it's the end of the year - not a lot of news - he's gotta fill the blog with something. Plus, the number of respondents helps to obtain advertisers.

got it

Everyone knows that only ninjas make partner at Paul Weiss. Those women must have been pirates.

Do people still want to make partner?

It seems like making partner is not what it used to be.

Hmm. So far, 25% of respondents think they'll make partner. Delusional much?

I can give you 2 million reasons people still want to make partner at a Biglaw in NYC.

$$$$$

What's that? Uh -- partnership? Don't talk about -- partnership? You kidding me? Partnership?

I am sure a few partners at Mayer Brown can give you 2.4bn reasons why it's bad to be a partner at BigLaw. Can't spend it if it belongs to your law suit creditors...

Being led on about partnership is a time-honored biglaw tradition. No one shoud be surprised.

There are 2 million reasons partners don't want to share.

"I'm not at a law firm."

I'd love to know how many people actually took the time to respond to the survey by checking this one.

Being led on about partnership is a time-honored biglaw tradition. No one shoud be surprised.

There are 2 million reasons partners don't want to share.

William & Conolly in DC has been raised to $180K. Why aren't we seeing a thread on this Lat

What percentage of biglaw associates make partner?

1:35, there already was a thread on that. Conclusion: they're still way under market because they don't pay anyone bonuses.

1:35 Do a search before you demand a thread. It was posted days ago.

Cravath is paying "special bonuses". Why aren't we seeing a thread on this Lat

More importantly, what percentage of biglaw associates who don't at some point leave of their own volition (wholly or partially) make partner?

1:39, my guess is around 5%.

Hey Lat, I've heard that a bunch of firms have raised starting salaries to 160k? IS this true?? Why aren't you reporting on this???

More importantly, what percentage of biglaw associates who don't at some point leave of their own volition (wholly or partially) makes partner?

More importantly, what percentage of biglaw associates who don't at some point leave of their own volition (wholly or partially) make partner?

Guys at my high school made partner in biglaw all the time...it was really no big deal.

In my experience (NY, V10), the gap is large between associate perception and business reality when it comes to making partners. "Shoo-ins" from the associates' perspective are not necessarily so from the partners', because partnerships make the decision based first-and-foremost on a would-be partner's potential to be a business generator. Many associates tend to be oblivious to the business realities of running a firm, and expect partnership decisions to be based on "soft" (which is not to say invalid) factors like how hard-working or well-liked the would-be partner is. I've seen some very high quality senior associates be passed over for no other reason than they're in the wrong practice area at the wrong time in the business cycle. This isn't a reflection of their quality as a lawyer (or a person), but of the hard truth that lawyering is still a bottom-line business.

My two cents.

Hey:

Quick question: Does anyone know what percentage of biglaw associates who don't at some point leave of their own volition (wholly or partially) make partner?

New Poll:

Would you rather..

a. Make partner,

b. Die in a grease fire,

c. Know even one person named "Sandrama," or

d. Die in a grease fire?

Partnership is based on 3 things:

1. Can the group take on another partner?

2. Can the would be partner bring in business/grow the group?

3. Can the person be presented to the public as a partner (personality/work) without damaging the group?

I think that's pretty much it.

I plan to make life partner. Does that count?

"Volition" isn't a particularly helpful variable. A lot of people voluntarily leave becase they see the writing on the wall (i.e., even if they work hard and bring in business they won't make partner because of bullshit firm politics), but they still had initially planned/wanted to make partner and, in a bygone era, most likely would have. Those people ought to be included in any kind of survey purporting to show more junior associates, realistically, their chances of making partner.

2.15, comment of the day.

Firms really need to do a better job bridging the partner/associate divide. There needs to be positions that can be reached on the way to partnership that are a clear indication that one is moving up the chain (such as VP at a bank). Non-equity partnership is not really a substitution for this (more of an attempt to obfuscate who exactly is a real partner and the criteria to make it there)

1:13 they were samurai, straight up samurai.

2:15 made me smile. Nice work.

I'm a white male. Who do I blame when I don't make partner?

If they were samurai then why didn't they make partner? I hav enothing to worry about at my firm, I am a muskateer, we are born partners. Oh, and we dominate both ninjas and pirates, but are afraid of vikings.

"In fact, as a female mid-level associate, it makes me think, why the hell am I staying here?"

Maybe because you can make an insane amount of money in 8-9 years of work that will leave you in good shape for life even if you don't make partner? Of course making partner is hard as hell, but it's not like whiny associates didn't know that going in, and it's certainly not like they're not doing pretty damn well for themselves even if they don't get a golden ticket in the end. Not too many other jobs where you can make around a million bucks in your first 8 years out of school.

