DPW pushing people out Forum

[Anonymous User]

I heard anecdotally that DPW allegedly pushes out associates who don't make partner. Is this true? How true is this for S&C and Paul, Weiss? Thanks

[Anonymous User]

I heard anecdotally that DPW allegedly pushes out associates who don't make partner. Is this true? How true is this for S&C and Paul, Weiss? Thanks

Basically all firms do this. It's called up or out for a reason. The better question is what firms let you keep on as a super-senior associate or will put you in an of counsel role in perpetuity. Unsure what that list looks like.

[Joachim2017]

I heard anecdotally that DPW allegedly pushes out associates who don't make partner. Is this true? How true is this for S&C and Paul, Weiss? Thanks

Isn't this true of mostly all of the top Big Law firms? If you aren't seen as partner material, it's not as though you can stay associate forever. And some of these firms are also phasing out "of counsel" positions. So it's not a DPW-specific thing, and it's not new. At least as far as I know..

[Anonymous User]

This headline gave me a heartattack only to read the text lol

[Anonymous User]

Former PW associate here. While I can't say for sure, I remember it being mentioned that around 5th year is when associates start getting pushed out. Of course, not everyone gets pushed out at the same time.

[Anonymous User]

Is this really still a thing? I"m at a V25 and the attitude here is essentially you can stay forever (as long as you're competent and bill your 2,000). There's no perception of up or out here anymore. The struggle is real for people who are triyng to get equity but for those who are happy acting in a super senior associate / of counsel / non-equity partner role, the message is that role is always available. And really, why wouldn't it be? The whole "up or out" thing was a product of an era where people had a meaningful shot at equity and so it was perceived that, if you didn't get it, something wasn't right between you and the firm and therefore it was time to move on to greener pastures for both sides. Well that's not the case anymore--plenty of great attorneys are never going to get equity, but why would the firm be crazy enough to push them out when they're running cases and billing out at $1,000+ per hour without requiring millions in reciprocoal compensation. I feel like most firms in the V25 realized this within the past decade and have slowly and not so slowly pushed this old model away.

This is all different from, for example, the question of when a sub-par performer gets pushed out. Or what's the best move for someone who keeps getting passed over for equity despite really wanting it. We're talking about competent attorneys who are billing and doing good work and are going to be satisfied making "only" their 500/600/700/800k and for them I haven't preceived this "up or out" pressure that much irl.

[Anonymous User]

Over the past 5-10 years or so (post-great recession), "up or out" hasn't been a thing anymore. Most top firms have been understaffed for years and have been doing what they can to hang on to associates. A competent (or even not so competent) senior associate will easily keep their job. We'll see if that changes if/when another recession comes.

[Anonymous User]

Over the past 5-10 years or so (post-great recession), "up or out" hasn't been a thing anymore. Most top firms have been understaffed for years and have been doing what they can to hang on to associates. A competent (or even not so competent) senior associate will easily keep their job. We'll see if that changes if/when another recession comes.

Gotta love people offering anecdotal experience to prove too much.

Up or out is absolutely still a thing, just not as pervasive as it once was. On the one hand, you still have firms with zero of counsel or super senior roles (meaning if you don't make partner, you're out), and on the other you have firms that will let you stay indefinitely as a super senior as long as you hit your 2k hours with relatively good work product. And then there's others that fall in the middle, like my V25, which will let you stick around for ~15 years (way more than your typical 8-10 year runway) before they decide to either put you in an of counsel role or push you out. Whether you call that up (to of counsel if you're good, but not partner good) or out (after nearly half your career as a lawyer) is up to you. But please stop misleading people into thinking there's no such thing as up or out anymore.

I don't know where the "senior counsel" vs. "counsel" roles at DPW fit into this whole hierarchy, but from the previous posters who probably know much more than me or some of these other anons, it sounds like at least some people still get pushed out for something other than poor performance / low hours. I wouldn't be surprised if promotion to "counsel" was not automatic, and some get weeded out before that even if they are still profitable.

[Anonymous User]

"Up or out" is absolutely a thing, at, e.g., Kirkland NY. And Kirkland takes its cues, in large part, from the practices of the firms it perceives to be its competitors for talent/work. I very much doubt that up-or-out is *not* a thing at a majority of comparable top Big Law firms.

