I won't mind long hours! I do 90 hours weeks during finals! Forum

[Arboreal]

Sugarcoating to lawstudents is a completely accepted cultural reality. I've seen partners joke about dropping summers from working group lists for deals that rage into the night/weekend.

The recruiting coordinator at my firm started shooing associates out of the office at 7 p.m. last summer after the hiring committee got wind that some SA's were concerned about the hours junior associates were putting in.

I get that (and why) partners and recruiting coordinators would sugarcoat things as a matter of course.

I'm more interested to know whether or not most associates, people experiencing the same travails as the posters in this thread, would more likely than not engage in this same sugarcoating as well -- particularly to an 0L colleague whom they know reasonably well -- and what the reasons for doing so could be.

I don't see what incentive they would have to lie/omit/conceal their true feelings from a person like that (i.e. like me).

[t-14orbust]

Anyone have any redeeming qualities of biglaw they want to throw into the mix?

The pay is good, particularly if you managed to escape law school with no or minimal debt.

If you happen to work on the right matters with the right people, you can learn a ton in a relatively short period of time. But that's mostly beyond your control.

Some people are cool. Not everyone is a miserable senior associate coked-out on adderrall and gunning for partner. I'd say about half the associates at my firm are nice people and fun to hang out with outside of work.

ETA: I only work with litigation associates and partners.

For litigation peeps: are you worried about exit options?

[worldtraveler]

Sugarcoating to lawstudents is a completely accepted cultural reality. I've seen partners joke about dropping summers from working group lists for deals that rage into the night/weekend.

The recruiting coordinator at my firm started shooing associates out of the office at 7 p.m. last summer after the hiring committee got wind that some SA's were concerned about the hours junior associates were putting in.

I get that (and why) partners and recruiting coordinators would sugarcoat things as a matter of course.

I'm more interested to know whether or not most associates, people experiencing the same travails as the posters in this thread, would more likely than not engage in this same sugarcoating as well -- particularly to an 0L colleague whom they know reasonably well -- and what the reasons for doing so could be.

I don't see what incentive they would have to lie/omit/conceal their true feelings from a person like that (i.e. like me).

I sugarcoat my job all the time with everybody. If I don't know somebody well I'm not going to get into critiques of it.

[Arboreal]

Sugarcoating to lawstudents is a completely accepted cultural reality. I've seen partners joke about dropping summers from working group lists for deals that rage into the night/weekend.

The recruiting coordinator at my firm started shooing associates out of the office at 7 p.m. last summer after the hiring committee got wind that some SA's were concerned about the hours junior associates were putting in.

I get that (and why) partners and recruiting coordinators would sugarcoat things as a matter of course.

I'm more interested to know whether or not most associates, people experiencing the same travails as the posters in this thread, would more likely than not engage in this same sugarcoating as well -- particularly to an 0L colleague whom they know reasonably well -- and what the reasons for doing so could be.

I don't see what incentive they would have to lie/omit/conceal their true feelings from a person like that (i.e. like me).

I sugarcoat my job all the time with everybody. If I don't know somebody well I'm not going to get into critiques of it.

Don't you have a snowflake gig, though? Also, I can see doing the sugarcoating thing to randoms, but not to people thinking about entering the profession themselves.

[bk1]

Sugarcoating to others is a normal part of rationalizing one's choices. Nobody wants to air their personal complaints to people they don't know well.

[Arboreal]

Sugarcoating to others is a normal part of rationalizing one's choices. Nobody wants to air their personal complaints to people they don't know well.

But what if they do know the person well? Why would they continue to sugarcoat?

[bk1]

But what if they do know the person well, why would they continue to sugarcoat?

And how do you explain the existence of this thread, based on that logic?

This is a (semi) anonymous online forum.

Associates sugarcoat things because it's just part of the culture even if they aren't benefiting from it like recruiting and partners are.

[Arboreal]

But what if they do know the person well, why would they continue to sugarcoat?

And how do you explain the existence of this thread, based on that logic?

This is a (semi) anonymous online forum.

Fair enough -- but the attorneys participating here surely aren't rationalizing their career choices.

[worldtraveler]

Sugarcoating to others is a normal part of rationalizing one's choices. Nobody wants to air their personal complaints to people they don't know well.

But what if they do know the person well? Why would they continue to sugarcoat?

Because admitting you aren't loving what you do, something you spent $250,000 and 1/4 to 1/3 of your life trying to do, is admitting failure. Nobody likes to do that.

Some of the complaints are also about privileged material or hard to explain without going in depth into what you're working on. Personally I can't do that so I can't really say much beyond "I have criticisms about what I do"

[bk1]

I also think people here are atypical in that they desire (for whatever reason) to make sure that strangers go in with their eyes wide open.

[MKC]

I also think people here are atypical in that they desire (for whatever reason) to make sure that strangers go in with their eyes wide open.

Still a 1L, but I would guess that as an associate, it's probably not wise to go around badmouthing the firm that pays you. Generally speaking.

[bjsesq]

I also think people here are atypical in that they desire (for whatever reason) to make sure that strangers go in with their eyes wide open.

Still a 1L, but I would guess that as an associate, it's probably not wise to go around badmouthing the firm that pays you. Generally speaking.

You don't fucking say.

[Arboreal]

But what if they do know the person well, why would they continue to sugarcoat?

And how do you explain the existence of this thread, based on that logic?

This is a (semi) anonymous online forum.

