"I'd like to work in biglaw for a while..." Forum

[nygrrrl]

Legal jokes. Shudder.

Sorry. I deserve to be slapped. I'll do it myself.

[rayiner]

I've read through this entire thread with great interest and have a few comments from outside the war zone:

(1) Legal academics are the professional equivalent of chicken hawks. We love to burble on about what a great thing it is to to be a lawyer, even though the average law prof is somebody who was a lawyer

(a) 25 years ago
(b) For 15 minutes
(c) In a job that didn't have much if any resemblance to what their current students will end up doing

Basically it's easy to develop faux nostalgia for almost anything with the passage of enough time. People look back fondly on junior high school, on being in the infantry in some insane war, on personal relationships that were largely perceived as nightmarish at the time people were in them.

(2) Almost anything is much easier to tolerate if it feels temporary in a volitional way, i..e, if you truly feel like you can walk whenever you've had enough. This is why the current cost structure of law school, and the debt it creates, has such bad effects on even the "winners" in the law school game.

(3) It would be good to have some sort of Maoist system in which legal academics were forced to actually practice law for six months every seven years or so. They should have that instead of sabbaticals.

I think (2) really changes the whole dynamic of working in a law firm, in a way that's not good for anyone. Latham's layoffs took on a very different magnitude when the debt those first and second years were under was factored in.

I thought working at a firm wasn't bad. Maybe rose colored glasses, as a clerk now. But at the time I liked it. But the debt survitude angle makes it ugly.

[Anonymous User]

People who "love the law" should just do career clerk. But not bankruptcy clerks because they'll just get mad.

. Totally agree with this. BigLaw is the furthest thing from the academic circle jerk that was law school (which I personally appreciate).

But seriously, if you get stuck working for an asshole, you're going to hate your life, no matter whether it's BigLaw or MidLaw or ShitLaw. You just have to hope you get lucky and don't draw the "Tyrannical Midlevel" or "Asshole Senior" or "Crazy Partner" straw. The trick is finding the places where those people are few and far between, and that's basically not possible and comes down to luck too. And by luck I mean, imagine Russian Roulette where more than half of the chambers have bullets in them.

What's weird is a lot of firms want people who come off as intellectuals. I had very good grades at a t-14 but nobody would describe me as an intellectual. I also wasn't a very good interviewer but am personable enough to have gotten a lot of callbacks early on so by the second week of OCI I decided to just be honest instead of continuing to BS. I made a comment in one screener that I'm not an intellectual, and just want to serve clients instead of sitting around with a group of people wearing glasses discussing substantive legal theory. She said that on paper I seem like an intellectual, and I said that I was just smart, can apply stuff to real life and before law school thought that Nietzche was some Japanese toy. She gave a look and said that the firm prides itself on having an intellectual community. What I'm curious about is why firms would be so gung ho about the intellectual circle jerk if they really just want people who can do menial work good and quickly?

Honestly, all I want to do is to use my brain to help clients deal with issues they're having and make a lot of money in doing so. I don't want to be responsible for someone losing a lot of money, having to fire people or do anything that can be described as taking advantage of people. In litigation even if you lose you can reason that it's the facts. I tend to place responsibility on myself for things that go wrong, and while I love money would rather be poor and noble than rich from taking others for a ride. Law just seemed like the best option for that. The big law lawyers that I know might be mean around the office, but on the street they're all good people. The other people I know who live their type of livelihood and didn't come from money tend to have an aura of sleaziness and untrustworthiness.

[wildhaggis]

I'll go ahead and throw my two cents in, not that it'll do any good... When I was a law student, biglaw horror stories triggered a strong denial reaction. The very thought that the most lucrative outcome of taking on so much debt could be that bad was a little much. Their denial is annoying, but understandable.

Now, on the other side of the fence, I realize that it is, indeed, that bad. Though not for the obvious reasons.

Most people think it's the hours. It's not. Biglaw hours can be bad, but I probably worked more hours on average in some blue collar jobs when I was younger that were far less desirable for a number of reasons.

Others think it's the people. That's not the reason, either. The people can be demeaning and cruel, but I've had meaner and dumber bosses still in the plethora of shit retail jobs I used to have. And none of these had the luxury of a fat paycheck to put up with the abuse.

