Legal News

Is It Really So Wrong to NOT Want to Make Partner?

By Brian Harris

By Jaime Bochet
Of the Legal Staff

The Legal recently published two stories that address alternative career paths for associates in large law firms that led me to wonder about the pros and cons of non-partnership tracks. 

The first -- currently the most-read article on The Legal's website -- came out on Monday, titled "Morgan Lewis Sticks With Lockstep Base Pay for Associates." Within the article, managing partner for personnel Charles Engros Jr. mentions that a new "career track" has been created "for associates who initially started out on the partner track."

According to the piece, "Clients and some firm lawyers are pushing back a bit on the traditional 'up or out' policy within law firms, Engros said. They don't see why firms have to get rid of a ninth-year associate who knows the client's business and is effective on the legal work. Some of those associates say they would be happy to stay on and not become partner, Engros said. They will now be able to do that under this new track."

Hmm ... "happy to stay on and not become partner."  Okay.

The second, titled "Women's Progress Could Be Hurt by Staff-Attorney Track: Report," addressed the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL)'s recent annual report on the retention and promotion of women in the legal profession, which "drew upon the contrast between the number of women in staff attorney spots to other positions, writing that women comprise 46 percent of associates, 36 percent of of counsel, 27 percent of non-equity partners and 16 percent of equity partners." To contast, according to the report, 60 percent of staff attorneys are women.

The article quotes Fine Kaplan & Black senior partner Roberta Liebenberg, who heads up the ABA's Commission on Women in the Profession, as saying,  "One of the reasons the commission was interested in the percentage of staff attorneys is, are we creating positions within law firms that are sort of, like part-timers, going to be positions where you are only going to see women and not men and then do these positions carry around a stigma."

But she then pointed out that "the staff attorney tier may just be a good alternative for women who do not want to be on the partnership track, but she questioned whether staff attorneys would be the first targets of layoffs in another economic downturn."

Hmm ... "good alternative for women who don't want to be on the partnership track." Okay.

Something I've heard from lawyers -- men and women -- for years, off the record, is that they would gladly take less money for less pressure and fewer billables. The majority of them like what they do, they just wouldn't mind doing less of it, and having more time for themselves. They don't want to go part-time or use flex-time, they're happy to work full-time, but just not bill 2,000 hours.

By all accounts, and to put it lightly, it's really hard to become a partner. That's one reason lots of associates leave before they get there -- it's just not a goal they're willing to make the necessary sacrifices for.

The staff attorney track frankly sounds tailor-made for those people: they like working as lawyers, enjoy their current situations and have no desire to become big rainmakers or leaders of their firms. Does it make them lazy or unambitious? I don't think so. They can still strive to do a great job every day, be the best advocates for their clients they can be, and maybe even come up with innovations or fulfill essential roles within the firm that have nothing to do with being a partner.

So while I see Bobbi's point that there might be a stigma attached to the position, I'm not so sure that giving associates the option will take away from women (or men) becoming partners. Those who have that drive, who really want it, will continue to do what it takes and stay on the partnership track.

There is lots about partnership that is exceptionally appealing, after all.  But for those who don't find it so appealing, the staff attorney track may be the better fit.

I'd love to hear what you think.  Do you think you would be happier on a non-partner track, or are you mystified by this development?

Full post as published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog on November 10, 2010 (boomark / email).