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

[krads153]

I think I can definitively say I'm happier in big law. But that's cause before law school, I worked as a paralegal doing what essentially was junior associate work for a crazy partner who realized he could farm out certain junior associate work to kids who just graduated law school at a much cheaper price. I also worked in other law firms where I took calls from personal injury victims and did excel spreadsheet analysis for hours for pennies. I probably worked as many hours as I work now as a paralegal for 1/4 of the salary I make now. Now, the partners I work with are nicer than my old boss (some are still not that nice), and the work I get is more interesting (though some of it is what I used to do as a paralegal). With that said, big law is not for me forever. I think firm life as it is now is fundamentally incompatible with some of the things I want in life: like having a family. But I do think it opens a lot of doors to other legal opportunities - like hopefully a good in house gig if I play my cards right.

So I am happier and this job is better than the ones I've had before. And basically, I think you should work in a big law as a paralegal if you can before law school (tons of big firms hire people straight out of college as paralegals now). Cause realistically that's the job you're going to end up doing after law school if you want to pay off your loans and you should know what you're getting yourself into.

How much do big law paralegals make? Seems they're out by 5 every day, but don't seem to be treated very well. I get the impression that they're perceived closer to how lawyers perceive janitors than how they perceive juniors.

Probably depends on the firm/department. Some of the paras at my office are out by 5 everyday. Other paras work a ton, like as much as junior biglaw attorneys. At my firm at least, paralegals get overtime if they stay past 5, so the ones working longer hours are making a lot more money than their salary suggests.

They aren't usually "on call" like we are though - although they have blackberries, we have to ask them to see if they are free to work any weekends or evenings. That's how it works at my firm anyway. It might be different at other firms.

In general, they are treated better than associates because they aren't really on-call the way we are, and there are lower work expectations. The work is still grunt work, but in transactional practices, very similar to what junior biglaw attorneys have to do.

[kennethellenparcell]

I think I can definitively say I'm happier in big law. But that's cause before law school, I worked as a paralegal doing what essentially was junior associate work for a crazy partner who realized he could farm out certain junior associate work to kids who just graduated law school at a much cheaper price. I also worked in other law firms where I took calls from personal injury victims and did excel spreadsheet analysis for hours for pennies. I probably worked as many hours as I work now as a paralegal for 1/4 of the salary I make now. Now, the partners I work with are nicer than my old boss (some are still not that nice), and the work I get is more interesting (though some of it is what I used to do as a paralegal). With that said, big law is not for me forever. I think firm life as it is now is fundamentally incompatible with some of the things I want in life: like having a family. But I do think it opens a lot of doors to other legal opportunities - like hopefully a good in house gig if I play my cards right.

So I am happier and this job is better than the ones I've had before. And basically, I think you should work in a big law as a paralegal if you can before law school (tons of big firms hire people straight out of college as paralegals now). Cause realistically that's the job you're going to end up doing after law school if you want to pay off your loans and you should know what you're getting yourself into.

How much do big law paralegals make? Seems they're out by 5 every day, but don't seem to be treated very well. I get the impression that they're perceived closer to how lawyers perceive janitors than how they perceive juniors.

I think this depends on the partner you're working for and if you're a career paralegal/not - my partner wasn't very nice but I know for sure he didn't perceive me as a janitor. They started me at 40K. And I was definitely NOT out by 5 every day, not even close. A lot of big firms hire paralegals straight out of college who want to go to law school. So the idea is that you're going to go to law school and maybe eventually come back to work at that firm.

[Desert Fox]

My firm enjoys assfucking millenials so they hire kids as "case assistants" and then pay 15 an hour.

[krads153]

Not all biglaw is the same. 110-125k starting at a secondary market where high quality 1BR rent is around $1000-1500, and you work 8-7 at most, is a cushy gig. Not as much ~~prestige~~ as NYC biglaw but you don't hate your life so there it is. Had lunch with a 3rd year Patent Lit; he's already been in court twice. NLJ 250 firms. There are ones with no facetime requirements, and the average hrs billed/yr are around 1800 for associates. No layoffs, even though 1900 is "required."

No face time requirement is huge - it's awful when you're slow but forced to sit in your office for 9-10 hours a day anyway. Then when you're busy it always overlaps into the night/weekend....

