Biglaw partnership: generational shift or misinformation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the idea that it’s like the prize for the pie-eating contest is more pie? Your reward for working really hard for many years as an associate is working really hard for many years to come as a partner. Not sure I see the glory in that.

Yeah, I graduated from law school over 15 years ago and people were using the pie-eating contest line then. I think the shift is, as other posters have noted, fewer people with a breadwinner/SAH spouse model, fewer people willing to give up time with their family, real vacations, etc., for long hours and more money, especially as the promise of stability is fading. And the odds are getting worse, so a smart person is already teeing up Plan B from the beginning, paying off debts and then going in-house, to government, an NGO/public interest org, politics, or another field.

[Anonymous]

Do you think the people that do enter Big Law now (the ones bragging on Linkedin as SA's) do at least think that they might become partner? That is, it takes them until they actually start the grind where they really realized the toxicity of Big Law? At some law schools, the top government agencies do come to recruit, including Fed Reserve Board, SEC, etc. But at this point most people have accepted a Big Law job and generally do not even consider these as opportunities, suggesting they think maybe they will be the special person that does pro bono and has work life balance in Big Law? In other words, do you think people are anti-Big Law as law school students or as junior attorneys?

Also, with student loans now, you can get the max with fed loans very easily and not need private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the people that do enter Big Law now (the ones bragging on Linkedin as SA's) do at least think that they might become partner? That is, it takes them until they actually start the grind where they really realized the toxicity of Big Law? At some law schools, the top government agencies do come to recruit, including Fed Reserve Board, SEC, etc. But at this point most people have accepted a Big Law job and generally do not even consider these as opportunities, suggesting they think maybe they will be the special person that does pro bono and has work life balance in Big Law? In other words, do you think people are anti-Big Law as law school students or as junior attorneys?

Also, with student loans now, you can get the max with fed loans very easily and not need private.

No. There is a prolific amount of information out there about how hard it is to make partner. Even when I graduated ten years ago and ATL was a good source of information it was well known that making partner was nearly impossible. We have a lot of interns at my agency that go to biglaw and they seem very well informed about the deal and plan to aggressively save and then leave.

[Anonymous]

I almost became a lawyer, but chose another path at the last minute.

Recently I was talking to a friend who is a partner in Biglaw, and he described his life to me. Honestly, it sounded horrific. At least in a saltmine you don’t have to account for your time in 12 minute increments…Horrific hours, living in terror of not bringing in enough work and being de-equitized, never taking more than a week’s vacation at a time, and only one or two a year at that, and sometimes working during them.

I had not understood quite how bad it was even as a partner. And for what? Money? I don’t know anyone from my school or college that doesn’t have enough money. Some are richer and some are poorer, but everyone can feed, cloth themselves, educate their kids and go on vacation.

So what explains why anyone would live like this? I think it is risk aversion, as mentioned earlier, and a lack of imagination about how to step off the track.

After talking with him, my only question was why anyone would do this, not why anyone would refuse.

[Anonymous]

For associates, there are not a lot of good role models, and that may be a hard pill to swallow for current partners looking at the next gen. We aren’t lazy. But most or many associates don’t want to pursue a career that will preclude them from taking an active role in their children’s day-to-day life. Very few associates I know are in relationships where they plan for their partner to SAH and do the bulk of the child rearing. It’s not worth the money to miss out on your family.

[Anonymous]

I would rather been in a family with two in-house/financial regulatory attorneys make $200-$300k each working 40-50 hours rather than 1 SAHP and a big law partner working 80 hours a week for $800k - $1.x million. At least with the former, you can have a life, stay relatively in shape, and be with your kids. But I guess you would need to get lucky in having each adult in a career where you can make $200k + a year at 40 hours a week.

[Anonymous]

the biglaw business model these days is such that you are going to be billing your ass off and had better generate business if you want to last. i get the impression that 20+ years ago partners didn't exactly have it easy, but it wasn't as cutthroat and eat-what-you-kill as it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would rather been in a family with two in-house/financial regulatory attorneys make $200-$300k each working 40-50 hours rather than 1 SAHP and a big law partner working 80 hours a week for $800k - $1.x million. At least with the former, you can have a life, stay relatively in shape, and be with your kids. But I guess you would need to get lucky in having each adult in a career where you can make $200k + a year at 40 hours a week.

I think this is the correct calculus. One caveat is that if you have the chance to make more than $1m in biglaw, you might want to go for it. It is a very narrow set of circumstances, but like anything in life you have to play the odds. There are some speciallties at some types of firms where you can make pretty big bucks (like $2M+) with some job security due to the speciality that it might be worth the effort. The downside is you have very little support, and since you are a specialist you are measured solely by what you bill vs what you generate, so you had better be clocking in billables and there is no sitting back watching the leverage. But like I said, it is a choice.

The other thing that I am seeing more and more at the partner ranks at places like this is early retirement. Younger partners just aren't that interested in working for 30 years as a partner for the retirement payout or the extra cash. People are living less lavish lifestyles and socking more away, then stepping away. I have 3 years before I hit my number (hopefully) and will walk away, just like a few people ahead of me already did THAT is shocking to the older partners, who cannot conceive of NOT being in the partnership every day.

To each thier own. I used to care about the prestige, but no one cares where you work or how much you earn. But your family cares when you are not around. So do what works for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would rather been in a family with two in-house/financial regulatory attorneys make $200-$300k each working 40-50 hours rather than 1 SAHP and a big law partner working 80 hours a week for $800k - $1.x million. At least with the former, you can have a life, stay relatively in shape, and be with your kids. But I guess you would need to get lucky in having each adult in a career where you can make $200k + a year at 40 hours a week.

I think this is the correct calculus. One caveat is that if you have the chance to make more than $1m in biglaw, you might want to go for it. It is a very narrow set of circumstances, but like anything in life you have to play the odds. There are some speciallties at some types of firms where you can make pretty big bucks (like $2M+) with some job security due to the speciality that it might be worth the effort. The downside is you have very little support, and since you are a specialist you are measured solely by what you bill vs what you generate, so you had better be clocking in billables and there is no sitting back watching the leverage. But like I said, it is a choice.

The other thing that I am seeing more and more at the partner ranks at places like this is early retirement. Younger partners just aren't that interested in working for 30 years as a partner for the retirement payout or the extra cash. People are living less lavish lifestyles and socking more away, then stepping away. I have 3 years before I hit my number (hopefully) and will walk away, just like a few people ahead of me already did THAT is shocking to the older partners, who cannot conceive of NOT being in the partnership every day.

To each thier own. I used to care about the prestige, but no one cares where you work or how much you earn. But your family cares when you are not around. So do what works for you.

NP and the thing about that is the years after you retire early (let's just say age 50) are less valuable than the years you give up. You miss out on the younger years with your kids while they still want to hang out with you. You may or may not be as healthy as you were in your 30s and that may limit the things you can do. Your parents may or may not still be around and if they are around they're almost definitely in worse health than in your 30s. It just seems like an incredible sacrifice to me all for money.