What do you think of this trend toward promoting massive classes of NSP? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Weil and Simpson announced something in the neighborhood of 30 partners each in this year’s class. I’m probably older than most of the people on here (c/o 2011) and personally know share partners at both firms who said that only a tiny fraction of them are share partners (like maybe 1-3? can’t remember exact numbers). Guess everyone’s Kirkland now.

[Anonymous User]

Why do people care one way or another? It’s better for lawyers (better options with a partner title) and firms (can charge higher rates). Win win

[Anonymous User]

I’d be pissed if I had billed 2500+ hours a year for the last however many years and someone a couple class years ahead of me made equity partner for the same amount of work and I didn’t. Also, it would give me a complex if someone else in my class made equity partner and I didn’t (and I suspect 99.9% of the non-equity partners have this mentality). Also, no one is fooled by the title anymore.

[Anonymous User]

Also, no one is fooled by the title anymore.

Those $$$ definitely are real, though.

[Anonymous User]

These firms are promoting some associates straight to share partner and others to NSP? My firm first promotes to partner then the lucky ones get shares eventually.

[Anonymous User]

Also, no one is fooled by the title anymore.

Those $$$ definitely are real, though.

I also don't get what's to be fooled. It's a promotion. Does anyone think a VP at a bank is second to the president?

[Anonymous User]

Also, no one is fooled by the title anymore.

Those $$$ definitely are real, though.

Whatever they get is less than an equity point. There have been income partners from Kirkland on here before saying that all things considered (no health insurance subsidy, etc.), they net less than they did as a senior associate. I thought the upside of a “partner” title to the income partner was that they could market themselves as such, but if everyone in the legal industry is aware that a “partner” title at your class year is equivalent to a senior associate at other firms, I don’t see how that helps.

[Anonymous User]

Weil and Simpson announced something in the neighborhood of 30 partners each in this year’s class. I’m probably older than most of the people on here (c/o 2011) and personally know share partners at both firms who said that only a tiny fraction of them are share partners (like maybe 1-3? can’t remember exact numbers). Guess everyone’s Kirkland now.

Is it really only 1-3 equity partners out of a class of 30 “partners” (looking at STB)?? That’s crazy, since peer firms like Cravath and DPW seem to elevate at least 5-7ish every year. I wonder what differentiates those who make it straight to equity from those who need to stay NSP. Practice areas? Also, does anyone know how many years you remain as NSP at STB before being considered for equity?

[Anonymous User]

I’d be pissed if I had billed 2500+ hours a year for the last however many years and someone a couple class years ahead of me made equity partner for the same amount of work and I didn’t. Also, it would give me a complex if someone else in my class made equity partner and I didn’t (and I suspect 99.9% of the non-equity partners have this mentality). Also, no one is fooled by the title anymore.

I’m an income partner at a V100 and it doesn’t bother me at all. It’s a business, and if someone has persuaded the firm that he/she has the business case to be an equity partner and I haven’t, that’s not something I can or should be upset about. (Also, hours are not the driving factor in determining whether someone gets equity - not even close.)

[Anonymous User]

I’d be pissed if I had billed 2500+ hours a year for the last however many years and someone a couple class years ahead of me made equity partner for the same amount of work and I didn’t. Also, it would give me a complex if someone else in my class made equity partner and I didn’t (and I suspect 99.9% of the non-equity partners have this mentality). Also, no one is fooled by the title anymore.

I’m an income partner at a V100 and it doesn’t bother me at all. It’s a business, and if someone has persuaded the firm that he/she has the business case to be an equity partner and I haven’t, that’s not something I can or should be upset about. (Also, hours are not the driving factor in determining whether someone gets equity - not even close.)

Bit of an ignorant question here, but when someone doesn't become equity partner (who I understand will generally bring home at least a cool million a year) how much do non-equity partners get? I understand the scale for associates is all widely publicized, but how about partners? Is it just they get an extra 20k a year from their last year as an associate?

[Anonymous User]

I would guess that most V50 non-share partners have a base of not much less than $400k, and a bonus of $200-500k depending on seniority, performance, business generation etc. So with most senior associates taking home approx $500k/year (and NSPs being ineligible for special bonuses), I'd imagine they're mostly in the $600-900k mark - quick maths I know.

[Anonymous User]

Weil and Simpson announced something in the neighborhood of 30 partners each in this year’s class. I’m probably older than most of the people on here (c/o 2011) and personally know share partners at both firms who said that only a tiny fraction of them are share partners (like maybe 1-3? can’t remember exact numbers). Guess everyone’s Kirkland now.

