Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This. Most associates don't see their colleagues' work product. There's a difference. And the entire rock stars don't get let go just isn't true outside of huge practice areas. If work dries up, partners have to feed themselves first and they'll let go of a favorite associate long befoee they let their own pay suffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this level OP needs to be starting her own book of business, whether bringing in new clients or bringing in new matters for existing clients. You don’t magically make partner in Biglaw because you get stellar reviews year after year. That stellar performance needs to equate to earning a reputation within the firm that you are irreplaceable on someone’s team so that partner goes to bat for you in front of leadership (and honestly you need more than 1 partner leveraging for you) AND you need to have a proven track record of managing a team, delegating work, and bringing in new matters (as in you are basically acting like a partner). Being excellent service partner material will NOT cut it in 2024.

It sounds like to me that OP was just service material: she provided excellent service to her managing partner(s) well but was not showing any capability or effort to pounding the pavement and making the firm new money. She’s become to expensive, given all her years of experience, to keep around as a sr associate. A client is going to look at the bill and complain that they’re paying too much for her work when someone lower and cheaper can do the same work (and they’re right).

It may not seem fair and something similar happened to me but that’s the way it works. I’m sorry.

This just isn't true. Yes to managing a team and delegating work. And obviously yes to being good at legal work. But firms that promote on a standard time frame (7 or 8 years) do not expect associates to have their own work prior to promotion. They expect the associates to have contributed to growing existing clients, and they will expect associates to have the cultural skills that would be expected to be good at getting clients (type a go-getting, good client interactions, good team player, presents well etc). But you're not expected to generate work until you make partner.

It may be different at tier 2 firms where the clients are scrappier. But as I said previously, tier 1 biglaw doesn't want an associate wasting non-billable time hustling for a bunch of $10k clients. That time is way better invested in growing existing $5m/year clients.

Maybe it wasn't true at the firm where you were, but it is true in many cases. The ability to generate new work, not just do the work someone else has generated, is what earns partnership. Doesn't seem like it's at issue in OP's case, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

Meh. What I saw was certain individuals were "set up for success." Given great assignments, with adequate support to do them. I saw others who were highly talented not provided that kind of support. I myself have experienced that support outside of BigLaw and it's career altering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

Meh. What I saw was certain individuals were "set up for success." Given great assignments, with adequate support to do them. I saw others who were highly talented not provided that kind of support. I myself have experienced that support outside of BigLaw and it's career altering.

What do you mean by “adequate support” here? At junior levels, not much “support” is needed—the associate is generally researching and writing on their own. At more senior levels, the projects become broader and the directives tend to be handle motion x or deposition x or case x, as seniority increases—its their job to identify and obtain what resources are needed and to elevate issues when they need support. Can you give some examples of the kinds of “support” people are supposedly not getting? I’m really not gettting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - I was in a very similar situation back in the 2008-2009 era (less the recent parental leave). 7th year female associate at a DC big law firm in a practice area where the hours had dried up. My annual reviews, including the most recent a few months before, had all been stellar. And then one day a partner met with me and informed me that I was on the list to be terminated for poor performance, but if I agreed to start looking for a job, the firm would let me hang around for 6 months (very generous, in retrospect). The partner could not describe where I had performed poorly.

I was in shock. I was emotionally devastated and it shook my confidence. But I reasoned that I didn't want to fight to stay at a place that didn't want me, so I started looking. The partners were all very supportive, with several connecting me with their clients to discuss potential in-house roles. Another partner connected me to several attorneys in the federal government, so I could learn more about roles there. The firm also paid for career counseling/resume building.

[all of this support was of course completely inconsistent with an imminent termination for poor performance.]

It took about 45 days, but I landed a great job in-house, and the firm threw me a very nice farewell party when I left. And as it turned out, the in-house role was a great one for me and much better than law firm life. I remain in contact with many of those partners and have used them as references when applying for other positions.

Based on my experience, I really recommend that you take the long-term view. Yes, this really stings, and I get the appeal of arguing retaliation, of pushing for more severance. But....I think you will be far better off in the long run if you use this as an opportunity to find a new and better role.

