How to escape Forum

[jagpaw]

I was in a very similar place a few months ago. Just finished my 5th year in corporate/M&A biglaw and found that I hated most of it and had no desire to continue. Unfortunately, being married with a kid with another on the way, I can't just walk away from a $300k job, even though I personally had little interest in the money. As ridiculous as it sounds, $300k or $30k -- it's all the same to me -- but not to my family, and therein lies the rub.

Luckily, I had no debt besides a reasonable mortgage at rock-bottom interest, and a good amount of savings. If that describes you as well, you aren't in a bad spot. I ended up landing a gig at a boutique corporate firm that bills 1200-1500 hours and still pays quite well (in the 200s), filled with biglaw refugees who wanted to create a better environment for themselves. It's still corporate law, but just a lot less of it. Amazing how much better it feels to bill 4-6 hours instead of 8+ hours.

There is hope -- whether you transition to a slower-paced practice like I did, go in-house (dependent on your market, but these jobs are out there but you have to be patient to land the right fit), or leave the law entirely. If you have no interest in staying a lawyer, I'd consider talking to a career coach -- so much is out there in the world that lawyers are sometimes oblivious to. Much depends on your personal factors (primarily financial -- e.g. does your spouse work, how much minimum do you need to make, etc).

Best of luck!

I keep hearing about these types of firms. Any tips on how to find them? I’m searches are generally restricted to LinkedIn/Indeed and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the billable numbers that you referenced (I’ll see “lifestyle” firm pitches but I feel like I see that for every firm out there)

[Neff]

Corporate boutique firms like mine exist in primarily in VC ecosystems (so NorCal, SoCal, Pacific NW, NYC, Boston, Austin). They/we essentially do ECVC work primarily, plus some lower-middle market M&A, "light" PE work, but virtually no capital markets or public company work. You often get paid on a quasi billable hourly basis, taking home a high percentage of your billings, such that (as a senior associate) 1500 hours gets you to mid to high 200s assuming no material collections issues. Some of these firms have minimal offices or are basically remote-only.

Two examples of such firms area McNaul Ebel (Pacific Northwest) and Kastner Gravelle (Austin). I don't work at either of these firms and am not totally sure about their comp structure, but my firm appears to be similar.

Found mine through custom recruiter/LinkedIn.

Yes, these corporate boutiques often have a litigation partner or two, but there are also tons of other elite, mid-level, and shitty lit-only boutiques out there for one's choosing.

[jagpaw]

Corporate boutique firms like mine exist in primarily in VC ecosystems (so NorCal, SoCal, Pacific NW, NYC, Boston, Austin). They/we essentially do ECVC work primarily, plus some lower-middle market M&A, "light" PE work, but virtually no capital markets or public company work. You often get paid on a quasi billable hourly basis, taking home a high percentage of your billings, such that (as a senior associate) 1500 hours gets you to mid to high 200s assuming no material collections issues. Some of these firms have minimal offices or are basically remote-only.

Two examples of such firms area McNaul Ebel (Pacific Northwest) and Kastner Gravelle (Austin). I don't work at either of these firms and am not totally sure about their comp structure, but my firm appears to be similar.

Found mine through custom recruiter/LinkedIn.

Yes, these corporate boutiques often have a litigation partner or two, but there are also tons of other elite, mid-level, and shitty lit-only boutiques out there for one's choosing.

Thanks - this is all very refreshing to hear. When you say 1200-1500 billables, are these fairly predictable 4-6 hour billable days or are you subject to the typical pace you see in PE M&A? For me at least the unpredictability/Friday evening emails to turn something over the weekend is what gets to me.

[cavalier1138]

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

I happened to come across the thread, and the relevant posts have been de-anoned. For future reference, please report these posts as you find them. We don't actively scan for things like anon abuse, and reporting is the only reliable way to get our attention on a specific post.

[Neff]

Corporate boutique firms like mine exist in primarily in VC ecosystems (so NorCal, SoCal, Pacific NW, NYC, Boston, Austin). They/we essentially do ECVC work primarily, plus some lower-middle market M&A, "light" PE work, but virtually no capital markets or public company work. You often get paid on a quasi billable hourly basis, taking home a high percentage of your billings, such that (as a senior associate) 1500 hours gets you to mid to high 200s assuming no material collections issues. Some of these firms have minimal offices or are basically remote-only.

