Why Biglaw? Forum

[SPerez]

I find myself asking this question over and over when I read general discussions on here. I did some searches and couldn't really find a thread where people discussed WHY biglaw is the brass ring, the thing to be sought after above all other things.

I think there are a lot of applicants that never actually answer this question for themselves. Kind of like it's what everyone says you should aim for so that's what they're aiming for.

We're talking about jobs that:

• Have HORRIBLE hours. 2200 billable hour requirement = 50 /hr work weeks minimum for 50 weeks. The billable hour is responsible for the meteoric rise in law firm profits in the last 50 years, but is also pretty universally decried as the worst thing to ever happen to the legal profession.
• Often require years of tedious, uninteresting work for the vague future promise of becoming "partner", which takes longer and longer to attain each year.
• Frequently have an "eat what you kill" culture where you're only as valuable to them as the business you bring in, which most people believe leads to a really negative work environment with little benefit to the client
• Have ridiculously high turnover, which is usually taken as a sign the job is not a desirable one (as high as 2/3 leave within 5 years, old stat but still...)
• Notoriously hostile to having families, which statistically speaking nearly all of you have or will have

So what's the attraction? Because preftige? Dolla dolla bills y'all? Do I overrate the value of being happy at your job? Or do K-JD's not have enough experience to really understand what working those hours is really like and figure "Pay me $150k and I don't care what the job is."?

I know everyone is different, and perhaps many of you have used all your Type-A-edness to research this thoroughly, but I think it can sometimes be good to openly discuss things that might seem obvious if only to confirm that "the answer" is still the answer.

I'm looking forward to seeing your responses. I'm happy to clarify or expound on anything I said above. I didn't detail each point or include every nuance because I didn't want to make this tl;dr.

Dean Perez

[rad lulz]

This gets asked all the dang time

1) starting salary (and bimodal distribution thereof)
2) exit options to places that want biglaw experience
3) some practice areas that are biglaw exclusive
4) hires 2L fall before everyone else

[Instinctive]

For me at least, it seems like a great way to gain a ton of experience quickly, during a time in my life where I'm not worried about having a family. I'm not looking at Biglaw to be a partner. I'm open to the possibility I guess, but I'm really looking at it as a quick way to pay of loans with some tangential benefits. Seems worth the pain to me, and then some.

[minnbills]

For me at least, it seems like a great way to gain a ton of experience quickly, during a time in my life where I'm not worried about having a family. I'm not looking at Biglaw to be a partner. I'm open to the possibility I guess, but I'm really looking at it as a quick way to pay of loans with some tangential benefits. Seems worth the pain to me, and then some.

What kind of experience do you think you will at a big firm? What kind of experience are you looking to get?

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm aiming for the easy lifestyle mid law firm that pays me 80-100k for 40 hour work weeks. I definitely want to be happy in my job and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

[Nelson]

Is this some kind of weird attempt to pitch us on the wonders of Texas Tech?

[burtmacklin]

I'll admit I'm a confused 0L when it comes to one aspect of the job: people on TLS talk about how you're just gonna sit around fact checking and mundane stuff like that, but they also say that you need to bring in business or you're out on your ass. How does someone who's not being given hardly any real substantial work bring in business?

[Mal Reynolds]

I'll admit I'm a confused 0L when it comes to one aspect of the job: people on TLS talk about how you're just gonna sit around fact checking and mundane stuff like that, but they also say that you need to bring in business or you're out on your ass. How does someone who's not being given hardly any real substantial work bring in business?

That's not an expectation of a first year associate.

[bk1]

I take issue with some of how you've characterized it.

Have HORRIBLE hours. 2200 billable hour requirement = 50 /hr work weeks minimum for 50 weeks. The billable hour is responsible for the meteoric rise in law firm profits in the last 50 years, but is also pretty universally decried as the worst thing to ever happen to the legal profession.

Many other types of lawyers have to bill their hours. Other lawyers work long hours, though probably not as much as biglaw on average. Biglawyers are compensated better (at least at the start).

Often require years of tedious, uninteresting work for the vague future promise of becoming "partner", which takes longer and longer to attain each year.

