Partnership Prospects Forum

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference in partnership prospects between a v50 firm and a Lit Boutique?
I know that, given the caliber of the attorney that ends up at a lit boutique, partnership is just waiting for you after you put in your time, barring any complications. How's this differ in Big Law?
Say you're an associate at Baker Botts and you're dead set on becoming partner. If you do everything expected of you, will you be rewarded with a partnership?
Are stellar associates being passed up on for no reason a common issue?

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference in partnership prospects between a v50 firm and a Lit Boutique?
I know that, given the caliber of the attorney that ends up at a lit boutique, partnership is just waiting for you after you put in your time, barring any complications. How's this differ in Big Law?
Say you're an associate at Baker Botts and you're dead set on becoming partner. If you do everything expected of you, will you be rewarded with a partnership?
Are stellar associates being passed up on for no reason a common issue?

This sounds a lot like the "if I go to a safety T14 instead of Y/H/S then I'll certainly make LR and clerk for SCOTUS" kind of mentality. It conflates a couple issues so let me see if I can detangle them.

First, there's no pedigree, amount of talent, or level of dedication that guarantees partnership. Sometimes it's just a numbers game. You could do everything right and get put up against a better/more connected/more well liked associate and still miss your shot. Sometimes the firm just doesn't need a partner in your group or office. Sometimes you unintentionally piss off the wrong partner and they wage war against your election. And sometimes there's a recession and everyone's fucked. Sure, you're more likely to make partner at a lit boutique, but that has more to do with their business model than the caliber of attorney that joins: they promote a higher percentage of associates to partner because partners do a lot of the work. But the chance of making partner is never 100%. Put simply, yes, stellar associates do get passed up on all the time.

That's why it's important to know which V50 you're talking about. Some V50s have higher leverage than some of the V10s, which means your probability of making partner is even lower. Baker isn't a great example of this, but if you're looking at lit, Baker's ~2.4 associate to equity partner ratio is not THAT far off from Quinn's ~2.9. The rate at which people get elected is far more important than the ranking.

Second, I may be wrong, but I think you're also making the assumption that if 2L Sally on LR at Harvard is choosing between an elite lit boutique and BB, she'll almost certainly make partner at BB because she's just that fantastic. To that, I'd say grades/pedigree do not always correlate with being a good attorney. Sure, being a good litigator requires a certain level of dedication/intellect that getting into and performing well at HLS would reflect, but there are a number of other characteristics that the LSAT and other exams don't measure and which are hard to teach. You have to be able to communicate well with a jury, which is not a skill all good test-takers share. This may sound elitist, but some of the best litigators are good precisely because they come from unimpressive schools with unimpressive grades. Think My Cousin Vinny.

So if pedigreed Sally goes to BB thinking she's a shoe in for partner, she might have a rude awakening when some gritty Texas Southern alum does better in the courtroom. I see this all the time with YLS grads at my firm - they are wicked smart and write brilliant briefs, but they don't take the time to learn all of the tricks of the trade and do the hard (read: boring) work to be a great associate, and they often refuse to think about the case from a trial/jury perspective.

[nealric]

What's the difference in partnership prospects between a v50 firm and a Lit Boutique?
I know that, given the caliber of the attorney that ends up at a lit boutique, partnership is just waiting for you after you put in your time, barring any complications. How's this differ in Big Law?
Say you're an associate at Baker Botts and you're dead set on becoming partner. If you do everything expected of you, will you be rewarded with a partnership?
Are stellar associates being passed up on for no reason a common issue?

This sounds a lot like the "if I go to a safety T14 instead of Y/H/S then I'll certainly make LR and clerk for SCOTUS" kind of mentality. It conflates a couple issues so let me see if I can detangle them.

