Sixth Year Midlaw Associate Taking Questions Forum

[MidlawAssociate]

It helps when you put in multiple 24 hours days. In my five years, I only had a couple 400 hour months. And after it was over I was barely able to get out of my bed for a few days. 300+ hour months were way too common.

For reference too, when I said night and day with regard to hours--I still say that with having never even come close to a 300+ hour month. Not accusing you of anything, but generally when I hear that I envision block billing entire days, which I know is par for the course at some NY practices.

I probably averaged in the mid 200's. I have never done a 100 hour week billed (though plenty "worked"). And I still think midlaw is much easier, probably 2/3rds the hours worked at the absolute high-end.

And as far as our partner vs. associate salary, it tends to be low at the junior partner level across the local firms generally--I could easily see this varying from state-to-state or even firm-to-firm. The junior partner salaries, along with the true client list, are items that I wish I knew more about when going in--wouldn't have changed my mind necessarily, but these things aren't always communicated forthright.

This only happened when I was on large international transactions, which I had my fair share of. When the sun literally never sets on your deal, there's always something to do as you're moving towards signing/closing. If I'm sitting at my desk without sleep for three straight days, you can damn well believe that I'm billing the client for every minute of that time.

I can well recall eating or even using the bathroom while simultaneously being on calls with Germany at 4am.

[Anonymous User]

If you could take a job at your midsized firm straight out of law school, would you just have done that? Was there any value to you spending a few years at a big firm, other than the increased savings? And would the increased savings have been worth it?

For me, I think the way I did it was the right one. First, I really liked living in a big city during my pre-fatherhood days. I don't think I'd be as into my current city (which I now love) as a younger childless person.

Second, I think the training that you get in biglaw is hard to replicate at a smaller, more slow-paced firm. That's not to say that we don't have incredibly talented people working at my current firm, but I just think that you're more likely to develop marketable skills at a biglaw firm. I have no doubt that varies tremendously by practice area and firm, but it was true in my case.

And yeah, I don't think I could have swung a first year's salary at my current firm given the debt I graduated with.

I have an offer to go to a midlaw firm that I really enjoyed summering at after I clerk for a COA and district court judge. I will be graduating from a t-50 school with minimal debt. I'm interested in going the biglaw route after my clerkships, and will be a litigator. Also, I will have at least one kid by the end of my clerkships. In my situation, would you still suggest putting time in biglaw before transitioning to a midlaw firm?

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

This only happened when I was on large international transactions, which I had my fair share of. When the sun literally never sets on your deal, there's always something to do as you're moving towards signing/closing. If I'm sitting at my desk without sleep for three straight days, you can damn well believe that I'm billing the client for every minute of that time.

I can well recall eating or even using the bathroom while simultaneously being on calls with Germany at 4am.

Don't blame you at all. My practice is totally different--not general corporate or M&A. Work tends to pile up over multiple projects or various bottlenecks, but I am almost never slammed as a result of any one project in it of itself.

[MidlawAssociate]

If you could take a job at your midsized firm straight out of law school, would you just have done that? Was there any value to you spending a few years at a big firm, other than the increased savings? And would the increased savings have been worth it?

For me, I think the way I did it was the right one. First, I really liked living in a big city during my pre-fatherhood days. I don't think I'd be as into my current city (which I now love) as a younger childless person.

Second, I think the training that you get in biglaw is hard to replicate at a smaller, more slow-paced firm. That's not to say that we don't have incredibly talented people working at my current firm, but I just think that you're more likely to develop marketable skills at a biglaw firm. I have no doubt that varies tremendously by practice area and firm, but it was true in my case.

And yeah, I don't think I could have swung a first year's salary at my current firm given the debt I graduated with.

I have an offer to go to a midlaw firm that I really enjoyed summering at after I clerk for a COA and district court judge. I will be graduating from a t-50 school with minimal debt. I'm interested in going the biglaw route after my clerkships, and will be a litigator. Also, I will have at least one kid by the end of my clerkships. In my situation, would you still suggest putting time in biglaw before transitioning to a midlaw firm?

That's a tough one, and I don't really have an easy answer for you. I'll give you my unorganized thoughts on the matter.

1. It sounds like you'll have some good experience/training coming out of your clerkships, and because law school is more relevant in general to litigators than transactional attorneys, the benefit you get out of putting some time in at a biglaw shop may not be as valuable as for someone like me who had to start from nothing in corporate.

2. I'll say that my first year and a half or so of biglaw wasn't really all that bad -- mostly because as a super-junior you don't really know what you're doing so the hours aren't going to be as terrible. So maybe you can have something resembling a home life for the first few years of your kid's life before transitioning to a more slow-paced firm.

3. Don't necessarily assume that the midlaw firm, or a similar one, will still be there after you've put in a few years at a biglaw firm. My firm at least hires somewhat rarely, and it's typically based on need. Especially if there's a slowdown in the economy, they might just pull the ladder up entirely for a few years to ride out a recession, and then you could find yourself stuck.

