NYC to 200k Forum

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

I don't follow this. I read that article and it says nothing about raises. Is your argument that, because they won't make partner, an extra 10-15k a year is supposed to make up for that or something?

No of course it wouldn't make up for it, but it would help level things a tiny bit.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

You mean the Asians and other minorities doing all the work so some privileged white person can get the credit, face time and partnership? They don't get affirmative action. I think Asians are punished by it, if anything.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

If you ever get the opportunity to be involved in recruiting, it will become abundantly clear to you that grades matter significantly less for diversity candidates. Personally I think this is a good thing both socially, and also because our clients increasingly demand diverse teams both in terms of race and gender, but if you're anti-AA then I can see that this would be upsetting.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

That's bullshit. Here are the two charts from the blog. Starts out 2/5 white male, ends up 4/5 white male, and the other 20% are mostly white females. You telling me 3/5 of the starting class got "affirmative action." Bull shit.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

No firm or law school would dare publish or release anything like that. But every person who has gone through law school, know of at least several stories where certain so-and-so got a desirable 1L summer job, summer associateship, or "diversity fellowship" and so on even if they were not qualified on the same footing as some of their peers in the same law school solely because of their ethnicity or race. Certain minorities (not including groups like East or South Asians) are hired by "better" firms when it comes to OCI, and by larger number of firms all things being equal. I'm not saying all under-represented minorities get bad grades or anything like that, but whatever their grades are, they'll do better in the big-firm hiring process beyond the expectations of their grades alone. Everyone knows this.

We either think it's total bullshit and keep it to ourselves because it's "racist" to even bring it up, or just accept that the system is perfectly fine and don't think about it.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

No firm or law school would dare publish or release anything like that. But every person who has gone through law school, know of at least several stories where certain so-and-so got a desirable 1L summer job, summer associateship, or "diversity fellowship" and so on even if they were not qualified on the same footing as some of their peers in the same law school solely because of their ethnicity or race. Certain minorities (not including groups like East or South Asians) are hired by "better" firms when it comes to OCI, and by larger number of firms all things being equal. I'm not saying all under-represented minorities get bad grades or anything like that, but whatever their grades are, they'll do better in the big-firm hiring process beyond the expectations of their grades alone. Everyone knows this.

We either think it's total bullshit and keep it to ourselves because it's "racist" to even bring it up, or just accept that the system is perfectly fine and don't think about it.

Right that's why I was asking for non-anecdotal evidence. I think we all know of several stories of friends who got offers because their parents had connections due to wealth who were otherwise subpar candidates. In fact I personally know more of these connection-related offers than I do diversity-related ones. Probably because there are not that many diverse candidates in law school to begin with. But I can certainly see if that's what you are looking for, then you'd find it.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

That's bullshit. Here are the two charts from the blog. Starts out 2/5 white male, ends up 4/5 white male, and the other 20% are mostly white females. You telling me 3/5 of the starting class got "affirmative action." Bull shit.

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

No firm or law school would dare publish or release anything like that. But every person who has gone through law school, know of at least several stories where certain so-and-so got a desirable 1L summer job, summer associateship, or "diversity fellowship" and so on even if they were not qualified on the same footing as some of their peers in the same law school solely because of their ethnicity or race. Certain minorities (not including groups like East or South Asians) are hired by "better" firms when it comes to OCI, and by larger number of firms all things being equal. I'm not saying all under-represented minorities get bad grades or anything like that, but whatever their grades are, they'll do better in the big-firm hiring process beyond the expectations of their grades alone. Everyone knows this.

We either think it's total bullshit and keep it to ourselves because it's "racist" to even bring it up, or just accept that the system is perfectly fine and don't think about it.

Right that's why I was asking for non-anecdotal evidence. I think we all know of several stories of friends who got offers because their parents had connections due to wealth who were otherwise subpar candidates. In fact I personally know more of these connection-related offers than I do diversity-related ones. Probably because there are not that many diverse candidates in law school to begin with. But I can certainly see if that's what you are looking for, then you'd find it.

This is a good point, diversity candidates also get a leg up in making connections because of great number of diversity recruiting events and not to mention the leg up in getting a 1L SA

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

No firm or law school would dare publish or release anything like that. But every person who has gone through law school, know of at least several stories where certain so-and-so got a desirable 1L summer job, summer associateship, or "diversity fellowship" and so on even if they were not qualified on the same footing as some of their peers in the same law school solely because of their ethnicity or race. Certain minorities (not including groups like East or South Asians) are hired by "better" firms when it comes to OCI, and by larger number of firms all things being equal. I'm not saying all under-represented minorities get bad grades or anything like that, but whatever their grades are, they'll do better in the big-firm hiring process beyond the expectations of their grades alone. Everyone knows this.

