Big Law - HR meeting out of the blue

[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.

You must not have quality associates at your firm. Every I worked, someone with crappy writing would have been pushed out very early.

[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.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

[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.

…answers like these are spot and provide an important insight for eager junior associates. You have to figure out whether you can find your “person” at the firm. Someone like partner to help you develop and provide opportunities or realize you may need to move if you want to make partner. One thing worth adding is it seems like a high percentage of those who progressed straight through from first year associate to partnership (with no government or private sector detours) also possess this superhuman willingness to grind out billable hours at the expense of their personal life…cancelling dinners or dates, leaving early from events, frequent weekend work, rescheduling planned trips, working through vacations, and generally exhibiting an attitude that the firm is their top priority.

[Anonymous]

The two sides - big law partner and disgruntled former associates - may never agree.

A few weeks back, on an off-topic thread about what's something you wish you could say out loud, a female partner basically said what some partners are saying here: I made it because I was smarter than you, harder working than you, etc. Women citing forms of sex-based discrimination (harassment and marital) were dismissed as outliers and "not cut out for" the path to partnership

I think each side has to believe its own hype to protect egos - big law partners that they were indeed special, otherwise why continue to work those hours? Former associates need to believe it wasn't pure meritocracy and that human bias crept it.

I think it's clear what side I'm on, but it's a fascinating case study in the human ego for sure.

[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 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.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

Well, of course, if the rockstar puts out bad work product, it won't go to the client in that form. It may get heavily edited by the non-rockstar or the partner before it goes out. And is anyone really closely reading that depo transcript to see if the rockstar was truly wonderful or if they actually missed some key opportunities? The rockstar may not screw up all of the time, but just enough that it makes you wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

There is a baseline, but I don't think it's as high as you imply. Networking and soft skills are what matter as long as the lawyering is competent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

Well, of course, if the rockstar puts out bad work product, it won't go to the client in that form. It may get heavily edited by the non-rockstar or the partner before it goes out. And is anyone really closely reading that depo transcript to see if the rockstar was truly wonderful or if they actually missed some key opportunities? The rockstar may not screw up all of the time, but just enough that it makes you wonder.

I'd love to meet this mythical partner who keeps working with an associate whose writing has to be heavily edited before going out the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

There is a baseline, but I don't think it's as high as you imply. Networking and soft skills are what matter as long as the lawyering is competent

Yep. Partners with soft skills can always hire smart young associates. This supports the adage about A students and C students in school - in 10 years, the A students are going to be working for the C students. No BIGLAW firm is going to cut an associate who shows strong business generation talent. They will get that associate a really smart associate to help him/her. There are just some people who have the "it" factor when it comes to generating business. One might think that law school weeds out those types (i.e. they go to business school), but some make it through and become partners or form their own firms.

[Anonymous]

NP. Fmr senior biglaw associate reading this thread with interest. I left 2.5 years ago for an in-house role (I was a 7th year at the time). I had years of good reviews but felt i was not in the superstar camp and didn't want to hit a wall at year 8 or 9 and have 'the talk.' But tracking my former colleagues, it seems like firms are more open than ever to keeping associates around indefinitely. Many more 11,12,13 year associates than ever before. Also more of counsels being made than was previously the case (again, this is just at my former V10). I sometimes wish i just road it out if i knew I had that many more years of the gravy train. Have others in biglaw noticed this shift away from strict up or out in the last 5 years or so?

To OP, sorry this happened. Agree with others you should ask for at least 3 months severance and 6 months website. What vault range is your firm?

[Anonymous]

This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

You should get clarity on that OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Fmr senior biglaw associate reading this thread with interest. I left 2.5 years ago for an in-house role (I was a 7th year at the time). I had years of good reviews but felt i was not in the superstar camp and didn't want to hit a wall at year 8 or 9 and have 'the talk.' But tracking my former colleagues, it seems like firms are more open than ever to keeping associates around indefinitely. Many more 11,12,13 year associates than ever before. Also more of counsels being made than was previously the case (again, this is just at my former V10). I sometimes wish i just road it out if i knew I had that many more years of the gravy train. Have others in biglaw noticed this shift away from strict up or out in the last 5 years or so?

To OP, sorry this happened. Agree with others you should ask for at least 3 months severance and 6 months website. What vault range is your firm?

Sure it always depends on the market, the economy, what firms can get away with etc.

The switch to non-equity partners and also the long drawn out path to partnership really picked up 20 years ago. I don't know if it slowed or picked up again, but there aren't many big firms making people profit partners 7 years out of law school. The profits are too big ($3m PPP on average is insane to pay a 7th year), and 7th years can't generate the types of clients that make sense for these profits.

I'm not surprised firms are letting people linger for 10-15 years. A lot of practice areas are struggling to find bodies to do the work. Of course you would keep the well trained lawyers you already have on staff and let them keep doing work. If/when the economy turns, they'll be first to go. They of course know that. It's part of the deal. But in good times, sure, just keep riding the train and see where it goes, check job posting, and keep your resume fresh. If you're not doing these things, you're not doing biglaw right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

Get clarity. Ask HR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

Get clarity. Ask HR.

And send out your resume to other firms & employers.