Up or Out - Still a thing? Forum

[Anonymous User]

If anything, I think firms are moving away for up or out and keeping around productive senior associates longer. I don't know why folks would say you can't stick around as a senior associate in perpetuity making $350K+/year. If you're hitting your hours, then you're profitable for the firm. The fact that you're a 5-time repeat "8th year" senior associate has no bearing on that calculus.

Completely depends on what you're doing.
• If you're doing the work of a service partner (managing big projects, helping with business development etc.) for a senior associate's salary, then yeah they'll keep you on.
• If you're doing the work of a 3rd year associate at that salary, then no you have to go.

[Anonymous User]

At my old firm, it could even be "up and out" in the sense that it was fairly easy to make income partner, but practically impossible to make equity partner. In my group, in the past fifteen years, at least ten people made income partner. One of those people made equity partner.

Same at my firm, and they also push out many income partners after 2-3 years in order to make room for the next wave of income partners.

[Anonymous User]

There are a number of reasons why firms don’t adopt a super-senior model:

1) That’s not how it was done when they were coming up
2) Perception that while super-seniors might still be profitable, they are much less likely to be “available” or “motivated” compared to 6/7/8 years gunning for partnership, especially if they get older/have kids/feel more secure.
3) Desire to make room for new partnership prospects and slowly transition the best clients/projects to them
4) Presence of service partners, who paradoxically seem to have less flexibility when it comes to leaving the firm

That being said, the equity partnership track at my firm ranges and it is not uncommon to see someone get made partner at year 11 or 12.

[Anonymous User]

If anything, I think firms are moving away for up or out and keeping around productive senior associates longer. I don't know why folks would say you can't stick around as a senior associate in perpetuity making $350K+/year. If you're hitting your hours, then you're profitable for the firm. The fact that you're a 5-time repeat "8th year" senior associate has no bearing on that calculus.

Completely depends on what you're doing.
• If you're doing the work of a service partner (managing big projects, helping with business development etc.) for a senior associate's salary, then yeah they'll keep you on.
• If you're doing the work of a 3rd year associate at that salary, then no you have to go.

Obviously someone who actually can't do the work commensurate with their experience level would be let go.

[lawhopeful100]

If anything, I think firms are moving away for up or out and keeping around productive senior associates longer. I don't know why folks would say you can't stick around as a senior associate in perpetuity making $350K+/year. If you're hitting your hours, then you're profitable for the firm. The fact that you're a 5-time repeat "8th year" senior associate has no bearing on that calculus.

Completely depends on what you're doing.
• If you're doing the work of a service partner (managing big projects, helping with business development etc.) for a senior associate's salary, then yeah they'll keep you on.
• If you're doing the work of a 3rd year associate at that salary, then no you have to go.

Obviously someone who actually can't do the work commensurate with their experience level would be let go.

It’s obvious in the sense that, yes because of the up and out structure, but in many other professions, rather than have the lockstep type increases we do, you just would not get promoted, but also not fired. Contrast that with the requirements that you improve each year to match your new salary, which is what happens in law at large firms.

[Anonymous User]

If anything, I think firms are moving away for up or out and keeping around productive senior associates longer. I don't know why folks would say you can't stick around as a senior associate in perpetuity making $350K+/year. If you're hitting your hours, then you're profitable for the firm. The fact that you're a 5-time repeat "8th year" senior associate has no bearing on that calculus.

Completely depends on what you're doing.
• If you're doing the work of a service partner (managing big projects, helping with business development etc.) for a senior associate's salary, then yeah they'll keep you on.
• If you're doing the work of a 3rd year associate at that salary, then no you have to go.

Obviously someone who actually can't do the work commensurate with their experience level would be let go.

It’s obvious in the sense that, yes because of the up and out structure, but in many other professions, rather than have the lockstep type increases we do, you just would not get promoted, but also not fired. Contrast that with the requirements that you improve each year to match your new salary, which is what happens in law at large firms.

Yes, you're right. I don't think McDonalds uses the up or out model. Is that also relevant here?

[Anonymous User]

If anything, I think firms are moving away for up or out and keeping around productive senior associates longer. I don't know why folks would say you can't stick around as a senior associate in perpetuity making $350K+/year. If you're hitting your hours, then you're profitable for the firm. The fact that you're a 5-time repeat "8th year" senior associate has no bearing on that calculus.

