How to make partner? Forum

[adude]

.

[Efly]

SPAM EDITED OUT BY MODS

[A'nold]

I like this thread... Usually 10% of a TLS thread will be composed of posts made by people that can articulately discuss the topic at hand with some level experience to call upon. This thread may actually be hovering below 1%.

Awesome. Perfectly played too, considering you set it up so well that I had to read the 1% punch line twice to make sure I read it right.

You are a loser.

Wow, you got me there.

[KingRajesh]

Seriously guys: How do you rainmake when you're an associate? It's not like you have much face time with the clients, right?

0L here.

[reasonable_man]

Seriously guys: How do you rainmake when you're an associate? It's not like you have much face time with the clients, right?

0L here.

You don't rainmake with current clients of the firm.

[KingRajesh]

Seriously guys: How do you rainmake when you're an associate? It's not like you have much face time with the clients, right?

0L here.

You don't rainmake with current clients of the firm.

So, on top of the 2200 billable hours, you have to somehow find the time to drive new business?

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

[fatduck]

Seriously guys: How do you rainmake when you're an associate? It's not like you have much face time with the clients, right?

0L here.

You don't rainmake with current clients of the firm.

So, on top of the 2200 billable hours, you have to somehow find the time to drive new business?

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

No, you just put up advertisements on the subway, and the clients come to you begging to ship you money.

[Anonymous User]

A family friend attorney that I talked to said that you are better off billing less hours and spending that time bringing in business than gunning to bill the most hours.

Obviously if there is a definite or expected minimum you want to make that, but 1900 + business > 2300

[reasonable_man]

A family friend attorney that I talked to said that you are better off billing less hours and spending that time bringing in business than gunning to bill the most hours.

Obviously if there is a definite or expected minimum you want to make that, but 1900 + business > 2300

1900? You better land GE or IBM if you hope to be billing only 1900..

[IzziesGal]

This is not true at all. I worked in the V15 for two years before law school on the business side, and "of counsel" was the firm's consolation prize for not making partner. Whenever someone was promoted to "of counsel," everyone knew what it meant - they would either stay as "of counsel" forever, or leave and hopefully get promoted to partner at another firm. This was industry standard, at least in 2007-2009 in NY among the top firms. It's typically a kiss of death if you have partner track dreams. You're too good to remain an associate for 8 years, but not good enough to make millions as a partner.

Your limited experience at a V15 is not indicative of what is considered "common."

1. Wachtell: 18 "of counsel" (almost all former partners)
2. Cravath: 1 "of counsel"; 2 "special counsel"; 9 "senior counsel" (all former partners)
3. Skadden: 37 "of counsel" (several are former partners, some are not, for some it's unclear)
4. Sul Crom: 23 "of counsel" (most, if not all, of whom are former partners)
5. Davis Polk: 0 "of counsel"; 1 "general counsel" (former partner); 39 "senior counsel" (no info re: former partnership)

You can go through the rest of the "V15" if you want, the results will be similar. As other posters made clear, every firm is different and the term "of counsel" (or at some firms "special counsel") is often but certainly not always used to refer to former partners who advise and handle matters on behalf of the firm.


tl;dr version:

Check you ABA definition of "of counsel":

(1) the "part-time practitioner, who practices law in association with a firm, but on basis different from that of the mainstream lawyers in the firm"; (2) a retired partner of the firm who is available for consultation; (3) a lawyer, usually a lateral hire, brought into the firm with the expectation that the lawyer will shortly become a partner; and (4) a lawyer who occupies a permanent senior position in the firm with no expectation of becoming a partner.

Is it the only definition? No. Is it "common"? Yes.

I never say my experience is the industry standard - I say it was common from 2007 or so (before the recession) in NYC biglaw at top firms. I qualified my answer, so no need to get all crazy. And my "limited" experience in biglaw is probably more than you have had as a new law student. So go easy.

[RVP11]

Taking 100 people starting at V5 type (not necessarily the NYC V5, but top of the food chain firms in major markets) and 100 people starting at regional midlaw, all 100 of which wish to practice for decades in a firm environment, and I'd bet you all the money I will ever earn that the former group has overwhelmingly better success at becoming partner, even if relatively few do so at the firm they begin with.

This is probably true, but I'd bet it has a lot more to do with the capabilities of the first group (being true gunners) than where they chose to take their first law firm job. My impression is that people at V5s aren't waltzing into the partnership at lower Vault firms or regional MidLaw just because of their V5 pedigree.

