that feeling when your bonus hits Forum

[jkpolk]

I think we should talk more about how biglaw gets an unfairly bad rap in my opinion (lockstep pay, 5th year, larger secondary market, litigation). I mean I cruise to like 2,000 or 2,100. I’m intellectually challenged, I like everybody around, I feel valued, I like the level of supervision/discretion both going downwards and upwards, and I like the work.

Frankly I’d probably do this job for half of what they pay me (if prestige/exit options were maintained...and to be clear I’m only saying prestige matters insofar as exit options are concerned; not that I’m trying to get off on prestige as inherently valuable or anything).

So yeah maybe I’m in a unicorn situation, maybe lit is just better for people who are into it than is transactional...but maybe people are just way to hard on biglaw generally speaking.

Do others agree? Or am I a freak?

I feel like the lows are FUCKING LOW and the highs aren't that high. But it's not the worst job, all things considered. May have stockholm syndrome.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I think it’s definitelt Stockholm syndrome because I definitely used to hate it a lot more and now getting emails on any given day and hour including on vacation and leaving at 8pm is “normal” and a “good” day.

There are days I fucking hate it (today)...but it’s a lot less frequent than it used to be.

[QContinuum]

I think we should talk more about how biglaw gets an unfairly bad rap in my opinion (lockstep pay, 5th year, larger secondary market, litigation). I mean I cruise to like 2,000 or 2,100. I’m intellectually challenged, I like everybody around, I feel valued, I like the level of supervision/discretion both going downwards and upwards, and I like the work.

Frankly I’d probably do this job for half of what they pay me (if prestige/exit options were maintained...and to be clear I’m only saying prestige matters insofar as exit options are concerned; not that I’m trying to get off on prestige as inherently valuable or anything).

So yeah maybe I’m in a unicorn situation, maybe lit is just better for people who are into it than is transactional...but maybe people are just way to hard on biglaw generally speaking.

Do others agree? Or am I a freak?

It's really not bad at all, considering the pay and the exit options. I've always been accustomed to working/studying long hours, and don't think I can ever remember working "only" 9-5. Maybe not since elementary school. Even in college, where I theoretically had lots of free time, I was always doing volunteer work and ECs and research and writing in addition to my course load, and of course I was also obsessed with my GPA, so I studied a lot more than I probably actually needed to. Same with law school. So the hours - or juggling many balls at the same time - were never really that much of an adjustment for me.

I guess maybe it's K-JDs who were naturally good at studying/testtaking and actually enjoyed their free time in college/law school who can't stand the hours/workload. I mean, I had law school classmates who almost never attended lecture and didn't read a single word about the subject until like a week before exams, before somehow getting an A on the final. I could never have done that. But I can see how folks like that would find the lifestyle shocking and intolerable, since it simply isn't possible to take shortcuts like that in BigLaw, no matter your intellectual prowess.

[nixy]

I would imagine that’s not your intent, but that seems to set up a false dichotomy between those who know how to work and those who don’t because they take shortcuts and don’t know any better. Any number of people who’ve posted to this site about hating biglaw aren’t K-JDs, have worked before law school, and do in fact know how to work. They still don’t like biglaw. (Which is not saying that the only rational reaction to biglaw is dislike, just that it’s not a function of being K-JD/ignorant.)

[QContinuum]

I would imagine that’s not your intent, but that seems to set up a false dichotomy between those who know how to work and those who don’t because they take shortcuts and don’t know any better.

My post was not at all intended to criticize or put down folks who are naturally talented at academics. It would be crazy for someone able to skate to an A on a week's worth of studying to spend hours and hours all semester long poring over the casebook just for the sake of putting in the hours.

I was just trying to point out that there are a number of such folks at top law schools, and IME these folks are disproportionately likely to end up hating BigLaw, simply because it's such a huge, overnight transition from the kind of life they've always been able to lead. (Of course there are also those who adapt and thrive in BigLaw; I'm not remotely asserting that naturally talented students are doomed to BigLaw failure.)

