What happens when you self-medicate Forum

[bonusnewsnow]

This is a reddit thread but it's useful to this forum. https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/commen ... lion_nw_5/

This guy is M.R. Parker (everyone on the forums where he posts knows this so I'm not outing him.)

Biglaw is truly the stupidest area of law you can work in. Government makes sense because although you make much less, you work a steady schedule. Many in-house jobs are like that. Owning your own firm like this guy makes sense because you're in control and can make bank. Being a professor makes sense because you do jack all day and write one law review article every few years.

But biglaw? It's for suckers.

[nealric]

You must know that making $10 million a year is a top .001% financial outcome for a solo or small firm lawyer. It's not a remotely realistic expectation for anybody. It's one small step above saying "working is for suckers, just buy lottery tickets and you will win the powerball!"

You also mention that in-house jobs and government make sense. Well, the best way to get those less stressful government and in-house jobs is to put a stint in biglaw. I think everyone realizes that biglaw is not for everybody. It takes a pretty special person to be able sustain biglaw pace for decades at a time. That's why the majority of lawyers who do biglaw only do it for a few years before moving on to other things.

[LS989]

This is a reddit thread but it's useful to this forum. https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/commen ... lion_nw_5/

This guy is M.R. Parker (everyone on the forums where he posts knows this so I'm not outing him.)

Biglaw is truly the stupidest area of law you can work in. Government makes sense because although you make much less, you work a steady schedule. Many in-house jobs are like that. Owning your own firm like this guy makes sense because you're in control and can make bank. Being a professor makes sense because you do jack all day and write one law review article every few years.

But biglaw? It's for suckers.

I honestly can't tell if this post is sarcastic... You took an example, which literally holds itself out as an outlier, and then used it as the standard alternative.
Go ahead, go hang your shingle out of law school. Let's see how that turns out for you.
Not to mention this post ignores the existence of the entire transactional law field, but even just focusing on litigation, it is a massively stupid take.

[bonusnewsnow]

You must know that making $10 million a year is a top .001% financial outcome for a solo or small firm lawyer. It's not a remotely realistic expectation for anybody. It's one small step above saying "working is for suckers, just buy lottery tickets and you will win the powerball!"

You also mention that in-house jobs and government make sense. Well, the best way to get those less stressful government and in-house jobs is to put a stint in biglaw. I think everyone realizes that biglaw is not for everybody. It takes a pretty special person to be able sustain biglaw pace for decades at a time. That's why the majority of lawyers who do biglaw only do it for a few years before moving on to other things.

To come up with that 0.001% number, you would need to credibly sample a sufficient number of solos, and do the calculation. You didn't do that, so why post that number? That reddit thread has other solos making 7 figures.

Even if you only make $150k as a solo, that's still way better than biglaw. Would you rather be paid $150 an hour doing work for your layman clients, or for some a-hole biglaw partner? Who do you think will be more demanding?

I would posit that dollar-per-effort or dollar-per-happiness, owning your own firm is better that biglaw.

Let's have a discussion about this and not poopoo the idea by throwing out numbers like 0.001% or other unproven claims.

[LS989]

You must know that making $10 million a year is a top .001% financial outcome for a solo or small firm lawyer. It's not a remotely realistic expectation for anybody. It's one small step above saying "working is for suckers, just buy lottery tickets and you will win the powerball!"

You also mention that in-house jobs and government make sense. Well, the best way to get those less stressful government and in-house jobs is to put a stint in biglaw. I think everyone realizes that biglaw is not for everybody. It takes a pretty special person to be able sustain biglaw pace for decades at a time. That's why the majority of lawyers who do biglaw only do it for a few years before moving on to other things.

To come up with that 0.001% number, you would need to credibly sample a sufficient number of solos, and do the calculation. You didn't do that, so why post that number? That reddit thread has other solos making 7 figures.

Even if you only make $150k as a solo, that's still way better than biglaw. Would you rather be paid $150 an hour doing work for your layman clients, or for some a-hole biglaw partner? Who do you think will be more demanding?

I would posit that dollar-per-effort or dollar-per-happiness, owning your own firm is better that biglaw.

being incapable of understanding hyperbole is going to bode well for your eventual solo practice. Keep on trucking my dude.

[bonusnewsnow]

You must know that making $10 million a year is a top .001% financial outcome for a solo or small firm lawyer. It's not a remotely realistic expectation for anybody. It's one small step above saying "working is for suckers, just buy lottery tickets and you will win the powerball!"

You also mention that in-house jobs and government make sense. Well, the best way to get those less stressful government and in-house jobs is to put a stint in biglaw. I think everyone realizes that biglaw is not for everybody. It takes a pretty special person to be able sustain biglaw pace for decades at a time. That's why the majority of lawyers who do biglaw only do it for a few years before moving on to other things.