This is probably oversimplifying things, but in your case I think this is really a straight decision of money vs. time. If you're ok not seeing as much of your child when they're a baby/toddler, then do the biglaw thing for a while.

I'd also be interested in hearing from any midlaw litigators on this question.

[Anonymous User]

I'd also be interested in hearing from any midlaw litigators on this question.

Midlaw/regional firm litigator here... Just depends a lot on a lot of things. I'll add more to this later on, but I get the sense that biglaw "training" of Jr lit associates often amounts to learning how to do a fuckton of doc review and not much else.

I do not think that, in today's market, litigators can rely on a biglaw -> midlaw exit option to just be there when the time comes.

[Mullens]

How did you find your midlaw job? Did you use a recruiter? Did you already have ties to the market you're now in?

[Anonymous User]

I'd also be interested in hearing from any midlaw litigators on this question.

Midlaw/regional firm litigator here... Just depends a lot on a lot of things. I'll add more to this later on, but I get the sense that biglaw "training" of Jr lit associates often amounts to learning how to do a fuckton of doc review and not much else.

I do not think that, in today's market, litigators can rely on a biglaw -> midlaw exit option to just be there when the time comes.

I'm a mid-law litigator, who came straight from a clerkship into mid-law, and turned down big law offers.

I'm happy I did. Two points which I've made I think are worth repeating; I think mid law training/experience in lit is better than at big law. This is all anecdotal, obviously, but I'm third year (counting my clerkship) and I'm solo handling an arbitration. A lot of my friends who went big law are still doing a lot of doc review and memo writing.

Also, the point about not being able to count on midlaw hiring is credited. We probably hire once every four or five years.

And, while this is not universally true, my work life balance is generally much better than many of my friends in big law. We probably bill similar amounts (2000-2200), but there's a much more steady, constant supply of work that I'm not competing with colleagues over so I can hit those hours working 8-11 hour days. Also, very little non-billable commitments required (no bs meetings, no pro bono requirement).

[Anonymous User]

I'd also be interested in hearing from any midlaw litigators on this question.

Midlaw/regional firm litigator here... Just depends a lot on a lot of things. I'll add more to this later on, but I get the sense that biglaw "training" of Jr lit associates often amounts to learning how to do a fuckton of doc review and not much else.

I do not think that, in today's market, litigators can rely on a biglaw -> midlaw exit option to just be there when the time comes.

I'm a mid-law litigator, who came straight from a clerkship into mid-law, and turned down big law offers.

I'm happy I did. Two points which I've made I think are worth repeating; I think mid law training/experience in lit is better than at big law. This is all anecdotal, obviously, but I'm third year (counting my clerkship) and I'm solo handling an arbitration. A lot of my friends who went big law are still doing a lot of doc review and memo writing.

Also, the point about not being able to count on midlaw hiring is credited. We probably hire once every four or five years.

And, while this is not universally true, my work life balance is generally much better than many of my friends in big law. We probably bill similar amounts (2000-2200), but there's a much more steady, constant supply of work that I'm not competing with colleagues over so I can hit those hours working 8-11 hour days. Also, very little non-billable commitments required (no bs meetings, no pro bono requirement).

Quoted midlaw litigator here... my experience has been a little different in that I probably bill substantially less than my biglaw friends, but we're definitely expected, from very early on, to expend time and effort on networking and business development. Fairly common in my market is a 2200 "all in" requirement - it'll depend on work flow, but the firms are typically looking for something like 1900 billables, 50 pro bono, 50 community/volunteering/etc, and 200 business development (could be anything from writing articles to lunch with colleagues to schmoozing clients). It wasn't a good fit for my goals, but I think it's a pretty solid deal all-in, and, adjusted for COL, the 120k I made starting out was definitely a better deal than my NYC friends' pay (though, as mentioned earlier ITT, pay scales are a lot more compressed moving forward).

I'm getting ready to leave in a couple of months and will probably start a "taking Qs" thread at some point, but, to me, the real focus in choosing between big law & mid law should be on exit options. If the goal is ultimately to be a partner in a law firm, I think midlaw/regional firms are a no-brainer and don't really see any reason to do a stint in biglaw first. But if you're ultimately looking for in-house/government, then the picture becomes a little more complex.

[Anonymous User]

I'd also be interested in hearing from any midlaw litigators on this question.

Midlaw/regional firm litigator here... Just depends a lot on a lot of things. I'll add more to this later on, but I get the sense that biglaw "training" of Jr lit associates often amounts to learning how to do a fuckton of doc review and not much else.

I do not think that, in today's market, litigators can rely on a biglaw -> midlaw exit option to just be there when the time comes.

I'm a mid-law litigator, who came straight from a clerkship into mid-law, and turned down big law offers.

I'm happy I did. Two points which I've made I think are worth repeating; I think mid law training/experience in lit is better than at big law. This is all anecdotal, obviously, but I'm third year (counting my clerkship) and I'm solo handling an arbitration. A lot of my friends who went big law are still doing a lot of doc review and memo writing.

