Recently,
I
was
cleaning
out
some
of
my
old
things,
and
I
stumbled
upon
the
offer
letter
I
received
for
the
first
Biglaw
job
I
had
at
the
beginning
of
my
career.
The
five-page
offer
letter
included
a
lot
of
the
expected
legalese,
such
as
my
salary
information,
how
bonuses
would
be
calculated,
and
other
matters.
The
offer
letter
also
said
that
I
would
be
considered
for
partnership
eight
years
after
starting
work
as
an
associate.
As
it
turns
out,
I
only
worked
at
that
shop
for
a
little
over
a
year,
but
reading
that
language
reminded
that
most
law
firms
used
to
stick
to
an
eight-year
partnership
track.
From
discussions
with
my
friends
and
colleagues,
very
few
firms
outside
the
elite
shops
still
stick
to
an
eight-year
partnership
track,
and
there
are
likely
various
reasons
for
this.
Perhaps
the
biggest
reason
is
because
partners
these
days
seem
less
willing
to
share
ownership
of
a
law
firm
with
other
lawyers.
In
the
past
decade,
positions
not
on
the
partnership
track
have
flourished
as
law
firms
attempt
to
hire
new
attorneys
without
fear
that
these
lawyers
will
one
day
share
a
piece
of
the
ownership
pie.
In
recent
years,
there
has
also
been
an
explosion
of
two-tracked
partnership
systems
at
law
firms
as
some
partners
are
equity
partners
of
a
shop
with
an
ownership
stake
and
others
are
simply
contract
partners
who
pull
a
salary.
Awarding
partnership
after
longer
periods
of
employment
at
a
shop
means
that
a
firm
does
not
have
to
give
away
its
crown
jewels
to
lawyers
anytime
soon
and
that
attorneys
really
need
to
work
hard
to
earn
partnership.
Another
reason
why
so
few
law
firms
seem
to
still
stick
to
an
eight-year
partnership
track
is
because
numerous
law
firms
have
moved
away
from
explicit
and
defined
employment
benefits.
Many
law
firms
have
benefits
from
promising
employees
more
fluid
employment
benefits
so
that
expectations
are
low
among
those
who
work
at
a
shop.
For
instance,
I
once
worked
at
a
law
firm
that
did
not
have
a
defined
vacation
policy.
The
firm
reasoned
that
everyone
could
take
as
much
time
as
they
wanted
off
from
work
so
long
as
they
completed
all
of
their
assignments.
At
first,
this
seemed
like
a
windfall,
since
employees
could
theoretically
take
off
more
time
than
at
other
shops.
However,
in
practice,
this
meant
that
workers
took
far
less
time
off
from
work
since
vacation
benefits
were
not
defined.
This
also
meant
that
the
firm
did
not
need
to
pay
workers
for
unused
vacation
time
when
workers
left
the
firm
since
no
employee
had
a
defined
amount
of
time
they
could
take
off
for
vacation
each
year.
This
same
law
firm
did
not
have
a
defined
partnership
track.
Law
firm
management
said
that
this
was
a
benefit
to
workers,
and
that
theoretically,
associates
could
be
elevated
to
partnership
after
say
five
years
instead
of
the
eight
years
that
was
standard
at
many
shops.
However,
in
practice,
the
lack
of
a
defined
partnership
track
meant
that
far
fewer
people
were
elevated
to
partner.
Sometimes,
the
law
firm
would
elevate
more
senior
people
to
“of
counsel”
or
similar
positions,
but
in
many
instances,
there
were
attorneys
working
at
the
law
firm
for
a
decade
or
longer
who
were
in
their
40s
and
were
still
being
called
associates.
The
lack
of
a
defined
partnership
track
made
it
easier
for
the
law
firm
to
deprive
associates
of
a
promotion
since
there
were
no
expectations
about
when
it
was
reasonable
for
someone
to
be
promoted
to
partner.
Although
some
top
firms
still
have
an
eight-year
partnership
track,
many
have
moved
to
undefined
and
fluid
time
horizons
for
making
partnership
determinations.
Such
practices
undoubtedly
benefit
management
of
law
firms
since
it
helps
deprive
attorneys
of
promotions
and
makes
it
more
difficult
for
associates
to
bargain
for
better
job
opportunities.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
jordan@rothman.law.