Law firms now demoting partners .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really disconcerting in the sense that there's no really no incentive nowadays to want to rise to the top of your field.

Why is it disconcerting that there is little incentive for anyone with their eyes open to gun for partnership? There is still money to be made. After 9 years in big law, I have over 400k cash in savings, not including my retirement savings and shares of stock. All of it is mine and, because I'm an associate, the firm doesn't get to come askint for my money in the name of capital contributions. I'm applying to exit to the government or in house and, with the connections I've made over these 9 years, I'll be just fine.

--Senior associate

You know how easily you could have made that in finance? One year, one good bonus. Actually, depending on where you are and what you do, a lot of people wouldn't even call 800k a "good" bonus.

Why is there always an idiot who posts this tripe about finance? :rolleyes: No, this is not "easily" made in finance. You're talking about top, rare earners who work worse hours than big law and get fired way more quickly. Do you have any close relationships with anyone at a bonus-eligible hedge fund or investment banking job?

--Senior Associate

I should also add that, for the very rare few who make the bonuses you describe, those bonuses come with ridiculous years-long clawback and vesting provisions. Stop parroting nonsense you have read and don't understand firsthand.

What? No they really don't. How about YOU stop parroting nonsense you obviously know jack shit about.

NP for someone who apparently Knows more you haven't said jack yourself . The PP is right , this idea that finance is filled with mega bonuses is simply urban legend

Like I'm going to share my work history on a message board! Lol. I'm not insane. As for the bonuses, a 600k bonus is not "mega." The fact that you seem to think so and that it's rare is sad. I guess you need to tell yourself that to feel better about the piddling amount you make. I only commented in the first place because your bragging about stashing 400k away over 9 year period struck me as so sad and pathetic. It just reinforces for me the idea that going into law for the money is not a good idea.

You are cute, Senior Associate. I used to think I knew everything too when I was fresh out of Harvard. I thought all lawyers went into biglaw. I made six figure bonuses working in finance right out of grad school. I'm currently not working and raising our 3 children. DH bonused out $1.2m last year and we expect it to be $2m this year. I have friends who made millions in their 20's but not doing as well in this market. Most of our friends in finance do bonus out a few hundred grand each year. The ones who are killing it are making millions. DH's friend who is a computer whiz programs for a hedge fund and has been making tons of money consistently for over a decade. He often works at home in his pajamas.

The PP you're responding to is not the one self-IDing as senior associate. How are you finding it so hard to keep track of who you are responding to?

Also, am I the only one who doesn't care what non-working spouses have to say about the workforce? If you knew it all, you wouldn't be sitting at home poring over dirty diapers.

I spent 15 years working and was a managing director and SVP previously. I am only recently home. Having a third baby tipped us over.

Still don't care. Let your husband come here and talk firsthand. I am sick of SAHMs chiming in with secondhand, smug bullshit. Back to the kitchen with you.

I agree that it's tiring to hear women who comment on their husband's work experiences. But your gratuitous insults aren't needed to make the point.

Do women really not have intimate knowledge of their husband's work experiences that might be relevant to a thread sometimes? I work in law myself which is why I opened this shit show thread but my husband is in medicine and sometimes I'll chime in about his hours or pay. Or how his residency worked, Match day, stuff like that. Should I stop doing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is this affecting your wachtells and cravaths?

This is an industry-wide trend. You think trends skip firms by vault ranking? "Oh, whoops, this one's a V10, let me go affect the V50."

wsj article posted by op said that the market is bifurcating into the ultra elite and the rest one could hypothesize that WLRK and others at the very top aren't seeing the hit in billings that perhaps lower v50 or v100 firms are

Oh, well since the WSJ said that, I guess it must be true. Has it occurred to you that the media only catches legal trends long after they take hold? The deequitization of partners has been a real problem since 2008, but the media is only now devoting real attention to it because Shearman & Sterling couldn't keep its business under wraps. By the time the media realizes this trend has spread to V10 law firms and is actually the norm industry-wide, another 5-10 years will have passed.

good point

[Anonymous]

Lol 180

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really disconcerting in the sense that there's no really no incentive nowadays to want to rise to the top of your field.

Why is it disconcerting that there is little incentive for anyone with their eyes open to gun for partnership? There is still money to be made. After 9 years in big law, I have over 400k cash in savings, not including my retirement savings and shares of stock. All of it is mine and, because I'm an associate, the firm doesn't get to come askint for my money in the name of capital contributions. I'm applying to exit to the government or in house and, with the connections I've made over these 9 years, I'll be just fine.