Two examples of such firms area McNaul Ebel (Pacific Northwest) and Kastner Gravelle (Austin). I don't work at either of these firms and am not totally sure about their comp structure, but my firm appears to be similar.

Found mine through custom recruiter/LinkedIn.

Yes, these corporate boutiques often have a litigation partner or two, but there are also tons of other elite, mid-level, and shitty lit-only boutiques out there for one's choosing.

Thanks - this is all very refreshing to hear. When you say 1200-1500 billables, are these fairly predictable 4-6 hour billable days or are you subject to the typical pace you see in PE M&A? For me at least the unpredictability/Friday evening emails to turn something over the weekend is what gets to me.

There will still be some unpredictable/volatile hours from time to time (evenings and weekends, etc), depending on the proportion of M&A deals you are on vs. routine outside GC work. But if your total hours is 500-800+ less than biglaw, you are going to feel a lot better overall. Also, it's permanently WFH, so when I'm not billing, I'm working out, playing video games, or hanging out with the kid -- not sitting in an office.

[RandomInternetPerson]

Have you looked into public interest jobs at all. Public defender jobs can be interesting, civil legal aid can be very chill and rewarding. Depends how sold you are on keeping a high salary.

Not OP, but this is extremely unhelpful. Did you not read that he/she has "a family that relies on [OP]"? Do you not know how expensive it is to have a family? Public defender/legal aid jobs provide nowhere near a salary sufficient to allow a breadwinner to support a family. I'm incredibly sensitive to OP's perspective, but there's no need to just spew nonsense.

Also not OP, but to answer other Anon, it depends how much are you are ok with govt assistance (EBT, etc) I know lots of people who have masters degrees or above who are on such due to their fully licensed jobs not paying enough to reasonably care for a family. The secret if so if to not be lower middle class. That with a dependent and student loans.......you will die...........but be below poverty level(x2) and you can get IBR plus free rent and food and medical.

If you go low income, go low enough is all.

Maybe he can try working at Sears?

want to be careful not to pick up too many shifts though since they start to ratchet down your food stamps at a certain point. reading comp bro

Learn what reading comp is.

MOD NOTE:

User RandomInternetPerson outed for anon abuse.

[RandomInternetPerson]

Have you looked into public interest jobs at all. Public defender jobs can be interesting, civil legal aid can be very chill and rewarding. Depends how sold you are on keeping a high salary.

Not OP, but this is extremely unhelpful. Did you not read that he/she has "a family that relies on [OP]"? Do you not know how expensive it is to have a family? Public defender/legal aid jobs provide nowhere near a salary sufficient to allow a breadwinner to support a family. I'm incredibly sensitive to OP's perspective, but there's no need to just spew nonsense.

Also not OP, but to answer other Anon, it depends how much are you are ok with govt assistance (EBT, etc) I know lots of people who have masters degrees or above who are on such due to their fully licensed jobs not paying enough to reasonably care for a family. The secret if so if to not be lower middle class. That with a dependent and student loans.......you will die...........but be below poverty level(x2) and you can get IBR plus free rent and food and medical.

If you go low income, go low enough is all.

Maybe he can try working at Sears?

Maybe. Was mostly responding to others references to such jobs though, so again.... reading comp.

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

No one said that
. Christ.

[nixy]

I mean, yes, RandomInternetPerson, that is what you said.

[Barrred]

I mean, yes, RandomInternetPerson, that is what you said.

I can't decide if RandomInternetPerson is just a crazy 1L, or if it is Admin_Megan's alter-ego after learning that she can drive more engagement on TLS via belligerence and idiotic hot takes.

[RedGiant]

Returning to OP's original query--there are interesting in-house jobs. I promise! I worked at masters of the universe M&A jobs on WSJ-headline deals. It made me sure that was not what I wanted post-JD--you can only do so many all-nighters with unstable partners and ungrateful clients and bewildered family and friends--I get it. I also worked in Silicon Valley.

There are interesting jobs in tech and other industries that are not stagnant! Promise. You don't have to go work at a dying paper company in Reading, PA!!!

