Top Law Schools

After seeing my dad's workaholic legal career, I was wondering if there was a field with a better work/life balance. Is there a way to negotiate for that in firm culture? What fields demand more hours or place emphasis on the personal as well as professional?

In the big firm context, no, at least not unless you're attached to business or are senior enough that you can be lazy and have important allies at the firm.

Sounds like you want nonprestigious government which tends to pay well and have good benefits/hours.

Though professors have the best work/life balance since they do zero work.

No experience with this, but what about part-time at biglaw after a few years?

I don't have personal experience with part-time (or any) biglaw, so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but the people I know who've tried it found it was a pay cut (and prestige/advancement cut) without a significant reduction in stress. The hours were a reduction in that they were only working a sort of average full-time job instead of crazy biglaw hours, but you're not really freed from being tied to the blackberry (or whatever) or crazy deadlines - if something blows up on a matter you're on, saying "I'm only part-time so peace out" doesn't work very well.

Again, this is totally anecdotal, so others may well have made it work, but the above is what people I know have dealt with. (I should maybe add that the only people I know who have done this have been women with little kids, so specific circumstances.)

I'm a 2L, so take this with a large grain of salt.

My previous boss told me that ERISA/Benefits/Exec Comp tend to offer more predictability and relatively manageable hours. I'd love to know if other niche practices are similar.

Think the real answer to this is "whatever enables you to go in-house/gvt"

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't have personal experience with part-time (or any) biglaw, so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but the people I know who've tried it found it was a pay cut (and prestige/advancement cut) without a significant reduction in stress. The hours were a reduction in that they were only working a sort of average full-time job instead of crazy biglaw hours, but you're not really freed from being tied to the blackberry (or whatever) or crazy deadlines - if something blows up on a matter you're on, saying "I'm only part-time so peace out" doesn't work very well.

Based on what I've observed in big law, Nony's anecdotes are representative of what happens to part-time associates. It's usually a bad deal for the associate.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't have personal experience with part-time (or any) biglaw, so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but the people I know who've tried it found it was a pay cut (and prestige/advancement cut) without a significant reduction in stress. The hours were a reduction in that they were only working a sort of average full-time job instead of crazy biglaw hours, but you're not really freed from being tied to the blackberry (or whatever) or crazy deadlines - if something blows up on a matter you're on, saying "I'm only part-time so peace out" doesn't work very well.

Again, this is totally anecdotal, so others may well have made it work, but the above is what people I know have dealt with. (I should maybe add that the only people I know who have done this have been women with little kids, so specific circumstances.)

This account matches my limited knowledge of part-time work with biglaw-style firms. My sense is that this type of arrangement is mostly reserved to proven and well-regarded attorneys who can demonstrate a socially acceptable need for reduced hours (i.e., women with young children). Even then, it seems to require on-going diplomacy to keep your workflow at the agreed level. It's not easy to turn down work without ruffling feathers.

I would highly suggest labor & employment law. In many respects, it leads to a far better quality of life and better work/life balance:

1. Unlike most big firm litigation matters, there is far less discovery in L&E cases (assuming you aren't doing some massive wage & hour class action). Life is a lot better when spent on more substantive work, and not wasting away coding docs and spending a year over mindless discovery nonsense. I used to do general lit involving insane amounts of discovery, and my work/life balance was non-existent since each night was spent at the office handling rote discovery crap.

2. The substance is very "human", interesting, and accessible. It is among the most "real-world" practices you can find in biglaw. The stories are endlessly fascinating, and its that human element that really keeps people interested.

3. Not a hard and fast rule, but its typically a certain kind of personality that self-selects into L&E. Its usually the folks who have some level of empathy for human problems and issues, and can put themselves in the shoes of others. By and large, L&E folks would be among the nicest and most down to earth people at each firm I visited. This was especially true when I compared to certain other practices. Of course, there are weirdos and hard-asses in any practice, but this seemed to be the general trend in my perspective.

4. There is both a litigation and counseling aspect. Part of L&E practice is handling disputes when they actually arise, and thats your standard litigation work. But another important aspect is helping counsel clients to prevent against future litigation. For example, clients have us prepare employee handbooks, run training courses for their HR people, advise them before they implement on-call or vacation policies, etc. Its nice to have that mix and balance between different kinds of work. A lack of monotony can go a long way toward increasing quality of life.

5. Excellent exit options, especially for in-house jobs. Every company has some form of L&E counsel. Really helps ease your mind knowing that biglaw is not some dead end, and that you will have a number of options after a few years.