For example, if my career goal were to be a partner at XYZ Regional Firm, I think the credited move is to go straight there from law school and start building future connections. But obviously most people coming out of law school don't know what exactly they want to do or where they want to do it, so that makes V5 TCR in nearly all cases.

[HugerThanSoup]

This is not true at all. I worked in the V15 for two years before law school on the business side, and "of counsel" was the firm's consolation prize for not making partner. Whenever someone was promoted to "of counsel," everyone knew what it meant - they would either stay as "of counsel" forever, or leave and hopefully get promoted to partner at another firm. This was industry standard, at least in 2007-2009 in NY among the top firms. It's typically a kiss of death if you have partner track dreams. You're too good to remain an associate for 8 years, but not good enough to make millions as a partner.

Your limited experience at a V15 is not indicative of what is considered "common."

1. Wachtell: 18 "of counsel" (almost all former partners)
2. Cravath: 1 "of counsel"; 2 "special counsel"; 9 "senior counsel" (all former partners)
3. Skadden: 37 "of counsel" (several are former partners, some are not, for some it's unclear)
4. Sul Crom: 23 "of counsel" (most, if not all, of whom are former partners)
5. Davis Polk: 0 "of counsel"; 1 "general counsel" (former partner); 39 "senior counsel" (no info re: former partnership)

You can go through the rest of the "V15" if you want, the results will be similar. As other posters made clear, every firm is different and the term "of counsel" (or at some firms "special counsel") is often but certainly not always used to refer to former partners who advise and handle matters on behalf of the firm.


tl;dr version:

Check you ABA definition of "of counsel":

(1) the "part-time practitioner, who practices law in association with a firm, but on basis different from that of the mainstream lawyers in the firm"; (2) a retired partner of the firm who is available for consultation; (3) a lawyer, usually a lateral hire, brought into the firm with the expectation that the lawyer will shortly become a partner; and (4) a lawyer who occupies a permanent senior position in the firm with no expectation of becoming a partner.

Is it the only definition? No. Is it "common"? Yes.

I never say my experience is the industry standard - I say it was common from 2007 or so (before the recession) in NYC biglaw at top firms. I qualified my answer, so no need to get all crazy. And my "limited" experience in biglaw is probably more than you have had as a recent admit or new law student. So go easy.

I am neither a "recent admit" nor a "new law student," actually. Your condescending attitude towards a fellow member of the class of 2012 is what is crazy and my response was completely warranted, seeing as how you described my original post as "not true at all."

Not that it matters, but yes, your TWO YEARS at a V15 is more time than I have spent at a V15.

[HugerThanSoup]

Also...

I never say my experience is the industry standard...

This was industry standard, at least in 2007-2009 in NY among the top firms.

?

[Lem37]

This is not true at all. I worked in the V15 for two years before law school on the business side, and "of counsel" was the firm's consolation prize for not making partner. Whenever someone was promoted to "of counsel," everyone knew what it meant - they would either stay as "of counsel" forever, or leave and hopefully get promoted to partner at another firm. This was industry standard, at least in 2007-2009 in NY among the top firms. It's typically a kiss of death if you have partner track dreams. You're too good to remain an associate for 8 years, but not good enough to make millions as a partner.

Your limited experience at a V15 is not indicative of what is considered "common."

1. Wachtell: 18 "of counsel" (almost all former partners)
2. Cravath: 1 "of counsel"; 2 "special counsel"; 9 "senior counsel" (all former partners)
3. Skadden: 37 "of counsel" (several are former partners, some are not, for some it's unclear)
4. Sul Crom: 23 "of counsel" (most, if not all, of whom are former partners)
5. Davis Polk: 0 "of counsel"; 1 "general counsel" (former partner); 39 "senior counsel" (no info re: former partnership)

You can go through the rest of the "V15" if you want, the results will be similar. As other posters made clear, every firm is different and the term "of counsel" (or at some firms "special counsel") is often but certainly not always used to refer to former partners who advise and handle matters on behalf of the firm.


tl;dr version:

Check you ABA definition of "of counsel":

(1) the "part-time practitioner, who practices law in association with a firm, but on basis different from that of the mainstream lawyers in the firm"; (2) a retired partner of the firm who is available for consultation; (3) a lawyer, usually a lateral hire, brought into the firm with the expectation that the lawyer will shortly become a partner; and (4) a lawyer who occupies a permanent senior position in the firm with no expectation of becoming a partner.