[Clearly]

This is perhaps the most privileged, whiny, self-indulgent, entitled, any other synonym with privileged, thread I've ever had the misfortune to read. I was a car salesman after undergrad. I made 18-30k in NJ working 50-60 hours a week. The corporation I worked for actively reduced our pay to increase corporate profit. If any associate in this thread had even the vaguest idea of what it's like to be an unskilled worker, or anyone who isn't involved in the financial industry, they would throw up at the sight of the absurd level of class-blindness every person posting here has. I'll be making more at my firm than the manager of my manager did at the peak of his career in car sales. Please people, develop some perspective. Aw man! you're bored at work! aw man! you work weekends! aw man! your boss is a meanie-pants with megalomania! you poor, poor rich people!

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, the bolded line suggests that you haven't actually gone through it yet. The many people here that have seem to feel its so bad as to not be worth it. This opinion would feel much more valid to me if you were a mid-level.

[Anonymous User]

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

have fun!

edit: a first year making 175k a year (including market bonus of course) is the
2,990,340th
richest person on earth by income.

[Tls2016]

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

have fun!

edit: a first year making 175k a year (including market bonus of course) is the
2,990,340th
richest person on earth by income.

I'm not sure why this is anonymous. No one is disputing the rank of biglaw salary on the scale of world salary. That isn't the discussion. At least it has nothing to do with the points I'm trying to make.

[run26.2]

This is perhaps the most privileged, whiny, self-indulgent, entitled, any other synonym with privileged, thread I've ever had the misfortune to read. I was a car salesman after undergrad. I made 18-30k in NJ working 50-60 hours a week. The corporation I worked for actively reduced our pay to increase corporate profit. If any associate in this thread had even the vaguest idea of what it's like to be an unskilled worker, or anyone who isn't involved in the financial industry, they would throw up at the sight of the absurd level of class-blindness every person posting here has. I'll be making more at my firm than the manager of my manager did at the peak of his career in car sales. Please people, develop some perspective. Aw man! you're bored at work! aw man! you work weekends! aw man! your boss is a meanie-pants with megalomania! you poor, poor rich people!

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, the bolded line suggests that you haven't actually gone through it yet. The many people here that have seem to feel its so bad as to not be worth it. This opinion would feel much more valid to me if you were a mid-level.

It's not universal dislike for biglaw on here. I happen to like my job. I did have another career before biglaw, which I also liked. I like to work and I like to solve problems. I approach my work that way. Sure, there are some times when I don't like my job that much, but overall, it is satisfying and pays enough to keep me happy.

[lavarman84]

Alright, let's clear some stuff up. I'm not asking for sympathy. I was trying to expose you to the fact that there is a large class of people for whom 160k a year is an enormous (for 75%+ of the population, unattainably enormous at any point in their life) amount of money to be making every year. The fact that the job you work in order to make that money is a drag doesn't make it a bad job. People work at jobs they don't like, with managers they don't like, and with hours they don't like, and never reach the level of success you had in the first year of your professional life. That's why I called the people in this thread entitled. They have more resources than they could ever need, and are complaining because they're still missing some steps in Maslow's hierarchy. Do you really contest that this thread is essentially a big 'sure I'm wealthy but I really just wish my job was both fulfilling and high paying' complaintfest? And lets dispense with the crap about 160 not being very much. People live in NYC on 40K or less a year, and a lot of them have student debt that exceeds their annual pay. The point here is that if you work in big law you are doing very, very well.

As for my 'choice' to 'work' 50-60 hours a week, you should try getting a job out of college with a liberal arts degree in the middle of a recession. Let me know how much of a 'choice' a job that covers the rent is. Sure, I could have gotten an engineering degree or tried to break into teaching (a more challenging prospect than you might think in the current NJ hiring market). But those opportunities aren't available to everyone. What about people that aren't smart? That didn't get into or go to college? Or that couldn't afford it? I have a friend who couldn't get financial aid for college because his parents' credit was too low. Does he have a 'choice' when he takes a service job for pennies? This is the point about privilege I'm trying to make. Your job makes you rich. You want your job to also make you happy. Most people don't pass the threshold you're taking for granted.

Edit: I think some commenters are under the impression that I think my sales job was as hard as, or involved as many hours as, big law. I know that's not true. That wasn't the point. The point is that if you make a lot of money the threshold for a case of 'bad job' is much harder to accomplish.

The problem is your attitude that because a person makes a lot of money, they have no right to complain about their job satisfaction. Money isn't everything. I've worked some jobs that paid terribly but I absolutely loved those jobs. They were awesome. Incredibly fun and satisfying work. I'd take that sort of job in a second over a job that paid three to four times as much where I was miserable.

