Top Law Schools

One firm in particular I am thinking about is located in a major market, has around 100 lawyers, pays slightly under market, hours are on the low end but comparable to what big law requires, and practice groups are chambers band 4. The downsides are obviously the below market pay for what is probably big law work, and maybe relatively lower prestige (and exit options) compared to a vault firm.

The big upside for a firm like this, at least so they claim, is that partnership is the expectation. The idea is basically that because of the 3:1 partner to associate ratio partners are constantly retiring/getting phased out and passing their business down the ladder.

What do people think? Assuming you want to stay at a firm long-term (thus making the difference in exit options less important) how does a firm like this compare to a vault firm? Conventional TLS/law student wisdom seems to be to go with the most prestigious option you have based on vault/chambers when everything is all said and done, but I wonder if that might be short-term thinking.

Sounds like a good gig to me.

For extra precautions, find out why previous associates left the firm by contacting them.

I've summered at this type of firm and at a NYC/v20 firm, and I came away with two main observations:

1) The quality of lawyers will vary a lot more at the midlaw firm. There will be some great attorneys there—people who've gotten real experience and have build solid skills. But other's won't be as good. As you said, partnership is the expectation, so you don't have to be amazing to get to that level. Thus, from your point of view, the sort of substantive experience you get will depend tremendously on who you work with/for. (It's always the case that how much you love/hate your life will depend on the personalities you work for, but this adds a new element.) Thus, the "hustle" of seeking out work can be a bit more important.

2) Because associates aren't leaving all the time, you don't have to put nearly as much work into "writing things up." Associates at the midlaw firm would do research and then tell their findings to a partner/senior associate. At the v20, even that simple assignment needed to be written as a memo to file, because the expectation was that the lead associate might be gone in 6 months. That overall attitude changed the atmosphere a bit.

There will be a few partners who are the real head honchos who are rainamakers

I bet some of those partners aren't equity aka not really partners

Some are more equal than others, etc.

is 4:1 really low leverage?

A lot of Midlaw partner gigs have similar hours and pay to in-house positions, and they're usually in cheaper COL places.

OP--can you be a little more specific (i.e. what sort of peer group) you're talking about that's paying near-market with a theoretical partnership spot for every associate? A gig that might be prefer to all but the best Biglaw.

patogordo wrote:is 4:1 really low leverage?

Anonymous User wrote: The idea is basically that because of the 3:1 partner to associate ratio partners are constantly retiring/getting phased out and passing their business down the ladder.

I read the OP as saying that there are 3 partners for every associate. That's not that uncommon in midlaw—remember, if you don't have an up-or-out policy, then most people make partner and stay for 20–40 years (versus 7-ish years as an associate).

lol whoops

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: OP--can you be a little more specific (i.e. what sort of peer group) you're talking about that's paying near-market with a theoretical partnership spot for every associate? A gig that might be prefer to all but the best Biglaw.

Edwards Wildman (Chicago) and Quarles Brady (Chicago) are along the lines of the type of firm I'm thinking of, at least in terms of compensation, reputation, leverage (although they look close to 2:1) etc., although I don't know if those firms are truly midlaw firms.

There seems to be a handful of these firms in Chicago and Midwestern secondary markets.

Edit: Found another one. Lewis & Rice (St. Louis). 88 partners, 36 associates, 14 counsel. Pay is 125k (which has to be good for St. Louis). That's probably a better example of what I am talking about.

Anonymous User wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: OP--can you be a little more specific (i.e. what sort of peer group) you're talking about that's paying near-market with a theoretical partnership spot for every associate? A gig that might be prefer to all but the best Biglaw.

Edwards Wildman (Chicago) and Quarles Brady (Chicago) are along the lines of the type of firm I'm thinking of, at least in terms of compensation, reputation, leverage (although they look close to 2:1) etc., although I don't know if those firms are truly midlaw firms.

There seems to be a handful of these firms in Chicago and Midwestern secondary markets.

Edit: Found another one. Lewis & Rice (St. Louis). 88 partners, 36 associates, 14 counsel. Pay is 125k (which has to be good for St. Louis). That's probably a better example of what I am talking about.

I'm not sure about the other two but I know at Edwards you have essentially zero chance at making equity partner unless you're a rainmaker. So I'm guessing it's $200k-ish at the starting level of a place like that and probably doesn't increase a whole ton. Which is a fine living, especially if you're in St. Louis or Indianapolis or wherever. Don't know how it pays compared to an in-house person who's been there five or ten years, though I suspect they're making in the same range.

There are a lot of firms in smaller Southeastern markets that are somewhat like this. It really is a very different model. IME partnership is the expectation, and some of these kinds of firms will let you take 10 years to make partner if you really want to, but you pretty much need to start bringing in business as a midlevel to really make it work.

my top choice firm is one of these in a secondary. 200 attorneys, etc. But it handles huge deals - it definitely dominates its market. I loved it, and would be happy staying there for a long time, but eventually do want to go in house when partnership flames out. I want to have some national portability when going in house (personal reasons). Is this just not going to happen?