Any other biglaw seniors out there also feeling great? Forum

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Jinxed it. Markets going to tank now. Real estate bubble going to burst. We'll all get fired and no ones going to hire. I'll have to sell my Tesla and buy a Nissan Leaf. At least my PS5 will keep me warm at night.

This is actually my dream scenario.

1. My portfolio takes a dump but I have a big enough nest egg that it doesn't change my medium-term plans.
2. My firm either (A) does layoffs with severance (maybe 3-6 months), (B) offers paid deferrals or (C) keeps me around while my workload falls by half.
3. I buy a house on the cheap.
4. I sit in my new cheap house recovering mentally and physically browsing Reddit and petting stray cats in the neighborhood until things are back.

I know I said I'm doing fine, but I want this job, like, 3% more than I don't want it, so I can't possibly take a major loss.

[Anonymous User]

I would not rule it out, but I think it would be at least 3-5 years out before I tried again. We will likely have a second kid, and the parent leave benefits are tough to beat. And I worry about making a three-year commitment to a government position (typical request with an AUSA offer in my district) before I knew whether kid 2 had health issues or if kid 1 or 2 needed additional education resources early in their development. I also have some concern that if I left private practice, any return would be at a reduced comp from my trajectory now.

If I were single, I would apply to USAO again now. But as I get more senior, the comp difference becomes significant and doesn’t make sense for my family. Long term, I think being a state court judge would be a position I enjoy. I would probably need some government time to get more trial reps before that is realistic. So an SEC, state AG, AUSA could all make sense in the future. But I would want to meet certain financial milestones before making that transition so that I was confident I would not have to jump back into private practice to pay for my kids’ college or unexpected health issues or whatever.

I'm still midlevel, but I'm honestly not minding biglaw that much so far. Ys, there are some grueling days, but at the end of the year, it all evens out. I'm worried about when I have kids, however. I don't want to become like the partners at my firm, who seem glued to the office and I'm worried that I won't be able to avoid that as a senior either. I want to be there for them, raise them, and see them grow up and that seems incompatible with biglaw. So my idea has always been to leave before having kids and get a cushiony government job.

Can I ask how difficult you find this combination of being a senior associate with kids? Is it easer than you thought or are there other pitfalls?

[Anonymous User]

Senior associate with over 1.3M saved up. The salary difference between private practice and academia is so large these days that the latter would have been the dream years ago but is no longer the case. It's so difficult to pull the trigger and give up the current goose laying golden eggs.

[Anonymous User]

Bought my first home in 2017, just sold it for a $400k gain. Feeling good now!

[Anonymous User]

I would not rule it out, but I think it would be at least 3-5 years out before I tried again. We will likely have a second kid, and the parent leave benefits are tough to beat. And I worry about making a three-year commitment to a government position (typical request with an AUSA offer in my district) before I knew whether kid 2 had health issues or if kid 1 or 2 needed additional education resources early in their development. I also have some concern that if I left private practice, any return would be at a reduced comp from my trajectory now.

If I were single, I would apply to USAO again now. But as I get more senior, the comp difference becomes significant and doesn’t make sense for my family. Long term, I think being a state court judge would be a position I enjoy. I would probably need some government time to get more trial reps before that is realistic. So an SEC, state AG, AUSA could all make sense in the future. But I would want to meet certain financial milestones before making that transition so that I was confident I would not have to jump back into private practice to pay for my kids’ college or unexpected health issues or whatever.

I'm still midlevel, but I'm honestly not minding biglaw that much so far. Ys, there are some grueling days, but at the end of the year, it all evens out. I'm worried about when I have kids, however. I don't want to become like the partners at my firm, who seem glued to the office and I'm worried that I won't be able to avoid that as a senior either. I want to be there for them, raise them, and see them grow up and that seems incompatible with biglaw. So my idea has always been to leave before having kids and get a cushiony government job.

Can I ask how difficult you find this combination of being a senior associate with kids? Is it easer than you thought or are there other pitfalls?

Anon above. Honestly, TBD. It has been crazy and overwhelming at times, but also mostly manageable so far. I am lucky to have an amazing spouse plus family nearby to help. My firm is still fully remote, so that has made it much easier, but also makes my current situation feel temporary. I have not had to juggle commute and mandatory face time. Nor have I had to do the month-long trial living out of a hotel room or end-of-discovery deposition cycles hopping on planes every other day as a parent. That will definitely suck and may change my view.

