Top Law Schools

Was speaking to one of my profs today (adjunct who is also a partner at a V20), who put forth the idea that within the next 5-10 years, there could be a huge exodus of partners at Biglaw firms (and elsewhere) when the boomers [finally] retire.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Do we think there will be a higher than normal demand for partners in coming years? Do we see partnership prospects being marginally or even significantly better over the next decade or so?

Relatedly, how feasible of a plan is it to go V5 corporate Sr. Associate --> V100 Of Counsel --> ride out until the next wave of retirement and hope to inherit part of a book and then cross-sell?

For instance, I've seen two RE Counsel at V20 firms make partner (in title, no idea regarding shares) in the last 12 months.

Boomers are never going to retire. Practicing law, especially when you delegate real work to your associates, is not physically taxing. Modern medical care is excellent when you make partner money. The oldest boomers are only ~70.

And they'll probably just pass their clients to their already partner-friends. Don't worry.

Anonymous User wrote:Relatedly, how feasible of a plan is it to go V5 corporate Sr. Associate --> V100 Of Counsel --> ride out until the next wave of retirement and hope to inherit part of a book and then cross-sell?

For instance, I've seen two RE Counsel at V20 firms make partner (in title, no idea regarding shares) in the last 12 months.

1) I'm not so sure the ideal way to lateral would be to stay until Sr. Associate. V100 of counsel isn't some consolation prize and it isn't something that firms typically recruit for. It seems to be something that either a) you age into from Sr. assoc. or b) are brought on from a non-firm organization (like gov) where the firm thinks you'll be able to develop a book quickly but they aren't sure.

If you wanna go for (a) you should go to the V100 as a mid level and earn the respect of the partners.

Of counsel can be competitive for partner (in some firms) but you aren't going to sit around and get handed a book of business. The baby boomers shut the door behind them. I doubt they'll even leave the client to the firm.

flawschoolkid wrote:Boomers are never going to retire. Practicing law, especially when you delegate real work to your associates, is not physically taxing. Modern medical care is excellent when you make partner money. The oldest boomers are only ~70.

And they'll probably just pass their clients to their already partner-friends. Don't worry.

While you may be right that some of them will pass their clients to their already partner-friends, I think firms will need to promote to partner more than they normally would. The fact of the matter is, Fortune 500 clients want to deal with partners and see partners on their cases, so when boomers do retire, they will need to be replaced.

I was told by someone at Cravath that this would likely be the case for people starting now (better partnership prospects than usual). I'd imagine similar at places that make partner from within. Mandatory partner retirement at 62 btw.

Anonymous User wrote:I was told by someone at Cravath that this would likely be the case for people starting now (better partnership prospects than usual). I'd imagine similar at places that make partner from within. Mandatory partner retirement at 62 btw.

Yeah, that makes sense. I would think anyone starting now or in the next 1-3 years would face better partnership prospects just by virtue of boomer retirements.

"Lawyers don't retire; they die."

This is total guesswork:

A real wave of retirements might also shake up the industry. Clients might go firm shopping. They might build bigger in house departments and refer less maters to firms. Some firms might fold. Smaller or mid-sized firms with a bunch of respected partners might sense an opportunity grow and become the new big firms. More than anything else, a wave of retirements has the potential to shake up the biglaw model.

I agree to the extent we're talking about firms with mandatory retirement rules, especially since those firms tend to overlap strongly with firms that primarily (or nearly exclusively, in the case of Cravath) raise partners from within. Retirements will pick up over the next decade at those firms, and those who are now juniors and midlevels will be in prime range to make partner. This is particularly true for classes such as the Class of 2009, where there's already an associate shortage in biglaw because so many were laid off during the recession.

Firms without mandatory retirement policies will just continue aging.

One thing I am curious about is exactly which firms have mandatory partner retirement ages. There aren't that many, to my knowledge, but it's not usually something discussed. I know such policies are common among the lockstep and near-lockstep firms, but I'm not sure they're universal even there.

.

