So you want to be a NY Corporate Associate? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

What does the OP, and others who can relate, think about saying screw NY and going to a mid-market firm in a city like Portland or Denver, make around 110-130k, and have significantly less billable hours expected of you? It seems like such a better life to me, you can actually enjoy weekend breaks from work, and at least ease several of the negatives you mentioned.

Do those markets really expect significantly fewer billable hours?

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

What does the OP, and others who can relate, think about saying screw NY and going to a mid-market firm in a city like Portland or Denver, make around 110-130k, and have significantly less billable hours expected of you? It seems like such a better life to me, you can actually enjoy weekend breaks from work, and at least ease several of the negatives you mentioned.

Do those markets really expect significantly fewer billable hours?

It's also not like these places are hiring any warm body that meets their arbitrary standards. I'm not the only person in my class who was able to get a job in NY but couldn't crack my hometown market.

When there are 2 or 3 SAs to go around in the entire city, you're likely not going to get a gig making $100k+ in a secondary market.

[AspiringAspirant]

What does the OP, and others who can relate, think about saying screw NY and going to a mid-market firm in a city like Portland or Denver, make around 110-130k, and have significantly less billable hours expected of you? It seems like such a better life to me, you can actually enjoy weekend breaks from work, and at least ease several of the negatives you mentioned.

Do those markets really expect significantly fewer billable hours?

I actually just drew Denver out of a hat. But I spoke with an attorney that worked NY biglaw then transitioned to Portland. Said the hours are night and day. In NY getting a weekend off is like a holiday, in portland he didn't work the weekend unless he wanted to. And his weekday hours were trimmed noticeably too. Of course there was a significant pay cut, down to around 120 k I think.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

please describe your worst day at work.

[Cynic]

Long-time lurker here, this post finally got me to register. I have a few questions if you have the time:

1) If it's really this bad, why does everyone go into law? I'm at an Ivy undergrad right now and know tons of people going into law school. Surely there aren't this many people who haven't done their research?

2) What was the HLS education like? It seems like most top politicians have a law school education, so surely there must be something important about it, right?

3) Why is making partner so difficult? If you're good at your job and reliable, shouldn't they want to keep you around for the long term?

4) Are any of your co-workers sycophants/backstabbers? I keep hearing that they're everywhere in law, but I feel like they should be weeded out in the hiring process.

5) If the work is really mindless, then why do you need an Ivy education to do it?... Is it really just glorified admin work?

Thanks.

[tomwatts]

In relation to this topic generally....

I spent about 4 weeks in NYC as a transactional SA (before switching to lit). For me, it was easily the most boring job I've ever had, well below being a cashier at KFC. A bunch of other people in the group at least appeared enthusiastic about the work, and I was so befuddled at the concept that I asked them why they liked it. I gathered that, in order to like transactional work, you have to like learning about the ins and outs of random businesses (from business model to corporate structure to pretty much everything the corporation has ever done since its inception) and then writing about these things. You also have to like going through the details of contracts where the main points have already been settled and you just have to work out the details of the wording on minor points.

This sounded like hell to me, but there were definitely some people who liked it.

All of this just brings up a broader point. I consider myself really lucky that, as a joint degree, I had three summers (one of which I split) and two term-time internships for a total of six internships during law school. It really wasn't until the fifth and sixth ones that I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to do. If I had just done summer one and summer two and then gone into whatever I was doing in my second summer, I would have been a lot less happy than I am now.

So what's the big picture? There are lots of things in law, and they're not interchangeable. You will like some (probably), and you will absolutely hate some. You have to find what you will like — and it helps if you're at a school that can get you in the door at a lot of places.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

[Double post]

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

Long-time lurker here, this post finally got me to register. I have a few questions if you have the time:

1) If it's really this bad, why does everyone go into law? I'm at an Ivy undergrad right now and know tons of people going into law school. Surely there aren't this many people who haven't done their research? For a variety of bad reasons, personally (i) parents' friends' distaste for Wall Street, yet ironic regard for white shoe law firms; (ii) finance/consulting looked bleak in 2008-2010; and (iii) parents' own degree pedigree.

