Biglawyers. Are any of you happy? Was this job better than others you've had? Forum

[star fox]

Net Worth when you're young doesn't matter too much to me since cash flow.

[Anonymous User]

Rich = 250k salary
Wealthy = owning the means of production, being able to live off passive income, net worth more than $5 million

Funny, I'd always thought of "rich" as being a lot higher than "wealthy." Like, I feel like I've heard "well, they're wealth, but they're not rich."

[Desert Fox]

You guys are trying to play semantics with synonyms.

[run26.2]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

[Desert Fox]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer (Edit: associate), even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

[run26.2]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer, even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

Regarding your first point, I guess until we have a definition of rich that we agree on, it's going to be impossible to resolve. So I'll drop that. But on the housing point, I am surprised this is your experience. I know associates in several of the cities you mention (including the Bay Area) that own single family houses. Most of them have spouses that work, but not all (and if the spouse works, that person makes less than an attorney in biglaw).

[Desert Fox]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer, even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

Regarding your first point, I guess until we have a definition of rich that we agree on, it's going to be impossible to resolve. So I'll drop that. But on the housing point, I am surprised this is your experience. I know associates in several of the cities you mention (including the Bay Area) that own single family houses. Most of them have spouses that work, but not all (and if the spouse works, that person makes less than an attorney in biglaw).

I meant associates, plenty of partners and of counsels have homes.

But now that you mention it, one 6th year has a house that was rehabbed after it was a literal crack house. TBF, it's a nice as fuck house. But his neighbors are like truck drivers and shit.

[krads153]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer (Edit: associate), even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

Even some partners at big law firms struggle to buy a place big enough for a family in MFH. If you're ok raising 2 kids in a small, cramped 2 bed condo...then fine. But you're still going to pay out the ass for it, and there's not much space for kids plus you have to pay for private schools, etc. (This is another story if you're old like a lot of partners are and bought cheap 20-30 years ago...but that doesn't apply to our generation.) But if you're a youngish partner, at most biglaw firms you're not even rich for NYC.

For NYC/SF, I'd have to say 5-7 million (maybe even more) net worth would be considered "rich"; for places not like NYC/SF, I guess 2 million net worth. For NYC, wealthy would be like 15-20 million or more haha.

Anyway associates are like middle class for NYC/SF/DC, etc.

[Desert Fox]

You don't even break into the top 10% of wealth in the country until you have over 650k.

What percent of biglawyers leave biglaw with that much money?

I'm like 100k worse than the bottom 10%.

[zot1]

It would be silly to try to define rich (I made the mistake of using that word earlier and getting this started) because it can't actually mean something to different people.

I also don't care about being rich. My original point was that even though the law won't get you far in the socioeconomic structure necessarily, I know it has and will put me in a comfortable position. But this is very personal because I come from not a lot and had tons of shitty jobs.

I now work in a nice office, get paid to think things, and feel mentally stimulated. Sure I don't have a mansion and might never have one, but I've never claimed I needed one.

[krads153]

I'm like 100k worse than the bottom 10%.

And yet you're already better off than probably most junior biglaw associates. Woo-hoo law!

[nealric]

I've never met a biglawyer (Edit: associate), even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

This is why I got the heck out of MFH.

[Desert Fox]

I'm like 100k worse than the bottom 10%.

And yet you're already better off than probably most junior biglaw associates. Woo-hoo law!

I doubt it. I don't think most people have full tuition loans. Seems like half don't really have many loans at all.

[krads153]

I'm like 100k worse than the bottom 10%.

And yet you're already better off than probably most junior biglaw associates. Woo-hoo law!

I doubt it. I don't think most people have full tuition loans. Seems like half don't really have many loans at all.

Yeah, maybe you're right. I think around a third graduate debt free from the T-14. Once in awhile I'll meet someone who took out full sticker for undergrad and law school....

[jrass]

I'm like 100k worse than the bottom 10%.

And yet you're already better off than probably most junior biglaw associates. Woo-hoo law!

I doubt it. I don't think most people have full tuition loans. Seems like half don't really have many loans at all.

Yeah, maybe you're right. I think around a third graduate debt free from the T-14. Once in awhile I'll meet someone who took out full sticker for undergrad and law school....

You sound like Forrest Gump. Do you hang out around the bus stop asking bystanders about their student loans? Momma always said not to take out loans for law school. You never know if you'll pay them back.

