Is Biglaw for ppl with no debt? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

People, stop arguing about anon posting. Commenting on anon posting is also a bannable offense because it derails a thread.

Unnecessary anon posting is annoying because when you're in legal employment people like to know who's posting what, so you can get a sense of how to evaluate a comment (someone like me who's not in biglaw commenting on biglaw is different from someone who's a biglawyer commenting on biglaw, etc.).

That said, if you're sharing information about yourself that might help identify you or that you don't want made public (like scholarships/rank/employment options or lack thereof, etc), anon is perfectly appropriate.

Posting anon to hide the fact that you're posting in a given topic is stretching it, imho, and obviously don't post anon to be a dick or post in a forum where you're not yet allowed to post.

If anyone thinks that a post is anon abuse, just report it and don't argue about it in the thread.


(If that link is supposed to go to the thread where some guy listed on his resume all the law schools he'd gotten into but turned down, dear god do not be that person and do not do that.)

[jbagelboy]

People, stop arguing about anon posting. Commenting on anon posting is also a bannable offense because it derails a thread.

Unnecessary anon posting is annoying because when you're in legal employment people like to know who's posting what, so you can get a sense of how to evaluate a comment (someone like me who's not in biglaw commenting on biglaw is different from someone who's a biglawyer commenting on biglaw, etc.).

That said, if you're sharing information about yourself that might help identify you or that you don't want made public (like scholarships/rank/employment options or lack thereof, etc), anon is perfectly appropriate.

Posting anon to hide the fact that you're posting in a given topic is stretching it, imho, and obviously don't post anon to be a dick or post in a forum where you're not yet allowed to post.

If anyone thinks that a post is anon abuse, just report it and don't argue about it in the thread.


(If that link is supposed to go to the thread where some guy listed on his resume all the law schools he'd gotten into but turned down, dear god do not be that person and do not do that.)

Lol someone did that?

[Nebby]

People, stop arguing about anon posting. Commenting on anon posting is also a bannable offense because it derails a thread.

Unnecessary anon posting is annoying because when you're in legal employment people like to know who's posting what, so you can get a sense of how to evaluate a comment (someone like me who's not in biglaw commenting on biglaw is different from someone who's a biglawyer commenting on biglaw, etc.).

That said, if you're sharing information about yourself that might help identify you or that you don't want made public (like scholarships/rank/employment options or lack thereof, etc), anon is perfectly appropriate.

Posting anon to hide the fact that you're posting in a given topic is stretching it, imho, and obviously don't post anon to be a dick or post in a forum where you're not yet allowed to post.

If anyone thinks that a post is anon abuse, just report it and don't argue about it in the thread.


(If that link is supposed to go to the thread where some guy listed on his resume all the law schools he'd gotten into but turned down, dear god do not be that person and do not do that.)

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if half the anon posters don't have the qualifications to be giving advice, and I think that's a disservice to people seeking honest advice.

[sublime]

People, stop arguing about anon posting. Commenting on anon posting is also a bannable offense because it derails a thread.

Unnecessary anon posting is annoying because when you're in legal employment people like to know who's posting what, so you can get a sense of how to evaluate a comment (someone like me who's not in biglaw commenting on biglaw is different from someone who's a biglawyer commenting on biglaw, etc.).

That said, if you're sharing information about yourself that might help identify you or that you don't want made public (like scholarships/rank/employment options or lack thereof, etc), anon is perfectly appropriate.

Posting anon to hide the fact that you're posting in a given topic is stretching it, imho, and obviously don't post anon to be a dick or post in a forum where you're not yet allowed to post.

If anyone thinks that a post is anon abuse, just report it and don't argue about it in the thread.


(If that link is supposed to go to the thread where some guy listed on his resume all the law schools he'd gotten into but turned down, dear god do not be that person and do not do that.)

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if half the anon posters don't have the qualifications to be giving advice, and I think that's a disservice to people seeking honest advice.

I really hope this was accidental anon, Nebs.

[Nebby]

People, stop arguing about anon posting. Commenting on anon posting is also a bannable offense because it derails a thread.

