I had a big talk at my law firm prior to going in-house about the taboo of this topic. Basically my argument was we could exploit a market inefficiency by hiring very experienced folks to associate rules on decreased pay in exchange for capped hours -- working mothers, burnt out dudes living in Jackson Hole who only want to work an elite, tight 35-hours a week, etc. etc. This would obviously result in employing de facto year 10/15/20/etc. Associates.
I was told -- market inefficiency or not -- it would never happen because no firm wants to "devalue the prestige." Elitist bullshit if you ask me, but it's a Partnership and not a dictatorship.
A firm I used to work at had a program where they hired working moms like that. Mostly former in house and big law associates who took a break to have kids then now are able to go back in as associates. In my case we had a pretty good associate who used to be M&A in the early 00s and 15 years later was doing related financing, I liked her
Part of the question is whether you can actually cap hours or limit them to 9-5 or whatever. It’s pretty hard in a transactional practice. Anybody I have known who has gone part time, for instance, in big law or in middle law where I now work, ends up working full time anyway. Counterpoint - it’s up to you to set your boundaries.
I do think titles matter. I wouldn’t want to be a 20th year associate. Maybe call me a Superssociate for my ego.
For me, just as a transactional example I was advocating for, give me a “part timer” who makes a salary exclusively handling blue sky — firm wide, rather than giving random associates blue sky obligations and pretending they understand state specific securities laws.
I can see that working - unless somebody drops the ball, the blue sky filings shouldn’t sneak up on you and you can get that all done on a fixed schedule. Would that all work were like that.
There are two women in my office that went reduced schedule after babies. Obviously salaries get cut as part of this arrangement. One works full time anyway and makes a fraction of what she would otherwise make. The other actually sticks to her reduced schedule and as a result no one wants to work with her.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Yeah, I never understood this either.
Hell, I would work a full associate load, and they can cap me at 400k or something and I’d be more than happy, even if I have 30 years of experience.
But no, guess it’s better to have two untested first years who need to check in with senior associates every day.
Counsel... I've essentially been an associate for 15 years.
No bd responsibility, and I don't have to butt heads with partners fighting over origination credit. But I still get credit for easy organic client development on the platform when a client sends me unsolicited work.
I was never going to do the work to originate $5m+ every year necessary for equity, so it didn't make sense to do NEP with no hope of equity. If $1-2m of origination falls in my lap every few years, I'll take it, but no reason to go out of my way.
Same here. I never want to become partner but my firm doesn’t really do counsel positions that much. So I’ll be forced to leave at some point, sadly enough. Never minded the grind of the work, so could do this for decades more.
No partner responsibilities and higher pay and bonuses than any lawyer in America except for equity partner. Hell, you’d made more than many biglaw partners in many other countries.
Knew someone who was law school class of ‘96 who was still an associate in 2015 before finally lateraling to a counsel role at another firm. No idea why his first firm never offered him the title.
What’s their deal? Some kind of reduced expectations position, or just never graduated beyond drafting certificates and compiling signature page packets?
Not really sure. I'm guessing he has a specialized skillset and/or is liked by a rainmaker, and has no interest in partnership. In this firm, counsel is basically reserved as a stepping stone for partnership, so here we are.
I knew (of) someone at my old firm who was a senior associate, same year as me, when I left…..and like 10 years later I was looking up someone’s bio and ran across hers, still listed as an associate. She’s since gone in-house. I don’t know what was up with that, but I was curious. I didn’t know her well enough to stay in touch and find out what the story was. Typically, at that firm as with most firms, you would be Counsel, Senior Counsel, or Special Counsel at that point - or just Attorney if you were on contract.
If she went part time, they may have only given her partial year credit each year. So we have part time associates that are considered 6th years, when they've been at the firm 10-12 years.
Saw someone once with nearly 20 years. But switched firms, and a couple of stints in house. Probably took haircuts and didn't get credit for inhouse, so was still a midlevel/senior.
You also sometimes see people who came from non biglaw environments and have to start at a relatively junior position. Eg I know someone who was a staff attorney for years and managed to get on partner track, as a second year. If you don't know the background it's confusing why a seemingly senior is treated like a junior, but it's a better job than before, and will be up for partner about 18 years after JD.
At my firm, partnership track is 11-ish years, so C/O 2013 is up this year. If someone is exceptional (at BD), they go up earlier, but we have laterals going up this year who are C/O 2011-2012, too. It’s particularly crowded at the top in my group and I’m a lateral, so the motivation is weak. The firm is supposedly trying to make an effort to counsel our associates who don’t have a chance at making partner so that they might find a soft landing at a client.
I knew of a 14 or 15 year associate. Ended up making partner. This was at a V10 that regularly promotes to counsel (and some of those end up subsequently making partner), so no clue what the deal was there.
A Biglaw firm once tried to offer me this. I had been in house for more than a decade and this particular partner’s practice seemed to be hire experienced in-house attorneys as associates-have them come in at the associate level they left, and then he would get an experienced attorney for the price of a 3rd year.
