So you want to be a NY Corporate Associate? Forum

[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.

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

That's not even close to being typical. Full stop.

[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?

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.

I definitely hear that. But it just seems like the general feeling at a lot of elite schools, particularly HYS but also other T-14's, is that the best jobs are top vault ranked firms in NY or other big markets. People at these top schools don't even seem to be gunning for those few SA positions at mid-markets. I'm wondering why that is. Is there some downside to taking a job at a mid-market, making 120K, and saving 300+ hours in billables a year that I'm not getting? It seems like the obvious choice to me but there must be more to it.

[WokeUpInACar]

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.

I definitely hear that. But it just seems like the general feeling at a lot of elite schools, particularly HYS but also other T-14's, is that the best jobs are top vault ranked firms in NY or other big markets. People at these top schools don't even seem to be gunning for those few SA positions at mid-markets. I'm wondering why that is. Is there some downside to taking a job at a mid-market, making 120K, and saving 300+ hours in billables a year that I'm not getting? It seems like the obvious choice to me but there must be more to it.

Because there are so few of them, and because it's difficult to get into many of these markets without ties to the area, even from a top school. Focusing a significant portion of your job search efforts on markets with so few total SA positions could lead to ending up with no job at all. NYC is the safe play for most people to avoid the worst case scenario.

[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.

That's not even close to being typical. Full stop.

True. Just saying it's possible.

[umichman]

I mean I chose working at a v10 in major market instead of in my small home market because the idea is that I will be able to get a job at home in 3-5 years if i want to and have hte v10 on my resume. Whereas, if i started at the mid market, i may not have the ability to go to a major market later if i wanted to try it out. I think that is the thinking for a lot of people goign to big markets and depending on your home market, it seems to be fair reasoning. I could be wrong though and i might end up locked out of my home market in 3-5 years and stuck liek OP

[AspiringAspirant]

I mean I chose working at a v10 in major market instead of in my small home market because the idea is that I will be able to get a job at home in 3-5 years if i want to and have hte v10 on my resume. Whereas, if i started at the mid market, i may not have the ability to go to a major market later if i wanted to try it out. I think that is the thinking for a lot of people goign to big markets and depending on your home market, it seems to be fair reasoning. I could be wrong though and i might end up locked out of my home market in 3-5 years and stuck liek OP

This makes sense. I guess my skepticism is - at what point do you stop saying that your next choice is going to be the place with the best exit options? At what point do you say, "I want to go to where I'm going to be happiest"? I feel like the risk-averse nature that drives lawyers, that need to always have an out in case something goes wrong, is really at the heart of these decisions and not for the better. If everything is telling you that you'll enjoy your life more at this other job, idk why you wouldn't take it just because it doesn't have as many exit options. Not to mention, the reason a lot of us chose these top law schools over less ranked schools is the opportunity to stack the resume and make yourself more portable. I just feel like at some point you have to say, "I'm done making choices purely to be marketable, I want to go where I'll be happy." Sorry for the semi-rant...but these are things I've been thinking for awhile and this thread seems appropriate to put these thoughts out there.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

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.

That's not even close to being typical. Full stop.

True. Just saying it's possible.

Just FYI to the kids, working 10-15 hours a day does not at all necessarily translate to 3,000 hours in corporate unless you are committing some casual (but egregious) fraud. I've worked a banker's 100+ hour week (and many Summer Analysts declaration of a 100 hour week), but I have never, nor do I personally see it being possible w/o drugs and lies, to BILL 100 hours in a week (despite the fact that many lawyer's timekeeper apps say otherwise).

[Tls2016]

I didn't say that no drugs were involved though I didn't see any being used. I don't think there were lies, but I can't swear to it.

The two guys I'm thinking of were in their partnership year and running thinly staffed deals. They were basically living in the office.

I can see OPs post being believable as to the hours he has been working, even though they are extreme.

