Any biglaw litigators just leave law altogether?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My general view has always been -- if you want to stay in law, you should make moves early as it can take time to get into the govt, small firms etc and you don't want a resume gap as lawyers are very unforgiving about that. But if you want to leave law, collect your paycheck as long as you can. If you want to start a business, go into real estate, teaching etc - you're an industry switcher anyway and no one is going to care if you left biglaw 6 months earlier or later or had a gap. However that 6 months of senior associate pay, if saved, can give you a lot of options.

There's a lot of fraternerizing in big law with almost brainwashing like stigma related to being laid off. Like its worse than death. Laid off associates are literally like untouchables. Noone wants to look at them, let alone interview them. That said, I was terrified of being laid off, but after it happened, life went on. The other 99.9999% of the universe could care less. I switched careers, went into a medical supplies business, and am making much more then I thought possible. Folks, it's good to be the boss.

I think this notion that a laid-off or paased over associate is "damaged goods" is wrong, although I understand why people in that position would feel this way. You simply have to recognize that no one is going to hire you just because you have a good resume and worked at a BigLaw firm. It's not like getting a job as a summer associate, where your resume and sunny personality mattered most. You have to demonstrate that you have specific skills that meet an unmet need of a specific employer at a particular time. In that regard, the legal profession has become more like other employers. Welcome to the real world. It can be tough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- sounds like a lot of us got in at the same time. Law was a stable profession about 10 yrs ago -- you could go to a top 10 school then a big firm and if you worked hard you could make partner; maybe you wouldn't make it in 7 yrs but most firms would keep you around and make you partner in 9-10 yrs. Now at my firm and many others -- they are barely wanting to hold on to existing partners, let alone make others.

I do worry about jumping into another field (something business related) and being bad at it, but I also worry about going to another firm (if I can even get in which I haven't been able to in the last 8 months as such a senior assoc). You go to a new firm that's hopefully not "up or out," that firm doesn't make you partner for any reason or no reason at all -- then you're searching a few yrs from now for your next gig. I have seen people who are at 16th yr associate level who have had this happen at 2-3 firms and they have NO clue that they'll do, aside from hanging out a shingle and hoping for the best. I just see this future in law where you could end up hopping job to job forever -- am I being overly pessimistic or do others see this too?

So I'm wondering if it's better to take the money and employment hit now to figure something else out while I'm "young" enough or whether it's better to collect as long as I possibly can knowing I may be closing some doors.

I would regret not practicing, but I do have some other skills and interests (dating back to undergrad - so it'll be hard to leverage them but if I cant do it now, I certainly won't be able to 5 yrs from now).

Big Law was not the way you described 10 years ago. Maybe 30 years ago. I'm thinking you didn't want to see the business for what it is, which is a poorly managed profession that can be lucrative if you not only are smart, but also lucky enough to find a good mentor and a hot, sustainable practice area.

I'm about burned out with the profession, or more precisely with the personalities of some of my colleagues, but at least I had good timing and will be able to leave law in a few years with enough money saved to pursue other interests or retire young. I would feel sorry for the next generation of lawyers, but for the fact that their own generational personality traits often magnify the pressures facing the profession.

If I were you, I would try to find a Government job where you can become a recognized subject-matter expert and gain more visibility than you might get in the bowels of Big Law, or change professions. Hopping from firm to firm as a senior associate or counsel, unless you are more or less guaranteed partnership in 1-2 years, strikes me as the worst form of purgatory imaginable.

What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous]

Less loyalty, more impatient, more likely to try to extract every dollar they can from firms as soon as possible based on their purported "value added," etc.

Recognize it's a "chicken and egg" phenomenon (i.e., why shouldn't people who don't know if a firm will be around in five years try to get paid as much as possible as early as possible), but it reinforces some of the attributes of law firms that can lead to layoffs.

[Anonymous]

The system is broken because the partners are greedy. They are all about getting us much as possible for themselves to the extent they are willing to be horrible human beings to do so. They make millions a year but fire people at the drop of a hat after those people have wasted their youth billing 3000 hours a year.

[Anonymous]

I got out in 1998 and have never looked back. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My general view has always been -- if you want to stay in law, you should make moves early as it can take time to get into the govt, small firms etc and you don't want a resume gap as lawyers are very unforgiving about that. But if you want to leave law, collect your paycheck as long as you can. If you want to start a business, go into real estate, teaching etc - you're an industry switcher anyway and no one is going to care if you left biglaw 6 months earlier or later or had a gap. However that 6 months of senior associate pay, if saved, can give you a lot of options.

There's a lot of fraternerizing in big law with almost brainwashing like stigma related to being laid off. Like its worse than death. Laid off associates are literally like untouchables. Noone wants to look at them, let alone interview them. That said, I was terrified of being laid off, but after it happened, life went on. The other 99.9999% of the universe could care less. I switched careers, went into a medical supplies business, and am making much more then I thought possible. Folks, it's good to be the boss.

