when did I say that it "takes BigLaw to become an expert"? I was just saying that it's a quality of Big Law that I liked. I'm obviously not naive to believe that big law is what it's made out to be in fairy tales and movies, but I'm also not so pessimistic about it that I am blind to the pros of Big Law, like most people on here.BobSacamano wrote:What makes you think it takes BigLaw to become an "expert" in an area of law? The hours? That's not really a strong case, for some obvious reasons (same hours for less pay elsewhere, hours =/= hours spent acquiring expertise, etc). I guarantee you that just about every lawyer practicing is pretty expert-y in the area they practice in.uwb09 wrote: sorry your experience sucked, I have an immediate family member who has worked at a V100 for 20 years, and a first cousin who has worked at a V20 in Chicago and DC the last 5 years, and their experience, along with other lawyer they work with, lean towards my opinion
Like most things in life, it is what you make of it. Some people have a mindset that Big Law is just soul crushing doc review for 80 hours a week, and can't open up to the fact that maybe with effort there is more to the job, therefore when/if they get their chance at it, that's all they see.
Just like some people just see law school as an unfair and completely random crap-shoot, and don't see the chance to spend three years truly learning and mastering the law, as a stepping stone towards a long career as an attorney.