[umichman]

I mean I chose working at a v10 in major market instead of in my small home market because the idea is that I will be able to get a job at home in 3-5 years if i want to and have hte v10 on my resume. Whereas, if i started at the mid market, i may not have the ability to go to a major market later if i wanted to try it out. I think that is the thinking for a lot of people goign to big markets and depending on your home market, it seems to be fair reasoning. I could be wrong though and i might end up locked out of my home market in 3-5 years and stuck liek OP

This makes sense. I guess my skepticism is - at what point do you stop saying that your next choice is going to be the place with the best exit options? At what point do you say, "I want to go to where I'm going to be happiest"? I feel like the risk-averse nature that drives lawyers, that need to always have an out in case something goes wrong, is really at the heart of these decisions and not for the better. If everything is telling you that you'll enjoy your life more at this other job, idk why you wouldn't take it just because it doesn't have as many exit options. Not to mention, the reason a lot of us chose these top law schools over less ranked schools is the opportunity to stack the resume and make yourself more portable. I just feel like at some point you have to say, "I'm done making choices purely to be marketable, I want to go where I'll be happy." Sorry for the semi-rant...but these are things I've been thinking for awhile and this thread seems appropriate to put these thoughts out there.

I guess my thinking is that I am a 23 y.o. guy with no kids and very little debt. I will b a 2L SA next summer. so keeping my options as open as possible even if i am not thrilled with my job for the next 3-5 years is nbd if it really gives me the choices of writing my ticket for my next job and i can build up a nice nest egg. i think the golden handcuffs issue is what really makes people miserable. So if you take big law for what it is and dont bind yourself to it (i know easier said than done) then I figure there is no harm in giving it a try.

[AspiringAspirant]

I mean I chose working at a v10 in major market instead of in my small home market because the idea is that I will be able to get a job at home in 3-5 years if i want to and have hte v10 on my resume. Whereas, if i started at the mid market, i may not have the ability to go to a major market later if i wanted to try it out. I think that is the thinking for a lot of people goign to big markets and depending on your home market, it seems to be fair reasoning. I could be wrong though and i might end up locked out of my home market in 3-5 years and stuck liek OP

This makes sense. I guess my skepticism is - at what point do you stop saying that your next choice is going to be the place with the best exit options? At what point do you say, "I want to go to where I'm going to be happiest"? I feel like the risk-averse nature that drives lawyers, that need to always have an out in case something goes wrong, is really at the heart of these decisions and not for the better. If everything is telling you that you'll enjoy your life more at this other job, idk why you wouldn't take it just because it doesn't have as many exit options. Not to mention, the reason a lot of us chose these top law schools over less ranked schools is the opportunity to stack the resume and make yourself more portable. I just feel like at some point you have to say, "I'm done making choices purely to be marketable, I want to go where I'll be happy." Sorry for the semi-rant...but these are things I've been thinking for awhile and this thread seems appropriate to put these thoughts out there.

I guess my thinking is that I am a 23 y.o. guy with no kids and very little debt. I will b a 2L SA next summer. so keeping my options as open as possible even if i am not thrilled with my job for the next 3-5 years is nbd if it really gives me the choices of writing my ticket for my next job and i can build up a nice nest egg. i think the golden handcuffs issue is what really makes people miserable. So if you take big law for what it is and dont bind yourself to it (i know easier said than done) then I figure there is no harm in giving it a try.

Very fair. Appreciate your perspective.

[TheHill5]

FWIW - I am similar to OP minus elite UG and weaker biglaw firm but, I also have a finance background and practice corporate law. I can tell you all this, corporate law is miserable. I finished my second year and decided to pack it up for good but ultimately have struggled transitioning into a finance/consulting job. I can definitely attest to the fact that having a JD 'opens many doors.' It sure as hell does not.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

I didn't say that no drugs were involved though I didn't see any being used. I don't think there were lies, but I can't swear to it.

The two guys I'm thinking of were in their partnership year and running thinly staffed deals. They were basically living in the office.

I can see OPs post being believable as to the hours he has been working, even though they are extreme.

I'm not discounting that people do bill 3,000+ hours (I know plenty of people who do) or that their lives suck. I'm just reiterating that you can have a really horrible year with multiple "100" hour work weeks and not even hit 2000 hours billed. Just emphasizing the work vs. bill lifestyle that comes with being a lawyer... other professions call it work to sit in pointless internal meetings all day long and many factor in lunch, their commute, goofing off etc.

