Biglaw: Is it really that bad? Forum

[Buglaw]

If you're type A, need to be perfect, and need to make people happy (like most people who decide to go to law school), this job is going to suck real bad. If you don't care about any of those things, this job is fine and it pays a lot more money than mostly anything.

So in short, this job is really bad for some and not all that bad for others.

I mean, what about people who want to have dedicated hobbies and a family outside of their job (like most people do). It sucks for them too. It’s good for folks who don’t have a lot of desire to do stuff with their time outside of work and sucks for those who would like to have real life. If your single with no kids or dating another high performing professional with no kids, it’s probably pretty doable. It’s super hard if your married with kids and want to involved in their lives and not have a spouse who resents you or is a stay at home spouse. I honestly think the people defending it are younger and without families.

[hdr]

Biglaw with no kids is easy mode.

[glitched]

If you're type A, need to be perfect, and need to make people happy (like most people who decide to go to law school), this job is going to suck real bad. If you don't care about any of those things, this job is fine and it pays a lot more money than mostly anything.

So in short, this job is really bad for some and not all that bad for others.

I mean, what about people who want to have dedicated hobbies and a family outside of their job (like most people do). It sucks for them too. It’s good for folks who don’t have a lot of desire to do stuff with their time outside of work and sucks for those who would like to have real life. If your single with no kids or dating another high performing professional with no kids, it’s probably pretty doable. It’s super hard if your married with kids and want to involved in their lives and not have a spouse who resents you or is a stay at home spouse. I honestly think the people defending it are younger and without families.

The latter people that don't care will be able to spend time on hobbies and family.

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

[jotarokujo]

If you're type A, need to be perfect, and need to make people happy (like most people who decide to go to law school), this job is going to suck real bad. If you don't care about any of those things, this job is fine and it pays a lot more money than mostly anything.

So in short, this job is really bad for some and not all that bad for others.

I mean, what about people who want to have dedicated hobbies and a family outside of their job (like most people do). It sucks for them too. It’s good for folks who don’t have a lot of desire to do stuff with their time outside of work and sucks for those who would like to have real life. If your single with no kids or dating another high performing professional with no kids, it’s probably pretty doable. It’s super hard if your married with kids and want to involved in their lives and not have a spouse who resents you or is a stay at home spouse. I honestly think the people defending it are younger and without families.

that's what glitched is saying. if you're not type A, you'll be able to have some hobbies and family time. if you're type A, then you wont. so ultimately the most important determinant is whether you're type A

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

[jotarokujo]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

are the types of people that different? at least nowadays, it's pretty similar types of people going into MBB and biglaw in terms of SES, background, education etc. maybe at the partner level the divergence becomes greater because that's only a subset of people who go into MBB and biglaw. so at the associate/analyst level, MBB and biglaw people are similar but get more different at a higher level

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

How do you think BigLaw partners get business? Do they sit in a windowless room pushing pencils until a client magically walks in and offers them money to do a merger? No, it’s the same exact thing you’re attributing to MBB.

And yeah, there are informal pressures to take work at Kirkland even if we officially can refuse work from any partner. Buuuuuuuut I’m pretty damn sure it’s the same in MBB. Are you trying to tell me that if someone in whatever the Executive Committee equivalent is tries to give you a consulting project, you can easily say no? In a way that’s materially different from Kirkland?

I’m not trying to hold up Kirkland as some sort of perfect staffing system, I’m just trying to highlight that you’re over here jerking off the MBB system as being so amazing when it sounds like literally the exact same thing.

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

How do you think BigLaw partners get business? Do they sit in a windowless room pushing pencils until a client magically walks in and offers them money to do a merger? No, it’s the same exact thing you’re attributing to MBB.

And yeah, there are informal pressures to take work at Kirkland even if we officially can refuse work from any partner. Buuuuuuuut I’m pretty damn sure it’s the same in MBB. Are you trying to tell me that if someone in whatever the Executive Committee equivalent is tries to give you a consulting project, you can easily say no? In a way that’s materially different from Kirkland?

I’m not trying to hold up Kirkland as some sort of perfect staffing system, I’m just trying to highlight that you’re over here jerking off the MBB system as being so amazing when it sounds like literally the exact same thing.

At top biglaw firms there is little pressure to big in business because you have such a developed institutional client base. The 8th year associate at Cravath trying to making partner is spending 100% of his time grinding out work product and 0% focused on business development.

