Huge pay cut to go in-house Forum

[ClubberLang]

I'd stay at the firm. The pay gap will be massive when you compare what take home as a partner would be. Also you would be giving up job security, and there is no guarantee the hours are better. Being a partner will mean your kids will have whatever they want and your wife would t have to work. I wouldn't give that up in a hope for better hours, but it is a personal decision.

Also, with tech co, you won't have seniority and are a cost center for the company, so job security would be a very real consideration.

it's pretty sad that a family can't live in california on a single income of $240k

The continued assumption of OP being male is also sad. And that if OP is male, his wife would not be already working??

I did assume OP is male but didn't make any assumptions about his/her spouse working. Sorry, although I am not sure why that would make you sad. My point was that 240k doesn't go very far in a high COL market if you are single income with kids, whereas OP would be very comfortable if he/she stayed in biglaw. It's a lot to give up.

Wouldn't in-house options be better as a partner? It's not like in-house is gone forever if you don't take this opportunity. Honestly 200k sounds a bit stingy.

[rwe13]

Very easy to live in a nice house (like 3 bed 2 bath) in Southern California with a kid on 200K combined and even slightly less. (Caveat- not LA).

[sayan]

I'd stay at the firm. The pay gap will be massive when you compare what take home as a partner would be. Also you would be giving up job security, and there is no guarantee the hours are better. Being a partner will mean your kids will have whatever they want and your wife would t have to work. I wouldn't give that up in a hope for better hours, but it is a personal decision.

Also, with tech co, you won't have seniority and are a cost center for the company, so job security would be a very real consideration.

I'm always skeptical of people saying they're on the "partner track" as if they can really know for certain they'll be promoted to partner. I'm doubly skeptical when a "partner track" senior can work from home once or twice a week and have flexible hours all the while being in contention versus (what I'm sure are at least a few) gunner seniors who probably devote their life to the firm. The odds don't seem that great.

Ultimately it will depend on the person's lifestyle expenses and what they are comfortable giving up versus the extra time they'll have to pursue hobbies and raise children. It's well known that humans simply become accustomed to a richer lifestyle, gaining no real happiness from it, after some adaption period -- although the threshold differs based on CoL obviously -- which is why avoiding that trap in the first place is important. Better to use that time earning money to pay for a lush lifestyle and instead live a slightly more modest one but much more time to spend on other pursuits... at least IMO.

Of course, if OP is a workaholic, enjoys seeing her bank account grow as fast as possible and doesn't mind seeing her kids less then yes... of course stay. And of course if she has a high chance of making partner, the optionality of staying a few more years might change the equation. But I've seen partners who call their kids over speakerphone at 10-11pm in the office quite a few times. It's always so sad.

[ClubberLang]

Good post Sayan. The right thing to do here depends on circumstances that none of us know. I will say, it's easy to say "live below your means," but when you have children and want to give them every advantage, that is quite a bit more complicated.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This thread shows that litigators can end up with good in house options.

For people talking about becoming of counsel, I wonder what firms you are talking about. I literally know no one who became of counsel after being an associate: everyone has either been made partner or been shown the door. We have some partners who aren't big business generators who have become of counsel, but that's after having been promoted to the partnership.

[Desert Fox]

Partner track just means you are eligible not that you are on the path.

[Hikikomorist]

Very easy to live in a nice house (like 3 bed 2 bath) in Southern California with a kid on 200K combined and even slightly less. (Caveat- not LA).

Since I assume this extends to SF: i.e., not where the jobs are.

[Wipfelder]

I wouldn't leave. $200k in CA is basically poverty level when you have kids

God this is such bullshit.

How so?

Don't you think it's kind of insulting to the vast majority of people who live in CA who make less?

Are you saying that a majority of people live in poverty in California?

[NYC2012]

.

[NYC2012]

.

[Anonymous User]

I am quite certain that I will make partner if I stay. And I've been told that by a number of partners, not just one. But I ultimately want to go in-house and I think making the leap to in-house as a partner is much harder than as an associate. Partners are much more expensive and companies don't have that many "director" or "chief" or "general counsel" positions available for partners. Associates can go in as senior counsel and then get promoted within. I've seen quite a few number of partners who could not generate business, wanted to go in-house, but ended up just leaving for a different firm because s/he couldn't get an in-house gig.

And lucky for me, even though I make big-law salary, I don't spend like one. We live in a modest home and generally save around $100K a year (at least in the past few years).

This discussion is very informative though. But I'm working today and my kids want to go play. More reason for me to leave biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

This thread shows that litigators can end up with good in house options.

For people talking about becoming of counsel, I wonder what firms you are talking about. I literally know no one who became of counsel after being an associate: everyone has either been made partner or been shown the door. We have some partners who aren't big business generators who have become of counsel, but that's after having been promoted to the partnership.

