- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 42 Comments
- 126 Views
One of our readers has a question: How long should I stay at my current job? I know in the past the longer you were at a job the better, but these days I’m not sure. I’ve been at my current job for 5 1/2 years and have been practicing for 8 years now, but have no book of business. Yet, I have the prospect of partnership. Which is more important–partnership or developing my own book?
Any suggestions or comments?
Cannot understand how a firm makes someone a partner if that someone does not have a book of business. In our firm, the size and quality of an associate's book is the primary deciding factor. We have no partners in our firm who don't produce work for themselves and associates. Please explain.
I second this. If you're at a large firm that has an 'equity partner' and a 'billing partner' track, then fine – you'll be a 'billing partner.' A 'billing partner' is what you call an associate who has been there too long to be an associate, but is kept on because they do good work – they're not just real 'partner' material and just don't have the personality or ability to have clients like them enough to be their client. Without a book of business, you won't ever be an actual partner, or 'equity partner' as some large firms call them. Someone that doesn't have their own book of business or doesn't generate their own business is an employee, or 'associates' as they are called in law firms.
At megalith firms in the vault 100 and the NLJ 250, the firm usually doesn't want the type of matters that associates can originate. When I was at a megalith firm, I brought in work on a million dollar real estate deal and a $400,000 fraud case. But our billing rate didn't make sense for those matters because they were relatively small, and the firm's attitude was "hey we want you working on these high-dollar matters with clients that will pay our full rate instead of bringing in smaller matters where the client will necessarily want us to give huge discounts." The flip side of that attitude is that Fortune 500 companies typically don't want to hand out high-dollar matters to junior lawyers. The big firms commonly (but certainly not always) get this, so some will let you become partner–even equity partner, albeit at a lower share than other partners–if they think you have what it's got to bring in work. Want to get more equity? Prove them right.
As an aside, the no-book-of-business partner is particularly common for firms that embrace the government revolving door. Those firms figure that your contacts and experience will be enough to entice some clients over if you're given some time.
Even at large firms with a one-tiered partnership, an associate's current book of business is barely considered as a partnership factor. As 10:13 indicated, you just cannot bring in significant sophisticated work 5 or 10 years in. Firms handling top tier work are much more concerned with an attorney's perceived ability to generate this work later than their current book of business. Also, many top-tier lawyers generate enough work for themselves and several other lawyers. Some of that work can be billed out at high rates and thus there is a need for partners that cannot fully support themselves.
Could not disagree more with the analysis above. BigLaw– sure it can tolerate the need for partners who do not have a book of business. To the OP, if you are not working for BigLaw now, you will not be working for BigLaw if the sky falls. Your name will mean nothing if you have to hit the bricks and find another job. As the partner in charge of hiring for a small/medium sized firm, if I saw an 8th year lawyer, I look for people who have shown the ability to generate work (even if it is not a full book today). What I am fearful of is the 8th year lawyer who has developed no book because you will be a 15th year lawyer with no book and your value will not keep increasing with your appetite for raises.
Good discussion. I have always said that partners without their own book are called associates. However, there are many firms, including the big firm that I am at, where "service" partners, i.e., partners with few if any of their own clients, make as much or almost as much as the rainmakers. It all depends upon what the firm values. Some bigger firms value actually work done and collected much, much more than originated–including my own. Which is unfortunate because I do have my own work.
With all that said, regardless of your firm's compensation formula, having your own book gives you the freedom to go where you want to.
I agree with the remarks, above. To become a partner in the true sense of the term, it is not sufficient to simply work hard, and bill well, on cases supplied by the firm. That may eventually result in becoming a fairly well-compensated senior associate, who will still need to bust their butt at the same number of hours per week to continue to be compensated at that level.
But that type of effort, even if over time, is usually not sufficient to become a partner in a larger, more prominent firm. To become a partner one must make rain and generate cases of their own, not merely work well and bill well on cases provided to them by the firm.
Larger and prominent firms that don't follow this unwritten rule do so at their own peril. If they reward someone with a partnership who is a good working mull or foot soldier, but who has no game and no real PR skills or no real connections or ability to generate solid cases directly through them, the firm will pay the consequences.
Even worse is when firms award "of counsel status" upon someone. Often firms will properly do so with semi-retired members, or individuals who may not be willing to work 40+ hours per week but who have the connections to generate cases. But that part about "generating cases" is the key. Too often firms award some former politician, or former judge, with a very well-paying of counsel position–usually after such individual boasts about all their connections and makes all these promises of cases they can generate. And then it turns out that all they really do is collect the large salary–they neither work too many hours, nor do they generate case from their supposedly great connections.
Agree 100%. Making former politicians, or former judges, "Of Counsel", based on their supposed connections, the business they supposedly can generate from their connections, always works out badly for the firm.
