Be honest: am I too old? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

That doesn’t make it not ageism, my friend. You don’t know that the hotshot 32-year-old partner won’t grease their retirement portfolio for five years and bounce, either.

(Similar to the fact that pregnant employees do frequently need time off and often do disrupt workloads etc and yet it’s still illegal to hold that against them at work. Not saying biglaw is doing that; just that it’s the same logic.)

You can call it “ageism” as much as you want but it doesn’t make it so. There are many legitimate non-pretextual reasons for why there’s a concern about awarding equity to someone who’s already middle-aged, particularly given how eye-watering compensation has become, as have been outlined for you repeatedly. Does that mean it’s impossible to get it in your 50s? Of course not.

And your rhetorical appeal to pregnant women is total garbage. Women have kids and come back into the work force all the time it’s not 1960. There’s nothing about a woman being pregnant or having a family that precludes them from being here for the long haul in the way giving someone equity at 50 could.

What’s rich about this whole exchange is that, in the OP, he himself effectively says “I’d love to get rich for ten years this way then bounce at 60.” He’s literally outlining the risk that is being discussed while you’re having an online hypothetical debate about whether sensitivity to this concern by the partnership is “ageist.”

What's wrong with being a partner for 10 years? 50-60? Or 15, and leaving at 65?

Partners leave all the time to other firms.

Yeah of course they do the point is to minimize the risk. Also clients want someone around long term.

[nealric]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

That doesn’t make it not ageism, my friend. You don’t know that the hotshot 32-year-old partner won’t grease their retirement portfolio for five years and bounce, either.

(Similar to the fact that pregnant employees do frequently need time off and often do disrupt workloads etc and yet it’s still illegal to hold that against them at work. Not saying biglaw is doing that; just that it’s the same logic.)

You can call it “ageism” as much as you want but it doesn’t make it so. There are many legitimate non-pretextual reasons for why there’s a concern about awarding equity to someone who’s already middle-aged, particularly given how eye-watering compensation has become, as have been outlined for you repeatedly. Does that mean it’s impossible to get it in your 50s? Of course not.

And your rhetorical appeal to pregnant women is total garbage. Women have kids and come back into the work force all the time it’s not 1960. There’s nothing about a woman being pregnant or having a family that precludes them from being here for the long haul in the way giving someone equity at 50 could.

What’s rich about this whole exchange is that, in the OP, he himself effectively says “I’d love to get rich for ten years this way then bounce at 60.” He’s literally outlining the risk that is being discussed while you’re having an online hypothetical debate about whether sensitivity to this concern by the partnership is “ageist.”

What's wrong with being a partner for 10 years? 50-60? Or 15, and leaving at 65?

Partners leave all the time to other firms.

Yeah of course they do the point is to minimize the risk. Also clients want someone around long term.

Speaking as a client, It's important that a proposed partner stick around through the entirety of the engagement, but I don't think many client really care if a partner will be around in 10 years. The current musical chair environment is such that you really can't count on partner longevity at any specific firm.

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I had a buddy that did this. From observing him, I think there are some real obstacles.

First, you have a wealth of experience and probably good ideas about how the world runs. As a junior associate, your job isn't going to be to exercise that experience. It's going to be to work shitty hours and follow orders. My buddy really didn't like that his ideas on how to do things better were given little thought. He also didn't like that he was doing very menial stuff.

Second, I think that older people are generally less wiling to sacrifice inordinate amounts of time for a job. I'm certainly less willing to grind crazy hours than when I was in my 20s and early 30s, especially after I started a family. My buddy doesn't have a family, but I think the need to be constantly available grates on him.

Neither of these things are insurmountable, but since I've seen them in real life, I figured I'd chime in.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It's not that 40 is too old per se to make it a value proposition; it's really more that in your late thirties you're likely to have people depending on you. If you're thinking about law school I'm guessing you haven't banked a ton of money, and for three years where you have minimal income it can be hard to care for a low/no-income partner or *especially* kids (and even if you can get more money for them, it's just a fatter bill), and even when you're finally making money, working this job invariably damages your relationships with them. Hence this job being mostly comprised of either people without families or people who kinda sorta don't like them all that much.

