Biglaw: Is it really that bad? Forum

[Anonymous User]

In house at an F100 doesn’t sound like a dream job either, but holy sh** it’s difficult for biglaw litigators to find jobs outside private firms. I cannot emphasize how unbelievably challenging and frustrating it is to job hunt outside firms for litigators - many folks I know spend years of applying and interviewing and striking out, and then you’re incredibly lucky if you land something after a harrowing process.

Looking back, I think corporate work would have been even more mind-numbing (especially at the junior level)—and I loved my clerkships—but I often wonder whether it would have been easier and ultimately happier to do corporate starting from my summer. My friends from school have had it much easier in getting out of biglaw from their corporate groups in years 3-5.

Corp litigator checking in, still on the hunt after 16 months, 120+ applications, and 40+ interviews (incl many final rounds). I think I'm completely qualified for the roles, but the positions open to litigators are so few and far between that the competition is just immense--it feels like the realization a solid D1 athlete may have when looking at the chances of actually going pro. "Harrowing" is an understatement.

That's an incredible interview rate. I got three interviews out of 80ish applications.

To clarify, the 40 number represents every time I spoke to a new person for any role, even for the same opening/company (i.e. initial screener, interview with hiring manager, four people for next round = 6 interviews). If we are calling everything for a position one "interview", then the application to interview ratio is more like 120:18.

[j01]

I have no reason to doubt that the folks on here really hate their work, but it's indisputable that this website suffers from "Yelp syndrome": the people who hate their jobs are far more likely to express that on websites like this.

[Anonymous User]

In house at an F100 doesn’t sound like a dream job either, but holy sh** it’s difficult for biglaw litigators to find jobs outside private firms. I cannot emphasize how unbelievably challenging and frustrating it is to job hunt outside firms for litigators - many folks I know spend years of applying and interviewing and striking out, and then you’re incredibly lucky if you land something after a harrowing process.

Looking back, I think corporate work would have been even more mind-numbing (especially at the junior level)—and I loved my clerkships—but I often wonder whether it would have been easier and ultimately happier to do corporate starting from my summer. My friends from school have had it much easier in getting out of biglaw from their corporate groups in years 3-5.

Corp litigator checking in, still on the hunt after 16 months, 120+ applications, and 40+ interviews (incl many final rounds). I think I'm completely qualified for the roles, but the positions open to litigators are so few and far between that the competition is just immense--it feels like the realization a solid D1 athlete may have when looking at the chances of actually going pro. "Harrowing" is an understatement.

A bit off topic, but I'm leaning towards abandoning litigation post-clerkship and doing corporate for exactly these reasons. Leaving a firm for in-house as a litigator seems incredibly hard these days even if you're well-credentialed and are coming from a top firm, while the same move is laughably easy for corporate folks right now. And becoming equity partner as a biglaw litigator anywhere in say the V100 seems next to impossible absent phenomenal credentials and/or superstar litigation/trial chops and/or top government experience -- on the corporate side equity partner at a V100 seems more attainable (though still exceptionally difficult) if you can bear doing the work and start off/work several years at a top corporate firm.

[Anonymous User]

Welcome to the specialist life. I'm a mid level in a specialist group at my second firm. First firm was similar to what you described with more hours (hour req for bonus). Difference is I had neurotic partners and some mid-level associates who thought that yelling and making juniors hell was good procedure. That job was terrible and being stressed about making mistakes made me make more mistakes and hate my life.

At second firm it's easy as pie so far. Pretty much bill the absolute minimum I can until it gets busy (maybe 4 times a year?) then bust my ass for a month then take a week or two vacation.

[Anonymous User]

A bit off topic, but I'm leaning towards abandoning litigation post-clerkship and doing corporate for exactly these reasons. Leaving a firm for in-house as a litigator seems incredibly hard these days even if you're well-credentialed and are coming from a top firm, while the same move is laughably easy for corporate folks right now. And becoming equity partner as a biglaw litigator anywhere in say the V100 seems next to impossible absent phenomenal credentials and/or superstar litigation/trial chops and/or top government experience -- on the corporate side equity partner at a V100 seems more attainable (though still exceptionally difficult) if you can bear doing the work and start off/work several years at a top corporate firm.

