What happens when you don't make partner Forum

[dabigchina]

Simple as that. I keep hearing horror stories about people who start in biglaw, don't make partner and subsequently are forced to go solo/do doc review/ride unemployment, etc. Is this standard or is this just JDUnderground pulling out the worst anecdotes that anyone has ever heard like they always do?

[Nomo]

Not standard, but not totally irregular either. I think for most the exit options are downgrades in terms of prestige and cash. It seems like a lot of people talk about exiting into a US attorney's office, DOJ, SEC, etc., but there aren't nearly enough of those jobs for all the people exiting biglaw.

A lot of litigators lateral into smaller lifestyle firms and from what I've heard they seem to be a mixed bag. All of them pay less of course, but the hours vary greatly some are drastically reduced from biglaw, others are only minor reductions, and others are down to working 50 hours on typical weeks.

[dabigchina]

Not standard, but not totally irregular either. I think for most the exit options are downgrades in terms of prestige and cash. It seems like a lot of people talk about exiting into a US attorney's office, DOJ, SEC, etc., but there aren't nearly enough of those jobs for all the people exiting biglaw.

A lot of litigators lateral into smaller lifestyle firms and from what I've heard they seem to be a mixed bag. All of them pay less of course, but the hours vary greatly some are drastically reduced from biglaw, others are only minor reductions, and others are down to working 50 hours on typical weeks.

Would you say it's like 25%? 50%? Seems like law as a long term prospect kind of sucks even if you make it into biglaw?

[DELG]

Not standard, but not totally irregular either. I think for most the exit options are downgrades in terms of prestige and cash. It seems like a lot of people talk about exiting into a US attorney's office, DOJ, SEC, etc., but there aren't nearly enough of those jobs for all the people exiting biglaw.

A lot of litigators lateral into smaller lifestyle firms and from what I've heard they seem to be a mixed bag. All of them pay less of course, but the hours vary greatly some are drastically reduced from biglaw, others are only minor reductions, and others are down to working 50 hours on typical weeks.

Would you say it's like 25%? 50%? Seems like law as a long term prospect kind of sucks even if you make it into biglaw?

Weird question given that most people who make it into biglaw think it kind of sucks and are clawing at the door like a dog that needs to take a dump

[KidStuddi]

Not standard, but not totally irregular either. I think for most the exit options are downgrades in terms of prestige and cash. It seems like a lot of people talk about exiting into a US attorney's office, DOJ, SEC, etc., but there aren't nearly enough of those jobs for all the people exiting biglaw.

A lot of litigators lateral into smaller lifestyle firms and from what I've heard they seem to be a mixed bag. All of them pay less of course, but the hours vary greatly some are drastically reduced from biglaw, others are only minor reductions, and others are down to working 50 hours on typical weeks.

Would you say it's like 25%? 50%? Seems like law as a long term prospect kind of sucks even if you make it into biglaw?

You can't make the mistake of viewing being an associate as a career. It isn't one. Virtually no one remains an associate for more than 10 years or so. It's more aptly described as a well-paid apprenticeship that invariably ends at some point. Some want to stay in firm practice at the end of it by becoming a partner or counsel, others want to become a government employee, still others want to become a corporate employee. But just like any training program, placement is not guaranteed at the end of the term. Being disgruntled with how it works is like being upset you can't be a career A3 clerk.

If you want a long-term career right out of law school aim for JD required positions at corporations or with government agencies.

[PepperJack]

Peaking early is hardly unique to law, but success is much more bimodal and structured in law so it seems worse. A lot of big law lawyers overestimate their ability to succeed outside of big law, because the amount your firm makes off of your brain is flattering. The reality is that being smart doesn't translate into money, and lawyers aren't trained to succeed in non-legal fields. The link between IQ and money is mostly attributed to high IQ people being able to develop more specialized skills, and adapt to bad situations.

