Junior associate at Big Law -- help!

[Anonymous]

Can we stop debating the SAHM/SAHD situation and get back to answering OP's question? I think she knows the upside and downside of telling her spouse to quit by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we stop debating the SAHM/SAHD situation and get back to answering OP's question? I think she knows the upside and downside of telling her spouse to quit by now.

There is no answer to OP's question. I'm not trying to be cruel. She knows her choices based on the decisions she already made, chief among those starting her family a decade before her peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we stop debating the SAHM/SAHD situation and get back to answering OP's question? I think she knows the upside and downside of telling her spouse to quit by now.

There is no answer to OP's question. I'm not trying to be cruel. She knows her choices based on the decisions she already made, chief among those starting her family a decade before her peers.

This. Not sure what OP can do about this! Or why she thought this would be a good idea. In most high paying careers you have to put your time in and it's near impossible to do that AND have young children and not have a miserable life. It's why most women wait to have kids besides the frequent poster on here who says she had kids first and then launched her career.

All OP can do is find a new job or hire more help. Pick one or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are in a tough spot, OP. I just left biglaw to go in-house this year. I had a 3 yo and 4 mos when I left. I was dreading going back to work my entire maternity leave and so used that time to network like crazy. That said, I was an 8th year in a specialized practice. I haven't read all the responses here, but you need to make sure you are in a practice area that is marketable for in-house or government (i.e., I hope you're not a general litigator). You need to start meeting with those people. Also, 1800 billable for your first year at a firm is totally fine. You're not going to be groomed for partner but they will keep you around for a few years. Do not have your DH quit. It doesn't sound like you LOVE your job regardless of the hours, and firms love to spit out 9th year associates that don't make partner. And then what will your DH do? Presumably if that happens you will both need to be working.

I would say tough it out for 2-3 more years. Don't kill yourself to make 2000 hours if you're not looking for partnership and you're okay forgoing bonus. Position yourself to specialize and network like crazy to make yourself marketable. Apply for new job as a 5th year. No reason to not contact a recruiter now though just so they have you on their radar. Most of my friends that went in-house used Garrison & Sisson or got their job through networking. good luck.

This. Stay out of general litigation and get some specialty experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: Where do you live? You need someone to relieve the nanny from like 5-7? Can you get an AU, GW or Georgetown student to do this?

Students are unreliable. Maybe a grad student though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are in a tough spot, OP. I just left biglaw to go in-house this year. I had a 3 yo and 4 mos when I left. I was dreading going back to work my entire maternity leave and so used that time to network like crazy. That said, I was an 8th year in a specialized practice. I haven't read all the responses here, but you need to make sure you are in a practice area that is marketable for in-house or government (i.e., I hope you're not a general litigator). You need to start meeting with those people. Also, 1800 billable for your first year at a firm is totally fine. You're not going to be groomed for partner but they will keep you around for a few years. Do not have your DH quit. It doesn't sound like you LOVE your job regardless of the hours, and firms love to spit out 9th year associates that don't make partner. And then what will your DH do? Presumably if that happens you will both need to be working.

I would say tough it out for 2-3 more years. Don't kill yourself to make 2000 hours if you're not looking for partnership and you're okay forgoing bonus. Position yourself to specialize and network like crazy to make yourself marketable. Apply for new job as a 5th year. No reason to not contact a recruiter now though just so they have you on their radar. Most of my friends that went in-house used Garrison & Sisson or got their job through networking. good luck.

This. Stay out of general litigation and get some specialty experience.

I echo this, but think that if you are in general litigation you can still do some things to make yourself more marketable in house. Try as much as you can to get yourself staffed on certain areas of litigation that are more marketable. Part of this is what you want to do, but moreso it is just being opportunistic and reacting to what is out there. Employment litigation is usually a specialty that companies look to bring in house. Products liability litigation can be marketable in the pharma industry. Trademark litigation can be marketable to the right firms. And any litigation related to health care can be marketable in that sector. This is not an exhaustive list. The point is, there are ways out of general litigation, if you think strategically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a SAHM to a successful big law attorney. There's lots of good advice on this thread, much better than I can give. But I do want to add that DH and I made the choice we did for our individual family, but we consider ourselves feminists and we OFTEN lament that there aren't more women with SAH husbands in big law. Or even women with husbands who work very part-time and take on the brunt of the work at home like a SAH parent would. They just don't exist. And it sucks. It sucks for women everywhere. SAHMs are not going away. What big law needs is more SAHDs.

So, without knowing anything about your personal situation, I would consider discussing it as an option with your DH, if he is so inclined. It makes a world of difference to have one spouse who takes care of everything else and one spouse who can focus on work. It makes the big law job really not so crazy.

No, what big law needs are more senior partners and decision-makers who are involved in the daily grind in their house and have actual daily responsibilities for their home and children. It's amazing how much inefficiency and self-generated crisis exist in big firms.

As a former big law partner and current SAHM, I don't think this will help. The demand of clients and judges, the reality of the work, the ever-looming responsibility of ethics and threat of malpractice demand that the work takes priority over your life. It is a service industry tied to the clock.

[Anonymous]

I have not read the replies, OP, but want to say, if you are in the DC area, consider a job with the Feds.

