Top Law Schools

I'm at a V10 which doesn't let anyone share in the partnership pie. It's a big ponzi scheme. I give, and give, and give, based on a false promise. Then, when they've had enough from me and want to "give and give and give" the same false hope to a new wave of freshly minted debt-enslaved dumbasses, they screw me over and say "no thanks" to me ever becoming a partner. Of course, nothing's happened yet - but I see Bernie on the horizon. I don't want to get stuck on an island with no pants on - which is precisely what will happen if I play this game of Russian Roulette with this prestigious firm, i.e. end up being an 8th year with a partnership-rejection and expect some other firm to let me share in THEIR pie, a pie I rejected a long time ago.

Given the above "analysis" - is it wise, as a third-year associate at this ponzi firm, to call their bluff and lateral out to somewhere where i'd have a real shot at partnership? This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

Anonymous User wrote: This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

Sounds like your firm's the shitty one.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at a V10 which doesn't let anyone share in the partnership pie. It's a big ponzi scheme. I give, and give, and give, based on a false promise. Then, when they've had enough from me and want to "give and give and give" the same false hope to a new wave of freshly minted debt-enslaved dumbasses, they screw me over and say "no thanks" to me ever becoming a partner. Of course, nothing's happened yet - but I see Bernie on the horizon. I don't want to get stuck on an island with no pants on - which is precisely what will happen if I play this game of Russian Roulette with this prestigious firm, i.e. end up being an 8th year with a partnership-rejection and expect some other firm to let me share in THEIR pie, a pie I rejected a long time ago.

Given the above "analysis" - is it wise, as a third-year associate at this ponzi firm, to call their bluff and lateral out to somewhere where i'd have a real shot at partnership? This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

Curious as to the firm. Willing to PM?

Why not off? You can ork on building your own book for 1 or 2 years, while you look for a better firm (than the one you're currently considering). Good luck.

run26.2 wrote:You can work on building your own book for 1 or 2 years...

A 4th/5th year having developed their own book, and to such an extent that they could potentially pull clients with them?

Machine Spirit wrote:

run26.2 wrote:You can work on building your own book for 1 or 2 years...

A 4th/5th year having developed their own book, and to such an extent that they could potentially pull clients with them?

[/quote
When exactly do you think you start doing this? You used to be up for partner at 7 years at most firms. So presumably you'd want to have some clients of your own by that time. True, though, taking them with you might be a stretch at 4 or 5 years.

.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at a V10 which doesn't let anyone share in the partnership pie. It's a big ponzi scheme. I give, and give, and give, based on a false promise. Then, when they've had enough from me and want to "give and give and give" the same false hope to a new wave of freshly minted debt-enslaved dumbasses, they screw me over and say "no thanks" to me ever becoming a partner. Of course, nothing's happened yet - but I see Bernie on the horizon. I don't want to get stuck on an island with no pants on - which is precisely what will happen if I play this game of Russian Roulette with this prestigious firm, i.e. end up being an 8th year with a partnership-rejection and expect some other firm to let me share in THEIR pie, a pie I rejected a long time ago.

Given the above "analysis" - is it wise, as a third-year associate at this ponzi firm, to call their bluff and lateral out to somewhere where i'd have a real shot at partnership? This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

I think associates occasionally misunderstand what's being offered vis-a-vis partnership. Even the phrase "making partner" tends to convey the wrong message. Equity partnership isn't really a next stage--like moving from kindergarten to first grade. It's more like a marathon with a few hundred contestants. First through third wins, everyone else goes home. Partnership isn't so much conveyed as it is taken--it can't be any other way. If you work for a large company, promotions are more straight forward and progressive: moving up usually means you replace someone else or do somewhat more than you did for slightly more money. Your superiors in a company don't directly suffer (at least in any way they're likely to feel) for promoting you, and even if your pay package goes up and your responsibilities change, you're still an employee. Becoming a partner is more than a promotion, it's a different status. In a public corporation it's like moving from a line employee to an officer who's also an owner.