If you are going to ask for anything, I would ask for a) more time with your name on the website and your work email account active and b) placement counseling. I would also talk to individual partners and see if they are aware of any positions opening up with clients. Do some networking.

It sounds odd, but in a way you have received a gift - you can look for a new role without worrying too much about concealing it from your current employer, and you can do it with the full support of the firm. Take this chance to evaluate your career and then move in the direction that you want.

Awesome post, hope OP listens.

[Anonymous]

Agree that as soon as you can get in the right headspace, you should start asking the partners and other senior associates to help you find a new job. You don’t have to do this on your own. Use their networks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - I was in a very similar situation back in the 2008-2009 era (less the recent parental leave). 7th year female associate at a DC big law firm in a practice area where the hours had dried up. My annual reviews, including the most recent a few months before, had all been stellar. And then one day a partner met with me and informed me that I was on the list to be terminated for poor performance, but if I agreed to start looking for a job, the firm would let me hang around for 6 months (very generous, in retrospect). The partner could not describe where I had performed poorly.

I was in shock. I was emotionally devastated and it shook my confidence. But I reasoned that I didn't want to fight to stay at a place that didn't want me, so I started looking. The partners were all very supportive, with several connecting me with their clients to discuss potential in-house roles. Another partner connected me to several attorneys in the federal government, so I could learn more about roles there. The firm also paid for career counseling/resume building.

[all of this support was of course completely inconsistent with an imminent termination for poor performance.]

It took about 45 days, but I landed a great job in-house, and the firm threw me a very nice farewell party when I left. And as it turned out, the in-house role was a great one for me and much better than law firm life. I remain in contact with many of those partners and have used them as references when applying for other positions.

Based on my experience, I really recommend that you take the long-term view. Yes, this really stings, and I get the appeal of arguing retaliation, of pushing for more severance. But....I think you will be far better off in the long run if you use this as an opportunity to find a new and better role.

If you are going to ask for anything, I would ask for a) more time with your name on the website and your work email account active and b) placement counseling. I would also talk to individual partners and see if they are aware of any positions opening up with clients. Do some networking.

It sounds odd, but in a way you have received a gift - you can look for a new role without worrying too much about concealing it from your current employer, and you can do it with the full support of the firm. Take this chance to evaluate your career and then move in the direction that you want.

Awesome post, hope OP listens.

In-house counsel here and former BIG LAW associate. I've seen this scenario play out countless times during my almost 20 years in house. While our preference is for in house experience, we do hire entry level corporate counsel from BIG LAW. The keys to getting hire

[Anonymous]

Sorry, post got cut off. The keys to getting hired are the right skill set, experience, personality fit, and a willingness to see things from the business stakeholder's perspective. This last skill can be hard for BIG LAW associates, mostly because they have little direct client contact, and even if they have some, they aren't the ones who give client advice. However, this skill can be learned IF an associate has a strong interest in doing more than just doing what they're told to do. Anticipating business needs, looking beyond the law, and recognizing that everything is a business decision (unless it's illegal, then you don't want anything to do with it and should report to your GC or ethics officer).

To the OP - take some time and think about what you want to do. Once you have an idea, talk to lawyers doing that and ask them what skills and perspectives they have that made them successful in their role. This kills 2;birds with 1 stone. You're gathering valuable information while also networking.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone remember when the African American associate (or was she a staff attorney?) sued Covington after being let go? That’s the most recent high profile retaliation case that I can think of. It was all over Above the Law and the legal press for years and was all about retaliation. In the end it went nowhere as I can recall and was a complete waste of time.

OP might want to study that case before filing a retaliation claim in DC (assume she works in DC) to get a preview of what’s likely to happen if she does. It’s not going to be pretty.

Just let it go and start looking, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This. Most associates don't see their colleagues' work product. There's a difference. And the entire rock stars don't get let go just isn't true outside of huge practice areas. If work dries up, partners have to feed themselves first and they'll let go of a favorite associate long befoee they let their own pay suffer.

I worked at a V10 and trust me, there were no “massive differences” in associates like you spoke of. Differences? Yes. But not to the degree that the two previous posters are saying.

