Biglaw associates: are any of us actually happy? Forum

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

You have a shit view of life, can confirm.

[BiglawAssociate]

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

You have a shit view of life, can confirm.

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

[5ky]

i hadn't gotten to foe anybody in a while, so that was a refreshing change

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

You have a shit view of life, can confirm.

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Do tell us more about the "legitimate rich."

[A. Nony Mouse]

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

You have a shit view of life, can confirm.

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Dude, what are you going to do if your wife kicks you out and you no longer have her money? Off yourself?

[Person1111]

I am a junior at a biglaw firm and consider myself very happy. I think I have four things going for me, all of which are huge:

(1) I don't have debt.

(2) I don't work in NYC.

(3) I have had unusually good/substantive experience. I clerked for a year first, but since I started I have drafted literally dozens of motions (including motions to dismiss, Rule 50 motions, etc.), taken three depositions, had stand-up experience at trial, argued an appeal, and had lots of other cool experiences. I spend less than a quarter of my time doing doc review.

(4) I have what I think is an objectively unusual attitude about work. My parents were both doctors and they both worked 50-70 hour weeks during my entire childhood. That's totally normal to me. I like work. I think it's important to be very, very good at work and to take ownership of what you do. I don't think I'm entitled to my weekends, holidays, etc. It's nice to have those things, but clients' problems don't go away because it's midnight or because it's Sunday or because it's Christmas. I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough. My friends think I'm crazy, and maybe I am, but I think it's a blessing in this line of work to believe this and I'm going to embrace it as long as I can.

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

I just don't think about life this way. I really don't care about money. I like having enough money that I don't have to think about what I'm spending, but I honestly don't have expensive tastes and don't care in the abstract about how much I have. I like work for its own sake. I get to write a lot and I take pride in being good at it. I don't need to feel like I am accomplishing some lofty goal every time I write a brief or review documents or whatnot. I don't feel like my work is a sideshow to the rest of my life. Good work is its own reward.

[jbagelboy]

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

You have a shit view of life, can confirm.

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Dude, what are you going to do if your wife kicks you out and you no longer have her money? Off yourself?

lol, I'm totally finding Biglawassociate IRL and outing his bullshit to his spouse, if she exists, which is doubtful
unless she's as much of a toolbag shrew as he is and actually buys this shit too

[gk101]

I am a junior at a biglaw firm and consider myself very happy. I think I have four things going for me, all of which are huge:

(1) I don't have debt.

(2) I don't work in NYC.

(3) I have had unusually good/substantive experience. I clerked for a year first, but since I started I have drafted literally dozens of motions (including motions to dismiss, Rule 50 motions, etc.), taken three depositions, had stand-up experience at trial, argued an appeal, and had lots of other cool experiences. I spend less than a quarter of my time doing doc review.

(4) I have what I think is an objectively unusual attitude about work. My parents were both doctors and they both worked 50-70 hour weeks during my entire childhood. That's totally normal to me. I like work. I think it's important to be very, very good at work and to take ownership of what you do. I don't think I'm entitled to my weekends, holidays, etc. It's nice to have those things, but clients' problems don't go away because it's midnight or because it's Sunday or because it's Christmas. I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough. My friends think I'm crazy, and maybe I am, but I think it's a blessing in this line of work to believe this and I'm going to embrace it as long as I can.

harvard students never stop being weird as fuck

[lavarman84]

What is the point of having parents who worked hard only so that their kids can also work hard for others? I don't get it. The point of working hard is to have shit loads of money so you and your kids don't have to work hard anymore. Let your kid do something fun. Otherwise it's just a cycle of stupid killself shit. Or don't have kids and you can do whatever you want after the age of 40. Being rich aka freedom from work and bullshit is the only thing that makes life worth living. And I don't get people who are rich and "choose" office jobs/medicine/other bullshit. There are other jobs, creative ones, that are tons more enjoyable than office work/medicine.

You have a shit view of life, can confirm.

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Your posts are always entertaining.

I am a junior at a biglaw firm and consider myself very happy. I think I have four things going for me, all of which are huge:

(1) I don't have debt.

(2) I don't work in NYC.