Is it really only 1-3 equity partners out of a class of 30 “partners” (looking at STB)?? That’s crazy, since peer firms like Cravath and DPW seem to elevate at least 5-7ish every year. I wonder what differentiates those who make it straight to equity from those who need to stay NSP. Practice areas? Also, does anyone know how many years you remain as NSP at STB before being considered for equity?

I’d wager that going forward the folks who get equity will have the title already, so won’t be part of new class announcements. Not sure if that’s already the case. Looking at the list at STB this year, a few have made it from non-core groups; others have been counsel or equivalent for a very long time. Best shot is likely to be from traditional STB money-making groups (funds, M&A, capital markets, maybe credit), with others taking a bit longer to get equity (if they ever do).

[gontid]

So STB has counsel and non-equity partners? What’s the difference? And why?

[Anonymous User]

Weil and Simpson announced something in the neighborhood of 30 partners each in this year’s class. I’m probably older than most of the people on here (c/o 2011) and personally know share partners at both firms who said that only a tiny fraction of them are share partners (like maybe 1-3? can’t remember exact numbers). Guess everyone’s Kirkland now.

Is it really only 1-3 equity partners out of a class of 30 “partners” (looking at STB)?? That’s crazy, since peer firms like Cravath and DPW seem to elevate at least 5-7ish every year. I wonder what differentiates those who make it straight to equity from those who need to stay NSP. Practice areas? Also, does anyone know how many years you remain as NSP at STB before being considered for equity?

I’d wager that going forward the folks who get equity will have the title already, so won’t be part of new class announcements. Not sure if that’s already the case. Looking at the list at STB this year, a few have made it from non-core groups; others have been counsel or equivalent for a very long time. Best shot is likely to be from traditional STB money-making groups (funds, M&A, capital markets, maybe credit), with others taking a bit longer to get equity (if they ever do).

I can only speak for my firm, but we for a long time have been structured where the new partners are all income, and then in 2-3 years you can go up again for equity (and repeat as necessary or desired). There is no announcement of who does or does not get equity, externally you can only guess based on seniority.

Honestly, I like it better than making you jump right into equity. It’s a different job. And the partner title matters for client development, whether you think it does now or not.

Also, the person who assumed every share partner gets a million might be in for a rude awakening. That’s more of an average/mean as I understand it, not the mode or the median. In other words, it’s skewed upward by the partners bringing in most of the business and getting 5-10 million accordingly. Though that’s a firm specific thing, and inflation is changing those numbers.

[Anonymous User]

So STB has counsel and non-equity partners? What’s the difference? And why?

Don’t know about STB. At my firm counsel is a more individualized role. You can set your hours expectation and scale your salary accordingly. Also, not as many expectations for client development or other firm citizenshipish things. Whereas non-equity partner is basically the same job as equity partner, but without the uncertainty of equity draws.

Basically, if you pick counsel, you likely want to do the job but don't want equity. Non-equity partner is more for those that are going for equity or at least want to leave the door more open. I think for us at least if you want equity as a counsel you generally need to do non-equity (though everything at that level is negotiable).

[Anonymous User]

I want a partner title before I leave my firm. This can only be good for associates.

[Anonymous User]

So STB has counsel and non-equity partners? What’s the difference? And why?

Don’t know about STB. At my firm counsel is a more individualized role. You can set your hours expectation and scale your salary accordingly. Also, not as many expectations for client development or other firm citizenshipish things. Whereas non-equity partner is basically the same job as equity partner, but without the uncertainty of equity draws.

Basically, if you pick counsel, you likely want to do the job but don't want equity. Non-equity partner is more for those that are going for equity or at least want to leave the door more open. I think for us at least if you want equity as a counsel you generally need to do non-equity (though everything at that level is negotiable).

Weil talked about their new system a little while ago: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... ssociates/

Agree that mode or median would be a better metric for most non-lockstep/non-modified lockstep firms. It used to be that at an STB/DPW, highest earning partners made 4.5x what the lowest did, but I’m sure that’s changed at Simpson now. Not surprising that the firms that have been raided most by Kirkland are the ones that have gone furthest away from lockstep most quickly: Weil lost a stack of PE folks (to both Kirkland and Ropes) in 2016, while STB has been getting hit since 2013 and Josh Bonnie’s near-departure appears to have broken a lot of the system. (They’re probably still kicking themselves over Calder and Martelli.) Income partners serve two functions at STB: retention/client development and charging, of course; but also means a bigger pool to pay the hard charging real estate, M&A and fund formation partners..