Completely depends on what you're doing.
• If you're doing the work of a service partner (managing big projects, helping with business development etc.) for a senior associate's salary, then yeah they'll keep you on.
• If you're doing the work of a 3rd year associate at that salary, then no you have to go.

Obviously someone who actually can't do the work commensurate with their experience level would be let go.

It’s obvious in the sense that, yes because of the up and out structure, but in many other professions, rather than have the lockstep type increases we do, you just would not get promoted, but also not fired. Contrast that with the requirements that you improve each year to match your new salary, which is what happens in law at large firms.

Yes, you're right. I don't think McDonalds uses the up or out model. Is that also relevant here?

Why are you bringing up mcdonalds here? Is that relevant here? Biglaw is unique that you automatically get a signifcant pay bump every year. Not sure why that is hard to understand

[Anonymous User]

If anything, I think firms are moving away for up or out and keeping around productive senior associates longer. I don't know why folks would say you can't stick around as a senior associate in perpetuity making $350K+/year. If you're hitting your hours, then you're profitable for the firm. The fact that you're a 5-time repeat "8th year" senior associate has no bearing on that calculus.

Completely depends on what you're doing.
• If you're doing the work of a service partner (managing big projects, helping with business development etc.) for a senior associate's salary, then yeah they'll keep you on.
• If you're doing the work of a 3rd year associate at that salary, then no you have to go.

Obviously someone who actually can't do the work commensurate with their experience level would be let go.

It’s obvious in the sense that, yes because of the up and out structure, but in many other professions, rather than have the lockstep type increases we do, you just would not get promoted, but also not fired. Contrast that with the requirements that you improve each year to match your new salary, which is what happens in law at large firms.

Yes, you're right. I don't think McDonalds uses the up or out model. Is that also relevant here?

Double post

[Anonymous User]

Apologies for the random bump but I wonder if firms regret getting rid of so many solid senior associates now.

[Anonymous User]

Dechert does not have up or out policy for their corporate group. I've had partners state that good associates who do not make partner can just stay with the firm indefinitely.

[Anonymous User]

I just became a senior associate and have about as good of a reputation/track record as a litigation associate can have. Correspondingly, I think my qol is extremely good for market Biglaw.

However, it’s also quite clear that my firm does not make litigation associates partners. I’m constantly mentally struggling with whether to jump (maybe eat a couple class years if so I don’t care that much) to a spot that makes good associates partners and build my rep all over again…or whether to stay put and cross my fingers and/or ride associate for as long as I can.

Thoughts?

[almostperfectt]

I would say no. Permanent associate (called NSP or counsel) is becoming more frequent due to the amount of complex work that exists. Experienced lawyers that aren't partners are in high demand and can be paid enough to incentivize such a position.

If you're talented enough to be a well-liked senior associate at a firm, you're talented (and profitable) enough to be a forever-counsel in the eyes of the management.

[Anonymous User]

My V70 (lmao) has a senior associate who graduated in 1998 in a smaller office.

Frankly if their "billing > cost", and that person is content working there, it's not a bad business model to keep them on forever. Usually at that point, firms just call them Counsel or whatever though.

A few of these at my firm. Happens a lot but no one talks about it. I think they’re usually happy to walk people back a few class years pay them less and let them keep running

I wouldn't rely on this, if you're using it for comfort ("oh if I don't make partner I can just be a lifelong 8th year associate making $350,000 a year"). It's very rare.

I think this is far less rare then it used to be. From my observations, firms are a lot more willing to create new positions (like managing associate), let assocates go for a traditional counsel position (used to be more "retired" partners), or let people be a "perma-associate." Anything to retain tallent, even if they are not doing the client development of a partner. So I (at least from what I have observed) would say the answer to the OP's question is yes, it's much less of a thing.

Now, if they are talking about the junior associate to senior associate attrition (usually not what people mean by "up and out") that is not changing. But that's always been more about burnout, general financial health (not having work), or not cutting it on the work quality. Not exactly "up," so much as are you still doing your job and a financial net positive.

EDIT: Just realized this is a necrothread. The poster I was quoting was mostly right in 2018. Not correct anymore. The push toward alternate tracks has really been the last 2-3 years.

[Anonymous User]

I would say no. Permanent associate (called NSP or counsel) is becoming more frequent due to the amount of complex work that exists. Experienced lawyers that aren't partners are in high demand and can be paid enough to incentivize such a position.

If you're talented enough to be a well-liked senior associate at a firm, you're talented (and profitable) enough to be a forever-counsel in the eyes of the management.

