Am I nuts to move to big law after government?

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who took that attitude-- figures if failure is they pay him 300 or 400k for 3 years and then fire him that's not bad, but the market for lawyers is tough (and yes, most lawyers are risk averse/not very entrepreneurial).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

Clearly you're one of the aforementioned scared of their shadow gov't attys. OP wouldn't take the leap assuming he could get back to the gov't. He'd take the leap assuming that if all goes to hell in 2-3 yrs, he'll find SOMETHING to do. And while you write off a double salary for 3 yrs -- investing the equivalent of an entire gov't salary for 3 yrs is not insignificant. And no -- counsel don't pay for health insurance; yes they have 401ks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

Clearly you're one of the aforementioned scared of their shadow gov't attys. OP wouldn't take the leap assuming he could get back to the gov't. He'd take the leap assuming that if all goes to hell in 2-3 yrs, he'll find SOMETHING to do. And while you write off a double salary for 3 yrs -- investing the equivalent of an entire gov't salary for 3 yrs is not insignificant. And no -- counsel don't pay for health insurance; yes they have 401ks.

Well OP could also be unemployed for a year or two after getting axed and end up taking a job with less pay vs teh government job he/she has now. Also the ror suck in the current market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

Clearly you're one of the aforementioned scared of their shadow gov't attys. OP wouldn't take the leap assuming he could get back to the gov't. He'd take the leap assuming that if all goes to hell in 2-3 yrs, he'll find SOMETHING to do. And while you write off a double salary for 3 yrs -- investing the equivalent of an entire gov't salary for 3 yrs is not insignificant. And no -- counsel don't pay for health insurance; yes they have 401ks.

Well OP could also be unemployed for a year or two after getting axed and end up taking a job with less pay vs teh government job he/she has now. Also the ror suck in the current market.

OMG -- the point is -- do the math. If counsel salary for 2 yrs + 2 yrs being unemployed > gov't salary for those 4 yrs plus long term benefits and accounting for taxes, then he/she has something to think about. If not, then don't even entertain the idea. It's straight finance -- not so complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A much better bet is to go in-house somewhere. Corporate or trade association. The money isn't as good as Biglaw, but you will probably enjoy a weekend at home, a vacation here and there, you will see your spouse (which may or may not be a good thing), you won't be expected to generate business, you will work with less uptight people who believe that they are the end-all-be-all pf everything . . . you know, have a life.

I did this and love in-house. I don't know how I survived as a govt attorney for so long. It was a total waste of time career-wise. I'd consider going BigLaw 2-4 years then making the switch to in-house.

[Anonymous]

Have you ever felt like actually practicing law and being productive, as opposed to being a bureaucrat/tax expense? If so, release the teet and get to work. There is a lot to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

Clearly you're one of the aforementioned scared of their shadow gov't attys. OP wouldn't take the leap assuming he could get back to the gov't. He'd take the leap assuming that if all goes to hell in 2-3 yrs, he'll find SOMETHING to do. And while you write off a double salary for 3 yrs -- investing the equivalent of an entire gov't salary for 3 yrs is not insignificant. And no -- counsel don't pay for health insurance; yes they have 401ks.

Well OP could also be unemployed for a year or two after getting axed and end up taking a job with less pay vs teh government job he/she has now. Also the ror suck in the current market.

OMG -- the point is -- do the math. If counsel salary for 2 yrs + 2 yrs being unemployed > gov't salary for those 4 yrs plus long term benefits and accounting for taxes, then he/she has something to think about. If not, then don't even entertain the idea. It's straight finance -- not so complicated.

There will be additional costs to working the BigLaw job: OP will not have a straight 40 hour work week, so will need to probably pay for more childcare, housekeeper, etc. Though I guess OP will not be taking any vacations so that would definitely save money for a few years.

[Anonymous]

Working big law hours is EXPENSIVE!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever felt like actually practicing law and being productive, as opposed to being a bureaucrat/tax expense? If so, release the teet and get to work. There is a lot to be done.

