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

[Anonymous User]

Leaving office at 10 pm.

Actually enjoying the project I'm on right now though.

Maybe a bit Stockholm syndromey

Left a V10 to work at a smaller firm that does the niche that I want to do.

I work harder at the smaller firm (partly because I just didn't care at the V10), but am happier because I enjoy what I'm doing and my firm treats me like an adult.

[jd20132013]

it's alright, but you have to like what you do and the people you work with. if you don't, the hours no matter high or low will be intolerable in any industry.

and finding that place that has the work you want to do and the people you'd like to work with is hard, and definitely not decipherable from a 20 minute screener plus a callback interview and follow-up.

i'd be happy with "alright"


I'm assuming (maybe unwarrantedly?) that you've found an alright place. do you think it was just luck or was there anything that tipped you off?

[Old Gregg]

it's alright, but you have to like what you do and the people you work with. if you don't, the hours no matter high or low will be intolerable in any industry.

and finding that place that has the work you want to do and the people you'd like to work with is hard, and definitely not decipherable from a 20 minute screener plus a callback interview and follow-up.

i'd be happy with "alright"


I'm assuming (maybe unwarrantedly?) that you've found an alright place. do you think it was just luck or was there anything that tipped you off?

First firm just didn't have what I wanted to do. Don't regret it because I had no idea what the various areas of corporate law were. Second firm I went to after a shit ton of research (i.e., figured out what i wanted to do, found the best firms in the practice, and then networked extensively to understand the culture at those firms and figure out the best fit).

So no, didn't luck. Some trial and error.

[jd20132013]

Thanks for the helpful response.

[BaiAilian2013]

it's alright, but you have to like what you do and the people you work with. if you don't, the hours no matter high or low will be intolerable in any industry.

This cannot be repeated enough.

True, and for some people this is an argument for biglaw, at least in a practice group that is a good fit. FWIW I would fucking shoot myself if I had to work as a busboy. Even if it paid the same as biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

Okay, but law students aren't very good at predicting what they'll like doing. I'm personally in a niche that I love from an academic perspective, but don't really like from a practice perspective. If you're at a firm that lets you rotate, this isn't such an issue. If you're specifically hired for some narrow thing, you're pretty fucked if you're wrong about liking it. And it's more likely you'll be wrong than right, because you just don't have enough information about the actual practice of law as a 0L, a law student, and sometimes even after your summer.

[EijiMiyake]

I mean, do people actually think they're going to "enjoy" biglaw? Don't most people, especially those that post here, recognize that it's something that you do to get the loans paid off? I kind of feel like the associates here are attacking special snowflake 0L strawmen. If you paid attention in your summer to what people that weren't on the "summer committee" were actually doing surely you'd know what you were in for.

Or am I just overly cynical?

The 0L's are missing the point ITT. Its not about 0L's thinking that big law will be fun. Its 0L's signing up for enough debt where they have to work big law for several years. 0L's are optimistic about the extent to which they will even survive that long.

You see it in the employment stats threads. People treat big law as an outcome that justifies the investment. But its not really true if you burn out within three years, which half of people will do (statistically).

All this is related to a phenomenon I've seen on TLS, which is that people think firms push out second or third years. I'm sure some people get fired, but largely people aren't getting "the talk" that early. Firms would love for you to stick around for 6-8 years before telling you you're not on the partner track. Its those associates make them the most money, and the big entry level classes to keep the pipeline full costs the firm money. What people don't understand is the sheer percentage of folks that can't even put up with firm life for three years and leave of their own accord.

In addition, after those three years, after you've devoted almost all of your waking moments to the job (in your mid 20s, which you're not going to get back) and every spare dollar to paying down your debt, you are very likely to take a pay cut. Let's say that the average person leaving a v100 after 3 years ends up with a salary of $150,000, which I would think is actually optimistic. (even from my 'very prestigious' firm, tons of litigation people, and not just those on the mommy-track, end up in state or even city government.) There are lots of people who would not have been able to get there without law school, and for those, they have to decide if ending up at this salary is worth 3 years of law school and 3 years of biglaw. But a good-sized minority could have arrived at that salary point in 6 years of work without going to law school, and could have had a better QOL while doing so, at least for the 3 years that they were in biglaw.

