On pace for 15th straight month of 240+ billables. AMA Forum

[Anonymous User]

Speaking as someone who ran away from biglaw in my second year, I just don't understand how people can put up with this life day-in/day-out. It's crazy. And for what? Bragging rights? At the end of the day, who cares about this stuff? Do you really care about the work you're doing? Be honest.

The sad part is not the people doing it for the money. That, while I disagree with the value system, I can understand. The sad part is the people who actually think they are doing meaningful work, or that the system wouldn't just advance exactly the same if they somehow worked less. I dont know if that comes down to narcissism, or idealism, or what. Or those on the spectrum, which I can totally understand.

Big Law work is mostly not important. If it were that important, they would not allow you to work on it after billing 15 straight months of 240+ hours. There is a reason pilots and air traffic controllers cant work those schedules, by law-- its because their work is important. There are very very very few people that are able to put out high quality work consistently working that much, in a high stress environment, sleep deprived. I have reviewed work of those types of billers, usually many years later when it comes back to bite the client in a litigation or contract dispute. There are usually a lot of "wtf happened here" types of things.

[Anonymous User]

The cynicism is the most absurd thing Ive seen on this forum and in law school. If someone works hard in law school people call him/her a gunner and don't want to be friends with him/her. If someone works hard and bills a lot at work, people on this forum question his/her motivation in every respect and impose what they think should be more important in life on the person.

Jeez if you have issues with people who work extremely hard maybe you yourself should quit law school / big law. Where the fuck is the this shaming on hardworking coming from.

You are coming off as some bad parody of a Boomer. Working hard in law school certainly isn't what gets someone labeled as a gunner.

No one is shaming hard work in here, we're merely questioning why someone would continue to subject themselves to a 2,880+ hour year pace of billing, which is an outlier on the high end of even the worst biglaw sweatshops.

Full disclosure, I billed a lot more than 2880 for the year - 240 was just the minimum for any month during that 15 month period, but there were months much busier than that

[Person1111]

OP, do you think this volume of work has made you a better lawyer? (Serious question; no judgment implied.)

[MillllerTime]

I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that 2500+ hours SUCKS and probably isn't great for one's health or even their career. But I also understand the mindset of OP and if they are ok with the grind then oh well.

I would much rather bill 1800 hours per year and make still very great money than bill 2500 and mike a small percentage more. But there's also a peace of mind that comes with billing a whole lot; you're job is infinitely more secure in that scenario than it is being a low biller (not saying partnership, just being kept around through mid and senior associate). It's a hedged bet in my mind.

Lastly about all the biglaw hate: do people really get emails on vacation or on Saturday night at 9pm requiring immediate work? Are people really afraid that if they tell a partner "sorry I have a family thing tonight, will have to be tomorrow morning" that they will get fired? Sure, I've had situations like that (V10 M&A), but you know they're coming well in advance and if I had an important personal thing I would have gotten coverage. True surprise emergencies are no more common in my mind than they are in any six-figure job. I think a lot of this problem comes from TLS people being afraid to stand up for themselves or to communicate ahead of time.

[Person1111]

I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that 2500+ hours SUCKS and probably isn't great for one's health or even their career. But I also understand the mindset of OP and if they are ok with the grind then oh well.

I would much rather bill 1800 hours per year and make still very great money than bill 2500 and mike a small percentage more. But there's also a peace of mind that comes with billing a whole lot; you're job is infinitely more secure in that scenario than it is being a low biller (not saying partnership, just being kept around through mid and senior associate). It's a hedged bet in my mind.

Lastly about all the biglaw hate: do people really get emails on vacation or on Saturday night at 9pm requiring immediate work? Are people really afraid that if they tell a partner "sorry I have a family thing tonight, will have to be tomorrow morning" that they will get fired? Sure, I've had situations like that (V10 M&A), but you know they're coming well in advance and if I had an important personal thing I would have gotten coverage. True surprise emergencies are no more common in my mind than they are in any six-figure job. I think a lot of this problem comes from TLS people being afraid to stand up for themselves or to communicate ahead of time.

