Top Law Schools

Once you become a partner, do you work significant less hours than associates and start to enjoy life or will you still work as many hours as you used to?

jrwhitedog wrote:Once you become a partner, do you work significant less hours than associates and start to enjoy life or will you still work as many hours as you used to?

This only happens after you retire. Or during the short intervals where you're extremely high off cocaine.

Service partners? Yes. Rainmakers? Probs not.

jrwhitedog wrote:Once you become a partner, do you work significant less hours than associates and start to enjoy life or will you still work as many hours as you used to?

I think it pretty much follows what Ben Aflek says in Boiler Room:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvICN8DNMpY

Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

lol. i like this

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Ha! Yeah... From my observations, the workload doesn't decrease, the responsibilities just shift. What I saw was as attorneys became more senior, they worked less with the agreements and more with the clients. Because of this, the most senior partners are always busy with meeting after meeting.

If after "paying your dues" as an associate / junior partner you want to slow down a little, you should look into going in-house (still a lot of work, I imagine, but only one client) or moving into an administrative role.

At my firm (BigLaw), most of the Associates work regular office hours with maybe an additional hour or two on the weekends. The one partner I work with directly (who generates the most revenue out of the entire firm) works until midnight almost every night, including weekends. If hours are indicative of workload.

He also makes about $4mil a year.

Meh.

That makes sense. Is it possible to move to a firm with smaller size in another state if they offer you partner or do u have to stay in the same state after eight years of practice?

Lwoods wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Ha! Yeah... From my observations, the workload doesn't decrease, the responsibilities just shift. What I saw was as attorneys became more senior, they worked less with the agreements and more with the clients. Because of this, the most senior partners are always busy with meeting after meeting.

If after "paying your dues" as an associate / junior partner you want to slow down a little, you should look into going in-house (still a lot of work, I imagine, but only one client) or moving into an administrative role.

Hmm, but it seems everybody says there will be a pay cut to move to in-house.Would it be a lot compared to associates or partners?

jrwhitedog wrote:

Lwoods wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Ha! Yeah... From my observations, the workload doesn't decrease, the responsibilities just shift. What I saw was as attorneys became more senior, they worked less with the agreements and more with the clients. Because of this, the most senior partners are always busy with meeting after meeting.

If after "paying your dues" as an associate / junior partner you want to slow down a little, you should look into going in-house (still a lot of work, I imagine, but only one client) or moving into an administrative role.

Hmm, but it seems everybody says there will be a pay cut to move to in-house.Would it be a lot compared to associates or partners?

Normally, a decent In-house position in a Fortune 500 company pays a good 130,000$ + AND the hours are relax + no work in week ends most of the time and you have full benefit package + eventual Bonus(Depends where you work at.)

Personally, i prefer making around 130k + total in In-house and have time to live my life rather than being a biglaw Attorney making over 250k working 80 hours a week.Even though i love my firm and colleagues, the work IS demanding and Partners also have a lot of responsibilities, if we fail, they end up in hell and they bring us with them, vicious circle.

This is why if i don't make Partner in a few years from now, i'll simply say bye to my BigLaw life and go In-House without looking back.

Please, for god's fucking love, DO NOT fall for the hype during Law School, BigLaw is NOT for everyone, consider ALL your options and do your research, i've seen too many morons going BigLaw and ended up hating their lives, i know you have debts to pay, but unless you have 150,000$ + in debts to repay, do not consider BigLaw as a viable option if money is your only goal.

Noval wrote:

jrwhitedog wrote:

Lwoods wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Ha! Yeah... From my observations, the workload doesn't decrease, the responsibilities just shift. What I saw was as attorneys became more senior, they worked less with the agreements and more with the clients. Because of this, the most senior partners are always busy with meeting after meeting.

If after "paying your dues" as an associate / junior partner you want to slow down a little, you should look into going in-house (still a lot of work, I imagine, but only one client) or moving into an administrative role.

Hmm, but it seems everybody says there will be a pay cut to move to in-house.Would it be a lot compared to associates or partners?

Normally, a decent In-house position in a Fortune 500 company pays a good 130,000$ + AND the hours are relax + no work in week ends most of the time and you have full benefit package + eventual Bonus(Depends where you work at.)

Personally, i prefer making around 130k + total in In-house and have time to live my life rather than being a biglaw Attorney making over 250k working 80 hours a week.Even though i love my firm and colleagues, the work IS demanding and Partners also have a lot of responsibilities, if we fail, they end up in hell and they bring us with them, vicious circle.

This is why if i don't make Partner in a few years from now, i'll simply say bye to my BigLaw life and go In-House without looking back.

Please, for god's fucking love, DO NOT fall for the hype during Law School, BigLaw is NOT for everyone, consider ALL your options and do your research, i've seen too many morons going BigLaw and ended up hating their lives, i know you have debts to pay, but unless you have 150,000$ + in debts to repay, do not consider BigLaw as a viable option if money is your only goal.

