<p>I basically agree with Sally on this point. I have seen many excellent, hard-working attorneys get passed over simply because the firm’s business was not growing. Or because the firm was not interested in expanding that associate’s practice area. Or because the partners who were behind that associate were not powerful enough. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I have seen mediocre attorneys become partner because they were in the right place at the right time.</p>
<p>So yes, it’s a bit of a lottery as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>There may have been a time when big firms would promote pretty much any attorney who was smart, hard-working, and presentable. But if there ever was such a time, it is long gone. Law firms are obsessed with Profits per Partner, and the easiest way to increase PPP is to keep the denominator small. </p>
<p>P.S. You have an excellent chance at making partner if you have a big book of business. But it’s really difficult for a BIGLAW associate to develop the kind of clients wanted by BIGLAW.</p>
<p>I actually think that this is where the benefit of having a two-tiered partnership comes in. Promote your associates to non-equity, give them a few years to do business development and make a case for partnership, and then put them up for equity. I guess that system is informally in place at firms with an 8-12 year partnership track (four years in which to prove yourself), but I also sort of think that having partner on your business card tends to help with exit options if things don’t pan out. Then again, I’m sure firms you’re hoping to lateral to can figure out if you’re non-equity, so I guess it evens out.</p>
<p>Yeah, I’ve read (true) stories on associates passed up for partnership based on the most arbitrary reasons, so yes I guess it is a lottery. I just feel like the math is in your favor if you put in the time, and that sort of mitigates the notion, “you have a 1% chance of making partner.” Maybe we should make it a “10% chance?” Haha I don’t know.</p>
<p>I <em>will</em> say that I do think this economy is forcing a lot of firms to rethink their leveraging model. Many firms, that are doing relatively well, have shrunken their summer associate classes. To me, this implies that those firms are no longer hiring based on the assumption of voluntary attrition, nor do they hire some with the expectation that they’ll have to be let go in two years (layoffs look bad, no matter how you paint it). I could be wrong and naive, but I feel like those firms have a genuine interest in keeping their associates for as long as possible, that the competition for partnership is a lot lower, and that the percentage of the class that makes partner will be a lot higher. Of course, the firm could also just be intending to promote 1 or 2 of a class of 20 to partner in 8-12 years, so we might be seeing the same model in place and just a simple downsizing program.</p>
<p>Whatever it is, I feel like… if you’re starting at a firm with a huge summer class, your odds of making partner are a lot lower than if you’re starting at a firm with a small summer class. Makes me kind of regret choosing the former, but will see what happens.</p>
<p>you could be wrong and naive, but at this point in your life i doubt any of us will be able to convince you of that. :)</p>
<p>i graduated law school about 30 years ago. law firms were just beginning to figure out that it didn’t have to be up or out, with “permanent associates” becoming a possibility and then non-equity partnerships. the economy has had ups and downs. law firms have had to cut back at various times. but one thing i think has always been a constant – a LOT more associates start out at a law firm than ever even come for partnership, let alone make partnership. i’m just not going to find it easy to believe that things have now finally changed so dramatically that this will no longer be the case.</p>
<p>and from the time i was a law student to today – during which time i’ve know a lot of law students, lawyers, and former lawyers – i can’t tell you the number i’ve known who started out believing that all they had to do was “put in the time” for X years and their shot at partnership would be pretty good. and you can probably guess that an awful lot of those were rudely surprised to learn that there was so much more affecting whether they would be around long enough to come up for partnership other than their own initial resolve to “work hard” and “stick it out.”</p>
<p>if in X years, you win the golden ticket, you may believe that you were right all along - witnessing those who fall along the way might convince you otherwise, but you also might really believe there were good reasons they just didn’t make it to the end. but if in X years, you don’t hold that golden ticket – either because you chose to get off the treadmill sometime earlier, were “encouraged” to get off, or simply weren’t one of the “lucky” ones after putting in all that time, i hope you will be able to realize looking back that all you were was a little naive, and not let anyone else (or yourself) convince you that you didn’t get the golden ticket due to some other failing on your part.</p>
<p>Oh that’s where YOU’RE wrong and naive. I’m one of the few kids capable of admitting that I’m wrong and naive. And here, I’m probably definitely wrong and naive.:D</p>
<p>At any rate, if I don’t make partnership because of some arbitrary reason, that’s probably a sign that I shouldn’t be investing my future in the place anyways. WIN-WIN.</p>
<p>I thought that making into partership for law students would be as difficult as aiming for CEO for business students. But, I may be wrong. Would someone be able to help with the following two questions: </p>
<p>1) How many law students graduate from T14 law school every year?
