Getting out of the rat race at 35 (biglaw)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:secondary city (e.g., Denver, Portland, Austin)

News flash: Denver isn't a secondary city anymore. You might want to read up on current employment/housing trends in Denver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you pass the Oregon bar and start working in PDX, you'll find a COMPLETELY different work/life balance there. The Northwest is big into that. Seattle would work for you too.

Do you know how difficult it is to get a job as a lawyer in PDX? Very.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I could see it for a very experienced attorney with a highly-valued specialty that for some reason haven't made the leap to equity (e.g. the people who come over from government with a ton of specialized experience but no book of business and limited prospects for creating big books of business -- they basically support the business-generators with their legal knowledge), but those people tend to have 20-30+ years experience. At 35, OP is at best ten years out of law school, and a pretty junior non-equity partner. Even at the firms with the highest PPP, junior non-equity partners aren't making that kind of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

Oh I dunno. My DH does international tax law, and that specialty definitely makes cash money - MUCH MUCH more (as a routine matter) than litigation-types. After all, if your tax scheme (literally) saves the company a billion dollars . . . you are going to get paid. I'm shocked by the job offers he (and his peers) have gotten.

[Anonymous]

Last time I checked they weren't planning on holding any G8 meetings in Denver, or hosting the Olympics there. So it's a secondary city. Pro-Denver poster, you should embrace that rather than pretend otherwise.

Zillow says the median home value in DC is $483,800 and the median monthly rent is $2,288. For Denver the comparable figures are $306,100 and $1,690. Your money is going to go a lot farther in a secondary city like Denver, though finding a decent job will probably be harder. That's the box we're all in.

Zillow - Washington D.C. home prices and values - http://www.zillow.com/washington-dc/home-values/


Zillow - Denver home prices and values - http://www.zillow.com/denver-co/home-values/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

Oh I dunno. My DH does international tax law, and that specialty definitely makes cash money - MUCH MUCH more (as a routine matter) than litigation-types. After all, if your tax scheme (literally) saves the company a billion dollars . . . you are going to get paid. I'm shocked by the job offers he (and his peers) have gotten.

What level is he? The cases I work on are also worth billions. That doesn't mean the firm returns a sizeable portion of it to me. My salary is plenty high but with a non-equity stake I'm still making 1/6th of my direct billables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

Oh I dunno. My DH does international tax law, and that specialty definitely makes cash money - MUCH MUCH more (as a routine matter) than litigation-types. After all, if your tax scheme (literally) saves the company a billion dollars . . . you are going to get paid. I'm shocked by the job offers he (and his peers) have gotten.

What level is he? The cases I work on are also worth billions. That doesn't mean the firm returns a sizeable portion of it to me. My salary is plenty high but with a non-equity stake I'm still making 1/6th of my direct billables.

DH made that at 35, but was a partial equity partner. Made full equity two years later. First year as a full partner, he made 1.1M. But, at his old firm, PPP for a first year full equity partner were only about 650K. There is a big range in firm's PPP and in how they use the term "partner." At my firm, PPPs are less lock step and some partners make lots while some make much less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

Oh I dunno. My DH does international tax law, and that specialty definitely makes cash money - MUCH MUCH more (as a routine matter) than litigation-types. After all, if your tax scheme (literally) saves the company a billion dollars . . . you are going to get paid. I'm shocked by the job offers he (and his peers) have gotten.

What level is he? The cases I work on are also worth billions. That doesn't mean the firm returns a sizeable portion of it to me. My salary is plenty high but with a non-equity stake I'm still making 1/6th of my direct billables.

DH made that at 35, but was a partial equity partner. Made full equity two years later. First year as a full partner, he made 1.1M. But, at his old firm, PPP for a first year full equity partner were only about 650K. There is a big range in firm's PPP and in how they use the term "partner." At my firm, PPPs are less lock step and some partners make lots while some make much less.

Partial equity partner? Never heard of such a thing. What firm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

Oh I dunno. My DH does international tax law, and that specialty definitely makes cash money - MUCH MUCH more (as a routine matter) than litigation-types. After all, if your tax scheme (literally) saves the company a billion dollars . . . you are going to get paid. I'm shocked by the job offers he (and his peers) have gotten.

