Historically, “white-shoe” firms—a term rooted in the white buck shoes popular among Ivy League students—refer to elite firms in law, finance, consulting, and accounting that serve major corporate clients in the financial world. These firms have long prioritized recruiting top Ivy League graduates, leveraging both their credentials and networks to enhance their own prestige and justify premium fees. Much like luxury brands, their exclusivity became a defining marketing tool. Emerging during the late 19th century’s economic booms and busts, these firms were initially composed of America’s social elite, typically White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) with substantial family connections and influence. Old money. The birthplace of white privilege, the boys’ club, and “do you know who my dad is?”
In the legal arena, known as Big Law, these firms formed to meet the complex demands of the corporate sector, where expertise across multiple legal areas and jurisdictions became vital for handling billion-dollar deals and disputes. One of Big Law’s foundational figures, Paul Cravath of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, set the industry’s tone with his “Cravath System.” This model standardized practices like uniform compensation, rigorous recruitment, hierarchical training, and a competitive promotion track. While effective, this system has also contributed to Big Law’s reputation as a “misery machine,” marked by high pressure and intense workloads.
Compensation in Big Law is a hallmark of its competitive nature, governed by a lockstep pay scale known as the “Cravath Scale,” which ensures high salaries increase consistently each year. Entry-level associates can start with salaries exceeding $200,000 annually, but this structure is sustained by Big Law’s capacity to continually raise hourly rates to keep pace with rising salaries, inflation, and operating expenses. Unlike other pricing models, hourly billing helps firms manage the unpredictability of complex cases and high-stakes corporate transactions. Alternative models—such as percentage-based fees or subscription billing—are considered but rarely adopted, largely because of the legal industry’s risk aversion. As a result, hourly rates continue to rise. Paying over $200K to a fresh law school grad to do administrative work, “train them,” and inflate the bill because it would look weird if they charged $50K an hour for the partner making the actual legal decisions.
The fees in Big Law often raise eyebrows, with top attorneys billing upwards of $2,500 per hour. Although this may seem excessive, it reflects the nature of high-stakes professional services, where fees align with the value and risks associated with transactions. Law firms charge per hour rather than by project or percentage, which can make fees appear steeper compared to investment banks or private equity (PE) firms that often collect a percentage on deals—sometimes generating even larger fees. For example, investment banks typically take a 5–7% commission on transactions like IPOs, while PE firms rely on management fees and carried interest rather than personal capital contributions, effectively spreading costs across clients. The $2,500 per hour isn’t solely about any single lawyer’s time; it’s a byproduct of Big Law’s position within a high-revenue ecosystem where everyone seeks a share. The top M&A firm, Wachtell, also takes a percentage, and other law firms can only dream of that money.
Big Law’s recruitment model is equally unique, with most firms focusing on elite law schools through formalized on-campus interview (OCI) programs. The emphasis on prestigious schools acts as a branding tool, presenting associates from institutions like Harvard or Yale as “the best of the best.” Yet this approach often overlooks skills and potential beyond academic credentials, relying on school names as a proxy for talent since they have no other information to go off of.
In training, Big Law follows an apprenticeship model, where new associates progress through junior, midlevel, and senior ranks, learning primarily on the job. This “training” is often a high-pressure, sink-or-swim environment, placing heavy demands on junior associates to adapt quickly. Many find this experience formative, yet it is widely viewed as intense, with long hours and high expectations.
Promotion in Big Law is a strict process. Traditionally, associates move up each year if they meet billable targets and avoid layoffs. By the seventh or eighth year, however, they must decide whether to strive for partnership or move on—a system known as “up or out.” In recent years, some firms have shifted this model, retaining senior associates beyond this timeframe to continue billing profitably without necessarily advancing them to partner status. Despite these adaptations, the Cravath System has entrenched a competitive, often unforgiving work environment that prioritizes performance and profitability. Most people leave. Attrition is not a bug; it’s a feature. But it’s great to get your debt down, get some training, and get a drinking problem.
The concept of Big Law has global equivalents, like the “Magic Circle” in London and the “Seven Sisters” in Toronto. In the U.S., debates about what qualifies as Big Law often center on rankings like Vault or Chambers, though compensation remains the most reliable measure. High salaries signal these firms’ specialized expertise and capability to handle complex legal challenges. A recent headline underscored Big Law’s earning potential when it was reported that six Kirkland & Ellis partners earned over $25 million each. While these figures seem astronomical, they prompt a critical question: Are these earnings a reflection of exceptional legal skill, or are they more about being positioned in an era of corporate expansion and substantial legal budgets?
To some, Big Law represents the peak of the legal profession. Yet to others, it may simply be a matter of timing—being in the right place during a period when corporations are willing to invest heavily in legal expertise. For me, it’s just a paycheck.
Body of Knowledge 
Leave a comment