DPW pushing people out Forum

[Anonymous User]

My thesis is that giving shitty work to people you don’t like so they inevitably leave is a variation on “up or out.” we probably all know juniors and mids who burned partners once too much and just started getting bad or tedious assignments they didn’t want to do, and then left soon after. That form of up or out is pretty common

[Anonymous User]

Started with DPW, ended with Kirkland. Sounds like Sophia Hudson's story of up then out (to KE).

[Anonymous User]

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore" and started the little tempest in a teapot. So far the most compelling counterarguments I've seen in this thread are:

1. Someone knew someone who got gently asked to leave some random firm as a 15TH YEAR ASSOCIATE. Presumably 7 years post-up for partnership. Yes, read that again.

2. K&E is particularly hard on the downside.

Now I give you K&E is a different animal, they lateral hire a lot (how many in this thread have gotten a K&E offer? Raise your hand) and then they give you 2-3 years to see if you work out. Most do ok, but for the bottom tier they are much more aggressive in cutting, I give you that. That is not representative of many other firms, in my humble opinion.

You need to understand what the model used to be like, where if you don't make partner at year 8 (or maybe they give you a year extension to get one more shot) you're given 6-12 months to skedaddle. And it's not like they would always be warm and fuzzy about it- you got some time on the website perhaps and then poof. This is VASTLY different than the environment today and I think that needs to be appreciated.

[Billywonderful]

I still urge you to read the article I referenced in June 30 post. The old saying "The more things change the more they stay the same" applies. Yes, the article is 24 years old but you just don't find many scholarly studies in this field so you have to settle for an old study. The alternative is just relying on anecdotes from posters who have very different versions of reality.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore" and started the little tempest in a teapot. So far the most compelling counterarguments I've seen in this thread are:

1. Someone knew someone who got gently asked to leave some random firm as a 15TH YEAR ASSOCIATE. Presumably 7 years post-up for partnership. Yes, read that again.

2. K&E is particularly hard on the downside.

Now I give you K&E is a different animal, they lateral hire a lot (how many in this thread have gotten a K&E offer? Raise your hand) and then they give you 2-3 years to see if you work out. Most do ok, but for the bottom tier they are much more aggressive in cutting, I give you that. That is not representative of many other firms, in my humble opinion.

You need to understand what the model used to be like, where if you don't make partner at year 8 (or maybe they give you a year extension to get one more shot) you're given 6-12 months to skedaddle. And it's not like they would always be warm and fuzzy about it- you got some time on the website perhaps and then poof. This is VASTLY different than the environment today and I think that needs to be appreciated.

Why do you keep fighting straw men and shifting your argument? I'm the one who pushed back on your original overbroad OP - what about my post made you think I didn't "appreciate" or "understand" that things are different? I literally put firms into three categories, 2 of which are far from the 8-year-up-or-out system you seem to think we're arguing persists everywhere. And what's your problem? Did you just wait till we reached another page before you tried to argue my counterpoint as if it was your own from the start so you could avoid a "point-by-point" debate you knew you'd lose?

You also fight a straw man on my 15 year example, too. First thing, maybe 10% of people at my V25 are allowed to stay that long without making partner or of counsel. The rest are absolutely pushed out before then (normally between 8-12 years). Second, even given that 15 years is not 8, tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't still call getting told to leave after 15 years instead of 8 "up or out."

In the end of the day, the OP was concerned about getting pushed out if they don't get elevated at DPW (whether to partner or some other long term role). They didn't say after 8 years. You don't (and can't) deny that people still get pushed out at some firms. Whether or not it happens less often or later is beside the point - it still happens and I'd call that "up or out." Remember, in the vast majority of other jobs in this world (which are not "up or out") literally everyone stays indefinitely if they perform reasonably well. That's 100% not true at my firm, and it sounds like it's not true at many others as well. Tell me why that's not still up-or-out.

Listen, I hate being a dick and going point by point like this, but when you start telling people they need to "appreciate" and "understand" things that they literally already said, refuse to engage in reasoned criticisms of your arguments, and waste our time misrepresenting what we actually agree on, be prepared to get called out. Either respond to my points or go home - everyone reading knows you're wrong, even if I'm being too harsh.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore" and started the little tempest in a teapot. So far the most compelling counterarguments I've seen in this thread are:

1. Someone knew someone who got gently asked to leave some random firm as a 15TH YEAR ASSOCIATE. Presumably 7 years post-up for partnership. Yes, read that again.

2. K&E is particularly hard on the downside.

Now I give you K&E is a different animal, they lateral hire a lot (how many in this thread have gotten a K&E offer? Raise your hand) and then they give you 2-3 years to see if you work out. Most do ok, but for the bottom tier they are much more aggressive in cutting, I give you that. That is not representative of many other firms, in my humble opinion.

