Best firms for life/work balance? Forum

[ChardPennington]

I agree that people should be skeptical of stated billables minimims.

For instance, I bet the 1200/1800 thing is to adjust for the fact that a bunch of your hours are cut as a first year. What this means is if your hours keep getting cut they probably count your 1800 after the cut which means it might take 2200 to get to 1800.

[BanjoCalhoun]

Vault's ranking of best by hours, any thoughts?

http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=31

I take it with a grain of salt since some of the negative comments for individual firms are about the hours, but could still be a good guide to the best of the worst. Boston firms have a strong showing here.

[IAFG]

Vault's ranking of best by hours, any thoughts?

http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=31

I take it with a grain of salt since some of the negative comments for individual firms are about the hours, but could still be a good guide to the best of the worst. Boston firms have a strong showing here.

Some of these firms have had their stability called into question. So low hours are more scary than a selling point.

[bk1]

Vault's ranking of best by hours, any thoughts?

http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=31

I take it with a grain of salt since some of the negative comments for individual firms are about the hours, but could still be a good guide to the best of the worst. Boston firms have a strong showing here.

In addition to what IAFG said, some of the firms on this list have serious sweatshop reputations. I honestly wouldn't put any stock in this list. Plus the list seems to change dramatically year over year which to me is more evidence that it is shit.

[Anonymous User]

Vault's ranking of best by hours, any thoughts?

http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... sRankID=31

I take it with a grain of salt since some of the negative comments for individual firms are about the hours, but could still be a good guide to the best of the worst. Boston firms have a strong showing here.

In addition to what IAFG said, some of the firms on this list have serious sweatshop reputations. I honestly wouldn't put any stock in this list. Plus the list seems to change dramatically year over year which to me is more evidence that it is shit.

Yeah. GDC and (especially) Irell have reputations for being among the most sweatshop-y firms out there.

I will say, though, that I've heard nothing but good things about Patterson Belknap. Don't know anybody working there more than socially, but they're consistently mentioned as one of the more humane NYC biglaw firms. Don't know how true this is, but I suspect that the reputation comes from somewhere.

[Big Shrimpin]

http://yalelawwomen.org/top-ten-list/

YLW largely (though I guess not solely) asks firms their policies, rather than survey what actually happens. Parental leave policies are nice, but I doubt they tell you much about what the hours are actually like.

Edit: All right, checked the methodology and they do ask question about how often the policies are used, but there's still a big difference between these things and actually getting to spend time with your family.

K&E made the list. Here is their version of work life balance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgSJUzYCGtc

I had totally forgotten about this video.

Oh, the LIES we tell ourselves!

[Old Gregg]

Look guys--At any firm where the goal is to make profits and the firm is in the AMLAW 100, partners are going to want to... maximize profits. This means that they'll have to bring in more revenue. Which means that you, as the associate, will have to bill more hours. Lots of firms don't bill as much as their NYC counterparts because (a) there just isn't enough work or (b) they hired too much to spread the hours around and don't have the work to keep everyone in the group billing 3,000 hours.

There are some practice groups where you're just never going to get a ton of hours out of your associates, but you still need those groups around.

But, believe me, if the firm has work, you will be billing the hours. Doesn't matter what market you're in. Despite insistence to the contrary, I've never, ever heard of a partner turning down work from a client because his associates already have a full plate.

[Huluba]

Firms with good reputations for work/life (that I have heard from personally):

1) Ropes

2) Seward

3) Wilkie

[sandiego222]

Look guys--At any firm where the goal is to make profits and the firm is in the AMLAW 100, partners are going to want to... maximize profits. This means that they'll have to bring in more revenue. Which means that you, as the associate, will have to bill more hours. Lots of firms don't bill as much as their NYC counterparts because (a) there just isn't enough work or (b) they hired too much to spread the hours around and don't have the work to keep everyone in the group billing 3,000 hours.

There are some practice groups where you're just never going to get a ton of hours out of your associates, but you still need those groups around.

But, believe me, if the firm has work, you will be billing the hours. Doesn't matter what market you're in. Despite insistence to the contrary, I've never, ever heard of a partner turning down work from a client because his associates already have a full plate.

It surprises me that people go into the process of law school/ applying to law firms without understanding this. Just like banking and finance related professions, big law is one where there is a lot of money on the line. As a result, people in these professions get paid a lot of money and work really long hours.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of law students are straight through from college, and that others may have work experience in non-demanding/ non-lucrative careers. But it really is surprising that there is such a strong culture re: complaining about hours + concern about finding a unicorn 'lifestyle firm'.