Aside from the lack of sleep, biggest change has been to my perspective. As a junior and mid-level, way too much of my identify was tied to my job. I think I have a much healthier balance now, and having different priorities has forced me to delegate a bunch of stuff that I would have wanted to make perfect a few years ago.

I share your concerns about how sustainable it will be long term. WFH flexibility will definitely help a ton going forward. But I’m still figuring it out.

[Anonymous User]

Bought my first home in 2017, just sold it for a $400k gain. Feeling good now!

bud did you use proceeds to buy another (similarly appreciated) property?

[Anonymous User]

Meh; have about 1.1m NW as a senior in NYC and feeling pretty burnt out about it all. Have billed 2400+ the past three years. Looking at in house jobs out of misery/curiosity but none are really appealing given (i) sizable pay cut, (ii) I might get a promotion this year (to counsel lol) and (iii) am planning for kids, etc. the next few years and so it feels like no amount of money is ever enough.

Finally pulled the trigger on in-house with ~$1.3m and it feels pretty great honestly. I live pretty well in a non-NYC major market and probably spend around $100k in a normal year. At this point my portfolio gains can carry me to FIRE by 40 anyway so I absolutely do not need the senior associate salary, and I'll be making way more than I ever thought I would be when I was younger to work pretty close to 9-5 with absolutely no weekends in what I'm very confident is going to be a pretty chill job. It's just so liberating to be able to confidently make weekend plans again and to not have the constant pressure to bill. I also just really don't think the super late nights, sleep deprivation, etc. would be good for my health longer term.

You need way less money for kids if you don't get caught up in the private school, nanny, etc. stuff. That adds up quick. Also helps if you have more reliable free time to actually be around to take care of them, cook, etc. With a sufficiently chill, fully remote in-house job you probably wouldn't need any sort of childcare once they're in school.

[clarion]

Meh; have about 1.1m NW as a senior in NYC and feeling pretty burnt out about it all. Have billed 2400+ the past three years. Looking at in house jobs out of misery/curiosity but none are really appealing given (i) sizable pay cut, (ii) I might get a promotion this year (to counsel lol) and (iii) am planning for kids, etc. the next few years and so it feels like no amount of money is ever enough.

You need way less money for kids if you don't get caught up in the private school, nanny, etc. stuff. That adds up quick. Also helps if you have more reliable free time to actually be around to take care of them, cook, etc. With a sufficiently chill, fully remote in-house job you probably wouldn't need any sort of childcare once they're in school.

I just want to echo this sentiment. You can do very well by your kid(s) on a "menial" 200k+ in-house salary. Especially if that 200k salary allows you to outsource fewer responsibilities. Nothing wrong with wanting to give your kids more/everything--I just am always saddened when people say things like "it feels like no amount of money is ever enough." When being wealthy feels more like an obligation than a privilege, I think you're doing something wrong.

[Anonymous User]

Meh; have about 1.1m NW as a senior in NYC and feeling pretty burnt out about it all. Have billed 2400+ the past three years. Looking at in house jobs out of misery/curiosity but none are really appealing given (i) sizable pay cut, (ii) I might get a promotion this year (to counsel lol) and (iii) am planning for kids, etc. the next few years and so it feels like no amount of money is ever enough.

You need way less money for kids if you don't get caught up in the private school, nanny, etc. stuff. That adds up quick. Also helps if you have more reliable free time to actually be around to take care of them, cook, etc. With a sufficiently chill, fully remote in-house job you probably wouldn't need any sort of childcare once they're in school.

I just want to echo this sentiment. You can do very well by your kid(s) on a "menial" 200k+ in-house salary. Especially if that 200k salary allows you to outsource fewer responsibilities. Nothing wrong with wanting to give your kids more/everything--I just am always saddened when people say things like "it feels like no amount of money is ever enough." When being wealthy feels more like an obligation than a privilege, I think you're doing something wrong.