What clued me in on how this was not a great opportunity was there was clearly no path to counsel or partnership. You worked for the one partner and he had been doing this for more than a decade and his highest level associate he had working for him was a 6th year. Apparently some of his associates had gone in-house with his clients but no thanks.
Fundamentally, I think most people who are drawn to big law at all are ambitious (no shit, right?) so there is a fundamental issue with hiring people into a position with no trajectory. Particularly one that is as demanding as an accurate gig.
I know a 14th year associate. I was shocked at what a bad writer he is (and that's not me coming from a V10 appellate group and being an elitist dick either - this guy is worse than some summer associates). And yet, he doesn't acknowledge it and thinks he's good. He's a super bro WASP though and plays the game really well. So while he's the opposite of a good mentor, does bad work, and is generally a dick to everyone below him (ie all associates), a couple of partners really like him and somehow don't mind editing his work the way no one that senior should be getting edited.
Everyone junior to him just really fucking hates him, me included (which is rare because I mostly get on with everyone junior and senior to me, and I'm a 7th year on partnership path).
I have worked with people who have clerked at SCOTUS, and they're way better writers than I was. My point was that I wasn't comparing to that. I was comparing to our average juniors.
I know I a number of people like this, though they are not called associate. They all practice in fairly niche areas and are very good at what they do but do not want to be partners. Some of them may be on a part-time schedule.
I did have some Schadenfreude when I saw his bio. This dude was an ass when I knew him, and there is some part of me that delights in his servile misery.
8 years when I knew her, 10 years now. She’s never going to make partner and she knows she can’t find work anywhere else. Word gets around when you’re not very good at what you do.
Yeah right? What’s comp and bonus for a 9th or 10th year? More than many very senior in house attorneys… seems like a heavy salary for a “not good” attorney
I had a big talk at my law firm prior to going in-house about the taboo of this topic. Basically my argument was we could exploit a market inefficiency by hiring very experienced folks to associate rules on decreased pay in exchange for capped hours -- working mothers, burnt out dudes living in Jackson Hole who only want to work an elite, tight 35-hours a week, etc. etc. This would obviously result in employing de facto year 10/15/20/etc. Associates. I was told -- market inefficiency or not -- it would never happen because no firm wants to "devalue the prestige." Elitist bullshit if you ask me, but it's a Partnership and not a dictatorship.
A firm I used to work at had a program where they hired working moms like that. Mostly former in house and big law associates who took a break to have kids then now are able to go back in as associates. In my case we had a pretty good associate who used to be M&A in the early 00s and 15 years later was doing related financing, I liked her
Isn't this what "of counsel" is for?
Part of the question is whether you can actually cap hours or limit them to 9-5 or whatever. It’s pretty hard in a transactional practice. Anybody I have known who has gone part time, for instance, in big law or in middle law where I now work, ends up working full time anyway. Counterpoint - it’s up to you to set your boundaries. I do think titles matter. I wouldn’t want to be a 20th year associate. Maybe call me a Superssociate for my ego.
For me, just as a transactional example I was advocating for, give me a “part timer” who makes a salary exclusively handling blue sky — firm wide, rather than giving random associates blue sky obligations and pretending they understand state specific securities laws.
I can see that working - unless somebody drops the ball, the blue sky filings shouldn’t sneak up on you and you can get that all done on a fixed schedule. Would that all work were like that.
There are two women in my office that went reduced schedule after babies. Obviously salaries get cut as part of this arrangement. One works full time anyway and makes a fraction of what she would otherwise make. The other actually sticks to her reduced schedule and as a result no one wants to work with her. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I’ve seen that happen. It’s a trap!
Yeah, I never understood this either. Hell, I would work a full associate load, and they can cap me at 400k or something and I’d be more than happy, even if I have 30 years of experience. But no, guess it’s better to have two untested first years who need to check in with senior associates every day.
Not the US, but someone in my firm is a 15th year associate. She has reduced hours due to raising children under 12 (a legal right in my country)
That makes sense to me. This guy I used to know - he was just sort of an asshole. So I’d like to think that has something to do with it.
I honestly wish I could be an associate for 18 years.
Counsel... I've essentially been an associate for 15 years. No bd responsibility, and I don't have to butt heads with partners fighting over origination credit. But I still get credit for easy organic client development on the platform when a client sends me unsolicited work. I was never going to do the work to originate $5m+ every year necessary for equity, so it didn't make sense to do NEP with no hope of equity. If $1-2m of origination falls in my lap every few years, I'll take it, but no reason to go out of my way.
This sounds ideal. My firm uses counsel as a stepping stone to partnership, so it’s a bit up or out in that regard.
Same here. I never want to become partner but my firm doesn’t really do counsel positions that much. So I’ll be forced to leave at some point, sadly enough. Never minded the grind of the work, so could do this for decades more.
Why’s that? Edit: just asking for elaboration. Don’t hate.
No partner responsibilities and higher pay and bonuses than any lawyer in America except for equity partner. Hell, you’d made more than many biglaw partners in many other countries.