I mostly agree with this with two caveats: (1) you do occasionally run into situations where you get stuck working with some psychotic partner who regularly blows up your weekends/nights/vacations for no reason, but I think this is the exception and not the rule; (2) in my experience, the people who bill a medium-high amount of hours (2200-2300) and do excellent work are the ones who make partner, not the ones who bill 3000+ hours and do middling work. That's for a lot of reasons, and one of them is that people who refuse to set any boundaries whatsoever typically lack the assertiveness and the judgment necessary to be a really spectacular associate (and eventual partner).

[Bllljd115]

I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that 2500+ hours SUCKS and probably isn't great for one's health or even their career. But I also understand the mindset of OP and if they are ok with the grind then oh well.

I would much rather bill 1800 hours per year and make still very great money than bill 2500 and mike a small percentage more. But there's also a peace of mind that comes with billing a whole lot; you're job is infinitely more secure in that scenario than it is being a low biller (not saying partnership, just being kept around through mid and senior associate). It's a hedged bet in my mind.

Lastly about all the biglaw hate: do people really get emails on vacation or on Saturday night at 9pm requiring immediate work? Are people really afraid that if they tell a partner "sorry I have a family thing tonight, will have to be tomorrow morning" that they will get fired? Sure, I've had situations like that (V10 M&A), but you know they're coming well in advance and if I had an important personal thing I would have gotten coverage. True surprise emergencies are no more common in my mind than they are in any six-figure job. I think a lot of this problem comes from TLS people being afraid to stand up for themselves or to communicate ahead of time.

As a junior, yes, since you don't know the ropes yet and you are often trying to prove how tough you are. I used to work while on vacation or even when really sick and think I was just a sap, but I see the same behavior in junior associates now even when I affirmatively tell them to take it easy or take time with their family. I've even seen juniors apologize for attending funerals of close family members or try to preemptively negotiate when they'll be working during those times as if they think someone is really going to object to them taking a couple days to be with family.

Getting more senior, the pressure shifts somewhat and is heavily dependent on whether you are trying to make partner. If you are up for partner you need people in your corner and can't really have anyone who is strongly against you. If for whatever reason there's a bunch of Type A, 10 PM emails on a Sunday, no typos in the 40 page documents ever partners in your group there is going to be a lot of pressure to demonstrate your 100% commitment to the firm by behaving the same way.

The sweet spot is really being a midlevel (3-5) who does not want to make partner and knows what they want to do outside of biglaw. You can take some time to find your perfect job without worrying too much about getting fired and you are profitable enough even at 1800 hours per year that there is no incentive for the firm to fire you for turning down work or doing a mediocre job for the terrible personalities.

[Anonymous User]

OP is partnership material.

Assume sarcasm, but thanks if not :p

TBH, part sarcasm/schtick, part sincere and glad for you.

I know people like you at my firm - the company (wo)men. As long as you are decent to your juniors, you go for it. Someone has to.

Absolutely - maintaining good relationships with my juniors is actually a key to me being happy with my worklife

[Anonymous User]

How many different projects do you typically juggle at the same time? Do a lot of the hours come from tasks like doc review or diligence or the like that don't require much thinking?

I have one primary matter that takes up 80% of my time and then 2 secondary matters that each take up another 10%. I always have a certain amount of non-urgent “drone” type work for the main matter that I can pick up when there is nothing more substantive or urgent on the matter or my secondary cases that needs to be tended to

Wait you're a litigator?!

Nah, I meant matters - imprecise language

[oblig.lawl.ref]

I've been at multiple firms and know a ton of associates at firms and 99% of people I have known that billed 2,500+ had a very negative personal experiences. The very few that didn't have terrible experiences were gunning for partner, and actually seemed to enjoy the stress. They got a kick out of being depended upon and doing big-time deals.

Unfortunately, I watched the mental and physical health of many associates billing these amounts deteriorate to the point where they literally got doctors notes to stop working for a few months, or they had mental breakdowns - like complete mental breakdowns. Even the ones that loved the work got to points where they'd have a little too much to drink and start wondering aloud WTF they are still doing to themselves. In fact, its the ones that billed 2,500+ every year that seemed to fall the hardest when they realized they had just wasted 5+ years of their life turning documents for assholes.

How you feel is subjective, but 2800 hours billed in a high stress environment is objectively fucking terrible. So sure, you're the outlier who has a positive experience, but most people that bill that much will be looking to get out and do literally anything else.

