Remember when sticker at T10 seemed like a good idea? Forum

[20141023]

.

[WokeUpInACar]

Well, I finally got my hands on The NALP Foundation’s “2012 Update on Associate Attrition for Calendar Year 2011,” and I even made some kick-ass Google spreadsheets from the data, but I was denied access to share them by NALP. So… I am going to have to simply state points that I thought were interesting here. Before that, however, I would highly recommend that anyone who is considering going to law school read their report as it is literally a goldmine of information; it shows what percentage of associates (broken down into categories of new-hires, lateral hires, male, female, minority, etc.) leave what size firms and after how many years, as well as why they leave and where they end up going.

Synopsis:
Biglaw firms lost roughly 69% of their entry-level associates within the first 5 years, but only a quarter within the first 3 years. Apparently only about a quarter of the associate departures were desired by the law firms, whereas roughly half of the departures were unwanted (the remaining attrition was viewed neutrally). As for where the entry-level associates ended up after leaving their firms, slightly less than half moved to associate positions at other legal firms, and one-fifth of them moved in house with corporate counsels. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell how many of these associates that lateraled into other law firms went to a smaller firm (biglaw to midlaw, midlaw to shitlaw, etc.). Additionally, only 2% of departing associates went to judicial clerkships, and NALP doesn’t break this down into “type” of clerkship, so there is no way to tell how many of these were AIII clerkships, although we know it is a max of 2%. In conclusion, it looks like roughly 31% of entry-level associates are still with their firms after 5 years when it comes to the largest firms (501+ attorneys); this number is slightly higher for other large firms (101-250 attorneys). Of the 69% that leave, approximately 73% end up in decent legal employment such as law firm associate, law firm partner, judicial clerk, other governmental legal job, and corporate in-house counsel. Accordingly, 31% + 50% (73% of 69%) = 81% of entry-level associates are still in some sort of (presumably) decent legal position at the end of year 5.

What the fuck? Also thanks a lot, this is great information man!

[Tim0thy222]

Well this thread has turned into a huge success, thanks in large part to thesealocust and regulus, but also everyone contributing.

Sealocust, to add on to your point about transactional vs litigation, can you just be one or the other for different interviews? For example, I spoke with a partner at a big firm recently who said that people who express interest in transactional are far more likely to get callbacks, so I could tell them I want to do transactional, then tell lit boutiques that I want to do lit.

I mean, I really could see myself doing either at this point, but maybe that's because I'm a 0L.

Is this a good or a bad idea?

[sinfiery]

Awesome. Thank you for that sir! Really backs up what TSL post said about associates leaving their firms but staying within the biglaw machine to a large degree.

[untar614]

Awesome. Thank you for that sir! Really backs up what TSL post said about associates leaving their firms but staying within the biglaw machine to a large degree.

Yeah, really nice to know. Makes things seem a little more positive in the long term.

[Justin Genious]

Synopsis:
Biglaw firms lost roughly 69% of their entry-level associates within the first 5 years, but only a quarter within the first 3 years. Apparently only about a quarter of the associate departures were desired by the law firms, whereas roughly half of the departures were unwanted (the remaining attrition was viewed neutrally). As for where the entry-level associates ended up after leaving their firms, slightly less than half moved to associate positions at other legal firms, and one-fifth of them moved in house with corporate counsels. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell how many of these associates that lateraled into other law firms went to a smaller firm (biglaw to midlaw, midlaw to shitlaw, etc.). Additionally, only 2% of departing associates went to judicial clerkships, and NALP doesn’t break this down into “type” of clerkship, so there is no way to tell how many of these were AIII clerkships, although we know it is a max of 2%. In conclusion, it looks like roughly 31% of entry-level associates are still with their firms after 5 years when it comes to the largest firms (501+ attorneys); this number is slightly higher for other large firms (101-250 attorneys). Of the 69% that leave, approximately 73% end up in decent legal employment such as law firm associate, law firm partner, judicial clerk, other governmental legal job, and corporate in-house counsel. Accordingly, 31% + 50% (73% of 69%) = 81% of entry-level associates are still in some sort of (presumably) decent legal position at the end of year 5.

Wow, thanks for sharing!

[SportsFan]

Well, I finally got my hands on The NALP Foundation’s “2012 Update on Associate Attrition for Calendar Year 2011,” and I even made some kick-ass Google spreadsheets from the data, but I was denied access to share them by NALP. So… I am going to have to simply state points that I thought were interesting here. Before that, however, I would highly recommend that anyone who is considering going to law school read their report as it is literally a goldmine of information; it shows what percentage of associates (broken down into categories of new-hires, lateral hires, male, female, minority, etc.) leave what size firms and after how many years, as well as why they leave and where they end up going.