The former judge or politician will seldom come to work, and generate almost no business from their supposed connections. All they do is collect a fat pay check and act extremely arrogant and entitled, IMO.
Sorry to disagree. A firm certainly doesn't want to load up on former politicians/judges for the reasons explained above, however, adding one or possibly two can provide an advertising and public relations benefit to the firm by virtue of the added value that clients will credit the firm with because of that association.
The added value may be less for a well established firm that has the long history with clients and client referral sources, but for newer less established firms it provides a boost to their perceived credibility not to mention a path to the former official's friends and contact who may still be in office.
I would agree with that in theory, and used to believe that there were isolated cases where it could work. But I have now been practicing for decades and can agree with 10:33 that it seldom works.
There are exceptions. Former Senator/Governor Dick Bryan is still of counsel for a prominent firm, and I'm certain that benefits them, as do a couple of the firms over the years that hired former federal judges or similar moves.
But, too often, a firm will hire a former local politician or retired District Court Judge(often one retired involuntarily by the voters), thinking it will be a great benefit, but it is not for very long. People have much shorter memories when it comes to former politicians or judges on the more localized level such as county(rather than state-wide) and the connections these people have don't multiple once out of office, but gradually dissipate, and new ones are not really created. A former judge in their 70's, once their residual connections have pretty much dissipated, will not be out there hustling to create new connections.
Make partner, then develop your book. Then you can go where you want to.
This seems like the obvious answer. It's easier to develop a book when you're called "partner." It sounds like there's a clear partner at this poster's current firm. Sounds like the move is to stick it out, make partner, try to develop a book, and if successful, decide what you want to do with it.
I’m in a similar spot to the reader where I’ve been an attorney for 13 years, am an associate, and don’t have any business and rely on the firm for my cases. I’ve realized that being an associate is counterproductive to developing business. To develop a book, you need to be meeting potential clients for lunch on workdays and networking and socializing on weekday evenings, but that’s extremely hard to do when you’ve constantly got an emergency motion that’s due the next day, a ton of documents that have to be reviewed for a meeting the next day, or a deposition to prepare for. If the reader doesn’t need a steady paycheck and can afford to go out on his/her own and starting trying to develop business without having the time demands of being an associate, then that would be best. If the reader is like me and has constant bills and can’t afford to go without a steady paycheck, then he/she is probably stuck and should stay put.
The other side to this is that some associates at some firms make a lot more than some partners at other firms. Like the abovethelaw bonus article every year says 8th years are making 315k plus 100k bonus. Would you rather be a lowly associate making 415 or a partner struggling to keep the doors of your small shop open? Obviously those are extremes, and Vegas big firms don't pay as much as those in New York/LA/Dallas/etc. But it's something to think about when you encounter the need-to-be-partner bravado on this website.
great point. And how much origination matters to one firm is very different to another. My $1 million book is peanuts to a wall street firm, but I'm a rockstar out west.
The other side of the high-paying associate gig though is that there is a limit to it–it can't last forever. Sometimes it turns into income/non-equity partner or maybe to a fancy "Senior Counsel" title. But when recessions hit, often the first to go are the non-equity partners and often they are canned before even the associates.
Many are in the situation of 12:21–decent pay, willing to work hard each week to generate the requisite billable hours, but have no time to make rain and build their own connections to generate cases.
That's fine as long as one is till a relatively young attorney. But this profession can age one by 15 years, and when one is in their 50's they don't want to be grinding at the back-breaking, high-stress rate they did when they were a 28-year-old newbie.
That's why some mid-career reflection is often necessary, and can lead to critical change, which sometimes means taking some calculated chances. Either that or one can stroke out at 58 or 62 because they have the same immense pressure to work the same oppressive hours, and to relentlessly bill, that they had three decades earlier.
The State appealed Alexis Plunkett's dismissal. NSC 74169
Let's see now…
Can we bet on the year this will be resolved? I got $10 on 2021!
I have 2020. Late 2020, but 2020 nonetheless
They need to let it go. At the end of the day, each side can argue all the statutes and case authority they want, but the appeal will not be successful unless the NSC or COA see a clear intent, as well as real harm or likely harm.
They would want to see that she lent the phone to him to aid him in furtherance of a crime, rather than to merely be informed of calendaring and other ministerial matters. The intent behind the law, prohibiting providing phones to inmates, was to prevent them for acting in furtherance of the ongoing offense they are in custody for, or to prevent them from initiating new criminal mischief.
If all that is again determined here is that it was a serious lapse in judgment to provide him the phone, but the attorney only did so in order to keep him abreast of the progress of the case, I would really be surprised if the matter is over-turned.
No fucking way @2:23 is a lawyer.
To: 2:36:Perhaps not, but he/she may be right. I doubt it will be overturned, even though that that decision may not be based on the reasoning 2:23 offered.
