So not really partners then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36206685)

"Are you going to go back after taking the bar?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36207978)

If the comp is high enough it's not a bad deal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36207780)

Does this really need to be said?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208050)

If a Weil senior is making X and a Weil 1st year equity partner assuming 1 tier is making Y, how bad this is is purely a function of where the non-equity comp lies.

What we all agree is bullshit is the subgroup of people who are being made "counsel" who would have normally just been promoted to partner.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208064)

My understanding is that this is done in part to boost PPP reporting, since non-equity partners don't count for that measurement.

Very rarely will a brand new partner have the type of business that will get them above the lowest rungs of partnership comp anyway, so if a new Weil partner is making $800k per year for a few years, and then builds a book and starts ticking up into the 7 figures and becomes equity, that's not so bad.

The counsel though is kinda bullshit since it will likely effectively just delay partnership for most people eligible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36207896)

There are differing takes on the pros-cons of this. You'll hear an argument from firms that do this that they're offering Joe an opportunity to stay on and continue to make his $300k, $400k, $500k for a long time without being pushed out. (This argument usually conveniently omits the fact that Joe is reaping tremendous profit for the firm throughout his tenure in a way that is almost singular across the attorney cohort there since they gain the benefit of Joe's seniority vis-a-vis management expertise and billing rates (something you can't get with juniors) without having to take the hit of actual equity-level compensation.) The counter-argument is that, historically, the lack of this permanent purgatory position would force firms to ante up when it came time for promotion: "You like Joe? Well, then you fucking pay for Joe as a true member of the partnership. You want his expertise and his billable rate and the client relationships he's fostered? You equitize him." Simplifying the camps but that's the gist.

There's a chicken-egg issue to all of this. This scheme has advanced the profits per partner of firms within the Vault. At the same time, one of the reasons there is increasing reticence to promote to equity is exactly because of this rising profit that is being experienced in the industry. The gap between what senior associates are compensated at versus what equity partners are being compensated at has been rising which, all else being equal, has had the effect of increasing the "hurt" that firms experience when they elevate someone into equity. Which in turn makes them less likely to want to promote someone to equity and to prefer these sort of alternative structures. Which in turn continues to contribute to rising profits. Which in turn further widens the compensation gulf. Etc. It becomes a self-fullfilling cycle--"Joe, we'd love to make you a partner but it's getting increasingly tough to justify the business case ...."

What Weil is doing is a combination of the pure play described above (the special "of counsel") plus a softer version of it (extending out the associate's path to partnership). The bottom line is that this is a play to keep senior people with the firm longer without having to pay them equity-level comp.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208006)

The only exception to this is old-style of counsel who are actually of counsel for a reason. Meaning the guys who are 40, 50, 60 years old and have carved out their own arrangement as sort of a quasi-equity partner without being bought in. But that's not what we're dealing with here these are 35-year-old attorneys suddenly being called "of counsel" so they can be kept on a shelf for briefwriting and project management for the next 30 years while being billed out at $1k

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208070)

*blank stare*

http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/law/vault-law-100

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208227)

making them pay a buy in and start paying for their own insurance--only to stiff them on equity in 3 years.

The reality is that 10 years in biglaw won't give you the skills you need to be an equity partner at a V10, but that there are plenty of 10 year+ associates who can run cases and make money for the firm. Firms realized they would make more money keeping these people around and just stiffing them on equity rather than firing them because of some made up "up or out" policy. But it'll be interesting to see if these people can flee once they have an inflated title.

Yet again, boomers pull the ladder up behind them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208174)

So why did firms only discover this fact in 2000?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208419)

Which skills do they lack?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36209148)

the approval process for the type of matters v10 firms handle is in the hands of boomers only, and a few ambitious gen x sellouts. Millenials don't have a fucking chance to win any of this business.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36209434)

Your.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36208219)

Well, this may be happening at some law firms, but I seriously doubt there are any payback delays at MoFo, which is so well known for timely partner payback that its name is virtually synonymous with payback. I won’t even venture to guess as to how many time I have heard colleagues, as well as people in innumerable other lines of work, express the well-known axiom, “MoFo is payback” (or words to that same effect).

Posted: Apr 28, 2014 11:04 pm CDT

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3996940&forum_id=2#36209319)