Big law attorneys who complain about the lifestyle

[Anonymous]

Agree comments are tone deaf. I wonder though when the people making the comments bought their homes. Even in “regular” neighborhoods in DC homes are becoming unaffordable on what are high double incomes of $250-300k. So even on a big firm salary some might actually fee anxiety about being able to afford their homes at another job. Not saying they should complain but adding a comment on how crazy the cost of housing has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree comments are tone deaf. I wonder though when the people making the comments bought their homes. Even in “regular” neighborhoods in DC homes are becoming unaffordable on what are high double incomes of $250-300k. So even on a big firm salary some might actually fee anxiety about being able to afford their homes at another job. Not saying they should complain but adding a comment on how crazy the cost of
housing has become.

It’s true. Even in 2016, we didn’t buy in a “normal” DC neighborhood because we recognized it would mean big time golden handcuffs (toughed out an hour long each way commute). And look how much worse that has gotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What irritates me is believing that making a choice to do something means you aren't allowed to complain about it. Becoming a parent, going to a rigorous school, getting married, taking a low-paying job, living close to family, etc. are all valid choices and they also have valid downsides. I get that it's a little off-putting to complain about a job that puts in in the top 1% of earners, but that objection is unrelated to the choice to take the job.

You have to choose your audience.

Everyone can complain about the aspects of their lives that are hard. But THINK about the person you are talking to before doing so.

Do you think it is appropriate for an UMC person to complain to their nanny or housekeeper, who is making maybe 40-60k yr in a labor intensive job, about their work? Especially if that nanny/housekeeper can see that this is someone who has a lot of flexibility to work remotely, lives in a nice house, can afford lots of nice electronics and clothes and high quality food? No, that's incredibly rude and poor form.

As a lawyer, would you complain to the paralegals or assistants in your office about how hard your job is and how many hours you work, knowing that not only do they make significantly less than you, but they also often suffer the same consequences of a difficult business that you do? They might not work exactly the same hours and don't have the same level of responsibility so not quite as much stress, but they are working hard on the exact same projects as you, in an often high stress environment. Is that the correct audience for you to complain about the challenges of your job? No, it absolutely is not.

Well guess what, the mom from down the street who chose to leave Big Law for a much lower paying legal career is ALSO not the right audience.

The truth is that the more money you make and have, the more selective you need to be about complaining. It is a downside of wealthy, but guess what? You have a ton of resources and can use them to find people to complain to. You can complain to your spouse, you can hire a therapist or life coach, you can develop relationships with colleagues on your level that enable you to vent about these aspects of the job. But no, you cannot complain about how demanding your very high paying job is to people who make much, much less than you and don't have the kind of relationship with you that obligates them to a very high level of empathy/tolerance of complaining. And that includes friends in very different economic situations. Grow up and accept this. Very few people owe you their time and bottomless empathy just because you have a very stressful, demanding job.

You are swinging against arguments nobody is making here. I know you're trying to make a point with your hyperbole here but not one person said anybody is *owed* empathy at all. I'm well aware of ring theory and the idea that complaining about golden handcuffs to your assistant is remotely like complaining to somebody who used to have a high-paying job and still an enviable standard of living is ridiculous. That's making yourself out to be some kind of victim that you are not.

Also, I've actually never complained about having a high-paying job because I've never had one, and I'd bet money I'll never earn what OP makes now.

Literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy because of their feelings of being trapped in Big Law, and complained that people are not working hard enough to understand where they are coming from. But they are not owed that empathy and, more to the point, will not get it. If you make a lot of money, other people do not care if your job is hard. The end.

Nope, nobody said they were owed empathy. That did not happen.

Not in so many words, but this is precisely what people are asking for when they keep arguing and arguing that "no we don't have a choice" and "you don't understand" and "it's harder than you think." That's demanding empathy. The point is that if you are at this income level, you are unlikely to get it from people at a lower income level. That's all. Be selective about who you complain to and in what way.

I posted about how hard it is to exit.

NO, I was NOT making a bid for your empathy. I don’t need it. I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the claim that you can just easily waltz of our biglaw into a job with better work/life balance, if you’re just willing to take a pay cut. It wasn’t true for me, and for many of my friends, it meant several more miserable years in big law while they kept scrambling for the exits.

But see here you are complaining people took your words out of context and then saying that anyone claimed that you can "easily waltz out of biglaw into a job with better work/life balance." No one said that. They said the option is there if you are willing to take it, and sure, it might take a few years to find the right opportunity, and that there might be sacrifice and a reconfiguration of priorities involved. And no matter how many times people said this, you came back with "but, but, but" and a list of reasons as to why it was super hard. That's you seeking empathy for your predicament and not really getting that, hey, a lot of us actually made those hard decisions and made that move happen, so we know exactly how hard it is, and it's not the impossible situation you are laying it out as.

