Top Law Schools

I'm sure it varies greatly by firm, but I'd love for someone to give me a sense of the general stability of the position. Do most of the associates who leave before the partner-or-counsel track runs its course quit on their own terms or are they shown the door?

In other words, assuming an associate is both willing and able to continue, is getting fired a risk he should plan for, or is it relatively rare? And, if an associate is fired or laid off from a big law firm, how competitive is he in the job market?

(This matters to me because I'd save a lot more of my first-year salary if I wasn't reasonably confident there'd be a steady stream where that came from.)

nice post.

It really does vary by firm, but even if you're at a place where most people leave voluntarily, it's because (1) they recognize they still won't make partner and/or (2) most people, after a couple years in biglaw, don't want to do it for the rest of their lives.

When in doubt, save as much of that salary as you can. Even if you get to stick around as long as you want, you'll likely find you don't want to stick around as long as you think.

2nd year associate here: this varies dramatically based on firm and practice area. A year or two can be banked on: when Latham fired first years during the great recession, it made waves because it was pretty unprecedented. Firms expect there to be a learning curve and an adjustment period, and after investing in your summer + relocation usually aren't looking to thin the herd too early.

After that, it's certainly true that firms are "up or out" - they will push out people that aren't the right fit for whatever reason: personality clash, preferred group is slow, not productive enough, skills not developing quickly enough, etc. Infamously this comes in the form of a "so what are your career plans and how can we help?" style conversation, with emphasis on the fact that such transition should be completed within three months.

Large law firms often view themselves as placement agencies: they know only a small fraction of new associates will stick around to make partner, but they're not looking to burn bridges with those who don't. Those associates wind up with jobs at a client, across the table at other firms, working for a key regulator, etc. - the industry is small, and partners are especially aware of that fact.

Anyway, the net result is that you shouldn't feel like your job is violently unstable, but you should also go into it realizing that turnover is high and not every story is a happy one. If your geographic/practice area combination dry up, your odds of getting pushed out will increase at the same time your odds of landing happily afterward decrease. It's hard to put odds on it, but from my experience it's vastly more common for people to wind up doing something well compensated/impressive than underemployed or unemployed after the firm (though it does happen).

From my observations, juniors and midlevels are fairly secure. Firms don't get rid of people who are hitting their hours except in cases of extreme misconduct, and even mediocre juniors and midlevels shouldn't have trouble finding work as long as the firm is bringing in business. I've looked at the hour totals of associates who have been fired at my firm, and they've always been below 1500. Until partners stop giving you work and/or you go through a prolonged period of low hours, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

You will want to save as much as you can in your first years as possible. I've said this elsewhere, but surviving firm life is much easier if you know that you can walk away tomorrow.

It really comes down to two factors: 1) how busy your practice group is and 2) how people view the quality of your work. Very few firms will keep deadweight associates in slow practices areas around for long.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:It really comes down to two factors: 1) how busy your practice group is and 2) how people view the quality of your work. Very few firms will keep deadweight associates in slow practices areas around for long.

Plus the overall economy which I suppose goes under number 1. But on a more systemic level.
I feel that people are still being stealthed at some big law firms and that is difficult to quantify.

It seems like living through grueling work conditions would be easier by having a luxury apartment waiting for you after hours. It would suck to work 16 hour days only to make your way back to a grungy fourth floor walkup studio in Brooklyn.

Anonymous User wrote:It seems like living through grueling work conditions would be easier by having a luxury apartment waiting for you after hours. It would suck to work 16 hour days only to make your way back to a grungy fourth floor walkup studio in Brooklyn.

A lot of junior biglaw associates are paying thousands of dollars toward student loan debt every month. It's not like they're living particularly luxurious lifestyles in NYC (if they're smart).

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems like living through grueling work conditions would be easier by having a luxury apartment waiting for you after hours. It would suck to work 16 hour days only to make your way back to a grungy fourth floor walkup studio in Brooklyn.

A lot of junior biglaw associates are paying thousands of dollars toward student loan debt every month. It's not like they're living particularly luxurious lifestyles in NYC (if they're smart).

