NY to 200k?! Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don't know, I get this, but this is a very specific and subtle message that you have to get across to an associate and lateral partner market inundated with noise and money. "We won't pay you as much, but you'll actually make partner, and you'll be a trial lawyer." The problem is many people will see that and think "but I could be a trial lawyer at Latham or Kirkland and make $5m per year." The response is "yes, but did you see the part about actually making partner?" But when your brand identity depends on a complex back and forth explanation it's a hard line to hold. Williams' line 20 years ago was simply "trial lawyer + $$$ + prestige." There's a shift now and I wonder how sustainable it is.

Do you believe this, or do you work at W&C or a similar firm and are trying to shame them into paying you more? Better hours, actual partnership odds, substantive responsibility, etc. have been a pretty simple and compelling message to sharp 2Ls for years, let alone laterals who have some capacity to understand what actual partnership odds means in practice. There's a reason the top lit-focused students in T14 classes have long flocked to boutiques like W&C, MTO, etc. over corporate-focused NY megafirms.

Does W&C really do a ton of lateral hiring anyway, especially at the partner level? I'd guess that like similar firms, to the extent they're hiring non-homegrown partners at all, they are mostly coming out of government.

I genuinely believe this. I'm at an entirely different V25 (V10) that doesn't even compete with Williams on most things, so I don't have skin in the game one way or the other. Our perception of Williams is that it's an oddity and may not be around ten years from now (because it became the odd biglaw firm that got big but also stuck to lit) but it's not borne out of animosity toward them just a sense that the ground is changing under them. Would be happy to be proven wrong on that they're obviously an institution in the old legal community and have a lot of DC history, don't get my intention wrong. It's just hard to market a firm that doesn't appear to be financially competitive or tracking the growth of the industry any longer and I've seen all these same "we're special" / "we're different" arguments before at firms that then go belly up another year or two later.

Respectfully, then, this is a bonkers take. These dynamics were in play for W&C even when I went through OCI years ago and it didn't stop them from being, and remaining, one of the single most selective firms in the country. Let's say you're right about everything and W&C has to dip down to top 10% at CCN and just a d.ct. clerkship instead of top 5% + COA. And they can only pull a lowly assistant AG instead of the SG in the post-government revolving door. In what universe does any of that lead to the firm collapsing "a year or two later," much less ten years from now? Their existing partners have the relationships and reputation that the firm already has, and I just don't see Lisa Blatt or whoever leaving in a huff because they lose one or two more fourth-year associates than normal due to salary compression. This isn't a Boies-Schiller-esque situation where a boutique has to navigate the transition from the founders to their successors, which is the only other collapse of a quasi-boutique* of roughly comparable statute I can think of in the last decade. If the partner pay starts to fall way behind that could be another story, but this a thread about associate comp.

(*Arguable whether a firm of 300+ lawyers can really be called a boutique anymore, but W&C and MTO both seem to get away with it.)

The profits per partner at Williams already do dramatically lag its "peers." Let's look at the PPP of the five firms above them and then the five firms below it per Vault:

15 - Covington - $1.9m
16 - Jones Day - $1.3m
17 - White & Case - $3m
18 - Debevoise - $4.6m
19 - Ropes - $3.4m
20 - Williams - $1.4m
21 - Wilmer - $2.5m
22 - Paul Hastings - $3.9m
23 - MoFo - $2.2m
24 - Cooley - $3.2m
25 - Milbank - $4.5m

That's sort of the point I'm making. What's compelling a superstar litigation partner to stay at Williams in 2021? The finances don't seem to support it nor does the business model. I get the idea that it's a great place to be a young up and coming associate because you have a reasonable shot at actually making partner but that's not how law firms survive in this day and age. And their metrics seems to show a problem too--their revenue dumped 15% 2018 to 2019 (at a time when most firms were growing strongly) and only slightly grew 2019 to 2020 (2%). All this talk about the old days and CoA clerks and solicitor generals sounds like a bunch of "the good old days" discussions on the eve of the firm collapsing because Kevin Hodges finally says "screw it" and goes and takes a $10m p/ year 5 year guarantee from Latham.

