Why do people glorify biglaw? Forum

[pancakes3]

Is money and the chance at even more money not sufficient? At least with law and to a greater degree medicine you can justify the paycheck with the service rendered. (read: at least we're not bankers).

[NYSprague]

0Ls only see dollar signs.

Big law is not like a medical residency: residents know their schedule, residents get direct training and job responsibility, residents have clear exit options, residents make more as time progresses.

But I do think many law students do see biglaw as similar, in that it's a stage you get through in order to do something else, which is physically and emotionally taxing.

I just have concerns about equating biglaw with a job experience that is truly all about training and moving on to the next stage in your career.

[Mal Reynolds]

0Ls only see dollar signs.

Big law is not like a medical residency: residents know their schedule, residents get direct training and job responsibility, residents have clear exit options, residents make more as time progresses.

But I do think many law students do see biglaw as similar, in that it's a stage you get through in order to do something else, which is physically and emotionally taxing.

I just have concerns about equating biglaw with a job experience that is truly all about training and moving on to the next stage in your career.

This is overly pedantic because the anology, while not perfect, is still useful to explain why a lot of people chooe biglaw.

[catfished]

0Ls only see dollar signs.

Big law is not like a medical residency: residents know their schedule, residents get direct training and job responsibility, residents have clear exit options, residents make more as time progresses.

But I do think many law students do see biglaw as similar, in that it's a stage you get through in order to do something else, which is physically and emotionally taxing.

I just have concerns about equating biglaw with a job experience that is truly all about training and moving on to the next stage in your career.

Here's the fallacy with this argument. The reason biglaw is about moving on to the next stage in your legal career, is because it's essentially the ONLY WAY to move on to the next stage of one's legal career. Go to any Fortune 500 company, DOJ, regional law firm, Capitol Hill, etc. and see where they recruit their attorneys from. 90% of the time, even the low man on the totem pole, came from biglaw. That's just the way it is. So even people who don't want to do biglaw, know that they must do biglaw, in order to have a fulfilling career doing something else.

[FSK]

I went into LS knowing how f'd biglaw is, and have always wanted in-house as my desired outcome. I'm just hoping that knowledge helps me tolerate the shit for as long as it lasts.

[NYSprague]

^^^^
Maybe it is for people who understand biglaw. I was thinking about 0Ls who don't know the difference in experience and outcomes are vastly different. At least that is my understanding. Residents work long hours to get exposure and experience in many different situations. 1st years are not. In some ways biglaw is much worse than residency.

I know why people make the analogy superficially but the substance doesn't hold up.

I could be wrong and the exits out of residency are just as uncertain as biglaw.


I understand that biglaw is necessary to get some place else, but it isn't certain you will get there, even with biglaw. Maybe that is the differance I'm talking about.

[Cogburn87]

0Ls only see dollar signs.

Big law is not like a medical residency: residents know their schedule, residents get direct training and job responsibility, residents have clear exit options, residents make more as time progresses.

Nailed it. Please stop using this medical residency analogy. It's terrible.

[Mal Reynolds]

People really don't understand how analogies work.

[Cogburn87]

k

[NYSprague]

All you are saying is that you work long hours to get experience that you need for another job.

But the differences between biglaw and a set residency in terms of a career path are much bigger than the simplified similarity than both jobs require long hours.

[Mal Reynolds]

1. Most biglaw associates leave after only working for three to five years in a firm.
2. Many people know that this is the case and that the hours/lifestyle/stress is not sustainable or what they want long term.
3. The experience you receive at a large law firm after a few years, is seen in the profession as a very good resume boost and worth lot. Maybe not after one year, but over the course of three to five years, yes, you get good experience.

Therefore, people see biglaw as a way station on the way to other desirable fields. I don't have any idea why medical residency having more set hours (which are probably longer than biglaw) has anything to do with the substance of the comparison. Also people in biglaw DO make more money as time goes on so I don't know what the hell that sprauge idiot is getting at with this statement.

residents make more as time progresses.

I don't care if residency is a more formalized process, the perception of biglaw as a means to an end is the same as residency.

[FSK]

0Ls only see dollar signs.

Big law is not like a medical residency: residents know their schedule, residents get direct training and job responsibility, residents have clear exit options, residents make more as time progresses.

Nailed it. Please stop using this medical residency analogy. It's terrible.

To be Fair, residents have an additional year in med school (which costs more money & scholarships are NOT available, at large), have a year internship before hand, and you usually have more training afterwards before they're actually practicing. Most residencys are longer than the average stint in big law, and the sheer number of hours is much higher.

Also, blood and guts and vomit.

Its not a great analogy, but the level of suck could be in the same ballpark, case dependent.

Set hours in medical residency is such a flame. Your set hours are like 12-16 most days, and sometimes 30 straight on call.

[JCougar]

If you start out in small law, your situation five years later is probably not going to be as good as the guy who endured biglaw for a few years.