(3) I have had unusually good/substantive experience. I clerked for a year first, but since I started I have drafted literally dozens of motions (including motions to dismiss, Rule 50 motions, etc.), taken three depositions, had stand-up experience at trial, argued an appeal, and had lots of other cool experiences. I spend less than a quarter of my time doing doc review.

(4) I have what I think is an objectively unusual attitude about work. My parents were both doctors and they both worked 50-70 hour weeks during my entire childhood. That's totally normal to me. I like work. I think it's important to be very, very good at work and to take ownership of what you do. I don't think I'm entitled to my weekends, holidays, etc. It's nice to have those things, but clients' problems don't go away because it's midnight or because it's Sunday or because it's Christmas. I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough. My friends think I'm crazy, and maybe I am, but I think it's a blessing in this line of work to believe this and I'm going to embrace it as long as I can.

Yes, you are crazy. You can work hard and still want work-life balance. Your belief is irrational.

[handsonthewheel]

If your idea of a life is doing absolutely nothing other than work Monday through Thursday and then having a 36 hour period of free time from fri night 7 to sun night 7, sure big law is for you.
And also having Memorial Day vacation plans thrashed. That's fair but due you have low standards for life. One week in Paris is how you justify the other 51 weeks? That's crazy. That's 2% of your time.

See, this is the thinking that makes me think I should just keep sticking it out. When I get my shit together I can work out a few days a week, I can cook once or twice a week kinda, I'll get dinner or a drink, go out on Friday and maybe Saturday and do an activity. I have to outsource my errands (laundry, etc.) and cannot waste time.

So, this is the trap: I can kind of make it work and get the check marks in the boxes. I tell myself that if I just keep everything scheduled, I can do the things.

But ya, to JohannDeMann's point, is that really quality of life? When I compare my life to friends who are not in biglaw or banking, I have to say no.

I never got into law to make money, i thought it'd just be a good profession where I could help people and be challenged; hopefully have a decently middle class, comfortable life (i.e., not getting evicted because I can't pay rent, struggling to put food on the table, have some income to put into hobbies/etc.). How I'm now in this position where I'm negotiating with basic life satisfactions for money I never wanted: I have no idea.

[so ambivalent]

I love it how OneMoreLawHopeful classified being able to continue with his "hobbies" as watching atv or participating in online communities. I always viewed hobbies as something that maybe required a certain routine level of time commitment and minimal level of actual effort, like someone who grows a garden that they tend to several hours a week or trains for athletic events almsot everyday or is in a rec sports league where they commit to showing up for weekly games. It seems really sad to classify stuff you do while sitting in front of a comnputer and not interacting IRL with other humans/the world as hobbies.
But then I remember that we are not talking about hobbies for normal people, we are talking about hobbies for people who are lawyers..... Which just kinda proves the whole tragedy of the biglaw life; that you cease to view leisure time (or really anything) in a way that resonates with what is the actual reality for the other 99.9% of the population.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I love it how OneMoreLawHopeful classified being able to continue with his "hobbies" as watching atv or participating in online communities. I always viewed hobbies as something that maybe required a certain routine level of time commitment and minimal level of actual effort, like someone who grows a garden that they tend to several hours a week or trains for athletic events almsot everyday or is in a rec sports league where they commit to showing up for weekly games. It seems really sad to classify stuff you do while sitting in front of a comnputer and not interacting IRL with other humans/the world as hobbies.
But then I remember that we are not talking about hobbies for normal people, we are talking about hobbies for people who are lawyers..... Which just kinda proves the whole tragedy of the biglaw life; that you cease to view leisure time (or really anything) in a way that resonates with what is the actual reality for the other 99.9% of the population.

To be fair, he said he'd mostly given up the TV/online stuff, but still has hobbies like reading novels/hikng/traveling.

I do believe there are people for whom the work is satisfying enough that doing nothing but work except for (most) Friday evenings, Saturdays, and partial Sundays is fine. But it seems worth recognizing this is objectively unusual (I'm not saying wrong/bad, just unusual) (and to be fair to hlsperson, they acknowledge their view of work was unusual) and that for most people that kind of a job is unpleasant - not for reasons that have anything to do with their willingness to work or ability to do good work.

