Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years???? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:25 pm
Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
.
Last edited by speed_the_loot on Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Monochromatic Oeuvre
- Posts: 2481
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:25 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
.
Last edited by speed_the_loot on Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Off topic, but is this a common hobby of yours? Looking at decade old obituaries of attorneys? Compelling stuff.speed_the_loot wrote:http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007 ... law-review
"He received his law degree in 1958 from Loyola University, where he was editor in chief of the law review.
He joined Baker & McKenzie that year, making partner four years later."
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- MKC
- Posts: 16246
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
At some point partners realized they could make fuckloads of money by leveraging salaried associates. Given the number of law students that graduate every year, I don't think they'll ever have an incentive to go back.
New lawyers have a supply problem.
ETA: Looking at this chart it makes sense that they quit making everyone partner in the 1970s.
New lawyers have a supply problem.
ETA: Looking at this chart it makes sense that they quit making everyone partner in the 1970s.
-
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:40 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Kirkland has a non-equity partnership track that makes this type of thing a lot more common. It's not really what OP is referring to though.Anonymous User wrote:i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:25 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
.
Last edited by speed_the_loot on Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Desert Fox
- Posts: 18283
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Partners didn't use to make 10 times more than associates.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:28 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
It's worth noting that these jobs were unavailable to women, Jews, homosexuals and every other minority community so in addition to much fewer people practicing law then, nearly 1/2 of graduates were disqualified from the start. In a booming economy, a white male who didn't completely suck was very valuable because most firms wanted to bring in talent, but didn't want to lose that nice wholesome klan rally feel they prided themselves on.Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).
- TLSModBot
- Posts: 14835
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
1. There hasn't been an assumption that all associates would make partner since before the Cravath model rolled out (Paul Cravath spoke on this in 1928, I believe, so I'm guessing we're approaching a century since up-or-out with the assumption of a dair degree of out has been a thing).
2. There wasn't good data until AmLaw et. al. started tracking firm metrics in the 80's. Some might have been 4 years, and some were probably longer. 4 years is probably on the early/exceptional side.
3. Law didn't pay as well, for anybody. It didn't really boom until the 70's, and as DF noted the pay differentials were not as skewed.
2. There wasn't good data until AmLaw et. al. started tracking firm metrics in the 80's. Some might have been 4 years, and some were probably longer. 4 years is probably on the early/exceptional side.
3. Law didn't pay as well, for anybody. It didn't really boom until the 70's, and as DF noted the pay differentials were not as skewed.
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:21 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
I'm not sure about the other groups, but law schools were almost entirely male in the early 70s and before ( <5% female) so there's not a huge impact there.jrass wrote:It's worth noting that these jobs were unavailable to women, Jews, homosexuals and every other minority community so in addition to much fewer people practicing law then, nearly 1/2 of graduates were disqualified from the start. In a booming economy, a white male who didn't completely suck was very valuable because most firms wanted to bring in talent, but didn't want to lose that nice wholesome klan rally feel they prided themselves on.Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).
- zot1
- Posts: 4476
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Welcome to a dying profession.speed_the_loot wrote:http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007 ... law-review
"He received his law degree in 1958 from Loyola University, where he was editor in chief of the law review.
He joined Baker & McKenzie that year, making partner four years later."
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
It's an industry built on convincing smart ambitious types to give up on business oriented or creative pursuits to fucking do paperwork. Equity should come that quickly to make it worthwhile. This job fucking sucks.
From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.
From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Kirkland has fake partners who are really just senior associates.Anonymous User wrote:i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times
- star fox
- Posts: 20790
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Law students aren't really that smart or ambitious. It's Liberal Arts All Stars.Anonymous User wrote:It's an industry built on convincing smart ambitious types to give up on business oriented or creative pursuits to fucking do paperwork. Equity should come that quickly to make it worthwhile. This job fucking sucks.
From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:05 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
star fox wrote:Law students aren't really that smart or ambitious. It's Liberal Arts All Stars.Anonymous User wrote:It's an industry built on convincing smart ambitious types to give up on business oriented or creative pursuits to fucking do paperwork. Equity should come that quickly to make it worthwhile. This job fucking sucks.
From the partnership's POV, though, best to spend more time making sure a potential partner is a dead behind the eyes sociopath. That's what it takes to work these hours for decades while ignoring family, friends, and the pursuit of a more worthwhile career.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428538
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
that K&E chick laterally to sidley later this year and still a partner.Anonymous User wrote:Kirkland has fake partners who are really just senior associates.Anonymous User wrote:i know a chick made partner in k&e 4 years after her master degree. the times
- DELG
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
Michigan firms have 4 year partnership tracks.
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:28 pm
Re: Partner Tracks Used to be 4 Years????
That's true. It was poor wording. I meant to say among decently intelligent people. Let's assume there are 10 people - 5 men and 5 women, that 60% of people are retarded regardless of gender, and one of every 10 gets a gold star then your odds of getting the star at 10%. If we limit the pool to those who aren't retarded then your odds jump to 25% - you're competing against 3 non-retards. If we eliminate the other gender your odds jump up to 50%. I think Sarah Silverman was the one who joked that if you're a middle aged white male who is protestant/catholic and aren't a millionaire, you'd probably qualify for disability. But women really have a much better impact on these #'s than any other group. Family income, race, nationality are all much more predictive than gender and making a previously sexist profession not sexist immediately doubles the pool.PMan99 wrote:I'm not sure about the other groups, but law schools were almost entirely male in the early 70s and before ( <5% female) so there's not a huge impact there.jrass wrote:It's worth noting that these jobs were unavailable to women, Jews, homosexuals and every other minority community so in addition to much fewer people practicing law then, nearly 1/2 of graduates were disqualified from the start. In a booming economy, a white male who didn't completely suck was very valuable because most firms wanted to bring in talent, but didn't want to lose that nice wholesome klan rally feel they prided themselves on.Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:In non-NY markets (or really anyone not on the Cravath system), hiring was done on the assumption that everyone was gonna make partner until surprisingly recently (sometime in the '70s I think? Not exactly sure, so don't hold my feet to the fire on that one).
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login