While this is almost certainly true, some people on here have asserted that Biglaw is a good training ground. I think in most cases it's not. The benefit it gives you is mostly the prestige on your resume. But the work that you do is still mostly support work that the partners don't want to do themselves. You don't get any trial experience, you don't see the inside of the courtroom, they can keep you from clients for your first couple of years, etc. (obviously, individual experiences may vary). Everyone I know that went into Biglaw has the same complaint (other than the hours)..."I don't get any opportunities." It's a lot of doc review, editing second, third, and fourth drafts, making binders, etc.

I'm sure some firms do better than others in this regard, and even individual experiences within a firm may vary. But government work and small law (if you can get into a decent small firm) are probably much better training grounds if you want to simply learn how to be a good lawyer the fastest. Even stuff like insurance defense is probably better from a strictly training/skills perspective.

So while the prestige alone will open doors to better jobs, and it may give you some client connections, if it's pure skills/training you're looking for, it's certainly not better--and quite possible worse--than other stuff that is out there.

[jbagelboy]

Wouldn't working at a large firm after LS is more like being a junior analyst than a medical resident? Long hours, high rates and thus high pay, most ppl leave after 2-3 yrs and everyone sees it as a step in their career.

Also most aspiring physicians see residency more as a funded part of your education than a first full time job as a doctor - and attorneys are compensated far better than residents. Stll, I think the analogy holds that value others pointed to from a "shit you have to get thru" perspective

[A. Nony Mouse]

Re: the residency analogy and biglaw as a way station - I'm not saying this is accurate or even that it's helpful in any way to think of biglaw this way. I'm just saying that this is how a lot of people who've never been in biglaw tend to think of it (based on reading widely here). Saying "these are the reasons people hold biglaw up as the brass ring" is not the same as saying those reasons are correct.

[FSK]

Wouldn't working at a large firm after LS is more like being a junior analyst than a medical resident? Long hours, high rates and thus high pay, most ppl leave after 2-3 yrs and everyone sees it as a step in their career.

Also most aspiring physicians see residency more as a funded part of your education than a first full time job as a doctor - and attorneys are compensated far better than residents. Stll, I think the analogy holds that value others pointed to from a "shit you have to get thru" perspective

Analysists, at large, know that it is a stepping stone. Many even see remaining at the bank (as associate/VP) as a bad outcome, b/c they then get branded as career banker, making going to PE/HF much more difficult.

My sense is that many BIGLAWYERS don't have a concrete plan like that.

[bernaldiaz]

I feel like this is a veiled return to the transfer question, not a query about big law.

the analysis for stanford doesn't change from harvard unless you want to work at KVN, Susman, BSF, QE, ect. in the bay area. Then you'd need to go to a better school for an in.

You'll get big law from your current school if you want it; you'll get IP from your current school if you want it and have the background; what you get from transferring is basically what you would get from Harvard, although it's more CA centric than NY centric. Bigger OCI, more name brand firms, a nationwide, rather than statewide, network, and a lot more debt. Although I bet you could get DC patent lit as #1 at FSU or whatever as long as you have the credentials.

Your decision last time came down to 1) I want to work in Florida and 2) I love my school. Assuming those variables haven't changed, no reason to transfer. Whiskeyncoke is only right with regards to your future and transferring if you want to work outside Florida. "Doors opened" that are never entered might as well be doors closed or lost.

I was an applied math major in college too, and I sympathize with you 'missing' math and searching for some sort of union. I don't think it's out there. I've worked in IP at a large firm; I've worked in consulting; going to Stanford and getting an IP lit job isn't going to save you on that front. I also don't think the most instructive question is whether big law sucks or not or is worth it or not, since you'll have that option either way, and it really depends on what you're looking to get out of it. The firm trains you and pays your loans (this is why it's important to find a firm where you aren't just doing doc review as a first yr associate - find somewhere that will give you substantive exposure). You give it your life for a couple years. Then you can decide whether that's a bearable union worth pursuing to partnership or whether you want to take those skills elsewhere.

I don't think a transfer is getting any of those firms (at least Keker, Susman), so it probably doesn't make a difference.

[jbagelboy]

I feel like this is a veiled return to the transfer question, not a query about big law.

the analysis for stanford doesn't change from harvard unless you want to work at KVN, Susman, BSF, QE, ect. in the bay area. Then you'd need to go to a better school for an in.

You'll get big law from your current school if you want it; you'll get IP from your current school if you want it and have the background; what you get from transferring is basically what you would get from Harvard, although it's more CA centric than NY centric. Bigger OCI, more name brand firms, a nationwide, rather than statewide, network, and a lot more debt. Although I bet you could get DC patent lit as #1 at FSU or whatever as long as you have the credentials.

Your decision last time came down to 1) I want to work in Florida and 2) I love my school. Assuming those variables haven't changed, no reason to transfer. Whiskeyncoke is only right with regards to your future and transferring if you want to work outside Florida. "Doors opened" that are never entered might as well be doors closed or lost.