Really, I thought most law was by definite bureaucratic -- and a *lot* of it is being automated and or out-sourced to India

Many government lawyers (DOJ, SEC) probably feel they are practicing real law and serving a real mission, and not just getting a cut of someone's business transaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

Clearly you're one of the aforementioned scared of their shadow gov't attys. OP wouldn't take the leap assuming he could get back to the gov't. He'd take the leap assuming that if all goes to hell in 2-3 yrs, he'll find SOMETHING to do. And while you write off a double salary for 3 yrs -- investing the equivalent of an entire gov't salary for 3 yrs is not insignificant. And no -- counsel don't pay for health insurance; yes they have 401ks.

Well OP could also be unemployed for a year or two after getting axed and end up taking a job with less pay vs teh government job he/she has now. Also the ror suck in the current market.

OMG -- the point is -- do the math. If counsel salary for 2 yrs + 2 yrs being unemployed > gov't salary for those 4 yrs plus long term benefits and accounting for taxes, then he/she has something to think about. If not, then don't even entertain the idea. It's straight finance -- not so complicated.

There will be additional costs to working the BigLaw job: OP will not have a straight 40 hour work week, so will need to probably pay for more childcare, housekeeper, etc. Though I guess OP will not be taking any vacations so that would definitely save money for a few years.

Have any of the anti big law folks here actually ever worked in biglaw, or do you just bash based on what you presume to know? I don't know a single biglaw attorney who doesn't vacation -- at least 1x a yr and mostly 2-3/yr. I know I did -- and it wasn't gov't style -- it was at 5 star resorts. So much for that theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's so wrong with doing this? Don't know where OP is salary wise, but say he's at 160k now. As counsel in biglaw, he'd make double that (likely more but conservative 2x). Even if it only lasts for 2 yrs, don't you walk away with a few hundred thousand in hand? Say the worse happens -- you're unemployed after 2 yrs at counsel and then it take you 18 months to find another gig -- you still walk away net positive from the money you made at counsel.

Gov't lawyers are a bit too conservative.

Good points. And yes, they are very risk averse.

True, but that only matters if OP plans to retire after BigLaw stint; IT IS VERY HARD to get back into government legal position now, because of all the BigLaw refugees and oversupply of lawyers. It's a nice bonus to end a career on, but if he's giving up 20 years of employment (and pension) for 3 years of double salary, it will end up a worse deal. Also, I thought at BigLaw you have buy all your own health insurance, there's no retirement, etc -- equivalent "real" salary is much lower? Or maybe that only applies to partners?

Clearly you're one of the aforementioned scared of their shadow gov't attys. OP wouldn't take the leap assuming he could get back to the gov't. He'd take the leap assuming that if all goes to hell in 2-3 yrs, he'll find SOMETHING to do. And while you write off a double salary for 3 yrs -- investing the equivalent of an entire gov't salary for 3 yrs is not insignificant. And no -- counsel don't pay for health insurance; yes they have 401ks.

Well OP could also be unemployed for a year or two after getting axed and end up taking a job with less pay vs teh government job he/she has now. Also the ror suck in the current market.

OMG -- the point is -- do the math. If counsel salary for 2 yrs + 2 yrs being unemployed > gov't salary for those 4 yrs plus long term benefits and accounting for taxes, then he/she has something to think about. If not, then don't even entertain the idea. It's straight finance -- not so complicated.

There will be additional costs to working the BigLaw job: OP will not have a straight 40 hour work week, so will need to probably pay for more childcare, housekeeper, etc. Though I guess OP will not be taking any vacations so that would definitely save money for a few years.

Have any of the anti big law folks here actually ever worked in biglaw, or do you just bash based on what you presume to know? I don't know a single biglaw attorney who doesn't vacation -- at least 1x a yr and mostly 2-3/yr. I know I did -- and it wasn't gov't style -- it was at 5 star resorts. So much for that theory.

Government lawyers have 6 weeks of vacation a year. Granted, OP could blow added income by going to 5-star resorts, but assuming they would take the same style of vacation, the number of vacations will be reduced. And anyone ramping up to a new challenging job, generally doesn't take much leave.

