Noblesse oblige in partners.

Law firm partners. 

Has this died out as a result of meritocracy? It’s every person for themselves, look at the size of my house?

As with everything else in the city American influence has fvcked it up to the extent it was ever there. The sense of being a 'custodian of the firm for the next generation' that did used to be there to some extent is definitely gone other than where it suits managed to talk about it. 

There are a few things going on at once that complicate things:

1. The UK model really requires people to fvck off at 55 at the latest.  That doesn't work for lots of people who had their families later/second marriages etc and also generally have a kept a bit fitter and healthier than previous generations and so feel more able to go on. 

2. Expectations of what a partner in a city solicitors firm 'should' have in terms of lifestyle have escalated massively.  Country houses, ski chalets, chelsea town houses... The days when retiring to a 5 bed with 2 acres in Kent and a membership of the local golf club would cut it for people are gone.  At the same time lots of people doing it don't have family now so it's all a bit harder to get and they don't come into a nice little pile around retirement time. 

3. At the same foreign money (much of it grubby but that's another story) chasing the same ski chalets, and town houses has driven prices through the roof.

 

I would dispute point 2.

Maybe I move in the wrong circles but there is very little appetite for conspicuous consumption amongst my contemporaries.

Some definitely have it, no one flaunts it.

@ strutter that maybe correct, however why do so many lawyers on promotion to becoming an EP, or Ibankers, on being made up to MD, immediately buy a big fook off house with a massive mortgage, buy an Aston for him, and a Range for her, and put their kids into public school, and then complain they are skint. It makes no sense at all. You can of course do this discretely , but it is still conspicuous consumption...

Especially when they had a really nice 200o square foot house, kids were at Kingston Grammar, and they had two 3 year old BMW and Audi.

The conspicuous consumption partners tend to the ones who were the first in their family to go to uni, etc. so feel some subconscious urge to show everyone they've made it.

I'm happy to retire a three bedroom cottage with an acre in Hampshire and no golf club membership.

Sails you maybe right as it happens. Then they complain how hard they have to work to stand still, as their fixed monthly costs are now 20 k plus. Madness.

I know a self-made insurance broker who's done very well for himself but about 20 years ago he'd bought a Versace briefcase that he was very proud of and he could not see the funny side when he managed to reverse his own car over it on his way to see may parents.  He's now rather more self-assured and can accept that the briefcase was rather pretentious and warranted being run over.

I am surprised to hear that Strutter.  People tend to keep it away from the troops to some extent but the partners' dining room is another thing.  911s, full fat range rovers and Ferraris abound even in London these days and if I had a dollar for every Georgian fireplace I had seen in the background of an MS Teams call... (apart that is from the ones who prefer to show the deer park)

My old boss at the ex-Coffee LLP told me - as he was walking out the door in 2017 - that the profitability of the firm then absolutely smashed all expectations that'd had only 10 years earlier, at the height of the boom.  Even with the GFC in the middle, PPP was double what they'd imagined it could be.  And expectations had risen accordingly.

The place was so much leaner, so much more focussed and so much more profitable than anyone had expected. 

I joined the profession in the early noughties 

Already then, it was clear that some of the older partners were uncomfortable with the new, profit focused-environment -- and we're talking MC here, but the MC in those days was nowhere near the quasi IB environment that it is now

In my trainee days, I remember a couple of discussions with partners -- I don't think they were pushed out, but they left Big Law for other careers -- who no longer recognised the firm they had loved (I think this is the correct word) and to which they had been loyal for decades

In those days, if you were lucky, you'd find someone to mentor you -- to train and develop you. I think those days are over. Juniors get paid mega bucks (IB levels or higher) and they have to fend for themselves. Turn-over is high and no one really cares about the next generation 

I have never been at an IB but I think law firms (the ones I have worked at, at least) are like IBs. Everyone understands that it's all about the money and that it's every man for himself -- whatever that entails

This is why I favour the U.S. law firms. At these places, there has been no cultural revolution (since this is how it ever was) and at least they're profitable. At least the proper ones are. It doesn't mean that you cannot collaborate (and if you have origination and proliferation-type models, it can be helpful to do so), but it ain't no partnership in the true sense of the word

Yes at least with eat what you kill you know where you stand. It’s hard to pinpoint when the change happened but as soon as you bin off security, with it goes comity. 

