Why do we even do this? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can't speak to why anyone else does it or did it, but at least for me, I did it to set myself up for an eventual shift into a job I am passionate about. Made the shift to an awesome in-house role after 6 years of biglaw. It was a rough 6 years, but it propelled me toward and prepared me for my current role. While in biglaw, I always focused on that light at the end of the tunnel, because I had a concrete plan in mind. I would imagine it would become pretty unbearable if I had no eventual exit plan and next steps in mind. The end goal is always what drives the effort for me. I wouldn't have made it if everything were in-the-moment and open ended.

To each his own, but I don't really get how someone can be "passionate" about being a back office cog at a multinational corporation.

"follow your passions" is BS. Having a reasonable work life balance and still getting a decent salary will make you "passionate" about the work.

I don't disagree with that. I just find it odd to think that anyone could be passionate about being in house. Even if you're passionate about the company's mission, you're their lawyers--youre ancillary to their mission and a necessary cost.

All depends on the organization and the culture of the place. Some places have a way of making everyone feel like they contribute to the mission, even the lawyers. Most probably don't, but can't paint all companies and organizations with the same brush.

[Anonymous User]

If you aren't happy and you want to stay in biglaw, you should find a new firm. Having worked at three firms, who you work for makes a huge difference. Plenty of associates work for chill partners who let them bill 1800 + 200 pro bono for seven years with minimal stress.

lol these are the posts that are highly misleading. first of all, doubt it. maybe if you're at a top tier lit practice at a white shoe firm. maybe sull crom, cleary, davis polk would let a litigation associate do big pro bono cases. even then, there'd be a point where you'd need to put in billable hours for big corporates. beyond that, there's nothing much.

Previous anon. I spent four years at a V50 billing between 1750-1850, plus enough pro bono to bring me over the 1950 benchmark, and I earned a market bonus each year. Non-billables were minimal. This is not atypical among my friends and classmates. On the other hand, my friends at V10s worked much harder and several ended up leaving the profession completely after 3-5 years.

There are downsides to being at a lower-ranked firm but it's a lot easier to coast at one.

[Elston Gunn]

If you aren't happy and you want to stay in biglaw, you should find a new firm. Having worked at three firms, who you work for makes a huge difference. Plenty of associates work for chill partners who let them bill 1800 + 200 pro bono for seven years with minimal stress.

lol these are the posts that are highly misleading. first of all, doubt it. maybe if you're at a top tier lit practice at a white shoe firm. maybe sull crom, cleary, davis polk would let a litigation associate do big pro bono cases. even then, there'd be a point where you'd need to put in billable hours for big corporates. beyond that, there's nothing much.

Previous anon. I spent four years at a V50 billing between 1750-1850, plus enough pro bono to bring me over the 1950 benchmark, and I earned a market bonus each year. Non-billables were minimal. This is not atypical among my friends and classmates. On the other hand, my friends at V10s worked much harder and several ended up leaving the profession completely after 3-5 years.

There are downsides to being at a lower-ranked firm but it's a lot easier to coast at one.

Not sure this is a lower-ranked firm thing. 1800 (or less) and getting bonus because of pro bono was common at my high-ranked firm. And you couldn’t do it forever, but there were very much people who billed 500+ hours to a big pro bono case without any issues for their careers. But the pro bono cases were not exactly low stress. They were treated very close to the same as for paying clients.

[tlsguy2020]

Not sure this is a lower-ranked firm thing. 1800 (or less) and getting bonus because of pro bono was common at my high-ranked firm. And you couldn’t do it forever, but there were very much people who billed 500+ hours to a big pro bono case without any issues for their careers. But the pro bono cases were not exactly low stress. They were treated very close to the same as for paying clients.

Don't know what the categorizations are for "low-ranked" and "high-ranked", but work at a V20 for whatever its worth. Big pro bono cases in my firm have some cachet to them. Usually, we have superstars working on them because they'll involve some type of fancy-schmancy constitutional issue. I can't imagine any of these being low stress. But, I know being involved in these are only good for one's career. See Paul Weiss in Windsor; Ropes in Obergefell; MoFo in Rodriguez v. Swartz.

On the other hand, the firm probably does not want the county trial court domestic violence and housing court unlawful detainer cases I've worked on to get in the way of client billable work.

[PrinterInk]

ITT: People who will wind up with $800k homes in Westchester.