My last in-house job was at pre-IPO unicorn and I was a solo counsel. The company is now doing a SPAC. I worked there 14 months, and on a cash-out pre-SPAC basis, my shares are worth 500K. That's before they are exchanged to the sponsor and trade publicly. You read that right--for 14 months!!! It was exhilarating coming up to speed on real estate negotiations, commercial work, procurement, privacy, legal ops, [industry redacted] regulatory law, and all things corporate governancefor the company. In those 14 months we negotiated 3 commercial leases and a full buildout of RE, did two venture financing rounds, refi'ed our debt/revolver, went through our first audit, grew by about 250 people and 8X revenue...and I had a front seat to all of it. Was it scary? Was I expert in any of those areas before I started? No--I'm a corporate and securities atty (mostly lifecycle representation in the Valley which included a smattering of M&A, SH activism and capital markets).

I have since transitioned to a late-stage international SaaS company backed by blue-chip VCs. We're doing really interesting and complex restructuring deal to put into place a DE HoldCo, and then prepping our company for exit and IPO. I also counsel on privacy, procurement (especially adtech) and employment matters. All of this is broader than "straight corporate." It's interesting. Our CLO is a badass, and all of our other colleagues are collaborative, whipsmart and kind!

I know you're exhausted and burnt out and you feel like you work for psychopaths. Been there, done that. I promise you that there are smart, savvy attorneys who work in-house at good companies.

Please check out the Lawyer Whisperer blog and also check out the goinhouse.com guide to interviewing. They have myriad guides and Q&A regarding how to sell the M&A to generalist transition.

For the record, since I've been in-house, although things are hectic, I have been able to reclaim weekends, most of my nights. I control my time. I can foist crappy projects or tight deadlines onto outside counsel (although I try not to be awful to them!). It is truly freeing and nearly unimaginable to someone in the throes of M&A midlevel-ness to understand that not everything is an emergency. Not all clients are jerky finance types. Many of the deals I work on are still fast-paced but are humane and win-win. I LIKE MY JOB. I think you can get to a place where you like your job too, and you utilize all of the good corporate skills you've built up over the past six years.

My advice to you is to use your time at a firm to research other resources (PLI, ACC, corporatecounsel.net, etc.) to see if any M&A-adjacent, largely corporate practices are interesting. And then for interviewing, while sometimes people think that M&A is less versatile, if you can sell the "I've seen it all, I've kicked the tires, I've seen the pitfalls, and I want to help advance business objectives while minimizing risk." You can do it!!!

IT GETS BETTER. GODSPEED!

[TUwave]

Returning to OP's original query--there are interesting in-house jobs. I promise! I worked a masters of the universe M&A jobs on WSJ-headline deals. It made me sure that was not what I wanted post-JD--you can only do so many all-nighters with unstable partners and ungrateful clients and bewildered family and friends--I get it. I also worked in Silicon Valley.

There are interesting jobs in tech and other industries that are not stagnant! Promise. You don't have to go work at a dying paper company in Reading, PA!!!

My last in-house job was at pre-IPO unicorn and I was a solo counsel. The company is now doing a SPAC. I worked there 14 months, and on a cash-out pre-SPAC basis, my shares are worth 500K. That's before they are exchanged to the sponsor and trade publicly. You read that right--for 14 months!!! It was exhilarating coming up to speed on real estate negotiations, commercial work, procurement, privacy, legal ops, [industry redacted] regulatory law, and all things corporate governancefor the company. In those 14 months we negotiated 3 commercial leases and a full buildout of RE, did two venture financing rounds, refi'ed our debt/revolver, went through our first audit, grew by about 250 people and 8X revenue...and I had a front seat to all of it. Was it scary? Was I expert in any of those areas before I started? No--I'm a corporate and securities atty (mostly lifecycle representation in the Valley which included a smattering of M&A, SH activism and capital markets).

I have since transitioned to a late-stage international SaaS company backed by blue-chip VCs. We're doing really interesting and complex restructuring deal to put into place a DE HoldCo, and then prepping our company for exit and IPO. I also counsel on privacy, procurement (especially adtech) and employment matters. All of this is broader than "straight corporate." It's interesting. Our CLO is a badass, and all of our other colleagues are collaborative, whipsmart and kind!

I know you're exhausted and burnt out and you feel like you work for psychopaths. Been there, done that. I promise you that there are smart, savvy attorneys who work in-house at good companies.

Please check out the Lawyer Whisperer blog and also check out the goinhouse.com guide to interviewing. They have myriad guides and Q&A regarding how to sell the M&A to generalist transition.