(I do think this:

I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough.

is kinda unfair. If you have an objectively unusual attitude to work, expecting others to share it seems a little unkind. One person's "when the going gets tough" is another person's intolerable. Obviously if someone actually does flake on you when you need them that's different.)

So, this is the trap: I can kind of make it work and get the check marks in the boxes. I tell myself that if I just keep everything scheduled, I can do the things.

In the tough weeks at my job, I know this feel very well.

[nealric]

I was reasonably happy during my 3-year NYC big law stint. Yes, it was frustrating to cancel plans due to work. Yes, it was stressful. But it never got the the point of abject misery. Probably helped that I was in a specialty practice group that tended not to have too many fire drills.

Although I would say I'm happier in-house, I think that most people are the authors of their own unhappiness. A few people end up in extraordinarily bad situations and probably are going to be unhappy no-matter what, but the average biglaw experience is not going to turn someone with a naturally sunny disposition into a miserable misanthrope by itself. I think law just attracts a lot of pessimists who are going to be unhappy no matter what situation they find themselves in.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Folks, if you have this outlook you should not become a lawyer. BiglawAssociate I mean no disrespect, but I think you should consider finding a psychologist to talk to. Your comments in this thread make me think you are suffering from pretty serious depression and the view of the world you're describing would make a person unhappy no matter his or her walk in life.

[jbagelboy]

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Folks, if you have this outlook you should not become a lawyer. BiglawAssociate I mean no disrespect, but I think you should consider finding a psychologist to talk to. Your comments in this thread make me think you are suffering from pretty serious depression and the view of the world you're describing would make a person unhappy no matter his or her walk in life.

have you read his comments since he started his account? it's gotta be a shtick to help him make it through the day. anyone living with this particular blend of unfortunate traits and perspectives would have to be a sociopath anyway, so a psychiatrist would not help.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I do think this:

I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough.

is kinda unfair. If you have an objectively unusual attitude to work, expecting others to share it seems a little unkind. One person's "when the going gets tough" is another person's intolerable. Obviously if someone actually does flake on you when you need them that's different.

I think that what's missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment that the desire for "work-life balance" is a spectrum, and that while hlsperson and I may be at one extreme end, we've also come into contact with people at the other extreme, and that colors our viewpoint.

For example, a first year in my class has already lateraled to another firm without even making it a whole year. He did this because he was miserable, but when you talked to him about why he was miserable (something that was unavoidable, he liked to tell you about it whether or not you asked...), it was clear that he was was upset for reasons that are likely to occur at many jobs and are not in any way unique to biglaw. This wasn't too surprising either: this guy was K-JD, and had never actually done paid work before. Where many of us worked retail over various summers in HS/undergrad he had opted instead for internships and volunteering.

I really don't want to over-generalize here, but among my friends who work in biglaw, the narrative of "that K-JD guy who couldn't handle biglaw because he'd never really worked before," is pretty common. Even if it doesn't describe a particularly large number of biglaw lawyers, everyone knows someone like that, and it colors your view going forward.

So while it's unfair to say that *everyone* who gripes about working biglaw is really just griping about paid labor, it's also impossible to deny that some subset of the gripers are in fact just griping about paid labor in general; and moreover, most of us in biglaw have met those people. And just as hlsperson and I might have a perversely high tolerance for time spent working, we've probably both met people who thought billing 100 hours/month was "a ton of work," and that experience makes us skeptical about similar sounding complaints.

[handsonthewheel]

I do think this:

I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough.

is kinda unfair. If you have an objectively unusual attitude to work, expecting others to share it seems a little unkind. One person's "when the going gets tough" is another person's intolerable. Obviously if someone actually does flake on you when you need them that's different.

I think that what's missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment that the desire for "work-life balance" is a spectrum, and that while hlsperson and I may be at one extreme end, we've also come into contact with people at the other extreme, and that colors our viewpoint.

For example, a first year in my class has already lateraled to another firm without even making it a whole year. He did this because he was miserable, but when you talked to him about why he was miserable (something that was unavoidable, he liked to tell you about it whether or not you asked...), it was clear that he was was upset for reasons that are likely to occur at many jobs and are not in any way unique to biglaw. This wasn't too surprising either: this guy was K-JD, and had never actually done paid work before. Where many of us worked retail over various summers in HS/undergrad he had opted instead for internships and volunteering.

