How much do first year equity partners make? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

I actually don't know a lot of lawyers who fail. Maybe you do but the only "failures" I can think of were lawyers who had serious personal problems, like substance abuse, that bled into their ability to competently practice law.

Demand for competent, reliable, and intelligent lawyers remains pretty high virtually everywhere you go in America. Being on your own is no doubt financially tough in the beginning. But as long as you have a plan to budget for that early tough time period, the intangible pay-off is instantaneous: you're no longer reporting to a law firm, to partners, to a committee, or anyone else. It's pretty sweet.

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

Similarly, most jobs in “the corporate world” pay way less than BigLaw, even at the senior levels (I see lots of executive compensation numbers in the course of doing deals, and have friends in various senior positions in different industries). Yeah, if you become a C-Suite executive or GC at a large, profitable company then maybe your equity package would eventually be large, but that path is at least as hard as making partner if not harder (and your comp is tied up in stock instead of salary/quarterly partner distributions).

Making partner at a V20 isn’t easy, but the relative level of effort/luck required to do it is better than the level of effort/luck required to out-earn V20 partners as solo founder or in “the corporate world.”

I get you that the "corporate world" is too broad. What I was thinking is that working in biglaw, no matter how high your billables end up being, inherently doesn't scale in the way other businesses do where you might issue stock, get acquired, etc. So the safest path to wealth in my situation might be just gunning for partner, but the ultimate upside (I reasoned) might be higher if you find a way to scale it (owning your own firm, getting a job where you get stock, using law money to invest in other businesses, etc.)

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

Similarly, most jobs in “the corporate world” pay way less than BigLaw, even at the senior levels (I see lots of executive compensation numbers in the course of doing deals, and have friends in various senior positions in different industries). Yeah, if you become a C-Suite executive or GC at a large, profitable company then maybe your equity package would eventually be large, but that path is at least as hard as making partner if not harder (and your comp is tied up in stock instead of salary/quarterly partner distributions).

Making partner at a V20 isn’t easy, but the relative level of effort/luck required to do it is better than the level of effort/luck required to out-earn V20 partners as solo founder or in “the corporate world.”

I get you that the "corporate world" is too broad. What I was thinking is that working in biglaw, no matter how high your billables end up being, inherently doesn't scale in the way other businesses do where you might issue stock, get acquired, etc. So the safest path to wealth in my situation might be just gunning for partner, but the ultimate upside (I reasoned) might be higher if you find a way to scale it (owning your own firm, getting a job where you get stock, using law money to invest in other businesses, etc.)

The upside in the business world is higher than the upside in the legal world (unless you become a plaintiff' lawyer). It also comes with higher risk. You'll have to decide how you balance those considerations against one another.

[s7e35k914]

LW also has a very large non-equity tier that it pays very well (think $800K-1M), so it can juice up the floor of its equity partnership. Kirkland has similar arrangements, but they are far fewer than at LW. Also, "you can actually get equity there" is pretty flame. Latham's percentage of lawyers who are equity partners = 17.86%
Kirkland's percentage of lawyers who are equity partners = 16.20%. Both are abysmal. More equitable shops like Skadden and Cooley are around 20%. You can still get paid quite well in the mid-law scene at some shops with more like 30-40%. These shops can often actually feel collegial and friendly too, which is a rarity in biglaw, beyond marketing tell you that the passive aggressiveness you're experiencing is actually what collegial and friendly feels like.

By non-equity tier do you mean non-equity partners, or counsel?

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to plug midlaw equity partnership. Our junior/lower mid level partners make about BigLaw senior associate money. But it’s a great life. I can hit my fee credit goal with about 1400 hours. Unlimited biz dev support. Super collegial. Basically can’t be fired unless a bunch of my close friends vote me out.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to plug midlaw equity partnership. Our junior/lower mid level partners make about BigLaw senior associate money. But it’s a great life. I can hit my fee credit goal with about 1400 hours. Unlimited biz dev support. Super collegial. Basically can’t be fired unless a bunch of my close friends vote me out.

What firms are like this? And do they consider senior associate laterals for partnership?

[Anonymous User]

I'm up for partner at a lower vault firm this year. It would be an equity position, but bottom of the barrel. I'm told first year partners make $600,000.

I haven't asked about the buy in amount. Man. I probably should have asked, because in full candor I plan to use the partner title to help me lateral to something that's fewer hours. Maybe not immediately. But I really don't think I can sustain my current workload for much longer. I'm basically tired all the time and I've lost the drive to pursue any interests outside of work.

