NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
MaxMcMann

New
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:58 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby MaxMcMann » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Art Prior wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Art Prior wrote:I didn't like the exwife acting like she didn't know until Peter died. Shes hes wife of course she would find some evidence of use throughout life. Probably the reasons they are divorced is the drugs.


You must be a very lucky person to have never dealt with a family member, friend, or loved one struggle with an addiction they were able to successfully hide for so long. Not all of us are so lucky. My father was an alcoholic for thirty years before anyone noticed something might be wrong - and it was his ex-wife (my mother) who realized AFTER they were divorced, AFTER they were no longer living together. His family never noticed because he was smart and crafty about hiding it. Also, incidentally, a chemist (but not a lawyer.)

People hide things. People can hide things extremely well. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can. For example, I'm sure others regularly have to hide how miserable it probably is to interact with you.


are we leveling personal attacks just because drug use makes you uncomfortable? go back to your church and pray some more.

You're being vicious for no reason. I didn't attack anyone I was just commenting that the wife was acting like she didn't know, when she later mentions that Peter would receive giant shipments of syringes WHILE they were still married. Also she states that he would run out for a soda and spend the entire night out. These seem like indications of drug use, but then in the first paragraph she's saying she had no idea.


LOL-ing hard at the church comment...you're definitely proving my last comment 8)

Of course they seem like indications of drug use - now that she knows there was drug use. Hindsight is 20/20. You have no idea if she thought he was cheating, if he made excuses about having to go back to the office, etc etc. You knee-jerk reaction to assume that the ex-wife must be lying about not knowing is telling more about you as a person and contributes nothing to the conversation about this article.


What exactly is a non drug use related reason for someone who isn't diabetic to get shipments of syringes and other injection equipment?

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:59 pm

Well, it was syringes, bandages, and general wound stuff, so not all "injection equipment" (at least not to someone who's not injecting drugs). It was the 15 yo son who saw it, not the ex-wife, and it was near the end. So I think it's easy for the mom to think "that's weird but maybe son misunderstood," and for the kid to think that it was weird but not know what it necessarily meant. They clearly all thought something was up but didn't know what it was, and were clearly naive about it, but I don't think that means she's lying she didn't realize it at the time.

Like, if friends were genuinely wondering about cancer, eating disorders etc, the ex might have worried that he was sick and taking medication without thinking drug addict.

Again, I'm sure it was naive in a lot of ways. Just not intentionally deceptive.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:44 pm

bk1 wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Leaving biglaw for something less intense with a million in the bank sounds pretty ideal. For the sake of pursuing that hypothetical, how many years would it take the standard biglaw associate saving 15-20% to get there? Probably still over 10 years....maybe 500k is a better number. That can probably be done by the time you're a 6th year if you're super diligent and get relatively good (8% or so on average) investment returns, even with 100-150k in student loans. Just trying to think of the right cushion to make you feel comfortable before taking dat pay cut.


10-20% savings is pretty low on a big law salary. Maybe if you have kids and live in NYC, but living in DC on a big law salary I usually save well over 50% of my after-tax salary. I've paid off nearly 200k in student loans in about 3 years in DC; when you consider how much bonuses go up, gotta imagine that I'd be able to make it to 300-400K in 3 more years. Not sure I would have the stamina to do that even if I wanted to, though.


Fine, so assuming 30-40% post-tax savings and standard student loans (lets say 150k), how long would it take to stockpile 500k or 1M?

Just long enough to decide you should stay until you save 1 or 1.5 million.

@OP: You're probably not making it long enough to pay off 150k and save up 500k.


So it sounds like it would take someone starting as a first year in a NYC-paying biglaw gig with a standard amount (about 150k) in debt, and very frugal savings habits (saving around 50% or so of post-tax income (including retirement savings)), assuming 6-8% investment returns, until the time they're maybe a 7th year or so to save 500k? and then presumably not until they're a super senior associate, counsel, or partner until they've banked 1M. That seems about right. And then from that point, you can take a 50%+ paycut or so, continue to live frugally and invest well, and things are only good from there. By the time you're 50 you should have a few million saved up.

User avatar
MKC

Diamond
Posts: 16246
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby MKC » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:01 pm

MaxMcMann wrote:What exactly is a non drug use related reason for someone who isn't diabetic to get shipments of syringes and other injection equipment?