[Anonymous User]

Yes - you are too old. Law is a young person's game. Firms like promoting equity partners in their late 30s when they're peaking and lock them down for their 40s and early 50s (a lawyer's best years). It's like signing an athlete to a big deal - you don't want to give Bryce Harper $300 million for 8 years if he's 32.

All the comments about how partners leave all the time are stupid. Yes it happens but its irrelevant when it comes to why firms make decisions like this.

[Lacepiece23]

I think this thread is really getting away from the real point. Is it going to be harder to make partner? Yes. Is it so much harder that it’s not even worth trying? I doubt it.

Chances are that OP doesn’t make partner anyone. Very few people do. If OP sticks around long enough, OPs chances are less than the young person. But how much less?

You could say the same thing for minorities. They have a much less chance of making it, but does that mean that the value proposition of trying isn’t worth it?

Most likely Scenario, OP hangs on for three to five years like everyone else, makes bank, and then lives a typical lawyer life thereafter.

And banks a lot of money in the process.

[Anonymous User]

I started in Biglaw (v50, lit, NYC) at 33 and just made partner at 43 at a different v50. I was always the oldest by a bunch of years in my immediate cohort (SA class; associate class year in my group), although at my current firm a couple of people around my age came out of the woodwork to make partner from other groups, and one person was significantly older (early 50's from what I can tell; he had significant regulatory experience prior to moving to private practice).

There have been some annoying things along the way. Having to report to people a few years younger than me was not ideal--not because I resented being managed by someone younger than me, but mostly because some of these people were overachievers and at the same time relatively inexperienced in life outside of school and Biglaw, and had no lives outside the firm; they always acted like everything was urgent and massively important even when that was demonstrably untrue, and they never had the nerve to actually *ask* a partner if something was in fact urgent. In other words, they took everything way too seriously even when I knew better. Of course, it is better to err on the side of taking everything too seriously than the opposite, and, of course, there are many partners who take everything too seriously as well. So what can you do.

But I also "clicked" with a junior partner who was only a few years older than me, and he ended up giving me a lot of responsibility as a first and second-year, and he did not care about associate hierarchy at all. That experience led me to sort of act more senior than I was whenever I could (within reason and within the bounds of good taste), and I think partners and clients were receptive to that or didn't even notice, perhaps because of my actual age. And that allowed me to get more responsibility, including assignments directly from clients, which in turn led to me develop some expertise in a niche area, on the basis of which I lateraled to a firm with a well-known practice in that niche and ultimately made partner.

I try not to get hung up on the fact that many "established" partners at my firm are my age or younger. One person at a previous firm is a year older than me and is on the executive committee of the firm. A couple of people in my SA class, who were 6-8 years younger than me to begin with, have already been partners at their respective firms for a few years now (I stepped back a couple of class years when I made one of my lateral moves, to lengthen the runway -- good decision).

All I can say is, there is no one-size-fits-all path to Biglaw success and partnership. My age has been in the mix, but also the stars had to align in just the right way for me to get where I am, so who knows if I truly would have been better off starting out younger, or not.

[noice]

I started in Biglaw (v50, lit, NYC) at 33 and just made partner at 43 at a different v50. I was always the oldest by a bunch of years in my immediate cohort (SA class; associate class year in my group), although at my current firm a couple of people around my age came out of the woodwork to make partner from other groups, and one person was significantly older (early 50's from what I can tell; he had significant regulatory experience prior to moving to private practice).

