Jealous of Big Law partner spouses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ And I'll add, WE miss dinner with the kids when we go out on a date or have another social obligation, but HE has missed dinner for work only once in the last six months.

Geostationary.

Clearly there is something wrong with your memory if you only remember once. No one believes this is true. I do believe that your cognition might be faulty.

Well, I believe it to be true. I had a law school professor who was always home for dinner. She said it was just really, really important to her to be home for dinner every day so she did it even when she was a junior partner at a big law firm (in case anybody is curious I think it was Kirkland in litigation). Her husband wasn't an attorney but had a really demanding job as well and he was there for dinners too. Of course they stayed up late to get things done. It's just about what you prioritize.

I didn't mean junior partner, I meant junior associate.

Yes, of course, because you don’t make partner at Kirkland by leaving every day at 4pm and never traveling. Hence, she’s a law professor making 1/50th of what a Kirkland partner makes. Cool story bro.

Kirkland makes everyone who sticks around to 10th year "junior partner" (non-equity)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

I want to believe this is a troll, but I am a recovering lawyer so I unfortunately know that someone like this might actually exist. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask why this board is so fascinated with big law partners? Don't like Wall Street spouses or tech or venture capital spouses make more? Or is it because big law is more common than the others in DC?

Location dependent. There are a lot of lawyers in DC. I’m a big law partner in NYC, and visiting our offices in smaller cities was always funny because the lawyers there thought they were such hot shots for being big law partners. In NYC, big law partners are small potatoes compared to all the old money, foreign money, hedge fund managers, etc. Just a completely different world, and it seems LA/San Francisco are the same.

Arrr shucks, I’m from the backwoods
of warshington DC and just rolled in on the turnip truck. Tell me about all your fancy and sophisticated ways in the big city. Gosh, you do sound important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ And I'll add, WE miss dinner with the kids when we go out on a date or have another social obligation, but HE has missed dinner for work only once in the last six months.

Geostationary.

Clearly there is something wrong with your memory if you only remember once. No one believes this is true. I do believe that your cognition might be faulty.

Well, I believe it to be true. I had a law school professor who was always home for dinner. She said it was just really, really important to her to be home for dinner every day so she did it even when she was a junior partner at a big law firm (in case anybody is curious I think it was Kirkland in litigation). Her husband wasn't an attorney but had a really demanding job as well and he was there for dinners too. Of course they stayed up late to get things done. It's just about what you prioritize.

I didn't mean junior partner, I meant junior associate.

Yes, of course, because you don’t make partner at Kirkland by leaving every day at 4pm and never traveling. Hence, she’s a law professor making 1/50th of what a Kirkland partner makes. Cool story bro.

Kirkland makes everyone who sticks around to 10th year "junior partner" (non-equity)

They do it at like 5th year. Their junior partners are everyone else's senior associates.

[Anonymous]

Generalizations about being married to someone in a certain career are ridiculous. It boils down to the individual relationships whether you can find happiness; unless, you are married to a message therapist, gourmet or pastry chef, then it's probably heaven on earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound truly awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound truly awful.

I was somewhat heroic amongst associates actually. And a number of partners. You never had the shit to back your talk up?

Lol at the random posters worried about biglaw partners (who if they were white, from a crap school, and made it were entirely due to some connection, usually that didn’t actually result in revenue).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

“Making bank” in-house? We make the same - let’s not exaggerate. My in-house legal team is paid on the same pay scale and there are no bonuses for your fancy Ivy League degree, no one cares.

Except if it takes me 3 hours to do what takes you 20, in house I’m rewarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

In house hate snarky and overbearing. If per chance you are also smart, that’s a double offense. If I were you I’d watch my back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask why this board is so fascinated with big law partners? Don't like Wall Street spouses or tech or venture capital spouses make more? Or is it because big law is more common than the others in DC?

Location dependent. There are a lot of lawyers in DC. I’m a big law partner in NYC, and visiting our offices in smaller cities was always funny because the lawyers there thought they were such hot shots for being big law partners. In NYC, big law partners are small potatoes compared to all the old money, foreign money, hedge fund managers, etc. Just a completely different world, and it seems LA/San Francisco are the same.

She said, "Sonny, move out to the country"
Workin' too hard can give you
A heart attack (ack, ack, ack, ack, ack)
You oughta know by now (oughta know)
Who needs a house out in Hackensack
Is that what you get for your money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what you’re seeing here are spouses who’s married to biglaw and fall into 2 camps… 1 happy marriages, 2 unhappy marriages. The happy marriages find a way to maximize time at home and the unhappy marriages the biglaw partner throws in more and more time at work for possibly diminishing returns because it’s more palatable than being at home. This is supported by the claims of better work/life balance being accompanied by less unpleasant posters and the claims of bad work/life balance being accompanied by bitter, accusatory, suspicious, and unpleasant posters.

It all seems to align.

Not even close. My husband is very happy at home and miserable at work. We are saving FU money as fast as we possibly can. It think it’s the more materlistic/less materialistic divide. They happy wives are willing to up with anything just for the giant paycheck. Even if it’s “easy street” now, they didn’t get there on easy street.

Yea, I'm the PP with a big law spouse but who also works. Reading this thread was fascinating. I think the people who think it's worth it can't make their own money.

Double Biglaw for over a decade (he made partner I made counsel). I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course having so much money you never have to think about it is worth a lot of BS.

Ah, but you actually wanted biglaw - people who 'make' counsel basically wanted partner but didn't get it. By the way, I was biglaw too until I jumped ship - I was the associate you all hated because I was super smart, super good, and also super jack@$$-y about the fact that I wouldn't work for partners who didn't go to Ivies. I also memorized all of the associates published hours so I could tell you which dummy to bother instead of me who wasn't hitting their billables.

You sound like a badass. And what are you doing now with your Ivy League degree besides bragging on DCUM?

Making bank at one of those dream in house flex jobs. Because my end goal was never to make partner. It served me well. And to the PP recovering lawyer, what’s your issue? You have to not overwork your star people? Guess what, some of us weren’t in it to cover for white guys who shot the shit and bro-ed out all day.

In house hate snarky and overbearing. If per chance you are also smart, that’s a double offense. If I were you I’d watch my back.

I think you forgot my husband is a partner. If the job wasn't so easy and so lucrative I definitely would quit. I will say it's super fun to work in these fields and actually give no f*cks.