Any number of people who’ve posted to this site about hating biglaw aren’t K-JDs, have worked before law school, and do in fact know how to work. They still don’t like biglaw. (Which is not saying that the only rational reaction to biglaw is dislike, just that it’s not a function of being K-JD/ignorant.)

I agree. I do not assert that being a naturally talented K-JDs is a prerequisite for hating BigLaw. There are, of course, other factors that, IME, predispose folks to hating BigLaw. There are the folks who went to law school for the money. They were never passionate about the law, and so are naturally predisposed to getting burnt out. There are the folks who worked between college and law school, but the job was a relatively low-level 9-5, and so BigLaw hours and the requirement to be constantly available still come as an unwelcome and intolerable adjustment.

And of course it's also entirely possible - common, even - for even folks with plenty of previous WE, who don't mind working long hours, who genuinely love the law, to end up hating BigLaw, for any number of reasons.

[nixy]

Ah, got it, agreed.

[PMan99]

I think we should talk more about how biglaw gets an unfairly bad rap in my opinion (lockstep pay, 5th year, larger secondary market, litigation). I mean I cruise to like 2,000 or 2,100. I’m intellectually challenged, I like everybody around, I feel valued, I like the level of supervision/discretion both going downwards and upwards, and I like the work.

Frankly I’d probably do this job for half of what they pay me (if prestige/exit options were maintained...and to be clear I’m only saying prestige matters insofar as exit options are concerned; not that I’m trying to get off on prestige as inherently valuable or anything).

So yeah maybe I’m in a unicorn situation, maybe lit is just better for people who are into it than is transactional...but maybe people are just way to hard on biglaw generally speaking.

Do others agree? Or am I a freak?

What you've described - cruising to 2000-2100, junior enough to not have biz dev demands, senior enough to know what you're doing - is an ideal biglaw experience. I'd bet most people in that position don't mind biglaw. Problem is, most people are in very different situations.

[objctnyrhnr]

I think we should talk more about how biglaw gets an unfairly bad rap in my opinion (lockstep pay, 5th year, larger secondary market, litigation). I mean I cruise to like 2,000 or 2,100. I’m intellectually challenged, I like everybody around, I feel valued, I like the level of supervision/discretion both going downwards and upwards, and I like the work.

Frankly I’d probably do this job for half of what they pay me (if prestige/exit options were maintained...and to be clear I’m only saying prestige matters insofar as exit options are concerned; not that I’m trying to get off on prestige as inherently valuable or anything).

So yeah maybe I’m in a unicorn situation, maybe lit is just better for people who are into it than is transactional...but maybe people are just way to hard on biglaw generally speaking.

Do others agree? Or am I a freak?

What you've described - cruising to 2000-2100, junior enough to not have biz dev demands, senior enough to know what you're doing - is an ideal biglaw experience. I'd bet most people in that position don't mind biglaw. Problem is, most people are in very different situations.

Interesting point—one I had not considered. I didn’t realize that associates had biz dev demands. Can you elaborate about what that means, and when (based on what I described), you might anticipate biglaw lit starting to suck a little more?

[LBJ's Hair]

The thing that BigLaw gives--and one that I don't think is appreciated enough by JDs who have never worked--is *choice*: You can grind and work a lot, for a lot of money, or you can leave to a position that will give you lifestyle-ish hours, while still paying you low six figures.

Very few careers give you the work-a-lot-for-a-lot/work-a-little-for-enough option. And lawyers can even get paid decent money by the fucking federal government, which gets you solid benefits and bulletproof job security(!!!) That's unheard of.

This isn't to say that there aren't parts of the law that suck. Just that basically any other career path sucks substantially more.

[Anonymous User]

I think we should talk more about how biglaw gets an unfairly bad rap in my opinion (lockstep pay, 5th year, larger secondary market, litigation). I mean I cruise to like 2,000 or 2,100. I’m intellectually challenged, I like everybody around, I feel valued, I like the level of supervision/discretion both going downwards and upwards, and I like the work.

Frankly I’d probably do this job for half of what they pay me (if prestige/exit options were maintained...and to be clear I’m only saying prestige matters insofar as exit options are concerned; not that I’m trying to get off on prestige as inherently valuable or anything).

