Laid off this week from BigLaw - what's next? Forum

[Danger Zone]

[Gov is amazing.

I had never heard that before. What is it about Government that makes it amazing? The $, security, the work itself or ….?

....with far better benefits than you'll get at biglaw firms.

I suppose the hours might be better (true ?) and perhaps a slew of extra days off because of national holidays, but what else do you mean when you say benefits? Firm benefits are pretty good ….health, matching 401k plus the lockstep raises and bonuses. What am I missing here?

If you can go to a federal financial services regulator as a third year lateral, it's really the best way to go IMO. Pay is a little under what a first year associate makes but rises to over 200k over time. But much better benefits, including an 8% 401k match and small traditional pension, highly subsidized health insurance so you're only paying around $45 for a good health plan and vision and dental are free. Best of all, you work around 9-5 , have incredible job security, and generally have really interesting work, although this can vary by agency/division.

What regulator(s) has these benefits? Do you have to work in DC or do branches in NYC exist?

[Anonymous User]

[Gov is amazing.

I had never heard that before. What is it about Government that makes it amazing? The $, security, the work itself or ….?

....with far better benefits than you'll get at biglaw firms.

I suppose the hours might be better (true ?) and perhaps a slew of extra days off because of national holidays, but what else do you mean when you say benefits? Firm benefits are pretty good ….health, matching 401k plus the lockstep raises and bonuses. What am I missing here?

If you can go to a federal financial services regulator as a third year lateral, it's really the best way to go IMO. Pay is a little under what a first year associate makes but rises to over 200k over time. But much better benefits, including an 8% 401k match and small traditional pension, highly subsidized health insurance so you're only paying around $45 for a good health plan and vision and dental are free. Best of all, you work around 9-5 , have incredible job security, and generally have really interesting work, although this can vary by agency/division.

What regulator(s) has these benefits? Do you have to work in DC or do branches in NYC exist?

For what its worth standard Federal Government benefits means maximum of $150k salary (GS pay is pay capped by Congress); 5% 401(k) match (you have to contribute 5% of your own to get a full match); good health insurance plans are closer to around $150 biweekly employee contribution for a good plan for a single or around $350 for a family plan; dental and vision are not subsidized at all for civil servants though group plans are available the employee has to pay the full premium; and there is an additional pension plan if you stay long enough to vest -- the annual payment is 1% of the average of your high 3 years of pay x your years of service (so example, if you make $100k at retirement with 20 years of service, your pension is $20k/year, pre-tax).

Curious to know where you are finding these better benefits?

[Anonymous User]

[Gov is amazing.

I had never heard that before. What is it about Government that makes it amazing? The $, security, the work itself or ….?

....with far better benefits than you'll get at biglaw firms.

I suppose the hours might be better (true ?) and perhaps a slew of extra days off because of national holidays, but what else do you mean when you say benefits? Firm benefits are pretty good ….health, matching 401k plus the lockstep raises and bonuses. What am I missing here?

If you can go to a federal financial services regulator as a third year lateral, it's really the best way to go IMO. Pay is a little under what a first year associate makes but rises to over 200k over time. But much better benefits, including an 8% 401k match and small traditional pension, highly subsidized health insurance so you're only paying around $45 for a good health plan and vision and dental are free. Best of all, you work around 9-5 , have incredible job security, and generally have really interesting work, although this can vary by agency/division.

What regulator(s) has these benefits? Do you have to work in DC or do branches in NYC exist?

SEC, OCC and a few others have these or similar benefits/comp. Both are not on the GS scale and also have supplemental benefits in addition to the standard federal government benefits. I work outside of DC and both have national offices and the SEC has a large office in NYC. At the SEC, securities lit experience at a major firm is essentially required for many of the DC and all of the non DC positions. For some of the non-enforcement DC divisions corporate associates may have a shot if they have experience with SEC filings or financial industry experience pre law school.