Associates sugarcoat things because it's just part of the culture even if they aren't benefiting from it like recruiting and partners are.

OK, I can see how sugarcoating is institutionalized by the culture. But to frame this another way, my gut tells me that if I were to go have lunch with radlulz, and I explained to him/her that I was an 0L thinking about working as an attorney in a big firm, his/her tune would not be that different from the melody in this thread.

Assuming I'm right, would radlulz's (or desertfox's or rayinor's etc.) candor be anomalous? Would most associates give me the company line, even if they hated their professional lives in so many ways?

[IAFG]

I also have a vested interest in summers not thinking my firm/group sucks because I need them to start and help.

[MKC]

I also think people here are atypical in that they desire (for whatever reason) to make sure that strangers go in with their eyes wide open.

Still a 1L, but I would guess that as an associate, it's probably not wise to go around badmouthing the firm that pays you. Generally speaking.

You don't fucking say.

There seems to be some confusion on this point.

[Arboreal]

I also think people here are atypical in that they desire (for whatever reason) to make sure that strangers go in with their eyes wide open.

Still a 1L, but I would guess that as an associate, it's probably not wise to go around badmouthing the firm that pays you. Generally speaking.

You don't fucking say.

There are plenty of ways to tell 0Ls the truth about the entire biglaw profession without singling out one's own firm as monstrous.

[bjsesq]

I also think people here are atypical in that they desire (for whatever reason) to make sure that strangers go in with their eyes wide open.

Still a 1L, but I would guess that as an associate, it's probably not wise to go around badmouthing the firm that pays you. Generally speaking.

You don't fucking say.

There are plenty of ways to tell 0Ls the truth about the entire biglaw profession without singling out one's own firm as monstrous.

So they should discuss the goings on in other firms. That they don't work at. Cool.

[swc65]

Might as well edit the thread title to "I won't mind long hours! I'll be getting 160k for them!"

I completely believe biglaw sucks, I really do... BUT I think some posters need a little perspective on careers in general. Swinging a hammer for 10 hours a day at $10 an hour, sucks. Not everyone was brought up with a middle class+ life, and plenty of people would trade lives with you. I'm not saying people with comfortable lives have nothing to complain about...I'm just saying they have some things to be grateful for too...

As someone who used to swing a hammer for <$10, I can tell you, this job still sucks. If you go back through my posts (I mean, don't because that would be weird), you will see that I used to make the same arguments. Oh how dumb I was.

[Arboreal]

So they should discuss the goings on in other firms. That they don't work at. Cool.

No, they should make general statements about the expectations of biglaw associates -- of which there seems to be a wee bit of overlap from firm to firm.

[bjsesq]

So they should discuss the goings on in other firms. That they don't work at. Cool.

No, they should make general statements about the expectations of biglaw associates -- of which there seems to be a wee bit of overlap from firm to firm.

....k. People know they are talking about their firm anyway, so what are you blithering about?

[Arboreal]

So they should discuss the goings on in other firms. That they don't work at. Cool.

No, they should make general statements about the expectations of biglaw associates -- of which there seems to be a wee bit of overlap from firm to firm.

....k. People know they are talking about their firm anyway, so what are you blithering about?

No point belaboring my blithering.

Fellows 0Ls: When investigating the biglaw profession for yourselves as paralegals before law school: be advised that anything you see on the job is relevant STRICTLY to the firm at which you work.

[bjsesq]

So they should discuss the goings on in other firms. That they don't work at. Cool.

No, they should make general statements about the expectations of biglaw associates -- of which there seems to be a wee bit of overlap from firm to firm.

....k. People know they are talking about their firm anyway, so what are you blithering about?

No point belaboring my blithering.

Fellows 0Ls: When investigating the biglaw profession for yourselves: be advised that anything you see on the job is relevant STRICTLY to the firm at which you work.

...are you retarded?

[Arboreal]

...are you retarded?

Probably sometimes.

[rayiner]

But what if they do know the person well, why would they continue to sugarcoat?

And how do you explain the existence of this thread, based on that logic?

This is a (semi) anonymous online forum.

Associates sugarcoat things because it's just part of the culture even if they aren't benefiting from it like recruiting and partners are.

OK, I can see how sugarcoating is institutionalized by the culture. But to frame this another way, my gut tells me that if I were to go have lunch with radlulz, and I explained to him/her that I was an 0L thinking about working as an attorney in a big firm, his/her tune would not be that different from the melody in this thread.

Assuming I'm right, would radlulz's (or desertfox's or rayinor's etc.) candor be anomalous? Would most associates give me the company line, even if they hated their professional lives in so many ways?

I almost certainly would be more diplomatic in what I said to you in person. I have a vested interest in perpetuating the brand of the firm that employs me. Also, its awkward to tell specific people to their face the bad sides of a career choice they have invested themselves in. I never tell acquaintances who ask me IRL about law school the same unvarnished truth, simply because you never know who you'll offend. "GW isn't worth going to at sticker." I can say that I'm TLS. In person, I'm possibly offending someone's dad or whatever.

Also, in the un-anonymous context, people take things as commentary about specific firms. I personally think my V10 firm is the most awesome and humane of the lot. The criticisms I raise about big law are a generalization of things that are true across big law firms (at least in NYC) for structural reasons, generalizations which I have derived from my experience and those of my classmates. Trying to figure out which firm is good and which is bad is absolutely the wrong takeaway from these posts.

[Young Marino]

.