Can you ride the associate ladder more than once? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Let's say you get pushed out as a sixth year don't care about making partner but still want to make at least $200K/year and can tolerate biglaw. Can you just apply for an entry level role, taking a class cut all the way down to year one or two, and start all over again for as long as you want?

Edit: Basically I want to be ASSOCIATE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE BIGLAW MONEY FOREVER. RECESSIONS HATE HIM. A first year associate is richer than most people on the planet including partners at smaller firms and biglaw isn't difficult for me so I could tolerate being "stuck" between years 1-6 for the rest of my career and wouldn't care about not making partner. Assume I don't want the responsibilities of counsel or partner.

[NoLongerALurker]

Let's say you get pushed out as a sixth year don't care about making partner but still want to make at least $200K/year and can tolerate biglaw. Can you just apply for an entry level role, taking a class cut all the way down to year one or two, and start all over again for as long as you want?

Edit: Basically I want to be ASSOCIATE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE BIGLAW MONEY FOREVER. RECESSIONS HATE HIM. A first year associate is richer than most people on the planet including partners at smaller firms and biglaw isn't difficult for me so I could tolerate being "stuck" between years 1-6 for the rest of my career and wouldn't care about not making partner.

If you’re a sixth year associate and your floor is only 200k, why not just go in house at that point rather than re-riding the ladder?

But no, I’d be shocked if you could ride the ladder three times. Maybe twice if you managed to frame it as a practice group change.

[Anonymous User]

If you’re a sixth year associate and your floor is only 200k, why not just go in house at that point rather than re-riding the ladder?

Because biglaw jobs are more stable excluding getting pushed out. Putting aside firms like Goodwin, biglaw firms are much slower than companies to fire their lawyers. I assume I'll make at least 3 years each time on the biglaw ladder because most firms don't typically fire juniors compared to in-house where you can reasonable expect to be fired within your first year.

But no, I’d be shocked if you could ride the ladder three times. Maybe twice if you managed to frame it as a practice group change.

What if I change practice groups each time?

[Anonymous User]

If you’re a sixth year associate and your floor is only 200k, why not just go in house at that point rather than re-riding the ladder?

Because biglaw jobs are more stable excluding getting pushed out. Putting aside firms like Goodwin, biglaw firms are much slower than companies to fire their lawyers. I assume I'll make at least 3 years each time on the biglaw ladder because most firms don't typically fire juniors compared to in-house where you can reasonable expect to be fired within your first year.

But no, I’d be shocked if you could ride the ladder three times. Maybe twice if you managed to frame it as a practice group change.

What if I change practice groups each time?

Why on earth are you expecting to be fired from an in-house job in your first year?

[jhett]

Because biglaw jobs are more stable excluding getting pushed out. Putting aside firms like Goodwin, biglaw firms are much slower than companies to fire their lawyers. I assume I'll make at least 3 years each time on the biglaw ladder because most firms don't typically fire juniors compared to in-house where you can reasonable expect to be fired within your first year.”

For the majority of in-house departments, that statement is not true. Where are you getting this information?

[nealric]

If you’re a sixth year associate and your floor is only 200k, why not just go in house at that point rather than re-riding the ladder?

Because biglaw jobs are more stable excluding getting pushed out. Putting aside firms like Goodwin, biglaw firms are much slower than companies to fire their lawyers. I assume I'll make at least 3 years each time on the biglaw ladder because most firms don't typically fire juniors compared to in-house where you can reasonable expect to be fired within your first year.

But no, I’d be shocked if you could ride the ladder three times. Maybe twice if you managed to frame it as a practice group change.

What if I change practice groups each time?

I don't know where you got the idea that you can expect to be pushed out in under a year in-house. Layoffs happen in-house, but I would say in-house is actually more stable than biglaw (unless you make partner in biglaw). There's no "up or out" mentality or worrying that your hours are too low. No company is going to go through the trouble of hiring a lawyer with the expectation of pushing them out within a year. Unexpected downturns happen, but that's rare. The only people I know of who were pushed out of an in-house gig in under a year were fired for cause or were extremely unsuited for the role they were hired for (didn't have the necessary skills).

As for whether you can "ride the ladder multiple times"... you can probably take a class cut of maybe 2-3 years with a practice group switch ONCE, but I can't see doing it over and over again. Here's the thing: if you manage to make it ~10 years in biglaw (whether in your original practice group or not), you are probably in good shape to at least make counsel somewhere (either at your current firm or another) if you really want to stay in biglaw. Taking a class year cut isn't going to magically extend your tenure. Demand is still relatively strong for senior associate/counsel level people in most practice groups.

The thing is, while mid levels can be very profitable, seniors are a better deal for firms. They can bill them out at close to partner rates while paying them a fraction of what an equity partner makes. They have enough experience that they can be delegated large portions of a matter (if not the entire matter) with minimal oversight. Unless the particular firm is starved for work, they have no incentive to push seniors out unless they are unable to perform at a senior associate level. Few people make it to senior levels in the first place if they are unable to perform.