I did M&A post-COA clerkship for basically these reason. I will say though: (1) you work, a lot; (2) if you're not interested in some aspect corporate work (the negotiations, business dynamics, project management, w/e), it's gonna be miserable

I am, so it was a great choice. but I wouldn't do a job I hate for 80 hours a week just so I can exit to do a job I hate for 50 hours a week.....or to get promoted...to keep doing a job I hate for 80 hours a week

[12YrsAnAssociate]

In my experience, when biglaw sucks, it is absolutely terrible. When it doesn’t, it’s awesome for the money.

I sneaked across my bonus threshold by 7 hours last year. I only hit my prorated monthly hour requirements 4/12 months. If I’m only pace for my bonus, I don’t seek new work and lie low.

But one those of 4 months required 250 hours. And it fell during my brother’s wedding. The partner asked if I had other brothers and could miss the ceremony. And it was on a transaction matter I got sucked into as a litigator where I was required to fire off the hip and commit borderline malpractice. So it sucked pretty good. But the rest of the year was fine.

I think this is exactly right. Right now my life is great. I surf every day. I exercise. I see my family lots. But I know that some time in the next month or two I'll look back at this comment with utter disgust, thinking that biglaw is 100% the worst thing that ever happened to me, while choking down Xanax and firing off a bunch of resumes for 40 hour week county counsel positions in random low cost of living cities. I'm in biglaw because no employer in their right mind would ever pay me a fraction of what I make, and because biglaw has its moments that I enjoy.

[Anonymous User]

A bit off topic, but I'm leaning towards abandoning litigation post-clerkship and doing corporate for exactly these reasons. Leaving a firm for in-house as a litigator seems incredibly hard these days even if you're well-credentialed and are coming from a top firm, while the same move is laughably easy for corporate folks right now. And becoming equity partner as a biglaw litigator anywhere in say the V100 seems next to impossible absent phenomenal credentials and/or superstar litigation/trial chops and/or top government experience -- on the corporate side equity partner at a V100 seems more attainable (though still exceptionally difficult) if you can bear doing the work and start off/work several years at a top corporate firm.

I did M&A post-COA clerkship for basically these reason. I will say though: (1) you work, a lot; (2) if you're not interested in some aspect corporate work (the negotiations, business dynamics, project management, w/e), it's gonna be miserable

I am, so it was a great choice. but I wouldn't do a job I hate for 80 hours a week just so I can exit to do a job I hate for 50 hours a week.....or to get promoted...to keep doing a job I hate for 80 hours a week

Glad to hear the move has worked out well for you. I realize after getting a taste of lit that, at least conceptually, working on a big deal is more exciting and interesting to me than working on a big lawsuit. I also think working with folks across industries (the bankers, the business-side company folks, the auditors) can be refreshing, rather than being siloed in with just lawyers (opposing counsel, in-house counsel, the judge) in lit. I did some corporate work as a summer, so I know the work is rote -- but after doing some lit now, I think it's really a wash between which day-to-day work is more "interesting" (and when you're doing the work for 13+ hours/day neither is interesting enough to make it not suck). Now just hoping firms will be interested in an ex-clerk for corporate roles.

[Anonymous User]

I also think working with folks across industries (the bankers, the business-side company folks, the auditors) can be refreshing, rather than being siloed in with just lawyers (opposing counsel, in-house counsel, the judge) in lit.

This is really interesting - it's not something I'd thought about until seeing you post this, but I think one of the things I actually like about lit is being siloed with lawyers who, as terrible as we all are, nonetheless all operate from kind of the same perspective/expertise/approach, compared to outsiders who don't really understand. It's just useful to see this as another kind of marker for "which of corp/lit are you likely to prefer doing?" (Obviously not really helpful re: exit options of course.)

[Anonymous User]

In house at an F100 doesn’t sound like a dream job either, but holy sh** it’s difficult for biglaw litigators to find jobs outside private firms. I cannot emphasize how unbelievably challenging and frustrating it is to job hunt outside firms for litigators - many folks I know spend years of applying and interviewing and striking out, and then you’re incredibly lucky if you land something after a harrowing process.

