Be honest: am I too old? Forum

[noice]

I will be 40 at graduation. Been working in government since I was 23.

Assume I would be attending Yale, UChi, or Columbia.

Goal is to become a biglaw partner (if I can do it by 50, I'd work another 10 years and leave at 60).

[Anonymous User]

Didn't you already post this on reddit? The answers on there made a lot of sense.

[gotCentred]

There were people in my class similarly situated - there was a pretty solid contingent of people who did 20 years in the military and then attended law school. It is possible to do this. But, it will be weird to be a junior associate in your 40s, with superiors in their mid-20s. In addition, consider whether you are willing to give 100% of your time for the next 20 years to work (admittedly, my advice has some corporate bias - if you do litigation/regulatory, it may be an more predictable schedule, but I think partnership chances are even lower there)

[Anonymous User]

There were people in my class similarly situated - there was a pretty solid contingent of people who did 20 years in the military and then attended law school. It is possible to do this. But, it will be weird to be a junior associate in your 40s, with superiors in their mid-20s. In addition, consider whether you are willing to give 100% of your time for the next 20 years to work (admittedly, my advice has some corporate bias - if you do litigation/regulatory, it may be an more predictable schedule, but I think partnership chances are even lower there)

Big law isn't like working a government job or other private sector job where there is a structural hierarchy that is as defined. Not saying that your point isn't valid, but I don't know how much having a 25 year old senior associate to report to on a particular matter should matter to someone who embarks on a different career path in their 40s. This is something that they ought to be comfortable with before starting their journey.

I do agree with the latter part of this comment. Wanting to become a partner is a very specific goal and it's hard to definitively know that you'll be able to withstand the demands of big law (time) when you've only had the experience of working in government (different worlds).

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, as someone who was an older student, reporting to people younger than you are isn’t an issue and there are ways to make that clear if an employer is concerned.

(Did not become a biglaw partner or even try, so can’t comment on that. Just from working in law generally, I don’t think it should be an issue unless you decide you don’t want to put up with the lifestyle, especially since most people are bad at guessing ages and may just pin you as “non trad” but nothing more specific, but obviously that’s a huge generalization.)

[Anonymous User]

The biggest problem with this OP is the effect of chance on the stated goal.

There isn’t a secret recipe to guarantee making partner in biglaw. There are plenty of people who are smart, hardworking, and want to make partner who don’t end up getting it, especially on a 10 year timetable.

Are you okay with that level of uncertainty and risk? There are (obviously) many people who are willing to take that gamble for the years 25-35. I don’t know if it makes as much sense from 40-50. But at a minimum you need to make sure you understand what you’re getting into.

[Lacepiece23]

Idk - you probably won’t make partner. But you’ll spend your 40s working a ton and still making a ton of money.

Only you can know if this the the decade of your life that you want to do it.

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

I don't agree with this - I don't think that a biglaw firm would look at a 48-year-old 8th year associate the same way that it would look at another 8th year who was 34, when the firm was deciding whether to nudge the associate out or put them on the path to equity. I don't think I could answer OP's question about how much of an impact it would have, but I believe it would be nonzero.

[nixy]

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

I don't agree with this - I don't think that a biglaw firm would look at a 48-year-old 8th year associate the same way that it would look at another 8th year who was 34, when the firm was deciding whether to nudge the associate out or put them on the path to equity. I don't think I could answer OP's question about how much of an impact it would have, but I believe it would be nonzero.

Why? Biglaw partners aren’t judges - why would age be a factor, rather than the specific associate’s qualifications/experience/relationships with partners/book of business etc? I mean, apart from ageism, which is a thing but I hope lawyers would be smart enough to try to avoid.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

I don't agree with this - I don't think that a biglaw firm would look at a 48-year-old 8th year associate the same way that it would look at another 8th year who was 34, when the firm was deciding whether to nudge the associate out or put them on the path to equity. I don't think I could answer OP's question about how much of an impact it would have, but I believe it would be nonzero.

Why? Biglaw partners aren’t judges - why would age be a factor, rather than the specific associate’s qualifications/experience/relationships with partners/book of business etc? I mean, apart from ageism, which is a thing but I hope lawyers would be smart enough to try to avoid.

I don't think they really actively consider age in choosing promotions. But they very strongly likely consider factors that come with age or are influenced by age. To the extent that they do, it can potentially favor the older attorney.