Also, before you say they are stupid, not a lawyer, and dead wrong,it might be wise to research the matter a little. All laws, even ones that seem inexplicable, had some initial legislative intent tied to some broader public policy. The legislative discussions concerning such proposed law almost certainly would have centered, in part, around some rationale of preventing inmates from having the phones, as they may use them pursue further crimes, or other wrongdoing(threatening witnesses, etc).
The land lines at jails or prisons can always be monitored and listened to, but cell. phones can always present some challenges.
So, if you know the broader policy issues of what the legislature intended by enacting such law, I would love to hear it. You may very well be right, and 2:23 may be dead wrong and not a lawyer. But rather than merely being profane and dismissive and making the matter personal, why don't you simply enlighten me(and others who might not be certain) as to what type of behavior was intended to be curtailed by enacting such law.
Analysis, rather than abuse of others, may be quite welcome and helpful. After all, if YOU are in fact a lawyer, tell us the reasons behind the law, rather than just calling someone else an idiot. Again 2:23 may not be a lawyer, and may be ultimately wrong, but call me an idiot(which I'm sure you will) but the discussion of preventing the inmates from having the phones due to the harm that cold result from such access, seems to have some arguable merit to it.
Holy fuck, 2:55, are you serious?
"before you say they are stupid" where did anyone say that?
"I doubt it will be overturned" bullshit, Villani was super wrong, read the "principal" statute. Villani likes to make results-based decisions (not even a conservative/liberal thing, he just likes things to go the way he wants).
"if you know the broader policy issues of what the legislature intended by enacting such law, I would love to hear it." So prisoners don't use phones to continue their criminal behavior while incarcerated. Gangs, hits, drug deals, prisoners still do this via code in letters, but cell phones make it very easy.
"but call me an idiot" You don't seem like an idiot, just ignorant
Legislative intent doesn't matter a lick because the law is exceptionally clear.
I don't even care about this issue, not even a little.
So, you are heaping abuse on the blogger even though it is clear you agree with the main point they were attempting to make–that the inmates could use the phones in furtherance of crimes. Your reflex was to be abusive and condemn them and their position, even though it is clear there are main areas of agreement(such as, by far the major point being made). I would hate to see how you react to people who you actually do disagree with.
You say you are not calling people stupid or idiots, but then you substitute other equally abusive and demeaning terms: "ignorant," etc.
Why not try the novel approach of accepting that other people are human beings, rather than mere objects to be kicked or abused if they don't fall into lock step with 100% of your opinions 100% of the time.
Why not try an approach such as "I disagree and Judge Villani was wrong, may be over-turned, and here's why… and the reason they are precluded from having the phones is as follows…"
See, was that so hard? You can provide all your reasons without name-calling and marginalizing others. And this goes even if certain opinions are in fact really ill-informed or ignorant. Simply explain your position.
Before you call someone ignorant, please keep in mind that the way you apparently treat others seems ignorant in a sense.
I'm going to assume that you are just taking this tone because it is anonymous blogging. I hope that when you interact with loved ones and colleagues, that disagreements are handled in a much more civil, respectful manner.
And since you insist that "no way is 2:23 a f***ing lawyer" I must ask you what kind of lawyer you are. You immediately flew off the handle, essentially called them an idiot for their view that the intent is to avoid inmates from having the phones since there is a concern the phones would be used in furtherance of crimes. Then when you were asked to enlighten us as to the purpose behind the law you essentially said the exact same thing: "So prisoners don't use phones to continue their criminal behavior while incarcerated…"
Again, anyone reading this all will conclude that you abused someone who you ultimately agreed with. So, read before you react, and try to remember that people are not placed on the earth for you to abuse and demean.
In my adult life I have never called someone an idiot or ignorant simply because I had a discussion with them wherein I was convinced they were wrong. And, again, you don't even think 2:23 is wrong. You insist they are wrong, abuse them for being wrong, but then, when you offer your explanation of why inmates should not have the phones, you parrot almost verbatim what 2:23 said.
And let's remember that Wolfson (soon to be candidate Wolfson) filed this appeal at no cost and it will be resolved at no cost to him or his team of attorneys. Only the taxpayers have to pay for this. Will it be seen as frivolous and cost him votes or significant/important and bring him votes?
Opponents will likely spin this and use it against Wolfson and to his/her advantage I.E. "D.A. Wolfson thinks he knows more about the law that Nevada Judges…"
In Nevada, the fun just never ends especially when the taxpayers pay the bills!
correction:
Opponents will likely spin this and use it against Wolfson and to his/her advantage I.E. "D.A. Wolfson thinks he knows more about the law than Nevada Judges…"
2:23, the specific intent required for an aiding and abetting offense is simply the intent that the act constituting the crime occur, and the crime here is possession of the phone by the inmate. This is pretty open-and-shut Crim Law 101. If she lent him the phone with the intent of furthering some additional crime (drug dealing or intimidation or something), that would be an additional aiding and abetting charge based on the other underlying crime. I don't think anyone is alleging that, but you seem to imply that's the only way there's a crime here. I don't think so. That would be a second crime. The first crime is giving him the phone – aiding and abetting possession of contraband.
