Biglawyers. Are any of you happy? Was this job better than others you've had? Forum

[Anonymous User]

i worked for four years in professional services jobs between law undegrad and law school. for awhile, i was a paralegal at a non-biglaw firm. my biglaw job is fairly "meh"-- certainly not the worst, but not the best by any stretch of the imagination.

while i very much enjoy the pay of biglaw, i find the whole environment to be stifingly hierarchical, inhumane and, frankly, i find transactional work to be pretty boring. i truly think that some people get very excited by the idea that they are facilitating the movement of large sums of money. then there's the rest of us.

training is nonexistent but there's a tacit expectation of perfection and precision.

i think that to survive, you need to drink the kool aid and people who are even remotely skeptical of large institutions will have a hard time with it. i am lucky not to have debt and i am able to save, but i do think that the income is not exactly "fuck you" money and i am already thinking about taking a pay cut to find work that is more sustainable in the long haul.

[FluidMosaic]

OP here. Thank you for all of the real (and trolling) input. I don't know how helpful it is in differing from the typical TLS mantra but we will see for next year.

u da real troll bro

"Was this job better than others you've had?"

hahahahaha, good job dude, you really put them in their place. And got 8 pages out of it to boot! Seriously well done, good stuff.

I was actually curious. I didn't know if the vocal people who hated biglaw were basing this off previous job experiences since I'm seriously considering trying to work in a non-legal position post-3L.

[los blancos]

i think that to survive, you need to drink the kool aid

there is definitely some truth to this.

[jrass]

I'm transactional so it varies a lot. Some weeks I feel so fortunate to be here, others are a hell fire. I happen to work at a firm where most people are direct but nice. If there was more passive aggressiveness and more crazies then I could easily see it being terrible.

[JCougar]

And am I the only one who thinks way less in the practice of law than I did in undergrad (non liberal arts major)? I swear I've gotten dumber. I don't find law particularly intellectual at all.

{disclaimer: I don't do Biglaw, but I've worked on the same cases from the other side}

At some points, it can be more intellectual, but I think 90% of it is banal, repetitive stuff. It's more attention to tiny details. This doesn't require a sharp intellect as much as it requires a tolerance to psychological pain of going through extremely boring stuff to find a needle in a haystack. Once in a blue moon, you'll get a research question where the existing law isn't all that well-defined in your circuit (or anywhere), and you get to compare different approaches and possibly come up with a new argument.

A lot of litigation from my experience is responding to nearly frivolous pre-trial/discovery motions that have just enough merit to avoid sanctions. IOW, whatever people can conjure up that's going to create more billable work for the case while at the same time giving the other side a migraine headache. In this, I've seen claims that are laughable on their face, that are either completely contradictory to or totally unsupported by existing law, but with one little twist to make it non-frivolous. Or so completely out of the blue that there's no way to find research disproving it. Or sitting through a 7-hour deposition that could be completed perfectly well in 2 hours or less. Or manually going through thousands of PDFs that were scanned in without searchable text for whatever reason to compile research on a lark. And even if you actually get to write or respond to one of these motions, they're largely cut/paste from previous ones the firm has on file--and if not, there's a database of pre-written forms on Westlaw/Lexis.

With that said, a lot of white-collar work is no different than law, and pretty much amounts to pushing the same papers, forms, charts, spreadsheets, power-points, and reports around over and over. So while I don't think law is measurably worse than most office jobs, it's not significantly better, either. It's definitely not rocket science (it's not even average, run-of-the-mill science). 95% of the work doesn't really require anything more than slightly above average intelligence. It's mostly a profession that's ruled by well-heeled, high-priced sales(wo)men, who then hand off the boring, monotonous work to hyper-competitive, insecure nerds with a lot of educational debt, who are trapped monetarily and psychologically into staying with their "prestigious" firm for obvious reasons, but have little chance of making partner, unless they too happen to be a sales(wo)man in waiting.

