If you left Big Law…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been following this thread with some interest. I'm a woman in biglaw and the main breadwinner. Our pretax HHI is around 650K, with my DH bringing in around $130K of it as a non-lawyer fed. Our financials are not super different; retirement is only $950K and 529 is only $300K total (I think OP had more on both counts), but we have about $1.8 in brokerage accounts so about the same total. Our mortgage is higher and we have less equity, but also have some special circumstances that resulted in that -- i.e., parents who moved in with us so we can help with health issues but who happily contribute to mortgage/bills/etc -- and we left a very low mortgage ($2200) to accommodate them. We'd be happy to downsize house if my parents no longer needed the space.

My kids are 6 and 3 and I often think of leaving big law in the next 3-5 years. I don't think I want to be a partner, but I'm fairly confident I could stay in my counsel position for a while if I wanted to do so. Part of me thinks I should just to save up, pay for life, keep doing it while it feels manageable. Part of me would love to pursue other options (which have uncertain or certainly lower salaries) that I think I would enjoy more. The overwhelming majority of folks on this thread seem to think operating on fed salary and drawing down savings to fill the gap is insane, though, which would probably be our plan too.

I'm a woman who was in your position 3 years ago (HHI less by about $100k because I didn't get a bonus, less in brokerage and 529, but only one kid, but DH making the exact same as a non-lawyer fed) who is now in house, part time. I think the reason the leap was easier for me was that I never, in a million years, planned to stay in BigLaw forever. I was there longer than I imagined I would be. We don't spend down savings, we live within our means (~$350k). I would never have left if it meant shrinking our net worth instead of our growth rate.

If your job feels manageable I'd stay. It will be hard to replicate that income elsewhere, and making that money for even a decade is a chance to set your kids up for life. But if it's grinding you down, affecting your health, impacting your marriage: just make a plan and get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been following this thread with some interest. I'm a woman in biglaw and the main breadwinner. Our pretax HHI is around 650K, with my DH bringing in around $130K of it as a non-lawyer fed. Our financials are not super different; retirement is only $950K and 529 is only $300K total (I think OP had more on both counts), but we have about $1.8 in brokerage accounts so about the same total. Our mortgage is higher and we have less equity, but also have some special circumstances that resulted in that -- i.e., parents who moved in with us so we can help with health issues but who happily contribute to mortgage/bills/etc -- and we left a very low mortgage ($2200) to accommodate them. We'd be happy to downsize house if my parents no longer needed the space.

My kids are 6 and 3 and I often think of leaving big law in the next 3-5 years. I don't think I want to be a partner, but I'm fairly confident I could stay in my counsel position for a while if I wanted to do so. Part of me thinks I should just to save up, pay for life, keep doing it while it feels manageable. Part of me would love to pursue other options (which have uncertain or certainly lower salaries) that I think I would enjoy more. The overwhelming majority of folks on this thread seem to think operating on fed salary and drawing down savings to fill the gap is insane, though, which would probably be our plan too.

This is insane. You have SO much money. 300k in 529s when your kids are 6 and under? 1.8 in brokerage and you are worried about living off 2 fed salaries? Look with these numbers, you cannot complain about life work balance. You are consciously making the decision to work your ass off in big law in order to support your lifestyle and be able to buy $900 shoes at whim (or whatever the example was people gave). And that is a totally fine decision but you can't complain you are miserable. It would be insanely easy to take a step back, live off 300k instead of 800k/year, and yes face a moderate change in your lifestyle but having the time to find joy in other things and maybe even enjoy your work.

Perhaps relative to you. Could you manage a 70% paycut? I’m sure you’re doing plenty of things that someone earning minimum wage cannot do. What’s the amount that someone is allowed to earn or require?

I'm not saying she isn't allowed to earn that or should take a pay cut. I'm just saying that with those numbers, she has full choice and control over the future of her career. She can explore whatever she wants within reason. There was that other thread about how much people spend per month and the consensus was that regardless if you make 200k or 700k, most people spend around 10k-15k a month and everything above that is gravy. So yes, she and and everyone else can manage a 70% pay cut at those numbers. Will life be different? Sure. But not nearly as life altering than if you were early 200k and needed to take a 70% pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been following this thread with some interest. I'm a woman in biglaw and the main breadwinner. Our pretax HHI is around 650K, with my DH bringing in around $130K of it as a non-lawyer fed. Our financials are not super different; retirement is only $950K and 529 is only $300K total (I think OP had more on both counts), but we have about $1.8 in brokerage accounts so about the same total. Our mortgage is higher and we have less equity, but also have some special circumstances that resulted in that -- i.e., parents who moved in with us so we can help with health issues but who happily contribute to mortgage/bills/etc -- and we left a very low mortgage ($2200) to accommodate them. We'd be happy to downsize house if my parents no longer needed the space.

