The BigLaw hate buffet Forum

[Young Marino]

if you are opposed to liberal market capitalism and the protection of private property, then you shouldn't be in law school or on a law school chat forum. That's not to say you can't be socially liberal or progressive, but you can't be an anarchist attorney - the training has some fundamentally conservative roots and engrains and perpetuates its common law and constitutional heritage. If you accept that we live in a system which respects and protects private property, and encourages collateralization of that property allowing the rate of return on capital investment to exceed the general economic growth rate (Picketty's thesis), then there's nothing any more "wrong" about defending corporations or helping them restructure or merge than representing trade unions or class action plaintiffs. Everyone is entitled to representation, even corporate persons.

There are a few conversations I've had with biglawlers that made my stomach turn (like one guy who was very proud of helping his JP Morgan client evade criminal sanctions for LIBOR when they were clearly guilty), but most are just honestly upholding their fiduciary duties and would rather advise their clients to stay within the law than help them break it. The endogeneity of law is a constant social burden but don't think you are some white knight for choosing one client over others within the same system.

The fact that corporations are entitled to representation goes without question. Choosing to advocate for their interests above those of working people is a different story.

K street "advocates for the interests" of corporations by lobbying for preferential treatment. That's where the black money is going back and forth if you want a target. Attorneys represent and advise their clients. If you acknowledge that an entity is entitled to representation, then a fortiorti you've legitimated their counsel, whoever it may be. You can't turn around and put a target on those people's backs with any shred of credibility.

Unless, of course, as I said before you fundamentally don't believe in the protection of pooled assets. I'm all on board for breaking the influence of large corporations in government, and I despise Citizens United, but that's achieved through the political process, not the litigative one.

JBB and QE both bring up valid points pertaining to corporations. Let's just agree that they suck and most big law fitms cater to them so FUCK BIGLAW

[rayiner]

I also have no problem with K Street and lobbyists. I think our system, where lawyers and lobbyists mediate between corporate interests and the government in a relatively transparent way is far preferable to the alternative, which is direct communications between corporations and the government.

[A. Nony Mouse]

JBB and QE both bring up valid points pertaining to corporations. Let's just agree that they suck and most big law fitms cater to them so FUCK BIGLAW

Yes, we get this. You've made it clear. It's boring.

[Otunga]

It seems like minimal debt makes biglaw all the more tolerable. How true is it? Is it really the debt and job security (or lack of it) that overrides the torture of the workweeks?

By the way: associates at big firms don't seem like "corporate sellouts" to me. Maybe it's arguable to say some partners are because they're all about the money.

[Nebby]

Is there a sense of camaraderie between entry-level associates due to the conditions? Similar, say, to the camaraderie built during boot-camp in the military.

[rayiner]

Is there a sense of camaraderie between entry-level associates due to the conditions? Similar, say, to the camaraderie built during boot-camp in the military.

--LinkRemoved--.

[Question Everything]

if you are opposed to liberal market capitalism and the protection of private property, then you shouldn't be in law school or on a law school chat forum. That's not to say you can't be socially liberal or progressive, but you can't be an anarchist attorney - the training has some fundamentally conservative roots and engrains and perpetuates its common law and constitutional heritage. If you accept that we live in a system which respects and protects private property, and encourages collateralization of that property allowing the rate of return on capital investment to exceed the general economic growth rate (Picketty's thesis), then there's nothing any more "wrong" about defending corporations or helping them restructure or merge than representing trade unions or class action plaintiffs. Everyone is entitled to representation, even corporate persons.

There are a few conversations I've had with biglawlers that made my stomach turn (like one guy who was very proud of helping his JP Morgan client evade criminal sanctions for LIBOR when they were clearly guilty), but most are just honestly upholding their fiduciary duties and would rather advise their clients to stay within the law than help them break it. The endogeneity of law is a constant social burden but don't think you are some white knight for choosing one client over others within the same system.

The fact that corporations are entitled to representation goes without question. Choosing to advocate for their interests above those of working people is a different story.

K street "advocates for the interests" of corporations by lobbying for preferential treatment. That's where the black money is going back and forth if you want a target. Attorneys represent and advise their clients. If you acknowledge that an entity is entitled to representation, then a fortiorti you've legitimated their counsel, whoever it may be. You can't turn around and put a target on those people's backs with any shred of credibility.

Unless, of course, as I said before you fundamentally don't believe in the protection of pooled assets. I'm all on board for breaking the influence of large corporations in government, and I despise Citizens United, but that's achieved through the political process, not the litigative one.

