Law firms now demoting partners .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is really disconcerting in the sense that there's no really no incentive nowadays to want to rise to the top of your field.

Why is it disconcerting that there is little incentive for anyone with their eyes open to gun for partnership? There is still money to be made. After 9 years in big law, I have over 400k cash in savings, not including my retirement savings and shares of stock. All of it is mine and, because I'm an associate, the firm doesn't get to come askint for my money in the name of capital contributions. I'm applying to exit to the government or in house and, with the connections I've made over these 9 years, I'll be just fine.

--Senior associate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

[Anonymous]

is this affecting your wachtells and cravaths?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the partners get their buy-in back?

Yes, once you leave the partnership, even if you remain employed, you are entitled to and will get a return of your capital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really disconcerting in the sense that there's no really no incentive nowadays to want to rise to the top of your field.

Why is it disconcerting that there is little incentive for anyone with their eyes open to gun for partnership? There is still money to be made. After 9 years in big law, I have over 400k cash in savings, not including my retirement savings and shares of stock. All of it is mine and, because I'm an associate, the firm doesn't get to come askint for my money in the name of capital contributions. I'm applying to exit to the government or in house and, with the connections I've made over these 9 years, I'll be just fine.

--Senior associate

I left biglaw as a sixth-year associate for a gov job. After 3 years, I wanted to make more money so I got in touch with my old firm, with which I kept good relations. They offered me the option of rejoining as partner or counsel. Based on the numbers that they presented, I would end up with about the same take-home either way, as partners pay huge tax bills and have to pay for own health insurance. I chose the counsel job and am much happier. But I also plan to go back to gov eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

NP here. Of course this happens. They are cut throat. Remember to the other partners, one who gets deequitized has been a financial drag for a while. In that environment, bitterness and resentment builds quickly, so it is easy for those who remain to feel that those kicked out don't actually deserve to be paid back and therefore interpret the contracts in the light least favorable (ie, in the same way as for those who jump).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

Lol. First, I'm not male, you ignorant dummy. Second, this post makes obvious that you're either not in big law or very junior on the rung. I'm always amused when people like you talk as if partnership is a mafia complete with omerta. Of course, partners talk and disclose their agreements to close friends. I count both income and equity partners at my firm and other firms as friends. I know what many of them are making down to the penny, hence how I have decided this isn't for me. I also know partners who have been de-equitized and there are several bases on which firms can and have screwed them out of full return of capital. Imagine that! Bet Above the Law didn't tell you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

NP here. Of course this happens. They are cut throat. Remember to the other partners, one who gets deequitized has been a financial drag for a while. In that environment, bitterness and resentment builds quickly, so it is easy for those who remain to feel that those kicked out don't actually deserve to be paid back and therefore interpret the contracts in the light least favorable (ie, in the same way as for those who jump).

This person knows. By the time a firm moves to de-equitize a partner, key decision makers are pissed. And sometimes, they'll take that out on the departing partner's share. Sometimes, they won't. No guarantees.

--Senior associate

[Anonymous]

I have a strange feeling that many on this board had been Autoadmit posters a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

God all mighty, I am glad I am not a lawyer. 2500 hrs billable probably means 3000 total (some admin costs). That means an average of 60 hrs a week assuming you take 2 weeks off vacation and 1 holiday.

By comparison, I, as a lowly scientist would make almost 300K if I worked those hours. (I don't. I make 170K, but enjoy life).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a strange feeling that many on this board had been Autoadmit posters a decade ago.

I am guessing this is your inadvertent confession that you were on Autoadmit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God all mighty, I am glad I am not a lawyer. 2500 hrs billable probably means 3000 total (some admin costs). That means an average of 60 hrs a week assuming you take 2 weeks off vacation and 1 holiday.

By comparison, I, as a lowly scientist would make almost 300K if I worked those hours. (I don't. I make 170K, but enjoy life).

Everything comes at a price. I doubt you accumulated as much from working as the associate upthread has. A ninth year is probably only in her early to mid-30s, yet she has serious amounts accumulated. But I doubt she enjoyed the process.