Dealing with stress Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi TLS, this is probably a tired topic but I would appreciate hearing about how people learned to deal with the stress of big law corporate work. I’m a first-year in a NY corp group that has been really busy since I started. I thought I was getting better at managing timelines and the stress, but lately as we had even more associate turnover and multiple brutal weeks in a row, I’m starting to hyperventilate whenever I hear an email notification/dread getting up in the morning again, even though I think I’m well liked in the group and people have actually been pretty nice to me in general. I’ve broken down crying several times in the past few days. I would fall into a panic attack when I get urgent-ish requests on multiple deals at the same time even though I know rationally I just need to tackle them one at a time. Is this just a rite of passage for corporate juniors? Do you just simply learn to care less/get better at the job/build stamina? I know medication will probably help, but taking drugs for a job feels like an objectionable idea to me.

[Anonymous User]

I've been going through this for a while and was really struggling. Although it sounds like a tired trope, exercise and mindfulness (try headspace) have really helped me once I finally committed regularly. So much of what makes this job so overwhelming is the feeling that it has taken over your life. Find some time regularly, even just 10-15 minutes, to be deliberate and actually fully tune out.

[Mullens]

Hi TLS, this is probably a tired topic but I would appreciate hearing about how people learned to deal with the stress of big law corporate work. I’m a first-year in a NY corp group that has been really busy since I started. I thought I was getting better at managing timelines and the stress, but lately as we had even more associate turnover and multiple brutal weeks in a row, I’m starting to hyperventilate whenever I hear an email notification/dread getting up in the morning again, even though I think I’m well liked in the group and people have actually been pretty nice to me in general. I’ve broken down crying several times in the past few days. I would fall into a panic attack when I get urgent-ish requests on multiple deals at the same time even though I know rationally I just need to tackle them one at a time. Is this just a rite of passage for corporate juniors? Do you just simply learn to care less/get better at the job/build stamina? I know medication will probably help, but taking drugs for a job feels like an objectionable idea to me.

It definitely gets better over time, probably through a combination of getting better at the job, a better understanding of what’s actually urgent and caring less. My personal view is that doing deals is not open heart surgery and, regardless of how people act, the world won’t end and no one will die if it takes you a few extra hours/days to turn docs or sign a deal. I also take solace in the fact that it’s never been easier to lateral than right now so I can get a job doing the same thing without too much difficulty if I massively screw something up. Also helps to experience your own handful of mistakes (and hear of those of your colleagues/seniors) to realize that most things are fixable and not that big of a deal in the long run. Hang in there.

[nls336]

It's easy to forget this but your brain and your body need to be harmonized in a healthy way for you to feel good. Your body is an ecosystem that you live in and use to navigate the world. It literally needs certain things in order to function properly and, unfortunately for lawyers, we are often told to forego our evolutionary needs to do work that other people need. Sometimes it's just a part of the job and we can't avoid it, as it is with many professions, but if the expectation is that you are always doing this, then it's not just a job and it's more insidious than that.

At the end of the day you are the king of your life. I know it doesn't seem like you are free to do whatever you want with your time, but actually, even though your job would have you believe otherwise -- you are, especially in this labor market. If you are genuinely unhappy looking for other jobs here and there may help relieve the stress by giving you something to look forward to.

I recommend some simple tricks:

• make sure you go outside once a day even if it's just to pick up a morning coffee you could make yourself;

• get some sort of indoor exercise equipment, sometimes you can trick your brain into thinking it's happy by exercising and getting the endorphin rush;

• eat every day, three times a day. Do not skip meals. Do not get into the habit of skipping meals. Your body is more bacteria than it is person, it is a living microbiome, you fucking need food;

• Develop a good routine and stick to it. Eat at the same times every day. Sleep relatively close to the same time every night. Your body was developed over millions of years of evolution, no amount of "if I just push harder for this partner" will override your evolutionary circuitry or circadian rhythms. Constantly disrupted sleep routines are depressive on the brain. Yeah, you might miss a few ASAP unforeseen emails at 11 PM - and guess what - if people desperately needed that 11 PM work to be done then they could've done it themselves or got it to you with notice after working hours. People who are depressed and sleep-deprived are 3x more likely to suffer from suicidal ideation;

• call someone you love once a day, vary it up. Call your mom just to say hello, if that's possible, if not call a friend from school. Maybe even do it during a time that is inconvenient for your job because you are not their slave and can call your mother whenever you want;

• Try to find out what you used to like doing before law school and work and return to those hobbies a few times a week. Try to laugh every once and a while. You are more than this job and your life is much longer than this period. Bad times are just times that are bad. You can do this.

