Top Law Schools

I'm a 2L with an SA lined up, trying to think ahead to how miserable I will be if I receive and accept an offer at my mid-sized firm in a major market after school. I'm doing the math and I must be misinformed about something because it just doesn't seem that bad.

If the billable hours requirement is 2000 and I bill 75% of my hours worked (which, from my informal research, seems realistic), that's 2666 total working hours. Assuming 2 weeks for vacation, that's 53 total working hours per week. If there's no vacation time, which I understand is very possible, that's only 51 hours a week. So what am I missing here? Where do people come up with these 70 hour weeks, unless there are actually 30 hours weeks on the other side to even things out? I'm not the type to push my billable hours very far past the minimum. I guess sometimes you are forced to?

If you can't tell, I don't know anything. Help me out here.

you don't really get to decide how much you work because someone else is assigning it to you.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a 2L with an SA lined up, trying to think ahead to how miserable I will be if I receive and accept an offer at my mid-sized firm in a major market after school. I'm doing the math and I must be misinformed about something because it just doesn't seem that bad.

If the billable hours requirement is 2000 and I bill 75% of my hours worked (which, from my informal research, seems realistic), that's 2666 total working hours. Assuming 2 weeks for vacation, that's 53 total working hours per week. If there's no vacation time, which I understand is very possible, that's only 51 hours a week. So what am I missing here? Where do people come up with these 70 hour weeks, unless there are actually 30 hours weeks on the other side to even things out? I'm not the type to push my billable hours very far past the minimum. I guess sometimes you are forced to?

If you can't tell, I don't know anything. Help me out here.

Also a 2l but what everyone says it that it's not the raw number of hours but how they unfold that is soul crushing. When your vacations are canceled last minute, dinners missed, etc. It's the unpredictability of big law- not the numbers/week.

You don't get to just choose to do the bare minimum. If you get staffed on a deal or a case, you have to do all the work you're given. You never know how much it's going to be or when it's going to hit, so you're unable to make normal social plans with friends/family/significant others.

I'm not a big law attorney yet, but I've seen this question posted so many times that I'm just regurgitating what has been rehashed dozens of times now.

Scooped by the gordo duck

There are some weeks where you bill less than 20 hours, and some weeks where you bill close to 100. You still have to show up everyday for 8-9 hours for the days you have nothing to bill. Just do the math this way, every week you will have to put in at least 40, even if you're not billing 40, then there are weeks you have to put in 80 hours. The average per week should come up higher.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a 2L with an SA lined up, trying to think ahead to how miserable I will be if I receive and accept an offer at my mid-sized firm in a major market after school. I'm doing the math and I must be misinformed about something because it just doesn't seem that bad.

If the billable hours requirement is 2000 and I bill 75% of my hours worked (which, from my informal research, seems realistic), that's 2666 total working hours. Assuming 2 weeks for vacation, that's 53 total working hours per week. If there's no vacation time, which I understand is very possible, that's only 51 hours a week. So what am I missing here? Where do people come up with these 70 hour weeks, unless there are actually 30 hours weeks on the other side to even things out? I'm not the type to push my billable hours very far past the minimum. I guess sometimes you are forced to?

If you can't tell, I don't know anything. Help me out here.

I think this has been mentioned on this board a few times, but the number of hours worked is probably lower on the reasons why biglaw sucks than people think. Biglaw has a way to make even the 30 hour billable weeks miserable

First, I am expected to be here from 9 to 7. So there is no such thing as a 30 hour week. That's when other people expect to be able to call or chat with me.

Second, a lot of those 50 hour weeks, I am only billing 20 hours, because I just don't have any billable work. So to hit a respectable billable number, some of the weeks when I do have work, I have a LOT of work. It comes in the form of a 4 pm rush assignment that's due today, even if today is actually 2 am tomorrow.

Third, when I was in school, I pulled my fair share of "all nighters." One thing I didn't see coming in biglaw was that emergencies requiring all-nighters often come in a row: I pulled 3 in one week, and 2 in a row. That was painful.

Anonymous User wrote:First, I am expected to be here from 9 to 7. So there is no such thing as a 30 hour week. That's when other people expect to be able to call or chat with me.

I'll provide some counterbalance to this point. Where I work, there really isn't a face time requirement and I think BigLaw is trending that way in general. When I dont have a strong reason to be in the office, I feel no pressure at all just to stay here just for appearances. My office is across from one of my firm's biggest rainmakers and that guy is here maybe 3 hours a day tops. I certainly don't assume he's slacking and I doubt he'd think the same if my office is dark at 4:30 on a horribly slow Friday. And it's not this way only because the powers that be said it should be that way (which they have and they gave us all laptops to prove they were serious about it), there's also the fact that people constantly attend out-of-office meetings or are traveling to client/vendor sites. I don't know if it works the same in corporate world, but as a lit associate, no one knows where you're "supposed to be" at any given time of the day to begin with. So while they might try and call you for something quick, they're not going to be shocked if you don't pick up and they're going to e-mail you if it's important.