So yeah maybe I’m in a unicorn situation, maybe lit is just better for people who are into it than is transactional...but maybe people are just way to hard on biglaw generally speaking.

Do others agree? Or am I a freak?

I’m in a DC regulatory practice and I completely agree. The only major issue for me is I really wish I could spend more time with my wife during the week.

DC regulatory practice here too and I completely agree (although I do wish there was more law involved). I have it much easier than others in biglaw, but yes, me and my SO still dream of a day where I get off work, hit the gym, and then we make dinner together.

And to the OP: I'm in the same boat coming from a less well off background and now making money I'd never have dreamed of. It still feels unreal sometimes. I'm hoping to use biglaw to get a nice down payment on a house and good exit options, and to set myself up financially so I can help my parents a bit when they get older. I don't talk about the money with friends or family, but my SO has a ballpark idea for house buying purposes and we do go out for a nice dinner whenever the bonus clears.

Good for you, go celebrate.

[dabigchina]

I think the people who hate biglaw are billing way more than 2100 per year tho. In my (admittedly limited experience) every hour above 180-190 per month becomes exponentially more painful.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I hate biglaw and used to like it. In a lot of ways it gets easier the more senior I get but I am also even more over it than before.

For me, it's watching clients work much less than me for a not-commiserate amount of less pay. Sure they get paid less than me and a lot of people's eyes pop a bit when they hear how much me, a thirty-ish person, gets paid. But they also don't seem to notice or understand the fact that I can NEVER meet up with them for happy hour drinks. I mean NEVER. My team expects me to be available until at least 7:45 pm every day, more or less. That grates on me.

Maybe billing 2,000 to 2,1000 in lit is bearable but I bill like 2,200-2,400 in corporate and I hate that shit. I billed four 250+ months last year. I hated that shit. I had a weekend when my parents who are old were in town for ONE TIME in the whole year and I had to work the whole time. Every time I go on vacation everyone acts like they are doing me the world's biggest solid for letting me go and that I owe them big time.

For me life's too short to spend the best months of summer cancelling every plan, which I did last year. So it grates on me.

If it was like law school, where I studied a bunch but managed my own schedule for the most part, it would be more bearable. But even then it's hard to raise a family and truly be an active participant in the raising part in this job. I really don't see how it's possible.

[dabigchina]

Can’t imagine what the senior associates feel like getting a $100,000 lump sum deposit.

The funny thing is that it's often less of a big deal for them. Hedonic adaptation is real.

That's terrifying. I can't imagine feeling trapped in biglaw because you can't stand making less than 300k+. Then again, I don't think I like money that much.

There's also this crazy group of people that both (a) like money (and are used to making a lot of it in biglaw), and (b) actually don't completely hate biglaw (Gasp). I don't hate this job, and especially not for the amount of money it pays. It certainly sucks at times, but all jobs suck to some extent.

There's no need to feel personally attacked. I for one don't think billing 200 hrs every single month is worth any amount of money in the world.

[Anonymous User]

I usually try and look at things objectively at my firm and not compare to others. We get paid around market rate salary, but with a very small bonus program that doesn't provide much incentive at all. Love my firm, love the people I work with, and love the work I do, so I'm certainly not complaining. Though its hard not to look over at peers at my same year pulling in huge bonus checks. But then again, I've turned down offers to join some of their firms in the past. So at the end of the day, I wasn't willing to give up my current gig, even for the chance at more $$. Still, that bonus check would be awesome...

[shock259]

I quit biglaw as a fifth year to go in house, but it was overall a positive experience. The money, considering my skillset, was incredible. I sought out, and was fortunate enough to find, generally good people to work for. I never had money growing up and I had zero real prospects for making any money. But biglaw let me save and invest tons, and put me well on the path to early retirement.

I left because the biglaw life slowly drained me. Even at 2200 hours, I no longer really had friends because I never had time to spend with them. It strained my relationship with my girlfriend. And in looking up the chain, the counsels/partners had no better lifestyle than I did. I was being given more and more responsibility that actually made my life worse and worse (IE, "actually, can you run this call we over the weekend?"). And I was just becoming a much more negative, cynical person.

