Big Law Survival Guide Forum

[AureliusCapital]

I noticed a few posts in the Milbank salary thread and a few others where people were asking for big law tips. I think it would be helpful for current associates to pick up new tricks and future associates to have a place to reference. Drop any tips you may have that can help people improve their work product, improve QoL, tips to make partner, etc.

Using your inbox as a to do list I think is one of the best tips I have gotten.

[Anonymous User]

I assume you’re speaking as a junior associate? My thoughts as a senior associate in transactional law are:

a) try to understand each task you are given in the context of the transaction as a whole.

b) figure out the working style of whoever is delegating to you (e.g., are they hands off/on, what is their approach to deadlines, their drafting style, when should you run drafting/emails past them before sending, do you need to ask follow up questions) and adapt your approach accordingly.

c) be proactive and try to move the transaction forward where you can (while being mindful of point b above).

d) create systems to avoid mistakes when you’re busy and tired (e.g., checklists, run blacklines multiple times to check your own work, collect good precedents).

e) work on your communication skills. However good they are, they can always be improved. This goes with most soft skills. How you present yourself always matters.

f) find a couple of trusted senior associates who are safe (most important) and will explain things to you on matters when you’re lost, even if they’re not staffed to them. Sometimes you have to go outside your own firm for this one, although be careful to maintain confidentiality. Treat them well.

g) always act with integrity.

h) don’t sweat the small stuff. Like don’t accept bullying (lots of definitions online), but if someone is just being an asshole, be it a client or another lawyer, set boundaries but then just tune out and don't give their bs any oxygen. It’s a job, no point letting your ego get you into pointless battles.

i) play nice in the sandbox and show respect and compassion to others (without revealing weaknesses at the same time if you can avoid it). See the best in others. Negotiating with the other side isn’t personal, they’re doing a job too, have standards in how you act towards them.

j) prioritize self care, especially regular exercise that moves you from the sympathetic to parasympathetic nervous system (e.g., yoga). Otherwise you’ll burn out, it’ll just be a matter of time. Avoid any form of addiction or substance abuse (including medicines like Adderall).

There’s a bunch more, but that’s all that comes to mind right now.

[AureliusCapital]

I assume you’re speaking as a junior associate? My thoughts as a senior associate in transactional law are:

a) try to understand each task you are given in the context of the transaction as a whole.

b) figure out the working style of whoever is delegating to you (e.g., are they hands off/on, what is their approach to deadlines, their drafting style, when should you run drafting/emails past them before sending, do you need to ask follow up questions) and adapt your approach accordingly.

c) be proactive and try to move the transaction forward where you can (while being mindful of point b above).

d) create systems to avoid mistakes when you’re busy and tired (e.g., checklists, run blacklines multiple times to check your own work, collect good precedents).

e) work on your communication skills. However good they are, they can always be improved. This goes with most soft skills. How you present yourself always matters.

f) find a couple of trusted senior associates who are safe (most important) and will explain things to you on matters when you’re lost, even if they’re not staffed to them. Sometimes you have to go outside your own firm for this one, although be careful to maintain confidentiality. Treat them well.

g) always act with integrity.

h) don’t sweat the small stuff. Like don’t accept bullying (lots of definitions online), but if someone is just being an asshole, be it a client or another lawyer, set boundaries but then just tune out and don't give their bs any oxygen. It’s a job, no point letting your ego get you into pointless battles.

i) play nice in the sandbox and show respect and compassion to others (without revealing weaknesses at the same time if you can avoid it). See the best in others. Negotiating with the other side isn’t personal, they’re doing a job too, have standards in how you act towards them.

j) prioritize self care, especially regular exercise that moves you from the sympathetic to parasympathetic nervous system (e.g., yoga). Otherwise you’ll burn out, it’ll just be a matter of time. Avoid any form of addiction or substance abuse (including medicines like Adderall).

There’s a bunch more, but that’s all that comes to mind right now.

