Best Firm/Company to Work For Forum

[5ky]

2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

I don't think 2500 billables is a "conservative" estimate for most people outside NYC/top firms.

Nor is 4 weeks of vacation time.

[Transferthrowaway]

They all suck lifestyle-wise, so you might as well look at the bottom-line and go to the one who pays you the most -- Wachtell, Kirkland, Boies, Quinn, etc.

[imchuckbass58]

2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

Well this isn't accurate at all.

Billing 2500 isn't typical even at top firms in NYC, save Wachtell. It's pretty above average even at "sweatshops" like Kirkland, Cravath, and Skadden.

Also, for most people, if you're billing that much, you're probably staffed on a long-running matter (litigation) or a series of big deals (transactional), and your efficiency will be 75%+, so it's much more like 65 hours to bill 50 (2500/50 = 50 hrs/week assuming 2 weeks vacation). Even if you have ADD and are switching between matters, I've never heard of billing efficiency of less than 67% (assuming there's enough work to go around), so you're looking at 70 hours/week on average at a maximum.

[Transferthrowaway]

2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

Well this isn't accurate at all.

Billing 2500 isn't typical even at top firms in NYC, save Wachtell. It's pretty above average even at "sweatshops" like Kirkland, Cravath, and Skadden.

Also, for most people, if you're billing that much, you're probably staffed on a long-running matter (litigation) or a series of big deals (transactional), and your efficiency will be 75%+, so it's much more like 65 hours to bill 50 (2500/50 = 50 hrs/week assuming 2 weeks vacation). Even if you have ADD and are switching between matters, I've never heard of billing efficiency of less than 67% (assuming there's enough work to go around), so you're looking at 70 hours/week on average at a maximum.

Sounds like you're in actual practice. Out of curiosity, highest biller you've ever heard of? Apparently an interviewer at my school did 3200 for WLRK.

[Blindmelon]

2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

I don't think 2500 billables is a "conservative" estimate for most people outside NYC/top firms.

+1. Although I've met associates at Ropes and Wilmer in Boston who broke 2700 in a year. Definitely outliers though. I think most big firm lawyers bill 2000 - 2100 a year.

[Cavalier]

I've heard 2500 is not uncommon for those gunning for partner, but like everything else it varies a lot by firm.

[Helmholtz]

Of course it's a relevant question, and don't buy into the nonsense that you won't get a choice unless you're a top student at a top school. First, you have choice in where to pursue jobs. Your networking time (especially in person) is limited. The reach of your mailing campaign will be limited; you won't send letters to every firm in the nation. Etc. The point is that, for people where quality of life is a factor, you're taking the right approach of identifying this BEFORE you hit 1L fall. Second, you might have multiple offers. I'm a median student at a barely t-30 school, and I have two options. My situation isn't typical, but people can't speak in absolutes about how your options will be limited unless you're a certain rank at a certain school.

Now, most law students don't care about the work-life balance piece. They DO care about the money and prestige pieces, so they tend to go to the highest-ranked firm that offers them, making minimal if any adjustments for how well they think they "fit." But here's the point: fit doesn't matter if you're talking about a big law firm. Attorneys at big law firms are unhealthy, overworked, unappreciated, and unhappy. And by unhappy, I mean downright miserable relative to other professions.

If you want work-life balance, you need to work for a smaller firm. Not a midlaw firm that wants to be biglaw and wants you to work constantly, but a small, established lifestyle firm. This will probably be in a smaller city and will probably pay significantly less. Those are the sacrifices you make to work in a decent place. Don't buy into ANY of the crap about how BIG FIRM Y is a wayyy better place to work than BIG FIRM Z. All that noise is like saying that being kicked in the ribs is better than being punched in the face. It sucks either way, and if you do it for a lot of years, you're going to suffer a lot of ill effects.

Damn, bro. It's a good thing you turned away all those biglaw firms and are willing to make the sacrifice then.

