Years to partnership Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 431639
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Years to partnership
I have seen some peers I graduated with recently be promoted to partner at their law firms, but at my firm I’m not up for partnership anytime soon even though I’m the same class year. I know firms do it differently but am I missing something on how some people can be up for partner earlier than their peers? I’m talking like a 2-3 year difference across firms. And I don’t think they were rock stars or anything crazy.
-
- Posts: 431639
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Years to partnership
Mostly likely non-equity partners - at Kirkland, you become one as a rising 7th year
-
- Posts: 431639
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Years to partnership
Are these all top big law firms? Because otherwise it varies a lot. People I went to law school who ended up at different firms got promoted anywhere between 5 years and 9 years.
So I don’t think this based on the people, just on their firms’ preferences. Or possibly the firms’ finances and what areas they needed partners in.
So I don’t think this based on the people, just on their firms’ preferences. Or possibly the firms’ finances and what areas they needed partners in.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:13 pm
Re: Years to partnership
If you're not a partner, at a major firm, by year 10.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:02 pmI have seen some peers I graduated with recently be promoted to partner at their law firms, but at my firm I’m not up for partnership anytime soon even though I’m the same class year. I know firms do it differently but am I missing something on how some people can be up for partner earlier than their peers? I’m talking like a 2-3 year difference across firms. And I don’t think they were rock stars or anything crazy.
You never will be and they will ask you to leave.
There are law review articles on this very topic.
The tournament theory of law firm partnerships.
I can't recall the authors.
There is a thing called the flatliner track.
No partner takes an interest in your career.
Minimal training.
Mind-numbing paperwork.
- nealric
- Posts: 4371
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am
Re: Years to partnership
This is a lot less true than it used to be. 25+ years ago, almost all biglaw firms had a clear designated partnership year after which you got an up or down vote. A down vote was typically an invitation to leave the firm.Lifesonalex wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 12:15 pmIf you're not a partner, at a major firm, by year 10.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:02 pmI have seen some peers I graduated with recently be promoted to partner at their law firms, but at my firm I’m not up for partnership anytime soon even though I’m the same class year. I know firms do it differently but am I missing something on how some people can be up for partner earlier than their peers? I’m talking like a 2-3 year difference across firms. And I don’t think they were rock stars or anything crazy.
You never will be and they will ask you to leave.
There are law review articles on this very topic.
The tournament theory of law firm partnerships.
I can't recall the authors.
There is a thing called the flatliner track.
No partner takes an interest in your career.
Minimal training.
Mind-numbing paperwork.
These days, partnership timelines can be a lot more amorphous, and there can be different non-partner titles above associate plus different tiers of partnership. Some firms almost routinely promote to "Counsel" (or some variation of that title) first before considering anybody for partnership. On the other hand, you have firms (most notably Kirkland) that throws almost everyone a "partner" title after year 6 but may string people along for quite a few years before a final up or down on true equity partnership. Other firms have non-equity/equity tiers that are completely opaque to anybody except the individual attorney and a select few people in firm management. Finally, it's a lot more common to be allowed to stick around indefinitely without getting partnership. The use of Counsel or other "Senior Attorney" type titles has proliferated while firms have gotten more and more stingy with partnership (especially true equity partnership).
Most of this is simply the result of economic reality. Partners used to be compensated more or less on lockstep based on seniority (somewhat like associates). Clients were mostly considered "firm clients" rather than clients of individual partners. Today, it's much more of a free-agent system and partner laterals are common, requiring firms to compensate rainmakers handsomely to keep them around. These highly compensated rainmakers can actually be somewhat of a loss leader in that they take more than they personally generate in revenue from direct billings. On the other hand, firms can make a lot of money off workhorse senior attorneys who can run matters independently but because of their lack of book can't command packages anything like the rainmakers. A counsel or senior associate billing $1,000/hr for 1,800hrs is an absolute cash cow for a firm. That's $1.8MM of annual revenue for an attorney who only costs around $600k/yr to keep around. No reason to kick such a person to the curb as long as there is enough work to keep them busy. Instead, the cuts are more likely to happen earlier. They can only keep so many 1-3rd years busy on diligence/discovery stuff, and if they decide an associate isn't progressing and/or don't have enough work for someone in the next tier, they are strongly incentivized to cut in that year 2-6 band. However, because equity partners are so expensive, they only hand out those titles to people they are strongly convinced will be rainmakers. And in fact, it's no longer uncommon for equity partnership to be stripped from equity partners who can't deliver.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login