Calling people entitled because they think their job sucks just reeks of ignorance. You can get paid a lot and still have a sucky job. And you still have every right to complain. And it might just warn people in the future to stay away from that job. Go to a school where they take on far less so they can take on a job that pays less but is more satisfying.

[Tls2016]

Alright, let's clear some stuff up. I'm not asking for sympathy. I was trying to expose you to the fact that there is a large class of people for whom 160k a year is an enormous (for 75%+ of the population, unattainably enormous at any point in their life) amount of money to be making every year. The fact that the job you work in order to make that money is a drag doesn't make it a bad job. People work at jobs they don't like, with managers they don't like, and with hours they don't like, and never reach the level of success you had in the first year of your professional life. That's why I called the people in this thread entitled. They have more resources than they could ever need, and are complaining because they're still missing some steps in Maslow's hierarchy. Do you really contest that this thread is essentially a big 'sure I'm wealthy but I really just wish my job was both fulfilling and high paying' complaintfest? And lets dispense with the crap about 160 not being very much. People live in NYC on 40K or less a year, and a lot of them have student debt that exceeds their annual pay. The point here is that if you work in big law you are doing very, very well.

As for my 'choice' to 'work' 50-60 hours a week, you should try getting a job out of college with a liberal arts degree in the middle of a recession. Let me know how much of a 'choice' a job that covers the rent is. Sure, I could have gotten an engineering degree or tried to break into teaching (a more challenging prospect than you might think in the current NJ hiring market). But those opportunities aren't available to everyone. What about people that aren't smart? That didn't get into or go to college? Or that couldn't afford it? I have a friend who couldn't get financial aid for college because his parents' credit was too low. Does he have a 'choice' when he takes a service job for pennies? This is the point about privilege I'm trying to make. Your job makes you rich. You want your job to also make you happy. Most people don't pass the threshold you're taking for granted.

Edit: I think some commenters are under the impression that I think my sales job was as hard as, or involved as many hours as, big law. I know that's not true. That wasn't the point. The point is that if you make a lot of money the threshold for a case of 'bad job' is much harder to accomplish.

The problem is your attitude that because a person makes a lot of money, they have no right to complain about their job satisfaction. Money isn't everything. I've worked some jobs that paid terribly but I absolutely loved those jobs. They were awesome. Incredibly fun and satisfying work. I'd take that sort of job in a second over a job that paid three to four times as much where I was miserable.

Calling people entitled because they think their job sucks just reeks of ignorance. You can get paid a lot and still have a sucky job. And you still have every right to complain. And it might just warn people in the future to stay away from that job. Go to a school where they take on far less so they can take on a job that pays less but is more satisfying.

It's ignorant to completely ignore what people have to say about a job you haven't done. It's also presumptuous to assume that you need to educate people about the level of poverty in the world.

My brief impression of you (ugg person) is that if you walk into biglaw with that chip on your shoulder, you aren't going to fit in long term.You might want to think about working on that attitude. You might not be able to tolerate the people you work with or the clients without enlightening them. Also, minimize references to your background and your job selling cars.

I hope you find that biglaw is everything you expect. There are people who happy in biglaw and that's all they need in life. I was one of them for a while. I think I know 2 of them from my department, but neither of them made partner and they had to move on to other firms.

Edit: yes, I think this thread is about much more than I'm rich but unfulfilled in my life, or whatever your question was. You are looking at this from the perspective of someone who got a biglaw job, not an 0L trying to figure out what to do. You may also find that 96,000 after taxes isn't rich or nearly as rich as most 0Ls think. (but possibly you will as you won't have to shoplift flu medicine so your kid won't die anymore.so that's a plus.)

[piccolittle]

Not to pile on here, but I really don't like being called entitled when most of us worked extremely hard to get the privilege of working in biglaw.

I'm sure everyone in this thread would agree that biglaw is not the worst job in the world (and just being pedantic, but the flu is a virus and zithromax is an antibiotic). I'm sure there are others in this thread who worked for free or for a pittance and struggled to find any employment after graduating in the height of the recession (myself included). But everyone has a right to complain about their jobs, and I think the biglaw experience even varies greatly between firms, so it's also true that many people have great lives. But I'm pretty sure most of us worked hard to get here.