To give you a share of equity, your firm's partners have to vote against their own interests. In a large firm, this isn't insignificant. They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. And they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing. Making you a partner means they own less. It means they have to deal with one more voice trying to control things. But more than anything, it means they have to vote themselves a pay cut. If you want to make partner at any big firm, you've got to give them a reason to make less money. You've got to add a lot of value for the calculation to make sense. A law partnership isn't a pyramid scheme, it's a business. It's not a promotion either, it's a complete change in status, from employee to owner and manager. You either present a compelling reason for them to make less money or you don't make partner.

Anonymous User wrote:This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

quakeroats wrote: To give you a share of equity, your firm's partners have to vote against their own interests. In a large firm, this isn't insignificant. They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. And they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing. Making you a partner means they own less. It means they have to deal with one more voice trying to control things. But more than anything, it means they have to vote themselves a pay cut. If you want to make partner at any big firm, you've got to give them a reason to make less money. You've got to add a lot of value for the calculation to make sense. A law partnership isn't a pyramid scheme, it's a business. It's not a promotion either, it's a complete change in status, from employee to owner and manager. You either present a compelling reason for them to make less money or you don't make partner.

They don't take as big of a hit as you seem to think they do.

What does firm prestige mean or matter in this context?

romothesavior wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

Pretty well this.

No third-year associate would be asking people here for advice on whether or not to lateral.

This trolling would be more believeable in a couple years when a bigger population of TLSers are through law school and out in the world.

Anonymous User wrote:

quakeroats wrote: To give you a share of equity, your firm's partners have to vote against their own interests. In a large firm, this isn't insignificant. They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. And they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing. Making you a partner means they own less. It means they have to deal with one more voice trying to control things. But more than anything, it means they have to vote themselves a pay cut. If you want to make partner at any big firm, you've got to give them a reason to make less money. You've got to add a lot of value for the calculation to make sense. A law partnership isn't a pyramid scheme, it's a business. It's not a promotion either, it's a complete change in status, from employee to owner and manager. You either present a compelling reason for them to make less money or you don't make partner.

They don't take as big of a hit as you seem to think they do.

That's not really the point. Making even a little bit less is unacceptable without good reason. Plus, they're signing on for more than a few years of loses as the new partner learns and starts to produce. He may or may not start pulling his weight, and the only remedy is less palatable than denying partnership.

quakeroats wrote: To give you a share of equity, your firm's partners have to vote against their own interests. In a large firm, this isn't insignificant. They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. And they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing. Making you a partner means they own less. It means they have to deal with one more voice trying to control things. But more than anything, it means they have to vote themselves a pay cut. If you want to make partner at any big firm, you've got to give them a reason to make less money. You've got to add a lot of value for the calculation to make sense. A law partnership isn't a pyramid scheme, it's a business. It's not a promotion either, it's a complete change in status, from employee to owner and manager. You either present a compelling reason for them to make less money or you don't make partner.

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

quakeroats wrote: To give you a share of equity, your firm's partners have to vote against their own interests. In a large firm, this isn't insignificant. They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. And they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing. Making you a partner means they own less. It means they have to deal with one more voice trying to control things. But more than anything, it means they have to vote themselves a pay cut. If you want to make partner at any big firm, you've got to give them a reason to make less money. You've got to add a lot of value for the calculation to make sense. A law partnership isn't a pyramid scheme, it's a business. It's not a promotion either, it's a complete change in status, from employee to owner and manager. You either present a compelling reason for them to make less money or you don't make partner.

They don't take as big of a hit as you seem to think they do.

That's not really the point. Making even a little bit less is unacceptable without good reason. Plus, they're signing on for more than a few years of loses as the new partner learns and starts to produce. He may or may not start pulling his weight, and the only remedy is less palatable than denying partnership.