[goodoldmacintosh]

FWIW - I am similar to OP minus elite UG and weaker biglaw firm but, I also have a finance background and practice corporate law. I can tell you all this, corporate law is miserable. I finished my second year and decided to pack it up for good but ultimately have struggled transitioning into a finance/consulting job. I can definitely attest to the fact that having a JD 'opens many doors.' It sure as hell does not.

Just to clarify, do you mean to say that you attempted to exit to a finance/consulting job at year 2 but are currently working at a biglaw firm as a ~senior corporate associate?

[BernieTrump]

.

[zot1]

Damn, OP. That's rough alright.

[Cynic]

That sounds terrible... Do you regret not staying in banking, or is that a similar dead end for most people? What interested me about law was that the hours seemed livable compared to banking (60-70 versus 90-100) and the degree seemed flexible if you didn't like law.

But outside of STEM (which is about to be flooded with new labor), what doesn't suck? It seems like everyone is saying not to do banking, law, and academia. Not so much for consulting, though it has its detractors too. How does one make mid/high six-figures ten years out of undergrad now?

[Rahviveh]

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? [AS FAR AS I KNOW, THEY DON'T ANYMORE. HLS USED TO TAKE FAR MORE PEOPLE FROM HARVARD, FOR EXAMPLE. NOW TOP SCHOOL DREAM JOBS ARE IN TECH AND TO A LESSER EXTENT CONSULTING, AND TO A LESSER EXTENT BANKING (BUT ONLY TO GO BUY-SIDE; NOBODY WANTS TO STAY IN BANKING FOREVER). THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WITH OPTIONS WHO GO TO LS, BUT FAR FEWER THAN THERE WERE EVEN A DECADE AGO, AND I WOULD ARGUE IT'S STRONG EVIDENCE THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIR RESEARCH OR GET BLINDED BY SHORT TERM MONEY.]

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? [IT WAS A JOKE. I DID VERY LITTLE, AND GRADUATED JUST OUTSIDE TOP 10%. THIS WAS BEFORE HLS REMOVED GRADES. EVERYONE GOT A B+, AND THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED AT ALL GOT AN A- OR A. I'M A VERY, VERY GOOD TEST TAKER, SO YMMV. AS FOR THE POLITICS, HLS DOESN'T MAKE ANYONE A GOOD POLITICIAN WHO WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD OTHERWISE. THERE'S A HUGE CORRELATION/CAUSATION ISSUE HERE. REMEMBER THAT HLS GRADUATES 600 PEOPLE PER YEAR, SO THE FACT THAT THEY PRODUCE A CONGRESSMAN OR AG EVERY FEW YEARS IS STILL VERY, VERY SMALL IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL CLASS.]

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? [40 YEARS AGO, EVERYONE WHO STUCK AROUND AND WAS REASONABLY COMPETENT MADE PARTNER SOMEWHERE (PLACES LIKE CSM ALWAYS SELECTED, BUT IT WAS 1 OUT OF 15, NOT 1 OUT OF 150). THEN THE BABY BOOM GENERATION OF LAWYERS REALIZED THEY COULD MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY WITH MASSIVE LEVERAGE (BY HIRING MORE PEOPLE, MOVING PARTNERSHIP TRACKS TO 10 and 12 YEARS (OR LONGER) FROM 6 and 8 AND NAMING FEWER PARTNERS) AND CONCENTRATING IN A FEW LUCRATIVE PRACTICES. AVERAGE PARTNER COMP WENT UP BY AN INFLATION ADJUSTED FACTOR OF 10, BUT IT HAS HAD THE EFFECT OF PULLING THE ROPE UP INTO THE TREEHOUSE BEHIND THEM. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL IS KEEPING YOU AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM MONEY, BUT NOT LONG ENOUGH THAT THEY NEED TO SHARE IT.]