[Anonymous User]

"Up or out" is absolutely a thing, at, e.g., Kirkland NY. And Kirkland takes its cues, in large part, from the practices of the firms it perceives to be its competitors for talent/work. I very much doubt that up-or-out is *not* a thing at a majority of comparable top Big Law firms.

Are you actually at Kirkland NY? Because I’m at a different Kirkland office and it’s not the case here. Like.... that’s part of the point of NSPs, isn’t it? A whole bunch of highly profitable people in a weird zone where they’re billed out like partners but paid much less than equity. I’m not aware of any NSPs being pushed out after failing to make equity in my office - why would they be? Kirkland of all firms would never throw away a profitable cog in their machine unless there was a good reason.

In my office, as long as you bring in more than you cost, you can keep making the SPs $$$$$ until you die if you want.

[Anonymous User]

Over the past 5-10 years or so (post-great recession), "up or out" hasn't been a thing anymore. Most top firms have been understaffed for years and have been doing what they can to hang on to associates. A competent (or even not so competent) senior associate will easily keep their job. We'll see if that changes if/when another recession comes.

But please stop misleading people into thinking there's no such thing as up or out anymore.

Settle. I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone, just reflecting different experiences. OP, the general trend among law firms is that up or out is less of a feature than it was 5 years ago (when it was less of a feature than 5 years before that). It's one of the significant shifts in law firms since the Great Recession of 08/09. A major reason for this is "super senior" associates / non-equity partners are big profit centers for law firms and somewhere along the line management committees figured out it didn't make sense to kick these people out because of some arbitrary x-year deadline. Having said that, as you're seeing from different responses, there still is a range in terms of how much the up or culture has died or persisted across different firms.

[Anonymous User]

Over the past 5-10 years or so (post-great recession), "up or out" hasn't been a thing anymore. Most top firms have been understaffed for years and have been doing what they can to hang on to associates. A competent (or even not so competent) senior associate will easily keep their job. We'll see if that changes if/when another recession comes.

But please stop misleading people into thinking there's no such thing as up or out anymore.

Settle. I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone, just reflecting different experiences. OP, the general trend among law firms is that up or out is less of a feature than it was 5 years ago (when it was less of a feature than 5 years before that). It's one of the significant shifts in law firms since the Great Recession of 08/09. A major reason for this is "super senior" associates / non-equity partners are big profit centers for law firms and somewhere along the line management committees figured out it didn't make sense to kick these people out because of some arbitrary x-year deadline. Having said that, as you're seeing from different responses, there still is a range in terms of how much the up or culture has died or persisted across different firms.

Read your post again. The original bolded text absolutely tried to say that up or out is over period, so I naturally told you that's wrong. You said that competent associates will keep their jobs. That's also demonstrably false at some firms and totally therefore completely misleading for those at a firm that pushes people out. There's no "in my experience" or "YMMV" anywhere in your post. Don't try to pin responsibility for your imprecise language on me or rewrite your post to make yourself seem more reasonable. You weren't. Anyway, you don't defend the original points I questioned so I'm glad we can agree your original post was an overreach.

[MrTooToo]

Over the past 5-10 years or so (post-great recession), "up or out" hasn't been a thing anymore. Most top firms have been understaffed for years and have been doing what they can to hang on to associates. A competent (or even not so competent) senior associate will easily keep their job. We'll see if that changes if/when another recession comes.

But please stop misleading people into thinking there's no such thing as up or out anymore.

Settle. I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone, just reflecting different experiences. OP, the general trend among law firms is that up or out is less of a feature than it was 5 years ago (when it was less of a feature than 5 years before that). It's one of the significant shifts in law firms since the Great Recession of 08/09. A major reason for this is "super senior" associates / non-equity partners are big profit centers for law firms and somewhere along the line management committees figured out it didn't make sense to kick these people out because of some arbitrary x-year deadline. Having said that, as you're seeing from different responses, there still is a range in terms of how much the up or culture has died or persisted across different firms.

Read your post again. The original bolded text absolutely tried to say that up or out is over period, so I naturally told you that's wrong. You said that competent associates will keep their jobs. That's also demonstrably false at some firms and totally therefore completely misleading for those at a firm that pushes people out. There's no "in my experience" or "YMMV" anywhere in your post. Don't try to pin responsibility for your imprecise language on me or rewrite your post to make yourself seem more reasonable. You weren't. Anyway, you don't defend the original points I questioned so I'm glad we can agree your original post was an overreach.

