push through to get regardless of how much you will enjoy being a partner. 10/10 times it’s worth getting that title solely for the ridiculous number of doors it will open for you for the rest of your career. If you’re close, at least grab it then leave, if staying to make equity isn’t worth it.

I can’t believe you e never heard of an income partner. Maybe you don’t even know what a service partner is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’ve been in biglaw for over a decade, just got elected partner, and never heard the phrase “income partner.” I assumed before seeing the numbers OP meant equity - usually you say “non-equity” for what you are referring to as income partners.

But anyway, it highly depends on the firm and your personal situation re whether it’s worth it. Some firms are lockstep in partnership, so you have to go through a defined period of non-equity before becoming equity. Others require variable amounts of time as non-equity before equity. Others can be indefinitely at non-equity. And yet others elect straight to equity and non-equity depending on various factors. So you could be looking at anything from 0-forever as non-equity. It helps to know the average for your firm. I would say a couple years non-equity to get to equity is probably worth it, if you find the work rewarding and/or need the money. I would say 5+ isn’t unless you truly love the firm and work.

Another variable is how much equity and nonequity partners make at the firm. Some of that will also turn on how equity portions are determined (eat what you kill vs lockstep vs mix vs even split across the board). It of course also turns on your firm’s PPPs. At my firm, equity partners are making several million per year. Non-equity are making over a million. So again, probably worth it at a firm like mine, unless you are truly miserable. But may not be worth it if you’re at a firm (which is most) where non-equity make little more than the top paid senior associates/counsel, in which case, I personally would prefer to just be parked in a comfy counsel role.

Another thing that matters is job security. If you aren’t going to get some job security comfort as a non-equity partner, that’s tough to keep doing for many more years than most already have.

In addition, your trajectory matters. If you are super close to non-equity, it is HELLA worth it to push through to get regardless of how much you will enjoy being a partner. 10/10 times it’s worth getting that title solely for the ridiculous number of doors it will open for you for the rest of your career. If you’re close, at least grab it then leave, if staying to make equity isn’t worth it.

I can’t believe you e never heard of an income partner. Maybe you don’t even know what a service partner is.

I was judging the PP for this, too, but then he used "hella" and redeemed himself. It may be a regional difference; I think "income partner" is used more on the West Coast (where, incidentally, I think "hella" is also more common), and "non-equity" on the East Coast or at East Coast-based firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The good firms don’t have non equity partners, and at them, it’s far more than double the salary for of counsel/senior associate - from 450 plus bonus to 950 plus bonus. So, yes, it’s worth it at those firms. Maybe not at yours.

Almost all firms have non-equity partners at this point. I'm at my third V25 firm and all have had "income" partners, either a step on the way to equity or as a separate destination.

[Anonymous]

I am a non-equity partner. I make $900k.
Yes, it's worth it to me. Depends on your firm's culture and what you are looking for in a career.
Happy to answer other questions.