Big law partners and billable hours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am totally confused. All these threads on DCUM about how Big Law associates work a million hours a week, and therefore can't do any kind of help at home, and you were averaging under 60 hours a week as an associate, and even less now?

Is this really typical? So, the people whining about how their Big Law spouses are never home, where are those people?

I always assumed it was more like 4,000 a year based on what I read here. I am flabbergasted.

60 x 50 weeks (assume 2 weeks vacation) is 3k hours per year. OPs DH is doing 2800 hours per year (2k billable) which is pretty close to 60 hours per week.

But 60 hours a week isn't an insane workload like people make Big Law out to be. Especially given that a Big Law associate can afford to live close in so they don't have a terrible commute, does some of that work from home and can flex around family responsibilities, and gets to work sitting down.

I always assumed from the whining that Big Law associates were working 80 - 90 hour weeks. 60 is a pretty common work week.

It really is not. 60 hours a week on average is way more than most people do. Only a small percentage of people in finance, consulting, or senior executives put in these kind of hours, and they all tend to be very well compensated.

I have worked for government and in the private sector and rarely come across people who regularly have to do those kind of hours.

You are comparing big law to other overpaid cushy jobs.

I am comparing it to the jobs my family has. Law enforcement, education, working in the trades etc . . .

Yes, some people in those areas work 60 or more hours a week, and it may be actual physical work and not always in a temperature-controlled environment. But they're not on DCUM whining about it -- maybe Reddit.

[Anonymous]

There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

Op - apologies I should have been clearer. He bills 2000 and the other 800 hours are business development, pro bono work, partner meetings, associate development, etc.

The precious poster is more accurate. If he bills 2000 hours and does 800 additional works he is working way way way more than 2800 hours a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

Yes if you took 0 vacation. 2 weeks off would put this at 60 hours/week. It’s pretty grueling if you make life choices of spending time with your kids. Means 8am-6pm then spend 6-9pm with kids, 9-10 cleaning up, then working 10-midnight and you’re up at 6am with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

Yes if you took 0 vacation. 2 weeks off would put this at 60 hours/week. It’s pretty grueling if you make life choices of spending time with your kids. Means 8am-6pm then spend 6-9pm with kids, 9-10 cleaning up, then working 10-midnight and you’re up at 6am with kids.

I thought everyone claims they work weekends?

And yes, that is how averages work, you average the days you work more and the days you work less or don’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

Yes if you took 0 vacation. 2 weeks off would put this at 60 hours/week. It’s pretty grueling if you make life choices of spending time with your kids. Means 8am-6pm then spend 6-9pm with kids, 9-10 cleaning up, then working 10-midnight and you’re up at 6am with kids.

Op - exactly this. We have 3 kids and while I do the majority of the work DH does try to be an involved dad. Mostly that means on the weekends he tries to work less or take a full day off so he can do stuff with the family. Then on the week day he has to work more since he didn’t work on the weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

Yes if you took 0 vacation. 2 weeks off would put this at 60 hours/week. It’s pretty grueling if you make life choices of spending time with your kids. Means 8am-6pm then spend 6-9pm with kids, 9-10 cleaning up, then working 10-midnight and you’re up at 6am with kids.

Op - exactly this. We have 3 kids and while I do the majority of the work DH does try to be an involved dad. Mostly that means on the weekends he tries to work less or take a full day off so he can do stuff with the family. Then on the week day he has to work more since he didn’t work on the weekend.

Has he considered getting a different job? This seems miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a difference between the number of hours you bill and the number of hours you are working. Not every minute is billable work. There’s client development, admin stuff and other things that pop up every day. So, billing 60 hours a week, usually means working at least 70 hours.

I am going off OP’s statement that as an associate her DH billed 2200 and worked 3000. 3000 is an average of less than 60 hours a week.

Yes if you took 0 vacation. 2 weeks off would put this at 60 hours/week. It’s pretty grueling if you make life choices of spending time with your kids. Means 8am-6pm then spend 6-9pm with kids, 9-10 cleaning up, then working 10-midnight and you’re up at 6am with kids.

Op - exactly this. We have 3 kids and while I do the majority of the work DH does try to be an involved dad. Mostly that means on the weekends he tries to work less or take a full day off so he can do stuff with the family. Then on the week day he has to work more since he didn’t work on the weekend.

Has he considered getting a different job? This seems miserable.

Op - I wish! But not sure a different job would be less hours necessarily. He is in litigation. He worked at DOJ before and it was just as busy there and he would make like 30% of his current salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am totally confused. All these threads on DCUM about how Big Law associates work a million hours a week, and therefore can't do any kind of help at home, and you were averaging under 60 hours a week as an associate, and even less now?