Most firms will deny being eat what you kill. They will all say rem is based on a number of criteria, where financial is the most important. But if they don’t like you or want to recompose the partnership in some way they will selectively use the other criteria and downplay financial. I expect an IB would operate in a similar way although probably remaining more faithful to the financial metrics. It’s a politics lottery as well as being a financial test. And if you are an able woman you will be accelerated past men of equal performance. 

"And if you are an able woman you will be accelerated past men of equal performance. "

This is true at all levels of law firm above associate, because it has a massive (positive) impact on the rest of the associate pool. 

Is the 'eat what you kill' discussion by reference to what I wrote?

Most law firms -- including U.S. firms -- are not EWYK

However, they prioritise and reward collections above all else, including cultural stuff such as team play and mentoring 

O and P structures are in fact meant to encourage team play and collaboration amongst partners across offices (and they do) but it is transparently team play and collaboration of convenience and commerce as opposed to genuine partnership and co-ownership 

My point was that if you want to play that game and be in that environment, you're better of playing Game of Thrones at a firm which is generating huge amounts of cash (basically, top U.S. law firms) than at Addleshaw Goddard (to name a firm I know literally nothing about so apologies if this is the wrong comparison)

As regards women, in my experience, law firms are v keen to get them into the partnership, but the number of equity partner women (and, in particular, women at the top of the equity) is not particularly high

honestly, who can be arsed working hard enough to be a partner at the kind of firm where you can earn top city dollar?

if I wanted to work that hard I’d start a proper business and get actually rich 

richest guy I know runs a marketing consultancy 

I quite like the K&E model tbf. Give the youthful $ focussed arrivistes a chance to show how many securitisations they can boss and bring in for others. Most won’t justify the opportunities conferred by the badge but you’ll invariably unearth a handful of true “stars” who value dox more than life itself.  

The origination gets rewarded the proliferation not so much

That isn’t actually the case, IME

Partner A originates a new medium sized mining client and assists them with the lease and fit out of their new LDN HQ - fees $1 million

Partner B gets an instruction in from JP or KKR (both existing clients) and does $1 million worth of LevFin or PE work for them 

It depends on the firm, of course (and a RE-focussed firm might favour the real estate work), but your average firm will almost certainly reward Partner B more than Partner A in this scenario when it comes to bonus and/or points allocation, even though the $1 million wouldn’t have materialized but for Partner A’s origination efforts 

Premium work is better than non-premium work and Partner B is more likely to be offered $$$ lateral move opportunities given these client relationships (even though no actual origination was involved) and practice area and therefore s/he needs to be rewarded and looked after accordingly 

I really should start charging for the insights I provide on this board :) 

 

 

I quite like the K&E model tbf. Give the youthful $ focussed arrivistes a chance to show how many securitisations they can boss and bring in for others. Most won’t justify the opportunities conferred by the badge but you’ll invariably unearth a handful of true “stars” who value dox more than life itself.

it’s basically a shameless and transparent pyramid scheme, with no secret that junior partners r simply part of the squeeze. u have 2 respek that eh.

grim unless ur near the top and so not 4 every1, but many would prefer the honesty 2 the pretence of a partnership where u still have the most senior partners effectively extracting rents, but it’s all hush hush

No doubt about that. A lot of the pushy junior players know this is the game and don’t mind getting the title early as they can actually do quite a lot of book building with a P on their biz card as ‘posed to SA. They pay a fair price @ 2300 hrs +. 

Deer park gets an heh @ donny. Still waiting for hauser & wirth style backdrop with indoor pool door in the corner from some of the top brass.  

