Biglaw: Is it really that bad? Forum

[Sad248]

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 mean, is that the idea that all white collar jobs are terrible? How about being on the management team of a company, whether large or small? Being a C suite executive is a massively better job than biglaw, in every possible law.

Right… so to answer the question, you want to be a C suite executive and that’s your comp for your daily big law job. Most C suite executives do boring jobs (on par or worse) than big law for decades before getting there. The idea is all jobs have a grind/boring mentality and biglaw people for some reason believe they should be c suite executives without suffering decades of truly banal work. Like managing numbers of Walmart stores or global supply chains. Those management teams? Those people generally do a long number of years in consulting which is equally repetitive as big law.

Totally wrong. Plenty of people do 2-3 years at McKinsey and become executives at small to mid-sized companies. Being a consultant at McKinsey is VASTLY better than biglaw in its own right, and being an executive at a company, and doing actual work rather than being the world's leading comma expert, is also VASTLY better than biglaw. Biglaw is really a uniquely miserable existence, and it is delusional to pretend otherwise.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Agreed and the McKinsey analysis here is not really true. Analysts from management consulting firms are not becoming the heads of small businesses after 2 years.

But, taking this posters nonsense as true, why aren’t you and all other posters who are salivating for “business roles” in the c suite banging down door for management consulting jobs? Why did you go to a t14 etc? If you really think being the CFO of a family owned fertilizer company based out of Boise is that much better than biglaw, again why aren’t you grinding it out in “X” sector where your passion is?

It’s always your fault your doing biglaw. The counter factual doesn’t really answer the question and explain the grass is greener, “every other profession offers a secure financial future with normal working hours” attitude that’s pervasive on this website.

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

I think this is also one of the reasons biglaw sucks. I'm in corporate, so maybe it's different for lit, but I liked law school to an extent. The analysis, parsing arguments, drafting documents, etc. It required analytical thinking and some creativity at times even.

Now it's just: Look at precedent. Draft document. Receive comments on draft. Amend draft. Send draft in. Discuss draft. Amend draft accordingly. Finalize draft. Rinse and repeat.

One of my friends at a different firm even confided in me that they let their spouse sometimes amend the drafts, on nights where they're too tired. It requires none of the skills we were taught in law school. I think a lot of people would be happier in biglaw, even if that came with late nights, if the work was intellectually satisfying. I've honestly felt more intellectually challenged at most part-time jobs I've held down during law school.

[basketofbread]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

[nixy]

I kind of figured that had to be sarcasm, but now I can't decide.

[Sackboy]

I kind of figured that had to be sarcasm, but now I can't decide.

As someone who has been around this forum since 2012, don't underestimate how braindead the MBB and BB IB stans are.

[Anonymous User]

I kind of figured that had to be sarcasm, but now I can't decide.

As someone who has been around this forum since 2012, don't underestimate how braindead the MBB and BB IB stans are.

Not OP or any of the above posters -- but, I did live with someone who did IB banking at a comparable position to mine, which is in big law, and his hours were far more regular and his job was way less shitty to him. He worked for a non-US bank, but his job did suck pretty bad. That's completely anecdotal...and I agree that it is fanciful thinking to believe that any job in the USA today, where you are directly working for someone, will be better. I've worked some nasty hospitality jobs (think 16-hour shifts consecutively without a bathroom, paid under the table, illegal labor) and my experience working in big law is par for the course with how I felt at those jobs. The truth is every laborer in the USA is poorly treated except for the business owners who genuinely believe that deploying capital is working the same as performing labor. Haven't you all seen those complaints from small business owners absolutely IRATE that they have to man the window or stock the shelves in their own businesses? They deployed the capital! Isn't that enough to earn the right to oversee others and not put the time in yourself?!

What? Do partners now all of a sudden need to give more than 1 line of directions in an email to a junior associate? The joke of all jokes is that we are 2 years into this pandemic. Thats like 730 days of this and not one time did any of the law firms I've worked for or had friends working for admit that they need to find a new way to train associates during the virtual period. They are fully delusional, relying on the idea that we are all just going to RTO and that's where now third years will pick up the skills they need to be associates. Literally, that thinking is delusional. In 730 days, not one firm has unveiled an online training program designed to cover all of these mythical skills you just "pick up" when a "partner invites u in the room for a call you lucky laborer, you." That fact alone makes each person's job 1000x harder than it needs to be because nobody has been trained whatsoever! I'm starting to think even before the pandemic this mythic training that you get at big law was just the same, sink or swim -- good luck; we deployed the capital you learn how to be lawyers on your own. This could be directly mitigated by firm investment and time, but no firm is doing it because they do not give a shit if your life is made harder by their lack of investment in you. Simply spoken that investment is capital that they will not deploy because it is wasted capital to them. They'd rather give you free lunches once a week because it's cheaper.