I was an applied math major in college too, and I sympathize with you 'missing' math and searching for some sort of union. I don't think it's out there. I've worked in IP at a large firm; I've worked in consulting; going to Stanford and getting an IP lit job isn't going to save you on that front. I also don't think the most instructive question is whether big law sucks or not or is worth it or not, since you'll have that option either way, and it really depends on what you're looking to get out of it. The firm trains you and pays your loans (this is why it's important to find a firm where you aren't just doing doc review as a first yr associate - find somewhere that will give you substantive exposure). You give it your life for a couple years. Then you can decide whether that's a bearable union worth pursuing to partnership or whether you want to take those skills elsewhere.

I don't think a transfer is getting any of those firms (at least Keker, Susman), so it probably doesn't make a difference.

I mean, transfers have gotten those jobs, but yes I agree it's extremely unlikely. More generally though if OP wanted to work in SF at a competitive firm, that's one thing they could only get by transferring out of their current school

[WhiskeynCoke]

Fucking lawyers... Parse everything to death. At least the phrase "medical residency" doesn't contain a goddamned OXFORD COMMA, then shit would be getting super real.

Biglaw associates don't wear scrubs, use stethoscopes, or give grandma an enema. I call USELESS COMPARISON!!

Of course law school isn't like a medical residency, it's a fucking ANALOGY. I said "the law profession's version of a medical residency." It was a dumbed down comparison for OP, who appears to be quite dense, despite his/her awesome academic performance through 1L. I suspect he/she was really just copping the humblebrag on getting into Stanford.

OP is like .... "All I want to do is be happy, because I'm all enlightened now and shit. So I went to law school and gunned the hell out of that fucker to get to #1, then I got into Harvard AND Stanford. But I just can't see the draw of Big law you know... it's like, who cares about prestige and money, when you can just be happy instead?"

Give me a fucking break.

[Cogburn87]

You seem mentally ill.

[dixiecupdrinking]

To me, it sounds like 15 hour days, six days per week, in incredibly stressful situations with ruthless partners or senior associates. Sure, it makes bank, but why work a job that pays a lot if you don't have any time to spend the money? Even my mother, who did closer to medium-law, made bank but had no time to enjoy it. She could have lived her lifestyle on $30k.

It doesn't even seem like people enjoy it. I've seen posts here where people plan their exit strategies, sometimes before even graduating law school. It's like people make the investment of law school in order to get a specific job... that they only want for, at most, a decade. Is it the vague hope of making partner? Then it seems like your days last even longer - I read one post earlier about a managing partner who was at the office from 4 AM to 10 PM. Is that what's attractive about the job?

Biglaw can be bad, and the specifics depend on where you work and who you work for, but it is definitively not as bad as you are portraying it here. It is absolutely not 90 hours a week except at the absolute craziest times. Any stretch of 15 hour days is reserved for when something big is happening. The situations are not "incredibly stressful," they're certainly high pressure and the people you work for are demanding, but nobody is going to die. And none of my friends work for anyone who they would describe as "ruthless."

I'm someone who doesn't really like biglaw, but the problems are more that the work is often tedious, people take things too seriously, it's hard to plan your personal life around an unpredictable schedule, bosses expect you to be available at their convenience seven days a week (though not, in my experience, 24 hours a day, or even after say 9 or 10 pm without advance warning). It's not like working at some Glengarry Glen Ross-type hellhole.

So basically, to answer your question, the reason people do it is because, for a short period of time at least, it's worth it, all things considered.

[Kafkaesquire]

Make no mistake - I came to law school because I wanted a well-paying job. I have a degree in applied math but thought that my career prospects would be better in law. However, like I said, it seems like making a lot of money is meaningless if your life outside of work is mostly more work + sleep

okay dude well what other entry level job can you get that pays you a lot to start

when you don't have any skills and don't know how to do shit

lemme know when you find it

all you have to offer is general intelligence and the ability to bill relentlessly

I'll help him.

Oilfield.

[minnbills]

3. The experience you receive at a large law firm after a few years, is seen in the profession as a very good resume boost and worth lot. Maybe not after one year, but over the course of three to five years, yes, you get good experience.

This is not necessarily true. There are lots of former biglaw associates who struggle to find legal work after leaving a big firm. It is really easy to spend 3-5 years somewhere and spend the whole time reviewing and drafting legal documents.

Biglaw can be a great step forward but it can also hold somebody back, it really depends on what you were doing at the firm.

[Mal Reynolds]

3. The experience you receive at a large law firm after a few years, is seen in the profession as a very good resume boost and worth lot. Maybe not after one year, but over the course of three to five years, yes, you get good experience.

This is not necessarily true. There are lots of former biglaw associates who struggle to find legal work after leaving a big firm. It is really easy to spend 3-5 years somewhere and spend the whole time reviewing and drafting legal documents.

Biglaw can be a great step forward but it can also hold somebody back, it really depends on what you were doing at the firm.

Oh wow that's like true of every generalization ever.

[84651846190]

lol