You need to understand what the model used to be like, where if you don't make partner at year 8 (or maybe they give you a year extension to get one more shot) you're given 6-12 months to skedaddle. And it's not like they would always be warm and fuzzy about it- you got some time on the website perhaps and then poof. This is VASTLY different than the environment today and I think that needs to be appreciated.

Why do you keep fighting straw men and shifting your argument? I'm the one who pushed back on your original overbroad OP - what about my post made you think I didn't "appreciate" or "understand" that things are different? I literally put firms into three categories, 2 of which are far from the 8-year-up-or-out system you seem to think we're arguing persists everywhere. And what's your problem? Did you just wait till we reached another page before you tried to argue my counterpoint as if it was your own from the start so you could avoid a "point-by-point" debate you knew you'd lose?

You also fight a straw man on my 15 year example, too. First thing, maybe 10% of people at my V25 are allowed to stay that long without making partner or of counsel. The rest are absolutely pushed out before then (normally between 8-12 years). Second, even given that 15 years is not 8, tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't still call getting told to leave after 15 years instead of 8 "up or out."

In the end of the day, the OP was concerned about getting pushed out if they don't get elevated at DPW (whether to partner or some other long term role). They didn't say after 8 years. You don't (and can't) deny that people still get pushed out at some firms. Whether or not it happens less often or later is beside the point - it still happens and I'd call that "up or out." Remember, in the vast majority of other jobs in this world (which are not "up or out") literally everyone stays indefinitely if they perform reasonably well. That's 100% not true at my firm, and it sounds like it's not true at many others as well. Tell me why that's not still up-or-out.

Listen, I hate being a dick and going point by point like this, but when you start telling people they need to "appreciate" and "understand" things that they literally already said, refuse to engage in reasoned criticisms of your arguments, and waste our time misrepresenting what we actually agree on, be prepared to get called out. Either respond to my points or go home - everyone reading knows you're wrong, even if I'm being too harsh.

You seriously need to chill out. You're not even responding to the same anon. Take a breather.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore"

You seriously need to chill out. You're not even responding to the same anon. Take a breather.

Read.

Anyway, I really don't care if you want me to "chill." Social shaming doesn't work on forums. I'm not calling people names, trolling, or harassing someone, so I don't understand what the big problem is. I also don't understand why people on this forum repeatedly favor non-responsive posts over those that provide actual anecdotal experiences (hence anon), rely on logic rather a competition of who is more "chill," and respond directly to earlier posts rather than explicitly avoiding them. If you want me to shut up, just tell me why my post was wrong.

Alternatively, is it really that hard for the quoted anon to just say "you know what, I overstated it, and it looks like we mostly agree that, as you suggested, for some firms up-or-out has been modified/extended and for others it's completely gone as I originally suggested."

[Anonymous User]

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore"

You seriously need to chill out. You're not even responding to the same anon. Take a breather.

Read.

Anyway, I really don't care if you want me to "chill." Social shaming doesn't work on forums. I'm not calling people names, trolling, or harassing someone, so I don't understand what the big problem is. I also don't understand why people on this forum repeatedly favor non-responsive posts over those that provide actual anecdotal experiences (hence anon), rely on logic rather a competition of who is more "chill," and respond directly to earlier posts rather than explicitly avoiding them. If you want me to shut up, just tell me why my post was wrong.

Alternatively, is it really that hard for the quoted anon to just say "you know what, I overstated it, and it looks like we mostly agree that, as you suggested, for some firms up-or-out has been modified/extended and for others it's completely gone as I originally suggested."

You aren't listening. You are responding to different people and have the construct that you're carrying on some sort of extended argument when you're just ranting at different random anons. No one is trying to "shame" you; we're pointing out that you're acting wildly unhinged in, of all things, a discussion about partnership trajectories in law firms. Peace.

[Anonymous User]

You aren't listening. You are responding to different people and have the construct that you're carrying on some sort of extended argument when you're just ranting at different random anons. No one is trying to "shame" you; we're pointing out that you're acting wildly unhinged in, of all things, a discussion about partnership trajectories in law firms. Peace.

Do you not see the poster who continues to identify as the "up or out is dead" anon? Are those the "different random anons" that you're referring to? Tell me what I'm missing, but that's the one I'm focused on.

I'm the original anon you're responding to. At my firm...

My end game is interacting with you as little as possible going forward ...

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore" and started the little tempest in a teapot...

The only other people I've responded to are ones like you who are asking me to chill. If you don't like me acting "unhinged" with the "up or out is dead" anon that's your problem. And if you're so concerned with me responding to other people (not sure why that's an issue?) then why do you (and others) keep responding to me? What do you expect someone to do here...

You seriously need to chill out. You're not even responding to the same anon. Take a breather.

Settle. I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone...

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

You seriously need to chill out. You're not even responding to the same anon. Take a breather.