I can’t tell if this is supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing. Only someone born poor would give up their 30s for that.

[cisscum]

ITT: People who will wind up with $800k homes in Westchester.

I can’t tell if this is supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing. Only someone born poor would give up their 30s for that.

Lol, men with demanding wives and kids will definitely give up their 30s for that. It's pretty sad

[FedFan123]

To this day, I am not sure how anybody does anything that’s not litigation.

And even litigation sucks unless you are 1. Really really into it and 2. No longer a first/second year.

I don’t know how anyone does litigation. I would rather scrub public toilets with a toothbrush than endlessly go down WestLaw rabbit holes on fishing expeditions that normally go nowhere

[Whatislaw]

I'm in L&E lit focusing on wage and hour class actions and it's not bad. I do a bit of advice and counsel too. The meet and confer and discovery games get old pretty quick, but it's like a routine dance.

[Anonymous User]

To this day, I am not sure how anybody does anything that’s not litigation.

And even litigation sucks unless you are 1. Really really into it and 2. No longer a first/second year.

I don’t know how anyone does litigation. I would rather scrub public toilets with a toothbrush than endlessly go down WestLaw rabbit holes on fishing expeditions that normally go nowhere

Honestly I'd love to go down a WestLaw rabbit hole right now if it meant not having to reply to endless emails on a deal closing.

[objctnyrhnr]

To this day, I am not sure how anybody does anything that’s not litigation.

And even litigation sucks unless you are 1. Really really into it and 2. No longer a first/second year.

I don’t know how anyone does litigation. I would rather scrub public toilets with a toothbrush than endlessly go down WestLaw rabbit holes on fishing expeditions that normally go nowhere

Honestly I'd love to go down a WestLaw rabbit hole right now if it meant not having to reply to endless emails on a deal closing.

Yeah I mean this is the thing. People who survive in lit are people who stuck it out post junior associate AND people who actually like that stuff.

I mean enlighten me—what’s the equivalent in corporate to getting really intellectually into the lexis research one is doing? I’m not trying to come off as sarcastic or be rhetorical. I’m honestly curious. All the passionate biglaw senior associates I have met have been litigators. I’ve never met somebody who seems genuinely super into their big M&A acquisition. But then again maybe I just haven’t met enough corporate lawyers.

[drwatson2573]

Not sure this is a lower-ranked firm thing. 1800 (or less) and getting bonus because of pro bono was common at my high-ranked firm. And you couldn’t do it forever, but there were very much people who billed 500+ hours to a big pro bono case without any issues for their careers. But the pro bono cases were not exactly low stress. They were treated very close to the same as for paying clients.

Don't know what the categorizations are for "low-ranked" and "high-ranked", but work at a V20 for whatever its worth. Big pro bono cases in my firm have some cachet to them. Usually, we have superstars working on them because they'll involve some type of fancy-schmancy constitutional issue. I can't imagine any of these being low stress. But, I know being involved in these are only good for one's career. See Paul Weiss in Windsor; Ropes in Obergefell; MoFo in Rodriguez v. Swartz.

On the other hand, the firm probably does not want the county trial court domestic violence and housing court unlawful detainer cases I've worked on to get in the way of client billable work.

I've been on the other end of some big firms in some of their big pro bono cases (state AG's office), and it seems like they let their young guns have a lot more responsibility than they would get otherwise on a non pro bono case.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah I mean this is the thing. People who survive in lit are people who stuck it out post junior associate AND people who actually like that stuff.

I mean enlighten me—what’s the equivalent in corporate to getting really intellectually into the lexis research one is doing? I’m not trying to come off as sarcastic or be rhetorical. I’m honestly curious. All the passionate biglaw senior associates I have met have been litigators. I’ve never met somebody who seems genuinely super into their big M&A acquisition. But then again maybe I just haven’t met enough corporate lawyers.

Documenting and structuring transactions can become extremely complex - I don't hate corporate work because its not intellectually challenging (at least, at times). I hate it because there is no purpose felt in closing a deal -- I literally feel no happiness other than glad its over.

I guess litigation would be the same.

[lawlo]

One of my attractions to transactional work is the amoral, rather than immoral nature of the work. Nothing to take home like I encountered in criminal work.