My advice to most people is to stay in as long as you can tolerate, but listen to yourself when you feel that you're done. It's not worth it to let yourself become another miserable rich person. Life can be really fucking short. I know tons of people that want out and are miserable, but are letting inertia keep them in a job they hate. Don't let that be you and biglaw can be a good experience.

[objctnyrhnr]

I quit biglaw as a fifth year to go in house, but it was overall a positive experience. The money, considering my skillset, was incredible. I sought out, and was fortunate enough to find, generally good people to work for. I never had money growing up and I had zero real prospects for making any money. But biglaw let me save and invest tons, and put me well on the path to early retirement.

I left because the biglaw life slowly drained me. Even at 2200 hours, I no longer really had friends because I never had time to spend with them. It strained my relationship with my girlfriend. And in looking up the chain, the counsels/partners had no better lifestyle than I did. I was being given more and more responsibility that actually made my life worse and worse (IE, "actually, can you run this call we over the weekend?"). And I was just becoming a much more negative, cynical person.

My advice to most people is to stay in as long as you can tolerate, but listen to yourself when you feel that you're done. It's not worth it to let yourself become another miserable rich person. Life can be really fucking short. I know tons of people that want out and are miserable, but are letting inertia keep them in a job they hate. Don't let that be you and biglaw can be a good experience.

I guess maybe my perspective is different because I really don’t mind running a call over the weekend. I mean yeah I have to plan around it, but it’s that shit that I’m literally getting paid for (which is what I tell myself and my wife, which makes me and my family not mind the interruption).

Additionally, maybe my perspective is colored because I came from a MUCH lower paying legal job (non DOJ govt). I’m wondering how people’s feelings about biglaw relate to what they were doing before. Like take a k-Jd who hits it during oci and doesn’t look back until he feels the burnout in year 2 or 3 vs say a person who hustled for some years and made pennies then took out a ton of debt to go to some ttt law school then traded his way up from small to mid to biglaw by like 3-4 years out. Who’s more likely to complain about biglaw?

To be clear, this isn’t a shot at anybody on this thread or anything. I’m just wondering if others think there’s correlation between one’s pre biglaw background and one’s feelings about biglaw.

[nixy]

It could well be tougher for K-JDs with no pre-law job experience who come in through OCI, or it could be easier because they don't have anything to compare it to.

Again, when this has come up on this board before (and it has many times), plenty of people with prelaw experience in all kinds of fields have had problems with it. I can totally see that people who've had/come from money would find it tougher than people who never had money, who may value the money more and find the tradeoff worth it. But it's also possible that people coming from money feel less stressed because they feel like they can walk away, while someone without that kind of background may feel trapped by the money (especially if they have law school debt, which lots of people do). I also think if you really really value control over your schedule (which lots of people do), biglaw won't be a good fit, regardless of previous experience. Or you simply don't like the work very much - that's fine for 9-5, much tougher for pulling all nighters and blowing weekend plans.

A lot of it also seems to more on the culture/expectations of a given biglaw job. You could be at a firm where 90% of people are happy but if you're stuck working for the one asshole partner your life is miserable regardless of how anyone else feels. Or you make a mistake early on with the wrong person and get frozen out of good experience/advancing. Stuff like that.

(Which isn't to say people can't enjoy it or never have good experiences; obviously that's not true. For a lot of people it's a great job.)

[Anonymous User]

I quit biglaw as a fifth year to go in house, but it was overall a positive experience. The money, considering my skillset, was incredible. I sought out, and was fortunate enough to find, generally good people to work for. I never had money growing up and I had zero real prospects for making any money. But biglaw let me save and invest tons, and put me well on the path to early retirement.

I left because the biglaw life slowly drained me. Even at 2200 hours, I no longer really had friends because I never had time to spend with them. It strained my relationship with my girlfriend. And in looking up the chain, the counsels/partners had no better lifestyle than I did. I was being given more and more responsibility that actually made my life worse and worse (IE, "actually, can you run this call we over the weekend?"). And I was just becoming a much more negative, cynical person.

