Page 1 of 2
Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:36 am
by Anonymous User
Is it easier to get into big law after working a couple of years in a smaller firm / mid size firm? Or is it only available if you start out in it?
Re: Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:10 am
by oblitigate
Anonymous User wrote:Is it easier to get into big law after working a couple of years in a smaller firm / mid size firm? Or is it only available if you start out in it?
Dude think abt it, there are a lot of big firms. It depends on a lot of factors. But to max your chances you should take a job w/ the
highest quality cases you can, don't base it on firm size. That's what more prominent practices are going to take heed of.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:13 am
by rad lulz
d
Re: Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:18 pm
by thesealocust
No. Almost no biglaw hiring happens except direct from law school, from other big firms, or from clerkships / federal agency type jobs.
There are exceptions, but not many.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:21 pm
by kalvano
thesealocust wrote:No. Almost no biglaw hiring happens except direct from law school, from other big firms, or from clerkships / federal agency type jobs.
There are exceptions, but not many.
I don't know, the lateral market here in Texas is pretty strong if you're coming from a midsize place and want Texas Biglaw.
I think it's more a regional thing, but I'm guessing for NYC it's exactly like you say.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:58 pm
by thesealocust
Yeah Texas is the exception to like every rule there is (are 1L SAs a thing? No, well, except in Texas...; etc.)
Re: Big law
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:01 pm
by kalvano
Ha. That's true, I guess, but I would think that it's also true in some secondary markets. Not that if you work for an ID firm for 2 years, your great trial experience will get you a job, but if you work for a locally respected small / midsize firm, that can get you a foothold.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:46 am
by legalese_retard
Something else to consider:
I received an email this week from a junior attorney who wanted advice on how members of the “lost generation” (which, according to this attorney, consists of those attorneys with strong credentials who graduated during the recent economic downturn) could transition to Biglaw after not successfully landing Biglaw jobs during these lean hiring years. This attorney noted that he did a state clerkship and now practices at a small, well-respected firm. In his current job, he is able to appear in court a few times a month, and he has significant responsibility for a third-year associate (taking depositions, direct client contact, etc.).
This letter interested me for one specific reason — this attorney already has the type of job that many second- and third-year Biglaw associates are currently seeking. This attorney is using his law degree on a daily basis, and his judgment is being respected by his current employer. So, why, young attorney, do you want to give this up to come to a law firm where third-years are overworked but, at the same time, get very little substantive work experience?
http://abovethelaw.com/2014/04/recruitm ... et-peeves/
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:57 am
by dead head
legalese_retard wrote:Something else to consider:
I received an email this week from a junior attorney who wanted advice on how members of the “lost generation” (which, according to this attorney, consists of those attorneys with strong credentials who graduated during the recent economic downturn) could transition to Biglaw after not successfully landing Biglaw jobs during these lean hiring years. This attorney noted that he did a state clerkship and now practices at a small, well-respected firm. In his current job, he is able to appear in court a few times a month, and he has significant responsibility for a third-year associate (taking depositions, direct client contact, etc.).
This letter interested me for one specific reason — this attorney already has the type of job that many second- and third-year Biglaw associates are currently seeking. This attorney is using his law degree on a daily basis, and his judgment is being respected by his current employer. So, why, young attorney, do you want to give this up to come to a law firm where third-years are overworked but, at the same time, get very little substantive work experience?
Maybe because you can't pay down your six-figure debt that quickly when you're working small/midlaw, and biglaw remains a credential for other jobs that small/midlaw simply isn't?
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:36 am
by guano
One thing worth keeping in mind is that if you can bring a book of business with you, plenty of firms will welcome you with open arms. At one lower V100 firm I'm familiar with, bringing in $500k of business is enough to make partner
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:42 am
by dead head
guano wrote:At one lower V100 firm I'm familiar with, bringing in $500k of business is enough to make partner
That seems really low.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:53 am
by guano
dead head wrote:guano wrote:At one lower V100 firm I'm familiar with, bringing in $500k of business is enough to make partner
That seems really low.
Got it straight out of the mouth of a newly minted (jan. 2013) partner
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:31 am
by dead head
guano wrote:dead head wrote:guano wrote:At one lower V100 firm I'm familiar with, bringing in $500k of business is enough to make partner
That seems really low.
Got it straight out of the mouth of a newly minted (jan. 2013) partner
$500k in business for an equity partner? Must be a small market, and even then it doesn't make sense when PPP in the AmLaw 100 bottoms out at about $500k and given typical profit percentages this would seem to represent revenue per partner of $1,500,000+. I mean, revenue per lawyer at 99 of the Amlaw 100 firms is $500k, so it doesn't make sense to bring in a partner at this level, especially since midlevels should be billing well more than this.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:46 am
by AntipodeanPhil
dead head wrote:guano wrote:dead head wrote:guano wrote:At one lower V100 firm I'm familiar with, bringing in $500k of business is enough to make partner
That seems really low.
