I am a graduate of a tier 3 law school. Associate offer from BigLaw prior to third year. Partner (equity) at BigLaw (top 75) firm. Co- founded wind development company while 5th year associate. Currently, have over 450MW operational.

My nephew will be a 1L at top 5 law school in fall. He and I discussed the pros/cons of law school last night. While reading some articles on the internet this a.m., I came across this board and thought I would offer my thoughts/advice to anyone in need.

So. . . . .start posting!

Coming from a T3 what type of grades did you have to get a Big Law gig? Law Review? Work Experience?

How much should prospective associates be concerned with firm health in the V50/V100 range? If a firm's had more recent layoffs or has not resumed hiring at a higher rate as quickly as other firms, does that mean it is not as healthy and less stable then other firms?

What separated you from others when the firm was choosing new partners?

I should have included in my initial post that I graduated magna in the top 10 of my class.

I was on Law Review and my note was published. I declined an editor position because, unlike my fellow classmates, I started school with a two year old (unexpected) which initially delayed starting law school for a couple years and had an impact on where I studied.

My work experience was limited to clerking at a small, local firm during the school year and a SA position with BigLaw after 2L.

I also should add that I was on the recruiting committee for BigLaw for around 6 years.

I know this is a bit off-topic - but not really maybe.
What does it take to be recruited/headhunted from a lower-tiered/midlaw firm, as a senior associate or partner, to become a biglaw partner (at say, an amlaw100 or vault firm)
I've read stories about that.

Can a great interview ever overcome grades? (if from a T-10?)

Lawidiot86 -

You have posed a good question. Here are some thoughts -

Let me start out by disclosing that I no longer work at my firm - I have transitioned over to my own company. However, I still maintain regular contact with members of the firm, including the managing partner (who is still trying to convince me to head back over). I have also had many conversations with partners at other BigLaw in my metropolitan area regarding this particular subject. I also was still with the firm when the intial layoffs occurred.

If the firm you are looking at has very recent layoffs, it would be something that I would want to dig into deeper to find out exactly why this has happened. In my previous firm, there have been a few rounds of layoffs. I would characterize the initial round of layoffs as "housecleaning." Due to the pressures of the economy, the partnership had to take inventory of its group of attorneys. In our case, this included looking at both associates, as well as, non-equity partners. I think that this probably occurred at many firms. No one enjoys letting people go - even when you know that the individual's performance is lacking. When the economy is booming, I think that we all tend to ignore those individuals many times because, let's face it, the bottom line is good - so everyone is happy. When things began to go south, the story changes. I believe that the initial round of layoffs were cases which needed to be addressed for awhile. The second round of layoffs was much tougher. These included good attorneys who unfortunately worked in a department which was suffering (corporate, and the biggest - real estate). They also included non-equity partners who did not have enough of their own book of business to sustain themselves. Many very good attorneys were in one of these categories. But the partnership was not going to take money out of their own wallets, so hard decisions had to be made.

Now we come to the issue of more recent layoffs. Could that be a sign of the instability of the firm? It could. It also could be the next round of layoffs that other firms made a year or two ago, but that particular firm is now making. I know of firms that really tried to "weather" the storm for a long time before making a second round of cuts. Am I saying that the firms did this because out of some sense of "loyalty" to the attorneys who were on the chopping block? In most cases, probably not - although, there are exceptions to this - I do know of a fairly large firm that did make the decision to try to slightly "tighten" everyone's belt before letting more people go (and, notice that I said "slightly" - equity partners tend to be very protective over their piece of the pie). In some cases, firms thought that there were "signs" that we were coming out of this shithole economy and were struggling with the question of "what are we going to do if things ramp up and we have cut our talented "worker bees?"

I think that if you are seeing very recent layoffs, you are wise to be cautious and should do some investigation. Someone may think, "well, I'd love to find out what is really going on but as an outsider, how can I do that?" Over the years, I have found that, as unfortunate as it is, people (attorneys) tend to talk A LOT. And I mean about things that they shouldn't. As an associate, I always knew things that were not meant for my ears (I knew when other associates were being fired before he/she did - that is just wrong). And now that I am no longer a member of the partnership of my previous firm - I still hear things that I shouldn't (example - about an equity partner who was being let go after many years due to some addiction problems). This isn't just with respect to firms which I have had a relationship with - I hear this from other attorneys at other firms, from friends/relatives of attorneys at other firms, other business people in the community, etc. You would be surprised at how much a senior associate would "spill" over a couple drinks after work.

Sorry for the long answer. I hope that it gives you a little insight.

