Biglaw partnership: generational shift or misinformation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. Partners are expected to bill a lot more than they were in previous generations. And develop business. It’s not a break or a prize.

In part because they are making up for the work and hours associates used to put in, but aren't anymore. The generation of go-getters who are partners now, still have to be the go-getters ot make up for the slackers. Clients are not demanding less and someone has to do the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really amused by the people on this thread screaming about "entitlement." That's not what this is at all. Entitlement would be demanding a partnership salary without the hours/risks that Biglaw requires. No one is doing that.

What's happening is that junior and senior associates do not value money/prestige enough to sacrifice security and every other aspect of their lives. "Huge salary" simply isn't their default highest priority anymore - they want more out of life than money and work, so much so that they're willing to take less money. And that's a huge problem for Biglaw as it is currently set up: it relies on associates valuing salary and prestige above all else. It just doesn't work otherwise.

This isn't entitlement. This is a failure to provide a product that people are willing to buy.

A career isn't a product; it is something you create for yourself.

[Anonymous]

I'm a lawyer in the government. So many people are hired after Big Law. Quite a few of them were offered partnerships, but went to government instead. They'd paid off their law school loans, got the downpayment for a sfh and now they want a work life balance to enjoy their families while kids are still little. Some take huge pay cuts for it too and make 1/4 what they were making prior.

[Anonymous]

It is interesting how great law school (and Big Law) is with marketing. Even on LinkedIn, you see law school students announcing being chosen for X Big Law firm, usually accompanied about how Big Law Firm X has a great reputation for pro bono. Which seems odd that anyone entering Big Law would view any type of pro bono marketing as legitimate.

Two thoughts:

1. It is interesting how, of all professions, lawyers are often the most emotional/not reading the fine print of the profession. With vague goals of international or entertainment law, and just seeing the top percentage of salaries of graduates, many of us sort of choose this huge decision so casually.

2. It is interesting the argument about "I do Big Law to pay off loans". With PSLF, and student loan programs, if someone really wants to be a lawyer, wouldn't it be make more sense and be more rewarding to do government work from day 1? And wouldn't you develop more in government with real experience than the doc review tasks of Big Law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how great law school (and Big Law) is with marketing. Even on LinkedIn, you see law school students announcing being chosen for X Big Law firm, usually accompanied about how Big Law Firm X has a great reputation for pro bono. Which seems odd that anyone entering Big Law would view any type of pro bono marketing as legitimate.

Two thoughts:

1. It is interesting how, of all professions, lawyers are often the most emotional/not reading the fine print of the profession. With vague goals of international or entertainment law, and just seeing the top percentage of salaries of graduates, many of us sort of choose this huge decision so casually.

2. It is interesting the argument about "I do Big Law to pay off loans". With PSLF, and student loan programs, if someone really wants to be a lawyer, wouldn't it be make more sense and be more rewarding to do government work from day 1? And wouldn't you develop more in government with real experience than the doc review tasks of Big Law?

Law schools bear some of the responsibility for #1. I wouldn't even say it's the fine print, it's flat out hidden although now there are a lot more sources of information such as the law school transparency project so folks should be able to make an informed choice now.

On #2 depends how large your loans are. A long time ago mine were only $80K so I was able to knock them out quickly and build a solid nest egg and house downpayment. But also, doing biglaw opens doors for you that wouldn't necessarily be open if you went straight to govt (depending on which agency, of course) and even some agencies it is hard to get into without biglaw experience. I would also add that there are some practice areas in government that you will only find in biglaw so if you want that experience to get hired you need to do a stint in biglaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. Partners are expected to bill a lot more than they were in previous generations. And develop business. It’s not a break or a prize.

In part because they are making up for the work and hours associates used to put in, but aren't anymore. The generation of go-getters who are partners now, still have to be the go-getters ot make up for the slackers. Clients are not demanding less and someone has to do the work.

lol, yeah that's definitely what's causing it. Sorry, it's been like this for quite some time.