Let's assume a first year associate (160k salary, potential bonus) owes 40k total in student loans in NYC. It it wise for him to rent a swanky $3,000/mo. 1BR apartment in prime location, or should he put an extra $1k/mo. to loans and rent a janky $2,000/mo. studio?

Does it really matter if he pays his loans off in three years instead of two, when his quality of life can be measurably higher for that period?

Anonymous User wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems like living through grueling work conditions would be easier by having a luxury apartment waiting for you after hours. It would suck to work 16 hour days only to make your way back to a grungy fourth floor walkup studio in Brooklyn.

A lot of junior biglaw associates are paying thousands of dollars toward student loan debt every month. It's not like they're living particularly luxurious lifestyles in NYC (if they're smart).

Let's assume a first year associate (160k salary, potential bonus) owes 40k total in student loans in NYC. It it wise for him to rent a swanky $3,000/mo. 1BR apartment in prime location, or should he put an extra $1k/mo. to loans and rent a janky $2,000/mo. studio?

Does it really matter if he pays his loans off in three years instead of two, when his quality of life can be measurably higher for that period?

What is your definition of swanky? Honestly if you only owe $40,000, loan repayment isn't that important.

Anonymous User wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems like living through grueling work conditions would be easier by having a luxury apartment waiting for you after hours. It would suck to work 16 hour days only to make your way back to a grungy fourth floor walkup studio in Brooklyn.

A lot of junior biglaw associates are paying thousands of dollars toward student loan debt every month. It's not like they're living particularly luxurious lifestyles in NYC (if they're smart).

Let's assume a first year associate (160k salary, potential bonus) owes 40k total in student loans in NYC. It it wise for him to rent a swanky $3,000/mo. 1BR apartment in prime location, or should he put an extra $1k/mo. to loans and rent a janky $2,000/mo. studio?

Does it really matter if he pays his loans off in three years instead of two, when his quality of life can be measurably higher for that period?

Swanky 1BR in prime location in NYC for $3k? Good luck with that

IMO if you have loans you shouldn't acquire a lifestyle you couldn't afford after a 50 percent pay cut. Put the rest to loans.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It seems like living through grueling work conditions would be easier by having a luxury apartment waiting for you after hours. It would suck to work 16 hour days only to make your way back to a grungy fourth floor walkup studio in Brooklyn.

A lot of junior biglaw associates are paying thousands of dollars toward student loan debt every month. It's not like they're living particularly luxurious lifestyles in NYC (if they're smart).

Let's assume a first year associate (160k salary, potential bonus) owes 40k total in student loans in NYC. It it wise for him to rent a swanky $3,000/mo. 1BR apartment in prime location, or should he put an extra $1k/mo. to loans and rent a janky $2,000/mo. studio?

Does it really matter if he pays his loans off in three years instead of two, when his quality of life can be measurably higher for that period?

Swanky 1BR in prime location in NYC for $3k? Good luck with that

Maybe swanky to him means an elevator and an evening doorman?

dixiecupdrinking wrote:IMO if you have loans you shouldn't acquire a lifestyle you couldn't afford after a 50 percent pay cut. Put the rest to loans.

That is very difficult and I think unrealistic in NYC. But that topic has been done to death.

NYSprague wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:IMO if you have loans you shouldn't acquire a lifestyle you couldn't afford after a 50 percent pay cut. Put the rest to loans.

That is very difficult and I think unrealistic in NYC. But that topic has been done to death.

$80k is a very good income for most educated people in their mid-20s in NYC. It's only in the echo chamber of people who work in biglaw, finance, and consulting that it sounds unrealistic.

Anyway I agree this has been done to death but what hasn't on here, really.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

NYSprague wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:IMO if you have loans you shouldn't acquire a lifestyle you couldn't afford after a 50 percent pay cut. Put the rest to loans.

That is very difficult and I think unrealistic in NYC. But that topic has been done to death.

$80k is a very good income for most educated people in their mid-20s in NYC. It's only in the echo chamber of people who work in biglaw, finance, and consulting that it sounds unrealistic.

