Top Law Schools

Hi all,

I am a 6th year litigation associate at a regional biglaw firm in a Secondary Market. I have been fortunate enough to use this forum for infinitely useful advice on everything from law school apps. to the legal employment board, etc., and I figured this is a good opportunity to give back.

I went to a T2 state school (state school undergrad) and finished top 20%. I am currently on my second firm and have worked two different regional biglaw jobs (first firm was 200-300, current firm is AMLAW100) in two different markets (lateraled as a third year). I work for about 8 different partners regularly from 3-4 different offices and oversee 5-6 juniors. I am on my firm's recruitment committee and participate in OCIs as well.

Happy to provide advice/insight on anything you can come up with.

What happens next? 4-7 years from now? Perfect scenario for you, then realistic scenario. Then talk about how those two situations compare and why one might be more likely to play out than the other.

Thanks for taking the time to do this! Are you hoping to make partner at your current firm? If not, do you have your sights set on a particular post-biglaw job?

objctnyrhnr wrote:What happens next? 4-7 years from now? Perfect scenario for you, then realistic scenario. Then talk about how those two situations compare and why one might be more likely to play out than the other.

Excellent question. As an aside, this is something I strongly recommend young lawyers in Biglaw try and think about seriously starting at years three/four. At that point, you've at least tolerated Biglaw to the point where it hasn't driven you out. And if you're still around, you have some shot at making partner, you just need to map things out to the best of your ability and start making strategic decisions toward your goals (be it making partner or going in-house, etc.).

For me personally, I like the firm I'm at. Without being too arrogant I think I have a very strong shot at making partner. There are two associates ahead of me in my office but it is a very large department in the firm and my particular office has never struggled at getting individuals over the line. So best case scenario for me, at the firm, is partnership 2-3 years away.

That being said, I am in a secondary market, which differs greatly from many of you reading this post. At most large Vault firms, you need to be able to prove dedication, competence, and longevity (among other things) to make partner. From that point, making $400K-$500K as an income partner and potentially moving up to equity is largely based on succession plans and how things break (in your favor or against). The game is a lot different in a secondary market.

First -- and probably more so than in primary markets -- the biggest factors in consideration for partnership and longevity are your book of business and your ability to develop business for the firm. Things like institutional, multi-million dollar clients are a lot harder to develop and rely on in secondary markets where people are much more rate sensitive (and have the ability to shop the legal services market for value), so one's hours and collections probably do not mean as much as they would in NY/DC/SF/SV/etc for making partner. Second, the salaries are considerably lower (obviously). Income partners are between $250K and $350K and equity (at my firm) starts out around $350K-400K. So while income partner in a primary market is still a really good living while determining whether or not you are going to make equity, it is less so in a secondary market.

All of this is to say that my future at the firm depends on my ability to develop business. I have started doing this and am picking up on opportunities to go out and be part of pitch teams. I'm thinking about marketing in everything I do and I'm actively discussing credit sharing with the partners for whom I work. I have no doubt that if I continue down this path, I have a good chance of being in the conversation for equity in about 6-8 years.

If that sounds like a long time, it is. So, to finally answer your question, I am very happy with where I am at now (ideally making partner in 2-3 years and looking at equity in 6-8 years). But ideally, I think I would like to go in-house and then, depending on how it goes, possibly return to the private sector. That way I get meaningful in-house experience while potentially developing relationships that would allow me to come back with that company as a client. This is a difficult proposition considering I will be up for partner in 2 years. I think the move in-house will be much easier now than as a partner for a host of reasons.

So TL;dr: ideally, go in-house at a company that could allow me to return to my firm/a firm in the long run, should I want to. More realistically, probably just stick around and grind out partnership and develop a book of business on my own.

--OP

Hopefullitassociate wrote:Thanks for taking the time to do this! Are you hoping to make partner at your current firm? If not, do you have your sights set on a particular post-biglaw job?

See most recent post.