First, there's no pedigree, amount of talent, or level of dedication that guarantees partnership. Sometimes it's just a numbers game. You could do everything right and get put up against a better/more connected/more well liked associate and still miss your shot. Sometimes the firm just doesn't need a partner in your group or office. Sometimes you unintentionally piss off the wrong partner and they wage war against your election. And sometimes there's a recession and everyone's fucked. Sure, you're more likely to make partner at a lit boutique, but that has more to do with their business model than the caliber of attorney that joins: they promote a higher percentage of associates to partner because partners do a lot of the work. But the chance of making partner is never 100%. Put simply, yes, stellar associates do get passed up on all the time.

That's why it's important to know which V50 you're talking about. Some V50s have higher leverage than some of the V10s, which means your probability of making partner is even lower. Baker isn't a great example of this, but if you're looking at lit, Baker's ~2.4 associate to equity partner ratio is not THAT far off from Quinn's ~2.9. The rate at which people get elected is far more important than the ranking.

Second, I may be wrong, but I think you're also making the assumption that if 2L Sally on LR at Harvard is choosing between an elite lit boutique and BB, she'll almost certainly make partner at BB because she's just that fantastic. To that, I'd say grades/pedigree do not always correlate with being a good attorney. Sure, being a good litigator requires a certain level of dedication/intellect that getting into and performing well at HLS would reflect, but there are a number of other characteristics that the LSAT and other exams don't measure and which are hard to teach. You have to be able to communicate well with a jury, which is not a skill all good test-takers share. This may sound elitist, but some of the best litigators are good precisely because they come from unimpressive schools with unimpressive grades. Think My Cousin Vinny.

So if pedigreed Sally goes to BB thinking she's a shoe in for partner, she might have a rude awakening when some gritty Texas Southern alum does better in the courtroom. I see this all the time with YLS grads at my firm - they are wicked smart and write brilliant briefs, but they don't take the time to learn all of the tricks of the trade and do the hard (read: boring) work to be a great associate, and they often refuse to think about the case from a trial/jury perspective.

I don't think being a crackerjack trial lawyer has much to do with being elected partner at a firm like Baker Botts. Most biglaw firms have a very small number of attorneys that actually take trials to a jury with any regularity. If an associate does get substantive jury experience before they are up for partner, it's probably going to be a pretty minor role. Even if they flub their one opportunity to cross examine a few minor witnesses in front of a jury as an 8th year, it's probably not going to be the thing that makes or breaks their partnership prospects.

I also don't think there is much correlation between the ability to wow a jury and one's educational background. Just because someone went to Harvard doesn't mean they can't connect with a jury. And just because someone went to South Texas doesn't mean they can. There's all personalities at any level of school.

I do agree that people who went to YLS and similar are probably more likely to refuse to do or otherwise avoid grunt work. To some extent, I think that's because they can get away with it. Someone with fewer employment options just has to grin and bear it.

[Anonymous User]

What's the difference in partnership prospects between a v50 firm and a Lit Boutique?
I know that, given the caliber of the attorney that ends up at a lit boutique, partnership is just waiting for you after you put in your time, barring any complications. How's this differ in Big Law?
Say you're an associate at Baker Botts and you're dead set on becoming partner. If you do everything expected of you, will you be rewarded with a partnership?
Are stellar associates being passed up on for no reason a common issue?

This sounds a lot like the "if I go to a safety T14 instead of Y/H/S then I'll certainly make LR and clerk for SCOTUS" kind of mentality. It conflates a couple issues so let me see if I can detangle them.

First, there's no pedigree, amount of talent, or level of dedication that guarantees partnership. Sometimes it's just a numbers game. You could do everything right and get put up against a better/more connected/more well liked associate and still miss your shot. Sometimes the firm just doesn't need a partner in your group or office. Sometimes you unintentionally piss off the wrong partner and they wage war against your election. And sometimes there's a recession and everyone's fucked. Sure, you're more likely to make partner at a lit boutique, but that has more to do with their business model than the caliber of attorney that joins: they promote a higher percentage of associates to partner because partners do a lot of the work. But the chance of making partner is never 100%. Put simply, yes, stellar associates do get passed up on all the time.