Synopsis:
Biglaw firms lost roughly 69% of their entry-level associates within the first 5 years, but only a quarter within the first 3 years. Apparently only about a quarter of the associate departures were desired by the law firms, whereas roughly half of the departures were unwanted (the remaining attrition was viewed neutrally). As for where the entry-level associates ended up after leaving their firms, slightly less than half moved to associate positions at other legal firms, and one-fifth of them moved in house with corporate counsels. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell how many of these associates that lateraled into other law firms went to a smaller firm (biglaw to midlaw, midlaw to shitlaw, etc.). Additionally, only 2% of departing associates went to judicial clerkships, and NALP doesn’t break this down into “type” of clerkship, so there is no way to tell how many of these were AIII clerkships, although we know it is a max of 2%. In conclusion, it looks like roughly 31% of entry-level associates are still with their firms after 5 years when it comes to the largest firms (501+ attorneys); this number is slightly higher for other large firms (101-250 attorneys). Of the 69% that leave, approximately 73% end up in decent legal employment such as law firm associate, law firm partner, judicial clerk, other governmental legal job, and corporate in-house counsel. Accordingly, 31% + 50% (73% of 69%) = 81% of entry-level associates are still in some sort of (presumably) decent legal position at the end of year 5.

Part I bolded is definitely much different than I expected. Somewhat reassuring, tbh.

[20141023]

.

[sinfiery]

Do they have a category for employees who were canned vs those who left on their own?

[SportsFan]

Part I bolded is definitely much different than I expected. Somewhat reassuring, tbh.

Actually, I need to make a correction: The entry-level associate departure rate for firms with 501+ attorneys within 5 years was 64%, whereas it was 69% for firms with 251-500 attorneys, 59% for firms with 101-250 attorneys, and 68% for firms with 2-100 attorneys.

Ah. Still, only a quarter gone within 3 years is a lot better than the "20% of your class leaves each year" stuff that I'd read on here before.

[Elston Gunn]

Well, I finally got my hands on The NALP Foundation’s “2012 Update on Associate Attrition for Calendar Year 2011,” and I even made some kick-ass Google spreadsheets from the data, but I was denied access to share them by NALP. So… I am going to have to simply state points that I thought were interesting here. Before that, however, I would highly recommend that anyone who is considering going to law school read their report as it is literally a goldmine of information; it shows what percentage of associates (broken down into categories of new-hires, lateral hires, male, female, minority, etc.) leave what size firms and after how many years, as well as why they leave and where they end up going.

Synopsis:
Biglaw firms lost roughly 69% of their entry-level associates within the first 5 years, but only a quarter within the first 3 years. Apparently only about a quarter of the associate departures were desired by the law firms, whereas roughly half of the departures were unwanted (the remaining attrition was viewed neutrally). As for where the entry-level associates ended up after leaving their firms, slightly less than half moved to associate positions at other legal firms, and one-fifth of them moved in house with corporate counsels. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell how many of these associates that lateraled into other law firms went to a smaller firm (biglaw to midlaw, midlaw to shitlaw, etc.). Additionally, only 2% of departing associates went to judicial clerkships, and NALP doesn’t break this down into “type” of clerkship, so there is no way to tell how many of these were AIII clerkships, although we know it is a max of 2%. In conclusion, it looks like roughly 31% of entry-level associates are still with their firms after 5 years when it comes to the largest firms (501+ attorneys); this number is slightly higher for other large firms (101-250 attorneys). Of the 69% that leave, approximately 73% end up in decent legal employment such as law firm associate, law firm partner, judicial clerk, other governmental legal job, and corporate in-house counsel. Accordingly, 31% + 50% (73% of 69%) = 81% of entry-level associates are still in some sort of (presumably) decent legal position at the end of year 5.

Thanks, man. Does it say anything about what the other 19% do? Are they all cider farmers or doc reviewers?

[sinfiery]

Thanks, man. Does it say anything about what the other 19% do? Are they all cider farmers or doc reviewers?

[WokeUpInACar]

Do they have a category for employees who were canned vs those who left on their own?

Synopsis:
Biglaw firms lost roughly 69% of their entry-level associates within the first 5 years, but only a quarter within the first 3 years. Apparently only about a quarter of the associate departures were desired by the law firms, whereas roughly half of the departures were unwanted (the remaining attrition was viewed neutrally). As for where the entry-level associates ended up after leaving their firms, slightly less than half moved to associate positions at other legal firms, and one-fifth of them moved in house with corporate counsels. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell how many of these associates that lateraled into other law firms went to a smaller firm (biglaw to midlaw, midlaw to shitlaw, etc.). Additionally, only 2% of departing associates went to judicial clerkships, and NALP doesn’t break this down into “type” of clerkship, so there is no way to tell how many of these were AIII clerkships, although we know it is a max of 2%. In conclusion, it looks like roughly 31% of entry-level associates are still with their firms after 5 years when it comes to the largest firms (501+ attorneys); this number is slightly higher for other large firms (101-250 attorneys). Of the 69% that leave, approximately 73% end up in decent legal employment such as law firm associate, law firm partner, judicial clerk, other governmental legal job, and corporate in-house counsel. Accordingly, 31% + 50% (73% of 69%) = 81% of entry-level associates are still in some sort of (presumably) decent legal position at the end of year 5.