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. [I THINK THERE ARE FEWER WHERE I AM, AS MOST ATTRIBUTION HAS BEEN NATURAL FOR THE LAST 3-4 YEARS. ANECDOTALLY, FROM FRIENDS AT OTHER FIRMS, WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS BAD, THE LONG KNIVES CAME OUT. PLENTY OF STORIES OF PEOPLE TELLING PLAIN FACED LIES TO THROWING CLASSMATES OFF THE BOAT IN THAT ERA. THE STAKES WERE HUGE BECAUSE THERE WAS REALLY NO FAILSAFE FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE FIRED OR NOT HIRED]

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.

See in quote for 1-4.

On 5, the short answer is you don't need to be all that bright to do it 98% of the time. The nuanced answer is that the hardest parts are the tedium and being attentive to the smallest detail while working in that tedium. People who have done well in school show they can at least pay attention to detail if they're not 100% interested, which is exactly what the firms need. For example, a K I have on my desk right now from a recent public deal says (edited to be more readable to a non-specialist audience):

The initial consideration, payable on the [Closing Date] of the [Acquisition] for the purchase of the [Acquired Shares] shall be the [Base Consideration], plus [Unrestricted] [Cash] and [Cash Equivalents], minus [Funded Indebtedness], plus or minus the [Initial Working Capital Adjustment], plus or minus the [Market Adjustment], plus or minus.... it continues like this for 4-5 more lines.


Every item bracketed is a defined term that you need to flip back and forth on (and really understand) to make the document work right. Every defined term is going to use 2-3 other defined terms. Many will have cross references. For example, for the above:

"Unrestricted" shall mean, with respect to any Cash or Cash Equivalents, the legal currency of a [Valid Currency Jurisdiction] (calculated as the amount equal to the [Modified Spot Rate] for the relevant currency, if not [U.S. Dollars], as of the [Applicable Time]), that (A) is held by the [Acquired Group], (B) is not and is not required to be listed as "restricted" on the consolidated balance sheet of the [Acquired Group] in accordance with [U.S. GAAP] and (C) is not subject to a [Lien/Trust] other than (x) a [Lien/Trust] that is a [Permitted Encumbrance], other than pursuant to clauses (1), (2), (17), or (23) of the definition of [Permitted Encumbrance], (y) as expressly permitted by Section 13.5 of this [Agreement] or (z) with respect to the [Set-Aside Account], as set forth in the [Letter of Understanding].

You quickly go down through the looking glass, and you need to keep a lot straight in your head to do this correctly. And after you chase down all the definitions and multiple-leap cross references and understand everything, you realize you've only read and understood one half of one sentence of a 200 page contract. Idiots can do it, but it takes a huge amount of patience and attention to detail. Smart people are marginally better at it. In the above example, what happens if your debt specialist changes the definition of Permitted Encumbrance (say, she deletes clause 16 and everything moves down a number at 3 in the morning?). Your reference becomes broken, and if you don't catch it you just changed a merger purchase price by millions of dollars. I spend hours a day double checking this exact sort of thing. It's boring, and there's no room to do well. Only a million ways to screw up. And your clients have absolutely zero respect for you, even if you don't screw up.

Go grab a merger agreement or asset purchase agreement or credit agreement or indenture off EDGAR. Or find a prospectus. Read it from cover to cover and try to understand it. Do that for 13 hours straight. Then try to imagine doing that all day every day for the next 40 years. It's the best argument I've ever found against doing this.

What do you tell the bumble hunnies when they ask you what kind of lawyer you are?

[BernieTrump]

.

[lurklaw]

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? [AS FAR AS I KNOW, THEY DON'T ANYMORE. HLS USED TO TAKE FAR MORE PEOPLE FROM HARVARD, FOR EXAMPLE. NOW TOP SCHOOL DREAM JOBS ARE IN TECH AND TO A LESSER EXTENT CONSULTING, AND TO A LESSER EXTENT BANKING (BUT ONLY TO GO BUY-SIDE; NOBODY WANTS TO STAY IN BANKING FOREVER). THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WITH OPTIONS WHO GO TO LS, BUT FAR FEWER THAN THERE WERE EVEN A DECADE AGO, AND I WOULD ARGUE IT'S STRONG EVIDENCE THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIR RESEARCH OR GET BLINDED BY SHORT TERM MONEY.]

