- Quickdraw McLaw
- 22 Comments
- 266 Views
The public is not generally aware of the internal structure of law firms. In fact, most lawyers probably aren’t aware of that internal structure. Naturally, it depends on the firm, but you will have a hierarchy of attorneys that ranges from pre-bar exam associates to resident gray-haired partner. Somewhere in between those two titles are a variety of different positions. Sometimes firms actually have different levels of associates, where eventually you earn the coveted title of “Senior Associate.” Some firms have multiple levels of partnership that the public is never aware about–including office partners and equity partners. Once in a while, you even get the odd firm that refers to its attorneys as “Directors.”
Not to be lost among all these positions in a law firm is the mysterious title “Of Counsel.” According to Wikipedia, the ABA has four different definitions for the position. What is not clear from those definitions is something some of you already began discussing in the comments last week. Is an associate who gets made “Of Counsel” to a firm getting a promotion?
After publishing Adam Laxalt’s performance reviews from Lewis & Roca last week, Jon Ralston is continuing his attack on Laxalt. On his Ralston Reports blog yesterday, Ralston give his assessment of where Laxalt’s campaign is headed. Among many other opinions, Ralston concludes that Laxalt is wrong to call the move from associate to “Of Counsel” as a promotion–citing the venerable online resource thefreedictionary.com. Specifically, Ralston says, “Many lawyers who understand what the term means realize it is not a “promotion” unless you consider being taken out of day-to-day legal affairs to be such.”
Now the ball is in your court. We know “many lawyers” read this blog and probably understand what that term means better than your local political pundit. So, what do you think? To make it clear, the poll question below is about what you think of the move from associate to “Of Counsel” in general. This is not Laxalt, Lewis & Roca, or Ralston specific. When you hear that someone went from being an associate to “Of Counsel,” what do you think? Feel free to give us further enlightenment in the comments.
Generally speaking, is it a promotion to go from the position of “Associate” to “Of Counsel?”
My understanding is that it's not technically either a promotion or a demotion. A partner is just that, an associate is an employee, and "of counsel" essentially means you're a contractor. That is, you have no equity interest in the firm, but you're not an employee like an associate. You're not strictly on a partner track like most associates, but that of course doesn't mean the firm can't make you a partner someday if it wants to. Overall, unless it was purely the associate's choice to become "of counsel" in order to reduce work hours for work-life balance reasons or something or to take clients on the side, I would say a firm-initiated change is more like a demotion than a promotion. But it depends on the firm, of course. A firm could use the term to mean something like "senior associate who is still an employee and on the partner track," in which case it would be more like a promotion. Whether Laxalt's situation is more like a promotion or demotion depends on details that we will likely never know about.
The "poll" suffers from the fact that it requests a response "in general". As noted by the above, as well as a commenter to a prior post, there are any numbers of reasons for someone to become "Of Counsel". Thus, you cannot simply state "in general" is a move to of counsel a promotion or a demotion, because there is no "in general".
I think the question was intended to get a gut reaction to the question, not your typical lawyer answer of, "It depends…."
My gut reaction? It depends . . . .
Ralston is a hack. What kind of "journalist" actively targets specific politicians and candidates like this, emphasizing the unfavorable news and information while ignoring favorable? Don't real journalists tell the whole story and let the audience decide?
Humorous and embarrassing that Ralston, who has never practiced law or worked at a law firm, can claim to speak so definitively to what "of counsel" means.
"What kind of "journalist" actively targets specific politicians and candidates like this, emphasizing the unfavorable news and information while ignoring favorable? Don't real journalists tell the whole story and let the audience decide?"
Maybe every so-called "journalist" on Fox News?
Ralston's no hack. He has earned well-deserved respect nationwide for his journalism. And just because someone has never practiced law or worked at a law firm doesn't mean they can't speak definitively to what "of counsel" means. You would have been on firmer ground criticizing him for drawing his definition from freeonlinedictionary.com, as set up by this blog's post. But I would bet that he also spoke to the many of the top-notch lawyers he knows to get their opinion of the meaning of "of counsel." In fact, it is likely that it was their initial comments to him about the meaning of the phrase and their skepticism as to whether it constituted a promotion that spurred him to write about it.
Nobody else has said it, so I'll just say thank you, John, for this insight into your reporting process.