2) On average, how many lawyers could be made as parteners every year? </p>
<p>Can’t be as difficult. There’s only one CEO of your organization. There are generally hundreds of partners at your big firm (depending on how leveraged it is).</p>
<p>i would guess T14 grads ~ 5,000 ish. new partners are probably in the hundreds range, but less than a thousand. i am completely BS-ing these figures.</p>
<p>It is true that there is only one CEO in a company. But, there are many more companies than law firms. I am completely speculating here. If a law firm just add 2-3 partners a year, only 500 new partners will be added for a total of 200 sizable law firms. That would be about 10% of the 5000 T14 students per BostenEng. That is hardly something students can count on unless they are the top ones in T14 schools. Please correct me if I am way off.</p>
<p>Of course, there are other opportunities for lawyers. But, realistically, what would a T14 student can expect to earn only working as an associate? Would it be around $150K-200K which is very close to the average salary of MD’s after malpractice premium. If this is the case, I may conclude that a T14 student (5000 graduates a year) would be similar to a medical school student (30,000 graduates a year) in expected earning potential. Now, MD’s are facing some uncertainties due to the health care reform while engineers face enormous problems of outsourcing. Lawyers may be safer. Thus, a career in law would still be a good choice for T14-capable students. </p>
<p>There’s a lot more than 200 firms. Even if they announce 2-3 partners per year, Boston Eng’s theory of about 1000 already seems small to me; your estimate of 500 is even smaller. I would have thought the overall number would be closer to or maybe even 2000 in good economic times.</p>
<p>First year associates, bonuses included, were making about $200,000 a few years ago. Obviously the scale goes up by the time they reach their eighth year, or a non-equity partnership, or whatever.</p>
<p>Though, of course, it’s worth pointing out for ace550 that these jobs are not nearly as plentiful, and that the salary drop from the 145k-160k range is really quite significant. 5,000 students might be graduating from a T14 every year, but 5,000 are definitely not getting those $145k jobs. And in this economy, it’s not that not all of them don’t want them. It’s more that AND the fact that even more can’t get them.</p>
<p>Yup, FH’s point is definitely right. My argument was more that in the rare-but-becoming-more-common exceptions to “up or out,” those perpetual associates (whatever name they may go by) actually make a pretty nice living.</p>
<p>If you look at the amlaw 200 firms (not all of which would be considered “biglaw” by many people), and if you count non-equity partners, then it’s been higher than that:</p>
<p>“For example, in fiscal year 2007, the number of equity partners working for Am Law 200 firms grew by 2.2 percent (26,949 to 27,550), while the nonequity partner ranks grew by 10.2 percent (13,608 to 14,995).”</p>
<p>Though if you’re only talking about equity partnership at firms that pay their first-years $160K, it’s well under 1000 new partners every year, and maybe under 500 now. And not all of them will be coming from the associate ranks; some will be non-equity partners or special counsel or coming from government, etc.</p>
<p>Wow I can see this board is very ambitious with everyone talking about BigLaw and T-14 schools and $160,000+ starting salaries.</p>
<p>Just FYI, the majority of lawyers aren’t in big law and most work in small firms that range anywhere from 3-10 lawyers. Or solo practice. If you go to a regional school, it’s not the end of the world either and you can still get a decent job. However, I notice everyone here talking about getting dream jobs with $160,000 starting salary. Unless you graduated from NYU, Duke, etc. and am working for a big firm with 500+ attorneys, you won’t be making that much in your starting salary.</p>
<p>Expect something more like $40/hour during your first year starting salary. Then expect it to rise as you gain more years of experience. You can definitely break $100,000 after a couple years of working. Being a lawyer isn’t bad. The pay is pretty good. Just don’t be expecting to make $160,000 “starting salary”</p>
<p>You are much more likely to start at 160K than 40/hour (what’s that, like 120K/year?). There is a bimodal distribution, so 160K or around 50K is likely - 120K is not. And for the kind of strivers on collegeconfidential, applying now (so they won’t be starting employment in a depression), expecting 160K is eminently reasonable. You basically just need like a 169 on the LSAT, and you can certainly overcome lower.</p>
<p>Yeah, but working at a private law firm will be more like 55-60 hrs/week. That’s market salary in a tertiary market maybe, but otherwise it sounds like mythical midlaw.</p>
<p>Midlaw isn’t a myth; midlaw firms just don’t do very much entry-level hiring or appear on ranked lists, so law students are generally unaware they exist.</p>
<p>Midlaw isn’t “rare”; there are probably hundreds of midlaw firms (depending how you want to define it). What is rare is, as I said, for midlaw firms to hire right out of law school, which is in part why law students don’t know they exist.</p>