My kids are 6 and 3 and I often think of leaving big law in the next 3-5 years. I don't think I want to be a partner, but I'm fairly confident I could stay in my counsel position for a while if I wanted to do so. Part of me thinks I should just to save up, pay for life, keep doing it while it feels manageable. Part of me would love to pursue other options (which have uncertain or certainly lower salaries) that I think I would enjoy more. The overwhelming majority of folks on this thread seem to think operating on fed salary and drawing down savings to fill the gap is insane, though, which would probably be our plan too.

This is insane. You have SO much money. 300k in 529s when your kids are 6 and under? 1.8 in brokerage and you are worried about living off 2 fed salaries? Look with these numbers, you cannot complain about life work balance. You are consciously making the decision to work your ass off in big law in order to support your lifestyle and be able to buy $900 shoes at whim (or whatever the example was people gave). And that is a totally fine decision but you can't complain you are miserable. It would be insanely easy to take a step back, live off 300k instead of 800k/year, and yes face a moderate change in your lifestyle but having the time to find joy in other things and maybe even enjoy your work.

I also read the OP and thought it was crazy given the amount of savings they already have. But I understand that your view of wealth is skewed the more you amass. OP, you guys are doing well. Very well. You can absolutely live off of a fed salary. Families do it all the time and live rather well. You don't have debt and have already moved into your home so no down payment to save for.

I'm also an attorney but do not work for Big Law. I started my solo practice after giving birth to DC and opted to leave my mid-sized firm. The first few years of business building were difficult but the freedom and control of my time were well worth it. From my solo practice, I now make roughly $450K, which is better than fed but much less than big law. With DH's salary, we're at $650HHI. Again, not big law life but we're comfortable. I also WFH 100% of the time, see my kids, do all the activities, and am my own boss. The trade off was worth it. There are other options for your DH.

[Anonymous]

Hi OP - A few years ago, I considered a drastic career change which would have led to a large drop in income. One thing that helped me was to pretend to live off the lower salary for a year or two. That thought exercise helped in two ways - first, we bumped up our savings significantly and had a larger buffer for whenever I just couldn't take the miserable job any longer; second, I proved to myself that my family could make it on the lower salary w/o eating into savings.

Since your husband is okay with staying in Big Law for another year or so, you could adjust your budget to live off the new salary and see how it goes for you. Other than the mortgage and kid activities, your expenses don't sound too crazy high. And it's not like Fed lawyer salaries are that low in the grand scheme of things. If you track your expenses and set a budget, I bet you could make it further than you think. And at the very least, you'll have an answer about how much you'd need to eat into your savings.

I might also gently push back on the idea that he is staying in Big Law for your family...financial security is great! But honestly, you already kinda have that, w/ lots of money in brokerage + 529s, etc. If he's miserable in his job, that affects your family too. Stress like that can really affect your physical and mental health. It's great that you're at home w/ the kids. But I bet the kids would also like to see more of their father, unstressed out. And wouldn't you like to have a spouse who isn't miserable? There is a middle ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi OP - A few years ago, I considered a drastic career change which would have led to a large drop in income. One thing that helped me was to pretend to live off the lower salary for a year or two. That thought exercise helped in two ways - first, we bumped up our savings significantly and had a larger buffer for whenever I just couldn't take the miserable job any longer; second, I proved to myself that my family could make it on the lower salary w/o eating into savings.

Since your husband is okay with staying in Big Law for another year or so, you could adjust your budget to live off the new salary and see how it goes for you. Other than the mortgage and kid activities, your expenses don't sound too crazy high. And it's not like Fed lawyer salaries are that low in the grand scheme of things. If you track your expenses and set a budget, I bet you could make it further than you think. And at the very least, you'll have an answer about how much you'd need to eat into your savings.

I might also gently push back on the idea that he is staying in Big Law for your family...financial security is great! But honestly, you already kinda have that, w/ lots of money in brokerage + 529s, etc. If he's miserable in his job, that affects your family too. Stress like that can really affect your physical and mental health. It's great that you're at home w/ the kids. But I bet the kids would also like to see more of their father, unstressed out. And wouldn't you like to have a spouse who isn't miserable? There is a middle ground.

