Biglaw partnership: generational shift or misinformation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things have shifted. I graduated in 2005. While I was in biglaw as an associate in 2005-2013, it was a defense mechanism for many to say "oh I don't want to be partner" - everyone knew that was laughable when you were slogging as an 8th year (because the ones who REALLY didn't want it left by year 4). If you were slogging as an 8th year you WANTED it and were not going to turn it down, but you said it to save face because such a small % was making partner - at least in NYC in litigation in that 2010-2014 timeframe. So it was the school yard game of - I don't want it anyway.

Fast forward like 2-3 years, the firms had SO MUCH more work that really they NEEDED people to stay and make partner and that generation that's really only 2-3 years younger than me started quitting in droves even as senior associates, even after slogging for 7-8 years. IDK what it was - whether it was quantity of work or just they were less scared to say - sorry I want to put my life or family first and that'll never happen as partner. But those classes of 2007-08 graduates were the first to really reject partnership; you also wonder if it's a "loyalty" thing - they graduated in a recession, constantly feared job loss, many did lose offers at their original firms so they started biglaw with a sour note and a thought of - make the $$$ while it's "easy" (relatively)but get out before the lifelong business generation pressure starts. That trend has continued for the last 5ish years and the quality of associate that makes partner now is a touch lower. People were turned down for absurd reasons in 2010-2013 simply because the firms did not want to make them partner; and the people making it now are objectively less good than the ones we turned down - yet we just need the bodies in the partnership. The cycle has shifted.

At many firms, even V100 firms, senior associates now make more than partners. It's fairly easy money considering how much money it really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things have shifted. I graduated in 2005. While I was in biglaw as an associate in 2005-2013, it was a defense mechanism for many to say "oh I don't want to be partner" - everyone knew that was laughable when you were slogging as an 8th year (because the ones who REALLY didn't want it left by year 4). If you were slogging as an 8th year you WANTED it and were not going to turn it down, but you said it to save face because such a small % was making partner - at least in NYC in litigation in that 2010-2014 timeframe. So it was the school yard game of - I don't want it anyway.

Fast forward like 2-3 years, the firms had SO MUCH more work that really they NEEDED people to stay and make partner and that generation that's really only 2-3 years younger than me started quitting in droves even as senior associates, even after slogging for 7-8 years. IDK what it was - whether it was quantity of work or just they were less scared to say - sorry I want to put my life or family first and that'll never happen as partner. But those classes of 2007-08 graduates were the first to really reject partnership; you also wonder if it's a "loyalty" thing - they graduated in a recession, constantly feared job loss, many did lose offers at their original firms so they started biglaw with a sour note and a thought of - make the $$$ while it's "easy" (relatively)but get out before the lifelong business generation pressure starts. That trend has continued for the last 5ish years and the quality of associate that makes partner now is a touch lower. People were turned down for absurd reasons in 2010-2013 simply because the firms did not want to make them partner; and the people making it now are objectively less good than the ones we turned down - yet we just need the bodies in the partnership. The cycle has shifted.

At many firms, even V100 firms, senior associates now make more than partners. It's fairly easy money considering how much money it really is.

*more than SOME partners. And I don't mean because they're paying their buy in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things have shifted. I graduated in 2005. While I was in biglaw as an associate in 2005-2013, it was a defense mechanism for many to say "oh I don't want to be partner" - everyone knew that was laughable when you were slogging as an 8th year (because the ones who REALLY didn't want it left by year 4). If you were slogging as an 8th year you WANTED it and were not going to turn it down, but you said it to save face because such a small % was making partner - at least in NYC in litigation in that 2010-2014 timeframe. So it was the school yard game of - I don't want it anyway.

Fast forward like 2-3 years, the firms had SO MUCH more work that really they NEEDED people to stay and make partner and that generation that's really only 2-3 years younger than me started quitting in droves even as senior associates, even after slogging for 7-8 years. IDK what it was - whether it was quantity of work or just they were less scared to say - sorry I want to put my life or family first and that'll never happen as partner. But those classes of 2007-08 graduates were the first to really reject partnership; you also wonder if it's a "loyalty" thing - they graduated in a recession, constantly feared job loss, many did lose offers at their original firms so they started biglaw with a sour note and a thought of - make the $$$ while it's "easy" (relatively)but get out before the lifelong business generation pressure starts. That trend has continued for the last 5ish years and the quality of associate that makes partner now is a touch lower. People were turned down for absurd reasons in 2010-2013 simply because the firms did not want to make them partner; and the people making it now are objectively less good than the ones we turned down - yet we just need the bodies in the partnership. The cycle has shifted.