Paul Weiss promotes directly to of counsel, at least.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Say whatever you want, but kids living off $200k in CA are not going to have the same opportunities as kids living off $500k+.

I mean, that's going to be the case anywhere and doesn't mean the $200k kids are poor. I get that CA is expensive and I don't have kids so I'm not criticizing it as a goal, but I think "it's not the lifestyle I want my kids to have" and "poverty" are actually different.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I am quite certain that I will make partner if I stay. And I've been told that by a number of partners, not just one. But I ultimately want to go in-house and I think making the leap to in-house as a partner is much harder than as an associate. Partners are much more expensive and companies don't have that many "director" or "chief" or "general counsel" positions available for partners. Associates can go in as senior counsel and then get promoted within. I've seen quite a few number of partners who could not generate business, wanted to go in-house, but ended up just leaving for a different firm because s/he couldn't get an in-house gig.

And lucky for me, even though I make big-law salary, I don't spend like one. We live in a modest home and generally save around $100K a year (at least in the past few years).

This discussion is very informative though. But I'm working today and my kids want to go play. More reason for me to leave biglaw.

The partner track thing is really tough. For a bit of anecdata, we had a senior associate who *everybody* thought would be made partner. The partners in our office loved him, he was an amazing attorney, and we were all told he would be the guy.

Didn't make partner.

[sublime]

I know like a 7th year at a highly leveraged firm and his view is along the lines of fuck it I may as well stick around for two more years and see if he is offered a partnership worth over 100 mil over like 30 years. I don't think it's unreasonable

[Rahviveh]

Very easy to live in a nice house (like 3 bed 2 bath) in Southern California with a kid on 200K combined and even slightly less. (Caveat- not LA).

Riverside sounds nice

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

I wouldn't leave. $200k in CA is basically poverty level when you have kids

God this is such bullshit.

How so?

Don't you think it's kind of insulting to the vast majority of people who live in CA who make less?

Are you saying that a majority of people live in poverty in California?

Most people in California probably don't have huge mortgages. My boomer parents bought a house now worth like 1.5 million for 200k 30 years ago....they have no mortgage. My uncle bought a house for $600k, now worth $7 million, like 30 years ago and paid in cash.

Most people in California bought their house years ago when it was relatively affordable.

I can't imagine buying a house now in most places in California as a recent transplant if you don't have family money. Seems way too stressful.

[Wipfelder]

I wouldn't leave. $200k in CA is basically poverty level when you have kids

God this is such bullshit.

How so?

Don't you think it's kind of insulting to the vast majority of people who live in CA who make less?

Are you saying that a majority of people live in poverty in California?

Yes, I am saying that. It's incredibly difficult to live here comfortably (esp. if OP is in the Bay Area, where you need 2 million to buy a house. Even in LA you need a million for a crappy house). Add in kids, potential school tuition if you live in a big city (which you probably do if you are making 200k), and loan payments, and it's unlikely you'll be living comfortably, not stressed about money, able to travel, pay for your kids' college, etc. Say whatever you want, but kids living off $200k in CA are not going to have the same opportunities as kids living off $500k+.

We have different ideas of "poverty" and "comfort".

[sublime]

That's a constant problem for this board.

[Wipfelder]

That's a constant problem for this board.

Sorry if I come across confrontational or quibbling.

But like holy shit.

[sublime]

That's a constant problem for this board.

Sorry if I come across confrontational or quibbling.

But like holy shit.

No, I get it, I've just largely given up on pointing out that literally millions of people live on less than 100k in NYC, for example, often with families, just fine. I guess it's a hard concept to understand.

[Wipfelder]

OP,

Your kids are growing up and becoming adults one way or another. It'd be cool if you were there to help them along and enjoy the experience.

If that involves the pinched cheeks and haphazard, rustled meals eaten by gaslight wndemic to a life of scraping by on 200k plus bonuses, and even sentencing your children to public high school, so be it.

[Rahviveh]

That's a constant problem for this board.

Sorry if I come across confrontational or quibbling.

But like holy shit.

No, I get it, I've just largely given up on pointing out that literally millions of people live on less than 100k in NYC, for example, often with families, just fine. I guess it's a hard concept to understand.

People compare themselves to others in their social class, not to the poorest. The poor in NYC don't compare themselves to the poor in Africa

The kids of parents making 200k combined in LA or SF will have shit opportunities going forward. You want your kids to do better than you, not the same or worse

[RaceJudicata]

If you think you are going to make partner, I'd stick it out. Might be harder to find an in house gig, but the gigs you do find will be of a higher quality.

[nunumaster]

People compare themselves to others in their social class, not to the poorest. The poor in NYC don't compare themselves to the poor in Africa

The kids of parents making 200k combined in LA or SF will have shit opportunities going forward. You want your kids to do better than you, not the same or worse

lol at having to go to public school = have shit opportunities and people making under 100k in NYC = being "the poorest"