At firms with some semblance of a lockstep still (CSM, Debevoise, WLRK, DPW, Paul Weiss, Cleary), I’d still expect a roughly normal distribution, maybe with a few outliers like Barshay, Karp, etc (at the modified lockstep shops). Most people maybe two standard deviation either side? I don’t know if/how much things have changed there, too.

[enibs]

I can see how this would be great for the real partners - effectively it’s a way of extending the partnership track to 10-11 years (or more) without the bad publicity or internal turmoil such a move would create. But I’m interested in hearing about the experiences of those who have become NSPs and then don’t make equity partner. Do you think your exit opportunities were enhanced by being able to claim you were a partner? Were you treated better as an NSP compared to your treatment as a senior associate? Presumably the compensation is less transparent, but did you make meaningfully more money? Or did you feel exploited? I could see it being a win-win but could also see it being a win (for the real partners)-lose (for the glorified senior associates).

[Anonymous User]

So STB has counsel and non-equity partners? What’s the difference? And why?

Don’t know about STB. At my firm counsel is a more individualized role. You can set your hours expectation and scale your salary accordingly. Also, not as many expectations for client development or other firm citizenshipish things. Whereas non-equity partner is basically the same job as equity partner, but without the uncertainty of equity draws.

Basically, if you pick counsel, you likely want to do the job but don't want equity. Non-equity partner is more for those that are going for equity or at least want to leave the door more open. I think for us at least if you want equity as a counsel you generally need to do non-equity (though everything at that level is negotiable).

Weil talked about their new system a little while ago: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... ssociates/

Agree that mode or median would be a better metric for most non-lockstep/non-modified lockstep firms. It used to be that at an STB/DPW, highest earning partners made 4.5x what the lowest did, but I’m sure that’s changed at Simpson now. Not surprising that the firms that have been raided most by Kirkland are the ones that have gone furthest away from lockstep most quickly: Weil lost a stack of PE folks (to both Kirkland and Ropes) in 2016, while STB has been getting hit since 2013 and Josh Bonnie’s near-departure appears to have broken a lot of the system. (They’re probably still kicking themselves over Calder and Martelli.) Income partners serve two functions at STB: retention/client development and charging, of course; but also means a bigger pool to pay the hard charging real estate, M&A and fund formation partners..

At firms with some semblance of a lockstep still (CSM, Debevoise, WLRK, DPW, Paul Weiss, Cleary), I’d still expect a roughly normal distribution, maybe with a few outliers like Barshay, Karp, etc (at the modified lockstep shops). Most people maybe two standard deviation either side? I don’t know if/how much things have changed there, too.

Cravath is still 3:1 (highest to lowest paid partners) asaik. Pretty sure the math works out to at least a million for the most junior partner there, which would support what a poster above said about equity partners making seven figures for sure. Idk about the other pure lockstep/modified lockstep shops though.

[Anonymous User]

At Kirkland specifically (where I am), you make NSP earlier than most firms would make partners (equity or otherwise) - after year 6. Then, there is an amorphous period of years during which you may or may not make shares, and most won’t. There is no special announcement when someone makes shares, though people internally will likely know.

Unofficially, I believe the total track to equity is basically the same as other firms: 8 years minimum, more realistically 10 at the earliest, and drifting more toward 11, 12, 13 in recent years. And possibly never. But during that purgatory stage you have a partner title, and got it relatively early in your career. Comp is at worst the same as it would be for an associate of the same vintage (though as someone pointed out, there may be a net decrease in first year of NSP because of changes to benefits etc), but many NSPs report increases above a comparable senior associate, sometimes significant ones. It’s black box.

So, NSPs here include senior associates, people who will eventually make shares, people who want shares but will ultimately fail, AND people who don’t want shares and are just going to stick around in a counsel-style role forever.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a good trend. Reduces the pressure of up or out. Obviously if it's a choice between share partner and nsp, we'd all like to be real partners. But realistically it's more like a choice between being kicked out as a senior or allowed to stay on as a nsp. Why not make decent money so long as you are providing value?

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a good trend. Reduces the pressure of up or out. Obviously if it's a choice between share partner and nsp, we'd all like to be real partners. But realistically it's more like a choice between being kicked out as a senior or allowed to stay on as a nsp. Why not make decent money so long as you are providing value?

