Law Firm Layoffs Forum

[SGTslaughter]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

[Anonymous User]

[/quote]
Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.
[/quote]

Have a bad day? You come across like a total jerk.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

[Buglaw]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

Yeah, not sure what this guy is talking about. Some of the best associates I e worked with went in-house. Burning out at a firm doesn’t mean you aren’t a great lawyer. Working to 2:00 A.M. on a regular basis is not a sign of legal accumen. Also, if these places don’t care about the quality of their lawyers, why do they spend sooo much money trying to hire good ones?

Finally, the role of in-house lawyers is not to increase the bottom line. It’s to decrease the risk while keeping the profits relatively flat. Good lawyers do that.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

Yeah, not sure what this guy is talking about. Some of the best associates I e worked with went in-house. Burning out at a firm doesn’t mean you aren’t a great lawyer. Working to 2:00 A.M. on a regular basis is not a sign of legal accumen. Also, if these places don’t care about the quality of their lawyers, why do they spend sooo much money trying to hire good ones?

Finally, the role of in-house lawyers is not to increase the bottom line. It’s to decrease the risk while keeping the profits relatively flat. Good lawyers do that.

Lol. "sooo much money"? Are you kidding me? Cravath partners will make $4 million dollars a year. Good in house counsel at a PE shop make what, $650k? It is a massive, massive pay cut from what a successful lawyer can make at a firm, and it isn't fundamentally all that good of a job. Starting comp is in the $400-500k range, and doesn't go up all that fast. Many top firms place the people they rejected for partnership in house. This isn't a success story.

In-house counsel at PE firms are just not very important, and all the heavy lifting will anyways be done by outside counsel. I think Ares is totally right to cut costs and outsource this function to a better and cheaper option. Hopefully more firms to follow.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

Yeah, not sure what this guy is talking about. Some of the best associates I e worked with went in-house. Burning out at a firm doesn’t mean you aren’t a great lawyer. Working to 2:00 A.M. on a regular basis is not a sign of legal accumen. Also, if these places don’t care about the quality of their lawyers, why do they spend sooo much money trying to hire good ones?

Finally, the role of in-house lawyers is not to increase the bottom line. It’s to decrease the risk while keeping the profits relatively flat. Good lawyers do that.

Lol. "sooo much money"? Are you kidding me? Cravath partners will make $4 million dollars a year. Good in house counsel at a PE shop make what, $650k? It is a massive, massive pay cut from what a successful lawyer can make at a firm, and it isn't fundamentally all that good of a job. Starting comp is in the $400-500k range, and doesn't go up all that fast. Many top firms place the people they rejected for partnership in house. This isn't a success story.

In-house counsel at PE firms are just not very important, and all the heavy lifting will anyways be done by outside counsel. I think Ares is totally right to cut costs and outsource this function to a better and cheaper option. Hopefully more firms to follow.

Biglaw partners making more money (from lots of different clients) doesn’t mean that $400-650k for in-house counsel isn’t a lot of money to spend.

It’s also dumb to assume that because PE in house counsel pass on a tiny chance at partner pay for what is still an objectively high-paying job they have somehow failed or are less successful lawyers. Different lawyers are looking for different kinds of jobs.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

Yeah, not sure what this guy is talking about. Some of the best associates I e worked with went in-house. Burning out at a firm doesn’t mean you aren’t a great lawyer. Working to 2:00 A.M. on a regular basis is not a sign of legal accumen. Also, if these places don’t care about the quality of their lawyers, why do they spend sooo much money trying to hire good ones?

Finally, the role of in-house lawyers is not to increase the bottom line. It’s to decrease the risk while keeping the profits relatively flat. Good lawyers do that.

Lol. "sooo much money"? Are you kidding me? Cravath partners will make $4 million dollars a year. Good in house counsel at a PE shop make what, $650k? It is a massive, massive pay cut from what a successful lawyer can make at a firm, and it isn't fundamentally all that good of a job. Starting comp is in the $400-500k range, and doesn't go up all that fast. Many top firms place the people they rejected for partnership in house. This isn't a success story.

In-house counsel at PE firms are just not very important, and all the heavy lifting will anyways be done by outside counsel. I think Ares is totally right to cut costs and outsource this function to a better and cheaper option. Hopefully more firms to follow.