I think advice for mid levels is good too. You make the transition from being a paper pusher to have actual responsibilities and running the deal to an extent. Of course you're not negotiating the big points or main documents, but you are moving the process along and responsible for those below you. I am hitting that point now and feel pretty overwhelmed honestly.

[Anonymous User]

(1) It is is OKAY to leave if the firm you are at is not a good fit or you want to retool to another practice area. Especially if one is K-JD, spending eight weeks as a summer in an office may not be the best gauge on whether you want to work with a certain group or in a certain practice. Eight months into my time as a litigation associate, I realized I had no interest in litigation and also that my firm was a bad fit. I spent entirely too long (almost another eight months) AGONIZING over the effects of making a change so early in my career (I was really hung-up on not being the first in my law school class to lateral) and being really miserable. I eventually made a change and, one year later, I am much happier and absolutely NO ONE cares.

(2) Do not expect the person in charge of staffing to read your mind. If there is a litigation/transaction you want to work on or a special skill you want to focus on/learn then you need to ASK. Do not expect a partner to remember you made previous comments about wanting to work on something or that the partner is picking up on your subtle hints, just be forthcoming and ask for what you want. Being told "No" may suck, but at least you know where you stand, know you tried to get what you want, and, depending on how big the ask was, can evaluate whether you are valued by your firm.

[Anonymous User]

I hope this line of inquiry falls under the topic of big law survival (sorry to OP if I'm wrong and this topic derails the thread a bit).

What guidance do associates or partners have for first years when it comes to understanding how long a task should take? I'm worried about being too slow in getting work done. I understand that sometimes you can just ask the person assigning the work when exactly they need it by. But how to go about managing timelines and knowing if you're spending too much on a task? My fear is that I am doing work and thinking I'm doing a good job because I'm billing the hours, but then being told from the back end that I didn't get enough done or spent too much time on a task.

[Anonymous User]

I hope this line of inquiry falls under the topic of big law survival (sorry to OP if I'm wrong and this topic derails the thread a bit).

What guidance do associates or partners have for first years when it comes to understanding how long a task should take? I'm worried about being too slow in getting work done. I understand that sometimes you can just ask the person assigning the work when exactly they need it by. But how to go about managing timelines and knowing if you're spending too much on a task? My fear is that I am doing work and thinking I'm doing a good job because I'm billing the hours, but then being told from the back end that I didn't get enough done or spent too much time on a task.

Has someone told you that you're spending too much time on a task? If not, I wouldn't worry about it.

Source: Spent 5 years in BigLaw, met my hours each year, and had the same internal worry that you did regarding spending too many hours on something. Never got any complaints about hours. I imagine, though, as you hit senior associate levels, your billable rate becomes so high that the number of hours you spend on something does begin to get scrutinized.

[Anonymous User]

I hope this line of inquiry falls under the topic of big law survival (sorry to OP if I'm wrong and this topic derails the thread a bit).

What guidance do associates or partners have for first years when it comes to understanding how long a task should take? I'm worried about being too slow in getting work done. I understand that sometimes you can just ask the person assigning the work when exactly they need it by. But how to go about managing timelines and knowing if you're spending too much on a task? My fear is that I am doing work and thinking I'm doing a good job because I'm billing the hours, but then being told from the back end that I didn't get enough done or spent too much time on a task.

Has someone told you that you're spending too much time on a task? If not, I wouldn't worry about it.

Source: Spent 5 years in BigLaw, met my hours each year, and had the same internal worry that you did regarding spending too many hours on something. Never got any complaints about hours. I imagine, though, as you hit senior associate levels, your billable rate becomes so high that the number of hours you spend on something does begin to get scrutinized.

Thanks! I'm a 2L. Will summer at a firm this year. It's something I think about a lot and am a little insecure about so I thought I would ask. In previous jobs I've been slower than my peers at completing tasks but I also was generally more thorough. Even in law school, I'm at a T14 and have a strong GPA, but I normally do better on exams that aren't standard 3-hour issue spotters. I think a balance will be essential in big law. I appreciate your thoughts.