My advice to most people is to stay in as long as you can tolerate, but listen to yourself when you feel that you're done. It's not worth it to let yourself become another miserable rich person. Life can be really fucking short. I know tons of people that want out and are miserable, but are letting inertia keep them in a job they hate. Don't let that be you and biglaw can be a good experience.

I guess maybe my perspective is different because I really don’t mind running a call over the weekend. I mean yeah I have to plan around it, but it’s that shit that I’m literally getting paid for (which is what I tell myself and my wife, which makes me and my family not mind the interruption).

Additionally, maybe my perspective is colored because I came from a MUCH lower paying legal job (non DOJ govt). I’m wondering how people’s feelings about biglaw relate to what they were doing before. Like take a k-Jd who hits it during oci and doesn’t look back until he feels the burnout in year 2 or 3 vs say a person who hustled for some years and made pennies then took out a ton of debt to go to some ttt law school then traded his way up from small to mid to biglaw by like 3-4 years out. Who’s more likely to complain about biglaw?

To be clear, this isn’t a shot at anybody on this thread or anything. I’m just wondering if others think there’s correlation between one’s pre biglaw background and one’s feelings about biglaw.

I think for most people, biglaw really is tolerable as long as you actually get compensated fairly with a market bonus. When you are under-compensated and do not feel like you are getting recognized, no matter how good your work product is and no matter how many hours, how many fucking all-nighters in the office you endured, you do feel absolutely miserable. This is what happened at my biglaw firm where I am actually liked by most people but hated by one or two seniors.

[Anonymous User]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

[QContinuum]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

The problem though is that the BigLaw firms that don't pay market don't work their associates any less hard than the firms that do pay market. Even if associates' billables are lower at the non-market firms, that doesn't necessarily mean they're putting in fewer actual hours or have less stress in their lives. It's often the case that trying to find billable work at a slow firm is more stressful than actually doing billable work at a busy firm.

(Sure, it's possible to cruise until being "shitcanned" at a non-market-paying firm, but it's also possible to do the same at a market-paying firm. And over the mine run of cases, non-market-paying firms tend to be quicker to axe folks for not making hours than market-paying firms.)

[Anonymous User]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

I am the anon above the quoted post. The firm I am working at is on the market bonus scale with no specific billable target. Major market. My hours were clearly higher than those of some of my peers who did get market bonus. Often I was the only one online during those miserable nights. I was often complimented for my work and many people do like me at this firm. I just wonder why did I bother to work so extra hard? Why did I care about my hours?

For those that didn't get the bonus and didn't pull the hours in the first place, I perfectly agree that you shouldn't feel bad.

[Anonymous User]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

The problem though is that the BigLaw firms that don't pay market don't work their associates any less hard than the firms that do pay market. Even if associates' billables are lower at the non-market firms, that doesn't necessarily mean they're putting in fewer actual hours or have less stress in their lives. It's often the case that trying to find billable work at a slow firm is more stressful than actually doing billable work at a busy firm.

(Sure, it's possible to cruise until being "shitcanned" at a non-market-paying firm, but it's also possible to do the same at a market-paying firm. And over the mine run of cases, non-market-paying firms tend to be quicker to axe folks for not making hours than market-paying firms.)

This is all true, with the caveat that what's been said applies also to market salary-paying firms that are on the market bonus scale. I cannot emphasize this enough. It's really important to gauge profitability of the firm you are considering and the direction of the firm (is the firm doing better every year or is it falling?). Culture is important too, but this can only be meaningfully assessed by talking to an associate that has worked there for at least a year at a cafe or a bar.

[Anonymous User]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

The problem though is that the BigLaw firms that don't pay market don't work their associates any less hard than the firms that do pay market. Even if associates' billables are lower at the non-market firms, that doesn't necessarily mean they're putting in fewer actual hours or have less stress in their lives. It's often the case that trying to find billable work at a slow firm is more stressful than actually doing billable work at a busy firm.