This is my view 100%. I've only been at one firm but I think people billing 2500+, with few exceptions (of which OP is likely one), do not last. My current predicament is that I am working with one of the best groups in my firm but they are straight gaslighting me to believe that 2,400 is some kind of baseline. I have recently been told by several partners and senior associates that I trust that 2,400 is more or less the minimum and that does not seem to comport with reality.

My past two years were 2,300+ and am currently tracking at 2,600+ for this year and I am planning on leaving ASAP. I'm working on my dream matters but it doesn't matter at all when I'm regularly canceling plans and spending no time with my friends or family. Family and friend do not understand and that wears on you in time if you care about them.

[ghostoftraynor]

I agree with the general sentiment in this thread that 2500+ hours SUCKS and probably isn't great for one's health or even their career. But I also understand the mindset of OP and if they are ok with the grind then oh well.

I would much rather bill 1800 hours per year and make still very great money than bill 2500 and mike a small percentage more. But there's also a peace of mind that comes with billing a whole lot; you're job is infinitely more secure in that scenario than it is being a low biller (not saying partnership, just being kept around through mid and senior associate). It's a hedged bet in my mind.

Lastly about all the biglaw hate: do people really get emails on vacation or on Saturday night at 9pm requiring immediate work? Are people really afraid that if they tell a partner "sorry I have a family thing tonight, will have to be tomorrow morning" that they will get fired? Sure, I've had situations like that (V10 M&A), but you know they're coming well in advance and if I had an important personal thing I would have gotten coverage. True surprise emergencies are no more common in my mind than they are in any six-figure job. I think a lot of this problem comes from TLS people being afraid to stand up for themselves or to communicate ahead of time.

I think a lot of it is people not setting boundaries. I've taken several international vacations, and there were only two instances I got "emergency" emails with work I needed to do. In both instances, I planned ahead and had people to cover, so "working" was just coordinating through emails on my phone. I know it's going to vary place by place, partner by partner, but most people are respectful of vacations, especially when you set boundaries and plan ahead. Although the dynamics are slightly different, this is largely true of other commitments on weekdays/weekends.

[Anonymous User]

The cynicism is the most absurd thing Ive seen on this forum and in law school. If someone works hard in law school people call him/her a gunner and don't want to be friends with him/her. If someone works hard and bills a lot at work, people on this forum question his/her motivation in every respect and impose what they think should be more important in life on the person.

Jeez if you have issues with people who work extremely hard maybe you yourself should quit law school / big law. Where the fuck is the this shaming on hardworking coming from.

People are not being cynical about hard work in and of itself. People are happy to see others working hard, but not too much and not for something that doesn't seem worth the cost. OP is working too much for something which may or may not be worth what he had to give up for. We are not saying he shouldn't work hard. We are saying he should take care of himself and not push himself too much.

The worst-case scenario in big law is grinding like OP is for years only to find out you will not be made partner. This would be a big fear of mine. Since the odds of getting shares are so low regardless to me it doesn't seem worth it to grind like that and instead just do enough to not get fired but don't go overboard.

Different strokes for different folks, but I always hated the idea of scraping by doing the bare minimum to not get fired

[QContinuum]

Different strokes for different folks, but I always hated the idea of scraping by doing the bare minimum to not get fired

I agree, especially because it's so easy to (mis)judge where the minimum is and even if one is spot on and manages to stay just on the "right" side of the minimum, by definition doing the "bare minimum" means being first on the chopping block should work suddenly dry up/economy go downhill/etc. And firms don't always give a long runway when pushing people out (and may be especially predisposed not to be generous to someone who's barely avoided being fired for a prolonged period of time).

[eastcoast_iub]

Different strokes for different folks, but I always hated the idea of scraping by doing the bare minimum to not get fired

I agree, especially because it's so easy to (mis)judge where the minimum is and even if one is spot on and manages to stay just on the "right" side of the minimum, by definition doing the "bare minimum" means being first on the chopping block should work suddenly dry up/economy go downhill/etc. And firms don't always give a long runway when pushing people out (and may be especially predisposed not to be generous to someone who's barely avoided being fired for a prolonged period of time).

Different strokes for different folks, but I always hated the idea of scraping by doing the bare minimum to not get fired

I agree, especially because it's so easy to (mis)judge where the minimum is and even if one is spot on and manages to stay just on the "right" side of the minimum, by definition doing the "bare minimum" means being first on the chopping block should work suddenly dry up/economy go downhill/etc. And firms don't always give a long runway when pushing people out (and may be especially predisposed not to be generous to someone who's barely avoided being fired for a prolonged period of time).