[nixy]

One of my attractions to transactional work is the amoral, rather than immoral nature of the work. Nothing to take home like I encountered in criminal work.

How is transactional work more amoral than than civil litigation though?

[objctnyrhnr]

Yeah I mean this is the thing. People who survive in lit are people who stuck it out post junior associate AND people who actually like that stuff.

I mean enlighten me—what’s the equivalent in corporate to getting really intellectually into the lexis research one is doing? I’m not trying to come off as sarcastic or be rhetorical. I’m honestly curious. All the passionate biglaw senior associates I have met have been litigators. I’ve never met somebody who seems genuinely super into their big M&A acquisition. But then again maybe I just haven’t met enough corporate lawyers.

Documenting and structuring transactions can become extremely complex - I don't hate corporate work because its not intellectually challenging (at least, at times). I hate it because there is no purpose felt in closing a deal -- I literally feel no happiness other than glad its over.

I guess litigation would be the same.

I think successful litigators get passionate as they get more senior not just because of the intellectual challenge but because winning is fun to them. I mean where else are there professional winners and losers besides sports/games and politics? Obviously the vast majority of people would not want to live their lives in adversarial postures everywhere they turn, but for those that do, it is easy to see why you find a number of extremely passionate senior litigators.

Here’s an illustration: at my firm, the parental leave is fairly generous and unisex. You see the transactional people consistently taking full advantage of the policy (as I suppose they should) and passing off their deals, etc. to others. By contrast, the civil lit people often have a tough time letting go of their favorite cases. Even if their roles shrink on those cases, the seniors still keep in the loop and jump on the calls to offer advice and insight etc., and more generally often don’t go full cold turkey.

sure one might say this is Stockholm syndrome esque, but I personally don’t believe that. I believe it’s because they’re just really into their cases in a way that the transactional people just aren’t.

[nixy]

Or the adversarial process encourages people to be more of control freaks?

[rrwwa]

Going back to original post, I left biglaw this year and moved to a small city in a flyover state and couldn't be happier. Sure I took like a 60% pay cut, but I put most of my biglaw salary into savings for a few years because all I ever did was work. (I also had almost no debt out of law school.) I didn't make it long enough to have FIRE-level savings sadly, but long enough to not care about my salary much anymore.

Practicing in a small market is definitely different but I'm happy with the tradeoffs so far. I have my nights and weekends to myself and I bought a beautiful house with my biglaw money--for so much less than something similar would cost back east. My work now doesn't have nearly as much "prestige" as my biglaw practice, but I really don't care. And for the most part, the work is so much...easier. There is basically no document discovery. Most dispositive motions are under 10 pages long. The partners do not nitpick my work.

Not sure if this counts as a dream job, and maybe it's just my burn-out from biglaw making me enjoy it so much. But so far it's a dramatic improvement over biglaw lit, especially if prestige and feeling fancy isn't what drives you in life.

[avenuem]

Not sure this is a lower-ranked firm thing. 1800 (or less) and getting bonus because of pro bono was common at my high-ranked firm. And you couldn’t do it forever, but there were very much people who billed 500+ hours to a big pro bono case without any issues for their careers. But the pro bono cases were not exactly low stress. They were treated very close to the same as for paying clients.

Don't know what the categorizations are for "low-ranked" and "high-ranked", but work at a V20 for whatever its worth. Big pro bono cases in my firm have some cachet to them. Usually, we have superstars working on them because they'll involve some type of fancy-schmancy constitutional issue. I can't imagine any of these being low stress. But, I know being involved in these are only good for one's career. See Paul Weiss in Windsor; Ropes in Obergefell; MoFo in Rodriguez v. Swartz.

On the other hand, the firm probably does not want the county trial court domestic violence and housing court unlawful detainer cases I've worked on to get in the way of client billable work.

I've been on the other end of some big firms in some of their big pro bono cases (state AG's office), and it seems like they let their young guns have a lot more responsibility than they would get otherwise on a non pro bono case.

It doesn't just seem that way. It is that way.

[Anonymous User]

Going back to original post, I left biglaw this year and moved to a small city in a flyover state and couldn't be happier. Sure I took like a 60% pay cut, but I put most of my biglaw salary into savings for a few years because all I ever did was work. (I also had almost no debt out of law school.) I didn't make it long enough to have FIRE-level savings sadly, but long enough to not care about my salary much anymore.

