Slaughters considers career progression shake-up

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • "Olney said: "[...] There haven't been as many outstanding candidates coming through.""

    Why do the partners beyond a certain age/seniority in every law firm believe that today's associates can't possibly be as "outstanding" as they were when promoted in the 1980s/90s? Just another example of the ladder being pulled up by a generation of lawyers desperate to stay on the gravy train?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In fairness to Slaughters, they don't appear to employ much BS or spin when communicating externally.

    Internally, they have historically had a clear "up or out" policy and have tended to promote associates relatively quickly when compared to their peers (these days at Linklaters or Freshfields you are unlikely to be promoted to anything other than "managing associate" or similar (good work, old chap!) before you have 10-12 years' PQE).

    So when the super conservative Slaughters (the only elite English firm to not abandon the traditional partnership model and ethos) announce that they are thinking about introducing "alternative career paths" (which, as we all know, is short hand for boosting fee earner leverage (and thereby PEP) and further restricting access to the equity), it really is the death knell for the traditional associate partnership track.

    It was always going to be tough and the odds were always against you, but this is, it seems to me, the final nail in the coffin for the concept that an associate can - through hard work and talent - realistically expect to be promoted to anything meaningful in BigLaw (and arguably we shouldn't even include promotion to non-equity partner in second tier firms in this "meaningful" category because very often at these firms the pay isn't brilliant - when looked at in an effort vs. salary context - and there is no clear path to equity).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If they place a strong emphasis on promoting associates who have trained with them (over lateral hires), isn't it their own fault that when they survey the (almost empty field) of 6-7PQE associates, there is a lack of outstanding talent?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Slaughters partnership track vs Freshfields / Links is no longer accurate -- this year's candidates at Slaughters were both 8+, and both Freshfields and Links had candidates made of similar vintage.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Olney said: "[...] There haven't been as many outstanding candidates coming through."

    That's right. The current crop of equity partners are a 'golden generation,' the likes of which will never be seen again. They all fully deserved to be made up at 5PQE - if anything, it was harder to be made partner in their day. It isn't their fault that subsequent generations don't measure up - it is only right and proper that today's less industrious and intelligent lawyers should be made up at 10PQE+ (if at all).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Would Paul Olney comment on the question of whether many less than outstanding candidates made it through in the boom years via powerful sponsoring partners?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (6)