Being that it's no more exciting than any other paper-pushing office job, you have to ask yourself whether Biglaw pay (including both the the risk you'll never be able to get it in the first place, and the risk that you're up-n'-outed before making a dent in your financial debt, both of which are significant) is worth all the extra stress, hours, school debt, and psychotic personalities. Most people don't seem to stick around Biglaw long enough to pay off sticker-level debt (whether it's their choice or the firm's), and the majority of biglaw exit options pay significantly less. I've met plenty of biglaw cast-offs in doc review when I've done those projects. There's not a huge safety net in this profession, and when you fall off the high-wire, you have to deal with the stench of failure forever. Given that many of even the "successful" people struggle just to get back to square one, these are all serious risks that need to be considered. And even if you make it, there's the constant fear that you might not that you have to deal with, because of the razor's edge you're always on. If you {strike out at OCI; get no offered; get downsized after only 1-2 years; get fired after 3-4 for screwing up the extra responsibility you get; don't bring in enough business as partner}, the exit options are not necessarily good, because there's just so much competition out there at every level. It's a giant pyramid with a few emperors at the top, and with people cast out at each level along the way scrounging for an ever more narrow field of backup options.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

JCougar's post does not match my experience in biglaw.

A lot of it seems to describe tasks that I would hand off to someone else (e.g. Word Processing/Contract Attorney/Secretary), or is just completely foreign (e.g. the only motions that I use cut and paste for are: (1) sealing motions where the standard is always the same, and (2) motions for an extension of time--I've never seen a cut and paste discovery or substantive motion...).

There's also some weird disconnect between the idea that the firm is supposedly both filing meritless motions to drive up billables but then ALSO writing those motions using forms and cut-and-paste, both of which would actually drive down billables. There's also no consideration of how the client would view meritless motions; and most partners I work for don't want to lose in court (even on a motion), so we don't file unless we're pretty sure we can win.

My experience is usually something like: (a) Client has complaint X; (b) team meets and discusses solutions (e.g. protective order, motion to compel, leave for partial summary judgment, etc.); (c) associates are assigned to prepare short memos on the most likely solutions (I use the word "memo" loosely, often this is just an email with case cites); (d) memos are evaluated and partner chooses the strategy that looks most likely to win; (e) associate that drafted that memo is asked to write the motion, draft is circulated to other associates for edits, and then passed on to partner and ultimately client for approval. If at any time in this process it looks like the motion would lose, then it's junked for another strategy--no partner wants to sell the client a losing strategy or leave the client's problem unsolved.

I also don't think the lateral market looks the way JCougar describes. I know people who have jumped ship within 1-2 years of starting in biglaw and have gotten immediately scooped up by other biglaw. This whole "you're constantly on a razor's edge" narrative sounds hopelessly 2011, with no recognition that profits and hiring are both up. Most firms are also currently desperate for mid levels (to make up for the light hiring they did from 2010-2012).

There's a lot wrong with biglaw, but there's stuff being said here that just seems untrue. I'm not trying to come down on JCougar (though I understand it probably reads that way), I just think a lot of misinformation gets out on TLS and we're better off if it's responded to.

Again--not saying that biglaw is great, just trying to give a realistic picture of what working in biglaw actually looks like.

[Desert Fox]

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

"I've never seen a cut and paste discovery . . . motion"

Is there any other kind??!?!?!?

The ones I've worked on are pretty factually intensive. Usually you have to prove up either: (1) why you believe there are unproduced relevant docs, or (2) why you deserve a protective order.

What are you filing that doesn't require prove up?

[Cogburn87]

(copy pastes "Defendant objects to the request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" 50 times in a row)

(is using his time on earth wisely)

[84651846190]

(copy pastes "Defendant objects to the request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" 50 times in a row)

(is using his time on earth wisely)

whoa, whoa, hitting a bit too close to home here

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

(copy pastes "Defendant objects to the request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" 50 times in a row)

(is using his time on earth wisely)

Right...but that's a discovery response; JCougar's post talks about motions, not responses.

[Cogburn87]

My post wasn't in relation to anything Jcougar said, but lol if you think motions don't get copypasta'ed all the time.

There's also some weird disconnect between the idea that the firm is supposedly both filing meritless motions to drive up billables but then ALSO writing those motions using forms and cut-and-paste, both of which would actually drive down billables. There's also no consideration of how the client would view meritless motions; and most partners I work for don't want to lose in court (even on a motion), so we don't file unless we're pretty sure we can win.