Holy shit dude get a grip. Your post is like a warning message against people joining the profession.

[Anonymous User]

Holy shit dude get a grip. Your post is like a warning message against people joining the profession.

Agreed. My response is exactly what most opposing counsel do when you say something incorrect. They tell you why you're wrong. If you don't like making precise arguments or being told when you've overgeneralized, then you probably shouldn't join the profession. I don't see why that's controversial.

But there is a problem here. I get that this is a forum, but it's filled with people who overreach and give off the cuff advice that unassuming 0Ls or law students might actually listen to. You may feel big and smart to proclaim the death of up or out, but I'm not going to apologize because my tone in proving that to be false made you feel bad or whatever. What was I supposed to say? "Oh thanks for the info, totally right except sometimes I feel like up or out can be a thing and I assume that's what you meant. Great post!" Nope.

Anyway, if you actually cared about getting a grip we'd all see that we agree - up or out is firm-dependent and is sometimes a thing, but sometimes not, and sometimes something in between. If you want to keep complaining about the tone of my posts be my guest, but then you're derailing with irrelevant arguments about arguments even more than I am.

[Anonymous User]

Holy shit dude get a grip. Your post is like a warning message against people joining the profession.

Agreed. My response is exactly what most opposing counsel do when you say something incorrect. They tell you why you're wrong. If you don't like making precise arguments or being told when you've overgeneralized, then you probably shouldn't join the profession. I don't see why that's controversial.

But there is a problem here. I get that this is a forum, but it's filled with people who overreach and give off the cuff advice that unassuming 0Ls or law students might actually listen to. You may feel big and smart to proclaim the death of up or out, but I'm not going to apologize because my tone in proving that to be false made you feel bad or whatever. What was I supposed to say? "Oh thanks for the info, totally right except sometimes I feel like up or out can be a thing and I assume that's what you meant. Great post!" Nope.

Anyway, if you actually cared about getting a grip we'd all see that we agree - up or out is firm-dependent and is sometimes a thing, but sometimes not, and sometimes something in between. If you want to keep complaining about the tone of my posts be my guest, but then you're derailing with irrelevant arguments about arguments even more than I am.

I'm the original anon you're responding to. At my firm, in the V10, you are wrong, based on my more than decade of experience. We do not follow an up or out model anymore and haven't since ITE, for the reasons everyone (except you, in your obstinance) is highlighting--super seniors run cases and make the firm a boatload of money without requiring $million comp. Again, your experience, at your firm, wherever it is in the Vault, may be different. You are being unnecessarily argumentative here.

[Moneytrees]

Holy shit dude get a grip. Your post is like a warning message against people joining the profession.

Agreed. My response is exactly what most opposing counsel do when you say something incorrect. They tell you why you're wrong. If you don't like making precise arguments or being told when you've overgeneralized, then you probably shouldn't join the profession. I don't see why that's controversial.

But there is a problem here. I get that this is a forum, but it's filled with people who overreach and give off the cuff advice that unassuming 0Ls or law students might actually listen to. You may feel big and smart to proclaim the death of up or out, but I'm not going to apologize because my tone in proving that to be false made you feel bad or whatever. What was I supposed to say? "Oh thanks for the info, totally right except sometimes I feel like up or out can be a thing and I assume that's what you meant. Great post!" Nope.

Anyway, if you actually cared about getting a grip we'd all see that we agree - up or out is firm-dependent and is sometimes a thing, but sometimes not, and sometimes something in between. If you want to keep complaining about the tone of my posts be my guest, but then you're derailing with irrelevant arguments about arguments even more than I am.

I'm the original anon you're responding to. At my firm, in the V10, you are wrong, based on my more than decade of experience. We do not follow an up or out model anymore and haven't since ITE, for the reasons everyone (except you, in your obstinance) is highlighting--super seniors run cases and make the firm a boatload of money without requiring $million comp. Again, your experience, at your firm, wherever it is in the Vault, may be different. You are being unnecessarily argumentative here.