For the record, since I've been in-house, although things are hectic, I have been able to reclaim weekends, most of my nights. I control my time. I can foist crappy projects or tight deadlines onto outside counsel (although I try not to be awful to them!). It is truly freeing and nearly unimaginable to someone in the throes of M&A midlevel-ness to understand that not everything is an emergency. Not all clients are jerky finance types. Many of the deals I work on are still fast-paced but are humane and win-win. I LIKE MY JOB. I think you can get to a place where you like your job too, and you utilize all of the good corporate skills you've built up over the past six years.

My advice to you is to use your time at a firm to research other resources (PLI, ACC, corporatecounsel.net, etc.) to see if any M&A-adjacent, largely corporate practices are interesting. And then for interviewing, while sometimes people think that M&A is less versatile, if you can sell the "I've seen it all, I've kicked the tires, I've seen the pitfalls, and I want to help advance business objectives while minimizing risk." You can do it!!!

IT GETS BETTER. GODSPEED!

Thank you for this, burnt out 4th year here and this just gave me the strength to get through the week.

[cavalier1138]

I mean, yes, RandomInternetPerson, that is what you said.

I can't decide if RandomInternetPerson is just a crazy 1L, or if it is Admin_Megan's alter-ego after learning that she can drive more engagement on TLS via belligerence and idiotic hot takes.

Well, if they were a sockpuppet for anyone (the thought crossed my mind), they went through a lot of trouble to hide their info. Either way, RandomInternetPerson has been banned after continuing to abuse anon and after asking to have their account "cancelled." Since this isn't Netflix, I assumed they just wanted to be banned.

RIP, RIP.

[NoLongerALurker]

Returning to OP's original query--there are interesting in-house jobs. I promise! I worked a masters of the universe M&A jobs on WSJ-headline deals. It made me sure that was not what I wanted post-JD--you can only do so many all-nighters with unstable partners and ungrateful clients and bewildered family and friends--I get it. I also worked in Silicon Valley.

There are interesting jobs in tech and other industries that are not stagnant! Promise. You don't have to go work at a dying paper company in Reading, PA!!!

My last in-house job was at pre-IPO unicorn and I was a solo counsel. The company is now doing a SPAC. I worked there 14 months, and on a cash-out pre-SPAC basis, my shares are worth 500K. That's before they are exchanged to the sponsor and trade publicly. You read that right--for 14 months!!! It was exhilarating coming up to speed on real estate negotiations, commercial work, procurement, privacy, legal ops, [industry redacted] regulatory law, and all things corporate governancefor the company. In those 14 months we negotiated 3 commercial leases and a full buildout of RE, did two venture financing rounds, refi'ed our debt/revolver, went through our first audit, grew by about 250 people and 8X revenue...and I had a front seat to all of it. Was it scary? Was I expert in any of those areas before I started? No--I'm a corporate and securities atty (mostly lifecycle representation in the Valley which included a smattering of M&A, SH activism and capital markets).

I have since transitioned to a late-stage international SaaS company backed by blue-chip VCs. We're doing really interesting and complex restructuring deal to put into place a DE HoldCo, and then prepping our company for exit and IPO. I also counsel on privacy, procurement (especially adtech) and employment matters. All of this is broader than "straight corporate." It's interesting. Our CLO is a badass, and all of our other colleagues are collaborative, whipsmart and kind!

I know you're exhausted and burnt out and you feel like you work for psychopaths. Been there, done that. I promise you that there are smart, savvy attorneys who work in-house at good companies.

Please check out the Lawyer Whisperer blog and also check out the goinhouse.com guide to interviewing. They have myriad guides and Q&A regarding how to sell the M&A to generalist transition.

For the record, since I've been in-house, although things are hectic, I have been able to reclaim weekends, most of my nights. I control my time. I can foist crappy projects or tight deadlines onto outside counsel (although I try not to be awful to them!). It is truly freeing and nearly unimaginable to someone in the throes of M&A midlevel-ness to understand that not everything is an emergency. Not all clients are jerky finance types. Many of the deals I work on are still fast-paced but are humane and win-win. I LIKE MY JOB. I think you can get to a place where you like your job too, and you utilize all of the good corporate skills you've built up over the past six years.

My advice to you is to use your time at a firm to research other resources (PLI, ACC, corporatecounsel.net, etc.) to see if any M&A-adjacent, largely corporate practices are interesting. And then for interviewing, while sometimes people think that M&A is less versatile, if you can sell the "I've seen it all, I've kicked the tires, I've seen the pitfalls, and I want to help advance business objectives while minimizing risk." You can do it!!!