I'm the poster above who started as an associate "decades ago," and this makes sense to me. Firms are still making partners and it's still really hard to make it, but yea the ones who do by and large seem a tad less stellar than they used to be -- and some of the ones who left before being up for partner were clearly better. You also have partners walking away now a lot more than they used to, retiring early, etc. There's been a shift for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things have shifted. I graduated in 2005. While I was in biglaw as an associate in 2005-2013, it was a defense mechanism for many to say "oh I don't want to be partner" - everyone knew that was laughable when you were slogging as an 8th year (because the ones who REALLY didn't want it left by year 4). If you were slogging as an 8th year you WANTED it and were not going to turn it down, but you said it to save face because such a small % was making partner - at least in NYC in litigation in that 2010-2014 timeframe. So it was the school yard game of - I don't want it anyway.

Fast forward like 2-3 years, the firms had SO MUCH more work that really they NEEDED people to stay and make partner and that generation that's really only 2-3 years younger than me started quitting in droves even as senior associates, even after slogging for 7-8 years. IDK what it was - whether it was quantity of work or just they were less scared to say - sorry I want to put my life or family first and that'll never happen as partner. But those classes of 2007-08 graduates were the first to really reject partnership; you also wonder if it's a "loyalty" thing - they graduated in a recession, constantly feared job loss, many did lose offers at their original firms so they started biglaw with a sour note and a thought of - make the $$$ while it's "easy" (relatively)but get out before the lifelong business generation pressure starts. That trend has continued for the last 5ish years and the quality of associate that makes partner now is a touch lower. People were turned down for absurd reasons in 2010-2013 simply because the firms did not want to make them partner; and the people making it now are objectively less good than the ones we turned down - yet we just need the bodies in the partnership. The cycle has shifted.

I'm the poster above who started as an associate "decades ago," and this makes sense to me. Firms are still making partners and it's still really hard to make it, but yea the ones who do by and large seem a tad less stellar than they used to be -- and some of the ones who left before being up for partner were clearly better. You also have partners walking away now a lot more than they used to, retiring early, etc. There's been a shift for sure.

I'm the PP - yes you now also see junior partners leave which wasn't a thing before 5-10 years ago. I don't mean the ones who get pushed out because they can't/won't develop a book, I mean the ones who make partner and say OMG this is what the rest of my life will look like - and they bow out in 3-5 years (depending on how getting the buy in back works). And they're not always bowing out for stellar positions as GC of a F500. I've seen people who worked really hard to make partner bow out to go be a senior counsel (not executive or managerial role) at a government agency or go in house as a line attorney or go be a director of recruiting/inclusivity/diversity someplace.

I have to think this is not JUST a biglaw shift so much as a societal shift. The younger crowd - say age 35 and younger is just less "afraid" to stand up and do what they want, even if it isn't traditional or prestigious. I mean it's the same reason that the top banks like Goldman are losing people to start ups that no one has heard of and may never hear of, since every start up doesn't become Facebook; 10+ years ago, you would have thought someone turning down a Goldman offer was a total moron, and now it's something that people get lots of support for. And as some of the older millennial crowd sees this - like ages 35-40, those that are financial solid maybe because they slogged away as senior associate and junior partner and invested a ton of their earnings, THEY become more apt to follow and aren't scared to land at some start up that no one has heard of or as a line attorney in a government agency. These are people who are openly saying - I want time with my family and I want to travel for weeks in a year - those things aren't really as possible as a biglaw partner because you have decades of being available to the client 24-7 or worrying you'll lose the client if you're not available.

I also see WAY FEWER golden handcuffs in the 30-40 year old crowd than I did in my crowd 10 years earlier. Maybe it's because they know they don't want to stay but unlike my peers they really aren't tying themselves down with crazy real estate in the "best" towns + a vacation home + private school. And a lot more of them (most?) are married to spouses in equal professions. So they're really fine saying my wife and I will make 175k each in the gov't, and that's plenty for A LOT of travel esp with a house a bit further out and kids in public school and it's fine for my kids to go to college in state. They just aren't chasing the same trappings, which gives them different options in terms of income.

[Anonymous]

I think how firms handle this post covid period will now affect the next gen of partners. If they come down hard that everyone is expected to be in the office Jan 1, look for another round of defections/people mentally checking out - esp as companies are saying they'll go fully virtual or offering other cool perks like - 1 month/yr you can work from anywhere in the world.