Unnecessary anon posting is annoying because when you're in legal employment people like to know who's posting what, so you can get a sense of how to evaluate a comment (someone like me who's not in biglaw commenting on biglaw is different from someone who's a biglawyer commenting on biglaw, etc.).

That said, if you're sharing information about yourself that might help identify you or that you don't want made public (like scholarships/rank/employment options or lack thereof, etc), anon is perfectly appropriate.

Posting anon to hide the fact that you're posting in a given topic is stretching it, imho, and obviously don't post anon to be a dick or post in a forum where you're not yet allowed to post.

If anyone thinks that a post is anon abuse, just report it and don't argue about it in the thread.


(If that link is supposed to go to the thread where some guy listed on his resume all the law schools he'd gotten into but turned down, dear god do not be that person and do not do that.)

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if half the anon posters don't have the qualifications to be giving advice, and I think that's a disservice to people seeking honest advice.

I really hope this was accidental anon, Nebs.

Shit it was Hahaha

[A. Nony Mouse]

People, stop arguing about anon posting. Commenting on anon posting is also a bannable offense because it derails a thread.

Unnecessary anon posting is annoying because when you're in legal employment people like to know who's posting what, so you can get a sense of how to evaluate a comment (someone like me who's not in biglaw commenting on biglaw is different from someone who's a biglawyer commenting on biglaw, etc.).

That said, if you're sharing information about yourself that might help identify you or that you don't want made public (like scholarships/rank/employment options or lack thereof, etc), anon is perfectly appropriate.

Posting anon to hide the fact that you're posting in a given topic is stretching it, imho, and obviously don't post anon to be a dick or post in a forum where you're not yet allowed to post.

If anyone thinks that a post is anon abuse, just report it and don't argue about it in the thread.


(If that link is supposed to go to the thread where some guy listed on his resume all the law schools he'd gotten into but turned down, dear god do not be that person and do not do that.)

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if half the anon posters don't have the qualifications to be giving advice, and I think that's a disservice to people seeking honest advice.

I agree that's one of the reasons why unnecessary anon is a problem. But just report the post and move on, Nebby. Stop arguing about it here.

[Anonymous User]

I have no debt and will be doing biglaw for 5 years hopefully. I'll pull in over a million over 5 years post-tax, which is enough to pay off a nice house and save 500k, even after living costs.

And the reality is that most other non-biglaw legal jobs still require much more than 40-hr weeks.

Could you share how you figured the bolded? I looked at the salary scale and there is no way. And I don't know that the bonuses get you there either.

Admittedly, I'm at a firm on the 180 scale; pay no state income tax; pay federal taxes as married filing jointly; and receive NY bonuses. YMMV.

Formula: Base + bonus = total --> After-tax total.

Year 1: 180 + 15 = 195 --> After tax: 159k.
Year 2: 190 + 25 = 215 --> After tax: 173k.
Year 3: 210 + 50 = 260 --> After tax: 205k.
Year 4: 235 + 65 = 300 --> After tax: 232k.
Year 5: 260 + 80 = 340 --> After tax: 258k.

Total: 1.027M over five years, after taxes. That also doesn't include the stub year or compounded interest on savings.

[sublime]

I have no debt and will be doing biglaw for 5 years hopefully. I'll pull in over a million over 5 years post-tax, which is enough to pay off a nice house and save 500k, even after living costs.

And the reality is that most other non-biglaw legal jobs still require much more than 40-hr weeks.

Could you share how you figured the bolded? I looked at the salary scale and there is no way. And I don't know that the bonuses get you there either.

Admittedly, I'm at a firm on the 180 scale; pay no state income tax; pay federal taxes as married filing jointly; and receive NY bonuses. YMMV.

Formula: Base + bonus = total --> After-tax total.

Year 1: 180 + 15 = 195 --> After tax: 159k.
Year 2: 190 + 25 = 215 --> After tax: 173k.
Year 3: 210 + 50 = 260 --> After tax: 205k.
Year 4: 235 + 65 = 300 --> After tax: 232k.
Year 5: 260 + 80 = 340 --> After tax: 258k.