That's why it's important to know which V50 you're talking about. Some V50s have higher leverage than some of the V10s, which means your probability of making partner is even lower. Baker isn't a great example of this, but if you're looking at lit, Baker's ~2.4 associate to equity partner ratio is not THAT far off from Quinn's ~2.9. The rate at which people get elected is far more important than the ranking.

Second, I may be wrong, but I think you're also making the assumption that if 2L Sally on LR at Harvard is choosing between an elite lit boutique and BB, she'll almost certainly make partner at BB because she's just that fantastic. To that, I'd say grades/pedigree do not always correlate with being a good attorney. Sure, being a good litigator requires a certain level of dedication/intellect that getting into and performing well at HLS would reflect, but there are a number of other characteristics that the LSAT and other exams don't measure and which are hard to teach. You have to be able to communicate well with a jury, which is not a skill all good test-takers share. This may sound elitist, but some of the best litigators are good precisely because they come from unimpressive schools with unimpressive grades. Think My Cousin Vinny.

So if pedigreed Sally goes to BB thinking she's a shoe in for partner, she might have a rude awakening when some gritty Texas Southern alum does better in the courtroom. I see this all the time with YLS grads at my firm - they are wicked smart and write brilliant briefs, but they don't take the time to learn all of the tricks of the trade and do the hard (read: boring) work to be a great associate, and they often refuse to think about the case from a trial/jury perspective.

I don't think being a crackerjack trial lawyer has much to do with being elected partner at a firm like Baker Botts. Most biglaw firms have a very small number of attorneys that actually take trials to a jury with any regularity. If an associate does get substantive jury experience before they are up for partner, it's probably going to be a pretty minor role. Even if they flub their one opportunity to cross examine a few minor witnesses in front of a jury as an 8th year, it's probably not going to be the thing that makes or breaks their partnership prospects.

I also don't think there is much correlation between the ability to wow a jury and one's educational background. Just because someone went to Harvard doesn't mean they can't connect with a jury. And just because someone went to South Texas doesn't mean they can. There's all personalities at any level of school.

I do agree that people who went to YLS and similar are probably more likely to refuse to do or otherwise avoid grunt work. To some extent, I think that's because they can get away with it. Someone with fewer employment options just has to grin and bear it.

I think you and OP actually agree - pedigree doesn't have much to do with your ability as a lawyer and your partnership potential. He was just stating that Harvard law grad doesn't automatically beat out state school law grad because there are different skills involved between getting into law school and practicing law. You're basically saying the same thing that it's just about your personal makeup rather than your pedigree and switching the institutions/roles around.

To address OOP:

1. Yes, fantastic associates get passed up for partnership all the time for many reasons unrelated to job performance. The other poster mentioned some such as recession, better associate in your class, firm politics etc. Another one I see is that the firm just doesn't believe in your business potential. Sure, you might be an excellent attorney, but that does mean you can pitch business and land it? I think it's more fair to say that if you're a well liked and excellent attorney, there will always be a role for you at the firm such as counsel or income partner. However, equity partnership is never guaranteed.

2. Getting into a lit boutique and "putting in your time" doesn't guarantee partnership. See point 1 above - it applies to all firms and not just biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

You mentioned BB so I assume you're in Texas.

The good lit boutiques are far better than BB for litigation. So no, it also isn't easy to make partner at these boutiques. Nobody is just going to give you partner.

[Anonymous User]

You mentioned BB so I assume you're in Texas.

The good lit boutiques are far better than BB for litigation. So no, it also isn't easy to make partner at these boutiques. Nobody is just going to give you partner.

The quality of the shop is wholly irrelevant in whether you make partner. It's much more likely to make partner at a lit boutique than BB if you put in the work and are good. That's how it works when BB has 2-3 associates per partner and a boutique might have 1 associate per partner.

[nealric]

You mentioned BB so I assume you're in Texas.

The good lit boutiques are far better than BB for litigation. So no, it also isn't easy to make partner at these boutiques. Nobody is just going to give you partner.