This is a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having watched this in my spouse, you should be very careful (and he) to discern if the job is making him miserable or if his personality and characteristics tend him toward being/acting miserably in whatever position he takes. I have seen my spouse in govt, biglaw partnership, and in house positions, and despite the expectations and promises, the result is the same: highly driven, tends to be alpha, butts heads with other alphas, super focused on productivity and getting "clients" answers, obsessed with drilling all the way down and turning over every stone for unpredicted obstacles, etc. Get the picture? If they quit and gardened, they'd still be the same overworking type a person tending toward miserable work environments. Oh, and then when they do take the lower paying job, they're miserable because they aren't making the money even though "I'm working just as hard and have as much stress, so now I have even more stress!" If it works for your spouse to remove the external stress and he can adjust, great. Just don't assume that is 100% guaranteed.

OMG. I work in government, and we had a partner from a boutique law firm (specialized experience like OP's husband) and your comment describes this guy to a T. He was a bully and quite arrogant. He didn't last long in the office, and he was quietly asked to leave.

[Anonymous]

If he can’t afford retire NOW and live the rest of your lives comfortably, your family addicted to spending and that’s why your husband is working at a job he’s sick of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he can’t afford retire NOW and live the rest of your lives comfortably, your family addicted to spending and that’s why your husband is working at a job he’s sick of.

This.

Unless most of the money above $180K went entirely to savings, then you’re spending a lot more than you realize. The fact that OP seems so confident they can do this part makes me think she’s not budgeting very closely, certainly not using an app. It would be daunting to anyone who knew the numbers - not impossible but daunting.

Also his salary fluctuated a lot. We had a very strong economy for law firms the last few years - if a significant portion of that comp was tied to shares rather than guaranteed income, that number could go back down in the next couple years.

UVA? Get an entry level job with benefits and $85K. You’re not unemployable you’ll just have to actually pay your dues to move up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been following this thread with some interest. I'm a woman in biglaw and the main breadwinner. Our pretax HHI is around 650K, with my DH bringing in around $130K of it as a non-lawyer fed. Our financials are not super different; retirement is only $950K and 529 is only $300K total (I think OP had more on both counts), but we have about $1.8 in brokerage accounts so about the same total. Our mortgage is higher and we have less equity, but also have some special circumstances that resulted in that -- i.e., parents who moved in with us so we can help with health issues but who happily contribute to mortgage/bills/etc -- and we left a very low mortgage ($2200) to accommodate them. We'd be happy to downsize house if my parents no longer needed the space.

My kids are 6 and 3 and I often think of leaving big law in the next 3-5 years. I don't think I want to be a partner, but I'm fairly confident I could stay in my counsel position for a while if I wanted to do so. Part of me thinks I should just to save up, pay for life, keep doing it while it feels manageable. Part of me would love to pursue other options (which have uncertain or certainly lower salaries) that I think I would enjoy more. The overwhelming majority of folks on this thread seem to think operating on fed salary and drawing down savings to fill the gap is insane, though, which would probably be our plan too.

This is insane. You have SO much money. 300k in 529s when your kids are 6 and under? 1.8 in brokerage and you are worried about living off 2 fed salaries? Look with these numbers, you cannot complain about life work balance. You are consciously making the decision to work your ass off in big law in order to support your lifestyle and be able to buy $900 shoes at whim (or whatever the example was people gave). And that is a totally fine decision but you can't complain you are miserable. It would be insanely easy to take a step back, live off 300k instead of 800k/year, and yes face a moderate change in your lifestyle but having the time to find joy in other things and maybe even enjoy your work.

Perhaps relative to you. Could you manage a 70% paycut? I’m sure you’re doing plenty of things that someone earning minimum wage cannot do. What’s the amount that someone is allowed to earn or require?

I'm not saying she isn't allowed to earn that or should take a pay cut. I'm just saying that with those numbers, she has full choice and control over the future of her career. She can explore whatever she wants within reason. There was that other thread about how much people spend per month and the consensus was that regardless if you make 200k or 700k, most people spend around 10k-15k a month and everything above that is gravy. So yes, she and and everyone else can manage a 70% pay cut at those numbers. Will life be different? Sure. But not nearly as life altering than if you were early 200k and needed to take a 70% pay cut.

I’m the PP watching this thread. I have zero qualms about going fed or something similarly salaried and affording life. I kind of would love to be a real estate agent, which seems so much more uncertain and risky (albeit I’m very risk averse so maybe overblown in my mind?).