And yet, despite all of the above and the nice office and paycheck, biglaw is still worse. Why? For the simple fact that, in biglaw, nothing is truly yours. You never have time that's just for you, or just for your family, or just for whatever you want it to be for. In biglaw, this doesn't exist. You are under constant threat of being yanked away from whatever it is you may be doing by a blinking red bulb.

As a result, you slowly see yourself start to cancel plans. A lot. Then you just stop making them. Goddamn, do you loathe that red bulb. After a while, you realize that you don't do much of anything. Ever. You spend a lot of your free time in close proximity to a phone and computer, so you're always available, always able to work. Not because you're so committed, but because you don't want to have to deal with the stress of canceling again. It just becomes easier to be available at all times, so that's what you do. But then biglaw becomes everything, and you certainly aren't happier for it.

What's worse is that this is true at all times - busy or slow. When you're busy, of course you have to be available, because you're busy. When you're slow, you're nervous that you're not making hours, and you have plenty of "bandwidth" to boot, so, guess what? You have to be available. Free time becomes a misnomer.

It's this intangible factor that makes the biglaw cautionary tales real for me, and it's what I would urge 0Ls to consider when they mistakenly believe biglaw is their ticket. It isn't. Because, trust me, even if the above doesn't burn you out in due time, the up-or-out ax eventually comes for all.

[PepperJack]

I'll go ahead and throw my two cents in, not that it'll do any good... When I was a law student, biglaw horror stories triggered a strong denial reaction. The very thought that the most lucrative outcome of taking on so much debt could be that bad was a little much. Their denial is annoying, but understandable.

Now, on the other side of the fence, I realize that it is, indeed, that bad. Though not for the obvious reasons.

Most people think it's the hours. It's not. Biglaw hours can be bad, but I probably worked more hours on average in some blue collar jobs when I was younger that were far less desirable for a number of reasons.

Others think it's the people. That's not the reason, either. The people can be demeaning and cruel, but I've had meaner and dumber bosses still in the plethora of shit retail jobs I used to have. And none of these had the luxury of a fat paycheck to put up with the abuse.

And yet, despite all of the above and the nice office and paycheck, biglaw is still worse. Why? For the simple fact that, in biglaw, nothing is truly yours. You never have time that's just for you, or just for your family, or just for whatever you want it to be for. In biglaw, this doesn't exist. You are under constant threat of being yanked away from whatever it is you may be doing by a blinking red bulb.

As a result, you slowly see yourself start to cancel plans. A lot. Then you just stop making them. Goddamn, do you loathe that red bulb. After a while, you realize that you don't do much of anything. Ever. You spend a lot of your free time in close proximity to a phone and computer, so you're always available, always able to work. Not because you're so committed, but because you don't want to have to deal with the stress of canceling again. It just becomes easier to be available at all times, so that's what you do. But then biglaw becomes everything, and you certainly aren't happier for it.

What's worse is that this is true at all times - busy or slow. When you're busy, of course you have to be available, because you're busy. When you're slow, you're nervous that you're not making hours, and you have plenty of "bandwidth" to boot, so, guess what? You have to be available. Free time becomes a misnomer.

It's this intangible factor that makes the biglaw cautionary tales real for me, and it's what I would urge 0Ls to consider when they mistakenly believe biglaw is their ticket. It isn't. Because, trust me, even if the above doesn't burn you out in due time, the up-or-out ax eventually comes for all.

Thanks for this info. Could you be a little more specific in what you mean by nothing is truly yours. Are you referring to just always being on call or something more?

[wildhaggis]

I'll go ahead and throw my two cents in, not that it'll do any good... When I was a law student, biglaw horror stories triggered a strong denial reaction. The very thought that the most lucrative outcome of taking on so much debt could be that bad was a little much. Their denial is annoying, but understandable.

Now, on the other side of the fence, I realize that it is, indeed, that bad. Though not for the obvious reasons.

Most people think it's the hours. It's not. Biglaw hours can be bad, but I probably worked more hours on average in some blue collar jobs when I was younger that were far less desirable for a number of reasons.

Others think it's the people. That's not the reason, either. The people can be demeaning and cruel, but I've had meaner and dumber bosses still in the plethora of shit retail jobs I used to have. And none of these had the luxury of a fat paycheck to put up with the abuse.