Some guys use them to blow up worms to float them off the bottom when they're fishing.

Probably don't need a whole case for that though.
Last edited by MKC on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:08 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
bk1 wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Leaving biglaw for something less intense with a million in the bank sounds pretty ideal. For the sake of pursuing that hypothetical, how many years would it take the standard biglaw associate saving 15-20% to get there? Probably still over 10 years....maybe 500k is a better number. That can probably be done by the time you're a 6th year if you're super diligent and get relatively good (8% or so on average) investment returns, even with 100-150k in student loans. Just trying to think of the right cushion to make you feel comfortable before taking dat pay cut.


10-20% savings is pretty low on a big law salary. Maybe if you have kids and live in NYC, but living in DC on a big law salary I usually save well over 50% of my after-tax salary. I've paid off nearly 200k in student loans in about 3 years in DC; when you consider how much bonuses go up, gotta imagine that I'd be able to make it to 300-400K in 3 more years. Not sure I would have the stamina to do that even if I wanted to, though.


Fine, so assuming 30-40% post-tax savings and standard student loans (lets say 150k), how long would it take to stockpile 500k or 1M?

Just long enough to decide you should stay until you save 1 or 1.5 million.

@OP: You're probably not making it long enough to pay off 150k and save up 500k.


So it sounds like it would take someone starting as a first year in a NYC-paying biglaw gig with a standard amount (about 150k) in debt, and very frugal savings habits (saving around 50% or so of post-tax income (including retirement savings)), assuming 6-8% investment returns, until the time they're maybe a 7th year or so to save 500k? and then presumably not until they're a super senior associate, counsel, or partner until they've banked 1M. That seems about right. And then from that point, you can take a 50%+ paycut or so, continue to live frugally and invest well, and things are only good from there. By the time you're 50 you should have a few million saved up.


Who the fuck saves 50% of post-tax income with 150k in debt? What about rent, food, travel, entertainment? I don't know anyone like this. Biglaw is miserable enough and I'm not waiting until I'm 50 to spend money. You sound either naive or like a terribly dull person.

GreenEggs

Gold
Posts: 3593
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby GreenEggs » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:11 pm

The state bars should require annual drug testing with referrals to drug treatment programs for those who test positive.
Last edited by GreenEggs on Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lolwat

Silver
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby lolwat » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:15 pm

Average lawyer I know could probably save several thousand dollars a year if only they didn't feel the need to drink beer.....

What's wrong with getting roommates to cut down on rent? With cutting back on travel and entertainment? Or finding ways to have fun without spending assloads of $$$? Or cooking at home instead of $100 meals (or I suppose at biglaw you could just use firm $ for dinners)?

Plenty of ways to save $. No idea about 50% though, that's quite a lot.

User avatar
MKC

Diamond
Posts: 16246
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby MKC » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:15 pm

DCfilterDC wrote:The state bars should require annual drug testing with referrals to drug treatment programs for those who test positive.


How are you handling prescription opiate abusers under this plan?
Last edited by MKC on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MKC

Diamond
Posts: 16246
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:18 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby MKC » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:16 pm

lolwat wrote:Average lawyer I know could probably save several thousand dollars a year if only they didn't feel the need to drink beer.....


Hey now. Let's just calm down a bit. No need to go crazy here.
Last edited by MKC on Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:24 pm

lolwat wrote:Average lawyer I know could probably save several thousand dollars a year if only they didn't feel the need to drink beer.....

What's wrong with getting roommates to cut down on rent? With cutting back on travel and entertainment? Or finding ways to have fun without spending assloads of $$$? Or cooking at home instead of $100 meals (or I suppose at biglaw you could just use firm $ for dinners)?

Plenty of ways to save $. No idea about 50% though, that's quite a lot.


I guess you're replying to me re: travel, food, entertainment, so I'll respond. I'm around 30 and married, so def not getting roommates, and vast majority of my peers are also past the roommate phase of their lives.

I don't really know what to say to your drinking statement. Obviously not drinking would save money otherwise spent on drinking but I really enjoy drinking so that's not happening.