This logic is suspect. It's hard to imagine any financial services firm will outsource "all the heavy lifting" to outside counsel - wouldn't that be insanely expensive?

Also, I'm at an asset manager (not a PE fund) - only the arcane or bespoke questions go to outside counsel. Most of the deal work stays in house. The value of good in-house counsel is 1) issue spotting (so you can pitch any questions to outside counsel) and 2) good project management (which is arguably more important). At the end of the day, your job is not to "add to the bottom line", and it's arguably not even to "reduce risk" - it's to manage internal relationships and processes. You keep the lights on and ensure that the front office people are happy and getting what they need. To do that, you need to be a sufficiently good lawyer (but you probably don't get points for being an excellent one) and a better corporate manager and insider. It's certainly a different skillset relative to outside counsel, but it's not a less valuable or important one.

Generally, you can't outsource the entirety of these functions to a vendor. The vendors don't know anything about how your organization works, so they're just working on transactional docs in a vacuum. What you can do is, say, reduce the number of in-house counsel and have the remaining ones intermediate by supervising the vendors. Alternatively, you can have an outside vendor take over an entire function, but usually what happens is they will have their people be "in-sourced" into your organization on a permanent or long-term placement. Keep in mind the latter, while likely cheaper than having a native in-house team, is not going to be significantly cheaper, because while the vendor is paying a discount on salaries to its "consultants", it has to make money charging a spread/premium.

On the one hand, I don't know enough about the Ares situation to pass judgment without there being more context. It's possible they axed a team serving a singular function that could be outsourced to a cheaper vendor, but they have other in-house lawyers who are supervising.

On the other hand, in a vacuum, this decision looks stupid and I've seen this playbook before. Usually, it's some ambitious person rising up the ranks of senior management who is looking for cost-saving measures they can take credit for, so they come up with a brilliant idea to axe an entire legal team. Maybe they save a few 100k per year up front, but the quality of work suffers, and anything moderately complex now has to go to outside counsel. In the long run, they might not save any money (because of the increased outside counsel spend), but that person has already gotten their promotion and/or has left the firm for some other, better gig. It's all just corporate engineering MBA chicanery.

The "outsourcing" model for legal talent has been happening for more than 20 years. It's not a new idea. Sure, maybe at one point, in-house legal teams were bloated and too big, but at this point, most organizations have the appropriately sized in-house legal team, and that team serves vital functions that make the organization run smoothly, and those functions cannot be outsourced. We are probably at equilibrium between in-house vs. outsourced, and it's stupid to assume the latter will or should grow from here.

[Anonymous User]

I know this shouldn’t be filed under law firm layoffs, but can anyone confirm this tweet (that Ares laid off a big chunk of its in-house legal team)? https://twitter.com/callprotection/stat ... eLEBKFmkYg

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

Yeah, not sure what this guy is talking about. Some of the best associates I e worked with went in-house. Burning out at a firm doesn’t mean you aren’t a great lawyer. Working to 2:00 A.M. on a regular basis is not a sign of legal accumen. Also, if these places don’t care about the quality of their lawyers, why do they spend sooo much money trying to hire good ones?

Finally, the role of in-house lawyers is not to increase the bottom line. It’s to decrease the risk while keeping the profits relatively flat. Good lawyers do that.

Lol. "sooo much money"? Are you kidding me? Cravath partners will make $4 million dollars a year. Good in house counsel at a PE shop make what, $650k? It is a massive, massive pay cut from what a successful lawyer can make at a firm, and it isn't fundamentally all that good of a job. Starting comp is in the $400-500k range, and doesn't go up all that fast. Many top firms place the people they rejected for partnership in house. This isn't a success story.

In-house counsel at PE firms are just not very important, and all the heavy lifting will anyways be done by outside counsel. I think Ares is totally right to cut costs and outsource this function to a better and cheaper option. Hopefully more firms to follow.

Is this a second-year talking out of their ass lol.

[Buglaw]

Making equity partner is largely a function of business development. You also have to work all the time. Most people who move in-house do so voluntarily and not because they “weren’t good enough” or whatever.


It also is soooo much money. Most in-house jobs pay like 150k average. They are starting at 3x that. If they don’t value their legal counsel at all, why are they paying 3x more than they have to find someone? No one’s saying they are the most important people on their teams, but clearly they want good quality people otherwise, why pay so much?