To come up with that 0.001% number, you would need to credibly sample a sufficient number of solos, and do the calculation. You didn't do that, so why post that number? That reddit thread has other solos making 7 figures.

Even if you only make $150k as a solo, that's still way better than biglaw. Would you rather be paid $150 an hour doing work for your layman clients, or for some a-hole biglaw partner? Who do you think will be more demanding?

I would posit that dollar-per-effort or dollar-per-happiness, owning your own firm is better that biglaw.

being incapable of understanding hyperbole is going to bode well for your eventual solo practice. Keep on trucking my dude.

I don't know how this kind of post advances the discussion, but shouldn't you also calculate the likelihood of making $10 million in biglaw? That might actually be 0.001%!

[nealric]

You must know that making $10 million a year is a top .001% financial outcome for a solo or small firm lawyer. It's not a remotely realistic expectation for anybody. It's one small step above saying "working is for suckers, just buy lottery tickets and you will win the powerball!"

You also mention that in-house jobs and government make sense. Well, the best way to get those less stressful government and in-house jobs is to put a stint in biglaw. I think everyone realizes that biglaw is not for everybody. It takes a pretty special person to be able sustain biglaw pace for decades at a time. That's why the majority of lawyers who do biglaw only do it for a few years before moving on to other things.

To come up with that 0.001% number, you would need to credibly sample a sufficient number of solos, and do the calculation. You didn't do that, so why post that number? That reddit thread has other solos making 7 figures.

Even if you only make $150k as a solo, that's still way better than biglaw. Would you rather be paid $150 an hour doing work for your layman clients, or for some a-hole biglaw partner? Who do you think will be more demanding?

I would posit that dollar-per-effort or dollar-per-happiness, owning your own firm is better that biglaw.

That wasn't intended as a complete mathematical analysis. But it doesn't take a ton of research to find out that $10MM/yr is an extreme outlier. You have extreme selection bias with solo practitioners reporting their income on places like reddit. Nobody is rushing over to reddit to talk about their failing solo practice.

$150k might be a reasonable number for a solo who has built up a reasonably steady practice. But a straight out of school solo is unlikely to hit those kind of numbers immediately. There are two good reasons why people don't go solo right out of school:

1) You don't know what you are doing. It takes experience and the guidance of more senior attorneys to develop your skills. There are some things about practice that can't be learned in a book.

2) You have no startup capital. With any new business, you need to be prepared to have zero income for a fairly long period of time. Most new law school graduates have massive loans hanging over their heads, no savings, and need income in the door immediately.

You really won't find people bashing solo practice here. It's just that this forum tends to be focused on law students and early career lawyers who are mostly not ready to go solo even if that were the end goal. Finally, it's important to note that some practice areas work better than others for solo practice. There are almost no corporate tax solos, for example. But almost all plaintiff's side personal injury lawyers are solos or work for small firms. Not everyone has the desire or personality to do personal injury.

[bonusnewsnow]

I simply don't understand why you're talking so authoritatively on something you don't have personal experience with. Any way, your posts are a good summary of the "don't go into the great unknown" pov.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I simply don't understand why you're talking so authoritatively on something you don't have personal experience with.

[Fireworks2016]

This is a reddit thread but it's useful to this forum. https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/commen ... lion_nw_5/

This guy is M.R. Parker (everyone on the forums where he posts knows this so I'm not outing him.)

Biglaw is truly the stupidest area of law you can work in. Government makes sense because although you make much less, you work a steady schedule. Many in-house jobs are like that. Owning your own firm like this guy makes sense because you're in control and can make bank. Being a professor makes sense because you do jack all day and write one law review article every few years.

But biglaw? It's for suckers.

The reddit thread just made me think this dude is either the luckiest person in the world or he has radioactive levels of charm. No way does an average attorney stumble into 10 mil+ in billings by simple referrals and handing out business cards.

[bonusnewsnow]

This is a reddit thread but it's useful to this forum. https://www.reddit.com/r/fatFIRE/commen ... lion_nw_5/

This guy is M.R. Parker (everyone on the forums where he posts knows this so I'm not outing him.)

Biglaw is truly the stupidest area of law you can work in. Government makes sense because although you make much less, you work a steady schedule. Many in-house jobs are like that. Owning your own firm like this guy makes sense because you're in control and can make bank. Being a professor makes sense because you do jack all day and write one law review article every few years.

But biglaw? It's for suckers.

The reddit thread just made me think this dude is either the luckiest person in the world or he has radioactive levels of charm. No way does an average attorney stumble into 10 mil+ in billings by simple referrals and handing out business cards.

In his thread he says he doesn't bill time. All of his clients are PI or other plaintiffs on contingency.

[nealric]

I simply don't understand why you're talking so authoritatively on something you don't have personal experience with. Any way, your posts are a good summary of the "don't go into the great unknown" pov.