Every other conversation about personal finance/salary/NW on TLS seems to lead to this argument these days. As someone with a young kid living in NYC, still in biglaw but wanting to go inhouse ASAP, the argument isn't as simple as "most people in the city live with [insert average salary in NYC] and just do fine with kids, you are out of touch/privileged for complaining about raising kids on a 200k+ salary". Yes, that is true, people do fine with 50k, 70k or on whatever salary you want to quote. But even if you opt out of private school, living nearby a good public school (eg UES or battery park) in the city means paying $3500 or so for housing alone (in rent, and more with mortgage/insurance/property tax if you buy) for a 1 bed apt, and with more than one kid, good luck finding a reasonably priced 2bd + apt. Other expenses for a family of three or four, quickly add up, and that 200k salary post tax now doesn't seem that sufficient, esp if you want to have some buffer for travel/savings. Sure, we can move farther out up to NY state or west to NJ, but that means spending more time on the commute. It isn't as simple. Obviously, one solution would be to move to less expensive city with more access to good public schools and/or getting a full remote position, which is probably what I would end up doing.

[clarion]

Meh; have about 1.1m NW as a senior in NYC and feeling pretty burnt out about it all. Have billed 2400+ the past three years. Looking at in house jobs out of misery/curiosity but none are really appealing given (i) sizable pay cut, (ii) I might get a promotion this year (to counsel lol) and (iii) am planning for kids, etc. the next few years and so it feels like no amount of money is ever enough.

You need way less money for kids if you don't get caught up in the private school, nanny, etc. stuff. That adds up quick. Also helps if you have more reliable free time to actually be around to take care of them, cook, etc. With a sufficiently chill, fully remote in-house job you probably wouldn't need any sort of childcare once they're in school.

I just want to echo this sentiment. You can do very well by your kid(s) on a "menial" 200k+ in-house salary. Especially if that 200k salary allows you to outsource fewer responsibilities. Nothing wrong with wanting to give your kids more/everything--I just am always saddened when people say things like "it feels like no amount of money is ever enough." When being wealthy feels more like an obligation than a privilege, I think you're doing something wrong.

Every other conversation about personal finance/salary/NW on TLS seems to lead to this argument these days. As someone with a young kid living in NYC, still in biglaw but wanting to go inhouse ASAP, the argument isn't as simple as "most people in the city live with [insert average salary in NYC] and just do fine with kids, you are out of touch/privileged for complaining about raising kids on a 200k+ salary". Yes, that is true, people do fine with 50k, 70k or on whatever salary you want to quote. But even if you opt out of private school, living nearby a good public school (eg UES or battery park) in the city means paying $3500 or so for housing alone (in rent, and more with mortgage/insurance/property tax if you buy) for a 1 bed apt, and with more than one kid, good luck finding a reasonably priced 2bd + apt. Other expenses for a family of three or four, quickly add up, and that 200k salary post tax now doesn't seem that sufficient, esp if you want to have some buffer for travel/savings. Sure, we can move farther out up to NY state or west to NJ, but that means spending more time on the commute. It isn't as simple. Obviously, one solution would be to move to less expensive city with more access to good public schools and/or getting a full remote position, which is probably what I would end up doing.

Sorry, I just had a similar debate in another thread this week (slow work week, obvs) so I really was trying NOT to rehash the same argument/points. I just wanted to support what the prior anon had said.

Anyway, I don't think we actually disagree about anything. To be able to afford to live in the best neighborhoods and/or send your children to the best schools in one of the most expensive cities in the world is expensive. That's not debatable. Something would have to give (remote work, less expensive market, longer commutes, etc) to be able to thrive on less income. I never meant to suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

Just let people live the lifestyle they want. Personally given my family size, where I live, and the fact the I will never send my kids to public school, I need about 250-300. You need less? Good for you.

[Anonymous User]

Just let people live the lifestyle they want. Personally given my family size, where I live, and the fact the I will never send my kids to public school, I need about 250-300. You need less? Good for you.

The prior anon and I were responding to the earlier anon who seemed (I will emphasize, "seemed") disheartened by needing to stay in biglaw to raise kids rather than finding more joy/fulfillment/non-work hobbies in house. To those people I say, "you can leave" and still raise great, happy kids. That is objectively true and I will never understand why it would be controversial to say so.

If you WANT 250-300, I truly could not care less. I'm not a government recruiter trying to get people to choose a life of public service. I myself left the fed government for more money. It's fine.

[Anonymous User]

Just let people live the lifestyle they want. Personally given my family size, where I live, and the fact the I will never send my kids to public school, I need about 250-300. You need less? Good for you.