How did you balance the needs of your child/family with the demands of being an associate and then partner?

donniedarko (great movie, btw) -

If I had to give you one piece of advice regarding making partner at BigLaw firm, I would say this - regardless of whatever anyone tells you - you need to develop your own business. I would say that is the number one mistake which was made by fellow associates during their career.

Let me start by telling you something you probably have heard (and hate hearing) - once upon a time, many years ago (I graduated in 1996 - wow - I am old!), there was sooooooooooooooooooooo much work that attorneys were actually turning down business. I was "courted" away from my first BigLaw firm by another bigger BigLaw firm when I was just a 2L. This new firm had so much real estate business that they were going crazy trying to find competent associates to lure over to there shop. And this wasn't only in the real estate department - the firm was just busy (obviously, bankruptcy/litigation was not crazy busy - but they were still pretty busy). This lasted for a long time. A long, long time. And while it was good (interesting HUGE transactions/big bonuses), a bad thing happened. Too many attorneys were being fed (and fed well) off the coat tails of other attorneys' clients. I will be the first to admit, having my plate full with great work from a big corporate client (it was actually the firm's biggest client at the time), was awesome. I learned more than I ever could have during a short period of time simply because the partner's who were passing me the work at the time were so busy that they had no choice. At times it was a bit scary - trial by fire/sink or swim - but my learning curve was greatly shortened due to this. And working for the firm's biggest client (and having them sing my praises) carried with it lots of extra "perks" along the way.

Fast forward several years - economy slows down some. Firm's biggest client hires new GC. Some of the work moves to other firm(s). All of a sudden, there are many mouths to feed and the food source is smaller. People start becoming "stingy" and "territorial." To put it bluntly, for a long time, many associates/partners were "dumb, fat and happy" in their careers - we had become lazy. It's that simple. Luckily for me, I had developed a great relationship with the owner of a company who was on the other side of a very large transaction with our firm's biggest client. The family business had been sold to our client and one of the sons began developing properties on his own - and hired me to work on it. I also was a founding member of a wind development company and we had just raised money and I could actually start billing some of my time. When I was up for partner, I was one of the only associates who had a significant amount of my own business. For a long time, many bright attorneys made partner (usually non-equity for several years) without a ton of buisness. When I was a young associate, I actually was told by several partners not to worry about developing business and to instead focus on becoming a great attorney. They told me that the "business would come" once I established myself as a good attorney. I think in the old days that was true. I think that it also had to do with having institutional clients that stayed with firms forever. Once you paid your dues, eventually credit for a portion of that business would be put in your name and then you would just add to that base. Now - this is not the same story as an associate who grew up in NYC. But it was for me and my collegues. And it was for a good friend of mine who worked at a BIG firm in Chicago.

Long story - here is the ending. If you don't have your own business, you don't control your destiny. Partnerships now do not promote associates to partner just because they have put in their time. Partners have to see that you can develop and sustain business. It's really that simple. And it is the most valuable piece of advice that I can give you.

Cantaboot -

Here is what I can tell you about moving from mid-law firm to a BigLaw firm:

1. The obvious answer - have significant portable business. But if that's the case, not sure why you would want to move unless you feel that some of your clients have needs that this type of firm can provide. Let me say this, if you actually build up a good client base, there are very few advantages to moving to BigLaw - unless there is a legal/client need to do so. I enjoyed my days at BigLaw - and as I already said, I am actively being recruited to come back - but I started there. If I was already used to being a big fish in a small pond, I don't think I would like becoming a small fish in a big pond. I would definitely say do not do it just to be able to boast that you work at BigLaw. Now, I am not saying that if you think having the name association will open doors to you for more business, do not do it. That is completely different. I am just saying that you need to do it for the right reason(s).

2. Find an area which is cutting edge. If you become an "expert" in a more unique area, you may be able to attract interest simply because BigLaw firms are competitive and have egos (just like their attorneys) and want to be on the "cutting edge" of the legal world. They want their areas of expertise to match or surpass other BigLaw firms. Let me tell you that once I was involved as founder/GC of wind farm development company, I became the "prettiest girl at the prom." And this was WAY before we actually started building a wind farm. Side note - some may ask how I was able to start this business while working at firm and not bill hours to it for the firm. I actually asked the managing partner for his "Ok" to do it. Was he influenced in giving his approval because at the time I had been the highest billing associate for 2 of the previous 3 years? You decide.