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? [IT WAS A JOKE. I DID VERY LITTLE, AND GRADUATED JUST OUTSIDE TOP 10%. THIS WAS BEFORE HLS REMOVED GRADES. EVERYONE GOT A B+, AND THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED AT ALL GOT AN A- OR A. I'M A VERY, VERY GOOD TEST TAKER, SO YMMV. AS FOR THE POLITICS, HLS DOESN'T MAKE ANYONE A GOOD POLITICIAN WHO WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD OTHERWISE. THERE'S A HUGE CORRELATION/CAUSATION ISSUE HERE. REMEMBER THAT HLS GRADUATES 600 PEOPLE PER YEAR, SO THE FACT THAT THEY PRODUCE A CONGRESSMAN OR AG EVERY FEW YEARS IS STILL VERY, VERY SMALL IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL CLASS.]

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? [40 YEARS AGO, EVERYONE WHO STUCK AROUND AND WAS REASONABLY COMPETENT MADE PARTNER SOMEWHERE (PLACES LIKE CSM ALWAYS SELECTED, BUT IT WAS 1 OUT OF 15, NOT 1 OUT OF 150). THEN THE BABY BOOM GENERATION OF LAWYERS REALIZED THEY COULD MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY WITH MASSIVE LEVERAGE (BY HIRING MORE PEOPLE, MOVING PARTNERSHIP TRACKS TO 10 and 12 YEARS (OR LONGER) FROM 6 and 8 AND NAMING FEWER PARTNERS) AND CONCENTRATING IN A FEW LUCRATIVE PRACTICES. AVERAGE PARTNER COMP WENT UP BY AN INFLATION ADJUSTED FACTOR OF 10, BUT IT HAS HAD THE EFFECT OF PULLING THE ROPE UP INTO THE TREEHOUSE BEHIND THEM. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL IS KEEPING YOU AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM MONEY, BUT NOT LONG ENOUGH THAT THEY NEED TO SHARE IT.]

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. [I THINK THERE ARE FEWER WHERE I AM, AS MOST ATTRIBUTION HAS BEEN NATURAL FOR THE LAST 3-4 YEARS. ANECDOTALLY, FROM FRIENDS AT OTHER FIRMS, WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS BAD, THE LONG KNIVES CAME OUT. PLENTY OF STORIES OF PEOPLE TELLING PLAIN FACED LIES TO THROWING CLASSMATES OFF THE BOAT IN THAT ERA. THE STAKES WERE HUGE BECAUSE THERE WAS REALLY NO FAILSAFE FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE FIRED OR NOT HIRED]

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.

See in quote for 1-4.

On 5, the short answer is you don't need to be all that bright to do it 98% of the time. The nuanced answer is that the hardest parts are the tedium and being attentive to the smallest detail while working in that tedium. People who have done well in school show they can at least pay attention to detail if they're not 100% interested, which is exactly what the firms need. For example, a K I have on my desk right now from a recent public deal says (edited to be more readable to a non-specialist audience):

The initial consideration, payable on the [Closing Date] of the [Acquisition] for the purchase of the [Acquired Shares] shall be the [Base Consideration], plus [Unrestricted] [Cash] and [Cash Equivalents], minus [Funded Indebtedness], plus or minus the [Initial Working Capital Adjustment], plus or minus the [Market Adjustment], plus or minus.... it continues like this for 4-5 more lines.


Every item bracketed is a defined term that you need to flip back and forth on (and really understand) to make the document work right. Every defined term is going to use 2-3 other defined terms. Many will have cross references. For example, for the above:

"Unrestricted" shall mean, with respect to any Cash or Cash Equivalents, the legal currency of a [Valid Currency Jurisdiction] (calculated as the amount equal to the [Modified Spot Rate] for the relevant currency, if not [U.S. Dollars], as of the [Applicable Time]), that (A) is held by the [Acquired Group], (B) is not and is not required to be listed as "restricted" on the consolidated balance sheet of the [Acquired Group] in accordance with [U.S. GAAP] and (C) is not subject to a [Lien/Trust] other than (x) a [Lien/Trust] that is a [Permitted Encumbrance], other than pursuant to clauses (1), (2), (17), or (23) of the definition of [Permitted Encumbrance], (y) as expressly permitted by Section 13.5 of this [Agreement] or (z) with respect to the [Set-Aside Account], as set forth in the [Letter of Understanding].

