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

[krads153]

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.

Yeah, in biglaw it's probably 95-99% attention to detail/repetitive stuff.

I miss doing problems/problem solving/thinking outside of the box. My favorite classes in law school were tax classes, as I thought those required the most problem solving.

[krads153]

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.

All of these cons apply to law, except law doesn't have the pros. And frankly, I've liked a higher percentage of the engineers I've known in my life than lawyers, who often tend to be more egotistical (at least about "prestige" and "money" and try too hard to be bros when they're not (whereas engineers may be cocky about intellect)).

[JCougar]

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)

If I seem like I'm saying that, I'm not trying to.

My point is that you're still financially in the same boat whether you get fired, ragequit, or just burn out. The debt remaining on your student loans doesn't go away, and continues to cut into your earnings. Except without a Biglaw salary, you'll likely be paying it off for the full 25 years.

A lot of these people simply think that Biglaw is so bad that they'd rather just deal with debt4lyfe.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

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)

If I seem like I'm saying that, I'm not trying to.

My point is that you're still financially in the same boat whether you get fired, ragequit, or just burn out. The debt remaining on your student loans doesn't go away, and continues to cut into your earnings. Except without a Biglaw salary, you'll likely be paying it off for the full 25 years.

A lot of these people simply think that Biglaw is so bad that they'd rather just deal with debt4lyfe.

Okay, I agree with that. Lawyers do generally carry more student debt than programmers (or financiers, or whomever), and that debt is a problem if you leave biglaw too soon, which is definitely something people should consider.

[wiz]

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.

All of these cons apply to law, except law doesn't have the pros. And frankly, I've liked a higher percentage of the engineers I've known in my life than lawyers, who often tend to be more egotistical (at least about "prestige" and "money" and try too hard to be bros when they're not (whereas engineers may be cocky about intellect)).

Yeah, CS is pretty baller. I always laugh when people give that up for law and then try to internet yell at the rest of tls to justify their decision like it was a good one.

[krads153]

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.

All of these cons apply to law, except law doesn't have the pros. And frankly, I've liked a higher percentage of the engineers I've known in my life than lawyers, who often tend to be more egotistical (at least about "prestige" and "money" and try too hard to be bros when they're not (whereas engineers may be cocky about intellect)).

Yeah, CS is pretty baller. I always laugh when people give that up for law and then try to internet yell at the rest of tls to justify their decision like it was a good one.

I know a guy who graduated magna in CS from Stanford/Berkeley/MIT/CMU, etc. then more or less went straight through to T-14. Graduated order of the coif at T-14 , then clerked for a fed judge, then worked for a year at a firm, and then guess what? He went back to CS and has been working as a programmer for a few years. He was okay with clerking but hated the practice of law. Guy could pretty much do whatever he wanted in either field and he chose CS...

[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.

I like this post.

This is where I was at during law school and my first few months after starting. The rationalizing. Having worked before law school and now spent time in big law, however, I've noticed how transactional lawyers seem to hate the substance of their work more than pretty much every other white collar profession. The hours, work environment, instability, etc. wouldn't be so bad if the work itself wasn't so uninteresting.

[Anonymous User]

I have a CS degree and chose law instead (patent litigation). In the most simplistic terms, I chose law over engineering career because I preferred words over numbers/writing over coding. I also didn't want a career with a ceiling (which for the vast majority of software engineers is very real). TBD whether this was a good call.

[Anonymous User]

All and all, it's pretty great. The money is good. There are always a few insufferable people and a couple backstabbers, but most of the people are very nice. On a day to day level, your experience is as enjoyable as the biggest asshole on your team allows it to be. When you have a team composed of all personable and good people then you get engaged in the work and are motivated to be a good team player, and the time flies by. If you get the person going through a nervous breakdown and divorce simultaneously taking out their built up rage on you then it sucks, and you hide under your desk when you sense the crazy walking by your office.

Big law is big law because there are lots of people and everything is done collectively so it's impossible to gauge whether you'd be happy until you know the other people you're working with, and knowing them requires knowing how they will behave when they're tired and stressed, not how good they are at delivering the script HR prepared for them.

[Anonymous User]

There are times that I really enjoy my work, and there are times that I hate it so much I want to burn down the building. Overall, I don't think the positive outweighs the negative aspects of it (mainly the stress), but I'm kinda stuck here for at least another year (since I'm just a year in). I will admit this is probably because I had a very cushy office job before going to law school, where the stress was minimal and people were great to work with, but I left wanting to do something more interesting (no regret on that part) and with more prestige/pay (had to pay a big price to find out those two are not worth the pain).