Again, just think about weekend time. Weekend work in MBB is vanishingly rare. Can you say the same for any major biglaw firm?

Think about exits - how many biglaw associates quit with nothing lined up just to escape the misery? How many have therapists because of biglaw? How many are on anti-anxiety and anti-depression meds because of biglaw? It is one of the most toxic and miserable environments imaginable.

[_PopTorts_]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

How do you think BigLaw partners get business? Do they sit in a windowless room pushing pencils until a client magically walks in and offers them money to do a merger? No, it’s the same exact thing you’re attributing to MBB.

And yeah, there are informal pressures to take work at Kirkland even if we officially can refuse work from any partner. Buuuuuuuut I’m pretty damn sure it’s the same in MBB. Are you trying to tell me that if someone in whatever the Executive Committee equivalent is tries to give you a consulting project, you can easily say no? In a way that’s materially different from Kirkland?

I’m not trying to hold up Kirkland as some sort of perfect staffing system, I’m just trying to highlight that you’re over here jerking off the MBB system as being so amazing when it sounds like literally the exact same thing.

At top biglaw firms there is little pressure to big in business because you have such a developed institutional client base. The 8th year associate at Cravath trying to making partner is spending 100% of his time grinding out work product and 0% focused on business development.

Again, just think about weekend time. Weekend work in MBB is vanishingly rare. Can you say the same for any major biglaw firm?

Think about exits - how many biglaw associates quit with nothing lined up just to escape the misery? How many have therapists because of biglaw? How many are on anti-anxiety and anti-depression meds because of biglaw? It is one of the most toxic and miserable environments imaginable.

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on proving that MBB provides better work/life balance than biglaw. MBB, at least pre-pandemic, required travel 4-5 nights per week, nearly 100% of weeks. And consultants there are still putting in 80 hours per week, just mostly crammed into Mon-Thurs. Sure, their weekends are more protected, but that fact alone doesn't establish that MBB is to be preferred over biglaw. Some people would prefer to spread their 80 hours, or whatever it is, over more than just Mon-Thurs. Not to mention the actual work you are doing. PowerPoint blows, so some people would find it more soul-crushing to spend 80 hours per week making PowerPoints than italicizing commas... And like the previous poster, I will also emphasize that I am not saying biglaw is better than MBB. They're just different, and it seems ignorant to pretend otherwise and declare with 100% certainty that MBB is a better setup.

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

How do you think BigLaw partners get business? Do they sit in a windowless room pushing pencils until a client magically walks in and offers them money to do a merger? No, it’s the same exact thing you’re attributing to MBB.

And yeah, there are informal pressures to take work at Kirkland even if we officially can refuse work from any partner. Buuuuuuuut I’m pretty damn sure it’s the same in MBB. Are you trying to tell me that if someone in whatever the Executive Committee equivalent is tries to give you a consulting project, you can easily say no? In a way that’s materially different from Kirkland?

I’m not trying to hold up Kirkland as some sort of perfect staffing system, I’m just trying to highlight that you’re over here jerking off the MBB system as being so amazing when it sounds like literally the exact same thing.

At top biglaw firms there is little pressure to big in business because you have such a developed institutional client base. The 8th year associate at Cravath trying to making partner is spending 100% of his time grinding out work product and 0% focused on business development.

Again, just think about weekend time. Weekend work in MBB is vanishingly rare. Can you say the same for any major biglaw firm?

Think about exits - how many biglaw associates quit with nothing lined up just to escape the misery? How many have therapists because of biglaw? How many are on anti-anxiety and anti-depression meds because of biglaw? It is one of the most toxic and miserable environments imaginable.

Sorry this is a crazy take. Biglaw is really not that bad. Biglaw partners aren’t psychopaths either, they are just people. What are you all smoking ?

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

This consulting trolling is so bizarre/weird. How do you even respond to something like this? lmao

[jotarokujo]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

How do you think BigLaw partners get business? Do they sit in a windowless room pushing pencils until a client magically walks in and offers them money to do a merger? No, it’s the same exact thing you’re attributing to MBB.

And yeah, there are informal pressures to take work at Kirkland even if we officially can refuse work from any partner. Buuuuuuuut I’m pretty damn sure it’s the same in MBB. Are you trying to tell me that if someone in whatever the Executive Committee equivalent is tries to give you a consulting project, you can easily say no? In a way that’s materially different from Kirkland?

