The fundamental problem with 0L's. Forum

[NYSprague]

I don't understand the megapoasters' point in this thread? You were idiots and decided to work NYC biglaw, and now you're....taking it out on 0Ls, for some reason? You think working at DPW in Manhattan is "winning," or something? Anyone with a pulse at a T14 has a realistic shot at NYC Biglaw--it's the most forgiving market in the country--but you do realize a lot of us work our asses off *after* 1L to avoid the shit that you're living right now, don't you? SMDH.

I agree that NYC big law is the hardest market in terms of QoL, but your rant is misplaced. NYC has something like 25% of all the summer associate positions in the whole country. Not bidding NYC is a great way to strike out at OCI. From the perspective of a 0L considering law school, taking NYC off the table just shifts the risk around. Instead of the high risk of hating NYC big law, you now have a high risk of not getting a job, even from a T14.

Also, non-NYC firms tend to have other cultural problems. At least at most of the NYC V10 (which account for maybe 1/6 of all SA jobs in the country), you don't have to worry about no-offers, or getting laid off as a first/second year because there's no work. There was some touchy times during the recession, but I never heard of first/second years getting stealthed, and now even though the economy is still soft, these firms are still extremely busy. There's no hoarding of work or sitting around worrying about not making your hours.

Ok, first, let's be real, this whole thread is an extended rant you initiated--not saying that's a good or a bad thing--but let's keep things in perspective dooder.

Anyway, it seems that you're trying to make the reasonable point that 0Ls should minimize debt and acknowledge that NYC Biglaw is not a silver bullet. I'm with you there. I'm just also trying to say that there are a lot of law students who would read the original article you linked and think, wow, that guy was an idiot for pinning his long-term career hopes on DPW Manhattan. But if 0Ls attend a T-14 and keep their debt relatively low (I think that's the whole message of TLS, right?), many of them can do a LOT better than NYC Biglaw, career-wise--it's not quite as doom and gloom as you're making it out to be.

Thoughts on CA biglaw? (V30 offices in LA, SF, OC). Lots of talk about ny here. Or V50 or whatever not trying to be arbitrary, "top firms"

Depending on the firm--and speaking very generally--CA firms tend to have lower target billables and slightly more humane hours (does that hold true for Quinn LA/SF or Boies in Oakland? no). The main point is, if you're working at a Biglaw firm paying market, you're still bought and paid for, your time is theirs. Just not quite as sadomasochistally as the kids who self-select into NYC Biglaw. There's no way in hell I would've invited that level of pain, even for the limited amount of time I'll be in Biglaw.

Is this true? I thought the most everyone needed to rely on NYC as a backup for whatever other plan they might be chasing. PI and government are still slow, and if you don't have ties somewhere, who is going to hire you? What jobs are you talking about specifically?

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

I didn't say there were 10-20 hours on the weekend (although weekend work was not unusual). And no one ever complained that I wasn't working hard enough, it's just a general big firm atmosphere that, no matter how much you've done, it's never quite enough. One of my friends is at a very large Texas-based firm (national, whereas mine was more regional) and she routinely works 65+ hours a week. It's definitely not unusual to call her on the weekend and find her in the office.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant. That is what I have heard described of nyc biglaw, which is apparently the worst place to work from a lifestyle perspective. I was definitely surprised by your Dallas hours too though.

It seems like in NYC, where billable reqt is 2000hrs, associates are putting in 2300-2700, while in secondary markets like Dallas, associates are doing 2000+ when the reqt is 1800 (if numbers off, my point is to illustrate unspoken reqt above mandated billable floor). Do people do this because it's necessary to keep their job ITE? Will doing 2000 hours in a year in nyc mean being fired? Is it simply impossible to ever say no to a partner?

[kalvano]

I didn't say there were 10-20 hours on the weekend (although weekend work was not unusual). And no one ever complained that I wasn't working hard enough, it's just a general big firm atmosphere that, no matter how much you've done, it's never quite enough. One of my friends is at a very large Texas-based firm (national, whereas mine was more regional) and she routinely works 65+ hours a week. It's definitely not unusual to call her on the weekend and find her in the office.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant. That is what I have heard described of nyc biglaw, which is apparently the worst place to work from a lifestyle perspective. I was definitely surprised by your Dallas hours too though.

It seems like in NYC, where billable reqt is 2000hrs, associates are putting in 2300-2700, while in secondary markets like Dallas, associates are doing 2000+ when the reqt is 1800 (if numbers off, my point is to illustrate unspoken reqt above mandated billable floor). Do people do this because it's necessary to keep their job ITE? Will doing 2000 hours in a year in nyc mean being fired? Is it simply impossible to ever say no to a partner?