[Anonymous User]

Best advice is to use your time left in law school to choose a non-Biglaw job. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

I noticed a few posts in the Milbank salary thread and a few others where people were asking for big law tips. I think it would be helpful for current associates to pick up new tricks and future associates to have a place to reference. Drop any tips you may have that can help people improve their work product, improve QoL, tips to make partner, etc.

Using your inbox as a to do list I think is one of the best tips I have gotten.

In all seriousness, could you explain how this ‘inbox as a to do list’ thing works? I get 250 emails a day and if I don’t make a separate note of a to do item when it comes in I will almost certainly forget about it, and my inbox isn’t going to be much help when that email gets buried under a dozen others within the same hour.

A tip that I think is actually great is to use rules to auto-filter emails to different folders within my inbox. If I’m working on a task for a particular matter I can focus on the email traffic to that particular folder and disregard all of the administrative mass mailing and RFIs I get throughout the day.

[Anonymous User]

I noticed a few posts in the Milbank salary thread and a few others where people were asking for big law tips. I think it would be helpful for current associates to pick up new tricks and future associates to have a place to reference. Drop any tips you may have that can help people improve their work product, improve QoL, tips to make partner, etc.

Using your inbox as a to do list I think is one of the best tips I have gotten.

In all seriousness, could you explain how this ‘inbox as a to do list’ thing works? I get 250 emails a day and if I don’t make a separate note of a to do item when it comes in I will almost certainly forget about it, and my inbox isn’t going to be much help when that email gets buried under a dozen others within the same hour.

A tip that I think is actually great is to use rules to auto-filter emails to different folders within my inbox. If I’m working on a task for a particular matter I can focus on the email traffic to that particular folder and disregard all of the administrative mass mailing and RFIs I get throughout the day.

Not OP, but I use my inbox as a to-do list (first in BigLaw and now in-house). Here's how I do it: emails tend to be about long-term projects. Can I do anything immediately on it (either ask a question, provide initial thoughts, propose next steps, etc)? If I can, I do that "immediate thing," and send off the email.

I then folder the original email received because I don't have any further action item on it until I get a response back from the sender (to my question, to my initial thoughts, etc).

If I can't do anything immediate on it, then I don't folder it and it sits in my inbox. This rarely happens though because I force myself to think about what is the immediate thing I can do to move it out of my inbox.

I've found this strategy is helpful in both using my inbox as my to-do list as well as breaking down long-term projects into short-term deliverables.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Being good at this job means you get more work (for almost the same pay), and in this job you are an order of magnitude more likely to leave voluntarily compared to it even being kindly suggested you should look elsewhere, much less actually getting fired (that happens to like, 2% of associates for as long as your group's economics are good).

Therefore, tips to *survive this job* are pretty much the opposite of tips to *be good at this job.* Anyone suggesting things like checking every comma and answering every email in 30 minutes or whatever other dumb bullshit is hastening your burnout.

[Anonymous User]

Being good at this job means you get more work (for almost the same pay), and in this job you are an order of magnitude more likely to leave voluntarily compared to it even being kindly suggested you should look elsewhere, much less actually getting fired (that happens to like, 2% of associates for as long as your group's economics are good).

Therefore, tips to *survive this job* are pretty much the opposite of tips to *be good at this job.* Anyone suggesting things like checking every comma and answering every email in 30 minutes or whatever other dumb bullshit is hastening your burnout.

OK but what's the best way to strike this balance? I want to get enough hours to make bonus but not much more beyond that, keep my slim partnership chances alive, last biglaw as long as possible. If/when I go in house I'd like to be making at least 250-300.

[Anonymous User]

I hope this line of inquiry falls under the topic of big law survival (sorry to OP if I'm wrong and this topic derails the thread a bit).