[Anonymous]

I think it's definitely a generational shift. I had a decent shot at partnership but for family reasons chose to be an of counsel. People thought I was insane. It's a lot more common now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

1000000 this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really amused by the people on this thread screaming about "entitlement." That's not what this is at all. Entitlement would be demanding a partnership salary without the hours/risks that Biglaw requires. No one is doing that.

What's happening is that junior and senior associates do not value money/prestige enough to sacrifice security and every other aspect of their lives. "Huge salary" simply isn't their default highest priority anymore - they want more out of life than money and work, so much so that they're willing to take less money. And that's a huge problem for Biglaw as it is currently set up: it relies on associates valuing salary and prestige above all else. It just doesn't work otherwise.

This isn't entitlement. This is a failure to provide a product that people are willing to buy.

A career isn't a product; it is something you create for yourself.

Okay? Fewer and fewer people are interested in creating a partnership career for themselves. I’m unclear on how you expect your foot stomping and tantrum throwing about the entitled kids these days to improve that situation. Do you think this is like litigation where if you make your case well enough some judge will issue a ruling forcing millennials to stop being so entitled and start chasing partnerships?

[Anonymous]

But also, doing biglaw opens doors for you that wouldn't necessarily be open if you went straight to govt (depending on which agency, of course) and even some agencies it is hard to get into without biglaw experience.

This is very true. As one example, I went from biglaw to government as a GS15-10 due to my biglaw salary. It takes much longer to get there when you go straight to government.

[Anonymous]

This sums it up:

https://www.theonion.com/temp-hides-fun-fulfilling-life-from-rest-of-office-1819566599/amp

[Anonymous]

That one never gets old, thanks for posting that

[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.

Indeed . I did a few years in private and many as a federal legal manager. It’s crazy to turn down opportunities like that unless you want to be locked up in the office doing tax law, etc.


I rejected the private practice high paid wage slave/ golden handcuffs thing but this is a bad look imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Indeed . I did a few years in private and many as a federal legal manager. It’s crazy to turn down opportunities like that unless you want to be locked up in the office doing tax law, etc.


I rejected the private practice high paid wage slave/ golden handcuffs thing but this is a bad look imo.

P.s. similar to above, by coming in with experience I was a GS-15 fairly quickly, and it was never worth my while in either economic need or best fit for my skills and interests to take an SES-level position (which I was offered).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting how great law school (and Big Law) is with marketing. Even on LinkedIn, you see law school students announcing being chosen for X Big Law firm, usually accompanied about how Big Law Firm X has a great reputation for pro bono. Which seems odd that anyone entering Big Law would view any type of pro bono marketing as legitimate.

Two thoughts:

1. It is interesting how, of all professions, lawyers are often the most emotional/not reading the fine print of the profession. With vague goals of international or entertainment law, and just seeing the top percentage of salaries of graduates, many of us sort of choose this huge decision so casually.

2. It is interesting the argument about "I do Big Law to pay off loans". With PSLF, and student loan programs, if someone really wants to be a lawyer, wouldn't it be make more sense and be more rewarding to do government work from day 1? And wouldn't you develop more in government with real experience than the doc review tasks of Big Law?

Re:1, completely agree.

Re: 2, disagree on both points. PSLF etc is only for Federal loans, but most people need private loans as well. I graduated 20 years ago and I had $60k of each, the private ones at a high variable interest rate.
Also government is typically not interested in hiring new grads or training them, and what training they do provide is technical not professional. I credit my biglaw years for my success in government, and when I was a manager in government my worst employees were the "govies since graduation" who were technically knowledgeable but didn't understand how to work with clients or "get to yes" or spot new work to do when things were slow.

BTW, not wanting to be a partner was a thing 20 years ago but, as someone else said, if you were serious you left after 4 or 5 years, not after getting to the threshold.