IB bankers are treated like dog shit. Doctors are treated actually way worse than everyone in the whole country except nurses and other medical staff with zero protections as to how much they can be forced to work and how little they can be paid to do it. Hospitality workers? Treated like enslaved people there to take your abuse and discontents for $7.25 an hour from staff and customers alike. Every job in America seems to include "tolerating labor abuse" as a feature in their job description. It's not better to be an analyst or to be anything else in this country because we have absolutely zero labor laws in place for at-will employment and our employers can treat us however they want because, at a fundamental level, the narrative in the USA has always been if you pay your laborers you own them for that time, which I cannot think of a more toxic way to run society. It's this ideology that has absolutely ruined the user experience of working and drives people out of the profession in droves (which nobody seems to care about but the people who leave).

The undercurrent of our discontent as a group of people, sure who are paid fairly well (but not that well after COL and our student loan debts) is that fact. We all went to professional school so that our jobs would show us some modicum of respect and treat us like we deserve to be treated and what we got was work in a country that does not value labor, does not give labor any rights, and seems to take a schadenfreude sort of pleasure from making workers feel like they are powerless objects owned by companies and the masters of the universe. So, the bait-and-switch lives on because at the core not a single worker or laborer is respected in our system -- no matter how many degrees you have, no matter how much work you do, how high performing you are your job doesn't respect you, they don't care about you. If you were on your death-bed they'd replace you and cut your benefits no matter how much you gave them of your lifetime. They want to bring us back to work in this shit! You can bet your ass they aren't going to unveil a suite of new policies preserving the jobs and pay of the people who get long covid from work, or pensions for people who might be later debilitated by exposures to covid, which for all we know could be the asbestos of our time period. So, just work to survive and don't develop a personality, moral, or identity attachment to your job. They'll bring you back in and the externalities that will create in your life are YOUR financial and physical problems to deal with on your own and if you get sick you better still hit your hours because productivity will suffer if you don't! Did you get covid because the office forced you back in and didn't make your bonus requirement? Boo hoo, no policy on pro-rating your hours requirement if you have covid, I'm sure. Don't ask your bosses for help, they already deployed the capital, that's all they're going to do.

Productivity is not the be-all-end-all and profits for someone else don't pay your rent. We should have solidarity with each other, not treat each other like the problem. But, you know, lawyers generally aren't that nice to begin with so.

[Anonymous User]

The truth is every laborer in the USA is poorly treated except for the business owners who genuinely believe that deploying capital is working the same as performing labor. Haven't you all seen those complaints from small business owners absolutely IRATE that they have to man the window or stock the shelves in their own businesses? They deployed the capital! Isn't that enough to earn the right to oversee others and not put the time in yourself?!

Never expected to see such a based post on TLS.

[Anonymous User]

The truth is every laborer in the USA is poorly treated except for the business owners who genuinely believe that deploying capital is working the same as performing labor. Haven't you all seen those complaints from small business owners absolutely IRATE that they have to man the window or stock the shelves in their own businesses? They deployed the capital! Isn't that enough to earn the right to oversee others and not put the time in yourself?!

Never expected to see such a based post on TLS.

Ya, it's like something out of Alice in Wonderland. Are CEOs' of fortune 100 poorly treated. Professional baseball players? The idea that we are living in the second incarnation of the Industrial Revolution is a bit of a joke (and even then I'm sure white collar workers didn't have it so bad).

[Anonymous User]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

Compare the exits of MBB consultants and biglaw associates.

MBB - generally to executive positions at small companies or corporate strategy groups (and some to high paying PE, etc...).

Biglaw - either miserably grinding it out in large firms forever, some listless in house positions and many who just burn out and quit law entirely.

The biglaw experience and exits are incomparably worse, and the job satisfaction incomparably worse as well.