If you want to start your career in a big law firm (a job that is toward the top of the profession and helps build a legal career), it's really no different than starting your career at a bank, PE group, consulting firm, etc. Did everyone go into law school just thinking they could be a student their whole life (i.e. do work on their own time) and somehow be compensated for it?

[Citizen Genet]

Did everyone go into law school just thinking they could be a student their whole life (i.e. do work on their own time) and somehow be compensated for it?

In other words, did everyone just expect they could become law professors?

[09042014]

Look guys--At any firm where the goal is to make profits and the firm is in the AMLAW 100, partners are going to want to... maximize profits. This means that they'll have to bring in more revenue. Which means that you, as the associate, will have to bill more hours. Lots of firms don't bill as much as their NYC counterparts because (a) there just isn't enough work or (b) they hired too much to spread the hours around and don't have the work to keep everyone in the group billing 3,000 hours.

There are some practice groups where you're just never going to get a ton of hours out of your associates, but you still need those groups around.

But, believe me, if the firm has work, you will be billing the hours. Doesn't matter what market you're in. Despite insistence to the contrary, I've never, ever heard of a partner turning down work from a client because his associates already have a full plate.

It surprises me that people go into the process of law school/ applying to law firms without understanding this. Just like banking and finance related professions, big law is one where there is a lot of money on the line. As a result, people in these professions get paid a lot of money and work really long hours.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of law students are straight through from college, and that others may have work experience in non-demanding/ non-lucrative careers. But it really is surprising that there is such a strong culture re: complaining about hours + concern about finding a unicorn 'lifestyle firm'.

If you want to start your career in a big law firm (a job that is toward the top of the profession and helps build a legal career), it's really no different than starting your career at a bank, PE group, consulting firm, etc. Did everyone go into law school just thinking they could be a student their whole life (i.e. do work on their own time) and somehow be compensated for it?

Zeit is totally right that all firms are going to push you to bill as much as they can.

But that's not necessarily inherent in all high paying jobs. The problem with law is that we charge by the hour worked. So there is a direct link between firm profitability and them making you work long hours.

Engineering, Sales, IT, some management jerbs don't have nearly as much pressure hours wise because while they want to get the most out of you, they aren't defining it purely by the hour. Somebody doing great work in 45 hours a week adds more value than someone doing mediocre work for 70 hours.

But it really is surprising that there is such a strong culture re: complaining about hours + concern about finding a unicorn 'lifestyle firm'.

Because working long hours sucks. If you could get paid the same and work less hours who wouldn't want to do it.

[rpupkin]

Look for high-paying boutiques that has low billing requirement and not known as "sweatshops". You can try NALP Directory, Billing Hour Requirement section

Perhaps this was a joke, but just in case anyone took the post seriously: lawyers work crazy hard at all the "high-paying" boutiques I'm aware of. There isn't much life/work balance at places like Susman, Keker, Kellogg, and Bartlitt. At least if you go to a sweatshop like QE or KE or GDC, you might be able to hide out for a couple of years before they force you out. There's no hiding at a litigation boutique with a one-to-one partner-to-associate ratio.

I'm not knocking those high-paying boutiques--they can be great places to work for the right type of sociopath--but they are not "lifestyle" firms.

[ymmv]

Look guys--At any firm where the goal is to make profits and the firm is in the AMLAW 100, partners are going to want to... maximize profits. This means that they'll have to bring in more revenue. Which means that you, as the associate, will have to bill more hours. Lots of firms don't bill as much as their NYC counterparts because (a) there just isn't enough work or (b) they hired too much to spread the hours around and don't have the work to keep everyone in the group billing 3,000 hours.

There are some practice groups where you're just never going to get a ton of hours out of your associates, but you still need those groups around.

But, believe me, if the firm has work, you will be billing the hours. Doesn't matter what market you're in. Despite insistence to the contrary, I've never, ever heard of a partner turning down work from a client because his associates already have a full plate.

It surprises me that people go into the process of law school/ applying to law firms without understanding this. Just like banking and finance related professions, big law is one where there is a lot of money on the line. As a result, people in these professions get paid a lot of money and work really long hours.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of law students are straight through from college, and that others may have work experience in non-demanding/ non-lucrative careers. But it really is surprising that there is such a strong culture re: complaining about hours + concern about finding a unicorn 'lifestyle firm'.

If you want to start your career in a big law firm (a job that is toward the top of the profession and helps build a legal career), it's really no different than starting your career at a bank, PE group, consulting firm, etc. Did everyone go into law school just thinking they could be a student their whole life (i.e. do work on their own time) and somehow be compensated for it?