[Abbie Doobie]

talking with fellow students/graduates about student loans = forrest gump...boy, I heard some whoppers in my time, BUT THAT ONE TOPS EM ALL.

[mvp99]

.

[jbagelboy]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer (Edit: associate), even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

No way. I mean, I agree with you in broad strokes, but there are lots of rich associates. The profession is full of american aristocrats. I've been to associates homes that are pretty legit, and I haven't even started my actual biglaw.

[jbagelboy]

Rich = 250k salary
Wealthy = owning the means of production, being able to live off passive income, net worth more than $5 million

Funny, I'd always thought of "rich" as being a lot higher than "wealthy." Like, I feel like I've heard "well, they're wealth, but they're not rich."

its the opposite.

[Desert Fox]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer (Edit: associate), even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

No way. I mean, I agree with you in broad strokes, but there are lots of rich associates. The profession is full of american aristocrats. I've been to associates homes that are pretty legit, and I haven't even started my actual biglaw.

We don't get blue bloods in DC biglaw, at least not as much. Either way they didn't get rich via big law.

[star fox]

I'm like 100k worse than the bottom 10%.

And yet you're already better off than probably most junior biglaw associates. Woo-hoo law!

I doubt it. I don't think most people have full tuition loans. Seems like half don't really have many loans at all.

Yeah, maybe you're right. I think around a third graduate debt free from the T-14. Once in awhile I'll meet someone who took out full sticker for undergrad and law school....

Nah, stats don't bear that up. I think the lowest is at Columbia where 75 % have debt. Of course, average debt of $150k or whatever means a lot of people probably have pretty light loads considering how many people pay sticker there.

[ballouttacontrol]

The vast majority of people at my t14 clearly got some form of $$$ from their family. People hide it and stuff but it's pretty obvious when maximum loans would clearly not be enough to support their rents and lifestyles

Everyone I knew well enough to talk finances were basically covered by their parents, though maybe some have a "loan" from their parents, whatever that means. Skeptical a parent is gonna garnish wages or prevent them from buying a house etc

[run26.2]

I agree. My only point is that I think you can get to a level that most people would consider "rich" (or "wealthy") with a biglaw salary, if you can manage to stick around long enough and you don't go into the job with a high level of debt.

Maybe in Texas but not in DC/MFH/SF/LA/or even Atlanta and Chicago. Associates are quintessential upper middle class people. Even most partners are more UMC than upper class. Maybe some of the huge rain makers.

I've never met a biglawyer (Edit: associate), even senior associate, who didn't live in an cramped 1/2 bed condo/apartment.

No way. I mean, I agree with you in broad strokes, but there are lots of rich associates. The profession is full of american aristocrats. I've been to associates homes that are pretty legit, and I haven't even started my actual biglaw.

Credited. It doesn't happen over night, but after 3-5 years of making close to or above 200K and living below your means, you can save a good chunk of change, and even enough for a down payment on a nice house. I know numerous associates who have done this. Maybe they had help from family (who knows), but I'm sure their salaries were enough to carry the mortgage and have a decent chunk of money left over.

[Desert Fox]

The vast majority of people at my t14 clearly got some form of $$$ from their family. People hide it and stuff but it's pretty obvious when maximum loans would clearly not be enough to support their rents and lifestyles

Everyone I knew well enough to talk finances were basically covered by their parents, though maybe some have a "loan" from their parents, whatever that means. Skeptical a parent is gonna garnish wages or prevent them from buying a house etc

I knew some people doing FULL LOAN and then still getting some side money from parents. Tehy are still ass fucked.

But I knew a lot of people getting serious money from mom and dad.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Nah, stats don't bear that up. I think the lowest is at Columbia where 75 % have debt. Of course, average debt of $150k or whatever means a lot of people probably have pretty light loads considering how many people pay sticker there.

According to ATL, Columbia is the worst T-14 for law school debt (average debt is highest out of the T-14). I don't know about percentages of those graduating debt free, but Columbia ranks in the top 10 law schools with most heavily indebted graduates.

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/03/the-top- ... graduates/

I went to a T-14 (not Columbia). A good portion were rich kids being funded either completely by parents or graduated with "loans" from parents at 2% interest rate, whatever that means. Some of my friends in biglaw have "loans" from parents and parents offered to buy them Manhattan apartments (or did buy them Manhattan apartments). I'd say most of these people don't last in biglaw, but some give it a try.