<p>What I find interesting in a morbid sort of way is the number of clients who will not pay for first year time. This is, of course, not universal, but it is not rare anymore, either.</p>
<p>@Zoosermom:</p>
<p>You know that real partners are the business because no partner with a solid book of business would ever be long without a firm. Even if a firm got rid of a partner with a loyal $2,000,000 book of business, that partner would end up elsewhere.</p>
<p>Many of these partner layoffs are the fake income partners.</p>
<p>@Zoosermom:</p>
<p>“What I find interesting in a morbid sort of way is the number of clients who will not pay for first year time. This is, of course, not universal, but it is not rare anymore, either.”</p>
<p>Once that trend hits the tipping point, firms will just get together and cut the salary of the first year associates and call it “year zero” or something. Then when you are offered a job, you will be offered the initial salary with the understanding that it will be bumped up in 12 months.</p>
<p>Or make some sort of judicial clerkship mandatory or something.</p>
<p>The associates are going to eat the costs one way or another.</p>
<p>Jonlaw, the partners laid off are definitely the ones who don’t kill as much as they eat. But often they are experts in a particular area, like ethics or are in management.</p>
<p>@Zoosermom:</p>
<p>“Jonlaw, the partners laid off are definitely the ones who don’t kill as much as they eat. But often they are experts in a particular area, like ethics or are in management.”</p>
<p>The problem is that they are not relevant to the firm’s competitive profitability and are therefore redundant.</p>
<p>The extreme market stresses and the need to remain competitive with respect the profits per partner at peer firms means that the firms need to be properly positioned for the future.</p>
<p>I mean we can all agree on the that, right?</p>
<p>@brownug:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a corporate lawyer, not much that I learned in law school was directly helpful to my work in a Biglaw firm. The caveat is that I had taken corporations, federal taxation, corporate taxation, mergers and acquisitions, negotiation and persuasion, financial accounting, investment management, securities regulation and several other relevant classes, without which, I would have not have had the necessary background to do the required work. Most of what I know and use today, I learned through experience and observing some incredibly talented attorneys do their thing (received practical, procedural, political and substantive learnings that way). The takeaway there is that to the extent that you’re able to work at a top firm, you will be able to learn a ton by watching, imitating and learning from some of the best lawyers in the business.</p>
<p>I believe that most Biglaw firms do provide some kind of formal training to new associates, though I can’t speak for the nature or duration of that training. No matter where you go, you can bet that the only orientation a young associate receives at the beginning is on Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw (now that you are suddenly paying for the services (or your clients are)), how to use client/matter numbers, and a general show and tell of the support services at the particular firm. </p>
<p>At my law firm, there is formal training during breakfasts and lunches during the first two years of an associate’s tenure that covers a wide range of topics ranging from defending depositions to REITs to conducting due diligence on an international acquisition. The idea is that we want all associates to be able to at least spot the issues on their matters even if they have to seek expertise elsewhere for the definitive answers. Informal training occurs through practice group meetings, mentoring, ongoing feedback during transactions and formal reviews. </p>
<p>Another takeaway here - the most successful associates are the ones take it upon themselves to learn in every situation. Ask questions. Seek answers. Spend time observing attorneys who are really good at what they do. How do they speak with clients? How do they manage clients’ expectations? How do they handle tough negotiations? When drafting, what strategies do they use? After the fact, ask why someone took the approach that they did. Read professional publications. Attend relevant CLE. Read the WSJ and another newspaper every day. (I know - where do you find the time? You make time. It’s important.)</p>
<p>Keep in mind that there is a lot to be learned even from some of the more mundane things that young corporate associates are asked to do - for example, due diligence is great training for contract drafting, financial statement analysis, determining which issues are game changing and which issues are more mundane, learning to synthesize and summarize large amounts of data, how to relate information to your peers, your boss and your clients, etc. Everything you do is an opportunity. You just need to see it that way.</p>
