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

[Anonymous User]

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?

If you wash out too early you can end up in a pretty undesirable place. And not washing out is harder than people think.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Someone who I respect told me to view big law like the NFL: the average time for a pro football player in the NFL is ~3 years. In that time he will make a very good salary, be extremely stressed, pushed very hard, likely have some injuries, and almost certainly exit to a less prestigious job. It's possible any given player will be lucky and be in the league for 10 years. It's also possible any given player will get cut the first season. The key is developing a plan for after you're done, so that you can capitalize on your experience.

I know this is not a perfect analogy, but to me (as a 2L who knows nothing about the actual day to day of big law) this is a practical and strategic way to view big law.

[Anonymous User]

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?

Mine sort of is. I am learning a lot, don't get me wrong, but I don't think I will even be practicing law a year from now. Obviously this is due to a mix of circumstances, and I happen to be in a very fortunate position in my life, so my input is practically useless as one cannot really replicate it. But technically, my time in biglaw is wasted (aside from purposes of self-edification in a field I will most likely never work in again).

[patogordo]

Someone who I respect told me to view big law like the NFL: the average time for a pro football player in the NFL is ~3 years. In that time he will make a very good salary, be extremely stressed, pushed very hard, likely have some injuries, and almost certainly exit to a less prestigious job. It's possible any given player will be lucky and be in the league for 10 years. It's also possible any given player will get cut the first season. The key is developing a plan for after you're done, so that you can capitalize on your experience.

I know this is not a perfect analogy, but to me (as a 2L who knows nothing about the actual day to day of big law) this is a practical and strategic way to view big law.

except nfl players went to school for free

[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?

If you wash out too early you can end up in a pretty undesirable place. And not washing out is harder than people think.

That makes sense. It just seemed to me someone saying, "Biglaw was great because I worked in it for three years then ended up with the job I wanted" wasn't really contradicting a lot of what people here were criticizing about biglaw.

But technically, my time in biglaw is wasted (aside from purposes of self-edification in a field I will most likely never work in again).

Of course, I'm frequently wrong.

[terriers]

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.

I'm really curious about this. Seems like BL firms should have a pretty big incentive to hold onto associates for 4-6 years because associates won't really know what they're doing for the first couple. So instead of hiring 90 1st years and expecting/hoping 25 of them to be around in 3 years, why not just cut down on class sizes and work on incentivizing people to stay? Seems like that would be a fairly straightforward way to cut costs. I guess the clear downside is that it would screw a lot of law students, but I doubt that the firms care about that too much.

[patogordo]

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.

I'm really curious about this. Seems like BL firms should have a pretty big incentive to hold onto associates for 4-6 years because associates won't really know what they're doing for the first couple. So instead of hiring 90 1st years and expecting/hoping 25 of them to be around in 3 years, why not just cut down on class sizes and work on incentivizing people to stay? Seems like that would be a fairly straightforward way to cut costs. I guess the clear downside is that it would screw a lot of law students, but I doubt that the firms care about that too much.

because the work is that awful. you might as well be asking "why don't ponzi schemes just take in fewer new clients and pay them more?"

[FlanAl]

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.

I'm really curious about 4. It seems like with loan repayment and the job security that gov offers, it would have been less precarious than big law (i.e. Lathaming).

Also, one of the things that pushed me into PI (just a 3L, with a PI job lined up) was that it sounded like big law was another 3 year competition for exit options which were then another competition for later exit options. It kinda sounds like you won the in-house lottery. I think a lot of 0Ls think "Ok, I just have to crush 1L and then work hard in big law and then go in-house and be cool" from what I've heard you have to strive hard in big law to land that in-house gig that will make your life bearable.

[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.

I'm really curious about 4. It seems like with loan repayment and the job security that gov offers, it would have been less precarious than big law (i.e. Lathaming).

Also, one of the things that pushed me into PI (just a 3L, with a PI job lined up) was that it sounded like big law was another 3 year competition for exit options which were then another competition for later exit options. It kinda sounds like you won the in-house lottery. I think a lot of 0Ls think "Ok, I just have to crush 1L and then work hard in big law and then go in-house and be cool" from what I've heard you have to strive hard in big law to land that in-house gig that will make your life bearable.