• Remember: your job needs you more than you need it, especially in this market. If you are experiencing symptoms of PTSD from the trauma of being asked to be on call 24-7 (which it sounds like you are and therapists call it a form of trauma in my experience) then you do not have to stay. You can leave this job whenever you want and give two weeks' notice. Nobody will think you are a quitter;

• Build up some boundaries around things you need to do to survive (like sleeping/eating/exercising). I will say it until I am blue in the fucking face but any job that expects you to forego literal survival needs is abusive and you should leave when it is possible and sane to do so. Do not hold yourself to that metric because it's psychotic. There is a reason big law is being absolutely fucked by departures right now and it's the psychotic work model that it uses. It is absolutely, unquestionably insane to ask people to work like this all of the time.
  
  Did you know that when you are stationed on a sea tour in the navy it's never longer than six months that you live at your job? Because it turns out that environment is stressful and bad for mental health and the government doesn't want to get in trouble for the bad results stemming from longer sea tours (or lose its sailors). Yet, lawyers are asked to mentally sprint to the death or until they quit (I'm not saying this job is harder, just that the expectations are bizarre even by the standards of a profession where you expect it is possible to potentially lose your life). If the military doesn't make people sprint for 1 year straight at work, why should we feel the need to do it for our job? Yes, I will probably not make partner. Oh no. Nobody is going to die if you don't send that e-mail at 3AM and send it out at 7AM instead. Perspective is key. Remember you are in charge of your own life, not your big law firm.

• It also bears reminding to say: the reason you are paid a high salary is "not for your availability" as so many people like to say here. It is because so many of us debt-finance our education to be qualified for this job. And the working environment is unbearable. That is why you are paid your salary. It is not a gift. The firm isn't bestowing it upon you out of the kindness of their hearts. That's capitalism -- you financed your education, stayed out of the job market for three years, forewent lots of joy to become a lawyer, took the stupid test, pay the fees and you deserve to be fairly compensated at the market rate for surviving all of that and working in an environment that likely and truly probably sucks compared to many other jobs.

Don't lose the forest through the trees. You will make it. PM me anytime. I am here to talk if you are ever in need.

[nixy]

No one is paid biglaw salary because they went into debt and spent 3 years in law school. They’re paid biglaw salary because the working environment sucks, and a big reason why it sucks is that you’re expected to be available. I’m not saying anyone should wake up in the middle of the night to take emails as was suggested in another thread, and I also think figuring out ways to push back and create boundaries is incredibly important, so I agree with all that. You still should put limits on what a firm can expect from you. But from the perspective of people paying the salary, it has nothing to do with the burdens of law school. If it were, all law jobs would be high paid, and they’re not.

So yeah, I agree that the salary isn’t a gift, and it’s what the market requires and so firms pay it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what law school required of you. It’s about what the biglaw job requires of you.

[nls336]

No one is paid biglaw salary because they went into debt and spent 3 years in law school. They’re paid biglaw salary because the working environment sucks, and a big reason why it sucks is that you’re expected to be available. I’m not saying anyone should wake up in the middle of the night to take emails as was suggested in another thread, and I also think figuring out ways to push back and create boundaries is incredibly important, so I agree with all that. You still should put limits on what a firm can expect from you. But from the perspective of people paying the salary, it has nothing to do with the burdens of law school. If it were, all law jobs would be high paid, and they’re not.

So yeah, I agree that the salary isn’t a gift, and it’s what the market requires and so firms pay it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what law school required of you. It’s about what the biglaw job requires of you.

Sorry, but I just fundamentally disagree with you on this and know we will not find a middle ground. But, I appreciate your take.

The job sucks for a LOT of reasons. But they can't hire people off of the street to do it. Firms don't pay paralegals 205k even though they often do substantively similar work as junior associates. I'm not saying that it is EXCLUSIVE to what you had to do to be qualified for the job, but the reality is, they cannot just take every applicant who would apply and weed them out based on who is willing to be available. They can only take entry-level and other lawyers and weed them out based on availability. The salary might help with retention but, in a capital market, is based on the qualifications of the employee, not based on the fact that availability is the measure of work (in my opinion).