Yeah, I totally agree. When I searched for the 20 best law firms to work for in terms of hours it seems you can still expect a work and life balance in some popular law firms which require less than 55 hours per week, but are they regarded as biglaws? How do u define Biglaws?

jrwhitedog wrote:Yeah, I totally agree. When I searched for the 20 best law firms to work for in terms of hours it seems you can still expect a work and life balance in some popular law firms which require less than 55 hours per week, but are they regarded as biglaws? How do u define Biglaws?

It's hard to say as each firm has it's own culture and style.
A BigLaw firm basically means it's a big firm having multiple offices accross the country and abroad and has hundreds or even thousands of Attorneys working there.

You define BigLaw just by looking at how big the deals are and who are the clients, you talk about milions, bilions for some.

Forget Work/Life Balance in BigLaw, it's just a marketing trick designed to attract more talented candidates.

In your contract it may say "You will work 50-55 hours a week", but there's always a small hidden close saying "Additionnal time may be required" or something like that.

So let's say you work 55 hours/week, but over time will add a good 10-30 hours on top of that, you never know, if you do the work perfectly and don't attract negative attention, you will normally work 60-65 hours/week maximum, if you find the work hard(Most Associates do), you'll have to work more to achieve your firm's goal.

That's just like Investment Banking, so many positions "claim" the Analyst will work 60 hours/week, but in reality, it's 120 hours if you add the last-minute work/corrections you have to do because the MD changed his mind.

Noval wrote:

jrwhitedog wrote:Yeah, I totally agree. When I searched for the 20 best law firms to work for in terms of hours it seems you can still expect a work and life balance in some popular law firms which require less than 55 hours per week, but are they regarded as biglaws? How do u define Biglaws?

It's hard to say as each firm has it's own culture and style.
A BigLaw firm basically means it's a big firm having multiple offices accross the country and abroad and has hundreds or even thousands of Attorneys working there.

You define BigLaw just by looking at how big the deals are and who are the clients, you talk about milions, bilions for some.

Forget Work/Life Balance in BigLaw, it's just a marketing trick designed to attract more talented candidates.

In your contract it may say "You will work 50-55 hours a week", but there's always a small hidden close saying "Additionnal time may be required" or something like that.

So let's say you work 55 hours/week, but over time will add a good 10-30 hours on top of that, you never know, if you do the work perfectly and don't attract negative attention, you will normally work 60-65 hours/week maximum, if you find the work hard(Most Associates do), you'll have to work more to achieve your firm's goal.

That's just like Investment Banking, so many positions "claim" the Analyst will work 60 hours/week, but in reality, it's 120 hours if you add the last-minute work/corrections you have to do because the MD changed his mind.

That is, if you even have one.

motiontodismiss wrote:

Noval wrote:

jrwhitedog wrote:Yeah, I totally agree. When I searched for the 20 best law firms to work for in terms of hours it seems you can still expect a work and life balance in some popular law firms which require less than 55 hours per week, but are they regarded as biglaws? How do u define Biglaws?

It's hard to say as each firm has it's own culture and style.
A BigLaw firm basically means it's a big firm having multiple offices accross the country and abroad and has hundreds or even thousands of Attorneys working there.

You define BigLaw just by looking at how big the deals are and who are the clients, you talk about milions, bilions for some.

Forget Work/Life Balance in BigLaw, it's just a marketing trick designed to attract more talented candidates.

In your contract it may say "You will work 50-55 hours a week", but there's always a small hidden close saying "Additionnal time may be required" or something like that.

So let's say you work 55 hours/week, but over time will add a good 10-30 hours on top of that, you never know, if you do the work perfectly and don't attract negative attention, you will normally work 60-65 hours/week maximum, if you find the work hard(Most Associates do), you'll have to work more to achieve your firm's goal.

That's just like Investment Banking, so many positions "claim" the Analyst will work 60 hours/week, but in reality, it's 120 hours if you add the last-minute work/corrections you have to do because the MD changed his mind.

That is, if you even have one.

That's why i clearly said you need to go to a Top 14 to maximize your chances for BigLaw.

Noval wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:

Noval wrote:

jrwhitedog wrote:Yeah, I totally agree. When I searched for the 20 best law firms to work for in terms of hours it seems you can still expect a work and life balance in some popular law firms which require less than 55 hours per week, but are they regarded as biglaws? How do u define Biglaws?

It's hard to say as each firm has it's own culture and style.
A BigLaw firm basically means it's a big firm having multiple offices accross the country and abroad and has hundreds or even thousands of Attorneys working there.

You define BigLaw just by looking at how big the deals are and who are the clients, you talk about milions, bilions for some.

Forget Work/Life Balance in BigLaw, it's just a marketing trick designed to attract more talented candidates.

In your contract it may say "You will work 50-55 hours a week", but there's always a small hidden close saying "Additionnal time may be required" or something like that.

So let's say you work 55 hours/week, but over time will add a good 10-30 hours on top of that, you never know, if you do the work perfectly and don't attract negative attention, you will normally work 60-65 hours/week maximum, if you find the work hard(Most Associates do), you'll have to work more to achieve your firm's goal.

