zlacker

>>kisna7+(OP)
I work in a law firm that will fire great attorneys. It's part of the big law business model. Up or out and very few get up'd into partnership. So eventually you get fired (after 8-12 years depending on firm.)

So I know eventually my ass will get fired. It's just a matter of when.

I don't really understand it. But it's how the industry works.

Edit: 8-12 is for unambiguously great attorneys. A lot of decent attorneys get shown the door after 4-6 years. People who can't hack it (usually because they won't put up with be worked like a slave) will only make it 2-4 years. A lot of people quit.

>>rhino3+p5
At 8-12 years do you get paid more than a new hire? Seems a "good" way to keep costs down, having the bulk of work done by the new guys - and a few partners to oversee everything.

The downside is the average experience of your employee is going to be a lot lower, but that must not be the top goal of the law firms that employee this.

>>brianw+26
Just one example of a big law firm in NY:

http://www.lawfirmstats.com/firms/Willkie-Farr-Gallagher/all...

Newly hired attorneys make US 160k, while those 8 years in typically make US 280k.

There's a little bit of movement if you've changed firms, but there's a good chance if you work for a big law firm you're in this ballpark.

A partner's comp is structured differently.

>>kevins+4e
If you add in bonus, it's there is an even bigger difference. This past year first years got 15k bonus, and 8th years got 100k.

combined: 175k for first, 380k for 8th years.

>>rhino3+Pg
To your point below, I suspect the 8-10 year person is creating more value with less supervision than a new hire. Being able to manage a project/client solo, even a small one, makes your work incremental revenue to the firm. More so if you're involved in bringing in the business....

I have new hires; they take a LOT more supervision... and our group's output is limited to the speed at which our senior folks can originate projects...