Yes, you do have to be available, of course, when they ask you to be, but the mentality so many junior associates seem to have is one of being paid to basically be enslaved 24-7 for the gift of their salary. No, you are a highly trained professional laborer with a degree that is WORTH SOMETHING to the market in any job you are in. You do not have to simply sit in your unhappy state and think that if you weren't being treated like shit nobody would pay you a good salary. You deserve the salary based on the economic sacrifices you've made. That's how it works in every job, more education, more skills = more $$. The rising compensation has to do with a rise in COL and inflation and a rise in corresponding bullshit in the working environment (which we can both agree with ahha).

Hope you're doing well!

[Anonymous User]

Did you know that when you are stationed on a sea tour in the navy it's never longer than six months that you live at your job? Because it turns out that environment is stressful and bad for mental health and the government doesn't want to get in trouble for the bad results stemming from longer sea tours (or lose its sailors).

(Anon because of personally identifying information)

This was a really good post, so this is in no way meant to invalidate that. But this part is unequivocally not true. “Sea tours” most typically last anywhere from 18-48 months. This will include a mixture of times out at sea ranging from 3 weeks to 11+ months and everywhere in between. My longest deployment at sea was just north of 9 months. It would more accurately make the point that the Navy aims to avoid any ship being out at sea for more than 45 days at a time, but even that is more aspirational than reality, because after that length of time, the navy typically considers having a “beer day” where each sailor is authorized to have up to two beers while out at sea (so long as they are not on watch and will not be within 8 hours of going on watch where they’re responsible for some aspect of the ship’s operation. And even that is not guaranteed.).

Your point is a good one about people having and needing limits on what they can/should do, but this part is misleading because the Navy regularly breaks it’s stated goals of maintaining physical and mental health when operational commitments require it. And that says nothing of when undermanned and a ship cannot even prevent a sailor from being on watch for 12 hours straight, followed by 12 hours off/doing their non-watch job. Sailors and being over-worked, under-rested is a common tale to this day.

[nls336]

Did you know that when you are stationed on a sea tour in the navy it's never longer than six months that you live at your job? Because it turns out that environment is stressful and bad for mental health and the government doesn't want to get in trouble for the bad results stemming from longer sea tours (or lose its sailors).

(Anon because of personally identifying information)

This was a really good post, so this is in no way meant to invalidate that. But this part is unequivocally not true. “Sea tours” most typically last anywhere from 18-48 months. This will include a mixture of times out at sea ranging from 3 weeks to 11+ months and everywhere in between. My longest deployment at sea was just north of 9 months. It would more accurately make the point that the Navy aims to avoid any ship being out at sea for more than 45 days at a time, but even that is more aspirational than reality, because after that length of time, the navy typically considers having a “beer day” where each sailor is authorized to have up to two beers while out at sea (so long as they are not on watch and will not be within 8 hours of going on watch where they’re responsible for some aspect of the ship’s operation. And even that is not guaranteed.).

Your point is a good one about people having and needing limits on what they can/should do, but this part is misleading because the Navy regularly breaks it’s stated goals of maintaining physical and mental health when operational commitments require it. And that says nothing of when undermanned and a ship cannot even prevent a sailor from being on watch for 12 hours straight, followed by 12 hours off/doing their non-watch job. Sailors and being over-worked, under-rested is a common tale to this day.

No worries re: the correction!! Thank you!! I was using information based on my significant other/partner who will only be on duty on sea tour for around six months (or so he says -- but he is also not a young sailor). I do think the point I was trying to make is the navy and government broadly will both try not to keep people aboard ships in unhealthy ways that require constant stress and living aboard the job without coming back to shore. He is often happy to get watch (lol) because it means he won't be flying the next day or two and can sleep it off for a bit.

I think I may have simply been using military lay-people understanding. That was my error -- got lost in the sauce a bit trying to cheer on my fellow comrade. Appreciate the correction and thank you for your service! You've done a job not many can. I sincerely appreciate it.

