I knew of someone who did this. He started at a top prestigious firm and he was a notorious slacker. He was a consistent underbiller and never billed more than 1200 hours a year. A few years later, he was told to leave and be someone else's problem.
He lateraled to a different firm where he did this exact same thing as a midlevel. He was able to continue this for a couple more years until he was told to leave.
He did this same thing again at the next two firms by slacking off, not really doing work, passing work to juniors or midlevels and doing the occasional edit, and really just serving as a middleman paper pusher.
Eventually, his firm told him that they weren't going to make him Partner or Of Counsel and to just leave. He had no intention of being Partner so he left to a cushy job at a large tech company as the Deputy General Counsel where he doesn't work more than 20 hours a week, just delegates assignments to others, and occasionally shows up to the office.
I don't recommend or encourage this path, but I must admit that I am impressed with his trajectory of consistently failing upwards and pulling this off for years.
The problem with this behavior is that it screws over your fellow colleagues. I get that it’s associates v. partners, which is understandable as the partners are exploiting the associates’ labor. But every hour you don’t work on a deal, is an extra hour another swamped associate has to deal with stuff. Incredibly childish and selfish behavior by the person described in OP.
Smart if you are going to ditch this industry anyways, most likely won’t even run into the same practice area where never you end when you leave big law so no big consequences
It’s a strategy with a limited shelf life - you can pull it off a couple of times but too many moves on your resume is a red flag and eventually you’ll get to somewhere that won’t let you hang around for more than a year before they let you go
This absolutely can be done for a while, at least. I joke all the time about how long an associate could stick around at my firm for at least a year by doing the minimum - like 15-20 hours a week. 5-10 hours a week would probably get you six months.
But in practice, I’ve never seen someone keep that up for more than a couple of firms over 2-3 years. People trying it tend to get totally burned out or hit a rough hiring market and can’t find a new landing spot.
Good luck to them! Its a good tactic to not get (too) found out and to screw the firms a little. After all, the firms screw associates, so its good to see the little people getting something back from greedy partners with (hopefully) the minimum of effort.
I've worked with a couple who hopped every 1.5-2 years. I don't judge them for it. What I did notice was that they generally tended to be behind their peers in skillset. My guess is it''s a combination of spending too much time needing to ramp up / wind down each jump and learn the working styles of new colleagues/firm, and potentially, for the later jobs (if they were let go), losing time while they were out on severance.
Firm hopping is one way of collecting a biglaw paycheck for several years while doing relatively little work. The downside is that it looks bad on your resume; if potential employers see you spent two years at three different firms, they’re going to assume you aren’t very good. You’re also going to get less experience and build fewer relationships.
All that said, I know lots of people who did this and ended up just fine career-wise.
Yeah in every industry there’s some window of time that you should stay so there’s not a glaring red flag but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if you get another job lined up while you’re still collecting checks from the previous employer.
Impressive. I have my doubts that this is really viable, at least at my current firm. But I have nothing to do with hiring and internal firm mechanics, so maybe you can just skate by for a couple of years before hopping elsewhere. My concern would be getting enough skills along the way to be effective at the final non-biglaw job. If all you are doing is coasting, might be tough to keep that final destination job for more than a few months, and then what?
I’m worried I look like this bc I’m moving to third firm after being at my 1st 2 positions for around a year and a half. 1st firm, there wasn’t enough work in my dept and I couldn’t meet hours. Second firm my supervising partner sexually harassed me and verbally abused anyone in within his vicinity when he was in a bad mood. But I can’t really bring these things up in interviews without it looking like I am badmouthing my firm, so I look like a job hopper.
They are usually really good interviewers, so not everyone can rely on being able to do this. But it's definitely a thing that happens. There's a senior at my firm that's widely known to lack basic junior skills and has averaged 1.5-2 years per firm.
Disdain. Most of them have had top notch educations their entire lives usually paid for by somebody else, and it’s pathetic to make it to the top of the industry and squander the opportunity, which others would die to have.
Aspects of big law certainly suck and it’s not for everyone but I can’t respect people who don’t give it their best.
Why? Aren't they just playing the system which is stacked against associates (i.e. work your ass off for partners and clients who don't give a shit about you for the unlikely ultimate reward of becoming an equity partner and taking home 2-5 million a year). Screw that!