I actually don’t think the bolded is true for all. Having equity also means you have the pressures and uncertainty that comes with equity. If the firm goes under, the employees get to walk away, but the share partners don’t. Even at less extreme examples, lots of people seem willing to trade lower compensation for lower expectations of non-billable participation and billable hours.

I can think of three attorneys off the top of my head at my firm that probably could have made shares if they wanted to, but chose not to go for it. I get your point, but saying everyone wants shares is a bit like saying everyone wants to be president. Lots of people, even career politicians, don’t.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a good trend. Reduces the pressure of up or out. Obviously if it's a choice between share partner and nsp, we'd all like to be real partners. But realistically it's more like a choice between being kicked out as a senior or allowed to stay on as a nsp. Why not make decent money so long as you are providing value?

I actually don’t think the bolded is true for all. Having equity also means you have the pressures and uncertainty that comes with equity. If the firm goes under, the employees get to walk away, but the share partners don’t. Even at less extreme examples, lots of people seem willing to trade lower compensation for lower expectations of non-billable participation and billable hours.

I can think of three attorneys off the top of my head at my firm that probably could have made shares if they wanted to, but chose not to go for it. I get your point, but saying everyone wants shares is a bit like saying everyone wants to be president. Lots of people, even career politicians, don’t.

Oh totally fair. I guess I'm reacting to the assumption a lot of people itt are making that nsp is replacing sp when it's not.

[Anonymous User]

At Kirkland specifically (where I am), you make NSP earlier than most firms would make partners (equity or otherwise) - after year 6. Then, there is an amorphous period of years during which you may or may not make shares, and most won’t. There is no special announcement when someone makes shares, though people internally will likely know.

Unofficially, I believe the total track to equity is basically the same as other firms: 8 years minimum, more realistically 10 at the earliest, and drifting more toward 11, 12, 13 in recent years. And possibly never. But during that purgatory stage you have a partner title, and got it relatively early in your career. Comp is at worst the same as it would be for an associate of the same vintage (though as someone pointed out, there may be a net decrease in first year of NSP because of changes to benefits etc), but many NSPs report increases above a comparable senior associate, sometimes significant ones. It’s black box.

So, NSPs here include senior associates, people who will eventually make shares, people who want shares but will ultimately fail, AND people who don’t want shares and are just going to stick around in a counsel-style role forever.

Some further info. Equity as a standing policy will not be given before you've made it through your 10th year (I'm sure some guy will come in and give an "actushally!" about their one friend who knew a friend who knew a friend who got promoted his 7th year, but I'm talking about the general rule). You're right about the path becoming more extended and for practical purposes I've heard you aren't even considered for equity now in most groups until you've done at least 5 years as an NSP, meaning you're not considered until your 11th year review as you're rising into the 12th year class. The old school standard was you got two shots at it (meaning two years of reviews), rarely they'll allow a third chance, and I think that's mostly stuck to still. Maybe some of this will change this year as a reaction to NSP attrition, we'll see.

NSPs in their first two years are compensated exactly at market as far as base salary. Beyond 8th year, there's more room for fuckery; people clearly on the track for shares will start to see substantial divergence from the market after their 8th year but plenty of others (including some who will ultimately make shares and many who won't) will just get rando increases per year depending on how they're billing and how their group and the firm is doing (have heard 5k, 15k, 25k etc. depending); someone they want to signal is heading out might get their salary frozen.

You're right about the "NSP" title becoming this dumping ground for just about everyone these days. You have permanent NSPs who have officially been told they'll never make shares but are welcome to stick around forever. You have NSPs who are considered still in the hunt for shares. You have NSPs who are going to be allowed to stick around for their 4-6 years and then after missing shares a couple times coached out of the firm. The one thing I don't think the NSP designation covers is former share partners who have been de-equitized (typically due to age but also not unheard of to be due to financial performance issues)--they seem to still take the "of counsel" title as a way to distinguish themselves from the NSP hoi polloi.

[Anonymous User]

At my v50, seventh years and above are senior associates, until they either become counsel or (income) partners within 1-4 years.

Counsel can just be counsel forever, don't have to bring in business, and are paid only a bit more than senior associates (but don't get special bonuses, just EOY).

Income partners can also be income partners forever, and are paid a bit more (but not a ton more) than senior associates (and again only get EOY bonuses). They're expected to bring in new business, or at least new matters from existing clients.

Income partners that have enough origination to keep a number of associates busy (around 3-5 associates full-time) can be made equity partners, and they make the big bucks - around $3.9M average for my transactional practice last year.