I really don't want to over-generalize here, but among my friends who work in biglaw, the narrative of "that K-JD guy who couldn't handle biglaw because he'd never really worked before," is pretty common. Even if it doesn't describe a particularly large number of biglaw lawyers, everyone knows someone like that, and it colors your view going forward.

So while it's unfair to say that *everyone* who gripes about working biglaw is really just griping about paid labor, it's also impossible to deny that some subset of the gripers are in fact just griping about paid labor in general; and moreover, most of us in biglaw have met those people. And just as hlsperson and I might have a perversely high tolerance for time spent working, we've probably both met people who thought billing 100 hours/month was "a ton of work," and that experience makes us skeptical about similar sounding complaints.

That's certainly true, but I think it's a distinct problem from people who just do not accept the expectations that much of biglaw has. I almost read your post to lump these people in with those who are otherwise unhappy, but maybe I'm searching for offense.

I think it's great that some people can live a happy life, unconflicted by the commitment that their job in biglaw requires. In fact, I'm jealous of that. I will likely never have the income that those people have because I simply refuse to live my life that way; I require something else. But, then again, I also did not grow up with parents that worked 70 hour weeks and I did not grow up thinking wealth was important. I never saw people live the life that I live and frankly, when I look around at the older attorneys who still decide to live that life, it makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I am entirely fine if something comes up and I have to cancel plans, if work keeps me at the office really late (or even all night into the next day), or if focus has to shift to work-dominant for periods of time. However, I cannot stomach a career long term that demands such a persistently high level of commitment; a level of commitment which makes my life feel like the thing that fits in around work and that is subject to work. Work and life will always be fluid, and sometimes work will win, but from what I've seen in the biglaw lifestyle, the expectation is that life will always need to fit around work and the infrequent few periods of work where life is allowed to flourish, that life will always be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Maybe I just don't have the stomach for it. I have tried my hardest to be committed and see myself in the game long term, but it has always been forced, I have always resented the attitude that my life is always secondary, and there is just no way that I could continue to do this long term without being forced into a place that I do not desire for my life. It'd be great to have a bunch of toys, to have a nice house and to be looked-up to by people with lesser means, sure, but those things cannot possibly replace the piece of mind that I hope to find somewhere else with a different balance, whether it be law or otherwise.

[zot1]

I do think this:

I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough.

is kinda unfair. If you have an objectively unusual attitude to work, expecting others to share it seems a little unkind. One person's "when the going gets tough" is another person's intolerable. Obviously if someone actually does flake on you when you need them that's different.

I think that what's missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment that the desire for "work-life balance" is a spectrum, and that while hlsperson and I may be at one extreme end, we've also come into contact with people at the other extreme, and that colors our viewpoint.

For example, a first year in my class has already lateraled to another firm without even making it a whole year. He did this because he was miserable, but when you talked to him about why he was miserable (something that was unavoidable, he liked to tell you about it whether or not you asked...), it was clear that he was was upset for reasons that are likely to occur at many jobs and are not in any way unique to biglaw. This wasn't too surprising either: this guy was K-JD, and had never actually done paid work before. Where many of us worked retail over various summers in HS/undergrad he had opted instead for internships and volunteering.

I really don't want to over-generalize here, but among my friends who work in biglaw, the narrative of "that K-JD guy who couldn't handle biglaw because he'd never really worked before," is pretty common. Even if it doesn't describe a particularly large number of biglaw lawyers, everyone knows someone like that, and it colors your view going forward.

So while it's unfair to say that *everyone* who gripes about working biglaw is really just griping about paid labor, it's also impossible to deny that some subset of the gripers are in fact just griping about paid labor in general; and moreover, most of us in biglaw have met those people. And just as hlsperson and I might have a perversely high tolerance for time spent working, we've probably both met people who thought billing 100 hours/month was "a ton of work," and that experience makes us skeptical about similar sounding complaints.