I have pages and pages and pages of sent emails in my inbox from after college offering free clerical work just to get some experience (almost no one responded), and I thought I was rich when I was making $20,000/year in one of the highest COL cities in the world. But now I still find myself getting jealous when my assistant takes a personal or sick day and just, like, doesn't have to come in or spend the whole day arranging coverage (or working anyway). Or even when my friends at other firms take a random day off, since my firm isn't like that. Everyone struggles and everyone has good days and bad days. Can't we agree that, even if you've never been poor, sometimes money can't buy happiness? Sure, it's a choice to stay in biglaw, but that doesn't mean we have no right to complain.

[star fox]

Alright, let's clear some stuff up. I'm not asking for sympathy. I was trying to expose you to the fact that there is a large class of people for whom 160k a year is an enormous (for 75%+ of the population, unattainably enormous at any point in their life) amount of money to be making every year. The fact that the job you work in order to make that money is a drag doesn't make it a bad job. People work at jobs they don't like, with managers they don't like, and with hours they don't like, and never reach the level of success you had in the first year of your professional life. That's why I called the people in this thread entitled. They have more resources than they could ever need, and are complaining because they're still missing some steps in Maslow's hierarchy. Do you really contest that this thread is essentially a big 'sure I'm wealthy but I really just wish my job was both fulfilling and high paying' complaintfest? And lets dispense with the crap about 160 not being very much. People live in NYC on 40K or less a year, and a lot of them have student debt that exceeds their annual pay. The point here is that if you work in big law you are doing very, very well.

As for my 'choice' to 'work' 50-60 hours a week, you should try getting a job out of college with a liberal arts degree in the middle of a recession. Let me know how much of a 'choice' a job that covers the rent is. Sure, I could have gotten an engineering degree or tried to break into teaching (a more challenging prospect than you might think in the current NJ hiring market). But those opportunities aren't available to everyone. What about people that aren't smart? That didn't get into or go to college? Or that couldn't afford it? I have a friend who couldn't get financial aid for college because his parents' credit was too low. Does he have a 'choice' when he takes a service job for pennies? This is the point about privilege I'm trying to make. Your job makes you rich. You want your job to also make you happy. Most people don't pass the threshold you're taking for granted.

Edit: I think some commenters are under the impression that I think my sales job was as hard as, or involved as many hours as, big law. I know that's not true. That wasn't the point. The point is that if you make a lot of money the threshold for a case of 'bad job' is much harder to accomplish.

The problem is your attitude that because a person makes a lot of money, they have no right to complain about their job satisfaction. Money isn't everything. I've worked some jobs that paid terribly but I absolutely loved those jobs. They were awesome. Incredibly fun and satisfying work. I'd take that sort of job in a second over a job that paid three to four times as much where I was miserable.

Calling people entitled because they think their job sucks just reeks of ignorance. You can get paid a lot and still have a sucky job. And you still have every right to complain. And it might just warn people in the future to stay away from that job. Go to a school where they take on far less so they can take on a job that pays less but is more satisfying.

Why did you leave the job you loved with shit pay and why don't you go back to it now?

[monkey_chi]

The best part about JCougar (other than being a generally chill and sociable bro), is that you can go look at his posting history and he was just as optimistic as the dissenters in this thread. He was you, you fools.

I'm happy to present myself as the TLS archetype of the Shakespearian tragedy.

Read my post history and see just how far I've fallen. I used to have manageable debt and a do-nothing job in a low cost of living area of a sub-tropical state. My bosses were insane, but like 90% of all bosses are insane.

I'm now fatter, paler, older, poorer, more depressed, and have basically no prospects for the future other than to die alone from heart failure. The best part of my day is that I work mostly with other people that share in my very failure, and we can joke about how hopeless everything is.

JCoug,

0L here. Skipped out last year and decided to reapply this cycle. I see you post quite a bit and always took you as overly cynical and a certified asshole. I would laugh at your posts.

I just spent an hour going through your posting history. Sorry if it's an invasion of privacy of any sort. But holy shit, you were just as starry-eyed as most on here.

I'm terribly sorry, man.

For all you who think JCoug is cynical, negative, pessimistic, etc. go through his posting history.