Example: One first year associate is walked through, or given a checklist, of the major things that should be done when a new lawsuit comes (researching the judge, how to conduct initial case investigation interviews/document collection, that there is a template for federal confidentiality orders, etc.) She’s working for a service partner known for investing in associates. They happen to have gone to the same law school and have been in the same sorority in college. After that, she’s expected to know what to do without much further support.

Another associate is working with a busy rainmaker and told to just run with it; she hunts around Interwoven for a checklist as she vaguely understands that there are some best practices for when a new lawsuit comes in, but she’s given no meaningful guidance. She catches most of the good things to do, but maybe doesn’t realize that there is a template for confidentiality orders. She misses it and the partner is furious. Deep down, the rainmaker knows that it’s not fair, but it’s easier to blame a young associate than to blame himself. (Let’s not even get into the fact that there’s no meaningful training at most law firms to just make sure everyone is getting the same information.)

The reality that if you can get to these big firm jobs, let’s say V25 or better, you’re likely intelligent enough for the job. And you’re probably hard-working enough for the job. But getting the good breaks like the first associate in the above example can compound over a career at the firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This. Most associates don't see their colleagues' work product. There's a difference. And the entire rock stars don't get let go just isn't true outside of huge practice areas. If work dries up, partners have to feed themselves first and they'll let go of a favorite associate long befoee they let their own pay suffer.

I worked at a V10 and trust me, there were no “massive differences” in associates like you spoke of. Differences? Yes. But not to the degree that the two previous posters are saying.

Example: One first year associate is walked through, or given a checklist, of the major things that should be done when a new lawsuit comes (researching the judge, how to conduct initial case investigation interviews/document collection, that there is a template for federal confidentiality orders, etc.) She’s working for a service partner known for investing in associates. They happen to have gone to the same law school and have been in the same sorority in college. After that, she’s expected to know what to do without much further support.

Another associate is working with a busy rainmaker and told to just run with it; she hunts around Interwoven for a checklist as she vaguely understands that there are some best practices for when a new lawsuit comes in, but she’s given no meaningful guidance. She catches most of the good things to do, but maybe doesn’t realize that there is a template for confidentiality orders. She misses it and the partner is furious. Deep down, the rainmaker knows that it’s not fair, but it’s easier to blame a young associate than to blame himself. (Let’s not even get into the fact that there’s no meaningful training at most law firms to just make sure everyone is getting the same information.)

The reality that if you can get to these big firm jobs, let’s say V25 or better, you’re likely intelligent enough for the job. And you’re probably hard-working enough for the job. But getting the good breaks like the first associate in the above example can compound over a career at the firm.

I’m a pp who has been saying the rockstar associates are more about time and place than anything. This example is spot on. Of course some associates have stronger skills than others but the vast majority are exceptionally smart and capable and could excel with the right support and in the right circumstances. This example is a perfect example of how this plays out. Next time, another partner asks associate 1 to do the same thing but without any guidance - and associate 1 rocks it because they still have the checklist from last time, while associate 2 still hasn’t been given guidance so continues to do a mediocre job, so this second partner thinks wow associate 1 is so much stronger than associate 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

[Anonymous]

One point that I haven't seen anyone raise yet is the mental shift required to progress in a BIGLAW associate's career. You must stop thinking like an employee and start thinking like a partner. Put yourself in the partner's shoes - what would s/he do in a particular situation? This is how you anticipate a partner's needs and possibly even the client's as well. It's the same shift between being an individual contributor and a manager.

If you're a ST:TNG fan, this scene from the episode "Tapestry" encapsulates it:

https://youtu.be/mGvUDvZ7KyU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

Disagree. Law firms often make terrible hiring decisions when it comes to first year associates. Yes, many have summer associate programs that allow them to weed out the undesirables, but that brief 3 month period of little substantive work is no substitute for the pressure cooker of real BIGLAW legal practice. Then again, BIGLAW needs smart associates to do the grunt work, so weeding out associates before BIGLAW can use them (i.e. burn them out) doesn't feed into the pyramid model that is BIGLAW.