<p>“I mean we can all agree on the that, right?”</p>
<p>Absolutely. Otherwise we all go the way of Dewey. But even top grads of top schools need to be aware that even making partner is no guarantee of a permanent position. There is still hard work to do.</p>
<p>In case someone hasn’t said it straight out, being a partner ain’t as great as it once was. </p>
<p>Some years you take home less than associates. You likely have to make a financial contribution. You pay your own health insurance. You don’t get paid if the revenues are off. In our state, if you get divorced you may end up in bankruptcy because your spouse gets their community property share…which you can’t liquidate. If you leave to pursue other options, you get a whole lot less than you thought you would to cash out. Unlike the old days, you really do have to keep working …it’s not all golf and martini lunches.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When exactly were those old days? My H retired this year after being called in 1978 and there certainly were no old days that were all golf and martini lunches in the 35 years of his career. He worked harder as a partner and later as a GC, than he did as an associate, but never came anywhere close to making less than the associates. This obviously is going to depend on the type of firm you are with, frankly, I’ve never seen that happen at the large firms in our experience.</p>
<p>@Zoosermom</p>
<p>“But even top grads of top schools need to be aware that even making partner is no guarantee of a permanent position. There is still hard work to do.”</p>
<p>The point is that even if you are doing well, and you do make fake partner, if you don’t have a book of business sufficient to make you relevant, you will be tossed if there is severe financial strain.</p>
<p>Two of my fellow summer associates made fake partner at Dechert.</p>
<p>At which point, they were gently laid off because of the collapse of the credit bubble in 2008.</p>
<p>The next major recession is going to result in the same thing because of the current configuration of BigLaw.</p>
<p>The only thing that prevents this from happening is having a $2,000,000 book of portable business.</p>
<p>(If you have a more accurate figure where you have actual security in BigLaw, feel free to let me know. I’m not sure what the average book for mid-range equity partner is these days, so I just kind of throw the two million dollar figure out there. At least in the branch offices of BigLaw, word was that they wanted a $1,000,000 book IIRC)</p>
<p>@Alwaysamom</p>
<p>“He worked harder as a partner and later as a GC, than he did as an associate, but never came anywhere close to making less than the associates. This obviously is going to depend on the type of firm you are with, frankly, I’ve never seen that happen at the large firms in our experience.”</p>
<p>The “less than associates” issue is generally for low level income partners vs. senior associates. </p>
<p>Firms with significant buy-in result in this as well.</p>
<p>Back about 2005, this was certainly an issue with respect to significant compression and potential overlap at the junior income partner level.</p>
<p>Jonlaw is right. First year partners do make less than senior associates. I have now seen that in three different firms. Associates get bonuses, partners pay for their healthcare with no employer contribution. Associates get salaries, partners get to make capital contributions and sign on to firm debt.</p>
<p>JonLaw at #21: what’s your point? Who is to blame for the workplaces that operate like that - the partners in a law firm who would like to keep maker doors open, or the starry-eyed kids who think that they can earn piles of money for not much work? </p>
<p>Those workplaces exist because kids are breaking down the door to sign up for it. Abusive? Try “golden handcuffs” instead. None of these young lawyers were forced to go to law school.</p>
<p>“what’s your point? Who is to blame for the workplaces that operate like that - the partners in a law firm who would like to keep maker doors open, or the starry-eyed kids who think that they can earn piles of money for not much work?”</p>
<p>The partners are ultimately to blame because they are the workplace. People are always in charge of social and economic systems.</p>
<p>My point is that these workplaces should not exist in the first place because they are unhealthy for the people involved, partners and associates. Not as unhealthy as other worse workplaces, but they are not overall positive institutions because of the way in which they are currently configured.</p>
<p>Basically, the values by which these organizations operate are improper. Ultimately, better social and economic systems need to be put in place that are more consistent with the actual human condition.</p>
<p>However, the values by which <em>small law firms</em> operate can often be much worse than BigLaw.</p>
<p>I know a first year partner at a top 3 NYC law firm who took in $1.5M, 2012-2013.</p>