(Sure, it's possible to cruise until being "shitcanned" at a non-market-paying firm, but it's also possible to do the same at a market-paying firm. And over the mine run of cases, non-market-paying firms tend to be quicker to axe folks for not making hours than market-paying firms.)

This is all true, with the caveat that what's been said applies also to market salary-paying firms that are on the market bonus scale. I cannot emphasize this enough. It's really important to gauge profitability of the firm you are considering and the direction of the firm (is the firm doing better every year or is it falling?). Culture is important too, but this can only be meaningfully assessed by talking to an associate that has worked there for at least a year at a cafe or a bar.

What about firms that have been profitable and have achieved revenue growth consistently for the past 10 years, but don’t pay market salary or bonus?

[Anonymous User]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

The problem though is that the BigLaw firms that don't pay market don't work their associates any less hard than the firms that do pay market. Even if associates' billables are lower at the non-market firms, that doesn't necessarily mean they're putting in fewer actual hours or have less stress in their lives. It's often the case that trying to find billable work at a slow firm is more stressful than actually doing billable work at a busy firm.

(Sure, it's possible to cruise until being "shitcanned" at a non-market-paying firm, but it's also possible to do the same at a market-paying firm. And over the mine run of cases, non-market-paying firms tend to be quicker to axe folks for not making hours than market-paying firms.)

This is all true, with the caveat that what's been said applies also to market salary-paying firms that are on the market bonus scale. I cannot emphasize this enough. It's really important to gauge profitability of the firm you are considering and the direction of the firm (is the firm doing better every year or is it falling?). Culture is important too, but this can only be meaningfully assessed by talking to an associate that has worked there for at least a year at a cafe or a bar.

What about firms that have been profitable and have achieved revenue growth consistently for the past 10 years, but don’t pay market salary or bonus?

I am not sure whether any biglaw firm in a major market is not paying market salary. Assuming there is one, you shouldn't go there or stay there unless your alternative is being jobless.

[nealric]

Think there is a trade-off though in regards to being in biglaw and not getting market bonus. If you work in a practice, or a firm, where you aren’t pulling the same hours—or have the same expectations—as your friends pulling the market bonus, is your life really that worse off?

The problem though is that the BigLaw firms that don't pay market don't work their associates any less hard than the firms that do pay market. Even if associates' billables are lower at the non-market firms, that doesn't necessarily mean they're putting in fewer actual hours or have less stress in their lives. It's often the case that trying to find billable work at a slow firm is more stressful than actually doing billable work at a busy firm.

(Sure, it's possible to cruise until being "shitcanned" at a non-market-paying firm, but it's also possible to do the same at a market-paying firm. And over the mine run of cases, non-market-paying firms tend to be quicker to axe folks for not making hours than market-paying firms.)

This is all true, with the caveat that what's been said applies also to market salary-paying firms that are on the market bonus scale. I cannot emphasize this enough. It's really important to gauge profitability of the firm you are considering and the direction of the firm (is the firm doing better every year or is it falling?). Culture is important too, but this can only be meaningfully assessed by talking to an associate that has worked there for at least a year at a cafe or a bar.

What about firms that have been profitable and have achieved revenue growth consistently for the past 10 years, but don’t pay market salary or bonus?

I am not sure whether any biglaw firm in a major market is not paying market salary. Assuming there is one, you shouldn't go there or stay there unless your alternative is being jobless.

It depends on what you consider "biglaw" I suppose. But there are several Amlaw100 firms that have PPP below $1MM, which means in practical terms that they can't really afford to pay associates over $400k after bonus. That's more than a lot of their partners make, and they need to pay off their rainmakers a lot more than they need to get the absolute best associates (which they aren't going to get anyways because they are usually second or third tier firms in their respective markets).

There's good and bad sides to these firms. It's likely easier to make partner than at a v20 type firm, and you are more likely to play more significant roles in matters at an earlier stage in your career. You are also less likely to get absolutely creamed with a 2500+ hour year. The downside is the matters will be smaller, and there often isn't an unlimited supply of work even if you want it.