There have been some annoying things along the way. Having to report to people a few years younger than me was not ideal--not because I resented being managed by someone younger than me, but mostly because some of these people were overachievers and at the same time relatively inexperienced in life outside of school and Biglaw, and had no lives outside the firm; they always acted like everything was urgent and massively important even when that was demonstrably untrue, and they never had the nerve to actually *ask* a partner if something was in fact urgent. In other words, they took everything way too seriously even when I knew better. Of course, it is better to err on the side of taking everything too seriously than the opposite, and, of course, there are many partners who take everything too seriously as well. So what can you do.

But I also "clicked" with a junior partner who was only a few years older than me, and he ended up giving me a lot of responsibility as a first and second-year, and he did not care about associate hierarchy at all. That experience led me to sort of act more senior than I was whenever I could (within reason and within the bounds of good taste), and I think partners and clients were receptive to that or didn't even notice, perhaps because of my actual age. And that allowed me to get more responsibility, including assignments directly from clients, which in turn led to me develop some expertise in a niche area, on the basis of which I lateraled to a firm with a well-known practice in that niche and ultimately made partner.

I try not to get hung up on the fact that many "established" partners at my firm are my age or younger. One person at a previous firm is a year older than me and is on the executive committee of the firm. A couple of people in my SA class, who were 6-8 years younger than me to begin with, have already been partners at their respective firms for a few years now (I stepped back a couple of class years when I made one of my lateral moves, to lengthen the runway -- good decision).

All I can say is, there is no one-size-fits-all path to Biglaw success and partnership. My age has been in the mix, but also the stars had to align in just the right way for me to get where I am, so who knows if I truly would have been better off starting out younger, or not.

thanks for this. i've done some cool stuff (softs) which has resulted thus far in a yale admission and a hamilton offer. my 24 year old self would have paid sticker and probably quit after a few years.

i have seen some shit at this point in my life.

[BEng,MBA,FRM,JD(?)]

I started in Biglaw (v50, lit, NYC) at 33 and just made partner at 43 at a different v50. I was always the oldest by a bunch of years in my immediate cohort (SA class; associate class year in my group), although at my current firm a couple of people around my age came out of the woodwork to make partner from other groups, and one person was significantly older (early 50's from what I can tell; he had significant regulatory experience prior to moving to private practice).

There have been some annoying things along the way. Having to report to people a few years younger than me was not ideal--not because I resented being managed by someone younger than me, but mostly because some of these people were overachievers and at the same time relatively inexperienced in life outside of school and Biglaw, and had no lives outside the firm; they always acted like everything was urgent and massively important even when that was demonstrably untrue, and they never had the nerve to actually *ask* a partner if something was in fact urgent. In other words, they took everything way too seriously even when I knew better. Of course, it is better to err on the side of taking everything too seriously than the opposite, and, of course, there are many partners who take everything too seriously as well. So what can you do.

But I also "clicked" with a junior partner who was only a few years older than me, and he ended up giving me a lot of responsibility as a first and second-year, and he did not care about associate hierarchy at all. That experience led me to sort of act more senior than I was whenever I could (within reason and within the bounds of good taste), and I think partners and clients were receptive to that or didn't even notice, perhaps because of my actual age. And that allowed me to get more responsibility, including assignments directly from clients, which in turn led to me develop some expertise in a niche area, on the basis of which I lateraled to a firm with a well-known practice in that niche and ultimately made partner.

I try not to get hung up on the fact that many "established" partners at my firm are my age or younger. One person at a previous firm is a year older than me and is on the executive committee of the firm. A couple of people in my SA class, who were 6-8 years younger than me to begin with, have already been partners at their respective firms for a few years now (I stepped back a couple of class years when I made one of my lateral moves, to lengthen the runway -- good decision).

All I can say is, there is no one-size-fits-all path to Biglaw success and partnership. My age has been in the mix, but also the stars had to align in just the right way for me to get where I am, so who knows if I truly would have been better off starting out younger, or not.

Thanks for this. I am starting biglaw this year. Similar age as you were when you started. Would appreciate if you can please DM me. Have some follow-up questions.

