The fundamental problem with practicing lawyers Forum

[InTheHouse]

Thanks for the responses to the OP and for this lively debate. I tried my hand at a little instigation and it seems to have worked.

So, for someone committing to attend Stanford next year, what advice is there to minimize the drudgery/misery that all you practicing attorneys are warning about? Is there a path you envisioned, within the law, that you think would have made you happy? Or at least not miserable?

I went to undergrad for free, so my parents have some savings to chip in. Throw in generous need based grants from the school and some scholarships earned for grad school while in undergrad, I'll graduate with around $60k in debt. Yes, I know I'm lucky and many would kill to be in my position.

Are there ANY firms in major markets that aren't sweatshops? How about Cooley or MOFO in SF, or W&C in DC?

Technology Transactions @ MoFo (and or similar practice groups at Cooley, WSGR). Gunderson Dettmer (much smaller firm) is also worth a look. Better work/life balance from what I hear.

p.s: Of all people you're the last person who needs to complain about lawyers in TLS. Stanford @ $60k debt! Are you kidding me? Just go live the dream.

[chem]

Well we can bicker about what one means by "office drudgery" all day, but you claim that people do not complain about long hours, office drudgery, or job insecurity when obviously people do so on TLS all the time and you can either deal with that or not. If you have just been trolling me, congrats I bit.

I guessed you missed the story about the tyrannical midlevel who would avoid using the toilet to keep billing? And remember, the only reason we know that is that the TM in question was bragging about it. Think about an environment where that's a thing.

Sometimes I bring reading into the bathroom so I can eke out a .2

Felt weird doing this as a summer. Glad its TCR as an associate. Don't want to give up that long poop lifestyle

[rad lulz]

.

[rayiner]

What I'm saying is that people are hired without regard for management potential, and are slotted into management roles based on class year. I don't find your argument that they select for management ability through attrition convincing. First, while there is a lot of attrition in the first 5-6 years, its mostly voluntary. This if anything selects against people who would be good managers, as it selects for the people who can most put up with the status quo. Second, involuntary attrition at that level is mostly about hours and work product. Maybe partners are selected based on management ability, but as a junior, you'll spend most of your time working with midlevels.

As for why law firms would cling to this: law firms are small companies in the grand scheme of things. Most companies with only 1,500 employees don't have highly sophisticated management either. Moreover, remember that clients are also lawyers. They grew up with this model.

One huge reason management isn't a huge factor is the flat ownership structure. Like 20% of the employees are equity partners. And they are basically running their own business within the firm. They bring in cases, staff cases, and then run them without any oversight by the firm. A 1000 person firm is really only a 5-20 person company for an associate.

Yes!

[09042014]

Well we can bicker about what one means by "office drudgery" all day, but you claim that people do not complain about long hours, office drudgery, or job insecurity when obviously people do so on TLS all the time and you can either deal with that or not. If you have just been trolling me, congrats I bit.

I guessed you missed the story about the tyrannical midlevel who would avoid using the toilet to keep billing? And remember, the only reason we know that is that the TM in question was bragging about it. Think about an environment where that's a thing.

pls link

[dwil770]

Well we can bicker about what one means by "office drudgery" all day, but you claim that people do not complain about long hours, office drudgery, or job insecurity when obviously people do so on TLS all the time and you can either deal with that or not. If you have just been trolling me, congrats I bit.

My point is just that by using the language you're using (especially "long hours") you're characterizing the complaints in such a way as to cast the complainers as lazy slackers. To me there is a big difference between long hours and lack of control over hours, and drudgery versus stress (I'll grant that some of the issues are with job security, but it's specifically job security in the face of immense debt rather than job security in a vacuum). So you seem determined to minimize the issues associates are identifying, is all, and I just wanted to point that out.

(Also, I made it through law school and am officially a lawyer, god help the state that licensed me, and arguing over the meaning of specific language is one of those things lawyers do.)