I should clarify that I am conscientious about my work, give thought to what I am doing and don’t hand in shoddy work. What I am referring to is not going the extra mile as far as not being afraid to say no to work when my hours are fine, not always volunteering for stuff if I don’t have to and not unnecessarily replying to late night or weekend emails super-fast if I know they can wait. Things like that.

[Anonymous User]

I think from an hours and work-life balance perspective, your experience is objectively bad, OP, even for biglaw.

The only thing I’m disagreeing with is that you keep saying it is objective

[Npret]

I think from an hours and work-life balance perspective, your experience is objectively bad, OP, even for biglaw.

The only thing I’m disagreeing with is that you keep saying it is objective

It’s objective in the broad sense that most people want and need more than work in their life.
It’s possible you are one of the high energy associates that need little sleep to function. My friends like that could bill long hours and still maintain friendships and marraige without exhaustion. Another characteristic was they were super organized and able to prioritize work.

[felinafelina]

How many different projects do you typically juggle at the same time? Do a lot of the hours come from tasks like doc review or diligence or the like that don't require much thinking?

I have one primary matter that takes up 80% of my time and then 2 secondary matters that each take up another 10%. I always have a certain amount of non-urgent “drone” type work for the main matter that I can pick up when there is nothing more substantive or urgent on the matter or my secondary cases that needs to be tended to

Wait you're a litigator?!

Nah, I meant matters - imprecise language

I don't know a single corporate associate who has ever referred to their work as cases...

[carsondalywashere]

You’re essentially working at the top of the profession on matters that 95% of lawyers never will—how does that experience sour people so much that they can’t comprehend others getting joy from doing that?

Not OP, but I can take a stab at this one. IME many/most 0Ls enter law school wanting to make an impact on the world (case in point, the "Trump bump" in law school applications). They dream of arguing the next landmark civil rights case, prosecuting the next mafia don, going after Wall Street, repping the next O.J. At the T13, in most cases these 0Ls get sucked into the BigLaw vortex after 1L. The triple lures of extremely high pay, a (more or less) secure job offer two years before graduation, and prestige (the "top of the profession" you cite) are almost irresistible to all but the most committed public interest folks.

But the thing is, BigLaw is all about mitigating risk and avoiding the spotlight. It's also all about helping giant corporations. It's the polar opposite of the kind of high-visibility, high-impact, deeply personal work that inspired most 0Ls to attend law school in the first place. So people get disillusioned.

(Of course, this isn't to say BigLaw's "bad." Many of those who "burn out" in BigLaw would likely also "burn out" even if they'd stuck to public interest. New lawyers less than half a decade out of law school aren't going to be arguing the next Obergefell, prosecuting the next mafia don, suing Goldman, or repping the next O.J. Few if any 0Ls applying to law school because of President Trump are going to be in a position to meaningfully challenge the President in court, even if he's reelected next year.)

What about for those who have only wanted big law and are well aware of what they are getting into? I do see some happy people in big law, but they could just be good actors.

[nerd1]

Different strokes for different folks, but I always hated the idea of scraping by doing the bare minimum to not get fired

I agree, especially because it's so easy to (mis)judge where the minimum is and even if one is spot on and manages to stay just on the "right" side of the minimum, by definition doing the "bare minimum" means being first on the chopping block should work suddenly dry up/economy go downhill/etc. And firms don't always give a long runway when pushing people out (and may be especially predisposed not to be generous to someone who's barely avoided being fired for a prolonged period of time).

At some biglaw firms, the system is so fucked up that you could still get pushed out even if you are one of the highest billers. Not saying people shouldn't work hard. Just saying depending on the quality of the biglaw firm you are in, there is no point in trying too hard.

[Person1111]

How many different projects do you typically juggle at the same time? Do a lot of the hours come from tasks like doc review or diligence or the like that don't require much thinking?

I have one primary matter that takes up 80% of my time and then 2 secondary matters that each take up another 10%. I always have a certain amount of non-urgent “drone” type work for the main matter that I can pick up when there is nothing more substantive or urgent on the matter or my secondary cases that needs to be tended to

Wait you're a litigator?!

Nah, I meant matters - imprecise language

I don't know a single corporate associate who has ever referred to their work as cases...

