A prominent speaker at the recent American Lawyer Media sponsored"Chief Recruitment and Professional Development Officer's Forum" ("CRPDO Forum") in Manhattan, two weeks ago, cited a recent AMLAW survey in which only about a quarter of associates surveyed expect to make partner at their firms - echoing, to me, a commonly heard perception that it's gotten much harder for outstanding young associates to make partner, suggesting that it was therfore easier in the good old days. Is it? Was it?
Leaving aside wishful thinking and nostalgia - I think this perception bears some further study, not the least becuase so many attorneys base significant career decisions on its veracity, or not. As a starting point, I would offer the following semi-informed observation - really more of a question since I am missing the data I need to make any kind of credible conclusion. My question starts with the assumption that the Top 10-20 law schools are graduating essentially the same quantity of lawyers in 2006 as they graduated in 1976, as well as upon the observation that the quantity of large, highly profitable firms in the US (and in the major centers such as New York in particular) has grown significantly during that period and will probably continue to do so in the foreseeable future as the global economy continues to grow. Were my assumption and observation to be correct (and here I defer to someone who has the numbers on this) - then this would suggest that the path to partnership for an outstanding young law school graduate at a large AMLAW 100 firm, in New York, may actually be the same if not easier then it was in the “good old days”. I would grant that this opportunity would not necessarily be the same for someone who was not prepared to switch firms/geographies to take advantage of the opportunities of this fairly dynamic market environment – but I also suppose also that such a person will always have been less likely to make the cut.
Obviously, this alternative take on things ("it really can be greener on the other side of the fence") is clearly to the benefit of those that depend on the lateral hiring market - myself included. I wonder, however, how much truth there is behind it and I would be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions as to where some clarification - and/or the truth - may be found.
