Anyone have positive things to say about BigLaw? Forum

[drawstring]

I have a close family friend who is very positive about the money that they earned and absolutely sure they made the right decision by going into biglaw. They did not go into much debt to get their degree (full scholly at T-14), and in their early 30s and after 5 or 6 years in biglaw they were able to buy a nice condo, put a few hundred k in the bank, and start doing what they actually wanted to instead of working horrible hours, constantly having something work-related on their mind, and generally feeling like a disrespected POS (their words).

For them biglaw was a great opportunity, but then again they weren't paying dat bigdebt.

[Flanker1067]

I am in biglaw and I love my job because I love the substance of what I do (niche practice) and it's reliably 55-60 hours a week (combination of practice area and market). People doing an in-depth comparison of the hours to i-banking, consulting, etc. are using the wrong metric IMO. But these posts saying "I worked a 40-hour week and I'd never work 60 hours" puzzle me a little too. What do you do, go home and crochet a sweater or something? I still need to work on like, fitting in my workout more reliably instead of all willy-nilly and only half the time, and getting all chores done on the weekend, but I don't need to go home at 5, for God's sake.

There are good jobs, and middle grounds, but they're not the jobs you tumble into when you get good grades at a T-14 and follow the herd at OCI. I think herd-following is a problem with law students.

More proof of my theory (on pg 1). This Biglaw associate cannot think of something better to do with free time than crochet, go to the gym (time to maintain your health should be the baseline when talking work hours), and do chores. Go forth and bill, oh prestigious associate.

Edit: I will add here that had I got a Biglaw offer, I probably would have taken it for the money (paid $$$$ for school) and exit options. People question whether the exit options are actually that good, but at least at the time I thought they were. All this said, I'm 99% sure I would have hated it, just like my friends who are most similar to myself do.

[rayiner]

I have a close family friend who is very positive about the money that they earned and absolutely sure they made the right decision by going into biglaw. They did not go into much debt to get their degree (full scholly at T-14), and in their early 30s and after 5 or 6 years in biglaw they were able to buy a nice condo, put a few hundred k in the bank, and start doing what they actually wanted to instead of working horrible hours, constantly having something work-related on their mind, and generally feeling like a disrespected POS (their words).

For them biglaw was a great opportunity, but then again they weren't paying dat bigdebt.

Now imagine that story where after 5-6 years instead of having a few hundred grand in the bank they still owe money on their loans.

[BaiAilian2013]

There are good jobs, and middle grounds, but they're not the jobs you tumble into when you get good grades at a T-14 and follow the herd at OCI. I think herd-following is a problem with law students.

Interested in this. Could you expand upon that a little bit? Are there less-beaten paths that lead to good outcomes?

As an 0L, I completely buy that biglaw is miserable. I worked as a paralegal at a big firm for two years and saw associates regularly on the verge of complete mental breakdowns. I guess the question is what is the alternative. If you look at an attorney's 30-40 year career post law school, isn't biglaw a pretty good place to start? If not, what is? Or is law school truly a losing proposition no matter how you look at it?

I think biglaw is a good place to start if you have certain goals and can either enjoy it or at least deal with it for the requisite number of years. People painting an un-rosy picture aren't necessarily saying no one should do biglaw ever; they are just saying, I think, that 0Ls as a group tend to underestimate some of its costs, and focus on the wrong aspects, which I think is true.

As for the first question, it appears to me that in general, there are non-NYC and basically non-urban markets in which you will get paid a little less and work a little less. It's not necessarily a lot less; for corporate people, it could mean an all-nighter once a year instead of several times a month, or going home a little earlier on average (although I think feast-or-famine patterns still apply). To me that would be worth a pay cut. It also means cultural differences. Someone who came to my firm from an NYC vault firm said that here, if she has to stay late, the partner says they're sorry and they mean it, whereas at her old firm it was just expected. To her that made a difference. To some people it probably wouldn't.

The reason this isn't a cure-all is that 1) if you really require a 40-hour week, forget it, 2) there just aren't nearly as many of these jobs, 3) you need ties, 4) exit options are different, more regional, 5) your COL goes down as you flee NYC, but your loans don't, and 6) if prestige matters, other than maybe regional prestige, forget it - no V-something moniker to bandy about with your classmates.

