Law Firm Layoffs Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don’t really fully agree with the above. If you have a great relationship with JPM (or whomever) and you aren’t the relationship partner with deal credit, there is still a very good chance you could go to one of the other firms JPM works with and break off some new deals there. Clients aren’t monolithic with just one relationship partner at a firm who they give all their work to. I’ve seen people do this time and time again. Clients don’t care much if your at CSM or Davis Polk or wherever.

Is that really plausible? If you are a counsel at DPW with a "great" relationship with some MS people, and you decamp as a partner to Dechert, you think you are going to be able to generate business for Dechert from JPM? Count me as very, very skeptical. For these large institutional clients, decisions about which law firm to use for which matter are generally made at a very high level in the organization, and based on negotiated fee deals. I don't think some rando counsel dude is stealing work away from DPW.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t really fully agree with the above. If you have a great relationship with JPM (or whomever) and you aren’t the relationship partner with deal credit, there is still a very good chance you could go to one of the other firms JPM works with and break off some new deals there. Clients aren’t monolithic with just one relationship partner at a firm who they give all their work to. I’ve seen people do this time and time again. Clients don’t care much if your at CSM or Davis Polk or wherever.

Is that really plausible? If you are a counsel at DPW with a "great" relationship with some MS people, and you decamp as a partner to Dechert, you think you are going to be able to generate business for Dechert from JPM? Count me as very, very skeptical. For these large institutional clients, decisions about which law firm to use for which matter are generally made at a very high level in the organization, and based on negotiated fee deals. I don't think some rando counsel dude is stealing work away from DPW.

That's not what they said. They said JPM, not MS and JPM. And there's no such thing as "stealing work away from DPW". The institutions don't have blank relationships with the firms. Each partner develops relationships with their counterparts and gets individual deals. It's very plausible for someone to break off x% of deals.

[Buglaw]

To be clear, I don’t think you could go from CSM to Dechert (or at least it would be unlikely), but someone doing PE M&A could go from Kirkland to Ropes if they are servicing the same firm and generate business or Latham to Cahill if they are doing leverage finance and generate some business. For most practice areas with large institutional bank/PE/debt fund clients there are multiple other firms that also have relationships and are capable of doing the work. If you have a great relationship you could likely go somewhere else and take some of the work with you. Is this really hard for people to believe? If this wasn’t the case, why on earth would these V10 firms be making people equity partner who don’t have a “book.”

[Anonymous User]

To be clear, I don’t think you could go from CSM to Dechert (or at least it would be unlikely), but someone doing PE M&A could go from Kirkland to Ropes if they are servicing the same firm and generate business or Latham to Cahill if they are doing leverage finance and generate some business. For most practice areas with large institutional bank/PE/debt fund clients there are multiple other firms that also have relationships and are capable of doing the work. If you have a great relationship you could likely go somewhere else and take some of the work with you. Is this really hard for people to believe? If this wasn’t the case, why on earth would these V10 firms be making people equity partner who don’t have a “book.”

Confused again. The question is whether an 8th year associate at CSM could go to Dechert and take billable work with them. To me the answer is almost certainly not, because an 8th year associate doesn't have the depth of relationships to be be able to pull work away from CSM. The client is hiring CSM because CSM is one of the best firms in the world, and Dechert, well, just isn't. Some rando 8th year associate isn't going to be able to change that.

Firms promote people to "equity" with no book because, wait for it, they are really good at servicing existing clients, and show the potential to develop and grow the firm's practice, even if they currently have zero portable business to their name. V10s promote the best to equity, because the best are the best, and they are the people you want as the future of your firm. Not Al the car salesman playing golf with his buddies four times a week (though K&E would hire him).

[Anonymous User]

Some weird snobbery going on here that doesn't comport with what I see IRL. Some of the big banks use V10s on some deals and V50s, V100s on others. It's not even necessarily about the deal size (tho on avg bigger deals go to better firms) but about the individual relationships. Even Dechert which was picked on for some reason. Just Google "jmp dechert" and voila, Dechert has done work for them. Just taking an example from named entities itt.