I’m not trying to hold up Kirkland as some sort of perfect staffing system, I’m just trying to highlight that you’re over here jerking off the MBB system as being so amazing when it sounds like literally the exact same thing.

At top biglaw firms there is little pressure to big in business because you have such a developed institutional client base. The 8th year associate at Cravath trying to making partner is spending 100% of his time grinding out work product and 0% focused on business development.

Again, just think about weekend time. Weekend work in MBB is vanishingly rare. Can you say the same for any major biglaw firm?

Think about exits - how many biglaw associates quit with nothing lined up just to escape the misery? How many have therapists because of biglaw? How many are on anti-anxiety and anti-depression meds because of biglaw? It is one of the most toxic and miserable environments imaginable.

most of that therapy and anti-anxiety medication started in law school. "Entering law school, law students have a psychological profile similar to that of the general public. After law school, 20-40% have a psychological dysfunction."

http://www.daveneefoundation.org/schola ... epression/

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

This consulting trolling is so bizarre/weird. How do you even respond to something like this? lmao

It is very weird -- I have never met a consultant who said they enjoyed a good work-life balance or predictable, reasonable hours. And like a lot of corporate associates, my friends at the big consulting firms always seem to be looking to go in-house for similar reasons. Like, big law can be hard for all the reasons people have cited, but I at least see no evidence that consulting is materially better.....

[Anonymous User]

Sorry this is a crazy take. Biglaw is really not that bad. Biglaw partners aren’t psychopaths either, they are just people. What are you all smoking ?

I would venture to guess that most biglaw partners are fine enough people. But there are definitely psychopathic partners, and those partners can have outsized impacts on associate experience/wellbeing. One terrible but influential partner can ruin the experience of an entire office.

[nealric]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

This consulting trolling is so bizarre/weird. How do you even respond to something like this? lmao

It is very weird -- I have never met a consultant who said they enjoyed a good work-life balance or predictable, reasonable hours. And like a lot of corporate associates, my friends at the big consulting firms always seem to be looking to go in-house for similar reasons. Like, big law can be hard for all the reasons people have cited, but I at least see no evidence that consulting is materially better.....

Friends of mine in consulting report similar job satisfaction to biglaw friends. Both sets like the money, but always have one eye on exit options. You can experience "grass is greener" syndrome from just about any career track.

It's been almost a decade since I left biglaw, but I didn't find it terrible. The work was unrelenting, unnecessarily stressful, and the system is set up to reward inefficiency. But I actually liked most of the people I worked with (including the partners), actually enjoyed much of the work, and certainly wasn't miserable or depressed. For my intellectual skill set, it was probably the most financially rewarding career path I could have realistically taken.

That being said, I realized when I had the chance to go in-house that I really didn't want the life of a biglaw partner. The biglaw grind was fine for a few years, but not what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Like living in New York, it's one of those things I'm glad I did for a few years but wouldn't do again.

[Anonymous User]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

This consulting trolling is so bizarre/weird. How do you even respond to something like this? lmao

It is very weird -- I have never met a consultant who said they enjoyed a good work-life balance or predictable, reasonable hours. And like a lot of corporate associates, my friends at the big consulting firms always seem to be looking to go in-house for similar reasons. Like, big law can be hard for all the reasons people have cited, but I at least see no evidence that consulting is materially better.....

Friends of mine in consulting report similar job satisfaction to biglaw friends. Both sets like the money, but always have one eye on exit options. You can experience "grass is greener" syndrome from just about any career track.

It's been almost a decade since I left biglaw, but I didn't find it terrible. The work was unrelenting, unnecessarily stressful, and the system is set up to reward inefficiency. But I actually liked most of the people I worked with (including the partners), actually enjoyed much of the work, and certainly wasn't miserable or depressed. For my intellectual skill set, it was probably the most financially rewarding career path I could have realistically taken.

That being said, I realized when I had the chance to go in-house that I really didn't want the life of a biglaw partner. The biglaw grind was fine for a few years, but not what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Like living in New York, it's one of those things I'm glad I did for a few years but wouldn't do again.