This is a bad take. Some of those “peer” firms have a lot of nonequity partners who make less.

Also, I would be surprised if more than a handful of litigation/trial equity partners at Kirkland make anywhere near $5m

Those figures are profits per equity partner. It's a great take that people don't like here because it implies Williams "prestige" isn't paying off any longer. Min points at Kirkland now gets you $2m. The spread is reported to allow comp. up to $10-$12m. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous User]

15 - Covington - $1.9m
16 - Jones Day - $1.3m
17 - White & Case - $3m
18 - Debevoise - $4.6m
19 - Ropes - $3.4m
20 - Williams - $1.4m
21 - Wilmer - $2.5m
22 - Paul Hastings - $3.9m
23 - MoFo - $2.2m
24 - Cooley - $3.2m
25 - Milbank - $4.5m

That's sort of the point I'm making. What's compelling a superstar litigation partner to stay at Williams in 2021? The finances don't seem to support it nor does the business model. I get the idea that it's a great place to be a young up and coming associate because you have a reasonable shot at actually making partner but that's not how law firms survive in this day and age. And their metrics seems to show a problem too--their revenue dumped 15% 2018 to 2019 (at a time when most firms were growing strongly) and only slightly grew 2019 to 2020 (2%). All this talk about the old days and CoA clerks and solicitor generals sounds like a bunch of "the good old days" discussions on the eve of the firm collapsing because Kevin Hodges finally says "screw it" and goes and takes a $10m p/ year 5 year guarantee from Latham.

But again, everything you're saying has been the case for years. And is equally true at a place like MTO, whose PPEP is hardly better at ~$1.7m. Here's a thread on this forum from a decade ago pointing out the same thing as you are about both firms: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=157110.

Here we are, ten years later. We weren't on the eve of W&C and MTO collapsing in 2011, in an incomparably worse legal market, and I sincerely doubt that we are now. Ultimately they are both lit-oriented firms with relatively low leverage compared to a big NYC corporate firm that happens to have a lit department and the PPPs reflect that. And of course pure lockstep firms -- where younger heavyhitters are going to end up undercompensated for the same reasons -- still exist too.

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

[Sackboy]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

[Twinsfindme1]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

Cleary too.

[Anonymous User]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

Debevoise and Cleary are also lockstep. Note that there is a chasm of difference between DPW and STB’s modified lockstep versus Latham and especially Kirkland.

[doctor]

Now that Kirkland's matched, it's a good time for all of you to lateral over. The firm is throwing signing bonuses at everyone and I could use the referral bonus. PM me.

[Anonymous User]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

Except, again, minimum points at Kirkland now gets you about $2m. So, no, you definitely would be better as equity at a place like Kirkland or Latham or Skadden than somewhere with a PPP of 2m. I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

[Anonymous User]

Now that Kirkland's matched, it's a good time for all of you to lateral over. The firm is throwing signing bonuses at everyone and I could use the referral bonus. PM me.

What has been the timeline from second round to offer? Also what are specialty group (finance, funds, etc.) signing bonuses like?

[Anonymous User]

Have any Kirkland NSPs received their “individualized” emails yet?

[Anonymous User]

Gibson Dunn matched today - 202,500 for class of 2021

[Anonymous User]

I'm pretty sure Gunderson, Cooley, WSGR, Fenwick, and MoFo have all matched. Where is Orrick...

[LBJ's Hair]

I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

I don't know how many times people ITT need to tell you this: For juniors, the choice isn't $2M at K&E vs $1M at Williams, it's $1M (or w/e) at Williams or permanent associate/NSP status at a K&E.

K&E (and Davis Polk, and STB -- this isn't a K&E flame) have no interest -- none -- in giving equity to young, talented commercial litigators with no book of business. OK, they might do it, once in a blue moon, for diversity. That's it. Those firms are rich because they don't do the work Williams does. They do deals.