I'd say the "unicorn" hunt is even more fervent amongst the non-K-JD students like myself, particularly those of us with spouses. A lot of us are reaching the critical age to start having kids if we don't want to be senior citizens when they get to college, so the thought of having to delay children another 4-6 years while we put in our "dues" at a biglaw sweatshop is more than a little depressing.

[IAFG]

Look guys--At any firm where the goal is to make profits and the firm is in the AMLAW 100, partners are going to want to... maximize profits. This means that they'll have to bring in more revenue. Which means that you, as the associate, will have to bill more hours. Lots of firms don't bill as much as their NYC counterparts because (a) there just isn't enough work or (b) they hired too much to spread the hours around and don't have the work to keep everyone in the group billing 3,000 hours.

There are some practice groups where you're just never going to get a ton of hours out of your associates, but you still need those groups around.

But, believe me, if the firm has work, you will be billing the hours. Doesn't matter what market you're in. Despite insistence to the contrary, I've never, ever heard of a partner turning down work from a client because his associates already have a full plate.

It surprises me that people go into the process of law school/ applying to law firms without understanding this. Just like banking and finance related professions, big law is one where there is a lot of money on the line. As a result, people in these professions get paid a lot of money and work really long hours.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of law students are straight through from college, and that others may have work experience in non-demanding/ non-lucrative careers. But it really is surprising that there is such a strong culture re: complaining about hours + concern about finding a unicorn 'lifestyle firm'.

If you want to start your career in a big law firm (a job that is toward the top of the profession and helps build a legal career), it's really no different than starting your career at a bank, PE group, consulting firm, etc. Did everyone go into law school just thinking they could be a student their whole life (i.e. do work on their own time) and somehow be compensated for it?

I'd say the "unicorn" hunt is even more fervent amongst the non-K-JD students like myself, particularly those of us with spouses. A lot of us are reaching the critical age to start having kids if we don't want to be senior citizens when they get to college, so the thought of having to delay children another 4-6 years while we put in our "dues" at a biglaw sweatshop is more than a little depressing.

So just have kids in biglaw, I don't get it

[Kronk]

I don't have kids so I don't want to step on your toes IAFG but I don't think it's unreasonable that some people believe (at least in theory) that they want to see their kids more than 1hr a day, so I sort of see where they're coming from.

[IAFG]

Okay but so what. Stay for 2 years then start cranking out kids and max out parental leave. Why would you do balls-to-the-wall biglaw then dip out on leave when you get to the inhouse/govt job where you actually plan to build your career?

[ymmv]

Look guys--At any firm where the goal is to make profits and the firm is in the AMLAW 100, partners are going to want to... maximize profits. This means that they'll have to bring in more revenue. Which means that you, as the associate, will have to bill more hours. Lots of firms don't bill as much as their NYC counterparts because (a) there just isn't enough work or (b) they hired too much to spread the hours around and don't have the work to keep everyone in the group billing 3,000 hours.

There are some practice groups where you're just never going to get a ton of hours out of your associates, but you still need those groups around.

But, believe me, if the firm has work, you will be billing the hours. Doesn't matter what market you're in. Despite insistence to the contrary, I've never, ever heard of a partner turning down work from a client because his associates already have a full plate.

It surprises me that people go into the process of law school/ applying to law firms without understanding this. Just like banking and finance related professions, big law is one where there is a lot of money on the line. As a result, people in these professions get paid a lot of money and work really long hours.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of law students are straight through from college, and that others may have work experience in non-demanding/ non-lucrative careers. But it really is surprising that there is such a strong culture re: complaining about hours + concern about finding a unicorn 'lifestyle firm'.

If you want to start your career in a big law firm (a job that is toward the top of the profession and helps build a legal career), it's really no different than starting your career at a bank, PE group, consulting firm, etc. Did everyone go into law school just thinking they could be a student their whole life (i.e. do work on their own time) and somehow be compensated for it?

I'd say the "unicorn" hunt is even more fervent amongst the non-K-JD students like myself, particularly those of us with spouses. A lot of us are reaching the critical age to start having kids if we don't want to be senior citizens when they get to college, so the thought of having to delay children another 4-6 years while we put in our "dues" at a biglaw sweatshop is more than a little depressing.

So just have kids in biglaw, I don't get it

Two working parents and a desire not to have your children raised entirely by au pairs?

[IAFG]

But why would you fuck your non-short-term employer with your parental leave/newborn months? You're quitting anyway, right? Tennessee twins on the firm's dime is, obviously, TCR.

[ymmv]

But why would you fuck your non-short-term employer with your parental leave/newborn months? You're quitting anyway, right? Tennessee twins on the firm's dime is, obviously, TCR.

