Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

That is insane! Wow.

So do most partners fall in the 3-7M range? And what are their ages?

NO. Most do not. PP has somehow cultivated the higher end of the range for clients.

Makes sense, because partners making that kind of money are more likely to need a CPA. Also if the firm does business in multiple states, the partner needs to file non-resident returns in each of those states.

Every partner with a K-1 needs a CPA. Most firms reimburse partners for their tax preparer (ours pays up 4k I think).

The 7MM figure is definitely high end. That’s only remotely normal at a handful of firms (Wachtell, Kirkland, DPW, S&C, maybe Cravath). For most “good not great” firms there will be a good handful in the 7MM-12MM range and a whole lot more in the 2MM-3MM range.

Not to scoff at 2MM. Most biglaw partners are making that kind of pro athlete money by 50. But it’s backup QB money, not Mahomes money… you get to pick one thing: a yacht, a beach house, a house in southern France, a car collection. But you don’t get them all. And given that most are divorced at least once and paying for who knows how many college tuitions and underachieving kids, they may need to be happy with a Range and a CC membership.

I’m a non-equity partner at one of these firms. I make $900k. That’s low for my firm.

Most of my peers with equity are at $5m minimum after 5 years.

I’m gonna guess you mean KE and I’m further gonna guess you’re dead wrong about your SP peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

That is insane! Wow.

So do most partners fall in the 3-7M range? And what are their ages?

NO. Most do not. PP has somehow cultivated the higher end of the range for clients.

Makes sense, because partners making that kind of money are more likely to need a CPA. Also if the firm does business in multiple states, the partner needs to file non-resident returns in each of those states.

Every partner with a K-1 needs a CPA. Most firms reimburse partners for their tax preparer (ours pays up 4k I think).

The 7MM figure is definitely high end. That’s only remotely normal at a handful of firms (Wachtell, Kirkland, DPW, S&C, maybe Cravath). For most “good not great” firms there will be a good handful in the 7MM-12MM range and a whole lot more in the 2MM-3MM range.

Not to scoff at 2MM. Most biglaw partners are making that kind of pro athlete money by 50. But it’s backup QB money, not Mahomes money… you get to pick one thing: a yacht, a beach house, a house in southern France, a car collection. But you don’t get them all. And given that most are divorced at least once and paying for who knows how many college tuitions and underachieving kids, they may need to be happy with a Range and a CC membership.

I’m a non-equity partner at one of these firms. I make $900k. That’s low for my firm.

Most of my peers with equity are at $5m minimum after 5 years.

That seems high to me. I am an equity partner at an AmLaw 20 firm, have been an equity partner for more than five years and don’t make anywhere near that. And I am pretty highly compensated compared to my peers—I’m not lagging behind. I think there’s more variation among even the top firms than people realize and a ton of variation among partners at these firms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

That is insane! Wow.

So do most partners fall in the 3-7M range? And what are their ages?

NO. Most do not. PP has somehow cultivated the higher end of the range for clients.

Makes sense, because partners making that kind of money are more likely to need a CPA. Also if the firm does business in multiple states, the partner needs to file non-resident returns in each of those states.

Every partner with a K-1 needs a CPA. Most firms reimburse partners for their tax preparer (ours pays up 4k I think).

The 7MM figure is definitely high end. That’s only remotely normal at a handful of firms (Wachtell, Kirkland, DPW, S&C, maybe Cravath). For most “good not great” firms there will be a good handful in the 7MM-12MM range and a whole lot more in the 2MM-3MM range.

Not to scoff at 2MM. Most biglaw partners are making that kind of pro athlete money by 50. But it’s backup QB money, not Mahomes money… you get to pick one thing: a yacht, a beach house, a house in southern France, a car collection. But you don’t get them all. And given that most are divorced at least once and paying for who knows how many college tuitions and underachieving kids, they may need to be happy with a Range and a CC membership.

I’m a non-equity partner at one of these firms. I make $900k. That’s low for my firm.

Most of my peers with equity are at $5m minimum after 5 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is DC partner pay substantially higher than in other major (not LA/NYC/SF) cities?

The company I work for have a large team of very talented lawyers. Many of them were in big law previously, but there’s no way we pay most of them more than 250-300, and even our GC is unlikely to break 1M cash comp.