Anyway I agree this has been done to death but what hasn't on here, really.

The problem is that you don't get taxed like you make 80k when you make 160k.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

NYSprague wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:IMO if you have loans you shouldn't acquire a lifestyle you couldn't afford after a 50 percent pay cut. Put the rest to loans.

That is very difficult and I think unrealistic in NYC. But that topic has been done to death.

$80k is a very good income for most educated people in their mid-20s in NYC. It's only in the echo chamber of people who work in biglaw, finance, and consulting that it sounds unrealistic.

Anyway I agree this has been done to death but what hasn't on here, really.

The problem is that you don't get taxed like you make 80k when you make 160k.

This is extremely pedantic.

Are the figures in this May 2013 ATL article up to date and realistic? The sample budget suggests a first year associate can spend $2.5k/mo. on rent and still pay off $2k/mo. in loans. (So $3k/mo. on rent and $1.5k/mo. in loans would also work.)

http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/bud ... rt-1-160k/

Bi-weekly Gross Pay: $6,153.85
Federal Withholding: $1,210.99
Social Security: $381.54
Medicare: $89.23
New York: $349.27
NY SDI: $1.20
City Tax: $200.04
401(k): $673.00
Net Pay: $3,248.58 ($6,497.16/mo.)

RENT – $2,500
UTILITIES – Gas & Electricity, High-Speed Internet – $100
TRANSPORTATION – Unlimited Metrocard, Cabs – $175
CELL PHONE – $100
LOAN PAYMENT – $2,000
SAVINGS/INVESTMENTS – $200
FOOD – Dining Out, Groceries – $600
PERSONAL CARE – $150
ENTERTAINMENT + SHOPPING – $600
MISCELLANEOUS – $50

Also -- why doesn't the article include the cost of health/dental/vision insurance?

.

Anonymous User wrote:Are the figures in this May 2013 ATL article up to date and realistic? The sample budget suggests a first year associate can spend $2.5k/mo. on rent and still pay off $2k/mo. in loans. (So $3k/mo. on rent and $1.5k/mo. in loans would also work.)

http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/bud ... rt-1-160k/

Bi-weekly Gross Pay: $6,153.85
Federal Withholding: $1,210.99
Social Security: $381.54
Medicare: $89.23
New York: $349.27
NY SDI: $1.20
City Tax: $200.04
401(k): $673.00
Net Pay: $3,248.58 ($6,497.16/mo.)

RENT – $2,500
UTILITIES – Gas & Electricity, High-Speed Internet – $100
TRANSPORTATION – Unlimited Metrocard, Cabs – $175
CELL PHONE – $100
LOAN PAYMENT – $2,000
SAVINGS/INVESTMENTS – $200
FOOD – Dining Out, Groceries – $600
PERSONAL CARE – $150
ENTERTAINMENT + SHOPPING – $600
MISCELLANEOUS – $50

Also -- why doesn't the article include the cost of health/dental/vision insurance?

Fairly realistic except the insurance and other benefits as you mention.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:The problem is that you don't get taxed like you make 80k when you make 160k.

This is extremely pedantic.

I know, but I enjoy bitching about how my biglaw salary isn't enough for me to live in a "luxury" apartment.

I think the utilities are too low. my time warner triple play plus HBO is over $150. I have a personal cellphone too and I pay more than $100, I have a family plan I pay. Probably I am paying too much.My electricity is high, but I'm pretty wasteful. I need to look into this.

As I posted before my highest end insurance with medical, prescription, dental and vision is $500. You can probably get it for less.

I pay more for transportation too because I take cabs more than I should.

Anonymous User wrote:Are the figures in this May 2013 ATL article up to date and realistic? The sample budget suggests a first year associate can spend $2.5k/mo. on rent and still pay off $2k/mo. in loans. (So $3k/mo. on rent and $1.5k/mo. in loans would also work.)

$4500 on rent + loans is probably on the low side of what first years with large debt loads are paying, although it's a reasonable number to start with. Keep in mind that you stop paying Social Security tax above 117k and 401k contributions aren't mandatory.