IB is all about relationships - you can only progress if you do well in front of the business and are well thought of in the function - if you can tag team with someone of the generation above who is on the up even better (becomes symbiotic you do well as minion, they do well on the glory of having employed you and managing you) - you rise in the slip stream so long as there is enough of gap between the two of you that you don’t become a threat.

Basically the game is kill your self on stuff that will bring you glory, take the foot off the pedal or delegate crap grunt work - the financial rewards are less than PP (yank firms at least, although I am basically matching my MC counterparts at the moment as they aren’t in the frame for partnership yet) - the IB basically rewards really well the people getting “excellent” or 10s or whatever the numeric is (which is like the top 10% of performers) but shits on the good to average performers.

There is also the balance between being popular with the business and presenting a firm line to protect the integrity of the control framework - you can’t be popular by simply giving them everything they ask for all the time. 

My point is Partner C who is client relationship partner for JPM/ KKR and who could walk off with them if they chose to would get paid far more than A or B. 

The only workplaces without the politics noted above are small businesses and even they aren’t free of it. Welcome to the company of other humans. There are two ways to make it work for you. Either you make it into the upper dolla echelons and make the required sacrifices along the way. Or you fly solo. The third option is come on here bleating that life isn’t fair. Newsflash: correct. 

My point is Partner C who is client relationship partner for JPM/ KKR and who could walk off with them if they chose to would get paid far more than A or B

That wasn’t really the point you made as I read it, but evidently the closer you are to key clients the more valuable you are to the firm 

In practice, if you are in a key and super profitable practice area, including if you provide tax or employee incentive or whatever support, you will be better looked after and remunerated than Partner A (the originator)

Ppl in support groups or service partners don’t get paid more than ppl who originate profitable work or could walk off with a key client 

Ppl in support groups or service partners don’t get paid more than ppl who originate profitable work or could walk off with a key client

I only really have experience of working at one law firm in a senior capacity, but it was one of the world's top law firms and there you are better off being a tax or regulatory or whatever partner that provides key advice to key clients (that pay mega fees for high profile work across the entire network) than you are if you originate random clients, even if such clients generate $1 million of fees on an annual basis 

It is better to be part of the team that services a key global client in a core practice area than it is to service non-core clients, even if those non-core clients are good clients from a financial perspective and you are solely responsible for originating them

Don't get me wrong — the originator is paid enough to ensure that it isn’t worthwhile to move, but not as much as the core guys (which includes service guys) that the firm really wants to keep

 

 

 

Relationships and origination?

FFS.  You will never be the partner who brought JPM in as a new client to A&O.

You might be the person who has a great relationship with X at JPM and consequently gets a stack of their double-reverse back-leveraged spaff issuances.

But you'll never be the person who introduced that client to that firm.

 

Yes some elite firms with a lot of institutionalised mega clients operate that way, to maintain more than to expand 

Why would most of the people on this board give a tug about this stuff? They spend their time doing other people’s work, working for businesses owned by other people to whom they are largely interchangeable.

Double-reverse back-leveraged spaff issuances are on the up now that the TLB market has shat itself. 

There is no firm in which the tax bod or regulatory partner gets paid more than the deal/case originator. Just doesn’t happen.
Best case scenario (s)he gets a separate file and over the course of the FY builds up a big supervisory credit.
Every firm I’ve been a partner at most highly rewarded the small handful of partners who could actually walk away with multiple £m in billings and a many others relied on them to provide them with work throughput.

As for the question - the answer is yes, as regards City firms all those partnership vibes died when the US firms shook up the premium market and lockstep died a quiet death. 

There are plenty of workplaces where you can succeed without playing politics.

Having worked with investment bankers and having friends in that world I can say it’s the most hideous backstabbing world where even if you do get on the coat tails of someone going places they’ll ditch you without blinking if it suits their chosen path.

I mean sure it’s individualist but you don’t have to be prick - if you find someone you like and there is mutual respect you can form a little cabal and travel together institution to institution - many MDs when they land a senior enough seat purge the current team and bring in minions they know and trust from their network. 
 

it’s lonely and precarious in a senior role if you have literally no allies as your juniors will always be looking to oust you

This is true at all levels of law firm above associate, because it has a massive (positive) impact on the rest of the associate pool.  