Actually you made a lot of straw men only to agree that 50% is a quite a lot. I'm not saying I don't save or that others shouldn't but none of my friends are willing to work biglaw and not spend money on things they enjoy in their limited free time.

bk1

Diamond
Posts: 20072
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby bk1 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:So it sounds like it would take someone starting as a first year in a NYC-paying biglaw gig with a standard amount (about 150k) in debt, and very frugal savings habits (saving around 50% or so of post-tax income (including retirement savings)), assuming 6-8% investment returns, until the time they're maybe a 7th year or so to save 500k? and then presumably not until they're a super senior associate, counsel, or partner until they've banked 1M. That seems about right. And then from that point, you can take a 50%+ paycut or so, continue to live frugally and invest well, and things are only good from there. By the time you're 50 you should have a few million saved up.

As I said before:

1. You're unlikely to make it to 7th year.
2. You're probably not saving 1/2 of your post-tax income.

bk1

Diamond
Posts: 20072
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby bk1 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:32 pm

lolwat wrote:Average lawyer I know could probably save several thousand dollars a year if only they didn't feel the need to drink beer.....

What's wrong with getting roommates to cut down on rent? With cutting back on travel and entertainment? Or finding ways to have fun without spending assloads of $$$? Or cooking at home instead of $100 meals (or I suppose at biglaw you could just use firm $ for dinners)?

Plenty of ways to save $. No idea about 50% though, that's quite a lot.

There are plenty of ways to save money, but people working long hours and making a hefty salary tend to not want to do those things (and that's not an unreasonable position to take). This debate comes up frequently and I don't really see the need to rehash it. My view is that people who aren't working long hours in a job they dislike don't have a good perspective. Things like living with roommates are stupid suggestions. That said, a lot of biglaw associates probably could cut back (whether it's buying an expensive car, fancy gym membership, etc).

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
bk1 wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Leaving biglaw for something less intense with a million in the bank sounds pretty ideal. For the sake of pursuing that hypothetical, how many years would it take the standard biglaw associate saving 15-20% to get there? Probably still over 10 years....maybe 500k is a better number. That can probably be done by the time you're a 6th year if you're super diligent and get relatively good (8% or so on average) investment returns, even with 100-150k in student loans. Just trying to think of the right cushion to make you feel comfortable before taking dat pay cut.


10-20% savings is pretty low on a big law salary. Maybe if you have kids and live in NYC, but living in DC on a big law salary I usually save well over 50% of my after-tax salary. I've paid off nearly 200k in student loans in about 3 years in DC; when you consider how much bonuses go up, gotta imagine that I'd be able to make it to 300-400K in 3 more years. Not sure I would have the stamina to do that even if I wanted to, though.


Fine, so assuming 30-40% post-tax savings and standard student loans (lets say 150k), how long would it take to stockpile 500k or 1M?

Just long enough to decide you should stay until you save 1 or 1.5 million.

@OP: You're probably not making it long enough to pay off 150k and save up 500k.


So it sounds like it would take someone starting as a first year in a NYC-paying biglaw gig with a standard amount (about 150k) in debt, and very frugal savings habits (saving around 50% or so of post-tax income (including retirement savings)), assuming 6-8% investment returns, until the time they're maybe a 7th year or so to save 500k? and then presumably not until they're a super senior associate, counsel, or partner until they've banked 1M. That seems about right. And then from that point, you can take a 50%+ paycut or so, continue to live frugally and invest well, and things are only good from there. By the time you're 50 you should have a few million saved up.


Who the fuck saves 50% of post-tax income with 150k in debt? What about rent, food, travel, entertainment? I don't know anyone like this. Biglaw is miserable enough and I'm not waiting until I'm 50 to spend money. You sound either naive or like a terribly dull person.


Well, I do. I save about 60-70% of my post-tax income now (was closer to 30-40% my first few years). My debt started at 250,000 though, and I've hit a point ($130,000) where I refinanced to a 15 year/4.2% loan and am paying minimums and just saving as much money as possible while I still work in big law. I don't know if its smart financially, but mentally, I'd rather save more at this point and live with the debt, freeing me up to do other things like go back to school for a new field, travel, or just buy myself time to figure out what I want to do. Once my savings equals my debt (should be very soon), I'm going to start paying down faster again, but the savings has given me huge peace of mind that I can leave or be fired and end up ok.