I don't understand what your beef is. Maybe you want me to stop spending so much time giving detailed responses to some random anon and responding to everyone else who tries to stop me. But I could ask you the same question - why do you (and others) care so much about proving to me that I'm acting "unhinged" or having me "chill"? Besides, when have you ever successfully got someone to "chill" by asking them to do so on a forum. If you continue to try to push me on this then aren't you doing exactly the same thing you're calling me out for?

[almostperfectt]

Imagine me thinking there would be an interesting discussion in this thread rather than random bickering about nothing and typical bickering about K&E

[Anonymous User]

Imagine me thinking there would be an interesting discussion in this thread rather than random bickering about nothing and typical bickering about K&E

You fucked up. You trusted us.

[Anonymous User]

Summarizing, it depends on the firm and group.

[lonerider]

Listen, I hate being a dick and going point by point like this

lol

[Lesion of Doom]

If we generally agree that up or out is less prevailing than it was in the past, are people convinced it’s entirely due to a firms-wide philosophy change?

In my LevFi group, for example, we have so many fucking midlevels quit that we carry what I think otherwise would be an excess number of seniors. So what happens in billing is that the seniors do senior and midlevel work and partners do less than usual in order to balance the invoices.

The result is that the senior works up and works down in the same deal. It has been good for their partnership prospects both at this firm and elsewhere, I think, because they begin to function in some instances as a relationship partner.

To the point, if we had a stable number of midlevels I think the firm might happily jettison some of the seniors. But it isn’t possible in such a high-attrition environment.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the Anon who said that "up or out isn't a thing anymore" and started the little tempest in a teapot. So far the most compelling counterarguments I've seen in this thread are:

1. Someone knew someone who got gently asked to leave some random firm as a 15TH YEAR ASSOCIATE. Presumably 7 years post-up for partnership. Yes, read that again.

2. K&E is particularly hard on the downside.

Now I give you K&E is a different animal, they lateral hire a lot (how many in this thread have gotten a K&E offer? Raise your hand) and then they give you 2-3 years to see if you work out. Most do ok, but for the bottom tier they are much more aggressive in cutting, I give you that. That is not representative of many other firms, in my humble opinion.

You need to understand what the model used to be like, where if you don't make partner at year 8 (or maybe they give you a year extension to get one more shot) you're given 6-12 months to skedaddle. And it's not like they would always be warm and fuzzy about it- you got some time on the website perhaps and then poof. This is VASTLY different than the environment today and I think that needs to be appreciated.

Why do you keep fighting straw men and shifting your argument? I'm the one who pushed back on your original overbroad OP - what about my post made you think I didn't "appreciate" or "understand" that things are different? I literally put firms into three categories, 2 of which are far from the 8-year-up-or-out system you seem to think we're arguing persists everywhere. And what's your problem? Did you just wait till we reached another page before you tried to argue my counterpoint as if it was your own from the start so you could avoid a "point-by-point" debate you knew you'd lose?

You also fight a straw man on my 15 year example, too. First thing, maybe 10% of people at my V25 are allowed to stay that long without making partner or of counsel. The rest are absolutely pushed out before then (normally between 8-12 years). Second, even given that 15 years is not 8, tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't still call getting told to leave after 15 years instead of 8 "up or out."

In the end of the day, the OP was concerned about getting pushed out if they don't get elevated at DPW (whether to partner or some other long term role). They didn't say after 8 years. You don't (and can't) deny that people still get pushed out at some firms. Whether or not it happens less often or later is beside the point - it still happens and I'd call that "up or out." Remember, in the vast majority of other jobs in this world (which are not "up or out") literally everyone stays indefinitely if they perform reasonably well. That's 100% not true at my firm, and it sounds like it's not true at many others as well. Tell me why that's not still up-or-out.

Listen, I hate being a dick and going point by point like this, but when you start telling people they need to "appreciate" and "understand" things that they literally already said, refuse to engage in reasoned criticisms of your arguments, and waste our time misrepresenting what we actually agree on, be prepared to get called out. Either respond to my points or go home - everyone reading knows you're wrong, even if I'm being too harsh.

"Original overbroad OP" here. I bet this guy sure is a hit at parties!

As my good friend has appealed to the People, in a soaring democratic fashion (as "everyone reading knows [I'm] wrong"), I ask anyone reading this with more than a year or two of law firm experience whether they can think of a single person- at their firm, from law school or otherwise- who has been asked to leave any Vault 50 (or even Amlaw 200) firm in the past 5 years. Other than a "for cause" type termination such as harassment, etc.

As mentioned earlier, it remains to be seen whether this remains the status quo if a recession occurs. I'm not sure, though even with the recent market pullback I think most firms still are understaffed. Lateral market remains very, very tight if you're looking for a decent midlevel or senior and strong laterals continue to have multiple offers.

