The only area of equality found in the analysis is at
the lowest tier firms, where neither gender is rewarded for tenure.
Not exact matches
Last year I just squeaked by with
firm's «target» number of hours (under 1900), but didn't make the informal practice group target (less than 100 more) and received the
low tier bonus for my year (no complaints, wasn't sure I'd get it given how close I was).
Only 4 percent of graduates of
lower -
tiered schools work in law
firms, and many of these graduates work in small, solo practices or in state government jobs.
For now, there are a couple dozen
firms in the mid-
tier between the leaders and the
lower tier.
Some mid-
tier firms join the leaders and most fall into the
lower tier.
The blog post observes that an alternative hypothesis may be that large
firms, which often opt for the stability of size in exchange for
lower PPEP, are more advanced in their use of a non-equity partner
tier, and that the correlation of NEP
tier with declining PPEP may be a red herring.
And like it or not, most prominent
firms will favor minority graduates from elite law schools over those who attended
lower -
tiered schools.
Now, brace yourself for Henderson's highly counterintuitive findings: In his opinion,
firms that have switched to two -
tier structures that allow so - called «nonequity» partnerships are actually producing
lower profits per partner (PPP) and have
lower prestige.
For instance, Canadian
firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Japanese
firm Mori Hamada & Matsumoto, and Australian
firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques, which is set to merge with Chinese domestic legal giant King & Wood, earned spots at the
lower end of the global legal M&A
tier.
For the exempted, the question is who is next and will the
firm survive; for the «
low tiered» they want to show they belong.