"I'd like to work in biglaw for a while..." Forum

[09042014]

I thought the hours would be the problem. I see people are focusing on that here too.

The problem isn't the hours. It's not. It's not at all. Let go of thinking that's the bad part. Stop trying to rationalize by saying you're fine with the hours. The problem is the work and the people.

This is true. At a big firm, 50% of the work is doc review. The good stuff is summarizing expert depositions or preparing interview outlines, or similar work.

I work for what passes for biglaw in a smaller city (pays a market rate but that rate is substantially below $160k, less than 100 attorneys in the firm) and I have to say this thread makes me rethink some of the "midlaw is a flame" conventional wisdom.

Hours wise I agree it seems similar to biglaw, as my average day is about 7:30 to 6:00. But work wise it's totally different. I work on all types of litigation and get a lot of substantive work and almost no doc review, and that's pretty typical here even for first and second years. You sacrifice plenty prestige wise but I can honestly say I'm happy enough here that I'm not giving much thought to exit options.

I'm at a biglaw firm and I'm not doing anywhere near 50% doc review. Maybe 15%, and that's only because I volunteered to get dem houras.

[09042014]

I thought the hours would be the problem. I see people are focusing on that here too.

The problem isn't the hours. It's not. It's not at all. Let go of thinking that's the bad part. Stop trying to rationalize by saying you're fine with the hours. The problem is the work and the people.

I dunno, I would downright like my job if it were 9-6 with an hour lunch.

[IAFG]

I thought the hours would be the problem. I see people are focusing on that here too.

The problem isn't the hours. It's not. It's not at all. Let go of thinking that's the bad part. Stop trying to rationalize by saying you're fine with the hours. The problem is the work and the people.

I dunno, I would downright like my job if it were 9-6 with an hour lunch.

I strongly suspect your firm doesn't realize you work there yet.

[nygrrrl]

I thought the hours would be the problem. I see people are focusing on that here too.

The problem isn't the hours. It's not. It's not at all. Let go of thinking that's the bad part. Stop trying to rationalize by saying you're fine with the hours. The problem is the work and the people.

I dunno, I would downright like my job if it were 9-6 with an hour lunch.

I strongly suspect your firm doesn't realize you work there yet.

[IAFG]

So if the biglaw experience is terrible and the money isn't worth it, and everyone through to 3Ls saying they would like to do it for a few years are idiots, why are you guys still in it? Isn't staying in something you hate more idiotic than thinking it's not a bad idea to do it for a few years and then move on?

1) I want one of the exit options I will have with some experience but more importantly 2) I have a family to support.

[dead head]

I'm trying to get out as quickly and optimally as possible. It's not like there's a large collection of non-legal employers excited to hire someone who went to law school, so it's probable that I'll have to stay in law. But a few years of biglaw don't really prepare you for any kind of real legal work. Like rayiner said, it's a lot of summarizing stuff that partners/senior associates do and doc review.

Yeah, but they problem is that law school doesn't really prepare you to do any kind of real legal work either, and for a lot of more interesting jobs that law students actually want biglaw experience and "training" is a favoured credential if not a virtual prerequisite. So in terms of actually being a lawyer, you all can't think that spending time in biglaw is that idiotic if you're still there. But if the argument is that wanting to be a lawyer is idiotic, then wanting biglaw for a few years has nothing to do with it.

1) I want one of the exit options I will have with some experience but more importantly 2) I have a family to support.

So what's your point? That you need a few years experience doing biglaw to get decent exit options? Nobody else in the world has financial obligations? Why are those valid concerns for you but not for others who think they'd like to do biglaw for a few years so they can get the exit options you're aiming for and the financial stability you have?

[IAFG]

I'm trying to get out as quickly and optimally as possible. It's not like there's a large collection of non-legal employers excited to hire someone who went to law school, so it's probable that I'll have to stay in law. But a few years of biglaw don't really prepare you for any kind of real legal work. Like rayiner said, it's a lot of summarizing stuff that partners/senior associates do and doc review.

Yeah, but they problem is that law school doesn't really prepare you to do any kind of real legal work either, and for a lot of more interesting jobs that law students actually want biglaw experience and "training" is a favoured credential if not a virtual prerequisite. So in terms of actually being a lawyer, you all can't think that spending time in biglaw is that idiotic if you're still there. But if the argument is that wanting to be a lawyer is idiotic, then wanting biglaw for a few years has nothing to do with it.

1) I want one of the exit options I will have with some experience but more importantly 2) I have a family to support.