So idk why it's so hard to believe that a partner (or even a senior who runs deals and has a good reputation/relationship with some VPs) can pull some work with them from a V10 to a lower ranked firm.

[Anonymous User]

To be clear, I don’t think you could go from CSM to Dechert (or at least it would be unlikely), but someone doing PE M&A could go from Kirkland to Ropes if they are servicing the same firm and generate business or Latham to Cahill if they are doing leverage finance and generate some business. For most practice areas with large institutional bank/PE/debt fund clients there are multiple other firms that also have relationships and are capable of doing the work. If you have a great relationship you could likely go somewhere else and take some of the work with you. Is this really hard for people to believe? If this wasn’t the case, why on earth would these V10 firms be making people equity partner who don’t have a “book.”

Confused again. The question is whether an 8th year associate at CSM could go to Dechert and take billable work with them. To me the answer is almost certainly not, because an 8th year associate doesn't have the depth of relationships to be be able to pull work away from CSM. The client is hiring CSM because CSM is one of the best firms in the world, and Dechert, well, just isn't. Some rando 8th year associate isn't going to be able to change that.

Firms promote people to "equity" with no book because, wait for it, they are really good at servicing existing clients, and show the potential to develop and grow the firm's practice, even if they currently have zero portable business to their name. V10s promote the best to equity, because the best are the best, and they are the people you want as the future of your firm. Not Al the car salesman playing golf with his buddies four times a week (though K&E would hire him).

Yeeesh

It’s not about having a portable $2M book but if you’re some dude who does $1B acquisitions for [blue chip] at CSM, when you go to a v80 or whatever, that blue chip may very well hire you for their $100M acquisition instead because you worked for them for 8 years and you’re going to charge $750K instead of $5M.

Your post and point just reveal you have zero sense as to the business side of practice and/or haven’t developed any connections yourself.

[Buglaw]

Some weird snobbery going on here that doesn't comport with what I see IRL. Some of the big banks use V10s on some deals and V50s, V100s on others. It's not even necessarily about the deal size (tho on avg bigger deals go to better firms) but about the individual relationships. Even Dechert which was picked on for some reason. Just Google "jmp dechert" and voila, Dechert has done work for them. Just taking an example from named entities itt.

So idk why it's so hard to believe that a partner (or even a senior who runs deals and has a good reputation/relationship with some VPs) can pull some work with them from a V10 to a lower ranked firm.

I just mean they do different work. If you are doing PE work for Carlyle at Latham and move to Dechert, they probably aren't moving their work there. If you are doing bulge bracked Leverage finance or IPOs with JPM at Davis Polk, Dechert doesn't really do that work. I doubt JPM is going to move that work there. No knocks on Dechert, but if they don't have a platform for that work (and all the support that comes with it), I don't think JPM would move that work there. the work that Dechert does for JPM is different work, and JPM would be happy to move that sort of work there if you are donig that work. But, V10s and Dechert aren't really on the same deals (at least in my experience).

[Buglaw]

To be clear, I don’t think you could go from CSM to Dechert (or at least it would be unlikely), but someone doing PE M&A could go from Kirkland to Ropes if they are servicing the same firm and generate business or Latham to Cahill if they are doing leverage finance and generate some business. For most practice areas with large institutional bank/PE/debt fund clients there are multiple other firms that also have relationships and are capable of doing the work. If you have a great relationship you could likely go somewhere else and take some of the work with you. Is this really hard for people to believe? If this wasn’t the case, why on earth would these V10 firms be making people equity partner who don’t have a “book.”

Confused again. The question is whether an 8th year associate at CSM could go to Dechert and take billable work with them. To me the answer is almost certainly not, because an 8th year associate doesn't have the depth of relationships to be be able to pull work away from CSM. The client is hiring CSM because CSM is one of the best firms in the world, and Dechert, well, just isn't. Some rando 8th year associate isn't going to be able to change that.