Also, it doesn't have to be waiting until 50 to spend. I've discovered I just don't need that much to be happy and that the things that make me happy just don't exist in major cities or working in big law. I love hiking, camping, national parks, reading under a tree all of which I discovered while working in big law.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:35 pm

bk1 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:So it sounds like it would take someone starting as a first year in a NYC-paying biglaw gig with a standard amount (about 150k) in debt, and very frugal savings habits (saving around 50% or so of post-tax income (including retirement savings)), assuming 6-8% investment returns, until the time they're maybe a 7th year or so to save 500k? and then presumably not until they're a super senior associate, counsel, or partner until they've banked 1M. That seems about right. And then from that point, you can take a 50%+ paycut or so, continue to live frugally and invest well, and things are only good from there. By the time you're 50 you should have a few million saved up.

As I said before:

1. You're unlikely to make it to 7th year.
2. You're probably not saving 1/2 of your post-tax income.


I think people can save that much if they really want to. Most don't though, and that is understandable. OP, once you've made it to year three, come back to us and let us know if you want to make it to year 7.

lolwat

Silver
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby lolwat » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:42 pm

bk1 wrote:
lolwat wrote:Average lawyer I know could probably save several thousand dollars a year if only they didn't feel the need to drink beer.....

What's wrong with getting roommates to cut down on rent? With cutting back on travel and entertainment? Or finding ways to have fun without spending assloads of $$$? Or cooking at home instead of $100 meals (or I suppose at biglaw you could just use firm $ for dinners)?

Plenty of ways to save $. No idea about 50% though, that's quite a lot.

There are plenty of ways to save money, but people working long hours and making a hefty salary tend to not want to do those things (and that's not an unreasonable position to take). This debate comes up frequently and I don't really see the need to rehash it. My view is that people who aren't working long hours in a job they dislike don't have a good perspective. Things like living with roommates are stupid suggestions. That said, a lot of biglaw associates probably could cut back (whether it's buying an expensive car, fancy gym membership, etc).


Okay, but as you basically stated, these are all choices people make. People can do whatever they want with their money, not my business really. But some above are basically acting like it's impossible to save that much money or you have to live like a college student off 50 cent ramen meals to save that much. And that part is just not true. But sure, no need to rehash the discussion and it's veering away from the point of this thread anyway.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
bk1 wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Leaving biglaw for something less intense with a million in the bank sounds pretty ideal. For the sake of pursuing that hypothetical, how many years would it take the standard biglaw associate saving 15-20% to get there? Probably still over 10 years....maybe 500k is a better number. That can probably be done by the time you're a 6th year if you're super diligent and get relatively good (8% or so on average) investment returns, even with 100-150k in student loans. Just trying to think of the right cushion to make you feel comfortable before taking dat pay cut.


10-20% savings is pretty low on a big law salary. Maybe if you have kids and live in NYC, but living in DC on a big law salary I usually save well over 50% of my after-tax salary. I've paid off nearly 200k in student loans in about 3 years in DC; when you consider how much bonuses go up, gotta imagine that I'd be able to make it to 300-400K in 3 more years. Not sure I would have the stamina to do that even if I wanted to, though.


Fine, so assuming 30-40% post-tax savings and standard student loans (lets say 150k), how long would it take to stockpile 500k or 1M?

Just long enough to decide you should stay until you save 1 or 1.5 million.

@OP: You're probably not making it long enough to pay off 150k and save up 500k.


So it sounds like it would take someone starting as a first year in a NYC-paying biglaw gig with a standard amount (about 150k) in debt, and very frugal savings habits (saving around 30% or so of post-tax income (including retirement savings)), assuming 6-8% investment returns, until the time they're maybe a 7th year or so to save 500k? and then presumably not until they're a super senior associate, counsel, or partner until they've banked 1M. That seems about right. And then from that point, you can take a 50%+ paycut or so, continue to live frugally and invest well, and things are only good from there. By the time you're 50 you should have a few million saved up.


Who the fuck saves 50% of post-tax income with 150k in debt? What about rent, food, travel, entertainment? I don't know anyone like this. Biglaw is miserable enough and I'm not waiting until I'm 50 to spend money. You sound either naive or like a terribly dull person.