IT GETS BETTER. GODSPEED!

Your avatar checks out. But this is definitely the most uplifting positive thing I've read in TLS in literally several years.

[ALCA1920]

Sorry to hear that this is happening to you, but know that Biglaw and in-house aren't the end-all-be-all of legal practice. Like others have said, you can take on smaller firm work or go into government positions, like PA/PD/JAG. Most people say that those are very rewarding jobs that give you great experiences, the kinds that you won't get when sitting in the office you have right now. Try those out first; you might come to like them, and it's not unheard of for small/medium firms to make decent $$ with a steady 40 hours/week schedule. A law degree can also open doors in other fields, like politics, business, real estate, accounting, law enforcement, and so on. There is such a thing as JD-advantage.

You say that you have a family to support, so that makes this a much harder question to answer. You could relocate or downsize if the situation is that desperate. My guess is that you're living in a high COL city in a state with high tax rates, so there might be room for improvement on that front– there are more remote/suburban areas in the country that need attorneys ASAP, and the costs of living there aren't too bad.

Hey, these are just a few of the other opportunities you have with your law degree. You can stick with law, or maybe transfer to a different career track and use your JD as an advantage (I believe real estate is one of the more lucrative options. Having some knowledge of property, transactions and land use will certainly help).

[nixy]

Have you actually done any of those shifts? Do you have specific advice as to how to move from midlevel biglaw to any of those? Respectfully, not sure a 0L has much to offer here.

[Ultramar vistas]

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

I happened to come across the thread, and the relevant posts have been de-anoned. For future reference, please report these posts as you find them. We don't actively scan for things like anon abuse, and reporting is the only reliable way to get our attention on a specific post.

Weird, because I reported the rampant anon abuse (by the tone, the same troll as here) in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=307550

It says that each report has been closed by Serett (?) but as the offending posts remain anonymous for literally no reason, I assume there’s not a whole lot of consistency among the mod team here.

[Serett]

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

I happened to come across the thread, and the relevant posts have been de-anoned. For future reference, please report these posts as you find them. We don't actively scan for things like anon abuse, and reporting is the only reliable way to get our attention on a specific post.

Weird, because I reported the rampant anon abuse (by the tone, the same troll as here) in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=307550

It says that each report has been closed by Serett (?) but as the offending posts remain anonymous for literally no reason, I assume there’s not a whole lot of consistency among the mod team here.

The forum's official policy is that we're not going to be the anon police every time someone uses the anonymous feature despite not truly needing to be anonymous in the post. We will take action if someone is using the feature to harass another user, joke around, etc. What eventually got RandomInternetPerson is the pattern of abuse, not any one post, which for the most part did not individually rise to the level of requiring action and were not dissimilar from numerous other anon posts remaining in this topic and others by other users. For what it's worth, I gave RIP a month-long ban 8 hours before cavalier perma'd RIP, so while there is individual judgment at play, the moderator team is on roughly the same page on this. Expect us to handle a pattern of abuse, flaming, disruption, and the like under anon, but do not expect us immediately to out every reported anon post that did not truly need to be anonymous. We also have multiple options to address bad behavior, from changing posts to reflect their actual user to editing posts to providing private warnings to bans, not all of which will be evident to users when their reports are closed.

[cavalier1138]

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

I happened to come across the thread, and the relevant posts have been de-anoned. For future reference, please report these posts as you find them. We don't actively scan for things like anon abuse, and reporting is the only reliable way to get our attention on a specific post.

Weird, because I reported the rampant anon abuse (by the tone, the same troll as here) in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=307550

It says that each report has been closed by Serett (?) but as the offending posts remain anonymous for literally no reason, I assume there’s not a whole lot of consistency among the mod team here.

The forum's official policy is that we're not going to be the anon police every time someone uses the anonymous feature despite not truly needing to be anonymous in the post. We will take action if someone is using the feature to harass another user, joke around, etc. What eventually got RandomInternetPerson is the pattern of abuse, not any one post, which for the most part did not individually rise to the level of requiring action and were not dissimilar from numerous other anon posts remaining in this topic and others by other users. For what it's worth, I gave RIP a month-long ban 8 hours before cavalier perma'd RIP, so while there is individual judgment at play, the moderator team is on roughly the same page on this. Expect us to handle a pattern of abuse, flaming, disruption, and the like under anon, but do not expect us immediately to out every reported anon post that did not truly need to be anonymous. We also have multiple options to address bad behavior, from changing posts to reflect their actual user to editing posts to providing private warnings to bans, not all of which will be evident to users when their reports are closed.