The apparent conflict disappears when you realize that there is an agency problem at issue. Partners want to churn the bill; the associates who actually draft the motions, however, want to go home before 3 a.m. Hence, copy pasting.

Also, in my experience, most clients are pretty bad at judging the necessity of what their lawyers are actually doing and billing them for.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

My post wasn't in relation to anything Jcougar said, but lol if you think motions don't get copypasta'ed all the time.

There's also some weird disconnect between the idea that the firm is supposedly both filing meritless motions to drive up billables but then ALSO writing those motions using forms and cut-and-paste, both of which would actually drive down billables. There's also no consideration of how the client would view meritless motions; and most partners I work for don't want to lose in court (even on a motion), so we don't file unless we're pretty sure we can win.

The apparent conflict disappears when you realize that there is an agency problem at issue. Partners want to churn the bill; the associates who actually draft the motions, however, want to go home before 3 a.m. Hence, copy pasting.

Also, in my experience, most clients are pretty bad at judging the necessity of what their lawyers are actually doing and billing them for.

This does not match my experience.

If that's what you go through, then that sucks.

[jrass]

And am I the only one who thinks way less in the practice of law than I did in undergrad (non liberal arts major)? I swear I've gotten dumber. I don't find law particularly intellectual at all.

{disclaimer: I don't do Biglaw, but I've worked on the same cases from the other side}

At some points, it can be more intellectual, but I think 90% of it is banal, repetitive stuff. It's more attention to tiny details. This doesn't require a sharp intellect as much as it requires a tolerance to psychological pain of going through extremely boring stuff to find a needle in a haystack. Once in a blue moon, you'll get a research question where the existing law isn't all that well-defined in your circuit (or anywhere), and you get to compare different approaches and possibly come up with a new argument.

A lot of litigation from my experience is responding to nearly frivolous pre-trial/discovery motions that have just enough merit to avoid sanctions. IOW, whatever people can conjure up that's going to create more billable work for the case while at the same time giving the other side a migraine headache. In this, I've seen claims that are laughable on their face, that are either completely contradictory to or totally unsupported by existing law, but with one little twist to make it non-frivolous. Or so completely out of the blue that there's no way to find research disproving it. Or sitting through a 7-hour deposition that could be completed perfectly well in 2 hours or less. Or manually going through thousands of PDFs that were scanned in without searchable text for whatever reason to compile research on a lark. And even if you actually get to write or respond to one of these motions, they're largely cut/paste from previous ones the firm has on file--and if not, there's a database of pre-written forms on Westlaw/Lexis.

With that said, a lot of white-collar work is no different than law, and pretty much amounts to pushing the same papers, forms, charts, spreadsheets, power-points, and reports around over and over. So while I don't think law is measurably worse than most office jobs, it's not significantly better, either. It's definitely not rocket science (it's not even average, run-of-the-mill science). 95% of the work doesn't really require anything more than slightly above average intelligence. It's mostly a profession that's ruled by well-heeled, high-priced sales(wo)men, who then hand off the boring, monotonous work to hyper-competitive, insecure nerds with a lot of educational debt, who are trapped monetarily and psychologically into staying with their "prestigious" firm for obvious reasons, but have little chance of making partner, unless they too happen to be a sales(wo)man in waiting.

Being that it's no more exciting than any other paper-pushing office job, you have to ask yourself whether Biglaw pay (including both the the risk you'll never be able to get it in the first place, and the risk that you're up-n'-outed before making a dent in your financial debt, both of which are significant) is worth all the extra stress, hours, school debt, and psychotic personalities. Most people don't seem to stick around Biglaw long enough to pay off sticker-level debt (whether it's their choice or the firm's), and the majority of biglaw exit options pay significantly less. I've met plenty of biglaw cast-offs in doc review when I've done those projects. There's not a huge safety net in this profession, and when you fall off the high-wire, you have to deal with the stench of failure forever. Given that many of even the "successful" people struggle just to get back to square one, these are all serious risks that need to be considered. And even if you make it, there's the constant fear that you might not that you have to deal with, because of the razor's edge you're always on. If you {strike out at OCI; get no offered; get downsized after only 1-2 years; get fired after 3-4 for screwing up the extra responsibility you get; don't bring in enough business as partner}, the exit options are not necessarily good, because there's just so much competition out there at every level. It's a giant pyramid with a few emperors at the top, and with people cast out at each level along the way scrounging for an ever more narrow field of backup options.