You didn't want to give up the money. Understandable, but not pitiable.

DP. I actually think you can really say that the substance of "you can easily waltz out of big law into a job with better work-life balance" is the same as "if they wanted to make it happen they could" and "it's not that hard to live on a smaller salary." You can't say that "here are the reasons why I can't leave my job" is the same as "I am owed empathy."

I mean, hard disagree on the first part of your reply here. When you say "if you wanted to, you would" I pretty much always feel that the understanding is that yes, of course the thing you want to do is difficult. It's the kind of thing you say to someone who frequently laments that they simply can't do [x thing that other people do but does require some effort] because x,y,z. It's not the same as saying "it's easy!" It's a way of saying that if something is really a priority to you, you will find a way to make it happen. And conversely that if someone has been saying they want something for several years and never seem to make any progress on it, it must not actually be a priority for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What irritates me is believing that making a choice to do something means you aren't allowed to complain about it. Becoming a parent, going to a rigorous school, getting married, taking a low-paying job, living close to family, etc. are all valid choices and they also have valid downsides. I get that it's a little off-putting to complain about a job that puts in in the top 1% of earners, but that objection is unrelated to the choice to take the job.

You have to choose your audience.

Everyone can complain about the aspects of their lives that are hard. But THINK about the person you are talking to before doing so.

Do you think it is appropriate for an UMC person to complain to their nanny or housekeeper, who is making maybe 40-60k yr in a labor intensive job, about their work? Especially if that nanny/housekeeper can see that this is someone who has a lot of flexibility to work remotely, lives in a nice house, can afford lots of nice electronics and clothes and high quality food? No, that's incredibly rude and poor form.

As a lawyer, would you complain to the paralegals or assistants in your office about how hard your job is and how many hours you work, knowing that not only do they make significantly less than you, but they also often suffer the same consequences of a difficult business that you do? They might not work exactly the same hours and don't have the same level of responsibility so not quite as much stress, but they are working hard on the exact same projects as you, in an often high stress environment. Is that the correct audience for you to complain about the challenges of your job? No, it absolutely is not.

Well guess what, the mom from down the street who chose to leave Big Law for a much lower paying legal career is ALSO not the right audience.

The truth is that the more money you make and have, the more selective you need to be about complaining. It is a downside of wealthy, but guess what? You have a ton of resources and can use them to find people to complain to. You can complain to your spouse, you can hire a therapist or life coach, you can develop relationships with colleagues on your level that enable you to vent about these aspects of the job. But no, you cannot complain about how demanding your very high paying job is to people who make much, much less than you and don't have the kind of relationship with you that obligates them to a very high level of empathy/tolerance of complaining. And that includes friends in very different economic situations. Grow up and accept this. Very few people owe you their time and bottomless empathy just because you have a very stressful, demanding job.

You are swinging against arguments nobody is making here. I know you're trying to make a point with your hyperbole here but not one person said anybody is *owed* empathy at all. I'm well aware of ring theory and the idea that complaining about golden handcuffs to your assistant is remotely like complaining to somebody who used to have a high-paying job and still an enviable standard of living is ridiculous. That's making yourself out to be some kind of victim that you are not.

Also, I've actually never complained about having a high-paying job because I've never had one, and I'd bet money I'll never earn what OP makes now.

Literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy because of their feelings of being trapped in Big Law, and complained that people are not working hard enough to understand where they are coming from. But they are not owed that empathy and, more to the point, will not get it. If you make a lot of money, other people do not care if your job is hard. The end.

Nope, nobody said they were owed empathy. That did not happen.

Not in so many words, but this is precisely what people are asking for when they keep arguing and arguing that "no we don't have a choice" and "you don't understand" and "it's harder than you think." That's demanding empathy. The point is that if you are at this income level, you are unlikely to get it from people at a lower income level. That's all. Be selective about who you complain to and in what way.

I posted about how hard it is to exit.

NO, I was NOT making a bid for your empathy. I don’t need it. I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the claim that you can just easily waltz of our biglaw into a job with better work/life balance, if you’re just willing to take a pay cut. It wasn’t true for me, and for many of my friends, it meant several more miserable years in big law while they kept scrambling for the exits.

But see here you are complaining people took your words out of context and then saying that anyone claimed that you can "easily waltz out of biglaw into a job with better work/life balance." No one said that. They said the option is there if you are willing to take it, and sure, it might take a few years to find the right opportunity, and that there might be sacrifice and a reconfiguration of priorities involved. And no matter how many times people said this, you came back with "but, but, but" and a list of reasons as to why it was super hard. That's you seeking empathy for your predicament and not really getting that, hey, a lot of us actually made those hard decisions and made that move happen, so we know exactly how hard it is, and it's not the impossible situation you are laying it out as.