Legal work in general tends to be tedious. Of course there are positions with less tedious work, but this isn't something unique to biglaw. I also don't think any nondeluded person is going into most biglaw firms with the idea of making partner.

Frequently have an "eat what you kill" culture where you're only as valuable to them as the business you bring in, which most people believe leads to a really negative work environment with little benefit to the client

Associates aren't part of "eat what you kill" since they aren't being valued for their ability to bring in business. Maybe "eat what you kill" does create a negative environment, I'm not sure. That said, I suspect that biglaw isn't significantly more "eat what you kill" than other private law firms. I don't see why such a system and the assumingly corresponding attitude wouldn't also exist in midsize and smaller firms.

Have ridiculously high turnover, which is usually taken as a sign the job is not a desirable one (as high as 2/3 leave within 5 years, old stat but still...)

True.

Notoriously hostile to having families, which statistically speaking nearly all of you have or will have

I guess they are hostile in the sense that working a lot of unpredictable hours makes it hard to have a family (or at least have a happy family).

I think rad is right overall but I'd like to refine that a bit.

So what's the attraction? Because preftige? Dolla dolla bills y'all? Do I overrate the value of being happy at your job? Or do K-JD's not have enough experience to really understand what working those hours is really like and figure "Pay me $150k and I don't care what the job is."?

I think some of this is right, though I would add and refine this list.

• Money - Some people want to make money or have a certain standard of living. I'm not saying this is what will make them happy but they think it's what they want so they choose the job accordingly. On top of that, many people with high debt take the high paying job to service this debt.
• Work - Some people want to do a certain kind of work (e.g. securities, VC, large company M&A, white collar, etc) that tends to be the province of large law firms and thus choose the kind of firm that corresponds to the kind of work they want to do.
• Exit Options - Some people want to end up as in-house counsel, AUSA, etc, and in some cases going into biglaw makes sense for ending up in that position (even if it's not necessarily the only way to get there).
• Ease - At top schools, it is (relatively) easy to get a job in biglaw. Firms show up to your school and recruit you. You don't have to look them up, you don't have to apply on your own, you just let the firms do the work. This isn't true of most other kinds of jobs like DAs offices which require you to do a lot of legwork to apply and get one of these jobs.
• Safe - It feels safer to get a job in biglaw during law school than in other areas. Your biglaw job will feel like its locked up by 2L fall, over a year and half before graduation and almost 2 years before the bar. Technically it won't be locked up until summer/fall 3L assuming you get an offer (and of course recent events like Brown Rudnick say this is no guarantee), but even this is still well before most other jobs will hire people for postgraduation spots. Most smaller/midsize firms won't hire until well into 3L, the same is often true of public interest organizations and governmental positions as well. It's scary to live as a 2L/3L who doesn't have a job lined up and there is a lot of solace in taking a job during fall 2L that will make you feel like you already have a job lined up for after graduation.

I have to jet now but if I can think of other stuff I'll add it to the list.

[kaiser]

1. Excellent training opportunities
2. Chance to work on the most sophisticated matters for huge clients
3. Easiest way to pay off your debt
4. Gives you the best exit options
5. Relatively steady pipeline for getting such jobs, and security of having offer well in advance

[Attax]

I find myself asking this question over and over when I read general discussions on here. I did some searches and couldn't really find a thread where people discussed WHY biglaw is the brass ring, the thing to be sought after above all other things.

I think there are a lot of applicants that never actually answer this question for themselves. Kind of like it's what everyone says you should aim for so that's what they're aiming for.

We're talking about jobs that:

• Have HORRIBLE hours. 2200 billable hour requirement = 50 /hr work weeks minimum for 50 weeks. The billable hour is responsible for the meteoric rise in law firm profits in the last 50 years, but is also pretty universally decried as the worst thing to ever happen to the legal profession.
• Often require years of tedious, uninteresting work for the vague future promise of becoming "partner", which takes longer and longer to attain each year.
• Frequently have an "eat what you kill" culture where you're only as valuable to them as the business you bring in, which most people believe leads to a really negative work environment with little benefit to the client
• Have ridiculously high turnover, which is usually taken as a sign the job is not a desirable one (as high as 2/3 leave within 5 years, old stat but still...)
• Notoriously hostile to having families, which statistically speaking nearly all of you have or will have

So what's the attraction? Because preftige? Dolla dolla bills y'all? Do I overrate the value of being happy at your job? Or do K-JD's not have enough experience to really understand what working those hours is really like and figure "Pay me $150k and I don't care what the job is."?

