Equity Partners - What are your hours like? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am an EP with a management role at my firm. I bill 1,000 hours a year or thereabouts and think that I drastically underbill (mainly forgetting to record time) but it is a different type of billing - I might talk to a dozen clients a day and kind of manage matters a half hour here, a half hour there. Very hard to write all of that time down especially when you are in transit and on the phone for chunks of it.

Of my working hours (which I would put at 3,000+ a year), it breaks down to a third "billable" time, a third business development/client management, a third firm management.

At this point, the job is somewhat all consuming and you have to be cool with that to make it work. You're never really "off" and you have to not just be okay with that but have the drive to seek that out. Not for everyone.

How much money do you make

Enough to know that there is no such thing as "enough" because you aren't doing it for that reason anyway.

EP PP,

Can you explain your "no such thing as enough" concept a bit further, particularly combined with "you're not doing it for that reason anyway"?

Say you're worth $10 million at 50 [or whatever net worth/age you think makes sense]. In that example, that net worth wouldn't be enough because you aren't doing it for the money anyways?

Would appreciate if you walk through that a bit. No judgment on my end, it's definitely interesting to hear how partners think! I'm personally less interested in the comp numbers and more interested in the reasoning/thought process.

Not the EP but this is not a hard concept. Every time you get a pay raise, you get accustomed to that new lifestyle and end up wanting more because you now see others living an even wealthier lifestyle. Your average joe says if I could just make six figures I would have everything I want like a house, a new car, and maybe some expensive hobbies like golf or something. But when they do, it's not enough because they see others like biglaw associates making $300-500k getting luxury cars, nicer houses, private school for the kids, etc. They want that. It even happens at law firms. I don't think I need to explain the envy associates have for partners. But even new partners at $1-2m/yr see other partners making $4-5m+ with nicer vacation homes, fancier cars, attendance at important charity events, etc. and work harder to get there. Higher paid partners see the CEOs/CFOs making tens of millions and get jealous of their yachts/jets. And when you're in that range you see big names like movie stars, billionaires, etc. who make even more than that. It's never enough.

I don't think it's even the "look up" it's the "look down" that's terrifying. My first job out of college, I made 42k a year. I'm a midlevel now making over $300K and wouldn't even consider an in-house role less than $200k.

Sure, my situation has changed. I'm no longer a single, 22 year old kid. But still, the idea of living on $50K/year seems impossible. The idea of living on $150k seems doable, but it'll hurt. It'll hurt me more than continuing to do biglaw does.

If you told me I'd feel this way when I was making $42k/year, I'd say that's ridiculous. It is ridiculous. The same way we think it's ridiculous for someone making $2mm/year to feel worried about "only" making $1mm/year. But, it's human nature to not want to fall down.

That's just the money aspect of it. There's other aspects as well. Going in-house seems like working on boring shit and being an ancillary function to the business. That's a fall down as well that I don't want to take, and the fall down for a managing partner would be even greater.

If you're asking why doesn't he just quit it all and retire early? I think about this one all the time. I estimate that my spouse and I are about 5 years from where we can retire very comfortably (could arguably retire now and many people do with less). But, we're still only in our early 30s and there's things I want to accomplish in my career. I'm sure the partners have targets/metrics they want to hit as well. The firm is their baby at this point and they want to see it group and prosper. I don't really see it all that different than say a Fortune 500 CEO who might have millions but still is motivated by his mandate.

I should add that I, like I think many in this profession, have a pretty healthy fear of being "idle". We unfortunately derive a fair bit of our self worth by the amount the phone rings and the amount people are seeking your counsel and guidance/leadership. I wish it wasn't this way but, if we are being honest, it is for many of us.

This is why I think you see a lot of partners hang on even in their 80's and going to the office everyday. The thought of moving to West Palm and just playing golf everyday is very foreign to them and perhaps even a bit terrifying because of how they have built their self image.

Many of my clients earned more in certain deals than I ever will in a lifetime. I've actually never given that a moment's thought and have zero jealousy regarding that. There's not really an element of keeping up with the Joneses, it's more a metric of what you view your own value to be (and what others view it to be) in that one particular scorekeeping metric.

[Anonymous User]

I feel the "look down" part deeply. Before law school I was trying to figure out how to get up to 100k, somehow. When I heard that biglaw pays 180 starting I couldn't even picture that much. Now I'm making 215 and I can't imagine living on less than 150.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

[BigLawPartner]

I am an EP with a management role at my firm. I bill 1,000 hours a year or thereabouts and think that I drastically underbill (mainly forgetting to record time) but it is a different type of billing - I might talk to a dozen clients a day and kind of manage matters a half hour here, a half hour there. Very hard to write all of that time down especially when you are in transit and on the phone for chunks of it.

Of my working hours (which I would put at 3,000+ a year), it breaks down to a third "billable" time, a third business development/client management, a third firm management.

At this point, the job is somewhat all consuming and you have to be cool with that to make it work. You're never really "off" and you have to not just be okay with that but have the drive to seek that out. Not for everyone.

How much money do you make

Enough to know that there is no such thing as "enough" because you aren't doing it for that reason anyway.

Appreciate all your insight, but I don't understand why EPs are so reluctant to answer this question, especially anonymously.