Firms promote people to "equity" with no book because, wait for it, they are really good at servicing existing clients, and show the potential to develop and grow the firm's practice, even if they currently have zero portable business to their name. V10s promote the best to equity, because the best are the best, and they are the people you want as the future of your firm. Not Al the car salesman playing golf with his buddies four times a week (though K&E would hire him).

How is that the question? Who besides you said Most elite firm to a middle of the pack firm. The point I made, which you responded to, is that people without "books" leave and go to other similar firms and break off work when they get there. Why does it matter if it's Dechert or some other place.

And yes, I have seen senior associates (or brand new partners) without any "book" leave and develop business where they go. I'm not sure why you believe this impossible. If a client loves working with senior associate and calls them to be on all their deals and knows them well. And they leave and go to other firm that client also works with. And that senior associate calls up client and says "hey I loved working with you at prior firm. I know you guys also use current firm. I'd love to find a way for us to continue to strengthen that relationship and work together." Why is it so hard for you to believe that could happen? How precisely do you think people develop books of business?

[Anonymous User]

Let me just say that, in my specialty at least, as in-house counsel, I don't really care about the firm, I care about the lawyers. If the partner and the senior associates/counsel I work with and like move to a different firm, I'm lobbying to give my business to that firm, all else being equal (and ofcourse, all else may not be equal re: economics, existing arrangements, discounts, etc.). I can't speak for the big banks, or the other legal practices at my company, but it's a data point FWIW.

[Anonymous User]

Does firm brand name even mean anything (if it ever did) when any warm body T14 could basically transfer to the V10 for the past 2 years basically at will?

[nealric]

Does firm brand name even mean anything (if it ever did) when any warm body T14 could basically transfer to the V10 for the past 2 years basically at will?

It sort of does. The firm can imply certain billing rates and practices. If a partner transfers from a lower v100 to a v20, chances are they just got a lot more expensive to retain (rare, but it can happen). The firm can also impact overall resources available. If a matter needs 20 bodies thrown at it at the drop of a hat in a given office, some firms can manage that better than others. Finally, some companies have "approved counsel" lists, and it can be a PITA to get a new firm added.

But overall, clients are a lot less loyal to institutions than I think they used to be. This is partly due to the trend of bringing more day-to-day work in-house and only retaining counsel for larger or more specialized matters. That can leave an opening for more individual/interpersonal relationships.

[Anonymous User]

Does firm brand name even mean anything (if it ever did) when any warm body T14 could basically transfer to the V10 for the past 2 years basically at will?

It sort of does. The firm can imply certain billing rates and practices. If a partner transfers from a lower v100 to a v20, chances are they just got a lot more expensive to retain (rare, but it can happen). The firm can also impact overall resources available. If a matter needs 20 bodies thrown at it at the drop of a hat in a given office, some firms can manage that better than others. Finally, some companies have "approved counsel" lists, and it can be a PITA to get a new firm added.

But overall, clients are a lot less loyal to institutions than I think they used to be. This is partly due to the trend of bringing more day-to-day work in-house and only retaining counsel for larger or more specialized matters. That can leave an opening for more individual/interpersonal relationships.

Skadden (v3) and Dechert have basically the same PEP - Cahill and Skadden basically have the same RPL. Thus it would be fair to think Skadden is not materially more expensive than Cahill or Dechert.

Maybe the $6mm+ PEP firms are materially more expensive than the $3-4mm PEP firms but outside of those 7-8 firms, cost don't seem to be materially different for the next 30 or so firms.

I think expertise (and with it having enough bodies for that type of deal) in that field and being on approved counsel lists matter. Probably why we should stick with chambers over vault. FWIW the clients I have worked with are not in awe of the work product of Kirkland/Skadden/LW and just waiting for the opportunity to work with their alums (though maybe that would be different for DPW/CSM/S&C or different 5 years ago).

[nealric]

Does firm brand name even mean anything (if it ever did) when any warm body T14 could basically transfer to the V10 for the past 2 years basically at will?