Sometimes it's intellectually interesting, but like you said, it's mostly paper pushing. The bearability of paper pushing is influenced, in part, by the environment. The truth is that paper pushing is the best part of the whole thing, because (a) 90% of what everyone does is boring and (b) paper pushing means interacting with people. Half your day is spent replying to e-mails, and going on Westlaw and Excel. Paper pushing often involves office drama and intrigue. The question you should be asking yourself isn't whether paper pushing is bearable, but which area of law would be better without the paper pushing.

[jrass]

My post wasn't in relation to anything Jcougar said, but lol if you think motions don't get copypasta'ed all the time.

There's also some weird disconnect between the idea that the firm is supposedly both filing meritless motions to drive up billables but then ALSO writing those motions using forms and cut-and-paste, both of which would actually drive down billables. There's also no consideration of how the client would view meritless motions; and most partners I work for don't want to lose in court (even on a motion), so we don't file unless we're pretty sure we can win.

The apparent conflict disappears when you realize that there is an agency problem at issue. Partners want to churn the bill; the associates who actually draft the motions, however, want to go home before 3 a.m. Hence, copy pasting.

Also, in my experience, most clients are pretty bad at judging the necessity of what their lawyers are actually doing and billing them for.

This does not match my experience.

If that's what you go through, then that sucks.

Yeah, I don't know how many firms are filing meritless motions to drive up billables. Most partners aren't going to care enough about $25k to risk pissing a client off, and a lot of the contracts are price fixed. Big law clients are likelier to discount cost, but very few firms are unethically driving them up.

[Anonymous User]

As I read through this thread, I consistently see grass is greener syndrome and opinions situated as facts. There are pros and cons to ANY job and those pros and cons will sit differently with different people depending on their aptitudes and personalities.

For example (including some of the jobs mentioned ITT):

Sales: On the "grass is greener" side, those in [B2B] sales generally work 40-50 hr weeks, earn $100k+ all in, have [theoretically] unlimited earning potential, no billable hours, and operate in a meritocracy. However, you are hounded by upper management for sales forecasts. You are under constant pressure to meet ever-expanding quotas. You are in a constant state of flux and there is high turnover. If you don't perform, then you are out. There is guaranteed rejection (sometimes quite hostile) day in and day out.

Finance: On the "grass is greener" side, those in high finance (I-banking, etc) have high prestige, probably top most all other jobs in terms of compensation, work on huge deals in a strategic/business role, and don't deal on billables. However, they work crazier hours than any other industry. It can be an alpha-dog culture. It's often mindless PowerPoint (at the lower levels) and excel work.

Manual Labor: On the "grass is greener" side, you work in interactive teams. You get to see the tangible work of your hands. You don't have to deal with corporate bull. On the downside, you generally don't make a ton of money. And it's manual labor.

Computer Programming: On the "grass is greener" side, the culture is much more laid back these days. It's the "cool" industry to be in. Salaries are going up. You have opportunities to work in a start up environment and build new technology. On the other hand, you work with awkward engineers. It's often not interactive. Competition for top companies is fierce.

BigLaw: On the "grass is greener" side, there is top level comp. There is generally a high level of autonomy. You get to work on big deals/cases. Prestige. On the down side, there can be difficult personalities. Billables. Volatility in schedule.

Professional Sports: On the "grass is greener" side, you make millions. Everyone wants to be you. Models and bottles. On the down side, you can have asshole teammates and coaches. It's a high pressure environment (perform or GTFO). You travel constantly. Most don't last longer than 5 years.

