Is being in-house really just doing a bunch of circle jerk meetings all day w/ everyone doing cringey corporate-speak? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Punctuated by occasional, frantic, half-assed legal work?

Been in-house for 3 months at a FAANG. Is this it?

[Anonymous User]

That’s what you get for going in to tech.

[Anonymous User]

That’s what you get for going in to tech.

I’m down—what kind of pay cut did you take?

[Anonymous User]

Are you product counsel? That sounds right.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

[Anonymous User]

Recently went in-house at an A in FAANG and this sounds about right. I don’t feel productive most days and a lot of time is wasted attending meetings that could be an e-mail. My role is also much less focused than at a firm, I spend a lot more time figuring out what I’m supposed to do. I am beginning to question whether the lifestyle improvement is worth the sense that my professional skills are atrophying.

[jhett]

Yes, enjoy your avocado toast and 2 hour lunches while farming the hard stuff to outside counsel.

[nealric]

There's certainly a lot more meetings, but the cringey corporate speak is somewhat optional and company dependent.

[Anonymous User]

What is comp like for a job like this? Currently in an IPT group and could use a job where I get paid to do nothing

[johndooley]

Punctuated by occasional, frantic, half-assed legal work?

Been in-house for 3 months at a FAANG. Is this it?

What else did you expect? You're not making the company money in a coding or sales role. You didn't have the guts to build up your own law practice or business so this is the low stakes low to mid six-figure role you signed up for. It probably won't vary much until your retirement.

[Anonymous User]

This woman posts some good day-in-the-life tiktoks for a product counsel. TLDW, work about 9:30-5, but really 12-5, and "work" is mostly eating and meetings:

https://www.tiktok.com/@mannatplease/vi ... _webapp=v1

https://www.tiktok.com/@mannatplease/vi ... _webapp=v1

[glitched]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

[johndooley]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

[showusyourtorts]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

[johndooley]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

[glitched]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

The author actually uses corporate lawyer in layman's terms to describe any lawyer at a "corporate" law firm (presumably representing corporate clients). So that includes litigators as well.

[nealric]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

[johndooley]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Th ... 150114331X

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

[thisismytlsuername]

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yeah, there haven't been any changes in the last forty years that could possibly account for merger docs being longer and more complex now.

[johndooley]

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yeah, there haven't been any changes in the last forty years that could possibly account for merger docs being longer and more complex now.

You forgot your signature below:

- Someone Insecure Who Knows Their Job is Bullshit

[johndooley]

This ... is profound. And insanely refreshing. And so true. It explains so much of my unhappiness and feelings of guilt.

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yes, 90% of attorneys in any practice area are not good at their jobs. The top 10%, probably fewer, make the lion's share of the money. I am unsure on type A, especially in regards to transactional law. You really are a processor and conduit. In litigation that type A personality is much more a requirement, especially if you are in the court room a lot like I have to be in medmal.

The pay in big law and the average in-house exit ops discussed here are okay as far as white collar America goes. There are way better career paths for someone who wants to be in that space.

[Anonymous User]

"There are millions of people—HR consultants, communication coordinators, telemarketing researchers, corporate lawyers—whose jobs are useless, and, tragically, they know it. These people are caught in bullshit jobs." Wow he is coming out swinging!

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yeah, there haven't been any changes in the last forty years that could possibly account for merger docs being longer and more complex now.

There have been. Primarily in tech/IP/data privacy fields.

But, I think the biggest change is the approach to risk. Every client wants every single possible risk in a transaction to be identified and liability pre-assigned. This is time consuming and costly. You could argue that this upfront work on corporate lawyers saves bullshit backend work on litigators - I'm not a litigator so I can't really speak to that.

I just think we could simplify this shit to some degree and make people feel like they're not constantly running on a treadmill, working hard but getting nowhere.

[thisismytlsuername]

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yeah, there haven't been any changes in the last forty years that could possibly account for merger docs being longer and more complex now.

You forgot your signature below:

- Someone Insecure Who Knows Their Job is Bullshit

You're my favorite new poster, please keep up the good work. Can you tell me more about your house though? I've always wanted to live in the suburbs of Orlando.

[Anonymous User]

Genuine question: for those of us in corporate (as opposed to litigation) roles, do you think our jobs are these types of bullshit jobs? Obviously the legal system is necessary at some level to protect private property rights, but beyond that, are deal attorneys adding value that lets companies function in some way that is beneficial to society at large?

Part of me wants to say that a good portion of corp biglaw attorneys have bullshit jobs, for what should be obvious reasons. (None of this seems to matter, we're all quibbling over commas and clauses that almost certainly won't matter, etc. etc.) But the other part of me has a feeling that some of these transactions wouldn't be happening if there weren't an established milieu of deal attorneys to help companies lock in their results/facilitate their aversion to risk. IDK, I'm spitballing and probably missing some big picture concepts here. Does anyone else have thoughts?

If bar passage was not a requirement then salaries would be at least halved and polisci majors from less reputable universities would take your place at age 22 without any discernible difference in deal outcomes or transaction volume.

I'm don't think that's really the case case. If Biglaw was willing to take people from "less reputable universities" they could have filled their classes five times over with T3/4 law school graduates. If you removed the need for any formal legal training, the system would probably look more like ibanking/consulting/big4 accounting. Just more tiers beyond Associate/counsel/Partner and a more pyramid-like structure.

Depends if it is litigation v corporate/tax/trust and estates etc. Clients will pay for highly trained litigators even if the ABA’s guild-like policies aren’t in place. A lot of transactional work is comprised of glorified paralegal tasks. Removing that high barrier to entry would change a lot of clients’ outlook on what they really need in the way of legal services.

I don't think so. I agree that this job doesn't require bar passage or intelligence.

But it does require you to be Type-A/on top of your shit/organized whatever you want to call it. Although that sounds like a really low bar, like 90% of my fucking juniors are below it.

So, yes there are smart high schoolers that could do this job. There just aren't that many, which is why the ones that can, get paid what they get paid.

As for is this a bullshit job? Sorta. We could (and used to) do this job in a much more straightforward, simple manner than the way we currently are doing it. Look at any merger/debt doc from the 80s - they're like 1/5th the size and complexity of docs now. I think if we went back to those simpler days, legal collections would go down, and we'd make less money, but our job would be significantly less bullshit.

Yeah, there haven't been any changes in the last forty years that could possibly account for merger docs being longer and more complex now.

You forgot your signature below:

- Someone Insecure Who Knows Their Job is Bullshit

Man, you really are in every thread, now, huh? Glad you feel confident weighing in on the dynamics of biglaw transactional roles and in-house counsel roles as a med-mal lawyer in... Orlando, is it? Also loved your thoughts on what it takes to break into academia and then acquire and maintain a tenure-track position. Care to weigh in on what the day-to-day looks like for SCOTUS clerk? Also would be interested to hear your thoughts on how to get DOJ honors, i'm sure you've got a take on that.