September 2022 - Big Law Salaries?

[Bob Jones]

17 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

You’ve just described capitalism. 

With respect, I think you’ve completely missed the mark. 
 

A truly capitalist economy and legal industry would foster competition and entrepreneurialism to encourage innovation for clients, and competitive remuneration structures to retain talented employees. Instead, we have a system which artificially “nudges” (with an assurance they’re of course not being terminated and not being provided a severance, but it’s clear they are being terminated) Associates out the door after an arbitrary number of years, because the firm has an ongoing scheme where they hire more associates then there is room to move up the ladder. But in reality, there is more than enough work to go around, and most people don’t care about titles and would be happy to stay. 
 

There is also something quite odd when there is an unofficial wage-fixing rule among BigLaw firms to fix Associate rates, and firms almost never offer rates above those figures for Associates even if they’re a top performer (and assuming they can even get into a firm like that). 

I was clear I was being sarcastic with the term “pyramid scheme” but sure read literally that’s not the best descriptor, but there is something far from capitalism going on. 

Anyway, the point of my initial post earlier this week on this thread was to demonstrate the sad reality of our industry. You can do reasonably well compared to Median Canadian salaries, but it’s virtually impossible to get to US rates, or earn more tangible income. I suppose that’s also a commentary on other industries in the US vs Canada, such as tech. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Bob Jones

[Bob Jones]

16 hours ago, Rashabon said:

It's also silly. Law has low barrier of entry. Put up your shingle and compete. Associates "do" the work insofar as the "work" is pushing paper. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of the "job" of law. A lot of associates don't get to do that work unless the partner is there to feed it to them. And if that associate doesn't need that partner to feed them work because they have their own - congrats, that's one of the surest ways to make partner.

The other interesting point is that in law, unlike in say a tech company, or construction, or a factory, the "managerial class" can actually do the work. It's just not as efficient or lucrative (for the whole enterprise). The CEO of a tech company isn't going to code (see Elon Musk for example where that idiot thinks he can) and so is dependent on his personnel. By and large the partners aren't relying on associates for their unique expertise. They are relying on them for efficiency of scale. The only work I delegate that I can't do myself is work to specialists in other areas. I don't delegate downwards work that I can't, in theory, do myself. But it's more efficient for someone else to do it. And if the associates think those partners should do more of their own actual work, congrats, now both parties lose.

Barrier to entry - yes and no. You have to through what 7-8 years of schooling post high school, the bar exam, 10 months of articling? It’s not the same as being a physician but it’s not picnic either. This website and its processor exists because people have a hard time becoming lawyers and getting into law school. 
 

On the other hand, there’s clearly more graduates being pumped out every year then there are positions at “BigLaw” firms (if that’s someone’s goal), so one way to address that and force law firms to compete would be to reduce the size of law schools , which will NEVER happen. 

[CleanHands]

55 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

On the other hand, there’s clearly more graduates being pumped out every year then there are positions at “BigLaw” firms (if that’s someone’s goal), so one way to address that and force law firms to compete would be to reduce the size of law schools , which will NEVER happen. 

LOL at you caring so little about public interest law positions as to suggest reducing the number of law graduates purely in order to reduce competition for BigLaw jobs (to be clear, there's something to be said for reducing the number of people entering the profession, but this is just a braindead justification for that).

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

Barrier to entry - yes and no. You have to through what 7-8 years of schooling post high school, the bar exam, 10 months of articling? It’s not the same as being a physician but it’s not picnic either. This website and its processor exists because people have a hard time becoming lawyers and getting into law school. 

No, literally anyone without some diagnosable-level intellectual disability can get a direct entry law degree from an open admissions UK law school and then get called after demonstrating bare minimal competence in a provincial bar course or exam. And there's the LPP. Really the only barrier to entry is willingness to put in a few years of half-hearted effort.

Edited December 2, 2023 by CleanHands

[Diplock]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

With respect, I think you’ve completely missed the mark. 
 

A truly capitalist economy and legal industry would foster competition and entrepreneurialism to encourage innovation for clients, and competitive remuneration structures to retain talented employees. Instead, we have a system which artificially “nudges” (with an assurance they’re of course not being terminated and not being provided a severance, but it’s clear they are being terminated) Associates out the door after an arbitrary number of years, because the firm has an ongoing scheme where they hire more associates then there is room to move up the ladder. But in reality, there is more than enough work to go around, and most people don’t care about titles and would be happy to stay. 
 

