Associates that enjoy their work in BigLaw and want to stay long-term, what do you enjoy about your job? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Mid level general lit associate at relatively small office of v25ish firm chiming in. Regularly/consistently bill 2100-2300/yr.

I really like litigation. I like winning (losing when I thought I was gonna win does bum me out though), I like arguing, I like strategizing, I like writing, I like researching, and I like the chess moves.

I’ve performed well enough that I’ve gotten a good amount of autonomy and responsibility so I am able to see the entire case from a high level, but I do regularly get into the weeds as well. I also get to push much of the work I don’t want to do down to lower billers, so that’s nice.

Sometimes it gets super stressful and vacations get blown up and I miss out on stuff. Sometimes I fight with my spouse about my time availability, sometimes I can’t sleep due to work, sometimes I don’t see my kids for a couple days. Notably though so much of all of that nonsense happens to me when the court or opposing counsel does something stupid/annoying/ridiculous. At this point, it is rarely partner demands. It also only happens once every month or two at absolute most. Most weeks I can keep a solid 35-50 hours billed.

I also have the datapoint of having been in govt/PI for a couple years. So I can say with confident that I like this way better (especially when you factor in the money).

I respect that. As somebody in government work (who graduated law school with no debt), I can say that I have zero interest in biglaw. I make a comfortable living, have a good QOL at my job, and get significant amounts of responsibility, autonomy, and complex/interesting work. I share your love of litigation. I am a competitive person, so it suits me well.

Anyways, OP, I wish you luck in biglaw. But if you can afford it, consider government work. You won't make as much money, but you'll get a lot of substantive work and responsibility early in your career.

How do you go about getting one of these government jobs? I'm actually asking. I'm in Biglaw now and want to die. What agencies should I be looking at?

I've heard good things about federal agencies and local government jobs, but I'm not a good resource there. I work for a state AG. How well you get paid tends to depend on the state. And how happy you'll be will obviously depend on your practice area and the lawyers with whom you work. But there don't seem to be a shortage of interesting jobs with AG offices around the country.

I don't know where you're licensed and how portable it is (basically, whether you can waive into other states or transfer your UBE score). But if you have some flexibility, take a look at some of the states where you'd be willing to live (job postings are almost always on the website). The postings typically say you have to be admitted to the bar of that state, but I have found that quite a few states are flexible on that as long as you can get admitted in that state if offered the job.

I can't promise that you'll be happier because I don't know if you just dislike biglaw or dislike practicing law generally. But if it's due to the long hours, pressure of having to meet billable hour expectations, and never feeling you're off the clock, I can say that government will be a huge upgrade. And if you enjoy litigation, you actually get to litigate, not just do the grunt work nobody else wants to do.

I was a federal clerk before, and I was incredibly happy doing that. What's making me unhappy now are exactly the things you described. I don't think I hate litigation. I hate having absolutely no life. The money is there, yes, but I can't enjoy it because I can't even go to the grocery store on Saturday without a partner calling me to talk about something I handed in on Thursday, I'm constantly begging for work to hit the insane hours expectation while simultaneously dreading the 2am email, and there's no such thing as vacation time or sick leave. I'm not very far in at all and could waive into some states still. I'm trying to stick it out for a while so I don't look like a job hopper, but I'm so miserable I can barely breathe some days.

Thank you for the information. I'm honestly going to start at least looking into potential exit options.

[Sangamon]

You have to find something more than the money. And, by the way, the demands are not just in biglaw - they are unique to lawyering, period. I think what can be fulfilling about it is that some people like to handle hard, complicated stuff and be the person that's part of figuring it out. This obviously is more rewarding as you go up the ladder a bit but still the case in the junior ranks - you are being relied on for that by the people senior to you.

You have to enjoy working on tough stuff and the somewhat competitive nature of it. You have to get some satisfaction from the fact that this person (client when you are a bit more senior, colleague when you are more junior) came to you with a tough or important issue and you were able to sort it out. Not everyone can do that. The satisfying part is when they come back to you again, or even better, come back to you on a different issue.

You have to sort of be like Jiro the sushi master. If you just do it for the money, it's soul crushing. You have to enjoy the craft of it and such a thing is possible.

[toast and bananas]

It's mainly the money but there are other things:

(1) Perks/shadow compensation (expensive dinners and wine etc./summer program as an associate, which is way better than as a summer associate) - though this is non-existent during COVID, which fucking sucks

(2) comradery - the job is terrible sometimes but there is an aspect of being in the trenches with your team. Obviously not the case if you work with terrible people, though.