All of these pros and cons are obviously not exhaustive, they're just examples. By all means, talk to people in any industry you want to go into to get a realistic feel for what life looks like. But different people will have the ability to handle and be happy in different environments. Just because someone is happy in one industry and not in another means nothing b/c job satisfaction is highly individualized. There is no perfect job, and the best you can do is be well informed and know yourself well enough to know how you will likely handle different roles. But you will probably never know if you're a good fit somewhere unless you try it.

For myself, I find the best attitude to have to be be positive and grateful for the opportunity and position held. If things begin to change, a job change makes sense or needs to occur, or something better comes along, then be open to change. Negativity is toxic. Treat others with respect, even if it isn't reciprocated. Strive to always be the positive person in the room no matter what, and (in my experience) life will always be better, even in difficult times.

**please excuse any spelling or grammar errors..this is stream of consciousness written from my phone.

[Lacepiece23]

As I read through this thread, I consistently see grass is greener syndrome and opinions situated as facts. There are pros and cons to ANY job and those pros and cons will sit differently with different people depending on their aptitudes and personalities.

For example (including some of the jobs mentioned ITT):

Sales: On the "grass is greener" side, those in [B2B] sales generally work 40-50 hr weeks, earn $100k+ all in, have [theoretically] unlimited earning potential, no billable hours, and operate in a meritocracy. However, you are hounded by upper management for sales forecasts. You are under constant pressure to meet ever-expanding quotas. You are in a constant state of flux and there is high turnover. If you don't perform, then you are out. There is guaranteed rejection (sometimes quite hostile) day in and day out.

Finance: On the "grass is greener" side, those in high finance (I-banking, etc) have high prestige, probably top most all other jobs in terms of compensation, work on huge deals in a strategic/business role, and don't deal on billables. However, they work crazier hours than any other industry. It can be an alpha-dog culture. It's often mindless PowerPoint (at the lower levels) and excel work.

Manual Labor: On the "grass is greener" side, you work in interactive teams. You get to see the tangible work of your hands. You don't have to deal with corporate bull. On the downside, you generally don't make a ton of money. And it's manual labor.

Computer Programming: On the "grass is greener" side, the culture is much more laid back these days. It's the "cool" industry to be in. Salaries are going up. You have opportunities to work in a start up environment and build new technology. On the other hand, you work with awkward engineers. It's often not interactive. Competition for top companies is fierce.

BigLaw: On the "grass is greener" side, there is top level comp. There is generally a high level of autonomy. You get to work on big deals/cases. Prestige. On the down side, there can be difficult personalities. Billables. Volatility in schedule.

Professional Sports: On the "grass is greener" side, you make millions. Everyone wants to be you. Models and bottles. On the down side, you can have asshole teammates and coaches. It's a high pressure environment (perform or GTFO). You travel constantly. Most don't last longer than 5 years.

All of these pros and cons are obviously not exhaustive, they're just examples. By all means, talk to people in any industry you want to go into to get a realistic feel for what life looks like. But different people will have the ability to handle and be happy in different environments. Just because someone is happy in one industry and not in another means nothing b/c job satisfaction is highly individualized. There is no perfect job, and the best you can do is be well informed and know yourself well enough to know how you will likely handle different roles. But you will probably never know if you're a good fit somewhere unless you try it.

For myself, I find the best attitude to have to be be positive and grateful for the opportunity and position held. If things begin to change, a job change makes sense or needs to occur, or something better comes along, then be open to change. Negativity is toxic. Treat others with respect, even if it isn't reciprocated. Strive to always be the positive person in the room no matter what, and (in my experience) life will always be better, even in difficult times.

**please excuse any spelling or grammar errors..this is stream of consciousness written from my phone.

I like this post.

[los blancos]

Yeah, I don't know how many firms are filing meritless motions to drive up billables. Most partners aren't going to care enough about $25k to risk pissing a client off, and a lot of the contracts are price fixed. Big law clients are likelier to discount cost, but very few firms are unethically driving them up.

It's not necessarily about filing meritless motions or anything like that, but running the discovery process generally like it's a giant gravy train (with "thoroughness" as the excuse) is something that probably happens at every firm.