We either think it's total bullshit and keep it to ourselves because it's "racist" to even bring it up, or just accept that the system is perfectly fine and don't think about it.

Right that's why I was asking for non-anecdotal evidence. I think we all know of several stories of friends who got offers because their parents had connections due to wealth who were otherwise subpar candidates. In fact I personally know more of these connection-related offers than I do diversity-related ones. Probably because there are not that many diverse candidates in law school to begin with. But I can certainly see if that's what you are looking for, then you'd find it.

See, this I find very hard to believe. Nepotism is seriously verboten, to the extent that sons/daughters of current partners are unable to even be considered at the firm I was involved in recruiting at. This level of ethical oversight may be a relatively recent thing, and more true at large firms, but I promise you that it is taken very seriously. And I'll say again, it is not a secret that law firms value diversity extremely highly due to client pressure as well as genuine desire to have diverse summer classes.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

See, this I find very hard to believe. Nepotism is seriously verboten, to the extent that sons/daughters of current partners are unable to even be considered at the firm I was involved in recruiting at. This level of ethical oversight may be a relatively recent thing, and more true at large firms, but I promise you that it is taken very seriously. And I'll say again, it is not a secret that law firms value diversity extremely highly due to client pressure as well as genuine desire to have diverse summer classes.

Direct nepotism? Sure. Hiring a family friend? This is far more common, in my experience.

Look, my point is essentially that diverse candidates have value beyond race. I also don't really think that diverse associates are of lower quality than non-diverse associates. None of the diverse associates I've worked with at my firm have been subpar, in fact they have all been smart people who put out great work. Plenty of people show up at firms due to different reasons. The ones that aren't able to make it to partnership don't make it due to a number of reasons. To the posters that were shitting on "affirmative action" associates, go fuck yourself. Try evaluating merit on an individualized basis and you won't come off as such a moron in the future.

[Anonymous User]

It depends what is meant by diversity. Disregarding women as a class, we all know there is an extremely different standard for recruiting based upon your race.

[dixiecup]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

That's bullshit. Here are the two charts from the blog. Starts out 2/5 white male, ends up 4/5 white male, and the other 20% are mostly white females. You telling me 3/5 of the starting class got "affirmative action." Bull shit.

. . .

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

Here is a login I just made to the site (user toplawschools@tls.com, pw nyto200k). Pick Kirkland Ellis (O'Melveny is not a peer firm so let's stop discussing them) and then select "New partners promoted from associate or counsel rank" and compare it to the "summer associate" data and you'll see the same trend. I can't upload the picture here because the forum only lets you show pictures you have a link to.

http://mcca.vault.com

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

Just curious, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence that diverse associates at top firms did not achieve similar law school grades to their peers?

No firm or law school would dare publish or release anything like that. But every person who has gone through law school, know of at least several stories where certain so-and-so got a desirable 1L summer job, summer associateship, or "diversity fellowship" and so on even if they were not qualified on the same footing as some of their peers in the same law school solely because of their ethnicity or race. Certain minorities (not including groups like East or South Asians) are hired by "better" firms when it comes to OCI, and by larger number of firms all things being equal. I'm not saying all under-represented minorities get bad grades or anything like that, but whatever their grades are, they'll do better in the big-firm hiring process beyond the expectations of their grades alone. Everyone knows this.

We either think it's total bullshit and keep it to ourselves because it's "racist" to even bring it up, or just accept that the system is perfectly fine and don't think about it.

Right that's why I was asking for non-anecdotal evidence. I think we all know of several stories of friends who got offers because their parents had connections due to wealth who were otherwise subpar candidates. In fact I personally know more of these connection-related offers than I do diversity-related ones. Probably because there are not that many diverse candidates in law school to begin with. But I can certainly see if that's what you are looking for, then you'd find it.

See, this I find very hard to believe. Nepotism is seriously verboten, to the extent that sons/daughters of current partners are unable to even be considered at the firm I was involved in recruiting at. This level of ethical oversight may be a relatively recent thing, and more true at large firms, but I promise you that it is taken very seriously. And I'll say again, it is not a secret that law firms value diversity extremely highly due to client pressure as well as genuine desire to have diverse summer classes.

Direct nepotism? Sure. Hiring a family friend? Lol @ you if you think this isn't extremely common.