Why am I so often the only women in the room at senior leadership meetings then?

Still a cultural expectation for women to be the primary care giver for kids - the blokes at the top mainly seem to have housewives - the few women at the top seem to emulate this set up by having house husbands although commonly a himbo husband is seen as less attractive than a power player and powerful women tend to prefer powerful men.

It’s difficult to dual income at properly high level and have kids as there’s no point having them if you totally outsource via nannies and public schools. I think the time commitment to make MD or partner at an elite institution is not compatible with a meaningful time commitment to a child without a stay at home partner picking up the slack. 

OH and I have this issue atm because her earning potential is basically same as mine - if we have kids the lack of decent pat leave means she would have to take more time off than me -  we are also getting senior enough that both of us operating at this level would be incompatible with our obligations to a child so it becomes a bit of a tricky one to handle.

 

Every decent professional services firm in Australia has equal leave for parents. Most let you go back to back. Our shop has just gone to 26 weeks each. 

The world bob describes sounds pretty lonely, even with a partner. Plus the small factor of children not being treated like commodities. Ffs.

Depends on personality type - I am a bit of an introvert and don’t really like “people” - I have a small circle of very close friends and other than that people are just colleagues and acquaintances.

for the kids you are right you shouldn’t treat them as commodities- that is why it becomes a real debate as to whether you take the hit to your careers to raise them properly and cap yourself/one of you or do you bother having them? 

"Why am I so often the only women in the room at senior leadership meetings then?"

Bit confused by this. Either you are the only woman in SLT or you aren't?

Most top firms have roughly equal SLTs, completely by design 

At the same foreign money (much of it grubby but that's another story) chasing the same ski chalets, and town houses has driven prices through the roof.

Double-take at this comment which really epitomises how British people think of the world (see also "Fog in the channel, Europe cut off").  On the basis that there is nary a ski chalet anywhere in the UK (well, maybe a few in the Grampians, but I doubt any City lawyer ventures there) all of these ski chalets are in other countries so hardly very surprising that there would be money from other countries looking to buy them. 

The "grubby money" thing is something I see more and more as a way British people try t elevate themselves and put down others. I'm as critical of Sunak as the next person, but I've heard people say this about his father-in-law's fortune based on nothing more than the idea that anyone who becomes a billionaire in India must do so on the basis of corruption - which may sometimes be true but doesn't seem to be in his father-in-law's case and I doubt is any more true in India than it is in the UK.

Rob - I think most people have Chinese or Russian oligarchs in mind when they think of grubby foreign money - like that branch of the palm in Dubai where your neighbours would include leading lights like the mugabes.
 

socialists don’t like ultra wealthy people and other than the anarchronism that is non-dom status for his wife I don’t think there is any suggestion of corruption there simply because the family is Indian. The only Indian scandal I think of in recent history is the king Fischer guy in F1 no?

*Woman.  And I'm not sure why you are confused - I am often the only woman in the room.  Not always, but more often than not.  I was at a meeting a couple of months ago where a comment was made that they needed to "find another token woman" because it was looking conspicuous.  Not even an attempt at hiding it.

Most top firms have roughly equal SLTs, completely by design 

I would be very surprised if it was "most" but there are a couple of MC firms where this definitely isn't the case. 

I'd also say that I can't remember the last senior leadership meeting where there was a black person or disabled person.  There has been at least one gay man in every meeting I have been to in the past few years, but no lesbians or anyone else on the queer spectrum.

The point is it’s akin to monarchy as a connection, and wholly unrepresentative of the British people. If Sunak was a serious politician he’d have married someone more clearly British, not a non-dom, with an uber rich family. If these people were white with such obvious connections to overseas cash there’d have been a massive outcry, but the tories have spun it as he’s an immigrant success story. Trouble is, he’s way more successful than most immigrants. Sounds outrageous but in fact is true. 