I know everyone is different, and perhaps many of you have used all your Type-A-edness to research this thoroughly, but I think it can sometimes be good to openly discuss things that might seem obvious if only to confirm that "the answer" is still the answer.

I'm looking forward to seeing your responses. I'm happy to clarify or expound on anything I said above. I didn't detail each point or include every nuance because I didn't want to make this tl;dr.

Dean Perez

As a naive 0L I'll give my perspective.

First, for many of us it seems to be the most feasible route to pay off debt, but despite that there are reasons why it is still desirable for many who don't want to make a career out of it:
It seems to open doors to other jobs. In-house work, midlaw firms, boutique work. All jobs that aren't typically readily available to us directly out of LS and yet are desirable. In general, it seems a lot appears to us KJDs much easier to start out at the "top" and move elsewhere than start out lower and try to move up. I know biglaw may be difficult and time consuming and stressful, but I'd rather be there and want to get away than be away and never get there.

Additionally, for us KJDs, that is the ideal of what a lawyer is. Even if I am consistently told that the reality doesn't align with reality, my naivety means I still want to experience it for myself. If I don't like it, I can go away. But I want the experience to know for myself it is something I would enjoy. I am a 22 year old man who has no desire for a family, especially children, so that isn't a concern for me.

Ultimately: it is more a means to an ends for most. I think most of us don't see it as a viable long-term career option, but instead a ladder to the career we do want. I'd rather start off at biglaw and move elsewhere than go back to my small town in Texas working for a small 1-2 lawyer firm and never be able to escape it.

[3L2014]

Is this some kind of weird attempt to pitch us on the wonders of Texas Tech?

Perhaps a Tech undergrad trying to justify going to Tech for law school?

[bk1]

Is this some kind of weird attempt to pitch us on the wonders of Texas Tech?

While Dean Perez is clearly not an objective party to this discussion and at the end of the day does want more people to attend (or at least consider) his school, it doesn't mean that this question doesn't have merit especially in light of the fact that 0Ls (and even law students) all too often have not thought through the pros/cons of biglaw thoroughly.

[SPerez]

Is this some kind of weird attempt to pitch us on the wonders of Texas Tech?

Haha, no. I actually started this question on Friday, but didn't get to it. My 10-year law school reunion was this past weekend, though, and so many of my circle of friends who started Biglaw bolted quickly that it made me want to come back and finish the post.

I guess I'm still not completely cynical yet and hope that money isn't the only reason people want to become lawyers.

If Big firm attorney was on everyone's list of favorite jobs, best places to work, etc., then I'd totally get it. But it's not. Even many of those who have found success at big firms still admit that it sucked and all that money, prestige, etc. come at a cost.

I've come up with a bunch of reasons for this over the years, but I don't like any of them. I'm really hoping it's not just or mainly the money and prestige.

Admittedly, I am faced with this in my job at Texas Tech, but that wasn't the motivation for my question. I don't think it would shock anyone that a big chuck of students who choose SMU, Baylor, and Houston (that would otherwise be okay living in Lubbock) over us do so in large part because of the rankings (aka prestige) and the impact those have on Biglaw hiring. (Yes, I know, Lubbock is the other big factor. You can save your haboob jokes for the off-topic thread, lol.)

Dean Perez

[bk1]

If Big firm attorney was on everyone's list of favorite jobs, best places to work, etc., then I'd totally get it. But it's not. Even many of those who have found success at big firms still admit that it sucked and all that money, prestige, etc. come at a cost.

I think the problem is that being an attorney at any firm is not a particularly credited path to happiness. It's not like people are swimming in alternative options that lead to happiness and instead choose biglaw.