Is it the only definition? No. Is it "common"? Yes.

I never say my experience is the industry standard - I say it was common from 2007 or so (before the recession) in NYC biglaw at top firms. I qualified my answer, so no need to get all crazy. And my "limited" experience in biglaw is probably more than you have had as a new law student. So go easy.

HugerThanSoup is correct. And I spent 2 1/2 years paralegalling between a V5, a V10, and a V50 before the recession as well - does that make my opinion more valuable or "correct" than yours? No. What makes me correct is the fact that this is general, easily-attainable knowledge that you can get from any firm's website.

Now, this is a stupid question that has been answered and literally has nothing to do with anything. Move on, people.

[swc65]

I like this thread... Usually 10% of a TLS thread will be composed of posts made by people that can articulately discuss the topic at hand with some level experience to call upon. This thread may actually be hovering below 1%.

Awesome. Perfectly played too, considering you set it up so well that I had to read the 1% punch line twice to make sure I read it right.

You are a loser.

Wow, you got me there.

I guess that's what you get for complimenting another poster's funniness??

[thesealocust]

Taking 100 people starting at V5 type (not necessarily the NYC V5, but top of the food chain firms in major markets) and 100 people starting at regional midlaw, all 100 of which wish to practice for decades in a firm environment, and I'd bet you all the money I will ever earn that the former group has overwhelmingly better success at becoming partner, even if relatively few do so at the firm they begin with.

This is probably true, but I'd bet it has a lot more to do with the capabilities of the first group (being true gunners) than where they chose to take their first law firm job. My impression is that people at V5s aren't waltzing into the partnership at lower Vault firms or regional MidLaw just because of their V5 pedigree.

For example, if my career goal were to be a partner at XYZ Regional Firm, I think the credited move is to go straight there from law school and start building future connections. But obviously most people coming out of law school don't know what exactly they want to do or where they want to do it, so that makes V5 TCR in nearly all cases.

Very true. And really, nothing trumps "living where you want to live" when it comes to employment decisions. It's hard to talk in the abstract about good and bad choices, since so much has to do with fundamentals like "which would drive you to suicide sooner: living in Manhattan or in a small town out West?"

[ruski]

no one has said anything about the type of work senior attorneys are supposed to be bringing in, which i imagine is an important factor for top firms. i mean bringing a 1 million dollar deal to cravath would probably be useless and i'm sure they reject half the work attornys bring in (or could potentially bring in). i guess what i am trying to say is that i find it hard to believe that all partners there are capable of bringing in multimillion dollar deals - the type of deals that a top firm would do.

so at a mid law firm i imagine being a rainmaker is highly important, especially if it's in the growth stage. but at a v10 firm that has clients banging on their doors, is rainmaking really that important? and if so, is every partner really required to be bringing in the huge deals?

[Renzo]

no one has said anything about the type of work senior attorneys are supposed to be bringing in, which i imagine is an important factor for top firms. i mean bringing a 1 million dollar deal to cravath would probably be useless and i'm sure they reject half the work attornys bring in (or could potentially bring in). i guess what i am trying to say is that i find it hard to believe that all partners there are capable of bringing in multimillion dollar deals - the type of deals that a top firm would do.

so at a mid law firm i imagine being a rainmaker is highly important, especially if it's in the growth stage. but at a v10 firm that has clients banging on their doors, is rainmaking really that important? and if so, is every partner really required to be bringing in the huge deals?

Don't worry about it too much; you won't be making partner at Cravath.

[HarlandBassett]

no one has said anything about the type of work senior attorneys are supposed to be bringing in, which i imagine is an important factor for top firms. i mean bringing a 1 million dollar deal to cravath would probably be useless and i'm sure they reject half the work attornys bring in (or could potentially bring in). i guess what i am trying to say is that i find it hard to believe that all partners there are capable of bringing in multimillion dollar deals - the type of deals that a top firm would do.

so at a mid law firm i imagine being a rainmaker is highly important, especially if it's in the growth stage. but at a v10 firm that has clients banging on their doors, is rainmaking really that important? and if so, is every partner really required to be bringing in the huge deals?

Don't worry about it too much; you won't be making partner at Cravath.

too subtle

[supernma]

If you work really really hard, will you make it? Or is it more like a connection-based thing? How do some associates successfully make partner?

Bill over 3000 hours. Else get shitcanned.

[Danteshek]

Find a partner, and sign a partnership agreement with that person.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Dude, don't necro for no good reason.