You didn't want to give up the money. Understandable, but not pitiable.

DP. I actually think you can really say that the substance of "you can easily waltz out of big law into a job with better work-life balance" is the same as "if they wanted to make it happen they could" and "it's not that hard to live on a smaller salary." You can't say that "here are the reasons why I can't leave my job" is the same as "I am owed empathy."

I mean, hard disagree on the first part of your reply here. When you say "if you wanted to, you would" I pretty much always feel that the understanding is that yes, of course the thing you want to do is difficult. It's the kind of thing you say to someone who frequently laments that they simply can't do [x thing that other people do but does require some effort] because x,y,z. It's not the same as saying "it's easy!" It's a way of saying that if something is really a priority to you, you will find a way to make it happen. And conversely that if someone has been saying they want something for several years and never seem to make any progress on it, it must not actually be a priority for them.

And that’s your ignorance. It can easily take several years to land either a fed gov or a local in house counsel job. Easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree comments are tone deaf. I wonder though when the people making the comments bought their homes. Even in “regular” neighborhoods in DC homes are becoming unaffordable on what are high double incomes of $250-300k. So even on a big firm salary some might actually fee anxiety about being able to afford their homes at another job. Not saying they should complain but adding a comment on how crazy the cost of housing has become.

This is true, but also an example of WHY it's tone deaf -- if a biglaw attorney finds housing unaffordable, thing what someone with a more "normal" income feels about it. It's not like they just raised the cost of housing for very well-paid lawyers. And biglaw has actually raised salaries substantially over the last 10-15 years in the way that most other jobs have not. That might make it harder for a biglaw lawyer to justify leaving their job, but it's also going to make anyone else even less sympathetic to their "plight." Everyone deals with skyrocketing housing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What irritates me is believing that making a choice to do something means you aren't allowed to complain about it. Becoming a parent, going to a rigorous school, getting married, taking a low-paying job, living close to family, etc. are all valid choices and they also have valid downsides. I get that it's a little off-putting to complain about a job that puts in in the top 1% of earners, but that objection is unrelated to the choice to take the job.

You have to choose your audience.

Everyone can complain about the aspects of their lives that are hard. But THINK about the person you are talking to before doing so.

Do you think it is appropriate for an UMC person to complain to their nanny or housekeeper, who is making maybe 40-60k yr in a labor intensive job, about their work? Especially if that nanny/housekeeper can see that this is someone who has a lot of flexibility to work remotely, lives in a nice house, can afford lots of nice electronics and clothes and high quality food? No, that's incredibly rude and poor form.

As a lawyer, would you complain to the paralegals or assistants in your office about how hard your job is and how many hours you work, knowing that not only do they make significantly less than you, but they also often suffer the same consequences of a difficult business that you do? They might not work exactly the same hours and don't have the same level of responsibility so not quite as much stress, but they are working hard on the exact same projects as you, in an often high stress environment. Is that the correct audience for you to complain about the challenges of your job? No, it absolutely is not.

Well guess what, the mom from down the street who chose to leave Big Law for a much lower paying legal career is ALSO not the right audience.

The truth is that the more money you make and have, the more selective you need to be about complaining. It is a downside of wealthy, but guess what? You have a ton of resources and can use them to find people to complain to. You can complain to your spouse, you can hire a therapist or life coach, you can develop relationships with colleagues on your level that enable you to vent about these aspects of the job. But no, you cannot complain about how demanding your very high paying job is to people who make much, much less than you and don't have the kind of relationship with you that obligates them to a very high level of empathy/tolerance of complaining. And that includes friends in very different economic situations. Grow up and accept this. Very few people owe you their time and bottomless empathy just because you have a very stressful, demanding job.

You are swinging against arguments nobody is making here. I know you're trying to make a point with your hyperbole here but not one person said anybody is *owed* empathy at all. I'm well aware of ring theory and the idea that complaining about golden handcuffs to your assistant is remotely like complaining to somebody who used to have a high-paying job and still an enviable standard of living is ridiculous. That's making yourself out to be some kind of victim that you are not.

Also, I've actually never complained about having a high-paying job because I've never had one, and I'd bet money I'll never earn what OP makes now.

Literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy because of their feelings of being trapped in Big Law, and complained that people are not working hard enough to understand where they are coming from. But they are not owed that empathy and, more to the point, will not get it. If you make a lot of money, other people do not care if your job is hard. The end.