Even better, it looks like nealric actually got them first. We really need user profiles to update with a "banned" tag.

[The Lsat Airbender]

We really need user profiles to update with a "banned" tag.

The Banned tag was suppressed because they don't want us finding out what happened to Nichole

[Ultramar vistas]

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

I happened to come across the thread, and the relevant posts have been de-anoned. For future reference, please report these posts as you find them. We don't actively scan for things like anon abuse, and reporting is the only reliable way to get our attention on a specific post.

Weird, because I reported the rampant anon abuse (by the tone, the same troll as here) in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=307550

It says that each report has been closed by Serett (?) but as the offending posts remain anonymous for literally no reason, I assume there’s not a whole lot of consistency among the mod team here.

The forum's official policy is that we're not going to be the anon police every time someone uses the anonymous feature despite not truly needing to be anonymous in the post. We will take action if someone is using the feature to harass another user, joke around, etc. What eventually got RandomInternetPerson is the pattern of abuse, not any one post, which for the most part did not individually rise to the level of requiring action and were not dissimilar from numerous other anon posts remaining in this topic and others by other users. For what it's worth, I gave RIP a month-long ban 8 hours before cavalier perma'd RIP, so while there is individual judgment at play, the moderator team is on roughly the same page on this. Expect us to handle a pattern of abuse, flaming, disruption, and the like under anon, but do not expect us immediately to out every reported anon post that did not truly need to be anonymous. We also have multiple options to address bad behavior, from changing posts to reflect their actual user to editing posts to providing private warnings to bans, not all of which will be evident to users when their reports are closed.

Your forum, your rules, but I’ll continue to maintain that permitting anon abuse even when it’s reported directly to you, and is being used for no purpose other than to troll, is just straight up bad for discourse. Make people actually stand behind their opinions.

Ironic that on a forum about the legal world the mods have to be convinced that consistent application of the rules is a good thing. Stating that you’re “not going to be the anon police” turns out to lead to the exact situation we have here - anon users can stay anon right up until they get irritating in a thread that a mod wants to participate in.

[daedalus2309]

Can we stay on topic? I want to know how switching to an in house role will affect OP’s ability to access EBT, Section 8 housing, WIC etc.

[Anonymous User]

Chiming in to spread a little more positivity/hope. Just a couple months ago I was another miserable midlevel big law associate doing M&A work and I absolutely hated life. Not to sound too melodramatic, but I felt more and more like a shell of my younger self the longer I stayed in the job. The partners I worked for weren’t even that bad for big law standards, but the nature of PE/M&A work where EVERYTHING is urgent ALL THE TIME was really getting to me. I hated feeling like I had zero control over my life and would get anxiety making weekend plans six months in advance knowing that a deal could blow up anytime with no warning.

I reached the point where just the thought of doing another deal would give me a straight up panic attack, so I dived into the in-house search really hard. FYI I actually think right now is an ideal time to interview while most people are WFH because you don’t have to worry about people noticing your absence from the office, plus you don’t have to travel for your interviews.

I ended up getting multiple in-house offers all around the same time and accepted an offer to be counsel at one of the FAANG. There’s definitely a learning curve working at a new company and it’s still relatively early to make a fully informed judgment, but the quality of my life has already drastically improved. I can make weekend plans without fear of them being ruined, I’m encouraged to take vacation by my manager (even though I just started my new job, I’m already planning to be out a week for the holidays - in big law, the holidays were always the worst time because of deals trying to close by year end), and people aren’t constantly hounding me to turn a document ASAP that I just found out about five minutes ago. I much prefer the steadier and more predictable work flow that I’ve had so far, instead of the feast or famine nature of corporate work. I actually find the work substantively interesting even though I’m still drafting contracts and appreciate that I get to learn more deeply about one company/industry versus serving multiple clients. And no more billable hours is a huuuuge game changer and burden off my shoulders.

I also feel pretty lucky in terms of compensation. While I did take a pay cut, especially factoring in big law bonuses, I currently make mid-200k all-in (with most of it being cash and not unvested equity) and feel like it’s plenty, especially because I paid off my student loans before I left big law. I definitely wouldn’t want to return to big law even with a senior associate salary and bonus, though I realize some may not agree.