--Senior associate

You know how easily you could have made that in finance? One year, one good bonus. Actually, depending on where you are and what you do, a lot of people wouldn't even call 800k a "good" bonus.

Why is there always an idiot who posts this tripe about finance? :rolleyes: No, this is not "easily" made in finance. You're talking about top, rare earners who work worse hours than big law and get fired way more quickly. Do you have any close relationships with anyone at a bonus-eligible hedge fund or investment banking job?

--Senior Associate

I should also add that, for the very rare few who make the bonuses you describe, those bonuses come with ridiculous years-long clawback and vesting provisions. Stop parroting nonsense you have read and don't understand firsthand.

What? No they really don't. How about YOU stop parroting nonsense you obviously know jack shit about.

NP for someone who apparently Knows more you haven't said jack yourself . The PP is right , this idea that finance is filled with mega bonuses is simply urban legend

Like I'm going to share my work history on a message board! Lol. I'm not insane. As for the bonuses, a 600k bonus is not "mega." The fact that you seem to think so and that it's rare is sad. I guess you need to tell yourself that to feel better about the piddling amount you make. I only commented in the first place because your bragging about stashing 400k away over 9 year period struck me as so sad and pathetic. It just reinforces for me the idea that going into law for the money is not a good idea.

You are cute, Senior Associate. I used to think I knew everything too when I was fresh out of Harvard. I thought all lawyers went into biglaw. I made six figure bonuses working in finance right out of grad school. I'm currently not working and raising our 3 children. DH bonused out $1.2m last year and we expect it to be $2m this year. I have friends who made millions in their 20's but not doing as well in this market. Most of our friends in finance do bonus out a few hundred grand each year. The ones who are killing it are making millions. DH's friend who is a computer whiz programs for a hedge fund and has been making tons of money consistently for over a decade. He often works at home in his pajamas.

The PP you're responding to is not the one self-IDing as senior associate. How are you finding it so hard to keep track of who you are responding to?

Also, am I the only one who doesn't care what non-working spouses have to say about the workforce? If you knew it all, you wouldn't be sitting at home poring over dirty diapers.

I spent 15 years working and was a managing director and SVP previously. I am only recently home. Having a third baby tipped us over.

Still don't care. Let your husband come here and talk firsthand. I am sick of SAHMs chiming in with secondhand, smug bullshit. Back to the kitchen with you.

We actually have a full time housekeeper. I consider myself retired. I devote my efforts to my children and proud of it. Who is watching your kids right now?

Nobody cares about your household. Are you unable to read? This thread isn't about you.

You are right. I am wasting my time on this thread. Back to planning our winter ski trips and tropical destinations for winter and spring break. Have a nice day!

Uh huh.... enjoy your fantasy. I suspect you are binging on Netflix, doing laundry, cleaning your trailer, and trying to figure out how to make hamburger helper tasty for the third meal this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is really disconcerting in the sense that there's no really no incentive nowadays to want to rise to the top of your field.

Why is it disconcerting that there is little incentive for anyone with their eyes open to gun for partnership? There is still money to be made. After 9 years in big law, I have over 400k cash in savings, not including my retirement savings and shares of stock. All of it is mine and, because I'm an associate, the firm doesn't get to come askint for my money in the name of capital contributions. I'm applying to exit to the government or in house and, with the connections I've made over these 9 years, I'll be just fine.

--Senior associate

You know how easily you could have made that in finance? One year, one good bonus. Actually, depending on where you are and what you do, a lot of people wouldn't even call 800k a "good" bonus.

Why is there always an idiot who posts this tripe about finance? :rolleyes: No, this is not "easily" made in finance. You're talking about top, rare earners who work worse hours than big law and get fired way more quickly. Do you have any close relationships with anyone at a bonus-eligible hedge fund or investment banking job?

--Senior Associate

I should also add that, for the very rare few who make the bonuses you describe, those bonuses come with ridiculous years-long clawback and vesting provisions. Stop parroting nonsense you have read and don't understand firsthand.

What? No they really don't. How about YOU stop parroting nonsense you obviously know jack shit about.

NP for someone who apparently Knows more you haven't said jack yourself . The PP is right , this idea that finance is filled with mega bonuses is simply urban legend

Like I'm going to share my work history on a message board! Lol. I'm not insane. As for the bonuses, a 600k bonus is not "mega." The fact that you seem to think so and that it's rare is sad. I guess you need to tell yourself that to feel better about the piddling amount you make. I only commented in the first place because your bragging about stashing 400k away over 9 year period struck me as so sad and pathetic. It just reinforces for me the idea that going into law for the money is not a good idea.