I’m not an ex-consultant, but I did work in several other industries before law school (advertising, tech, film). In other threads I’ve seen people hype up these industries as being so clearly super duper better than BigLaw and it always makes me roll my eyes. Are they better than BigLaw in some ways? Sure. But they’re equal or worse in other ways.

It’s totally valid to complain about this job in an absolute sense (“I’m working lots of hours and that sucks” or “I should be paid more”). But the “grass is greener” schtick is just nonsense. At best, you’re trading off a benefit here for a negative there and ending up about the same. In some cases, those other careers are just categorically worse.

[Anonymous User]

I have never known anyone to work harder than production people in network TV/film. They make biglaw hours/conditions look like a joke (if you think biglaw partners are difficult egomaniacs, try working with producers/directors) and they don't even get the ginormous paycheck. Some people I know find the work really interesting, which is why they keep doing it, but an equal number don't and keep doing it because....what else are you going to do?

[elmar]

No, you are wrong. It is a totally different system. MBB Partners are expected to be personable and charismatic, and actually have to recruit associates to join on their projects. The miserable and unbearable Kirkland partner treating associates like chattel is never going to be an MBB Partner. Unlike law, it isn't enough to just sit in your office and grind out work product to make partner, you actually have to be outgoing and sociable enough to get clients to choose to give you work.

This is just one small thing in a mountain of silly takes in this thread, but it’s extra silly that you cited Kirkland as your example because of all the firms to name-drop, it’s probably the one whose staffing is closest to what you’re idolizing MBB for lol. Source: am a Kirkland associate, and our “free market” system means partners have to recruit us for projects. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it for everyone? Certainly not. But it’s so similar to what you’re citing that the comparison is silly.

Also, the part at the end about how MBB people have to go out and build relationships with clients while lawyers just have to grind work product shows that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to how BigLaw partnership operates.

Give me a break. How many biglaw partners would you want to hang out with outside of work? I've never seen such a massive collection of risk averse pencil pushers with multiple personality disorders and multiple divorces. Some of the most toxic people you are ever going to meet, and the very last group of people who you would want trying to build relationships with C suite executives to propose strategic options for a fortune 500 company. Biglaw literally pushes the exact opposite skills of MBB, teaching people to be hyperfocused on where the commas go, make life as awful as possible for junior associates so they "pay their dues," and taking absolutely no risks. The personality differences between an average MBB partner and an average biglaw partner are enormous (for one, think of the relative likelihood of demanding that an associate spend all weekend working, which is not a thing in MBB but is the bread and butter of biglaw).

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

This consulting trolling is so bizarre/weird. How do you even respond to something like this? lmao

It is very weird -- I have never met a consultant who said they enjoyed a good work-life balance or predictable, reasonable hours. And like a lot of corporate associates, my friends at the big consulting firms always seem to be looking to go in-house for similar reasons. Like, big law can be hard for all the reasons people have cited, but I at least see no evidence that consulting is materially better.....

Friends of mine in consulting report similar job satisfaction to biglaw friends. Both sets like the money, but always have one eye on exit options. You can experience "grass is greener" syndrome from just about any career track.

It's been almost a decade since I left biglaw, but I didn't find it terrible. The work was unrelenting, unnecessarily stressful, and the system is set up to reward inefficiency. But I actually liked most of the people I worked with (including the partners), actually enjoyed much of the work, and certainly wasn't miserable or depressed. For my intellectual skill set, it was probably the most financially rewarding career path I could have realistically taken.

That being said, I realized when I had the chance to go in-house that I really didn't want the life of a biglaw partner. The biglaw grind was fine for a few years, but not what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Like living in New York, it's one of those things I'm glad I did for a few years but wouldn't do again.

This sounds right to me. So many of my friends and circle of acquaintances are consultants of some kind or another (which I suspect is pretty typical of the biglaw set generally), and the job dynamics are so similar in terms of availability demands, job satisfaction and the grind, that I've just taken to speaking about biglaw associates generally as consultants. I get why for historical reasons attorneys and the broader society have conceived of being a lawyer as a distinct profession, and there's the monopoly aspect to effectively belonging to guild with the exclusive right to select who can provide legal services, but we're just specialized consultants advising on a narrow issue set, in the end we're all just consultants without as much distinct professional character as I think we tend to assume.

