Top Law Schools

Elie's latest post, and in particular the lengthy debate in the comments, should be required reading for anybody seriously considering a career (of any length) in biglaw. Not because it will kill you, and not because you should decide against it - but because you should be informed.

I've never seen such an in-depth and honest discussion of the worst aspects of biglaw.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/in-re-th ... associate/

thesealocust wrote:Elie's latest post, and in particular the lengthy debate in the comments, should be required reading for anybody seriously considering a career (of any length) in biglaw. Not because it will kill you, and not because you should decide against it - but because you should be informed.

I've never seen such an in-depth and honest discussion of the worst aspects of biglaw.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/in-re-th ... associate/

Live fast die young bro

rad law wrote:Live fast die young bro

He who dies with the most deal toys wins.

I used to work at In-N-Out. People worked this hard for far less.

This is proof that people work for the $160k. It's not easy money. Some think it will be. Just by going to SYH they will be getting the big money. Well, they'll slave for it. That's why I'd be happy working far less for $35-45 take home (after loans and stuff). I could live well of that. I know most people can't. But I can give up some (material) things to get way more (time spent with my wife) in return.

Anonymous User wrote:I used to work at In-N-Out. People worked this hard for far less.

A very valid point that's brought up in the comments. There are ditch diggers, road pavers, janitors, etc. in this world with much less glamorous work. There's something to be said for the counter argument that certain aspects of big firm practice can be very mentally taxing, but it's absolutely true that firms don't hold a monopoly on harsh working conditions.

There is a big difference between the Skaddens of the world and most biglaw firms in terms of hours demanded. Most associates at my firm work 50-60 hours a week.

thesealocust wrote:Elie's latest post, and in particular the lengthy debate in the comments, should be required reading for anybody seriously considering a career (of any length) in biglaw. Not because it will kill you, and not because you should decide against it - but because you should be informed.

I've never seen such an in-depth and honest discussion of the worst aspects of biglaw.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/06/in-re-th ... associate/

I think honest is kind of a misnomer. Its honest in the the sense that Elie is honestly telling you how he feels: he hates biglaw (that's why he left so soon). When I hear/read someone say "honest discussion," I guess my mind wanders to even-handed discussion (maybe my own fault). Elie has never been even handed in his treatment of biglaw (and I don't think he's tried to masquerade as such). Disclaimer: I did not read the comments in this article. My time isn't even that precious and its still not worth reading comments on ATL.

Anonymous User wrote:This is proof that people work for the $160k. It's not easy money. Some think it will be. Just by going to SYH they will be getting the big money. Well, they'll slave for it. That's why I'd be happy working far less for $35-45 take home (after loans and stuff). I could live well of that. I know most people can't. But I can give up some (material) things to get way more (time spent with my wife) in return.

obviously.

a significant majority of lawl students would be happy with 35-45k after loans and taxes ITE. problem is, that requires a 75-80k salary in the private sector. and mythical midlaw is mythical for a reason.