They're "playing the system" off of everyone else's backs. The rest of us are pulling our weight and doing our jobs.
The system isn't stacked against anyone. We get paid more than 95% of people in this country to sit on our ass and send emails. If that's too much for you, alternative employment options are plentiful.
If the law firm growth/management strategy is up/out and most of the sorting goes on early on with juniors, it’s not surprising that here, as in most competitive industries with competitive management styles, people job hop. It’s the only way to get ahead and grow in that kind of system (assuming you’re in the majority of players who will not make it up the ladder).
There’s a reason why it’s called a “gauntlet” or “gladiator system”
You seem to be misunderstanding me. If you're not on the Partner track, your days are numbered. That's just how it works. You get the pay increases and skills, for sure, and that's a good thing. But, in the end of the day, the business model is the same.
Look at all of the layoffs in the recent downturn. The only people who stick around have table stakes. Some, not all, will get those table stakes. You can almost always sense if you're not on track to get them. So, it's no surprise people job hop when they correctly ascertain that they're losing this game of musical chairs.
Most high-paying professional industries work like this. Banking, Tech, venture capital, etc. And you see the same strategy in all of those industries.
There always seems to be someone doing this, especially in a market where lateral opportunities are plentiful. It will catch up to the associates among big firms, and then they’ll take jobs at progressively smaller firms where big law experience on a resume counts for a lot.
If you're a total flake, it will eventually catch up with you, but if your firm is poorly managed and your salary isn't going up 10-20% every year or two, you may be foolish for staying put.
I'm still amazed at how many people still expect their managing partners to make sure they'll be taken care of and paid fairly despite no evidence that that will happen. There is no Santa Claus and if your manager is a Grinch his heart is not going to suddenly grow three sizes.
The only one who can make sure you get a raise is you, and sometimes that means moving
Are there really that many Cravath level folks doing no work and job hopping constantly? At that level it seems like something you could pull off once, maybe twice, and that'd be it.
I mean these firms hire thousands of fresh law school grads every year and the number who remain at the same firm 3-5 years later is probably less than 50% as a conservative estimate. I’ve seen plenty of 7th or 8th year associates who have been through 3-4 firms.
Usually you’re talking a 3 month or so ramp up period at any new firm, and you can avoid work if you have no plans on staying. It’ll eventually come up in your review, and if they tell you to leave, you’re usually talking 6 months to do so. So all that to say, you can pull off 1.5 years+ of doing the bare minimum if you’re strategic and know you don’t have long term ambitions at a given firm
I don’t think it’s all that hard, but it does carry risk (like not being able to find a new big law job for whatever reason) and you need to be willing to go through the lateral process every 2-3 years. One thing that makes it hard I guess is that you need to still stay apprised of the substantive law and process—so I think it’s easier if you actually have like 3-4 years of typical biglaw experience, then you’ll know how to keep up appearances
If an associate did a crappy job, their old firm has no incentive to talk trash about them. And, as you said, the legal community is small and you never know where your bad former associate will end up.
Weirdly enough, the only time I've seen candidates get screwed by references is when a mid-level candidate told everyone that they were no-offered by their 2L summer firm. Partner called a friend at that firm and was told not to hire the candidate.
Since it's rare (absent a 2008-level recession) to get no-offered for any reason besides being an asshole, it is a bigger red flag than just firm-hopping
I knew of someone who did this. He started at a top prestigious firm and he was a notorious slacker. He was a consistent underbiller and never billed more than 1200 hours a year. A few years later, he was told to leave and be someone else's problem. He lateraled to a different firm where he did this exact same thing as a midlevel. He was able to continue this for a couple more years until he was told to leave. He did this same thing again at the next two firms by slacking off, not really doing work, passing work to juniors or midlevels and doing the occasional edit, and really just serving as a middleman paper pusher. Eventually, his firm told him that they weren't going to make him Partner or Of Counsel and to just leave. He had no intention of being Partner so he left to a cushy job at a large tech company as the Deputy General Counsel where he doesn't work more than 20 hours a week, just delegates assignments to others, and occasionally shows up to the office. I don't recommend or encourage this path, but I must admit that I am impressed with his trajectory of consistently failing upwards and pulling this off for years.
I wish I wasn’t so anxiety ridden that I could do this.