3. Secure an interesting client. Now, this seems odd at first but I will try to explain. Some firms want to be able to have interesting "news flashes" that they send out to clients or put on their website. I actually know an attorney who represented several animal shelters and found a way to go from a 10 attorney firm to a 200 attorney firm. Stop laughing - I am not kidding. Seriously, stop.

When I was on the recruiting committee, we really dealt mostly with incoming 1Ls. We did not actively recruit other levels unless there was a specific need - and when we did that - we ususally tried to "cherry pick" from another BigLaw firm. I think that you will have to actively pursue the move rather than be pursued - unless you control a big book of business.

Also - I need to let you all know that I am NOT spell checking my posts - or taking time to review them prior to posting. I apologize for errors but I believe the content is what you are most interested in anyway.

What was the minority presence like at your firm? Did the minority attorneys tend to fit in with the culture of the firm? Is there a separate gpa cut off in terms of recruitment?

Dmac– thank you very much for the thoughtful reply. Much appreciated!

It makes sense that at the end of the day a law firm is a business and those who bring in business are more valued than those who do not. I realize that there are some things that an individual will have a hard time changing like their personality and how they work with other people. But is there any advice that you would give to us law students out here as to how best to prepare for the "business" aspect of law firm life aside from just seeming sharp and being good at writing a memo? I ask because law school really doesn't seem to prepare us to be good business folks.

Thanks again,
Donnie

Any tips for developing business? Is it simply referring businesses, etc to your firm or is it more along the lines of having close and fairly personal ties to a particular client? What should a first/second year associate be doing? Is it any different than a third/fourth year?

In short, can you elaborate on what you mean and how to develop business?

Love this question

Oops, I clicked anon there

crossingforHYS -

I did a million on-campus interviews when I worked for BigLaw. Can a great interview overcome grades? Sure, to an extent. This depends on what you mean exactly. If you are talking about whether we ask back someone who is a great interview and in the top 20% or take the complete ass who was number 3 in the class, the answer is yes. At least it was for us. We tried to stick with the "no asshole" rule when it came to hires (especially laterals). As we continued to grow bigger, there were more exceptions to that with laterals. I also have chosen the great interview person over the brilliant, "quiet as a church mouse" top 10 candidate. Remember, now more than ever, having an ability to develop business is important. There is less room for the associate that you are just going to stick in the library or basement and have him/her churn out work. Of course, there are exceptions to this in the MEGA BigLaw firm (my biggest firm is in the 700+ range) so I would assume that there are still firms that want/need the associate who is highly intelligent and will produce stellar work but who you would never introduce to a client.

If you mean outside of the top 20% - I probably will never have the chance to meet you to find out that you are the perfect interview. That sucks. But it is true. Unless, of course, that you went to top law school - then I would meet you and the above would apply.

Let me say this - when I interview someone, I ask myself, "would I introduce this person to one of my own clients?" If the answer is no, you will not be asked back by me. I don't care if you are #1 at Harvard, editor in chief of law review, helped build schools in third world country, etc. Also, if you are arrogant, I will not ask you back. I actually met the most idiotic, completely brilliant, law student from an IVY school. Remember, I went to a third tier law school (top of the third tier - but only third tier). This person was so bright that I was kind of intimidated just interviewing him (I was only a 3L at the time) - not that I showed it. He actually asked a question like, "I see from your diploma that you went to _________ law school. Have you found it hard to compete with fellow associates from much better schools?" Not kidding. My answer was "I guess not considering I received the biggest associate bonus this past year." I wish I would have had a better response - I was caught off guard. And let me say this - he knew I was only a mere 3L - and maybe he thought my opinion didn't matter - after all, everyone else really liked him. But what he didn't know was that I was on the committee - and my opinion did matter. As soon as I told everyone what he asked me, he was FINISHED. Period.

Also - just as a side piece of advice - if you come from a T14 school, do NOT assume that your fellow summer associates who came from state schools/lower tier schoools are not as bright as you. I was accepted at Harvard and Stanford - I also got "knocked up" and that changed my law school plans. Just because I went to a TTT, doesn't mean that I didn't receive over a 170 LSAT and have a very high GPA from undergrad from a great school. And even if I didn't have the above, the mere fact that I was offered a SA spot coming from a lower rated schoool should tell you that I have done incredibly well in law school. If your fellow SAs don't like you, you may just lose your offer. It happens. Trust me.

Just realized how lengthy my replies have been. It is hard to answer the questions thoughfully without making them long. If someone thinks I am being too "windy," please let me know!

I am going to answer a couple more posts and then call it quits for awhile - my daughter is bugging me to watch a movie with her. However - I will log back on and keep answering.