Now, if your point is "Well Latham etc can buy out the rainmakers at Williams and then the place is fucked" -- that's a separate issue. And yeah, maybe? Sort of an existential issue at all law firms, though -- it's not really Williams-specific.

[Anonymous User]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

Except, again, minimum points at Kirkland now gets you about $2m. So, no, you definitely would be better as equity at a place like Kirkland or Latham or Skadden than somewhere with a PPP of 2m. I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

I don't know how many times people need to tell you this: For junior partners, the choice isn't $2M at K&E vs $1M at Williams, it's $1M (or w/e) at Williams or permanent associate/NSP status at a K&E.

K&E (and Davis Polk, and STB -- this isn't a K&E flame) have no interest -- literally none -- in giving equity to young, talented commercial litigators with no book of business. They might do it, once in a blue moon, for diversity reasons. That's it. Those firms are rich because ... they don't do the work Williams does.

Now, if your point is "Well Latham etc can buy out the rainmakers at Williams and then the place is fucked" -- that's a separate issue. And yeah, maybe? Sort of an existential issue at all law firms, though -- it's not really Williams-specific.

People don't need to tell me it any times because it's never my point. My point is the latter. That Williams seems fucked long term vis-a-vis competition for talent and risk of defection. No one in this discussion is suggesting it's easy to get equity at a V10. And it's more of an issue at Williams than many other firms on the list because, as was demonstrated up-thread, Williams is lagging its peers. Because it has an odd lit. forward model that worked until it didn't. And thus we're full circle here.

[Anonymous User]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

Except, again, minimum points at Kirkland now gets you about $2m. So, no, you definitely would be better as equity at a place like Kirkland or Latham or Skadden than somewhere with a PPP of 2m. I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

I don't know how many times people need to tell you this: For junior partners, the choice isn't $2M at K&E vs $1M at Williams, it's $1M (or w/e) at Williams or permanent associate/NSP status at a K&E.

K&E (and Davis Polk, and STB -- this isn't a K&E flame) have no interest -- literally none -- in giving equity to young, talented commercial litigators with no book of business. They might do it, once in a blue moon, for diversity reasons. That's it. Those firms are rich because ... they don't do the work Williams does.

Now, if your point is "Well Latham etc can buy out the rainmakers at Williams and then the place is fucked" -- that's a separate issue. And yeah, maybe? Sort of an existential issue at all law firms, though -- it's not really Williams-specific.

People don't need to tell me it any times because it's never my point. My point is the latter. That Williams seems fucked long term vis-a-vis competition for talent and risk of defection. No one in this discussion is suggesting it's easy to get equity at a V10. And it's more of an issue at Williams than many other firms on the list because, as was demonstrated up-thread, Williams is lagging its peers. Because it has an odd lit. forward model that worked until it didn't. And thus we're full circle here.

Someone on my firm’s comp committee or whatever was discussing the issue with Williams & Connolly. He said that 10-15 years ago, the firm kept up with every other firm’s rates. But 10-15 years ago, they decided not to do what everyone is doing. A few years back, they decided to try to bring up their rates to the rest of the market, such as billing first years between $600-700/hr, but because of the significant increase (think 50% in a year), a lot of their clients pushed back. So now the firm has two rate structures: a grandfathered one for its legacy clients and a market one for newer clients.

This was in response to a question as to why our firm keeps raising rates like 10% annually.

I don’t think the firm is ever going to vanish because clients still pay top dollar for sophisticated litigation. I think, if anything, it’ll make a resurgence.

[LBJ's Hair]

People don't need to tell me it any times because it's never my point. My point is the latter. That Williams seems fucked long term vis-a-vis competition for talent and risk of defection. No one in this discussion is suggesting it's easy to get equity at a V10. And it's more of an issue at Williams than many other firms on the list because, as was demonstrated up-thread, Williams is lagging its peers. Because it has an odd lit. forward model that worked until it didn't. And thus we're full circle here.

I don't really follow your argument regarding the PPP, though.

