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: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.

I'm sure a condescending dickhead like you knows all about how good people act and how not to alienate others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sure a condescending dickhead like you knows all about how good people act and how not to alienate others.

Nyah nyah. You started it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. Biglaw is slower to pull the trigger relative to other areas, such as Wall Street. That's partly why the mass layoffs of the Great Recession and the current de-equitization come as such a surprise. Now biglaw moves more quickly than it did, but it still is little c conservative relative to finance. On a micro level, firms will often give poor performers substantial time to find other work before someone is pushed out to unemployment. This is partly trying to maintain a semblance of a relationship, partly some sense of decency (which does at times exist in biglaw), and for fear (probably overblown) of hurting recruiting prospects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world's bleakest profession keeps getting worse. Millenials: help change the business model.

The law is no longer an elite profession. It's been this way since wayyyyyy before the Great Recession. - biglaw attorney who has seen the catastrophic fall from grace

With all due respect , when did practicing law become so elite ? As I remember it was always a middle class profession that ensured you could get married , have a family and own a modest piece of property—you know ?! The middle class life . So again I'm wondering what makes practicing law so elite ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world's bleakest profession keeps getting worse. Millenials: help change the business model.

The law is no longer an elite profession. It's been this way since wayyyyyy before the Great Recession. - biglaw attorney who has seen the catastrophic fall from grace

With all due respect , when did practicing law become so elite ? As I remember it was always a middle class profession that ensured you could get married , have a family and own a modest piece of property—you know ?! The middle class life . So again I'm wondering what makes practicing law so elite ?

Not the PP you're responding to. But, it seems like you're just trying to pick a fight and you actually understand what he meant.

Law has been seen as a UMC profession for many years. Whether you consider the UMC existence "elite" is a silly semantic debate (by the way, is Joe Flacco elite?). But, typically the UMC is filled with professionals such as lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants, engineers, etc. These professions have generally had a financial step up on the average middle class. (This doesn't mean they're better or more important, etc. Just they tend to be more generously compensated).

[Anonymous]

Henrietta Egg?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world's bleakest profession keeps getting worse. Millenials: help change the business model.

The law is no longer an elite profession. It's been this way since wayyyyyy before the Great Recession. - biglaw attorney who has seen the catastrophic fall from grace

With all due respect , when did practicing law become so elite ? As I remember it was always a middle class profession that ensured you could get married , have a family and own a modest piece of property—you know ?! The middle class life . So again I'm wondering what makes practicing law so elite ?

Only the moron housewives on DCUM think the that practice of law is "elite"

[Anonymous]

Wow! This thread is so nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread jumped into the douche bag end of the pool pretty quickly.

+1 Scary to know people who think like this walk among us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a counsel w $500k book and 2000 billables I say about time. I hate the 65YO billing 1400 with no book and making $800k.

i don't know that it's those people getting the axe. i worked at a national L&E firm with plenty of old guys making no rain and billing 1200 a year but making huge salaries. it was the younger partners who got squeezed - they capped nonequity partner income at 250k, which is pathetic in DC, NY, LA or SF. my guess is they're going after some of those old folks, but probably plenty of younger partners with books like yours.

[Anonymous]

lol 180180180180

[Anonymous]

xoxohth

[Anonymous]

I assume ahorsewalksintoabar is somewhere on this thread

[Anonymous]

AK47

[Anonymous]

TOMMY TURDSKIN!