[Anonymous User]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

Compare the exits of MBB consultants and biglaw associates.

MBB - generally to executive positions at small companies or corporate strategy groups (and some to high paying PE, etc...).

Biglaw - either miserably grinding it out in large firms forever, some listless in house positions and many who just burn out and quit law entirely.

The biglaw experience and exits are incomparably worse, and the job satisfaction incomparably worse as well.

[Anonymous User]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

Compare the exits of MBB consultants and biglaw associates.

MBB - generally to executive positions at small companies or corporate strategy groups (and some to high paying PE, etc...).

Biglaw - either miserably grinding it out in large firms forever, some listless in house positions and many who just burn out and quit law entirely.

The biglaw experience and exits are incomparably worse, and the job satisfaction incomparably worse as well.

Did you get fired from biglaw and move into consulting?

[clarion]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

Compare the exits of MBB consultants and biglaw associates.

MBB - generally to executive positions at small companies or corporate strategy groups (and some to high paying PE, etc...).

Biglaw - either miserably grinding it out in large firms forever, some listless in house positions and many who just burn out and quit law entirely.

The biglaw experience and exits are incomparably worse, and the job satisfaction incomparably worse as well.

Did you get fired from biglaw and move into consulting?

Not to pile on but—is your point that being a lawyer sucks? Cause when you suggest that there are no good exit options, it sounds like your point is that being a lawyer sucks. And if that’s how you feel then I think you can take your JD and like, stop being a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

Compare the exits of MBB consultants and biglaw associates.

MBB - generally to executive positions at small companies or corporate strategy groups (and some to high paying PE, etc...).

Biglaw - either miserably grinding it out in large firms forever, some listless in house positions and many who just burn out and quit law entirely.

The biglaw experience and exits are incomparably worse, and the job satisfaction incomparably worse as well.

Did you get fired from biglaw and move into consulting?

No, I happily left on my own. I do know how the identify battered spouse syndrome though - the idea that staying in your current miserable job is optimal because it would be just as bad in any other job, or the idea that the only options in life are biglaw or Burger King.

[Anonymous User]

Being in the C suite is not the same as "becoming the head of a small business." Try to actually read what is written.

People go to law school, and not into management consulting, because they are genuinely interested in the legal thinking and analysis, and would like a job that revolves around those things. That being the case, there is no reason that biglaw need be set up in a way that is 1,000x more toxic than management consulting, treating highly skilled associates like worthless idiots who can't be trusted to sharpen a pencil. There is no reason that biglaw can't treat associates the same way that MBB treats management consultants - as highly valued team members whose thoughts and opinions matter from day 1, and who are expected to engage with the highest levels of management of major companies.

Biglaw has decided to create a uniquely miserable associate experience, driving the vast majority of associates quickly out of the system, and retaining only the most horrible, the most toxic, the most totally lacking in personality and the most money and status obsessed.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out how awful biglaw is, with no necessity to be so, and to push for changes to make it more like management consulting or other fields where junior team members are treated with respects rather than attitude.

i'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but literally the first post on the "crazy management consultants" Instagram meme page is a "pls fix by 9am" joke

https://www.instagram.com/crazymgmtconsultants/?hl=en

not a defense of biglaw 'work-life integration', but professional services jobs are just generally shit in that regard. clients suck, and McKinsey has the same ones your firm does. they might even be working on the same deals.

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

The biglaw experience is 1,000x worse than management consulting, or basically any field other than banking.

You are so deluded dude

Compare the exits of MBB consultants and biglaw associates.

MBB - generally to executive positions at small companies or corporate strategy groups (and some to high paying PE, etc...).

Biglaw - either miserably grinding it out in large firms forever, some listless in house positions and many who just burn out and quit law entirely.

The biglaw experience and exits are incomparably worse, and the job satisfaction incomparably worse as well.

Did you get fired from biglaw and move into consulting?

No, I happily left on my own. I do know how the identify battered spouse syndrome though - the idea that staying in your current miserable job is optimal because it would be just as bad in any other job, or the idea that the only options in life are biglaw or Burger King.

That’s great then. Can I just ask why you are still in this forum arguing which profession is better? I am not being sarcastic - I am genuinely curious. Do you not like your job and wanna come back to biglaw or something? Or do you just want people here to validate your decision and feel good about it?

