How important is "culture" fit or "lifestyle" fit when attempting to make partner in Biglaw?

[Anonymous]

I say this in just about any corporate career, it's more about who you know and who likes you, rather than your actual skill set. Look at the people who move up in the highest ranks. Most of them are not the smartest people in the room but they were savvy enough to make the right connections and build rapport with the people who helped them get to where they are. It's hard to do that when you make a huge effort to be so different from them.

[Anonymous]

OP start following golf and tennis. Ask Gemini or ChatGPT how to get started. Like there was just the Ryder Cup. Would be a career fit plus ig you could have chatted about it in the office or asked informed questions. Australian Open is beginning of 2026. Follow it

Pick tennis or golf and learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP start following golf and tennis. Ask Gemini or ChatGPT how to get started. Like there was just the Ryder Cup. Would be a career fit plus ig you could have chatted about it in the office or asked informed questions. Australian Open is beginning of 2026. Follow it

Pick tennis or golf and learn.

But then OP is going to go deep on this, hyperfocus in a way that doesn't reflect natural interest, which will be obvious to others. Unfortunately this just isn't a personality fit when so much of that job is about genuinely relating to others vs. pretending to play the part based on a perceived set of preferences/lifestyle characteristics/etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP start following golf and tennis. Ask Gemini or ChatGPT how to get started. Like there was just the Ryder Cup. Would be a career fit plus ig you could have chatted about it in the office or asked informed questions. Australian Open is beginning of 2026. Follow it

Pick tennis or golf and learn.

But then OP is going to go deep on this, hyperfocus in a way that doesn't reflect natural interest, which will be obvious to others. Unfortunately this just isn't a personality fit when so much of that job is about genuinely relating to others vs. pretending to play the part based on a perceived set of preferences/lifestyle characteristics/etc.

Yes, there are underlying social deficits here and a tendency to hyperfocus on specific activities. It's concerning and there's no way OP is making partner. She's delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you sound like a weirdo

I mean, I work in biglaw, doesn't that describe most folks that don't leave and try to stick around?

With that being said, not a big fan of the almost name calling in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to call someone an "aspie" or that they're a "weirdo" if they exhibit behaviors that some might find strange when they're asking for advice navigating a situation.

I wouldn't say that I'm OCD about my daily routine as long as I can get a work out in at some point. Willful misunderstanding of other people's lives? Apologies if I offended you, I meant to include this earlier but I know for a fact that the information in my first post applies to the partners I work for/in my group. I agree with you it was a mistake to potentially paint ALL the partners at my firm with the same brush.

I said weirdo, not aspie.

The fact you are this weird probably shows through and yes that could hurt your ability to make partner, develop business, etc. Not owning a second home is the least of your concerns.

The "aspie" comment was directed at the other posters not you. In any case, thank you for your feedback, it is much appreciated.

I didn’t say “aspie” ask an insult. I am saying I think you are high functioning but on the autism spectrum. If you think that’s an insult maybe you have failed to seek out a diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

A common game that associates would play at my former (and very well known and respected Biglaw firm) was called "A$$hole or Asperger's?" Then they'd name the partner and the game would begin.

There are many, many partners on the spectrum in Biglaw.

Associates on the spectrum who make partner at Biglaw are the ones who dazzle with their brilliance and work ethic. There's plenty of room for that type of partner at Biglaw. They'll never be expected to be rainmakers and likely never will be the highest paid partners in their firms. But Biglaw is a big tent.

My advice for OP would be to worry less about how the partners live their lives outside of work and focus on the work. Biglaw is not going to deny OP a partnership slot for not having a beach house or playing golf or having kids or anything else if she does excellent work and lots of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you sound like a weirdo

I mean, I work in biglaw, doesn't that describe most folks that don't leave and try to stick around?

With that being said, not a big fan of the almost name calling in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to call someone an "aspie" or that they're a "weirdo" if they exhibit behaviors that some might find strange when they're asking for advice navigating a situation.

I wouldn't say that I'm OCD about my daily routine as long as I can get a work out in at some point. Willful misunderstanding of other people's lives? Apologies if I offended you, I meant to include this earlier but I know for a fact that the information in my first post applies to the partners I work for/in my group. I agree with you it was a mistake to potentially paint ALL the partners at my firm with the same brush.

I said weirdo, not aspie.

The fact you are this weird probably shows through and yes that could hurt your ability to make partner, develop business, etc. Not owning a second home is the least of your concerns.