Total: 1.027M over five years, after taxes. That also doesn't include the stub year or compounded interest on savings.

Thanks for writing that out for me. And congrats dude, that's a pretty sweet deal. THe main difference looks like tax status in both rates and filing status. I'm going to NYC. I wanted to believe

[Tiago Splitter]

I'm sure you guys will have no trouble hanging in for five years. JFC.

[sublime]

I'm sure you guys will have no trouble hanging in for five years. JFC.

I'm not assuming I will be able to and think it is unlikely, although possible. And although unlikely, if it happens, more money = good. I still wanted to figure out if he was talking about NYC for those numbers though. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[weee]

I have no debt and will be doing biglaw for 5 years hopefully. I'll pull in over a million over 5 years post-tax, which is enough to pay off a nice house and save 500k, even after living costs.

And the reality is that most other non-biglaw legal jobs still require much more than 40-hr weeks.

Could you share how you figured the bolded? I looked at the salary scale and there is no way. And I don't know that the bonuses get you there either.

Admittedly, I'm at a firm on the 180 scale; pay no state income tax; pay federal taxes as married filing jointly; and receive NY bonuses. YMMV.

Formula: Base + bonus = total --> After-tax total.

Year 1: 180 + 15 = 195 --> After tax: 159k.
Year 2: 190 + 25 = 215 --> After tax: 173k.
Year 3: 210 + 50 = 260 --> After tax: 205k.
Year 4: 235 + 65 = 300 --> After tax: 232k.
Year 5: 260 + 80 = 340 --> After tax: 258k.

Total: 1.027M over five years, after taxes. That also doesn't include the stub year or compounded interest on savings.

This blows my mind. I used a tax calculator and it seems like with standard deductions and personal exemptions for a person and their spouse with one income, you subtracted only the federal tax from the base + bonus. You haven't factored in $7,347 per year in social security taxes (increasing with inflation), and another 1%ish for medicare. That takes you under 1M but it's not far off. Let's say your living costs are $2k/month (including food, entertainment, health care, transportation costs, home maintenance, utilities, homeowner's insurance, property tax), that rounds up to 125k over 5 years. I guess if you count 401k against your 500k saved then that doesn't count against your home. If you get a good rate (3.5%) and pay your home off in 5 years you may only pay a small amount of interest, which means the base cost of your home might be around 350k for 375k total paid. So, if you live somewhere with no state income tax, NY market rate pay, and a "nice home" costs $350k, you have really set yourself up well after 5 years of biglaw, and I think the answer is a resounding "yes" that biglaw is for you if you're in the situation with no debt, as you can accelerate your long term financial stability so incredibly quickly. Personally I don't find that cost of living realistic but where I live that cost for a house remotely resembling "nice" is off by at least a factor of 2x, maybe 3-4x so maybe it's possible in some places, and I need to talk to my wife about going to there.

[Tiago Splitter]

I'm sure you guys will have no trouble hanging in for five years. JFC.

I'm not assuming I will be able to and think it is unlikely, although possible. And although unlikely, if it happens, more money = good. I still wanted to figure out if he was talking about NYC for those numbers though. I don't think that's unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable. It's biglaw that's unreasonable.

[sublime]

I'm sure you guys will have no trouble hanging in for five years. JFC.

I'm not assuming I will be able to and think it is unlikely, although possible. And although unlikely, if it happens, more money = good. I still wanted to figure out if he was talking about NYC for those numbers though. I don't think that's unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable. It's biglaw that's unreasonable.

You're really killing the #NYto180 vibe.

[Tiago Splitter]

I'm sure you guys will have no trouble hanging in for five years. JFC.

I'm not assuming I will be able to and think it is unlikely, although possible. And although unlikely, if it happens, more money = good. I still wanted to figure out if he was talking about NYC for those numbers though. I don't think that's unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable. It's biglaw that's unreasonable.

You're really killing the #NYto180 vibe.