You may respond that sure, that's true, but you're still a lawyer after those 6 years, and that's valuable to you as well. Well, maybe you're in the 10% of people that loves being a lawyer to the extent that law is the only viable path. But for most of us, while we may like being a lawyer, we also may have liked a number of other alternative paths that didn't put us through the wringer to this extent.

[rayiner]

Also, I'm not sure there are many industries that are "superior." If you want to take ownership of your life, be your own boss, etc., that isn't going to happen as an investment banker, or a management consultant.. or radiologist... or private equity dude... or hedge fund dude... or whatever job people here fetishize. they will all have grueling aspects that well make you question any paycheck. If you want to take ownership of your life, be your own boss, etc. you have to be super aggressive, entrepreneurial and pro-actively create the solution on your own: Start your own company.

There is a little bit of "grass is greener" ITT. The lifestyle in say, start-ups, is worse. There was an article on Hacker News the other day about a start-up where everyone lives together in a campus South of San Francisco. While it can be difficult to balance family and work as a big lawyer, most of the mid-levels/partners I have met have kids. In the start-up world, it's considered a liability to have a family at all. The ideal employee is a 22 year old fresh grad who wants nothing more than to code all day and night. And trust me, as someone who used to work in that field, doing doc review at 2 am is not any worse than debugging a race condition at 2 am.

The biggest problem with big law is not the lifestyle. It's that the field attracts a lot of people who don't want their work to be their life, and firms are disingenuous about the fact that they expect work to be your life. Every firm says "we respect your free time" and "we're family friendly." No bank says that. Almost no start-up says that (unless they really mean it). But at every level, from orientation at law school to orientation at the firm, people feed you bullshit about what you're getting into. At the same time, even though law students have an inkling that this is all bullshit, the crippling debt they graduate with forces them to ignore the voice in their head and proceed blithely forward.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

How much of big law sucking is the financial pressure (if you are fired, or lateral to a less high paying job, you either default on loans or can barely make ends meet)?

[Anonymous User]

How much of big law sucking is the financial pressure (if you are fired, or lateral to a less high paying job, you either default on loans or can barely make ends meet)?

The person I know who flamed out the quickest had no debt.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

I had a tough go of it since my UGPA was pretty terrible. If I start hating big law really hard, I might make a switch.

Ah. Makes sense. I always forget that those prosecution folks actually care about undergrad grades.

It was really surprising how much they did. Several interviews basically stopped dead in the water when it came out I had a 2.8.

That's why kids need to get that engineering experience before law school. Had a <2.8 UGPA but over 5 years engineering experience and no one questioned my UGPA.

Pros is pretty sweet tho

[Old Gregg]

Also, I'm not sure there are many industries that are "superior." If you want to take ownership of your life, be your own boss, etc., that isn't going to happen as an investment banker, or a management consultant.. or radiologist... or private equity dude... or hedge fund dude... or whatever job people here fetishize. they will all have grueling aspects that well make you question any paycheck. If you want to take ownership of your life, be your own boss, etc. you have to be super aggressive, entrepreneurial and pro-actively create the solution on your own: Start your own company.

There is a little bit of "grass is greener" ITT. The lifestyle in say, start-ups, is worse. There was an article on Hacker News the other day about a start-up where everyone lives together in a campus South of San Francisco. While it can be difficult to balance family and work as a big lawyer, most of the mid-levels/partners I have met have kids. In the start-up world, it's considered a liability to have a family at all. The ideal employee is a 22 year old fresh grad who wants nothing more than to code all day and night. And trust me, as someone who used to work in that field, doing doc review at 2 am is not any worse than debugging a race condition at 2 am.