If family planning were such a sure-fire, cut-and-dry deal, yeah, but I get the sense you are radically underestimating the amount of time needed to raise newborns and the number of years it takes to get them out of helpless toddler-hood, especially if you want 2-3 kids and a decent year or two break between the birthings - believe it or not it's about an equally strenuous process whether you do it naturally or adopt.
The whole thing just seems unimaginable with two parents averaging 80-100 hour work weeks.

[IAFG]

But why would you fuck your non-short-term employer with your parental leave/newborn months? You're quitting anyway, right? Tennessee twins on the firm's dime is, obviously, TCR.

If family planning were such a sure-fire, cut-and-dry deal, yeah, but I get the sense you are radically underestimating the amount of time needed to raise newborns and the number of years it takes to get them out of helpless toddler-hood, especially if you want 2-3 kids and a decent year or two break between the birthings - believe it or not it's about an equally strenuous process whether you do it naturally or adopt.
The whole thing just seems unimaginable with two parents averaging 80-100 hour work weeks.

lol I have a toddler, work at a firm, and my husband spends a similar amount of time out of the house.

Still think it's a better idea to have kids on the firm's dime.

[ymmv]

But why would you fuck your non-short-term employer with your parental leave/newborn months? You're quitting anyway, right? Tennessee twins on the firm's dime is, obviously, TCR.

If family planning were such a sure-fire, cut-and-dry deal, yeah, but I get the sense you are radically underestimating the amount of time needed to raise newborns and the number of years it takes to get them out of helpless toddler-hood, especially if you want 2-3 kids and a decent year or two break between the birthings - believe it or not it's about an equally strenuous process whether you do it naturally or adopt.
The whole thing just seems unimaginable with two parents averaging 80-100 hour work weeks.

lol I have a toddler, work at a firm, and my husband spends a similar amount of time out of the house.

Still think it's a better idea to have kids on the firm's dime.

How did you do it? Was maternity/family leave sufficient for the first year, or did you have help from e.g. other family members? I just can't imagine how people manage this logistically, when parents I've known have struggled to raise infants even while keeping up with school, let alone with a job as reputedly demanding as biglaw. But if it's doable I'd definitely like to hear the secret.

[IAFG]

I do have help from my MIL, but if I had one of my "exit option" type jobs I would need the same help (with daycare pickup being before either of us can get there) and would have less money to get it done (I could pretty easily swap my MIL for 10 hours a week of babysitter).

My firm will let you take a total of 6 months off for maternity leave, half paid. And when you get back, people do take it easier on you. I'm not sure what you mean by "the first year," obviously kids go to daycare before they turn 1.

[rayiner]

Two working parents and a desire not to have your children raised entirely by au pairs?

1) You overestimate how much time you really want to spend with your infant/toddler. I get a good three hours a day (7-10) with my 18-month old, and that's more than plenty.

2) You underestimate how awesome a good daycare can be, even for the kid. Kids have different temperaments, of course, but mine does just fine with daycare, except some fussiness at drop-off. The daycare workers play with her and engage her at a level I wouldn't have the energy to do even if I didn't have a busy job. Puzzles, songs, finger-painting, etc. There's a minority of crazy stay-at-home moms who will do all that, but mine just parked us in front of the TV and I think that's pretty typical. Daycare is a lot more enriching than that.

If you're not trying to make a career out of big law, having kids while in big law is definitely the answer. We had ours when my wife was a 3L, and I was a first year associate, and it worked great. By the time the kid went to daycare she was already almost a year old. I took most of the night feedings, and the sleep-deprivation was pretty intense, but manageable. Now she's a toddler and much easier to deal with (at least she sleeps through the night, and most of her toddler tantrums are the daycare's problem). If you can work a clerkship in there somewhere, even better.

Childcare is, of course critical, and be prepared to pay through the nose for it. My mom lives with us during the week, which is clutch for avoiding most of the daycare pickups and drop-offs. It also assuages some of the working parent guilt because at least she's with grandma and not a stranger, but again that's all in your head. I disagree with IAFG above that you can "easily" replace an MIL with a babysitter. Daycare drop-offs suck, and a nanny that will do both drop-off and pick-up around a big law schedule will be $$$.

[Abbie Doobie]

To me, work/life balance is achieved when I actually have time to drop a deuce during working hours.

- Sent from my iPhone in the 8th floor bathroom stall closest to the door

[Florence Night]

I agree that people should be skeptical of stated billables minimims.

For instance, I bet the 1200/1800 thing is to adjust for the fact that a bunch of your hours are cut as a first year. What this means is if your hours keep getting cut they probably count your 1800 after the cut which means it might take 2200 to get to 1800.

What are everyone's thoughts on those average associate hours worked/billed numbers posted on some firms' NALP pages? Accurate or no?