That being said, 70 hour weeks happen pretty often for me, even if 20-25 of those hours are done from home. As others have pointed out, you don't control your work flow and it isn't a constant stream so much as an intermittent fire hose.

Finnegan Henderson offered my dad a 2nd interview back in the 90's and the hiring partner told him normal work hours (for partners) are 7am to 7pm, six to seven days a week.
Instead my dad decided to work for a smaller practice and it worked out for him.
Just recently, my dad met a senior associate from the same firm at a conference who joked that the hours now are 7am to 10pm, six to seven days a week, and she can't wait to jump ship.

Anonymous User wrote:Finnegan Henderson offered my dad a 2nd interview back in the 90's and the hiring partner told him normal work hours (for partners) are 7am to 7pm, six to seven days a week.
Instead my dad decided to work for a smaller practice and it worked out for him.
Just recently, my dad met a senior associate from the same firm at a conference who joked that the hours now are 7am to 10pm, six to seven days a week, and she can't wait to jump ship.

That's rather unusual if consistent.

First, 2000 hours is not that bad. Biglaw associates would generally acknowledge this. People complaining about hours are often in the 2500 range. Do the math. And they didn't "choose" to be that busy any more than you intend to.

Second, the hours are unpredictable and come in waves. If you could bill 40 hours a week all year long, that would be peachy. Lit is a little better in this regard.

Third, it's not just the hours, it's the type of work, the expectations, and the people you work with.

Fourth, biglaw does get a bad rap because you hear about the worst cases (and even people who are reasonably fine with it only pipe up about the bad stretches). At its best, it's reasonably tolerable for at least the short term. Problem is knowing how bad you'll have it.

mickey0004 wrote:There are some weeks where you bill less than 20 hours, and some weeks where you bill close to 100. You still have to show up everyday for 8-9 hours for the days you have nothing to bill. Just do the math this way, every week you will have to put in at least 40, even if you're not billing 40, then there are weeks you have to put in 80 hours. The average per week should come up higher.

Add to this that downtime is not all that enjoyable because not billing hours is also stressful!! Not only are you worried about the number of hours but also why you aren't getting work. You might hear often "You know you're doing a good job if you keep getting work." Well, then if I am not getting good work, am I about to be fired??

dixiecupdrinking wrote:First, 2000 hours is not that bad. Biglaw associates would generally acknowledge this. People complaining about hours are often in the 2500 range. Do the math. And they didn't "choose" to be that busy any more than you intend to.

Second, the hours are unpredictable and come in waves. If you could bill 40 hours a week all year long, that would be peachy. Lit is a little better in this regard.

Third, it's not just the hours, it's the type of work, the expectations, and the people you work with.

Fourth, biglaw does get a bad rap because you hear about the worst cases (and even people who are reasonably fine with it only pipe up about the bad stretches). At its best, it's reasonably tolerable for at least the short term. Problem is knowing how bad you'll have it.

I think 2000 hours is pretty bad in almost all cases. If you billed like 8.25 hours a day M-F, by only being in the office 9 hours, yea, not bad. But who does that?

A week with 30 hours, means you have to bill 50 another week. If you have a month where your case dries up, you might have to make up 90 hours in another month.

NotPHashtagRecruitg wrote:If you're willing to put in an honest day's work, and stay late when really necessary, working hours at a large law firm shouldn't strain you or your relationships. You just have to strive to find the balance.

Desert Fox wrote: I think 2000 hours is pretty bad in almost all cases. If you billed like 8.25 hours a day M-F, by only being in the office 9 hours, yea, not bad. But who does that?

A week with 30 hours, means you have to bill 50 another week. If you have a month where your case dries up, you might have to make up 90 hours in another month.

Bad compared to what though? If we assume the relevant people all want to be practicing attorneys, "2000 isn't bad" really means "2000 isn't bad compared to small law / BigFed / DA / PD / in-house." I think that's right, especially for entry-level jobs. I can't imagine there are many entry-level attorney positions out there where people work 9-5:30 and leave for the day, regardless of how much they're being paid. If anything, I think the scenario you described would be more stressful in a non-biglaw firms where an associate having a slow year makes a measurable impact on the overall profitability of the firm.

Desert Fox wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:First, 2000 hours is not that bad. Biglaw associates would generally acknowledge this. People complaining about hours are often in the 2500 range. Do the math. And they didn't "choose" to be that busy any more than you intend to.