[Anonymous User]

I've enjoyed corporate practice largely because I don't need the job, I don't have or want a family, and I don't give a fuck if some shithead thinks my work product sucks. I do the work then I get out of the office. Some times I think I'm a small person who could be doing more, but then I smoke a few bowls and chill.

[Dafaq]

What makes this so much better is that during Christmas I can go shopping and fill my car with great gifts for family and friends without ever considering prices. Happy would describe it!

[jrass]

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)

If I seem like I'm saying that, I'm not trying to.

My point is that you're still financially in the same boat whether you get fired, ragequit, or just burn out. The debt remaining on your student loans doesn't go away, and continues to cut into your earnings. Except without a Biglaw salary, you'll likely be paying it off for the full 25 years.

A lot of these people simply think that Biglaw is so bad that they'd rather just deal with debt4lyfe.

I think PAYE makes it that people aren't forced to stay in big law if they don't want to. You obviously pay much less in loans outside of if because (1) you earn less and (2) the odds the IRS audits your solo shop are 1:approx 10,000.

[Anonymous User]

What about working in biglaw for X number of years until you have a nice amount of cash in your savings, and then switching to another type of law? Has anyone done this/is thinking about this?

[juzam_djinn]

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.

All of these cons apply to law, except law doesn't have the pros. And frankly, I've liked a higher percentage of the engineers I've known in my life than lawyers, who often tend to be more egotistical (at least about "prestige" and "money" and try too hard to be bros when they're not (whereas engineers may be cocky about intellect)).

Yeah, CS is pretty baller. I always laugh when people give that up for law and then try to internet yell at the rest of tls to justify their decision like it was a good one.

I know a guy who graduated magna in CS from Stanford/Berkeley/MIT/CMU, etc. then more or less went straight through to T-14. Graduated order of the coif at T-14 , then clerked for a fed judge, then worked for a year at a firm, and then guess what? He went back to CS and has been working as a programmer for a few years. He was okay with clerking but hated the practice of law. Guy could pretty much do whatever he wanted in either field and he chose CS...

nice anecdote. I had a friend from stanford/mit/caltech who was tau beta pi and then went to law school, now is scotus clerking, and is going to stay in law...

guess my point is, neither of our anecdotes are worth much :/

[Cogburn87]

nice anecdote. I had a friend from stanford/mit/caltech who was tau beta pi and then went to law school, now is scotus clerking, and is going to stay in law...

guess my point is, neither of our anecdotes are worth much :/

I'm pretty sure the purpose of this thread was to share personal experiences and anecdotes.

[84651846190]

nice anecdote. I had a friend from stanford/mit/caltech who was tau beta pi and then went to law school, now is scotus clerking, and is going to stay in law...

guess my point is, neither of our anecdotes are worth much :/

Your anecdote doesn't really address his point because the SCOTUS clerk may just work for a year to retain his 300k SCOTUS clerk bonus and then peace out to do something more chill like CS.

Also, SCOTUS clerks are hardly representative of biglaw associates. The tippy top elite of the legal profession have always, and will always, do exceptionally well. That success has no relevance whatsoever to whether you will be happy as an average biglaw dweeb.

[beepboopbeep]

Pointing out that juzam's anecdote is dumb - well, yes, that's the point. I think it was intended to be just as dumb and pointless as the earlier one in the thread. One guy liked it and stayed. Another guy didn't like it and left. Both had lots of opportunities and wasn't forced out. If you think either story says anything it's because of your existing beliefs.

[Anonymous User]

nice anecdote. I had a friend from stanford/mit/caltech who was tau beta pi and then went to law school, now is scotus clerking, and is going to stay in law...

guess my point is, neither of our anecdotes are worth much :/

Your anecdote doesn't really address his point because the SCOTUS clerk may just work for a year to retain his 300k SCOTUS clerk bonus and then peace out to do something more chill like CS.

Also, SCOTUS clerks are hardly representative of biglaw associates. The tippy top elite of the legal profession have always, and will always, do exceptionally well. That success has no relevance whatsoever to whether you will be happy as an average biglaw dweeb.

In the 3 patent law departments/firms I've worked at, at least 50% of the ppl there if not much higher had very impressive credentials within the tech industry. Most of us move for upward mobility/$. Some even find better QOL in a patent boutique than in engineering

Engineering/software is definitely not as rosy as a lot of ppl here seem to think

[84651846190]

I mean, if you're dead set on the Pottery Barn lifestyle, then yeah. Biglaw is a decent option.

If you're in biglaw for the money and you (1) don't plan on having kids and (2) your spouse makes six figures, I personally view you as retarded or materialistic to the point of being completely brainwashed (and, BTW, your extra money is NEVER going to make you happy). But w/e, to each his own.

If you're the sole source of income for your family (with kids) then biglaw is more understandable (if your goal is to give your family a better life).