The quality of the shop is wholly irrelevant in whether you make partner. It's much more likely to make partner at a lit boutique than BB if you put in the work and are good. That's how it works when BB has 2-3 associates per partner and a boutique might have 1 associate per partner.

It's also a lot easier to get an associate slot at BB than one at Sussman. I'm guessing if you manage to stick it out to year 6 at Sussman, your odds of partnership are better than simply sticking it out to year 8 or 10 at BB (or whatever the respective firms are calling their partnership year these days). But it's not exactly easy to get to that mark at either firm. Half the battle in making partner is just sticking around long enough to be up for partner in the first place. Most folks either burn out and leave voluntarily or are asked to leave before that point.

[Anonymous User]

Relatively young partner at a V100 firm. A few thoughts:

1. At most "elite" litigation boutiques, litigators tend to be subject matter generalists who go to trial a lot. At big firms, litigators tend to be much more specialized and go to trial significantly less. I think it is very difficult to make partner at a big firm if you are positioning yourself as a general business litigator. It is much easier to make a business case for yourself if you develop some sort of specialized expertise - both because it makes you easier to market and because you are less fungible than a general business litigator.

2. Your partnership odds will vary tremendously from firm to firm. Different firms have different partnership structures (two-tier versus one tier, the function of the "counsel" position, the length of the partnership track, etc.), different approaches to up-or-out, and different preferences about promoting from within versus hiring lateral partners. All of these factors - in addition to internal politics, firm economics, the fit between your practice and the firm's needs, your skill set, and your hours - have a material bearing on how likely it is that you will make partner.

3. Grades/pedigree do not directly determine how likely you are to make partner at any given firm. That said, I have observed that the people who make partner at my firm tend to be better-credentialed than average (for example, my partnership class was all HYSCCN and all but one of us clerked), but that doesn't mean that better credentials caused them to make partner. It is more plausible, at least to me, that these people made partner because they are very smart and work very hard - which is why they ended up getting good credentials in the first instance.

[Anonymous User]

You mentioned BB so I assume you're in Texas.

The good lit boutiques are far better than BB for litigation. So no, it also isn't easy to make partner at these boutiques. Nobody is just going to give you partner.

The quality of the shop is wholly irrelevant in whether you make partner. It's much more likely to make partner at a lit boutique than BB if you put in the work and are good. That's how it works when BB has 2-3 associates per partner and a boutique might have 1 associate per partner.

The boutique having a worse leverage ratio than a firm like Baker Botts is actually worse for partnership opportunities.

[Sackboy]

The quality of the shop is wholly irrelevant in whether you make partner. It's much more likely to make partner at a lit boutique than BB if you put in the work and are good. That's how it works when BB has 2-3 associates per partner and a boutique might have 1 associate per partner.

The boutique having a worse leverage ratio than a firm like Baker Botts is actually worse for partnership opportunities.

By this logic, being one of Kirkland's 5 associates/income partners to 1 equity partner is better for your equity partnership odds than being at Bartlit Beck where there are 0.2 associates per 1 equity partner? You seem to not fundamentally understand leverage. High leverage is great for partnership profits. Low leverage is great for associate partnership prospects. In a low leverage situation, you are much more important to the partners you work for, who may only work with one or two other associates. In a high leverage situation, where the partners might routinely work with a dozen associates, you are just another face in the crowd.

Original post is mine, accidental anon.

[Anonymous User]

The quality of the shop is wholly irrelevant in whether you make partner. It's much more likely to make partner at a lit boutique than BB if you put in the work and are good. That's how it works when BB has 2-3 associates per partner and a boutique might have 1 associate per partner.

The boutique having a worse leverage ratio than a firm like Baker Botts is actually worse for partnership opportunities.