You are cute, Senior Associate. I used to think I knew everything too when I was fresh out of Harvard. I thought all lawyers went into biglaw. I made six figure bonuses working in finance right out of grad school. I'm currently not working and raising our 3 children. DH bonused out $1.2m last year and we expect it to be $2m this year. I have friends who made millions in their 20's but not doing as well in this market. Most of our friends in finance do bonus out a few hundred grand each year. The ones who are killing it are making millions. DH's friend who is a computer whiz programs for a hedge fund and has been making tons of money consistently for over a decade. He often works at home in his pajamas.

The PP you're responding to is not the one self-IDing as senior associate. How are you finding it so hard to keep track of who you are responding to?

Also, am I the only one who doesn't care what non-working spouses have to say about the workforce? If you knew it all, you wouldn't be sitting at home poring over dirty diapers.

I spent 15 years working and was a managing director and SVP previously. I am only recently home. Having a third baby tipped us over.

Still don't care. Let your husband come here and talk firsthand. I am sick of SAHMs chiming in with secondhand, smug bullshit. Back to the kitchen with you.

I agree that it's tiring to hear women who comment on their husband's work experiences. But your gratuitous insults aren't needed to make the point.

Do women really not have intimate knowledge of their husband's work experiences that might be relevant to a thread sometimes? I work in law myself which is why I opened this shit show thread but my husband is in medicine and sometimes I'll chime in about his hours or pay. Or how his residency worked, Match day, stuff like that. Should I stop doing that?

Knowledge of your husband's work and actually doing the work are two vastly different things. No matter what or how much he tells you, it's not a substitution for being the party doing the work. Based on what you cite, his hours, pay, how residency worked are pretty benign. Saying your husband made 500k last year would be a fine fact since you sign your tax forms every year.

But the PP in this thread is trying to claim knowledge of how law firms work because her husband is a lawyer. Her comments are not relevant as she has no idea to their inner workings.

[Anonymous]

Finance pp, where the heck are you working in finance and pulling down bonuses like that in the DC area? Please elaborate. Unless you're from NYC/CT (would make your story a modicum more believable) which is just sad that you're wasting everyone's time posting to a DC message board.

[Anonymous]

Free GTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

NP here. Of course this happens. They are cut throat. Remember to the other partners, one who gets deequitized has been a financial drag for a while. In that environment, bitterness and resentment builds quickly, so it is easy for those who remain to feel that those kicked out don't actually deserve to be paid back and therefore interpret the contracts in the light least favorable (ie, in the same way as for those who jump).

Does it happen, maybe. Is it the norm, no. Biglaw certainly is more cut threat today, but it is not quite as Machiavellian as you are making it out to be. Firms are generally not so bitter at people being de-equitized that they are looking to further screw them. As hard as it is to believe, many people feel bad about taking this fairly drastic (if necessary) step and are not looking to pour salt in the wounds of people who will often remain at the firm, at least for some period of time.

And, ignoring basic decency, there are reasons not to act as you are discussing. Withholding capital greatly increases the chance of litigation, both over the specific issue of withheld capital and the de-equitization more broadly. (It is employment law 101 that when you take an adverse action against someone, if you do it in as human way as possible, you reduce the chance of getting sued.)

Finally, withholding capital would raise questions as to whether the firm was having financial problems, beyond simply trying to juice PPP by having fewer equity partners. As Dewey demonstrated, concerns about finances can spiral out of control and the firm would not want to send that signal to its partners or he market.

Big Law partner here: also, today's de-equitized partner may well become tomorrow's assistant general counsel at a client you have or want to have. Or your regulator, in some practice areas. Or turn up at DOJ. You don't want them holding a grudge, if possible. Firms are pretty careful not to burn bridges unnecessarily, in most cases, because you just never know where someone is going to show up next. A good citizen who is being de-equitized for performance reasons is typically treated as well as possible until they find somewhere to land, just in case. (Although at my firm no one is asked to stay around in a non-equity role, they are moved out.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finance pp, where the heck are you working in finance and pulling down bonuses like that in the DC area? Please elaborate. Unless you're from NYC/CT (would make your story a modicum more believable) which is just sad that you're wasting everyone's time posting to a DC message board.

Exactly! I'm reading these lofty comments and I'm like cool story bro, cool story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is this affecting your wachtells and cravaths?