[killer133]

My friend works at V30 and he is very happy, I mean genuinely happy. He loves his work and he is very rich. He went to law school on full ride (T14) and he is 4th yr associate now making $200K+/yr. The only thing he complains is that he might get a phone call at 10pm Friday night while he is drinking. But he said work itself is challenging and fun. His partners are not de-humaning anyone at his firm.

He might be one of the exceptions, but not everyone hates biglaw.

[V20Associate]

I've learned a ton and I work at a place that is full of smart, ambitious and incredibly professional people.

Are there firms where people aren't professional? That doesn't seem like a remarkable trait to me. Professionalism is such a bare minimum requirement to work in any white collar job that I hardly even notice it.

Of course there are. Glance over the complaints people have thrown at biglaw in this thread and notice how many are related to "difficult personalities" or something similar. If you are under the impression that being "incredibly professional" is "a bare minimum" aspect of the job, then I think we have different definitions of what professionalism is. I don't see it as just "know when to wear a tie or a jacket" (although I suppose that's in the same universe), so much as "know how to work in a group of people such that your presence in terms of tone, attitude and awareness is a consistent net positive to the team, both in terms of the team's work product and other members satisfaction with working on the team."

[IAFG]

There are good jobs, and middle grounds, but they're not the jobs you tumble into when you get good grades at a T-14 and follow the herd at OCI. I think herd-following is a problem with law students.

Interested in this. Could you expand upon that a little bit? Are there less-beaten paths that lead to good outcomes?

As an 0L, I completely buy that biglaw is miserable. I worked as a paralegal at a big firm for two years and saw associates regularly on the verge of complete mental breakdowns. I guess the question is what is the alternative. If you look at an attorney's 30-40 year career post law school, isn't biglaw a pretty good place to start? If not, what is? Or is law school truly a losing proposition no matter how you look at it?

I think biglaw is a good place to start if you have certain goals and can either enjoy it or at least deal with it for the requisite number of years. People painting an un-rosy picture aren't necessarily saying no one should do biglaw ever; they are just saying, I think, that 0Ls as a group tend to underestimate some of its costs, and focus on the wrong aspects, which I think is true.

As for the first question, it appears to me that in general, there are non-NYC and basically non-urban markets in which you will get paid a little less and work a little less. It's not necessarily a lot less; for corporate people, it could mean an all-nighter once a year instead of several times a month, or going home a little earlier on average (although I think feast-or-famine patterns still apply). To me that would be worth a pay cut. It also means cultural differences. Someone who came to my firm from an NYC vault firm said that here, if she has to stay late, the partner says they're sorry and they mean it, whereas at her old firm it was just expected. To her that made a difference. To some people it probably wouldn't.

The reason this isn't a cure-all is that 1) if you really require a 40-hour week, forget it, 2) there just aren't nearly as many of these jobs, 3) you need ties, 4) exit options are different, more regional, 5) your COL goes down as you flee NYC, but your loans don't, and 6) if prestige matters, other than maybe regional prestige, forget it - no V-something moniker to bandy about with your classmates.

Yup, all of this.

[drawstring]

I have a close family friend who is very positive about the money that they earned and absolutely sure they made the right decision by going into biglaw. They did not go into much debt to get their degree (full scholly at T-14), and in their early 30s and after 5 or 6 years in biglaw they were able to buy a nice condo, put a few hundred k in the bank, and start doing what they actually wanted to instead of working horrible hours, constantly having something work-related on their mind, and generally feeling like a disrespected POS (their words).

For them biglaw was a great opportunity, but then again they weren't paying dat bigdebt.

Now imagine that story where after 5-6 years instead of having a few hundred grand in the bank they still owe money on their loans.

No doubt.

I mean, if you go in with little to no debt the work experience may still suck, but at least you're getting life changing (for a lot of people at least) $$$ out of it if you can put in the years.

[Holly Golightly]

Big law provides you with training, money and prestige. In turn you work an absurd amount of hours, have to deal with difficult personalities, lack job security, and risk the prospect of being fired in 6-13 years depending on the firms partner track.

I really cannot see much real benefits besides the prestige. If you can get an entry level gov position you'll learn far more than you would learn in a big firm.

It does???

[drawstring]

I'd like to know what the other biglawlers think of that. I've seen the training line many times but I'm not sure if it's generally true or not.