Also, the point about not being able to count on midlaw hiring is credited. We probably hire once every four or five years.

And, while this is not universally true, my work life balance is generally much better than many of my friends in big law. We probably bill similar amounts (2000-2200), but there's a much more steady, constant supply of work that I'm not competing with colleagues over so I can hit those hours working 8-11 hour days. Also, very little non-billable commitments required (no bs meetings, no pro bono requirement).

Previous poster raises a good point. Although there are no pro bono and other requirements, there is a fair amount of pressure to start marketing early on, more so than big law.

[Anonymous User]

future clerk that is deciding between mid law and potential big law offers here. Thanks for the input. I don't think I want to be a partner at a law firm, but I don't know that yet. I'm leaning towards becoming an AUSA or general counsel, goals I think are more achievable via biglaw. But who knows, maybe I'll want to become partner one day at the midlaw firm. In any event, biglaw leaves more doors open, it seems. I think I'll know more after my clerkships.

[Anonymous User]

I'd also be interested in hearing from any midlaw litigators on this question.

Midlaw/regional firm litigator here... Just depends a lot on a lot of things. I'll add more to this later on, but I get the sense that biglaw "training" of Jr lit associates often amounts to learning how to do a fuckton of doc review and not much else.

I do not think that, in today's market, litigators can rely on a biglaw -> midlaw exit option to just be there when the time comes.

I'm a mid-law litigator, who came straight from a clerkship into mid-law, and turned down big law offers.

I'm happy I did. Two points which I've made I think are worth repeating; I think mid law training/experience in lit is better than at big law. This is all anecdotal, obviously, but I'm third year (counting my clerkship) and I'm solo handling an arbitration. A lot of my friends who went big law are still doing a lot of doc review and memo writing.

Also, the point about not being able to count on midlaw hiring is credited. We probably hire once every four or five years.

And, while this is not universally true, my work life balance is generally much better than many of my friends in big law. We probably bill similar amounts (2000-2200), but there's a much more steady, constant supply of work that I'm not competing with colleagues over so I can hit those hours working 8-11 hour days. Also, very little non-billable commitments required (no bs meetings, no pro bono requirement).

Quoted midlaw litigator here... my experience has been a little different in that I probably bill substantially less than my biglaw friends, but we're definitely expected, from very early on, to expend time and effort on networking and business development. Fairly common in my market is a 2200 "all in" requirement - it'll depend on work flow, but the firms are typically looking for something like 1900 billables, 50 pro bono, 50 community/volunteering/etc, and 200 business development (could be anything from writing articles to lunch with colleagues to schmoozing clients). It wasn't a good fit for my goals, but I think it's a pretty solid deal all-in, and, adjusted for COL, the 120k I made starting out was definitely a better deal than my NYC friends' pay (though, as mentioned earlier ITT, pay scales are a lot more compressed moving forward).

I'm getting ready to leave in a couple of months and will probably start a "taking Qs" thread at some point, but, to me, the real focus in choosing between big law & mid law should be on exit options. If the goal is ultimately to be a partner in a law firm, I think midlaw/regional firms are a no-brainer and don't really see any reason to do a stint in biglaw first. But if you're ultimately looking for in-house/government, then the picture becomes a little more complex.

Going into midlaw litigation without previous clerkship or biglaw experience. I'd love to hear some thoughts on the feasibility of going from midlaw lit to government or even in-house.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

How did you find your midlaw job? Did you use a recruiter? Did you already have ties to the market you're now in?

Not OP, but used a recruiter to target two firms actively seeking laterals (probably unnecessarily, but went with 1 of these 2). Also applied broadly on my own in the region to other firms and talked with one other recruiter. Strong ties.

[Anonymous User]

cool. my question was mainly a facetious way of saying congrats, you made it. because that job path is exactly what i hope to do.

what were your biglaw billables like? what do you anticipate midlaw billables will be like? any other overlooked perqs of midlaw over biglaw other than llfestyle/hours that people often overlook? do you like your job more or anything?

My hours weren't anything crazy. I think my biggest year was around 2400. But it was the short-term intensity that really got to me. One month I might bill 60 hours. And the next it might be 400. I expect here that I'll bill between 1700 and 2000 until I make partner. After that it might be a little less.

Some of the perks are perhaps unique to my firm, like how family-oriented and genuinely friendly everyone is. But something I imagine is pretty common at a firm like this is that I am, one hundred percent, certain that I will make partner in two years. In some ways it's harder to get in the door here than it is in biglaw, but once you're in you can be in for life.

It's a real weight off of my shoulders to know that unless I choose to, I never have to look for another job again. I can be invested in this place in a way I never was at my former job.

In terms of the actual "job" part of my job, and setting aside the enormous difference of hours, I don't know that I like it any more or less than what I did before. I'm lucky in that for the most part I enjoy the substance of what I do.

Not sure if you are still monitoring but wondering if you could speak to the bolded portion above. Are you certain because of contractual offer in hand?