I can't name a single disabled law firm senior leader - albeit they may have hidden disabilities

Have met a few black ones. Although they weren't on the board.

I can, but agree they are also under-represented. And good point on disabled - I'm assuming I would know them from the disability support networks but of course not everyone feels comfortable in "coming out" as disabled.

On the plus side, I have been pleasantly surprised at the inclusivity I've witnessed at one firm recently.  Lots of amplifying going on by the senior white straight able-bodied men of those from less well represented characteristics, which I don't think I've ever seen in a law firm before.

if u sat in a board room or slm etc with 12 men, statistically 1 of them will b disabled* invisibly (ho ho) 
 

*under some jurisdictions eg japan, definitively; under uk law, it’s inconclusive cos the guidance is medically incoherent and probably inkorrekt

 

the letter deals with problems of perception and vocalisation (ur point about u not necessarily knowing) as well

My firm has appointed a lady managing partner and I think she's going to be rather good.  It's pretty much a 50/50 split with the partners in my team.

Sunak's father-in-law will no doubt have greased a few palms over the years as in days gone by it was the only way to get business done in India.  However, that's rather different to doing a deal with a shady politician to get your hands on state assets for a fraction of their true value and then making your fortune.

if u sat in a board room or slm etc with 12 men, statistically 1 of them will b disabled* invisibly (ho ho) 

Jesus.  I wonder why we still have a problem with sex equality?  Why do you feel the need to make the disabled issue a sex-based one?  

i’m not - read the letter. 1/12 men has colour blindness. only 1/200 women have, but it’s an issue there too. 

i can’t avoid the fact it’s an issue more 4 men, but that wasn’t the point. the point was 2 give an example of a disability (under some laws) which is not visible and rarely discussed or catered 4.

i get that u will deride and sneer at it. as most ppl do not c it as an issue. and the hierarchy of disabilities means ppl who perceive themselves “more” disabled will always want 2 distinguish. but ask urself how often a day do u c urself (or even some1 else) write “see my amendments 2 ur email below in red” or “i’ve colour-coded it”. chances r u have made it v difficult if not impossible 4 some1 copied 2 interpret wot u have done.

i get u don’t care about it. it was simply pertinent

i get that we could also pick an invisible disability which is evenly distributed across men and women, but i’m not aware of 1 which affects 3m ppl in the uk and i’m also not aware of 1 which carries the same degree of dismissal

or which is considered a disability in other countries, but not here

that i guess it does have gr7er relevance cos of ur (clearly valid) observation that far more men than women r in senior leadership roles in law is not really where i was going with it, but we can add that in if u like

i get that u will deride and sneer at it. as most ppl do not c it as an issue. and the hierarchy of disabilities means ppl who perceive themselves “more” disabled will always want 2 distinguish

Get fvcked Serge.  When have I ever done this?

And it isn't relevant.  Some disabilities affect men more, some affect women more.  Some affect old people more and some affect younger people. What is relevant is that you have decided to turn a minority characteristic into a man v woman issue.  

no i haven’t

u have done that, when u went weird @ 1149

i was just giving an example of an invisible disability which isn’t talked about

ur the 1 who lost ur shit about it. and im afraid i suspect u did that cos u don’t like the suggestion it should be classified as a disability. otherwise i don’t c y u would think it is irrelevant following a discussion about invisible disabilities and 1s ppl don’t shout about

i should have guessed ur view of cvd by the original response

I have responded to an observation that there is sex-based positive discrimination with an observation that that hasn't manifested in changes in senior leadership from my experience, and then noted that those with self-identified and visible minority characteristics are still under-represented from my own experience.

You've then gone off into a froth accusing me of some awful viewpoints that I have never espoused. 