1) Lanthaming is quite rare- 2008 really was an unusual time. A total of 4 people I knew of left involuntarily as biglaw juniors. Only one didn't end up with a good job in the end, and that person had a working spouse and decided to be a stay at home parent. Unless you get laid off in the first few months (which is even more rare), you will have been able to save a decent cash cushion on a biglaw salary.

2) One issue is that many PI jobs actually have job security that is as bad as biglaw. Funding can be a real issue. If you get lad off from your PI job after 2 years, you could end up losing your 10-year PAYE timeline and tax-bomb exemption and get stuck with a very long term debt. There are many good and honorable reasons to do PI (PI people are probably better people than I), but I don't think financial security is one of them.

3) Honestly, you are going to have to strive no matter where you work. Even the government is not a guarantee anymore. I wouldn't call in-house a lottery. If you make it a goal, and are in a transactional practice, it's very doable.

[Old Gregg]

It's hard to get fired at year 2. No one my class year got that talk, and the absolute slacker the year below me (skipped Fridays, refused to work on weekends, came in at 10 and left at 4, constantly lied about how busy he was and lied about his hours) still hasn't gotten the talk.

[Old Gregg]

As a side note, biglaw would be much more tolerable if the IT weren't so shitty at law firms (which is probably more of a consequence of the ass ton of security stuff running in the background). Nothing will make you hate your life more than having word crash at 10pm and then being unable to access the document on the document management system because it's checked out to you (but really isn't) and not being able to reach IT. But then when you finally get them on the phone, there's about a 2 in 5 chance you lost all your work and you'll have to start at the prior version again. As a result, you will lose your shit to the IT guy who will in turn think you're an asshole because he can't help it and some dude is telling at him at 10pm, which in turn will make him hate his job (and you, by extension).

Just one example. Lots of the shitting on people that happens can be avoided.

[El Pollito]

As a side note, biglaw would be much more tolerable if the IT weren't so shitty at law firms (which is probably more of a consequence of the ass ton of security stuff running in the background). Nothing will make you hate your life more than having word crash at 10pm and then being unable to access the document on the document management system because it's checked out to you (but really isn't) and not being able to reach IT. But then when you finally get them on the phone, there's about a 2 in 5 chance you lost all your work and you'll have to start at the prior version again. As a result, you will lose your shit to the IT guy who will in turn think you're an asshole because he can't help it and some dude is telling at him at 10pm, which in turn will make him hate his job (and you, by extension).

Just one example. Lots of the shitting on people that happens can be avoided.

Sometimes I just decide it's not worth spending 20 minutes listening to some boomer lady "umm" cluelessly through a 30-point instruction list.

[Anonymous User]

As a side note, biglaw would be much more tolerable if the IT weren't so shitty at law firms (which is probably more of a consequence of the ass ton of security stuff running in the background). Nothing will make you hate your life more than having word crash at 10pm and then being unable to access the document on the document management system because it's checked out to you (but really isn't) and not being able to reach IT. But then when you finally get them on the phone, there's about a 2 in 5 chance you lost all your work and you'll have to start at the prior version again. As a result, you will lose your shit to the IT guy who will in turn think you're an asshole because he can't help it and some dude is telling at him at 10pm, which in turn will make him hate his job (and you, by extension).

Just one example. Lots of the shitting on people that happens can be avoided.

(fomer biglaw poster from above)

This is not a universal problem. The IT at my old law firm was excellent- much better than my F500 company. In biglaw, you could get a real person day or night within minutes to help you out. At the F500, you put in a ticket and maybe someone will help you- if they feel like it.

[rayiner]

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.

I'm really curious about this. Seems like BL firms should have a pretty big incentive to hold onto associates for 4-6 years because associates won't really know what they're doing for the first couple. So instead of hiring 90 1st years and expecting/hoping 25 of them to be around in 3 years, why not just cut down on class sizes and work on incentivizing people to stay? Seems like that would be a fairly straightforward way to cut costs. I guess the clear downside is that it would screw a lot of law students, but I doubt that the firms care about that too much.

You've got the causality a bit backwards. The class size is set by what they need to keep the pipeline full. If attrition went down, class sizes would go down, and firms would be just fine with it. But at the same time, their ability to do anything about the conditions that cause people to leave is limited. If the asshole that makes people under him miserable brings in business, there's nothing the firm can do. And if client demands make people miserable, again there is nothing the firm can do. JP Morgan doesn't give a shit about your firm's attrition rate. If your associations won't answer 2 am e-mails, they'll go to a firm where the associates will do that.