What guidance do associates or partners have for first years when it comes to understanding how long a task should take? I'm worried about being too slow in getting work done. I understand that sometimes you can just ask the person assigning the work when exactly they need it by. But how to go about managing timelines and knowing if you're spending too much on a task? My fear is that I am doing work and thinking I'm doing a good job because I'm billing the hours, but then being told from the back end that I didn't get enough done or spent too much time on a task.

Just ask how long it should take. If it's a midlevel/senior assigning: double it. If it's a partner assigning: triple it.

As another poster already said, if you're in traditional biglaw with deep pocket clients you will never* get a slap on the wrist for spending too long on an assignment. Nobody has time to scrutinize your hours like that.

*Unless there's an urgent deadline that you cannot miss. Then, just make sure the team understands you may not have time for your best work and make clear what you didn't have a chance to do.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Being good at this job means you get more work (for almost the same pay), and in this job you are an order of magnitude more likely to leave voluntarily compared to it even being kindly suggested you should look elsewhere, much less actually getting fired (that happens to like, 2% of associates for as long as your group's economics are good).

Therefore, tips to *survive this job* are pretty much the opposite of tips to *be good at this job.* Anyone suggesting things like checking every comma and answering every email in 30 minutes or whatever other dumb bullshit is hastening your burnout.

OK but what's the best way to strike this balance? I want to get enough hours to make bonus but not much more beyond that, keep my slim partnership chances alive, last biglaw as long as possible. If/when I go in house I'd like to be making at least 250-300.

You just said it. At bonus-minimum firms (and for Biglaw that's now all but like 15 of them), most of the time it's gonna be in your financial interest to hit the minimums anyway, and pretty much by definition anyone who hits them is in good standing by default. In environments like these it's especially true (A) most people won't never to ever actually seek anything out to hit their minimum and (B) more than you think will be tolerated, even if it makes some ornery seniors mad. Do the math on it and as a junior if you're not gonna hit a 2000 minimum it's financially better to be below like 1700. That's the kinda thing first years only pull off regularly though; YMMV if you're at that level later.

Equity partnership is such a rare offer that it's really not worth considering when deciding how hard to work for a decade. In some firms it's probably also like an equal 2% chance as getting fired. Which means that everyone in that middle 96% is being offered roughly the same thing. There's some argument that if you're halfway decent you can finagle a stable, long-term counsel type of career, but...then you have to do this forever.

The best strategy for doing this is to find the nicest/most relaxed partners with significant business at your level and getting in their good graces. I had this for years at my old firm and it gave me latitude to do whatever I wanted with anyone else's deal. Won't matter if Partner B thought you were sloppy as long as Partner A thinks you're fine. You don't need an "advocate," just someone who thinks you're mildly useful.

[BrowsingTLS]

Always say no when a partner wants you to join their totally exciting experience building case on a weekend/holiday. This tells you something about their respect for your non-work life.

[Anonymous User]

Random question, didn't want to start a new thread to ask. I'm be a new associate at a V10 next year (currently a 2L). I'll be in my early to mid 30s at graduation.

How aware would you say your peers are of your age? I'm a person of color and people generally think I'm in my mid 20s. I'm curious about whether there are other markers that would remind individuals I work with about the age difference. I'm sure they can figure it out via a resume in the portal or my graduation date on the firm website. I'm more so wondering how actively people think about this sort of thing.

[Anonymous User]

Random question, didn't want to start a new thread to ask. I'm be a new associate at a V10 next year (currently a 2L). I'll be in my early to mid 30s at graduation.

How aware would you say your peers are of your age? I'm a person of color and people generally think I'm in my mid 20s. I'm curious about whether there are other markers that would remind individuals I work with about the age difference. I'm sure they can figure it out via a resume in the portal or my graduation date on the firm website. I'm more so wondering how actively people think about this sort of thing.

as someone nearing 30 I feel like the mid/high 20s to low/mid 30s range just blurs together, especially once biglaw fatigue hits

I don't think about it ever. don't care.