If you want to get into the intersectionality analysis, you're on a hiding to nothing there.  I won't because, unlike you, I'm not interested in pitting people with minority characteristics against each other.  

crikey

u’ve really lost it

when have i ever wanted 2 froth about intersectionality or men’s rights or ne of that lunacy? 

i’m disappointed that u didn’t recognise my previous positions on all of those sorts of things and give me the benefit of the doubt 2bh. mayb that’s reflective of ur opinion of me of which i was unaware. fair enough

my only point, as i have repeatedly sed, was 2 agree that there r hidden disabilities which r not spoken about. i chose 1 which carried a high incidence cos i thought that was compelling (hence choosing the 1/12 star over the 1/200 stat, which is still actually really high). it was only intended as an example.

i wasn’t making a point about men v women. i could have chosen ne hidden disability, of which there r many. my point was that collectively all those hidden and unspoken disabilities will add up 2 a large number of ppl in all meetings (slms obv the topic here) where u/i/we won’t know about it.

i wasn’t making ne other point.

i’m sorry that it was so easy 2 misinterpret my point as a man v woman thing. that wasn’t the intention.

i’m sorry that i chose such a controversial disability, i made the mistake of thinking the incredibly high incidence would make it compelling, but clearly the controversy outweighs that

let’s just 4get about the point and agree that yes there r lots of hidden and unspoken disabikities

I have been vociferious about people who use disability to further other agendas.  I am unrepentant about that.  It's as bad as people who pretend to give a shit about women's rights and gay rights only to attack certain religions.

I have never ever implied a hierarchy of disability. My own disability is largely invisible, and I have family who have invisible disabilities and who are neurodivergent. I have consistently made the point that personal trauma or impairment should never ever be viewed relative to others, because the worst thing you have experienced doesn't stop being the worst thing you have experienced just because someone else has it worse, and consistently been an advocate of inclusitivity for all disabilities.

You are completely out of line. Deal with your problem and stop using me as your punching bag.

eh? ur the 1 who came lashing out

i literally only intended 2 give an example of a hidden disability which isn’t often spoken about

i’ve sed this repeatedly.

wot the fook is ur problem with that?

y r u being such a defensive twot?

wot y fook is this new line on punchbag? ur the 1 who went guns blazing

o i c, ur still inventing this supposed other agenda on me

there isn’t ne

as i sed, i am sorry it came across that way. there wasn’t ne other agenda. i’m disappointed ne1 would assume i would have such an agenda given my posts on this topic. but i can c my choice of example was poor and controversial by many estimations and i didn’t explain that

well sorry. i don’t have the agenda u interpreted. far from it. wasn’t and isn’t my point

Well said RC. I can see Sails has barged straight into your indictment there. 
 

Good on you, Orwell! 

wot 4? lashing out repeatedly without thinking it through or attempting 2 understand?

and even when it’s explained 2 her that there was no such intention, just a poor choice of words and an apology (twice) 4 that, continuing 2 impute an agenda on some1 “vociferious[sic][ly]” and “unrepentant[ly]” which they simply don’t have, as explained several times?

I'm not convinced being colour blind really prevents or inhibits you being a lawyer 

A football referee maybe 

I know of a couple of law firms where it is has been made very clear that SLT jobs will not be going to White men and where there is an election, they are discouraged from putting their names forward. This is, in reality, the only way to speed up change so I'm not against it per se 

Obviously people have left those firms as a result but that's life, we are all ugly enough to know the game we are playing 

disability doesn’t necessarily require it 2 prevent u or inhibit u. just 4 it 2 b made harder or take longer or parts of it unachievable etc

but otherwise agreed. unlikely 2 b a major 1.

i think it’s more of a pure inclusivity q 2bh

Thanks Litmanen.  I suspect it will take a few generations for this to really change, but if everyone senior made a bit more effort to support and advance juniors in at least one under-represented group it could make a real difference.