[IAFG]

It's stupid to go to law school with the purpose of ending up in biglaw. You should go to end up in the job on the other side of biglaw.

[IAFG]

I'm aiming for the easy lifestyle mid law firm that pays me 80-100k for 40 hour work weeks. I definitely want to be happy in my job and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

Do you know anyone who has this job?

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm aiming for the easy lifestyle mid law firm that pays me 80-100k for 40 hour work weeks. I definitely want to be happy in my job and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

Do you know anyone who has this job?

That was sarcasm.

[IAFG]

I'm aiming for the easy lifestyle mid law firm that pays me 80-100k for 40 hour work weeks. I definitely want to be happy in my job and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

Do you know anyone who has this job?

That was sarcasm.

okay if you meet anyone let me know.

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm aiming for the easy lifestyle mid law firm that pays me 80-100k for 40 hour work weeks. I definitely want to be happy in my job and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

Do you know anyone who has this job?

That was sarcasm.

okay if you meet anyone let me know.

I'm still looking too.

[Nomo]

Because law school requires them to forgo income for 3 years and to borrow money for tuition and living expenses (at around 7-8% interest). And because that tuition is insanely expensive (and yes, Texas Tech in-state tuition is insanely expensive, out of state is simply absurd). And Biglaw is the only way to pay off that kind of debt in 5 or even 10 years. Beyond that . . .

(1) It pays nearly 3x as other entry level jobs including small firms and government
(2) Its a fancy credential that appears to create better exit options
(3) It hires before everything else, and students are rightly prepared to take the first thing they can get for fear that there options will be worse later on.
(4) Its the easies way to break into certain types of work (M&A, securities litigation, anti-trust, etc.)

There are literally thousands of posts on this subject already. Check the search function out.

[Attax]

Admittedly, I am faced with this in my job at Texas Tech, but that wasn't the motivation for my question. I don't think it would shock anyone that a big chuck of students who choose SMU, Baylor, and Houston (that would otherwise be okay living in Lubbock) over us do so in large part because of the rankings (aka prestige) and the impact those have on Biglaw hiring. (Yes, I know, Lubbock is the other big factor. You can save your haboob jokes for the off-topic thread, lol.)

Dean Perez

As a Texas resident who is from the Pine Curtain, I was really thinking Lubbock was a terrible place. Then I had a friend get a teaching job out in West Texas near Lubbock and I really liked the area after visiting. It was much better than my expectations and made me consider applying to TTU.

[Mal Reynolds]

I feel like DPerez is pretty disingenuous. He's feeding into this mentality that you should just be a lawyer for some intangible reason like experience/knowledge or some public service job. And yet only 50-60% of his graduates are employed in ANY legal job 9 months out. That's like worse than taking on sticker debt at a t14 and aiming for big law without really knowing what it's like.

[IAFG]

On the point of it not being "family-friendly," I gotta say I think being a mom actually helps me. I think people take it easier on me because I have family obligations. I know being a parent helps me deal with stress, because on no given day is my job the most important thing in my life. Of course being a junior doesn't make me a better parent, but being a parent probably makes me a saner, happier first year.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I've come up with a bunch of reasons for this over the years, but I don't like any of them. I'm really hoping it's not just or mainly the money and prestige.

The thing is, though, a lot of people don't go into biglaw for the money because they want to go all Scrooge McDuck rolling around in a bed of bills. They go into biglaw for the money because they've taken out ridiculous amounts of debt and need a way to pay it off. And while it's sort of circular because often they take out lots of loans to increase their chance at getting biglaw to start with, it's also true that the schools offering the best shot at biglaw offer the best shot at other, less miserable jobs than big law. And as people have pointed out, starting in biglaw often helps get the other less miserable jobs.

I mean, sure, some people are in it for the models and bottles and the perceived prestige. But that doesn't describe everyone who goes for biglaw.

(I also think the legal market/world/culture is just completely different in big markets like NYC/DC/LA compared to smaller legal markets, which Tech seems more plugged in to. I say this as a small market person, but you can't ignore the influence of that culture. A desire to succeed and be respectable in that market isn't necessarily a sign of shallowness/materialism/pretension.)