If there were no buy in the value of the units would be taxable to you, just FYI. That’s why a lot of places do the minimal interest loans. You get the thing of value, don’t have to have all the cash now, and the value of the thing will likely outpace you 2 or 3 or whatever minimum interest the IRS sets at that particular time, loan.

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

I actually don't know a lot of lawyers who fail. Maybe you do but the only "failures" I can think of were lawyers who had serious personal problems, like substance abuse, that bled into their ability to competently practice law.

Demand for competent, reliable, and intelligent lawyers remains pretty high virtually everywhere you go in America. Being on your own is no doubt financially tough in the beginning. But as long as you have a plan to budget for that early tough time period, the intangible pay-off is instantaneous: you're no longer reporting to a law firm, to partners, to a committee, or anyone else. It's pretty sweet.

I mean what about the legions of people who burn out of biglaw after 1-3 years (or are fired) and end up doing legal aid or leaving the law entirely? Seems like a pretty terrible ROI and actually a fairly common outcome.

[nealric]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

I actually don't know a lot of lawyers who fail. Maybe you do but the only "failures" I can think of were lawyers who had serious personal problems, like substance abuse, that bled into their ability to competently practice law.

Demand for competent, reliable, and intelligent lawyers remains pretty high virtually everywhere you go in America. Being on your own is no doubt financially tough in the beginning. But as long as you have a plan to budget for that early tough time period, the intangible pay-off is instantaneous: you're no longer reporting to a law firm, to partners, to a committee, or anyone else. It's pretty sweet.

I mean what about the legions of people who burn out of biglaw after 1-3 years (or are fired) and end up doing legal aid or leaving the law entirely? Seems like a pretty terrible ROI and actually a fairly common outcome.

I'm over 10 years out of law school and I can't think of more than a tiny handful of people who fit that description. I know people who graduated from law school and never practiced, people who left law after more like 5-10 years, but I draw a blank on people who did 1-3 years of biglaw and then just stopped practicing. I know a few who went into government work, but they seem happy with it. I can't think of anybody who is doing public interest out of a lack of better options. I know quite a few who are biglaw partners now.

Anyhow, if your goal is to get super rich, biglaw is probably not the best way to do it- certainly isn't the easiest way. If you are willing to grind indefinitely, it will set you up well to be moderately wealthy. If you want to get super rich in law, some sort of plaintiffs work where you can get big contingency fees is probably the way to do it, but I think making it in that manner tends to take a different personality/skillset than the sort of person who can make biglaw work for decades.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I actually don't know a lot of lawyers who fail. Maybe you do but the only "failures" I can think of were lawyers who had serious personal problems, like substance abuse, that bled into their ability to competently practice law.

*Most* lawyers are failures in the financial sense because the time and money they put into the profession is never made up for by the premium of their earnings as a lawyer compared to what they would've made as a college grad. Remember that Biglaw is only taking ~10% of grads even in good times.

Demand for competent, reliable, and intelligent lawyers remains pretty high virtually everywhere you go in America.

Not for solos, at the price point you need to charge to make a living (unless you build infrastructure for contingency). For them, salesmanship matters much more than competence, and most people never successful sell their acumen. It simply has a high rate of failure, which is why we don't advise most lawyers to do it.

[Anonymous User]

LW also has a very large non-equity tier that it pays very well (think $800K-1M), so it can juice up the floor of its equity partnership. Kirkland has similar arrangements, but they are far fewer than at LW. Also, "you can actually get equity there" is pretty flame. Latham's percentage of lawyers who are equity partners = 17.86%
Kirkland's percentage of lawyers who are equity partners = 16.20%. Both are abysmal. More equitable shops like Skadden and Cooley are around 20%. You can still get paid quite well in the mid-law scene at some shops with more like 30-40%. These shops can often actually feel collegial and friendly too, which is a rarity in biglaw, beyond marketing tell you that the passive aggressiveness you're experiencing is actually what collegial and friendly feels like.

By non-equity tier do you mean non-equity partners, or counsel?

thought that latham’s nonequity tier is still some equity, no?

[Anonymous User]

I've heard that your "draw" as an equity partner is pretty unpredictable from month to month, and that you usually end up getting a large payment at the end of the year. So if you're making $1.5M for the year, you might see 40% or 50% in a single payment at the end of the year. Maybe it varies from firm to firm, but is there any truth to that?