"And if you would have talked to me 2-3 years ago, I would have told myself to go to law school sooner"

[lavarman84]

Alright, let's clear some stuff up. I'm not asking for sympathy. I was trying to expose you to the fact that there is a large class of people for whom 160k a year is an enormous (for 75%+ of the population, unattainably enormous at any point in their life) amount of money to be making every year. The fact that the job you work in order to make that money is a drag doesn't make it a bad job. People work at jobs they don't like, with managers they don't like, and with hours they don't like, and never reach the level of success you had in the first year of your professional life. That's why I called the people in this thread entitled. They have more resources than they could ever need, and are complaining because they're still missing some steps in Maslow's hierarchy. Do you really contest that this thread is essentially a big 'sure I'm wealthy but I really just wish my job was both fulfilling and high paying' complaintfest? And lets dispense with the crap about 160 not being very much. People live in NYC on 40K or less a year, and a lot of them have student debt that exceeds their annual pay. The point here is that if you work in big law you are doing very, very well.

As for my 'choice' to 'work' 50-60 hours a week, you should try getting a job out of college with a liberal arts degree in the middle of a recession. Let me know how much of a 'choice' a job that covers the rent is. Sure, I could have gotten an engineering degree or tried to break into teaching (a more challenging prospect than you might think in the current NJ hiring market). But those opportunities aren't available to everyone. What about people that aren't smart? That didn't get into or go to college? Or that couldn't afford it? I have a friend who couldn't get financial aid for college because his parents' credit was too low. Does he have a 'choice' when he takes a service job for pennies? This is the point about privilege I'm trying to make. Your job makes you rich. You want your job to also make you happy. Most people don't pass the threshold you're taking for granted.

Edit: I think some commenters are under the impression that I think my sales job was as hard as, or involved as many hours as, big law. I know that's not true. That wasn't the point. The point is that if you make a lot of money the threshold for a case of 'bad job' is much harder to accomplish.

The problem is your attitude that because a person makes a lot of money, they have no right to complain about their job satisfaction. Money isn't everything. I've worked some jobs that paid terribly but I absolutely loved those jobs. They were awesome. Incredibly fun and satisfying work. I'd take that sort of job in a second over a job that paid three to four times as much where I was miserable.

Calling people entitled because they think their job sucks just reeks of ignorance. You can get paid a lot and still have a sucky job. And you still have every right to complain. And it might just warn people in the future to stay away from that job. Go to a school where they take on far less so they can take on a job that pays less but is more satisfying.

Why did you leave the job you loved with shit pay and why don't you go back to it now?

There wasn't a permanent position available at the time. After I graduate law school, I'd definitely take the job if a permanent position became available.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Alright, let's clear some stuff up. I'm not asking for sympathy. I was trying to expose you to the fact that there is a large class of people for whom 160k a year is an enormous (for 75%+ of the population, unattainably enormous at any point in their life) amount of money to be making every year. The fact that the job you work in order to make that money is a drag doesn't make it a bad job. People work at jobs they don't like, with managers they don't like, and with hours they don't like, and never reach the level of success you had in the first year of your professional life. That's why I called the people in this thread entitled. They have more resources than they could ever need, and are complaining because they're still missing some steps in Maslow's hierarchy. Do you really contest that this thread is essentially a big 'sure I'm wealthy but I really just wish my job was both fulfilling and high paying' complaintfest? And lets dispense with the crap about 160 not being very much. People live in NYC on 40K or less a year, and a lot of them have student debt that exceeds their annual pay. The point here is that if you work in big law you are doing very, very well.

As for my 'choice' to 'work' 50-60 hours a week, you should try getting a job out of college with a liberal arts degree in the middle of a recession. Let me know how much of a 'choice' a job that covers the rent is. Sure, I could have gotten an engineering degree or tried to break into teaching (a more challenging prospect than you might think in the current NJ hiring market). But those opportunities aren't available to everyone. What about people that aren't smart? That didn't get into or go to college? Or that couldn't afford it? I have a friend who couldn't get financial aid for college because his parents' credit was too low. Does he have a 'choice' when he takes a service job for pennies? This is the point about privilege I'm trying to make. Your job makes you rich. You want your job to also make you happy. Most people don't pass the threshold you're taking for granted.

Edit: I think some commenters are under the impression that I think my sales job was as hard as, or involved as many hours as, big law. I know that's not true. That wasn't the point. The point is that if you make a lot of money the threshold for a case of 'bad job' is much harder to accomplish.

The problem is your attitude that because a person makes a lot of money, they have no right to complain about their job satisfaction. Money isn't everything. I've worked some jobs that paid terribly but I absolutely loved those jobs. They were awesome. Incredibly fun and satisfying work. I'd take that sort of job in a second over a job that paid three to four times as much where I was miserable.

