Top Law Schools

nvm

Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

I just made a similar decision, so.... no.

1. +1 to comment about the hours (and throw in culture there too). I worked similar-to-Wachtell hours at my pre-law school job. It was hell. 50% of people I started with left within 1 year. 95% were gone by two. These were all extremely bright, ambitious people who came in excited about the job and down to work. The 3rd-5th year people at my former job would have made more money than associates at Wachtell, for fewer hours and none of the opportunity cost of law school (in finance, your hours decrease somewhat as you move up). If you are really desperate to make Wachtell money and are willing to give up literally every cognizant hour of your life, you really should just go into finance instead.

2. Location can be very important.

3. Ropes is one of the top firms in Boston, and thus attracts a fair amount of the top people who want to be in Boston. From a quick look-up of firm bios, the quality of incoming associates there is extremely high and on par with the type of people you would see at top NYC firms. Lots of very impressive people also end up in that office post-clerkship.

Not insane if it works for him and his life.

I would think not wanting to bill 3000 hours and wanting to not only be close to SO but also see SO more than 5 minutes a week. Maybe he also likes Boston.

Not everyone ranks "TLS prestige" and bonus opportunities at the top of their priorities in a career/their life.

Anonymous User wrote:He wants to do M&A and PE work. Has a SO in Boston. Guess the latter part sealed the deal?

Ropes has a rockin' PE practice.

Anonymous User wrote:I just made a similar decision, so.... no.

1. +1 to comment about the hours (and throw in culture there too). I worked similar-to-Wachtell hours at my pre-law school job. It was hell. 50% of people I started with left within 1 year. 95% were gone by two. These were all extremely bright, ambitious people who came in excited about the job and down to work. The 3rd-5th year people at my former job would have made more money than associates at Wachtell, for fewer hours and none of the opportunity cost of law school (in finance, your hours decrease somewhat as you move up). If you are really desperate to make Wachtell money and are willing to give up literally every cognizant hour of your life, you really should just go into finance.

A lot of people here underestimate just how draining those kinds of hours can be on every aspect of your life and being. It is one of those things that you cannot "get" until you are doing it or have done it.

.

Anonymous User wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

Why do you assume this is a "he"?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

Why do you assume this is a "he"?

Doesn't Wachtell have something like a total of three women working for it?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

Why do you assume this is a "he"?

Doesn't Wachtell have something like a total of three women working for it?

Summer program and junior associate classes are closer to 50-50.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

Why do you assume this is a "he"?

Doesn't Wachtell have something like a total of three women working for it?

Summer program and junior associate classes are closer to 50-50.

According to NALP, 50/50 is waaaaaaay off.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Summer program and junior associate classes are closer to 50-50.

According to NALP, 50/50 is waaaaaaay off.

Look at the summer associate column, you'll see 11 men and 11 women. I don't even need a calculator to do the math on that one.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

Why do you assume this is a "he"?

because i want to. why do you make the ridiculous assumption that there's a need to be politically correct?

wlrk is overwhelmingly male. so there's a girl who got an offer? good for her.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to work 3000 billables a year?

Why do you assume this is a "he"?

because i want to. why do you make the ridiculous assumption that there's a need to be politically correct?

wlrk is overwhelmingly male. so there's a girl who got an offer? good for her.

And also maybe because using a gender-specific pronoun is more efficient than trying to come up with some longer, gender-neutral phrasing? Do people really care about the he/she pronouns when the gender of the person is unknown? It seems rather petty to me.