Looking back, I think corporate work would have been even more mind-numbing (especially at the junior level)—and I loved my clerkships—but I often wonder whether it would have been easier and ultimately happier to do corporate starting from my summer. My friends from school have had it much easier in getting out of biglaw from their corporate groups in years 3-5.

Corp litigator checking in, still on the hunt after 16 months, 120+ applications, and 40+ interviews (incl many final rounds). I think I'm completely qualified for the roles, but the positions open to litigators are so few and far between that the competition is just immense--it feels like the realization a solid D1 athlete may have when looking at the chances of actually going pro. "Harrowing" is an understatement.

That's an incredible interview rate. I got three interviews out of 80ish applications.

To clarify, the 40 number represents every time I spoke to a new person for any role, even for the same opening/company (i.e. initial screener, interview with hiring manager, four people for next round = 6 interviews). If we are calling everything for a position one "interview", then the application to interview ratio is more like 120:18.

Senior associate litigator at a v50 adding another data point under this method: 55 applications, four interviews, in five months.

[Anonymous User]

For another data point, I recently landed an in-house role from a corporate specialist group. One of the purported downsides of being a specialist is there are a lot fewer in-house roles, so I was concerned that I would not be able to get an in-house job. Although there are certainly fewer openings, I had 2 offers within a few months, out of about 10 or so jobs I applied for. It kind of evens out b/c there are not that many people qualified for the in-house specialist roles, and a fair amount of people who are go to the government.

Being a specialist at a big-law firm is a much better lifestyle (comparatively) than M&A, debt finance, cap markets, etc., and after having a smooth in-house search, I don't see any downside (I've seen several other specialists in recent months go in-house as well).

[jotarokujo]

in house is not the only thing that exists for litigators. there's lit funders and government

[Anonymous User]

In house at an F100 doesn’t sound like a dream job either, but holy sh** it’s difficult for biglaw litigators to find jobs outside private firms. I cannot emphasize how unbelievably challenging and frustrating it is to job hunt outside firms for litigators - many folks I know spend years of applying and interviewing and striking out, and then you’re incredibly lucky if you land something after a harrowing process.

Looking back, I think corporate work would have been even more mind-numbing (especially at the junior level)—and I loved my clerkships—but I often wonder whether it would have been easier and ultimately happier to do corporate starting from my summer. My friends from school have had it much easier in getting out of biglaw from their corporate groups in years 3-5.

Corp litigator checking in, still on the hunt after 16 months, 120+ applications, and 40+ interviews (incl many final rounds). I think I'm completely qualified for the roles, but the positions open to litigators are so few and far between that the competition is just immense--it feels like the realization a solid D1 athlete may have when looking at the chances of actually going pro. "Harrowing" is an understatement.

That's an incredible interview rate. I got three interviews out of 80ish applications.

I was a litigator at the firm before moving in-house. I shared this on another thread, but I literally applied to 300 jobs before receiving an offer. You both have a way higher interview rate than I did.

Hang in there and keep applying!

[Anonymous User]

I was a litigator at the firm before moving in-house. I shared this on another thread, but I literally applied to 300 jobs before receiving an offer. You both have a way higher interview rate than I did.

Hang in there and keep applying!

I'm planning on having a detailed thread about my search if I ever get an offer. 300 applications, props to you. After a year and 100+ apps I feel like I'm close to a breaking point/giving up.

[Anonymous User]

I was a litigator at the firm before moving in-house. I shared this on another thread, but I literally applied to 300 jobs before receiving an offer. You both have a way higher interview rate than I did.

Hang in there and keep applying!

I'm planning on having a detailed thread about my search if I ever get an offer. 300 applications, props to you. After a year and 100+ apps I feel like I'm close to a breaking point/giving up.

For those 300 applications, I think it took me a bit over 2.5 years to get an offer. And yeah, it was rough over those years, and I had multiple points of just wanting to give up. Ironically, the job I received was the last application of the 300, and even more ironic, the initial friend-of-a-friend legal contact at the company didn't know anything about the particular group I wanted to join, so I asked one more person if they knew that certain group.

