Associates switching firms with partners? Forum

[Anonymous User]

One of the partners at my firm was describing how he lateraled here from another firm and brought two mid-level/senior associates with him. I can understand his motivations for switching, but not why the associates would move with him.

Both firms follow the Cravath/Milbank lockstep and the relevant practice groups are within a band of each other on Chambers. And (in my limited perspective as stub year) the associates also don't seem to be treated any differently than the other seniors other than the fact they work primarily with the partner. It also seems like it would be harder for them to advance here because they no longer have years of established credibility.

So what's the deal? Do associates get better compensation when they come over with a partner? Are they trying to stick with the partner's clients so they can eventually go in-house? Is there an expectation they'd eventually take over his clients? Is this just a loyalty thing?

[Elston Gunn]

For law firms within the same tiers like you describe, the quality of your life is defined by the people you work with. If you get most of your work from one partner, and have a good working relationship with that person, why wouldn’t you follow that person (and possibly pick up a signing bonus / excuse for an extra 2-3 week vacation along the way)?

[20181989]

Yeah, the above is correct. Also, if you think somebody is going to be a major sponsor for you when you come up for partner, then it makes sense to follow that person. This is actually pretty common when partners lateral.

[emptyflare]

To add on, it could also be a situation where the associates that moved with the partner didn't want to work with the remaining partners in their group (i.e., not a proactive move with the moving partner but instead a move to prevent them from working with the shitty leftover partners they would be stuck with).

[ghostoftraynor]

To add on, it could also be a situation where the associates that moved with the partner didn't want to work with the remaining partners in their group (i.e., not a proactive move with the moving partner but instead a move to prevent them from working with the shitty leftover partners they would be stuck with).

Eh, that is possible, but I really think a rare motivation.

Op, some people are much better to work with than others. Regardless of how people are generally, everyone connects better with some than others. If a seniorish associate has a good connection with a partner, it is almost expected that such associate would leave with such partner. Indeed, firms often offer financial incentives to these associates to keep them put. It's surprising you find any of that surprising.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Their relationship with the one partner is probably worth way more than any "credibility" established with the others. You are asking a good question, but this is fundamentally how big law firm office dynamics work.

[Anonymous User]

Their relationship with the one partner is probably worth way more than any "credibility" established with the others. You are asking a good question, but this is fundamentally how big law firm office dynamics work.

OP here - could you explain? Assuming these associates are aiming for partner, it seems like they now have a much smaller window to demonstrate their value and develop relationships within the partnership before they're up for consideration. And I don't know how much business this partner brought with him, but I can't imagine a freshly lateraled partner would have that much influence over the partnership committee or management.

[Vexed]

I'm not sure who much weight I would put into losing "credibility" you've banked at your current firm towards advancement. Law firms expand their partnership ranks if they think it will make them more money. If anything, that skews in favor of lateral candidates, because they represent potential new books of business.

[LBJ's Hair]

Their relationship with the one partner is probably worth way more than any "credibility" established with the others. You are asking a good question, but this is fundamentally how big law firm office dynamics work.

OP here - could you explain? Assuming these associates are aiming for partner, it seems like they now have a much smaller window to demonstrate their value and develop relationships within the partnership before they're up for consideration. And I don't know how much business this partner brought with him, but I can't imagine a freshly lateraled partner would have that much influence over the partnership committee or management.

OK, so just like, think about how this would actually work in practice lol. Here's the hypo:

You're on the partnership committee, which has like 7 people, and are picking between Candidate A and Candidate B.

Everyone likes Candidate A. He's worked with everyone. They all think he's a sharp cookie, does good work. He's no one's favorite---all the partners have a preferred counsel to work with---but he's the second or third person on their list. You like him too. He's probably your #2 behind Candidate C. She's up for partner in two years and you hope you can convince the committee to vote for her.

Candidate B is less well-known. She's works almost exclusive with two partners, Jessica and Jeremy. But Jessica and Jeremy LOVE her. They've been pushing Candidate B for almost a year now, telling everyone that she HAS TO BE PARTNER, they CAN'T WORK WITHOUT HER. Jessica and Jeremy are bringing in substantial revenue for the firm. They will be *extremely pissed* if you don't vote for Candidate B. In fact, they've explicitly told everyone on the partnership committee this, several times.

Are you going to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?


You, and everyone else, are voting for Candidate B, because you want to keep two other partners happy. It would really suck to have them pissed at you, likely for months, for not promoting their preferred minion. When Candidate C comes up for partner, you figure they'll do the same for you. (They probably will.)

Being "liked" by a bunch of partners is way less valuable than being *loved* by a few if there are only a small number of partnership (or big bonuses or whatever) to go around.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Every non-equity partner at K&E loves me! Why would I leave?

[notinbiglaw]

Sometimes, especially in smaller markets, the partner IS the practice the associates worked in.