Anonymous wrote:He's a jerk, but also if he had a lot of business the firm would get pressuring him to train somebody. So it may be that he doesn't have a great practice and can't keep associates for that reason.

The culture at most firms is that partners train multiple people and grow them into senior associates who can eventually take over their book or find their own business for the firm. And though people may leave, they may be back or may reach out to you when they need co-counsel. It's a small world.

Where it really fell down, IMO, was partners who trained senior associates and promised they'd inherit the book but then never retired. A whole generation of senior associates / junior partners had to move firms about 15 years ago, in a way lawyers didn't used to, because of stagnation and lack of space at the top.

I wonder how many of those guys who didn’t move on was because of second wives and families. I saw this a lot with guys on their 70s putting kids from a second marriage through college and unwilling to let go of the income stream.

Anonymous wrote:The value of low-level associates has always been as highly leveraged cannon fodder, producing profits by doing the least interesting, most boring, long-hours work. “Training and development” have long been an afterthought at best and more often little more than a marketing slogan. As the bottom-end work has become more and more automated, low level associates have become less and less valuable.

That’s maybe true today but wasn’t 5+ years ago

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a jerk, but also if he had a lot of business the firm would get pressuring him to train somebody. So it may be that he doesn't have a great practice and can't keep associates for that reason.

The culture at most firms is that partners train multiple people and grow them into senior associates who can eventually take over their book or find their own business for the firm. And though people may leave, they may be back or may reach out to you when they need co-counsel. It's a small world.

Where it really fell down, IMO, was partners who trained senior associates and promised they'd inherit the book but then never retired. A whole generation of senior associates / junior partners had to move firms about 15 years ago, in a way lawyers didn't used to, because of stagnation and lack of space at the top.

Agree, and it’s even worse than that, in many cases they purged the rising X’ers as potential rivals. I see the same structure replicated in a lot of practices: lead partner, age 75, lost their fastball but still around due to relationships and because their reputation is such that it adds some cover to the clients in case things go wrong; principal lieutenants, early 40s, skilled but there is a lot of experience you get from say 40-55 that they are missing and it often shows.

Lost their fastball is generous. A lot of these guys can barely find the pitchers mound, if we’re being honest.

Another issue is the eat what you kill comp structures. It disincentivizes senior partners passing relationships down to younger attorneys. I’m at a firm that doesn’t do this and we are al happy to have someone else step into the relationship.

Anonymous wrote:What is the relevance of where he went to college?

You can’t figure this out?

Anonymous wrote:He's a jerk, but also if he had a lot of business the firm would get pressuring him to train somebody. So it may be that he doesn't have a great practice and can't keep associates for that reason.

The culture at most firms is that partners train multiple people and grow them into senior associates who can eventually take over their book or find their own business for the firm. And though people may leave, they may be back or may reach out to you when they need co-counsel. It's a small world.

Where it really fell down, IMO, was partners who trained senior associates and promised they'd inherit the book but then never retired. A whole generation of senior associates / junior partners had to move firms about 15 years ago, in a way lawyers didn't used to, because of stagnation and lack of space at the top.

Agree, and it’s even worse than that, in many cases they purged the rising X’ers as potential rivals. I see the same structure replicated in a lot of practices: lead partner, age 75, lost their fastball but still around due to relationships and because their reputation is such that it adds some cover to the clients in case things go wrong; principal lieutenants, early 40s, skilled but there is a lot of experience you get from say 40-55 that they are missing and it often shows.

Big Law partner here: it’s been a vicious cycle. As it has gotten harder to make partner, there’s more associate attrition because the payoff for all that effort becomes less certain. As associate attrition increases, the value of investing in developing and mentoring associates decreases, because they are less likely to stick around. Rinse and repeat for the past three decades and you end up with the current situation.

Firms’ response to this dynamic has typically been to firehose cash on associates, but it doesn’t solve the problem. People don’t work as hard as we need them to work just for a paycheck—if they don’t feel like they are building something for themselves they don’t push hard enough. I don’t blame them. It’s a rational response to incentives.

And now with the rage for increased leverage, the path has gotten even narrower and the status of partners is much less secure than it was historically. I think a lot of our most talented people see going for it as a bad bet, and they vote with their feet. At least, they did before the current economic craziness, where it seems that anyone who has a job is holding on to it for dear life.

This is very true - the boomers took a huge step back from work but wouldn't share credits, stayed till mid-70s and also wouldn't train and often didn't want juniors staffed on their matters due to write offs, this is just starting to change in the last year

He's a jerk, but also if he had a lot of business the firm would get pressuring him to train somebody. So it may be that he doesn't have a great practice and can't keep associates for that reason.

The culture at most firms is that partners train multiple people and grow them into senior associates who can eventually take over their book or find their own business for the firm. And though people may leave, they may be back or may reach out to you when they need co-counsel. It's a small world.

Where it really fell down, IMO, was partners who trained senior associates and promised they'd inherit the book but then never retired. A whole generation of senior associates / junior partners had to move firms about 15 years ago, in a way lawyers didn't used to, because of stagnation and lack of space at the top.

The value of low-level associates has always been as highly leveraged cannon fodder, producing profits by doing the least interesting, most boring, long-hours work. “Training and development” have long been an afterthought at best and more often little more than a marketing slogan. As the bottom-end work has become more and more automated, low level associates have become less and less valuable.

It’s sad to hear but probably a common sentiment among many senior partners.

They work in a high stress job trading quality of life for money, fight all the time (if litigators), and are in a conservative profession that’s slow to change. And elitist.

This is precisely why BigLaw doesn’t appeal to a broad swath of lawyers.

What is the relevance of where he went to college?

^ but yeah, could also be affected by all the lateral moves

Anonymous wrote:Well, it could be because he's going to retire soon anyway if he's 70's.

Or it could be because lawyers in biglaw lateral so much more now, so people train someone, and then they leave.

Well, yes, he's retiring soon, but he has made the statement more than once and in a more generalized way, so I don't think he meant 'i don't want to train anyone now because i'm leaving next year'. his statement seemed to be more global - 'i haven't found any associates worthy of training.'

Well, it could be because he's going to retire soon anyway if he's 70's.

Or it could be because lawyers in biglaw lateral so much more now, so people train someone, and then they leave.

That really bummed me out... is he just a jerk or is there something to be said? He's in his 70s, HYP (but at a time when getting into HYP was probably 'easier' than it is now if you came from the right background), moderate leaning politically if I had to guess.

Thoughts? It was not directed at me btw, but was a response when I asked why he didn't have anyone junior to pass his work. This is not the first and only time he's said something like this btw