[bretby]

Just one (anecdotal) data point, but I have friends who are in senior positions at top consulting firms and hate it for many of the same reasons people hate big law -- hours, unpredictability, unfulfilling work. And I have friends in similar positions at banks, some of whom thrive in similar work conditions, while others are miserable. I mean, of course different people will prefer different professions for a variety of reasons, but there are some fundamental similarities across at least consulting, banking, and firm lawyering such that from what I can tell, one is not an obviously better lifestyle choice.

[Anonymous User]

Just one (anecdotal) data point, but I have friends who are in senior positions at top consulting firms and hate it for many of the same reasons people hate big law -- hours, unpredictability, unfulfilling work. And I have friends in similar positions at banks, some of whom thrive in similar work conditions, while others are miserable. I mean, of course different people will prefer different professions for a variety of reasons, but there are some fundamental similarities across at least consulting, banking, and firm lawyering such that from what I can tell, one is not an obviously better lifestyle choice.

I'm in a field outside law (outside professional services more generally), and definitely not all of us like our jobs, for a variety of reasons, but I think the misery is significantly lower. On the other hand we're paid much less. It seems pretty clear that you all have traded happiness for money. And it's even visible within law. The corporate lawyers hate their jobs the most but are paid the most (directly for partners, better exit options for associates). The litigators get less but like their jobs a bit more. People at boutiques, plaintiffs, etc., seem most likely to actually enjoy their lives, but often make the least (yes, sure, not always).

They call them golden handcuffs for a reason. One thing I'll say is that if you're at a v10, making equity partner is probably just about the worst thing that can happen to you.

[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??????

Going in-house has been less boring than working in biglaw, even when I’m doing comparable, or even intrinsically less interesting, work.

Part of it is that when the relationship between the work and the attorney becomes sufficiently attenuated, it’s much more difficult to care about the work, and that leads to increased boredom and numbness. When a client or partner sends an assignment with minimal background or direction, it’s easy to lose interest because it just seems like a fungible piece of a paper since I don’t know anyone actually affected by the deal or why it’s a good thing, other than some folks will be making money off it somehow. Even on larger deals like an M&A transaction, it’s just the legal equivalent of white noise. But when I’m in-house and doing something as basic as a CDA, I know the context, the business need, the person who requested it and why, and it’s far easier to engage with that same piece of paper than if I was at a law firm doing it as an outside service provider without nearly all the context. It seems like a minor point but makes a big difference in the day to day ability to not get numbed by the work, at least in my experience. Maybe if you’re the partner or a senior with sufficient relationship to the client it’s less of an issue, but when I left as a mid-level, it was definitely part of the burnout.

Edit: and then the volume of work is a force multiplier here. The more of these fungible deals and documents you deal with, the more boring each becomes.

[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??????

Going in-house has been less boring than working in biglaw, even when I’m doing comparable, or even intrinsically less interesting, work.

Part of it is that when the relationship between the work and the attorney becomes sufficiently attenuated, it’s much more difficult to care about the work, and that leads to increased boredom and numbness. When a client or partner sends an assignment with minimal background or direction, it’s easy to lose interest because it just seems like a fungible piece of a paper since I don’t know anyone actually affected by the deal or why it’s a good thing, other than some folks will be making money off it somehow. Even on larger deals like an M&A transaction, it’s just the legal equivalent of white noise. But when I’m in-house and doing something as basic as a CDA, I know the context, the business need, the person who requested it and why, and it’s far easier to engage with that same piece of paper than if I was at a law firm doing it as an outside service provider without nearly all the context. It seems like a minor point but makes a big difference in the day to day ability to not get numbed by the work, at least in my experience. Maybe if you’re the partner or a senior with sufficient relationship to the client it’s less of an issue, but when I left as a mid-level, it was definitely part of the burnout.

Edit: and then the volume of work is a force multiplier here. The more of these fungible deals and documents you deal with, the more boring each becomes.

This is a genuine question, so please don't take this the wrong way, but why not ask the partner or other associates what the context of the assignment is?