[ExpOriental]

Wow. Never, ever, ever go to a PE shop on the legal side. These people are psychopaths who have no qualms firing people to squeeze extra value out of a dime, and they also don't value lawyers at all on top of that.

This is pretty shocking to me. Not sure if things are real tough over at Ares these days? Hard to imagine this switch working out well for them. They are not going to get the same caliber of lawyers they currently enjoy...

Lol. One of the biggest jokes is that the "caliber of lawyers" in a PE firm makes two bits of difference to its bottom lines. If you want competent people you use outside counsel. The people you are getting in-house are the ones who couldn't cut it / burned out in a firm. There is a reason so many PE firms do perfectly well with cut rate 3rd tier people in-house.

Completely disagree. A few of the smartest tax lawyers I know transitioned to in-house roles at large investment funds around the 4 or 5 year mark.

Yeah, not sure what this guy is talking about. Some of the best associates I e worked with went in-house. Burning out at a firm doesn’t mean you aren’t a great lawyer. Working to 2:00 A.M. on a regular basis is not a sign of legal accumen. Also, if these places don’t care about the quality of their lawyers, why do they spend sooo much money trying to hire good ones?

Finally, the role of in-house lawyers is not to increase the bottom line. It’s to decrease the risk while keeping the profits relatively flat. Good lawyers do that.

Lol. "sooo much money"? Are you kidding me? Cravath partners will make $4 million dollars a year. Good in house counsel at a PE shop make what, $650k? It is a massive, massive pay cut from what a successful lawyer can make at a firm, and it isn't fundamentally all that good of a job. Starting comp is in the $400-500k range, and doesn't go up all that fast. Many top firms place the people they rejected for partnership in house. This isn't a success story.

In-house counsel at PE firms are just not very important, and all the heavy lifting will anyways be done by outside counsel. I think Ares is totally right to cut costs and outsource this function to a better and cheaper option. Hopefully more firms to follow.

Is this a second-year talking out of their ass lol.

More like a 2L, knowing this board

[Anonymous User]

Making equity partner is largely a function of business development. You also have to work all the time. Most people who move in-house do so voluntarily and not because they “weren’t good enough” or whatever.


It also is soooo much money. Most in-house jobs pay like 150k average. They are starting at 3x that. If they don’t value their legal counsel at all, why are they paying 3x more than they have to find someone? No one’s saying they are the most important people on their teams, but clearly they want good quality people otherwise, why pay so much?

Ya, this is false and a joke. No one at DPW, CSW or PW cares about your "business development" as an 8th year associate billing 2800 hours a year to satisfy existing clients who have been with the firm for 100 years.

In-house jobs in NYC in financial services don't pay $150k. To get someone to go to Blackstone ("SweatShopStone"), for example, $450k is really not enough money given how hard you will work and how awful the job will be. No one is leaving DPW as an 8th year to some sweatshop $450k in house job unless they have already gotten the hint that partnership isn't happening.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Making equity partner is largely a function of business development. You also have to work all the time. Most people who move in-house do so voluntarily and not because they “weren’t good enough” or whatever.


It also is soooo much money. Most in-house jobs pay like 150k average. They are starting at 3x that. If they don’t value their legal counsel at all, why are they paying 3x more than they have to find someone? No one’s saying they are the most important people on their teams, but clearly they want good quality people otherwise, why pay so much?

Ya, this is false and a joke. No one at DPW, CSW or PW cares about your "business development" as an 8th year associate billing 2800 hours a year to satisfy existing clients who have been with the firm for 100 years.

In-house jobs in NYC in financial services don't pay $150k. To get someone to go to Blackstone ("SweatShopStone"), for example, $450k is really not enough money given how hard you will work and how awful the job will be. No one is leaving DPW as an 8th year to some sweatshop $450k in house job unless they have already gotten the hint that partnership isn't happening.

Right. The idea that biglaw partners are selected on the same criteria a car dealership would use is just another false TLS meme. All else equal, sure it's good to have people skills and relationship skills. But you could be the coolest guy on planet earth billing 1700 hours and won't become a v10 partner. They want folks who are all-in and ultra motivated. At my firm you could maybe stay on as Counsel with 1700.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It also is soooo much money. Most in-house jobs pay like 150k average. They are starting at 3x that. If they don’t value their legal counsel at all, why are they paying 3x more than they have to find someone? No one’s saying they are the most important people on their teams, but clearly they want good quality people otherwise, why pay so much?