2) What was the HLS education like? It seems like most top politicians have a law school education, so surely there must be something important about it, right? Must be something different in the water that far north. I'll skip this and give it zero relevance. Just go to Wharton for UG like Trump.

3) Why is making partner so difficult? If you're good at your job and reliable, shouldn't they want to keep you around for the long term? Desire to have some semblance of a normal life. Willingness by existing partners to continue to pay you $335K and continue to see a profit based on your work, as opposed to giving you equity in their partnership.

4) Are any of your co-workers sycophants/backstabbers? I keep hearing that they're everywhere in law, but I feel like they should be weeded out in the hiring process.That's weird. Don't be weird. People will sell you out, but that's life.

5) If the work is really mindless, then why do you need an Ivy education to do it?... Is it really just glorified admin work? You don't, but same as banking it shows an ability and willingness to work very, very hard, for very long hours and with a high degree of accuracy.

Thanks.

(Obviously not OP) ... And for what it's worth, I wasn't anywhere near the v3, though ran into, and continue to run into, Wachtell and others of a similar ilk on regular occasion (it's true that many of those are worse, but on a scale of bad to worse, NY corporate is generally tough). I'm not nearly as anti-law as OP, but I am a strong supporter of the belief that those with options out of undergrad should not go to law school. Law school is a backup/reset button for late bloomers, much like b school is an expensive interview vacation for those stuck in pre-MBA positions.

[zot1]

Long-time lurker here, this post finally got me to register. I have a few questions if you have the time:

1) If it's really this bad, why does everyone go into law? I'm at an Ivy undergrad right now and know tons of people going into law school. Surely there aren't this many people who haven't done their research?

2) What was the HLS education like? It seems like most top politicians have a law school education, so surely there must be something important about it, right?

3) Why is making partner so difficult? If you're good at your job and reliable, shouldn't they want to keep you around for the long term?

4) Are any of your co-workers sycophants/backstabbers? I keep hearing that they're everywhere in law, but I feel like they should be weeded out in the hiring process.

5) If the work is really mindless, then why do you need an Ivy education to do it?... Is it really just glorified admin work?

Thanks.

I think if you reread your questions, it will help you understand the answers you're looking for. All of your questions show a great degree of skepticism about what has been posted here ("if it's so bad, why do people still do it?"). Ironically, it is that kind of mentality that allows people to continue feeding into a vicious cycle. The difference is that most people will take the "I'm gonna try it myself because I'm not whiny" attitude, instead of listening to others' experiences and deciding you don't want the same kind of fate.

It's like going to law school in general. There's plenty of information out there about how bad the market is. Yet every single student that goes to law school (even the TTT ones) goes thinking that s/he will be a successful story because s/he is so damn special.

You say this was the post that lead you to register. I have read over 10 similar posts on TLS just this year.

[Tls2016]

1. Yes it's that bad.it gets worse with more experience. In my view the key factor the successful people have at my firm is a high level of energy and ability to functionality out sleep. Don't go if you need regular sleep to function.
I once worked 3 days straight with 2 hours of sleep.( yes they are all smart and good at their jobs too.)
People don't do research and don't listen. Or mostly they at seduced by the money.

2. No.Legal education is fairly uniform. Harvard graduates 500 plus students - where do you think they go?

3. The big law firm model is a pyramid. It is designed for high attrition and counts on it to make money. Law firms are up or out and they will push you out, even if you are great at your job.
They don't need more partners. They need associates to do the work the partners bring in.

4. How would people be weeded out? All that matters is the work gets done. No one expects associates to stay that long anyway. How do you think big law hiring works?

5. It doesn't take an Ivy League education. However it is perfect for status obsessed prestige seekers and workaholics. These characteristics are typical of strivers who chase top schools.