By this logic, being one of Kirkland's 5 associates/income partners to 1 equity partner is better for your equity partnership odds than being at Bartlit Beck where there are 0.2 associates per 1 equity partner? You seem to not fundamentally understand leverage. High leverage is great for partnership profits. Low leverage is great for associate partnership prospects. In a low leverage situation, you are much more important to the partners you work for, who may only work with one or two other associates. In a high leverage situation, where the partners might routinely work with a dozen associates, you are just another face in the crowd.

Original post is mine, accidental anon.

I think you're misunderstanding that anon. The post is poorly worded in a way that sounds like they are disagreeing with you, but by worse leverage ratio, I suspect they meant higher leverage ratio, not lower leverage ratio. In that regard, a boutique with a higher leverage ratio than BB would be worse for partnership prospects, not only because of leverage but also because the standards are higher (probably what they were implying from "actually worse"). That's the point of disagreement, if any - the quality of the shop does come into play to some degree all else held equal. I get that I'm reading a lot into a poorly worded post, and if I'm wrong then I agree the post was absolutely idiotic.

[Anonymous User]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

[nealric]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Only in the extremely implausible scenario that every associate were up for partner each year and they immediately hired another associate who was then up for partner.

Realistically, no more than ~1/8th of associates would be up for partner in a given year, and people leave before their partner year. A firm with 2 partners and a 1:1 ratio who made every eligible associate partner, is unlikely to add more than 3-4 partners in a 10 year period.

[Anonymous User]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Your math is way off. Boutiques stay small because they don’t hire many associates in the first place and they often have some attrition at both partner and associate levels.

Plus it’s true that successful boutiques tend to grow. Susman is firmly into midlaw territory size-wise at this point even though its growth has been organic. Bartlit, Holwell, Molo have grown significantly recently too. Off the top of my head the only firm that has genuinely stayed pretty small for decades is Kellogg which has abnormal associate attrition.

[Anonymous User]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Your math is way off. Boutiques stay small because they don’t hire many associates in the first place and they often have some attrition at both partner and associate levels.

Plus it’s true that successful boutiques tend to grow. Susman is firmly into midlaw territory size-wise at this point even though its growth has been organic. Bartlit, Holwell, Molo have grown significantly recently too. Off the top of my head the only firm that has genuinely stayed pretty small for decades is Kellogg which has abnormal associate attrition.

Wuh? My math isn’t off. 2^10 = 1024. Here, I’ll show my work:

Year 1: 1 partner, 1 associate
Year 2: 2 partners, 2 associates
Year 3: 4 partners, 4 associates
Year 4: 8 partners, 8 associates
Year 5: 16 partners, 16 associates
Year 6: 32 partners, 32 associates
Year 7: 64 partner, 64 associates
Year 8: 128 partners, 128 associates
Year 9: 256 partners, 256 associates
Year 10: 512 partners, 512 associates…or 1024 lawyers

I agree these numbers bear no resemblance to boutiques’ headcount, but that’s exactly the point. These firms have winnowing mechanisms, and it’s not just like you walk in the door, are hot sh*t, and get made partner if you want it.

[mardash]

You breezed past the critique of the math, which is the length of partnership track. Assuming that takes 8 years, here’s how the first 10 years of growth in your example actually looks assuming first partner hires a first year and they immediately hire two more when she makes partner.

1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2

[Anonymous User]

You breezed past the critique of the math, which is the length of partnership track. Assuming that takes 8 years, here’s how the first 10 years of growth in your example actually looks assuming first partner hires a first year and they immediately hire two more when she makes partner.

1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2

I said “after just ten years of partnership votes” not “after ten years of being open.” You’re right that that math would change if the firm took partnership votes just once every eight years, but, to the best of my knowledge no form does that, so I was assuming that partnership votes are held every year.

[Anonymous User]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Your math is way off. Boutiques stay small because they don’t hire many associates in the first place and they often have some attrition at both partner and associate levels.

Plus it’s true that successful boutiques tend to grow. Susman is firmly into midlaw territory size-wise at this point even though its growth has been organic. Bartlit, Holwell, Molo have grown significantly recently too. Off the top of my head the only firm that has genuinely stayed pretty small for decades is Kellogg which has abnormal associate attrition.