A unique aspect of law is that the quality of your clients is much more useful than your actual skill, because with the resources at our fingertips anyone whose kinda smart can do the work. Another weird thing is that most of the time anyone who isn't inept at law will get the same result, because outcomes are much likelier to be dictated by the circumstances than your lawyering. This all results in reputation being more valuable in law than any other fields, because your skill is harder to quantify, less likely to be relevant to your work as an associate, and not known to people you don't work with directly.

Having one big client makes it easier to get another big client so in reality a small number of lawyers become the basis for most of the high paying jobs. The whole you can do anything with a law degree is bullshit, and better explained by the basic fact that a person smart at x is likelier to be smart at y than the general population. But law doesn't set you up to succeed on your own. There are many more really smart people than people with books of business. You also almost never have to be the smartest person in the room to do good work.

When people complain that firms make so much more off their billable hours than what they earn they don't realize that the clients are paying much more for the work than they need to, and are only doing so, because they trust the partner won't fuck up and like to give business to a friend (generally, the clients use investors' money and not their own so trust and how much they like you are more important than value). This all adds up to almost everyone making more than they would in a basic supply and demand type of economy.

When you accept that you are statistically unlikely to generate the business needed to succeed, you realize that big law lasts for however long it lasts , and that a long term plan likely includes succeeding outside of big law. You are put in a pretty good position, because there's a lot of self-selection in people who leave big law, and people assume you are competent based off of the LLP name on your resume. But the general point is you can never coast in law like you can't in any other field. I will say that it's much easier to hide ineptness in law than other fields, because if you start at Wachtell but stop getting work a year in, you could probably get a 2nd and 3rd chance because you have Wachtell on your resume.

[HRomanus]

Peaking early is hardly unique to law, but success is much more bimodal and structured in law so it seems worse. A lot of big law lawyers overestimate their ability to succeed outside of big law, because the amount your firm makes off of your brain is flattering. The reality is that being smart doesn't translate into money, and lawyers aren't trained to succeed in non-legal fields. The link between IQ and money is mostly attributed to high IQ people being able to develop more specialized skills, and adapt to bad situations.

A unique aspect of law is that the quality of your clients is much more useful than your actual skill, because with the resources at our fingertips anyone whose kinda smart can do the work. Another weird thing is that most of the time anyone who isn't inept at law will get the same result, because outcomes are much likelier to be dictated by the circumstances than your lawyering. This all results in reputation being more valuable in law than any other fields, because your skill is harder to quantify, less likely to be relevant to your work as an associate, and not known to people you don't work with directly.

Having one big client makes it easier to get another big client so in reality a small number of lawyers become the basis for most of the high paying jobs. The whole you can do anything with a law degree is bullshit, and better explained by the basic fact that a person smart at x is likelier to be smart at y than the general population. But law doesn't set you up to succeed on your own. There are many more really smart people than people with books of business. You also almost never have to be the smartest person in the room to do good work.

When people complain that firms make so much more off their billable hours than what they earn they don't realize that the clients are paying much more for the work than they need to, and are only doing so, because they trust the partner won't fuck up and like to give business to a friend (generally, the clients use investors' money and not their own so trust and how much they like you are more important than value). This all adds up to almost everyone making more than they would in a basic supply and demand type of economy.

When you accept that you are statistically unlikely to generate the business needed to succeed, you realize that big law lasts for however long it lasts , and that a long term plan likely includes succeeding outside of big law. You are put in a pretty good position, because there's a lot of self-selection in people who leave big law, and people assume you are competent based off of the LLP name on your resume. But the general point is you can never coast in law like you can't in any other field. I will say that it's much easier to hide ineptness in law than other fields, because if you start at Wachtell but stop getting work a year in, you could probably get a 2nd and 3rd chance because you have Wachtell on your resume.

At what point (in BigLaw or in your career in general) do you have to start generating clients?