And yet, despite all of the above and the nice office and paycheck, biglaw is still worse. Why? For the simple fact that, in biglaw, nothing is truly yours. You never have time that's just for you, or just for your family, or just for whatever you want it to be for. In biglaw, this doesn't exist. You are under constant threat of being yanked away from whatever it is you may be doing by a blinking red bulb.

As a result, you slowly see yourself start to cancel plans. A lot. Then you just stop making them. Goddamn, do you loathe that red bulb. After a while, you realize that you don't do much of anything. Ever. You spend a lot of your free time in close proximity to a phone and computer, so you're always available, always able to work. Not because you're so committed, but because you don't want to have to deal with the stress of canceling again. It just becomes easier to be available at all times, so that's what you do. But then biglaw becomes everything, and you certainly aren't happier for it.

What's worse is that this is true at all times - busy or slow. When you're busy, of course you have to be available, because you're busy. When you're slow, you're nervous that you're not making hours, and you have plenty of "bandwidth" to boot, so, guess what? You have to be available. Free time becomes a misnomer.

It's this intangible factor that makes the biglaw cautionary tales real for me, and it's what I would urge 0Ls to consider when they mistakenly believe biglaw is their ticket. It isn't. Because, trust me, even if the above doesn't burn you out in due time, the up-or-out ax eventually comes for all.

Thanks for this info. Could you be a little more specific in what you mean by nothing is truly yours. Are you referring to just always being on call or something more?

It was admittedly a bit of hyperbole. I meant that, in biglaw, your free time is never that - free. You'll never have time that isn't, in some way, infected by the job. That isn't under constant threat of being invaded. It was the presence of a set amount of time I could devote to myself or my family that made tough jobs tolerable in the past. In biglaw, when you finally see the light at the end of a particularly massive deal/case, it can - and will - go away just as quick as it came.

[NeedAnExit]

I've read through this entire thread with great interest and have a few comments from outside the war zone:

(1) Legal academics are the professional equivalent of chicken hawks. We love to burble on about what a great thing it is to to be a lawyer, even though the average law prof is somebody who was a lawyer

(a) 25 years ago
(b) For 15 minutes
(c) In a job that didn't have much if any resemblance to what their current students will end up doing

Basically it's easy to develop faux nostalgia for almost anything with the passage of enough time. People look back fondly on junior high school, on being in the infantry in some insane war, on personal relationships that were largely perceived as nightmarish at the time people were in them.

(2) Almost anything is much easier to tolerate if it feels temporary in a volitional way, i..e, if you truly feel like you can walk whenever you've had enough. This is why the current cost structure of law school, and the debt it creates, has such bad effects on even the "winners" in the law school game.

(3) It would be good to have some sort of Maoist system in which legal academics were forced to actually practice law for six months every seven years or so. They should have that instead of sabbaticals.

I think (2) really changes the whole dynamic of working in a law firm, in a way that's not good for anyone. Latham's layoffs took on a very different magnitude when the debt those first and second years were under was factored in.

I thought working at a firm wasn't bad. Maybe rose colored glasses, as a clerk now. But at the time I liked it. But the debt survitude angle makes it ugly.

(2) is the most difficult aspect for me.

Another thing that I've been wondering about a lot is this: what if it completely works out for someone? That is, they last in biglaw for 4-5 years, pay down their debt, and exit to a job that they love.* Is that worth losing a half decade in your mid-twenties?


*Realistically, this job may make someone upper-middle class (especially if you leave NYC), but it is extremely unlikely that this second job will make you rich.

[rayiner]

I've read through this entire thread with great interest and have a few comments from outside the war zone:

(1) Legal academics are the professional equivalent of chicken hawks. We love to burble on about what a great thing it is to to be a lawyer, even though the average law prof is somebody who was a lawyer

(a) 25 years ago
(b) For 15 minutes
(c) In a job that didn't have much if any resemblance to what their current students will end up doing

Basically it's easy to develop faux nostalgia for almost anything with the passage of enough time. People look back fondly on junior high school, on being in the infantry in some insane war, on personal relationships that were largely perceived as nightmarish at the time people were in them.

(2) Almost anything is much easier to tolerate if it feels temporary in a volitional way, i..e, if you truly feel like you can walk whenever you've had enough. This is why the current cost structure of law school, and the debt it creates, has such bad effects on even the "winners" in the law school game.