The in-house process is definitely competitive and involves a lot of luck and timing, so if you’re serious about leaving big law, you have to put in the effort, unless you’re lucky to be poached by a client. I spent a lot of time searching for job listings online, researching the companies I interviewed with, updating my resume, perusing in-house advice threads on TLS, and coming up with good answers for why I wanted to make the transition to in-house. Happy to say the effort paid off, and I couldn’t be more thrilled with where I am now. I’ve come a long way in terms of both job and personal happiness throughout this rollercoaster of a year.

[nealric]

Someone out this idiot for anon abuse. I’ve been seeing an increase in stupid anon comments in other threads too and think it might be the same person. You’re telling someone making over 300k a year to get on food stamps. Gtfo.

I happened to come across the thread, and the relevant posts have been de-anoned. For future reference, please report these posts as you find them. We don't actively scan for things like anon abuse, and reporting is the only reliable way to get our attention on a specific post.

Weird, because I reported the rampant anon abuse (by the tone, the same troll as here) in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=307550

It says that each report has been closed by Serett (?) but as the offending posts remain anonymous for literally no reason, I assume there’s not a whole lot of consistency among the mod team here.

The forum's official policy is that we're not going to be the anon police every time someone uses the anonymous feature despite not truly needing to be anonymous in the post. We will take action if someone is using the feature to harass another user, joke around, etc. What eventually got RandomInternetPerson is the pattern of abuse, not any one post, which for the most part did not individually rise to the level of requiring action and were not dissimilar from numerous other anon posts remaining in this topic and others by other users. For what it's worth, I gave RIP a month-long ban 8 hours before cavalier perma'd RIP, so while there is individual judgment at play, the moderator team is on roughly the same page on this. Expect us to handle a pattern of abuse, flaming, disruption, and the like under anon, but do not expect us immediately to out every reported anon post that did not truly need to be anonymous. We also have multiple options to address bad behavior, from changing posts to reflect their actual user to editing posts to providing private warnings to bans, not all of which will be evident to users when their reports are closed.

Even better, it looks like nealric actually got them first. We really need user profiles to update with a "banned" tag.

Randominternetperson also PMed me and asked me to "delete their account" after I warned them about anon abuse. But as above, it was the pattern of abuse and attitude that got them banned, not any single post. I try to give people a lot of leeway, but at some point is becomes clear that a poster has no intention of behaving in a way that advances conversation on the site.

[nealric]

Ironic that on a forum about the legal world the mods have to be convinced that consistent application of the rules is a good thing. Stating that you’re “not going to be the anon police” turns out to lead to the exact situation we have here - anon users can stay anon right up until they get irritating in a thread that a mod wants to participate in.

The issue is that there really aren't strict guidelines and different mods have different thresholds for where they draw the line. I do out anybody who is using anon to harass or otherwise behave badly. I try to limit outing when there's some doubt as to whether the anon use was proper. We may PM users and warn them even, which wouldn't display publicly.

One issue is that we get a lot of "anon abuse" reports on posts that are pretty frivolous- where the poster has good reason to be anon and the reporter simply doesn't like what they have to say. There's also times when a post isn't identifying in isolation, but when you know it's the same poster as another anon, it's clear that when combined they could be.

[Definitely Not North]

Ironic that on a forum about the legal world the mods have to be convinced that consistent application of the rules is a good thing. Stating that you’re “not going to be the anon police” turns out to lead to the exact situation we have here - anon users can stay anon right up until they get irritating in a thread that a mod wants to participate in.

The issue is that there really aren't strict guidelines and different mods have different thresholds for where they draw the line. I do out anybody who is using anon to harass or otherwise behave badly. I try to limit outing when there's some doubt as to whether the anon use was proper. We may PM users and warn them even, which wouldn't display publicly.

One issue is that we get a lot of "anon abuse" reports on posts that are pretty frivolous- where the poster has good reason to be anon and the reporter simply doesn't like what they have to say. There's also times when a post isn't identifying in isolation, but when you know it's the same poster as another anon, it's clear that when combined they could be.

yeah this is the correct standard for anon review.

we should ban people for whining about innocuous ~anon abuse~ since it's more of a drag on conversations than most actual anon abuse