[Anonymous User]

I've heard that your "draw" as an equity partner is pretty unpredictable from month to month, and that you usually end up getting a large payment at the end of the year. So if you're making $1.5M for the year, you might see 40% or 50% in a single payment at the end of the year. Maybe it varies from firm to firm, but is there any truth to that?

Yes, basically. Personally I get an annual forecast from the accountant of cashflows, and the firm determines the actual payment at the start of each quarter, but there are frequently deviations due to tax payments, payments into retirement vehicles, etc. The firm does pay out a large amount at the end of the year, but a lot of taxes are also paid then. About 80% of my take-home pay ends up coming in six months between April and September.

That's all after-tax and other deductions. My take-home this year will be 40% of the firm's raw distribution to me (I think this year might be a bit weird on taxes -- not sure -- possibly in a more normal year I'd keep 50%?)

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

I actually don't know a lot of lawyers who fail. Maybe you do but the only "failures" I can think of were lawyers who had serious personal problems, like substance abuse, that bled into their ability to competently practice law.

Demand for competent, reliable, and intelligent lawyers remains pretty high virtually everywhere you go in America. Being on your own is no doubt financially tough in the beginning. But as long as you have a plan to budget for that early tough time period, the intangible pay-off is instantaneous: you're no longer reporting to a law firm, to partners, to a committee, or anyone else. It's pretty sweet.

I mean what about the legions of people who burn out of biglaw after 1-3 years (or are fired) and end up doing legal aid or leaving the law entirely? Seems like a pretty terrible ROI and actually a fairly common outcome.

I'm over 10 years out of law school and I can't think of more than a tiny handful of people who fit that description. I know people who graduated from law school and never practiced, people who left law after more like 5-10 years, but I draw a blank on people who did 1-3 years of biglaw and then just stopped practicing. I know a few who went into government work, but they seem happy with it. I can't think of anybody who is doing public interest out of a lack of better options. I know quite a few who are biglaw partners now.

Anyhow, if your goal is to get super rich, biglaw is probably not the best way to do it- certainly isn't the easiest way. If you are willing to grind indefinitely, it will set you up well to be moderately wealthy. If you want to get super rich in law, some sort of plaintiffs work where you can get big contingency fees is probably the way to do it, but I think making it in that manner tends to take a different personality/skillset than the sort of person who can make biglaw work for decades.

It’s also silly to be running hypotheticals like this on the assumption that you’ll quit after a short time, especially without similarly considering that risk in alternative professions. There seems to be this perception among BigLaw people (who are mostly KJDs with zero outside real world experience) that BigLaw is uniquely difficult and that all the programmers/bankers/consultants/whatever out there are perfectly happy, stay in that field forever, and enjoy continuous upward mobility eventually to the heights of that profession. Not the case, and an assumption that seems ludicrously naive to those of us with experience and friends in those jobs (especially those of us who abandoned another career to do law).

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

Similarly, most jobs in “the corporate world” pay way less than BigLaw, even at the senior levels (I see lots of executive compensation numbers in the course of doing deals, and have friends in various senior positions in different industries). Yeah, if you become a C-Suite executive or GC at a large, profitable company then maybe your equity package would eventually be large, but that path is at least as hard as making partner if not harder (and your comp is tied up in stock instead of salary/quarterly partner distributions).

Making partner at a V20 isn’t easy, but the relative level of effort/luck required to do it is better than the level of effort/luck required to out-earn V20 partners as solo founder or in “the corporate world.”

I get you that the "corporate world" is too broad. What I was thinking is that working in biglaw, no matter how high your billables end up being, inherently doesn't scale in the way other businesses do where you might issue stock, get acquired, etc. So the safest path to wealth in my situation might be just gunning for partner, but the ultimate upside (I reasoned) might be higher if you find a way to scale it (owning your own firm, getting a job where you get stock, using law money to invest in other businesses, etc.)

The upside in the business world is higher than the upside in the legal world (unless you become a plaintiff' lawyer). It also comes with higher risk. You'll have to decide how you balance those considerations against one another.

I think the issue is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the business world are not making equity comp anywhere close to V20 partnership, let alone materially higher. Yes, lots of them have equity, but it’s usually for lower amounts. For example, my spouse is at Amazon and gets roughly $150k/year in equity - awesome! But that’s on a $160k base salary so total comp is approximately the same as a BigLaw third year. Yeah, Amazon stock tends to go up in value, but it’s no longer the early days of the company and the chances that those equity grants grow to many millions (outpacing BigLaw partners) is basically none.