So what's your point? That you need a few years experience doing biglaw to get decent exit options? Nobody else in the world has financial obligations? Why are those valid concerns for you but not for others who think they'd like to do biglaw for a few years so they can get the exit options you're aiming for and the financial stability you have?

As I already said, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do biglaw. I might also suggest someone get a nose job. Or undergo chemotherapy. Or shoot a dog that's attacking them.

[09042014]

I thought the hours would be the problem. I see people are focusing on that here too.

The problem isn't the hours. It's not. It's not at all. Let go of thinking that's the bad part. Stop trying to rationalize by saying you're fine with the hours. The problem is the work and the people.

I dunno, I would downright like my job if it were 9-6 with an hour lunch.

I strongly suspect your firm doesn't realize you work there yet.

Up until last month, I'm pretty sure mid level didnt understand she could delegate to me.

[dead head]

As I already said, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do biglaw. I might also suggest someone get a nose job. Or undergo chemotherapy. Or shoot a dog that's attacking them.

No, you're just saying people are idiots for wanting to have your job, even though you prefer your job to alternatives available to you.

[IAFG]

As I already said, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do biglaw. I might also suggest someone get a nose job. Or undergo chemotherapy. Or shoot a dog that's attacking them.

No, you're just saying people are idiots for wanting to have your job, even though you prefer your job to alternatives available to you.

You're missing a nuance that you'll soon understand.

[dead head]

As I already said, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do biglaw. I might also suggest someone get a nose job. Or undergo chemotherapy. Or shoot a dog that's attacking them.

No, you're just saying people are idiots for wanting to have your job, even though you prefer your job to alternatives available to you.

You're missing a nuance that you'll soon understand.

Your inability to shoot a dog or undergo chemotherapy? Or your inability, as someone else pointed out, to understand that saying you would like to have a certain career path does not mean you will enjoy all aspects of that carer path?

[IAFG]

"I'd like to undergo chemotherapy. I think I might enjoy the process."

[dead head]

"I'd like to undergo chemotherapy. I think I might enjoy the process."

"I'd like to skip Chemo and take palliative care because Chemo just doesn't sound very enjoyable."

I don't know if I've ever met anyone who said that they thought the actual biglaw experience would be enjoyable, but that they would only like to do it for a few years. In my experience, people say they would "like" to put in a few years because of the doors it opens and the money it brings in, not because they think firms are puppies and rainbows.

[Mal Reynolds]

"I'd like to undergo chemotherapy. I think I might enjoy the process."

"I'd like to skip Chemo and take palliative care because Chemo just doesn't sound very enjoyable."

I don't know if I've ever met anyone who said that they thought the actual biglaw experience would be enjoyable, but that they would only like to do it for a few years. In my experience, people say they would "like" to put in a few years because of the doors it opens and the money it brings in, not because they think firms are puppies and rainbows.

Now you're just proving what kind of people work in big law.

[ChardPennington]

"I'd like to undergo chemotherapy. I think I might enjoy the process."

"I'd like to skip Chemo and take palliative care because Chemo just doesn't sound very enjoyable."

I don't know if I've ever met anyone who said that they thought the actual biglaw experience would be enjoyable, but that they would only like to do it for a few years. In my experience, people say they would "like" to put in a few years because of the doors it opens and the money it brings in, not because they think firms are puppies and rainbows.

Be honest: do you own any contrast collar shirts?

[Hipster but Athletic]

Special snowflakes abound.

This is the most retarded "criticism" of all time

[dead head]

Now you're just proving what kind of people work in big law.

Apparently I'm the minority since everyone else seems to have thought it was going to be really enjoyable, and believes that everyone else who would like to put in a few years thinks it's also going to be great fun (even though they only want to have this super-fun experience for a few years, presumably because they don't know if their hearts can take it).

There's a reason the phrase "golden handcuffs" has been around for a while.

[Lincoln]

I did not expect this thread to be this excellent.

[LRGhost]

As I already said, I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do biglaw. I might also suggest someone get a nose job. Or undergo chemotherapy. Or shoot a dog that's attacking them.

No, you're just saying people are idiots for wanting to have your job, even though you prefer your job to alternatives available to you.

She's saying people are idiots who think they'll enjoy biglaw or think that it 'doesn't sound that bad, actually'.

[ChardPennington]

Now you're just proving what kind of people work in big law.

Apparently I'm the minority since everyone else seems to have thought it was going to be really enjoyable, and believes that everyone else who would like to put in a few years thinks it's also going to be great fun (even though they only want to have this super-fun experience for a few years, presumably because they don't know if their hearts can take it).

There's a reason the phrase "golden handcuffs" has been around for a while.

How many years do you have at your firm?