(3) autonomy - I don't have a "boss" and make my own schedule subject to deadlines (which are often completely arbitrary and soul crushing). I also do not work at a firm with an assigning partner - that sounds absolutely awful but I could be mistaken about that.

(4) intellectually challenging - this aspect is not always fun, but it does keep things from being stale and forces you to grow your skills

But, OP, do not be disillusioned, it is a very difficult lifestyle. Everyone thinks they are special and can put up with it, but right now I am seeing the grindy-est grinders getting burnt out because we are all getting absolutely crushed. You will miss birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, etc. At the very least, you will be tethered to your phone during those events (and for every moment of every day from the day you start).

Take the job, but do so with eyes wide open.

[objctnyrhnr]

In litigation, when you start being the most senior associate on some of your cases (the time that this starts to occur is going to depend very much on the firm, leverage, the partner, and the matter), it gets wayyyyy better. Because, particularly when you’re working for a partner who’s very busy bringing in business, it’s you who is telling others what to do for the most part. (Again depending on the partner), you’ll find yourself at that point with a ton of control regarding who does what work and when and the strategic direction.

Now that being said, there is way more pressure to do it right, think of everything, anticipate all issues, be nearly flawless, be forward thinking, etc. but presumably you wouldn’t get to that point unless somebody thought you were capable of all those things.

And then when you get to that point on all of nearly all your matters, IMO that’s when big law starts to border on enjoyable on the whole.

So yeah as a junior it sucks, but believe me if you have an aptitude for it, it gets better.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently since I’ve been interviewing for in-house jobs. Most of those jobs seem inherently worse than my job. There’s the super low pay, of course, but I could deal with that I suppose for the right job. But just objectively, the working conditions seem worse at most in house places. I’ve been at my firm long enough that I have a lot of autonomy—no one is checking up on me at all, I can come and go from (my own) office as I please. Pre COVID I could work from home whenever I wanted. I don’t have a “boss” that I need to report to; the partners I work for are super chill and never hassle me to get stuff done faster than I can do it. After setting my own schedule for years it seems like a step backward to go into a more traditional working environment where I’m expected to be somewhere 9-5 and have someone assigning me work and checking up on me.

[TUwave]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently since I’ve been interviewing for in-house jobs. Most of those jobs seem inherently worse than my job. There’s the super low pay, of course, but I could deal with that I suppose for the right job. But just objectively, the working conditions seem worse at most in house places. I’ve been at my firm long enough that I have a lot of autonomy—no one is checking up on me at all, I can come and go from (my own) office as I please. Pre COVID I could work from home whenever I wanted. I don’t have a “boss” that I need to report to; the partners I work for are super chill and never hassle me to get stuff done faster than I can do it. After setting my own schedule for years it seems like a step backward to go into a more traditional working environment where I’m expected to be somewhere 9-5 and have someone assigning me work and checking up on me.

I'm fine with being expected to be somewhere 9-5 (shit even 8-6 or 7) if I can turn off my brain and phone when I leave. That's the issue. Setting your schedule and working from anywhere is cool, but I would trade it all for 90% less fire drills and condensed timelines.

[lolwutpar]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently since I’ve been interviewing for in-house jobs. Most of those jobs seem inherently worse than my job. There’s the super low pay, of course, but I could deal with that I suppose for the right job. But just objectively, the working conditions seem worse at most in house places. I’ve been at my firm long enough that I have a lot of autonomy—no one is checking up on me at all, I can come and go from (my own) office as I please. Pre COVID I could work from home whenever I wanted. I don’t have a “boss” that I need to report to; the partners I work for are super chill and never hassle me to get stuff done faster than I can do it. After setting my own schedule for years it seems like a step backward to go into a more traditional working environment where I’m expected to be somewhere 9-5 and have someone assigning me work and checking up on me.

I think those are the only two real perks of biglaw - compensation and autonomy. Yes, you sacrifice that when you move to something else, but 95% of people willingly take that trade off and don't regret it because their stress goes down significantly and they can turn their brains off outside of work hours.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently since I’ve been interviewing for in-house jobs. Most of those jobs seem inherently worse than my job. There’s the super low pay, of course, but I could deal with that I suppose for the right job. But just objectively, the working conditions seem worse at most in house places. I’ve been at my firm long enough that I have a lot of autonomy—no one is checking up on me at all, I can come and go from (my own) office as I please. Pre COVID I could work from home whenever I wanted. I don’t have a “boss” that I need to report to; the partners I work for are super chill and never hassle me to get stuff done faster than I can do it. After setting my own schedule for years it seems like a step backward to go into a more traditional working environment where I’m expected to be somewhere 9-5 and have someone assigning me work and checking up on me.