[nixy]

No one is paid biglaw salary because they went into debt and spent 3 years in law school. They’re paid biglaw salary because the working environment sucks, and a big reason why it sucks is that you’re expected to be available. I’m not saying anyone should wake up in the middle of the night to take emails as was suggested in another thread, and I also think figuring out ways to push back and create boundaries is incredibly important, so I agree with all that. You still should put limits on what a firm can expect from you. But from the perspective of people paying the salary, it has nothing to do with the burdens of law school. If it were, all law jobs would be high paid, and they’re not.

So yeah, I agree that the salary isn’t a gift, and it’s what the market requires and so firms pay it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what law school required of you. It’s about what the biglaw job requires of you.

Sorry, but I just fundamentally disagree with you on this and know we will not find a middle ground. But, I appreciate your take.

The job sucks for a LOT of reasons. But they can't hire people off of the street to do it. Firms don't pay paralegals 205k even though they often do substantively similar work as junior associates. I'm not saying that it is EXCLUSIVE to what you had to do to be qualified for the job, but the reality is, they cannot just take every applicant who would apply and weed them out based on who is willing to be available. They can only take entry-level and other lawyers and weed them out based on availability. The salary might help with retention but, in a capital market, is based on the qualifications of the employee, not based on the fact that availability is the measure of work (in my opinion).

Yes, you do have to be available, of course, when they ask you to be, but the mentality so many junior associates seem to have is one of being paid to basically be enslaved 24-7 for the gift of their salary. No, you are a highly trained professional laborer with a degree that is WORTH SOMETHING to the market in any job you are in. You do not have to simply sit in your unhappy state and think that if you weren't being treated like shit nobody would pay you a good salary. You deserve the salary based on the economic sacrifices you've made. That's how it works in every job, more education, more skills = more $$. The rising compensation has to do with a rise in COL and inflation and a rise in corresponding bullshit in the working environment (which we can both agree with ahha).

Hope you're doing well!

I’m not saying people don’t deserve the salary or that they have to get treated like shit to get a good salary. Qualifications absolutely matter. But entry levels PDs and legal aid attorneys made the same economic sacrifices and get paid $45-50k still, and have (and require) the same qualifications. You can’t take someone off the street to be a PD. So I’m not saying that qualifications don’t matter or that associates are worthless for anything *besides* their availability. I’m just saying that salary here depends on what the employer expects you to do, not just that you have a law degree. (And I don’t think that availability is the only job requirement that matters, but I think it’s a convenient shorthand for the difference between a high-billing all hours gig like biglaw, and a more mission-based but 9-5 gig like many legal aid jobs [though admittedly less something like being a PD which can require a lot of hours as well].)

So I agree that associates need to value their degree and their qualifications, but I don’t think it’s because employers care about their economic sacrifice in going to law school. (I also disagree that the JD is worth something in any job you’re in, if it’s a non-law job. If you meant only lawyer jobs, sure, the JD is necessary, but it’s also not sufficient on its own for all of those. Education really doesn’t automatically mean more $$$ if the education isn’t pertinent to the job you’re doing. Ask the gazillion of underemployed PhDs out there.)

[nls336]

No one is paid biglaw salary because they went into debt and spent 3 years in law school. They’re paid biglaw salary because the working environment sucks, and a big reason why it sucks is that you’re expected to be available. I’m not saying anyone should wake up in the middle of the night to take emails as was suggested in another thread, and I also think figuring out ways to push back and create boundaries is incredibly important, so I agree with all that. You still should put limits on what a firm can expect from you. But from the perspective of people paying the salary, it has nothing to do with the burdens of law school. If it were, all law jobs would be high paid, and they’re not.

So yeah, I agree that the salary isn’t a gift, and it’s what the market requires and so firms pay it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what law school required of you. It’s about what the biglaw job requires of you.

Sorry, but I just fundamentally disagree with you on this and know we will not find a middle ground. But, I appreciate your take.

The job sucks for a LOT of reasons. But they can't hire people off of the street to do it. Firms don't pay paralegals 205k even though they often do substantively similar work as junior associates. I'm not saying that it is EXCLUSIVE to what you had to do to be qualified for the job, but the reality is, they cannot just take every applicant who would apply and weed them out based on who is willing to be available. They can only take entry-level and other lawyers and weed them out based on availability. The salary might help with retention but, in a capital market, is based on the qualifications of the employee, not based on the fact that availability is the measure of work (in my opinion).