It sort of does. The firm can imply certain billing rates and practices. If a partner transfers from a lower v100 to a v20, chances are they just got a lot more expensive to retain (rare, but it can happen). The firm can also impact overall resources available. If a matter needs 20 bodies thrown at it at the drop of a hat in a given office, some firms can manage that better than others. Finally, some companies have "approved counsel" lists, and it can be a PITA to get a new firm added.

But overall, clients are a lot less loyal to institutions than I think they used to be. This is partly due to the trend of bringing more day-to-day work in-house and only retaining counsel for larger or more specialized matters. That can leave an opening for more individual/interpersonal relationships.

Skadden (v3) and Dechert have basically the same PEP - Cahill and Skadden basically have the same RPL. Thus it would be fair to think Skadden is not materially more expensive than Cahill or Dechert.

Maybe the $6mm+ PEP firms are materially more expensive than the $3-4mm PEP firms but outside of those 7-8 firms, cost don't seem to be materially different for the next 30 or so firms.

I think expertise (and with it having enough bodies for that type of deal) in that field and being on approved counsel lists matter. Probably why we should stick with chambers over vault. FWIW the clients I have worked with are not in awe of the work product of Kirkland/Skadden/LW and just waiting for the opportunity to work with their alums (though maybe that would be different for DPW/CSM/S&C or different 5 years ago).

I wasn't singling out Dechert or any particular firm, but quotes I've gotten from the highest PEP firms are materially higher than for generic biglaw (usually at least 10-20% more). It isn't just billing rates, but overall philosophy on working a matter. You are more likely to get random associates on a call or a bunch of time billed for administrative overhead at the top firms. They are just more used to dealing with clients who aren't cost sensitive. Go to a lower v100, and and they tend to be much more willing to do discounts and fee caps.

Chambers is ok, but I don't think either Chambers or Vault are really useful from a clients perspective. Vault is a bit like US News. I don't need US News to tell me that Yale is more prestigious than Fordham and I don't need Vault to tell me that Wachtell is more prestigious than DLA Piper. I've been interviewed for Chambers and also taken the Vault survey. Both are kind of silly. As a client, I'm never going to just cold call someone based on a publication. For a law student coming from a place of total ignorance, they can at least give you a very general sense of things.

[Anonymous User]

I wasn't singling out Dechert or any particular firm, but quotes I've gotten from the highest PEP firms are materially higher than for generic biglaw (usually at least 10-20% more). It isn't just billing rates, but overall philosophy on working a matter. You are more likely to get random associates on a call or a bunch of time billed for administrative overhead at the top firms. They are just more used to dealing with clients who aren't cost sensitive. Go to a lower v100, and and they tend to be much more willing to do discounts and fee caps.

Not relevant to this discussion but this is the best recruiting pitch I have seen for high PEP firms.

[Anonymous User]

Let me just say that, in my specialty at least, as in-house counsel, I don't really care about the firm, I care about the lawyers. If the partner and the senior associates/counsel I work with and like move to a different firm, I'm lobbying to give my business to that firm, all else being equal (and ofcourse, all else may not be equal re: economics, existing arrangements, discounts, etc.). I can't speak for the big banks, or the other legal practices at my company, but it's a data point FWIW.

This tracks with everything I know about how this works (I am not in-house but have friends who are GCs and have talked to them about how they pick their attorneys). I think a lot of younger lawyers think that companies hire firms, but they don't really, they hire particular lawyers with whom they have a relationship/history/trust. And of course big companies hire lots of different lawyers at lots of different firms for lots of different things, so moving one piece of the business to another firm to follow the person with whom you have worked well for a long period of time happens. Now, it's way more likely that the big partner with decades of experience with the client has that relationship, not the rando 8th year associate or even the junior partner, but it can happen. While you can construct a hypothetical where the company wouldn't follow their person (big partner moves from top tier firm to tiny practice -- their big clients almost certainly aren't following them), the individual people/relationships are extremely important.