The moral here (and I fully realize I'm saying this with the benefit of hindsight): Even after hundreds of applications, the place you're applying to today could be your future employer. And even if one person doesn't know about wherever you're trying to network into, ask just one more person. That other person could be your gateway to a job offer.

[Anonymous User]

What makes Biglaw terrible when you get more senior is the inability to plan a 3 day vacation months in advance. Everything is emergency and I'm the only associate on 1/2 of my deals.

[Anonymous User]

What makes Biglaw terrible when you get more senior is the inability to plan a 3 day vacation months in advance. Everything is emergency and I'm the only associate on 1/2 of my deals.

This is largely true in lit as well. As a third year or below, you’re relatively interchangeable over short periods until close to trial. But partners become hugely dependent on their senior associates in managing the day to day of cases. In a large matter, even taking a full 3 day weekend without working can be challenging sometimes because the partners are not effective at managing the junior associates directly, especially during discovery (and certainly not anywhere close to trial), and you’re likely in that role for multiple matters at a time. A two week vacation becomes unthinkable.

[Anonymous User]

In house at an F100 doesn’t sound like a dream job either, but holy sh** it’s difficult for biglaw litigators to find jobs outside private firms. I cannot emphasize how unbelievably challenging and frustrating it is to job hunt outside firms for litigators - many folks I know spend years of applying and interviewing and striking out, and then you’re incredibly lucky if you land something after a harrowing process.

Looking back, I think corporate work would have been even more mind-numbing (especially at the junior level)—and I loved my clerkships—but I often wonder whether it would have been easier and ultimately happier to do corporate starting from my summer. My friends from school have had it much easier in getting out of biglaw from their corporate groups in years 3-5.

Corp litigator checking in, still on the hunt after 16 months, 120+ applications, and 40+ interviews (incl many final rounds). I think I'm completely qualified for the roles, but the positions open to litigators are so few and far between that the competition is just immense--it feels like the realization a solid D1 athlete may have when looking at the chances of actually going pro. "Harrowing" is an understatement.

That's an incredible interview rate. I got three interviews out of 80ish applications.

To clarify, the 40 number represents every time I spoke to a new person for any role, even for the same opening/company (i.e. initial screener, interview with hiring manager, four people for next round = 6 interviews). If we are calling everything for a position one "interview", then the application to interview ratio is more like 120:18.

+1 to all of this. Former litigator here, made it out of biglaw to large corporate in-house eventually. Something like a 20% hit rate for even a screener interview for a position sounds about right, and that is with tailoring resumes and cover letters to positions and not applying for positions that didn't fit my background. It took years of applying (on and off, not continuously) and numerous final rounds before I got an offer. This is with pretty good pedigree (from a top firm, HYS, etc.). Trying to get in-house as a litigator is absolutely brutal and many who try simply won't be able to get a spot before their time in biglaw is up.

Particularly bad were all of the companies with generalist positions (e.g. "product counsel" and similar) that claimed to be open to ligitators, but after wasting time preparing for and going on an interview or two, it rapidly became clear that they were not, in fact, actually open to litigators.

[Anonymous User]

As with everything, it all depends on perspective. Is it "bad" to be 31 years old and have made so much money the last 6 years to have paid off $300k in student loans, bought a house, have $350k+ in savings (after having supported spouse through school), being able to support my immigrant parents who still work for $15/hr? Not bad at all from that perspective. There's also something to be said for the sense of "accomplishment" you get when you sign/close deals (or win cases) for some of the most influential companies and people in the world.

But yeah, when you don't see your family/friends who supported you to get to where you are very often to even know what's going on in their day-to-day lives, can't plan a vacation with your wife and kid and know you'll be off, or just sit on the damn couch and watch some tv, it's pretty bad.

I came into biglaw out of genuine interest for the work and stayed for the financial necessity. I know people (seemingly) have families, friends and appear happy if they stay long-term, but I just don't see how that could possibly work for me. If it does for you, that's awesome. I'm headed for the door soon.