[DoveBodyWash]

Work your ass off when you first get there - be thorough, responsive, eager. Then cash in on the good first impression by slowly slacking off more and more. Ppl will assume it’s cuz you’re busy and in high demand. Always work a little harder and more responsive for seniors you like. It will make them feel special that a in-demand junior is putting in extra effort for them. When you feel the currency running low, lateral to a new firm and repeat. Continue until you either leave BigLaw or decide you wanna gun for partner.

[Anonymous User]

Being good at this job means you get more work (for almost the same pay), and in this job you are an order of magnitude more likely to leave voluntarily compared to it even being kindly suggested you should look elsewhere, much less actually getting fired (that happens to like, 2% of associates for as long as your group's economics are good).

Therefore, tips to *survive this job* are pretty much the opposite of tips to *be good at this job.* Anyone suggesting things like checking every comma and answering every email in 30 minutes or whatever other dumb bullshit is hastening your burnout.

OK but what's the best way to strike this balance? I want to get enough hours to make bonus but not much more beyond that, keep my slim partnership chances alive, last biglaw as long as possible. If/when I go in house I'd like to be making at least 250-300.

As fast as you can, get to a level of substantive mastery that is commensurate with a sr associate/jr partner. Firms will be more willing to forgive your low hours if you are competent.

[RedNewJersey]

Minority view:

Try to find something you actually enjoy about the practice of law at a biglaw firm. That makes everything much more tolerable, can endear you to partners (most of whom, in my experience, actually like many aspects of their job). Then, try to do more of the stuff you like and less of the stuff you don't like (it helps to be really good at the stuff you like). If you have no particular interests and are just coasting, you're more likely to get less fun work, so it's rewarding to try to cultivate interests.

None of this will help against psycho senior associates, of course. Just (try to) get away from them. For what it's worth, I've never worked with anyone like that, though it appears (from TLS) that's uncommon (or maybe it means *I* am the psycho associate).

[Anonymous User]

Random question, didn't want to start a new thread to ask. I'm be a new associate at a V10 next year (currently a 2L). I'll be in my early to mid 30s at graduation.

How aware would you say your peers are of your age? I'm a person of color and people generally think I'm in my mid 20s. I'm curious about whether there are other markers that would remind individuals I work with about the age difference. I'm sure they can figure it out via a resume in the portal or my graduation date on the firm website. I'm more so wondering how actively people think about this sort of thing.

I went to school later than you and none of my peers (in school or now) have had any idea of my actual age, beyond maybe “older than me.” I got lumped into a generic “non-trad” category, which includes people who took 2 years off after undergrad up to people in their 50s. Like you I generally look younger than my age, but also no one really has any idea how old anyone is (in either direction) once you get past the really obvious markers like college graduation.

Interestingly one of the other older students in my law school kind of commented a lot about being older than everyone and not that surprisingly, everyone kind of thought of her as the “old” student. I never talked about it and didn’t come up.

Of course people who’ve reviewed my application materials know my age but most forget or never knew. One of my colleagues remembers that we’re around the same age, but he’s got 10+ years of experience over me, which is what usually matters more for our overall interactions. I think that “work experience age” tends to trump chronological age unless there’s a massive difference.

So I don’t think the average person really thinks about it unless you make a point of it. They’re surprised sometimes to hear things like how long I’ve been married, but that’s about it. (I also get a fair amount of “oh you won’t remember [major event/tv show/whatever]” and sometimes I correct people and sometimes I don’t.)

[bruinfan10]

Being good at this job means you get more work (for almost the same pay), and in this job you are an order of magnitude more likely to leave voluntarily compared to it even being kindly suggested you should look elsewhere, much less actually getting fired (that happens to like, 2% of associates for as long as your group's economics are good).

Therefore, tips to *survive this job* are pretty much the opposite of tips to *be good at this job.* Anyone suggesting things like checking every comma and answering every email in 30 minutes or whatever other dumb bullshit is hastening your burnout.

OK but what's the best way to strike this balance? I want to get enough hours to make bonus but not much more beyond that, keep my slim partnership chances alive, last biglaw as long as possible. If/when I go in house I'd like to be making at least 250-300.