This might be the case at mega-firms, but most partners I know at small and mid-sized firms weigh a senior associate's hopefully-already-demonstrated business development ability at the time they select him as a partner. Only in some cases are junior partners actually loss leaders. At the mid-sized firm where I summered after 2L, one of the biggest criteria for partnership (other than billing the hours and not being weird) was that they'd brought in business as an associate.

SBL wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

quakeroats wrote: To give you a share of equity, your firm's partners have to vote against their own interests. In a large firm, this isn't insignificant. They've got this thing, and it's fucking golden. And they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing. Making you a partner means they own less. It means they have to deal with one more voice trying to control things. But more than anything, it means they have to vote themselves a pay cut. If you want to make partner at any big firm, you've got to give them a reason to make less money. You've got to add a lot of value for the calculation to make sense. A law partnership isn't a pyramid scheme, it's a business. It's not a promotion either, it's a complete change in status, from employee to owner and manager. You either present a compelling reason for them to make less money or you don't make partner.

They don't take as big of a hit as you seem to think they do.

That's not really the point. Making even a little bit less is unacceptable without good reason. Plus, they're signing on for more than a few years of loses as the new partner learns and starts to produce. He may or may not start pulling his weight, and the only remedy is less palatable than denying partnership.

This might be the case at mega-firms, but most partners I know at small and mid-sized firms weigh a senior associate's hopefully-already-demonstrated business development ability at the time they select him as a partner. Only in some cases are junior partners actually loss leaders. At the mid-sized firm where I summered after 2L, one of the biggest criteria for partnership (other than billing the hours and not being weird) was that they'd brought in business as an associate.

Small/Midsized firm bringing in business is extremely different than at a big firm. Lots of big firms charge a $10k retainer fee up front... very few clients can afford that, and those that can are typically already working with a firm or a few. Bigfirm partnership is less about bringing in business and more about fostering existing client relationships/being acknowledged as an expert in your field in the firm and in the larger legal community/ and most importantly, being what the firm needs at the time (if theres a huge uptick in IP work, they will make IP partners. If not, they will just get pushed out).

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at a V10 which doesn't let anyone share in the partnership pie. It's a big ponzi scheme. I give, and give, and give, based on a false promise. Then, when they've had enough from me and want to "give and give and give" the same false hope to a new wave of freshly minted debt-enslaved dumbasses, they screw me over and say "no thanks" to me ever becoming a partner. Of course, nothing's happened yet - but I see Bernie on the horizon. I don't want to get stuck on an island with no pants on - which is precisely what will happen if I play this game of Russian Roulette with this prestigious firm, i.e. end up being an 8th year with a partnership-rejection and expect some other firm to let me share in THEIR pie, a pie I rejected a long time ago.

Given the above "analysis" - is it wise, as a third-year associate at this ponzi firm, to call their bluff and lateral out to somewhere where i'd have a real shot at partnership? This involves walking away from a very prestigious firm to a much shittier V100

This is exactly the type of attitude of the people who don't make partner. I worked for years in a firm and whenever a new class of associates came in, it was usually pretty quick to see the ones who went down this path in terms of negativity. The associates quickly grouped themselves into those who were positive towards the future and those who were negative (with 7 or 8 out of 10 being those with negative outlooks) People forget that firms are a business- when you are an 8th year or whatever, if you provide enough value for the firm they will make you partner. It's as simple as that. You get people who go decades without ever making true (equity) partner who complain about how it was a carrot dangled in front of them their whole career, but honestly making partner is yours for the taking. If you look at it like it's something "they" give "you", then you'll get stuck in this endless loop of negativity. But it is usually apparent after maybe 3 or 4 years who will be making partner in a firm- it is the people who see their future as being in their control.

I suggest you pick up the book "Managing the Professional Services Firm", as it may as well be called "How to Make Partner". It will remind you that you are not merely an employee, but part of a business and if you want to share in the ownership, you will have to figure out how to make it worth everyone's while. Whether that means bringing in clients, becoming an expert in a field, or some other X factor, you need to do it. One thing is for sure- merely billing a ton of hours is *not* the track to partner.