Is this really typical? So, the people whining about how their Big Law spouses are never home, where are those people?

I always assumed it was more like 4,000 a year based on what I read here. I am flabbergasted.

60 x 50 weeks (assume 2 weeks vacation) is 3k hours per year. OPs DH is doing 2800 hours per year (2k billable) which is pretty close to 60 hours per week.

But 60 hours a week isn't an insane workload like people make Big Law out to be. Especially given that a Big Law associate can afford to live close in so they don't have a terrible commute, does some of that work from home and can flex around family responsibilities, and gets to work sitting down.

I always assumed from the whining that Big Law associates were working 80 - 90 hour weeks. 60 is a pretty common work week.

It really is not. 60 hours a week on average is way more than most people do. Only a small percentage of people in finance, consulting, or senior executives put in these kind of hours, and they all tend to be very well compensated.

I have worked for government and in the private sector and rarely come across people who regularly have to do those kind of hours.

You are comparing big law to other overpaid cushy jobs.

I am comparing it to the jobs my family has. Law enforcement, education, working in the trades etc . . .

This. Lots of boring hours but it’s pretty cushy. And it pays well, right, OP? Not complaining about the compensation. Three kids in private? Nice, big house?

Most of the world works harder for a lot less. He could change jobs and you could manage on 30% less. But that 30% is really nice, isn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am totally confused. All these threads on DCUM about how Big Law associates work a million hours a week, and therefore can't do any kind of help at home, and you were averaging under 60 hours a week as an associate, and even less now?

Is this really typical? So, the people whining about how their Big Law spouses are never home, where are those people?

I always assumed it was more like 4,000 a year based on what I read here. I am flabbergasted.

60 x 50 weeks (assume 2 weeks vacation) is 3k hours per year. OPs DH is doing 2800 hours per year (2k billable) which is pretty close to 60 hours per week.

But 60 hours a week isn't an insane workload like people make Big Law out to be. Especially given that a Big Law associate can afford to live close in so they don't have a terrible commute, does some of that work from home and can flex around family responsibilities, and gets to work sitting down.

I always assumed from the whining that Big Law associates were working 80 - 90 hour weeks. 60 is a pretty common work week.

It really is not. 60 hours a week on average is way more than most people do. Only a small percentage of people in finance, consulting, or senior executives put in these kind of hours, and they all tend to be very well compensated.

I have worked for government and in the private sector and rarely come across people who regularly have to do those kind of hours.

You are comparing big law to other overpaid cushy jobs.

I am comparing it to the jobs my family has. Law enforcement, education, working in the trades etc . . .

This. Lots of boring hours but it’s pretty cushy. And it pays well, right, OP? Not complaining about the compensation. Three kids in private? Nice, big house?

Most of the world works harder for a lot less. He could change jobs and you could manage on 30% less. But that 30% is really nice, isn’t it?

+1 I don't have a lot of patience with big law whiners or their spouses. I am also an attorney. There are jobs that pay a living wage and require fewer hours. We don't drive new cars, renovate our house, take fancy vacations, or spend money without paying attention, but we have a great life and I see my kids. Life is full of choices.

[Anonymous]

The problem with biglaw isn't the hours. Anyone can build a schedule around a consistent 60 hours/week on a biglaw income. Biglaw sucks because the hours are unpredictable: you can have a slow week where you bill only ten hours until Friday, when something urgent comes in and have you to cancel all your weekend plans work the entire time. I enjoyed the income but will never go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with biglaw isn't the hours. Anyone can build a schedule around a consistent 60 hours/week on a biglaw income. Biglaw sucks because the hours are unpredictable: you can have a slow week where you bill only ten hours until Friday, when something urgent comes in and have you to cancel all your weekend plans work the entire time. I enjoyed the income but will never go back.

This is true of a lot of lawyer jobs where people make much less money.

[Anonymous]

I am curious why there is so much pressure in biglaw when the stakes are only money. As opposed to other types of law like criminal defense, immigration, when it's actual people's lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious why there is so much pressure in biglaw when the stakes are only money. As opposed to other types of law like criminal defense, immigration, when it's actual people's lives?

Competition. If you don't do it perfectly and quickly the client will go to someone else.

Most criminal defendants aren't sophisticated enough to know if their lawyer is screwing up and most aren't repeat customers in the same way that biglaw clients are. CDLs have pressure, it's just a different kind of pressure. Also, most clients don't have the money to get a Donald Trump level of criminal defense where they can bury the other side in motions, etc.