(3) It would be good to have some sort of Maoist system in which legal academics were forced to actually practice law for six months every seven years or so. They should have that instead of sabbaticals.

I think (2) really changes the whole dynamic of working in a law firm, in a way that's not good for anyone. Latham's layoffs took on a very different magnitude when the debt those first and second years were under was factored in.

I thought working at a firm wasn't bad. Maybe rose colored glasses, as a clerk now. But at the time I liked it. But the debt survitude angle makes it ugly.

(2) is the most difficult aspect for me.

Another thing that I've been wondering about a lot is this: what if it completely works out for someone? That is, they last in biglaw for 4-5 years, pay down their debt, and exit to a job that they love.* Is that worth losing a half decade in your mid-twenties?


*Realistically, this job may make someone upper-middle class (especially if you leave NYC), but it is extremely unlikely that this second job will make you rich.

If anything else, I'd say don't go to grad school at 22, losing half your 20's to any demanding job. I spent my 20's in college, living with my college buddy in Atlanta and going out several times a week, and in law school, which was a three year vacation. I will be really starting big law (pre-clerk first year doesn't count, mindset is totally different) at 30, with a wife and a baby. I have zero regrets about how I spent my 20's. I feel sorry for all the K-JD's that have never had a job where they can take two hour lunches with drinks.

[Anonymous User]

I've read through this entire thread with great interest and have a few comments from outside the war zone:

(1) Legal academics are the professional equivalent of chicken hawks. We love to burble on about what a great thing it is to to be a lawyer, even though the average law prof is somebody who was a lawyer

(a) 25 years ago
(b) For 15 minutes
(c) In a job that didn't have much if any resemblance to what their current students will end up doing

Basically it's easy to develop faux nostalgia for almost anything with the passage of enough time. People look back fondly on junior high school, on being in the infantry in some insane war, on personal relationships that were largely perceived as nightmarish at the time people were in them.

(2) Almost anything is much easier to tolerate if it feels temporary in a volitional way, i..e, if you truly feel like you can walk whenever you've had enough. This is why the current cost structure of law school, and the debt it creates, has such bad effects on even the "winners" in the law school game.

(3) It would be good to have some sort of Maoist system in which legal academics were forced to actually practice law for six months every seven years or so. They should have that instead of sabbaticals.

I think (2) really changes the whole dynamic of working in a law firm, in a way that's not good for anyone. Latham's layoffs took on a very different magnitude when the debt those first and second years were under was factored in.

I thought working at a firm wasn't bad. Maybe rose colored glasses, as a clerk now. But at the time I liked it. But the debt survitude angle makes it ugly.

(2) is the most difficult aspect for me.

Another thing that I've been wondering about a lot is this: what if it completely works out for someone? That is, they last in biglaw for 4-5 years, pay down their debt, and exit to a job that they love.* Is that worth losing a half decade in your mid-twenties?


*Realistically, this job may make someone upper-middle class (especially if you leave NYC), but it is extremely unlikely that this second job will make you rich.

If anything else, I'd say don't go to grad school at 22, losing half your 20's to any demanding job. I spent my 20's in college, living with my college buddy in Atlanta and going out several times a week, and in law school, which was a three year vacation. I will be really starting big law (pre-clerk first year doesn't count, mindset is totally different) at 30, with a wife and a baby. I have zero regrets about how I spent my 20's. I feel sorry for all the K-JD's that have never had a job where they can take two hour lunches with drinks.

There is no right answer. I did what you're advocating. Then I started at my firm and almost everybody in the new partnership class was slightly older than me. I don't know if I even want to strive for partnership, but with two young children the decision to chase partnership (dedicate myself to my career) involves different factors and higher personal costs than a typical K-JD has to consider.

[jbagelboy]

People who "love the law" should just do career clerk. But not bankruptcy clerks because they'll just get mad.

. Totally agree with this. BigLaw is the furthest thing from the academic circle jerk that was law school (which I personally appreciate).

But seriously, if you get stuck working for an asshole, you're going to hate your life, no matter whether it's BigLaw or MidLaw or ShitLaw. You just have to hope you get lucky and don't draw the "Tyrannical Midlevel" or "Asshole Senior" or "Crazy Partner" straw. The trick is finding the places where those people are few and far between, and that's basically not possible and comes down to luck too. And by luck I mean, imagine Russian Roulette where more than half of the chambers have bullets in them.

