Top Law Schools

Does looking at the Partner:Associate ratio indicate anything about the firm?

nickhalden wrote:Does looking at the Partner:Associate ratio indicate anything about the firm?

For example:
Skadden NYC - 1:3
King & Spalding Atlanta - 1:2
Moore & Van Allen Charlotte: 1.5:1

I'm looking at a boutique that has a 3:1 ratio of partners to associates. What does that suggest about associate responsibilities, firm success, and availability of partner track?

If there are relatively fewer associates, you might have more exposure to some more "advanced" tasks as a younger associate (which has advantages and disadvantages). Otherwise I don't think the ratio indicates much by itself.

The ratio has little to no bearing on partnership chances. For instnace, my firm most partners lateralled in and making partnership up through the ranks is rarer/harder. However, our ratio would indicate good partership chances if that's all you looked at.

It's hard to extract much, because you need more information about the partners. You may have one partner generating as much business as two other partners combined, and a fourth partner who is non-equity. Associate is also too vague of a term, because the responsibilities you are given change based on the other associates you are working with. If a firm has a shortage of any class of associates then other associates will fulfill their roles. You also can't predict partner prospects, but that's because it mostly depends on the business you bring in.

It can be a useful metric but it's hardly dispositive. Sometimes it means that partners aren't generating enough business and are hoarding work as a result. Other times it means a [relatively] really easy path to partnership. FWIW southeastern firms like MVA often have more partners than associates and sometimes that ratio is 2:1 or even 3:1. There are advantages and drawbacks but if one has any interest in partnership it can be a really sweet gig [compared to NYC mega firms; biglaw still sucks almost everywhere].