I'm fine with being expected to be somewhere 9-5 (shit even 8-6 or 7) if I can turn off my brain and phone when I leave. That's the issue. Setting your schedule and working from anywhere is cool, but I would trade it all for 90% less fire drills and condensed timelines.

This. Whenever someone starts a thread like this (which seems to happen pretty frequently these days), we have one set of people who love how biglaw provides so much control and autonomy while another set of people complain how they have lost control over their life to the demands of biglaw. I guess in the end this is all personal. Personally, I would feel like I have more control and autonomy over my life if I am allowed to completely shut off from work once I've done my 8-9 hours a day/40 hours for the week.

[Elston Gunn]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently since I’ve been interviewing for in-house jobs. Most of those jobs seem inherently worse than my job. There’s the super low pay, of course, but I could deal with that I suppose for the right job. But just objectively, the working conditions seem worse at most in house places. I’ve been at my firm long enough that I have a lot of autonomy—no one is checking up on me at all, I can come and go from (my own) office as I please. Pre COVID I could work from home whenever I wanted. I don’t have a “boss” that I need to report to; the partners I work for are super chill and never hassle me to get stuff done faster than I can do it. After setting my own schedule for years it seems like a step backward to go into a more traditional working environment where I’m expected to be somewhere 9-5 and have someone assigning me work and checking up on me.

I was really worried about this, and I’m sure it’s the case at plenty of companies, but FWIW I went in-house in tech and if anything I feel like I have more autonomy now. I technically have a boss in a way I didn’t in Biglaw, and we have check-ins and stuff, but most of what I work on isn’t supervised at all, and I can just mark my calendar busy without explanation whenever I want to reserve time. There’s some corporate politics, but that exists at firms too, and I very rarely deal with people at all like those partners so obsessed with pleasing the client that they constantly over promise and get passive aggressively pissed about pointless stuff.

[Anonymous User]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently since I’ve been interviewing for in-house jobs. Most of those jobs seem inherently worse than my job. There’s the super low pay, of course, but I could deal with that I suppose for the right job. But just objectively, the working conditions seem worse at most in house places. I’ve been at my firm long enough that I have a lot of autonomy—no one is checking up on me at all, I can come and go from (my own) office as I please. Pre COVID I could work from home whenever I wanted. I don’t have a “boss” that I need to report to; the partners I work for are super chill and never hassle me to get stuff done faster than I can do it. After setting my own schedule for years it seems like a step backward to go into a more traditional working environment where I’m expected to be somewhere 9-5 and have someone assigning me work and checking up on me.

I was really worried about this, and I’m sure it’s the case at plenty of companies, but FWIW I went in-house in tech and if anything I feel like I have more autonomy now. I technically have a boss in a way I didn’t in Biglaw, and we have check-ins and stuff, but most of what I work on isn’t supervised at all, and I can just mark my calendar busy without explanation whenever I want to reserve time. There’s some corporate politics, but that exists at firms too, and I very rarely deal with people at all like those partners so obsessed with pleasing the client that they constantly over promise and get passive aggressively pissed about pointless stuff.

Yeah, this. Even though I report to someone, he's got enough stuff on his plate he doesn't micromanage me. I check in with him as needed and we connect once a week to check in generally, but otherwise I'm on my own basically the same as in biglaw, probably more since I don't have a multi-person deal team on everything. And having one boss is so much better than having a handful of partners that don't care about the time demands from the others. Add to that the general 9 to 5ish schedule, no billables, no expectation for night or weekend work unless it's the rare major project (and in that case I'd know ahead of time) and life is immeasurably better.

[lavarman84]

I was a federal clerk before, and I was incredibly happy doing that. What's making me unhappy now are exactly the things you described. I don't think I hate litigation. I hate having absolutely no life. The money is there, yes, but I can't enjoy it because I can't even go to the grocery store on Saturday without a partner calling me to talk about something I handed in on Thursday, I'm constantly begging for work to hit the insane hours expectation while simultaneously dreading the 2am email, and there's no such thing as vacation time or sick leave. I'm not very far in at all and could waive into some states still. I'm trying to stick it out for a while so I don't look like a job hopper, but I'm so miserable I can barely breathe some days.

Thank you for the information. I'm honestly going to start at least looking into potential exit options.

Yeah, I'd make a list of states and just check their postings every so often. Also, check localities and USA Jobs. When you see something you like, go for it. Don't worry about being a job hopper if you're that miserable imo.