Yes, you do have to be available, of course, when they ask you to be, but the mentality so many junior associates seem to have is one of being paid to basically be enslaved 24-7 for the gift of their salary. No, you are a highly trained professional laborer with a degree that is WORTH SOMETHING to the market in any job you are in. You do not have to simply sit in your unhappy state and think that if you weren't being treated like shit nobody would pay you a good salary. You deserve the salary based on the economic sacrifices you've made. That's how it works in every job, more education, more skills = more $$. The rising compensation has to do with a rise in COL and inflation and a rise in corresponding bullshit in the working environment (which we can both agree with ahha).

Hope you're doing well!

I’m not saying people don’t deserve the salary or that they have to get treated like shit to get a good salary. Qualifications absolutely matter. But entry levels PDs and legal aid attorneys made the same economic sacrifices and get paid $45-50k still, and have (and require) the same qualifications. You can’t take someone off the street to be a PD. So I’m not saying that qualifications don’t matter or that associates are worthless for anything *besides* their availability. I’m just saying that salary here depends on what the employer expects you to do, not just that you have a law degree. (And I don’t think that availability is the only job requirement that matters, but I think it’s a convenient shorthand for the difference between a high-billing all hours gig like biglaw, and a more mission-based but 9-5 gig like many legal aid jobs [though admittedly less something like being a PD which can require a lot of hours as well].)

So I agree that associates need to value their degree and their qualifications, but I don’t think it’s because employers care about their economic sacrifice in going to law school. (I also disagree that the JD is worth something in any job you’re in, if it’s a non-law job. If you meant only lawyer jobs, sure, the JD is necessary, but it’s also not sufficient on its own for all of those. Education really doesn’t automatically mean more $$$ if the education isn’t pertinent to the job you’re doing. Ask the gazillion of underemployed PhDs out there.)

Fair points. As I said above, I appreciate your take but, I ultimately disagree with it. In my opinion, PDs are the low-paid exception, not the norm (as we are the high-paid exception, not the norm). If you want to be a Public Defender you are usually aware that it will come with some negatives (just like ours does), but it also does come with loan forgiveness and benefits that may surpass our own in some ways. Knocking the value of benefits off from the salary is a bit unfair in that they form a part of any lawyer's or laborer's comp. (not saying you're doing this but if we are getting to the nitty-gritty we should mention it).

If we want to use a base salary for a lawyer we could say it is somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 (~$100,000 is the high end of JAG without the extra and untaxed benefits like Tricare, living stipends, marriage bonuses. Meanwhile, $130,000 is the beginning of the S-K government pay grade. $120,000 is average entry pay at the DOJ -- my sister works there currently as a new hire).

If this is true, then really only like $50-80,000 of our comp is based on availability, which after taxes in a high COL state is like $35,000-$50,000. My mother has been working for almost 40 years as an oncological pharmacist and she makes $150,000 + benefits. In most places that is MORE than enough to live a happy life.

That is not a huge salary bump to be essentially enslaved mentally and physically chained to your desk 24-7, taking every meal by the phone, wasting away when other jobs also value your effort to be qualified for their employment and come with different benefits from big law that raise the value of their compensation. My sister has far better healthcare than I do.

For example, the BCBS Illinois PPO+ that I have barely includes (AKA does not include) most general practitioners affiliated with NYU Langone or Columbia Presbyterian, the biggest hospitals in NYC. Those benefits are worth more to me as someone immunocompromised than potentially $35,000 paid to me as a junior with like an extra $3,500 after taxes on top of the regular market bonus for "availability." Nobody tells the person at the DOJ "you're paid six figures to be constantly available for the government even on federal holidays." Sometimes it happens, but it's not the norm.

Most attorneys can make somewhere between $120,000-$150,000 to start at a job that requires both bar admission and J.D. You can chalk probably $55,000 (so really $35,000ish after taxes in a high COL state) to availability, but at the end of the day, finding a bank teller is easier than finding a bank teller named Sarah (AKA finding someone to be available is easier than finding a highly skilled laborer in the field who is willing to be available).

Still, we would need to use actual data to be able to really apportion the amount that goes to you as a result of your willingness to be available. I think you and I would have a very interesting conversation if we had all of the data available to us to potentially break down.