Calling people entitled because they think their job sucks just reeks of ignorance. You can get paid a lot and still have a sucky job. And you still have every right to complain. And it might just warn people in the future to stay away from that job. Go to a school where they take on far less so they can take on a job that pays less but is more satisfying.

It's ignorant to completely ignore what people have to say about a job you haven't done. It's also presumptuous to assume that you need to educate people about the level of poverty in the world.

My brief impression of you (ugg person) is that if you walk into biglaw with that chip on your shoulder, you aren't going to fit in long term.You might want to think about working on that attitude. You might not be able to tolerate the people you work with or the clients without enlightening them. Also, minimize references to your background and your job selling cars.

I hope you find that biglaw is everything you expect. There are people who happy in biglaw and that's all they need in life. I was one of them for a while. I think I know 2 of them from my department, but neither of them made partner and they had to move on to other firms.

Edit: yes, I think this thread is about much more than I'm rich but unfulfilled in my life, or whatever your question was. You are looking at this from the perspective of someone who got a biglaw job, not an 0L trying to figure out what to do. You may also find that 96,000 after taxes isn't rich or nearly as rich as most 0Ls think. (but possibly you will as you won't have to shoplift flu medicine so your kid won't die anymore.so that's a plus.)

My turn to reply to ughbug:

College is a joke to get into these days and the government hands out loans like candy, even at the undergrad level. Can't get a loan? Go to community college. If you can't get into ANY college in the United States? Then you must literally be as stupid as a fish. I have never heard of not getting into ANY college.

Most people in biglaw have done well academically their entire lives. It's not as if their only other option is to pump gas a gas station...Plus, it doesn't take a genius to make it in nursing or some other employable field these days. Some of the absolute dumbest people I know are nurses and they get paid 90k (more than you did in sales).

Stop talking about how "rich" biglawyers are. 96k post taxes isn't "rich" in NYC/SF/DC and if you think it's rich, then you should get a reality check.

You don't sound like you're going to fit in in biglaw. There are tons of "privileged" people as you put it. Are you going to bitch at everyone in biglaw?
Honestly, you just sound bitter as hell because we aren't drooling over big-shit-law. Most of us have scored top 1-5% or whatever on standardized exams for our entire lives and most of us went to top undergrads. We could have done other work besides big-shit-law.

[Anonymous User]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

This makes sense for just about every other job in the world except a busy biglaw firm. If you finish in 2 hours, great, there're 10 more clients and 1000 more assignments in queue.

[Anonymous User]

One topic that's never addressed presumably because of the small sample size is the undisclosed risks that law students with disabilities face. There were a bunch of forums about mental disabilities, but I'm speaking about physical disabilities: lawyers in wheelchairs, amputees, speech impediments and the visually/hearing impaired. The assumption is that all students face similar risks, but this isn't true. I'd even go far enough to say that grades are largely irrelevant for law students with disabilities. While going to law school with the goal of big law is a risk for all law students, due to how interviewing works in big law, it's a much bigger risk for a lawyer with a disability. You just need 1 out of 6 sheltered people who spends their lives in front of a computer to feel awkward talking to a lawyer in a wheelchair, and they're done.

Most people with disabilities aren't warned about the situation they're walking into, and law schools are so focused on numbers that these students enter law school believing that big law operates like other industries, but it doesn't and in all likelihood they are disqualified from the start. The ADA really only amplifies existing discrimination because those who have an issue with the disabled are smart enough to not bring it up and give the candidate a chance to advocate for themselves, and complaining to NALP will only get the disabled student blacklisted. Mentioning it to your CSO will only turn them against you as any ruckus could hurt their entire student body, and many of these people were the very ones who discriminated against the disabled before they were booted out of big law. Again, big law is unique from other employment sectors, and people with disabilities should know this before enrolling, particularly if their plan to repay their debt is predicated upon equal treatment or mild discrimination - namely, only being rejected when their comparable with a law student without a disability.

The fact of the situation is they're probably disqualified before they start. I don't blame the firms as it's not fair to expect any one to treat all applicants equally when their peers don't, but if there was a way that schools could be shielded from liability for rejecting students solely on the basis of a physical disability or at least notifying a potential student that they likely have no future in certain legal sectors we would greatly improve the current climate for these students. Again, I'm sure this will sound shocking to many reading this, but that's the reason why it's so important to read this. Students with disabilities should know before they make a major life bet based on the belief they are equal. At least as far as the legal industry is concerned, they're not and regardless of their legal skills never will be.