[Anonymous User]

Benefit to being older is that you probably have a network of well-positioned people at this point (depending on what exactly your government work was/who your other friends are) that allow you to do business development as a newer associate in a way that younger associates don't have the ability to do.

[Anonymous User]

I graduated at 43 from a regional T1 and ended up in NYC biglaw. I can’t speak to partnership prospects because I never have aspired to that, but generally I think my age helps me.

I do occasionally remember that I’m older than some of the junior partners and will talk to them that way, but I’m a warm body who bills heavily and doesn’t complain. I’m probably safe in the job until ready to quit, hopefully this year or next. It’s just a job, anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Benefit to being older is that you probably have a network of well-positioned people at this point (depending on what exactly your government work was/who your other friends are) that allow you to do business development as a newer associate in a way that younger associates don't have the ability to do.

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

[Anonymous User]

Benefit to being older is that you probably have a network of well-positioned people at this point (depending on what exactly your government work was/who your other friends are) that allow you to do business development as a newer associate in a way that younger associates don't have the ability to do.

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class magically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

People who have a strong network and work history usually either don't bother with grad school or go to business school. The exception is political background.

[Anonymous User]

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

A decent chunk of law students also have robust work histories, but not in business fields (most obviously, former careers in education).

[Anonymous User]

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

A decent chunk of law students also have robust work histories, but not in business fields (most obviously, former careers in education).

The point is that former teachers aren't going to have a network that is going to help them maximize their profits or positioning in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

A decent chunk of law students also have robust work histories, but not in business fields (most obviously, former careers in education).

The point is that former teachers aren't going to have a network that is going to help them maximize their profits or positioning in biglaw.

It depends. A person could have chosen to be a teacher but have a network of friends from college that went the b-school route, and then they do have those connections. I have seen this happen a couple of times - older associate, transitioning from a field where their professional network might not be rich with potential clients, but their social network is.

[Anonymous User]

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

A decent chunk of law students also have robust work histories, but not in business fields (most obviously, former careers in education).

The point is that former teachers aren't going to have a network that is going to help them maximize their profits or positioning in biglaw.

It depends. A person could have chosen to be a teacher but have a network of friends from college that went the b-school route, and then they do have those connections. I have seen this happen a couple of times - older associate, transitioning from a field where their professional network might not be rich with potential clients, but their social network is.

Military folks have this, if not direct contacts at least access to veteran networking stuff.

[Anonymous User]

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

A decent chunk of law students also have robust work histories, but not in business fields (most obviously, former careers in education).

The point is that former teachers aren't going to have a network that is going to help them maximize their profits or positioning in biglaw.

Sometimes, sure. But the original claim was that the older students tend to have "really weak work histories." I was simply pointing out that there are fields that do send a lot of students to law schools.

And that post (the most nested one here) ignores the reality that some people want to be attorneys. You do "generally have to" go to law school in order to practice law. And I would much rather practice law than work in finance or software engineering, or even work at a generic company.

[Anonymous User]

I always figured these people were the outliers. I go to a t14 and the older students in my graduating class basically decided to go to law school purely so they could move into a career that makes money. A lot of them have really weak work histories. Writing editorials, music gigs, tutoring, etc. Most of them don't seem to have an established network of well-positioned people. I don't think those types really go to law school later in life. Simply put, they generally don't have to.

A decent chunk of law students also have robust work histories, but not in business fields (most obviously, former careers in education).

The point is that former teachers aren't going to have a network that is going to help them maximize their profits or positioning in biglaw.

Sometimes, sure. But the original claim was that the older students tend to have "really weak work histories." I was simply pointing out that there are fields that do send a lot of students to law schools.

And that post (the most nested one here) ignores the reality that some people want to be attorneys. You do "generally have to" go to law school in order to practice law. And I would much rather practice law than work in finance or software engineering, or even work at a generic company.

Yeah, I agree. I may be an outlier but I worked in business for about a decade and was making good money but decided to go to law school primarily to practice law.