[IAFG]

I'd like to know what the other biglawlers think of that. I've seen the training line many times but I'm not sure if it's generally true or not.

i mean it's a flame and it's not. no one is going to sit down with you with a binder of documents and teach you what do to in the real world. also, no one will really guide you through shit while you're being asked to do it. but, the end result of being told to do something you've never done and can't do, then panicking, pulling something together, having it corrected, fixing it, then getting silence as feedback does sorta result in the outcome of you being trained.

[Holly Golightly]

I'd like to know what the other biglawlers think of that. I've seen the training line many times but I'm not sure if it's generally true or not.

i mean it's a flame and it's not. no one is going to sit down with you with a binder of documents and teach you what do to in the real world. also, no one will really guide you through shit while you're being asked to do it. but, the end result of being told to do something you've never done and can't do, then panicking, pulling something together, having it corrected, fixing it, then getting silence as feedback does sorta result in the outcome of you being trained.

But that doesn't seem different to me than anywhere else. I feel like that's...being a lawyer.

[V20Associate]

I'd like to know what the other biglawlers think of that. I've seen the training line many times but I'm not sure if it's generally true or not.

i mean it's a flame and it's not. no one is going to sit down with you with a binder of documents and teach you what do to in the real world. also, no one will really guide you through shit while you're being asked to do it. but, the end result of being told to do something you've never done and can't do, then panicking, pulling something together, having it corrected, fixing it, then getting silence as feedback does sorta result in the outcome of you being trained.

IAFG-- do you work in biglaw? I'm not asking to demean your opinion or your response, because if that has been your experience, that really stinks. That said, my experience vis a vis training has been manifestly different. I've had a lot of formal training (ed sessions, etc.) and even more informal training (particularly with senior associates.) When I think back to where I was when I started in terms of knowing where and how to get work product out the door, I kind of want to laugh at myself.

[IAFG]

I'd like to know what the other biglawlers think of that. I've seen the training line many times but I'm not sure if it's generally true or not.

i mean it's a flame and it's not. no one is going to sit down with you with a binder of documents and teach you what do to in the real world. also, no one will really guide you through shit while you're being asked to do it. but, the end result of being told to do something you've never done and can't do, then panicking, pulling something together, having it corrected, fixing it, then getting silence as feedback does sorta result in the outcome of you being trained.

IAFG-- do you work in biglaw? I'm not asking to demean your opinion or your response, because if that has been your experience, that really stinks. That said, my experience vis a vis training has been manifestly different. I've had a lot of formal training (ed sessions, etc.) and even more informal training (particularly with senior associates.) When I think back to where I was when I started in terms of knowing where and how to get work product out the door, I kind of want to laugh at myself.

i did not get anything out of those sessions. they were so high-level they really didn't inform my work product at all.

as far as seniors, i mean, they've helped me out here and there, but my training has mostly been as described.

[NoLieAbility]

0L Contribution:

I have one hundred and sixty thousand positive things to say about BigLaw.

[El Pollito]

0L Contribution:

I have one hundred and sixty thousand positive things to say about BigLaw.

95 thousand after tax*

[Holly Golightly]

0L Contribution:

I have one hundred and sixty thousand positive things to say about BigLaw.

95 thousand after tax*

How much after loans and NYC rent?

[IAFG]

0L Contribution:

I have one hundred and sixty thousand positive things to say about BigLaw.

95 thousand after tax*

69k after loans*

Despite scholarship*

[V20Associate]

I'd like to know what the other biglawlers think of that. I've seen the training line many times but I'm not sure if it's generally true or not.

i mean it's a flame and it's not. no one is going to sit down with you with a binder of documents and teach you what do to in the real world. also, no one will really guide you through shit while you're being asked to do it. but, the end result of being told to do something you've never done and can't do, then panicking, pulling something together, having it corrected, fixing it, then getting silence as feedback does sorta result in the outcome of you being trained.

IAFG-- do you work in biglaw? I'm not asking to demean your opinion or your response, because if that has been your experience, that really stinks. That said, my experience vis a vis training has been manifestly different. I've had a lot of formal training (ed sessions, etc.) and even more informal training (particularly with senior associates.) When I think back to where I was when I started in terms of knowing where and how to get work product out the door, I kind of want to laugh at myself.

i did not get anything out of those sessions. they were so high-level they really didn't inform my work product at all.

as far as seniors, i mean, they've helped me out here and there, but my training has mostly been as described.