I think OP is a BK attorney (which explains the hours and the reference to "cases").

[Anonymous User]

If you have the workflow to bill 11+ hours in a 12 hour shift, it is not that bad billing 240+ a month. Doing it for 15 straight months would be a drag--especially since that must include holiday months like December.

This is an important point to emphasize. At no point over the past 15 months was there any time that I did not have some form of billable work on my to-do list

[Anonymous User]

How many different projects do you typically juggle at the same time? Do a lot of the hours come from tasks like doc review or diligence or the like that don't require much thinking?

I have one primary matter that takes up 80% of my time and then 2 secondary matters that each take up another 10%. I always have a certain amount of non-urgent “drone” type work for the main matter that I can pick up when there is nothing more substantive or urgent on the matter or my secondary cases that needs to be tended to

Wait you're a litigator?!

Nah, I meant matters - imprecise language

I don't know a single corporate associate who has ever referred to their work as cases...

I think OP is a BK attorney (which explains the hours and the reference to "cases").

I am not OP but am a BK attorney and I think OP is def a BK attorney.

[dabigchina]

I liked BK in law school, but boy am I glad I'm not in BK.

[Anonymous User]

Speaking as someone who ran away from biglaw in my second year, I just don't understand how people can put up with this life day-in/day-out. It's crazy. And for what? Bragging rights? At the end of the day, who cares about this stuff? Do you really care about the work you're doing? Be honest.

The sad part is not the people doing it for the money. That, while I disagree with the value system, I can understand. The sad part is the people who actually think they are doing meaningful work, or that the system wouldn't just advance exactly the same if they somehow worked less. I dont know if that comes down to narcissism, or idealism, or what. Or those on the spectrum, which I can totally understand.

Big Law work is mostly not important. If it were that important, they would not allow you to work on it after billing 15 straight months of 240+ hours. There is a reason pilots and air traffic controllers cant work those schedules, by law-- its because their work is important. There are very very very few people that are able to put out high quality work consistently working that much, in a high stress environment, sleep deprived. I have reviewed work of those types of billers, usually many years later when it comes back to bite the client in a litigation or contract dispute. There are usually a lot of "wtf happened here" types of things.

OP here-this is a very silly argument. Pilots and air traffic controllers (whose work is very important) have those strict schedules because if they doze off people will have their lives endangered or die. Big law work, which is often (but oftentimes not) very important will not result in any deaths or lives endangered if I doze off at my desk while working on my document.

[Anonymous User]

How many different projects do you typically juggle at the same time? Do a lot of the hours come from tasks like doc review or diligence or the like that don't require much thinking?

I have one primary matter that takes up 80% of my time and then 2 secondary matters that each take up another 10%. I always have a certain amount of non-urgent “drone” type work for the main matter that I can pick up when there is nothing more substantive or urgent on the matter or my secondary cases that needs to be tended to

Wait you're a litigator?!

Nah, I meant matters - imprecise language

I don't know a single corporate associate who has ever referred to their work as cases...

I think OP is a BK attorney (which explains the hours and the reference to "cases").

I am not OP but am a BK attorney and I think OP is def a BK attorney.

This is OP - if people keep trying to rudely speculate about who I am, then I’m going to stop responding. I did this to give insight to people who might be curious, not to have people try to out me

[MaxMcMann]

I’m a 2L who will be summering at a big law firm in a major market this upcoming summer. Question is twofold:

(1) in general, how do people become so bitter about working in big law? It seems like it is more than just the hours/constant availability, which I can understand (and expect) to be draining. But the snipes at advancement opportunities and big law work in general, I just don’t understand. You’re essentially working at the top of the profession on matters that 95% of lawyers never will—how does that experience sour people so much that they can’t comprehend others getting joy from doing that?

(2) To OP: how have you prevented the above bitterness from setting in? In other words, what has helped you to keep your biglaw experience as a net positive?

It’s like you said - for the most part I enjoy my work and enjoy my client relationships, so I’m able to derive meaning from my work. That certainly helps to stave off the negative feelings people get, which I think largely originated from people feeling like what they are doing is meaningless/not worthwhile

You said you work in one of the practice areas associated with long hours here. Would you say you work in the one that provides a wide variety of experiences, really puts you in a necessary role and has a small chance of leading to the promised land?