I think there are areas where firms can improve. A lot of pain is self-inflicted, with mid-levels not having good management skills and doing a poor job delegating to people in a timely way. This is entirely a function of the fact that the hiring process at big law firms doesn't screen for management ability, at all.

[09042014]

Never work on the shitty document management system.

[84651846190]

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?

Mine sort of is. I am learning a lot, don't get me wrong, but I don't think I will even be practicing law a year from now. Obviously this is due to a mix of circumstances, and I happen to be in a very fortunate position in my life, so my input is practically useless as one cannot really replicate it. But technically, my time in biglaw is wasted (aside from purposes of self-edification in a field I will most likely never work in again).

I would say a good 10-20% of the associates who leave my office leave the practice of law altogether. Granted, many of these people leave to become full-time mommies, but some have gone into different fields. For them, biglaw was almost certainly a huge waste of time in terms of not being useful for getting them to where they ended up.

Another 10-20% end up in small law or state government jobs that certainly don't require biglaw.

[84651846190]

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.

I'm really curious about this. Seems like BL firms should have a pretty big incentive to hold onto associates for 4-6 years because associates won't really know what they're doing for the first couple. So instead of hiring 90 1st years and expecting/hoping 25 of them to be around in 3 years, why not just cut down on class sizes and work on incentivizing people to stay? Seems like that would be a fairly straightforward way to cut costs. I guess the clear downside is that it would screw a lot of law students, but I doubt that the firms care about that too much.

You've got the causality a bit backwards. The class size is set by what they need to keep the pipeline full. If attrition went down, class sizes would go down, and firms would be just fine with it. But at the same time, their ability to do anything about the conditions that cause people to leave is limited. If the asshole that makes people under him miserable brings in business, there's nothing the firm can do. And if client demands make people miserable, again there is nothing the firm can do. JP Morgan doesn't give a shit about your firm's attrition rate. If your associations won't answer 2 am e-mails, they'll go to a firm where the associates will do that.

I think there are areas where firms can improve. A lot of pain is self-inflicted, with mid-levels not having good management skills and doing a poor job delegating to people in a timely way. This is entirely a function of the fact that the hiring process at big law firms doesn't screen for management ability, at all.

Also, the best firms make money on every associate who makes his/her hours. It's not like the junior associates are DWL at firms that have 50-60% profit margins.

[Old Gregg]

If you bill more than 1800 hours at an NY firm, and all those hours are realized, you are already profitable to the firm. Every extra hour that you're pressured/scared into doing is just additional lining in partner's pockets.

[exitoptions]

If you bill more than 1800 hours at an NY firm, and all those hours are realized, you are already profitable to the firm. Every extra hour that you're pressured/scared into doing is just additional lining in partner's pockets.

The whole "we only make money on you when you're a third year" comment is a fiction they use to make you feel grateful for the job. I calculated that, net of my salary and estimated overhead, the partners made a cool half million on me the first year I was there. I know that my hours were paid for because I had to do the bills.

[Anonymous User]

"We write off the hours for juniors"

LOL has never happened

[Anonymous User]

Most K-JD types don't understand exactly how long 2-3 years is. There's no such thing as "just" 2-3 years at a job you don't like.

[Blindmelon]

double-post.

[Blindmelon]

Most K-JD types don't understand exactly how long 2-3 years is. There's no such thing as "just" 2-3 years at a job you don't like.

Yea, but if you tell yourself you're only going to be there 2-3 years it gets a lot more tolerable. You quickly learn how to say no to assignments and bill 2000 a year on the dot. I'm not at that point yet, but I know several people who are and they don't really mind the bigfirm world.

[09042014]

"We write off the hours for juniors"

LOL has never happened

Some clients really do say "no first years." But then the partner just won't put you on that matter.

[worldtraveler]

Most K-JD types don't understand exactly how long 2-3 years is. There's no such thing as "just" 2-3 years at a job you don't like.

Yea, but if you tell yourself you're only going to be there 2-3 years it gets a lot more tolerable. You quickly learn how to say no to assignments and bill 2000 a year on the dot. I'm not at that point yet, but I know several people who are and they don't really mind the bigfirm world.

Do people ever just try and get themselves fired and then collect unemployment for a while?