There is a lady on LinkedIn who says she specialises in helping women divorce CEOs and is a massive feminist

Unfortunately she refers to the CEOs as 'he' at every occasion 

So denying women CEOs and gay marriage, apparently

 

ah not even a hint from orwell

shame, i thought she was better than a fingers in the ears rightwhinger

I told you before Serge:  I am not interested in playing the "But men/women suffer more as disabled people than women/men" game with you. And I'm not interested attempting to engage with someone who without any justification has imputed some awful views about disabled inclusivity to me. You are clearly very triggered about something on this - sort it out on your own.

orwell repeatedly being an utter toolbag and claiming i’m trying 2 play a man v woman game won’t make it true

i have told u several times that was never my intention

and apologised twice that my original reply was misleading in giving that impression. read it back, it was u who imputed something which never existed

i’m triggered by the fact that i was expecting a simple “oh yeah, that’s an interesting example” reply. also by the fact i’ve literally never on here posted nething like the things ur suggesting. but instead u turned in2 a deeply unpleasant dishonest twot, which u have doubled down on. and then had the temerity 2 suggest i was the 1 using u as a punchbag!

totally inexplicable from u, out of order, hypocritical and frankly given i have repeatedly explained myself and yet u persist in inventing bollox, makes me think it’s u that has some really deep-rooted issues here.

mayb that should have been obvious, i dunno.

but it’s 4 reasons like this that the deb7 gets shut down.

i certainly kno ur best avoided on the topic as u will purposefully misread and misconstrue. which is a shame cos until ur nuts post on this at 11.49, i have found myself almost exclusively agreeing with u

i suspect the reality is that despite my apology u will never admit 2 having seen that it was a simple misunderstanding. ur just another extremist

With respect to both you - you both go in two footed on occasion on ROF - Orwell is chill on most topics except disability and certain feminism threads, oracle you like to ransack anyone with a political view to the right of you (lumping in moderates with hardcore tribals) so it’s bit rich of either of you to clutch your pearls and complain about the lack of nuanced discourse. 

I am not complaining about lack of nuanced discourse.  I am objecting to words being put in my mouth, and pretty offensive words at that.  And I don't make any apologies for "going in two footed" on topics that impact my daily life - nor should anyone else.

I am objecting to words being put in my mouth, and pretty offensive words at that.

😂😂😂😂

u total hypocrite. that’s literally exactly wot u did 2 me, 1st shot across the bows, at 11.49

and then, despite me repeatedly pointing it out that’s not wot i sed and apologising that it came across that way, u have repeated it. ur a fooking smeg encrusted toolbag m7

There is no firm in which the tax bod or regulatory partner gets paid more than the deal/case originator. Just doesn’t happen.

I am not going to repeat what I already wrote. Let's just agree to disagree

More generally, after a slightly boring start about law firm economics (which, as Laz points out, is a bit dull for most people - but not for me) this thread went more than a bit WTF, didn't it?  

If you want to get back on track - worth noting the difference between how you get on first step of partnership at various firms

Some - largely corporate leaning firms - you can get pship just from working long hours and there isn't really a need to develop a book as part of it. You might get moved on after 3-5 years but you'll always be ok.

Then there is other big firms who largely want you to demonstrate a book - or potential book - to get the badge. You are more likely to stay at these firms if you can get there.

Worth working out what your skill set is and your area of expertise and aligning a firm to it around 5-8 PQE. Otherwise you can get stuck in the wrong type of firm and waste years hunting partnership. Work smart.

Good point Davos2021. I didn't realise it until recently just how different firms deal with it and even some firms deal with it differently between departments. It's incredibly frustrating watching peers get the badge when you aren't simply as a matter of bad luck/wrong place right time/different requirements etc.

Anyway, back on the market now.....just in time for a recession.

Yeah what Litamen said. It probably isn't a reflection on you (unless you are being told you aren't good enough) and more of a reflection on the market or firm being top heavy etc. Your time will come but it maybe outside the window of what you find acceptable.

Have a look at the market, clients etc and see who you can have a chat with - many people don't advertise partnership roles but will have think carefully for the right person.

Always wondered why people are so tug heavy as to render peers’ success as “utterly frustrating”. Chill out! 

I think it's fine to be frustrated if your career isn't developing when peers are getting it without trying because of luck.

X

Don’t miss your best career move. Receive approaches from top law firms and in-house employers when they want someone just like you.