For example, lower mid 30s is a common age for people (especially women) to start a journey into parenthood or settling down. A factor that has potential to impact their billing hours or commitment to the job a few years down the line. Not sure that too many 45 year olds are starting families that late. It happens but it's more rare and if at age 45 you want to be partner, you have made that commitment already having an understanding of how having a family intersects with the demands of big law. *obviously this is not a universal thing and I am not claiming everyone involved in a situation of this form would behave the same way*

On the flip, the older you are the slower you are or more easily worn out you are (for most people). This might have an impact on your work or how much you're able to do. Admittedly this is a very individual thing and rests on how you take care of yourself physically and mentally. But if your age has impacted you negatively enough in terms of work ability, you're not likely to be considered due to the nature of your performance anyway.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry double post

[Anonymous User]

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

I don't agree with this - I don't think that a biglaw firm would look at a 48-year-old 8th year associate the same way that it would look at another 8th year who was 34, when the firm was deciding whether to nudge the associate out or put them on the path to equity. I don't think I could answer OP's question about how much of an impact it would have, but I believe it would be nonzero.

Why? Biglaw partners aren’t judges - why would age be a factor, rather than the specific associate’s qualifications/experience/relationships with partners/book of business etc? I mean, apart from ageism, which is a thing but I hope lawyers would be smart enough to try to avoid.

Most firms have a general timetable for associate, non equity, equity, of counsel, retirement. Equity often has an age cutoff to ensure partnership stays young. We don’t want to promote to equity so someone can grease their retirement portfolio for 5 years then bounce. Equity partners are supposed to cultivate the long term client relationships and be stable go-tos for our in-house relationships and prospectives.

[noice]

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

I don't agree with this - I don't think that a biglaw firm would look at a 48-year-old 8th year associate the same way that it would look at another 8th year who was 34, when the firm was deciding whether to nudge the associate out or put them on the path to equity. I don't think I could answer OP's question about how much of an impact it would have, but I believe it would be nonzero.

Why? Biglaw partners aren’t judges - why would age be a factor, rather than the specific associate’s qualifications/experience/relationships with partners/book of business etc? I mean, apart from ageism, which is a thing but I hope lawyers would be smart enough to try to avoid.

Most firms have a general timetable for associate, non equity, equity, of counsel, retirement. Equity often has an age cutoff to ensure partnership stays young. We don’t want to promote to equity so someone can grease their retirement portfolio for 5 years then bounce. Equity partners are supposed to cultivate the long term client relationships and be stable go-tos for our in-house relationships and prospectives.

hmm. i mean i would plan to work until 65.

[Anonymous User]

Not sure why your age really matters other than for your own personal calculus.

I don't agree with this - I don't think that a biglaw firm would look at a 48-year-old 8th year associate the same way that it would look at another 8th year who was 34, when the firm was deciding whether to nudge the associate out or put them on the path to equity. I don't think I could answer OP's question about how much of an impact it would have, but I believe it would be nonzero.

Why? Biglaw partners aren’t judges - why would age be a factor, rather than the specific associate’s qualifications/experience/relationships with partners/book of business etc? I mean, apart from ageism, which is a thing but I hope lawyers would be smart enough to try to avoid.

Most firms have a general timetable for associate, non equity, equity, of counsel, retirement. Equity often has an age cutoff to ensure partnership stays young. We don’t want to promote to equity so someone can grease their retirement portfolio for 5 years then bounce. Equity partners are supposed to cultivate the long term client relationships and be stable go-tos for our in-house relationships and prospectives.

And age 48 screams 5 years and bounce?

[Anonymous User]

He’s saying he wants to be up for partner at 50. Does someone at 50 present much more of a flight risk than someone at 35? Yes. Also I’ve heard of deequitization cutoffs that at least start as young as 60.

[nixy]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

[Anonymous User]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

[Anonymous User]

This thread makes me nervous. I'll be 35 when I start in big law. Am I going to be at a disadvantage of I decide to gun for partner?

[Anonymous User]

As one anecdotal data point, I'm a 6th year at a v50 and will turn 43 in a few months. I've been told by a few partners that I'm on solidly on track for (non-equity) partnership. They know my age, and it hasn't been a problem.

[Anonymous User]

As one anecdotal data point, I'm a 6th year at a v50 and will turn 43 in a few months. I've been told by a few partners that I'm on solidly on track for (non-equity) partnership. They know my age, and it hasn't been a problem.

Thanks for the insight! Anyone have anecdotes about equity partnerships?

[nixy]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

That doesn’t make it not ageism, my friend. You don’t know that the hotshot 32-year-old partner won’t grease their retirement portfolio for five years and bounce, either.

(Similar to the fact that pregnant employees do frequently need time off and often do disrupt workloads etc and yet it’s still illegal to hold that against them at work. Not saying biglaw is doing that; just that it’s the same logic.)

[FF2020]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

That doesn’t make it not ageism, my friend. You don’t know that the hotshot 32-year-old partner won’t grease their retirement portfolio for five years and bounce, either.

(Similar to the fact that pregnant employees do frequently need time off and often do disrupt workloads etc and yet it’s still illegal to hold that against them at work. Not saying biglaw is doing that; just that it’s the same logic.)

The other factor is that at firms with pensions, it takes a certain amount of time for entitlements to vest and then get to maximum levels (10-15 years, in some places), and then the partnership has a retirement age.