[Cynic]

I see this type of sentiment all the time. I don't know, it's just that I've tended to be a high achiever throughout my life, so I feel like I'm somehow immune to the abysmal partnership odds.

What do they teach you in law school if it isn't actually related to the job? Would you recommend going to law school if you had a full-ride to CCN?

[SLS_AMG]

My background: Top 5 undergraduate school economics major. Harvard law school. I practice as a very senior corporate associate at a v3 law firm in the city. Standard-issue southern white guy who's pretty quick on the uptake and extremely good at school and standardized tests. To my regret, I'm also pretty good at being a law firm associate.



Taking questions.

Lol @ Skadden associates who brag about working at a "V3."

[BruceWayne]

As someone who is only a few years out of school, but still out and working in the real world, I want to add this to the OP's post.

I think if you calm down and look past all of the $$$ and the sexy lingo like "M&A" and doing "Big deals", you'll quickly realize that for most people attending law school litigation is going to be the more interesting route. It's just a lot more similar to what law school itself is like, and the ways that it differs from law school actually tend to be POSITIVE (i.e. much more of a focus on more "practical" aspects like depositions and being in court, although there are differences that are negative like responding to discovery etc.). The other thing is, like the OP said, is that it's just more broadly applicable to non law firm employers. Also,from what I can see of more senior attorneys, once you hit a certain level of experience/skill in litigation, there is going to be an employer that is going to value your skill set. Finally, like OP said, it allows you to work in government. And the more and more I work the more I realize that for most of us, government work is as good as it's going to get (good shot at making low to mid six figures but with a relatively consistent 9-5 type schedule).

If you're going into law because you want $300K + here's something that you just need to accept: most people just aren't going to make that kind of money doing any job unless they are MDs or run a business, and may MDs don't either. The law jobs that do pay that kind of money are basically hoop dreams that you can't plan for.

[SLS_AMG]

First, I point to commitment requirements. As a comparison, I worked in bulge bracket banking as a full time analyst prior to law school during the boom. Despite the widely held notion that biglaw is more human, I will assure you it is not. To give you a sense, there have been two days since Christmas, about 3 months ago, that I have not worked over 8 hours (most weekdays are 10-15 hours). That stat includes weekends.

So you're working roughly 3400 hours a year? (~70 hours a week x 48 weeks, given 4 weeks of vacation)

That would be a low and conservative estimate based on the information you've given us. I call flame.

[Tls2016]

I see this type of sentiment all the time. I don't know, it's just that I've tended to be a high achiever throughout my life, so I feel like I'm somehow immune to the abysmal partnership odds.

What do they teach you in law school if it isn't actually related to the job? Would you recommend going to law school if you had a full-ride to CCN?

Everyone (almost) at law school is a high achiever.
It depends on the person and their goals and alternatives.

[Tls2016]

First, I point to commitment requirements. As a comparison, I worked in bulge bracket banking as a full time analyst prior to law school during the boom. Despite the widely held notion that biglaw is more human, I will assure you it is not. To give you a sense, there have been two days since Christmas, about 3 months ago, that I have not worked over 8 hours (most weekdays are 10-15 hours). That stat includes weekends.

So you're working roughly 3400 hours a year? (~70 hours a week x 48 weeks, given 4 weeks of vacation)

That would be a low and conservative estimate based on the information you've given us. I call flame.

Senior associates at my firm have billed 3,000 hours.

[zot1]

I see this type of sentiment all the time. I don't know, it's just that I've tended to be a high achiever throughout my life, so I feel like I'm somehow immune to the abysmal partnership odds.

What do they teach you in law school if it isn't actually related to the job? Would you recommend going to law school if you had a full-ride to CCN?

That's the thing you gotta keep in mind. For the most part, top law schools admit top students from top undergrad schools (which likely mostly admitted top high school students). Out of those top classes, BigLaw firms and other prestigious public service jobs hire the top of the class. So the people going to BigLaw aren't the ones who should have gotten a coaching job at their high school upon graduation. Rather, they are some of the most competitive and driven people--just like you.