No joke I really thought about quitting last weekend. And my biglaw experience has been really good. The 2/3 raise to 180 was fucking welcome but it's not gonna keep me around too long.

[bern victim]

yea that's the funny part. I actually really like my firm and enjoy the work, have been very lucky to get on good cases...and I think about quitting all the fucking time. even the good outcomes are bad.

[Anonymous User]

I paid off my law school debt before starting at a firm because I went to night school with a 6 figure job and a scholarship but the money never hurts... You're going to end up with half a million in debt when you buy a house and your kids tuitions will be even higher than yours so I would say definitely worth doing if you can stomach it and you may even like it!

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Recently had an interview at a 200-lawyer firm and their minimum billable was 2400/yr. I would not have interviewed had I known this but this info could not be found anywhere.

I am hoping to find a 140K-160K in Los Angeles where minimum billable does not exceed 2100. Where can I find out more info on a firm's salary and billable requirement? Glassdoor is just really bad.

[jbagelboy]

I have no debt and will be doing biglaw for 5 years hopefully. I'll pull in over a million over 5 years post-tax, which is enough to pay off a nice house and save 500k, even after living costs.

And the reality is that most other non-biglaw legal jobs still require much more than 40-hr weeks.

Could you share how you figured the bolded? I looked at the salary scale and there is no way. And I don't know that the bonuses get you there either.

Admittedly, I'm at a firm on the 180 scale; pay no state income tax; pay federal taxes as married filing jointly; and receive NY bonuses. YMMV.

Formula: Base + bonus = total --> After-tax total.

Year 1: 180 + 15 = 195 --> After tax: 159k.
Year 2: 190 + 25 = 215 --> After tax: 173k.
Year 3: 210 + 50 = 260 --> After tax: 205k.
Year 4: 235 + 65 = 300 --> After tax: 232k.
Year 5: 260 + 80 = 340 --> After tax: 258k.

Total: 1.027M over five years, after taxes. That also doesn't include the stub year or compounded interest on savings.

This blows my mind. I used a tax calculator and it seems like with standard deductions and personal exemptions for a person and their spouse with one income, you subtracted only the federal tax from the base + bonus. You haven't factored in $7,347 per year in social security taxes (increasing with inflation), and another 1%ish for medicare. That takes you under 1M but it's not far off. Let's say your living costs are $2k/month (including food, entertainment, health care, transportation costs, home maintenance, utilities, homeowner's insurance, property tax), that rounds up to 125k over 5 years. I guess if you count 401k against your 500k saved then that doesn't count against your home. If you get a good rate (3.5%) and pay your home off in 5 years you may only pay a small amount of interest, which means the base cost of your home might be around 350k for 375k total paid. So, if you live somewhere with no state income tax, NY market rate pay, and a "nice home" costs $350k, you have really set yourself up well after 5 years of biglaw, and I think the answer is a resounding "yes" that biglaw is for you if you're in the situation with no debt, as you can accelerate your long term financial stability so incredibly quickly. Personally I don't find that cost of living realistic but where I live that cost for a house remotely resembling "nice" is off by at least a factor of 2x, maybe 3-4x so maybe it's possible in some places, and I need to talk to my wife about going to there.

no one--and I mean no one--has total living costs of $2k per month. so by definition no couple has living costs as low as $2k per month. food and entertainment alone may be $2k per month, then another $2k on rent, and another $500 on car/transport costs and incidentals. wtf.

[dixiecupdrinking]

$500 a week on "food and entertainment" sounds pretty generous.

[jbagelboy]

$500 a week on "food and entertainment" sounds pretty generous.

For two people? (It's more like $450 if we are talking $2000 per month). That's pretty conservative. Let's say you have lunch or dinner out three times a week. That's six meals, so say $150. Then how about going out one night a week. That's $100. Then groceries for the rest--that's $150+ per week (at a cheap grocer like trader joes). That leaves $50, or $25 per person, for anything else you want to ever do--live theater, a movie, a friend's concert, special occasions, whatever. (And who actually only eats 3 meals out a week and goes out only once? Come on these are not menonites).