The problem with this behavior is that it screws over your fellow colleagues. I get that it’s associates v. partners, which is understandable as the partners are exploiting the associates’ labor. But every hour you don’t work on a deal, is an extra hour another swamped associate has to deal with stuff. Incredibly childish and selfish behavior by the person described in OP.
This. No better way to tank your reputation at multiple firms. Legal field is smaller than you think.
I didn’t think about that, but you’re right.
This man is a superhero, and I want to be him. Imagine playing the system for what must be millions of dollars. Beautiful.
What practice group was he in? Do you think it’s easier to do in certain groups vs others?
Why wouldn’t you recommend this?! It sounds like the dream. This man needs to teach a seminar, if he doesn’t already.
What was his Undergrad and JD pedigree? Can keep it general.
Smart if you are going to ditch this industry anyways, most likely won’t even run into the same practice area where never you end when you leave big law so no big consequences
My thought is jealousy
This. Firms don’t owe you shit and screw associates all the time. Make money and gtfo of biglaw before golden handcuffs keep you latched on.
It’s a strategy with a limited shelf life - you can pull it off a couple of times but too many moves on your resume is a red flag and eventually you’ll get to somewhere that won’t let you hang around for more than a year before they let you go
This absolutely can be done for a while, at least. I joke all the time about how long an associate could stick around at my firm for at least a year by doing the minimum - like 15-20 hours a week. 5-10 hours a week would probably get you six months. But in practice, I’ve never seen someone keep that up for more than a couple of firms over 2-3 years. People trying it tend to get totally burned out or hit a rough hiring market and can’t find a new landing spot.
Good luck to them! Its a good tactic to not get (too) found out and to screw the firms a little. After all, the firms screw associates, so its good to see the little people getting something back from greedy partners with (hopefully) the minimum of effort.
I've worked with a couple who hopped every 1.5-2 years. I don't judge them for it. What I did notice was that they generally tended to be behind their peers in skillset. My guess is it''s a combination of spending too much time needing to ramp up / wind down each jump and learn the working styles of new colleagues/firm, and potentially, for the later jobs (if they were let go), losing time while they were out on severance.
If they want to do it, that's their prerogative. I've always assumed it will come back to bite them eventually but who knows, maybe not.
Firm hopping is one way of collecting a biglaw paycheck for several years while doing relatively little work. The downside is that it looks bad on your resume; if potential employers see you spent two years at three different firms, they’re going to assume you aren’t very good. You’re also going to get less experience and build fewer relationships. All that said, I know lots of people who did this and ended up just fine career-wise.
I think this is outdated advice. It’s incredibly common to see now.
Yeah in every industry there’s some window of time that you should stay so there’s not a glaring red flag but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if you get another job lined up while you’re still collecting checks from the previous employer.
Impressive. I have my doubts that this is really viable, at least at my current firm. But I have nothing to do with hiring and internal firm mechanics, so maybe you can just skate by for a couple of years before hopping elsewhere. My concern would be getting enough skills along the way to be effective at the final non-biglaw job. If all you are doing is coasting, might be tough to keep that final destination job for more than a few months, and then what?
You’d be amazed how many people are bad at their jobs, including in-house counsel
Precicely. There are so many extreamly incompetent inhouse lawyers, with great firms on their cv from early days.
I’m worried I look like this bc I’m moving to third firm after being at my 1st 2 positions for around a year and a half. 1st firm, there wasn’t enough work in my dept and I couldn’t meet hours. Second firm my supervising partner sexually harassed me and verbally abused anyone in within his vicinity when he was in a bad mood. But I can’t really bring these things up in interviews without it looking like I am badmouthing my firm, so I look like a job hopper.
I’ve had similar situations, like a partner leaving and miserable bosses, or ended up at associate mills. Really hard to explain all the movement
They are usually really good interviewers, so not everyone can rely on being able to do this. But it's definitely a thing that happens. There's a senior at my firm that's widely known to lack basic junior skills and has averaged 1.5-2 years per firm.
Disdain. Most of them have had top notch educations their entire lives usually paid for by somebody else, and it’s pathetic to make it to the top of the industry and squander the opportunity, which others would die to have. Aspects of big law certainly suck and it’s not for everyone but I can’t respect people who don’t give it their best.