At my V40, I don't get the sense that the up or out model is really thing anymore. As long as you are competent and a hard worker, you aren't going to get pushed out for simply not being partner material. We have many super-senior associates and counsels in our group.

[Anonymous User]

Holy shit dude get a grip. Your post is like a warning message against people joining the profession.

Agreed. My response is exactly what most opposing counsel do when you say something incorrect. They tell you why you're wrong. If you don't like making precise arguments or being told when you've overgeneralized, then you probably shouldn't join the profession. I don't see why that's controversial.

But there is a problem here. I get that this is a forum, but it's filled with people who overreach and give off the cuff advice that unassuming 0Ls or law students might actually listen to. You may feel big and smart to proclaim the death of up or out, but I'm not going to apologize because my tone in proving that to be false made you feel bad or whatever. What was I supposed to say? "Oh thanks for the info, totally right except sometimes I feel like up or out can be a thing and I assume that's what you meant. Great post!" Nope.

Anyway, if you actually cared about getting a grip we'd all see that we agree - up or out is firm-dependent and is sometimes a thing, but sometimes not, and sometimes something in between. If you want to keep complaining about the tone of my posts be my guest, but then you're derailing with irrelevant arguments about arguments even more than I am.

I'm the original anon you're responding to. At my firm, in the V10, you are wrong, based on my more than decade of experience. We do not follow an up or out model anymore and haven't since ITE, for the reasons everyone (except you, in your obstinance) is highlighting--super seniors run cases and make the firm a boatload of money without requiring $million comp. Again, your experience, at your firm, wherever it is in the Vault, may be different. You are being unnecessarily argumentative here.

Dude do you not understand how to scope an argument? Let me summarize:

You: blanket statement that up or out is dead.
Me: not true. At some places it still lives, at some places it's gone. Some places are in the middle.
You: you're wrong it's dead at my firm.

I'm honestly trying to understand what in my post is wrong, as you suggest. Did I not recognize that some places have completely abolished up or out? Can you give me a quote? If you can't, then who is really being "unnecessarily argumentative here"?

I don't know what your end game is here. We clearly agree on pretty much everything substantive. I take it you want to feel like you won something, either by showing that I'm wrong (which you haven't) or that I overreacted (sure, maybe I did). But that's not going to remove the sting from overgeneralizing in your original post, and you're only digging yourself deeper by fighting a straw man.

[Anonymous User]

Holy shit dude get a grip. Your post is like a warning message against people joining the profession.

Agreed. My response is exactly what most opposing counsel do when you say something incorrect. They tell you why you're wrong. If you don't like making precise arguments or being told when you've overgeneralized, then you probably shouldn't join the profession. I don't see why that's controversial.

But there is a problem here. I get that this is a forum, but it's filled with people who overreach and give off the cuff advice that unassuming 0Ls or law students might actually listen to. You may feel big and smart to proclaim the death of up or out, but I'm not going to apologize because my tone in proving that to be false made you feel bad or whatever. What was I supposed to say? "Oh thanks for the info, totally right except sometimes I feel like up or out can be a thing and I assume that's what you meant. Great post!" Nope.

Anyway, if you actually cared about getting a grip we'd all see that we agree - up or out is firm-dependent and is sometimes a thing, but sometimes not, and sometimes something in between. If you want to keep complaining about the tone of my posts be my guest, but then you're derailing with irrelevant arguments about arguments even more than I am.

I'm the original anon you're responding to. At my firm, in the V10, you are wrong, based on my more than decade of experience. We do not follow an up or out model anymore and haven't since ITE, for the reasons everyone (except you, in your obstinance) is highlighting--super seniors run cases and make the firm a boatload of money without requiring $million comp. Again, your experience, at your firm, wherever it is in the Vault, may be different. You are being unnecessarily argumentative here.

Dude do you not understand how to scope an argument? Let me summarize:

You: blanket statement that up or out is dead.
Me: not true. At some places it still lives, at some places it's gone. Some places are in the middle.
You: you're wrong it's dead at my firm.

I'm honestly trying to understand what in my post is wrong, as you suggest. Did I not recognize that some places have completely abolished up or out? Can you give me a quote? If you can't, then who is really being "unnecessarily argumentative here"?

