<p>Re: Partnership prospects:</p>
<p>Even at the most low-leveraged places like WLRK, Williams & Connoly, MTO, etc., most associates aren’t making partner. At the more generic, mid-Vault ranked “biglaw” firms, it’s going to be even less. The model is just based on a pyramid structure - partners making profits off the hours churned out by people below them. (Williams & Connoly actually has a small PPP than many less prestigious places because of its low leverage, and it works form them, but most firms can’t retain partnership talent with low PPP. That firm is just as much an outlier as WLRK, in its own way).</p>
<p>Of course, some people make partner. It’s not impossible. It’s not even an non-appreciable percent; even a CSM is going to name a handful each year.</p>
<p>But it’s simply not something you can build into your life plan. The odds are far greater that you’ll wind up despising the lifestyle and quit before you’re up for partner, or you’ll be up in a year where you practice area or the economy as a whole is down, or you’re just not partnership material. The path is getting longer and longer (6 years used to be the norm, now it’s probably 8 and some are trending towards 10). Plenty of firms also use non-equity partners to keep high performing associates around with a title that lets them bill at a higher rate but doesn’t give them a piece of the profits - look at how many “partners” Kirkland & Ellis produced this year: <a href=“Kirkland & Ellis Announces New Partners | News | Kirkland & Ellis LLP”>Kirkland & Ellis Announces New Partners | News | Kirkland & Ellis LLP; </p>
<p>Even if you make equity partner, that’s not the end of the treadmill. If you’re at an “eat-what-you-kill” firm (where compensation is linked to the number of billables that you originate), your compensation is still subject to crater in a year when you’re industry is down or your big client implodes or you just have a bad year. There’s even a trend towards “de-equitizing” partners (Cadwalader had a whole lawsuit about it) when they’re not producing. The more lock-step (and thus the less eat what you kill) the partnership compensation model is, the harder it is to make the cut. CSM is a good example because partnership compensation is based solely on seniority, not productivity in bringing in business. If they screw up and name a bad partner, they can’t starve him out (pay him an embarrassingly small amount until he quite) the way an eat-what-you-kill place can.</p>
<p>One thing I’ll say though, is that from a distance it does seem like partnership is the goal and everyone gets weeded out. What really happens in many cases is that people get here and even before the first year is up, they know they don’t want to do the big firm thing the rest of their lives, even with the promise of the big partnership bucks down the line. When I talk to friends, both at my firm and friends from law school at other firms, a few will admit to thinking about making partner down the line, but most will say they plan to stick it out as long as possible, pay off debt/accumulate savings, and move on to something different after a few years.</p>