[PMan99]

For what its worth standard Federal Government benefits means maximum of $150k salary (GS pay is pay capped by Congress); 5% 401(k) match (you have to contribute 5% of your own to get a full match); good health insurance plans are closer to around $150 biweekly employee contribution for a good plan for a single or around $350 for a family plan; dental and vision are not subsidized at all for civil servants though group plans are available the employee has to pay the full premium; and there is an additional pension plan if you stay long enough to vest -- the annual payment is 1% of the average of your high 3 years of pay x your years of service (so example, if you make $100k at retirement with 20 years of service, your pension is $20k/year, pre-tax).

Curious to know where you are finding these better benefits?

https://www.sec.gov/jobs/sec-pay.shtml

Benefits available on the side bar. SEC doesn't follow the same rules as DOT.

[Anonymous User]

For what its worth standard Federal Government benefits means maximum of $150k salary (GS pay is pay capped by Congress); 5% 401(k) match (you have to contribute 5% of your own to get a full match); good health insurance plans are closer to around $150 biweekly employee contribution for a good plan for a single or around $350 for a family plan; dental and vision are not subsidized at all for civil servants though group plans are available the employee has to pay the full premium; and there is an additional pension plan if you stay long enough to vest -- the annual payment is 1% of the average of your high 3 years of pay x your years of service (so example, if you make $100k at retirement with 20 years of service, your pension is $20k/year, pre-tax).

Curious to know where you are finding these better benefits?

https://www.sec.gov/jobs/sec-pay.shtml

Benefits available on the side bar. SEC doesn't follow the same rules as DOT.

Should also note that the benefits information on the website isn't very detailed. SEC has free vision and dental and a health subsidy above the standard federal subsidy. Also a 3% TSP match in addition to the 5% regular TSP match.

[Anonymous User]

is 401k match really that rare? I get a 5% match at my big law firm.

[zot1]

For what its worth standard Federal Government benefits means maximum of $150k salary (GS pay is pay capped by Congress); 5% 401(k) match (you have to contribute 5% of your own to get a full match); good health insurance plans are closer to around $150 biweekly employee contribution for a good plan for a single or around $350 for a family plan; dental and vision are not subsidized at all for civil servants though group plans are available the employee has to pay the full premium; and there is an additional pension plan if you stay long enough to vest -- the annual payment is 1% of the average of your high 3 years of pay x your years of service (so example, if you make $100k at retirement with 20 years of service, your pension is $20k/year, pre-tax).

Curious to know where you are finding these better benefits?

Not all agencies follow the GS scale.

I pay 100 ish biweekly for a family health insurance plan and that includes dental and vision.

[Anonymous User]

is 401k match really that rare? I get a 5% match at my big law firm.

firm?

[Anonymous User]

is 401k match really that rare? I get a 5% match at my big law firm.

firm?

[Abbie Doobie]

is 401k match really that rare? I get a 5% match at my big law firm.

yes

[Anonymous User]

is 401k match really that rare? I get a 5% match at my big law firm.

firm?

buckleysandler

[84651846190]

You can't lump all of "biglaw" into one category or another when you're talking about which firms fire associates at the drop of a hat and which firms generally let you chill for a while before courteously asking you WTF is going on. Some firms fall into the former category, some the latter.

I will add that it was pretty rare at my firm to see people get asked to leave who were making their hours. If you're making your hours, you usually won't be let go for anything that you personally have done. Other factors might lead to you being laid off, even when you're making your hours, like your firm strategically downsizing your practice area. But these things are generally beyond your control, so there's no need to worry about them (although it helps to be aware of what's going on and keeping your ear to the ground and your resume brushed up just in case).

But it's not uncommon for partners to stop feeding you hours, and then poof you're gone.

Agreed. I saw this happen multiple times at my firm. Very sad.

[Danger Zone]

Right. Just wanted to point out that the hours are not always under your control either.

[Anonymous User]

2 of the 3 firms I've worked for paid a 401k match. The one that didn't was the large vault mega firm. The others were bottom end vault/amlaw 200 firms. %age varied and maxed out at varying annual $ totals

[Desert Fox]

The rule of thumb is that "peer" or "market" firms don't match. You just get bonused instead.