I think this is a fair explanation as I too have met those people. However, over generalizing is never a good thing. I work in a 40/wk job but I also don't make even half of what a first year associate makes. I am at peace with that because I'd literally rather go for a three-hour walk at night just because than working during that time so I can buy myself or others a nice car. That doesn't mean that when push comes to shove, I don't give it a 110% every time.

But I agree, some people don't want to work period.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I do think this:

I don't like it when people talk about work-life balance because I don't think I can trust that person to grit their teeth and get it done when the going gets tough.

is kinda unfair. If you have an objectively unusual attitude to work, expecting others to share it seems a little unkind. One person's "when the going gets tough" is another person's intolerable. Obviously if someone actually does flake on you when you need them that's different.

I think that what's missing in this discussion is an acknowledgment that the desire for "work-life balance" is a spectrum, and that while hlsperson and I may be at one extreme end, we've also come into contact with people at the other extreme, and that colors our viewpoint.

For example, a first year in my class has already lateraled to another firm without even making it a whole year. He did this because he was miserable, but when you talked to him about why he was miserable (something that was unavoidable, he liked to tell you about it whether or not you asked...), it was clear that he was was upset for reasons that are likely to occur at many jobs and are not in any way unique to biglaw. This wasn't too surprising either: this guy was K-JD, and had never actually done paid work before. Where many of us worked retail over various summers in HS/undergrad he had opted instead for internships and volunteering.

I really don't want to over-generalize here, but among my friends who work in biglaw, the narrative of "that K-JD guy who couldn't handle biglaw because he'd never really worked before," is pretty common. Even if it doesn't describe a particularly large number of biglaw lawyers, everyone knows someone like that, and it colors your view going forward.

So while it's unfair to say that *everyone* who gripes about working biglaw is really just griping about paid labor, it's also impossible to deny that some subset of the gripers are in fact just griping about paid labor in general; and moreover, most of us in biglaw have met those people. And just as hlsperson and I might have a perversely high tolerance for time spent working, we've probably both met people who thought billing 100 hours/month was "a ton of work," and that experience makes us skeptical about similar sounding complaints.

That's fair. I've met K-JDs like that too, and I get if someone actually has been unwilling to step up, that's a totally different matter. I also agree with zot's response.

[krads153]

I think it's great that some people can live a happy life, unconflicted by the commitment that their job in biglaw requires. In fact, I'm jealous of that. I will likely never have the income that those people have because I simply refuse to live my life that way; I require something else. But, then again, I also did not grow up with parents that worked 70 hour weeks and I did not grow up thinking wealth was important. I never saw people live the life that I live and frankly, when I look around at the older attorneys who still decide to live that life, it makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I feel pity rather than jealousy, in part because I think a lot of these people are super risk-averse. I didn't grow up with parents who work 70 hours a week. My parents were programmers who ran their own businesses and probably barely worked 40 hours on average (of course they had to work more when starting out, but in law the hours are long forever). Most of my family are entrepreneurs and many of them worked fewer hours than biglaw and made more money. It's partly luck based, but I think a lot of it is skill, good judgment and also having a niche. I guess I don't understand people who work 70 hours a week for others rather than striving out on their own, which has the potential to be more rewarding in every aspect of their lives.

[ruski]

that's funny I found it to be the opposite. the K-JD are so clueless and eager to please and they are all gunners for the sole reason they've never worked before.

the more mature associates, who have worked, have families, have kids, etc, it's kinda hard for them to put up with all the BS of being a first year. the main reason being a junior sucks is not the sheer amount of work or hours, its the fact that people literally have absolutely ZERO respect for your time. a working professional just wont put up with a partner sitting on a client email for hours or days before forwarding it to him, or re-doing assignments two or three times because the partner decided he wanted it in a different format, or staying up all night to maker some stupid chart that you later find out no one looks at. biglaw (besides maybe finance as well) is unique in that junior associates are just all considered young/single/no one at home/no where to go.

also there are a lot of seniors who like to have juniors just sit in their office all night watching them work. really just there to keep them company. (supposedly its part of training but I never bought that). a 28 year old grown man with 2 kids at home is just not gonna put up with that.