[Anonymous User]

OP, one possible additional tool in the toolbox is confiding/being open with other people on your team about the strain becoming a problem. It doesn't take long in this profession to discover that the system is very unsympathetic to the psychological and emotional burdens of doing it day in, and day out, but I've found that colleagues are mostly understanding when you say "I'm just about handling this juggling act now, but I'm kind of at the end of my rope" - particularly when you can point to all the deals and hours that make you feel that way. It doesn't immediately take anything off your plate, but it can help prevent additional things getting put on it, and then you try to push through to a more manageable period. You'll never get people to say "oh you're having a bad time? Let me take these tasks for you so you can take a few days to recharge", but you may get a "well... I suppose we can action this tomorrow morning rather than tonight", which is better than nothing. Also it's just cathartic to express that feeling to people who are in a position to understand.

But it does get better and, sadly, this is indeed a rite of passage.

[nixy]

@nls336 - I think you are overlooking the bimodal distribution of entry level salaries. I don’t at all think that “most” attorneys can make $120-150k to start. I think that’s *wildly* unrealistic. Very very very few people start their careers at DOJ, for instance. If you don’t start in biglaw, statistically, you’re making well under $100k (not sure how low it is at this point but I’d guess the average is around $60k based on earlier years).

I absolutely agree that no one should ruin their life for a job and whether the $30-35k that you (artificially) attribute to availability is worth it is something that a given individual has to decide (I would argue it’s more than that, given most entry level options, but for many people, that’s still a lot of money). Of course there are trade offs in all the options out there.

My point is only that I don’t think this is what biglaw *employers* are thinking about wrt expectations for associates and salary. I agree that they want to get the “best” applicants and are willing to pay for that, but they also have high expectations for associate performance and they’re paying for that performance, not your time in school. That doesn’t mean that new JDs are valueless aside from their warm body-ness or that they should put up with work conditions inconsistent with their health and well-being (and that can vary; some people are fine with pulling all nighters, some aren’t, some can’t handle last minute demands ruining plans, some can work with that). It just means don’t expect your employer to be looking at your career with your best interests in mind. It’s worth reminding yourself that you have value, but it doesn’t make sense to say that employers are paying you biglaw rates because you spent 3 years in school and went into debt. Biglaw salaries definitely haven’t kept pace with the increasing rate of student debt, for instance, and the bumps in market salary aren’t inspired by debt either.

[Anonymous User]

@nls336 - I think you are overlooking the bimodal distribution of entry level salaries. I don’t at all think that “most” attorneys can make $120-150k to start. I think that’s *wildly* unrealistic. Very very very few people start their careers at DOJ, for instance. If you don’t start in biglaw, statistically, you’re making well under $100k (not sure how low it is at this point but I’d guess the average is around $60k based on earlier years).

I absolutely agree that no one should ruin their life for a job and whether the $30-35k that you (artificially) attribute to availability is worth it is something that a given individual has to decide (I would argue it’s more than that, given most entry level options, but for many people, that’s still a lot of money). Of course there are trade offs in all the options out there.

My point is only that I don’t think this is what biglaw *employers* are thinking about wrt expectations for associates and salary. I agree that they want to get the “best” applicants and are willing to pay for that, but they also have high expectations for associate performance and they’re paying for that performance, not your time in school. That doesn’t mean that new JDs are valueless aside from their warm body-ness or that they should put up with work conditions inconsistent with their health and well-being (and that can vary; some people are fine with pulling all nighters, some aren’t, some can’t handle last minute demands ruining plans, some can work with that). It just means don’t expect your employer to be looking at your career with your best interests in mind. It’s worth reminding yourself that you have value, but it doesn’t make sense to say that employers are paying you biglaw rates because you spent 3 years in school and went into debt. Biglaw salaries definitely haven’t kept pace with the increasing rate of student debt, for instance, and the bumps in market salary aren’t inspired by debt either.

I mostly agree with this post, actually. But don't think it's realistic to say that someone who is of the caliber of a big law associate would be making $50k a year automatically, or for very long. If you went the JAG route before law school you'd make almost six figures by the time you're two years out of law school without debt at an 0-3 paygrade, depending on various miscellaneous facts like where you're stationed, etc.