And people shouldn't speak in absolutes, but then you spend your entire post speaking in absolutes? (Shocking as it may be, there are some people who really like working in biglaw—or at least their particular biglaw firm. And if you don't think that your lifestyle / work schedule is going to be substantially different if you work at Wachtell as opposed to a Cleary, Davis Polk, etc....)

[imchuckbass58]

Sounds like you're in actual practice. Out of curiosity, highest biller you've ever heard of? Apparently an interviewer at my school did 3200 for WLRK.

I am not in actual practice, so no firsthand knowledge, but I took several years off before going back to school so I have several close friends who are. Highest I have heard of is also around 3200 (not at WLRK though). Friend at WLRK says he billed 2800 his first year, and that he was (slightly) above average for his class.

[Anonymous User]

After working biglaw for a couple months (and having a fiance + friends in biglaw in DC and NYC) I have the following notes about what to look for that will indicate a better or worse environment:
1) Work at a firm that assigns practice groups from day 1, none of this unassigned crap. If you're unassigned its just that much more time you're not becoming an expert with relevant skills. If you're going between groups for the first 18 to 24 months, you're not building great relationships, you're a commodity. I'm sure people will feel differently, but for people who worry about "exit options" think about where you'll be after two years as an "unassigned" associate compared to someone who has worked with a specific group for the same amount of time.

Can you say more about this? I'm going to a firm for the summer that allows for a couple voluntary six-month rotations to different groups. This came up in my callback with them a lot, and everybody from a junior associate to a partner who has been there for decades said they really encourage associates to take at least one rotation. Nobody thought an associate doing one or both rotations was at any significant disadvantage compared to somebody going straight into a group.

[snailio]

Ok so you're bored, here is something to play with.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=165022

[c3pO4]

2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

I don't think 2500 billables is a "conservative" estimate for most people outside NYC/top firms.

Yea, I'm talking about top nYC firms...

[JusticeHarlan]

2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

I don't think 2500 billables is a "conservative" estimate for most people outside NYC/top firms.

Yea, I'm talking about top nYC firms...

Then you did an awful job answering the question of

The point of my specific question was to get a sense of the difference in an ordinary work week between different big law firms.

by citing SulCrom hours without explaining that it was the exception, rather than the norm, something that should have been specified when you're in a 0L thread about "best firm/company to work for."

[BeerMaker]

My good friend from high school (still a good friend today) works at a NLJ 250 here in Detroit. He rarely works more than 60 hours per week. I would say more like 50. He just made partner this year and was putting in 55 or so for the last couple of months, but that was more than usual. He has two kids and spends a lot of time coaching youth sports. He does work a lot, but it seems like he has a great balance. We joke and say he has the perfect life. Big house, big car, two kids (boy and girl), hot wife, and he actually comes home at night.

He inspired me to take the leap to law school. I realize things don't always end up like they did for him, and I also realize it's a mid size firm in Detroit, but I'd take it in a heart beat.

I've seen good lifestyle outside of lawyer life, but I don't live in NYC. I figure Detroit can't be the only city offering a high quality of life? That seems false on many levels.

[Ludo!]

In general smaller markets and smaller firms are usually going to have a better quality of life. Of course you are going to work less at Detroit NLJ 250 than an NYC V5. The tradeoff is that you make more money, have better exit options, and more prestige (if that means anything to you) at the V5. People are only going to be able to give you general info. There just aren't that many practicing lawyers on TLS who would have experience with enough firms to tell you which is the "best" to work for.

[Georgiana]

After working biglaw for a couple months (and having a fiance + friends in biglaw in DC and NYC) I have the following notes about what to look for that will indicate a better or worse environment:
1) Work at a firm that assigns practice groups from day 1, none of this unassigned crap. If you're unassigned its just that much more time you're not becoming an expert with relevant skills. If you're going between groups for the first 18 to 24 months, you're not building great relationships, you're a commodity. I'm sure people will feel differently, but for people who worry about "exit options" think about where you'll be after two years as an "unassigned" associate compared to someone who has worked with a specific group for the same amount of time.

