1950 billable hours req - manageable with kids?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
m Padding bills is a huge problem in many law firms. Everyone knows this. |
Anonymous
I've told other partners more than once, most lawyers are not dumb. They can add. They can make numbers come out about where needed... ;-o |
Anonymous
Really? "Every other lawyer in the world is still sleeping?" I'm in the office at 7:15 every day. And I'm not the first one here. Your husband is feeding you a line of crap about how hard-working he is. |
Anonymous
+1. You also can only bill when you have work to do and the work flow isn't always steady. I've had months where the first week there's no billable work to do and then a few deals come in and it's crazy for the rest of the month. You still have to put in face time that first week because when it's slow you start worrying about not making hours so you need to be available to get work when it comes in. |
Anonymous
|
To echo what everyone else is saying:
It is possible, but not pretty. My firm had an 1800 minimum. I always billed 2300, and those under 2100 never lasted long. After I had a child, I went to part time, which was 1600, and still I worked way more than I do in government. It was still 9 to 6, five days a week with a couple hours on the weekend. But, more importantly, it didn't really work with the culture, and I felt really left out. The uncertainty of the hours was a part of reality there, and when I lost that, I lost all my own positive feelings about the job. But, every place is a little different. |
Anonymous
| Aside from the hours, OP you should consider how much extra income you'll really be bringing in after factoring in childcare and saving at the same rate to make up for the pension you'll be giving up. I've come close to leaving the government, but after doing the math, realized I'd be working a lot more for just a minimal amount of extra income. If you'd be on partnership track, it could be a different story. However, if you're worried about billing 1950 hours, I don't think partnership would be for you. |
Anonymous
|
I'm aware people pad bills. But if you average a 60 hour work week, take a full four weeks of vacation, and bill only 75% of the time you're in the office (which you can do without padding), your billables for the year will be 2160. It is simply not true that you have to work a 60 hour work week to get to 1950.
(I agree though, that you often feel compelled to work above the minimum to advance at a law firm). |
Anonymous
I realize you may be a lawyer and thus chronically argumentative, but you still miss the point I made which is NOT that you have to work a 60 hr. week every week to get to 1950. But you're going to work quite a few of them unless you're padding your time. I'm sure you have a counterargument. 
|
Anonymous
14:46, also consider your Dad has decades of experience, contacts, etc., that let him get away with more than J. Random 4th Year Associate or OP (unless OP is bringing along a massive Rolodex or knowledge of some really niche area.) If someone can make it rain, then he gets more latitude.
I've suspect some law-talkers don't even notice/care aside from having to change their calendar, a few think women like this are nuts nuts nuts, and others think "You go girl". I just don't know the percentages, and I've always wondered if that sort of extreme behavior really does get them ahead in the office. |
Anonymous
Big Law has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since your dad worked at a law firm when you were a child. Most "big law" partners in their 60s and 70s would not want to be lawyers again if they had to start over today. Salaries were much more on par back then with other professionals (i.e., salaries were lower), but the culture and lifestyle were much more family-friendly. |
Anonymous
Interestingly, studies have shown (google them) that male lawyers will often pad billables more often than women. So, for example, if a male associate spends 15 minutes simply thinking about a client, that will count as a billable 15 minute period. However, most female associates will not bill those 15 minutes unless they feel that they are actively writing or doing legal research. Big picture strategizing counts for men, but not for women. So, I suggest that you take heed from your male associates and bill according to the firm culture. |
Anonymous
I was born in the late '80s, so I'm talking late '80s, early '90s when we was working as a lawyer in private practice when I was a child. The culture of firms in the '80s and '90s, from what I can tell, is not significantly different from now. He's still working in a large law firm where he is now partner. I agree that much of his flexibility/ability to go on vacation for 2 weeks, etc. stems from the fact that he is already a partner and has contacts, and is a pretty hot shot in his area of law and has been working for decades, etc. He certainly couldn't do that when I was younger. But in the late '80s, he DEFINITELY was able to provide back up care when I was sick and take a conference call from home when he was an associate. At that point, he was at a San Francisco firm, so maybe things were more progressive on the west coast, I dunno. His current firm (and his current colleague) is the partner who is able to work from home so she can avoid the commute/save money on childcare with her small children. Her kids are toddlers and elementary school age. Some firms have made a push to make things more "family friendly" in recent years, allowing working from home as long as the hours are billed. He told me it is definitely more difficult to get away with less face time as a man, though. However, I'm not talking about the '60s/'70s. My dad was born in 1954, so in 1960 he would have been 6 years old! He wasn't even done with law school until the '80s! |
Anonymous
That's just embarrassing. She would have seemed a lot stronger if she'd just asked to move the call because she was unavailable; I'm sure word would have gotten around as to the reason why. Sadly or not, it's never a sign of strength in the workplace to mention family obligations. |
Anonymous
Please refrain from ever talking about law firms as if you know anything, as the bolded statement makes it completely clear that you know absolutely nothing. The culture of law firms has changed dramatically even since when I started at a firm in 2002. What you are saying is similar to saying that cars in the 1920s are not significantly different from current cars. Do you understand that you are talking about a time in which there was no internet????? |
Anonymous
Look, things have certainly changed since the '80s/'90s when I was a little girl, but I think it's hyperbolic to compare cars made 93 years ago to a job that was held 25-30 years ago. My dad was still expected to bill ridiculous hours, put in face time, and work a lot AND took home a huge salary. The change is not as significant as the mad men '60s/'70s days, and there was certainly no 9-5 with a cocktail lunch. I also have had a lot of exposure to Big Law, as my dad switched from working for the government to Big Law when I was 10 in the early 2000s and the difference in job expectations therein. I know that he worked like crazy to make partner--I was ten at the time, so I remember it. I also know that his firm offers flexibility to work from home, that his colleague (who I have met many times) who is also a partner is able to work from home. He has told me about how his firm is paying lip service to being more inclusive of women, however a man would never be able to get away with ALWAYS working from home. I also recall him talking to me on the phone at 10 am in the morning when he was commuting because he had a doctor's appointment, and he told me that it doesn't really matter when he comes in as long as he brings in a certain number of billable hours and retains relationships with certain clients. This was not ages ago. This was two months ago. I also know that it is a grueling, tiresome, often boring, and cutthroat competitive lifestyle. He also strongly discouraged me from going into law, because his firm basically only hires from top 10 law schools, and even then you have to be in the top of your class and it has become a total rat race. However, he acknowledges that having a lot of money gives him flexibility that he would have otherwise, and the fact that he is a professional who can take conference calls and write from home gives him a level of flexibility that would be lacking if he had another career despite heavy travel obligations and needing to work all the time. I'm not saying I know everything about big law firms, and I know the culture of every firm is different. But I was raised by a very successful lawyer who works for a large national firm, so I think I have some perspective about the ramification of Big Law on families. Although there were professional reasons for switching to working for the federal government (it was a good choice in terms of gaining some expertise and new contacts), now that I am an adult, understand why the lifestyle shift was also an appealing factor. He wanted to have a more regular schedule, have holidays off, not work on the weekends, and be able to come home at 6 pm every day when we were little. By the time we were older and in late elementary school/junior high and busier with homework and activities, it was less of an issue. |