I don't know what kind of law firms you're talking about. Maybe in shitlaw. But in large law firms with large admin departments and enough partners that they don't all know each other, but actually care about the quality of their summer class, no. I'd say that any partner with any kind of sway - in fact, most associates, if they really want to use a bit of capital that way, can get almost anyone an interview. But if that candidate is not someone that would have been hired anyway, not only will the hire not happen, it will reflect badly on the recommender.

I'm speaking from really direct experience, so lol @ me all you want but that's how it works at shops like Skadden that are more corporations than they are true partnerships these days.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I don't know what kind of law firms you're talking about. Maybe in shitlaw. But in large law firms with large admin departments and enough partners that they don't all know each other, but actually care about the quality of their summer class, no. I'd say that any partner with any kind of sway - in fact, most associates, if they really want to use a bit of capital that way, can get almost anyone an interview. But if that candidate is not someone that would have been hired anyway, not only will the hire not happen, it will reflect badly on the recommender.

I'm speaking from really direct experience, so lol @ me all you want but that's how it works at shops like Skadden that are more corporations than they are true partnerships these days.

I'm at a V5. So yeah, lol @ you.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what kind of law firms you're talking about. Maybe in shitlaw. But in large law firms with large admin departments and enough partners that they don't all know each other, but actually care about the quality of their summer class, no. I'd say that any partner with any kind of sway - in fact, most associates, if they really want to use a bit of capital that way, can get almost anyone an interview. But if that candidate is not someone that would have been hired anyway, not only will the hire not happen, it will reflect badly on the recommender.

I'm speaking from really direct experience, so lol @ me all you want but that's how it works at shops like Skadden that are more corporations than they are true partnerships these days.

I'm at a V5. So yeah, lol @ you.

Okay so let's clarify here: does your firm actually hire candidates that would otherwise be under-qualified based on a family/friend connection to a partner? If so, how do the other partners feel about that?

Edit - and I'm not talking about staff/paralegals here, because I know nothing about their hiring process.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know what kind of law firms you're talking about. Maybe in shitlaw. But in large law firms with large admin departments and enough partners that they don't all know each other, but actually care about the quality of their summer class, no. I'd say that any partner with any kind of sway - in fact, most associates, if they really want to use a bit of capital that way, can get almost anyone an interview. But if that candidate is not someone that would have been hired anyway, not only will the hire not happen, it will reflect badly on the recommender.

I'm speaking from really direct experience, so lol @ me all you want but that's how it works at shops like Skadden that are more corporations than they are true partnerships these days.

I'm at a V5. So yeah, lol @ you.

So at your V5 partners hire their kids then?

[Anonymous User]

I was reading the blog from earlier and there is a serious diversity issue with raises. This post has solid ABA data demonstrating how summer associate classes start diverse, but minorities are weeded out and so the partners are all white. http://brian-boyle-omelveny-torture-att ... k-for.html

Minority associates are disproportionately not going to make partner at a biglaw firm, which makes these raises that much more important to them.

How is it a big surprise that a group of people that benefit from bizarre "feel good" affirmative action for appearance's sake in every step of their legal careers; from getting into T6-T10 schools with grades and scores that otherwise wouldn't even qualify them for top 25 schools, and getting top firm jobs with law school grades that otherwise would never come close to hiring them, are not actually partner material in a competitive market place?

That's bullshit. Here are the two charts from the blog. Starts out 2/5 white male, ends up 4/5 white male, and the other 20% are mostly white females. You telling me 3/5 of the starting class got "affirmative action." Bull shit.

. . .

You do understand how to read data right? Minority and female recruiting has been only a recent phenomenon and firms have only recently begun placing an emphasis on this. I don't know why associate recruiting data from 2007-2015 is being compared to the OVERALL equity partner diversity between 2007-2015. First, there are like 30-40 years worth of white, male equity partners in the ranks already. Even associates recruited in 2007 are barely on the cusp of making partner, and the other classes are not. It's going to take years and decades for initial minority recruiting to make a dent in white-male partnership percentage.

If the data showed that white males were 34% of O'Melveny's 2007 class and 80% people making partner in that class were white males, I'd be shocked at how racist things are. But the data is skewed and fucking dishonestly manipulative. It's showing incoming rates against the OVERALL percentage of equity partners, where the effects of female and minority recruiting hasn't had time to reflect on the overall firm just yet.

