合伙人含金量缩水

    “我刚成为合伙人”这句话听起来确实如同天籁之音，也是很多刚刚进入律师事务所和投资银行的雇员们渴望有一天能够说出口的一句话。

    但如今，成为合伙人的意义已经今非昔比。实际上，这一点也已经不是什么新鲜事了。但是，很多刚入行的雇员仍然渴望能够实现这一目标。

    为什么？原因很多，其中大多涉及传统和薪酬。不过，尽管成为合伙人并不是毫无意义，初入职场的人还是应当考量一下，它是否是一个可靠的终极目标。

    大约20年前，成为合伙人的好处显而易见。首先，它意味着薪酬上调，而且，合伙人与准合伙人的职责划分也泾渭分明。当时的合伙人是一家公司或事务所少数几个股东之一。但如今，“要成为一名股权合伙人比以往任何时候都要困难，”《美国律师》（American Lawyer）的总编罗宾•斯巴克曼称。“它需要更长的时间，对律师的要求也更苛刻。”

    《美国律师》搜集的数据显示，2000年，（按照营收排名的）美国200强律师事务所全部合伙人中约78%是股权合伙人，到了2010年，这些事务所的股权合伙人比例下降到了62%。

    成为合伙人就等于拿到黄金入场券的日子已经一去不复返了。事实上，有时情况可能还正好相反。举例来说，本月早些时候，由于公司事先向合伙人承诺的一些特殊待遇未能兑现，杜威路博国际律师事务所（Dewey & LeBoeuf）有约20名合伙人集体离职。同时，在投资银行界，近几个月来高盛（Goldman Sachs）也有相当比例的合伙人离职。或许可以说，十年前当高盛从纯粹的合伙企业转变为一家上市公司起，高盛的文化就已经开始转型了。

    过去几十年来，随着金融公司和律师事务所的扩张、兼并和全球化，少数人持股的模式已经土崩瓦解。接着，经济衰退来袭，这些公司可分发给员工的钱也减少了。如今，随着很多事务所开始重新招聘，每家事务所对内部等级制度的定义也发生了变化。

    “律师事务所不得不面对现实，它们不能让太多人成为股权合伙人，否则将无法生存，”律师事务所咨询公司Edge International的创始合伙人加里•瑞斯金表示。因此，他说，一些事务所将合伙人分成了三六九等，处在顶层的是股权合伙人；其他等级的合伙人“可能会参照其他事务的做法，或者只是一种更体面的薪酬支付方式。”

    “合伙人这个字眼的含义就跟癌症一样宽泛，”美国董事协会（American Board Association）法律管理业务部的肯•扬称。“它在商界有一定意义，但人们需要挖掘这名头下的具体内涵。”

    "I just made partner" sure sounds like music to the ears. It's a line many early-career employees at law firms and investment banks aim to say one day.

    But making partner doesn't mean what it used to. It hasn't for a while, in fact. And still, many entering the workforce covet that milestone.

    Why? There are a couple of reasons, most of them having to do with tradition and pay. And while making partner isn't meaningless, job seekers entering the workforce should question whether it's a solid end-goal.

    About 20 years ago, the benefits of making partner at a firm were clear. It meant a pay increase, first of all, and there was a distinction of responsibilities between partners and associates. A partner was one of few shareholders in the company or firm. But these days, "it's harder than ever to become an equity partner," says Robin Sparkman, the editor in chief of the American Lawyer, "it takes longer, and the demands on that lawyer are more stringent."

    According to data collected by the American Lawyer, about 78% of all partners at the top 200 law firms (ranked by revenue) were equity partners in 2000. By 2010, 62% of partners at these firms had the same status.

    No longer is making partner a golden ticket. In fact, in some cases, it can mean the opposite. Earlier this month, for example, about 20 partners at law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf left en masse after the firm couldn't make good on some of the promised perks of partnership. And, in the world of investment banking, Goldman Sachs (GS) has seen its fair share of partner-level departures in recent months. Arguably, Goldman's culture started to change about a decade ago when it transitioned from a true partnership to a public company.

    The model of having a firm with a small group of owners who held equity stakes began to break down over the past couple of decades as financial and legal firms expanded, merged, and globalized. Then the recession hit, and firms simply had less money to give to people. Now, as many are starting to rehire, each defines its internal hierarchy differently.

    "Law firms just have to face the reality that they can't make too many people equity partners or they can't survive," says Gerry Riskin, founding partner of law firm consulting firm Edge International. As a result, he says, some offer tiered partnerships with equity partners at the top. Other levels of partnership, Riskin says, "may be based on what other firms are doing, or may be just a glorified way of paying a salary."

    "Partner is as broad of a word as cancer is," says Ken Young, who is part of the American Board Association's Law Practice Management Section. "To the business community, it means something, but people need to dig beneath the title."