What level is he? The cases I work on are also worth billions. That doesn't mean the firm returns a sizeable portion of it to me. My salary is plenty high but with a non-equity stake I'm still making 1/6th of my direct billables.

DH made that at 35, but was a partial equity partner. Made full equity two years later. First year as a full partner, he made 1.1M. But, at his old firm, PPP for a first year full equity partner were only about 650K. There is a big range in firm's PPP and in how they use the term "partner." At my firm, PPPs are less lock step and some partners make lots while some make much less.

Partial equity partner? Never heard of such a thing. What firm?

Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Make partner first. It will be easier to set yourself up for your future career that way.

I would recommend lining up a new job before quitting and then just try to negotiate a deferred start date so you can travel.

This is good advice. Wish I had done it. If you can't take waiting that long look for something in house or in govt. being a lawyer can be manageable if you're not in big law. Seems like a waste not to at least try a more sane work situation before moving into complete retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make $650,000 as a non-equity partner? I call troll.

Yeah that is pretty bizarre.

there are top tier firms with t tier partnerships (income vs equity) that pay this much for non equity partners.

I'm not certain it is definitively impossible, but most of the top paying firms in DC are not two tier. And most two tier firms don't pay their non-equity partners that much. And OP basically guaranteed that in two years, OP would be made equity, which seems like an impossible thing to even kind of guarantee at any of the firms that pay this much. Whole thing just seems a bit off.

Oh I dunno. My DH does international tax law, and that specialty definitely makes cash money - MUCH MUCH more (as a routine matter) than litigation-types. After all, if your tax scheme (literally) saves the company a billion dollars . . . you are going to get paid. I'm shocked by the job offers he (and his peers) have gotten.

What level is he? The cases I work on are also worth billions. That doesn't mean the firm returns a sizeable portion of it to me. My salary is plenty high but with a non-equity stake I'm still making 1/6th of my direct billables.

DH made that at 35, but was a partial equity partner. Made full equity two years later. First year as a full partner, he made 1.1M. But, at his old firm, PPP for a first year full equity partner were only about 650K. There is a big range in firm's PPP and in how they use the term "partner." At my firm, PPPs are less lock step and some partners make lots while some make much less.

Partial equity partner? Never heard of such a thing. What firm?

It's nonsense invented by underperforming firms to cook the PPP books:

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/01/on-hybrid-partners-and-the-games-law-firms-play/

Which means it's even less likely that someone at a firm employing this gimmick was making $650k as a partial equity partner at 35, and $1.1m in his first year as a full partner. A firm performing that well doesn't have an incentive to engage in shady partnership accounting.

[Anonymous]

Why is everyone questioning the OP's facts? Who cares whether he makes 550 or 650? He also said that he lives in a VHCOL area that is not DC so the salaries may be higher there too. In any event, here is my opinion, fwiw (as former biglaw): 1. You do not have enough money to retire at 35. But don't rely on my anonymous internet post. Talk to a financial advisor. The $30,000 that your portfolio is going to give you is not going to be enough - especially if you have a kid or two or have a medical emergency that isn't covered by your ACA plan. 2. There is nothing wrong with taking a year to travel but see if you can take a leave of absence from your firm rather than quitting. You may still want to quit afterward (nothing wrong with that) but at least it will give you some flexibility if your job search takes longer than you expected. 3. Don't assume that you can buy a house in your target area for the low end of the average. You have $2M and you make $650,000 now. I assume that you are used to nice things and if you have kids you are going to want them to go to one of the top school districts in your target area (again, nothing wrong with that). So, just because you can buy a house in XYX area for $100,000, doesn't mean that you actually will buy a house for $100,000 (BTDT). 4. But you may not have to make $650,000 in the new area either to have the quality of life you want in one of the top school districts. Since you'll have your nest egg, you can probably buy a house for cash or a low mortgage and either start your own practice or get a job that you really enjoy. That $2 million will give you flexibility. Good luck!