It's naive to think that as a biglaw attorney you are not negatively impacting the lives of everyday people. When you devote yourself to helping powerful interests skirt their responsibilities you are no better than those that you're defending. I honestly don't know how you guys get up in the morning if you have to, for instance, go to work and spend 12 hours helping devise a plan that'll minimize the exposure GM has due to their conscious decision not to replace an inexpensive piece of equipment on their vehicles, which could have prevented horrific injuries and deaths. Not to say that GM shouldn't be represented. Just don't be so fucking gleeful about it and stop assuming you're sitting at the top of the profession because you represent big companies.

[IAFG]

Yawn.

[rpupkin]

Yawn.

Pipe down, psychopath.

[Theopliske8711]

When I occasionally run into people who once worked in big law, many of them have said "I enjoyed my time there". Can biglawyers decode this?

[worldtraveler]

When I occasionally run into people who once worked in big law, many of them have said "I enjoyed my time there". Can biglawyers decode this?

Do you really expect people to say anything different in a casual conversation?

[swc65]

Being Happy is Uncool- Once when I was all smiles in the hallway and bouncy (I tend to be a happy energetic person), a partner looked at me with disdain and asked "why the fuck are you so happy." He tried to play it off as a joke, but it really wasn't. At other times colleagues tend to confuse being happy/not being miserable with "not having enough work."

Being Unhappy is Cool- If you're not miserable, people think something is wrong. Like TLS at times, you cannot be happy with what you're doing because people seriously think it is weird.

Management- There is none. It's institutional, we do NOT get paid to do things efficiently in most cases. Inefficiency=more hours=profit. Every assignment I have been on could have been half as time consuming and half as arduous had the midlevel/partner just thought for ten minutes about what they really wanted the work product to be BEFORE getting into the project. Stuff happens in any legal assignment, but basic shit isn't thought about, do we want a memo, an outline, bullets for talking points or some kind of visual, do we want a high-level analysis or something in depth? Why choose when you can do all of the above? Yes, we are supposed to ask questions and get an idea of the scope of the project, deliverable, time frame etc. But, if the person you are working for has no idea, then WTF? You can only do it wrong unless you are a Jedi who can read minds and/or predict the future. Worse yet, when you get a fire drill assignment that the client needs right away and notice that the client's email/request was sent to the assigning attorney MONTHS ago. That attorney couldn't be bothered to bring you in for two months, but you have to stay up all night/cancel your weekend/life for days because they are disorganized?

Incentives- If I do a good job, I get silence+more work. If I don't do a good job, I get silence but less work. Either way I am not going to get fired (we just don't do that here). At worst I will get six months of paid leave to find a new job. But, I am not an asshole, I want to do a good job, that's just how most people in general are (though certainly not all). I want to do things efficiently and smartly. But, I literally get punished (with more shit work). There are no good options!

No one else gets it- Family do not understand why I work from 8-11. Friends know your busy but eventually just stop calling/inviting you to things. Then all your left with is other miserable biglaw associates because they are the only ones that get it. Misery spiral.

It is a temp job- I am expected to get fat/unhealthy/lose all my friends and miss my life for a temp gig? For fuck's sake.

Attrition- i have heard from legit sources at my firm that a 25% attrition rate is the goal. Less is bad. I mean, wtf? What other industry wants to train people and push them out the door? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I get the placing former associates with clients builds a god alum network and all, but it a desire for more attrition just eliminates nearly any incentive to make our lives better.

I don't really hate this job. I mean yeah parts of it suck, but I do like the work ( I am not stuck on diligence/doc review). I have learned a ton of shit. I am getting awesome experience. It just sucks that this job doesn't have to be so bad. I mean if law firms just had a little bit of management/focus on improving associates lives, this job could be awesome.

[Theopliske8711]

When I occasionally run into people who once worked in big law, many of them have said "I enjoyed my time there". Can biglawyers decode this?

Do you really expect people to say anything different in a casual conversation?

Well, they are pretty clear about the whole sleeping on the sofa stuff and the toil. They didn't sugar-coat it in other regards.

One dude told me he wrote a book during downtime in his office. This was interesting.

[Neal Patrick Harris]

I honestly don't know how you guys get up in the morning if you have to, for instance, go to work and spend 12 hours helping devise a plan that'll minimize the exposure GM has due to their conscious decision not to replace an inexpensive piece of equipment on their vehicles, which could have prevented horrific injuries and deaths.