Is it the work/life balance that makes them switch? The fact that even talented lawyers don’t get to equity partner predictably? What’s the dynamic?

Actually it’s the opposite. DC biglaw pays less because the work DC tends to generate generally is less prone to “leverage” (a few partners managing massive teams of associates).

People leave for both reasons: not being able to bear the grind, and realizing they won’t make partner. Talent is only a tiny bit of the equation for making partner. I worked at a firm that attracted top talent, in the group that top talent favored the most because it was regarded by many as among the most prestigious. That group made a partner every 3 years or so. That means we had many Harvard and Yale grads ending up washed up every single year.

Makes sense. I guess my perspective on partner track is completely skewed knowing so many but not really being a party to the inner workings.

So where does in-house corporate counsel rank in the lawyer pecking order? Is biglaw equity partner undisputed top of the food chain?

In-house is basically like a mommy (or daddy) track thing. Slightly harder/better paid than fed gov. People who seek it out do so for the easier schedule.

Top of food chain is probably people who straddle business side and law (C Suite positions including but not limited to Chief Legal Officer) or are just pure b side. I’ve known people to leave equity partner for roles like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is DC partner pay substantially higher than in other major (not LA/NYC/SF) cities?

The company I work for have a large team of very talented lawyers. Many of them were in big law previously, but there’s no way we pay most of them more than 250-300, and even our GC is unlikely to break 1M cash comp.

Is it the work/life balance that makes them switch? The fact that even talented lawyers don’t get to equity partner predictably? What’s the dynamic?

Actually it’s the opposite. DC biglaw pays less because the work DC tends to generate generally is less prone to “leverage” (a few partners managing massive teams of associates).

People leave for both reasons: not being able to bear the grind, and realizing they won’t make partner. Talent is only a tiny bit of the equation for making partner. I worked at a firm that attracted top talent, in the group that top talent favored the most because it was regarded by many as among the most prestigious. That group made a partner every 3 years or so. That means we had many Harvard and Yale grads ending up washed up every single year.

Makes sense. I guess my perspective on partner track is completely skewed knowing so many but not really being a party to the inner workings.

So where does in-house corporate counsel rank in the lawyer pecking order? Is biglaw equity partner undisputed top of the food chain?

Anonymous wrote:Is DC partner pay substantially higher than in other major (not LA/NYC/SF) cities?

The company I work for have a large team of very talented lawyers. Many of them were in big law previously, but there’s no way we pay most of them more than 250-300, and even our GC is unlikely to break 1M cash comp.

Is it the work/life balance that makes them switch? The fact that even talented lawyers don’t get to equity partner predictably? What’s the dynamic?

Actually it’s the opposite. DC biglaw pays less because the work DC tends to generate generally is less prone to “leverage” (a few partners managing massive teams of associates).

People leave for both reasons: not being able to bear the grind, and realizing they won’t make partner. Talent is only a tiny bit of the equation for making partner. I worked at a firm that attracted top talent, in the group that top talent favored the most because it was regarded by many as among the most prestigious. That group made a partner every 3 years or so. That means we had many Harvard and Yale grads ending up washed up every single year.

Anonymous wrote:I know Wikipedia is fraught with errors but is this list (Profit per partner) anywhere near correct? I cannot access the linked article that is cited as source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_law_firms_by_revenue

Profit per partner just doesn’t mean what you might think. A “rainmaker” partner gets an outsized cut while the people minding the matter get less.

Is DC partner pay substantially higher than in other major (not LA/NYC/SF) cities?

The company I work for have a large team of very talented lawyers. Many of them were in big law previously, but there’s no way we pay most of them more than 250-300, and even our GC is unlikely to break 1M cash comp.

Is it the work/life balance that makes them switch? The fact that even talented lawyers don’t get to equity partner predictably? What’s the dynamic?

I know Wikipedia is fraught with errors but is this list (Profit per partner) anywhere near correct? I cannot access the linked article that is cited as source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_law_firms_by_revenue

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

That is insane! Wow.

So do most partners fall in the 3-7M range? And what are their ages?

NO. Most do not. PP has somehow cultivated the higher end of the range for clients.

Makes sense, because partners making that kind of money are more likely to need a CPA. Also if the firm does business in multiple states, the partner needs to file non-resident returns in each of those states.