I have zero issues with the things you're hating. I rarely receive work emails over the weekend. And I can't remember the last time I had weekend work to do. There are exceptional situations where it could happen, but it's definitely not a normal part of my job. If things are slow, I don't have to worry about begging for work to hit my hours. I have vacation and sick leave and can actually use it. And I'm given a significant amount of autonomy over my own cases.

On the negative side, in normal times (i.e., no pandemic), I would have to be at the office from 8 to 5 or 9 to 6 (with an hour lunch). But nobody is monitoring me closely. If I have to leave for an appointment, I'm good to do that. I'm not chained to my desk or anything. But yeah, it is more structured in terms of having to be there during certain hours and face time than biglaw. However, when you're off the clock, you're generally off the clock. Again, now and then, I receive emails between 6 and 8 PM, but they're almost always things I can address the next morning.

So yeah, there are definitely tradeoffs (the biggest being money). But if you're satisfied with living on $70,000 to $100,000 per year (depending on the state) with good benefits, the QOL is an absolutely massive improvement. And you get to do a lot of real lawyering.

[Anonymous User]

Midlevel transactional associate here. I don't aspire to make partner and won't stay more than a few additional years, but I'm also happy with my practice. I work in a relatively niche industry-focused group, so I work on a variety of types of commercial transactions, the deals are substantive, and there isn't really any busywork (e.g., a deal will typically have just one document, so I was drafting main agreements before the end of my first year, and pretty much never have to worry about BS like managing a checklist or coordinating diligence). A typical deal is just me and a partner, and if there's substantive diligence then I'll bring on a junior. The partners I work with are reasonable, protect their associates, say thank you, and tee up associates to continue to grow and take on ever bigger roles. In turn I have a lot of autonomy in my work. And I like my fellow associates, too. We all (partners and associates alike) actually socialize together. I bill +/- 2100 a year and have always had a market bonus and positive reviews. I share this because not all biglaw is the hellscape that this forum can sometimes make it out to be.

Hey, we all want your job. Mind sharing a few more details? AmLaw 100? Major market?

[Anonymous User]

Midlevel transactional associate here. I don't aspire to make partner and won't stay more than a few additional years, but I'm also happy with my practice. I work in a relatively niche industry-focused group, so I work on a variety of types of commercial transactions, the deals are substantive, and there isn't really any busywork (e.g., a deal will typically have just one document, so I was drafting main agreements before the end of my first year, and pretty much never have to worry about BS like managing a checklist or coordinating diligence). A typical deal is just me and a partner, and if there's substantive diligence then I'll bring on a junior. The partners I work with are reasonable, protect their associates, say thank you, and tee up associates to continue to grow and take on ever bigger roles. In turn I have a lot of autonomy in my work. And I like my fellow associates, too. We all (partners and associates alike) actually socialize together. I bill +/- 2100 a year and have always had a market bonus and positive reviews. I share this because not all biglaw is the hellscape that this forum can sometimes make it out to be.

Hey, we all want your job. Mind sharing a few more details? AmLaw 100? Major market?

I have a similar experience as the one described above. I am a specialist at a firm with a sweatshop reputation and have a good, but not great reputation, and have survived to be a midlevel while always hovering around 1900-2100 hours and getting full bonus every year.

I am stressed by the job and do not intend to stay more than a few more years max, but I wouldn't say my experience is a hellscape. BigLaw can be tolerable if you can hit that sweet spot of being good enough to survive, but not so good that you get buried in work.

[Elston Gunn]

Midlevel transactional associate here. I don't aspire to make partner and won't stay more than a few additional years, but I'm also happy with my practice. I work in a lot relatively niche industry-focused group, so I work on a variety of types of commercial transactions, the deals are substantive, and there isn't really any busywork (e.g., a deal will typically have just one document, so I was drafting main agreements before the end of my first year, and pretty much never have to worry about BS like managing a checklist or coordinating diligence). A typical deal is just me and a partner, and if there's substantive diligence then I'll bring on a junior. The partners I work with are reasonable, protect their associates, say thank you, and tee up associates to continue to grow and take on ever bigger roles. In turn I have a lot of autonomy in my work. And I like my fellow associates, too. We all (partners and associates alike) actually socialize together. I bill +/- 2100 a year and have always had a market bonus and positive reviews. I share this because not all biglaw is the hellscape that this forum can sometimes make it out to be.

Hey, we all want your job. Mind sharing a few more details? AmLaw 100? Major market?

I had a similar experience in a specialist group in DC. It was way better than most of Biglaw, but it still wasn’t great except as a way to save money and find the next job. (But it was great for that and well worth it.)