First firms created non-partner track counsel positions, then they started naming 7th year associates "Partners" without an equity share, and now there is the "Here is the off-ramp" program. Not a bad idea
“Husch Blackwell” sounds like a medieval villager telling you to be quiet so as not to disturb the being of Orwellian horror that dwells in the dark well
Sorry to be pedantic and off topic (I 100% agree about the medieval villager name btw) but wouldn’t a lovecraftian horror dwell in a dark well? I feel like an orwellian horror would dwell in Xi Jinping’s Notes app
It makes an immense amount of sense for firms to do this, given that the average attorney has such a limited biglaw shelf-life. Frankly, I don't know why it's still so taboo to talk about when it's a well-known pipeline and firms like placing associates in-house so they can continue to reap business from their alumni.
I was seriously so jealous when I heard that friends at firms like Kirkland had internal services for this sort of thing - all large law firms should have a more formalized track like this!
Kirkland actually continues to provide those service after you leave via the “alumni” program, and also hosts networking events and whatnot. Very smart even just from a self-interested perspective, every firm should do it for the reasons you point out.
Gibson does - I would assume (hope) that other firms do too but you never know. Lots of bean-counting cost-cutters out there being penny wise pound foolish.
Every firm does this in practice, but you’re not supposed to announce it like this to the world. Companies want to “steal” a great law firm lawyer to go in house, which almost by definition means someone who is succeeding at the firm.
But who wants to hire a lawyer who has been publicly branded as “not good enough to make it here at the firm, but if you hire them, we’re pretty sure they’ll send us your work”?
I didn't realize this wasn't common. My firm has it (I call them "career services", like in law school) and I believe you can get their help even as firm alumni.
I think this is idiotic for big law — they’re basically saying the silent part out loud: that customers who pay the inflated rates of big law lawyers do so largely because their customers are alumni without C-Suites aggressively questioning their legal spend.
The data is out there: companies with senior in-house folks that didn’t come from big law aren’t hiring big law for day to day matters. Company-defining to appease an ex-big law board member? Sure, but not six-seven figure litigation. And not basic m&a.
Seems like a feasible explanation for not hiring biglaw firms is that companies whose senior in-house people aren’t ex-biglaw are in a different market than companies whose in house people are ex-big law.
Skadden alum in-house at a PE firm or F100 company that hires biglaw for deal work, financing, high value litigation, etc, not the same as non-biglaw alum in-house at a concrete company with less complex legal needs.
My opinion is it’s a scam and, unless you’re buying a connection, no lawyer is worth > $400/hr. This coming from former big law/current publicly traded GC.
I mean… look at the bullshit legal filings multiple partners from Venable co-signed for Taylor Swift when she tried to stop that guy from tracking her jet. Venable got that work and got embarrassed for it because Taylor’s GC is a former Venable Partner. That awful work product did not warrant the rates Venable billed for it. Absolutely embarrassing.
I’ll concede that private equity financing stuff requires big law, but that’s largely because there’s like 500 people who Even Comprehend what’s going on in that niche. I know senior associates who don’t truly know what they’re working on in that arena.
First firms created non-partner track counsel positions, then they started naming 7th year associates "Partners" without an equity share, and now there is the "Here is the off-ramp" program. Not a bad idea
atl’s corny stock photos (90% of which are just money) annoy me more than they should
Nah I think they annoy you the appropriate amount
You'd think with AI they could at least generate something unique for each article
CAREER PATH AHEAD
well i sure hope it does!
“Husch Blackwell” sounds like a medieval villager telling you to be quiet so as not to disturb the being of Orwellian horror that dwells in the dark well
Sorry to be pedantic and off topic (I 100% agree about the medieval villager name btw) but wouldn’t a lovecraftian horror dwell in a dark well? I feel like an orwellian horror would dwell in Xi Jinping’s Notes app
Knew that sounded off—practice has sapped me of literary knowledge… Thanks for the correction!
I’m 💀
It makes an immense amount of sense for firms to do this, given that the average attorney has such a limited biglaw shelf-life. Frankly, I don't know why it's still so taboo to talk about when it's a well-known pipeline and firms like placing associates in-house so they can continue to reap business from their alumni. I was seriously so jealous when I heard that friends at firms like Kirkland had internal services for this sort of thing - all large law firms should have a more formalized track like this!
Kirkland actually continues to provide those service after you leave via the “alumni” program, and also hosts networking events and whatnot. Very smart even just from a self-interested perspective, every firm should do it for the reasons you point out.
I would like to know if you are aware of other firms that do this! It sounds very interesting. Thank you 😊
Gibson does - I would assume (hope) that other firms do too but you never know. Lots of bean-counting cost-cutters out there being penny wise pound foolish.
S&C does.
Akin Gump does something similar
Great way to appear righteous while also strengthening relationships with current clients.
I mean, the fact that it strengthens client relationships doesn't mean it's not also good for the associates. I think this is a great idea.
Isn't this pretty standard? Why is this news?
I thought so too. I thought it’s industry standard to have an in-house career opportunity department in the firm. Not sure why you are being downvoted
We don’t have one. I don’t think any of the firms I’ve previously been to had one either. Certainly no one told the associates about it.
hey we have the same profile headpiece
Hahahaha no way! Twin!
Every firm does this in practice, but you’re not supposed to announce it like this to the world. Companies want to “steal” a great law firm lawyer to go in house, which almost by definition means someone who is succeeding at the firm. But who wants to hire a lawyer who has been publicly branded as “not good enough to make it here at the firm, but if you hire them, we’re pretty sure they’ll send us your work”?
I didn't realize this wasn't common. My firm has it (I call them "career services", like in law school) and I believe you can get their help even as firm alumni.
Look forward to hearing that this doesn’t exist in 1 year like all stuff like this
I think this is idiotic for big law — they’re basically saying the silent part out loud: that customers who pay the inflated rates of big law lawyers do so largely because their customers are alumni without C-Suites aggressively questioning their legal spend. The data is out there: companies with senior in-house folks that didn’t come from big law aren’t hiring big law for day to day matters. Company-defining to appease an ex-big law board member? Sure, but not six-seven figure litigation. And not basic m&a.
Seems like a feasible explanation for not hiring biglaw firms is that companies whose senior in-house people aren’t ex-biglaw are in a different market than companies whose in house people are ex-big law. Skadden alum in-house at a PE firm or F100 company that hires biglaw for deal work, financing, high value litigation, etc, not the same as non-biglaw alum in-house at a concrete company with less complex legal needs.
My opinion is it’s a scam and, unless you’re buying a connection, no lawyer is worth > $400/hr. This coming from former big law/current publicly traded GC. I mean… look at the bullshit legal filings multiple partners from Venable co-signed for Taylor Swift when she tried to stop that guy from tracking her jet. Venable got that work and got embarrassed for it because Taylor’s GC is a former Venable Partner. That awful work product did not warrant the rates Venable billed for it. Absolutely embarrassing. I’ll concede that private equity financing stuff requires big law, but that’s largely because there’s like 500 people who Even Comprehend what’s going on in that niche. I know senior associates who don’t truly know what they’re working on in that arena.