With respect to a post-biglaw job, I would want to go in-house at a reputable company that provides the right balance of (1) compensation, (2) work-life balance, (3) ability to move up/long term prospects, and (4) job security. But who isn't looking for this, right? The good news is when you've been in Biglaw for 5-6 years, you've proven yourself to be pretty useful/competent and a good amount of the in-house job postings are geared toward landing these people.

But finding the perfect job is difficult. I'm not looking to go in-house at a Fortune 50 company in a job that requires me to work 60-70 hours a week (and be available all the time) for a pay cut. But if I could find a good job as an AGC/DGC at a local/reputable place for $150K-200K and didn't have to take calls on nights or weekends, sign me up. Being a litigator makes it 10x more difficult to find that perfect job, btw, something to think about if you are still in school or a SA and thinking long-term.

--OP

Is the prospect of partnership something your firm has hinted/told you as realistic for you, or were you proactive in bringing that up?

esther0123 wrote:Is the prospect of partnership something your firm has hinted/told you as realistic for you, or were you proactive in bringing that up?

I think the upside to working in a secondary market is that it is much much easier to make partner versus Chi/DC/NY. So it was always expected that I would be on the partner path (as are the vast majority of associates) until otherwise noted.

As far as my chances I have actively had to bring things up, as most are expected to do at my seniority level. A large factor in making partner depends on credit and origination and that is a process that doesn’t happen overnight. Either you are proactive in seeking credit and having the conversation with your partners or you put them in an uncomfortable spot at the end of the year asking for an allocation. So technically I have been proactive about seeking this but most people at my firm and at my level are.

With respect to chances of making partner, I am fortunate enough to have two very good mentors at my firm (perhaps sponsors) that have given me very good insight and expectations about the process. If you are a junior biglaw attorney without a mentor/sponsor, you need one ASAP.

—OP

Anonymous User wrote:

esther0123 wrote:Is the prospect of partnership something your firm has hinted/told you as realistic for you, or were you proactive in bringing that up?

I think the upside to working in a secondary market is that it is much much easier to make partner versus Chi/DC/NY. So it was always expected that I would be on the partner path (as are the vast majority of associates) until otherwise noted.

As far as my chances I have actively had to bring things up, as most are expected to do at my seniority level. A large factor in making partner depends on credit and origination and that is a process that doesn’t happen overnight. Either you are proactive in seeking credit and having the conversation with your partners or you put them in an uncomfortable spot at the end of the year asking for an allocation. So technically I have been proactive about seeking this but most people at my firm and at my level are.

With respect to chances of making partner, I am fortunate enough to have two very good mentors at my firm (perhaps sponsors) that have given me very good insight and expectations about the process. If you are a junior biglaw attorney without a mentor/sponsor, you need one ASAP.

—OP

Thank you for a thoughtful response. On the bolded point, should this sponsor/mentor come in the form of a partner? It's especially difficult to gain that as a junior associate in a particularly large/hierarchical firm. I do think I have some of that in the senior associate rank, some up for partner really soon.

esther0123 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

esther0123 wrote:Is the prospect of partnership something your firm has hinted/told you as realistic for you, or were you proactive in bringing that up?

I think the upside to working in a secondary market is that it is much much easier to make partner versus Chi/DC/NY. So it was always expected that I would be on the partner path (as are the vast majority of associates) until otherwise noted.

As far as my chances I have actively had to bring things up, as most are expected to do at my seniority level. A large factor in making partner depends on credit and origination and that is a process that doesn’t happen overnight. Either you are proactive in seeking credit and having the conversation with your partners or you put them in an uncomfortable spot at the end of the year asking for an allocation. So technically I have been proactive about seeking this but most people at my firm and at my level are.

With respect to chances of making partner, I am fortunate enough to have two very good mentors at my firm (perhaps sponsors) that have given me very good insight and expectations about the process. If you are a junior biglaw attorney without a mentor/sponsor, you need one ASAP.

—OP

Thank you for a thoughtful response. On the bolded point, should this sponsor/mentor come in the form of a partner? It's especially difficult to gain that as a junior associate in a particularly large/hierarchical firm. I do think I have some of that in the senior associate rank, some up for partner really soon.

