What's a "comfortable" hours amount for biglaw? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I've read that Yale PDF about "the billable hour," but I'm interested in hearing individual perspectives about hours amounts. What range of hours do you consider to be comfortable?

I'm about to join a firm where the associates say they're consistently coming in around ~2000-2200 hours (this is what they're actually working--the hours "requirement" is lower of course). Is this manageable?

[Anonymous User]

Anything above 2k starts to really suck. Note: 1800-2000 still sucks, but manageable

[ConfusedNYer]

This is covered in a lot of different threads, but consistency also matters a lot. 1900 inconsistent hours can definitely suck worse than 2100 consistent hours if it means sitting around during business hours doing nothing and then working a lot of late nights and weekends.

Personal preference factors in too. Some people prefer alternating between very hot and slower periods and some people like a more consistent year round work stream. If you're stuck in a work stream that doesn't align with your preference then it will suck worse even if your hours are less.

Personally, I find 2200 hours feels like a lot, 2400 hours is where the pain really starts. (But I also have minimal responsibilities outside of work).

[Moneytrees]

Anything above 2k starts to really suck. Note: 1800-2000 still sucks, but manageable

Agreed. For me, 160-170 billable hours a month is fairly comfortable. Anything more than that starts to progressively suck more and more.

[Bimmerfan]

1,900 is comfortable. 2,000 is doable.

2,200 is a lot... it comes out to basically billing 9 hours (not just "working") for every business day and doesn't factor in any vacation days. if you just want to take two week-long vacations, you'll need to bump up those 9 hours to 9.5 hours/day.

[Anonymous User]

This is covered in a lot of different threads, but consistency also matters a lot. 1900 inconsistent hours can definitely suck worse than 2100 consistent hours if it means sitting around during business hours doing nothing and then working a lot of late nights and weekends.

Personal preference factors in too. Some people prefer alternating between very hot and slower periods and some people like a more consistent year round work stream. If you're stuck in a work stream that doesn't align with your preference then it will suck worse even if your hours are less.

Personally, I find 2200 hours feels like a lot, 2400 hours is where the pain really starts. (But I also have minimal responsibilities outside of work).

These are some good points. I'm in a niche lit area that is really busy, by my saving grace is that my hours are consistent. I rarely get last minute or weekend requests, I can plan in advance, and I often know when my really busy periods will be (usually around big filings). I always come in north of what my corporate colleagues are doing, but I find what I have more manageable compared to their Friday evening client requests that eat up a whole weekend or urgent matters that pop up and require new staffing.

With that in mind, I generally agree that anything between 2200-2400 is a lot, but not painful. If those hours are predictable, you can generally keep your weekends, maintain healthy hygiene and relationships, and have some time for other endeavors. 2400 is where the real pain sets in, and anything north of 2800 or so is utter hell. I had a couple years above that which wrecked me and my personal life even with consistent hours. I only had time for work and maybe an outing or two on the weekends. That's it.

[Anonymous User]

I've read that Yale PDF about "the billable hour," but I'm interested in hearing individual perspectives about hours amounts. What range of hours do you consider to be comfortable?

I'm about to join a firm where the associates say they're consistently coming in around ~2000-2200 hours (this is what they're actually working--the hours "requirement" is lower of course). Is this manageable?

180-200 is ok so long as you’re ruthless with turning down and not doing anything non-billable. No one will call you out in this range unless you’re at the sweatiest of sweatshops. Obviously try to be close to the 180 end not the 200 end.

You can also say you’re busy with a straight face

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

[Anonymous User]

Once you get over working more than 10 hours a day, the low and mid2000s are very manageable. Any month under 250 usually isn’t so bad. Probably one busy week in there.

[Anonymous User]

Once you get over working more than 10 hours a day, the low and mid2000s are very manageable. Any month under 250 usually isn’t so bad. Probably one busy week in there.

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

[Ultramar vistas]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

If you’re good, 1800 wouldn’t have got you fired over the last 10 years from the vast majority of market paying firms. You would have missed bonus at the firms with with bonus cutoffs, and if you worked in certain corporate practices, you likely irritated a lot of partners with your aggressive boundary setting, but you didn’t get let go.

If you were just mediocre, you likely only made it 2 or 3 years with those hours, but might survive longer if you add value somewhere and soak up some work the stars didn’t want to do.

If you suck and no one likes you, 1800 is probably going to give them a reason to let you go in a year or so.

Tons of specialists view 1800 as completely normal.

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

If you’re good, 1800 wouldn’t have got you fired over the last 10 years from the vast majority of market paying firms. You would have missed bonus at the firms with with bonus cutoffs, and if you worked in certain corporate practices, you likely irritated a lot of partners with your aggressive boundary setting, but you didn’t get let go.

If you were just mediocre, you likely only made it 2 or 3 years with those hours, but might survive longer if you add value somewhere and soak up some work the stars didn’t want to do.