[PepperJack]

Peaking early is hardly unique to law, but success is much more bimodal and structured in law so it seems worse. A lot of big law lawyers overestimate their ability to succeed outside of big law, because the amount your firm makes off of your brain is flattering. The reality is that being smart doesn't translate into money, and lawyers aren't trained to succeed in non-legal fields. The link between IQ and money is mostly attributed to high IQ people being able to develop more specialized skills, and adapt to bad situations.

A unique aspect of law is that the quality of your clients is much more useful than your actual skill, because with the resources at our fingertips anyone whose kinda smart can do the work. Another weird thing is that most of the time anyone who isn't inept at law will get the same result, because outcomes are much likelier to be dictated by the circumstances than your lawyering. This all results in reputation being more valuable in law than any other fields, because your skill is harder to quantify, less likely to be relevant to your work as an associate, and not known to people you don't work with directly.

Having one big client makes it easier to get another big client so in reality a small number of lawyers become the basis for most of the high paying jobs. The whole you can do anything with a law degree is bullshit, and better explained by the basic fact that a person smart at x is likelier to be smart at y than the general population. But law doesn't set you up to succeed on your own. There are many more really smart people than people with books of business. You also almost never have to be the smartest person in the room to do good work.

When people complain that firms make so much more off their billable hours than what they earn they don't realize that the clients are paying much more for the work than they need to, and are only doing so, because they trust the partner won't fuck up and like to give business to a friend (generally, the clients use investors' money and not their own so trust and how much they like you are more important than value). This all adds up to almost everyone making more than they would in a basic supply and demand type of economy.

When you accept that you are statistically unlikely to generate the business needed to succeed, you realize that big law lasts for however long it lasts , and that a long term plan likely includes succeeding outside of big law. You are put in a pretty good position, because there's a lot of self-selection in people who leave big law, and people assume you are competent based off of the LLP name on your resume. But the general point is you can never coast in law like you can't in any other field. I will say that it's much easier to hide ineptness in law than other fields, because if you start at Wachtell but stop getting work a year in, you could probably get a 2nd and 3rd chance because you have Wachtell on your resume.

At what point (in BigLaw or in your career in general) do you have to start generating clients?

I'm too young to know, but I would imagine it's firm, practice group specific, and person specific. The economy would play the biggest role. If you're good at your job but don't have any clients, you'll be in high demand when partners have a lot of work, and in low demand when they don't.

[Nomo]

Smaller firms and offices often want to see bits of client generation in the first 5 years. This is why smaller firms, mid sized firms, and to some extent the smaller "biglaw" firms outside of NY care so much about ties. Cravath can wait 15 or 20 years for you to do any serious client generation, a lot of their clients are institutional anyways. The 100 lawyer firm in Columbus is hoping that in 10 years you are generating significant business. Another thing to remember is the difference in equity and non-equity partners. Biglaw firms these days might make you a partner in year or 9 if you show income generating potential, but they likely won't make you an equity partner until you're generating your own business.

[PepperJack]

I was told that working on client development should be seen as part of your job as an associate even if you might not get hours for it. It's part of making yourself more valuable long term. For example, when LeBron James decides to run 5 miles from the arena to the hotel instead of taking the bus with his teammates, he's not getting immediate benefits for doing so. But if weighing 5 pounds less over the span of a year let's him drive to the basket at 12 MPH vs. 11.5 MPH then maybe he gets 2 more points that are the difference b/w a win and a loss.

[Cogburn87]

A large number simply leave the profession. Either because they hate their lives and would rather do anything else, or because they have no real options other than the same shitty work for a fraction of the pay (hi, litigators!).

[PepperJack]

A large number simply leave the profession. Either because they hate their lives and would rather do anything else, or because they have no real options other than the same shitty work for a fraction of the pay (hi, litigators!).

Yeah, are there any big companies that are vindictive enough to make hiring a f/t litigation team smarter than hiring a firm when need be?