<p>Why are all the prominent firms always "seeking" or "looking" for young and talented law students and hold interviews and hire summer associates from top law schools all the time if they are not needed? For example, the lay offs that were just posted. Why hire and then fire?</p>
<p>Basically, the biglaw firms are always hiring and fire in slow or bad times. Law firms are about as good at predicting the future as your average pundit on TV (i.e. may not see 9/11 or the credit crunch or any other economic slowdown coming), and so predicting future economic conditions (particularly the conditions affecting a given law firm's clients) is dicey business. </p>
<p>So, law firms are actually making hiring decisions years in advance. A great example is that 2Ls who were offered employment as summer associates this fall 2007 won't be summer associates until summer 2008 and won't begin working as associates until fall 2009 (or even 2010 or 2011 if they will be doing clerkships). The expectation at biglaw is generally that each summer associate will be given an offer of permanent employment (if a law firm fails to do so absent compelling circumstances, word would get out and it would hurt recruiting in the future). Since even economists, analysts and TV pundits have differing opinions on the future of the economy at any given time, there is really no way to hire fewer summer associates today, particularly if business is booming this year, taking accurately into account future economic trends. Assuredly, the firms that have been most affected by the downturn will likely hire fewer summer associates next fall in response, though where the economy will be in two years when those attorneys begin to practice will be anyone's guess -- will the law firm have hired too few people to support booming economic times?</p>
<p>In addition, there is so much attrition in big law firms that these law firms need to be constantly hiring to keep the flow of attorneys in the doors going. Also, to the extent that a big law firm failed to interview on campus for one or more years, it would actually hurt them tremendously in future recruiting efforts at top law schools. Believe me, the rumor mill about summer associates not getting permanent offers of employment, summer associate programs generally and law firm layoffs runs rampant at the top law schools (and probably others). </p>
<p>In addition, different law firms are able to weather economic downturns differently. Some firms have a tremendous amount of stability because they are have very broadbased practice areas (for example, a large bankruptcy practice and a large public M&A practice -- generally, when M&A is really hot bankruptcy will be slower and vice versa), while others are more stable because they are generally in excellent financial health (generally, many of the firms with year over year high revenue and profits per partner). Some firms are more stable generally because their client base and their clients themselves are more stable. Many other factors come into play as well, including whether a law firm is able to quickly shift its attorneys around into profitable areas. Some firms shift resources or develop practices in "hot" areas (like securitization in the last 10 years), but when those securitization (for example) attorneys have little work in a downturn such as the one currently taking place, the firm is hurt financially. </p>
<p>As has been pointed out on this board before (and is well documented in many industry publications) and is much discussed among members of the profession, there has been a paradigm shift in the practice of law in the last 10-20 years (depending upon who you ask). Once upon a time, an attorney starting out at a big law firm would have a good chance at six to seven years of work as an associate followed by partnership. Associates were generally never fired except for cause (fraud, theft, etc.). The other side of this coin was that you likely would never have gotten a job at a big law firm unless you had a certain family name, came from a certain background or otherwise "fit the bill" (ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg about that). </p>
<p>Today, getting hired at a big law firm is much more about your credentials than your bloodline or business connections, but you are much more likely to be laid off at some point and each new associate at a big law firm has only a very slim chance of ever making partner (or sticking around until he or she is a senior associate with a shot at becoming partner). The hours are grueling and the expectations for personal sacrifices and lack of work/life balance can be harsh. Associates make a whole lot of money and partners make even more (though there are strings attached). </p>
<p>Please let me know if you have other questions. I'm sure that the other attorneys that frequent this board may have some additional insights.</p>
<p>How long does one have to stay at a firm in order to become a senior associate who has a shot at becoming partner? How much do senior associates at BIGLAW make? How slim of a shot does a senior associate have at becoming a partner? Thanks for your help.</p>
<p>First year associates make around $160k base and ~$30k-$35k bonus this year, though the bonus varies.