The "aspie" comment was directed at the other posters not you. In any case, thank you for your feedback, it is much appreciated.

I didn’t say “aspie” ask an insult. I am saying I think you are high functioning but on the autism spectrum. If you think that’s an insult maybe you have failed to seek out a diagnosis.

My apology then. I was mistaken in taking it as in insult, I'm used to seeing/reading folks use that form of the term more in a negative sense.

And again, appreciate everyones feedback here. If the general consensus is that I have no chance at making partner at my current firm or in "biglaw" in general, I'll reach out to the few firms that have expressed interest in having me join that are more boutique level / midlaw to see if my chances would be better there and what they potentially have to offer. I'll be up for partner at my current firm at the end of 2027 and will also continue to try there, but maybe I'll pump the brakes slightly to focus on other opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you sound like a weirdo

I mean, I work in biglaw, doesn't that describe most folks that don't leave and try to stick around?

With that being said, not a big fan of the almost name calling in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to call someone an "aspie" or that they're a "weirdo" if they exhibit behaviors that some might find strange when they're asking for advice navigating a situation.

I wouldn't say that I'm OCD about my daily routine as long as I can get a work out in at some point. Willful misunderstanding of other people's lives? Apologies if I offended you, I meant to include this earlier but I know for a fact that the information in my first post applies to the partners I work for/in my group. I agree with you it was a mistake to potentially paint ALL the partners at my firm with the same brush.

I said weirdo, not aspie.

The fact you are this weird probably shows through and yes that could hurt your ability to make partner, develop business, etc. Not owning a second home is the least of your concerns.

The "aspie" comment was directed at the other posters not you. In any case, thank you for your feedback, it is much appreciated.

I didn’t say “aspie” ask an insult. I am saying I think you are high functioning but on the autism spectrum. If you think that’s an insult maybe you have failed to seek out a diagnosis.

My apology then. I was mistaken in taking it as in insult, I'm used to seeing/reading folks use that form of the term more in a negative sense.

And again, appreciate everyones feedback here. If the general consensus is that I have no chance at making partner at my current firm or in "biglaw" in general, I'll reach out to the few firms that have expressed interest in having me join that are more boutique level / midlaw to see if my chances would be better there and what they potentially have to offer. I'll be up for partner at my current firm at the end of 2027 and will also continue to try there, but maybe I'll pump the brakes slightly to focus on other opportunities.

I think you’re misunderstanding. You’re fixating on nonsense. No one cares if you have a vacation house. But they do care if your level of weird is spilling over so much that they can’t put you in front of a client. Just try to keep it together a little bit better and I’m sure you’ll be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A common game that associates would play at my former (and very well known and respected Biglaw firm) was called "A$$hole or Asperger's?" Then they'd name the partner and the game would begin.

There are many, many partners on the spectrum in Biglaw.

Associates on the spectrum who make partner at Biglaw are the ones who dazzle with their brilliance and work ethic. There's plenty of room for that type of partner at Biglaw. They'll never be expected to be rainmakers and likely never will be the highest paid partners in their firms. But Biglaw is a big tent.

My advice for OP would be to worry less about how the partners live their lives outside of work and focus on the work. Biglaw is not going to deny OP a partnership slot for not having a beach house or playing golf or having kids or anything else if she does excellent work and lots of it.

OP does excellent work, but not *partner* work. She needs to be able to build relationships with clients, not just produce strong briefs. She can't seem to relate to the kind of socializing that is part of the work culture of big law partnerships. That is a problem. She needs to focus on finding a better fit for her personality.

[Anonymous]

Yes it is important.

[Anonymous]

Stop calling this bro a she!

[Anonymous]

IME, none of what you wrote matters at all, OP. All that matters is a track record of business development and a clear commitment to keep doing that. A dummy with great connections that actually turn into business will become partner before the most brilliant lawyer who cannot generate business. At best, the latter becomes a non-equity service partner at firms that have that model.

[Anonymous]

I had none of the things you list OP when I made partner at 30. Nor did my DH when he made partner. We did get married a few years later, and a few years after that had a house and kids. We never joined a club and don't buy luxury items.

We did golf a little at public courses, but haven't had time for that in a long time.

[Anonymous]

A+ for an interesting post that will draw in DCUM. Everyone loves a big law post here. I think ultimately OP is a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A+ for an interesting post that will draw in DCUM. Everyone loves a big law post here. I think ultimately OP is a troll.

This is potentially true. Because what man is restitching the crotch of his lululemon shorts multiple times? I don't know any men who could thread a needle.