What does "counsel" mean

[MapleLeafs]

I noticed at many of the Bay St firms, there are individuals who serve as "Counsel" rather than the traditional associate and partner job positions. I was under the assumption that there is a strict dichotomy of associate/partner, and if you don't cut it as a partner in 7-10 years, you're shown the door. Can anyone clarify what being "counsel" entails, is it just a glorified associate with a higher salary but no benefits of partnership? 

[tiktok]

Same question. The salary grids I found online went up to 10 years. What happens if you don't make partner in 10 years?

[Rashabon]

22 minutes ago, MapleLeafs said:

I noticed at many of the Bay St firms, there are individuals who serve as "Counsel" rather than the traditional associate and partner job positions. I was under the assumption that there is a strict dichotomy of associate/partner, and if you don't cut it as a partner in 7-10 years, you're shown the door. Can anyone clarify what being "counsel" entails, is it just a glorified associate with a higher salary but no benefits of partnership? 

That assumption is incorrect. Counsel designations vary from firm to firm but they can entail associates that have aged out of being associates but aren't up for or don't want to be partners, or they may be senior laterals that have a niche practice that isn't conducive to being a partner, or they are a senior person that may be in the partnership at some point but aren't quite there or are on a trial run. Some people self select out of partnership, others have that decision made for them. There is lots of variability. Compensation would be variable and would depend on each individuals' circumstances.

 

12 minutes ago, tiktok said:

Same question. The salary grids I found online went up to 10 years. What happens if you don't make partner in 10 years?

Depends. Sometimes you stick around as a counsel, sometimes you're given a gentle push out the door, sometimes you're given even longer to make partner.

All of the above is Bay Street/big law focused. Off Bay, there is even more variability and less defined boxes.

[Darth Vader]

It seems like you're looking at this with rose-coloured glasses. Almost no one nowadays spends years in Big law trying to make Partner. More in-house opportunities have opened up for Associates to make early career moves. 

I know a very capable and highly intelligent lawyer that was on the partner track, who chose to take a Counsel position so they can spend more time with their family and newborn baby. They later moved to an in-house position. 

As a law student or applicant, it is very easy to think that you will be one of the few people sticking it out 7+ years in Big law to try to make Partner, but this comes with a lot of personal sacrifices. Even after you make Partner, you will still be working a lot of hours. You have to really enjoy the money and/or the work to put up with this kind lifestyle.

You can worry about these Counsel and Partner distinctions once you've actually done a few years as an Associate, but I suspect that by that point, you will already know where you stand with your employer, and have more insight into your own personal goals and lifestyle choices. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

4 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

You can worry about these Counsel and Partner distinctions once you've actually done a few years as an Associate, but I suspect that by that point, you will already know where you stand with your employer, and have more insight into your own personal goals and lifestyle choices. 

I think it’s fine for students to ask questions like this, even if they will probably never be personally relevant to them. That’s especially true where, as here, the answer is relatively straightforward.

I don’t think we should be discouraging students from asking questions about long term topics in big law on the grounds that they are unlikely to be in big law long term.

[Conge]

It's a versatile title. I work in-house and we have a "counsel" on staff as well. Senior lawyer/former general counsel who was going to retire but instead took a part time position where he is available for questions/guidance on complex matters. He technically reports to the new general counsel, but we all know he's sort of reporting to no one. It's a great gig. I called him the other day and he answered from his "home office" in the Caribbean. 

[Jaggers]

For in house, “counsel” and “senior counsel” are the default titles. 

[KOMODO]

11 hours ago, Rashabon said:

That assumption is incorrect. Counsel designations vary from firm to firm but they can entail associates that have aged out of being associates but aren't up for or don't want to be partners, or they may be senior laterals that have a niche practice that isn't conducive to being a partner, or they are a senior person that may be in the partnership at some point but aren't quite there or are on a trial run. Some people self select out of partnership, others have that decision made for them. There is lots of variability. Compensation would be variable and would depend on each individuals' circumstances.

Totally agree with this list, and would add two other times where the "counsel" designation is common - (1) when partners switch firms but haven't moved their equity yet, sometimes they are temporarily counsel until they buy into the partnership, and (2) at some firms there is a retirement age from partnership, and lawyers who want to continue practicing become counsel but are really like partners for many practical purposes.

[easttowest]

Did we mention former Prime Ministers yet? They can be wandering around, “Counselling”.

[Vizslaw]

At our firm we had a senior lawyer who retired from the Crown's office and joined us as "Counsel" which really just meant that she worked as much or as little as she wanted. She wasn't a partner or an associate. We just had a formula for how much she earned based on how many hours she worked. 

For a number of private firms, the Counsel designation indicates they are not full-timers but are called upon to handle specific matters. The title can also sometimes be used for the firm's profile or advertising, so they can show they have these heavy hitters on their website as counsel to the firm but they don't really do much work there lol. 

[123]

I’ll sometimes get an “of counsel” factum from the DOJ. So far, the work has always read like they rolled some pre-confederation era lawyer out of mothballs and paid him to write the world’s most aggressive memo on cases that you’d only find in an outdated print edition of the Halsbury’s Laws. I guess that’s an exit option for those planning to be over-the-hill public sector litigators one day.

 

[Vizslaw]

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

I’ll sometimes get an “of counsel” factum from the DOJ. So far, the work has always read like they rolled some pre-confederation era lawyer out of mothballs and paid him to write the world’s most aggressive memo on cases that you’d only find in an outdated print edition of the Halsbury’s Laws. I guess that’s an exit option for those planning to be over-the-hill public sector litigators one day.

 

Hilariously accurate. They are even more exciting to appear with in court. My best "of counsel" story was from a jury trial I did (as a more junior lawyer) with said pre-confederation lawyer at my side for "learning purposes". He made edits to my opening statement to make it more aggressive and jokingly told me the worst that would happen is that they would declare a mistrial and just pick a new jury before the panels were dismissed. I didn't actually believe that, but he did tell me that if the defence brought a mistrial application he would respond since he egged me on to making the opening more exciting.

So I make my opening statement and tell the jury why they are going to find the accused guilty. I thought it was appropriately aggressive but not over the top. Well within the confines of a firm prosecution/advocacy. Anyway, the defence brings a mistrial application and during their arguments the pre-confederation lawyer tells me not to worry about it and that he feels bad, so he'll respond to the argument and make submissions on the mistrial application. Defence sits down and the judge calls on us to respond. I look to the lawyer and he's like, "what are you looking at me for, it was your opening statement......." And in that moment I learned never to trust the crusty cantankerous lawyers. He was good for a few laughs during the trial but mostly just sat there with a scowl while I did all the work. No mistrials were declared phew. 

Edit: I will say, this was one of the most fun trials and one in which I learned a lot, so it wasn't bad at all 🙂

Edited December 1, 2021 by Vizslaw
Fun