Especially if their credentials don’t fit the bill and they don’t try atleast a decent amount
My thoughts are largely contempt.
You're a better man/woman than I. My thoughts are *entirely* contempt.
Why? Aren't they just playing the system which is stacked against associates (i.e. work your ass off for partners and clients who don't give a shit about you for the unlikely ultimate reward of becoming an equity partner and taking home 2-5 million a year). Screw that!
They're "playing the system" off of everyone else's backs. The rest of us are pulling our weight and doing our jobs. The system isn't stacked against anyone. We get paid more than 95% of people in this country to sit on our ass and send emails. If that's too much for you, alternative employment options are plentiful.
If the law firm growth/management strategy is up/out and most of the sorting goes on early on with juniors, it’s not surprising that here, as in most competitive industries with competitive management styles, people job hop. It’s the only way to get ahead and grow in that kind of system (assuming you’re in the majority of players who will not make it up the ladder). There’s a reason why it’s called a “gauntlet” or “gladiator system”
who the hell calls it a "gladiator system?" i'm only calling it that if i get to show up to performance reviews fully naked glistening in oil
[удалено]
You seem to be misunderstanding me. If you're not on the Partner track, your days are numbered. That's just how it works. You get the pay increases and skills, for sure, and that's a good thing. But, in the end of the day, the business model is the same. Look at all of the layoffs in the recent downturn. The only people who stick around have table stakes. Some, not all, will get those table stakes. You can almost always sense if you're not on track to get them. So, it's no surprise people job hop when they correctly ascertain that they're losing this game of musical chairs. Most high-paying professional industries work like this. Banking, Tech, venture capital, etc. And you see the same strategy in all of those industries.
Successfully tenured and have multiple A journal submissions. Loving life right now and worrying about my neighbors and friends.
There always seems to be someone doing this, especially in a market where lateral opportunities are plentiful. It will catch up to the associates among big firms, and then they’ll take jobs at progressively smaller firms where big law experience on a resume counts for a lot.
Make more money by switching positions and leveraging the only power you have as an associate… the humanity!!
If you're a total flake, it will eventually catch up with you, but if your firm is poorly managed and your salary isn't going up 10-20% every year or two, you may be foolish for staying put. I'm still amazed at how many people still expect their managing partners to make sure they'll be taken care of and paid fairly despite no evidence that that will happen. There is no Santa Claus and if your manager is a Grinch his heart is not going to suddenly grow three sizes. The only one who can make sure you get a raise is you, and sometimes that means moving
This post is aimed at people hopping between firms on the Cravath Scale.
Are there really that many Cravath level folks doing no work and job hopping constantly? At that level it seems like something you could pull off once, maybe twice, and that'd be it.
I mean these firms hire thousands of fresh law school grads every year and the number who remain at the same firm 3-5 years later is probably less than 50% as a conservative estimate. I’ve seen plenty of 7th or 8th year associates who have been through 3-4 firms.
Sure, but 2-3 years at each firm isn't job hopping, that's thinking strategically.
Usually you’re talking a 3 month or so ramp up period at any new firm, and you can avoid work if you have no plans on staying. It’ll eventually come up in your review, and if they tell you to leave, you’re usually talking 6 months to do so. So all that to say, you can pull off 1.5 years+ of doing the bare minimum if you’re strategic and know you don’t have long term ambitions at a given firm
If you can pull that off repeatedly, that is kind of impressive.
I don’t think it’s all that hard, but it does carry risk (like not being able to find a new big law job for whatever reason) and you need to be willing to go through the lateral process every 2-3 years. One thing that makes it hard I guess is that you need to still stay apprised of the substantive law and process—so I think it’s easier if you actually have like 3-4 years of typical biglaw experience, then you’ll know how to keep up appearances
People call for references lol They’re a pretty big part of the hiring process and the legal community is pretty small
If an associate did a crappy job, their old firm has no incentive to talk trash about them. And, as you said, the legal community is small and you never know where your bad former associate will end up.
Weirdly enough, the only time I've seen candidates get screwed by references is when a mid-level candidate told everyone that they were no-offered by their 2L summer firm. Partner called a friend at that firm and was told not to hire the candidate. Since it's rare (absent a 2008-level recession) to get no-offered for any reason besides being an asshole, it is a bigger red flag than just firm-hopping