The prior anon and I were responding to the earlier anon who seemed (I will emphasize, "seemed") disheartened by needing to stay in biglaw to raise kids rather than finding more joy/fulfillment/non-work hobbies in house. To those people I say, "you can leave" and still raise great, happy kids. That is objectively true and I will never understand why it would be controversial to say so.

If you WANT 250-300, I truly could not care less. I'm not a government recruiter trying to get people to choose a life of public service. I myself left the fed government for more money. It's fine.

Uh huh

[clarion]

Just let people live the lifestyle they want. Personally given my family size, where I live, and the fact the I will never send my kids to public school, I need about 250-300. You need less? Good for you.

The prior anon and I were responding to the earlier anon who seemed (I will emphasize, "seemed") disheartened by needing to stay in biglaw to raise kids rather than finding more joy/fulfillment/non-work hobbies in house. To those people I say, "you can leave" and still raise great, happy kids. That is objectively true and I will never understand why it would be controversial to say so.

If you WANT 250-300, I truly could not care less. I'm not a government recruiter trying to get people to choose a life of public service. I myself left the fed government for more money. It's fine.

Uh huh

I'm the anon you just responded to and I didn't mean to be anon on that earlier post. Complete accident.

But yes, I couldn't care less. Cause you're just doing what you WANT. I'm responding to the folks with an unhealthy relationship to work/money that makes them think they need far more than 250-300k (we're talking about senior assocs with NW over $1M ITT btw) to support their families and give their kids a good life, no matter how much they may want to go in-house or whatever. In other words, this isn't about you.

Edit: Btw, I am actually bored out of my mind at work so far this week--so while I recognize it may seem like I care a lot about some of this, I really don't. Just trying to give some unsolicited advice to people who seem to be struggling. (And I'm argumentative and don't like being misunderstood or misconstrued). Cheers.

[Robot]

Even if you don’t want to send your kids to public school, you can send them to a Catholic parochial school, which is generally affordable on a middle-class salary. As a public school grad who’s not from the east coast, I don’t pretend to understand the WASP mindset w/r/t private ed, but not all private ed is ludicrously expensive.

[Anonymous User]

Even if you don’t want to send your kids to public school, you can send them to a Catholic parochial school, which is generally affordable on a middle-class salary. As a public school grad who’s not from the east coast, I don’t pretend to understand the WASP mindset w/r/t private ed, but not all private ed is ludicrously expensive.

I'm neither catholic nor WASP. You don't actually need to understand or agree with my mindset. My kids are not going to public school.

[clarion]

Even if you don’t want to send your kids to public school, you can send them to a Catholic parochial school, which is generally affordable on a middle-class salary. As a public school grad who’s not from the east coast, I don’t pretend to understand the WASP mindset w/r/t private ed, but not all private ed is ludicrously expensive.

I'm neither catholic nor WASP. You don't actually need to understand or agree with my mindset. My kids are not going to public school.

?

Robot: Even if you don't want to send your kids to public school, not all private ed is ludicrously expensive.

You: My kids are never going to public school and f*ck you for thinking I have to explain myself to you.

It's getting weird...

[aegor]

I'm neither catholic nor WASP. You don't actually need to understand or agree with my mindset. My kids are not going to public school.

Many Catholic schools have many non-Catholic students.

I wish more people were just willing to admit that their choices are choices. These posts give the same energy as "Costs rack up when you eat Almas caviar with a nice bottle of Montrachet every week."

Sure, but who cares. Anyone can spend an arbitrary amount of money. The question is not what is normalized or possible but what is a reasonable baseline for living in the U.S. (oh, and living in NYC is a choice).

[Robot]

Even if you don’t want to send your kids to public school, you can send them to a Catholic parochial school, which is generally affordable on a middle-class salary. As a public school grad who’s not from the east coast, I don’t pretend to understand the WASP mindset w/r/t private ed, but not all private ed is ludicrously expensive.

I'm neither catholic nor WASP. You don't actually need to understand or agree with my mindset. My kids are not going to public school.

Tons of non-Catholics attend Catholic schools. I’m just saying that Regis—a fancy high school for all intents and purposes, but one subsidized by the church—for $0 is a far better deal than Collegiate for $55k+.

Also yeah leaving NYC is the best solution, and our plan when we have kids, but I recognize that that’s not ideal for people with family in the area, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Just let people live the lifestyle they want. Personally given my family size, where I live, and the fact the I will never send my kids to public school, I need about 250-300. You need less? Good for you.

