Trying to handle baby + big law and failing miserably. Talk me down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t give up my big law career because of my family but because other than my family and big law I had no other life. I worked long big laws hours and my home life was well organized and my weekends were family focused. But I had no time for friends, other family, exercising, a hobby, reading. Everything was so organized that there was no spontaneity or fun. I finally realized that I was on autopilot and that my relationship with my husband and children was on autopilot so I left a joined a much smaller firm which required a pretty painful pay cut. But my life is so much better! We now have a social life, I’m home for dinner many nights, I exercise, our weekends are far more relaxed, I’m Reading again and my relationship with my husband and children is much better.

+100. When I read the post from the mom a page or two ago when she said she gave up her entire social life for Biglaw I felt sorry for her. That's a pretty big sacrifice, which she will discover when she's an empty nester and doesn't have kids to fill up what little personal time she has. I was in Biglaw for 27 years, at one of the top firms in DC, and it is absolutely soul-sucking. Anyone who thinks they're happy in situation is either deluding themselves or isn't normal. It's no way to live. It isn't living.

Hi. We probably know each other. We’ve certainly sat on panels together spouting about our robust practice areas and opportunities for women in law.

Doubtful, lol. I'm a guy. I walked away from Biglaw 5 years ago at 53 with a fat bank account and haven't worked since. Neither has my wife. I'm not even a member of the bar anymore. It's AWESOME/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t give up my big law career because of my family but because other than my family and big law I had no other life. I worked long big laws hours and my home life was well organized and my weekends were family focused. But I had no time for friends, other family, exercising, a hobby, reading. Everything was so organized that there was no spontaneity or fun. I finally realized that I was on autopilot and that my relationship with my husband and children was on autopilot so I left a joined a much smaller firm which required a pretty painful pay cut. But my life is so much better! We now have a social life, I’m home for dinner many nights, I exercise, our weekends are far more relaxed, I’m Reading again and my relationship with my husband and children is much better.

+100. When I read the post from the mom a page or two ago when she said she gave up her entire social life for Biglaw I felt sorry for her. That's a pretty big sacrifice, which she will discover when she's an empty nester and doesn't have kids to fill up what little personal time she has. I was in Biglaw for 27 years, at one of the top firms in DC, and it is absolutely soul-sucking. Anyone who thinks they're happy in situation is either deluding themselves or isn't normal. It's no way to live. It isn't living.

Hi. We probably know each other. We’ve certainly sat on panels together spouting about our robust practice areas and opportunities for women in law.

Doubtful, lol. I'm a guy. I walked away from Biglaw 5 years ago at 53 with a fat bank account and haven't worked since. Neither has my wife. I'm not even a member of the bar anymore. It's AWESOME/

Are you fat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move to a lower cost of living city.

Ideas:
Cincinnati
Omaha
Tucson
Minneapolis
Des Moines
Fargo

Okay, you got me: some things are worse than biglaw. -OP

Wow, OP. You had my sympathy until now. If you really feel this way, then yea -- your suffering is on you.

Right?? Like what’s so horrible about Minneapolis? Or Omaha? There are other nice places besides DC, places where you can-gasp-afford a home, pay off loans, take a vacation, have a career, and still see your children.

To be fair, Minneapolis really does suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

Wrong, boomer. Not a troll. Just a curious poster with an opinion who has looked on with amusement at some of the Big Law threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

Wrong, boomer. Not a troll. Just a curious poster with an opinion who has looked on with amusement at some of the Big Law threads.

Np but you’re playing in the wrong sandbox. We all understood what very top law firm means. It went over your head but you chose to ridicule anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

Wrong, boomer. Not a troll. Just a curious poster with an opinion who has looked on with amusement at some of the Big Law threads.

Np but you’re playing in the wrong sandbox. We all understood what very top law firm means. It went over your head but you chose to ridicule anyway.

Not sure who “we all” is. Did you poll all the posters? And by definition, isn’t “top” the highest point of something? I thought lawyers were trained to be precise when choosing their words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

That’s outdated thinking. Rainmaker partner has to consider the optics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

Wrong, boomer. Not a troll. Just a curious poster with an opinion who has looked on with amusement at some of the Big Law threads.

Np but you’re playing in the wrong sandbox. We all understood what very top law firm means. It went over your head but you chose to ridicule anyway.

Not sure who “we all” is. Did you poll all the posters? And by definition, isn’t “top” the highest point of something? I thought lawyers were trained to be precise when choosing their words.

Trying so hard to look smart is making you look ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

That’s outdated thinking. Rainmaker partner has to consider the optics.

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Let me know how it works out for you.