There is also something quite odd when there is an unofficial wage-fixing rule among BigLaw firms to fix Associate rates, and firms almost never offer rates above those figures for Associates even if they’re a top performer (and assuming they can even get into a firm like that). 

I was clear I was being sarcastic with the term “pyramid scheme” but sure read literally that’s not the best descriptor, but there is something far from capitalism going on. 

Anyway, the point of my initial post earlier this week on this thread was to demonstrate the sad reality of our industry. You can do reasonably well compared to Median Canadian salaries, but it’s virtually impossible to get to US rates, or earn more tangible income. I suppose that’s also a commentary on other industries in the US vs Canada, such as tech. 

Well, we're getting closer to my premature indignation.

We're mixing "capitalist" and "free market" too freely here. But what you're talking about are the defining characteristics of a free market economy, and not a capitalist one. They generally go hand-in-hand, of course, but they are not synonymous.

The joke here, is that you reference free market first, and then talk about how it's supposed to "foster" your ability to compete. Foster how, exactly? Whatever you are talking about (and I'm almost sure you don't know) it would have to involve some kind of market intervention. In other words, you're asking for exactly the opposite of a free market but only those situations that further your own income and success but not anyone else's. It's exactly the point I made above. No one in your position ever seems to complain about the forces that get you so far ahead of many of the people around you - only the forces that allow anyone else to be ahead of you. However you couch it, it's an insufferable attitude.

I believe there are deep problems in our economy. I believe our runaway wealth inequality - which is accelerating and sharpening over time to an insane degree - may in retrospect be the defining problem of our generation. Science may solve climate change, environmental issues, etc. But we don't even have a proposed solution for this problem. It's ridiculous. I'm always game to have that conversation and I'll be the first to acknowledge that I am in the "winner" column as far as it goes - though the real problem exists not in the 10% or even the 1% but in the 0.01%. That's a different story. I'm just utterly uninterested in the opinion of anyone who doesn't care about the problem as a global issue and doesn't care about anyone left far behind them - they only want to bitch about the person still ahead of them.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But some opinions are stupid.

[CleanHands]

13 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Well, we're getting closer to my premature indignation.

We're mixing "capitalist" and "free market" too freely here. But what you're talking about are the defining characteristics of a free market economy, and not a capitalist one. They generally go hand-in-hand, of course, but they are not synonymous.

The joke here, is that you reference free market first, and then talk about how it's supposed to "foster" your ability to compete. Foster how, exactly? Whatever you are talking about (and I'm almost sure you don't know) it would have to involve some kind of market intervention. In other words, you're asking for exactly the opposite of a free market but only those situations that further your own income and success but not anyone else's. It's exactly the point I made above. No one in your position ever seems to complain about the forces that get you so far ahead of many of the people around you - only the forces that allow anyone else to be ahead of you. However you couch it, it's an insufferable attitude.

I believe there are deep problems in our economy. I believe our runaway wealth inequality - which is accelerating and sharpening over time to an insane degree - may in retrospect be the defining problem of our generation. Science may solve climate change, environmental issues, etc. But we don't even have a proposed solution for this problem. It's ridiculous. I'm always game to have that conversation and I'll be the first to acknowledge that I am in the "winner" column as far as it goes - though the real problem exists not in the 10% or even the 1% but in the 0.01%. That's a different story. I'm just utterly uninterested in the opinion of anyone who doesn't care about the problem as a global issue and doesn't care about anyone left far behind them - they only want to bitch about the person still ahead of them.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But some opinions are stupid.

I mean @Bob Jones's posting history here is almost exclusively whinging about BigLaw salaries. He has even stated that secretly working a second full-time job and collecting two salaries without informing either employer is justified and understandable given the income of BigLaw associates, and the only reason not to do that is the energy required and risk of being fired. And that one income just "isn't enough." I'm legitimately curious as to what his lifestyle is like.

At any rate, the guy has a pretty high opinion of his market value and irreplaceability, for a Windsor Dual grad (also an indication that if there were fewer law grads in Canada as he suggested, he wouldn't have been able to become one of them).

Edited December 2, 2023 by CleanHands

[Bob Jones]

31 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

LOL at you caring so little about public interest law positions as to suggest reducing the number of law graduates purely in order to reduce competition for BigLaw jobs (to be clear, there's something to be said for reducing the number of people entering the profession, but this is just a braindead justification for that).

Why would you falsely assume I don’t care about public interest jobs or jobs outside of Bay? If you read my initial comment earlier in the week, it was to raise awareness about salary discrepancies from “BigLaw” in the US relative to Canada. 
 

