4 ms·

The lawyers and doctors who get paid a whole lot are partners in a firm. It's not much different than founding a tech company.

ryandrake 13y ago
The difference being that you don't necessarily have to take the enormous risk of founding a company in order to become a partner in a law firm. Is there a similar career path for engineers in any tech company that is the equivalent of "making partner" in a law firm? Genuinely curious.
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  That all depends on whether you think a tech company that has the business model of a law firm is still a tech company. Silicon Valley does like hits. On the other hand, have you asked any newly minted lawyers about their "career path" recently?
- sjg007 13y ago
  Sure, make partner in a boutique software consulting firm.
  - aswanson 13y ago
    Problem is, boutique implies specialty. In tech, specialties involve short term expertise. Experience works against specialists in our field, whereas in fields like law and medicine, specialization is likely to increase value over a career lifetime. We are up against a far more sinister s-curve in the experience/perceived utility equation.
    - sjg007 13y ago
      I would argue that specialization in software is more about delivering solutions and value. I agree that in general technology evolves, but there is clearly a 20+ year lifespan for some technologies. Cobol is still in demand. As a botique software shop you offer a company critical business infrastructure that gives them an edge. 90% of the software in business is developed or customized for the client. As developers we don't necessarily like it because it is not always elegant or optimal but it exists.
      - jazzyk 13y ago
        And how many Cobol jobs do you see advertised? Close to zero. I am an independent consultant, with 20+ years of experience. Let me tell you, noone who is looking to hire me gives a damn what I did 5 or 10 years ago. The technical problems (and tools used to solve them) 10 years ago were very different than today (even though you and I know that certain principles remain the same). I work pretty hard to remain current/relevant. I often joke that software engineers should be paid like star athletes or actors - their shelf time is limited.
        aswanson 13y ago
        Exactly.
- greg5green 13y ago
  I'm not sure if it's the same for lawyers, but with a lot of doctors, they have to buy out the guy that's retiring/buy in to become a partner at a practice.
- xtrumanx 13y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, Jason Fried made DHH partner at 37Signals.
kareemm 13y ago
Not really. A competent freelance developer in the valley will make $150-200/h. A competent lawyer (not a partner) in the valley will make $350+/h.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Interesting. Is that entirely comparable? The lawyer is equivalently a lone freelancer, not part of a specialized organization? The comparable developer would be part of a boutique consultancy.
- randomdata 13y ago
  What happened to the news in the past year or so about the large glut of lawyers in America, having to work for relative peanuts because of supply outpacing demand? Has the valley somehow managed to keep them out? Or is it that specialized lawyers can make $350+/hr? In which case developers with certain specialities can make that much as well.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You can hire a bar-admitted lawyer for $20/hour, yet some firms bill first year associates at almost $400/hour. The corporate service professions (law, finance, accounting, and consulting) have a self-regulating labor supply. A professional without hands on experience is not valuable to corporate clients, and hands on experience can only be acquired in the context of real litigation/deals/audits/etc. If demand grows, firms need to train and hire more people, and supply grows. I demand stops growing, as happened after the 2008 recession, firms cut back training and hiring to replacement levels, and supply stabilizes. That circumstance is unfortunate for the people who want jobs in corporate law/finance/accounting/consulting that can't get them, but limits the degree to which changes in demand affect the price of services.
    - acgourley 13y ago
      Why don't we see more firms created?
pyrrhotech 13y ago
It's also different in that there is a very well-defined path to becoming one of these partners from the associate level. All the people above you are also lawyers. There are usually 8 clear levels of associate and then you become partner if you are competent and make 7 figures. As an engineer, there is no such clear path. Most engineers end up working for 8 years and at the end are only making 150-250k if they are competent. Even if you make it to the management/architect level, you are looking at 250-400k. Software Engineers are sadly not compensated fairly for the massive value they add to the economy. That's the bottom line. We need to work together to change it.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I don't see a big difference really. Just as some engineers found their own companies and some are employees of other people's companies, there are thousands of lawyers employed in corporate legal departments who are simply employees, because they don't want the stress or responsibility of running their own firms.

