Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

Get clarity. Ask HR.

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

Anonymous wrote:NP. Fmr senior biglaw associate reading this thread with interest. I left 2.5 years ago for an in-house role (I was a 7th year at the time). I had years of good reviews but felt i was not in the superstar camp and didn't want to hit a wall at year 8 or 9 and have 'the talk.' But tracking my former colleagues, it seems like firms are more open than ever to keeping associates around indefinitely. Many more 11,12,13 year associates than ever before. Also more of counsels being made than was previously the case (again, this is just at my former V10). I sometimes wish i just road it out if i knew I had that many more years of the gravy train. Have others in biglaw noticed this shift away from strict up or out in the last 5 years or so?

To OP, sorry this happened. Agree with others you should ask for at least 3 months severance and 6 months website. What vault range is your firm?

Anonymous wrote:This is op. This SUCKS. Im feeling defeated and depressed and imposter syndrome is eating me alive. The pip made no reference to a severance package and nothing was discussed about it. I think the posters who said it’s a 60 day runway and then they will talk to you about severance are wrong, I think this 60 day window is the severance period basically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

There is a baseline, but I don't think it's as high as you imply. Networking and soft skills are what matter as long as the lawyering is competent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

Well, of course, if the rockstar puts out bad work product, it won't go to the client in that form. It may get heavily edited by the non-rockstar or the partner before it goes out. And is anyone really closely reading that depo transcript to see if the rockstar was truly wonderful or if they actually missed some key opportunities? The rockstar may not screw up all of the time, but just enough that it makes you wonder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

This. Mentorship is important, but there has to be a high baseline level of competence. Quality work product done in a timely manner. No typos, no obvious legal errors, no surprises. Clients do not pay partner rates for them to have to completely re-write documents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

And this sounds like it was written by a disgruntled former associate who didn't see success in biglaw. No, there are no rockstar associates with terrible writing skills and inability to meet deadlines who were just there because they knew a lot of people. That's not how biglaw works. The partners have one urgent concern: Getting the assignment that's on their desk right now to the client without mistakes. Can you do that for them in a super helpful way? Superstar associate. This idea that there's all these rockstar associates out there resting their laurels on terrible technical skills but their mom went to college with some bigshot CEOs.... that's just not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience "rockstar" doesn't quite mean that. It's not the top performer, smartest, top performer, or most personable. It's who the partner decided to invest in. Often due to connections, etc. I didn't appreciate this when I started out. It sounds like it's still the same.

This is the absolute truth. Rockstars are chosen based on who the partners like the most or need the most because the associate has connections, or any other "soft" factor that gives them an edge past the merely super smart and hardworking regular associates.

If you're not one of the chosen few, you're going to hit the "up or out" ceiling and they will counsel you out just like they've done with hundreds of associates before you.

That’s not true at all, there are massive differences in talent and performance among associates, which are usually immediately apparent. This whole “star associates are just the favorites” thing is, in general, cope by lower performers and championed by people on the HR side who don’t want to be held accountable for recruiting outcomes.

This sounds like it was written by a partner. I worked closely with some rockstars (and I was correct that they were the chosen ones because they eventually made partner), and their skills were just not very good. Terrible writing that needed heavy editing, terrible research that would miss obvious lines of argument, not good at delegating work, and even an inability to meet internal deadlines -- but they had great connections with the rainmaker for whatever reason and just seemed to get along well socially with the rainmaker.

I get it; this is the way the world works. And I don't think a partner would ever want to admit that their preferences are not based on merit (and maybe they've fooled themselves into thinking that they would never pick someone with worse skills to be the rockstar over someone with better skills). It happens in every work setting. Not everything is based on merit. And if anyone goes through their professional life convincing themselves that doing excellent work alone is enough to merit promotions and raises, then they likely will not have a very successful career.