You’re incorrectly criticizing a position I never took, which is irrelevant to my initial comment. 
 

I offered a suggestion with the sole purpose of addressing pay discrepancies among the bigger firms. 
 

I think you should stop criticizing people with sarcastic “LOL” comments, based upon positions and comments they never made, and stick to the actual issues. 

[CleanHands]

2 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Why would you falsely assume I don’t care about public interest jobs or jobs outside of Bay? If you read my initial comment earlier in the week, it was to raise awareness about salary discrepancies from “BigLaw” in the US relative to Canada.

...

2 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

I offered a suggestion with the sole purpose of addressing pay discrepancies among the bigger firms. 

?

[Bob Jones]

31 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I mean @Bob Jones's posting history here is almost exclusively whinging about BigLaw salaries. He has even stated that secretly working a second full-time job and collecting two salaries without informing either employer is justified and understandable given the income of BigLaw associates, and the only reason not to do that is the energy required and risk of being fired. And that one income just "isn't enough." I'm legitimately curious as to what his lifestyle is like.

At any rate, the guy has a pretty high opinion of his market value and irreplaceability, for a Windsor Dual grad (also an indication that if there were fewer law grads in Canada as he suggested, he wouldn't have been able to become one of them).

Not sure what comments I made years ago has anything to do with the current discussion at play - pay disparities. It’s also not particularly helpful or constructive to resort to personal attacks, such as criticizing someone for “thinking highly of themselves” or for the university they attended. 
 

Doing so shows weakness in your argument, and is not helpful to having a logical and constructive discussion.

Personal attacks and borderline online bullying were a big problem of the original forum, and I see the same names repeating the same pattern here once more. 
 

39 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Well, we're getting closer to my premature indignation.

We're mixing "capitalist" and "free market" too freely here. But what you're talking about are the defining characteristics of a free market economy, and not a capitalist one. They generally go hand-in-hand, of course, but they are not synonymous.

The joke here, is that you reference free market first, and then talk about how it's supposed to "foster" your ability to compete. Foster how, exactly? Whatever you are talking about (and I'm almost sure you don't know) it would have to involve some kind of market intervention. In other words, you're asking for exactly the opposite of a free market but only those situations that further your own income and success but not anyone else's. It's exactly the point I made above. No one in your position ever seems to complain about the forces that get you so far ahead of many of the people around you - only the forces that allow anyone else to be ahead of you. However you couch it, it's an insufferable attitude.

I believe there are deep problems in our economy. I believe our runaway wealth inequality - which is accelerating and sharpening over time to an insane degree - may in retrospect be the defining problem of our generation. Science may solve climate change, environmental issues, etc. But we don't even have a proposed solution for this problem. It's ridiculous. I'm always game to have that conversation and I'll be the first to acknowledge that I am in the "winner" column as far as it goes - though the real problem exists not in the 10% or even the 1% but in the 0.01%. That's a different story. I'm just utterly uninterested in the opinion of anyone who doesn't care about the problem as a global issue and doesn't care about anyone left far behind them - they only want to bitch about the person still ahead of them.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But some opinions are stupid.

You peaked my interest when you started talking about free markets and government intervention, but then lost me when you turned to implicitly calling my opinion/opinions you don’t agree with as “bitching” and “stupid.”

Edited December 2, 2023 by Bob Jones

[Dinsdale]

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

No, literally anyone without some diagnosable-level intellectual disability can get a direct entry law degree from an open admissions UK law school and then get called after demonstrating bare minimal competence in a provincial bar course or exam. And there's the LPP. Really the only barrier to entry is willingness to put in a few years of half-hearted effort.

This is a bit of a cynical view, but I don't entirely disagree, especially vis-a-vis Ontario and its open-borders LPP.  What is the true barrier to entry here?  Maybe the NCA exams?  I'm not really familiar with how rigorous they are.  What I do know is UK law degrees are a dime a dozen (as mentioned), the Bar Admission exams have been dumbed down to a very low failure rate, and any half-wit with an LL.B. can get through the LPP -- many do while quietly working a second job.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Dinsdale

[C_Terror]

Barrier to entry is the cost of getting a law degree. Any which way you cut it, you're looking at spending an additional 3 years and tens if not hundreds of thousands in tuition fees, which shuts the door to a lot of qualified people. At the same time, less qualified people with deep pockets and no responsibilities/dependents can easily take easier routes into the profession. 