It's easy to think we are special, but the truth is that there's a million more like us everywhere.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

The other thing is, like the OP said, is that it's just more broadly applicable to non law firm employers. Also,from what I can see of more senior attorneys, once you hit a certain level of experience/skill in litigation, there is going to be an employer that is going to value your skill set.

Not saying you're wrong, but the notion that skills gained in biglaw litigation is just "more broadly applicable to non law firm employers" goes against literally everything I've heard about biglaw from current biglaw associates both IRL and TLS.

There was a good rayiner thread from a few years ago talking about his experience as a lit associate in biglaw. Basically, lit is better QOL day to day but you have very limited career options. You either do more lit at a firm or go govt, which is competitive as fuck.

Again, not saying you're wrong.

[Cynic]

I see this type of sentiment all the time. I don't know, it's just that I've tended to be a high achiever throughout my life, so I feel like I'm somehow immune to the abysmal partnership odds.

What do they teach you in law school if it isn't actually related to the job? Would you recommend going to law school if you had a full-ride to CCN?

That's the thing you gotta keep in mind. For the most part, top law schools admit top students from top undergrad schools (which likely mostly admitted top high school students). Out of those top classes, BigLaw firms and other prestigious public service jobs hire the top of the class. So the people going to BigLaw aren't the ones who should have gotten a coaching job at their high school upon graduation. Rather, they are some of the most competitive and driven people--just like you.

It's easy to think we are special, but the truth is that there's a million more like us everywhere.

I see... So just how much of a high achiever do you need to be to make partner? Or is it all based on your ability to play office politics and/or bring in business? (And how exactly does one bring in business?)

And what's so bad about the in-house jobs you have to take if you don't make partner?

[BruceWayne]

The other thing is, like the OP said, is that it's just more broadly applicable to non law firm employers. Also,from what I can see of more senior attorneys, once you hit a certain level of experience/skill in litigation, there is going to be an employer that is going to value your skill set.

Not saying you're wrong, but the notion that skills gained in biglaw litigation is just "more broadly applicable to non law firm employers" goes against literally everything I've heard about biglaw from current biglaw associates both IRL and TLS.

There was a good rayiner thread from a few years ago talking about his experience as a lit associate in biglaw. Basically, lit is better QOL day to day but you have very limited career options. You either do more lit at a firm or go govt, which is competitive as fuck.

Again, not saying you're wrong.

I could understand why someone would say that, but to me (kind of akin to what OP was describing) the thing is that most of the jobs where corp is going to be more applicable are things like finance and consulting. The thing is, those jobs are SOOO competitive, and you have to overcome the lack of quant skills stereotype. Yeah lit "only" prepares you for government, in house, and small/midlaw, but government is very very broad. A lot of TLSers only think of government as the SEC and DOJ. But essentially every federal office employs attorneys and then you have local government which is basically infinite when you look at the number of states, counties, and municipalities that exist across the country. There are only so many Ibanks and consulting firms looking for a lawyer at any given time (and frankly most of the time they aren't looking for lawyers at all. And we haven't even gotten to discussing small/midlaw opportunities that actually become realistic after a few years of litigation experience (even if they aren't always great gigs). Also companies do hire litigators for in house positions when you have worked in areas like employment law.

[Lawyers&Commissary]

I just wanna say as a 0L that this is an immensely helpful thread. It has avoided degenerating into people getting offended and defending their career paths/schools, which happens often on TLS. On the other hand, those disgusted with their schools/career paths aren't sneering at others for considering similar paths but rather providing useful insight. Thanks OP and other contributors.

[Lincoln]

First, I point to commitment requirements. As a comparison, I worked in bulge bracket banking as a full time analyst prior to law school during the boom. Despite the widely held notion that biglaw is more human, I will assure you it is not. To give you a sense, there have been two days since Christmas, about 3 months ago, that I have not worked over 8 hours (most weekdays are 10-15 hours). That stat includes weekends.