<p>JonLaw: what do you mean, should not exist? Should it be illegal to pay people a lot of money to be stressed? </p>
<p>Does no blame lie at the feet of law schools, who charge so much money that students can only repay their debts by working in those conditions? What about the people who <em>voluntarily choose</em> those conditions, forsaking less remunerative and less prestigious work? </p>
<p>What about the clients? The clients are demanding that work be done - not the partners - and are paying handsomely for it. </p>
<p>Ultimately, I think that the responsibility for this “abusive” workplace rests on the shoulders of ALL people involved. Each and every single one of those “abused” lawyers has a college degree and a respectable GPA, chose to attend law school, spent a summer at the firm, and refused or did not apply for lower paying jobs with less stress. These are not women in sweatshops in third-world countries; they have ample opportunities for other work that would keep the wolf away from the door. </p>
<p>Ultimately, I have zero sympathy for lawyers - lawyers! - who did not read the fine print before signing on the dotted line. They were well aware of what BigLaw meant and went for it.</p>
<p>Cbreeze, that partner obviously has some business of his own. Many junior partners haven’t achieved that yet.</p>
<p>"JonLaw: what do you mean, should not exist? Should it be illegal to pay people a lot of money to be stressed? </p>
<p>Does no blame lie at the feet of law schools, who charge so much money that students can only repay their debts by working in those conditions? What about the people who <em>voluntarily choose</em> those conditions, forsaking less remunerative and less prestigious work? </p>
<p>What about the clients? The clients are demanding that work be done - not the partners - and are paying handsomely for it. </p>
<p>Ultimately, I think that the responsibility for this “abusive” workplace rests on the shoulders of ALL people involved. Each and every single one of those “abused” lawyers has a college degree and a respectable GPA, chose to attend law school, spent a summer at the firm, and refused or did not apply for lower paying jobs with less stress. These are not women in sweatshops in third-world countries; they have ample opportunities for other work that would keep the wolf away from the door."</p>
<p>Most of the blame always arises from the top, so you have the clients and the partners causing the problems initially. Yes, the clients should not demand what they are demanding as well. So it’s a problem on both sides. Clients should show self-restraint (which they seem unwilling to do).</p>
<p>Clients should also not lie to BigLaw partners by withholding documents. However, they seem to like to do this as well. Which is really embarrassing and humiliating for the partner at the end of the day.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that it “should be illegal”, what I’m saying is that it should never have been created in the first place. </p>
<p>Granted, I also think that people shouldn’t blow their brains out when they don’t make partner, so I wish that they would stop doing that as well.</p>
<p>However, I understand enough about human nature to recognize that the only way to solve a problem like this is to create an alternate way to do things.</p>
<p>I’m not offering a solution, merely pointing out that it’s not a currently acceptable way to operate the world. </p>
<p>Recognizing that the status quo is actively harming things is pretty much a good place to start.</p>
<p>I suspect that the entire problem partially arises from the core of the meaning of the profession of lawyer (meaning that you have a duty that extends beyond a duty to your client) and our current conception of legal process (meaning the adversarial process).</p>
<p>For instance, jury trials and rules of evidence don’t really work that well to the extent that thy distort the ability to obtain the truth of the situation. They certainly work better than trial by ordeal or combat, but they don’t work well enough that it’s not a severe and obvious problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>That just makes no sense from my perspective, a client, someone who hires and pays the legal bills.</p>
<p>As an example, I had a Board meeting the Tuesday after the 4th. I needed a legal memo for said Board meeting. Thus, the law firm’s partner and associate had to work through the holiday weekend – they were closed Thursday and Friday - to produce the memo. Tough cookies. (That’s what I’m paying exorbitant NYC $$ rates for.) </p>
<p>But to be fair, I too worked over the holiday weekend to prepare for the Board meeting. Conceivably, we could have held off of the strategic discussion item until the September Board meeting (so the attorneys could have had a long weekend with their families), but then the decision would have been to late to start the new line Jan 1.</p>
<p>That is life in today’s economy.</p>
<p>Exactly what I meant, BlueBayou. Thank you for putting a concrete example to it.</p>