Wuh? My math isn’t off. 2^10 = 1024. Here, I’ll show my work:

Year 1: 1 partner, 1 associate
Year 2: 2 partners, 2 associates
Year 3: 4 partners, 4 associates
Year 4: 8 partners, 8 associates
Year 5: 16 partners, 16 associates
Year 6: 32 partners, 32 associates
Year 7: 64 partner, 64 associates
Year 8: 128 partners, 128 associates
Year 9: 256 partners, 256 associates
Year 10: 512 partners, 512 associates…or 1024 lawyers

I agree these numbers bear no resemblance to boutiques’ headcount, but that’s exactly the point. These firms have winnowing mechanisms, and it’s not just like you walk in the door, are hot sh*t, and get made partner if you want it.

Um, your numbers assume (1) that every associate hired gets made into a partner the next year and (2) that no one leaves. Going from 1 partner and 1 associate to 2 partners and 2 associates means, presumably, that the 1 associate was made partner and then 2 brand new associates are hired. So next year, when you get to 4 partners, presumably the 2 new partners are the 2 associates that were hired the previous year? And then 4 brand new associates who are somehow making partner the next year?

[jsnow212]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Incorrect way of thinking about this in reality. Traditional wisdom is right: if you stay the standard # of years required to be partner at a low-leverage, small firm, your chances of actually being partner are a country-mile ahead of alternatives (though not guaranteed, of course).

The boutiques have either 1) grown, despite still being objectively small or 2) flattened headcount and existed long enough such that their partnership attrition rate equals their partnership promotion rate. In either case, you are not getting the "exponential" rise in # of partners your math implies.

[Sackboy]

Sometimes it's okay to just admit you're being a dunce. Everyone else is correct here. Let's move on.

[Anonymous User]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Your math is way off. Boutiques stay small because they don’t hire many associates in the first place and they often have some attrition at both partner and associate levels.

Plus it’s true that successful boutiques tend to grow. Susman is firmly into midlaw territory size-wise at this point even though its growth has been organic. Bartlit, Holwell, Molo have grown significantly recently too. Off the top of my head the only firm that has genuinely stayed pretty small for decades is Kellogg which has abnormal associate attrition.

Wuh? My math isn’t off. 2^10 = 1024. Here, I’ll show my work:

Year 1: 1 partner, 1 associate
Year 2: 2 partners, 2 associates
Year 3: 4 partners, 4 associates
Year 4: 8 partners, 8 associates
Year 5: 16 partners, 16 associates
Year 6: 32 partners, 32 associates
Year 7: 64 partner, 64 associates
Year 8: 128 partners, 128 associates
Year 9: 256 partners, 256 associates
Year 10: 512 partners, 512 associates…or 1024 lawyers

I agree these numbers bear no resemblance to boutiques’ headcount, but that’s exactly the point. These firms have winnowing mechanisms, and it’s not just like you walk in the door, are hot sh*t, and get made partner if you want it.

Um, your numbers assume (1) that every associate hired gets made into a partner the next year and (2) that no one leaves. Going from 1 partner and 1 associate to 2 partners and 2 associates means, presumably, that the 1 associate was made partner and then 2 brand new associates are hired. So next year, when you get to 4 partners, presumably the 2 new partners are the 2 associates that were hired the previous year? And then 4 brand new associates who are somehow making partner the next year?

Yeah, my point isn’t that this is how it works—obviously it isn’t—my point is just that things get pretty absurd if you assume (1) everyone can make partner, (2) leverage stays at 1:1, and (3) votes are held every year. But I’ll give the math stuff a rest.

My point is just that these firms have some kind of winnowing mechanism. From people I’ve talked to, my sense is that it’s some blend of (a) some people with great grades being blah lawyers who don’t have promotion potential, (b) really lopsided partnership comp at boutiques that can make it less desirable to be a small fish partner, (c) more opaque decision making, and (d) probably some firm-specific stuff that’s hard to know on the outside.