[Anonymous User]

I don't really understand the premise of this because if you can truly hack it in biglaw for that many years then you're probably well-suited to get a perma-counsel position at a mid-level firm making mid-level associate dollars. Or just gun for perma-counsel at your own firm.

[Lawman1865]

Let's say you get pushed out as a sixth year don't care about making partner but still want to make at least $200K/year and can tolerate biglaw. Can you just apply for an entry level role, taking a class cut all the way down to year one or two, and start all over again for as long as you want?

Edit: Basically I want to be ASSOCIATE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE BIGLAW MONEY FOREVER. RECESSIONS HATE HIM. A first year associate is richer than most people on the planet including partners at smaller firms and biglaw isn't difficult for me so I could tolerate being "stuck" between years 1-6 for the rest of my career and wouldn't care about not making partner. Assume I don't want the responsibilities of counsel or partner.

I think the premise of this question is a bit off (as others have noted) but putting that aside to chime in with one anecdote, I met an associate at a dinner who had spend somewhere between 6-8 years as a corporate associate, and then went all the way back down to a first year (or maybe second year) to restart in litigation. I think he had a very good relationship with the firm though and really wanted to practice switch, and I would imagine he could not pull that stunt a third time...

[Anonymous User]

I think the premise of this question is a bit off (as others have noted) but putting that aside to chime in with one anecdote, I met an associate at a dinner who had spend somewhere between 6-8 years as a corporate associate, and then went all the way back down to a first year (or maybe second year) to restart in litigation. I think he had a very good relationship with the firm though and really wanted to practice switch, and I would imagine he could not pull that stunt a third time...

This is along the lines of what I have in mind.

I wasn't clear in my other post. I don't think in-house lawyers normally get fired in under one year. I meant that when the economy goes to shit, companies are more likely than biglaw firms again excluding firms like Goodwin to fire their in-house counsel much sooner than firms are to fire their juniors. So a junior could more likely ride out one year or so in a shit economy than an in-house lawyer in a company that doesn't hang onto lawyers the way biglaw firms do.

[Anonymous User]

Let's say you get pushed out as a sixth year don't care about making partner but still want to make at least $200K/year and can tolerate biglaw. Can you just apply for an entry level role, taking a class cut all the way down to year one or two, and start all over again for as long as you want?

Edit: Basically I want to be ASSOCIATE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE BIGLAW MONEY FOREVER. RECESSIONS HATE HIM. A first year associate is richer than most people on the planet including partners at smaller firms and biglaw isn't difficult for me so I could tolerate being "stuck" between years 1-6 for the rest of my career and wouldn't care about not making partner. Assume I don't want the responsibilities of counsel or partner.

In addition to the other issues noted here, it’s just not true that biglaw first years make more than partners at even quite small firms. Especially if you consider COL advantages, as most lawyers don’t practice in ultra-high-COL areas. A solo practitioner who bills 1850 at $350 an hour—hardly unusual—makes $650k before overhead and taxes.

[nealric]

Let's say you get pushed out as a sixth year don't care about making partner but still want to make at least $200K/year and can tolerate biglaw. Can you just apply for an entry level role, taking a class cut all the way down to year one or two, and start all over again for as long as you want?

Edit: Basically I want to be ASSOCIATE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE BIGLAW MONEY FOREVER. RECESSIONS HATE HIM. A first year associate is richer than most people on the planet including partners at smaller firms and biglaw isn't difficult for me so I could tolerate being "stuck" between years 1-6 for the rest of my career and wouldn't care about not making partner. Assume I don't want the responsibilities of counsel or partner.

In addition to the other issues noted here, it’s just not true that biglaw first years make more than partners at even quite small firms. Especially if you consider COL advantages, as most lawyers don’t practice in ultra-high-COL areas. A solo practitioner who bills 1850 at $350 an hour—hardly unusual—makes $650k before overhead and taxes.

I'm sure there are solos who do bill like that, but billing 1850 would be a pretty hefty workload for a solo and would represent an unusually successful practice. That would be a lot more time working than your average biglaw associate at 2,000 because you are typically doing a lot of administrative and business development work on top of what you bill. Plus, few lawyers (solo or not) collect 100% of their billings. There are deadbeat clients and writeoffs in most practices.

[nealric]

I think the premise of this question is a bit off (as others have noted) but putting that aside to chime in with one anecdote, I met an associate at a dinner who had spend somewhere between 6-8 years as a corporate associate, and then went all the way back down to a first year (or maybe second year) to restart in litigation. I think he had a very good relationship with the firm though and really wanted to practice switch, and I would imagine he could not pull that stunt a third time...

This is along the lines of what I have in mind.

I wasn't clear in my other post. I don't think in-house lawyers normally get fired in under one year. I meant that when the economy goes to shit, companies are more likely than biglaw firms again excluding firms like Goodwin to fire their in-house counsel much sooner than firms are to fire their juniors. So a junior could more likely ride out one year or so in a shit economy than an in-house lawyer in a company that doesn't hang onto lawyers the way biglaw firms do.

I don't think that's true either. Juniors are pretty fungible/replaceable. It can be hard to find in-house counsel that can slot right into your existing structure without ramp-up. Once you've been in-house for a while, you tend to accumulate valuable institutional knowledge.