I see your point. I didn't mean to cast them as lazy slackers, I meant to cast them as people who had unreasonable expectations about what work life entails for those OUTSIDE of biglaw. While I get that biglaw is unique I see many parallels with complaints that people making waaaay less have with their jobs. I mean from the perspective of an outsider - I would borderline sign up to be the executioner at a vet's office 12 hrs a day, one dog after another, each family surrounding bawling their eyes out over and over, for 160k (I kid).

[NYSprague]

Well we can bicker about what one means by "office drudgery" all day, but you claim that people do not complain about long hours, office drudgery, or job insecurity when obviously people do so on TLS all the time and you can either deal with that or not. If you have just been trolling me, congrats I bit.

My point is just that by using the language you're using (especially "long hours") you're characterizing the complaints in such a way as to cast the complainers as lazy slackers. To me there is a big difference between long hours and lack of control over hours, and drudgery versus stress (I'll grant that some of the issues are with job security, but it's specifically job security in the face of immense debt rather than job security in a vacuum). So you seem determined to minimize the issues associates are identifying, is all, and I just wanted to point that out.

(Also, I made it through law school and am officially a lawyer, god help the state that licensed me, and arguing over the meaning of specific language is one of those things lawyers do.)

I see your point. I didn't mean to cast them as lazy slackers, I meant to cast them as people who had unreasonable expectations about what work life entails for those OUTSIDE of biglaw. While I get that biglaw is unique I see many parallels with complaints that people making waaaay less have with their jobs. I mean from the perspective of an outsider - I would borderline sign up to be the executioner at a vet's office 12 hrs a day, one dog after another, each family surrounding bawling their eyes out over and over, for 160k (I kid).

It's really about $96,000 after taxes in NYC. Keep that in mind. That 160k is a flame here.

[jbagelboy]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking). Once you start living like someone making $160k, it'll feel puny and you'll never seem to have enough to make ends meet. That's why chasing a high salary to secure happiness in life is futile and ultimately self-destructive.

[84651846190]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking). Once you start living like someone making $160k, it'll feel puny and you'll never seem to have enough to make ends meet. That's why chasing a high salary to secure happiness in life is futile and ultimately self-destructive.

Uh, no. 160k is a shitload of money for anyone who didn't grow up upper or upper-middle class. I agree about the salary chasing part and would add that prestige chasing is also self-destructive. No matter how prestigious you get, you'll ALWAYS be chasing someone. Hell, the most competitive/cutthroat people at my firm are appellate dudes who argue at the Supreme Court. Some of them take on cases for free, just so they can rack up another prestige gold star by appearing before SCOTUS again.

[kaiser]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking). Once you start living like someone making $160k, it'll feel puny and you'll never seem to have enough to make ends meet. That's why chasing a high salary to secure happiness in life is futile and ultimately self-destructive.

Totally agree (though not with the part about 160K only seeming like a lot to a poor person). This is especially true in NYC, where your money doesn't get you very far at all. That isn't to say I don't live entirely comfortably, but whatever delusions you get when you hear "160K" beforehand go out the window pretty fast when you see what the after-tax pay translates too once the monthly bills and debt repayments go out.

[Nelson]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

What? You're talking about someone who's in their late 20s making as much as (and in many cases more than) a professional with 20+ years of experience. It's only "not enough" money because people take on 250k in student loans at 7.8% to get it.

[rickgrimes69]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

[rayiner]

Yeah, but you never make 160. You make like 80k to start after loan payments. Which is not much more than your secretary.

[kaiser]

Yeah, but you never make 160. You make like 80k to start after loan payments. In Manhattan. Your take home is not much higher than your secretaries.

I should have gunned for Dallas biglaw. Can you imagine what that standard of living would be like? NYC puts you at such a handicap when it comes to how far your money goes.

[cotiger]

Also, how DARE you complain about practicing lawyers. When I was a 0L, there was only the occasional lost JDUer to tell us how much doc review sucks. You younguns have no idea how good you have it.

Irony is those guys got insta-banned for starting threads like ray's.