Can you say more about this? I'm going to a firm for the summer that allows for a couple voluntary six-month rotations to different groups. This came up in my callback with them a lot, and everybody from a junior associate to a partner who has been there for decades said they really encourage associates to take at least one rotation. Nobody thought an associate doing one or both rotations was at any significant disadvantage compared to somebody going straight into a group.

First, these people are recruiting you, they are supposed to be positive about the way the firm does things. A partner at my firm is leaving soon and over the summer he was the BIGGEST cheerleader for the way the firm works. I ran into him getting coffee the other day and he had dramatically changed his tune now that he's leaving. He was telling us that its really important to become an expert in something from day 1 because you never know how long you will want to or be able to stay.

A lot of people leave biglaw around year 2-3 and look for exit options, if you've spent 6 months in bankruptcy, 6 months in real estate and 12 months in antitrust, you have at most one year of experience in any one thing. Its not debilitating but its not putting you in the best position either. Start in a group where you think you want to stay and if you decide you don't like it, you can change. My point is that I know some places that don't give any specificity to groups for x amount of time and that can be a problem for people who decide they want to make a change after a couple years instead of staying for the long haul. Those also tend to be the places that have assignment coordinators that hand out work and aren't really concerned about your development as a professional, they're just concerned with putting someone on the matter and getting it off their desk.

[Nate895]

Not to be a dick but this is why 0ls aren't supposed to post in the students and graduates forums. The best firm to work for is the one that will actually hire you. If you're at the top of your class at a good school and have your choice of places to work then you can come back and ask this question.

The move was correct, but the question is relevant. Many 0Ls are thinking "if I don't want a super competitive environment, I'll just find a less intense place that still pays market." Perhaps they have no choice, perhaps there are no such places, perhaps you can't avoid the occasional intense week... these are all relevant to carefully choosing a career in law while you are not locked in due to debt.

The point of my specific question was to get a sense of the difference in an ordinary work week between different big law firms. I hear horror stories about 100 hr weeks etc..., but I imagine that isn't your median work week. If, for most of the weeks in the year, firms are pretty similar, it might be worth it to tolerate a few weeks of hell for the preftige/exit options.

Perhaps this question is purely academic ITE, but at least like to know the situation I'd be forced into.

Dude if you want to know the hours you have to work look at hours requirements at firms. Or read the many threads about this issue on TLS. I'll give you a hint, since you insist against using the internet properly. 2500 hours (conservative) / 12 / 4 = 53 hours a week billed. You probably have to work 70-90 hours to actually bill 53. 100 is not unusual, since work ebbs and flows. HTMFH.

Honestly, unless you try a teeeny bit harder to get your information, you will come off like a jackass in interviews and probably strike out, so there's no reason to worry about this at all.

I'm mainly focused on DC biglaw, since that is where I want to work, so I'm not as familiar with NYC offices, but here is what I have learned in my research in deciding whether to do this whole law school thing.

I've looked up multiple firms, and most had around a 2,000 billable hour requirement (+/- 100), with even a few 1800 hour firms. On a ranking of 160 large law firms (I'm not sure if it was the 160 largest, or 160 of the NLJ250), only one had an average work week over 70 hours; the vast majority had average weeks between 50-60 hours. For first year associates who have no idea what they are doing, that would probably be on the higher end, but I still can't imagine 80-100 being a norm for them outside of NYC sweatshop firms.

Per your example, 100 hours a week, if you worked 6 days, would be 16 2/3 hours a day! If you lived even within 5 minutes of the office and did nothing but work and get ready every day that week, you'd still only sleep around 6-6.5 hours a night. The law of diminishing returns would take effect and the billable hours ratio would start getting lower and lower. If that were happening more than once-in-a-great while, few would endeavor to be a lawyer. They certainly wouldn't go into 200K of debt for the privilege of working themselves half-to-death on a regular basis. If you could cite us some kind of scientific survey that would show this happens regularly, it would be of great use to us 0Ls trying to determine if law careers are right for us. I'm not looking for horror stories from the basement of a NYC sweatshop firm, I'm looking for some kind of evidence that this is systemic.