[Anonymous User]

Remember, in the vast majority of other jobs in this world (which are not "up or out") literally everyone stays indefinitely if they perform reasonably well.

And also I will just leave this statement here without comment and let everyone decide for themselves if it bears any resemblance to any sort of reality.

[Tasteful Orlando]

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.

Holy shit I hope both of you die

[Anonymous User]

If we generally agree that up or out is less prevailing than it was in the past, are people convinced it’s entirely due to a firms-wide philosophy change?

In my LevFi group, for example, we have so many fucking midlevels quit that we carry what I think otherwise would be an excess number of seniors. So what happens in billing is that the seniors do senior and midlevel work and partners do less than usual in order to balance the invoices.

The result is that the senior works up and works down in the same deal. It has been good for their partnership prospects both at this firm and elsewhere, I think, because they begin to function in some instances as a relationship partner.

To the point, if we had a stable number of midlevels I think the firm might happily jettison some of the seniors. But it isn’t possible in such a high-attrition environment.

Also levfin, we've actually hired a bunch of counsel and super seniors. Making partner (especially equity) is really hard, but staying around and billing is pretty sustainable. For now, who knows what's next.

[Anonymous User]

Remember, in the vast majority of other jobs in this world (which are not "up or out") literally everyone stays indefinitely if they perform reasonably well.

And also I will just leave this statement here without comment and let everyone decide for themselves if it bears any resemblance to any sort of reality.

It does, at least at my V25. Nobody gets a pink slip, but the firm communicates when the end of the runway is coming up and people leave in response.

[Anonymous User]

But what does one do with a strong pedigree, but no portable business, as a senior litigation associate at a DPW-type firm who doesn’t want to go in house and who can’t afford to go to make less than like 180k due to lifestyle creep plus some valid unforeseen expenses? Also not geographically flexible.

Is the market for lit so good that this person could lateral down the amlaw chain as a NEP and try to work it from there? Is academia in the cards that’ll pay at least like 180k? How hard is the SEC to swing? How much do judges make?

Not getting pushed out just yet, but feel work beginning to dry up.

[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.

Holy shit I hope both of you die

How is Dooley not in this thread yet

[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.

Holy shit I hope both of you die

How is Dooley not in this thread yet

I hated when he was here, but now that he's gone I kinda miss him. Orlando medmal was an active breath of fresh air from the staid preftige debates we have on this forum.

But what does one do with a strong pedigree, but no portable business, as a senior litigation associate at a DPW-type firm who doesn’t want to go in house and who can’t afford to go to make less than like 180k due to lifestyle creep plus some valid unforeseen expenses? Also not geographically flexible.

Is the market for lit so good that this person could lateral down the amlaw chain as a NEP and try to work it from there? Is academia in the cards that’ll pay at least like 180k? How hard is the SEC to swing? How much do judges make?

Not getting pushed out just yet, but feel work beginning to dry up.

So my dad had a similar problem to this back in the late 90s when the bank he was a partner at went under and he was locked in to our (tertiary) market. He ended up completely shifting career paths and starting a tech company. If you're at all entrepreneurial and have the cash on-hand to sustain yourself for a couple years before you actually make money, starting a business (doesn't have to be tech at all) could be a good play.

[Tasteful Orlando]

How is Dooley not in this thread yet

Right? I made an account specifically in honor of Johnny D. and now he doesn’t even come around?

[Anonymous User]

I've been at 2 different NYC V10s, and I've never seen a good associate pushed out.

I've seen some associates who believed they were on track for partnership get blindsided and kept out of the ranks, and then they've left on their own accord, but I haven't seen either firm specifically ask someone to leave who is (i) well-liked; (ii) has a good reputation and (iii) is billing enough hours.

Of course, maybe the associates that left on their own accord actually got asked to leave and didn't want to reveal that info to me - I'd have no way of knowing, but I would be surprised. Almost universally all firms don't have enough talent at the middle and top of the hierarchy. There's no reason to push out someone who's good at their job and willing to take on a non-equity role.

[Anonymous User]

I've been at 2 different NYC V10s, and I've never seen a good associate pushed out.

I've seen some associates who believed they were on track for partnership get blindsided and kept out of the ranks, and then they've left on their own accord, but I haven't seen either firm specifically ask someone to leave who is (i) well-liked; (ii) has a good reputation and (iii) is billing enough hours.

Of course, maybe the associates that left on their own accord actually got asked to leave and didn't want to reveal that info to me - I'd have no way of knowing, but I would be surprised. Almost universally all firms don't have enough talent at the middle and top of the hierarchy. There's no reason to push out someone who's good at their job and willing to take on a non-equity role.

What's the longest you've seen an associate stick around who (1) hasn't been pushed out and (2) didn't make partner, NEP, or some other long term non-associate position?