All of these pros and cons are obviously not exhaustive, they're just examples. By all means, talk to people in any industry you want to go into to get a realistic feel for what life looks like. But different people will have the ability to handle and be happy in different environments. Just because someone is happy in one industry and not in another means nothing b/c job satisfaction is highly individualized. There is no perfect job, and the best you can do is be well informed and know yourself well enough to know how you will likely handle different roles. But you will probably never know if you're a good fit somewhere unless you try it.

I mean, this was a nice post, but no one's really disagreed with this point.

[JCougar]

(copy pastes "Defendant objects to the request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" 50 times in a row)

(is using his time on earth wisely)

I've even seen a response with an "Objection Key"

It started out listing about 12 discovery objections. Then it addressed each request individually by literally saying: "Defendant objects to the request because of Objections 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9. Furthermore, Defendant objects to the request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." They were even too lazy to copy and paste the objections...might as well just write down numbers. I thought it was kind of ingenious, actually.

Obviously, pre-discovery complaints, briefs, and sometimes motions for summary judgment and the like have to be at least somewhat originally written because they're more fact intensive. Unless you're at some injury/bankrupcy/worker's comp mill that files dozens of nuisance suits for the "get off my ass" settlement value alone (or if you're at an ID mill defending these suits). Which, to be honest, constitute the majority of lawsuits filed in this country. But you mostly won't be doing these at Biglaw, at least. But even stuff like MSJ/MTD/Complaint/Response will have a lot of the same stuff over and over if you're in a narrow-ish practice area.

But if I had to guess, something like 90% of all discovery motions and 99% of responses filed are cut n' paste other than substituting a few different names and dates here and there.

[JCougar]

I also don't think the lateral market looks the way JCougar describes. I know people who have jumped ship within 1-2 years of starting in biglaw and have gotten immediately scooped up by other biglaw. This whole "you're constantly on a razor's edge" narrative sounds hopelessly 2011, with no recognition that profits and hiring are both up. Most firms are also currently desperate for mid levels (to make up for the light hiring they did from 2010-2012).

I work with an ex-Biglaw partner right now, and this partner had a pretty painstaking job search after getting squeezed out, and is now making considerably less. In fact, this partner is giving me help with my own job search based on people they met on their own search.

It's been just over 2 years post-bar for my class, and I'm connected with over 50% of them on LinkedIn, and basically all who got Biglaw are on LinkedIn. There are a few that have lateraled up, but I can count them on one hand. Meanwhile, of the people that got Biglaw, including those that transferred after 1L to HYS or other T10 schools, it would take an entire sheet of paper to list the ones that have clearly moved down at this point. Some got midlaw, some got a 9-5 non-law job somewhere, and others are unemployed.

Most of the ones that got shitlaw are already on their third firm in two years, because shitlaw is like that.

[DELG]

I also don't think the lateral market looks the way JCougar describes. I know people who have jumped ship within 1-2 years of starting in biglaw and have gotten immediately scooped up by other biglaw. This whole "you're constantly on a razor's edge" narrative sounds hopelessly 2011, with no recognition that profits and hiring are both up. Most firms are also currently desperate for mid levels (to make up for the light hiring they did from 2010-2012).

I work with an ex-Biglaw partner right now, and this partner had a pretty painstaking job search after getting squeezed out, and is now making considerably less. In fact, this partner is giving me help with my own job search based on people they met on their own search.

It's been just over 2 years post-bar for my class, and I'm connected with over 50% of them on LinkedIn, and basically all who got Biglaw are on LinkedIn. There are a few that have lateraled up, but I can count them on one hand. Meanwhile, of the people that got Biglaw, including those that transferred after 1L to HYS or other T10 schools, it would take an entire sheet of paper to list the ones that have clearly moved down at this point. Some got midlaw, some got a 9-5 non-law job somewhere, and others are unemployed.

Most of the ones that got shitlaw are already on their third firm in two years, because shitlaw is like that.

You have to consider how much that's washing out vs not being able to get more biglaw.