Nope, nobody said they were owed empathy. That did not happen.

Not in so many words, but this is precisely what people are asking for when they keep arguing and arguing that "no we don't have a choice" and "you don't understand" and "it's harder than you think." That's demanding empathy. The point is that if you are at this income level, you are unlikely to get it from people at a lower income level. That's all. Be selective about who you complain to and in what way.

I posted about how hard it is to exit.

NO, I was NOT making a bid for your empathy. I don’t need it. I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the claim that you can just easily waltz of our biglaw into a job with better work/life balance, if you’re just willing to take a pay cut. It wasn’t true for me, and for many of my friends, it meant several more miserable years in big law while they kept scrambling for the exits.

But see here you are complaining people took your words out of context and then saying that anyone claimed that you can "easily waltz out of biglaw into a job with better work/life balance." No one said that. They said the option is there if you are willing to take it, and sure, it might take a few years to find the right opportunity, and that there might be sacrifice and a reconfiguration of priorities involved. And no matter how many times people said this, you came back with "but, but, but" and a list of reasons as to why it was super hard. That's you seeking empathy for your predicament and not really getting that, hey, a lot of us actually made those hard decisions and made that move happen, so we know exactly how hard it is, and it's not the impossible situation you are laying it out as.

You didn't want to give up the money. Understandable, but not pitiable.

DP. I actually think you can really say that the substance of "you can easily waltz out of big law into a job with better work-life balance" is the same as "if they wanted to make it happen they could" and "it's not that hard to live on a smaller salary." You can't say that "here are the reasons why I can't leave my job" is the same as "I am owed empathy."

I mean, hard disagree on the first part of your reply here. When you say "if you wanted to, you would" I pretty much always feel that the understanding is that yes, of course the thing you want to do is difficult. It's the kind of thing you say to someone who frequently laments that they simply can't do [x thing that other people do but does require some effort] because x,y,z. It's not the same as saying "it's easy!" It's a way of saying that if something is really a priority to you, you will find a way to make it happen. And conversely that if someone has been saying they want something for several years and never seem to make any progress on it, it must not actually be a priority for them.

And that’s your ignorance. It can easily take several years to land either a fed gov or a local in house counsel job. Easily.

And? So?

OP isn't talking about people who are currently in the process of trying to exit biglaw but struggling to find the right position (I'm betting that, having done this precise thing, OP would actually be quite empathetic to that situation and be a great friend to confide in). OP is talking about people who are saying they could not possible quit their biglaw job, even if someone handed them a perfectly good job making 180k with great work life balance tomorrow, because OMG it's not possible to live on 180k, that's like being poor!

You are so caught up in your personal drama of struggling to find a job that you are missing the point entirely here. I'm sorry your job search has been challenging -- I personally relate to that, having been through it. It is not the topic of conversation here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What irritates me is believing that making a choice to do something means you aren't allowed to complain about it. Becoming a parent, going to a rigorous school, getting married, taking a low-paying job, living close to family, etc. are all valid choices and they also have valid downsides. I get that it's a little off-putting to complain about a job that puts in in the top 1% of earners, but that objection is unrelated to the choice to take the job.

You have to choose your audience.

Everyone can complain about the aspects of their lives that are hard. But THINK about the person you are talking to before doing so.

Do you think it is appropriate for an UMC person to complain to their nanny or housekeeper, who is making maybe 40-60k yr in a labor intensive job, about their work? Especially if that nanny/housekeeper can see that this is someone who has a lot of flexibility to work remotely, lives in a nice house, can afford lots of nice electronics and clothes and high quality food? No, that's incredibly rude and poor form.

As a lawyer, would you complain to the paralegals or assistants in your office about how hard your job is and how many hours you work, knowing that not only do they make significantly less than you, but they also often suffer the same consequences of a difficult business that you do? They might not work exactly the same hours and don't have the same level of responsibility so not quite as much stress, but they are working hard on the exact same projects as you, in an often high stress environment. Is that the correct audience for you to complain about the challenges of your job? No, it absolutely is not.

Well guess what, the mom from down the street who chose to leave Big Law for a much lower paying legal career is ALSO not the right audience.

The truth is that the more money you make and have, the more selective you need to be about complaining. It is a downside of wealthy, but guess what? You have a ton of resources and can use them to find people to complain to. You can complain to your spouse, you can hire a therapist or life coach, you can develop relationships with colleagues on your level that enable you to vent about these aspects of the job. But no, you cannot complain about how demanding your very high paying job is to people who make much, much less than you and don't have the kind of relationship with you that obligates them to a very high level of empathy/tolerance of complaining. And that includes friends in very different economic situations. Grow up and accept this. Very few people owe you their time and bottomless empathy just because you have a very stressful, demanding job.