The biggest problem with big law is not the lifestyle. It's that the field attracts a lot of people who don't want their work to be their life, and firms are disingenuous about the fact that they expect work to be your life. Every firm says "we respect your free time" and "we're family friendly." No bank says that. Almost no start-up says that (unless they really mean it). But at every level, from orientation at law school to orientation at the firm, people feed you bullshit about what you're getting into. At the same time, even though law students have an inkling that this is all bullshit, the crippling debt they graduate with forces them to ignore the voice in their head and proceed blithely forward.

I didn't say work for a startup. I just said start your own gig (which I guess can be the same thing?).

[patogordo]

if your startup has work/life balance you'll probably fail though

[IAFG]

Not a startup just start your own company up.

[patogordo]

Not a startup just start your own company up.

[rayiner]

Also, I'm not sure there are many industries that are "superior." If you want to take ownership of your life, be your own boss, etc., that isn't going to happen as an investment banker, or a management consultant.. or radiologist... or private equity dude... or hedge fund dude... or whatever job people here fetishize. they will all have grueling aspects that well make you question any paycheck. If you want to take ownership of your life, be your own boss, etc. you have to be super aggressive, entrepreneurial and pro-actively create the solution on your own: Start your own company.

There is a little bit of "grass is greener" ITT. The lifestyle in say, start-ups, is worse. There was an article on Hacker News the other day about a start-up where everyone lives together in a campus South of San Francisco. While it can be difficult to balance family and work as a big lawyer, most of the mid-levels/partners I have met have kids. In the start-up world, it's considered a liability to have a family at all. The ideal employee is a 22 year old fresh grad who wants nothing more than to code all day and night. And trust me, as someone who used to work in that field, doing doc review at 2 am is not any worse than debugging a race condition at 2 am.

The biggest problem with big law is not the lifestyle. It's that the field attracts a lot of people who don't want their work to be their life, and firms are disingenuous about the fact that they expect work to be your life. Every firm says "we respect your free time" and "we're family friendly." No bank says that. Almost no start-up says that (unless they really mean it). But at every level, from orientation at law school to orientation at the firm, people feed you bullshit about what you're getting into. At the same time, even though law students have an inkling that this is all bullshit, the crippling debt they graduate with forces them to ignore the voice in their head and proceed blithely forward.

I didn't say work for a startup. I just said start your own gig (which I guess can be the same thing?).

I worked at a company that my boss started in his basement. He worked harder than anyone at the company. Pretty much non-stop for 5-6 years until he could back off even a little bit. Starting a business is a tremendous amount of work whether it's a tech company or a dry cleaner. It's all-consuming. Your capital is on the line, and your investors' capital is on the line, and that's not a situation where "work-life balance" is even uttered. A lot of it is also very shitty work, because you have no support infrastructure. Need to get something mailed out before the end of the day? You don't have a secretary to hand it to!

[Old Gregg]

The point i was making was rhetorical: If you don't like working for someone, then work for yourself.

That's it.

Because honestly, it seems like everyone would hate their job no matter what they're doing.

[Old Gregg]

I worked at a company that my boss started in his basement. He worked harder than anyone at the company. Pretty much non-stop for 5-6 years until he could back off even a little bit. Starting a business is a tremendous amount of work whether it's a tech company or a dry cleaner. It's all-consuming. Your capital is on the line, and your investors' capital is on the line, and that's not a situation where "work-life balance" is even uttered. A lot of it is also very shitty work, because you have no support infrastructure. Need to get something mailed out before the end of the day? You don't have a secretary to hand it to!

Never said it would be a walk in the park. You will probably work the hardest you ever have in your whole life doing this.

[IAFG]

The point i was making was rhetorical: If you don't like working for someone, then work for yourself.

That's it.

Because honestly, it seems like everyone would hate their job no matter what they're doing.

You can't really not work for anyone. There's always a client.

[Old Gregg]

The point i was making was rhetorical: If you don't like working for someone, then work for yourself.