To have equity that skyrockets in value and hits that high corporate ceiling, you basically need to (1) start a company or be one of its first employees and grow it to IPO, massive exit, or otherwise super high valuation; (2) become a C-suite exec in an extremely large and valuable company; or (3) invest in a bunch of stock that appreciates.

Option (3) requires you to already be rich, so that’s out. Options (1) and (2) are both possible, but in my opinion are far harder and less likely than making V20 partner. I think many lawyers underestimate the extreme difficulty of making it into a C-suite role, especially at a company that would compensate that role more than BigLaw, and the difficulty of starting or growing a company to the point that your equity would exceed BigLaw. It’s just such an incredibly unlikely scenario, even compared to BigLaw partnership.

Also, if we’re talking extra super unlikely accomplishments in the field, then it’s worth bringing up partners at Wachtell, Kirkland, Susman, and elite plaintiffs boutiques as a comparison too. The top earners at Kirkland last year made about the same as the CEOs of AT&T, Amex, Coca Cola, and Pfizer for example. Yes, the very very top end (Musks and Bezos of the world) are pulling billions, but those are also founders, which is a unicorn case.

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

Similarly, most jobs in “the corporate world” pay way less than BigLaw, even at the senior levels (I see lots of executive compensation numbers in the course of doing deals, and have friends in various senior positions in different industries). Yeah, if you become a C-Suite executive or GC at a large, profitable company then maybe your equity package would eventually be large, but that path is at least as hard as making partner if not harder (and your comp is tied up in stock instead of salary/quarterly partner distributions).

Making partner at a V20 isn’t easy, but the relative level of effort/luck required to do it is better than the level of effort/luck required to out-earn V20 partners as solo founder or in “the corporate world.”

I get you that the "corporate world" is too broad. What I was thinking is that working in biglaw, no matter how high your billables end up being, inherently doesn't scale in the way other businesses do where you might issue stock, get acquired, etc. So the safest path to wealth in my situation might be just gunning for partner, but the ultimate upside (I reasoned) might be higher if you find a way to scale it (owning your own firm, getting a job where you get stock, using law money to invest in other businesses, etc.)

The upside in the business world is higher than the upside in the legal world (unless you become a plaintiff' lawyer). It also comes with higher risk. You'll have to decide how you balance those considerations against one another.

I think the issue is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the business world are not making equity comp anywhere close to V20 partnership, let alone materially higher. Yes, lots of them have equity, but it’s usually for lower amounts. For example, my spouse is at Amazon and gets roughly $150k/year in equity - awesome! But that’s on a $160k base salary so total comp is approximately the same as a BigLaw third year. Yeah, Amazon stock tends to go up in value, but it’s no longer the early days of the company and the chances that those equity grants grow to many millions (outpacing BigLaw partners) is basically none.

To have equity that skyrockets in value and hits that high corporate ceiling, you basically need to (1) start a company or be one of its first employees and grow it to IPO, massive exit, or otherwise super high valuation; (2) become a C-suite exec in an extremely large and valuable company; or (3) invest in a bunch of stock that appreciates.

Option (3) requires you to already be rich, so that’s out. Options (1) and (2) are both possible, but in my opinion are far harder and less likely than making V20 partner. I think many lawyers underestimate the extreme difficulty of making it into a C-suite role, especially at a company that would compensate that role more than BigLaw, and the difficulty of starting or growing a company to the point that your equity would exceed BigLaw. It’s just such an incredibly unlikely scenario, even compared to BigLaw partnership.

Also, if we’re talking extra super unlikely accomplishments in the field, then it’s worth bringing up partners at Wachtell, Kirkland, Susman, and elite plaintiffs boutiques as a comparison too. The top earners at Kirkland last year made about the same as the CEOs of AT&T, Amex, Coca Cola, and Pfizer for example. Yes, the very very top end (Musks and Bezos of the world) are pulling billions, but those are also founders, which is a unicorn case.

What about carry at PE funds?

[nealric]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

Similarly, most jobs in “the corporate world” pay way less than BigLaw, even at the senior levels (I see lots of executive compensation numbers in the course of doing deals, and have friends in various senior positions in different industries). Yeah, if you become a C-Suite executive or GC at a large, profitable company then maybe your equity package would eventually be large, but that path is at least as hard as making partner if not harder (and your comp is tied up in stock instead of salary/quarterly partner distributions).