Ya, this is false and a joke. No one at DPW, CSW or PW cares about your "business development" as an 8th year associate billing 2800 hours a year to satisfy existing clients who have been with the firm for 100 years.

In-house jobs in NYC in financial services don't pay $150k. To get someone to go to Blackstone ("SweatShopStone"), for example, $450k is really not enough money given how hard you will work and how awful the job will be. No one is leaving DPW as an 8th year to some sweatshop $450k in house job unless they have already gotten the hint that partnership isn't happening.

The percent of non-specialists making (equity) partner with no consideration of their book, or more importantly, the potential to develop one, purely because they're the point person for a large institutional client is like...5%? 10%? across the industry. On the whole, it's not common for it not to matter at all, even for people who are inheriting everything they service.

[Anonymous User]

It also is soooo much money. Most in-house jobs pay like 150k average. They are starting at 3x that. If they don’t value their legal counsel at all, why are they paying 3x more than they have to find someone? No one’s saying they are the most important people on their teams, but clearly they want good quality people otherwise, why pay so much?

Ya, this is false and a joke. No one at DPW, CSW or PW cares about your "business development" as an 8th year associate billing 2800 hours a year to satisfy existing clients who have been with the firm for 100 years.

In-house jobs in NYC in financial services don't pay $150k. To get someone to go to Blackstone ("SweatShopStone"), for example, $450k is really not enough money given how hard you will work and how awful the job will be. No one is leaving DPW as an 8th year to some sweatshop $450k in house job unless they have already gotten the hint that partnership isn't happening.

The percent of non-specialists making (equity) partner with no consideration of their book, or more importantly, the potential to develop one, purely because they're the point person for a large institutional client is like...5%? 10%? across the industry. On the whole, it's not common for it not to matter at all, even for people who are inheriting everything they service.

At the top firms (i.e. the ones PE firms want their in-house lawyers from, so they are familiar with the work), that percentage is close to 100%. Struggle to think of basically anyone making partner at, say, CSM, "with consideration for their book". Even a massive rainmaker like Scott Barshay made partner by like billing 3k hours per year over and over again with the top clients of the firm, not because people thought he was great at playing golf with the CEO of Acme motors.

[Anonymous User]

It also is soooo much money. Most in-house jobs pay like 150k average. They are starting at 3x that. If they don’t value their legal counsel at all, why are they paying 3x more than they have to find someone? No one’s saying they are the most important people on their teams, but clearly they want good quality people otherwise, why pay so much?

Ya, this is false and a joke. No one at DPW, CSW or PW cares about your "business development" as an 8th year associate billing 2800 hours a year to satisfy existing clients who have been with the firm for 100 years.

In-house jobs in NYC in financial services don't pay $150k. To get someone to go to Blackstone ("SweatShopStone"), for example, $450k is really not enough money given how hard you will work and how awful the job will be. No one is leaving DPW as an 8th year to some sweatshop $450k in house job unless they have already gotten the hint that partnership isn't happening.

The percent of non-specialists making (equity) partner with no consideration of their book, or more importantly, the potential to develop one, purely because they're the point person for a large institutional client is like...5%? 10%? across the industry. On the whole, it's not common for it not to matter at all, even for people who are inheriting everything they service.

Weird comment from you since you typically seem to be knowledgeable about the ins and outs. In the V25 there's very little consideration of "book" for purposes of promotion to equity. The book is there with the firm and constantly growing. It's much more about politics, your network within the firm, and whether frankly the partnership enjoys being around you and wants to bring you into the business. The biggest consideration of "book" is at most whether you have good, strong relationships with the firm's institutional clients. Book in the traditional sense matters much more sub-V50.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

At the top firms (i.e. the ones PE firms want their in-house lawyers from, so they are familiar with the work), that percentage is close to 100%. Struggle to think of basically anyone making partner at, say, CSM, "with consideration for their book". Even a massive rainmaker like Scott Barshay made partner by like billing 3k hours per year over and over again with the top clients of the firm, not because people thought he was great at playing golf with the CEO of Acme motors.