You are swinging against arguments nobody is making here. I know you're trying to make a point with your hyperbole here but not one person said anybody is *owed* empathy at all. I'm well aware of ring theory and the idea that complaining about golden handcuffs to your assistant is remotely like complaining to somebody who used to have a high-paying job and still an enviable standard of living is ridiculous. That's making yourself out to be some kind of victim that you are not.

Also, I've actually never complained about having a high-paying job because I've never had one, and I'd bet money I'll never earn what OP makes now.

Literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy because of their feelings of being trapped in Big Law, and complained that people are not working hard enough to understand where they are coming from. But they are not owed that empathy and, more to the point, will not get it. If you make a lot of money, other people do not care if your job is hard. The end.

Nope, nobody said they were owed empathy. That did not happen.

Not in so many words, but this is precisely what people are asking for when they keep arguing and arguing that "no we don't have a choice" and "you don't understand" and "it's harder than you think." That's demanding empathy. The point is that if you are at this income level, you are unlikely to get it from people at a lower income level. That's all. Be selective about who you complain to and in what way.

PP said "literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy." So, that was wrong, and you're assuming a lot of subtext in those statements in order to interpret them as "demanding empathy," when the more likely interpretation is that they were just trying to explain to OP why she is wrong to be so sure somebody could get a more flexible job and stay in the same area.

I think we can all agree that you should be selective about who you complain to and it's likely that these people shouldn't complain about those things, but that was not the only point OP was making.

And as I said before, honestly it's really obnoxious for OP, who lives a lifestyle that the majority of the world could only dream of, to complain about somebody being tone-deaf about how much money they make. I don't feel sorry for those big law partners and I also do not feel sorry for her feeling sensitive and slighted about this.

OP here. Where did I ever say I felt slighted? I am not asking for pity at all.

I am merely saying I find it annoying, and yes, tone-deaf, for people to make this specific complaint and it seems like lawyers do it at a higher proportion than other professions. I actually don't care about this topic nearly as much as some of you seem to.

Truly, I feel bad for someone who is unhappy and feels like they have no control over their circumstances, even if factually, they do. I have been in that position and it is not a great feeling. I am fully aware that we live a lifestyle most people could only dream of -- in fact, I said that in my OP! I am from a crappy little midwestern town and am happy to be here!

Don't lie to yourself, if you don't want to lie to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What irritates me is believing that making a choice to do something means you aren't allowed to complain about it. Becoming a parent, going to a rigorous school, getting married, taking a low-paying job, living close to family, etc. are all valid choices and they also have valid downsides. I get that it's a little off-putting to complain about a job that puts in in the top 1% of earners, but that objection is unrelated to the choice to take the job.

You have to choose your audience.

Everyone can complain about the aspects of their lives that are hard. But THINK about the person you are talking to before doing so.

Do you think it is appropriate for an UMC person to complain to their nanny or housekeeper, who is making maybe 40-60k yr in a labor intensive job, about their work? Especially if that nanny/housekeeper can see that this is someone who has a lot of flexibility to work remotely, lives in a nice house, can afford lots of nice electronics and clothes and high quality food? No, that's incredibly rude and poor form.

As a lawyer, would you complain to the paralegals or assistants in your office about how hard your job is and how many hours you work, knowing that not only do they make significantly less than you, but they also often suffer the same consequences of a difficult business that you do? They might not work exactly the same hours and don't have the same level of responsibility so not quite as much stress, but they are working hard on the exact same projects as you, in an often high stress environment. Is that the correct audience for you to complain about the challenges of your job? No, it absolutely is not.

Well guess what, the mom from down the street who chose to leave Big Law for a much lower paying legal career is ALSO not the right audience.

The truth is that the more money you make and have, the more selective you need to be about complaining. It is a downside of wealthy, but guess what? You have a ton of resources and can use them to find people to complain to. You can complain to your spouse, you can hire a therapist or life coach, you can develop relationships with colleagues on your level that enable you to vent about these aspects of the job. But no, you cannot complain about how demanding your very high paying job is to people who make much, much less than you and don't have the kind of relationship with you that obligates them to a very high level of empathy/tolerance of complaining. And that includes friends in very different economic situations. Grow up and accept this. Very few people owe you their time and bottomless empathy just because you have a very stressful, demanding job.

You are swinging against arguments nobody is making here. I know you're trying to make a point with your hyperbole here but not one person said anybody is *owed* empathy at all. I'm well aware of ring theory and the idea that complaining about golden handcuffs to your assistant is remotely like complaining to somebody who used to have a high-paying job and still an enviable standard of living is ridiculous. That's making yourself out to be some kind of victim that you are not.