I'm also of the opinion that partnership is not the golden apple that it once was. Even when you make partner, you still have to bust your butt rainmaking. And sure, biglaw partners in NY and CA make millions, but partners elsewhere in the US make what 500k-700k? Not sure that extra dough is worth the 7+ years of blood, sweat, toil, and butt kissing. From my limited viewpoint and experience, none my law school classmates that I know of in law firms have any aspirations of making partner.

2:29: Why? Leverage is part of the business model at almost all firms (Wachtell being a notable exception). In order for the business model to work, you need a lot of associates at the bottom of the pyramid and a few partners at the top. Most of the work does not require the technical skill of someone who has been out 8-9 years; at least not a lot of the high-margin work. It is better to have a lot of young, eager workers at the bottom. Once they burn out, move on, get kicked out, whatever, there are perfectly capable people right behind them to pick up the work.

Lets face it - firms are a business, not a jobs program.

If you view the partnership system of business in law as fundamentally broken, then it is unlikely that you will view your partnership chances positively and, therefore, act accordingly.

2:39, I think her point was more, why is she staying there instead of going to a smaller firm with a better chance of making partner. Or at least to a less dishonest firm.

Okay, that last sentence made me laugh. There are no honest firms!

2:51-- the number 1 problem many big firms face right now (at least in corporate) is holding onto mid to senior level associates. These people generate a ton of revenue for firms, way above and beyond their comp, and have very marketable skills from running deals. Currently, most associates in this position have effectively zero upward mobility since only a small percentage will make partner and there really is no acceptable position in between. The current system encourages more of these people to leave than the firm would like. It is profitable for firms to keep these people as long as possible, thus it makes sense for them to create a VP-type position that will lessen the blow of the fact that very few ultimately will make partner.

OMM-DC regularly screws people over in partnership decisions. And bonuses.

I think the point is that at some point the firm should not be stringing people along. And if the firm has a history of doing that, even if you think you or someone you know is totally on track, there is a good chance that the firm will f*ck you in the end. Is that the place to build a career or is it better to go to a firm that has a better track record of communicating standing with its senior associates?

3:14,

Would you as a senior associate stay with a firm that has a "track record" of communicating standing with its senior associates if you were told that you had virtually no chance of making partner?

The problem, of course, is that any mid-level VP-type position would likely require compensation to be higher than an associate an approaching somewhere between a senior associate and a junior partner. If firms pay out this kind of money, the senior associate may not be worth retaining. It's just easier to push work down onto the smarter mid-levels, who normally rise to the challenge.

I guess I just wonder at successful v.10 firms how exactly they evaluate the "business case" for making a senior associate a partner. I know of very few senior associate who have their own business. It seems like with almost all partnerships, you make the partner first and then hope that the new partner will develop a book of business over a few years...

Should mid and senior level associates who ARE interested start trying to bring in business? If so, how?

Non-equity partnership is filling that void. More and more firms will start utilizing a caste of non-equity partners. Huge upside. Keep good, profitable lawyers, who will generate plenty of revenue for the firm, because the can charge "junior partner" rates.

3:09, these VP like positions exist, we call them income partners. They make more money (but not real partner money) and by being called a "partner" they are even more marketable outside of the firm once it is time for them to go (after say 3 years as income partner tops). Of course since almost anyone that sticks it out (i.e. is well liked/ does good enough work) the 6 or so years makes income partners it doesn't do a very good job of signaling if you'll make equity partner, but it still seems like a good deal.

I'd certainly rather be a 2nd tier partner than a senior associate for my last couple of years in BigLaw. Even if other lawyers know what it really means (not much), you have to admit that exits outside of law would rather hire a partner from a law firm than an associate. A few places use this system, most notably Kirkland. Really, while I used to think that it was sketchy of a firm to have a two tier partnership I think now that it really makes a good bit of sense.

I was an assoicate at Paul, Weiss for 5 and a half years and actually really enjoyed my experience there. That said, over the years I saw many stellar people get passed over (including people I knew who were up this year) because of the firm's "super-majority" voting requirement and other amorphous reasons (they don't "present" like a Paul, Weiss partner). It's extremely political; and I agree with many of the commentars on this thread regarding the sometimes unreasoned expectations of associates and the loss of talent as a result of bleak future prospects.

Frankly, it sucks to see that happen to good people who feel as though they've been strung along for years.

3:38, what are you talking about? Honestly, what firm other than Kirkland promotes associates as a matter of course to non equity "partner" after 5-6 years? I don't know of any.