Yeah I remember that. I never agreed with that mod position, but those were weird times.

What was the mods' position?

[worldtraveler]

Also, how DARE you complain about practicing lawyers. When I was a 0L, there was only the occasional lost JDUer to tell us how much doc review sucks. You younguns have no idea how good you have it.

[rad lulz]

.

[KatyMarie]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

Seriously. What?? Netting 90-100k a year is a hell of a lot of money for the vast majority of the people in the US (not to even LOOK at the global perspective on this).

I agree that you're not going to be happy if you're just chasing after money and hoping that it's enough to fulfill you...but 160k is a hell of a lot of money.

[jbagelboy]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

Oh rick, you (and others) completely missed the point, and the facetiousness. Relatively speaking. Clearly it places you in a very high stratum of earners. It's more than either of my parents ever made or will make in a year. Average American family income is in the $45,000-50,000 range. But that's not the point. People change their lifestyle and their habits to get accustomed to new norms over time. Which all the kids beating each other down to go in debt for a $160k starting salary need the reality check. After a certain reasonable level of comfort, money doesn't correlate in any meaningful way with happiness, because humans just never seem to have enough.

[worldtraveler]

You guys are missing the whole point that 160k is not 160k when you are paying 3k a month on loans. Yeah it's still quite a bit of money but you won't even have time to spend any.

[ph14]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

Seriously. What?? Netting 90-100k a year is a hell of a lot of money for the vast majority of the people in the US (not to even LOOK at the global perspective on this).

I agree that you're not going to be happy if you're just chasing after money and hoping that it's enough to fulfill you...but 160k is a hell of a lot of money.

Keep in mind: (1) For many lawyers, it won't be 160k and up for more than a handful of years. (2) Yes, it is $160k, but you should also think about your pay per hour worked; it's probably not as high as you would think, and comes with a lot of debt for a lot of people, as has been mentioned. (3) For many lawyers, the quality of life is not great. 0Ls seem to have a hard time accepting this, but time and time again, practicing lawyers, including people who have worked demanding consulting or other jobs (e.g., Needanexit) have commented that the unique combinations of stress, being on call 24/7, tedium, erratic nature of the job, and often less than ideal managing of junior associates lead to a job that not easy, to say the least. There's plenty of hard evidence of this, namely, as many other posters have mentioned, the sheer number of people who leave biglaw, despite the salary, after just a few years. And these are all people who have worked hard, managed stress, and succeeded throughout their entire lives.

Now no one is saying that there aren't benefits to biglaw, naming the salary, credential, connections, and the exit options, but people are just trying to provide a more complete and accurate picture of biglaw. One that, as many posters have explained, was lacking to some degree from this forum prior to the past few years. Another purpose is to make sure people think about their decision to take on a lot of debt with the goal of obtaining a biglaw position. No one is saying that you should never do this, and in fact many posters here have. It's definitely a way to provide for your family. But it is a big decision, the financial equivalent of buying property, and not one that should be made lightly. I think the point of many of the practicing lawyer's posts are, think carefully about before taking on the debt. Think about what value you think it adds. Think carefully about your goals, what you would be happy with. Then you can make an informed decision on what you should do.

[KatyMarie]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

Seriously. What?? Netting 90-100k a year is a hell of a lot of money for the vast majority of the people in the US (not to even LOOK at the global perspective on this).

I agree that you're not going to be happy if you're just chasing after money and hoping that it's enough to fulfill you...but 160k is a hell of a lot of money.

Keep in mind: (1) For many lawyers, it won't be 160k and up for more than a handful of years. (2) Yes, it is $160k, but you should also think about your pay per hour worked; it's probably not as high as you would think, and comes with a lot of debt for a lot of people, as has been mentioned. (3) For many lawyers, the quality of life is not great. 0Ls seem to have a hard time accepting this, but time and time again, practicing lawyers, including people who have worked demanding consulting or other jobs (e.g., Needanexit) have commented that the unique combinations of stress, being on call 24/7, tedium, erratic nature of the job, and often less than ideal managing of junior associates lead to a job that not easy, to say the least. There's plenty of hard evidence of this, namely, as many other posters have mentioned, the sheer number of people who leave biglaw, despite the salary, after just a few years. And these are all people who have worked hard, managed stress, and succeeded throughout their entire lives.