I used to work in Big Law, and my DH still does. I ended up becoming a SAHM because it was either that or have strangers raise our kids while we slaved away. We are 20 years into it now, fyi.

A few years back, DH took a Fed job that was only for a couple years, and we moved to NoVA. The lifestyle of the attorney who works for the Feds cannot be beat. Sure the money isn't great, but the local Catholics and public schools are...really, it was wonderful. And it seems like everyone has a "flex-day" or work from home day, and hell, one snowflake in the sky and everyone gets the day off.

We are in CA now and the way the state is run, you need a lot more money to have that kind of lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we stop debating the SAHM/SAHD situation and get back to answering OP's question? I think she knows the upside and downside of telling her spouse to quit by now.

There is no answer to OP's question. I'm not trying to be cruel. She knows her choices based on the decisions she already made, chief among those starting her family a decade before her peers.

This. Not sure what OP can do about this! Or why she thought this would be a good idea. In most high paying careers you have to put your time in and it's near impossible to do that AND have young children and not have a miserable life. It's why most women wait to have kids besides the frequent poster on here who says she had kids first and then launched her career.

All OP can do is find a new job or hire more help. Pick one or both.

I cannot believe some people think it's offensive to suggest OP should talk with her DH about having him be the lead parent (as SAHD or working part-time) but somehow NOT offensive to say "not sure why she thought it would be good idea" to have 2 kids "a decade before her peers."

First of all, we don't know how old OP is. Lots of people didn't go to law school right out of college. Second of all, how horrible is it to judge other people for having kids in their (gasp!) mid-to-late 20s! There are lots of reasons, cultural, religious, and biological, why doing so would be a good choice, and I say this as someone who (gasp!) had my first child at 29 after being diagnosed with unexplained infertility and having several miscarriages. I would not have found it particularly helpful (and I would have found it quite painful) to be told I shouldn't have had kids when I did. I WOULD have found it helpful to be told that my partner and I could work together to have one of us be the lead parent.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but 2500 hours a year (which OP indicates includes pro bono, training, etc.) works out to 48 hour weeks 52 weeks a year. That allows for 2000 billable (which likely includes 50-100 pro bono hours) and 500 other hours. OP said she hasn't taken any time off so 52 is theoretically right. If you do it based on 48 weeks (2 weeks of holiday and 2 weeks of vacation) then it's 52 hours a week. A 50ish hour week may not be what the OP wants but it isn't impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As a former big law partner and current SAHM, I don't think this will help. The demand of clients and judges, the reality of the work, the ever-looming responsibility of ethics and threat of malpractice demand that the work takes priority over your life. It is a service industry tied to the clock.

Wow, I’m super impressed you left behind partnership $$$ to SAH. Kudos to you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through the whole thread, but 2500 hours a year (which OP indicates includes pro bono, training, etc.) works out to 48 hour weeks 52 weeks a year. That allows for 2000 billable (which likely includes 50-100 pro bono hours) and 500 other hours. OP said she hasn't taken any time off so 52 is theoretically right. If you do it based on 48 weeks (2 weeks of holiday and 2 weeks of vacation) then it's 52 hours a week. A 50ish hour week may not be what the OP wants but it isn't impossible.

It sounds like you don't understand how billable hours work. A 48-hour billed week is not equal to a 48-hour work week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through the whole thread, but 2500 hours a year (which OP indicates includes pro bono, training, etc.) works out to 48 hour weeks 52 weeks a year. That allows for 2000 billable (which likely includes 50-100 pro bono hours) and 500 other hours. OP said she hasn't taken any time off so 52 is theoretically right. If you do it based on 48 weeks (2 weeks of holiday and 2 weeks of vacation) then it's 52 hours a week. A 50ish hour week may not be what the OP wants but it isn't impossible.

It sounds like you don't understand how billable hours work. A 48-hour billed week is not equal to a 48-hour work week.

No, I understand it. Read a little more carefully. A 48 hour week is based on 2500 hours which includes all the other stuff (this is what OP said).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a horrid profession....

It's really not as dire as many on here make it sound.

I don't know, but I feel so sad for the kids. These little ones need you and want you. My daughter is 12 and she still loves when I come home - one hour after she gets home from school. I took the day off last week and was home when she got home. First thing she said was "Mom, I love when you are home and I can talk about my day with you".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through the whole thread, but 2500 hours a year (which OP indicates includes pro bono, training, etc.) works out to 48 hour weeks 52 weeks a year. That allows for 2000 billable (which likely includes 50-100 pro bono hours) and 500 other hours. OP said she hasn't taken any time off so 52 is theoretically right. If you do it based on 48 weeks (2 weeks of holiday and 2 weeks of vacation) then it's 52 hours a week. A 50ish hour week may not be what the OP wants but it isn't impossible.

It sounds like you don't understand how billable hours work. A 48-hour billed week is not equal to a 48-hour work week.

No, I understand it. Read a little more carefully. A 48 hour week is based on 2500 hours which includes all the other stuff (this is what OP said).

Billing 52 hours a week (even if that includes pro bono and other non-billable work) regularly is unpleasant. And while practice areas vary, legal work doesn't usually flow so regularly. Even non-billable work often comes down unexpectedly, such as pitch preparation and pro bono representation. Realistically, what you're suggesting will require many weeks with much longer hours to average out to 52 billed per week. And OP's home life has to be able to accommodate that.