Also, regardless of all the free market theoretical talks, it's perfectly valid to discuss/complain about big law salaries in a vacuum, in a thread about big law salaries. Yes we have it much better than the average Canadian, and much MUCH better than a significant majority of the world. It's also true that Canadian big law associates got stiffed the past 3 years in favour of partners significantly increasing their own pockets beyond the normal scheme. 

[Diplock]

40 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Also, regardless of all the free market theoretical talks, it's perfectly valid to discuss/complain about big law salaries in a vacuum, in a thread about big law salaries. Yes we have it much better than the average Canadian, and much MUCH better than a significant majority of the world. It's also true that Canadian big law associates got stiffed the past 3 years in favour of partners significantly increasing their own pockets beyond the normal scheme. 

Valid. When the complaints occur in a vacuum, I will totally leave it alone if people want to complain and say their salaries should be higher. Maybe they should, once we accept certain marketplace assumptions. It's when they add the seeming justification "and this is what's wrong with capitalism, that it allows us to be exploited this way" that I lose my shit. That's the line, for me. It's just a little bit "the problem with interest rates is that it's so hard to refinance my yacht."

Edited December 2, 2023 by Diplock

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, Diplock said:

Valid. When the complaints occur in a vacuum, I will totally leave it alone if people want to complain and say their salaries should be higher. Maybe they should, once we accept certain marketplace assumptions. It's when they add the seeming justification "and this is what's wrong with capitalism, that it allows us to be exploited this way" that I lose my shit. That's the line, for me. It's just a little bit "the problem with interest rates is that it's so hard to refinance my yacht."

The original statement is actually dumber than your analogy, because it's a complaint that capitalism is unfair to a category of workers whose jobs largely wouldn't exist outside of a capitalist system.

[Bob Jones]

56 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

The original statement is actually dumber than your analogy, because it's a complaint that capitalism is unfair to a category of workers whose jobs largely wouldn't exist outside of a capitalist system.

You’re still getting it wrong. My* original statement was an observation about salary discrepancies, not a take on economics and capitalism. 
 

Others started discussing those issues, to which I offered a reasonable response.
 

For the record, of course our industry wouldn’t exist (at least not this extent) in an economy and society which didn’t promote capitalism. However, my observation is that there is something quite odd going on with the forced quasi terminations of Associates at a certain point, and hidden/unofficial wage-fixing. 

[Rashabon]

There's nothing odd with "terminating" people that can only do half of the job.

[123]

About what cut of associate billings in Canadian big law go to partners vs associate salaries vs expenses? What about the US?

Not arguing with anyone. I’m just reading through, and find it kind of hard to follow. Partly because I’m under the weather and not the sharpest right now. But also because I don’t know enough about the basic economics of big law to figure out whether associates are getting stiffed. 

[Bob Jones]

1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

There's nothing odd with "terminating" people that can only do half of the job.

Sure…but we know full well that’s not what happens. 
 

Rather, Associates are told to clear their shit in 60-90 days, assured they’re not being terminated, and given vague promises the firm will “help them” to find a new job if they leave … but prevented from staying. 
 

It’s this weird borderline illegal scheme where firms aren’t formally firing you but not giving you the chance to stay. Associates aren’t given reasonable notice that they’re being let go, or any other severance since they assured they’re not being let go it’s just time to “move on.”

This isn’t about cutting people who aren’t performing, it’s cutting people who have stayed for as long as the firm’s scheme allows for it, until moving up to Partner but there is not enough room for all of the Associates to move up, and there’s more hungry Associates at the bottom. 
 

Imagine you’re an engineer as an example working for company X. If you’re not performing or whatever sure anyone can be let ago with a severance package, but there’s no arbitrary quasi scheme to push you out the door because there’s not enough room to progress to another job title/position. If the company is happy and the employee is happy they can stay for as long as they want. 
 

That’s far from what’s happening here, and everyone knows it. 
 

That + the issue of wage fixing is also concerning, which is also keeping salaries down for lawyers. 

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

About what cut of associate billings in Canadian big law go to partners vs associate salaries vs expenses? What about the US?

Not arguing with anyone. I’m just reading through, and find it kind of hard to follow. Partly because I’m under the weather and not the sharpest right now. But also because I don’t know enough about the basic economics of big law to figure out whether associates are getting stiffed. 

Hope you feel better! 
 

I assume the split varies firm to firm, but generally there is an unofficial rule that 1/3 of collections should be used to cover the Associate’s salary. 