[nixy]

Too many gems in this thread to let it stop. For the poster who said “highly skilled associates”, what in the actual fuck are you talking about? Just because mommy and daddy paid for you to take the lsat class and take time off to take said lsat, get into college etc. (pick your point of major advantage over 99% of Americans be it SAT prep or LSAT prep), how does going to law school make you skilled at anything???????????????? So highly skilled… idk I guess you can read more about MBB consultants and gloom monger on TLS. That’s some sort of skill. Otherwise, this isn’t battered wife syndrome, you and the rest of complainy folks on here seem very bitter and entitled. So go back to the c suite where you belong!!!!

I don't really understand what this post is trying to say, but it seems pretty invested in something. Did you not get biglaw and are offended that people who did complain about their good fortune?

[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??????

Going in-house has been less boring than working in biglaw, even when I’m doing comparable, or even intrinsically less interesting, work.

Part of it is that when the relationship between the work and the attorney becomes sufficiently attenuated, it’s much more difficult to care about the work, and that leads to increased boredom and numbness. When a client or partner sends an assignment with minimal background or direction, it’s easy to lose interest because it just seems like a fungible piece of a paper since I don’t know anyone actually affected by the deal or why it’s a good thing, other than some folks will be making money off it somehow. Even on larger deals like an M&A transaction, it’s just the legal equivalent of white noise. But when I’m in-house and doing something as basic as a CDA, I know the context, the business need, the person who requested it and why, and it’s far easier to engage with that same piece of paper than if I was at a law firm doing it as an outside service provider without nearly all the context. It seems like a minor point but makes a big difference in the day to day ability to not get numbed by the work, at least in my experience. Maybe if you’re the partner or a senior with sufficient relationship to the client it’s less of an issue, but when I left as a mid-level, it was definitely part of the burnout.

Edit: and then the volume of work is a force multiplier here. The more of these fungible deals and documents you deal with, the more boring each becomes.

This is a genuine question, so please don't take this the wrong way, but why not ask the partner or other associates what the context of the assignment is?

Sometimes I did, and it helped for that project. Sometimes I did, and the answer wasn't that exact or interesting. Sometimes there wasn't time because we were on a deadline. Sometimes they didn't really know. Sometimes I didn't ask because I didn't care since I didn't really know anyone at the client and it was just a name on the billing software, other than the one or two people who sent emails asking for stuff. Sometimes I didn't ask because the senior or partner weren't the most pleasant people and I didn't want to talk to them any more than necessary.

[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??????

Going in-house has been less boring than working in biglaw, even when I’m doing comparable, or even intrinsically less interesting, work.

Part of it is that when the relationship between the work and the attorney becomes sufficiently attenuated, it’s much more difficult to care about the work, and that leads to increased boredom and numbness. When a client or partner sends an assignment with minimal background or direction, it’s easy to lose interest because it just seems like a fungible piece of a paper since I don’t know anyone actually affected by the deal or why it’s a good thing, other than some folks will be making money off it somehow. Even on larger deals like an M&A transaction, it’s just the legal equivalent of white noise. But when I’m in-house and doing something as basic as a CDA, I know the context, the business need, the person who requested it and why, and it’s far easier to engage with that same piece of paper than if I was at a law firm doing it as an outside service provider without nearly all the context. It seems like a minor point but makes a big difference in the day to day ability to not get numbed by the work, at least in my experience. Maybe if you’re the partner or a senior with sufficient relationship to the client it’s less of an issue, but when I left as a mid-level, it was definitely part of the burnout.

Edit: and then the volume of work is a force multiplier here. The more of these fungible deals and documents you deal with, the more boring each becomes.

This is a genuine question, so please don't take this the wrong way, but why not ask the partner or other associates what the context of the assignment is?

Sometimes I did, and it helped for that project. Sometimes I did, and the answer wasn't that exact or interesting. Sometimes there wasn't time because we were on a deadline. Sometimes they didn't really know. Sometimes I didn't ask because I didn't care since I didn't really know anyone at the client and it was just a name on the billing software, other than the one or two people who sent emails asking for stuff. Sometimes I didn't ask because the senior or partner weren't the most pleasant people and I didn't want to talk to them any more than necessary.

Anon who asked question.

That makes sense. Insane deadlines and terrible partners/seniors make the life a lot worse. Sounds like also burn out, but I don't know you, so that's just an assumption.