If anyone wonders why someone would take the time to do this if he/she (and I am a she obviously from my 'knocked up" comment), here is why: First, my nephew is going through all of this and told me how lucky he is to have me to guide him. Second, I wish someone would have answered my questions because I came from a family with no history of attorneys/no close friends who were attorneys, so I had no resource. Third, I should be doing more pro-bono work and even though this technically doesn't count as such, hopefully I will help at least one person who is going thru this crazy process. And lastly, I recently had surgery so I am "homebound" for awhile recovering and it is more productive than watching "Lost" (or whatever is popular - I have no idea) on Netflix.

Great question. I was wondering the same thing.

Definitely not too long, lots of great info in there. Thanks for doing this!

You mentioned earlier finding a "cutting-edge" niche. How much of that is responding to the market/finding the new niches vs. "creating the demand" for a niche service? To extend the question to your situation, did you get into wind power because you saw it as a growth industry or did you see an opportunity to create new legal services? Do you have any tips on finding/developing a niche?

bk187 -

I actually think that part of the reason I was asked to be on the recruiting committee so early in my career with my firm was partially due to your exact question. I was asked this a lot.

First off, at the very beginning (during law school and the first 3 years as an associate) of all of this, I was married. He had just finished law school a year before I started. That was a good fact because he understood the demands of law school and was very supportive. Unfortunately and fortunately, he was a prosecutor (that was the only reason he went to law school). I say fortunately because the demands on his time were quite different (more 9-5 unless he was in middle of big trial) than mine. I say unfortunately because he didn't understand some of the demands on my time outside of actual "work" - client schmoozing, recruiting committee activities, etc. Having him there to help with two small children (I had another child a couple weeks after I graduated - yes, I started going to bar review classes 3 days after giving birth) was good. But then we split up and I was a single mom for the rest of my career. H was not an absentee dad - he had them for dinner two nights during week and then every other weekend they were with him. But the biggest responsibilities of parenting were on me.

There are two reasons that I was able to do all the things that I have. One, I live close to my mother and one of my sisters. Without the two of them, all of this would have been much more difficult. Being able to have someone who could run and pick up girls from daycare on my night if I was stuck at office was very lucky. Also, my sister had kids the same exact age who went to the same elementary school. My sister took my daughters to dance along with her daughter. She gave them rides to the skating party that started at 4:30. You get the point.

The other reason had to do with my firm/partners I worked for - my schedule was known and people really did try to accomodate it whenever possible. My firm did not worry about my "face time" - no one complained about me working from home at night or weekends. Also, and I hate to admit it - but there were several times when the girls were sick that I would bring them to work, make a "bed" for them in my office, and entertain them with a portable DVD player. My secretary/paralegal would pitch in if I had to run to a conference room for a meeting. Now, I am not saying that I did this a ton of times - I really feel like I have been a very good mom. I am just saying that there were times where it was necessary for me to be in the office and this was an option that my firm allowed me to do. I have no idea how common/uncommon this would be at other BigLaw firms.

I will say that I think that being a mom during law school and as an associate was actually helpful in my success. I had to be more focused - I treated law school like a 9-5 job and when class was over I went to library and studied till it was time to pick my daughter up from daycare (it was a little more challenging once I started clerking also) and as an associate I definitely socialized less than others (example, I rarely went out to eat lunch because i didn't want to waste 1.5 hours in the middle of the day when I could be billing instead). On Tues/thurs when my ex picked up the girls and fed them, I would work late. Almost always.

Lastly, when I wasn't working and had my daughters, I focused all my attention on them. I never watched T.V. We were always doing something - going to movie, roller skating, picnic, bike ride, etc. My rule was that I never got a babysitter when it was my time with my girls. Even when I started dating, my weekends "on" were all about my girls. Period.

I don't mean to make it sound like I had no fun because I was either working or being a mom. I had plenty of fun. And on my weekends "off" I definitely enjoyed adult activities.

My guess is if you are a hardworking associate and keep your partners happy, they will do things to accomodate you because the value your work (and hopefully value you as a person). If you aren't keeping them happy, they will complain about anything (and everything) else that they can.

I just noticed that in one of my previous posts I was typing so fast that I wrote "there" instead of "their" - I told you that I am not checking for typos!

do hiring committees look unfavorably upon those who failed the bar once and only passed it the second time (which could be noticeable if they dig hard enough) - assuming that these people are not dumb and have a chance to interview with the firm later on?

Would your former firm still hire someone in this economy who has the credentials you had when you were hired?