[A. Nony Mouse]

The anon saving-a-million person said they were married but never said their spouse didn't work, right? So there's no reason to factor in two people to the expenses.

(Personally I think $450/wk for food/entertainment for 2 people is kind of ridiculous, but I'm not in NYC - but then, neither is the anon-millionaire if they're living somewhere without state tax. Much of the rest of the country REALLY doesn't have to spend that much.)

[bk1]

$500 a week on "food and entertainment" sounds pretty generous.

For two people? (It's more like $450 if we are talking $2000 per month). That's pretty conservative. Let's say you have lunch or dinner out three times a week. That's six meals, so say $150. Then how about going out one night a week. That's $100. Then groceries for the rest--that's $150+ per week (at a cheap grocer like trader joes). That leaves $50, or $25 per person, for anything else you want to ever do--live theater, a movie, a friend's concert, special occasions, whatever. (And who actually only eats 3 meals out a week and goes out only once? Come on these are not menonites).

This is a severely distorted view.

[makerbreaker]

$500 a week on "food and entertainment" sounds pretty generous.

For two people? (It's more like $450 if we are talking $2000 per month). That's pretty conservative. Let's say you have lunch or dinner out three times a week. That's six meals, so say $150. Then how about going out one night a week. That's $100. Then groceries for the rest--that's $150+ per week (at a cheap grocer like trader joes). That leaves $50, or $25 per person, for anything else you want to ever do--live theater, a movie, a friend's concert, special occasions, whatever. (And who actually only eats 3 meals out a week and goes out only once? Come on these are not menonites).

Food plus entertainment for me and SO consistently cost less than $200 a week. Three meals provided at work (tech company) for one of us. For the other maybe lunch out a few times (each below $15), and dinner covered by one of our works. We cook on the weekend (grocery <30), perhaps go to a movie ($30 max). This still leaves plenty of room for transportation, haircut, dry cleaning, etc. But I can understand money just mysteriously disappears in NYC.

[spyke123]

I know the anon doesn't live in nyc but in nyc $450-500 (for two people) a week on food and entertainment seems reasonable to me. Eating out/going out is ridiculously expensive in the city (I read somewhere an average bill is $40-50 per person) and an average resident probably does it at least a few times a week. Obviously, if you don't drink or prefer to cook on weekends, then $450-500 may be on the high side but I have a hard time believing that's the case for most folks who live in nyc. Don't forget to add $50 or so a week on lunch/starbucks. And groceries aren't cheap either. $30 for two people on weekends? That's ~10 meals for $30? Makerbreaker if you live in nyc, can you let me know where you shop?

[jbagelboy]

$500 a week on "food and entertainment" sounds pretty generous.

For two people? (It's more like $450 if we are talking $2000 per month). That's pretty conservative. Let's say you have lunch or dinner out three times a week. That's six meals, so say $150. Then how about going out one night a week. That's $100. Then groceries for the rest--that's $150+ per week (at a cheap grocer like trader joes). That leaves $50, or $25 per person, for anything else you want to ever do--live theater, a movie, a friend's concert, special occasions, whatever. (And who actually only eats 3 meals out a week and goes out only once? Come on these are not menonites).

This is a severely distorted view.

is it? remember we're talking about adults, not students. in law school sure, I could spend less than $200 a week. But as a real person with a social and cultural life that's impossible. Not including breakfast, I probably cook ~10 meals a week, and eat out 4-5 times. That's like twice for lunch and twice for dinner. I go out maybe two times a week, which is 1-2 lyft/ubers, two-ish bar tabs, maybe a cover. I grocery shop about once a week. My spouse has similar habits. We don't really go to movies but we sometimes go to other performances when a friend is involved or something we really want to see is in town, but this isn't weekly.

we are conservative spenders compared to our friends and go out/eat out less. we don't order delivery, we actually cook. we drink relatively cheap wine (less than $8 bottles) and my bourbon is middle of the road.

who are these people our age that spend so little money living normal lives?

fyi I don't live in new york although I used to. in new york going out is even pricier.