[jrass]

I also don't think the lateral market looks the way JCougar describes. I know people who have jumped ship within 1-2 years of starting in biglaw and have gotten immediately scooped up by other biglaw. This whole "you're constantly on a razor's edge" narrative sounds hopelessly 2011, with no recognition that profits and hiring are both up. Most firms are also currently desperate for mid levels (to make up for the light hiring they did from 2010-2012).

I work with an ex-Biglaw partner right now, and this partner had a pretty painstaking job search after getting squeezed out, and is now making considerably less. In fact, this partner is giving me help with my own job search based on people they met on their own search.

It's been just over 2 years post-bar for my class, and I'm connected with over 50% of them on LinkedIn, and basically all who got Biglaw are on LinkedIn. There are a few that have lateraled up, but I can count them on one hand. Meanwhile, of the people that got Biglaw, including those that transferred after 1L to HYS or other T10 schools, it would take an entire sheet of paper to list the ones that have clearly moved down at this point. Some got midlaw, some got a 9-5 non-law job somewhere, and others are unemployed.

Most of the ones that got shitlaw are already on their third firm in two years, because shitlaw is like that.

You have to consider how much that's washing out vs not being able to get more biglaw.

I also don't think this means they couldn't handle big law or were canned. The difference in quality of life between 150k and 50k is much more pronounced than the difference between 250 and 150. If your partnership odds are in lottery ticket territory then it is smart to jump shit when a cushy and safe gig comes along.

[DELG]

i mean i think it's some of all of the above, fired, ragequit out of not being able to stand it, and voluntarily trading down when you could have traded up. i've seen all of those and it's hard to know unless it's someone you were close to.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

i mean i think it's some of all of the above, fired, ragequit out of not being able to stand it, and voluntarily trading down when you could have traded up. i've seen all of those and it's hard to know unless it's someone you were close to.

This is much closer to my experience. I know multiple people purposefully who took significant paycuts either: (1) once student loans were paid off, or (2) once they decided to have children. Sometimes the paycut is an indicator of a desired lifestyle change.

However, JCougar seems to be attributing these kinds of decisions to someone not being able to find other work in biglaw, which is most likely untrue in the current lateral market (though obviously there may be limits for niche practices and such).

Sometimes a paycut can even be a gamble on advancing your career--I know a guy who brought in a client to a biglaw shop and was told he would have to "turn the client over" to a partner because associates "weren't allowed" to have clients; shortly thereafter he left for a midlaw shop that promised he would get to keep and build his own book of business.

The fact of the matter is that the lateral market is pretty unambiguously tight right now. Hiring is up and there's a shortage of midlevels. The 2011 argument doesn't really pan out anymore.

[jrass]

i mean i think it's some of all of the above, fired, ragequit out of not being able to stand it, and voluntarily trading down when you could have traded up. i've seen all of those and it's hard to know unless it's someone you were close to.

This is much closer to my experience. I know multiple people purposefully who took significant paycuts either: (1) once student loans were paid off, or (2) once they decided to have children. Sometimes the paycut is an indicator of a desired lifestyle change.

However, JCougar seems to be attributing these kinds of decisions to someone not being able to find other work in biglaw, which is most likely untrue in the current lateral market (though obviously there may be limits for niche practices and such).

Sometimes a paycut can even be a gamble on advancing your career--I know a guy who brought in a client to a biglaw shop and was told he would have to "turn the client over" to a partner because associates "weren't allowed" to have clients; shortly thereafter he left for a midlaw shop that promised he would get to keep and build his own book of business.

The fact of the matter is that the lateral market is pretty unambiguously tight right now. Hiring is up and there's a shortage of midlevels. The 2011 argument doesn't really pan out anymore.

Salary isn't only money though. People told me I was crazy when I went a few years without health insurance, because I knew the odds of it being financially worthwhile in my early 20s were astronomical. Yet many people think someone had to have burnt out/got canned/was pissed to leave big law, a job mot keep for <4 years, for a lower paying job most people keep for >15 years.

A big law salary is very much like a porn star salary. The money on a day to day basis is good, it's exciting to see your name all over the internet and every once in a while there's a Jenna Jameson who develops their own brand and makes bank, but for most people the money starts drying up with age until they become abstinent, and ask their brothers and sisters to spare a dime.