Related Posts
Acceptance is the answer.

Additional Posts in Law
Best divorce lawyer in NYC?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Acceptance is the answer.

Best divorce lawyer in NYC?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site

Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile

Definitely not a meritocracy. Lots of politics, ass-kissing, and luck. Not saying being good is not necessary. But being mediocre and being a master at politics is more likely to get you there than being amazing substantively and being an a-hole.
I'm not sure it's an either or situation. Politics and connections won't get you to partner if you're bad at what you do.
Have a lot of behind-the-scenes experience that says otherwise.
Pro
Once again for the kids in the back: “put your head down, work hard, and you’ll be rewarded” is a lie told to children to keep them obedient. In nearly any profession, advancing requires more than just technical competency.
Pro
Asked and answered
There is no such thing as a meritocracy anywhere in human society.
I think it’s fair to describe law as a profession that is more meritocratic than many others, but other elements are hugely important to be successful.
Billing a lot of hours and doing exceptional work can get you a long way. But it’s not going to get you chosen to go to the client meetings or to the informal business dinners or drinks with those who make decisions. It’s well documented that attractive people are treated better, make more money, get promoted more often, etc. I think it’s the same thing in the legal field. Sometimes being attractive will mean being physically attractive, other times it will mean being a bro who plays golf, or a woman who can handle sitting through a dinner with only men. It comes down to this - by the time you get to the interview stage, the expectation is that you’re qualified to do the work, but people are going to hire you based on whether they want to hang out with you or whether they think the clients will want to hang out with you. Life is just like high school over and over and over again.
Define merit. Pre-existing connections aside, soft skills and hustle in making connections and meeting people is just as important as legal skill. If you’re a litigator going to jury trial, soft skills ARE legal skill.
It's not a meritocracy. Knowing the right people and having them in your corner is key.
It is a meritocracy- at least at my firm. You advance as far as your ability and effort take you. The other consideration is having clients, which I suppose may be impacted by factors other than merit in some cases. But having clients is not necessary to become a working partner here. Only necessary to become a rainmaker.
I have not seen “luck,” “politics” or “connections” playing any role in anything (except for rainmakers who have clients via connections). I have seen people’s advancement and stature within the firm pretty much perfectly mirror their competence.
Our business model is originating, managing and trying complex cases and I have found that the partners (and senior associates) are quite adept at determining who is good at those things. Their own success and compensation depends on it.
I have heard a few people complain over the years about not advancing for reasons they think are unfair, but without fail, the actual reasons have been fair - namely, that they are incompetent (or at least not nearly as good as they think they are).
Pro
Lucky you