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

[homestyle28]

Legit Q to the NU alums here...are you all as unhappy as you seem here? As a soon to be NU alum, I'm concerened. I have immense respect for DF, IAFG and Ray (well in a "I know you vaguely from TLS respect kind of way), but it seems like you all are (or in Rays case were) generally bitter about our biglaw life so far. Am I misreading things? Is it different than what you expected or did you more or less expect it to be like this.

I'll hang up and listen.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

I didn't say there were 10-20 hours on the weekend (although weekend work was not unusual). And no one ever complained that I wasn't working hard enough, it's just a general big firm atmosphere that, no matter how much you've done, it's never quite enough. One of my friends is at a very large Texas-based firm (national, whereas mine was more regional) and she routinely works 65+ hours a week. It's definitely not unusual to call her on the weekend and find her in the office.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant. That is what I have heard described of nyc biglaw, which is apparently the worst place to work from a lifestyle perspective. I was definitely surprised by your Dallas hours too though.

It seems like in NYC, where billable reqt is 2000hrs, associates are putting in 2300-2700, while in secondary markets like Dallas, associates are doing 2000+ when the reqt is 1800 (if numbers off, my point is to illustrate unspoken reqt above mandated billable floor). Do people do this because it's necessary to keep their job ITE? Will doing 2000 hours in a year in nyc mean being fired? Is it simply impossible to ever say no to a partner?

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

I hear you. How is your new firm in comparison? I'm guessing you were at the large firm for less than a year--how'd you transition?

[kalvano]

I didn't say there were 10-20 hours on the weekend (although weekend work was not unusual). And no one ever complained that I wasn't working hard enough, it's just a general big firm atmosphere that, no matter how much you've done, it's never quite enough. One of my friends is at a very large Texas-based firm (national, whereas mine was more regional) and she routinely works 65+ hours a week. It's definitely not unusual to call her on the weekend and find her in the office.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant. That is what I have heard described of nyc biglaw, which is apparently the worst place to work from a lifestyle perspective. I was definitely surprised by your Dallas hours too though.

It seems like in NYC, where billable reqt is 2000hrs, associates are putting in 2300-2700, while in secondary markets like Dallas, associates are doing 2000+ when the reqt is 1800 (if numbers off, my point is to illustrate unspoken reqt above mandated billable floor). Do people do this because it's necessary to keep their job ITE? Will doing 2000 hours in a year in nyc mean being fired? Is it simply impossible to ever say no to a partner?

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

I hear you. How is your new firm in comparison? I'm guessing you were at the large firm for less than a year--how'd you transition?

New firm is much, much better. Less billables (1800 even - an extra half-hour or so a day really adds up though), much more relaxed people, and better / equivalent money. I've also landed in a weird but interesting niche that I enjoy quite a bit.

[rayiner]

I'm with you there. I'm just also trying to say that there are a lot of law students who would read the original article you linked and think, wow, that guy was an idiot for pinning his long-term career hopes on DPW Manhattan.

It is precisely the point of this thread to delve into why any 0L would call a guy who went to Harvard, did well enough to get DPW, and stuck it out three years "an idiot." NYC is the toughest market in terms of hours, but DPW/STB/Cleary are as humane as it gets in NYC. They also give 100% offers, which at the time this guy would've been making a decision about his 2L firm, would've weighed very heavily on his mind. He made entirely reasonable decisions at the time that balanced the various concerns of (1) getting a job in the first place; and (2) hanging on to it for a couple of years.

Are other markets a little more human? Yes and no. The hours pressures are less, and there are fewer banker clients, but firms in other markets are almost uniformly lower on the totem pole and economically more fragile. And there is a lot of dysfunction that comes from that too. And getting a job in other markets is tough. Good luck getting laid-back Portland big law without deep connections. For most law students, simply not striking out is a priority that comes first, and there is nothing idiotic about pursuing NYC for that reason.

[IAFG]

Legit Q to the NU alums here...are you all as unhappy as you seem here? As a soon to be NU alum, I'm concerened. I have immense respect for DF, IAFG and Ray (well in a "I know you vaguely from TLS respect kind of way), but it seems like you all are (or in Rays case were) generally bitter about our biglaw life so far. Am I misreading things? Is it different than what you expected or did you more or less expect it to be like this.

I'll hang up and listen.

I think all three of us are actually pretty happy with our jobs (and ray with the job he had and the one he's headed to).

I'm not bitter. But I was really, really wrong about a lot of my assumptions.

[HRomanus]

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

Doesn't 2100 hours equate to about 40 hrs a week? Are the brutal work hours because you're at the office for many hours that aren't billable? What are you doing during that time?