I actually worked for a small personal injury firm in law school and know some personal injury small firm solo types. I saw the books and had a pretty good idea of what the lawyers were netting.

The only small/solos I know of pulling anywhere close to $10MM+ are doing much more sophisticated plaintiff-side work (commercial lit) and have made a serious name for themselves or are one of a small handful of "PI king" types with billboards all around the city.

I certainly am not advising against going solo or telling people not to go into the great unknown. I'm only pointing out that dreams of riches are unrealistic. Maybe you are unusually talented or lucky and you make it big as a PI lawyer, but the vast majority will not. Someone looking to go solo right out of school needs to be prepared for a difficult grind (at least to start).

[bonusnewsnow]

I simply don't understand why you're talking so authoritatively on something you don't have personal experience with. Any way, your posts are a good summary of the "don't go into the great unknown" pov.

I actually worked for a small personal injury firm in law school and know some personal injury small firm solo types. I saw the books and had a pretty good idea of what the lawyers were netting.

The only small/solos I know of pulling anywhere close to $10MM+ are doing much more sophisticated plaintiff-side work (commercial lit) and have made a serious name for themselves or are one of a small handful of "PI king" types with billboards all around the city.

I certainly am not advising against going solo or telling people not to go into the great unknown. I'm only pointing out that dreams of riches are unrealistic. Maybe you are unusually talented or lucky and you make it big as a PI lawyer, but the vast majority will not. Someone looking to go solo right out of school needs to be prepared for a difficult grind (at least to start).

Oh ok sorry I assumed you didn't have experience in the field. It'd be nice to hear more anecdotes and stuff on this nonetheless. I think law school forums focus way too much on biglaw, and we analyze that to the last nuance when perhaps we should also be analyzing other career paths.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Nice try, TTT Dean Who Just Saw His School's Placement Stats

[Anonymous User]

I’m about to start biglaw and then clerking (and probably biglaw/boutique after to get the bonus). Good grades at a t14. But I’m already very interested in going solo. I liked the above post comparing making 150k on your own vs biglaw salary. Even 100k in a good COL city as a solo seems preferable. Your own boss, your own time. Sure, the OP references a dream, cream of the crop scenario, but that’s the case for any entrepreneur. Starting businesses is really hard. Even harder to start a successful one, but people eye the dream and value the independence. It’s good to read these stories to hear from those that made it and what advice they have. People learn from successful entrepreneurs all the time and study their paths.

[masterherm]

Being an entrepreneur is really hard. This catchism of having no boss and your own schedule really just means you have to do literally EVERYTHING yourself, which takes up all your time, at least until you can hire out the day-to-day management. But it takes a long time grinding to build up to get to that point. Meanwhile in big law, you basically are your own boss if you work with good people. Especially in litigation, most tasks aren't urgent and you can prioritize, take breaks, structure your week to build in time off, etc. The main downside to big law is the pure amount of billable hours you end up doing. But if you think going solo is going to be less work than big law, I think you're probably mistaken.

The entrepreneurship fetish is pure escapism. Unless you have a burning desire to hang your own shingle, it's simply not worth it for most people. If your goal is to "be your own boss" and have control over your schedule, I think your most consistent, surest way of getting there is to achieve financial independence, which is something that working for a high-paying firm can help you achieve much more consistently than trying to do it on your own.

[Anonymous User]

*biglaw--clerk--solo anon from above. I get that, and maybe should've chosen my words more carefully. Yes, for most people it doesn't make sense. But many things don't make sense for most people, and I don't think these threads are geared toward most people. They are for the relatively few. Most people are super risk-averse, don't want to rock the boat, take chances, fail hard, whatever. Most people want steady job, good income, safe, good family. All great.

I am more on the burning desire end of the spectrum. At that point, lots of the work isn't exactly work in a grudging sense because you have total agency (much still is though, like everything). But even working really really hard is more fun when it is your own thing. Some people really just want their own projects. I like "wearing lots of hats", and the idea of having full autonomy to decide how the office will work/look, whether I'll hire someone else, the types of matters I bring on, the way I will interact with clients, is attractive.

**the part about financial independence and sure way to get there is noted, and likely accurate. But I think for solos, achieving financial independence isn't the only factor, surely many of them like being involved in the law in that manner. Goes to your burning desire point.

[sophocles]

Biglawyers hate him!!! Aspiring PI kingpin discovers how to stick it to the haters and losers using this ONE WEIRD TRICK...

