Top Law Schools

For the longest time, my general impression of the money potential in legal careers was: Biglaw (associate/counsel/partner) > in house/boutique > solo practice > government. I'm aware that certain solo practitioners make more than big law partners, and some general counsel at certain companies make more too. But as a general rule of thumb, I believed this to be accurate. Like an average 8th year big law associate will generally make more than the average 8th year in house lawyer or the average 8th year solo practitioner.

Recently, I met a person who is an incredible solo-practitioner. This person is the exception I'm pretty sure, but he used to work at my firm and chose to leave (V10). He told me that he now makes more than all the partners, and that he'd be disappointed in me if I was still here in 3 years. Essentially, he was implying that partnership in big law isn't a worthy goal.

I'm a bit confused as to what he meant. Did he mean in terms of money? Because like I said I think unless I was ridiculously lucky as a solo practitioner or at an in house position, biglaw is still the most money. Did he just mean that being a part of a system and working your life away is stupid, and even a that I should leave even if it means taking a paycut? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on which career path is best suited for most people! I don't think I'm some sort of special snowflake, so I'm really just looking for general advice. Thank you!

I think unusually successful solos tend not to realize that their experience is outside the norm. There's also sometimes an ethos of independence and frustration with all of the administrative aspects of law firm life. You'll sometimes see solos who at least purport to look down on biglaw attorneys as conformist drones.

In any event, solo earnings can be all over the map. The very highest earning attorneys tend to be solos, but those are extreme outliers. There are solos who are barely making ends meet (if at all). It's not just a matter of luck though. You need to have the right skillset (both sales and practice) as well as a practice area that makes sense in the solo realm (you probably won't be doing any public company M&A as a solo).

At the end of the day, so much depends on the individual personalities above and whether you like working in large organizations or not. You might earn more as a solo, but it means you are going to have to do all that back office stuff you take for granted yourself (or hire someone to do that). You'll be spending time on book keeping, office decorations, talking to advertisers, etc. that biglaw attorneys don't ever have to think about. But you'll also be free of having to help other attorneys with client pitches, silly firm initiatives, and having all those overhead costs taken out of your paycheck.

This is the classic "person who wins lottery tells others to buy lottery tickets". Ignore this person and move on. You might decide in a few years that you have the skill set, entrepreneurial desire, and financial ability to go solo. At that time, go for it. Otherwise, if you don't think that's in the cards for you, go have a successful career working for a law firm, in-house, gov't, whatever. Solos are still billing by the 6 minutes, fighting clients over bills, and tons of other unsexy stuff, generally without the fat payday this guy is getting (to the degree he isn't fibbing for his own ego).

Broadly speaking,if you have to ask whether or not you should pursue a solo practice, you should not.

Some folks are better employees than owners while some folks cannot endure working for others and have the drive & energy to create their own business.