Top Law Schools

I am going to ask a dumb question. However, I am interested in how a big firm operates.

suppose I get hired at a biglaw's small regional office of, say, 10-15 people. I heard that in many cases, the managing partner of the regional office could make the major hiring decision (unless the office is really tiny)

1. Why should the partner of a small office be able to make hiring decisions that would ultimately involve paying an associate from the whole firm's revenues? shouldn't the partner get approval from the main offices?

2. if the hiring is done at an overseas office (like asia)
will the associate's salary be made of revenues from overseas or revenues from both overseas and local offices?

I don't really think this is any different from how any large business delegates any decision making authority to local managers. When a Wal Mart store manager hires a bad cashier it might impact Wal Mart's bottom line but the manager has still been given the ability to make that decision for a number of reasons.

i got your point.
I am not saying that an associate is a very significant role. but a bigfirm may only have, say, 500+ associates and hiring an associate is more significant than walmart hiring a cashier.

Anonymous User wrote:i got your point.
I am not saying that an associate is a very significant role. but a bigfirm may only have, say, 500+ associates and hiring an associate is more significant than walmart hiring a cashier.

This goes to the very basic principles of why people use agents. The partnership doesn't have time to micromanage hiring decisions (neither does the executive committee), thus they delegate that authority to hiring committees or managing partners.

A small office will have a small practice group, and there will be a partner in charge of it. If you work in that office, you'll be working for that guy. The rest of the firm doesn't really care who that guy hires to work on his cases, since he'll be the one dealing with them.

Renzo wrote:A small office will have a small practice group, and there will be a partner in charge of it. If you work in that office, you'll be working for that guy. The rest of the firm doesn't really care who that guy hires to work on his cases, since he'll be the one dealing with them.

No man, the partner should have to email "HQ" for approval on every decision he makes. New hire? Needs approval. Filing brief? Needs approval. Buying a cake for an employee's birthday? Needs approval. Scratching ass? Partner's discretion.

Another way to look at it is that a partnership may decide to divide up administrative tasks. Say there are 100 partners. The partnership may decide to put a number of partners in charge of making hiring decisions (a few in the main office, and one or two per smaller office), put other partners in charge of decisions to do with office space, hiring of top-level administrative/technology/etc. managers, compensation, development of new practice areas, media outreach, etc. etc. etc. Important decisions may need to be decided by vote (or by the management committee in consultation with the entire partnership), but not every decision needs to be made by vote of 100 people.

Bildungsroman wrote: No man, the partner should have to email "HQ" for approval on every decision he makes. New hire? Needs approval. Filing brief? Needs approval. Buying a cake for an employee's birthday? Needs approval. Scratching ass? Partner's discretion.

file insurance coverage for itchy ass? Need approval. amirite?

Think of it this way. The partner(s) in charge of the small office bring in a certain amount of revenue from that office. They spend a certain amount on human capital (salaries). As long as net profit is high enough, nobody cares if you happened to hire 1 incompetent associate. If profit isn't high enough, you're shown the door.

androstan wrote:Think of it this way. The partner(s) in charge of the small office bring in a certain amount of revenue from that office. They spend a certain amount on human capital (salaries). As long as net profit is high enough, nobody cares if you happened to hire 1 incompetent associate. If profit isn't high enough, you're shown the door.

Lol no

sundance95 wrote:

androstan wrote:Think of it this way. The partner(s) in charge of the small office bring in a certain amount of revenue from that office. They spend a certain amount on human capital (salaries). As long as net profit is high enough, nobody cares if you happened to hire 1 incompetent associate. If profit isn't high enough, you're shown the door.

Lol no

Lol yes.

If you think that no one cares about incompetence until margins are hurt then you are very mistaken.

OP, here is the deal. This may be firm-specific, but this is how it happens at some firms. A partner is a partner because he/she has a book of buisness that justifies his/her existence as a partner. Each partner has clients and predicts how much business they will have in the future based on their interactions with their clients. So a managing partner from a far away office may not even be in a position to hire someone for a regional office, because they dont have the interaction with the clients to know how much work will come in over the next couple of years. At a lot of firms, practice group leaders make decisions about who to hire in their group because they are the ones who know how much work needs to be delegated. The managing partner or hiring committee may have no say so at all. They cant hire someone to go to the tax group when the tax partner who has the book of business doesnt have enough business to give the young associate

they for sure know/predict the business - but when the salary is paid, it is issued by the firm, not by the regional office, right?