[Anonymous User]

OP, if it gives you any hope, the same thing happen to me about 18 months ago. Was depressed for awhile, flubbed my first interview and then landed a great job at a V20. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hear about this--that really sucks, OP. I would like to echo the advice of the poster above me. You sound like you have the right practice area and experience level to lateral (if that is what you want). I get calls from recruiters literally every single day (from many markets). FWIW, I work at a West coast, silicon valley firm and practice corporate. I know we are hiring, and I know our peer firms are hiring. If you want to stay in biglaw, you have the experience needed to lateral, and you are not so senior as to make it difficult. If you don't want to stay in biglaw (understandable), then that's another story. I have never looked for an in house gig, so i have no idea what that process is like.

Good luck. I really think you'll be fine if you hit the search hard. I don't care what others have said, corporate ppl are not being laid off right now in large numbers. If anything, the market for lateral hiring is very hot.

Thanks for echoing my sentiment. Associate demand right now is far exceeding associate supply. If this dude doesn't wanna do big law, well the layoff doesn't matter then. I'm extremely anti in house and would let this guy know that tons of my colleagues went in house and most regret it.

Please explain. Most people see in-house as the goal.

Most of my friends who went in house regretted it.

1. You don't get to do complicated legal work and only focus on big picture stuff and allocating projects to other counsel. The work is nowhere near as challenging or sophisticated. My favorite part of the work is the the challenge which just may be me.

2. You will never be able to return to a law firm. My old biglaw firm discards every in house attorneys' resume into the trash. These people tend to not have adequate skills to return. They get many many applications from in house attorneys who regret their move all the time.

3. You do more business and have to deal with businesspeople and more office politics. If you want to do this, great, but why the hell didn't you just get an MBA so you could be in the same position years ago?

4. Job security is non-existent. You will be laid off in a heartbeat if a new regime steps in.

I hated my first biglaw firm and tried for in house. Luckily a botique offered me and I reluctantly accepted. I love my job now and am glad I stayed in the law firm route. I actually like being an attorney though so this may be why my perspective is so much different.

This is too funny. As a former big law corporate associate and now in-house lawyer, I could not disagree more.

On point #1, my work is actually more sophisticated now (no more asking partners if what I did was okay or punting decisions to clients). I still ask business folks for input, but I get to make calls a lot more than I did at a law firm. I get to negotiate much more than at a law firm. No diligence, more limited bullshit work and a real focus on efficiency.

On point #2, I would never return to big law. Ever. It's fucking terrible in comparison. I have no idea how anyone could ever return. With that said, I am pretty confident I could return and I know several lawyers that did a stint in-house for a few years and returned to firms. It's actually not that hard depending upon when you do it in your career.

On point #3, utterly false on "more business" (whatever the hell that means). I practice law at a more advanced level than I did at my firm, as I mentioned above re point #1. There are way more office politics, but it's not a huge deal if you keep your head down and are smart. Don't be a gossip, don't talk shit, treat everyone with respect, act professional and prioritize work for important people. Not really that different than a law firm....but it's more prevalent. The politics are my least favorite part, but it's not a huge deal for the trade-off.

On point #4, I survived big law for many years, even during the recession. I have much more job security now than at my former law firm. it completely depends upon the company and your title. If you are GC and a new CEO/CFO comes in, your job security may be in question. If you are a lower level in-house lawyer, a regime change is much less likely to impact you. If the company's business is steady and your skills are marketable, you are pretty golden. I think many companies are more likely to let bad people linger than firms and after being in-house for a year or two, you are extremely marketable, at least if you are a transactional lawyer.

The stability of work schedule is incredible compared to law firm life. Some positions really don't have after hours work. Most do, but even those are infinitely better than firms. I might work until 7-8pm, but almost never weekends and I've worked past 10pm twice in 1+ year of being in-house.