I’m not saying any of this is right. Many of these agreements were written 30 years ago when the world was a more certain place and people didn’t live as long. Maybe they need looking at, but as long as the people in charge are making it at ages 32-40 (on average), maybe they have no incentive to change anything.

[Anonymous User]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

That doesn’t make it not ageism, my friend. You don’t know that the hotshot 32-year-old partner won’t grease their retirement portfolio for five years and bounce, either.

(Similar to the fact that pregnant employees do frequently need time off and often do disrupt workloads etc and yet it’s still illegal to hold that against them at work. Not saying biglaw is doing that; just that it’s the same logic.)

You can call it “ageism” as much as you want but it doesn’t make it so. There are many legitimate non-pretextual reasons for why there’s a concern about awarding equity to someone who’s already middle-aged, particularly given how eye-watering compensation has become, as have been outlined for you repeatedly. Does that mean it’s impossible to get it in your 50s? Of course not.

And your rhetorical appeal to pregnant women is total garbage. Women have kids and come back into the work force all the time it’s not 1960. There’s nothing about a woman being pregnant or having a family that precludes them from being here for the long haul in the way giving someone equity at 50 could.

What’s rich about this whole exchange is that, in the OP, he himself effectively says “I’d love to get rich for ten years this way then bounce at 60.” He’s literally outlining the risk that is being discussed while you’re having an online hypothetical debate about whether sensitivity to this concern by the partnership is “ageist.”

[noice]

Oh, so I guess then plenty of lawyers don’t try to hide ageism.

You seem to be having reading comp trouble. No one cares about someone’s age qua age. Part of the implicit bargain of being paid millions of dollars per year by us is that you’ll be in it for the long haul because that’s important to existing clients, the partnership, and prospectives. The likelihood of that being the case diminishes all else being equal the older you get.

That doesn’t make it not ageism, my friend. You don’t know that the hotshot 32-year-old partner won’t grease their retirement portfolio for five years and bounce, either.

(Similar to the fact that pregnant employees do frequently need time off and often do disrupt workloads etc and yet it’s still illegal to hold that against them at work. Not saying biglaw is doing that; just that it’s the same logic.)

You can call it “ageism” as much as you want but it doesn’t make it so. There are many legitimate non-pretextual reasons for why there’s a concern about awarding equity to someone who’s already middle-aged, particularly given how eye-watering compensation has become, as have been outlined for you repeatedly. Does that mean it’s impossible to get it in your 50s? Of course not.

And your rhetorical appeal to pregnant women is total garbage. Women have kids and come back into the work force all the time it’s not 1960. There’s nothing about a woman being pregnant or having a family that precludes them from being here for the long haul in the way giving someone equity at 50 could.

What’s rich about this whole exchange is that, in the OP, he himself effectively says “I’d love to get rich for ten years this way then bounce at 60.” He’s literally outlining the risk that is being discussed while you’re having an online hypothetical debate about whether sensitivity to this concern by the partnership is “ageist.”

What's wrong with being a partner for 10 years? 50-60? Or 15, and leaving at 65?

Partners leave all the time to other firms.

[nixy]

The other factor is that at firms with pensions, it takes a certain amount of time for entitlements to vest and then get to maximum levels (10-15 years, in some places), and then the partnership has a retirement age.

I’m not saying any of this is right. Many of these agreements were written 30 years ago when the world was a more certain place and people didn’t live as long. Maybe they need looking at, but as long as the people in charge are making it at ages 32-40 (on average), maybe they have no incentive to change anything.

That’s fair enough about pensions, though whether to go up for partner at an age when you won’t hit the max penison seems to me a decision for the person going up for partner, not for the people deciding whether to make them partner.

And I agree there’s little incentive to change, and maybe not even enough potential 50-year-old partners for it to matter. I was just amused by the heated justifications.

You can call it “ageism” as much as you want but it doesn’t make it so. There are many legitimate non-pretextual reasons for why there’s a concern about awarding equity to someone who’s already middle-aged, particularly given how eye-watering compensation has become, as have been outlined for you repeatedly. Does that mean it’s impossible to get it in your 50s? Of course not.

And your rhetorical appeal to pregnant women is total garbage. Women have kids and come back into the work force all the time it’s not 1960.

You sound mad. Of course women have kids and come back into the work force (though if you think that parenting affects men’s and women’s careers equally, I have a bridge to sell you.) That’s why I said biglaw doesn’t force women out and that that wasn’t happening. The logic is similar though - we can’t put an old person in as partner because they won’t make us enough money because they’ll retire too soon; we can’t make a pregnant woman partner because she won’t make us enough money because she’ll have to take time off with her kids. Obviously those things can both affect how someone runs a business, but it doesn’t make it legit to take them into account.

Edit: missed your last edit. God FORBID someone who is otherwise eminently qualified to be partner - bringing in business and all - do good work for 10 years and then BOUNCE. How very dare they.