Big law is ballin', but...

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby JazzOne » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:52 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
canuck wrote:I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

I wonder how many years it takes those BAs to earn six figures. What industries do you suppose pay that well?


CPA's and Engineering majors... though tbh, CPA's are usually 150 credits so it's a master.. though you can just double major.

Of course you can make six figures in those fields, but I was questioning whether you could make that coming right out of school. I have a friend who's an engineer. He went to work for Dell after college, and he didn't make six figures. In fact, he went back to school a few years later to get an MBA because the jobs were more attractive in the management side of the company.

AreJay711 wrote:A lot of people do regardless of major... and a lot of people don't regardless of major. Most federal workers in D.C. will make nearly that much if they stay in long enough and will surpass it if they enter management. I know people making 100K in the gov with their GED so it really depends on the person.

That's my point. Who wants to "stay in long enough"? The great thing about biglaw is that you can come out of school banging. Biglaw doesn't pay "six figures"; first-year associates make well above $100K. Sure, it requires a lot of work, but in three years, I could basically save enough money to take the next year or two off.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby gwuorbust » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:07 pm

Korey wrote:I don't really understand why working so much is easily considered as something that will ruin one's quality of life. I am sure there are many people who would jump on the opportunity to make biglaw money despite the hours.


When its all said and done, IMO:
Making more than my parents combined at age 55 when I'm 26? Yeah. I'd work 80 hours for that.

ITE I guess it just depends on your personal priorities.


yes, cause I too dream of sleeping in the office as my optimal QOL. not saying I wouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean its not miserable.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:45 pm

AreJay711 wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
canuck wrote:I think it is completely possible to make 6 figures and work reasonable hours 50-60 per week. People do it all the time with BAs....certainly a law degree can't hurt.

I wonder how many years it takes those BAs to earn six figures. What industries do you suppose pay that well?


CPA's and Engineering majors... though tbh, CPA's are usually 150 credits so it's a master.. though you can just double major.


A lot of people do regardless of major... and a lot of people don't regardless of major. Most federal workers in D.C. will make nearly that much if they stay in long enough and will surpass it if they enter management. I know people making 100K in the gov with their GED so it really depends on the person.


yeah, because we all decide to have kids in our 50's...

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:46 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
Korey wrote:I don't really understand why working so much is easily considered as something that will ruin one's quality of life. I am sure there are many people who would jump on the opportunity to make biglaw money despite the hours.


When its all said and done, IMO:
Making more than my parents combined at age 55 when I'm 26? Yeah. I'd work 80 hours for that.

ITE I guess it just depends on your personal priorities.


yes, cause I too dream of sleeping in the office as my optimal QOL. not saying I wouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean its not miserable.

miserable is all relative.

You'd probably be able to afford hookers, blow, and scotch.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby bigben » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:05 pm

Wow. I only read the first page, but come on people. Stop talking endlessly about things you know nothing about. 90% of biglawyers probably work 80 hour weeks no more than 3 times a year.

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby motiontodismiss » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:16 pm

Korey wrote:I don't really understand why working so much is easily considered as something that will ruin one's quality of life. I am sure there are many people who would jump on the opportunity to make biglaw money despite the hours.


When its all said and done, IMO:
Making more than my parents combined at age 55 when I'm 26? Yeah. I'd work 80 hours for that.

ITE I guess it just depends on your personal priorities.


TITCR.

canuck
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby canuck » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:28 pm

bigben wrote:Wow. I only read the first page, but come on people. Stop talking endlessly about things you know nothing about. 90% of biglawyers probably work 80 hour weeks no more than 3 times a year.


True dat

canuck
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby canuck » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:30 pm

motiontodismiss wrote:
Korey wrote:I don't really understand why working so much is easily considered as something that will ruin one's quality of life. I am sure there are many people who would jump on the opportunity to make biglaw money despite the hours.


When its all said and done, IMO:
Making more than my parents combined at age 55 when I'm 26? Yeah. I'd work 80 hours for that.

ITE I guess it just depends on your personal priorities.


TITCR.