[Anonymous User]

Genuine question for the long list of posters who bitch moan and complain about how boring or numb this job is, what wouldn’t be boring to you? Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Playing in the NFL? Working as an artist on a hot new nft??????

[Lacepiece23]

May be anecdotal, but all the litigators in my class found in house gigs. I was in a secondary market. Seemed decently easy.

They usually got the job through a connection. Class sizes are small enough that once a spot came open, someone from my firm was in a good position to snag one through a simple phone call to the person making the decisions who also used to work at the firm.

May be the difference between big markets where there are 1000s of litigation associates.

[nixy]

Genuine question for the long list of posters who bitch moan and complain about how boring or numb this job is, what wouldn’t be boring to you? Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Playing in the NFL? Working as an artist on a hot new nft??????

A lot of people find it boring to work on something they have no emotional investment in, and they find it hard to get emotionally invested in mergers of big companies. Some people find it really boring to complete discrete tasks as part of a larger strategy which they have little input into/control over and would rather play a part in coming up with the strategy. Some people find it really boring to sit in an office and stare at a computer all day and would rather get up, move around, talk to people more and/or be more physically active. Some people find it really boring to do paperwork stuff and would rather actually build or create something.

I mean there are a million reasons why any given person would find biglaw boring.

[Anonymous User]

Genuine question for the long list of posters who bitch moan and complain about how boring or numb this job is, what wouldn’t be boring to you? Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Playing in the NFL? Working as an artist on a hot new nft??????

I would love to know what percentage of people who complain about this job being boring have had another full-time non-law job before law school. White-collar jobs are frequently very boring! Come on. Consulting? Finance? Marketing? At this one pays you a ludicrous amount and you don't have to understand math.

[Anonymous User]

I think this may be an overgeneralization, but isn't it the case that hours tend to be much more manageable in Europe than in NYC? If that's right, then OP, I wouldn't consider your situation typical for biglaw.

But yes, it is really that bad. It has been absolutely brutal the past year or so (took a mental health leave, finally started seeing a therapist). V10 M&A midlevel.

[Anonymous User]

Genuine question for the long list of posters who bitch moan and complain about how boring or numb this job is, what wouldn’t be boring to you? Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Playing in the NFL? Working as an artist on a hot new nft??????

I would love to know what percentage of people who complain about this job being boring have had another full-time non-law job before law school. White-collar jobs are frequently very boring! Come on. Consulting? Finance? Marketing? At this one pays you a ludicrous amount and you don't have to understand math.

+1. After pursuing my passion for several years after undergrad making $24k a year and in a creative industry where success was far from guaranteed... it is really difficult for me to sympathize with this complaint. To be clear, I don't doubt people sincerely feel this way. But for me, biglaw is so obviously cushy it just doesn't compute. (Granted, I might feel differently if I were at a sweatshop.). I have to think this mentality is more prevalent in K-JD's and others who don't have a less cushy frame of reference to compare biglaw to. For instance, the former public school teachers I know who've gone to biglaw usually don't have this complaint.

More generally, I worry the increasingly prevalent idea in law and elsewhere that people need to find personal fulfillment through their paid work (as opposed to their personal lives and out-of-work hobbies) is going to create some very disappointed generations. It is a particularly white-collar affliction, and while there are probably some truly fulfilling white-collar jobs out there, I don't think there are nearly as many as there are people who want them.

[Anonymous User]

This whole “people who complain about biglaw must never have worked before” comes up a lot and I think it’s kind of unfair. It’s true that adjusting to the work world can be difficult and a lot fewer people are going to end up in jobs they find passionately fulfilling than expect or hope to. But it’s one thing to find your work boring, and it’s another to find your work boring AND be utterly swamped with that work AND be on call all the time and not be able to make/keep plans for evenings/the weekends AND work for difficult people. Not all biglaw jobs involve all those things, but some do, and more involve at least some. If your biglaw experience doesn’t involve any of those things, or you have no problem with any of those things, that’s great for you. But that doesn’t mean that people who complain just don’t know what the work world is like.