I don't know what your end game is here. We clearly agree on pretty much everything substantive. I take it you want to feel like you won something, either by showing that I'm wrong (which you haven't) or that I overreacted (sure, maybe I did). But that's not going to remove the sting from overgeneralizing in your original post, and you're only digging yourself deeper by fighting a straw man.

My end game is interacting with you as little as possible going forward given how you're behaving in this thread. I am not trying to argue here and I certainly don't want to do some point by point debate. I will start my endgame ... now.

[Anonymous User]

My end game is interacting with you as little as possible going forward given how you're behaving in this thread. I am not trying to argue here and I certainly don't want to do some point by point debate. I will start my endgame ... now.

*knows they are going to lose on point by point debate*
*I don't want to do some point by point debate*

How am I supposed to "behave" when you post demonstrably false statements, somehow accuse me of being wrong without backing it up, and in general refuse to engage with your original post or well-reasoned counterpoints? I'm all ears.

I normally try not to accuse people of being "wrong" without being able to back it up (which I did, you didn't), but perhaps you're more comfortable with that type of behavior than I am. Two words of advice: (1) when you say something that's wrong just own up to it, it will be far less stressful for all and (2) don't treat your practice like this, or you'll be precisely the type of person who moves out, rather than up.

[Anonymous User]

"Up or out" is absolutely a thing, at, e.g., Kirkland NY. And Kirkland takes its cues, in large part, from the practices of the firms it perceives to be its competitors for talent/work. I very much doubt that up-or-out is *not* a thing at a majority of comparable top Big Law firms.

Are you actually at Kirkland NY? Because I’m at a different Kirkland office and it’s not the case here. Like.... that’s part of the point of NSPs, isn’t it? A whole bunch of highly profitable people in a weird zone where they’re billed out like partners but paid much less than equity. I’m not aware of any NSPs being pushed out after failing to make equity in my office - why would they be? Kirkland of all firms would never throw away a profitable cog in their machine unless there was a good reason.

In my office, as long as you bring in more than you cost, you can keep making the SPs $$$$$ until you die if you want.

Former Kirkland associate - it is absolutely an up or out firm. You have 3 inflection points: Year 3, Year 6, NSP (year 7-9). At each of those inflection points, about a third of the class drops, except for NSPs where far fewer make it to shares. I watched this model at work for years, and from my personal experience seeing people come and go, the math checked out completely. There are a few "super senior" NSPs, but the ones that I knew of only got basically one more extra shot at shares (so 1-2 years) and then were pushed out.

I have a lot of positive things to say about KE and am definitely not as bitter as some former alums. For instance, pretty much everyone that got pushed out went on to succeed at another biglaw firm. NSPs that got pushed out pretty much all made shares elsewhere or went and made 500k all-in comp in house. But, let's be clear that KE is absolutely one of THE up or out firms.

[Anonymous User]

"Up or out" is absolutely a thing, at, e.g., Kirkland NY. And Kirkland takes its cues, in large part, from the practices of the firms it perceives to be its competitors for talent/work. I very much doubt that up-or-out is *not* a thing at a majority of comparable top Big Law firms.

Are you actually at Kirkland NY? Because I’m at a different Kirkland office and it’s not the case here. Like.... that’s part of the point of NSPs, isn’t it? A whole bunch of highly profitable people in a weird zone where they’re billed out like partners but paid much less than equity. I’m not aware of any NSPs being pushed out after failing to make equity in my office - why would they be? Kirkland of all firms would never throw away a profitable cog in their machine unless there was a good reason.

In my office, as long as you bring in more than you cost, you can keep making the SPs $$$$$ until you die if you want.

Former Kirkland associate - it is absolutely an up or out firm. You have 3 inflection points: Year 3, Year 6, NSP (year 7-9). At each of those inflection points, about a third of the class drops, except for NSPs where far fewer make it to shares. I watched this model at work for years, and from my personal experience seeing people come and go, the math checked out completely. There are a few "super senior" NSPs, but the ones that I knew of only got basically one more extra shot at shares (so 1-2 years) and then were pushed out.

I have a lot of positive things to say about KE and am definitely not as bitter as some former alums. For instance, pretty much everyone that got pushed out went on to succeed at another biglaw firm. NSPs that got pushed out pretty much all made shares elsewhere or went and made 500k all-in comp in house. But, let's be clear that KE is absolutely one of THE up or out firms.