Missing the point of the hypothetical. I only said 50% because when I said 15-20% earlier, someone told me the average biglaw associate can do better than that. Fine, let's say it's 30%. I changed it above. Now what say you? My only point here is that you can live comfortably and also below your means, save up, slug it out, and still set yourself up nicely for your future, without ever having made partner.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Phil Brooks » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Leaving biglaw for something less intense with a million in the bank sounds pretty ideal. For the sake of pursuing that hypothetical, how many years would it take the standard biglaw associate saving 15-20% to get there? Probably still over 10 years....maybe 500k is a better number. That can probably be done by the time you're a 6th year if you're super diligent and get relatively good (8% or so on average) investment returns, even with 100-150k in student loans. Just trying to think of the right cushion to make you feel comfortable before taking dat pay cut.


10-20% savings is pretty low on a big law salary. Maybe if you have kids and live in NYC, but living in DC on a big law salary I usually save well over 50% of my after-tax salary. I've paid off nearly 200k in student loans in about 3 years in DC; when you consider how much bonuses go up, gotta imagine that I'd be able to make it to 300-400K in 3 more years. Not sure I would have the stamina to do that even if I wanted to, though.


Do you have a life? Do you have an SO? Do you have several roommates? Do you have any medical problems?

Art Prior

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:01 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Art Prior » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:34 pm

DCfilterDC wrote:The state bars should require annual drug testing with referrals to drug treatment programs for those who test positive.


Why? Because drugs make you uncomfortable? To save someone that graduates from popping adderall to injecting meth at the expense of ppl that don't let moderate use affect their jobs? To punish ppl that smoke pot on the weekend?

You would see about 10 to 20 percent of lawyers losing jobs if this was the case and cannabis is included.

User avatar
UVA2B

Gold
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby UVA2B » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:52 pm

Why did a discussion about dealing with addiction in the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

Why do all discussions about anything dealing with the suck of the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

A person died due to the stresses of this job and a substance abuse/addiction problem. Stop worrying about how much money he could've saved and gotten out, and stop arguing how to best get out of the career alive with money to do what everyone really wanted to do.

Sometimes TLS really is the worst.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:58 pm

Art Prior wrote:
DCfilterDC wrote:The state bars should require annual drug testing with referrals to drug treatment programs for those who test positive.


Why? Because drugs make you uncomfortable? To save someone that graduates from popping adderall to injecting meth at the expense of ppl that don't let moderate use affect their jobs? To punish ppl that smoke pot on the weekend?

You would see about 10 to 20 percent of lawyers losing jobs if this was the case and cannabis is included.

What if cannabis wasn't included? What if it was just hard drugs (which leave your system more quickly anyway)?

Frankly yeah, (hard) drugs do make me uncomfortable, because I've seen the impact addiction has and how frequently what people think is "moderate" slides into dysfunction.

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby elendinel » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:20 pm

UVA2B wrote:Why did a discussion about dealing with addiction in the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

Why do all discussions about anything dealing with the suck of the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

A person died due to the stresses of this job and a substance abuse/addiction problem. Stop worrying about how much money he could've saved and gotten out, and stop arguing how to best get out of the career alive with money to do what everyone really wanted to do.

Sometimes TLS really is the worst.


Agreed.

Art Prior wrote:Exactly the type of gut-fear-based reaction I expected from non-drug users (I mean you guys are being sympathetic to the guy that fucks prostitutes before breakfast and personally attacking the drug user).


You're not getting attacked for using drugs; you're getting attacked for trying to blame the victim (i.e., author's ex-husband) and trying to act like you mind reading powers and know for a fact that the author of the article was purposefully letting her ex-husband kill himself with drugs.

You're also getting attacked for implying that most people who use drugs only use them for medical purposes/as minor pick-me-ups, when the point of the article (and the statistics it includes) is to show that a lot more people than we think in biglaw rely on drugs for the same reasons anyone who uses heavy drugs uses them-- to escape depression, to deal with anxiety, etc. Trying to pretend that almost all lawyers who abuse drugs are only doing it for occasional funsies or for medical purposes is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as your attempts to try and make up categories of good/bad drug users so that you can claim you're a good drug user and all those other people like Peter who are using other drugs like meth are just inherently terrible people.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:43 pm

UVA2B wrote:Why did a discussion about dealing with addiction in the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

Why do all discussions about anything dealing with the suck of the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

A person died due to the stresses of this job and a substance abuse/addiction problem. Stop worrying about how much money he could've saved and gotten out, and stop arguing how to best get out of the career alive with money to do what everyone really wanted to do.