So you're working roughly 3400 hours a year? (~70 hours a week x 48 weeks, given 4 weeks of vacation)

That would be a low and conservative estimate based on the information you've given us. I call flame.

Senior associates at my firm have billed 3,000 5,000 hours.

FTFY

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

The other thing is, like the OP said, is that it's just more broadly applicable to non law firm employers. Also,from what I can see of more senior attorneys, once you hit a certain level of experience/skill in litigation, there is going to be an employer that is going to value your skill set.

Not saying you're wrong, but the notion that skills gained in biglaw litigation is just "more broadly applicable to non law firm employers" goes against literally everything I've heard about biglaw from current biglaw associates both IRL and TLS.

There was a good rayiner thread from a few years ago talking about his experience as a lit associate in biglaw. Basically, lit is better QOL day to day but you have very limited career options. You either do more lit at a firm or go govt, which is competitive as fuck.

Again, not saying you're wrong.

I could understand why someone would say that, but to me (kind of akin to what OP was describing) the thing is that most of the jobs where corp is going to be more applicable are things like finance and consulting. The thing is, those jobs are SOOO competitive, and you have to overcome the lack of quant skills stereotype. Yeah lit "only" prepares you for government, in house, and small/midlaw, but government is very very broad. A lot of TLSers only think of government as the SEC and DOJ. But essentially every federal office employs attorneys and then you have local government which is basically infinite when you look at the number of states, counties, and municipalities that exist across the country. There are only so many Ibanks and consulting firms looking for a lawyer at any given time (and frankly most of the time they aren't looking for lawyers at all. And we haven't even gotten to discussing small/midlaw opportunities that actually become realistic after a few years of litigation experience (even if they aren't always great gigs). Also companies do hire litigators for in house positions when you have worked in areas like employment law.

Not sure why you limit corp exit options to just consulting/finance and then include in-house as an option for lit. Biglaw is 2/3 lit and 1/3 corp associates, but the in-house jobs at companies are 2/3 corp associates and 1/3 lit. Not exact but a good rule of thumb I got from both rayiner and thesealocust.

Are you writing from personal experience?

[zot1]

I see this type of sentiment all the time. I don't know, it's just that I've tended to be a high achiever throughout my life, so I feel like I'm somehow immune to the abysmal partnership odds.

What do they teach you in law school if it isn't actually related to the job? Would you recommend going to law school if you had a full-ride to CCN?

That's the thing you gotta keep in mind. For the most part, top law schools admit top students from top undergrad schools (which likely mostly admitted top high school students). Out of those top classes, BigLaw firms and other prestigious public service jobs hire the top of the class. So the people going to BigLaw aren't the ones who should have gotten a coaching job at their high school upon graduation. Rather, they are some of the most competitive and driven people--just like you.

It's easy to think we are special, but the truth is that there's a million more like us everywhere.

I see... So just how much of a high achiever do you need to be to make partner? Or is it all based on your ability to play office politics and/or bring in business? (And how exactly does one bring in business?)

And what's so bad about the in-house jobs you have to take if you don't make partner?

The problem there is that things are not now what they used to be because people are greedy. Back in the day you would get into a firm with the expectation that you'd make partner in 7-8 years. That expectation is no longer there because old partners have created mechanisms to keep too many people from becoming partners.

One of those mechanisms is really to create a turnover. Make the environment so bad that people leave after certain years. Way better to pay a third year associate salary than an eight year one.

Another mechanism is the creation of non-equity partner tracks. I mean, honestly, what kind of crap is that?

I'm sure there are other ways that I'm not familiar with. But there's a reason why only a few people get a chance to become partner after joining a firm. And trust me, it isn't lack of drive.

[RaceJudicata]

OP - Do you have any contacts (former classmates/colleagues) who you could turn to for business? If so, have you ever considered hanging a shingle?