Here is a login I just made to the site (user toplawschools@tls.com, pw nyto200k). Pick Kirkland Ellis (O'Melveny is not a peer firm so let's stop discussing them) and then select "New partners promoted from associate or counsel rank" and compare it to the "summer associate" data and you'll see the same trend. I can't upload the picture here because the forum only lets you show pictures you have a link to.

http://mcca.vault.com

It says Asians (who do not get affirmative action) were 10% of summer associates in 2007-2008 and 2% of new partners in 2016.
White men were 40% of summer associates in 2007--2008 and 65% of new partners in 2016. This is smoking gun evidence that the partnership track is white privileged. By paying partners more and paying associates less, you're also paying white biglawyers more and minority biglawyers less.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I don't know what kind of law firms you're talking about. Maybe in shitlaw. But in large law firms with large admin departments and enough partners that they don't all know each other, but actually care about the quality of their summer class, no. I'd say that any partner with any kind of sway - in fact, most associates, if they really want to use a bit of capital that way, can get almost anyone an interview. But if that candidate is not someone that would have been hired anyway, not only will the hire not happen, it will reflect badly on the recommender.

I'm speaking from really direct experience, so lol @ me all you want but that's how it works at shops like Skadden that are more corporations than they are true partnerships these days.

I'm at a V5. So yeah, lol @ you.

Okay so let's clarify here: does your firm actually hire candidates that would otherwise be under-qualified based on a family/friend connection to a partner? If so, how do the other partners feel about that?

Edit - and I'm not talking about staff/paralegals here, because I know nothing about their hiring process.

Yes. I don't know how people feel about this, but I don't see it as being a big deal to be honest.

At the end of the day law school grades aren't really a great proxy for law firm success. If these connected associates can help the firm bring in business, good. If diverse candidates can help the firm do the same, good.

There's more than one way to add value.

[OneTwoThreeFour]

I don't know what kind of law firms you're talking about. Maybe in shitlaw. But in large law firms with large admin departments and enough partners that they don't all know each other, but actually care about the quality of their summer class, no. I'd say that any partner with any kind of sway - in fact, most associates, if they really want to use a bit of capital that way, can get almost anyone an interview. But if that candidate is not someone that would have been hired anyway, not only will the hire not happen, it will reflect badly on the recommender.

I'm speaking from really direct experience, so lol @ me all you want but that's how it works at shops like Skadden that are more corporations than they are true partnerships these days.

I'm at a V5. So yeah, lol @ you.

So at your V5 partners hire their kids then?

I already said that I'm not talking about direct nepotism.

Your reading comprehension is bad, and you should feel bad.

[Anonymous User]

damn I excitedly checked back in on the thread hoping for another juicy bowl of prostitution stories but instead I got a stale carton of leftover social justice soundbites

[Anonymous User]

damn I excitedly checked back in on the thread hoping for another juicy bowl of prostitution stories but instead I got a stale carton of leftover social justice soundbites

This isn't social justice it's hard numbers. Why were Asians 10% of summer associates in 2007/8 but only 2% of new partners in 2016? Why were white men only 40% of summers in 2007/8 but 65% of new partners in 2016. I checked the numbers on that site. It's not affirmative action. It's not 40-year term white partners who haven't left. Biglaw is racist. You don't see this in other professions like medicine.

[Anonymous User]

damn I excitedly checked back in on the thread hoping for another juicy bowl of prostitution stories but instead I got a stale carton of leftover social justice soundbites

This isn't social justice it's hard numbers. Why were Asians 10% of summer associates in 2007/8 but only 2% of new partners in 2016? Why were white men only 40% of summers in 2007/8 but 65% of new partners in 2016. I checked the numbers on that site. It's not affirmative action. It's not 40-year term white partners who haven't left. Biglaw is racist. You don't see this in other professions like medicine.

Biglaw isn’t racist. People are racist. You can’t change that.

If a client is an old white dude, he will probably get along with another white dude. He will get business.

You can’t just become partner because you work hard. You need to generate business. And people like working with people who they can relate to.

That’s why a lot of these high powered Asian partners are partners - they have clients like Samsung and other large Asian brands.

[Anonymous User]

damn I excitedly checked back in on the thread hoping for another juicy bowl of prostitution stories but instead I got a stale carton of leftover social justice soundbites

This isn't social justice it's hard numbers. Why were Asians 10% of summer associates in 2007/8 but only 2% of new partners in 2016? Why were white men only 40% of summers in 2007/8 but 65% of new partners in 2016. I checked the numbers on that site myself. It's not affirmative action. It's not 40-year term white partners who haven't left. Biglaw is racist. You don't see this in other professions like medicine.

Just saying that whole conversation is a dead horse. If you guys wanna beat it, do it somewhere else. Old white people are racist, we get it.

Can we talk about our salaries now? Failing that, hookers were a good number two.

How many sexings you guys think I could get with an extra 10k? 20k?