T6 ( If I end up in Biglaw) Forum

[Hattori Hanzo]

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

What that partner said is based on the assumption that the same traits that make you a successful employee at a big law firm can also turn you into a successful entrepreneur, which I don't think is a correct assumption. One may be very competitive as a lawyer and not so much as a businessman. There are overlapping skills (e.g. negotiation) but also polar opposite traits (risk aversion v. risk taking and retrospective v. prospective approach). I would say a successful biglaw attorney could probably be also successful on the business side of a corporation, i.e. working for someone else, (and make more money too) because those two jobs have more in common.

[whymeohgodno]

Do you have any idea how many people become fabulously wealthy starting their own businesses, and mock people who go to business school because they're just empty suits? If you are going to law school for the money, you're an idiot.

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

I'm glad you noted how ridiculous that comparison is.

[thecilent]

Do you have any idea how many people become fabulously wealthy starting their own businesses, and mock people who go to business school because they're just empty suits? If you are going to law school for the money, you're an idiot.

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

I'm glad you noted how ridiculous that comparison is.

lol

[bigben]

Do you have any idea how many people become fabulously wealthy starting their own businesses, and mock people who go to business school because they're just empty suits? If you are going to law school for the money, you're an idiot.

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And that reason is, precisely, excessive risk aversion coupled with a lack of creativity.

[ahduth]

And that reason is, precisely, excessive risk aversion coupled with a lack of creativity.

Not to haul this back to the topic at hand, but damn - are you saying Robertchang will make a good lawyer?

[bigben]

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

What that partner said is based on the assumption that the same traits that make you a successful employee at a big law firm can also turn you into a successful entrepreneur, which I don't think is a correct assumption. One may be very competitive as a lawyer and not so much as a businessman. There are overlapping skills (e.g. negotiation) but also polar opposite traits (risk aversion v. risk taking and retrospective v. prospective approach). I would say a successful biglaw attorney could probably be also successful on the business side of a corporation, i.e. working for someone else, (and make more money too) because those two jobs have more in common.

You're right that the two competencies are different, but wrong IMO for implying that these are innate traits. The common denominators are intelligence and drive, and I think people can generally choose to develop either set of competencies equally well.

[whymeohgodno]

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

What that partner said is based on the assumption that the same traits that make you a successful employee at a big law firm can also turn you into a successful entrepreneur, which I don't think is a correct assumption. One may be very competitive as a lawyer and not so much as a businessman. There are overlapping skills (e.g. negotiation) but also polar opposite traits (risk aversion v. risk taking and retrospective v. prospective approach). I would say a successful biglaw attorney could probably be also successful on the business side of a corporation, i.e. working for someone else, (and make more money too) because those two jobs have more in common.

You're right that the two competencies are different, but wrong IMO for implying that these are innate traits. The common denominators are intelligence and drive, and I think people can generally choose to develop either set of competencies equally well.

Drive - sure.

Intelligence - not so sure.

[ajmanyjah]

Ha at GS being only Ivy Leaguers

We all know they hire UChi math grads too

[ToTransferOrNot]

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

What that partner said is based on the assumption that the same traits that make you a successful employee at a big law firm can also turn you into a successful entrepreneur, which I don't think is a correct assumption. One may be very competitive as a lawyer and not so much as a businessman. There are overlapping skills (e.g. negotiation) but also polar opposite traits (risk aversion v. risk taking and retrospective v. prospective approach). I would say a successful biglaw attorney could probably be also successful on the business side of a corporation, i.e. working for someone else, (and make more money too) because those two jobs have more in common.

You're right that the two competencies are different, but wrong IMO for implying that these are innate traits. The common denominators are intelligence and drive, and I think people can generally choose to develop either set of competencies equally well.

Drive - sure.

Intelligence - not so sure.

lolirony

[AreJay711]

I don't really understand all the hate in this thread (aside from the fact the OP comes off as a bit annoying).

It's weird that so many of you guys and gals are willing to spend this entire thread just making snide remarks instead of just answering... You seem to realize the value of the search function in regards to the OP, but you don't keep in mind that there are hundreds of other people who could potentially want this particular thread/series of questions answered now that it's been brought up. You punish all of us when you spend the entire thread just bashing on the OP...

Read Robertchang's last thread to understand. He is one of those people that blames society for his own failings and lack of accomplishment.

[miobrien]

Do you have any idea how many people become fabulously wealthy starting their own businesses, and mock people who go to business school because they're just empty suits? If you are going to law school for the money, you're an idiot.

I actually had a partner at a V5 firm comment to me, "You know, doing this job just for the money isn't a great idea. Sure, it's good pay, but if you're at the level you can compete here, you're capable enough to be an entrepreneur, and the ratio of income to hours worked is much higher there. If you're here it's for another reason."

And I kept thinking about that, and he's right. $160K/yr sounds like a lot, but it's fixed, and you're not building anything that'll keep making you money, you have to keep putting work in to get money out. Compare that to (on the extreme) Zuckerberg, who at 26 years old is worth over a billion dollars and could sell the company he's built and retire right now.

That's an extreme example, but you don't have to build a company worth a billion dollars to be more successful than someone making $160K/year at sometimes 80 hours per week.

And what, pray tell, other reasons?

[MrKappus]

You're right that the two competencies are different, but wrong IMO for implying that these are innate traits. The common denominators are intelligence and drive, and I think people can generally choose to develop either set of competencies equally well.

Not two posts above this one you said "lack of creativity" was one of the reasons biglaw attys aren't entrepreneurs. But now entrepreneurial traits are learnable? How does one "develop" creativity?

P.S. OP, you're probably long gone, but if not: (1) you're a flame and this post is hilarious, or (2) you're god awful (just in general).