[sinfiery]

Does that have equal firing or just a summary report after the person left with something like: Do you miss John? [] Yes [] No [] Maybe

I wonder..

[WokeUpInACar]

Does that have equal firing or just a summary report after the person left with something like: Do you miss John? [] Yes [] No [] Maybe

I wonder..

[20141023]

.

[WokeUpInACar]

Part I bolded is definitely much different than I expected. Somewhat reassuring, tbh.

Actually, I need to make a correction: The entry-level associate departure rate for firms with 501+ attorneys within 5 years was 64%, whereas it was 69% for firms with 251-500 attorneys, 59% for firms with 101-250 attorneys, and 68% for firms with 2-100 attorneys.

Ah. Still, only a quarter gone within 3 years is a lot better than the "20% of your class leaves each year" stuff that I'd read on here before.

Well, despite my post above, both the mean and median annual attrition rates are actually about twenty percent for firms with more than 251 attorneys; it is slightly less for firms with 101-250 attorneys (it actually states this in NALP's report). The ranges are crazy too; some firms only have rates of like 13%, whereas others are as high as 29% in the 501+ category.

Damn this would be nice information to have lol

[thelawyler]

I wonder if this is information that our OCS offices should have.

[Bronck]

Thanks for the info Regulus. Truly incredible stuff to know.

[thesealocust]

Attrition rates can be ballparked as follows:

X = number of summer associates per year
Y = total number of associates at the firm
Z = is the firm expanding

Unless Z = true (and it's usually not) then every year the firm hires X summers, and doesn't grow, so it's safe to ballpark attrition at X / Y.

This isn't right for a few reasons, chiefly lateral hiring. It'll be damn near spot on for the biggest firms that thump their chest about not hiring laterals, but possibly very inaccurate for firms who rely on hiring laterals from those firms. Still, it's a place to start.

Well this thread has turned into a huge success, thanks in large part to thesealocust and regulus, but also everyone contributing.

Sealocust, to add on to your point about transactional vs litigation, can you just be one or the other for different interviews? For example, I spoke with a partner at a big firm recently who said that people who express interest in transactional are far more likely to get callbacks, so I could tell them I want to do transactional, then tell lit boutiques that I want to do lit.

I mean, I really could see myself doing either at this point, but maybe that's because I'm a 0L.

Is this a good or a bad idea?

Sure. It's mildly dishonest, but IMO a pretty good strategy. You can even watch how sincere you are when you tell firm A you wanna do deals and tell firm B you wanna kick ass in court.

NB that some big firms have large enough classes + departments you can even express ambivalence and get away with it.

[Bronck]

For example, I spoke with a partner at a big firm recently who said that people who express interest in transactional are far more likely to get callbacks

How true is this with the big firms in NYC? Sounds too good to be true lol.

[thesealocust]

For example, I spoke with a partner at a big firm recently who said that people who express interest in transactional are far more likely to get callbacks

How true is this with the big firms in NYC? Sounds too good to be true lol.

While it can vary year to year, it was EXTREMELY true when I went through the process.

Tons of 1Ls never bother figuring out what transactional law is, and tons of transactional lawyers are grumpy about how law school doesn't expose you to it at all. Match made in heaven.

Fun fact: I asked a Cravath partner once why he went into corporate, and he answered "because after a year of law school I knew I would hate litigation?"

[mindarmed]

tag for future use, thanks TSL and Regulus

[NoodleyOne]

For example, I spoke with a partner at a big firm recently who said that people who express interest in transactional are far more likely to get callbacks

How true is this with the big firms in NYC? Sounds too good to be true lol.

While it can vary year to year, it was EXTREMELY true when I went through the process.

Tons of 1Ls never bother figuring out what transactional law is, and tons of transactional lawyers are grumpy about how law school doesn't expose you to it at all. Match made in heaven.

Fun fact: I asked a Cravath partner once why he went into corporate, and he answered "because after a year of law school I knew I would hate litigation?"

So how could you sell that in an interview? I know UVA has a transactional clinic in cooperation with the business school... talk about that and stuff?

[Bronck]

So how could you sell that in an interview? I know UVA has a transactional clinic in cooperation with the business school... talk about that and stuff?

Let me just reference another TSL post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p4061387