Practicing in a small market is definitely different but I'm happy with the tradeoffs so far. I have my nights and weekends to myself and I bought a beautiful house with my biglaw money--for so much less than something similar would cost back east. My work now doesn't have nearly as much "prestige" as my biglaw practice, but I really don't care. And for the most part, the work is so much...easier. There is basically no document discovery. Most dispositive motions are under 10 pages long. The partners do not nitpick my work.

Not sure if this counts as a dream job, and maybe it's just my burn-out from biglaw making me enjoy it so much. But so far it's a dramatic improvement over biglaw lit, especially if prestige and feeling fancy isn't what drives you in life.

I'm considering a move like this and this reflects the experiences of basically everyone I've talked to who's moved to a small market. Everything is smaller-scale obviously but that means there's less drudgery and you're far more likely to run matters. Plus (1) local prestige, (2) you'll likely make partner, (3) hours, (4) cost of living, and (5) extreme repeat players = less obnoxious opposing counsel. Top firms even do pretty complicated stuff because they still have high rates relative to local market, look at flyover dockets on Westlaw. The big downsides are money (made up for by some extent by cost of living/public schools), exits if you want something besides partner, size of cases/deals, and national prestige, but if those aren't what motivate you, there's a good life to be had in Omaha.

[FedFan123]

Yeah I mean this is the thing. People who survive in lit are people who stuck it out post junior associate AND people who actually like that stuff.

I mean enlighten me—what’s the equivalent in corporate to getting really intellectually into the lexis research one is doing? I’m not trying to come off as sarcastic or be rhetorical. I’m honestly curious. All the passionate biglaw senior associates I have met have been litigators. I’ve never met somebody who seems genuinely super into their big M&A acquisition. But then again maybe I just haven’t met enough corporate lawyers.

Documenting and structuring transactions can become extremely complex - I don't hate corporate work because its not intellectually challenging (at least, at times). I hate it because there is no purpose felt in closing a deal -- I literally feel no happiness other than glad its over.

I guess litigation would be the same.

I think successful litigators get passionate as they get more senior not just because of the intellectual challenge but because winning is fun to them. I mean where else are there professional winners and losers besides sports/games and politics? Obviously the vast majority of people would not want to live their lives in adversarial postures everywhere they turn, but for those that do, it is easy to see why you find a number of extremely passionate senior litigators.

Here’s an illustration: at my firm, the parental leave is fairly generous and unisex. You see the transactional people consistently taking full advantage of the policy (as I suppose they should) and passing off their deals, etc. to others. By contrast, the civil lit people often have a tough time letting go of their favorite cases. Even if their roles shrink on those cases, the seniors still keep in the loop and jump on the calls to offer advice and insight etc., and more generally often don’t go full cold turkey.

sure one might say this is Stockholm syndrome esque, but I personally don’t believe that. I believe it’s because they’re just really into their cases in a way that the transactional people just aren’t.

99% of your cases settle before ultimate judgment comes out so in the end there are hardly any official wins or losses...

[jotarokujo]

if you're in lit, doing more pro bono definitely has been the move.

no idea what transactional pro bono looks like

[12YrsAnAssociate]

if you're in lit, doing more pro bono definitely has been the move.

no idea what transactional pro bono looks like

This varies firm to firm, but I got totally fucked with the pro bono I did last year. If it was actually treated like client-billable work like the firm says it is, my bonus would've been much higher.

[cisscum]

Bleeding heart millennials who go to biglaw and want to spend all their time doing pro bono while making 300k+ the worst

[12YrsAnAssociate]

Bleeding heart millennials who go to biglaw and want to spend all their time doing pro bono while making 300k+ the worst

If this is a response to me, I think it's off base. I hit my hours, plus I put in over 250 hours on a pro bono case they asked me to do. While I was way over 2200, I didn't get the bonus increase that comes at 2200. Maybe I'd get it if I was at a firm that didn't say pro bono counted for full credit, or at a firm that didn't publish bonus scales, but I am, I had a miserable year at work, and I got fucked. There's no way I'm doing pro bono for this firm again.

[Elston Gunn]

Bleeding heart millennials who go to biglaw and want to spend all their time doing pro bono while making 300k+ the worst

Getting impossibly rich partners to subsidize making the world a very slightly better place and the associate learning much more than they would on a regular case is good, actually.