That's just like Investment Banking, so many positions "claim" the Analyst will work 60 hours/week, but in reality, it's 120 hours if you add the last-minute work/corrections you have to do because the MD changed his mind.

That is, if you even have one.

That's why i clearly said you need to go to a Top 14 to maximize your chances for BigLaw.

I thought at-will employees don't get contracts.

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Lots of industries are like this. Public accounting for example, except you dont start at 160k.

In law firms, like any corporate structure, the higher you move up the more you get paid and the more responsibility and expectations are "awarded". If you make partner you won't be working 40 hours a week or anything. Expect more hours and A LOT more stress.

crazycanuck wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Lots of industries are like this. Public accounting for example, except you dont start at 160k.

In law firms, like any corporate structure, the higher you move up the more you get paid and the more responsibility and expectations are "awarded". If you make partner you won't be working 40 hours a week or anything. Expect more hours and A LOT more stress.

This is what i like about BigLaw, success is always rewarded, but that's simple logic for Partners,

Bigger salary = Bigger Expectations, there is no job in this world that pays very well, sometimes even milions while allowing you to slack and look at others do the job, even the most highly paid CEO's out there don't have it easy.

Noval wrote:

crazycanuck wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Lots of industries are like this. Public accounting for example, except you dont start at 160k.

In law firms, like any corporate structure, the higher you move up the more you get paid and the more responsibility and expectations are "awarded". If you make partner you won't be working 40 hours a week or anything. Expect more hours and A LOT more stress.

This is what i like about BigLaw, success is always rewarded, but that's simple logic for Partners,

Bigger salary = Bigger Expectations, there is no job in this world that pays very well, sometimes even milions while allowing you to slack and look at others do the job, even the most highly paid CEO's out there don't have it easy.

Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

motiontodismiss wrote:

Noval wrote:

crazycanuck wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Lots of industries are like this. Public accounting for example, except you dont start at 160k.

In law firms, like any corporate structure, the higher you move up the more you get paid and the more responsibility and expectations are "awarded". If you make partner you won't be working 40 hours a week or anything. Expect more hours and A LOT more stress.

This is what i like about BigLaw, success is always rewarded, but that's simple logic for Partners,

Bigger salary = Bigger Expectations, there is no job in this world that pays very well, sometimes even milions while allowing you to slack and look at others do the job, even the most highly paid CEO's out there don't have it easy.

Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

You think arranging wave after wave of bailout and bankruptcy is easy?

Renzo wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote: Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

You think arranging wave after wave of bailout and bankruptcy is easy?

Okay, you have a point there.

But the airline industry also has the country's transportation network by the balls. Interstate commerce would probably grind to a halt if all 5 (or 4 or whatever the count is now) legacies went under. Because unlike Europe we don't have high speed rail. I suspect congress knows this.

motiontodismiss wrote:

Renzo wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote: Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

You think arranging wave after wave of bailout and bankruptcy is easy?

Okay, you have a point there.

But the airline industry also has the country's transportation network by the balls. Interstate commerce would probably grind to a halt if all 5 (or 4 or whatever the count is now) legacies went under. Because unlike Europe we don't have high speed rail. I suspect congress knows this.

Say what you will, I wouldn't want to be a head of any failing industry. When profit is the only motive, and you have a board of trustees, I can't believe any major industry is easy to run.

Except railroads.

lisjjen wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:

Renzo wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote: Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

You think arranging wave after wave of bailout and bankruptcy is easy?

Okay, you have a point there.

But the airline industry also has the country's transportation network by the balls. Interstate commerce would probably grind to a halt if all 5 (or 4 or whatever the count is now) legacies went under. Because unlike Europe we don't have high speed rail. I suspect congress knows this.

Say what you will, I wouldn't want to be a head of any failing industry. When profit is the only motive, and you have a board of trustees, I can't believe any major industry is easy to run.

Except railroads.

I'm thinking expectations in the airline industry have been lowered to the point where if the airline loses LESS money than expected its stock goes up.

The only ones making money right now are jetBlue and Southwest, and we don't know how long that's going to last, since Southwest only has so many oil hedges.

motiontodismiss wrote:

Noval wrote:

crazycanuck wrote:

motiontodismiss wrote:Law is the only industry where the prize for winning a pie eating contest is more pie.

Lots of industries are like this. Public accounting for example, except you dont start at 160k.

In law firms, like any corporate structure, the higher you move up the more you get paid and the more responsibility and expectations are "awarded". If you make partner you won't be working 40 hours a week or anything. Expect more hours and A LOT more stress.

This is what i like about BigLaw, success is always rewarded, but that's simple logic for Partners,

Bigger salary = Bigger Expectations, there is no job in this world that pays very well, sometimes even milions while allowing you to slack and look at others do the job, even the most highly paid CEO's out there don't have it easy.

Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

How much fun would explaining to angry shareholders why the company hasn't made any money during your tenure as CEO be?

There's a reason CEOs tend to last 30-40 months.

Airline CEOs do. The airline industry as a whole hasn't made a cent in 20 years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/ ... 8779.shtml