If you suck and no one likes you, 1800 is probably going to give them a reason to let you go in a year or so.

Tons of specialists view 1800 as completely normal.

When are the “if you suck and no one likes you” assessments held?

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

If you’re good, 1800 wouldn’t have got you fired over the last 10 years from the vast majority of market paying firms. You would have missed bonus at the firms with with bonus cutoffs, and if you worked in certain corporate practices, you likely irritated a lot of partners with your aggressive boundary setting, but you didn’t get let go.

If you were just mediocre, you likely only made it 2 or 3 years with those hours, but might survive longer if you add value somewhere and soak up some work the stars didn’t want to do.

If you suck and no one likes you, 1800 is probably going to give them a reason to let you go in a year or so.

Tons of specialists view 1800 as completely normal.

In the "good vs. mediocre" spectrum, is "good" meaning "not bad" or "above average", and is mediocre meaning "bad" or "below average"? Asks me, a not bad but not great first year probably going to hit somewhere between 1300-1500 this year

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

If you’re good, 1800 wouldn’t have got you fired over the last 10 years from the vast majority of market paying firms. You would have missed bonus at the firms with with bonus cutoffs, and if you worked in certain corporate practices, you likely irritated a lot of partners with your aggressive boundary setting, but you didn’t get let go.

If you were just mediocre, you likely only made it 2 or 3 years with those hours, but might survive longer if you add value somewhere and soak up some work the stars didn’t want to do.

If you suck and no one likes you, 1800 is probably going to give them a reason to let you go in a year or so.

Tons of specialists view 1800 as completely normal.

In the "good vs. mediocre" spectrum, is "good" meaning "not bad" or "above average", and is mediocre meaning "bad" or "below average"? Asks me, a not bad but not great first year probably going to hit somewhere between 1300-1500 this year

Really low hours for a first year is not necessarily a cause for concern, unless all of the other juniors in your group are very busy.

[Ultramar vistas]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

If you’re good, 1800 wouldn’t have got you fired over the last 10 years from the vast majority of market paying firms. You would have missed bonus at the firms with with bonus cutoffs, and if you worked in certain corporate practices, you likely irritated a lot of partners with your aggressive boundary setting, but you didn’t get let go.

If you were just mediocre, you likely only made it 2 or 3 years with those hours, but might survive longer if you add value somewhere and soak up some work the stars didn’t want to do.

If you suck and no one likes you, 1800 is probably going to give them a reason to let you go in a year or so.

Tons of specialists view 1800 as completely normal.

In the "good vs. mediocre" spectrum, is "good" meaning "not bad" or "above average", and is mediocre meaning "bad" or "below average"? Asks me, a not bad but not great first year probably going to hit somewhere between 1300-1500 this year

So much is group dependent.

If you are in general corporate and everyone else in your year was billing 2000+ hours while you did 1400, then when the slowdown comes they’ll cut you first because that’s the trade off - the others suffered for job security, and you didn’t.

But if you had low hours because there was a long ramp up time for everyone, and your group generally wasn’t crushed, and no one remembers you being anything other than eager to take new matters, and your hours show a general trend towards being a productive second year, then it’s nothing to worry about. First years often have pretty low hours and it’s not their fault - just takes time to get integrated.

[Right2BearArms]

Anything above 2k starts to really suck. Note: 1800-2000 still sucks, but manageable

Agreed. For me, 160-170 billable hours a month is fairly comfortable. Anything more than that starts to progressively suck more and more.

This was my general experience as well. While I was in BL, my break down went something like this:

Sub ~130 hour months - Felt slow
130-170 - comfortable at most times
171-190 - less comfortable but doable
191-210 - hours start to hurt here
211+ - these hurt, and hurt more the higher it goes, though above 250 or so it just kind of all starts to run together.

As others have pointed out, there is a huge caveat to all of this, consistency and timing. A 200 hour month with most of the work coming between 7 am and 10 pm on weekdays is much better than a 150 hour month where 75% of the hours come on weekends and after 5 pm.

[hdr]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

No one who bills 1800 hours will get laid off. Someone billing 1800 hours is still very profitable to the firm, and it doesn't make financial sense to let them go. (The partners want you to think you need to bill 22-2400, but that simply isn't true).

[Anonymous User]

Anything above 2k starts to really suck. Note: 1800-2000 still sucks, but manageable

Agreed. For me, 160-170 billable hours a month is fairly comfortable. Anything more than that starts to progressively suck more and more.

This was my general experience as well. While I was in BL, my break down went something like this:

Sub ~130 hour months - Felt slow
130-170 - comfortable at most times
171-190 - less comfortable but doable
191-210 - hours start to hurt here
211+ - these hurt, and hurt more the higher it goes, though above 250 or so it just kind of all starts to run together.