There are so many things I can think of that I would rather do with my life if I were single. Biglaw is near the bottom of the list. If biglaw is really the best thing you can come up with as a career when you're a forever-alone type, I really feel bad for you.

I worked in engineering and law. With engineering, there was at least some satisfaction in building/marketing successful products (i.e., having something you can point to at the end of the day and say "I built that"). With litigation, the entire exercise is so asinine in most cases that I've become convinced that litigators really are just expensive transaction costs in the corporate gamesmanship that is the American "economy."

The work you do in biglaw is NOT important (and, more particularly, you are so hilariously unimportant as an associate that your salary makes no sense whatsoever). The fact that associates get billed out at 400+$/hr for all of the stupid shit they do is unspeakably idiotic.

But, again, if $$$ is all you care about (either because you come from some prole, slack-jawed family that never had money or because you're too blinded by your own ambition to see that you're just another indistinguishable white collar worker with absolutely nothing unique or creative to offer to society), then biglaw is a sane outcome for you. Keep plugging along, maybe they make you Of Counsel some day and let you sit in on partner meetings.

[juzam_djinn]

Pointing out that juzam's anecdote is dumb - well, yes, that's the point. I think it was intended to be just as dumb and pointless as the earlier one in the thread. One guy liked it and stayed. Another guy didn't like it and left. Both had lots of opportunities and wasn't forced out. If you think either story says anything it's because of your existing beliefs.

yup, this. :/

[84651846190]

Pointing out that juzam's anecdote is dumb - well, yes, that's the point. I think it was intended to be just as dumb and pointless as the earlier one in the thread. One guy liked it and stayed. Another guy didn't like it and left. Both had lots of opportunities and wasn't forced out. If you think either story says anything it's because of your existing beliefs.

It was a lot dumber and more pointless than the earlier example, for the reasons I already gave above.

[Phil Brooks]

I mean, if you're dead set on the Pottery Barn lifestyle, then yeah. Biglaw is a decent option.

If you're in biglaw for the money and you (1) don't plan on having kids and (2) your spouse makes six figures, I personally view you as retarded or materialistic to the point of being completely brainwashed (and, BTW, your extra money is NEVER going to make you happy). But w/e, to each his own.

If you're the sole source of income for your family (with kids) then biglaw is more understandable (if your goal is to give your family a better life).

There are so many things I can think of that I would rather do with my life if I were single. Biglaw is near the bottom of the list. If biglaw is really the best thing you can come up with as a career when you're a forever-alone type, I really feel bad for you.

I worked in engineering and law. With engineering, there was at least some satisfaction in building/marketing successful products (i.e., having something you can point to at the end of the day and say "I built that"). With litigation, the entire exercise is so asinine in most cases that I've become convinced that litigators really are just expensive transaction costs in the corporate gamesmanship that is the American "economy."

The work you do in biglaw is NOT important (and, more particularly, you are so hilariously unimportant as an associate that your salary makes no sense whatsoever). The fact that associates get billed out at 400+$/hr for all of the stupid shit they do is unspeakably idiotic.

But, again, if $$$ is all you care about (either because you come from some prole, slack-jawed family that never had money or because you're too blinded by your own ambition to see that you're just another indistinguishable white collar worker with absolutely nothing unique or creative to offer to society), then biglaw is a sane outcome for you. Keep plugging along, maybe they make you Of Counsel some day and let you sit in on partner meetings.

I really like the "indistinguishable white collar worker" part. The American economy and higher education system are so unrelentingly homogenizing. My brightest classmates have all flocked like Pavlov's dogs to big corporations, particularly to Wall Street/MBB/Silicon Valley. I just found out that an old classmate of mine, who turned down several Ivy League schools in order to pursue his passion of robotics, has now ditched a robotics startup in order to work at Facebook. Another friend of mine who was pursuing international human rights law at Harvard got sucked into all the prestige and one uppsmanship and has joined Paul Weiss for 2L SA. It's very sad.

What is particularly laughable is the idea of "diversity" at the top universities--what's the point of having all the colors of the rainbow if everyone has the exact same ambitions and will end up with the exact same upper middle class white collar outlook?

There are some redeeming niche parts of law and even of litigation. Project development finance allows you to contribute to a tangible project and get some of that "I built that" feeling. And investment arbitration, which is what I am lucky enough to be doing, allows you to sue dictatorships and defend democracies. Can you sample work in either of these fields?

In terms of run-of-the-mill litigation between two domestic corporations, I agree with you, blah. Those who do this will leave no mark on society.

[beepboopbeep]

I really like the tone and content of this post

you come from some prole, slack-jawed family that never had money

:-/

[jbagelboy]

I am so lost