You quickly go down through the looking glass, and you need to keep a lot straight in your head to do this correctly. And after you chase down all the definitions and multiple-leap cross references and understand everything, you realize you've only read and understood one half of one sentence of a 200 page contract. Idiots can do it, but it takes a huge amount of patience and attention to detail. Smart people are marginally better at it. In the above example, what happens if your debt specialist changes the definition of Permitted Encumbrance (say, she deletes clause 16 and everything moves down a number at 3 in the morning?). Your reference becomes broken, and if you don't catch it you just changed a merger purchase price by millions of dollars. I spend hours a day double checking this exact sort of thing. It's boring, and there's no room to do well. Only a million ways to screw up. And your clients have absolutely zero respect for you, even if you don't screw up.

Go grab a merger agreement or asset purchase agreement or credit agreement or indenture off EDGAR. Or find a prospectus. Read it from cover to cover and try to understand it. Do that for 13 hours straight. Then try to imagine doing that all day every day for the next 40 years. It's the best argument I've ever found against doing this.

Poor OP chose this and is butthurt. You're special, OP, and we all feel for you. If only you weren't so good at your job, you might have been forced to make a move. Pray for OP.

[moonman157]

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.

I definitely hear that. But it just seems like the general feeling at a lot of elite schools, particularly HYS but also other T-14's, is that the best jobs are top vault ranked firms in NY or other big markets. People at these top schools don't even seem to be gunning for those few SA positions at mid-markets. I'm wondering why that is. Is there some downside to taking a job at a mid-market, making 120K, and saving 300+ hours in billables a year that I'm not getting? It seems like the obvious choice to me but there must be more to it.

It depends on what you mean by "gunning." Most of these markets never even show up to OCIs at T14s, so you can't even bid on them anyway. This involves mass mail, where if you don't get any bites you dont get any bites, and even if you can nag a callback you are very far from an offer. The classes tend to be small, and their "yield rate" tends to be very high. NYC firms can offer a ton of people knowing that most won't accept because they're competing with literally hundreds of other peer firms in similar areas. In any of the mid-size cities, there are probably 1-3 (at most) firms that pay six figures. They all go after the same few students (local T1 or TT students at the very top of their class and maybe some T14 stragglers with ties here and there) but that's it. So you can "gun" by mass mailing all the firms in that area, but when push comes to shove and you need a job, you're gonna focus on where it's realistic to get one: NYC.

And that's assuming that you have ties to a city that has law firms that pay six figures. A lot of people don't, or a lot of people from T14 schools come from NYC/California/Chicago/DC and therefore don't have one of these smaller markets to even reach out to.

This is all just a warning about a misconception that I see pretty frequently on this site. There are a lot of 0Ls who hear about how awful biglaw is and just say "I'm not some greedy person, I don't need that prefstige and dough, I'll just take lower six figures at a job with fantastic hours in an affordable but still vibrant and livable city!" The job sounds so amazing to you because it is amazing, and you're not the only one who realizes that. That's why they're so competitive to get, and why no one should go to law school expecting to get one (barring really extraordinary circumstances, like a parent being a partner or something).

[Cynic]

Also, what's so bad about the in-house or general counsel jobs you take if you don't make partner? That's 200 k + at reasonable hours, right?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Poor OP chose this and is butthurt. You're special, OP, and we all feel for you. If only you weren't so good at your job, you might have been forced to make a move. Pray for OP.

Well, that's a productive comment.

Personally, I thought that was a really helpful description of whatever transactional attorneys do (god knows I don't know from personal experience).

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

OP, what are your thoughts on regulatory areas like tax? is it horrible too?

[BernieTrump]

.

[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?

On 1, it's more your personality and your ability to play the game right and deal with client service issues (internal and external). It also take a lot of luck, as at this point you need to come up right as someone is retiring to be made partner in a V5. They're not really growing in most practices. Legal talent is a deep 3rd consideration. A lot of people can play the game at a partner level. The vast majority of those get shown the door.

Gotta learn how to play golf.