[lavarman84]

I'm in a field outside law (outside professional services more generally), and definitely not all of us like our jobs, for a variety of reasons, but I think the misery is significantly lower. On the other hand we're paid much less. It seems pretty clear that you all have traded happiness for money. And it's even visible within law. The corporate lawyers hate their jobs the most but are paid the most (directly for partners, better exit options for associates). The litigators get less but like their jobs a bit more. People at boutiques, plaintiffs, etc., seem most likely to actually enjoy their lives, but often make the least (yes, sure, not always).

They call them golden handcuffs for a reason. One thing I'll say is that if you're at a v10, making equity partner is probably just about the worst thing that can happen to you.

Accurate to a degree. I turned down biglaw and all that money to make a lot less (but still a comfortable living) doing work I am passionate about, and I'm happy. But that was a choice I intentionally made. I knew I wouldn't be passionate about biglaw, which would make me unhappy, so I chose a different path.

[Anonymous User]

As an ex-MBB consultant, the wish casting about the benefits of the job are pretty hilarious to read.

[Anonymous User]

I kind of figured that had to be sarcasm, but now I can't decide.

As someone who has been around this forum since 2012, don't underestimate how braindead the MBB and BB IB stans are.

What? Do partners now all of a sudden need to give more than 1 line of directions in an email to a junior associate? The joke of all jokes is that we are 2 years into this pandemic. Thats like 730 days of this and not one time did any of the law firms I've worked for or had friends working for admit that they need to find a new way to train associates during the virtual period. They are fully delusional, relying on the idea that we are all just going to RTO and that's where now third years will pick up the skills they need to be associates. Literally, that thinking is delusional. In 730 days, not one firm has unveiled an online training program designed to cover all of these mythical skills you just "pick up" when a "partner invites u in the room for a call you lucky laborer, you." That fact alone makes each person's job 1000x harder than it needs to be because nobody has been trained whatsoever! I'm starting to think even before the pandemic this mythic training that you get at big law was just the same, sink or swim -- good luck; we deployed the capital you learn how to be lawyers on your own. This could be directly mitigated by firm investment and time, but no firm is doing it because they do not give a shit if your life is made harder by their lack of investment in you. Simply spoken that investment is capital that they will not deploy because it is wasted capital to them. They'd rather give you free lunches once a week because it's cheaper.

Truth bombs all over this post, but wanted to take this specifically. It's so true. We have been WFH for two years and the partnerships are just clamoring to get back into the office. Indeed, not a word about how will we train our associates better. I've been WFH for the majority of my career. I feel like I've learnt almost nothing. Maybe this would have been better in person. Maybe not. Probably not, as even at the job I was just thrown in and had to figure it out myself. But it's ridiculous nobody has stepped up and did something to train people better when all was occurring online. Indeed, you're just supposed to get it. And if you don't get it? "Oh damn you! You suck!"

[Anonymous User]

I've been WFH for the majority of my career. I feel like I've learnt almost nothing. Maybe this would have been better in person. Maybe not. Probably not, as even at the job I was just thrown in and had to figure it out myself. But it's ridiculous nobody has stepped up and did something to train people better when all was occurring online. Indeed, you're just supposed to get it. And if you don't get it? "Oh damn you! You suck!"

If you've been WFH the majority of your career, that means you are relatively junior. There was no "training" before the pandemic either in my experience. It was all learn by doing. WFH is all you know so that's what you blame, but I assure you, there weren't magical comprehensive in person training programs prior to this.

[Anonymous User]

I've been WFH for the majority of my career. I feel like I've learnt almost nothing. Maybe this would have been better in person. Maybe not. Probably not, as even at the job I was just thrown in and had to figure it out myself. But it's ridiculous nobody has stepped up and did something to train people better when all was occurring online. Indeed, you're just supposed to get it. And if you don't get it? "Oh damn you! You suck!"

If you've been WFH the majority of your career, that means you are relatively junior. There was no "training" before the pandemic either in my experience. It was all learn by doing. WFH is all you know so that's what you blame, but I assure you, there weren't magical comprehensive in person training programs prior to this.

Yeah we were pretty much supposed to "just get it" pre-WFH too. There were formal trainings that were 95% useless too (and I believe those are still happening via Zoom). I will say though - I think you do lose a bit by not being in the office. A lot of "training" was just popping into people's offices and asking questions, which is more difficult when you're remote (especially if you weren't able to build up rapport with people in person prior to going remote). Also I guess you pick up a fair bit via osmosis during the late nights.