[ruski]

I think it's great that some people can live a happy life, unconflicted by the commitment that their job in biglaw requires. In fact, I'm jealous of that. I will likely never have the income that those people have because I simply refuse to live my life that way; I require something else. But, then again, I also did not grow up with parents that worked 70 hour weeks and I did not grow up thinking wealth was important. I never saw people live the life that I live and frankly, when I look around at the older attorneys who still decide to live that life, it makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I feel pity rather than jealousy, in part because I think a lot of these people are super risk-averse. I didn't grow up with parents who work 70 hours a week. My parents were programmers who ran their own businesses and probably barely worked 40 hours on average (of course they had to work more when starting out, but in law the hours are long forever). Most of my family are entrepreneurs and many of them worked fewer hours than biglaw and made more money. It's partly luck based, but I think a lot of it is skill, good judgment and also having a niche. I guess I don't understand people who work 70 hours a week for others rather than striving out on their own, which has the potential to be more rewarding in every aspect of their lives.

the problem is that law doesn't actually teach you anything. you gain general skills like being detail orientated, good at issue spotting, but you don't really have a real trade or craft. its not like going to work for a factory for a couple years, see how the business runs, then strike out on your own with some capital you saved. after 5 years of biglaw, you aren't qualified to really do anything but open up another law firm which sucks.

[krads153]

I think it's great that some people can live a happy life, unconflicted by the commitment that their job in biglaw requires. In fact, I'm jealous of that. I will likely never have the income that those people have because I simply refuse to live my life that way; I require something else. But, then again, I also did not grow up with parents that worked 70 hour weeks and I did not grow up thinking wealth was important. I never saw people live the life that I live and frankly, when I look around at the older attorneys who still decide to live that life, it makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

I feel pity rather than jealousy, in part because I think a lot of these people are super risk-averse. I didn't grow up with parents who work 70 hours a week. My parents were programmers who ran their own businesses and probably barely worked 40 hours on average (of course they had to work more when starting out, but in law the hours are long forever). Most of my family are entrepreneurs and many of them worked fewer hours than biglaw and made more money. It's partly luck based, but I think a lot of it is skill, good judgment and also having a niche. I guess I don't understand people who work 70 hours a week for others rather than striving out on their own, which has the potential to be more rewarding in every aspect of their lives.

the problem is that law doesn't actually teach you anything. you gain general skills like being detail orientated, good at issue spotting, but you don't really have a real trade or craft. its not like going to work for a factory for a couple years, see how the business runs, then strike out on your own with some capital you saved. after 5 years of biglaw, you aren't qualified to really do anything but open up another law firm which sucks.

Valid point, but you can always abandon law and find something that involves some degree of skill and start from there. I think some lawyers are too scared of abandoning the only path they've been on to do something like that. Instead they just stick with what they know forever. If you have kids, etc. it complicates things. But if you don't, you're free to do whatever you want (after paying off loans anyway).

[BiglawAssociate]

I also have perspective - I have a rich person's perspective. I am surrounded by them, related to them, and married to one. NO legit rich person works unless they really want to (and many don't work period) - their money makes money on their own. There is no point to life if you have to work 80% of your waking hours until death. HTH.

Folks, if you have this outlook you should not become a lawyer. BiglawAssociate I mean no disrespect, but I think you should consider finding a psychologist to talk to. Your comments in this thread make me think you are suffering from pretty serious depression and the view of the world you're describing would make a person unhappy no matter his or her walk in life.

So being practical is now considered "depressed"? Spare me that bullshit. Sorry if I don't buy into the whole religious nut job mentality where the point of a person's life is to breed like a damn roach, or the uber-capitalistic mentality of "working hard is the purpose of life". Fuck. all. of. that. The point of life is to do whatever the fuck you want, and to be free from the shackles of societal bullshit. There is no "should" in life. It's about self-satisfaction - that's the purpose of life. And frankly having lots of money ($$$$) gets you to that point. Money means doing whatever the fuck you want, forever. And if you don't have money, you're shackled in a metaphorical (and sometimes literal) prison cell for life. You know that saying "money doesn't buy happiness"? It was clearly written by a poor.

[star fox]

Everyone I know who "does whatever the fuck they want" is poor.