What's weird is a lot of firms want people who come off as intellectuals. I had very good grades at a t-14 but nobody would describe me as an intellectual. I also wasn't a very good interviewer but am personable enough to have gotten a lot of callbacks early on so by the second week of OCI I decided to just be honest instead of continuing to BS. I made a comment in one screener that I'm not an intellectual, and just want to serve clients instead of sitting around with a group of people wearing glasses discussing substantive legal theory. She said that on paper I seem like an intellectual, and I said that I was just smart, can apply stuff to real life and before law school thought that Nietzche was some Japanese toy. She gave a look and said that the firm prides itself on having an intellectual community. What I'm curious about is why firms would be so gung ho about the intellectual circle jerk if they really just want people who can do menial work good and quickly?

Depends on the firm. But if you go through the rosters of the top NY or DC firms, a plurality-to-majority have highly vetted pedigree and went to top schools their entire life, where they were told & taught that culture was both inherently significant and played a large role in your interactions with your peers. If you went to Princeton and majored in philosophy before going corporate (kind of a median background at a top white shoe firm esp in the partner class), even if you land at a large firm, you're probably pretentious enough to consider yourself "intellectual" or at least pseudo-intellectual. It's also a class & networking issue. It could hurt you to not know or care who Nietzsche is in terms of building a book of business when the industries are other pretentious pseudo-intellectuals.

Biglaw attorneys might deny it, but many love it when they are asked sophisticated questions about legal theory or the evolution of a particular practice area and can lecture like professors. It's kind of funny actually. When you talk to them in private or out of the firm context, they also love to flex their cultural sensitivity and the depth of their extracurricular interest. I remember when a guy showed me his "extensive" 18th century continental architecture library collection. So I'm not surprised in New York at least by the "cultivate an intellectual atmosphere" stuff.

Compare this to, for example, some IP firms in California where having a background as an amateur programmer/tech geek will help a lot more in relating to clients than season tickets to the NYC ballet.

One sector I worked in involved a lot of interaction with people in the construction industry. These were project managers with technical degrees who had often built their careers from the work site up. A lot of them were actually former firefighters. The type of perspective and cultural expectation was completely different from other industries, and an over-sensitized interest in music, literature, foreign travel, ect. could be a turnoff for building a clientele. Even the politics tended more libertarian / anti-intellectual.

It takes all kinds.

[patogordo]

since attorneys are essentially white-collar prostitutes it's not surprising that so many see themselves as hookers with hearts of gold

[ggocat]

I don't want to be responsible for someone losing a lot of money, having to fire people or do anything that can be described as taking advantage of people.

So you never want to win?

[Anonymous User]

I don't want to be responsible for someone losing a lot of money, having to fire people or do anything that can be described as taking advantage of people.

So you never want to win?

Same anonymous this was asked to. Not that way, no. Psychologically for me it's all about the degree of separation. For instance, if it were a trial and I won even though I believed my client was wrong, I'm just doing a better job than the opposing counsel and it's not my fault s/he's an idiot. You should bare in mind that I'm weird though. I read up on boxing strategy, but would never box for real because I either get bloody or make someone else bloody. I find the strategy and workout exhilarating, but unless need be I wouldn't want to be the reason why I a good looking person is no longer good looking. It's a personal oddity.

[El Pollito]

So now we have the Late Worker and the Bitchmade Striver. Thanks anon.

[rayiner]

I think (2) really changes the whole dynamic of working in a law firm, in a way that's not good for anyone. Latham's layoffs took on a very different magnitude when the debt those first and second years were under was factored in.

I thought working at a firm wasn't bad. Maybe rose colored glasses, as a clerk now. But at the time I liked it. But the debt survitude angle makes it ugly.

(2) is the most difficult aspect for me.

Another thing that I've been wondering about a lot is this: what if it completely works out for someone? That is, they last in biglaw for 4-5 years, pay down their debt, and exit to a job that they love.* Is that worth losing a half decade in your mid-twenties?


*Realistically, this job may make someone upper-middle class (especially if you leave NYC), but it is extremely unlikely that this second job will make you rich.