Got it straight out of the mouth of a newly minted (jan. 2013) partner
$500k in business for an equity partner? Must be a small market, and even then it doesn't make sense when PPP in the AmLaw 100 bottoms out at about $500k and given typical profit percentages this would seem to represent revenue per partner of $1,500,000+. I mean, revenue per lawyer at 99 of the Amlaw 100 firms is $500k, so it doesn't make sense to bring in a partner at this level, especially since midlevels should be billing well more than this.
Makes sense to me. Presumably this firm has some "rainmaker" partners, who bring in more work than they can reasonably bill. If they have to give some of that excess work to other partners, better to give it to a partner who is bringing in $500k of his own business - and spread it around more - than to a partner who is bringing in none of his own business.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:54 am
by IAFG
legalese_retard wrote:Something else to consider:
I received an email this week from a junior attorney who wanted advice on how members of the “lost generation” (which, according to this attorney, consists of those attorneys with strong credentials who graduated during the recent economic downturn) could transition to Biglaw after not successfully landing Biglaw jobs during these lean hiring years. This attorney noted that he did a state clerkship and now practices at a small, well-respected firm. In his current job, he is able to appear in court a few times a month, and he has significant responsibility for a third-year associate (taking depositions, direct client contact, etc.).
This letter interested me for one specific reason — this attorney already has the type of job that many second- and third-year Biglaw associates are currently seeking. This attorney is using his law degree on a daily basis, and his judgment is being respected by his current employer. So, why, young attorney, do you want to give this up to come to a law firm where third-years are overworked but, at the same time, get very little substantive work experience?
http://abovethelaw.com/2014/04/recruitm ... et-peeves/
But seriously tho. This is TCR.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:55 am
by thesealocust
Yeah, I'm sure $500K on its own wouldn't do it. A single first yer associate clocking in around 2,000 hours will generate north of three quarters of a million dollars at current market rates, which means a $500K book couldn't keep a single associate busy even if the partner never billed an hour. An attorney at that level likely wouldn't even cover their own salary and carrying costs (rent, support staff, benefits, insurance, etc.)
On the flip side, moving to a firm with business is way better than trying to move to a firm without business, and it's not unheard of for firms to hire associates and counsel from other firms into themselves as partner. Maybe it's more "capable and entrenched attorney moves to firm as partner and the decision was especially easy because some business was moving at the same time"?
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:58 am
by IAFG
The ability to generate a little business as an associate indicates the ability to generate more, I think.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:00 pm
by Old Gregg
Yeah, kind of absurd for an associate to be required to have a substantial book of business to make partner, especially at a V5. It's almost always based on potential.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:13 pm
by dead head
AntipodeanPhil wrote:
Makes sense to me. Presumably this firm has some "rainmaker" partners, who bring in more work than they can reasonably bill. If they have to give some of that excess work to other partners, better to give it to a partner who is bringing in $500k of his own business - and spread it around more - than to a partner who is bringing in none of his own business.
When firms are actively de-equitizing partners who don't bring enough business (even though they being in a lot more than $500k), it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Maybe you make them an income partner for a few years to see if they can keep bringing in more, but $500k for equity partner makes little sense.
zweitbester wrote:Yeah, kind of absurd for an associate to be required to have a substantial book of business to make partner, especially at a V5. It's almost always based on potential.
At the very best firms, where business comes to their door and they don't have to search it out, it seems quality of work plays a more important role than business generation. But if they were basing their decisions on business generation, $500k wouldn't cut it when revenue per lawyer is north of $1,000,000 and profit per partner is in the $2,000,000-$5,000,000 range.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:23 pm
by 09042014
There appear to be two different types of firms:
1) the majority of clients are "firm" clients
2) the clients are mostly just clients of the partners
Good luck making partner at #2 without a book of business. And if you say "thats hard, they can't expect that!" Just look at how many partners are being made. It's not a lot at all.
And "income partner" really means not partner.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:33 pm
by dead head
Desert Fox wrote:
And "income partner" really means not partner.
Which is why it's difficult to see $500k making equity partner.
Income partner at some firms is more not-partnerish than at other firms, I think, if only because the partnership structure at some is much more opaque than at others. I mean, everyone knows newly promoted partners at Kirkland are just really senior associates, but at other firms it's more difficult to distinguish whether you're income or equity, which certainly confers certain benefits on income partners even if they don't get to share the profits. It would be interesting to know how much partners with the fewest shares/lowest compensation make, especially in comparison with income partners, of counsel, and senior associates, though.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:09 pm
by hous
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between income and equity partner?
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:29 pm
by dead head
hous wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between income and equity partner?
Income "partners" are basically really senior associates who get most or all of their compensation in the form of salary, while equity partners are true partners who have shares in the firm and derive most or all of their compensation from their share of firm profitability. At some firms all partners are equity partners, with senior salaried lawyers being referred to as "(of) counsel," but at other firms over half of the partners might be income partners even though they are all called "partner." At a lot of firms senior associates are promoted to income partner before being elevated to equity partner, encouraged to leave, or being designated counsel. So the term "partner" can mean a lot of different things at a lot of different firms, but the only important thing is whether you're an equity partner or not.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:15 pm
by thesealocust
Equity partner = partial ownership interest. Everything else is just dressed up titles.
Re: Big law
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:32 pm
by JusticeJackson
.