[Anonymous User]

As a judicial clerk seeking an August 2023 associate gig, seeing this thread title pop up never fails to give me a heart attack.

[nealric]

I wasn't singling out Dechert or any particular firm, but quotes I've gotten from the highest PEP firms are materially higher than for generic biglaw (usually at least 10-20% more). It isn't just billing rates, but overall philosophy on working a matter. You are more likely to get random associates on a call or a bunch of time billed for administrative overhead at the top firms. They are just more used to dealing with clients who aren't cost sensitive. Go to a lower v100, and and they tend to be much more willing to do discounts and fee caps.

Not relevant to this discussion but this is the best recruiting pitch I have seen for high PEP firms.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. You’ll still see juniors and whatnot at lower tier firms, but they tend to be lower leverage, meaning you will get one or two associates helping out rather than five (three of whom you never interact with).

But my experience is perhaps a bit apples to oranges as you don’t normally use the higher PEP type firms on the same sort of matters.

[Anonymous User]

If firms start doing layoffs, what does that mean for OCI? Should we expect firms to tighten up within schools (i.e. go shallower into the class), or to cut schools from their recruiting entirely, or both/neither? How did it work in 08/09?

[Anonymous User]

If firms start doing layoffs, what does that mean for OCI? Should we expect firms to tighten up within schools (i.e. go shallower into the class), or to cut schools from their recruiting entirely, or both/neither? How did it work in 08/09?

To be sure, we're not at layoffs yet. Firms are still hiring. But if you want to take a look through history, LST has data back to 2012 (which is 2010 OCI). Lower T14 then were similar to T20s today, T6 similar to T14 now. So the answer is a bit of both. When classes shrink, they go in less deep to each school.

[Anonymous User]

I wasn't singling out Dechert or any particular firm, but quotes I've gotten from the highest PEP firms are materially higher than for generic biglaw (usually at least 10-20% more). It isn't just billing rates, but overall philosophy on working a matter. You are more likely to get random associates on a call or a bunch of time billed for administrative overhead at the top firms. They are just more used to dealing with clients who aren't cost sensitive. Go to a lower v100, and and they tend to be much more willing to do discounts and fee caps.

Not relevant to this discussion but this is the best recruiting pitch I have seen for high PEP firms.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. You’ll still see juniors and whatnot at lower tier firms, but they tend to be lower leverage, meaning you will get one or two associates helping out rather than five (three of whom you never interact with).

But my experience is perhaps a bit apples to oranges as you don’t normally use the higher PEP type firms on the same sort of matters.

Yeah this matches my experience. Lower half of V100, there's like 1 associate, maybe two. My V50, it'll be me and 1-2 others, each clearly identified in a role. But when we're opposite KE I can't keep track with how many people they have on it. Every email comes from someone else. It's confusing, I don't know who to quickly one off for a casual question.

[Anonymous User]

I wasn't singling out Dechert or any particular firm, but quotes I've gotten from the highest PEP firms are materially higher than for generic biglaw (usually at least 10-20% more). It isn't just billing rates, but overall philosophy on working a matter. You are more likely to get random associates on a call or a bunch of time billed for administrative overhead at the top firms. They are just more used to dealing with clients who aren't cost sensitive. Go to a lower v100, and and they tend to be much more willing to do discounts and fee caps.

Not relevant to this discussion but this is the best recruiting pitch I have seen for high PEP firms.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. You’ll still see juniors and whatnot at lower tier firms, but they tend to be lower leverage, meaning you will get one or two associates helping out rather than five (three of whom you never interact with).

But my experience is perhaps a bit apples to oranges as you don’t normally use the higher PEP type firms on the same sort of matters.

Yeah this matches my experience. Lower half of V100, there's like 1 associate, maybe two. My V50, it'll be me and 1-2 others, each clearly identified in a role. But when we're opposite KE I can't keep track with how many people they have on it. Every email comes from someone else. It's confusing, I don't know who to quickly one off for a casual question.