Second, the hours are unpredictable and come in waves. If you could bill 40 hours a week all year long, that would be peachy. Lit is a little better in this regard.

Third, it's not just the hours, it's the type of work, the expectations, and the people you work with.

Fourth, biglaw does get a bad rap because you hear about the worst cases (and even people who are reasonably fine with it only pipe up about the bad stretches). At its best, it's reasonably tolerable for at least the short term. Problem is knowing how bad you'll have it.

I think 2000 hours is pretty bad in almost all cases. If you billed like 8.25 hours a day M-F, by only being in the office 9 hours, yea, not bad. But who does that?

A week with 30 hours, means you have to bill 50 another week. If you have a month where your case dries up, you might have to make up 90 hours in another month.

2000 hrs is not fun

The minute I don't have work I start to get worried bc I know there will be consequences

If I have to do bar stuff or nonbillable stuff or charity stuff that eats into my time I could be billing and I gotta make it up

Firms that let you count significant amounts of pro bono time towards billables = culture difference then?

flawschoolkid wrote:Firms that let you count significant amounts of pro bono time towards billables = culture difference then?

its not a real thing. They say it is but its not. Come review/bonus time, partners prefer people who bill stuff even if they like to talk up the pro bono parts of their practice

flawschoolkid wrote:Firms that let you count significant amounts of pro bono time towards billables = culture difference then?

My firm had a policy where all of your pro bono hours count towards your total, no matter how much you do. Just finished my first year, and I billed all of 0 pro bono hours. Part of that was I didn't actively try to get staffed on any pro bono matters, but the main reason was I had enough billable crap to keep me busy.

gk101 wrote:

flawschoolkid wrote:Firms that let you count significant amounts of pro bono time towards billables = culture difference then?

its not a real thing. They say it is but its not. Come review/bonus time, partners prefer people who bill stuff even if they like to talk up the pro bono parts of their practice

Don't know how true this is, I think it does vary by firm. (Within reasonable limits.)

I'm at a firm that really brags about pro bono, has nearly 100% pro bono participation, etc etc.

Unlimited pro bono policy is mostly flame. Were explicitly told to do a little, but your job here is to bill real hours. If you bill 1800 real hours and 200 PB, you'll get a bonus. But you'll get told you aren't billing enough. It's not treated the same as billing 2000.

Unlimited pro bono isn't going to cover your ass for repeatedly falling short. However, if you are going to fall 50 hours short, pro bono can be used to juice your hours in decemember.

KidStuddi wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: I think 2000 hours is pretty bad in almost all cases. If you billed like 8.25 hours a day M-F, by only being in the office 9 hours, yea, not bad. But who does that?

A week with 30 hours, means you have to bill 50 another week. If you have a month where your case dries up, you might have to make up 90 hours in another month.

Bad compared to what though? If we assume the relevant people all want to be practicing attorneys, "2000 isn't bad" really means "2000 isn't bad compared to small law / BigFed / DA / PD / in-house." I think that's right, especially for entry-level jobs. I can't imagine there are many entry-level attorney positions out there where people work 9-5:30 and leave for the day, regardless of how much they're being paid. If anything, I think the scenario you described would be more stressful in a non-biglaw firms where an associate having a slow year makes a measurable impact on the overall profitability of the firm.

Actually, it seems like a lot of my friends who do PI and government are working closer to 8 hour days (at least on average). Some federal governmental agencies explicitly tell their attorneys to not work more than 8.5 hours a day and to not work from home (because if they do more with less, then they won't get more funding the next year). I mean there are also people who work 13 hour days as PDs, but it's not because they need to in order to avoid getting fired. Although, a lot of this depends more on the type of work you do more than anything. It's pretty easy to get away with 8 hour days when you're doing policy work, appeals, nonprofit transactional, etc., than it is when you're arguing substantive motions and doing jury trials.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at a firm that really brags about pro bono, has nearly 100% pro bono participation, etc etc.

Unlimited pro bono policy is mostly flame. Were explicitly told to do a little, but your job here is to bill real hours. If you bill 1800 real hours and 200 PB, you'll get a bonus. But you'll get told you aren't billing enough. It's not treated the same as billing 2000.

Unlimited pro bono isn't going to cover your ass for repeatedly falling short. However, if you are going to fall 50 hours short, pro bono can be used to juice your hours in decemember.

Glad I was correct in not giving a shit then.

lol getting paid market to bill 1900-2000 hours? thats awesome sign me up.

zweitbester wrote:lol getting paid market to bill 1900-2000 hours? thats awesome sign me up.

You are corporate right? Firms are killing each other for people in your range of years. they aren't going to fire you for billing 1900.