This is an industry-wide trend. You think trends skip firms by vault ranking? "Oh, whoops, this one's a V10, let me go affect the V50."

wsj article posted by op said that the market is bifurcating into the ultra elite and the rest one could hypothesize that WLRK and others at the very top aren't seeing the hit in billings that perhaps lower v50 or v100 firms are

Oh, well since the WSJ said that, I guess it must be true. Has it occurred to you that the media only catches legal trends long after they take hold? The deequitization of partners has been a real problem since 2008, but the media is only now devoting real attention to it because Shearman & Sterling couldn't keep its business under wraps. By the time the media realizes this trend has spread to V10 law firms and is actually the norm industry-wide, another 5-10 years will have passed.

Biglaw partner here: de-equitization isn't a "real problem." What has happened is that the market is fragmenting, with certain practices becoming incredibly lucrative due to relatively high margins and amenability to leverage, while other practices are subject to intense rate pressure or aren't as suitable to leverage. Some less fortunate practice groups have become essentially commodities and those groups either have been or will be dropped from Big Law entirely. And demand is flat-to-down mostly, with an increasing number of companies taking chances with cheaper firms because of sticker shock.

You can tinker around the margins for a while with ratio adjustments and bonus pools and such, but it is now clear that the market is fundamentally changing and the organizations need to restructure, not just tinker, in order to survive. And everyone is going to have to do it. Firms that don't will not survive because their best people will be poached by other firms willing to be more aggressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finance pp, where the heck are you working in finance and pulling down bonuses like that in the DC area? Please elaborate. Unless you're from NYC/CT (would make your story a modicum more believable) which is just sad that you're wasting everyone's time posting to a DC message board.

NP. There are money managers paying bonuses like that all over the place. My H works for one in St. Pete Beach. Not everyone who posts on here lives in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is this affecting your wachtells and cravaths?

This is an industry-wide trend. You think trends skip firms by vault ranking? "Oh, whoops, this one's a V10, let me go affect the V50."

wsj article posted by op said that the market is bifurcating into the ultra elite and the rest one could hypothesize that WLRK and others at the very top aren't seeing the hit in billings that perhaps lower v50 or v100 firms are

Oh, well since the WSJ said that, I guess it must be true. Has it occurred to you that the media only catches legal trends long after they take hold? The deequitization of partners has been a real problem since 2008, but the media is only now devoting real attention to it because Shearman & Sterling couldn't keep its business under wraps. By the time the media realizes this trend has spread to V10 law firms and is actually the norm industry-wide, another 5-10 years will have passed.

Biglaw partner here: de-equitization isn't a "real problem." What has happened is that the market is fragmenting, with certain practices becoming incredibly lucrative due to relatively high margins and amenability to leverage, while other practices are subject to intense rate pressure or aren't as suitable to leverage. Some less fortunate practice groups have become essentially commodities and those groups either have been or will be dropped from Big Law entirely. And demand is flat-to-down mostly, with an increasing number of companies taking chances with cheaper firms because of sticker shock.

You can tinker around the margins for a while with ratio adjustments and bonus pools and such, but it is now clear that the market is fundamentally changing and the organizations need to restructure, not just tinker, in order to survive. And everyone is going to have to do it. Firms that don't will not survive because their best people will be poached by other firms willing to be more aggressive.

Save your rambling for associates who have to tolerate you. You have not added anything to this thread beyond a verbose summation of what the article and other posts already cover. Duh, practice areas are suffering, profits are down, and deequitization is one way to address this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finance pp, where the heck are you working in finance and pulling down bonuses like that in the DC area? Please elaborate. Unless you're from NYC/CT (would make your story a modicum more believable) which is just sad that you're wasting everyone's time posting to a DC message board.

NP. There are money managers paying bonuses like that all over the place. My H works for one in St. Pete Beach. Not everyone who posts on here lives in DC.

My neighbor works a 9-5 at the local Edward Jones and took home an 8,000,000 bonus last December. Bought his DD a G-wagon for Christmas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

NP here. Of course this happens. They are cut throat. Remember to the other partners, one who gets deequitized has been a financial drag for a while. In that environment, bitterness and resentment builds quickly, so it is easy for those who remain to feel that those kicked out don't actually deserve to be paid back and therefore interpret the contracts in the light least favorable (ie, in the same way as for those who jump).

Does it happen, maybe. Is it the norm, no. Biglaw certainly is more cut threat today, but it is not quite as Machiavellian as you are making it out to be. Firms are generally not so bitter at people being de-equitized that they are looking to further screw them. As hard as it is to believe, many people feel bad about taking this fairly drastic (if necessary) step and are not looking to pour salt in the wounds of people who will often remain at the firm, at least for some period of time.

And, ignoring basic decency, there are reasons not to act as you are discussing. Withholding capital greatly increases the chance of litigation, both over the specific issue of withheld capital and the de-equitization more broadly. (It is employment law 101 that when you take an adverse action against someone, if you do it in as human way as possible, you reduce the chance of getting sued.)

