Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years???? Forum

[speed_the_loot]

.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).

[Anonymous User]

i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times

[speed_the_loot]

.

[RaceJudicata]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007 ... law-review

"He received his law degree in 1958 from Loyola University, where he was editor in chief of the law review.

He joined Baker & McKenzie that year, making partner four years later."

Off topic, but is this a common hobby of yours? Looking at decade old obituaries of attorneys? Compelling stuff.

[MKC]

At some point partners realized they could make fuckloads of money by leveraging salaried associates. Given the number of law students that graduate every year, I don't think they'll ever have an incentive to go back.



New lawyers have a supply problem.

ETA: Looking at this chart it makes sense that they quit making everyone partner in the 1970s.

[Effingham]

i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times

Kirkland has a non-equity partnership track that makes this type of thing a lot more common. It's not really what OP is referring to though.

[speed_the_loot]

.

[Desert Fox]

Partners didn't use to make 10 times more than associates.

[jrass]

In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).

It's worth noting that these jobs were unavailable to women, Jews, homosexuals and every other minority community so in addition to much fewer people practicing law then, nearly 1/2 of graduates were disqualified from the start. In a booming economy, a white male who didn't completely suck was very valuable because most firms wanted to bring in talent, but didn't want to lose that nice wholesome klan rally feel they prided themselves on.

[TLSModBot]

1. There hasn't been an assumption that all associates would make partner since before the Cravath model rolled out (Paul Cravath spoke on this in 1928, I believe, so I'm guessing we're approaching a century since up-or-out with the assumption of a dair degree of out has been a thing).

2. There wasn't good data until AmLaw et. al. started tracking firm metrics in the 80's. Some might have been 4 years, and some were probably longer. 4 years is probably on the early/exceptional side.

3. Law didn't pay as well, for anybody. It didn't really boom until the 70's, and as DF noted the pay differentials were not as skewed.

[PMan99]

In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).

It's worth noting that these jobs were unavailable to women, Jews, homosexuals and every other minority community so in addition to much fewer people practicing law then, nearly 1/2 of graduates were disqualified from the start. In a booming economy, a white male who didn't completely suck was very valuable because most firms wanted to bring in talent, but didn't want to lose that nice wholesome klan rally feel they prided themselves on.

I'm not sure about the other groups, but law schools were almost entirely male in the early 70s and before ( <5% female) so there's not a huge impact there.

[zot1]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007 ... law-review

"He received his law degree in 1958 from Loyola University, where he was editor in chief of the law review.

He joined Baker & McKenzie that year, making partner four years later."

Welcome to a dying profession.

[Anonymous User]

It's an industry built on convincing smart ambitious types to give up on business oriented or creative pursuits to fucking do paperwork. Equity should come that quickly to make it worthwhile. This job fucking sucks.

From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.

[Anonymous User]

i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times

Kirkland has fake partners who are really just senior associates.

[star fox]

It's an industry built on convincing smart ambitious types to give up on business oriented or creative pursuits to fucking do paperwork. Equity should come that quickly to make it worthwhile. This job fucking sucks.

From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.

Law students aren't really that smart or ambitious. It's Liberal Arts All Stars.

[barkschool]

It's an industry built on convincing smart ambitious types to give up on business oriented or creative pursuits to fucking do paperwork. Equity should come that quickly to make it worthwhile. This job fucking sucks.

From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.

Law students aren't really that smart or ambitious. It's Liberal Arts All Stars.

[Anonymous User]

i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times

Kirkland has fake partners who are really just senior associates.

that K&E chick laterally to sidley later this year and still a partner.

[DELG]

Michigan firms have 4 year partnership tracks.

[jrass]

In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).

It's worth noting that these jobs were unavailable to women, Jews, homosexuals and every other minority community so in addition to much fewer people practicing law then, nearly 1/2 of graduates were disqualified from the start. In a booming economy, a white male who didn't completely suck was very valuable because most firms wanted to bring in talent, but didn't want to lose that nice wholesome klan rally feel they prided themselves on.

I'm not sure about the other groups, but law schools were almost entirely male in the early 70s and before ( <5% female) so there's not a huge impact there.

That's true. It was poor wording. I meant to say among decently intelligent people. Let's assume there are 10 people - 5 men and 5 women, that 60% of people are retarded regardless of gender, and one of every 10 gets a gold star then your odds of getting the star at 10%. If we limit the pool to those who aren't retarded then your odds jump to 25% - you're competing against 3 non-retards. If we eliminate the other gender your odds jump up to 50%. I think Sarah Silverman was the one who joked that if you're a middle aged white male who is protestant/catholic and aren't a millionaire, you'd probably qualify for disability. But women really have a much better impact on these #'s than any other group. Family income, race, nationality are all much more predictive than gender and making a previously sexist profession not sexist immediately doubles the pool.