[sebastian0622]

And people shouldn't speak in absolutes, but then you spend your entire post speaking in absolutes? (Shocking as it may be, there are some people who really like working in biglaw—or at least their particular biglaw firm. And if you don't think that your lifestyle / work schedule is going to be substantially different if you work at Wachtell as opposed to a Cleary, Davis Polk, etc....)

Speaking in generalities is different than speaking in absolutes. I recommend that you (and OP) read this:

http://www.vallexfund.com/download/Bein ... Member.pdf

[Georgiana]

I'm mainly focused on DC biglaw, since that is where I want to work, so I'm not as familiar with NYC offices, but here is what I have learned in my research in deciding whether to do this whole law school thing.

I've looked up multiple firms, and most had around a 2,000 billable hour requirement (+/- 100), with even a few 1800 hour firms. On a ranking of 160 large law firms (I'm not sure if it was the 160 largest, or 160 of the NLJ250), only one had an average work week over 70 hours; the vast majority had average weeks between 50-60 hours. For first year associates who have no idea what they are doing, that would probably be on the higher end, but I still can't imagine 80-100 being a norm for them outside of NYC sweatshop firms.

I'm at a DC firm with no stated billable requirement but we all know that you should be hitting at least 2000. That said, most people (especially in litigation where work is steady to crazy all the time) hit 2300-2400 in a normal year. Corporate is more up and down so if its a slow year you're more likely to be closer to 2000 and in a busy year being above 2400 isn't uncommon.

You don't really control your billables as a first year, that's part of learning the ropes. You could be high or low, it just depends on where you get staffed and what your efficiency level is, once you get higher up its easier to take control and set your own targets for hours.

[Nate895]

I'm mainly focused on DC biglaw, since that is where I want to work, so I'm not as familiar with NYC offices, but here is what I have learned in my research in deciding whether to do this whole law school thing.

I've looked up multiple firms, and most had around a 2,000 billable hour requirement (+/- 100), with even a few 1800 hour firms. On a ranking of 160 large law firms (I'm not sure if it was the 160 largest, or 160 of the NLJ250), only one had an average work week over 70 hours; the vast majority had average weeks between 50-60 hours. For first year associates who have no idea what they are doing, that would probably be on the higher end, but I still can't imagine 80-100 being a norm for them outside of NYC sweatshop firms.

I'm at a DC firm with no stated billable requirement but we all know that you should be hitting at least 2000. That said, most people (especially in litigation where work is steady to crazy all the time) hit 2300-2400 in a normal year. Corporate is more up and down so if its a slow year you're more likely to be closer to 2000 and in a busy year being above 2400 isn't uncommon.

You don't really control your billables as a first year, that's part of learning the ropes. You could be high or low, it just depends on where you get staffed and what your efficiency level is, once you get higher up its easier to take control and set your own targets for hours.

Thank you for that, particularly the litigation vs. corporate info. Would you say working more than 70 hours in a week is a regular thing, particularly for first-year associates?

Personally, I'm going to give it my best effort possible to get an Article III clerkship (hopefully appellate with a SC feeder judge so I got a shot at being a SC clerk), and thus avoid ever being a first-year associate. However, I know that it is very likely that I will fall short of that goal, and so I need to know what the possible scenarios are if I do. I mean, working 70 hours a week for almost a whole year, while regularly going above that, just sounds like hell on earth, and if that is a highly-likely outcome, I'd like to take that into consideration. From what I've been reading, that outcome, while possible, is not an altogether common outcome. I might be being misled, however.

[BeerMaker]

And people shouldn't speak in absolutes, but then you spend your entire post speaking in absolutes? (Shocking as it may be, there are some people who really like working in biglaw—or at least their particular biglaw firm. And if you don't think that your lifestyle / work schedule is going to be substantially different if you work at Wachtell as opposed to a Cleary, Davis Polk, etc....)