Obviously didn't go to Chicago. A nonzero amount of horrific injuries and deaths is ideal in an efficient world. :D

[IAFG]

Attrition- i have heard from legit sources at my firm that a 25% attrition rate is the goal. Less is bad. I mean, wtf? What other industry wants to train people and push them out the door? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I get the placing former associates with clients builds a god alum network and all, but it a desire for more attrition just eliminates nearly any incentive to make our lives better.

Well they don't train us, so that's easily reconciled.

[Nebby]

Is there a sense of camaraderie between entry-level associates due to the conditions? Similar, say, to the camaraderie built during boot-camp in the military.

--LinkRemoved--.

Sounds just like boot camp.

"First year, this is your stack of work product from over the weekend. I read it over, and umm... where did you say you were from again? Texas? Ah. Well, in regard to your work product. I didn't know they stacked shit that high in Texas."

[mirroroferised7]

You have to do what it says in the grant. You can’t go to your boss and say this isn’t working, it doesn’t make sense. You have to shut up and do it. She probably knows it doesn’t make sense, just like you – but grants are what makes the wheels go round. Maybe she’s not a trust fund baby either and that grant for a misguided project is paying her rent.
--LinkRemoved--

Grant writer. Can confirm.

We have invented totally useless "programs" that barely exist just for that sweet, sweet $5,000 grant from some church's "mission fund".

[mirroroferised7]

Came to this thread to see how much Big Law sucks. Left with my PI hopes and dreams heavily bruised and battered.

Bro. PM me.

[NYSprague]

Attrition is built into the financial model of the firm. It is a basic part of the entire system.

[El Pollito]

No one else gets it- Family do not understand why I work from 8-11. Friends know your busy but eventually just stop calling/inviting you to things. Then all your left with is other miserable biglaw associates because they are the only ones that get it. Misery spiral.

Family will never understand. No matter how many times I tell them I have no control over my life, they ask if I can do dinner at 6 (but thankfully I am not working for a tyrant at the moment, so I haven't been that flaky lately).

[FattyMcFatFat]

I honestly don't know how you guys get up in the morning if you have to, for instance, go to work and spend 12 hours helping devise a plan that'll minimize the exposure GM has due to their conscious decision not to replace an inexpensive piece of equipment on their vehicles, which could have prevented horrific injuries and deaths.

Totes, girlfriend. The suggestion that every single human life is not infinitely valuable is offensive. I mean, fuck reality. PEOPLE. ARE. DYING. I just wish we could have saved Hitler, you know? His contribution to the socialist cause is historically unparalleled (not that he's... er... uh, worth anymore because... because um... every human life is infinitely valuable). Amirite?

Even the fucking EPA's undoubtedly slanted metrics peg the statistical value of a human life at just $7.4M. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-epa- ... 2-8#!K7FyE. You're fucking delusional, and you should feel bad.

[Question Everything]

I honestly don't know how you guys get up in the morning if you have to, for instance, go to work and spend 12 hours helping devise a plan that'll minimize the exposure GM has due to their conscious decision not to replace an inexpensive piece of equipment on their vehicles, which could have prevented horrific injuries and deaths.

Totes, girlfriend. The suggestion that every single human life is not infinitely valuable is offensive. I mean, fuck reality. PEOPLE. ARE. DYING. I just wish we could have saved Hitler, you know? His contribution to the socialist cause is historically unparalleled (not that he's... er... uh, worth anymore because... because um... every human life is infinitely valuable). Amirite?

Even the fucking EPA's undoubtedly slanted metrics peg the statistical value of a human life at just $7.4M. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-epa- ... 2-8#!K7FyE. You're fucking delusional, and you should feel bad.

Non sequitur.

[Gooner91]

Maybe we should have a different thread where we discuss if IAFG is the spawn of Satan. This thread could be a good resource for those interested in biglaw.

I am interested in what people in (or were in)biglaw don't like about it, not the ideological rambling of random people.

[2014]

I honestly don't know how you guys get up in the morning if you have to, for instance, go to work and spend 12 hours helping devise a plan that'll minimize the exposure GM has due to their conscious decision not to replace an inexpensive piece of equipment on their vehicles, which could have prevented horrific injuries and deaths.

Obviously didn't go to Chicago. A nonzero amount of horrific injuries and deaths is ideal in an efficient world.

Yeah that's like day 1 crim Posner101 shit right there

[thesealocust]

On attrition: It's because the constant supply of dangerously ambitious people is the only way to maintain the insane level of service a big firm does. Finance works largely the same way - it's a crucible and a testing process for people who actually stick it out, and otherwise a way to extract huge amounts of work from talented people until they're spent and the corpses can be discarded to the government/smaller firms/the latest former-big-law-associate cupcake start up.