Now no one is saying that there aren't benefits to biglaw, naming the salary, credential, connections, and the exit options, but people are just trying to provide a more complete and accurate picture of biglaw. One that, as many posters have explained, was lacking to some degree from this forum prior to the past few years. Another purpose is to make sure people think about their decision to take on a lot of debt with the goal of obtaining a biglaw position. No one is saying that you should never do this, and in fact many posters here have. It's definitely a way to provide for your family. But it is a big decision, the financial equivalent of buying property, and not one that should be made lightly. I think the point of many of the practicing lawyer's posts are, think carefully about before taking on the debt. Think about what value you think it adds. Think carefully about your goals, what you would be happy with. Then you can make an informed decision on what you should do.

Right. All that is good. Just responding to the point-blank assertion that a $160k salary only feels like a lot of money to someone who grows up in poverty.

[rickgrimes69]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

Oh rick, you (and others) completely missed the point, and the facetiousness. Relatively speaking. Clearly it places you in a very high stratum of earners. It's more than either of my parents ever made or will make in a year. Average American family income is in the $45,000-50,000 range. But that's not the point. People change their lifestyle and their habits to get accustomed to new norms over time. Which all the kids beating each other down to go in debt for a $160k starting salary need the reality check. After a certain reasonable level of comfort, money doesn't correlate in any meaningful way with happiness, because humans just never seem to have enough.

No, I got your point, I just think it was worded extremely poorly (and frankly kind of offensively). I lived in Manhattan. I'm well aware of what $160k translates to in NYC. It doesn't change the fact that $160k is objectively a shit ton of money that one doesn't need to be impoverished to appreciate on any basis, relatively or otherwise.

You're also acting like spending as much of that money as possible is a goddamned inevitability. It turns out that it's entirely possible to, you know, not lock yourself into golden handcuffs.

[rad lulz]

$160k pretax only feels like a lot of money for someone that grew up impoverished (relatively speaking).

That's quite possibly the most elitist thing I've seen uttered on this site (seriously). $160k is a shit ton of money and easily puts you in the top 5% of wage earners.

Oh rick, you (and others) completely missed the point, and the facetiousness. Relatively speaking. Clearly it places you in a very high stratum of earners. It's more than either of my parents ever made or will make in a year. Average American family income is in the $45,000-50,000 range. But that's not the point. People change their lifestyle and their habits to get accustomed to new norms over time. Which all the kids beating each other down to go in debt for a $160k starting salary need the reality check. After a certain reasonable level of comfort, money doesn't correlate in any meaningful way with happiness, because humans just never seem to have enough.

No, I got your point, I just think it was worded extremely poorly (and frankly kind of offensively). I lived in Manhattan. I'm well aware of what $160k translates to in NYC. It doesn't change the fact that $160k is objectively a shit ton of money that one doesn't need to be impoverished to appreciate on any basis, relatively or otherwise.

You're also acting like spending as much of that money as possible is a goddamned inevitability. It turns out that it's entirely possible to, you know, not lock yourself into golden handcuffs.

Spending a lot of $ is pretty much an inevitability

When you work biglaw hours you don't have time to do all the money-saving things you used to do in college

For example, you don't have time to cook, so you eat out, and get someone else to do your laundry and cleaning

Also, as you grow older, you'll find that your friends don't want to go to the shitty dive bar to drink PBR

And if you're putting in long hours, I applaud you if you have the ability, mentally, to eat Ramen while watching Netflix

Instead of doing something fun with your limited free time

[Theopliske8711]

Given the lack of control over your work hours, isn't it likely that you'll just go home to masturbate the stress away and follow that up with netflix because your downtime is so unpredictable that it rarely coincides with your friends' free time?