[NeedAnExit]

I worked in consulting prior to law school and still had a lot of difficulty with biglaw.

1. I suspect this is (or will be) true for many of you as well: I always viewed consulting as a temporary thing. I deferred law school to go, so I knew that my time there was limited, and that I was moving onto something else that I wanted to do. I also didn't have any debt. In the difficult weeks I had in consulting, I always took solace in the fact that I could walk away and I'd be fine, both financially and career-wise. I felt very trapped in biglaw because I have lots of debt and it seems very difficult (at least in litigation) and time consuming to get a new, non-biglaw job.

2. I don't actually know what the payoff is, vis-a-vis not going to law school at all. Yes, I get paid a lot, but I still have -90k net worth. In addition, related to (1) I don't know when, if ever, I would have exit options that I would enjoy.

I recognize that (1) and (2) are not specific to the job, but they are specific to the situation that leads you to biglaw. For me, these two have been the two greatest added sources of stress.

3. In consulting, I was always working on one engagement at a time, and worked full-time on that engagement. Even though I had multiple bosses on that engagement, they communicated regularly and knew what I was doing, and appreciated that I couldn't get their task done because I was there until 1am doing something for another part of the project. Now, I'm staffed on 5-6 matters at a time, and sometimes, they all blow up. You can communicate to the partners that you have these deadlines (as they expect you to do), but they really don't care. Their appreciation of the fact that you have other stuff to do is merely theoretical.

4. Related to (3), I used to have end dates. I might be working hard for 5-6 weeks, but then I'd get a week or two of downtime before the next thing. Here, I have only taken Christmas and New Years off since early December. I've averaged 8 hours billed a day since then, and it's only going to stop when I quit.

5. The people really are worse, especially at handling stress and remaining professional in times of stress. I don't know why, but it is definitely true.

6. It's more solitary than my previous job. There's very little sense of camaraderie.

It's not that I ever thought that it would be pleasant. I just thought that it may be worth it. After being in it for half a year, and understanding better both the lifestyle as well as the payoff, I no longer think this.

[Lincoln]

I worked in consulting prior to law school and still had a lot of difficulty with biglaw.

1. I suspect this is (or will be) true for many of you as well: I always viewed consulting as a temporary thing. I deferred law school to go, so I knew that my time there was limited, and that I was moving onto something else that I wanted to do. I also didn't have any debt. In the difficult weeks I had in consulting, I always took solace in the fact that I could walk away and I'd be fine, both financially and career-wise. I felt very trapped in biglaw because I have lots of debt and it seems very difficult (at least in litigation) and time consuming to get a new, non-biglaw job.

2. I don't actually know what the payoff is, vis-a-vis not going to law school at all. Yes, I get paid a lot, but I still have -90k net worth. In addition, related to (1) I don't know when, if ever, I would have exit options that I would enjoy.

I recognize that (1) and (2) are not specific to the job, but they are specific to the situation that leads you to biglaw. For me, these two have been the two greatest added sources of stress.

3. In consulting, I was always working on one engagement at a time, and worked full-time on that engagement. Even though I had multiple bosses on that engagement, they communicated regularly and knew what I was doing, and appreciated that I couldn't get their task done because I was there until 1am doing something for another part of the project. Now, I'm staffed on 5-6 matters at a time, and sometimes, they all blow up. You can communicate to the partners that you have these deadlines (as they expect you to do), but they really don't care. Their appreciation of the fact that you have other stuff to do is merely theoretical.

4. Related to (3), I used to have end dates. I might be working hard for 5-6 weeks, but then I'd get a week or two of downtime before the next thing. Here, I have only taken Christmas and New Years off since early December. I've averaged 8 hours billed a day since then, and it's only going to stop when I quit.

5. The people really are worse, especially at handling stress and remaining professional in times of stress. I don't know why, but it is definitely true.

6. It's more solitary than my previous job. There's very little sense of camaraderie.

It's not that I ever thought that it would be pleasant. I just thought that it may be worth it. After being in it for half a year, and understanding better both the lifestyle as well as the payoff, I no longer think this.

Quality post. Congrats on the clerkship. Leverage it into something better.

[ChardPennington]

I am really lucky that I more or less like litigation, because the only "exit option" so far as I can tell is litigation somewhere else.

[Hipster but Athletic]

I am really lucky that I more or less like litigation, because the only "exit option" so far as I can tell is litigation somewhere else.

Shouldn't partner level lit be fucking awesome?

[09042014]

I am really lucky that I more or less like litigation, because the only "exit option" so far as I can tell is litigation somewhere else.

Shouldn't partner level lit be fucking awesome?

If it wasn't for discovery, litigation would be 180.