I used to think Ralston was even-handed — hard-hitting sometimes, sure, but equally hard all the way around. His reporting on the AG race is leading me to reevaluate that. His piece Sunday about the Navy reports was snarky; he also has not done anything wrt Miller this season and he's vulnerable too. Seems like he's reveling in Laxalt family division and lost his objectivity b/c of it.
His first name is "Jon," but Ralston didn't write the "he's no hack" comment. I did. I simply went with the trend and used anonymous. I'm an attorney, but I know Ralston and I know a little bit about how he works.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that he can be snarky, but that helps liven up reporting on politics. Frankly, I think this state is lucky to have him because he is the only one with the balls and the clout to call bullshit (in his snarky way) on the movers and shakers AND on the media.
Thank you John.
Speaking as an associate, I would take a title change to of counsel as being a promotion. Granted, I can't speak to all of Laxalt's situation or what LRR do, but being of counsel is more prestigious than associate and makes it clear I'm not on the lowest rung of the attorney ladder any more. I'm sure some people might interpret of counsel to be more prestigious than being a partner. Now, if you go from being a partner to of counsel, there's a greater chance a demotion is involved (or retirement), but in my book, associate to of counsel is going to be a promotion 9 times out of 10.
Phillips is a dickhead. He should stick with appearing on Pawn Stars trying to sell items he accepted as payment for his terrible services.
Goodness, read the minutes from the case where Cadish referred Phillips to the State Bar. Horrible.
09A579988
Let's not forget that some of these regional firms require a substantial (250-500k+) book of business before they make you partner. LRR could be one, so if you are a good associate, work hard, but have no book, you'll get made "of counsel" as a nod to your seniority. If you ever develop a book, I'm sure the firm would make you partner.
I understand that his designation as "Of Counsel" is Laxalt's go-to response when everyone brings up the negative contents of the performance evaluation (i.e., they must have thought highly of me — they promoted me) but, to my mind, this misses the point.
Unless the authenticity of the leaked performance evaluation is called into question (which has not happened), the fact remains that several members of the Bar who affiliate with a pretty respectable law firm (LRR), have a pretty low opinion of Laxalt's skills as an attorney and back that opinion up with details and suggestions for improvement. To me, this is a credible evaluation. They could have called him "Grand Poobah", for all it really matters. The "Of Counsel" thing is a CYA maneuver for LRR and Laxalt, plain and simple.
LRR knows that this guy could get elected to something some day, or he may just inherit a position
Totes off topic, but has anyone heard anything else about Judge Johnson's complaint against Hafter regarding campaign contributions? Also, does anyone know why Hafter chose to run against Johnson? Is this a grudge match, or did he just randomly pick her department?
The real issue is that below "equity partner" or its equivalent (Director, Shareholder, Plankholder etc.), everyone in a firm is an employee. Most firms have plenty of Contract Partners which are really just autonomous senior associates. The firm can justify a higher per hour fee for their work and the Equity Partner they work for lets them have more control over cases. In any of the firms I ever worked for, Of Counsel is equivalent to a Contact Partner: above associate and below Equity. Of Counsel attorneys tended to be older or with significant experience elsewhere but who did not want to chase the hourly train or build a book of business for personal reasons. They are good attorneys who just want to work without the politics that the Partner track tends to create. I know one former Of Counsel who was then moved to a contract partner status and one Contract Partner who asked to become Of Counsel. In his case he was told that the powers that be were NEVER going to make him an Equity Partner. He still liked the firm and the work, and they liked his work product, so rather than be stuck in "partner limbo" he took a title change and seemed much happier for it.
All of this is academic because even in big firms an Equity Partner can be fired if all the others gang up on them. Unless your name is on the building you are always working for someone else and we all work for the client. Was Laxalt good or bad at LRR? Who knows. JAG to private practice had to be a real culture shock. I doubt those who lit him up over his billing or writing skills wouldn't last a month in a JAG role. Doesn't make them bad attorneys.
Why is Ralston being such a bull dog on this? I mean I think he is right on most points, but the release of those records is bad enough. Believe me, I am not a Laxalt fan, but the guy is still a human being. Seems a little over the top, like it is something of personal axe to grind.
Much of what Ralston is doing is simply pointing out that the RJ appears to be shilling for Laxalt.
As of the time of this comment, the vote count is split evenly at 43 votes yes and 43 votes no. I think it's safe to say there is no consensus on whether moving from associate to of counsel is a promotion.