I'm not saying law firms have to go all virtual, but they should consider that this generation is not going to respond to - everyone back in the office, butt in the seat - model either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I are both lawyers; he's a BigLaw partner and I work for an NGO. Our oldest son is a baby lawyer (clerking now and next year too); neither he nor any of his friends who are going to BigLaw expects to make partner. They see BigLaw as a training ground and a way to pay off their loans, which is exactly what it is now. Most of them are looking for work-life balance. So, if offered an oral argument opportunity, my guess is they would jump at it earlier in their careers, but be less inclined to do so as they get older and are more likely to be in relationships and to have children.

I don't think that is new - the bulk of law school graduates who have taken jobs as Big Law associates have said to their colleagues and friends for decades that they aren't necessarily looking or expecting to be made partner. And most of those associates make good on their word - or are pushed out - by the time they are mid-level associates. I think what OP is pointing to is something different where senior associates who are well positioned to make partner within a year or two decide to leave because partnership just looks like more pie.

It's not surprising to me. One of the consequences of greater transparency into how firms operate is a keener appreciation of all the ongoing demands made on partners and the fact that Big Law partnerships are anything but secure. If you want to have a work-life balance and a family where you're an engaged parent, it's a frustrating life unless you are a strong manager with excellent time management skills. And a lot of very smart lawyers don't really have those attributes.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if some of this has to do with the rise of WFH. Just makes the amount of work now totally relentless and you can never truly turn it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if some of this has to do with the rise of WFH. Just makes the amount of work now totally relentless and you can never truly turn it off.

and some have difficulty turning it on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think how firms handle this post covid period will now affect the next gen of partners. If they come down hard that everyone is expected to be in the office Jan 1, look for another round of defections/people mentally checking out - esp as companies are saying they'll go fully virtual or offering other cool perks like - 1 month/yr you can work from anywhere in the world.

I'm not saying law firms have to go all virtual, but they should consider that this generation is not going to respond to - everyone back in the office, butt in the seat - model either.

The entitled generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think how firms handle this post covid period will now affect the next gen of partners. If they come down hard that everyone is expected to be in the office Jan 1, look for another round of defections/people mentally checking out - esp as companies are saying they'll go fully virtual or offering other cool perks like - 1 month/yr you can work from anywhere in the world.

I'm not saying law firms have to go all virtual, but they should consider that this generation is not going to respond to - everyone back in the office, butt in the seat - model either.

The entitled generation.

Well, there’s a response that’s really going to change someone’s perspective.

[Anonymous]

I was a senior associate and now in-house (making a very good salary though not partner money).

What I remember: the work was relentlessness, looked to continue to be so for another decade and you all seemed to be constantly unhappy and stressed out. What's the point of committing your life to something that makes you unhappy? How is that even being a good role model.

I also have multiple kids and know from growing up in this area that the mental issues associated with a shitty home life (struggling in school, acting out, needing therapy, etc.) start at 11, which means the buildup at home started sooner. So I didn't have a decade. I needed to be an involved dad now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think how firms handle this post covid period will now affect the next gen of partners. If they come down hard that everyone is expected to be in the office Jan 1, look for another round of defections/people mentally checking out - esp as companies are saying they'll go fully virtual or offering other cool perks like - 1 month/yr you can work from anywhere in the world.

I'm not saying law firms have to go all virtual, but they should consider that this generation is not going to respond to - everyone back in the office, butt in the seat - model either.

The entitled generation.

PP here - I mean I'm 41 and I agree with you but this is the reality - that the generation younger than mine (and lots of mine as well) wants flexibility - and it behooves law firms to consider that. If they don't, well they are dealing with a generation that has already proven that it'll walk away to jobs that traditionally may be lower prestige or whatever. If you want associates around to do the work and even counsel and junior partners, you need to consider what will make them walk away.

[Anonymous]

I’m the same age and I walked away too. I realized I was not going to have a family in that environment w all the nonstop travel and I wanted to give myself a shot to have a life (and it worked).

[Anonymous]

Why only give a week’s notice for the oral argument? Maybe they felt they were being set up to fail given other commitments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why only give a week’s notice for the oral argument? Maybe they felt they were being set up to fail given other commitments.

I don’t think a week’s notice is short notice at all. They’re the junior associate on the case so it really should not have been a problem to prep for. A week is plenty of notice in my view and I certainly was given less notice for some of the “big” moments in my career.