Making partner at a V20 isn’t easy, but the relative level of effort/luck required to do it is better than the level of effort/luck required to out-earn V20 partners as solo founder or in “the corporate world.”

I get you that the "corporate world" is too broad. What I was thinking is that working in biglaw, no matter how high your billables end up being, inherently doesn't scale in the way other businesses do where you might issue stock, get acquired, etc. So the safest path to wealth in my situation might be just gunning for partner, but the ultimate upside (I reasoned) might be higher if you find a way to scale it (owning your own firm, getting a job where you get stock, using law money to invest in other businesses, etc.)

The upside in the business world is higher than the upside in the legal world (unless you become a plaintiff' lawyer). It also comes with higher risk. You'll have to decide how you balance those considerations against one another.

I think the issue is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the business world are not making equity comp anywhere close to V20 partnership, let alone materially higher. Yes, lots of them have equity, but it’s usually for lower amounts. For example, my spouse is at Amazon and gets roughly $150k/year in equity - awesome! But that’s on a $160k base salary so total comp is approximately the same as a BigLaw third year. Yeah, Amazon stock tends to go up in value, but it’s no longer the early days of the company and the chances that those equity grants grow to many millions (outpacing BigLaw partners) is basically none.

To have equity that skyrockets in value and hits that high corporate ceiling, you basically need to (1) start a company or be one of its first employees and grow it to IPO, massive exit, or otherwise super high valuation; (2) become a C-suite exec in an extremely large and valuable company; or (3) invest in a bunch of stock that appreciates.

Option (3) requires you to already be rich, so that’s out. Options (1) and (2) are both possible, but in my opinion are far harder and less likely than making V20 partner. I think many lawyers underestimate the extreme difficulty of making it into a C-suite role, especially at a company that would compensate that role more than BigLaw, and the difficulty of starting or growing a company to the point that your equity would exceed BigLaw. It’s just such an incredibly unlikely scenario, even compared to BigLaw partnership.

Also, if we’re talking extra super unlikely accomplishments in the field, then it’s worth bringing up partners at Wachtell, Kirkland, Susman, and elite plaintiffs boutiques as a comparison too. The top earners at Kirkland last year made about the same as the CEOs of AT&T, Amex, Coca Cola, and Pfizer for example. Yes, the very very top end (Musks and Bezos of the world) are pulling billions, but those are also founders, which is a unicorn case.

What about carry at PE funds?

I think a PE job that provides comp at or above a v20 biglaw partner is every bit the unicorn job as the biglaw one. Your average ibanking analyst probably has much less of a chance of getting there than a junior associate does of making partner.

7 figure jobs are just exceedingly rare and pretty much uniformly difficult to get. Most of the people making that sort of money started their own business of some sort.

[Anonymous User]

Do you guys think a better way to get really rich would be,

(1) Gunning for partner at my V20,
(2) Working at a biglaw firm just for a few years to pay my debt off, then starting a firm with the intent of scaling,
(3) Leaving law for the corporate world?

For sure option 1. Starting your own firm isn’t nearly as easy or lucrative as many people think. Plenty of people fail, and the ones that do succeed are often pulling in approximately what senior associates make in BigLaw (or less).

Similarly, most jobs in “the corporate world” pay way less than BigLaw, even at the senior levels (I see lots of executive compensation numbers in the course of doing deals, and have friends in various senior positions in different industries). Yeah, if you become a C-Suite executive or GC at a large, profitable company then maybe your equity package would eventually be large, but that path is at least as hard as making partner if not harder (and your comp is tied up in stock instead of salary/quarterly partner distributions).

Making partner at a V20 isn’t easy, but the relative level of effort/luck required to do it is better than the level of effort/luck required to out-earn V20 partners as solo founder or in “the corporate world.”

I get you that the "corporate world" is too broad. What I was thinking is that working in biglaw, no matter how high your billables end up being, inherently doesn't scale in the way other businesses do where you might issue stock, get acquired, etc. So the safest path to wealth in my situation might be just gunning for partner, but the ultimate upside (I reasoned) might be higher if you find a way to scale it (owning your own firm, getting a job where you get stock, using law money to invest in other businesses, etc.)

