Anonymous wrote:I know a few former who have been Of Counsel for years. I have always suspected it is because they were high profile in their government job and were used strategically rather than being expected to serve like a partner would in terms of bringing in business.

This is my DH. He’s been a counsel for 9 years. They like him and he does good work and the clients like him but he doesn’t have the interpersonal skills to bring in new business. However, they did finally tell him this year that they are considering him for partner, obvs. non equity.
I’d say that he’s been pretty happy as a counsel except that I know it hurts his ego when he sees all of his law school classmates as very rich partners now, and his cohorts at the government as well. Also, the pay, while nothing to sneeze at, is not partner pay. It’s senior associate pay. One issue he was having for a while is that clients didn’t want to pay for him - they want either a partner or an associate who costs less. This hampered is ability to make minimum hours for a few years. They still kept him on though and now he makes it plus has been in bones territory the last 3 years.

I know a few former who have been Of Counsel for years. I have always suspected it is because they were high profile in their government job and were used strategically rather than being expected to serve like a partner would in terms of bringing in business.

OP here, very helpful information. I have sort of been given the impression the counsel role would be more of a permanent thing, and I’ve heard it can be one of those things that sounds good on paper but can be more limiting than being a partner in various ways.

I’m honestly thinking about this as a 3 year thing, so not sure how that should influence the decision. At most (like I surprisingly really like it) 5-6 years.

This is a question that you have to ask each firm. Ask what the business development progression is supposed to look like in each postion, esp if you come in without a book. And ask whether the Counsel slot is a permanent thing or a long runningboard to a partner position. If it is a partner slot, are you non-equity with the potential to make equity (and what are the metrics required to do that) or a permanent non-equity position.

OP, it varies by firm, but essentially if we make someone coming from government a partner in name (whether equity or non-equity), we are expecting them to produce like a partner within a year or two. That is to say, develop their own business, bring in their own clients, "pay their own way" as well as keep associates busy. Whereas someone who is a counsel is getting paid less but is going to have a slightly longer runway in terms of when we expect them to really bring in work themselves vs. work other peoples' matters.

But we don't really expect anyone to stay counsel forever. Some do, but that's sort of an accident on a case-by-case basis (like they serve a niche need that we'll always have but will never have millions in revenue).

Partners usually have to buy-in,have clients, responsible for developing clients,and have to pay full cost of benefits (which can be expensive unless able to get coverage for family through spouse's employer).

Of Counsel status can be better than non-equity partner status due to fewer expenses & fewer responsibilities.

FWIW Partners can be let go just as non-partners.

My experience is somewhat dated, but counsel used to be a catch-all for people who were neither partner nor associate. At my firm we had a counsel who was basically a "senior associate plus" who did good work but didn't have the interpersonal chops to be partner, a counsel who was on a stepping stone to equity partnership, and a partner who was a recent lateral from government and basically on a trial period to see if he could build a book.

All to say, I don't think you'll get completely helpful answer here. You should ask the firm what the specific role entails at that firm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime govt atty, be gentle with me here please, how does one evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of going to a firm as a partner (non equity) vs counsel/sr counsel/of counsel (whatever the firm calls it)?

The big difference is whether you have a book of business (partner) or don't (of counsel).

OP here, not necessarily what I’m hearing although your answer does make intuitive sense. Obviously as partner I’d be expected to bring in business. But aren’t counsels really expected to do that also? I thought I’d prefer to be a counsel but hearing there can be hidden pitfalls with that as well.

Take this as a grain of salt because all firms are different, but at my firm, when people are brought in as counsel they typically do not have clients, but the expectation is they will develop business and then make partner. Very very very few stay in the counsel role for more than a few years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Longtime govt atty, be gentle with me here please, how does one evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of going to a firm as a partner (non equity) vs counsel/sr counsel/of counsel (whatever the firm calls it)?

The big difference is whether you have a book of business (partner) or don't (of counsel).

OP here, not necessarily what I’m hearing although your answer does make intuitive sense. Obviously as partner I’d be expected to bring in business. But aren’t counsels really expected to do that also? I thought I’d prefer to be a counsel but hearing there can be hidden pitfalls with that as well.

Anonymous wrote:Longtime govt atty, be gentle with me here please, how does one evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of going to a firm as a partner (non equity) vs counsel/sr counsel/of counsel (whatever the firm calls it)?

The big difference is whether you have a book of business (partner) or don't (of counsel).

Longtime govt atty, be gentle with me here please, how does one evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of going to a firm as a partner (non equity) vs counsel/sr counsel/of counsel (whatever the firm calls it)?