Sometimes TLS really is the worst.


Think it was brought on by the (*gasp* slightly optimistic) notion that if you can plan intelligently, live frugally, think long-term, save up, invest wisely and grind it out for a *mere* 7 years or so in biglaw, then you will be in really good shape financially, which may relieve some of the anxiety around the "biglaw is a never-ending shit factory that causes people to get depressed, abuse drugs and die" mentality that is being expressed on this thread. Get in, do your time, do it wisely, get out, do something else. 30 year olds making 300k a year need to deal with it in the short term and maximize it for the long term. Period, the end.

dixiecupdrinking

Gold
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:45 pm

UVA2B wrote:Why did a discussion about dealing with addiction in the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

Why do all discussions about anything dealing with the suck of the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

A person died due to the stresses of this job and a substance abuse/addiction problem. Stop worrying about how much money he could've saved and gotten out, and stop arguing how to best get out of the career alive with money to do what everyone really wanted to do.

Sometimes TLS really is the worst.

I mean, the bullshit you're seeing in this thread is part and parcel with why people in the profession are so unhealthy.

Art Prior

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:01 pm

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Art Prior » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:06 pm

elendinel wrote:
UVA2B wrote:Why did a discussion about dealing with addiction in the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

Why do all discussions about anything dealing with the suck of the legal profession turn into a discussion on saving money on six figure incomes and lifestyle choices?

A person died due to the stresses of this job and a substance abuse/addiction problem. Stop worrying about how much money he could've saved and gotten out, and stop arguing how to best get out of the career alive with money to do what everyone really wanted to do.

Sometimes TLS really is the worst.


Agreed.

Art Prior wrote:Exactly the type of gut-fear-based reaction I expected from non-drug users (I mean you guys are being sympathetic to the guy that fucks prostitutes before breakfast and personally attacking the drug user).


You're not getting attacked for using drugs; you're getting attacked for trying to blame the victim (i.e., author's ex-husband) and trying to act like you mind reading powers and know for a fact that the author of the article was purposefully letting her ex-husband kill himself with drugs.

You're also getting attacked for implying that most people who use drugs only use them for medical purposes/as minor pick-me-ups, when the point of the article (and the statistics it includes) is to show that a lot more people than we think in biglaw rely on drugs for the same reasons anyone who uses heavy drugs uses them-- to escape depression, to deal with anxiety, etc. Trying to pretend that almost all lawyers who abuse drugs are only doing it for occasional funsies or for medical purposes is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as your attempts to try and make up categories of good/bad drug users so that you can claim you're a good drug user and all those other people like Peter who are using other drugs like meth are just inherently terrible people.


I've also stated that there are blurred lines between the different categories. I don't believe ppl are bad ppl just because thier use progresses to heavy IV use. I've been there myself and maintained moderate use and no needles for the past 5 years. So I'm not holding myself higher (no pun intended) than any other type of user.

The article talks about use stats...not every lawyer IVs cocaine 5x a day, so my comments on medical and moderate use are included in those stats and relevant. Also the article states he tried to steal his own sons pills because he was in pain. To deny that medical use has zero connection to abuse is absurd.

Again, especially when you have chronic 24/7 pain. The line between medical use and abuse blurs always. Try telling someone in horrible pain with a full bottle of pills that they can't have another because it would go over thier prescribed limit when they still have 4 hours of work . They will tell you to suck it. Is that abuse though or taking your well being into your own hands. I say it's not abuse.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:13 pm

I was surprised this was a Wilson partner who worked in Silicon Valley. My impression was that maybe not as bad of a scene but apparently they still work ppl to death there. Would be interested to hear what that firm in particular and others have done in response to this to try to help their people. Mental illness is very sad, but I think firms and lawyers in general need to take responsibility for a lethal workplace culture at some point.



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.