Also, I've actually never complained about having a high-paying job because I've never had one, and I'd bet money I'll never earn what OP makes now.

Literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy because of their feelings of being trapped in Big Law, and complained that people are not working hard enough to understand where they are coming from. But they are not owed that empathy and, more to the point, will not get it. If you make a lot of money, other people do not care if your job is hard. The end.

Nope, nobody said they were owed empathy. That did not happen.

Not in so many words, but this is precisely what people are asking for when they keep arguing and arguing that "no we don't have a choice" and "you don't understand" and "it's harder than you think." That's demanding empathy. The point is that if you are at this income level, you are unlikely to get it from people at a lower income level. That's all. Be selective about who you complain to and in what way.

I posted about how hard it is to exit.

NO, I was NOT making a bid for your empathy. I don’t need it. I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the claim that you can just easily waltz of our biglaw into a job with better work/life balance, if you’re just willing to take a pay cut. It wasn’t true for me, and for many of my friends, it meant several more miserable years in big law while they kept scrambling for the exits.

But see here you are complaining people took your words out of context and then saying that anyone claimed that you can "easily waltz out of biglaw into a job with better work/life balance." No one said that. They said the option is there if you are willing to take it, and sure, it might take a few years to find the right opportunity, and that there might be sacrifice and a reconfiguration of priorities involved. And no matter how many times people said this, you came back with "but, but, but" and a list of reasons as to why it was super hard. That's you seeking empathy for your predicament and not really getting that, hey, a lot of us actually made those hard decisions and made that move happen, so we know exactly how hard it is, and it's not the impossible situation you are laying it out as.

You didn't want to give up the money. Understandable, but not pitiable.

DP. I actually think you can really say that the substance of "you can easily waltz out of big law into a job with better work-life balance" is the same as "if they wanted to make it happen they could" and "it's not that hard to live on a smaller salary." You can't say that "here are the reasons why I can't leave my job" is the same as "I am owed empathy."

I mean, hard disagree on the first part of your reply here. When you say "if you wanted to, you would" I pretty much always feel that the understanding is that yes, of course the thing you want to do is difficult. It's the kind of thing you say to someone who frequently laments that they simply can't do [x thing that other people do but does require some effort] because x,y,z. It's not the same as saying "it's easy!" It's a way of saying that if something is really a priority to you, you will find a way to make it happen. And conversely that if someone has been saying they want something for several years and never seem to make any progress on it, it must not actually be a priority for them.

And that’s your ignorance. It can easily take several years to land either a fed gov or a local in house counsel job. Easily.

And? So?

OP isn't talking about people who are currently in the process of trying to exit biglaw but struggling to find the right position (I'm betting that, having done this precise thing, OP would actually be quite empathetic to that situation and be a great friend to confide in). OP is talking about people who are saying they could not possible quit their biglaw job, even if someone handed them a perfectly good job making 180k with great work life balance tomorrow, because OMG it's not possible to live on 180k, that's like being poor!

You are so caught up in your personal drama of struggling to find a job that you are missing the point entirely here. I'm sorry your job search has been challenging -- I personally relate to that, having been through it. It is not the topic of conversation here.

OP has no idea if these people are trying to leave.

[Anonymous]

The comp for senior associates and partners is so much greater (by orders of magnitude) than what a dual fed HHI of $350k is that it’s frankly shocking when clueless big law types talk about how they can’t afford to leave. It’s like no, you don’t want to change your lifestyle. Are you actually saying you couldn’t afford to live on GS15?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What irritates me is believing that making a choice to do something means you aren't allowed to complain about it. Becoming a parent, going to a rigorous school, getting married, taking a low-paying job, living close to family, etc. are all valid choices and they also have valid downsides. I get that it's a little off-putting to complain about a job that puts in in the top 1% of earners, but that objection is unrelated to the choice to take the job.

You have to choose your audience.

Everyone can complain about the aspects of their lives that are hard. But THINK about the person you are talking to before doing so.

Do you think it is appropriate for an UMC person to complain to their nanny or housekeeper, who is making maybe 40-60k yr in a labor intensive job, about their work? Especially if that nanny/housekeeper can see that this is someone who has a lot of flexibility to work remotely, lives in a nice house, can afford lots of nice electronics and clothes and high quality food? No, that's incredibly rude and poor form.

As a lawyer, would you complain to the paralegals or assistants in your office about how hard your job is and how many hours you work, knowing that not only do they make significantly less than you, but they also often suffer the same consequences of a difficult business that you do? They might not work exactly the same hours and don't have the same level of responsibility so not quite as much stress, but they are working hard on the exact same projects as you, in an often high stress environment. Is that the correct audience for you to complain about the challenges of your job? No, it absolutely is not.