If anything else, I'd say don't go to grad school at 22, losing half your 20's to any demanding job. I spent my 20's in college, living with my college buddy in Atlanta and going out several times a week, and in law school, which was a three year vacation. I will be really starting big law (pre-clerk first year doesn't count, mindset is totally different) at 30, with a wife and a baby. I have zero regrets about how I spent my 20's. I feel sorry for all the K-JD's that have never had a job where they can take two hour lunches with drinks.

There is no right answer. I did what you're advocating. Then I started at my firm and almost everybody in the new partnership class was slightly older than me. I don't know if I even want to strive for partnership, but with two young children the decision to chase partnership (dedicate myself to my career) involves different factors and higher personal costs than a typical K-JD has to consider.

I'd rather grind away in big law with a wife and kid then as a single. I feel sorry for the 25 year olds I know trying to date while chained to a blackberry. Yeah, a family puts a lot of demands on your time, but they're more flexible about it. My toddler just wants me around. Sitting next to me watching Frozen while I play on my computer is totally quality time as far as she is concerned. If I find myself with an empty afternoon, I can just come home and play with her. With friends and dates time has to be scheduled. It goes back to the thing about the unpredictability being a bigger problem than the hours. A guy with kids can take advantage of unexpected downtime. A single will just go home and check out in front of the TV.

[Anonymous User]

If anything else, I'd say don't go to grad school at 22, losing half your 20's to any demanding job. I spent my 20's in college, living with my college buddy in Atlanta and going out several times a week, and in law school, which was a three year vacation. I will be really starting big law (pre-clerk first year doesn't count, mindset is totally different) at 30, with a wife and a baby. I have zero regrets about how I spent my 20's. I feel sorry for all the K-JD's that have never had a job where they can take two hour lunches with drinks.

There is no right answer. I did what you're advocating. Then I started at my firm and almost everybody in the new partnership class was slightly older than me. I don't know if I even want to strive for partnership, but with two young children the decision to chase partnership (dedicate myself to my career) involves different factors and higher personal costs than a typical K-JD has to consider.

I'd rather grind away in big law with a wife and kid then as a single. I feel sorry for the 25 year olds I know trying to date while chained to a blackberry. Yeah, a family puts a lot of demands on your time, but they're more flexible about it. My toddler just wants me around. Sitting next to me watching Frozen while I play on my computer is totally quality time as far as she is concerned. If I find myself with an empty afternoon, I can just come home and play with her. With friends and dates time has to be scheduled. It goes back to the thing about the unpredictability being a bigger problem than the hours. A guy with kids can take advantage of unexpected downtime. A single will just go home and check out in front of the TV.

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

Time is the great equalizer, and it takes a significant investment of time and energy to mold and influence young kids. Young children are ultimately shaped and influenced most by their primary caregivers. Big law simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for junior and midlevel associates to also be very involved parents, especially with young children.

To me, the choice between a social life and career would be easier to make (in either direction). The choice between being an involved parent and career is much, much tougher.

IMHO, bottom line when working in big law: 25 hours worth of tasks to take care of everyday and only 24 hours in the day. Deciding what task will be ignored or pushed to tomorrow is easier when young children are not part of the equation.

[rayiner]

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

Time is the great equalizer, and it takes a significant investment of time and energy to mold and influence young kids. Young children are ultimately shaped and influenced most by their primary caregivers. Big law simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for junior and midlevel associates to also be very involved parents, especially with young children.

To me, the choice between a social life and career would be easier to make (in either direction). The choice between being an involved parent and career is much, much tougher.

IMHO, bottom line when working in big law: 25 hours worth of tasks to take care of everyday and only 24 hours in the day. Deciding what task will be ignored or pushed to tomorrow is easier when young children are not part of the equation.

The difference is that your friends or girlfriend can abandon you, while your kids will be a lot more flexible. Children are surprisingly resilient. As parents, we overestimate how much time kids really need at that age. Its more for us than for them. I say this as a parent and someone whose dad worked 80 hour weeks growing up. Yeah, my daughter cries when I drop her off at daycare, but she won't remember that 10 years from now. I don't remember jack from that phase of my childhood. What I remember is that my dad worked a lot, but always had time to talk to me and check in on me. I remember the love and the support, not the hours he was away. And my brother and I both have a great relationship with him.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I know like three (normal, sane) people in biglaw who seem genuinely, sustainably happy with their lives. The secret seems to be some elusive combination of liking nice things and having a positive outlook and a short memory.

