Why do we even do this? Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

Or the adversarial process encourages people to be more of control freaks?

Yes definitely. I think that people who stick with big law lit long term definitely have some unique personality traits...probably most of which aren’t ideal for normal functioning in society in other contexts. Control freak is a solid example.

[nahumya]

Things that make biglaw more tolerable:

* getting more senior, because the work is more interesting
* finding and working with partners who are normal people
* finding and focusing on a practice area that is interesting to you, so you can be a semi-expert in something by the time you're a mid-level or a senior associate
* having your own clients (even if pro bono)
* having at least one established boundary, even a small one, that allows you to focus on yourself (e.g., one night off a week or one uninterrupted one-week vacation a year)

[nealric]

To this day, I am not sure how anybody does anything that’s not litigation.

And even litigation sucks unless you are 1. Really really into it and 2. No longer a first/second year.

I don’t know how anyone does litigation. I would rather scrub public toilets with a toothbrush than endlessly go down WestLaw rabbit holes on fishing expeditions that normally go nowhere

Honestly I'd love to go down a WestLaw rabbit hole right now if it meant not having to reply to endless emails on a deal closing.

Yeah I mean this is the thing. People who survive in lit are people who stuck it out post junior associate AND people who actually like that stuff.

I mean enlighten me—what’s the equivalent in corporate to getting really intellectually into the lexis research one is doing? I’m not trying to come off as sarcastic or be rhetorical. I’m honestly curious. All the passionate biglaw senior associates I have met have been litigators. I’ve never met somebody who seems genuinely super into their big M&A acquisition. But then again maybe I just haven’t met enough corporate lawyers.

I think the corporate equivalent would be once you get to the level that you are counseling clients and helping them solve business problems. There are partners who really are "into" the deal in the sense of overall strategy and problem solving. There is some satisfaction in a deal done and a happy client.

Obviously, very few people are super excited about haggling over some rep that has a .001% chance of ever becoming important, but that's mostly associate work. But there are some odd people who are really into the perfectionist side of things- making sure every comma is in the right place. Finally, drafting certain complex transaction documents can be a bit like coding, which some people find satisfying in the same way some people like sudoku puzzles.

[glitched]

I'm in patent lit so maybe things are different over here, but it hasn't really been all that bad for me. I've had some busy years and some down years, but the work was never that bad. And every single person I met was a good person (across three firms). It's hard for me to see a very long term future though because it takes a certain personality/skill to be able to argue in court, but I wouldn't mind being a career counsel.

[Pennoyer v. Meh]

Bleeding heart millennials who go to biglaw and want to spend all their time doing pro bono while making 300k+ the worst

That's hardly the case. If I'm going to put a lot of hours into pro bono work on top of my paying clients, building up skills that are helpful for paying work, I want a bonus which reflects my total hours, especially if my firm counts pro bono hours. And it benefits the firm to encourage pro bono work precisely because juniors can pick up skills that they won't develop as juniors on litigation matters.