Junior associate at Big Law -- help!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Unless both you and your DH are home one hour after school, and there when she leaves for school (in which case - awesome, those jobs are hard to come by in the DC area), please stop with your sympathy.

Not everyone finds themselves in a position where both parents can work 9 am to 4 pm everyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel like you're leaving out the effect that travel has on total billable hours. If you take one 3 or 4 day trip a month, which typically attorneys do as they get more senior, it adds enormously to the total number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel like you're leaving out the effect that travel has on total billable hours. If you take one 3 or 4 day trip a month, which typically attorneys do as they get more senior, it adds enormously to the total number.

Did OP mention extensive travel? I missed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel like you're leaving out the effect that travel has on total billable hours. If you take one 3 or 4 day trip a month, which typically attorneys do as they get more senior, it adds enormously to the total number.

My firm allows us to bill for travel, but my biggest client does not. So, it's not always a help for your billables to travel for work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel like you're leaving out the effect that travel has on total billable hours. If you take one 3 or 4 day trip a month, which typically attorneys do as they get more senior, it adds enormously to the total number.

Did OP mention extensive travel? I missed that.

She didn't but she just finished her first year, presumably she will travel if she sticks around to be a mid-level associate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Unless both you and your DH are home one hour after school, and there when she leaves for school (in which case - awesome, those jobs are hard to come by in the DC area), please stop with your sympathy.

Not everyone finds themselves in a position where both parents can work 9 am to 4 pm everyday.

We are talking to people who earn a very healthy income here. Thus seeing your kids at a minimum of an hour a day are career choices not choices of survival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if DH is the lead parent I'm sure OP wants to see her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Unless both you and your DH are home one hour after school, and there when she leaves for school (in which case - awesome, those jobs are hard to come by in the DC area), please stop with your sympathy.

Not everyone finds themselves in a position where both parents can work 9 am to 4 pm everyday.

We are talking to people who earn a very healthy income here. Thus seeing your kids at a minimum of an hour a day are career choices not choices of survival.

Totally agree. And I have zero reason to believe that someone working in big law can't see their kids a minimum of an hour a day!! It might be a challenge to BOTH drop them off at 8:45 and get home an hour after school lets out at 3:00. But the person who feels "so sad for the kids" is really confused about what big law jobs are really like (for those who are successful at them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if DH is the lead parent I'm sure OP wants to see her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I feel like you're leaving out the effect that travel has on total billable hours. If you take one 3 or 4 day trip a month, which typically attorneys do as they get more senior, it adds enormously to the total number.

Did OP mention extensive travel? I missed that.

She didn't but she just finished her first year, presumably she will travel if she sticks around to be a mid-level associate.

I did biglaw for 6 years. Litigation associate. I had very few 3-4 day trips (certainly not once a month). Travel in general was pretty irregular, not a regular monthly thing. Not sure you can assume OP's travel level if she hasn't shared it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Unless both you and your DH are home one hour after school, and there when she leaves for school (in which case - awesome, those jobs are hard to come by in the DC area), please stop with your sympathy.

Not everyone finds themselves in a position where both parents can work 9 am to 4 pm everyday.

We are talking to people who earn a very healthy income here. Thus seeing your kids at a minimum of an hour a day are career choices not choices of survival.

I posted earlier about how people are (imo) making biglaw sound worse than it is. You can definitely see your kids for an hour+ per day and work in biglaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree, that there are peaks and valleys, but if there are peaks , that means there are also times when there will be 35 hour weeks right?

Bottom line is that to make $180k as a first year associate (and OP is a 3rd year so probably closer to $210k) it's probably not realistic to expect a 9-5 lifestyle. To be fair to the OP she's looking for a way out. I'd probably leave private practice because it won't get materially better.

[Anonymous]

I think the problem with threads like these are you get a lot of people who left big law, and they left for a reason: they couldn't make it work with their family life. Some of the people who stay of course also don't have a great work/life balance, either. But lots and lots of people who are successful at it do.

I'm the SAHM who posted earlier, and while I can't comment on other aspects discussed here, I can confidently say that it IS in fact possible to work in big law and see your children. My DH gets up with the kids every morning, gets them dressed, packs lunches, takes them to school. He comes home early (ie, in the middle of the afternoon) one day a week to take our oldest to soccer. He otherwise comes home by 7 for dinner and bedtime, spends time with me, and catches up with work from 9:30-11. On weekends he focuses on the family, and only does a quick check-in, up to an hour, in the afternoon or evening. He is very efficient, and good at what he does.

I can't stand hearing on DCUM again and again that biglaw is torture for families. Yes, it requires his job to be the primary "career" so that we can prioritize his travel (every 6 weeks or so) or an intense work period when those arise. But never see his kids? Um, no. Please don't have sympathy for my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree, that there are peaks and valleys, but if there are peaks , that means there are also times when there will be 35 hour weeks right?

Bottom line is that to make $180k as a first year associate (and OP is a 3rd year so probably closer to $210k) it's probably not realistic to expect a 9-5 lifestyle. To be fair to the OP she's looking for a way out. I'd probably leave private practice because it won't get materially better.

NP here but not necessarily. You're expected to be in the office as a junior associate during normal business hours even if you have nothing to do. So it's possible you could sit around with no work for several hours and only receive work later in the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem with threads like these are you get a lot of people who left big law, and they left for a reason: they couldn't make it work with their family life. Some of the people who stay of course also don't have a great work/life balance, either. But lots and lots of people who are successful at it do.

I'm the SAHM who posted earlier, and while I can't comment on other aspects discussed here, I can confidently say that it IS in fact possible to work in big law and see your children. My DH gets up with the kids every morning, gets them dressed, packs lunches, takes them to school. He comes home early (ie, in the middle of the afternoon) one day a week to take our oldest to soccer. He otherwise comes home by 7 for dinner and bedtime, spends time with me, and catches up with work from 9:30-11. On weekends he focuses on the family, and only does a quick check-in, up to an hour, in the afternoon or evening. He is very efficient, and good at what he does.

I can't stand hearing on DCUM again and again that biglaw is torture for families. Yes, it requires his job to be the primary "career" so that we can prioritize his travel (every 6 weeks or so) or an intense work period when those arise. But never see his kids? Um, no. Please don't have sympathy for my children.

This isn’t contributing to op’s question.