[run26.2]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

This makes sense for just about every other job in the world except a busy biglaw firm. If you finish in 2 hours, great, there're 10 more clients and 1000 more assignments in queue.

As should be obvious, whether it is true that there are loads of assignments behind the next one, such that if you finish one another is on your plate immediately, depends on many factors including firm, practice group, partners one works for, economic conditions, and one's ability and desire to manage one's workload (including, for instance, the ability to say no).

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

This makes sense for just about every other job in the world except a busy biglaw firm. If you finish in 2 hours, great, there're 10 more clients and 1000 more assignments in queue.

As should be obvious, whether it is true that there are loads of assignments behind the next one, such that if you finish one another is on your plate immediately, depends on many factors including firm, practice group, partners one works for, economic conditions, and one's ability and desire to manage one's workload (including, for instance, the ability to say no).

And as should also be obvious, this job is based around billing in 6 minute increments for the vast majority of biglawyers, and one way or another you're probably exceeding 2000 hours if you're receiving a market salary + bonus in NYC

And if your 2000 is billed solely between the hours of 9-5 during 40 hour work weeks, then you're committing fraud or your name is Watson

[BarbellDreams]

I graduated with a bunch of people who went into biglaw and I find that the only ones who are truly happy are ones who did IP. It seems like the IP ones work reasonable hours and still pull in the big bucks. Literally every other person I talk to says something along the lines of "The money is awesome, but I'm just gonna wait a few more months and start looking cause I work insane hours and don't have a life outside of work." The problem is the golden handcuffs lock in real quick and those same people have been saying "a few months" for years now.

I never worked biglaw, but I took a drastic paycut to go from a firm to government. I now work 9-5, Mon-Fri, no weekends ever, can cut out early if I want, and the people are very nice. I also have real jury trial experience, something 99% of attorneys will never sniff in their lifetime. Am I happy? Sort of, but I gotta say, the grass isn't always greener. My stress levels due to the insane amount of moving parts for trials that always go wrong and inevitably end in judges yelling at me about are about the same as when I was at the firm. And the money drop is huge. I'm left thinking that the grass isn't always greener and that all of us, no matter where you work, are just looking for the magic unicorn job that, while exists, is very rare and you have to almost luck into. Everyone wants to lateral to in-house from biglaw, but I would say at least 50% of the people I know who are in-house say they are just as stressed and work just as many hours as they did in biglaw for 30% less pay in exchange for not having to bill the hours. A few don't, work 45 hours a week and love the job, but again, you gotta be able to find that particular job.

For me personally, I think a happy attorney is one who works around 50 hours a week, makes at least upper five figures and has a decent work environment. 0L's always connect the above with "midlaw" and just say "I don't want biglaw cause thats too stressful, I'll just do midlaw". The funny thing is, many "midlaw" firms work close to just as many hours as biglaw for 50% less pay. Smaller firms don't just = less hours and more happiness, no matter how much 0L's wanna believe it.

I think the overall takeaway is that the profession as a whole isn't condusive to much happiness and while jobs that have it all do exist, they are rare, and most of us are going to be either unhappy with the $, hours or overall stress. To answer the overall question, while I am not a biglaw attorney, none of my biglaw attorney friends are happy except for the few that do IP, and the vast majority of them are completely miserable, have gained substantial weight, cannot keep a relationship and are going bald. Awesome profession over here.

[run26.2]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

This makes sense for just about every other job in the world except a busy biglaw firm. If you finish in 2 hours, great, there're 10 more clients and 1000 more assignments in queue.

As should be obvious, whether it is true that there are loads of assignments behind the next one, such that if you finish one another is on your plate immediately, depends on many factors including firm, practice group, partners one works for, economic conditions, and one's ability and desire to manage one's workload (including, for instance, the ability to say no).

And as should also be obvious, this job is based around billing in 6 minute increments for the vast majority of biglawyers, and one way or another you're probably exceeding 2000 hours if you're receiving a market salary + bonus in NYC

And if your 2000 is billed solely between the hours of 9-5 during 40 hour work weeks, then you're committing fraud or your name is Watson

EDIT: I see where you are coming from. It paints a somewhat bleaker picture than has been my experience. I initially read it as implying that you are always going to be forced/coerced to work at the whims of the partner or until you can't take it anymore. I think there are firms at which someone who meets reasonable requirements can say no to more work (see below).