Different equity partner here, and I agree that it seems odd to be reluctant to answer this question on an anonymous forum. I bill somewhere between 1700-2000 hours typically (some years more and one year as low as 1600, which wasn't a great year work wise). Last year, I made about $3 million. It's on the low end for my seniority, but I am not in a huge revenue generating practice area. And there may be years going forward in which I don't make as much, but I hope not, because unlike that other poster, I am definitely doing it for the money to a large extent (not so much so that I chose one of the practice areas that lead to higher earners, but sufficiently so that I stayed at a firm when I almost surely would not have done so if not for the compensation). I hope to retire early.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think it's even the "look up" it's the "look down" that's terrifying. My first job out of college, I made 42k a year. I'm a midlevel now making over $300K and wouldn't even consider an in-house role less than $200k.

Sure, my situation has changed. I'm no longer a single, 22 year old kid. But still, the idea of living on $50K/year seems impossible. The idea of living on $150k seems doable, but it'll hurt. It'll hurt me more than continuing to do biglaw does.

If you told me I'd feel this way when I was making $42k/year, I'd say that's ridiculous. It is ridiculous. The same way we think it's ridiculous for someone making $2mm/year to feel worried about "only" making $1mm/year. But, it's human nature to not want to fall down.

That's just the money aspect of it. There's other aspects as well. Going in-house seems like working on boring shit and being an ancillary function to the business. That's a fall down as well that I don't want to take, and the fall down for a managing partner would be even greater.

If you're asking why doesn't he just quit it all and retire early? I think about this one all the time. I estimate that my spouse and I are about 5 years from where we can retire very comfortably (could arguably retire now and many people do with less). But, we're still only in our early 30s and there's things I want to accomplish in my career. I'm sure the partners have targets/metrics they want to hit as well. The firm is their baby at this point and they want to see it group and prosper. I don't really see it all that different than say a Fortune 500 CEO who might have millions but still is motivated by his mandate.

I used to think when I first started biglaw that I was easily on track to eventually live in one of the "nicer" neighborhoods in my city where I could have a nice life of having the nice house and couple of kids going to the nice school district. And this was with me not having rich parents and having $170k in student loans to pay off.

Now dirt lots in that neighborhood are going for $1.5million+ all cash just a few years later. I feel like if I jump ship out of biglaw and take a big paycut to go in-house, my dreams of this "nice" life will become forever unobtainable. The nice life is just getting really freaking expensive and I feel like I'm barely keeping up as it is, even on biglaw salaries. I feel like if I was 5 years younger I would feel 10 years ahead of where I am now just how much things have changed in the past 2-3 years.

I'm not talking about owning yachts or being part of a nice country club or taking private jets anywhere. I'm talking about just having a nice house (not magazine worthy and not 3000 sq ft) house in one of my city's nice neighorhoods that wouldn't cost me $3million plus in cash right now.

I don't mind working biglaw, hours are hard but I manage it with therapy and exercise and I like my work enough. Why quit if I'm not forced out? I don't think anywhere else is going to provide me the chance to afford the life I want to live, instead of just living the life I can afford.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

Yes, because that's the only country outside of the US!

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

Yes, because that's the only country outside of the US!

The American ignorance and arrogance here is way more hilarious

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

Per Business insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/how-muc ... a-201000-6, a 1st year biglaw associate would be in the top 1% in all countries except France, Australia, the UK, Germany, Bahrain, the US, Singapore, and the UAE.

[Buglaw]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

Yes, because that's the only country outside of the US!

The American ignorance and arrogance here is way more hilarious

Sorry, how is it ignorance to assume on a US board for US lawyers, that someone would be taking about US salary. The fact that that no clarification was made is just misleading. The poster was trying to flex on folks about his top 1% salary which it became clear really means nothing without a specification as to what they are in the top 1% of. Mocking them was a perfectly appropriate response and deserved.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's all about the lifestyle change. I worked for a decade before going to law school. I was earning in the top 1 percent just before law school but was saving/investing the vast majority. Over the decade, my spending habits didn't change drastically although the salary grew 4x. So, taking a break for law school wasn't a big deal in terms of adjustment to lifestyle.

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

Yes, because that's the only country outside of the US!

The American ignorance and arrogance here is way more hilarious

Sorry, how is it ignorance to assume on a US board for US lawyers, that someone would be taking about US salary. The fact that that no clarification was made is just misleading. The poster was trying to flex on folks about his top 1% salary which it became clear really means nothing without a specification as to what they are in the top 1% of. Mocking them was a perfectly appropriate response and deserved.

Funny, though, that it supposedly makes more sense to assume US top 1% and then not believe the claim because it translates to quitting a job paying 800k than to assume another country's top 1% because anonymous flexing is apparently so uncommon on this forum.

[Anonymous User]

You were making 800k before law school. And then you went to law school. Ok.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

Wasn't in the US before law school but my point about lifestyle remains.

You mean you were earning the top 1% in Zimbabwe? The amount of effort put into flexing is hilarious.

Yes, because that's the only country outside of the US!

The American ignorance and arrogance here is way more hilarious

Sorry, how is it ignorance to assume on a US board for US lawyers, that someone would be taking about US salary. The fact that that no clarification was made is just misleading. The poster was trying to flex on folks about his top 1% salary which it became clear really means nothing without a specification as to what they are in the top 1% of. Mocking them was a perfectly appropriate response and deserved.

Funny, though, that it supposedly makes more sense to assume US top 1% and then not believe the claim because it translates to quitting a job paying 800k than to assume another country's top 1% because anonymous flexing is apparently so uncommon on this forum.

Kids, stop. This is about hours.