I disagree about the bolded. I still think at most firms there is a difference in expectations between a non-share partner and a counsel or super-senior associate. Counsel is more in line with a permanent associate, but is still not exactly right.

The underlying point though, that there is no reason you cannot have a long successful career even if it doesn't make financial sense to comensate you through shares, is very valid.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I'm the one who necrod this, sorry for the confusion. Just happened across it and was wondering if firms would be in better shape today if they had kept on those 2018 senior associates as permanent associates / counsel. I know my group has recently hired a bunch of counsel who seem to be doing the work of vanished senior associates.

[Anonymous User]

Counsel is more in line with a permanent associate, but is still not exactly right.

From what I've seen, counsel fill the senior associate spot in the work flow, but probably rank a bit higher. They are lower in the food chain than NSPs, even though they usually have more experience. But they also seem more chill, bill 1700-1800 and just turn down work after that. Maybe it's different in other firms.

[Anonymous User]

Counsel is more in line with a permanent associate, but is still not exactly right.

From what I've seen, counsel fill the senior associate spot in the work flow, but probably rank a bit higher. They are lower in the food chain than NSPs, even though they usually have more experience. But they also seem more chill, bill 1700-1800 and just turn down work after that. Maybe it's different in other firms.

Anon you quoted. That's consistent with what I have seen (not quite the same as a "super-senior" associate). Much better quality of life to be a counsel over an associate.

[Anonymous User]

My firm has an elderly counsel/NSP who has been around forever in a niche regulatory role. As others have said, these arrangements are getting more common and will probably only continue to do so, especially in niche support roles that can be useful to assist work being done by larger groups that isn't itself profitable or big enough to make an equity partner.

If you can do the work you enjoy doing (in a niche role that is probably hard to find elsewhere), have a lower billable expectation than most biglawyers, and probably bring in $400k or so annually in perpetuity, I could see that being a role that a lot of lawyers would accept even knowing that equity is never going to be in the cards for them. But I don't see this being a position that many firms would allow for someone who is, say, a general litigator or does M&A.

[Anonymous User]

I've worked at two V30 firms and if there was/is any hardline "up or out" policy they hide it well. Work with a lot of senior associates pushing into their 9th and 10th years, and then a lot of counsel (ie permanent associates) who effectively run the less desirable parts of matters and give the partners peace of mind that the wheels aren't falling off. Also it doesn't seem like counsel just "chill" and bill 1700-1800 as suggested above, they seem to work just as much as associates.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve been at two V10s and neither is up or out. In fact, one explicitly told us as juniors that we shouldn’t fear up or out because they are always happy to find roles for profitable people and that there were lots of people at the firm who couldn’t make partner or didn’t want to, but could still find a home being counsel or something equivalent.

I think some people are just confused about what “up or out” even means. There was a comment above about how their firm was “up or out” because it had so many NSPs, the ratio of NSPs to share partners was growing, and people were getting “stuck” at NSP forever.... well, that’s literally the opposite of “up or out” lol. If someone fails to make equity (not going “up”) but is still sticking around as NSP (not going “out”) then obviously the firm is not up or out.

In fact, I’d argue that the existence of an NSP class and its proliferation is itself a sign that “up or out” is dying. It’s just one more dumbass thing that the old white shoe firms came up with that doesn’t actually make economic sense when you think about it, and firms like Kirkland have disrupted those ideas in recent years. Why fire someone who’s making you tons of money?

[Anonymous User]

Probably a dumb question, but is the only difference between a super senior associate and a junior partner (if they are same class year) that the latter brings in business while the former doesn't? Or are there other factors I'm missing?

[Anonymous User]

Probably a dumb question, but is the only difference between a super senior associate and a junior partner (if they are same class year) that the latter brings in business while the former doesn't? Or are there other factors I'm missing?

Most junior partners don't have meaningful business. Junior partners typically have relationships with firm clients and have proven they can manage matters effectively; the hope is they can grow their practice and eventually bring in new business, either from existing clients or new clients. A super senior associate is just a body that bills >$1.5m annually.

Most firms have stopped formally pushing out senior associates. They'll usually leave on their own once lawyers 3-4 classes below start making partner. More recently, firms have started promoting these associates to counsel or even partner as long as they're billing >1800 hours and are well regarded; there's no point in pushing someone out who generates revenue that's more than triple their salary.

[Anonymous User]

Deleted because I’m a dummy responding to 2018 posts.