Well guess what, the mom from down the street who chose to leave Big Law for a much lower paying legal career is ALSO not the right audience.

The truth is that the more money you make and have, the more selective you need to be about complaining. It is a downside of wealthy, but guess what? You have a ton of resources and can use them to find people to complain to. You can complain to your spouse, you can hire a therapist or life coach, you can develop relationships with colleagues on your level that enable you to vent about these aspects of the job. But no, you cannot complain about how demanding your very high paying job is to people who make much, much less than you and don't have the kind of relationship with you that obligates them to a very high level of empathy/tolerance of complaining. And that includes friends in very different economic situations. Grow up and accept this. Very few people owe you their time and bottomless empathy just because you have a very stressful, demanding job.

You are swinging against arguments nobody is making here. I know you're trying to make a point with your hyperbole here but not one person said anybody is *owed* empathy at all. I'm well aware of ring theory and the idea that complaining about golden handcuffs to your assistant is remotely like complaining to somebody who used to have a high-paying job and still an enviable standard of living is ridiculous. That's making yourself out to be some kind of victim that you are not.

Also, I've actually never complained about having a high-paying job because I've never had one, and I'd bet money I'll never earn what OP makes now.

Literally multiple people on this thread have complained that they are owed empathy because of their feelings of being trapped in Big Law, and complained that people are not working hard enough to understand where they are coming from. But they are not owed that empathy and, more to the point, will not get it. If you make a lot of money, other people do not care if your job is hard. The end.

Nope, nobody said they were owed empathy. That did not happen.

Not in so many words, but this is precisely what people are asking for when they keep arguing and arguing that "no we don't have a choice" and "you don't understand" and "it's harder than you think." That's demanding empathy. The point is that if you are at this income level, you are unlikely to get it from people at a lower income level. That's all. Be selective about who you complain to and in what way.

I posted about how hard it is to exit.

NO, I was NOT making a bid for your empathy. I don’t need it. I was pointing out the factual inaccuracy of the claim that you can just easily waltz of our biglaw into a job with better work/life balance, if you’re just willing to take a pay cut. It wasn’t true for me, and for many of my friends, it meant several more miserable years in big law while they kept scrambling for the exits.

But see here you are complaining people took your words out of context and then saying that anyone claimed that you can "easily waltz out of biglaw into a job with better work/life balance." No one said that. They said the option is there if you are willing to take it, and sure, it might take a few years to find the right opportunity, and that there might be sacrifice and a reconfiguration of priorities involved. And no matter how many times people said this, you came back with "but, but, but" and a list of reasons as to why it was super hard. That's you seeking empathy for your predicament and not really getting that, hey, a lot of us actually made those hard decisions and made that move happen, so we know exactly how hard it is, and it's not the impossible situation you are laying it out as.

You didn't want to give up the money. Understandable, but not pitiable.

DP. I actually think you can really say that the substance of "you can easily waltz out of big law into a job with better work-life balance" is the same as "if they wanted to make it happen they could" and "it's not that hard to live on a smaller salary." You can't say that "here are the reasons why I can't leave my job" is the same as "I am owed empathy."

I mean, hard disagree on the first part of your reply here. When you say "if you wanted to, you would" I pretty much always feel that the understanding is that yes, of course the thing you want to do is difficult. It's the kind of thing you say to someone who frequently laments that they simply can't do [x thing that other people do but does require some effort] because x,y,z. It's not the same as saying "it's easy!" It's a way of saying that if something is really a priority to you, you will find a way to make it happen. And conversely that if someone has been saying they want something for several years and never seem to make any progress on it, it must not actually be a priority for them.

And that’s your ignorance. It can easily take several years to land either a fed gov or a local in house counsel job. Easily.

And? So?

OP isn't talking about people who are currently in the process of trying to exit biglaw but struggling to find the right position (I'm betting that, having done this precise thing, OP would actually be quite empathetic to that situation and be a great friend to confide in). OP is talking about people who are saying they could not possible quit their biglaw job, even if someone handed them a perfectly good job making 180k with great work life balance tomorrow, because OMG it's not possible to live on 180k, that's like being poor!

You are so caught up in your personal drama of struggling to find a job that you are missing the point entirely here. I'm sorry your job search has been challenging -- I personally relate to that, having been through it. It is not the topic of conversation here.

OP has no idea if these people are trying to leave.