What's going on with Shearman and Sterling? NO litigators made partner this year, despite some "shoe-ins" being ready to go, i.e. in DC. Anyone?

4:01 Wilmer pre merger did, I think.

K&L Gates DC - are they even making anyone partner this year?

Non-equity partnership seems to me an imperfect means of bridging the gap. Both the firm and the associate benefit for a couple of years while the firm puts off its decision re: real partnership and the associate gets higher comp and the privilege of calling himself partner. But ultimately, doesn't it really come to the same end point (i.e., up or out)? In most large businesses, there is a relatively permanent group of middle managers. Law firms are still trying to hold onto a structure that worked when they were much smaller, but isn't so great today

Anyone have an idea what a new partner makes at, say, a Cravath, Sullivan, Simpson or Davis Polk?

In the past three years, Paul, Weiss has made a total of six litigation partners. Of those, three have been women. In fact, one woman who made partner did so while working a flex-time schedule.

2:31, you take the white male advice to non-white males: "Blame yourself".

BIGLAW partners are losers. You can make so much more money at an i-bank for about the same amount of work.

I like the "Q: When did you graduate from law school? A: I haven't graduated yet" option. It's funny no matter which response you give to the first question.

2:34 wins, hands down.

4:43, maybe some of us think fungible i-bankers #54 through 73 are weasley little b*astards with boring, boring jobs and short career spans. But hey, don't sweat it. I'm sure getting fired at 50 and hitting the job market again is fun, easy and neither stressful or degrading.

3:35 has a good point about business. Hardly any of the partners at my firm have their own business and certainly none of the associates. Our clients are more like firm clients or clients of a small handful of rainmaker partners. Do other firms really expect you to bring in business or have the potential to do so as a senior associate?

Also, when we want to keep people that won't make partner, we make them special counsel. Although, there is an effort to make this more of a stepping stone than a dead end.

NYC, I don't get what you're trying to say. Ultimately, the ability to bring in business is rarer (and therefore more valuable) than the ability to do the work once it's in the door (though the latter is obviously a component of the former). The lawyers who can maintain the firm's existing business relationships and create new ones make partner. Those who can't, don't, and are going to be paid salary rather than share in profits. It doesn't matter what you call those lawyers who, after x number of years at the firm, can't/don't bring in business (senior associates, nonequity partners, middle managers). You can only continue to increase their salaries so long before, from an economic perspective, the only rational move is to get someone less expensive to do the work.

What about a business structure that produces, at the largest firms, annual profits on the order of $2M "isn't so great"? Isn't so great for whom?

Commenters are always railing on L2L, et al., for not doing their homework before going to a lower-ranked school, but, seriously, who doesn't know the Biglaw business model before getting into it?

1:52/2:05-
Two questions the partnership committee only cares about.

1) How much business can this person bring in to raise our bottom line?
2) How much of a liability is this person?

So here's a question that no one's really answered for me. What happens to the litigators who work for 5 to 7 years at top firms and don't make partner? Do they make partner at midlevel firms? Do they become teachers? Government work?

5:32, very very very naive smart kids

5:32-- I am not saying that firms should divide their equity further. I am saying it is in their interest to create a system where there is less stigma staying at a firm for the long term without gaining equity status. The very high turnover that exists at most firms is not in their interest. Obviously, many leave for reasons unrelated to partnership, but among mid to senior associates it often is the driving concern. Many of these associates might stay if there were middle management-type positions that provided secure long term employment with comfortable compensation (slightly above sr associate level, but well below partner level). Profits would be higher for the equity partners in the long run because they would have to hire and train fewer people.

NYC, they have to eventually get rid of these people because they cannibalize opportunities that should be going to senior associates who are actually in the running for partnership.

5:32, very very very naive smart kids

Actually, NYC, it seems that the turnover of high-level associates IS in the firms' interests, because the salary required to keep the associate eventually exceeds the associate's contribution to the bottom line. Why would a firm (or its partners) want to pay someone, say, $450k to do work that can and will be done by someone else for $250k?

I think it's unfortunate that a Biglaw career is, in many cases, a tradeoff between getting paid huge amounts of money for a relatively short period of time, with uncertain prospects (for some) at the end (you Biglaw associates are, in this respect, like pro athletes--sock away some dough before you blow out your ACL!). But I think it's always been this way; it just seems to have become more explicit in recent years.