Every partner with a K-1 needs a CPA. Most firms reimburse partners for their tax preparer (ours pays up 4k I think).

The 7MM figure is definitely high end. That’s only remotely normal at a handful of firms (Wachtell, Kirkland, DPW, S&C, maybe Cravath). For most “good not great” firms there will be a good handful in the 7MM-12MM range and a whole lot more in the 2MM-3MM range.

Not to scoff at 2MM. Most biglaw partners are making that kind of pro athlete money by 50. But it’s backup QB money, not Mahomes money… you get to pick one thing: a yacht, a beach house, a house in southern France, a car collection. But you don’t get them all. And given that most are divorced at least once and paying for who knows how many college tuitions and underachieving kids, they may need to be happy with a Range and a CC membership.

Man… why is this? I don’t know a single particularly successful kid of a big rainmaker partner. It’s scary.

I’m not sure it’s all that surprising. To be a top biglaw partner, you either need a world class level of intellectual horsepower or a combination of work ethic and sales skills that allows you to succeed even as a mediocre practitioner. Either skill set is exceedingly rare, like the 0.1%ers.

Most children of people like that are not going to measure up, it’s just the math. Just like most pro athletes’ kids, even if they’re athletic in their own right, aren’t going to turn pro. I guess it’s a little more noticeable when Dad is a rainmaker at Skadden making $100 million over his lifetime and Junior tends bar into his 30s while working on his real estate license. But they’re just normal people. And in general the kids are going to be fairly spoiled and sheltered which isn’t conducive to work ethic.

Also, who knows the exact numbers, but I do know some colleagues with really exceptional kids. Not sure it’s any more or less than the general public.

Anonymous wrote:Am I crazy that this seems kind of low for that level of success ?

3-15 million dollars per year for a non-celebrity and non-athlete seems kind of low to you? Guess you‘re really doing well for yourself. Kudos.

Am I crazy that this seems kind of low for that level of success ?

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

Unless you’re only working for the more sennior partners, that seems very high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

That is insane! Wow.

So do most partners fall in the 3-7M range? And what are their ages?

NO. Most do not. PP has somehow cultivated the higher end of the range for clients.

Makes sense, because partners making that kind of money are more likely to need a CPA. Also if the firm does business in multiple states, the partner needs to file non-resident returns in each of those states.

Every partner with a K-1 needs a CPA. Most firms reimburse partners for their tax preparer (ours pays up 4k I think).

The 7MM figure is definitely high end. That’s only remotely normal at a handful of firms (Wachtell, Kirkland, DPW, S&C, maybe Cravath). For most “good not great” firms there will be a good handful in the 7MM-12MM range and a whole lot more in the 2MM-3MM range.

Not to scoff at 2MM. Most biglaw partners are making that kind of pro athlete money by 50. But it’s backup QB money, not Mahomes money… you get to pick one thing: a yacht, a beach house, a house in southern France, a car collection. But you don’t get them all. And given that most are divorced at least once and paying for who knows how many college tuitions and underachieving kids, they may need to be happy with a Range and a CC membership.

Man… why is this? I don’t know a single particularly successful kid of a big rainmaker partner. It’s scary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a CPA for a few downtown and they (my clients) make between 3M and 7M fairly consistently. Some do broach $10M+

That is insane! Wow.

So do most partners fall in the 3-7M range? And what are their ages?

NO. Most do not. PP has somehow cultivated the higher end of the range for clients.

Makes sense, because partners making that kind of money are more likely to need a CPA. Also if the firm does business in multiple states, the partner needs to file non-resident returns in each of those states.

Every partner with a K-1 needs a CPA. Most firms reimburse partners for their tax preparer (ours pays up 4k I think).

The 7MM figure is definitely high end. That’s only remotely normal at a handful of firms (Wachtell, Kirkland, DPW, S&C, maybe Cravath). For most “good not great” firms there will be a good handful in the 7MM-12MM range and a whole lot more in the 2MM-3MM range.

Not to scoff at 2MM. Most biglaw partners are making that kind of pro athlete money by 50. But it’s backup QB money, not Mahomes money… you get to pick one thing: a yacht, a beach house, a house in southern France, a car collection. But you don’t get them all. And given that most are divorced at least once and paying for who knows how many college tuitions and underachieving kids, they may need to be happy with a Range and a CC membership.