You just said it. At bonus-minimum firms (and for Biglaw that's now all but like 15 of them), most of the time it's gonna be in your financial interest to hit the minimums anyway, and pretty much by definition anyone who hits them is in good standing by default. In environments like these it's especially true (A) most people won't never to ever actually seek anything out to hit their minimum and (B) more than you think will be tolerated, even if it makes some ornery seniors mad. Do the math on it and as a junior if you're not gonna hit a 2000 minimum it's financially better to be below like 1700. That's the kinda thing first years only pull off regularly though; YMMV if you're at that level later.

Equity partnership is such a rare offer that it's really not worth considering when deciding how hard to work for a decade. In some firms it's probably also like an equal 2% chance as getting fired. Which means that everyone in that middle 96% is being offered roughly the same thing. There's some argument that if you're halfway decent you can finagle a stable, long-term counsel type of career, but...then you have to do this forever.

The best strategy for doing this is to find the nicest/most relaxed partners with significant business at your level and getting in their good graces. I had this for years at my old firm and it gave me latitude to do whatever I wanted with anyone else's deal. Won't matter if Partner B thought you were sloppy as long as Partner A thinks you're fine. You don't need an "advocate," just someone who thinks you're mildly useful.

This is incredibly good advice. If you can do this, you'll survive biglaw. I was really effective at seeking out the chill partners and working with them almost exclusively (which is how I made it as many years as I did), but I found it impossible to truly coast. In my view, completing a project is binary - you either complete it correctly (nothing fancy, but there can't be anything objectively wrong with your work product), or you don't complete it.

I heard stories from friends about associates who were much more comfortable making mistakes, missing key cases, missing key factual support, turning in only marginally passable work, often late. If you are on a team where someone is doing that, and you clean up after them, that means partners will give you more work, staff you on more cases, and maybe some of the less chill partners come calling to involuntarily staff you on their matters too. Many people will eventually leave at the point that their workload makes it impossible for them to complete projects effectively. I don't know how you turn in shitty work, and I think that's why biglaw is so miserable for so many of the people that land at biglaw firms. A bunch of striver perfectionists who are staffed on more matters than they can manage effectively. I don't know how you survive that.

[Wanderingdrock]

I hope this line of inquiry falls under the topic of big law survival (sorry to OP if I'm wrong and this topic derails the thread a bit).

What guidance do associates or partners have for first years when it comes to understanding how long a task should take? I'm worried about being too slow in getting work done. I understand that sometimes you can just ask the person assigning the work when exactly they need it by. But how to go about managing timelines and knowing if you're spending too much on a task? My fear is that I am doing work and thinking I'm doing a good job because I'm billing the hours, but then being told from the back end that I didn't get enough done or spent too much time on a task.

Has someone told you that you're spending too much time on a task? If not, I wouldn't worry about it.

Source: Spent 5 years in BigLaw, met my hours each year, and had the same internal worry that you did regarding spending too many hours on something. Never got any complaints about hours. I imagine, though, as you hit senior associate levels, your billable rate becomes so high that the number of hours you spend on something does begin to get scrutinized.

Thanks! I'm a 2L. Will summer at a firm this year. It's something I think about a lot and am a little insecure about so I thought I would ask. In previous jobs I've been slower than my peers at completing tasks but I also was generally more thorough. Even in law school, I'm at a T14 and have a strong GPA, but I normally do better on exams that aren't standard 3-hour issue spotters. I think a balance will be essential in big law. I appreciate your thoughts.

It probably depends where you end up in terms of practice area; maybe on deals with fast deadlines this could be a problem? But in general I think you should relax - you'll be working in an industry that charges astronomically high rates by the hour. Clients pay those rates for really high quality work, and besides, the partners should be reviewing the bills and writing off time if they need to. You take a little longer but you do it a little more thoroughly? Awesome, you sound like an ideal junior associate for a lot of practice areas.