Being.a partner comes with a lot of BS. More money, yes, but also more BS.
Knew someone who was law school class of ‘96 who was still an associate in 2015 before finally lateraling to a counsel role at another firm. No idea why his first firm never offered him the title.
Sometimes they do not ask for the title. You will not get what you don’t ask for in this system
I got y'all beat, I know a 33rd year.
What’s their deal? Some kind of reduced expectations position, or just never graduated beyond drafting certificates and compiling signature page packets?
Not really sure. I'm guessing he has a specialized skillset and/or is liked by a rainmaker, and has no interest in partnership. In this firm, counsel is basically reserved as a stepping stone for partnership, so here we are.
I don’t know anyone who’s been practicing longer than 9 years who hasn’t either become partner or counsel/of counsel.
I knew (of) someone at my old firm who was a senior associate, same year as me, when I left…..and like 10 years later I was looking up someone’s bio and ran across hers, still listed as an associate. She’s since gone in-house. I don’t know what was up with that, but I was curious. I didn’t know her well enough to stay in touch and find out what the story was. Typically, at that firm as with most firms, you would be Counsel, Senior Counsel, or Special Counsel at that point - or just Attorney if you were on contract.
If she went part time, they may have only given her partial year credit each year. So we have part time associates that are considered 6th years, when they've been at the firm 10-12 years.
I once had a roommate who was a 15th year philosophy Ph.D.
Saw someone once with nearly 20 years. But switched firms, and a couple of stints in house. Probably took haircuts and didn't get credit for inhouse, so was still a midlevel/senior. You also sometimes see people who came from non biglaw environments and have to start at a relatively junior position. Eg I know someone who was a staff attorney for years and managed to get on partner track, as a second year. If you don't know the background it's confusing why a seemingly senior is treated like a junior, but it's a better job than before, and will be up for partner about 18 years after JD.
Worked at a big AmLaw firm and there was a 20th year associate in the litigation group. Seemed like a good guy.
I was 11/12 years? Switched practice areas early on, then switched firms once. Now an equity partner, it worked out.
At my firm, partnership track is 11-ish years, so C/O 2013 is up this year. If someone is exceptional (at BD), they go up earlier, but we have laterals going up this year who are C/O 2011-2012, too. It’s particularly crowded at the top in my group and I’m a lateral, so the motivation is weak. The firm is supposedly trying to make an effort to counsel our associates who don’t have a chance at making partner so that they might find a soft landing at a client.
I knew of a 14 or 15 year associate. Ended up making partner. This was at a V10 that regularly promotes to counsel (and some of those end up subsequently making partner), so no clue what the deal was there.
Not big law, but look up the associates at SeegerWeiss… That’s the record for oldest associates I’ve seen.
A Biglaw firm once tried to offer me this. I had been in house for more than a decade and this particular partner’s practice seemed to be hire experienced in-house attorneys as associates-have them come in at the associate level they left, and then he would get an experienced attorney for the price of a 3rd year. What clued me in on how this was not a great opportunity was there was clearly no path to counsel or partnership. You worked for the one partner and he had been doing this for more than a decade and his highest level associate he had working for him was a 6th year. Apparently some of his associates had gone in-house with his clients but no thanks.
Fundamentally, I think most people who are drawn to big law at all are ambitious (no shit, right?) so there is a fundamental issue with hiring people into a position with no trajectory. Particularly one that is as demanding as an accurate gig.
I know a 14th year associate. I was shocked at what a bad writer he is (and that's not me coming from a V10 appellate group and being an elitist dick either - this guy is worse than some summer associates). And yet, he doesn't acknowledge it and thinks he's good. He's a super bro WASP though and plays the game really well. So while he's the opposite of a good mentor, does bad work, and is generally a dick to everyone below him (ie all associates), a couple of partners really like him and somehow don't mind editing his work the way no one that senior should be getting edited. Everyone junior to him just really fucking hates him, me included (which is rare because I mostly get on with everyone junior and senior to me, and I'm a 7th year on partnership path).
I was shocked at what a bad writer he is, and that’s not my V1 HYS 178 LSAT junior associate of the year award speaking!
I have worked with people who have clerked at SCOTUS, and they're way better writers than I was. My point was that I wasn't comparing to that. I was comparing to our average juniors.
I know I a number of people like this, though they are not called associate. They all practice in fairly niche areas and are very good at what they do but do not want to be partners. Some of them may be on a part-time schedule.
Lmaoo
I did have some Schadenfreude when I saw his bio. This dude was an ass when I knew him, and there is some part of me that delights in his servile misery.
lol I just can’t wrap my mind around it. I’m barely going to hit 4. It’s such a weird environment to be in ESPECIALLY as an associate. Omg
8 years when I knew her, 10 years now. She’s never going to make partner and she knows she can’t find work anywhere else. Word gets around when you’re not very good at what you do.
If she’s not good, why wouldn’t they fire her at this point?
Yeah right? What’s comp and bonus for a 9th or 10th year? More than many very senior in house attorneys… seems like a heavy salary for a “not good” attorney