As for me, I could give two shits about the money (except LOANS), and I am a curmudgeon who is always expecting the worst. The prognosis isn't great.

[worldtraveler]

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

Time is the great equalizer, and it takes a significant investment of time and energy to mold and influence young kids. Young children are ultimately shaped and influenced most by their primary caregivers. Big law simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for junior and midlevel associates to also be very involved parents, especially with young children.

To me, the choice between a social life and career would be easier to make (in either direction). The choice between being an involved parent and career is much, much tougher.

IMHO, bottom line when working in big law: 25 hours worth of tasks to take care of everyday and only 24 hours in the day. Deciding what task will be ignored or pushed to tomorrow is easier when young children are not part of the equation.

The difference is that your friends or girlfriend can abandon you, while your kids will be a lot more flexible. Children are surprisingly resilient. As parents, we overestimate how much time kids really need at that age. Its more for us than for them. I say this as a parent and someone whose dad worked 80 hour weeks growing up. Yeah, my daughter cries when I drop her off at daycare, but she won't remember that 10 years from now. I don't remember jack from that phase of my childhood. What I remember is that my dad worked a lot, but always had time to talk to me and check in on me. I remember the love and the support, not the hours he was away. And my brother and I both have a great relationship with him.

Some of this might depend on the kid though. I wanted less time with my mom as a kid because I wanted more independence. My sister complains to this day that we didn't get enough time with our parents. Then again she just complains a lot.

[patogordo]

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

#pussificationofamerica

[Anonymous User]

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

Time is the great equalizer, and it takes a significant investment of time and energy to mold and influence young kids. Young children are ultimately shaped and influenced most by their primary caregivers. Big law simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for junior and midlevel associates to also be very involved parents, especially with young children.

To me, the choice between a social life and career would be easier to make (in either direction). The choice between being an involved parent and career is much, much tougher.

IMHO, bottom line when working in big law: 25 hours worth of tasks to take care of everyday and only 24 hours in the day. Deciding what task will be ignored or pushed to tomorrow is easier when young children are not part of the equation.

The difference is that your friends or girlfriend can abandon you, while your kids will be a lot more flexible. As parents, we overestimate how much time kids really need at that age. Its more for us than for them. I say this as a parent and someone whose dad worked 80 hour seeks growing up.

You can't possibly remember your early childhood development, so I'm not sure what your experience with a father who worked a lot has to do with being a parent to young, developing children. I get the hard-working father thing because I was raised In that environment, too. If we are talking children older than elementary school age, my gut instinct is that you're right about overestimation of time needed from parents.

On the other hand, based on my personal experience with my oldest child, I think a lot of parental involvement is required with young children. I was his primary caregiver until I started biglaw. My school had a PT program, so I registered for night classes after my kid was born, and took care of him during the day. As my spouse and I have switched roles, I've watched my oldest's personality shift as he learns to interact with the world by watching the stay-at-home parent interact with the world (as well as other individuals in his daily sphere of influence). Not that I don't like that or my spouse's way of interacting with the world, but I'm also not going to pretend that I'm having a lot of influence during these early formative years.

Young kids learn skills by watching those who are around them. Being a junior or midlevel is simply not compatible with being around to influence young children.

[rayiner]

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

Time is the great equalizer, and it takes a significant investment of time and energy to mold and influence young kids. Young children are ultimately shaped and influenced most by their primary caregivers. Big law simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for junior and midlevel associates to also be very involved parents, especially with young children.

To me, the choice between a social life and career would be easier to make (in either direction). The choice between being an involved parent and career is much, much tougher.

IMHO, bottom line when working in big law: 25 hours worth of tasks to take care of everyday and only 24 hours in the day. Deciding what task will be ignored or pushed to tomorrow is easier when young children are not part of the equation.

The difference is that your friends or girlfriend can abandon you, while your kids will be a lot more flexible. As parents, we overestimate how much time kids really need at that age. Its more for us than for them. I say this as a parent and someone whose dad worked 80 hour seeks growing up.