[Nomo]

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

Doesn't 2100 hours equate to about 40 hrs a week? Are the brutal work hours because you're at the office for many hours that aren't billable? What are you doing during that time?

Yale used to have a publication estimating that about 2/3 of your time at work would be spend billing hours.

[rayiner]

Legit Q to the NU alums here...are you all as unhappy as you seem here? As a soon to be NU alum, I'm concerened. I have immense respect for DF, IAFG and Ray (well in a "I know you vaguely from TLS respect kind of way), but it seems like you all are (or in Rays case were) generally bitter about our biglaw life so far. Am I misreading things? Is it different than what you expected or did you more or less expect it to be like this.

I'm not bitter, and liked big law just fine. I do think I was naive in ways. I thought the hours would be the hard part, and that I'd be okay with that because I had worked long hours at my pre-LS job. But for me, the poorly-adjusted mid levels were the worst part. Some of my busiest months coincided with working on small, well-managed teams doing substantive work. And those months, I really enjoyed my job. I would say I got top 10-15% in terms of staffing luck, though.

But there's a high chance that you'll get into a group doing just doc review or with people you hate. I have a friend that quit a little more than a year in for that reason, and she's an incredibly hard worker. It's a risk, just like any other risk in law school (the risk of striking out, the risk of getting no-offered). I think 0L's have an idea that those latter risks exist, but don't really appreciate the risk that they'll hate the job. And I think if they did, they'd make different decisions about how much debt to take on.

[homestyle28]

Legit Q to the NU alums here...are you all as unhappy as you seem here? As a soon to be NU alum, I'm concerened. I have immense respect for DF, IAFG and Ray (well in a "I know you vaguely from TLS respect kind of way), but it seems like you all are (or in Rays case were) generally bitter about our biglaw life so far. Am I misreading things? Is it different than what you expected or did you more or less expect it to be like this.

I'll hang up and listen.

I think all three of us are actually pretty happy with our jobs (and ray with the job he had and the one he's headed to).

I'm not bitter. But I was really, really wrong about a lot of my assumptions.

Good to know

[kalvano]

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

Doesn't 2100 hours equate to about 40 hrs a week? Are the brutal work hours because you're at the office for many hours that aren't billable? What are you doing during that time?

Not every hour is billable - CLE's, required meetings, client development, all of that stuff. And until you start billing everything in .1's, you don't realize just how much shit you do in a day.

[timbs4339]

Legit Q to the NU alums here...are you all as unhappy as you seem here? As a soon to be NU alum, I'm concerened. I have immense respect for DF, IAFG and Ray (well in a "I know you vaguely from TLS respect kind of way), but it seems like you all are (or in Rays case were) generally bitter about our biglaw life so far. Am I misreading things? Is it different than what you expected or did you more or less expect it to be like this.

I'm not bitter, and liked big law just fine. I do think I was naive in ways. I thought the hours would be the hard part, and that I'd be okay with that because I had worked long hours at my pre-LS job. But for me, the poorly-adjusted mid levels were the worst part. Some of my busiest months coincided with working on small, well-managed teams doing substantive work. And those months, I really enjoyed my job. I would say I got top 10-15% in terms of staffing luck, though.

But there's a high chance that you'll get into a group doing just doc review or with people you hate. I have a friend that quit a little more than a year in for that reason, and she's an incredibly hard worker. It's a risk, just like any other risk in law school (the risk of striking out, the risk of getting no-offered). I think 0L's have an idea that those latter risks exist, but don't really appreciate the risk that they'll hate the job. And I think if they did, they'd make different decisions about how much debt to take on.

A lot of 0Ls suffering from SSS seem to think that there's a "type" who burns out after a year or two, usually a trust fund baby or a naive K-JD, and that they, of course, aren't that "type" because they spent a year working in some white collar job or really want the money.

Of the people I know who really burned out, that just isn't the case. It's really random in terms of personalities, including people who ended their summers wondering why associates complained so badly. It seems to come down more to luck (who you work for, what group you end up in) than anything.

[HRomanus]

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

Doesn't 2100 hours equate to about 40 hrs a week? Are the brutal work hours because you're at the office for many hours that aren't billable? What are you doing during that time?

Not every hour is billable - CLE's, required meetings, client development, all of that stuff. And until you start billing everything in .1's, you don't realize just how much shit you do in a day.

Horribly rookie question: how is compensation determined for an associate? Is it a strict salary or is it based on billable hours?

[ph14]

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

Doesn't 2100 hours equate to about 40 hrs a week? Are the brutal work hours because you're at the office for many hours that aren't billable? What are you doing during that time?

Not every hour is billable - CLE's, required meetings, client development, all of that stuff. And until you start billing everything in .1's, you don't realize just how much shit you do in a day.