That is literally a base you can build the market off of. That's what people think of government employment as. My sister is an entry-level attorney who made 120,000. My brother graduated from Seton Hall Law and made 120,000 to start at a small law firm in New Jersey.

I think you're not really clued into the market if you think that's an unrealistic expectation. I've seen it happen many, many times. Will everyone make that? Absolutely not, but that is a base salary expectation for most people coming out of law school, especially for those who would be good big law candidates -- making at or over $100,000. This is true especially if you graduated from a program worth its salt, have other job experience, or can point to justifications for an increased salary based on your resume.

I don't want to get this thread off-topic any more than it already is so I'll say no more on the subject. If you'd like to continue discussing feel free to PM. Hope you're really well (genuinely) and you're healthy + safe out there! Good luck, friend.

-- ALSO this is NLS, just accidentally anon'd myself.

[nixy]

To stay on topic - OP, I do think the takeaway that you have value is worth keeping in mind, though maybe a little removed from the source of your stress. I agree with the person above that letting your team know can help, because you’re doubtless overwhelmed because the work is genuinely overwhelming, not because you are somehow weak or a failure or anything. (You haven’t said that you feel like that but it’s very common to feel like if you admit you’re struggling you’ll be admitting fault, and you won’t.)

Also, I get your reluctance about medication, and tend to think it’s kind of awful that so many people need to be on meds to deal with the realities of life under modern capitalism. But it seems like the choices are 1) explore meds, potentially feel better, and stay in your job; 2) quit your job because a job that requires meds isn’t worth it to you (which is *completely* reasonable); or 3) don’t go on meds, stay in your job, and be miserable and panicked all the time. I mean, ideally there will be some way to adjust the job without meds, but if your stress/anxiety is situational, and you can’t change the situation, it can have long term effects and medication is worth considering. Or at least talking to a therapist about how best to approach the situation (though I realizing carving out time to do this isn’t always easy when the issue is work overwhelm!).

[bretby]

I think NLS had some really excellent advice that sort of fell by the wayside as people started arguing over the less important details of the post. I see this a lot in young lawyers, particularly people who went straight through or only worked for a couple of years before going to law school. Remember that your worth as a person is absolutely not connected to your job. You are a full individual with needs and desires that cannot be met by work and it is absolutely ok to recognize this and make space for it. This will likely mean drawing boundaries with work - setting aside time for exercise, a phone call, etc. Although you will of course still spend a good portion of your time at work, in my experience, carving out time for these things makes the work so much more sustainable. This also may mean not staying in big law for the long haul. And it does not mean that you are a failure if you find you do not thrive in a big firm. Do not internalize that judgment, as difficult as it can be. I have seen people become very myopic and drink the Kool Aid and start to tie their self-worth to the job and that is neither healthy nor sustainable. It may sound cheesy, but you are enough just as you are and don't let your email alert try to convince you otherwise.

[Anonymous User]

I was feeling super stressed out recently and I went to see a doctor for the first time in forever because it was interfering with my sleep. The guy said that 90% of his patients since COVID hit have been there for anxiety. He told me I needed to: (1) cut out drinking; (2) exercise every day; (3) drink no caffeine after noon; and (4) cut out energy drinks. He told me that there's nothing that will completely take away the anxiousness that comes with being a competitive person in a competitive environment, but he gave me some small-dose Xanax, and told me to take it very sparingly. Specifically, he told me I had to have bad sleep 3 nights in a row. That was about a month ago, and so far I have taken 2 of them. They definitely cut the stress - almost too much. I feel like a zombie the next day. I have also tried to exercise and stop drinking, though I still give in to drinking once a week. This job is hard. I'm trying to focus on the things I like to do, do my best at work for 8-10 hours a day, set boundaries the best I can, and not worry if I miss an ASAP email or have a typo or two.

[Anonymous User]

OP here, thanks all for the tips and encouragement. I’ve definitely internalized the “whole juniors are paid for availability” narrative a bit too much. I will work on prioritizing self-care and I’m scheduling a long weekend off for starters. To everyone in the same boat, hang in there and take care of yourselves!

[Anonymous User]

This is an amazing post! Thanks to everyone who replied, a lot of great and important insights. Just a law student following along, and keeping everything in mind for the future!