You can't possibly remember your early childhood development, so I'm not sure what your experience with a father who worked a lot has to do with being a parent to young, developing children. I get the hard-working father thing because I was raised In that environment, too. If we are talking children older than elementary school age, my gut instinct is that you're right about overestimation of time needed from parents.

On the other hand, based on my personal experience with my oldest child, I think a lot of parental involvement is required with young children. I was his primary caregiver until I started biglaw. My school had a PT program, so I registered for night classes after my kid was born, and took care of him during the day. As my spouse and I have switched roles, I've watched my oldest's personality shift as he learns to interact with the world by watching the stay-at-home parent interact with the world (as well as other individuals in his daily sphere of influence). Not that I don't like that or my spouse's way of interacting with the world, but I'm also not going to pretend that I'm having a lot of influence during these early formative years.

Young kids learn skills by watching those who are around them. Being a junior or midlevel is simply not compatible with being around to influence young children.

Of course I don't remember my "formative years." That's my point. We overestimate how much any of that matters. Its not going to have a big impact on your kids when they're grown ups.

Plus, to the extent it does matter, I'd much rather my daughter be influenced by the teachers at her daycare. They're sweet, nice, patient, energetic, enthusiastic, etc. I'm a cynical sarcastic asshole. Her mother is, well, a TLS megaposter. My daughter is a total doll, and she sure as hell isn't picking it up from me.

[Anonymous User]

Like I said, no right answer. My one-year-old doesn't just want me around, he wants me interacting with him all the time and he lets me know he's pissed off if I'm not paying attention to him. On Tuesday, my three-year-old declared at breakfast that he didn't want me to go to work that day.

Time is the great equalizer, and it takes a significant investment of time and energy to mold and influence young kids. Young children are ultimately shaped and influenced most by their primary caregivers. Big law simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for junior and midlevel associates to also be very involved parents, especially with young children.

To me, the choice between a social life and career would be easier to make (in either direction). The choice between being an involved parent and career is much, much tougher.

IMHO, bottom line when working in big law: 25 hours worth of tasks to take care of everyday and only 24 hours in the day. Deciding what task will be ignored or pushed to tomorrow is easier when young children are not part of the equation.

The difference is that your friends or girlfriend can abandon you, while your kids will be a lot more flexible. As parents, we overestimate how much time kids really need at that age. Its more for us than for them. I say this as a parent and someone whose dad worked 80 hour seeks growing up.

You can't possibly remember your early childhood development, so I'm not sure what your experience with a father who worked a lot has to do with being a parent to young, developing children. I get the hard-working father thing because I was raised In that environment, too. If we are talking children older than elementary school age, my gut instinct is that you're right about overestimation of time needed from parents.

On the other hand, based on my personal experience with my oldest child, I think a lot of parental involvement is required with young children. I was his primary caregiver until I started biglaw. My school had a PT program, so I registered for night classes after my kid was born, and took care of him during the day. As my spouse and I have switched roles, I've watched my oldest's personality shift as he learns to interact with the world by watching the stay-at-home parent interact with the world (as well as other individuals in his daily sphere of influence). Not that I don't like that or my spouse's way of interacting with the world, but I'm also not going to pretend that I'm having a lot of influence during these early formative years.

Young kids learn skills by watching those who are around them. Being a junior or midlevel is simply not compatible with being around to influence young children.

Of course I don't remember my "formative years." That's my point. We overestimate how much any of that matters. Its not going to have a big impact on your kids when they're grown ups.

Plus, to the extent it does matter, I'd much rather my daughter be influenced by the teachers at her daycare. They're sweet, nice, patient, energetic, enthusiastic, etc. I'm a cynical sarcastic asshole. Her mother is, well, a TLS megaposter. My daughter is a total doll, and she sure as hell isn't picking it up from me.

Just because you don't remember learning a skill doesn't mean that the learning process was not important. And all I'm saying is that being a junior and midlevel isn't compatible with being present for that learning process.

[jbagelboy]

It seems extreme to say no one in biglaw should have kids until they reach partner. Then we'll just have a lot of rich down syndrome babies.

[patogordo]

not sure why we're still stuck on the whole "raising your own children" thing. we should just deposit kids at a facility where robots raise them in groups of 6-8 until age 6 or so. some startup bro needs to get on this.