I think it’s naive to think that every NYU coif dude with an 8th Circuit clerkship is necessarily a good lawyer capable of making partner.

[Anonymous User]

I think people on this board can be a bit misguided in assuming how easy it must be to make partner at a boutique. Boutiques stay small for decades at a time. If partnership were really so easy, it’s hard to picture how that would be. Imagine a firm with 1:1 leverage and a 100% rate of making partners. Such a firm that starts with two lawyers would have over a thousand lawyers after just ten years of partnership votes. So something’s doing the culling at these places

My sense is a piece of the answer is that boutique firms can really vary in terms of their management, and a lot more is idiosyncratic/dictated by the preferences of one or two top dogs.

Your math is way off. Boutiques stay small because they don’t hire many associates in the first place and they often have some attrition at both partner and associate levels.

Plus it’s true that successful boutiques tend to grow. Susman is firmly into midlaw territory size-wise at this point even though its growth has been organic. Bartlit, Holwell, Molo have grown significantly recently too. Off the top of my head the only firm that has genuinely stayed pretty small for decades is Kellogg which has abnormal associate attrition.

Wuh? My math isn’t off. 2^10 = 1024. Here, I’ll show my work:

Year 1: 1 partner, 1 associate
Year 2: 2 partners, 2 associates
Year 3: 4 partners, 4 associates
Year 4: 8 partners, 8 associates
Year 5: 16 partners, 16 associates
Year 6: 32 partners, 32 associates
Year 7: 64 partner, 64 associates
Year 8: 128 partners, 128 associates
Year 9: 256 partners, 256 associates
Year 10: 512 partners, 512 associates…or 1024 lawyers

I agree these numbers bear no resemblance to boutiques’ headcount, but that’s exactly the point. These firms have winnowing mechanisms, and it’s not just like you walk in the door, are hot sh*t, and get made partner if you want it.

Um, your numbers assume (1) that every associate hired gets made into a partner the next year and (2) that no one leaves. Going from 1 partner and 1 associate to 2 partners and 2 associates means, presumably, that the 1 associate was made partner and then 2 brand new associates are hired. So next year, when you get to 4 partners, presumably the 2 new partners are the 2 associates that were hired the previous year? And then 4 brand new associates who are somehow making partner the next year?

Yeah, my point isn’t that this is how it works—obviously it isn’t—my point is just that things get pretty absurd if you assume (1) everyone can make partner, (2) leverage stays at 1:1, and (3) votes are held every year. But I’ll give the math stuff a rest.

My point is just that these firms have some kind of winnowing mechanism. From people I’ve talked to, my sense is that it’s some blend of (a) some people with great grades being blah lawyers who don’t have promotion potential, (b) really lopsided partnership comp at boutiques that can make it less desirable to be a small fish partner, (c) more opaque decision making, and (d) probably some firm-specific stuff that’s hard to know on the outside.

I think it’s naive to think that every NYU coif dude with an 8th Circuit clerkship is necessarily a good lawyer capable of making partner.

I think you're fighting a straw man. Nobody said all boutique associate makes partner, and nobody said everybody can do it (as a matter of skill/will), either. No shit there's a winnowing effect and we don't need funny math to prove it. The point is that it's A LOT easier to make partner at a boutique with low leverage. That's not just about leverage, either. Boutiques are (in general) more flexible on partner comp and don't have to balance the needs of different practice groups when making decisions/splitting profits.

I think you have the wrong idea on the winnowing mechanism as well. Even if you're at a boutique that manages to have low hours, the law firm lifestyle just isn't for everybody. Those people leave and go elsewhere (in house, government, etc.) just like they do from biglaw. Add to that parents who decide to stay home, laterals, etc. and you're left with a much smaller cohort who couldn't make it even if they wanted. You're welcome to disagree, but I don't think your average 1:1 boutique has to resort to up or out nearly as much as your post implies.