The upside in the business world is higher than the upside in the legal world (unless you become a plaintiff' lawyer). It also comes with higher risk. You'll have to decide how you balance those considerations against one another.

I think the issue is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the business world are not making equity comp anywhere close to V20 partnership, let alone materially higher. Yes, lots of them have equity, but it’s usually for lower amounts. For example, my spouse is at Amazon and gets roughly $150k/year in equity - awesome! But that’s on a $160k base salary so total comp is approximately the same as a BigLaw third year. Yeah, Amazon stock tends to go up in value, but it’s no longer the early days of the company and the chances that those equity grants grow to many millions (outpacing BigLaw partners) is basically none.

To have equity that skyrockets in value and hits that high corporate ceiling, you basically need to (1) start a company or be one of its first employees and grow it to IPO, massive exit, or otherwise super high valuation; (2) become a C-suite exec in an extremely large and valuable company; or (3) invest in a bunch of stock that appreciates.

Option (3) requires you to already be rich, so that’s out. Options (1) and (2) are both possible, but in my opinion are far harder and less likely than making V20 partner. I think many lawyers underestimate the extreme difficulty of making it into a C-suite role, especially at a company that would compensate that role more than BigLaw, and the difficulty of starting or growing a company to the point that your equity would exceed BigLaw. It’s just such an incredibly unlikely scenario, even compared to BigLaw partnership.

Also, if we’re talking extra super unlikely accomplishments in the field, then it’s worth bringing up partners at Wachtell, Kirkland, Susman, and elite plaintiffs boutiques as a comparison too. The top earners at Kirkland last year made about the same as the CEOs of AT&T, Amex, Coca Cola, and Pfizer for example. Yes, the very very top end (Musks and Bezos of the world) are pulling billions, but those are also founders, which is a unicorn case.

What about carry at PE funds?

I think a PE job that provides comp at or above a v20 biglaw partner is every bit the unicorn job as the biglaw one. Your average ibanking analyst probably has much less of a chance of getting there than a junior associate does of making partner.

7 figure jobs are just exceedingly rare and pretty much uniformly difficult to get. Most of the people making that sort of money started their own business of some sort.

Yes I think the ceiling on PE is probably higher than even at the top BigLaw firms. VC too. But like Nealric said, the chances of hitting those levels of success are even smaller than the already unlikely BigLaw partnership at a top-PPP firm.

Give PE specifically that edge. But the same does not apply to bankers, consultants, programmers, doctors, “corporate America” or any of the other paths that lawyers like to put on a pedestal.

[lurkinassociate]

These which career path will make me rich questions are so stupid. If you’re a law student or lawyer, the answer is almost always stick it out and make partner in ~10 years the. Deploy your capital.

There are no shortcuts to $1 million+ salaries and switching to a finance or entrepreneurial route is restarting your progress for uncertain upside. People underestimate the grind and length of time to get to the $1 million salary jobs. It’s largely a war of attrition and persistence. The best way to get rich is pick a path and be all in for a decade while everyone else wears out or chooses family over career. I don’t recommend it but it usually works if that’s what you actually want

[Anonymous User]

These which career path will make me rich questions are so stupid. If you’re a law student or lawyer, the answer is almost always stick it out and make partner in ~10 years the. Deploy your capital.

There are no shortcuts to $1 million+ salaries and switching to a finance or entrepreneurial route is restarting your progress for uncertain upside. People underestimate the grind and length of time to get to the $1 million salary jobs. It’s largely a war of attrition and persistence. The best way to get rich is pick a path and be all in for a decade while everyone else wears out or chooses family over career. I don’t recommend it but it usually works if that’s what you actually want

Some good hard reality here my dude.

Sounds to me like there is only one true path to significantly higher money than biglaw partners make, which is becoming an entrepreneur (which all the risk and challenge of that world). I guess part of me is just annoyed that law doesn't "scale" so you have no chance of founding a law firm that then has like, an IPO or gets acquired by Google.

[Sackboy]

Some good hard reality here my dude.

Sounds to me like there is only one true path to significantly higher money than biglaw partners make, which is becoming an entrepreneur (which all the risk and challenge of that world). I guess part of me is just annoyed that law doesn't "scale" so you have no chance of founding a law firm that then has like, an IPO or gets acquired by Google.