Horribly rookie question: how is compensation determined for an associate? Is it a strict salary or is it based on billable hours?

Depends on the firm. At most biglaw firms it's lockstep, with a bonus that might or might not be lockstep and might or might not be paid depending on whether you hit your billable hours target (or might vary depending on the number of hours you bill).

Here is one resource to read: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/C ... Public.pdf
Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_firm#Salaries

[kalvano]

My firm had a 1900 billables + a 150 non-billables requirement. Most true big firms in Dallas are 1900 - 2000 billables. I would say that, if the billable target is 2000, you'd be safe hitting that, but if you want to bonus or be really safe, 2100 or so is the true "be left alone" target number. And 2000-2100 hours is a lot, no matter what market. I was lucky in that I didn't really have a face time requirement, but if you want to hit your numbers, it's a lot of hours no matter where you are.

Doesn't 2100 hours equate to about 40 hrs a week? Are the brutal work hours because you're at the office for many hours that aren't billable? What are you doing during that time?

Not every hour is billable - CLE's, required meetings, client development, all of that stuff. And until you start billing everything in .1's, you don't realize just how much shit you do in a day.

Horribly rookie question: how is compensation determined for an associate? Is it a strict salary or is it based on billable hours?

General salary with a billable hour requirement that you have to meet to receive a bonus / keep your job. That's at most midsize and large firms. The smaller the firm, the more likely it is to be a completely different pay structure.

[FuriousDuck]

...

[chem]

I'm happy that these two rant threads have somehow gotten derailed towards actual productive conversation.

Other thread is currently on the subject of billing while pooping, so thats doubly productive

[PDaddy]

My favorite is "I will be xxx rank and make law review because I am confident in my abilities."

This. "I got a 4.0 in my senior year of undergrad. I will crush law school."

Yup! There are so many unknowns.

They don't realize that law school grades are 60% "luck" - contrary to what many folks might believe - and the hardest-working students usually DON'T get the best grades, even if they do tend to wind up doing fairly well.

The people at the very top are the ones everyone sees going out for drinks on weekdays and leaving town on he weekends. You hardly ever see them at the library or in professor's office hours. Nobody ever knows how they do it. They seemingly never study and make everything look easy.

1L's cannot control what cluster they wind up with, which professors they get, how those profs teach the course during their term, or what other genius bozos will write. They can't predict whether the 1L's will be collegial towards them or act like douchbags!

They can't predict whether they will get sick or have some mishap, or whether the prof will give them any second chances. They don't know which profs wil be on the law review boards or what writing styles they prefer.

They can't predict whether they will have a freak-out during an exam and miss crucial points because they forgot something.

OCI, and just about everything involved with it, is also mostly a product of luck. You never know what will happen during your summers...whether you will get a really cool and knowledgable mentor who truly wants to guide you, or some burnout who hates everything he does and sees you as nothing more than a flunky to be used for a two-month break. You don't know what assignments you will get or whether the assignment has already been botched by someone else.

You can't predict the culture at your summer jobs, or whether someone will hate you for your looks (whether good or bad), or whether you will be sexually harassed. You can't predict the racial attitudes at your summer jobs.

There are so many unknowns it's ridiculous. Anyone going to law school should expect to do one thing: finish law school, and even THAT is no guarantee.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Well, few people have been graded on a 100% final essay system that is graded subjectively and curved before law school. Mostly because it is such a shitty way to teach anything, but that's another topic.

[ph14]

Well, few people have been graded on a 100% final essay system that is graded subjectively and curved before law school. Mostly because it is such a shitty way to teach anything, but that's another topic.

It's not necessarily done for the pedagogical value; a lot of the reason for the grading system is a sorting mechanism for employers.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Well, few people have been graded on a 100% final essay system that is graded subjectively and curved before law school. Mostly because it is such a shitty way to teach anything, but that's another topic.

It's not necessarily done for the pedagogical value; a lot of the reason for the grading system is a sorting mechanism for employers.

That is definitely true, but I find it strange that it is the perspective educators take as well.

[ph14]

Well, few people have been graded on a 100% final essay system that is graded subjectively and curved before law school. Mostly because it is such a shitty way to teach anything, but that's another topic.

It's not necessarily done for the pedagogical value; a lot of the reason for the grading system is a sorting mechanism for employers.

That is definitely true, but I find it strange that it is the perspective educators take as well.

What?

[jbagelboy]

The people at the very top are the ones everyone sees going out for drinks on weekdays and leaving town on he weekends. You hardly ever see them at the library or in professor's office hours. Nobody ever knows how they do it. They seemingly never study and make everything look easy.

People with lives tend to be winners.