I do think there are at least 2 important points related to your comment. First, if you want or are open to getting more work, you are going to get it (most of the time). Second, at many firms, if you aren't meeting an internal hours threshold, you are likely to be encouraged in some fashion to keep taking on work until you are meeting that threshold.

[Tls2016]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

This makes sense for just about every other job in the world except a busy biglaw firm. If you finish in 2 hours, great, there're 10 more clients and 1000 more assignments in queue.

As should be obvious, whether it is true that there are loads of assignments behind the next one, such that if you finish one another is on your plate immediately, depends on many factors including firm, practice group, partners one works for, economic conditions, and one's ability and desire to manage one's workload (including, for instance, the ability to say no).

And as should also be obvious, this job is based around billing in 6 minute increments for the vast majority of biglawyers, and one way or another you're probably exceeding 2000 hours if you're receiving a market salary + bonus in NYC

And if your 2000 is billed solely between the hours of 9-5 during 40 hour work weeks, then you're committing fraud or your name is Watson

Fine. But your response does not imply the truth of your previous statement. I have no idea what percentage of firms or practices are like that, but it is not that useful to characterize efficiency as uniformly rewarded with more work.

I do think there are at least 2 important points related to your comment. First, if you want or are open to getting more work, you are going to get it (most of the time). Second, at many firms, if you aren't meeting an internal hours threshold, you are likely to be encouraged in some fashion to keep taking on work until you are meeting that threshold.

This is interesting to me because I found that when I, for example,finished drafting a loan agreement, I could never just go home "early" and always got more work,sometimes on other deals with the same people.

There was absolutely no incentive for me to work as quickly as I actually could, not because I made mistakes, but because I always got more tasks. I learned to slow down.
No one really knows that you could do more or work faster. I'm not talking about going extremely slowly, I just mean if you take 5 or 6 hours to do something you could probably finish in 3, but most people take 5-8 hours to do, it's only to your benefit.

I got absolutely no benefit from working as quickly as I could, outside of a real crunch or closing.(This changed as I got more senior and was running my own deals and had more control.)

[jrass]

The main thing that this forum and others like it get wrong is that how tolerable big law is 100% boils down to the personalities. The same assignment can be not that bad or god awful, can take 2 hours or 20 hours, can be civil or abusive all depending on the personalities.

This makes sense for just about every other job in the world except a busy biglaw firm. If you finish in 2 hours, great, there're 10 more clients and 1000 more assignments in queue.

As should be obvious, whether it is true that there are loads of assignments behind the next one, such that if you finish one another is on your plate immediately, depends on many factors including firm, practice group, partners one works for, economic conditions, and one's ability and desire to manage one's workload (including, for instance, the ability to say no).

And as should also be obvious, this job is based around billing in 6 minute increments for the vast majority of biglawyers, and one way or another you're probably exceeding 2000 hours if you're receiving a market salary + bonus in NYC

And if your 2000 is billed solely between the hours of 9-5 during 40 hour work weeks, then you're committing fraud or your name is Watson

EDIT: I see where you are coming from. It paints a somewhat bleaker picture than has been my experience. I initially read it as implying that you are always going to be forced/coerced to work at the whims of the partner or until you can't take it anymore. I think there are firms at which someone who meets reasonable requirements can say no to more work (see below).

I do think there are at least 2 important points related to your comment. First, if you want or are open to getting more work, you are going to get it (most of the time). Second, at many firms, if you aren't meeting an internal hours threshold, you are likely to be encouraged in some fashion to keep taking on work until you are meeting that threshold.

Nobody is billing 2,000 between 9 and 5, but depending on how you're being managed you can bill 16 hours over 2 days from 10:00 AM to 8:30 PM each day, or you can bill the same 16 hours staying at work from 9:00 AM-2:00 AM, but spend most of the time from 8:30 PM-2:00 AM waiting for further instructions. It's also easier to bill a lot on the 3rd, 4th and 5th day in the first example than it is in the second.

[run26.2]

I agree and recognize it is not feasible to work 9-5 and bill 2000 hours. But I don't think that means that if you get something done quickly there is inevitably going to be more work waiting for you. My point is that if you get your work done and you're hitting your hours, there are firms (or maybe practice groups) where it is not a problem if you go home early. Note that this means you probably stayed later at some other time(s) during that particular reporting period or worked at home.