[nixy]

I think there are lots of solos who are making perfectly good livings and living much happier lives than your average biglaw associate (I can’t comment on partners, that seems like such a small group and people who make partner probably have some affinity for the job). I don’t think that translates to lots of solos being rich (depending on definition) and certainly not making $10 mil a year, but quality of life is very different when you run your own practice than when you’re at the whims of partners. Personally I would be a terrible boss so don’t think I’d be a very good solo (I’m a much better cog in a machine), but there are plenty of people who feel the exact opposite. But really it doesn’t boil down to the amount of money you make as much as how you spend your days and who you answer to, or at least, how you value each of time/money/autonomy.

[dabigchina]

but nice in house positions require biglaw experience. government makes sense, although you can absolutely get placed in a bad position in government too. I do agree that there are probably easier ways to make a living than staying in biglaw forever and making partner.

the rest of this post is nonsense.

[bigbeau]

Honestly, a post like this is just an example of how disconnected people can be. There are a lot of solo law practitioners that barely scrape by doing traffic tickets or random other legal work. If making 6 figures going solo was so viable, people wouldn't make $40k a year in govt jobs or less than that doing shit law. You're comparing big law, which is a guaranteed $190k+bonus out of school with solos making $100k, but one look at the many, many lawyers making sub $50k should let you know how unrealistic that $100k is.

Also, guess what? I would absolutely hate solo practice. I have no self-control whatsoever and I like money. I like being told "hey go do this project for this client now. also here's $200k/year." I couldn't imagine having to wake up every day and bill my own hours for my own salary plus expenses knowing that every hour I relax is less money directly into my pocket, every client I fail to get is money out of my pocket, and that I would have to schmooze and advertise my firm to get that money.

[bonusnewsnow]

But if you think going solo is going to be less work than big law, I think you're probably mistaken.

This depends on how much money you want to make as a solo. The guy in the OP probably works biglaw hours, but not all solos do.

Think of it this way. In biglaw, you figuratively have own little firm and your clients are biglaw partners and seniors and eventually corporate clients (all a-holes). Do a bad job and they won't give you work just like an client. If you decide you want to bill less, you can't. Don't meet your hours for a few years and you're out. You don't make much either, per hour.

As a solo, your clients are more normal and less sociopathic, and you control which ones you take on, whether you want to fire them, and how much work you want to do. Per-hour, you can make more than a biglaw associate. And if you want to bust your ass working like a 3000 hour biglaw year, you get the rewards, not your biglaw partner.

[nealric]

Think of it this way. In biglaw, you figuratively have own little firm and your clients are biglaw partners and seniors and eventually corporate clients (all a-holes).

You realize some of us reading these posts are corporate clients (myself included)?

But really, you can have a-hole clients in any practice. When I worked in a personal injury firm, we had clients who were far worse than any corporate client (and of course good ones as well). Clients in any practice run the gambit. We are all human beings.

[bonusnewsnow]

Think of it this way. In biglaw, you figuratively have own little firm and your clients are biglaw partners and seniors and eventually corporate clients (all a-holes).

You realize some of us reading these posts are corporate clients (myself included)?

But really, you can have a-hole clients in any practice. When I worked in a personal injury firm, we had clients who were far worse than any corporate client (and of course good ones as well). Clients in any practice run the gambit. We are all human beings.

Could be. I'm not some omnipresent seer of all in the legal world. I'm just shootin the shit here. I would have thought if a solo client is acting like an asshole, you send them a letter telling them you're no longer representing them and move onto your other files. My impression was that corporate clients are way more demanding but again I don't know.

[nealric]

Think of it this way. In biglaw, you figuratively have own little firm and your clients are biglaw partners and seniors and eventually corporate clients (all a-holes).

You realize some of us reading these posts are corporate clients (myself included)?

But really, you can have a-hole clients in any practice. When I worked in a personal injury firm, we had clients who were far worse than any corporate client (and of course good ones as well). Clients in any practice run the gambit. We are all human beings.

Could be. I'm not some omnipresent seer of all in the legal world. I'm just shootin the shit here. I would have thought if a solo client is acting like an asshole, you send them a letter telling them you're no longer representing them and move onto your other files. My impression was that corporate clients are way more demanding but again I don't know.

Like anything, it depends on the matter. Believe it or not, biglaw fires clients too. You may want to fire a solo client, but if his case is worth a million dollars and you are a week from trial, you are going to have to grin and bear it.

The big difference between most corporate clients and most individuals is that corporate clients often are lawyers themselves and have a decent understanding of the matter at hand. Even where they are not lawyers, they are usually fairly sophisticated individuals who don't need a lot of handholding. With personal injury, you will have clients who are barely literate and need everything explained to them at the most basic of possible levels. Having a sophisticated client can actually reduce the unreasonable demands, but sometimes corporate practice is just inherently demanding. The nature of the representation can make a big difference as to whether it's super stressful or laid back. But plenty of Biglaw partners are actually long-term friends with their clients. That's not as possible in a personal injury setting (for example), because your client's legal needs are typically one-off.