[nealric]

I have never known anyone to work harder than production people in network TV/film. They make biglaw hours/conditions look like a joke (if you think biglaw partners are difficult egomaniacs, try working with producers/directors) and they don't even get the ginormous paycheck. Some people I know find the work really interesting, which is why they keep doing it, but an equal number don't and keep doing it because....what else are you going to do?

I have a related theory that some of the very worst professional jobs are the ones that a substantial portion of the population dreams about doing as a kid. People are willing to do these jobs with poor pay and poor working conditions because the work is the "dream" or can at least be sold as leading to it. Everyone wants to "work in Hollywood."

Another example is video game developer. I've heard from several sources that video game companies treat their workers awfully and pay is well below other software development jobs. Mass layoffs are exceedingly common. But people dream of designing video games for a living. Pay might be better developing tax software, but no 10 year old ever said they want to write tax software when they grow up.

[Anonymous User]

I have never known anyone to work harder than production people in network TV/film. They make biglaw hours/conditions look like a joke (if you think biglaw partners are difficult egomaniacs, try working with producers/directors) and they don't even get the ginormous paycheck. Some people I know find the work really interesting, which is why they keep doing it, but an equal number don't and keep doing it because....what else are you going to do?

I have a related theory that some of the very worst professional jobs are the ones that a substantial portion of the population dreams about doing as a kid. People are willing to do these jobs with poor pay and poor working conditions because the work is the "dream" or can at least be sold as leading to it. Everyone wants to "work in Hollywood."

Another example is video game developer. I've heard from several sources that video game companies treat their workers awfully and pay is well below other software development jobs. Mass layoffs are exceedingly common. But people dream of designing video games for a living. Pay might be better developing tax software, but no 10 year old ever said they want to write tax software when they grow up.

Definitely a thing. I believe I've heard it called "passion exploitation". My cousin works in a zoo and similar thing...so many people just want to work with the animals that you're competing with volunteers for paid work.

[Anonymous User]

I have never known anyone to work harder than production people in network TV/film. They make biglaw hours/conditions look like a joke (if you think biglaw partners are difficult egomaniacs, try working with producers/directors) and they don't even get the ginormous paycheck. Some people I know find the work really interesting, which is why they keep doing it, but an equal number don't and keep doing it because....what else are you going to do?

I have a related theory that some of the very worst professional jobs are the ones that a substantial portion of the population dreams about doing as a kid. People are willing to do these jobs with poor pay and poor working conditions because the work is the "dream" or can at least be sold as leading to it. Everyone wants to "work in Hollywood."

Another example is video game developer. I've heard from several sources that video game companies treat their workers awfully and pay is well below other software development jobs. Mass layoffs are exceedingly common. But people dream of designing video games for a living. Pay might be better developing tax software, but no 10 year old ever said they want to write tax software when they grow up.

Yup. And in tech generally, the hours and stress are often brutal. Both in FAANG and in tiny startups. The specific dynamics of the timing and pressure might differ from biglaw (or other direct client service businesses), but they are absolutely not “lifestyle” by any stretch. Yeah, maybe your half-assed jerk-off side gig “startup” doesn’t take much work, but if you’re building a company for legit investment, and certainly once you’re funded, the pressure is extremely intense. I know from firsthand experience.

Compensation for giant tech firms can be very good, but often a huge portion is in equity that is (a) risky/illiquid and (b) locked behind a vesting schedule. BigLaw gives you cold hard cash, now. For startups, you can certainly make millions or billions if it works. But (a) you’ll be subject to the same vesting and other restrictions and (b) the risk of total failure is enormously high, so the expected return is really not that great compared to BigLaw comp if you’re looking across the industry and not cherry-picking with survivorship bias.

Tech is great - I often recommend people to go into it. But it isn’t the Chad bro chill bean bag utopia that a lot of lawyers hold it up to be.

[Anonymous User]

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

I've done this. They replied "ok" and it never came up again. I got a 2 in my review anyway.

[Sackboy]

After all of these years, consulting bro posters are still the worst. At least IB hacks have legitimate claims to insane long-term compensation if you can make it at one of the big banks.

[bokampers]

As for Kirkland, lol on the whole "free market" system. See how much luck you have turning down work from an Executive Committee member because you are already on track for 2k hours and don't feel like doing more work.

I've done this. They replied "ok" and it never came up again. I got a 2 in my review anyway.

As in, they rated you at a 2 out of 5 (or out of 10), in vengeance for turning work down once?? Freaking psychos.