Top Law Schools

Let's get the obvious out of the way--the chance of making partner at either firm is laughably small. Understood.

But between the two, does anyone have insights into the comparative difficulty of making partner at each?

Things I've heard anecdotally:

Skadden makes you counsel after 8 years and minimum partner track is 12. At s&c partner track is 8 years.

S&C only has equity partners.

At S&C making partner is more about office politics and your skills as a lawyer (and a good deal of luck, obviously)...less about your ability to make it rain. At skadden you won't make partner unless you have serious rainmaking capabilities.

Basically--from what I've heard making partner at skadden is a tougher sled than at s&c. Can anyone shed some light on this?

ETA: particularly interested in NYC

To be honest I think making it to be a senior associate Is actually not a given.

Bro just lateral to kirkland and cop that non share partner title by year 5

why are you asking about this in early june?

lel

I'm asking because I would like to know.

.

deng wrote:

Jason Taverner wrote:why are you asking about this in early june?

OP bends over backwards to assure everyone that he/she understands that making partner is unlikely, but that he/she is still curious about a legitimate career question that is perfectly reasonable to wonder about.

And it's still not enough for the TLS Mean Girls. "zOmg you have a question about a long term and competitive career goal? STFU!"

Not everyone knows everything there is to know about the industry. That's why there are message boards.

more that it's too early to have offers at these places probably, so OP is putting the cart miles ahead of the horse

Couple things because I care about you anon internet poster. i wouldnt post at all, because this is bad juju to talk about, but i think you need this:

1) you're wrong about Skadden's nyc partner track. 8 Years. If you don't scoop it, you may still make counsel. Some people make partner after 8 years, but that's rare. You may want to look at some firm bios.

2) before you go asking about this at either firm or OCI you should know that talking about this is a big no-no, even for attorneys. you may think it shows ambition, and it does, but in the wrong way. you come off as entitled. you also come off as a law school gunner meaning you think you are in competition with your classmates for the brass ring of partnership already. that is the wrong attitude. you're part of a team now. you need to have that attitude or you'll burn out.

3) yes, the odds of making partner are low at either firm but the reason noone can give YOU an answer is because (for some class years) your chance may be 0%, regardless of how good a worker bee you are. If there isnt a "good business reason" for promoting a partner it wont happen. "good business reason" is code for "do we like this person, will this person make money for us, how many partners already have their hands in the equity pie, how much work is coming in, how many associates do we have in this person's department, etc." You won't have a sense for that until your 7th year. Even then you wont really have idea.

4)if you think you might want to do corporate practice lean skadden, but it's close. if you think you want lit i have no idea, but it's close. the firms have very different feels, that should be what you spend time investigating.

Most firms are shifting away from up or out after 8 years. There are 10th year associates at Skadden, for instance. Also, in general, firms are shifting toward the rainmaker model, which I think will be the norm in 8-10 years (when you'd presumably be close to partner). If you're a senior associate who's generating revenue, you'll be made partner.

In the past, if you were really good at S&C, you could be made partner and then take over a relationship with an institutional client who'd been with the firm for 50 years. But times are changing. The lateral market for partners is hot. Firms like Kirkland are paying partners $5mm+ to get a big book of business.

If you want to make partner in the future, you need to generate business, wherever you go. That's my opinion, at least.

You def don't have what it takes to make partner at Skadden. Go with S&C.

My gut reaction was that S&C would be harder than Skadden. Nothing to base that off of, though, except generic reputations. If you really want to know, look at total # of associates, # of partners made per year (excluding short term laterals) and find the percentage. All of that information should be available online.

And, absent having connections, making partner at either is based far less off of rainmaking / rainmaking ability than on billing 2500+ in a hot practice group and being taken under the wing of a rainmaker who has the power to get partners made.

Much has been said. Thank you all for the responses.

Looks like the upshot is the expected skill/timing/luck/likeability/rainmaking blend with no real distinction between the two firms.

Interesting to hear all your thoughts.

Why not gun for partner someplace else? Why these two?

Jason Taverner wrote:Why not gun for partner someplace else? Why these two?

Can't say without outing myself.

Anonymous User wrote:

Jason Taverner wrote:Why not gun for partner someplace else? Why these two?

Can't say without outing myself.

It's very odd that you're weighing these at this point in the summer at all, so I'm going to assume "because I'm a 1L who is judging stuff for no reason, and I don't know what questions to ask here"

Jason Taverner wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Jason Taverner wrote:Why not gun for partner someplace else? Why these two?

Can't say without outing myself.

It's very odd that you're weighing these at this point in the summer at all, so I'm going to assume "because I'm a 1L who is judging stuff for no reason, and I don't know what questions to ask here"

You couldn't be more wrong but randomly assuming things is always fun.

Also, bluntly pretty much nobody is going to be able to give you real answers to inside baseball shit like this, because pretty much nobody is going to have extensive experience working at both firms.

Maybe you should look into how many partners are made in various areas, in which offices, explore how/why those partners are made, figure out the compensation structure for partners at each firm (I think they're both modified lockstep with a relatively narrow spread, but you'd probably want to ask about that) &c. &c. &c.

instead you just kinda say "tell me about it!" which makes me think you know nothing

Anonymous User wrote:

Jason Taverner wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Jason Taverner wrote:Why not gun for partner someplace else? Why these two?

Can't say without outing myself.

It's very odd that you're weighing these at this point in the summer at all, so I'm going to assume "because I'm a 1L who is judging stuff for no reason, and I don't know what questions to ask here"

You couldn't be more wrong but randomly assuming things is always fun.

If you have this much knowledge why are you asking broad questions to TLS?

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the incoherence of your posts but I didn't come here to anonymously argue about someone's mistaken assumptions. I never said I have knowledge of anything regarding partnership. I said you couldn't be more wrong about me being a 1L who is asking for the sake of asking.

If you can't think of the many logical reasons someone would pose the question I asked in the way I asked it then you are beyond my help.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the incoherence of your posts but I didn't come here to anonymously argue about someone's mistaken assumptions. I never said I have knowledge of anything regarding partnership. I said you couldn't be more wrong about me being a 1L who is asking for the sake of asking.

If you can't think of the many logical reasons someone would pose the question I asked in the way I asked it then you are beyond my help.

I don't need your help, buddy.

I'm just making fun of you.

also if you're socking above, LOL, just LOL, deng

Jason Taverner wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the incoherence of your posts but I didn't come here to anonymously argue about someone's mistaken assumptions. I never said I have knowledge of anything regarding partnership. I said you couldn't be more wrong about me being a 1L who is asking for the sake of asking.

If you can't think of the many logical reasons someone would pose the question I asked in the way I asked it then you are beyond my help.

I don't need your help, buddy.

I'm just making fun of you.

Of course you are. And your willingness to admit that you are actually spending your time making fun of an anonymous poster on an internet message board for what would be a perfectly reasonable question if you didn't vomit your own fantastical and completely false assumptions about it all over the place really speaks for itself. You're doing all of my work for me.

Anyway thanks all for the replies.

I am always glad and willing to admit that I'm making fun of an anonymous person who asks the question "Making partner: Skadden vs. S&C??" and if you asked me in real life, I'd laugh in your face.

Jason Taverner wrote:I am always glad and willing to admit that I'm making fun of an anonymous person who asks the question "Making partner: Skadden vs. S&C??" and if you asked me in real life, I'd laugh in your face.

You're silly.

Thanks to everyone else for the help.