Barshay would be the absolute poster boy for management who wants to promote and hire off the basis of someone's book. Every halfway decent lawyer should be thankful he hasn't been able to completely Kirklandize the place.

And PW--even though lots of people are still promoted off of billing a shitload for the marquee clients--is the poster boy for a firm completely transforming its base of lawyers and clients to chase money.

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.

[Anonymous User]

At the top firms (i.e. the ones PE firms want their in-house lawyers from, so they are familiar with the work), that percentage is close to 100%. Struggle to think of basically anyone making partner at, say, CSM, "with consideration for their book". Even a massive rainmaker like Scott Barshay made partner by like billing 3k hours per year over and over again with the top clients of the firm, not because people thought he was great at playing golf with the CEO of Acme motors.

Barshay would be the absolute poster boy for management who wants to promote and hire off the basis of someone's book. Every halfway decent lawyer should be thankful he hasn't been able to completely Kirklandize the place.

And PW--even though lots of people are still promoted off of billing a shitload for the marquee clients--is the poster boy for a firm completely transforming its base of lawyers and clients to chase money.

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.

Completely agree, people act like institutional clients are chained at the hip to the firms they use when the reality is that there are dozens of other firms out there circling you like a shark, just waiting to take that client from you.

Billing 3000 hours alone isn’t enough to keep the client happy.

[Buglaw]

At the top firms (i.e. the ones PE firms want their in-house lawyers from, so they are familiar with the work), that percentage is close to 100%. Struggle to think of basically anyone making partner at, say, CSM, "with consideration for their book". Even a massive rainmaker like Scott Barshay made partner by like billing 3k hours per year over and over again with the top clients of the firm, not because people thought he was great at playing golf with the CEO of Acme motors.

Barshay would be the absolute poster boy for management who wants to promote and hire off the basis of someone's book. Every halfway decent lawyer should be thankful he hasn't been able to completely Kirklandize the place.

And PW--even though lots of people are still promoted off of billing a shitload for the marquee clients--is the poster boy for a firm completely transforming its base of lawyers and clients to chase money.

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.

Completely agree, people act like institutional clients are chained at the hip to the firms they use when the reality is that there are dozens of other firms out there circling you like a shark, just waiting to take that client from you.

Billing 3000 hours alone isn’t enough to keep the client happy.

Yeah, BD, doesn’t mean just having your own book… it’s developing relationships with the existing client so they continue to give you work or give you more work. New clients are great too, but the most important BD is generating work from existing clients. If you aren’t good at that you really aren’t going to make partner. A lot of really good lawyers are just super awkward and aren’t good at that and so they go in-house. Is this really a controversial opinion here?

Also, your point that financial services pay more than average for in-house lawyers is precisely the point that they value them a lot. If they didn’t, why wouldn’t they just pay less money and get worse candidates. The reasoning skills in this thread are not strong.

[Anonymous User]

At the top firms (i.e. the ones PE firms want their in-house lawyers from, so they are familiar with the work), that percentage is close to 100%. Struggle to think of basically anyone making partner at, say, CSM, "with consideration for their book". Even a massive rainmaker like Scott Barshay made partner by like billing 3k hours per year over and over again with the top clients of the firm, not because people thought he was great at playing golf with the CEO of Acme motors.

...

And PW--even though lots of people are still promoted off of billing a shitload for the marquee clients--is the poster boy for a firm completely transforming its base of lawyers and clients to chase money.

Can you say more about this? I recently left PW and on one hand I think I get what you're saying. On the other hand maybe I didn't stay long enough to understand what you're getting at. Anon for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous User]

At the top firms (i.e. the ones PE firms want their in-house lawyers from, so they are familiar with the work), that percentage is close to 100%. Struggle to think of basically anyone making partner at, say, CSM, "with consideration for their book". Even a massive rainmaker like Scott Barshay made partner by like billing 3k hours per year over and over again with the top clients of the firm, not because people thought he was great at playing golf with the CEO of Acme motors.

Barshay would be the absolute poster boy for management who wants to promote and hire off the basis of someone's book. Every halfway decent lawyer should be thankful he hasn't been able to completely Kirklandize the place.

And PW--even though lots of people are still promoted off of billing a shitload for the marquee clients--is the poster boy for a firm completely transforming its base of lawyers and clients to chase money.

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.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

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.

[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.

[Buglaw]

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.