Finally, withholding capital would raise questions as to whether the firm was having financial problems, beyond simply trying to juice PPP by having fewer equity partners. As Dewey demonstrated, concerns about finances can spiral out of control and the firm would not want to send that signal to its partners or he market.

Big Law partner here: also, today's de-equitized partner may well become tomorrow's assistant general counsel at a client you have or want to have. Or your regulator, in some practice areas. Or turn up at DOJ. You don't want them holding a grudge, if possible. Firms are pretty careful not to burn bridges unnecessarily, in most cases, because you just never know where someone is going to show up next. A good citizen who is being de-equitized for performance reasons is typically treated as well as possible until they find somewhere to land, just in case. (Although at my firm no one is asked to stay around in a non-equity role, they are moved out.)

The same can be said of associates who are lied on and fired virtually at will at law firms. You write as if law firms are perfectly rational places where the only actions taken are those that demonstrate long range, strategic thinking. This is not the case. Law firms are populated by all sorts of people with personality disorders, neuroses, temper problems, or who just plain old make mistakes in people management. People leave feeling disgruntled and abused when a little care would avoid making enemies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not new. And yes, if it's really to non-equity they will get their capital back. There are some firms with partial equity tiers where they might only get a portion of capital back now.

The question isn't just if they get their capital, it's when. Most firms have partnership agreements that allow them to repay capital over a ridiculously long period of time. And if a partner is de-equitized for performance reasons, s/he isn't always eligible for the return of all his/her capital.

--Senior associate

It is more and more common for firms to delay return of capital for partners jumping to other firms. But I'd be surprised if firms played games with returning capital to de-equitized partners.

Lol. You're an optimist, aren't you? Do you know any de-equitized partners? I do.

--Senior associate

Well, you are clearly all knowing since you are "Senior Associate." I am sure heaps of de-equitized partners are pouring out their souls to "Senior Associate" and other partners are giving "Senior Associate" a copy of the partnership for his perusal.

NP here. Of course this happens. They are cut throat. Remember to the other partners, one who gets deequitized has been a financial drag for a while. In that environment, bitterness and resentment builds quickly, so it is easy for those who remain to feel that those kicked out don't actually deserve to be paid back and therefore interpret the contracts in the light least favorable (ie, in the same way as for those who jump).

Does it happen, maybe. Is it the norm, no. Biglaw certainly is more cut threat today, but it is not quite as Machiavellian as you are making it out to be. Firms are generally not so bitter at people being de-equitized that they are looking to further screw them. As hard as it is to believe, many people feel bad about taking this fairly drastic (if necessary) step and are not looking to pour salt in the wounds of people who will often remain at the firm, at least for some period of time.

And, ignoring basic decency, there are reasons not to act as you are discussing. Withholding capital greatly increases the chance of litigation, both over the specific issue of withheld capital and the de-equitization more broadly. (It is employment law 101 that when you take an adverse action against someone, if you do it in as human way as possible, you reduce the chance of getting sued.)

Finally, withholding capital would raise questions as to whether the firm was having financial problems, beyond simply trying to juice PPP by having fewer equity partners. As Dewey demonstrated, concerns about finances can spiral out of control and the firm would not want to send that signal to its partners or he market.

Big Law partner here: also, today's de-equitized partner may well become tomorrow's assistant general counsel at a client you have or want to have. Or your regulator, in some practice areas. Or turn up at DOJ. You don't want them holding a grudge, if possible. Firms are pretty careful not to burn bridges unnecessarily, in most cases, because you just never know where someone is going to show up next. A good citizen who is being de-equitized for performance reasons is typically treated as well as possible until they find somewhere to land, just in case. (Although at my firm no one is asked to stay around in a non-equity role, they are moved out.)

The same can be said of associates who are lied on and fired virtually at will at law firms. You write as if law firms are perfectly rational places where the only actions taken are those that demonstrate long range, strategic thinking. This is not the case. Law firms are populated by all sorts of people with personality disorders, neuroses, temper problems, or who just plain old make mistakes in people management. People leave feeling disgruntled and abused when a little care would avoid making enemies.

No, I write as if my audience is made up of adults who know all those things about the world without requiring explicit caveats. You know, like sensible people do.

All those things can, and do, happen, of course. There are many dysfunctional people in Big Law, and there are good people who sometimes make bad decisions for a variety of reasons. My experience, however, has been that big law firms are relatively slow to act when people need to go, rather than too quick on the trigger, due to the considerations I outlined above. It was one of those things I found very surprising. Your mileage may vary, of course.