Daddy issues much?

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby JazzOne » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:36 pm

canuck wrote:
bigben wrote:Wow. I only read the first page, but come on people. Stop talking endlessly about things you know nothing about. 90% of biglawyers probably work 80 hour weeks no more than 3 times a year.


True dat

(2000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 48 working hours per week
(2400 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 58 working hours per week
(3000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 72 working hours per week

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:39 pm

JazzOne wrote:
canuck wrote:
bigben wrote:Wow. I only read the first page, but come on people. Stop talking endlessly about things you know nothing about. 90% of biglawyers probably work 80 hour weeks no more than 3 times a year.


True dat

(2000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 48 working hours per week
(2400 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 58 working hours per week
(3000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 72 working hours per week


It's just stupid not to work your knuckles into dust while young and able than having to do the same when you hit your 40's in that respect.

Also, nothing like hitting a bonus every year ;)

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby JazzOne » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:41 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
canuck wrote:
bigben wrote:Wow. I only read the first page, but come on people. Stop talking endlessly about things you know nothing about. 90% of biglawyers probably work 80 hour weeks no more than 3 times a year.


True dat

(2000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 48 working hours per week
(2400 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 58 working hours per week
(3000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 72 working hours per week


It's just stupid not to work your knuckles into dust while young and able than having to do the same when you hit your 40's in that respect.

Also, nothing like hitting a bonus every year ;)

Unfortunately, only one of those will be enough for a bonus at my firm. :(
Then again, base pay is above market, so I'll just keep telling myself it's ok.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:43 pm

JazzOne wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
canuck wrote:
True dat

(2000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 48 working hours per week
(2400 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 58 working hours per week
(3000 billable hours per year / 52 weeks) * (5 working hours / 4 billable hours) = 72 working hours per week


It's just stupid not to work your knuckles into dust while young and able than having to do the same when you hit your 40's in that respect.

Also, nothing like hitting a bonus every year ;)

Unfortunately, only one of those will be enough for a bonus at my firm. :(
Then again, base pay is above market, so I'll just keep telling myself it's ok.


It's never enough :D

But yeah man.. even 58 hours/wk isn't bad. Tbh, it's like a cakewalk.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby JazzOne » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:52 pm

ResolutePear wrote:It's never enough :D

But yeah man.. even 58 hours/wk isn't bad. Tbh, it's like a cakewalk.

lol
I've worked long hours before, so I know I can hack it, but I wouldn't say it's a cakewalk.

One day last summer I got back to my hotel after a day at work (SA job in Dallas). The desk guy at the hotel commented to me, "It was really hot outside today, huh?" I was kind of stunned for a minute, and then I realized that I hadn't really been outside all day. I left for work before it really started warming up; there was a tunnel from the parking garage to the office building; and I got back to the hotel after the sun was heading down. It just cracked me up that I had no idea what the weather was like that day. Freakin' biglaw.

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby bigben » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:56 pm

JazzOne wrote:Unfortunately, only one of those will be enough for a bonus at my firm. :(
Then again, base pay is above market, so I'll just keep telling myself it's ok.

Lolwut? No bonus unless you hit 3k? That's totally absurd, never heard anything like it.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby JazzOne » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:01 pm

bigben wrote:
JazzOne wrote:Unfortunately, only one of those will be enough for a bonus at my firm. :(
Then again, base pay is above market, so I'll just keep telling myself it's ok.

Lolwut? No bonus unless you hit 3k? That's totally absurd, never heard anything like it.

I didn't say that. I said 3K was the only one of the three options listed that would be sufficient for a bonus.

User avatar
Sentry
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby Sentry » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:04 pm

You can work long hours and still be a good parent. There are months out of the year where my dad would work 100+ hours/week and he was still a great dad.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby JazzOne » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:05 pm

Has anyone ever heard of billing 4,000 hours in a year? Surprisingly, I have heard of an actual case of this, investigated by the Illinois Bar, and determined to be legitimate! The clients vouched for the attorney!