[scooter]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

Rather, Associates are told to clear their shit in 60-90 days, assured they’re not being terminated, and given vague promises the firm will “help them” to find a new job if they leave … but prevented from staying. 

It’s this weird borderline illegal scheme where firms aren’t formally firing you but not giving you the chance to stay. Associates aren’t given reasonable notice that they’re being let go, or any other severance since they assured they’re not being let go it’s just time to “move on.”

In terms of being able to land on your feet, this sounds way better than getting "formally fired"

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

Imagine you’re an engineer as an example working for company X. If you’re not performing or whatever sure anyone can be let ago with a severance package, but there’s no arbitrary quasi scheme to push you out the door because there’s not enough room to progress to another job title/position. If the company is happy and the employee is happy they can stay for as long as they want. 

Most businesses don't work on a partnership model, so it makes sense that their hiring and retention strategies would look different. For businesses like big law firms, consulting, investment banking, etc. the "up or out" model is completely rational. It's not an "arbitrary scheme". If it was somehow more profitable to keep old associates around instead of pushing them out in favour of taking a chance on new associates, don't you think someone would have figured that out by now? 

[Diplock]

27 minutes ago, scooter said:

In terms of being able to land on your feet, this sounds way better than getting "formally fired"

Most businesses don't work on a partnership model, so it makes sense that their hiring and retention strategies would look different. For businesses like big law firms, consulting, investment banking, etc. the "up or out" model is completely rational. It's not an "arbitrary scheme". If it was somehow more profitable to keep old associates around instead of pushing them out in favour of taking a chance on new associates, don't you think someone would have figured that out by now? 

You've nailed it. There is an unavoidable contraction here in complaining about how the free market isn't sufficiently rewarding people who think they should be rewarded better, and complaining about how cutthroat it is, while at the same time maintaining the view that the very people who profit from success are losing out by not rewarding and keeping these apparently super-valuable associates around. Both complaints cannot be true at the same time. Either the system is cutthroat and rational and you are complaining about not being rewarded more simply for seniority and by being there first, or else the system is utterly irrational and the people who have the most to gain by changing it are all too dumb to figure it out.

The real issue is this. Good lawyers aren't always good entrepreneurs. They aren't willing (or able) to start their own businesses, and they aren't necessarily good candidates to step into that role in an established practice either - which is what partnership is. As much as people keep complaining that the system doesn't reward "innovation and risk-taking" those complaints come from lawyers who, as big law associates, have never innovated or taken risks in their entire professional lives. They took the easiest (not the same as least competitive - just the simplest) path available, and now they're wondering why they aren't being rewarded for doing things they've never even attempted to do. By that I mean, build something of their own or do something without a safety net.

I'm actually sympathetic to lawyer who are frustrated by a reality no one ever prepared them for. I think that I went three years in law school without anyone even talking about entrepreneurship, let alone preparing us for the reality of that aspect of legal practice. It's only blind good luck that I happen to be good at it. I went out on my own at a very early stage and at this point in my career I'm definitely reaping the rewards. I'd encourage anyone in law school or at the early stages of practice to think more, learn more, and prepare more for this reality. I have a lot of sympathy for folks who are baffled or blindsided by it. But complaining about it like you expect the entire legal industry to start rewarding worker bees like they are entrepreneurs when they simply are not is silly. Doesn't happen anywhere else, and won't happen here either.

[C_Terror]

6 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

About what cut of associate billings in Canadian big law go to partners vs associate salaries vs expenses? What about the US?

Not arguing with anyone. I’m just reading through, and find it kind of hard to follow. Partly because I’m under the weather and not the sharpest right now. But also because I don’t know enough about the basic economics of big law to figure out whether associates are getting stiffed.

I've explained it to Rashabon in the threads above, but you don't even need to compare billable rates between US vs Canada. 

Fact is that most if not all big law shops on Bay Street have seen record breaking years each year in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. Billable rates for associates have also gone up every single year. Every single equity partner in turn has received substantial increases in their distributions in each of this year. In one example, one equity partner saw a $1M incremental increase to his compensation in each of 2020, 2021, and 2022. Anecdotally, it was confirmed to me that partners in my firm saw similar increases.

Associates on the other hand have seen a one time $20K across the board increase in 2021, and two 10% discretionary bonuses in that same year (which done to try to stem the bleeding of associates to the States). Billable hours were insane in 2020, and 2021 (and 2022 and 2023 started to see a slow reversion to the mean, at least in my firm). Benefits and perks were also cut for associates in my firm.

Long story short, the pie got much bigger, and the partner's share, while always substantially larger, got even bigger these past 4 (holy shit it's been that long) years.  

The only comparison to the States is that the partners there at least are throwing crumbs to their Associates. 

[Pantalaimon]

5 hours ago, Bob Jones said:

I assume the split varies firm to firm, but generally there is an unofficial rule that 1/3 of collections should be used to cover the Associate’s salary. 

I've heard that before but it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't make nearly 1/3 of my collections, and I expect that fraction to go down even further as I get more senior.

[C_Terror]

21 minutes ago, Pantalaimon said:

I've heard that before but it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't make nearly 1/3 of my collections, and I expect that fraction to go down even further as I get more senior.

It's likely all other costs that come with keeping you employed. I.e. they might allocate your office space cost to you or your assistant's salary split amongst you and the other lawyers they help, and there are other costs such as group benefits, insurance etc.

 

Just a thought experiment, if a first year earns $130,000 and his billable rates is $400/hr and his collections is 80% of an 1800 yearly billable (1440), then that means he brings in $576,000 in revenue to the firm. 1/3 of that is about $190K a year. That means there are $60K of costs associated directly to him, which seems reasonable. Variables here can change of course; i.e. collection % or billable rate, but the idea is the same. 

[2easy]

Not to get off topic, but realistically how hard is going out on your own and starting your own firm? Wouldn’t it be much easier than grinding up the “pyramid”? 
 

its interesting because when I look in the sole practitioner sub forum, there is only a few topics and they are old and don’t offer much info, so I get the idea most people do not do this. 

[LMP]

52 minutes ago, 2easy said:

Not to get off topic, but realistically how hard is going out on your own and starting your own firm? Wouldn’t it be much easier than grinding up the “pyramid”? 
 

its interesting because when I look in the sole practitioner sub forum, there is only a few topics and they are old and don’t offer much info, so I get the idea most people do not do this. 

Don't base your impression on this forum alone. The reality is the majority of Canadian lawyers work in small firms or as solo practioners. Sole practice is not at all uncommon.

There's also something of a disconnect between what types of law sole practioners typically do and what most big law associates do. Not to say you can't make your own firm in any area, but typically you'll find most people hanging their shingle doing it in areas like PI, Immigration or crim defense. Harder to say "hey folks come on down to my new M&A firm, hand over your deals". Though again, it isn't impossible.

[BlockedQuebecois]

8 hours ago, Bob Jones said:

Sure…but we know full well that’s not what happens. 
 

Rather, Associates are told to clear their shit in 60-90 days, assured they’re not being terminated, and given vague promises the firm will “help them” to find a new job if they leave … but prevented from staying. 
 

It’s this weird borderline illegal scheme where firms aren’t formally firing you but not giving you the chance to stay. Associates aren’t given reasonable notice that they’re being let go, or any other severance since they assured they’re not being let go it’s just time to “move on.”

This isn’t about cutting people who aren’t performing, it’s cutting people who have stayed for as long as the firm’s scheme allows for it, until moving up to Partner but there is not enough room for all of the Associates to move up, and there’s more hungry Associates at the bottom. 
 

Imagine you’re an engineer as an example working for company X. If you’re not performing or whatever sure anyone can be let ago with a severance package, but there’s no arbitrary quasi scheme to push you out the door because there’s not enough room to progress to another job title/position. If the company is happy and the employee is happy they can stay for as long as they want. 
 

That’s far from what’s happening here, and everyone knows it. 

This is such a fucking stupid post. 

It’s not a “borderline illegal scheme”. It’s a perfectly legitimate way of having underperforming employees find new positions without needing to formally fire them for performance reasons, which in turn allows them to search for a new position while employed and without having to disclose that they were fired if asked.

If the associate doesn’t leave within a reasonable time, the firm will terminate them in the usual course, complete with reasonable notice or (more likely) pay in lieu. 

As to your assertion that they’re not being fired for performance reasons – you keep saying that, but not having a sufficient business case to join the partnership is a performance reason. It doesn’t matter if you’re otherwise competent at your job, if your firm expects you to have a business case for partnership between years 8-10 and you fail to meet that expectation, you’re not performing at the expected level. 

Your posts are, if anything, a testament to the generosity of big law partners. I would be livid if I paid someone several hundred thousand dollars a year only to discover they don’t know what a pyramid scheme is, think it’s “borderline illegal” to pay your employees whilst they search for another job, and don’t understand that failing to meet the expectations of your employer is a performance issue. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by BlockedQuebecois