[Anonymous]

If you have only one child, don't plan on any more, have good child care in place, have a spouse who does at least 50% of all house-related work, and don't mind increasing your hours by 50% -- then go for it. If none of this applies, then don't do it. The work at Biglaw is often more exciting and the paycheck is great, but it's easy to underestimate the sheer number of hours you'll be putting in. And as a new hire you may be expected to be in the office to do them. This depends on the office, obviously. You may be able to get away with being in the office from 9:30 to 6 and then putting in a few more hours at night after your kid goes to bed. But if you pick a place that values face time, you could be there late into the night on a regular basis.

It also depends on your specialty. It sounds like you are not a litigator. As a litigator, I would never go back to Biglaw. The hours are too unpredictable and crazy. If you're in a regulatory field or other field in which deadlines aren't suddenly thrown at you, it could be quite manageable. My DH is a regulatory lawyer and when in Biglaw he generally worked from 9:30 am to 8 pm plus about 6 hours total over the course of the weekend. I was in litigation and I'd have weeks where I'd leave at 6, followed by weeks where I'd leave at 1 am every night and be in the office all weekend as well. We averaged the same hours but his were mostly steady while mine fluctuated wildly due to trial needs. It was pretty awful and would have been impossible with a child. Now that I have a child, I see this even more clearly than I did while at the firm.

I left Biglaw 5 years ago. None of the associates from my class are still there. None of the more senior associates I worked with are still there. Some of the counsel and partners aren't even there anymore. This should tell you something about the work load and prospects for long-term family life. Oh, and this was at a top DC firm that regularly makes the list of best places to work for women. The work was exciting but that wasn't enough to sustain me. If it is for you, then it could be a good move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have only one child, don't plan on any more, have good child care in place, have a spouse who does at least 50% of all house-related work, and don't mind increasing your hours by 50% -- then go for it. If none of this applies, then don't do it. The work at Biglaw is often more exciting and the paycheck is great, but it's easy to underestimate the sheer number of hours you'll be putting in. And as a new hire you may be expected to be in the office to do them. This depends on the office, obviously. You may be able to get away with being in the office from 9:30 to 6 and then putting in a few more hours at night after your kid goes to bed. But if you pick a place that values face time, you could be there late into the night on a regular basis.

It also depends on your specialty. It sounds like you are not a litigator. As a litigator, I would never go back to Biglaw. The hours are too unpredictable and crazy. If you're in a regulatory field or other field in which deadlines aren't suddenly thrown at you, it could be quite manageable. My DH is a regulatory lawyer and when in Biglaw he generally worked from 9:30 am to 8 pm plus about 6 hours total over the course of the weekend. I was in litigation and I'd have weeks where I'd leave at 6, followed by weeks where I'd leave at 1 am every night and be in the office all weekend as well. We averaged the same hours but his were mostly steady while mine fluctuated wildly due to trial needs. It was pretty awful and would have been impossible with a child. Now that I have a child, I see this even more clearly than I did while at the firm.

I left Biglaw 5 years ago. None of the associates from my class are still there. None of the more senior associates I worked with are still there. Some of the counsel and partners aren't even there anymore. This should tell you something about the work load and prospects for long-term family life. Oh, and this was at a top DC firm that regularly makes the list of best places to work for women. The work was exciting but that wasn't enough to sustain me. If it is for you, then it could be a good move.

NP -- can I ask where you are/what you do now (or what some of your lit classmates are doing)? I left biglaw - pushed out as a senior bc my corporate dominated firm (up in NYC) wasn't making lit partners. I landed down here in DC in the gov't, and I really really dislike it. I know I can't go back to biglaw bc (i) I won't get hired; and (ii) if I do get hired it'll be by some awful firm that's driven out its seniors and needs a senior for 2 yrs -- so they'll use me and toss me out again. Always keeping my eyes open for what other ex big firm litigators are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever felt like actually practicing law and being productive, as opposed to being a bureaucrat/tax expense? If so, release the teet and get to work. There is a lot to be done.

Yup, there's a whole lot of leeching to do out there!