The right in-house position is even better than people make them out to be IMO.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to hear about this--that really sucks, OP. I would like to echo the advice of the poster above me. You sound like you have the right practice area and experience level to lateral (if that is what you want). I get calls from recruiters literally every single day (from many markets). FWIW, I work at a West coast, silicon valley firm and practice corporate. I know we are hiring, and I know our peer firms are hiring. If you want to stay in biglaw, you have the experience needed to lateral, and you are not so senior as to make it difficult. If you don't want to stay in biglaw (understandable), then that's another story. I have never looked for an in house gig, so i have no idea what that process is like.

Good luck. I really think you'll be fine if you hit the search hard. I don't care what others have said, corporate ppl are not being laid off right now in large numbers. If anything, the market for lateral hiring is very hot.

Thanks for echoing my sentiment. Associate demand right now is far exceeding associate supply. If this dude doesn't wanna do big law, well the layoff doesn't matter then. I'm extremely anti in house and would let this guy know that tons of my colleagues went in house and most regret it.

Please explain. Most people see in-house as the goal.

Most of my friends who went in house regretted it.

1. You don't get to do complicated legal work and only focus on big picture stuff and allocating projects to other counsel. The work is nowhere near as challenging or sophisticated. My favorite part of the work is the the challenge which just may be me.

2. You will never be able to return to a law firm. My old biglaw firm discards every in house attorneys' resume into the trash. These people tend to not have adequate skills to return. They get many many applications from in house attorneys who regret their move all the time.

3. You do more business and have to deal with businesspeople and more office politics. If you want to do this, great, but why the hell didn't you just get an MBA so you could be in the same position years ago?

4. Job security is non-existent. You will be laid off in a heartbeat if a new regime steps in.

I hated my first biglaw firm and tried for in house. Luckily a botique offered me and I reluctantly accepted. I love my job now and am glad I stayed in the law firm route. I actually like being an attorney though so this may be why my perspective is so much different.

This is too funny. As a former big law corporate associate and now in-house lawyer, I could not disagree more.

On point #1, my work is actually more sophisticated now (no more asking partners if what I did was okay or punting decisions to clients). I still ask business folks for input, but I get to make calls a lot more than I did at a law firm. I get to negotiate much more than at a law firm. No diligence, more limited bullshit work and a real focus on efficiency.

On point #2, I would never return to big law. Ever. It's fucking terrible in comparison. I have no idea how anyone could ever return. With that said, I am pretty confident I could return and I know several lawyers that did a stint in-house for a few years and returned to firms. It's actually not that hard depending upon when you do it in your career.

On point #3, utterly false on "more business" (whatever the hell that means). I practice law at a more advanced level than I did at my firm, as I mentioned above re point #1. There are way more office politics, but it's not a huge deal if you keep your head down and are smart. Don't be a gossip, don't talk shit, treat everyone with respect, act professional and prioritize work for important people. Not really that different than a law firm....but it's more prevalent. The politics are my least favorite part, but it's not a huge deal for the trade-off.

On point #4, I survived big law for many years, even during the recession. I have much more job security now than at my former law firm. it completely depends upon the company and your title. If you are GC and a new CEO/CFO comes in, your job security may be in question. If you are a lower level in-house lawyer, a regime change is much less likely to impact you. If the company's business is steady and your skills are marketable, you are pretty golden. I think many companies are more likely to let bad people linger than firms and after being in-house for a year or two, you are extremely marketable, at least if you are a transactional lawyer.

The stability of work schedule is incredible compared to law firm life. Some positions really don't have after hours work. Most do, but even those are infinitely better than firms. I might work until 7-8pm, but almost never weekends and I've worked past 10pm twice in 1+ year of being in-house.

The right in-house position is even better than people make them out to be IMO.

care to mention your market, firm range you started at, when you lateraled, and what your pay is? thanks!!

[84651846190]

Right. Just wanted to point out that the hours are not always under your control either.

My point was that you're either going to see it coming (because your hours are low) or something unexpected is going to happen (like your firm or practice area completely implodes). You can't do anything about the latter, so there's no reason to worry unless your hours are low, in which case you should already be looking for your next job before you even get "the talk."