She has stated several times that she's talking explicitly about people who tell her "I'd love to leave but I just don't see how it would be possible financially."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The comp for senior associates and partners is so much greater (by orders of magnitude) than what a dual fed HHI of $350k is that it’s frankly shocking when clueless big law types talk about how they can’t afford to leave. It’s like no, you don’t want to change your lifestyle. Are you actually saying you couldn’t afford to live on GS15?

They have no perspective. So many of these lawyers have never really had to live on anything other than a biglaw salary, so they don't understand why it is like for average white collar professionals. They either went straight to law school from undergrad, or they may have worked for some amount of time but either in a high paying field (consulting, finance) or were heavily subsidized by parents. They've always been surrounded by people who are UMC or above, and have no concept of living any other way.

I mean, even in DC where COL is very high, the idea that someone would simply not think it was possible to live on 200-300k is an indication of the level of myopia we're talking about here. I think in some cases they truly don't know how that you can, in fact, buy a perfectly nice family home close in for 800-900k, that there are good public schools in the area that plenty of smart, caring parents are enthusiastic about sending their kids to, that you can take a perfectly lovely vacation for a family of 4 on a few thousand dollars, and do that twice a year and feel pretty satisfied.

They literally just don't know. It's George P. Bush not knowing how much a gallon of milk costs vibes. They are simply out of touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comp for senior associates and partners is so much greater (by orders of magnitude) than what a dual fed HHI of $350k is that it’s frankly shocking when clueless big law types talk about how they can’t afford to leave. It’s like no, you don’t want to change your lifestyle. Are you actually saying you couldn’t afford to live on GS15?

They have no perspective. So many of these lawyers have never really had to live on anything other than a biglaw salary, so they don't understand why it is like for average white collar professionals. They either went straight to law school from undergrad, or they may have worked for some amount of time but either in a high paying field (consulting, finance) or were heavily subsidized by parents. They've always been surrounded by people who are UMC or above, and have no concept of living any other way.

I mean, even in DC where COL is very high, the idea that someone would simply not think it was possible to live on 200-300k is an indication of the level of myopia we're talking about here. I think in some cases they truly don't know how that you can, in fact, buy a perfectly nice family home close in for 800-900k, that there are good public schools in the area that plenty of smart, caring parents are enthusiastic about sending their kids to, that you can take a perfectly lovely vacation for a family of 4 on a few thousand dollars, and do that twice a year and feel pretty satisfied.

They literally just don't know. It's George P. Bush not knowing how much a gallon of milk costs vibes. They are simply out of touch.

It's just risk-aversion. FWIW I would never buy an 800K home on a 200K salary. Again, extreme risk-aversion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comp for senior associates and partners is so much greater (by orders of magnitude) than what a dual fed HHI of $350k is that it’s frankly shocking when clueless big law types talk about how they can’t afford to leave. It’s like no, you don’t want to change your lifestyle. Are you actually saying you couldn’t afford to live on GS15?

They have no perspective. So many of these lawyers have never really had to live on anything other than a biglaw salary, so they don't understand why it is like for average white collar professionals. They either went straight to law school from undergrad, or they may have worked for some amount of time but either in a high paying field (consulting, finance) or were heavily subsidized by parents. They've always been surrounded by people who are UMC or above, and have no concept of living any other way.

I mean, even in DC where COL is very high, the idea that someone would simply not think it was possible to live on 200-300k is an indication of the level of myopia we're talking about here. I think in some cases they truly don't know how that you can, in fact, buy a perfectly nice family home close in for 800-900k, that there are good public schools in the area that plenty of smart, caring parents are enthusiastic about sending their kids to, that you can take a perfectly lovely vacation for a family of 4 on a few thousand dollars, and do that twice a year and feel pretty satisfied.

They literally just don't know. It's George P. Bush not knowing how much a gallon of milk costs vibes. They are simply out of touch.

It's just risk-aversion. FWIW I would never buy an 800K home on a 200K salary. Again, extreme risk-aversion.

You might if you had 300-400k to put down, which is not out of the question for someone who has been making BigLaw money for 5-6 years. But it would require you to live more frugally than most BigLaw associates want to live -- they feel like they lived like paupers in law school (even when they didn't, and instead funded a pretty nice lifestyle with loans, which will also make it harder to save because you'll have more loans to pay down) and the want the nice apartment and nice clothes and nice vacations, etc.

Choices, choices, choices.

[Anonymous]

I think many of you have a very distorted view of how BigLaw employees live. The lifestyle you're describing might fit the top partners. It is not that of an associate or a service partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many of you have a very distorted view of how BigLaw employees live. The lifestyle you're describing might fit the top partners. It is not that of an associate or a service partner.

What lifestyle do you think people are describing? Certainly, an associate or service partner makes more than 150k a year…