I think it's a good idea to have multiple, at least one of whom is a partner. It does help to have someone who is a more senior level associate as well. I often times advocate for specific juniors that I have faith in/good experiences with and I can tell it does make a difference (most partners give senior associates latitude to staff cases). It can be difficult to find someone who is willing to sponsor/mentor you but it is definitely a worthwhile investment of time trying to find that person.

-OP

Anonymous User wrote:
First -- and probably more so than in primary markets -- the biggest factors in consideration for partnership and longevity are your book of business and your ability to develop business for the firm. Things like institutional, multi-million dollar clients are a lot harder to develop and rely on in secondary markets where people are much more rate sensitive (and have the ability to shop the legal services market for value), so one's hours and collections probably do not mean as much as they would in NY/DC/SF/SV/etc for making partner. Second, the salaries are considerably lower (obviously). Income partners are between $250K and $350K and equity (at my firm) starts out around $350K-400K. So while income partner in a primary market is still a really good living while determining whether or not you are going to make equity, it is less so in a secondary market.

--OP

Does $250K as a first year income partner represent a pay decrease in comparison to the final year of being a senior associate? Or is your firm on a below big law pay scale?

What is the size / nature of your market? Are we talking Seattle/SD/Portland type market?

Thanks

Thank you very much for taking the time to do this! A few questions for you:

When you lateraled, were you applying to an open position at another firm, or did you hear about that through a contact at another firm (alumni, someone you networked with while you were on the job)? Or did you use a recruiter?

Did you find the lateral process to be difficult? It seems like everyone is looking for corporate midlevels, but I rarely hear of or see lateral positions open for lit associates.

Going off of that, how did you find adapting to your new firm's politics? Did you find that partners were reluctant to work with a midlevel associate they didn't know? Did you feel like you had to prove yourself again?

Finally, what kind of organizations do you think would be helpful (if any) for a young litigation associate to participate in? Young Lawyers Committees and stuff like that? If you did participate in this kind of thing, did you find it to be helpful to your career and were you able to participate meaningfully despite working biglaw hours?

Thanks again!

SamuelDanforth wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:
First -- and probably more so than in primary markets -- the biggest factors in consideration for partnership and longevity are your book of business and your ability to develop business for the firm. Things like institutional, multi-million dollar clients are a lot harder to develop and rely on in secondary markets where people are much more rate sensitive (and have the ability to shop the legal services market for value), so one's hours and collections probably do not mean as much as they would in NY/DC/SF/SV/etc for making partner. Second, the salaries are considerably lower (obviously). Income partners are between $250K and $350K and equity (at my firm) starts out around $350K-400K. So while income partner in a primary market is still a really good living while determining whether or not you are going to make equity, it is less so in a secondary market.

--OP

Does $250K as a first year income partner represent a pay decrease in comparison to the final year of being a senior associate? Or is your firm on a below big law pay scale?

What is the size / nature of your market? Are we talking Seattle/SD/Portland type market?

Thanks

Almost all secondary markets are "below" biglaw pay scales (and a lot of biglaw firms in these markets pay less). Most secondary markets start between $110K and $150K; mine is on the higher end of the starting salary scale (think Minneapolis, Denver, Charlotte, St. Louis). Senior level associates make around $220-230K, so entry-level comp. is a very small increase. I imagine there are situations where the most senior level associates can make more than the most junior level partners.

--OP

yooobagz wrote:Thank you very much for taking the time to do this! A few questions for you:

When you lateraled, were you applying to an open position at another firm, or did you hear about that through a contact at another firm (alumni, someone you networked with while you were on the job)? Or did you use a recruiter?

My personal lateral process to get back to the market I am currently in took about a year. At first I engaged a recruiter to give me advice on the market and my chances at making a move. As an aside, the recruiter, who was not in the actual market I was trying to get to but had helped a friend from HYSCCN/major market lateral back, did not think my resume was strong enough to land with one of the bigger firms in town (again, I am a T2 state school kid [top 20/LR]). Obviously this first recruiter did not work out. I also had a second recruiter in the market who offered advice (more optimistic) and eventually submitted my resume to one of the firms in town. At no point was there any posting from the best/biggest firms in town for a junior litigation associate.