4:25 stated "This is pretty open-and-shut Crim Law 101."
There is no "open and shut" law in Nevada…criminal or civil.
Just ask any elected judge!
Sure are a lotta feelz in this thread. . .
@4:43 – certainly some LOUD NOISES
To:4:21. It all may be academic and the election will be an irrelevant yawn fest.
Wolfson will either receive no opponent, or will receive mere token opposition. I haven't heard of anyone of arguable viability express an interest.
TL;DR is the theme of the day.
To:4:25. Yes. Absolutely. The mere intent of the attorney for the inmate to possess the phone, which he eventually did, satisfies the elements of the crime, while furnishing it with the specific intent so it can be used in the furtherance of criminal activity is where an enhancement comes into play.
But when laws of this somewhat unique type are enacted(laws where the activities leading to any enhancement are far more offensive and dangerous than the basic un-enhanced crime), the main concerns are to prevent the acts which constitute the enhancement–furtherance of criminal activity. No one would have proposed such law, and it would never have been passed, if the main concern was phones being provided for some innocuous purpose that causes no risks.
So, on the theory that the Appellate courts might be more result-oriented in this one, and less technical, and be committed to a sense of proportion, they may be inclined to uphold this one, rather than sticking to a strict analysis that the key elements of the basic crime are satisfied. If they don't see a nefarious intent, or any resultant harm, I'm not sure it will be over-turned.
So, although I am kind of hesitant to agree with the one blogger who some other blogger insists must not be a lawyer, and must be an idiot, the lack of any nefarious intent needed for the enhancement, combined with the fact that Villani is generally a highly respected jurist, and the NSC track record of, seemingly far more often than not, affirming a lower court's decision to dismiss a criminal case, I doubt it will be reversed.
So, I'm kind of embarrassed to say that I am kind of with the non-lawyer, supposedly ignorant person on this one. Playing the odds, I just don't sense a reversal.
The NSC always leans toward reversal of dismissals or summary judgment (civil) and has reversed dismissals by Villani before
Certainly agree as reversal of the granting of summary judgments, but as to the reversal of dismissal of criminal charges, are you certain about that?
Court currently has three justices who tend to be sensitive(read:liberal) as the rights of the criminally accused, and they often persuade a fourth to join them.
While I generally agree with you on the analysis regarding the leanings of the justices, this is an unusual factual case leading to a slippery slope. Do they protect a single defendant, who happens to be an attorney, and watch the jails change their policies so that all criminal attorneys are no longer allowed to bring into the jail any electronic device capable of being used for communications with third partied that lack the ability to be monitored? From a public policy perspective it becomes a potentially dangerous situation that future criminals can exploit.
That is why we have a legislative session. Courts should not change or clarify this law, legislation should.
You amplify a populist, original intent, conservative type view of discouraging activist jurists and the like, which I certainly respect,and to a large extent agree with, but it also has become crushingly obvious to me that such is not the way it operates in reality.
Most published decisions from courts of review exist for the purpose of clarifying the Law, and many such decisions essentially change the Law by overturning prior decisions, ruling that certain statutes are unconstitutional, etc.
So, the view that the legislature should draft the laws, and the courts should merely apply them, is a more sustainable view on the trial court level. But courts of review often perform the function of clarifying, and even changing the Law.
I also notice that some conservatives, who rail against activist judges, have no problem with activist judges if they are imposing a conservative view, and issuing a conservative ruling, on so called family values type issues.
7:45 pm: Hard for me to agree that the NSC is criminal-defendant friendly. Plus, your theory only works for an en banc court. The court, as a general rule, wants a case to go to a fact-finder.
I tend to agree with 10:32. NSC is hardly criminal-defendant friendly. I have hardly found the "three justices who tend to be sensitive(read:liberal)" to be consistent in any manner. Candidly the Justices are all over the map. For every reversal based upon egregious facts which some might consider "liberal", there are ten cases where the Court allows truly shoddy prosecutions to slide on harmless error.
True. My thoughts apply to situations when all seven are assembled to decide. I can think of three(and you probably know who they are) who tend to be sensitive to the rights of the criminally accused, and thus sticklers to make certain all legal/procedural protections were honored.
Problem here seems to have started when the associate jumped ship to do the same job at a “bigger” firm after the first 2 1/2 years. Common jump ship/grass is greener mentality that ruins so many careers. It’s not the firm – it’s you.