You can easily make 250-300 in-house?

(also this is not about "letting" people do anything..very odd tone in this post.)

[Anonymous User]

Agreed it’s been wild. Class year 2012+. Between the salary raises, special bonuses and a lateral move with signing bonus, staying on past 2019 has turned out to be very worthwhile. Not in a high billing practice (never more than 1900 in the past five years, often less) so it’s been bearable relative to most people. Only issue really is progression (hoping for perma-associate or similar) and, well, not wanting to do this anymore. At FIRE with 2.4M+ but purchasing a home in HCOL (NYC/SF) so probably need to stay for another five years or so. Feeling extremely fortunate, but also like it makes up a bit for graduating into the post-recession economy and spending years being afraid of being laid off.

[Sad248]

Meh; have about 1.1m NW as a senior in NYC and feeling pretty burnt out about it all. Have billed 2400+ the past three years. Looking at in house jobs out of misery/curiosity but none are really appealing given (i) sizable pay cut, (ii) I might get a promotion this year (to counsel lol) and (iii) am planning for kids, etc. the next few years and so it feels like no amount of money is ever enough.

You need way less money for kids if you don't get caught up in the private school, nanny, etc. stuff. That adds up quick. Also helps if you have more reliable free time to actually be around to take care of them, cook, etc. With a sufficiently chill, fully remote in-house job you probably wouldn't need any sort of childcare once they're in school.

I just want to echo this sentiment. You can do very well by your kid(s) on a "menial" 200k+ in-house salary. Especially if that 200k salary allows you to outsource fewer responsibilities. Nothing wrong with wanting to give your kids more/everything--I just am always saddened when people say things like "it feels like no amount of money is ever enough." When being wealthy feels more like an obligation than a privilege, I think you're doing something wrong.

Every other conversation about personal finance/salary/NW on TLS seems to lead to this argument these days. As someone with a young kid living in NYC, still in biglaw but wanting to go inhouse ASAP, the argument isn't as simple as "most people in the city live with [insert average salary in NYC] and just do fine with kids, you are out of touch/privileged for complaining about raising kids on a 200k+ salary". Yes, that is true, people do fine with 50k, 70k or on whatever salary you want to quote. But even if you opt out of private school, living nearby a good public school (eg UES or battery park) in the city means paying $3500 or so for housing alone (in rent, and more with mortgage/insurance/property tax if you buy) for a 1 bed apt, and with more than one kid, good luck finding a reasonably priced 2bd + apt. Other expenses for a family of three or four, quickly add up, and that 200k salary post tax now doesn't seem that sufficient, esp if you want to have some buffer for travel/savings. Sure, we can move farther out up to NY state or west to NJ, but that means spending more time on the commute. It isn't as simple. Obviously, one solution would be to move to less expensive city with more access to good public schools and/or getting a full remote position, which is probably what I would end up doing.

Sorry, I just had a similar debate in another thread this week (slow work week, obvs) so I really was trying NOT to rehash the same argument/points. I just wanted to support what the prior anon had said.

Anyway, I don't think we actually disagree about anything. To be able to afford to live in the best neighborhoods and/or send your children to the best schools in one of the most expensive cities in the world is expensive. That's not debatable. Something would have to give (remote work, less expensive market, longer commutes, etc) to be able to thrive on less income. I never meant to suggest otherwise.

I had similar realizations throughout my biglaw journey. When I first heard about the salary (190 at the time), I couldn't believe it. "How can anyone need that much money!" Now a couple years in and seeing the prices of certain houses/apartments in NY/SF/etc. and school prices (I think these two are just the killers) and part of me is like "How can I ever leave?".

I think my conclusion indeed has to just been to work in biglaw as long as is reasonable, then do in-house for a year or two and if possible get it to be fully remote, and then move to lower cost of living area so I can sort of coast FIRE.

[Moneytrees]

As someone who was fortunate to attend excellent public schools growing up, I always considered spending large sums of money on a private school education to be a ludicrous proposition. Now that I'm in NYC and realize that most of the public schools here are a disaster, I'm beginning to open up to the idea of private school, even if it means I have to stay in Biglaw longer. It's either that, or move to Westchester or CT.

The people who move to an affluent burb and still send their kids to private school are doing it wrong, IMO. The ROI just isn't there.