Eventually I reached out to my career services office, who plugged me in with a bunch of different alumni. I probably made three different trips back to the market just to meet with people/firms despite no postings. Those meetings panned out and led to two different offers from two of the best six firms in town.

yooobagz wrote:Did you find the lateral process to be difficult? It seems like everyone is looking for corporate midlevels, but I rarely hear of or see lateral positions open for lit associates.

Depends. As someone on the recruitment committee, I see this stuff all the time. I would say the lateral process is extremely dependent on (a) the market, (b) the type of lawyer, and (c) the experience level of the candidate. As you have correctly stated, there (for one reason or another) always seems to be a need for corporate lawyers. In Biglaw there will always be a need for mid-level associates, so if you have both you should be good. Litigation is much harder and I would say that if you are looking to lateral to a different (secondary) market in litigation, do it as soon as possible (like somewhere between 2 and 5). After your fifth or sixth year, you are essentially worthless unless you have a book of business.

yooobagz wrote:Going off of that, how did you find adapting to your new firm's politics? Did you find that partners were reluctant to work with a midlevel associate they didn't know? Did you feel like you had to prove yourself again?

Adapting to a new environment is always tough, but I treated it like a fresh start. I took the things I did well at my prior firm, tried to replicate the characteristics I witnessed in successful associates at my prior firm, and worked my ass off. I set three goals for myself in my first year: (1) be as humble and quiet as possible, to try and observe the new environment, (2) work with as many partners as possible and never say no, and (3) bill more hours than every other litigation associate. It is so critical to absolutely hit home runs on the first 5-10 things you do for people at your new shop, because this is how your reputation develops (right, wrong, or indifferent as that may be).

Work was slow initially but doing good work on the first few things helped me get more work. It probably took about 6 months to get up to capacity and at that point word had spread that I was reliable and people were looking for opportunities to work with me. Thanks to some fortunate luck, I was able to work with a ton of different people to develop good relationships, rarely (if ever) said no, and did end up billing more than everyone else. That last part was huge for my credibility in being dependable and reliable. From there, things have progressed nicely.

Firm politics are the same bullshit everywhere, just different varieties. My advice on this is, intially, keep your head down, be quiet, and don't offer your opinions unless asked. Once you develop people you can trust and rely on, you'll know how to play the politics game.

yooobagz wrote:Finally, what kind of organizations do you think would be helpful (if any) for a young litigation associate to participate in? Young Lawyers Committees and stuff like that? If you did participate in this kind of thing, did you find it to be helpful to your career and were you able to participate meaningfully despite working biglaw hours?

Thanks again!

This is a really good question. I don't know that there is a one-size-fits-all answer, but I'll give my perspective on it.

I think the best thing a young litigation associate can do is actually to stay away from internal committees and external organizations. In litigation you don't know shit during your first two years. Use this period to learn as much as you can. Biglaw (and law in general) is a learn-by-doing profession. So when you are not directly billing for things like researching/drafting, I encourage young litigators to do pro bono work with supervision from more senior lawyers. Pro bono cases are not only good for the community, but (1) are good firm the firm and (2) allow young litigators to learn how to run cases. These are generally low-risk/low-reward outcomes on cases and most people needing representation are grateful for your efforts.

When you (the junior litigator) are running your own pro bono case, you'll understand the responsibility required of a senior lawyer on a case. Instead of getting piecemeal research or drafting assignments, you get a better idea on how to strategize in a case, thinking about long-term outlook and short-term motions/briefs/depositions. And this will help you have a better understanding of the responsibilities and roles of senior attorneys. You'll become better at anticipating their needs. And perhaps most importantly, it is going to give you more opportunities to get in court and conducting depositions, etc. I still take 1-2 pro bono cases each year and would say that some of the most meaningful experiences (substantively and personally) have come from these cases.

Just my two cents, hope that helps.

--OP