Crazy for a working mom to go from Mid Law to Big Law question
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I would be concerned that your current firm isn't training you to do the other types of work that they have, and that they do not have enough for you to do. If you sense that might be issue down the road, I'd move to the other firm and try to make that work - which of course depends on who is running the practice group and how family friendly they are. |
Anonymous
| It sounds like you need to network and drum up some business so you have more work to do and more of the type of work you want to do. Do that, stay at the mid law, and you'll become happy. |
Anonymous
| Being a staff attorney isn't always as pp described. |
Anonymous
|
Original poster here. I'm in the final stretch of making a decision on this. I'm curious if there are working parents out there who have ever made a lateral move that was more intense (like this would be)? Any success or failure stories out there?
With all the bad press Big Law is getting these days, and knowing that I care about some work-life balance, am I crazy to move from mid law to big law on the promise of more interesting/specialized work? Can this type of move ever be successful without giving up too much family time? |
Anonymous
| OP, I'm not an atty but a C-level exec at a fairly large (10k+ employees). I have 2 kids age 15 and 10. DH is also C-level. It is intense but we make it work by tag teaming everything, outsourcing 100% of lawn and house and eat out a lot. This is with older kids, it sounds like your kids are young and you want more. The only way I was able to be successful at that phase was because my retired FIL was nearby. He is a saint and was at our beck and call. If you can put together a good kid care plan, are willing to hire some help, then I say go for it. But if you are going to resent the hours, there's nothing that can reconcile that except maintaining a lower intensity job. The worst thing you can do is take the job, not make your hours and end up getting fired. There seems to be a glut of attys out there looking for work. Think hard about what makes you happy, make a choice then Own your lane. |
Anonymous
It really depends on your definition of too much family time. Also depends on how much work you do versus your husband or partner -- he will have to do more if you are at Biglaw. Or you will have to rely on outside help, nanny or housekeeper or whatever. If you can set boundaries and leave the office at 5 pm, see the kid(s), then work 3 more hours after they go to bed, that might be a fair balance between work and family time. However, if you don't come in with some reasonable degree of seniority, you may not have that flexibility. On the other hand, enjoying your work versus hating it could be worth the extra hours. And you might be more productive if you enjoy the work. I know I am; much easier to motivate myself to do a project I like. Also, if the Biglaw firm is prestigious, it could open future doors. Maybe 2-3 years there and then move elsewhere? And as another poster noted, you can't beat the maternity leave. |
Anonymous
IMO you are deluding yourself. The business model for BigLaw is irretrievably broken and will only get worse (see the massive Weil Gotshal layoffs in June). Why would you want to walk into that sausage factory / mess/ propeller. Even my friend with a good long-time small private practice has recently converted his handful of associates to contractors due to excessive overhead. You are (IMO) signing on to a sinking ship if you go to BigLaw. Your question is "[c]an this type of move ever be successful without giving too much family time?" The answer (IMO/IME) is maybe, but those situations are few, far between, and probably largely vestiges of a BigLaw model that no longer exists. These firms/partners will say anything. Doing it and living up to promises and intimations is a whole 'nother thing. |
Anonymous
You need to be clear on what your billable expectations are. If it is 2000 hours a year, then that is 166 hours a month, which is about 8 hours a day assuming there are 21 work days in a month. But that doesn't take into account sick days, holidays, and vacation. Let's say that is 25 days total, which is 200 hours that you need to make up. So now you need to bill 183 hours a month, which is now 8.7 hours a day. And unless you are incredibly efficient, it likely would take you close to 10 hours a day to bill 8.7 hours. Please do the math, and then add in your commute time. Are those hours you would be comfortable working? (I am the PP that suggested you try for an 80% schedule.) |
Anonymous
|
OP, I didn't move to Big Law -- but FWIW I left a boutique firm for an even smaller firm that specialized exclusively in the type of law that I practice. It was more intense because it was basically a start-up and I have put in a lot of hours -- but I have more control over my hours, I enjoy my work and find it interesting, I like my little niche of the law, and the people at work (yeah, all 4 of 'em!) know me and know my family situation -- so I usually leave at 5 pm and then dial into conference calls or work later at night. Also, I only have one kid, which is much less work than a bigger family, I'm sure. Good luck.
|
Anonymous
|
I went from big law to mid law and now going back to big law. I find the hours to be about the same because everyone expects 24/7. The only way I have made it work is to go part-time (60%). 60% is about 25 billables/week plus all the extras. To get this, I worked full time for a bit, went out on maternity leave and came back part time. The lateral moves have all been part time and they are harder to make unless you are in a sought after specialty.
I am like PP - I leave at 5pm but then log on whenever necessary. It hurts you if you are hoping for partner track but it certainly didn't hurt my ability to get interesting work. Good luck! |