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby motiontodismiss » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:20 pm

JazzOne wrote:Has anyone ever heard of billing 4,000 hours in a year? Surprisingly, I have heard of an actual case of this, investigated by the Illinois Bar, and determined to be legitimate! The clients vouched for the attorney!


I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the mid 2000s. At 80% efficiency that's 100 hours, and at 67% 120.

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby motiontodismiss » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:21 pm

canuck wrote:
motiontodismiss wrote:
Korey wrote:I don't really understand why working so much is easily considered as something that will ruin one's quality of life. I am sure there are many people who would jump on the opportunity to make biglaw money despite the hours.


When its all said and done, IMO:
Making more than my parents combined at age 55 when I'm 26? Yeah. I'd work 80 hours for that.

ITE I guess it just depends on your personal priorities.


TITCR.


Daddy issues much?


.....What?

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 pm

motiontodismiss wrote:
JazzOne wrote:Has anyone ever heard of billing 4,000 hours in a year? Surprisingly, I have heard of an actual case of this, investigated by the Illinois Bar, and determined to be legitimate! The clients vouched for the attorney!


I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the mid 2000s. At 80% efficiency that's 100 hours, and at 67% 120.


You guys need to think more crooked. Not saying that you should do the same...

But, how would a client know if you stacked billables by "working" on two cases at the same time?

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby 20160810 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:If 80 hour work weeks scare you why are you even thinking of going to law school unless you're going with $$$.


Big firm practice ≠ the entirety of the legal profession, in case this point was still being debated

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby whymeohgodno » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 pm

"the average South Korean works 2,390 hours each year, according to the OECD"

And that's only average. Such people are huge wimps when it comes to hours...

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby ResolutePear » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:25 pm

SBL wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:If 80 hour work weeks scare you why are you even thinking of going to law school unless you're going with $$$.


Big firm practice ≠ the entirety of the legal profession, in case this point was still being debated


Pft. Just because only 4 people in the entire US argue the Constitution doesn't mean I won't!















/motherfucking-sarcasm.

thegor1987
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby thegor1987 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:28 pm

canuck wrote:
mrmangs wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:I agree with the other posts to an extent - but this, *THIS* is the goal. Even if I don't get into Ivy, I'll be damned if my next kids won't. I'll work my keyboard into dust if it'll mean that my kids are twice as successful than I.


Mr. Pear Man, I understand where you are coming from and agree with a lot you've said. Bringing in the big bucks ensures that you can provide for your family. You can afford the best for your children, and, as long as you take pains not to spoil them, this can only be a good thing. For one, you can provide them with the best possible education money can afford.

However, I would point out that the only way to be sure your child will take advantage of the best opportunities is if they are raised well. Too many kids in private schools and top universities waste their lives away or otherwise don't live up to their potentials. Admittedly, many students do this, period. In my experience, however, the common denominator is that they've been raised poorly, whether this be due to the parents not being around because they were busy working their asses off to pay for country club memberships and golf lessons or because the parents were unemployed, lazy, and didn't instill a love of knowledge in their children. I can tell you that a stable, loving, and nurturing family of modest means is probably doing a better job of ensuring their kids' future success and happiness than an extremely wealthy family where the parents aren't around to give the kids the attention they need.

Two caveats: (1) many poor families consist of parents working their asses off as well and (2) not all loving families place a huge emphasis on education or have ambitions for their kids to attend Ivy league schools (in other words, success is a relative term).


The wise one is wise.

A loving, supportive middle-income family provides not only a much better life, but better opportunities to their children than rich, absentee parents.

Don't disagree with this without doing some research please. I've studied child development and human motivation extensively.


A middle-income family does provide a better life and better opportunities for their children than rich absentee parents. This way the child from the middle income family has a better opportunity to get into a top law schools, get a big law job and become a rich absentee parent!

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Big law is ballin', but...

Postby 20160810 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:29 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:"the average South Korean works 2,390 hours each year, according to the OECD"

And that's only average. Such people are huge wimps when it comes to hours...

If you think working 2,400 hours and billing 2,200+ hours for a firm are the same thing...




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests