Top Law Schools

dhg5004 wrote:So many people are blind to the reality of 'biglaw'. I know 5 people working in NYC in 'biglaw' firms who utterly and insanely hate their lives. Working 80-90 hour weeks and basically having no life at all. Sure they're making 150k-200k but when you factor in living expenses/loans/taxes you are seeing about half of that amount.

I think its funny how 'biglaw' seems to be a shining beacon of hope for all the miserable people on this site who hate their day jobs....as if biglaw is a solvent to their seemingly endless misery.

my 2 cents.

ha, I was just writing a response about how condescending this reply is when I saw jmhendri did the same thing.

There are people who are using biglaw as a stepping stone for careers that don't generally hire candidates straight out of law school (for example, USAO). There are also people who have done their due diligence, actually researched the jobs they're trying to get, and are going into biglaw fully aware of the fact that it's likely going to be miserable for the first several years. Please don't assume you're the only person with some kind of inside knowledge as to how biglaw 'really' works when the rest of us think it's all rainbows and unicorns.

Also, I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint to the "reality of biglaw" you offered. I know partner-track senior associates at top Vault firms who run out of work at 5pm EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. It's not common, and is unfair to the people who have to work with them, but that doesn't negate the fact that it happens. When you're a senior associate, you don't have to bill 3000 hours a week to prove yourself. A lot of the younger associates bill that many (or more) hours because they don't know what they're doing and spend 6 hours on something that would have taken an older associate 2 hours. However, a fifth or sixth year wouldn't want to bill a ton of hours for the sake of volume and come off as incompetent to the partner who reviews his billing. Another thing: if you work on a litigation team, you can make your billable hours by working your ass off for about half the year and have a relatively normal schedule the rest of the time. Obviously biglaw has a poor work/life balance compared to most 9-5 jobs out there, and the first 3 or 4 years of a new associate's career are going to be very rough, but it's not a living hell 100% of the time.

@dhg -- it's that you came in and made the assumption that, because we're excited to be leaving our current jobs, we must not have any idea what biglaw is like. There are plenty of people on these boards for whom that's true, but your comment seemed to come from left field and doesn't really apply to what people are talking about in here. Perhaps I was a bit harsh -- I actually work at a large firm now and am a bit stressed. Apologies for jumping down your throat.

@jm -- thanks! I've got some pretty good friends here who I'll be sad to leave, but going to school in the same city and won't have to leave them behind. I'm also just ready for a change.

clintonius wrote:In other news, I handed in my official notice yesterday. Kind of scary now that it's really happening, though I'll be hanging around for a couple more months as they go through the hiring and training process.

congrats clintonius!!

blue5385 wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:So many people are blind to the reality of 'biglaw'. I know 5 people working in NYC in 'biglaw' firms who utterly and insanely hate their lives. Working 80-90 hour weeks and basically having no life at all. Sure they're making 150k-200k but when you factor in living expenses/loans/taxes you are seeing about half of that amount.

I think its funny how 'biglaw' seems to be a shining beacon of hope for all the miserable people on this site who hate their day jobs....as if biglaw is a solvent to their seemingly endless misery.

my 2 cents.

ha, I was just writing a response about how condescending this reply is when I saw jmhendri did the same thing.

There are people who are using biglaw as a stepping stone for careers that don't generally hire candidates straight out of law school (for example, USAO). There are also people who have done their due diligence, actually researched the jobs they're trying to get, and are going into biglaw fully aware of the fact that it's likely going to be miserable for the first several years. Please don't assume you're the only person with some kind of inside knowledge as to how biglaw 'really' works when the rest of us think it's all rainbows and unicorns.

Also, I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint to the "reality of biglaw" you offered. I know partner-track senior associates at top Vault firms who run out of work at 5pm EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. It's not common, and is unfair to the people who have to work with them, but that doesn't negate the fact that it happens. When you're a senior associate, you don't have to bill 3000 hours a week to prove yourself. A lot of the younger associates bill that many (or more) hours because they don't know what they're doing and spend 6 hours on something that would have taken an older associate 2 hours. However, a fifth or sixth year wouldn't want to bill a ton of hours for the sake of volume and come off as incompetent to the partner who reviews his billing. Another thing: if you work on a litigation team, you can make your billable hours by working your ass off for about half the year and have a relatively normal schedule the rest of the time. Obviously biglaw has a poor work/life balance compared to most 9-5 jobs out there, and the first 3 or 4 years of a new associate's career are going to be very rough, but it's not a living hell 100% of the time.

clearly then, we know different people in biglaw. because from their mouths they tell me it IS hell 100% of the time.

this is a typical situation that proves that there is surely an exception to every rule. I'm not denying that. I was merely sharing my view based on those living the life of working for a biglaw firm.

and never did i 'assume' i was the 'only' person with 'some kind of inside knowledge'.

Why is it that everyone makes their response into an attack? blah.

clintonius wrote:@dhg -- it's that you came in and made the assumption that, because we're excited to be leaving our current jobs, we must not have any idea what biglaw is like. There are plenty of people on these boards for whom that's true, but your comment seemed to come from left field and doesn't really apply to what people are talking about in here. Perhaps I was a bit harsh -- I actually work at a large firm now and am a bit stressed. Apologies for jumping down your throat.

@jm -- thanks! I've got some pretty good friends here who I'll be sad to leave, but going to school in the same city and won't have to leave them behind. I'm also just ready for a change.

appreciated.

and congrats

dhg5004 wrote:

jmhendri wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:

jmhendri wrote:This is frustrating, we have an entire thread about how under-stimulted many of us are and how we're looking forward to putting this part of our lives behind us so we can at least hopefully be challenged while we're over worked, under payed, and under appreciated.... but people just keep jumping in and assuming we're all delusional.

None of us are under the misconception that we're going to be biglaw partners and have lots of free time to ride around on yachts and sip champagne. We just want a real job with at least the potential to keep growing with more varied types of career opportunities. We're doing this because we don't like the idea of hitting a salary cap and we're not creative enough to go out and be entrepreneurs.

None of us are under the misconception

You should speak for yourself. This statement is entirely inaccurate. There are many people on this site who believe law school will save them from their dreary, dead-end jobs...even if you may not be one of them.

I'm speaking for the majority of people ITT. That particular issue, that of not expecting a life or big money necessarily or respect, but of law being better than what we're doing now... has been a consistent sentiment in this thread.


Srsly, go be a condescending fucktard somewhere else. We're already broken down enough in here.

you'd think in a law school forum you'd find constructive responses... or at least without the name calling. aren't you guys going ot be lawyers? are you going to turn every little argument into a personal attack simply because you don't like what the opposing party is preaching?

sheesh

someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

I don't think anyone on here thinks that biglaw is going to be awesome and that its mostly going to be stress-free lunch meetings and wining & dining clients, fucking the seceretaries in the supply closet, etc. Most people fully realize that it will be a grueling, stressful job full of office politics, asshole managers, being treated like a statistic, and general douchebaggery.

Most people also realize that they are already working at such jobs, so you might as well shoot for one that actually pays you and gives you raises each year, and offers you far more exit options if you are successful (and even sometimes if you are not so successful). Anyone who thinks a career of a lawyer is going to be way worse than being a cubicle monkey where the maximum raise is bullshit, the positions in front of you are solidly held down by fatasses who will never be promoted or leave, and your manager is dumber than a post is likely talking out of their ass to get some cheap jollies. And I'm not talking about some po-dunk offices here, I'm talking about Fortune 100 companies.

The "business" world is a horrible mess of kafkaesque bureaucracy coupled with a phoniness that words can't even begin to explain. The better you do, the more you are a threat to replace your manager, so managers get along better with people who are just dumb, kiss ass, and take orders, no matter how ridiculous they are. And they antagonize and/or marginalize their subordinates who are clearly better workers and thinkers than they are.

Sorry, I'm not in for a rude awakening once I get my biglaw job (if I am so priviledged). I think it's people like you who would be in for a rude awakening to expericne what it's like working in a bullshit office environment for the rest of your life. If people think that biglaw is bad, they have no idea how bad it can get.

dhg5004 wrote:
you'd think in a law school forum you'd find constructive responses... or at least without the name calling. aren't you guys going ot be lawyers? are you going to turn every little argument into a personal attack simply because you don't like what the opposing party is preaching?

sheesh

someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

What point are you trying to make with your posts? The way you're wording them sounds like you are saying

1) Law is an awful job that no one should pursue or

2) All working is horrible; trust fund or /self or

3) Work less hours for less money > more money more hours or

4) Trying to better yourself by studying something you are interested in and finding a career in that field (ie, law) is for suckers

so...this begs the question...why are you trolling law school boards with this message?

dhg5004 wrote:clearly then, we know different people in biglaw. because from their mouths they tell me it IS hell 100% of the time.

this is a typical situation that proves that there is surely an exception to every rule. I'm not denying that. I was merely sharing my view based on those living the life of working for a biglaw firm.

and never did i 'assume' i was the 'only' person with 'some kind of inside knowledge'.

Why is it that everyone makes their response into an attack? blah.

We must, because while I definitely know workaholics and associates who put in 80-hr workweeks, I also know plenty of people who have managed to figure out a way to make their biglaw job fit in with the rest of their life, including female partners and associates with families.

In my experience, 80/90-hour workweeks are not 'the rule.' Work comes and goes in cycles, especially ITE, and I doubt there's enough work in existence right now to keep the majority of attorneys even at Vault firms 1-25 busy for 90 hours a week at the rate of $300+/hr.

And if you didn't want other posters to make personal attacks on you (which I don't think is what most of the people who have attacked your post have meant to do), why make a condescending post in the first place?

pugalicious wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:
you'd think in a law school forum you'd find constructive responses... or at least without the name calling. aren't you guys going ot be lawyers? are you going to turn every little argument into a personal attack simply because you don't like what the opposing party is preaching?

sheesh

someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

What point are you trying to make with your posts? The way you're wording them sounds like you are saying

1) Law is an awful job that no one should pursue or

2) All working is horrible; trust fund or /self or

3) Work less hours for less money > more money more hours or

4) Trying to better yourself by studying something you are interested in and finding a career in that field (ie, law) is for suckers

so...this begs the question...why are you trolling law school boards with this message?

this is all very confusing and not at all related to my thought process. so i think i'll just ignore it

dhg5004 wrote:
someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

I'm at my soul-crushing job parked in the chair that I will be parked in for the next 6 1/2 hrs. I don't have the energy for a "proper" good-natured rebuttal

blue5385 wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:clearly then, we know different people in biglaw. because from their mouths they tell me it IS hell 100% of the time.

this is a typical situation that proves that there is surely an exception to every rule. I'm not denying that. I was merely sharing my view based on those living the life of working for a biglaw firm.

and never did i 'assume' i was the 'only' person with 'some kind of inside knowledge'.

Why is it that everyone makes their response into an attack? blah.

We must, because while I definitely know workaholics and associates who put in 80-hr workweeks, I also know plenty of people who have managed to figure out a way to make their biglaw job fit in with the rest of their life, including female partners and associates with families.

In my experience, 90-hour workweeks are not 'the rule.' Work comes and goes in cycles, especially ITE, and I doubt there's enough work in existence right now to keep the majority of attorneys even at Vault firms 1-25 busy for 90 hours a week at the rate of $300+/hr.

And if you didn't want other posters to make personal attacks on you (which I don't think is what most of the people who have attacked your post have meant to do), why make a condescending post in the first place?

it wasn't meant to be condescending...but a facet of biglaw that I myself have experienced through friends. It was your choice to deem it condescending or to misconstrue the meaning of my post. Take it for what it's worth. Obviously you disagree with what I'm saying... and that's great. I appreciated hearing your own experience...and I mean that. Seeing as how I have yet to hear that from any lawyer friend...but it's inspiring.

jmhendri wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:
someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

I'm at my soul-crushing job parked in the chair that I will be parked in for the next 6 1/2 hrs. I don't have the energy for a "proper" good-natured rebuttal

hahahaha. this made me laugh. i feel you dude. my "soul-crushing" job does just that. the pay is decent and the work is easy but omg i'm so bored. I want to be back in the classroom!

sounded so nerdy but so true.

Also, there are legal jobs other than biglaw. Like government or academia or smaller law. Also.

dhg5004 wrote:

blue5385 wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:clearly then, we know different people in biglaw. because from their mouths they tell me it IS hell 100% of the time.

this is a typical situation that proves that there is surely an exception to every rule. I'm not denying that. I was merely sharing my view based on those living the life of working for a biglaw firm.

and never did i 'assume' i was the 'only' person with 'some kind of inside knowledge'.

Why is it that everyone makes their response into an attack? blah.

We must, because while I definitely know workaholics and associates who put in 80-hr workweeks, I also know plenty of people who have managed to figure out a way to make their biglaw job fit in with the rest of their life, including female partners and associates with families.

In my experience, 90-hour workweeks are not 'the rule.' Work comes and goes in cycles, especially ITE, and I doubt there's enough work in existence right now to keep the majority of attorneys even at Vault firms 1-25 busy for 90 hours a week at the rate of $300+/hr.

And if you didn't want other posters to make personal attacks on you (which I don't think is what most of the people who have attacked your post have meant to do), why make a condescending post in the first place?

it wasn't meant to be condescending...but a facet of biglaw that I myself have experienced through friends. It was your choice to deem it condescending or to misconstrue the meaning of my post. Take it for what it's worth. Obviously you disagree with what I'm saying... and that's great. I appreciated hearing your own experience...and I mean that. Seeing as how I have yet to hear that from any lawyer friend...but it's inspiring.

I....am....confused;...why...are...you...here?

GATORTIM wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:

blue5385 wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:clearly then, we know different people in biglaw. because from their mouths they tell me it IS hell 100% of the time.

this is a typical situation that proves that there is surely an exception to every rule. I'm not denying that. I was merely sharing my view based on those living the life of working for a biglaw firm.

and never did i 'assume' i was the 'only' person with 'some kind of inside knowledge'.

Why is it that everyone makes their response into an attack? blah.

We must, because while I definitely know workaholics and associates who put in 80-hr workweeks, I also know plenty of people who have managed to figure out a way to make their biglaw job fit in with the rest of their life, including female partners and associates with families.

In my experience, 90-hour workweeks are not 'the rule.' Work comes and goes in cycles, especially ITE, and I doubt there's enough work in existence right now to keep the majority of attorneys even at Vault firms 1-25 busy for 90 hours a week at the rate of $300+/hr.

And if you didn't want other posters to make personal attacks on you (which I don't think is what most of the people who have attacked your post have meant to do), why make a condescending post in the first place?

it wasn't meant to be condescending...but a facet of biglaw that I myself have experienced through friends. It was your choice to deem it condescending or to misconstrue the meaning of my post. Take it for what it's worth. Obviously you disagree with what I'm saying... and that's great. I appreciated hearing your own experience...and I mean that. Seeing as how I have yet to hear that from any lawyer friend...but it's inspiring.

I....am....confused;...why...are...you...here?

clearly you don't like my stance on 'biglaw' and because of that you question my presence in this forum? alright dude. lol

better question is why are you commenting on posts you had no involvement in?

dhg5004 wrote:

pugalicious wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:
you'd think in a law school forum you'd find constructive responses... or at least without the name calling. aren't you guys going ot be lawyers? are you going to turn every little argument into a personal attack simply because you don't like what the opposing party is preaching?

sheesh

someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

What point are you trying to make with your posts? The way you're wording them sounds like you are saying

1) Law is an awful job that no one should pursue or

you: "I know 5 people working in NYC in 'biglaw' firms who utterly and insanely hate their lives."

2) All working is horrible; trust fund or /self or

You: ""There are many people on this site who believe law school will save them from their dreary, dead-end jobs"

3) Work less hours for less money > more money more hours or

You: "Working 80-90 hour weeks and basically having no life at all. Sure they're making 150k-200k..."

4) Trying to better yourself by studying something you are interested in and finding a career in that field (ie, law) is for suckers

You: "There are many people on this site who believe law school will save them from their dreary, dead-end jobs"

so...this begs the question...why are you trolling law school boards with this message?

this is all very confusing and not at all related to my thought process. so i think i'll just ignore it

Fixed.

Edit: dhg is only commenting on "biglaw"? Yet he demeans anyone who might seek law school as an alternative to his/her current job, completely disregarding any opportunities for law school graduates outside of "biglaw". I get it now.

Work sucks.

HazelEyes wrote:Anyone secretly hoping to be fired to they get unemployment and to COBRA their health insurance?

That's a horrible idea, but you'll probably fit in well in law school.

I don't know why anyone would intentionally go on COBRA. It means you pay the full cost of your group health insurance plan. At my employer, that's over $350/month. The government normally doesn't pay a cent of it, unless you lost your job during a specific period during the recession, where you can qualify for a 2/3 premium reduction for up to 9 months.

Oh, and you don't have to be fired to get COBRA. You're eligible for COBRA for 18 months anytime you lose your eligibility for group health insurance, and retain full-price access to whatever policy (if any) your previous group maintains. If you want to pay up the ass for health insurance, I guess that's your business.

dudders wrote:

HazelEyes wrote:Anyone secretly hoping to be fired to they get unemployment and to COBRA their health insurance?

That's a horrible idea, but you'll probably fit in well in law school.

I don't know why anyone would intentionally go on COBRA. It means you pay the full cost of your group health insurance plan. At my employer, that's over $350/month. The government normally doesn't pay a cent of it, unless you lost your job during a specific period during the recession, where you can qualify for a 2/3 premium reduction for up to 9 months.

Oh, and you don't have to be fired to get COBRA. You're eligible for COBRA for 18 months anytime you lose your eligibility for group health insurance, and retain full-price access to whatever policy (if any) your previous group maintains. If you want to pay up the ass for health insurance, I guess that's your business.

Agreed. If you're young and healthy you can probably get approved for health insurance at around 100 bucks a month, less if you don't mind higher deductables/copays.

I have 7 work days + today left at my job and that's what I did. I'm going to hold off and see how expensive my schools plan is as well.

pugalicious wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:

pugalicious wrote:

dhg5004 wrote:
you'd think in a law school forum you'd find constructive responses... or at least without the name calling. aren't you guys going ot be lawyers? are you going to turn every little argument into a personal attack simply because you don't like what the opposing party is preaching?

sheesh

someone give a proper rebuttal at least ! (instead of accusing me of being condescending blah)

What point are you trying to make with your posts? The way you're wording them sounds like you are saying

1) Law is an awful job that no one should pursue or

you: "I know 5 people working in NYC in 'biglaw' firms who utterly and insanely hate their lives."

2) All working is horrible; trust fund or /self or

You: ""There are many people on this site who believe law school will save them from their dreary, dead-end jobs"

3) Work less hours for less money > more money more hours or

You: "Working 80-90 hour weeks and basically having no life at all. Sure they're making 150k-200k..."

4) Trying to better yourself by studying something you are interested in and finding a career in that field (ie, law) is for suckers

You: "There are many people on this site who believe law school will save them from their dreary, dead-end jobs"

so...this begs the question...why are you trolling law school boards with this message?

this is all very confusing and not at all related to my thought process. so i think i'll just ignore it

Fixed.

Edit: dhg is only commenting on "biglaw"? Yet he demeans anyone who might seek law school as an alternative to his/her current job, completely disregarding any opportunities for law school graduates outside of "biglaw". I get it now.

there was zero disregard toward those seeking opportunities in law without banking on 'biglaw' - my lack of pointing out these individuals was not an error on my part...quite the opposite.

It had no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. It seemed obvious, at least to me, that my focus (constant throughout my argument) was on those actively solely seeking biglaw.

Just because an element is absent from an argument does not translate into an act of disregard.

I am one of those hoping to succeed in law school without the want or desire to go into biglaw...so my personal intuition contradicts your false image you have of me.

dhg5004 wrote:


clearly you don't like my stance on 'biglaw' and because of that you question my presence in this forum? alright dude. lol

better question is why are you commenting on posts you had no involvement in?

Although my LS would not even grant me access to the field, I could care less about "biglaw" and would still feel that way if I had plans of a t-6. Oh yeah, I wouldnt necessarily say that question is better

edit: My job fkn sux...can't wait

dhg5004 wrote: there was zero disregard toward those seeking opportunities in law without banking on 'biglaw' - my lack of pointing out these individuals was not an error on my part...quite the opposite.

It had no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. It seemed obvious, at least to me, that my focus (constant throughout my argument) was on those actively solely seeking biglaw.

Just because an element is absent from an argument does not translate into an act of disregard.

I am one of those hoping to succeed in law school without the want or desire to go into biglaw...so my personal intuition contradicts your false image you have of me.

Well, I just typed a long response, then gave up. Here's my "false image" of you and your "personal intuition". HTH:

pugalicious wrote:

dhg5004 wrote: there was zero disregard toward those seeking opportunities in law without banking on 'biglaw' - my lack of pointing out these individuals was not an error on my part...quite the opposite.

It had no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. It seemed obvious, at least to me, that my focus (constant throughout my argument) was on those actively solely seeking biglaw.

Just because an element is absent from an argument does not translate into an act of disregard.

I am one of those hoping to succeed in law school without the want or desire to go into biglaw...so my personal intuition contradicts your false image you have of me.

Well, I just typed a long response, then gave up. Here's my "false image" of you and your "personal intuition". HTH:

good. take a break. i'm sure your prior post took a lot out of you.

dhg5004 wrote:it wasn't meant to be condescending...but a facet of biglaw that I myself have experienced through friends. It was your choice to deem it condescending or to misconstrue the meaning of my post. Take it for what it's worth. Obviously you disagree with what I'm saying... and that's great. I appreciated hearing your own experience...and I mean that. Seeing as how I have yet to hear that from any lawyer friend...but it's inspiring.

TBF, your post came off as condescending to everyone who responded, so maybe I didn't choose to deem it condescending and it did actually sound that way. You say you didn't mean it like that, though, so whatever. I hear experiences like your friends' very often from different people associated with the legal field, and I realize there is a level of truth to what you're saying. I will continue to view biglaw in the context of my own experiences, and you will likely do the same.

I just had my supervisor come up to me and explain outlook calendars in the most condescending way for no good reason except that I buzzed someone who was out of the office for the morning.

Some people really need better things to do with their.