Senior associates, which you're called when you've been around for 4-5 years, make about $270k ($225k base and ~$45k bonus) on their 5th year and about $400k ($300k base and ~$100k bonus) on their 8th year, all in.</p>
<p>At most BIGLAW firms, it takes about eight years to become a partner. The percentage of associates who become equity partners varies a lot from firm to firm, but it's generally quite small.</p>
<p>infirmation.com has a lot of information on the subject.</p>
<p>Greybeard is correct, though my experience has been that the number of years that you have to work before making partner at BIGLAW (in NYC, at least) is now frequently nine to ten years. In fact, many BIGLAW firms across the country now have both non-equity partners, who do not share in the profits of the firm, as well as the more traditional equity partners. At many BIGLAW firms today, one will be an associate for seven to ten years, followed by a stint for several years (or more) as "counsel" or as a non-equity partner followed, perhaps, by equity partnership.</p>
<p>Whatever. I don't want to make equity partner. The marginal difference between making $600k and $1mil is what, more taxes? And as counsel who has no desire to make equity partner, I could probably work less. Even with two kids, I could support my desired lifestyle on $20k a month after taxes.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent,
You're assuming that a law firm would keep you around long enough, and that you would want to stick around long enough, to make counsel or non-equity partner. You can't take these things for granted. You also can not assume that you would work any less as counsel or a non-equity partner than you would in any other capacity at BIGLAW. There are enough folks who would work their fingers to the bone for the money so that BIGLAW doesn't have to keep anyone around who is not willing to put in the hours when necessary (which is unfortunately, often). </p>
<p>If you want to work in BIGLAW and make the money that comes with the job, you will likely have to work the often unpredictable and frequently long hours that go with it. Being willing to "settle" for $600k doesn't buy you much sympathy on the work/life balance front. </p>
<p>sally</p>
<p>There is compression at the top of the scale unless you are an equity partner. Don't assume counsels or non equity partners even make $600k.</p>
<p>Ever since they invented boarding schools, working 75 hours a week isn't a problem anymore.</p>
<p>Whatever. $500k. Assume 50% (federal, state, city where applicable) in taxes and I should be able to net a little more than $20k a month. Or $400k should net me about $16k a month. If anything I'd think that Biglaw would dump the junior associates first, since senior associates, counsels and nonequity partners are cash cows.</p>
<p>From a New York Law Journal from August, 2006:</p>
<p>"Salary increases for associates and non-equity partners have cut into equity partners' pay, a survey by law firm consultancy Altman Weil has found. </p>
<p>"The survey of 200 firms nationwide found that median associate pay had increased 5.7 percent to $118,475 in 2005, while non-equity partner's compensation had increased 6.3 percent to $187,000. </p>
<p>"Meanwhile median profits per partner at the firms surveyed by Altman Weil increased by a more modest 2.9 percent to $297,899."</p>
<p>The article is slightly dated, but may help to put things a little more perspective.</p>
<p>Here's a link to an article on Boston firms: With</a> Ropes, four firms in $1M club - Boston Business Journal:</p>
<p>Here's the money quote: "Non-equity partners at big Boston firms collect much smaller paychecks, ranging from about $250,000 to $450,000, according to Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC's co-managing member (the firm's term for a partner) Steven Rosenthal. Recruiter Twining, who pegs the non-equity partner pay range at $185,000 to $410,000 at large Boston firms, said non-equity partners are valued differently from firm to firm and even within firms."</p>
<p>From an American Lawyer magazine article from 2004 on the ALM 100 (the hundred biggest US firms):</p>
<p>"The average profit per equity partner was $930,700, while the compensation for non-equity partners averaged only $357,597 in 2003."</p>
<p>ALM</a> Law | Business</p>
<p>Boston lawyers make less than NYC or other major market lawyers.</p>
<p>I'm also pretty sure the averages mentioned above are nationwide, and include places like, Texas (ick).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And as counsel who has no desire to make equity partner, I could probably work less. Even with two kids, I could support my desired lifestyle on $20k a month after taxes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>futurenyu -- you make it all sound so easy -- settle for non-equity partner so you can "work less", yet still pull in the big bucks and even have time to enjoy family and the lifestyle you seek. </p>
<p>before you convince yourself that this goal is readily attainable, however, i urge you to stop and look and actually see how many lawyers actually are out there who manage to achieve that type of "balance." and if any actually claim that they do, ask the follow up question -- just how many hours constitutes "working less" and how many hours a week they actually see their kids (peeking in at them while they sleep doesn't count). </p>
<p>if you end up being satisfied, good for you -- you may be just what BIGLAW firms want-- but please don't try to make it sound like this is so easy -- its too easy to be blinded by the dollar signs and not appreciate what is actually involved in being a BIGLAW lawyer.</p>
<p>Of course it's not easy. And I really don't want kids. I don't think I'll miss driving them to school in the morning, all the screaming matches that are bound to happen in their teens, and other such things.</p>
<p>Law firms wouldn't pay you big bucks if it was easy. But if you don't intend to make full partner (or if you're not working towards full partner), then you're doing enough to not get fired and get a good bonus and thus you could probably get away with going home early once in a while, unless there's some hugely urgent deadline the next day.</p>
<p>In other words, I used to have these grand ambitions about making millions, etc. but now not anymore. As long as I can make about $400k, netting me a little more than $18k a month, I'll be okay. It's a good comfortable income level to be able to afford a nice little condo in Westchester, have a nice car, and spend about $10-15k a year on a nice vacation (and fly business class). What more could I possibly want?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if you don't intend to make full partner (or if you're not working towards full partner), then you're doing enough to not get fired and get a good bonus and thus you could probably get away with going home early once in a while, unless there's some hugely urgent deadline the next day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>this reflects an awful lot of assumptions on your part.</p>
<p>"In other words, I used to have these grand ambitions about making millions, etc. but now not anymore. As long as I can make about $400k, netting me a little more than $18k a month, I'll be okay. It's a good comfortable income level to be able to afford a nice little condo in Westchester, have a nice car, and spend about $10-15k a year on a nice vacation (and fly business class). What more could I possibly want?"</p>
<p>Wow, this quote is perhaps one of the saddest things I've ever heard.</p>