Speaking in generalities is different than speaking in absolutes. I recommend that you (and OP) read this:

http://www.vallexfund.com/download/Bein ... Member.pdf

Excellent article. Just read the whole thing. Knowing what you're getting into is invaluable as a 0L. I'll wager that a large majority of 0L's do not have a clue what they're getting themselves into. For many, big law is exactly what they want, and that's perfectly acceptable. However, some 0L's could benefit from having a realistic picture of attorney life prior to throwing the amount of a mortgage at a t-14. Once you're in that kind of debt, big law is your only friend.

[Helmholtz]

And people shouldn't speak in absolutes, but then you spend your entire post speaking in absolutes? (Shocking as it may be, there are some people who really like working in biglaw—or at least their particular biglaw firm. And if you don't think that your lifestyle / work schedule is going to be substantially different if you work at Wachtell as opposed to a Cleary, Davis Polk, etc....)

Speaking in generalities is different than speaking in absolutes. I recommend that you (and OP) read this:

http://www.vallexfund.com/download/Bein ... Member.pdf

You gave absolutely no indication you were speaking in generalities. Somebody said, "you DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHO HIRES YOU UNLESS YOU ARE A TOP STUDENT AT A TOP SCHOOL," to which you replied, "My situation isn't typical, but people can't speak in absolutes." Then you said, "Attorneys at big law firms are unhealthy, overworked, unappreciated, and unhappy. And by unhappy, I mean downright miserable relative to other professions." I commented that you can't speak in absolutes. And you said you weren't?

I only skimmed the linked article, but it seems to treat lawyers as a lump bunch. There was some mention of big firm culture, but never saw any mention of specific statistics pointing toward biglaw attorneys' levels of depression or alcoholism as compared to the profession at large.

And I hate to say this, but you lose some credibility talking down about a particular segment of a profession when you (around median at Iowa Law) never had, and probably never will have, the opportunity to break into that segment. Not saying that that instantly discredits anything you say, but it doesn't take a lot of moral fiber and insight to attack something you can't have.

I worked in a small firm in a small town for a number of years. Most law offices had two to four lawyers in them. Lawyers were typically pretty well-respected in the community, but they were still putting in a lot of hours for how much they were getting paid (and the money was not a lot). A very healthy percentage of them I ran into did not act like they were enjoying life, and just grumpy / upset / short of temper all the time. Would not be surprised at all if they would have been classified as depressed.

[dood]

This thread is not relevant to my interests.

ditto. i for one, look forward to my indentured servitude to my new masters/partners.

[sebastian0622]

"you DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHO HIRES YOU UNLESS YOU ARE A TOP STUDENT AT A TOP SCHOOL," ... "Attorneys at big law firms are unhealthy, overworked, unappreciated, and unhappy. And by unhappy, I mean downright miserable relative to other professions." I commented that you can't speak in absolutes. And you said you weren't?

There is a difference between "you" and "attorneys."

I won't respond to your ad hominem attacks other than to say that you seem to be confusing the causal links between my job search, law school performance, and assessment of options. Besides, the guy who wrote the article was magna cum laude from HLS and worked as a biglaw partner. Question his credentials, not mine. I'm putting faith in his assessment over those of random students and associates on TLS.

[Helmholtz]

"you DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHO HIRES YOU UNLESS YOU ARE A TOP STUDENT AT A TOP SCHOOL," ... "Attorneys at big law firms are unhealthy, overworked, unappreciated, and unhappy. And by unhappy, I mean downright miserable relative to other professions." I commented that you can't speak in absolutes. And you said you weren't?

There is a difference between "you" and "attorneys."

I won't respond to your ad hominem attacks other than to say that you seem to be confusing the causality of my job search.

I don't really follow

[sebastian0622]

I don't really follow

In terms of speaking in generalities vs. absolutes. "You" vs. "attorneys."