Hmm, well then that does stink. OP, and applicants generally, perhaps you should make a point to ask about the quality of training on a second visit when applying and try to get a sense of it at a specific firm, because it sounds like the quality of training might vary.

[El Pollito]

0L Contribution:

I have one hundred and sixty thousand positive things to say about BigLaw.

95 thousand after tax*

69k after loans*

Despite scholarship*

45K after rent*

[rayiner]

0L Contribution:

I have one hundred and sixty thousand positive things to say about BigLaw.

95 thousand after tax*

I think what 0L's really fail to appreciate is how much taxes and debt reduces your paycheck. They think: oh, I'm making $160k, and sticker loan payments are like $45k/year, so it's still the equivalent of making $115k/year!

After taxes and health insurance, your take-home in MFH might be like $7,700 per month.* Sticker debt knocks off say $3,600, leaving you with $4,100 per month after taxes. In New York City, someone making $75k/year will net about the same.

Yes, this ignores raises and bonuses, but if you want to hit zero net worth by the time you wash out of big law, even if you last 5 years, you have to plow those into paying loans.

*) A big secret of big law firms is that they're cheap with health insurance contributions relative to professional jobs in the $70-100k range. My $60k/year engineer job in Atlanta had zero employee contribution, while my big law firm required a couple of hundred a month just for yourself.

[t-14orbust]

Is the 'revolving door' between biggov and biglaw real? If so how does it work? Thanks

[exitoptions]

After taxes and health insurance, your take-home in MFH might be like $7,700 per month.* Sticker debt knocks off say $3,600, leaving you with $4,100 per month after taxes. In New York City, someone making $75k/year will net about the same.

Yes, this ignores raises and bonuses, but if you want to hit zero net worth by the time you wash out of big law, even if you last 5 years, you have to plow those into paying loans.

*) A big secret of big law firms is that they're cheap with health insurance contributions relative to professional jobs in the $70-100k range. My $60k/year engineer job in Atlanta had zero employee contribution, while my big law firm required a couple of hundred a month just for yourself.

In biglaw the emphasis is on keeping the $160k figure alive. Associates have to contribute more to health insurance, get no dental or vision, and get no matching 401k like you would get in a normal corporate America job (where pay may be less but benefits are higher and tax free). Which is designed essentially to make everyone think that biglaw is way more lucrative than it is actually. Also, megadebt or rich family is basically a prerequisite. Which leads to an accumulation of generally miserable people.

[BmoreOrLess]

After taxes and health insurance, your take-home in MFH might be like $7,700 per month.* Sticker debt knocks off say $3,600, leaving you with $4,100 per month after taxes. In New York City, someone making $75k/year will net about the same.

Yes, this ignores raises and bonuses, but if you want to hit zero net worth by the time you wash out of big law, even if you last 5 years, you have to plow those into paying loans.

*) A big secret of big law firms is that they're cheap with health insurance contributions relative to professional jobs in the $70-100k range. My $60k/year engineer job in Atlanta had zero employee contribution, while my big law firm required a couple of hundred a month just for yourself.

In biglaw the emphasis is on keeping the $160k figure alive. Associates have to contribute more to health insurance, get no dental or vision, and get no matching 401k like you would get in a normal corporate America job (where pay may be less but benefits are higher and tax free). Which is designed essentially to make everyone think that biglaw is way more lucrative than it is actually. Also, megadebt or rich family is basically a prerequisite. Which leads to an accumulation of generally miserable people.

To be fair, benefits in corporate america seems to have also been going to shit. Over the past 5 years at two different financial services firms, I've seen employee health insurance go up pretty heavily (started paying like $60 a month, now pay $150 a month) as well as having deductibles go up. This seems to be the case with most of my other friends outside of finance as well.

[84651846190]

Hmm, well then that does stink. OP, and applicants generally, perhaps you should make a point to ask about the quality of training on a second visit when applying and try to get a sense of it at a specific firm, because it sounds like the quality of training might vary.

I don't believe you are really a biglaw associate. I don't know of any biglaw firms that give as much training as you claim your firm does. Maybe you're just in a really good practice group or something. *shrug*