You can certainly try to go in-house at a startup with equity and hope for a good exit. But, the reality is that this "scaling" doesn't really happen for almost anyone, even most entrepreneurs. I think a lot of people on here see some kid become a billionaire from their dating app startup and feel sad, but the reality is there are what like 700 billionaires in America? Making crazy fuck you money isn't happening for, statistically, even 0.001% of people. The best you can realistically hope to achieve is making 7 figures. You can very possibly do that in the law, if you sell your soul and grind, grind, grind. Otherwise, there is no easy route there, not in tech, not in banking, not anywhere.

[Anonymous User]

Some good hard reality here my dude.

Sounds to me like there is only one true path to significantly higher money than biglaw partners make, which is becoming an entrepreneur (which all the risk and challenge of that world). I guess part of me is just annoyed that law doesn't "scale" so you have no chance of founding a law firm that then has like, an IPO or gets acquired by Google.

You can certainly try to go in-house at a startup with equity and hope for a good exit. But, the reality is that this "scaling" doesn't really happen for almost anyone, even most entrepreneurs. I think a lot of people on here see some kid become a billionaire from their dating app startup and feel sad, but the reality is there are what like 700 billionaires in America? Making crazy fuck you money isn't happening for, statistically, even 0.001% of people. The best you can realistically hope to achieve is making 7 figures. You can very possibly do that in the law, if you sell your soul and grind, grind, grind. Otherwise, there is no easy route there, not in tech, not in banking, not anywhere.

Right, I think a lot of lawyers who glorify other careers don’t consider risk/reward. Salary is zero risk. Performance-based bonuses and commissions are riskier (more potential variance, longer time horizon). Equity is even riskier, and the higher the potential payoff (aka a small startup or other growth opportunity you get a big chunk of), the higher the risk it fails.

I have many friends in startup/tech world that own lots and lots of stock. Most of it is private and totally illiquid, and subject to vesting. For the vast majority of them, this stock has not paid off for them and the most common outcome is for it to eventually be worth zero. Those who hold shares in FAANG or other big name companies are more comfortable with the value, but usually don’t hold nearly enough of it to get a giant payoff.

For my friends in banking, sales, etc, their bonuses and commissions are a lot less risky than startup equity, but it is still not easy having highly variable comp and it doesn’t always pay out as hoped.

In BigLaw, you’re basically getting straight cash, mostly in the form of salary. From both a risk/reward and TVM perspective, that holds serious value such that BigLaw comp can’t be compared dollar-for-dollar with variable comp without some adjustments.


Would you rather get (1) $100; (2) a 50% chance of $50 and 50% chance of $150; or (3) a 5% chance of $2000 and a 95% chance of $0? That’s basically BigLaw vs banking vs tech startups.

[Anonymous User]

Some good hard reality here my dude.

Sounds to me like there is only one true path to significantly higher money than biglaw partners make, which is becoming an entrepreneur (which all the risk and challenge of that world). I guess part of me is just annoyed that law doesn't "scale" so you have no chance of founding a law firm that then has like, an IPO or gets acquired by Google.

You can certainly try to go in-house at a startup with equity and hope for a good exit. But, the reality is that this "scaling" doesn't really happen for almost anyone, even most entrepreneurs. I think a lot of people on here see some kid become a billionaire from their dating app startup and feel sad, but the reality is there are what like 700 billionaires in America? Making crazy fuck you money isn't happening for, statistically, even 0.001% of people. The best you can realistically hope to achieve is making 7 figures. You can very possibly do that in the law, if you sell your soul and grind, grind, grind. Otherwise, there is no easy route there, not in tech, not in banking, not anywhere.

Right, I think a lot of lawyers who glorify other careers don’t consider risk/reward. Salary is zero risk. Performance-based bonuses and commissions are riskier (more potential variance, longer time horizon). Equity is even riskier, and the higher the potential payoff (aka a small startup or other growth opportunity you get a big chunk of), the higher the risk it fails.

I have many friends in startup/tech world that own lots and lots of stock. Most of it is private and totally illiquid, and subject to vesting. For the vast majority of them, this stock has not paid off for them and the most common outcome is for it to eventually be worth zero. Those who hold shares in FAANG or other big name companies are more comfortable with the value, but usually don’t hold nearly enough of it to get a giant payoff.

For my friends in banking, sales, etc, their bonuses and commissions are a lot less risky than startup equity, but it is still not easy having highly variable comp and it doesn’t always pay out as hoped.

In BigLaw, you’re basically getting straight cash, mostly in the form of salary. From both a risk/reward and TVM perspective, that holds serious value such that BigLaw comp can’t be compared dollar-for-dollar with variable comp without some adjustments.