Like you frame this as "Oh they're less profitable they're vulnerable to takeover." That's true at hybrid lit-corporate firms with lockstep (or close-to-lockstep) models where the corporate guys are vastly underpaid vis-a-vis the litigators, in terms of revenue they generate. Then, if you're Latham, you're like "Oh we'll buy out all the M&A guys and leave the rest."

That's not Williams. Williams has low PPP because it's a low-leverage, lit-only firm. It does all the stuff that the V10 doesn't want to do because you can't buy a mansion in the Hamptons with it.

(Their PPP is also lower because of leverage, I assume on an RLP basis they look better.)

[Anonymous User]

Ten years ago the separation wasn't nearly as pronounced. Making $1.1m at Williams while your friend from school is making $1.5m at Ropes isn't that big of deal. Making $1.5m there while that other guy is making $4 suddenly makes you start questioning life decisions.

Except that isn't exactly how things work these days. Firms used to be lockstep or have a much narrower spreads between the top and bottom earning partners. Wachtell and Cravath aside (I think the only two remaining lockstep partnerships), at places like DPW, Kirkland, etc. the rain makers are bringing home $10M+ and the median partner might not actually be that much better off than at a firm that has a $2M PPP. We'd really need to know how each firm chooses to operate.

Except, again, minimum points at Kirkland now gets you about $2m. So, no, you definitely would be better as equity at a place like Kirkland or Latham or Skadden than somewhere with a PPP of 2m. I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

I don't know how many times people need to tell you this: For junior partners, the choice isn't $2M at K&E vs $1M at Williams, it's $1M (or w/e) at Williams or permanent associate/NSP status at a K&E.

K&E (and Davis Polk, and STB -- this isn't a K&E flame) have no interest -- literally none -- in giving equity to young, talented commercial litigators with no book of business. They might do it, once in a blue moon, for diversity reasons. That's it. Those firms are rich because ... they don't do the work Williams does.

Now, if your point is "Well Latham etc can buy out the rainmakers at Williams and then the place is fucked" -- that's a separate issue. And yeah, maybe? Sort of an existential issue at all law firms, though -- it's not really Williams-specific.

People don't need to tell me it any times because it's never my point. My point is the latter. That Williams seems fucked long term vis-a-vis competition for talent and risk of defection. No one in this discussion is suggesting it's easy to get equity at a V10. And it's more of an issue at Williams than many other firms on the list because, as was demonstrated up-thread, Williams is lagging its peers. Because it has an odd lit. forward model that worked until it didn't. And thus we're full circle here.

W&C has over 110 equity litigation partners…DPW has around 30. If you lumped in all the litigation counsel, super senior associates, etc (80 to make it even, in theory, though I doubt DPW’s lit department is that big) to DPW’s PPP figure, it would not look all that different than W&C’s. W&C partners are presumably rational actors and they’ll move when it makes sense (like Sandra Goldstein from Cravath did). It just doesn’t make sense. The PPP numbers aren’t apples to apples. I feel like this has been explained upthread.

[ExpOriental]

To the people who keep gently trying to explain that Williams & Connolly is, in fact, not on the verge of collapse, I will point out that the person you are attempting to educate seems 1. not very bright, and 2. much more interested in "proving" their point than actually learning anything here.

You are demonstrating admirable patience, but I question if there's really anything to be accomplished at this point.

[Anonymous User]

Have any Kirkland NSPs received their “individualized” emails yet?

Got it tonight, C/O 2012, $375k

[marmot8]

Have any Kirkland NSPs received their “individualized” emails yet?

Got it tonight, C/O 2012, $375k

Are you a senior associate? Counsel, “Partner”? Is it all the same? Serious question, not trying to troll just curious.

[dyemond]

To the people who keep gently trying to explain that Williams & Connolly is, in fact, not on the verge of collapse, I will point out that the person you are attempting to educate seems 1. not very bright, and 2. much more interested in "proving" their point than actually learning anything here.

You are demonstrating admirable patience, but I question if there's really anything to be accomplished at this point.

As the original anon who referenced the v30 and specifically flagged WC and JD as shops that aren't really good subjects for discussion here (because they have specific compensation systems outside of typical lockstep) and in the same sentence literally asked to NOT make this a discussion about them, please review my previous note for reference. Carry on with news about other matches.