Coming from a V10, a huge reason for that is the ferocious turnover. I was on a "mega case" during my first two years and managed our group list for a time. By the end of the case, roughly 7/10 of the lawyers had rotated off the case or left the firm and been replaced by someone else.

Also, posted this on a different thread that got severely derailed so I'm going to repost here:

Making the switch from a big Bk/RX practice to an equally large finance practice. At the risk of outing the firm, it's one of the rare instances where the finance practice is the financial engine of the firm vs the other deal practices (M&A etc). I think I'll end up in LevFin with maybe a bit of fund finance and project finance sprinkled in, but having come from Bk/RX (with lots of great experience etc), I've clearly advertised that - should we hit a big recession - I am more than happy to help with DIPs, workouts, and offer any other advice to my new firm's Bk group while learning the ropes on the other financial services.

Hoping this will insulate me from downturns short to mid term - any insights on how this could impact me as a lateral making the switch? This was a calculated risk on my end - while the counter cyclical nature of Bk is fantastic at times, it's not a good long term practice for me, and the exit options are atrocious.

Fwiw to the people considering Bk for its countercyclical advantages, the COVID downturn only gave 4-6 months of insane work to the big debtor side firms. They have since had a nearly 2 year long slowdown, with associates at years 1-3 barely billing 1500/yr, if that. I'd be surprised if this oncoming downturn provides more than another 4-6 months of big Bk work. My instinct is that some of the marquee debtor practices (one in particular with nearly 200 lawyers) have seriously overhired and have bloated bankruptcy groups that they're going to trim in the next year or two. From what I've heard, creditor-side shops have had more consistent work, fwiw.

[Anonymous User]

If firms start doing layoffs, what does that mean for OCI? Should we expect firms to tighten up within schools (i.e. go shallower into the class), or to cut schools from their recruiting entirely, or both/neither? How did it work in 08/09?

FWIW, at my non-T14, a bunch of firms just didn’t show up that year. But we needed them more than they needed us, so they could get away with it, and it was a small market, so the classes were small to begin with. I doubt firms would be comfortable ditching T14 schools entirely so would just shrink classes.

[Anonymous User]

Let me just say that, in my specialty at least, as in-house counsel, I don't really care about the firm, I care about the lawyers. If the partner and the senior associates/counsel I work with and like move to a different firm, I'm lobbying to give my business to that firm, all else being equal (and ofcourse, all else may not be equal re: economics, existing arrangements, discounts, etc.). I can't speak for the big banks, or the other legal practices at my company, but it's a data point FWIW.

This tracks with everything I know about how this works (I am not in-house but have friends who are GCs and have talked to them about how they pick their attorneys). I think a lot of younger lawyers think that companies hire firms, but they don't really, they hire particular lawyers with whom they have a relationship/history/trust. And of course big companies hire lots of different lawyers at lots of different firms for lots of different things, so moving one piece of the business to another firm to follow the person with whom you have worked well for a long period of time happens. Now, it's way more likely that the big partner with decades of experience with the client has that relationship, not the rando 8th year associate or even the junior partner, but it can happen. While you can construct a hypothetical where the company wouldn't follow their person (big partner moves from top tier firm to tiny practice -- their big clients almost certainly aren't following them), the individual people/relationships are extremely important.

Agree with all of this. There are some institutional relationships that are deep, but even they've had cracks - Martelli and Calder have moved much more BX work to K&E than anyone predicted (and Calder was a new partner when he moved; Martelli had been one about six years).

Even people who leave as senior associates to make it at other places - say a move from a Weil/Cleary/Paul Weiss to a Paul Hastings/Reed Smith/McDermott, when they keep up relationships with their mentors - can be sent work where their old firm would have been too expensive. (E.g., the $10 million portfolio company add on rather than the $2 billion take private, a smaller credit agreement that's not for an acquisition.) Sophisticated users of legal services know that some things require Wachtell/DPW/Cravath, while others are just fine with a Dechert or Sidley or Vinson & Elkins. I'm not even sure the lawyers are that much better at all those firms. I'd take someone from Latham or V&E for an energy deal over Cravath or S&C, Weil/K&E for bankruptcy, and obviously there are other contenders for PE deals.