Firms make exceptions to mandatory retirement policies for big rainmakers. So stupid, but when the boomers are running the show, they call the shots.

A good partnership focuses on the long term grooms associates to take on client relationships; partners shouldn't hoard clients.

Boomer in house turds hire Boomer biglaw turds. Both will find a way to turn into cyborgs and forever deny Millennials jobs.

This is totally true and why I always asked at every interview how many partners over age 60 they had and if there was a mandatory retirement age. After running the numbers I concluded I had 75% chance at partner instead of 67%. If you didn't do this in oci you did yourself a disservice and I suggest you redo oci as a 3l

JohannDeMann wrote:This is totally true and why I always asked at every interview how many partners over age 60 they had and if there was a mandatory retirement age. After running the numbers I concluded I had 75% chance at partner instead of 67%. If you didn't do this in oci you did yourself a disservice and I suggest you redo oci as a 3l

Can I redo OCI as a 3rd year associate?

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:This is totally true and why I always asked at every interview how many partners over age 60 they had and if there was a mandatory retirement age. After running the numbers I concluded I had 75% chance at partner instead of 67%. If you didn't do this in oci you did yourself a disservice and I suggest you redo oci as a 3l

Can I redo OCI as a 3rd year associate?

I don't know why you'd want to. I think the really good associates are going to start making partner after 5 year now because firms are so desperate for partners.

JohannDeMann wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:This is totally true and why I always asked at every interview how many partners over age 60 they had and if there was a mandatory retirement age. After running the numbers I concluded I had 75% chance at partner instead of 67%. If you didn't do this in oci you did yourself a disservice and I suggest you redo oci as a 3l

Can I redo OCI as a 3rd year associate?

I don't know why you'd want to. I think the really good associates are going to start making partner after 5 year now because firms are so desperate for partners.

Making equity partner is like winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.

keg411 wrote:Making equity partner is like winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.

Making service partner sounds worse than hell. I think equity partners at some firms might pull down enough $$$ to stop my shit posting.

keg411 wrote:Making equity partner is like winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.

I think this is true but if you don't like it why not retire after 10 years? pretty sure you can have enough money to live comfortably the rest of your life..

mvp99 wrote:

keg411 wrote:Making equity partner is like winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.

I think this is true but if you don't like it why not retire after 10 years? pretty sure you can have enough money to live comfortably the rest of your life..

Someone sociopathic enough to make partner isn't just going to stop working.

Maybe at New York biglaw partner is like more pie but everywhere else that is so false. You travel on planes and bill for that. You have 4 hours of telephone calls everyday and bill that. You work from home whenever you want. The substantive work you do is all strategizing. You don't have to write any of it that's what you are underlings are for. It's basically every form of the easy billables some of which you can literally sleep through. It's still a lot of hours but the hours but it's more schmooze y stuff than grunt work.
NYC law is prolly a different animal though.

JohannDeMann wrote:Maybe at New York biglaw partner is like more pie but everywhere else that is so false. You travel on planes and bill for that. You have 4 hours of telephone calls everyday and bill that. You work from home whenever you want. The substantive work you do is all strategizing. You don't have to write any of it that's what you are underlings are for. It's basically every form of the easy billables some of which you can literally sleep through. It's still a lot of hours but the hours but it's more schmooze y stuff than grunt work.
NYC law is prolly a different animal though.

What city are you speaking of where this is true? (Not doubting just asking)

JohannDeMann wrote:Maybe at New York biglaw partner is like more pie but everywhere else that is so false. You travel on planes and bill for that. You have 4 hours of telephone calls everyday and bill that. You work from home whenever you want. The substantive work you do is all strategizing. You don't have to write any of it that's what you are underlings are for. It's basically every form of the easy billables some of which you can literally sleep through. It's still a lot of hours but the hours but it's more schmooze y stuff than grunt work.
NYC law is prolly a different animal though.

This is so false.

smallfirmassociate wrote:"Lawyers don't retire; they die."

What are you suggesting?