ryandrake 13y ago

The difference being that you don't necessarily have to take the enormous risk of founding a company in order to become a partner in a law firm. Is there a similar career path for engineers in any tech company that is the equivalent of "making partner" in a law firm? Genuinely curious.

dvanduzer 13y ago
That all depends on whether you think a tech company that has the business model of a law firm is still a tech company. Silicon Valley does like hits. On the other hand, have you asked any newly minted lawyers about their "career path" recently?
sjg007 13y ago
Sure, make partner in a boutique software consulting firm.
- aswanson 13y ago
  Problem is, boutique implies specialty. In tech, specialties involve short term expertise. Experience works against specialists in our field, whereas in fields like law and medicine, specialization is likely to increase value over a career lifetime. We are up against a far more sinister s-curve in the experience/perceived utility equation.
  - sjg007 13y ago
    I would argue that specialization in software is more about delivering solutions and value. I agree that in general technology evolves, but there is clearly a 20+ year lifespan for some technologies. Cobol is still in demand. As a botique software shop you offer a company critical business infrastructure that gives them an edge. 90% of the software in business is developed or customized for the client. As developers we don't necessarily like it because it is not always elegant or optimal but it exists.
    - jazzyk 13y ago
      And how many Cobol jobs do you see advertised? Close to zero. I am an independent consultant, with 20+ years of experience. Let me tell you, noone who is looking to hire me gives a damn what I did 5 or 10 years ago. The technical problems (and tools used to solve them) 10 years ago were very different than today (even though you and I know that certain principles remain the same). I work pretty hard to remain current/relevant. I often joke that software engineers should be paid like star athletes or actors - their shelf time is limited.
      - aswanson 13y ago
        Exactly.
greg5green 13y ago
I'm not sure if it's the same for lawyers, but with a lot of doctors, they have to buy out the guy that's retiring/buy in to become a partner at a practice.
xtrumanx 13y ago
If I'm not mistaken, Jason Fried made DHH partner at 37Signals.

kareemm 13y ago

Not really. A competent freelance developer in the valley will make $150-200/h. A competent lawyer (not a partner) in the valley will make $350+/h.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Interesting. Is that entirely comparable? The lawyer is equivalently a lone freelancer, not part of a specialized organization? The comparable developer would be part of a boutique consultancy.
randomdata 13y ago
What happened to the news in the past year or so about the large glut of lawyers in America, having to work for relative peanuts because of supply outpacing demand? Has the valley somehow managed to keep them out? Or is it that specialized lawyers can make $350+/hr? In which case developers with certain specialities can make that much as well.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You can hire a bar-admitted lawyer for $20/hour, yet some firms bill first year associates at almost $400/hour. The corporate service professions (law, finance, accounting, and consulting) have a self-regulating labor supply. A professional without hands on experience is not valuable to corporate clients, and hands on experience can only be acquired in the context of real litigation/deals/audits/etc. If demand grows, firms need to train and hire more people, and supply grows. I demand stops growing, as happened after the 2008 recession, firms cut back training and hiring to replacement levels, and supply stabilizes. That circumstance is unfortunate for the people who want jobs in corporate law/finance/accounting/consulting that can't get them, but limits the degree to which changes in demand affect the price of services.
  - acgourley 13y ago
    Why don't we see more firms created?

pyrrhotech 13y ago

It's also different in that there is a very well-defined path to becoming one of these partners from the associate level. All the people above you are also lawyers. There are usually 8 clear levels of associate and then you become partner if you are competent and make 7 figures. As an engineer, there is no such clear path. Most engineers end up working for 8 years and at the end are only making 150-250k if they are competent. Even if you make it to the management/architect level, you are looking at 250-400k. Software Engineers are sadly not compensated fairly for the massive value they add to the economy. That's the bottom line. We need to work together to change it.

ams6110 13y ago
I don't see a big difference really. Just as some engineers found their own companies and some are employees of other people's companies, there are thousands of lawyers employed in corporate legal departments who are simply employees, because they don't want the stress or responsibility of running their own firms.