That's it.

Because honestly, it seems like everyone would hate their job no matter what they're doing.

You can't really not work for anyone. There's always a client.

Which goes to my larger point: Lot's of complaining ITT, but not a single person has identified something better to do.

And it seems like the common thread here is that no one wants to work hard, but basically any job that makes a difference in this world (if you want to make a difference), will be high pressure and hard work.

So what I'm trying to say is that if you're going to work hard, do something you enjoy. You will have greater satisfaction that way. Work/Life balance doesn't exist as a concept when you enjoy work that much.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Biglaw v. work for yourself seems like a false dichotomy. There are plenty of jobs where you don't work for yourself where you nonetheless do interesting work/make a difference and have pretty good control over your life/time in a way that you don't in biglaw (according to the accounts here), most obviously in government work (not every government job, but they're out there). Of course, the pay is way lower. But you didn't specify that the jobs had to offer the same salary.

[Old Gregg]

Biglaw v. work for yourself seems like a false dichotomy. There are plenty of jobs where you don't work for yourself where you nonetheless do interesting work/make a difference and have pretty good control over your life/time in a way that you don't in biglaw (according to the accounts here), most obviously in government work (not every government job, but they're out there). Of course, the pay is way lower. But you didn't specify that the jobs had to offer the same salary.

You're right, and I didn't say that. But it also seems like everyone ITT wants to make at least $160k, which is why I didn't propose it. Although, to be fair, lot's of drawbacks about govt work too.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Biglaw v. work for yourself seems like a false dichotomy. There are plenty of jobs where you don't work for yourself where you nonetheless do interesting work/make a difference and have pretty good control over your life/time in a way that you don't in biglaw (according to the accounts here), most obviously in government work (not every government job, but they're out there). Of course, the pay is way lower. But you didn't specify that the jobs had to offer the same salary.

You're right, and I didn't say that. But it also seems like everyone ITT wants to make at least $160k, which is why I didn't propose it. Although, to be fair, lot's of drawbacks about govt work too.

Sure, but they're not the specific drawbacks of biglaw that people were complaining about in this thread, and to which starting your own company was offered as the alternative. And admittedly starting your own company has a much better long-term potential, but it's not like opening your doors nets you biglaw money immediately, either - that is, it's not going to help immediately with the golden handcuffs issue.

(But yeah, you're never going to make biglaw money in government, and I get that if you're talking about jobs that earn comparable money, none of them are a breezy walk in the park. It just seems that a lot of people who go into biglaw ultimately decide that the money isn't enough.)

[Anonymous User]

I think this thread overstates how bad biglaw is and overstates the attractiveness of other potential options for law students. I put 3 years into biglaw before going in house and don't regret it for a second. My attitude from the beginning was to go in with an open mind, work hard, and see if it's something I wanted to do long term. However, I knew from the beginning it was most likely (from a pure probability standpoint) a 3-5 year gig. I am now in house making biglaw first year pay in a low COL place working a strict 40 hours/wk and have 4 weeks of vacation I can actually take. A few observations looking back at my choice (in no particular order):

1. I worked hard in biglaw, but I wouldn't call those years wasted. I still met new people and did interesting things outside of work- it was just a bit more stressful doing so.

2. There was both grind work and interesting work. Although I probably spent more time grinding, I did come across more interesting/unique matters than I will in ten years in house.

3. I absolutely owe my current job (which I love) to having worked in biglaw.

4. I would be in a much more precarious financial position now if I had chosen government (which was my other potential option).

5. I put in a year of work in corporate America as a low-level cube jockey. Trust me, biglaw is much better that most of those jobs. The hours were worse, but I was actually treated as an adult and given professional respect in biglaw- the paternalism and micro managment of low-level corporate workers was pretty stifling. Oh, and I made 1/4 as much.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Has anyone here suggested that their time in biglaw was wasted or that biglaw doesn't get them where they'd ultimately like to be, though?