[Moneytrees]

Let's say you get pushed out as a sixth year don't care about making partner but still want to make at least $200K/year and can tolerate biglaw. Can you just apply for an entry level role, taking a class cut all the way down to year one or two, and start all over again for as long as you want?

Edit: Basically I want to be ASSOCIATE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE BIGLAW MONEY FOREVER. RECESSIONS HATE HIM. A first year associate is richer than most people on the planet including partners at smaller firms and biglaw isn't difficult for me so I could tolerate being "stuck" between years 1-6 for the rest of my career and wouldn't care about not making partner. Assume I don't want the responsibilities of counsel or partner.

It's definitely possible, similarly to the poster above I also have an anecdotal story of a corporate associate switching to litigation when he was like a 7th year at my Biglaw firm. But, as others have mentioned, the move wouldn't really make sense for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that if you can hack Biglaw for 6+ years and don't want to be a partner, you can likely find a perma-counsel role within Biglaw making 300k+ a year indefinitely.

[objctnyrhnr]

[note the big caveat that for the below comments, I’m speaking Re lit only, as I’m probably not qualified to discuss how these things go in other practices]

I really feel this question. Recently there was a robust r/Biglaw post about how being a comfy market-paid senior lit associate with a solid rep and plenty of work might actually be the greenest grass, and conversely that trying to get to junior partner might not be all it’s cracked up to be.

So, maybe there is something to be said about getting up to year 13 or whatever at an amlaw, getting the softest of pushes, jumping down to 6 somewhere else and going at it again (presumably you’d be way more experienced than the other 6ths). I’m inferring that OP might concur that the immediate pay cut is well worth it to extend one’s time in biglaw while also avoiding bizdev pressure/anxiety that junior partners feel.

Anecdotally I do personally know of one vault10 person with great creds who got a soft push around 8th, did some public sector thing, then got to v50 as a 5th and is just gonna keep cruising…similar to what OP describes.

If you put your head down and keep your ego in check, there is definitely potential for success there. Tbh I don’t think it’s a horrible plan, but I also think firms willing to do this might be few and far between, and I’d absolutely recommend using a recruiter you can really trust to help with this move.

Couple other things:

First: In lit, the “just go in house” thing has way less force/pertinence. Aside from the obvious fact that real true lit in house gigs are relatively few and far between. (Ie gigs that aren’t like compliance, L&E, etc), most people who succeed up to year 12 in market biglaw lit are real litigators. They (we) are very good at one type of thing, to exclusion of most types of things. And those “most types of things” parallel what a successful in house attorney is probably going to be doing, and the related skillset (read: soft people skills, being business minded) are also not quite conducive to hardened successful senior associate litigators.

Second: Amlaw100 perma counsel out of, say, v30 senior is not gonna be nearly as “you can always do this” as people here seem to think it is. Some firms are generous/cool with these titles, and some are not. Catch is that the firms who are generous/cool are gonna give strong preference to home grown associates, and there is a valid concern that they won’t understand why you couldn’t just swing this at your own firm if it’s something you wanna do. It’ll be an automatic detrimental inference unless you can really strategize about getting around it (see also above Re recruiter suggestion).

[Anonymous User]

how much does counsel make in big law firms? curious as I know nothing about their hours/pay. Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

[Anonymous User]

how much does counsel make in big law firms? curious as I know nothing about their hours/pay. Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

It's a bit more blackbox and can vary widely, but if you're imagining a sort of typical "lifer associate who becomes counsel", it's kind of like being locked in as a midlevel associate lifestyle wise (in that you aren't grinding hard like a senior gunning for partner, but you're definitely always connected and kind of always working, but with the sort of leash/respect that you can carve out some time for yourself but the disrespect that the partners still treat you ultimately like a worker bee widget), but making senior associate money give-or-take 15%ish in either direction.

[nealric]

how much does counsel make in big law firms? curious as I know nothing about their hours/pay. Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

It's a bit more blackbox and can vary widely, but if you're imagining a sort of typical "lifer associate who becomes counsel", it's kind of like being locked in as a midlevel associate lifestyle wise (in that you aren't grinding hard like a senior gunning for partner, but you're definitely always connected and kind of always working, but with the sort of leash/respect that you can carve out some time for yourself but the disrespect that the partners still treat you ultimately like a worker bee widget), but making senior associate money give-or-take 15%ish in either direction.

I'd also note that "counsel" can be a catch-all for lawyers who don't fit into the partner/associate dichotomy for one reason or another. Some "counsels" are retired partners who work on a reduced basis or still bring in work from time to time or consultants like law professors who get paid on some bespoke arrangement separate from the general partnership comp structure. However, most "super senior associate" type counsels can expect to around at 8th year associate pay with possibly some adjustments for things like very specialized skillsets, less than full billable hour commitments, or work originations. Some firms have a habit of promoting almost everyone they were considering for partner to counsel first.

[ithrowds]

In-house? You can coast at a tech company working 9-6 M-F racking up like 250k+ (in total comp) fairly easily with 5+ years of biglaw corporate experience. You might even be able to back yourself into a promotion which would take your comp up even further.