6:00-- I guess I could see there being a some "cannibalization" if every senior associate rose to a VP-type position, but it doesn't have to be that way. I am thinking of a system where lawyers who are technically very competant, but not rainmakers, rise to VP. It should be a real promotion. There would always be room for younger rainmakers to join the partnership. And there would also be room for VP types who later develop a book of business. In the end, I think the turnover problem is much bigger problem for firms than the potential that some associates growth will be stunted.

4:27 asked: "Anyone have an idea what a new partner makes at, say, a Cravath, Sullivan, Simpson or Davis Polk?"

Their "salary equivilant" compensation is about $600-700K, net of holdbacks (capital account deposits, etc.) Their taxable income is closer to $1,000,000, but the top, equity-only, shops require massive holdbacks and contributions to capital for the first 4-6 years. As a result, if you had a salary of $600- 700K, you would make about the same as a new partner at a V10 firm.

Why would you trade associates who you know can do the work well for associates coming up who may or may not be able to do it as well? A good business should look to retain its best employees. Not all of them need rise to senior management level to be valuable. Maybe instead of making 1 partner in each practice group each year, the firm makes 1 partner and 2 VPs. Yes, these VPs are more expensive than the eight 6th year associates who are left, but they do their jobs better than 5 of them. And because you retain them, you probably have to name fewer partners down the road. Once you have a stable of VPs and maybe even Sr. VPs, maybe you actually have to higher fewer associates overall, since once of the reason you hire so many in the first place is because you hope enough will stick around to make it to the senior level when they become really valuable. I know this would require firms to update their business models for the first time in 100 yrs, but it seems to work pretty well in other industries.

But how many new partners are "rainmakers" *before* getting promoted to partner? At any AmLaw 100 firm doing litigation for Fortune 500 companies, no senior associate with 7-8 years of experience is going to be able to land clients that are worth the firm's time to take (or that can afford the billing rates). So these technically competent non-rainmakers are already getting promoted to partner, unless they're also lacking in the personality department.

"maybe you actually have to higher fewer associates overall, since once of the reason you hire so many in the first place is because you hope enough will stick around to make it to the senior level when they become really valuable."

No, you also hire them because your clients don't want to pay the "VP" rate to have their discovery responses drafted, their documents reviewed, and the host of other things that firms manage to keep their most junior associates maxed out doing. You need a steady stream of junior people.

OK, a VP is not going to be doing document review obviously. And actually, many clients do not like the fact that associates at law firms are constantly learning the ropes while working on their very important matters.

Although it can be done, it is very difficult to generate the type of business that an amlaw 100 firm wants as an associate (or any other designation). Clients very much do want the stamp of approval that partnership entails. Keeping good technical lawyers without giving them the title (even as non-equity) hinders their business development, and keeps them more dependent on the firm. Its very difficult to lateral as a senior associate/counsel (especially litigators) unless you have some significant business. You can still go in-house, but most in-house positions also go to mid-levels.

As others have said, making partner has very little to do with your skills as a lawyer. If you suck, of course you won't make it. At most firms, the real key is having one or two powerful partners pushing you and guaranteeing that you will be busy until you can support yourself. If you don't have at least one person who will completely go to bat for you or have a significant book of business, forget about it. So if you are coming up when your group is slow, you may be screwed no matter how good you are. Similarly, a group won't put their neck out for too many people at once; it very much is a numbers game. Making home grown partners is risky and expensive. Most firms have concluded that poaching laterals with more of a track record of generating business is a better investment.

THE BETTER THREAD WOULD BE TO DISCUSS HOW ONE MUST BE A LEFT-HANDED, GUAMANIAN-MUSLIM LESBIAN TO MAKE PARTNER AT CERTAIN BIG FIRMS THESE DAYS.

I am a Biglaw ERISA attorney and have noticed that "Of Counsel" positions are fairly common in my field. I think this is because my specialty is one where having someone with 8+ years experience can be beneficial to the client in many cases versus having a mid-level associate do the work, due to the steep learning curve. We tend to have high billing rates and are able to justify much higher billing rates for the attorney who has been practicing for 10 years versus the one who who has been practicing for 5, partner or not. This also seems to be the case with tax lawyers and certain other specialty areas.

The primary issue with the "VP track" idea seems to be whether clients will be willing to pay more money for the 12th year attorney who has never tried a case or held other roles typically reserved for partners. Otherwise, as 6:06 pointed out, a firm has no incentive to keep that person around, unless he is willing to be paid like an 8th year associate. Firms should care more about retaining good people with a proven track record, but let's face it, most don't. It's all about increasing PPP.

Listen to Alec Baldwin's speech in Glengary Glen Ross. Get them to sign on the line which is dotted. If you bring in business my friend you are untouchable.