Would you rather get (1) $100; (2) a 50% chance of $50 and 50% chance of $150; or (3) a 5% chance of $2000 and a 95% chance of $0? That’s basically BigLaw vs banking vs tech startups.

Your math is off. If the total expectation is the same for each option, then every rational person should choose (1) given the zero volatility premium.

[Anonymous User]

Some good hard reality here my dude.

Sounds to me like there is only one true path to significantly higher money than biglaw partners make, which is becoming an entrepreneur (which all the risk and challenge of that world). I guess part of me is just annoyed that law doesn't "scale" so you have no chance of founding a law firm that then has like, an IPO or gets acquired by Google.

You can certainly try to go in-house at a startup with equity and hope for a good exit. But, the reality is that this "scaling" doesn't really happen for almost anyone, even most entrepreneurs. I think a lot of people on here see some kid become a billionaire from their dating app startup and feel sad, but the reality is there are what like 700 billionaires in America? Making crazy fuck you money isn't happening for, statistically, even 0.001% of people. The best you can realistically hope to achieve is making 7 figures. You can very possibly do that in the law, if you sell your soul and grind, grind, grind. Otherwise, there is no easy route there, not in tech, not in banking, not anywhere.

Right, I think a lot of lawyers who glorify other careers don’t consider risk/reward. Salary is zero risk. Performance-based bonuses and commissions are riskier (more potential variance, longer time horizon). Equity is even riskier, and the higher the potential payoff (aka a small startup or other growth opportunity you get a big chunk of), the higher the risk it fails.

I have many friends in startup/tech world that own lots and lots of stock. Most of it is private and totally illiquid, and subject to vesting. For the vast majority of them, this stock has not paid off for them and the most common outcome is for it to eventually be worth zero. Those who hold shares in FAANG or other big name companies are more comfortable with the value, but usually don’t hold nearly enough of it to get a giant payoff.

For my friends in banking, sales, etc, their bonuses and commissions are a lot less risky than startup equity, but it is still not easy having highly variable comp and it doesn’t always pay out as hoped.

In BigLaw, you’re basically getting straight cash, mostly in the form of salary. From both a risk/reward and TVM perspective, that holds serious value such that BigLaw comp can’t be compared dollar-for-dollar with variable comp without some adjustments.


Would you rather get (1) $100; (2) a 50% chance of $50 and 50% chance of $150; or (3) a 5% chance of $2000 and a 95% chance of $0? That’s basically BigLaw vs banking vs tech startups.

Your math is off. If the total expectation is the same for each option, then every rational person should choose (1) given the zero volatility premium.

I clearly set the EV to be the same across all three options as part of an argument suggesting why BigLaw’s certainty might actually be the preferred option.

[Anonymous User]

I think there's a lot of "grass is greener on the other side" sentiment ITT - and on similar threads. Quite honestly, if you want it enough (and I know, this is a big caveat), there are few more efficient and guaranteed paths to joining the American middle-upper (or straight-up upper) class and gaining generational wealth than elite BigLaw. You grind it out for 8-10 years and then it's guaranteed 7-figures for the next 30 years. People like to tout the vagaries of "business development" and the importance of having "killer" networking skills, but if you're at a V10/20, no one at the firm wants or needs you to bring in a client to prove your worth to the partnership - you just need to service Blackstone or Disney like they're your god (which they are lol). Partnership at McKinsey or Goldman are much more drawn out processes that are objectively more difficult from a numbers perspective and, tbh, I'm not sure i-bankers and consultants make that much more than the average V20 partner these days. Their WLB is also trash.

I agree that the compensation for a KKR MD or Sequoia partner (or joining some unicorn) is on another level, but those gigs are near impossible to get, even for Stanford or Harvard MBAs, much less for lawyers. And even if you got that position, you actually need to "make things" - i.e., make a good investment, find the next Facebook, etc. - that, arguably, require actual brainpower lol. I'm rambling, but the point is, if your goal is to make money in corporate (ignoring happiness, WLB, meaning, etc.), you should really be grateful to be in elite BigLaw. Few other white collar paths in 2022 give you tenure-like career with average $2 million+ annual partnership draws, with the ability to build a nest egg of $25-50 million by your fifties/sixties. Sure, you're never going to be a billionaire, but then again, no one on TLS is going to be one.