As others have pointed out, there is a huge caveat to all of this, consistency and timing. A 200 hour month with most of the work coming between 7 am and 10 pm on weekdays is much better than a 150 hour month where 75% of the hours come on weekends and after 5 pm.

For night and weekend work, aggressively avoid working with folks who give it. If that means you flame out of Biglaw after some period of time so be it

[JusticeChuckleNutz]

Anything above 2k starts to really suck. Note: 1800-2000 still sucks, but manageable

Agreed. For me, 160-170 billable hours a month is fairly comfortable. Anything more than that starts to progressively suck more and more.

This was my general experience as well. While I was in BL, my break down went something like this:

Sub ~130 hour months - Felt slow
130-170 - comfortable at most times
171-190 - less comfortable but doable
191-210 - hours start to hurt here
211+ - these hurt, and hurt more the higher it goes, though above 250 or so it just kind of all starts to run together.

As others have pointed out, there is a huge caveat to all of this, consistency and timing. A 200 hour month with most of the work coming between 7 am and 10 pm on weekdays is much better than a 150 hour month where 75% of the hours come on weekends and after 5 pm.

This scale sums up my experience very accurately

[Anonymous User]

I'm in corporate so can't speak to lit, but my experience is that most biglaw corporate associates are billing in the 1700-2100 range. I suspect that the actual numbers are lower than people think.

150-170 hours a month is fairly comfortable if the hours are consistent and not on the weekends. Much harder to pull that off in deal-focused practices (think M&A). Working at home also makes work even easier since you get back all the hours wasted on non-billable things (commuting, pointless meetings, etc.).

Once you start going over 200+ hours a month you're either working almost your entire waking day during the week, or putting in significant time on the weekends. A couple 200+ hour months in a row is when I would start to consider quitting.

As you get more senior it becomes easier to find "comfortable" hours. You know which people and what projects to target vs. avoid. The hours can become more difficult though and not all billable hours are the same. Much easier to spend 8 hours doing mindless DD than drafting or negotiating complex documents.

If you're even moderately competent you can absolutely have a very successful career billing 1700-1800hrs a year, although your partnership prospects will take a hit at some places.

[Right2BearArms]

Anything above 2k starts to really suck. Note: 1800-2000 still sucks, but manageable

Agreed. For me, 160-170 billable hours a month is fairly comfortable. Anything more than that starts to progressively suck more and more.

This was my general experience as well. While I was in BL, my break down went something like this:

Sub ~130 hour months - Felt slow
130-170 - comfortable at most times
171-190 - less comfortable but doable
191-210 - hours start to hurt here
211+ - these hurt, and hurt more the higher it goes, though above 250 or so it just kind of all starts to run together.

As others have pointed out, there is a huge caveat to all of this, consistency and timing. A 200 hour month with most of the work coming between 7 am and 10 pm on weekdays is much better than a 150 hour month where 75% of the hours come on weekends and after 5 pm.

For night and weekend work, aggressively avoid working with folks who give it. If that means you flame out of Biglaw after some period of time so be it

So, said another way, dont do corp work. Night/weekend work is unavoidable in M&A and CapM. You cannot avoid (aggressively or not) it in most corporate practices.

[Anonymous User]

So, said another way, dont do corp work. Night/weekend work is unavoidable in M&A and CapM. You cannot avoid (aggressively or not) it in most corporate practices.

I think the general rule of thumb is that lit is a more humane lifestyle while in biglaw, but the trade off is that you get worse exit options for post-biglaw life.

I'm a litigator because I actually like the work, but if my goal was just best lifestyle overall when I was in law school, I'd sacrifice some happiness in my late 20s and choose the group with the best exits. Then after a few years of cashing checks and having no life, I'd slide over to a 9-5 in-house gig with good pay.

[Anonymous User]

1500-2000 hours a year can either be fine or suck depending on your practice, your partner, and whether or not you like your work. Anything above 2000 will suck to some degree regardless of those factors.

+1 to the above. The people/practice really impact the QOL for the first 2k hours or so, but really anything above 2k is just too much.

If you have kids or other responsibilities, pretty much anything over 1800 feels like too much imo.

Okay but OP asked about biglaw firms. What market paying biglaw firms are letting associates hang around at 1800 or less?

No one who bills 1800 hours will get laid off. Someone billing 1800 hours is still very profitable to the firm, and it doesn't make financial sense to let them go. (The partners want you to think you need to bill 22-2400, but that simply isn't true).

Nah, this depends on the firm and the seniority level, it's not a generally true claim.

If you're at Kirkland, for example, and they don't think you'll cut it based on the quality of your work as a senior going into NSP, you might get 1 more year to show them you can cut it, but after that you'll be (politely) asked to leave. They might even help you find other work. But you can't stay at the firm, billing around 1800 or 1900 hours, as a 5th/6th year and expect to be fine indefinitely like that. Quality comes into play