[Anonymous User]

The people who bat for you at Simpson and Latham are not just bestowing the golden goose upon whoever best complimented Gary Horowitz's toupee. Even where institutional business rules the roost--and by the way, it is all less "institutional" than it has ever been--you very rarely get to be a made man without mattering to someone at an important client. You seem to think when I say "book matters" I mean golfing and handing your business card out to every new dipshit VP at some unbearable Yasuda dinner. Of course it often just means "has the ability to keep megaclient happy enough not to walk." Managing a relationship does indeed often include billing a shitload of hours for them, but it's far from the only thing successful partners do. Hence why not everyone cracking 2500 in the right group with sparkling reviews and a nice smile makes it.

This is way, way off. At the "bad" firms (think like DLA, Polsenelli, all the other firms with two track partnerships), they make you a non-equity partner until you can "develop" a book of at least $1 million or so, following which you get promoted to equity. That doesn't mean servicing existing clients really well, that means going out, hustling and bringing in brand new clients to the firm. Basically, being a rainmaker (meaning that you now have your own portable business that can follow you if you bail on the firm). Making partner at DPW, CSM, PW or the like has nothing to do with developing portable business. Its all about being a great service associate and doing fantastic work for existing clients, so that they continue to give new work to the firm. No one is asking you to bring in brand new clients, and it would be kind of weird if you did. It is much the same as it has always been - being fantastic at your job, putting the firm before your personal life, and being an all star. The aspie people were never lasting long enough to make partner anyways.

I was thrown off enough by "this is way, way off" that it took me a second read to realize that we're actually saying the same thing.

I'm just not sure you understand what "book" means. When you, as a partner at a firm, get 10 emails a day from legal recruiters offering to place you as a partner at a "great firm with great comp" if you have a "book" of at least $2 million, that means that you are able to poach away $2 million/year of annual billings from your current firm. That is what legal recruiters, and the industry as a whole, mean by having a "book". Having great relationships with existing firm clients that "belong" to another relationship partner means that you have 0 "book". At top firms, no one expects you to have any "book" when promoting you to equity partner. This is radically different than the story at a rando v50 or whatever, where, for generalists, getting promoted to equity partner is often 100% about your current "book" and ability to grow it.

+1 This is accurate and people not getting it (or the distinct dynamics for equity in the V10 vs. V60 or wherever) is odd.

[Anonymous User]

Let me just say that, in my specialty at least, as in-house counsel, I don't really care about the firm, I care about the lawyers. If the partner and the senior associates/counsel I work with and like move to a different firm, I'm lobbying to give my business to that firm, all else being equal (and ofcourse, all else may not be equal re: economics, existing arrangements, discounts, etc.). I can't speak for the big banks, or the other legal practices at my company, but it's a data point FWIW.

This tracks with everything I know about how this works (I am not in-house but have friends who are GCs and have talked to them about how they pick their attorneys). I think a lot of younger lawyers think that companies hire firms, but they don't really, they hire particular lawyers with whom they have a relationship/history/trust. And of course big companies hire lots of different lawyers at lots of different firms for lots of different things, so moving one piece of the business to another firm to follow the person with whom you have worked well for a long period of time happens. Now, it's way more likely that the big partner with decades of experience with the client has that relationship, not the rando 8th year associate or even the junior partner, but it can happen. While you can construct a hypothetical where the company wouldn't follow their person (big partner moves from top tier firm to tiny practice -- their big clients almost certainly aren't following them), the individual people/relationships are extremely important.

Former in-house counsel at a large public company and I agree with the above. We never hired outside counsel based on the firm. Our GC and Deputy GC had close relationships with partners at a V20 and a V80, and those were the only firms we used. If any of those partners would have lateraled to a different firm, we would have followed the partner 100%.