I'm a current Kirkland NSP. What are you talking about? What office, what group? Not my experience at all. We have tons of non-share partners here who have been here 10, 15, 20 years. We even have a "permanent non-share partner" ranking that was created 5 or 6 years ago to formally recognize that we have a ton of good attorneys who aren't going to make shares but who we nevertheless very much want to keep around as long as they're happy and who are valued. I'm getting the vibe that maybe some of the transactional groups (in NY) may still be much more old school in their approach -- I'm not in NY and I'm lit., so maybe that's a difference.

[Billywonderful]

(Reconceiving the Tournament of Lawyers: Tracking, Seeding, and Information Control in the Internal Labor Markets of Elite Law Firms, 84 VA. L. REV. 1581 (1998)

That's what you want to read about partnership track vs. the other thing we don't want to discuss

Some say it's fine to be at BigLaw and not be on the partnership track. Not true.

[Anonymous User]

(Reconceiving the Tournament of Lawyers: Tracking, Seeding, and Information Control in the Internal Labor Markets of Elite Law Firms, 84 VA. L. REV. 1581 (1998)

That's what you want to read about partnership track vs. the other thing we don't want to discuss

Some say it's fine to be at BigLaw and not be on the partnership track. Not true.

Citing to an article from 1998 for your claim about the current state of biglaw partnership options is pretty telling (in a negative way). The model has changed dramatically in the intervening 25 years.

[Anonymous User]

(Reconceiving the Tournament of Lawyers: Tracking, Seeding, and Information Control in the Internal Labor Markets of Elite Law Firms, 84 VA. L. REV. 1581 (1998)

That's what you want to read about partnership track vs. the other thing we don't want to discuss

Some say it's fine to be at BigLaw and not be on the partnership track. Not true.

This is from nearly 25 years ago. You have to at least give these people the point that 2008/09 changed things for many law firms.

[Anonymous User]

"Up or out" is absolutely a thing, at, e.g., Kirkland NY. And Kirkland takes its cues, in large part, from the practices of the firms it perceives to be its competitors for talent/work. I very much doubt that up-or-out is *not* a thing at a majority of comparable top Big Law firms.

Are you actually at Kirkland NY? Because I’m at a different Kirkland office and it’s not the case here. Like.... that’s part of the point of NSPs, isn’t it? A whole bunch of highly profitable people in a weird zone where they’re billed out like partners but paid much less than equity. I’m not aware of any NSPs being pushed out after failing to make equity in my office - why would they be? Kirkland of all firms would never throw away a profitable cog in their machine unless there was a good reason.

In my office, as long as you bring in more than you cost, you can keep making the SPs $$$$$ until you die if you want.

Former Kirkland associate - it is absolutely an up or out firm. You have 3 inflection points: Year 3, Year 6, NSP (year 7-9). At each of those inflection points, about a third of the class drops, except for NSPs where far fewer make it to shares. I watched this model at work for years, and from my personal experience seeing people come and go, the math checked out completely. There are a few "super senior" NSPs, but the ones that I knew of only got basically one more extra shot at shares (so 1-2 years) and then were pushed out.

I have a lot of positive things to say about KE and am definitely not as bitter as some former alums. For instance, pretty much everyone that got pushed out went on to succeed at another biglaw firm. NSPs that got pushed out pretty much all made shares elsewhere or went and made 500k all-in comp in house. But, let's be clear that KE is absolutely one of THE up or out firms.

I'm a current Kirkland NSP. What are you talking about? What office, what group? Not my experience at all. We have tons of non-share partners here who have been here 10, 15, 20 years. We even have a "permanent non-share partner" ranking that was created 5 or 6 years ago to formally recognize that we have a ton of good attorneys who aren't going to make shares but who we nevertheless very much want to keep around as long as they're happy and who are valued. I'm getting the vibe that maybe some of the transactional groups (in NY) may still be much more old school in their approach -- I'm not in NY and I'm lit., so maybe that's a difference.

Just recently left one of the non-NY K&E offices, and can confirm the above as well. We have NSPs that are content with their lives and TC and the firm is more than happy to make partner-level billable $ from them in perpetuity. Up-or-out is probably a nice excuse to let go of the less-than-stellar NSPs.