[2013]

To the people who keep gently trying to explain that Williams & Connolly is, in fact, not on the verge of collapse, I will point out that the person you are attempting to educate seems 1. not very bright, and 2. much more interested in "proving" their point than actually learning anything here.

You are demonstrating admirable patience, but I question if there's really anything to be accomplished at this point.

As the original anon who referenced the v30 and specifically flagged WC and JD as shops that aren't really good subjects for discussion here (because they have specific compensation systems outside of typical lockstep) and in the same sentence literally asked to NOT make this a discussion about them, please review my previous note for reference. Carry on with news about other matches.

Such a Taylor Swift move

[Sackboy]

Have any Kirkland NSPs received their “individualized” emails yet?

Got it tonight, C/O 2012, $375k

Are you a senior associate? Counsel, “Partner”? Is it all the same? Serious question, not trying to troll just curious.

If they're at Kirkland, they'd be an non-equity partner (they call them NSPs or non-share partners). The OP will be up for shares next year or the year after. I've worked with a lot of Kirkland non-equity partners. They range from running a ton of deals on their own and having the skill set (and potential) of an equity partner and then there are ones that are on the verge of committing malpractice daily. It's pretty wild.

[LBJ's Hair]

To the people who keep gently trying to explain that Williams & Connolly is, in fact, not on the verge of collapse, I will point out that the person you are attempting to educate seems 1. not very bright, and 2. much more interested in "proving" their point than actually learning anything here.

You are demonstrating admirable patience, but I question if there's really anything to be accomplished at this point.

Lmao fair, I'll stop

[Sackboy]

Except, again, minimum points at Kirkland now gets you about $2m. So, no, you definitely would be better as equity at a place like Kirkland or Latham or Skadden than somewhere with a PPP of 2m. I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

The whole point of my post wasn't that you'd be poorer at K&E but that you're probably not that much richer if you're not summoning a rain maker. Minimum points at K&E (would not surprise me if median is at or only slightly above minimum points) might give you $2M but the median partner at another shop might make $1.4M. Obviously, that's still a significant difference, but it's not quite $1.4M vs $6M.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think people ITT are comprehending just how much richer the V10 (and select members of the V25) have gotten in the past 10 and particularly 5 years. That's the point about why Williams looks like a dinosaur that the other guy is trying to make because I don't see how it withstands that sort of profit / talent competition for long. The fact that their revenue dipped 15% 18 to 19 is pretty damning.

I don't know how many times people ITT need to tell you this: For juniors, the choice isn't $2M at K&E vs $1M at Williams, it's $1M (or w/e) at Williams or permanent associate/NSP status at a K&E.

K&E (and Davis Polk, and STB -- this isn't a K&E flame) have no interest -- none -- in giving equity to young, talented commercial litigators with no book of business. OK, they might do it, once in a blue moon, for diversity. That's it. Those firms are rich because they don't do the work Williams does. They do deals.

Now, if your point is "Well Latham etc can buy out the rainmakers at Williams and then the place is fucked" -- that's a separate issue. And yeah, maybe? Sort of an existential issue at all law firms, though -- it's not really Williams-specific.

I am a KE associate and don’t like the place but this is simply not true. In DC for example (KE’s most lit heavy office, per capita) I’d say one litigator makes shares per class year on average. In the past couple years alone there’s been a year with two home-grown litigators making shares (one without a SCOTUS clerkship, even). The entering litigation associate classes are probably 12-15 associates. So that’s like a 7% chance from the jump to make shares as a litigator. I have no clue how that compares to transactional practice (worse, I’m sure, but dunno how much worse) but it’s far from a total pipe dream and I’d say the people who really want it and are on track for it by like their 5th year, when some colleagues have washed out and others have opted out of biglaw on their own, have competitive but realistic shots at it. These are the ones who are billing north of 2500 every year and probably close to 3000 every other year when they get pulled on to trials because the partners like them and the have lost the part of their brain that can say “no.”