I think this notion that a laid-off or paased over associate is "damaged goods" is wrong, although I understand why people in that position would feel this way. You simply have to recognize that no one is going to hire you just because you have a good resume and worked at a BigLaw firm. It's not like getting a job as a summer associate, where your resume and sunny personality mattered most. You have to demonstrate that you have specific skills that meet an unmet need of a specific employer at a particular time. In that regard, the legal profession has become more like other employers. Welcome to the real world. It can be tough.

Is this like not getting tenure as a college prof?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The system is broken because the partners are greedy. They are all about getting us much as possible for themselves to the extent they are willing to be horrible human beings to do so. They make millions a year but fire people at the drop of a hat after those people have wasted their youth billing 3000 hours a year.

So why do it unless you were hoping to do likewise to others?

[Anonymous]

'Tis is not human to try to gather as many resources as possible to provide for ones' offspring to propagate the species? At the end of the day, we are but animals in competition for limited resources in an unpredictable world.

[Anonymous]

OP there is no failure in using your top 10 degrees to go in a different direction other than law esp since you say you have other interests besides law; whether that requires more school or requires hopping into pharma sales or teaching or whatever else you’ve considered. I have seen people do it and be successful and happier than their biglaw classmates who live in the partnership purgatory or make partner and then live in fear of being de-equitized or hop from one firm to the next killing themselves for partnership while throwing gov’t apps in every which direction hoping one sticks; often the gov’t app that sticks is not an agency they want but they take it and hold on tight because it is security. In some ways you make your own success in life.

Don’t worry too much about what the biglaw partners and associates around you say. I know at my firm there was a lot of nay-saying whenever anyone went on to anything besides another firm, gov’t or in-house; now that I’m more senior (and am planning to make money in biglaw and then hop off to go do something else), I realize that it is just a way for partners to justify their own choices – i.e. that person is so dumb to not make partner/leave before partnership, look at all the money they won’t make. Meanwhile partners don’t realize (or maybe don’t admit) that many corp executives and people in areas like sales do REALLY well financially and aren’t tied to the health of any one company; so if you end up in pharma and suddenly your co. isn’t doing well, you can hop to another one without worrying about the size of your book. Once you make partner (unless you have a serious book), you are pretty much beholden to that firm keeping you forever – you don’t have career or geographic mobility really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Less loyalty, more impatient, more likely to try to extract every dollar they can from firms as soon as possible based on their purported "value added," etc.

Recognize it's a "chicken and egg" phenomenon (i.e., why shouldn't people who don't know if a firm will be around in five years try to get paid as much as possible as early as possible), but it reinforces some of the attributes of law firms that can lead to layoffs.

15:53 again,

I will second this as not just a law firm-based thing, based on my conversations with my cousin, who had a successful medical practice in Seattle and faced the very same attitudes and behavior from younger doctors in the practice. Eventually he decided to let them fend for themselves and sold the practice to a large hospital and became their practice leader in his specialty, where he no longer had to supervise or deal with it. You describe exactly what he told me about, the idea that the large salaries should just happen even if the productivity and business development aspect was not there.

[Anonymous]

Why the hell should we be loyal to people who are not going to make us partner or even let us stick around as counsel anyway and will give us the boot without caring a damn just so they can make two or three million a year rather than a paltry one million?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why the hell should we be loyal to people who are not going to make us partner or even let us stick around as counsel anyway and will give us the boot without caring a damn just so they can make two or three million a year rather than a paltry one million?

Yeah, sure. This is how partners think associates think. It makes it much easier to lay you off.

And there aren't scores of partners in DC firms making $2-3 million a year, unless they happen to work for the DC office of a NYC firm like Davis Polk or Skadden or are major rainmakers at their firms. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Anonymous]

Op here - this is helpful thanks. Not going to turn this into an argument re who isn't loyal to who or who makes too much money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t worry too much about what the biglaw partners and associates around you say. I know at my firm there was a lot of nay-saying whenever anyone went on to anything besides another firm, gov’t or in-house; now that I’m more senior (and am planning to make money in biglaw and then hop off to go do something else), I realize that it is just a way for partners to justify their own choices – i.e. that person is so dumb to not make partner/leave before partnership, look at all the money they won’t make. Meanwhile partners don’t realize (or maybe don’t admit) that many corp executives and people in areas like sales do REALLY well financially and aren’t tied to the health of any one company; so if you end up in pharma and suddenly your co. isn’t doing well, you can hop to another one without worrying about the size of your book. Once you make partner (unless you have a serious book), you are pretty much beholden to that firm keeping you forever – you don’t have career or geographic mobility really.

Partners at my firm barely mask their admiration when someone who is talented decides to take a corporate or sales position, or strike out on their own. We just hope that person makes it big and leaves on good enough terms to hire us in the future. Those of us ready to put in 40 years in law firms are a monied, but still dying, breed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My general view has always been -- if you want to stay in law, you should make moves early as it can take time to get into the govt, small firms etc and you don't want a resume gap as lawyers are very unforgiving about that. But if you want to leave law, collect your paycheck as long as you can. If you want to start a business, go into real estate, teaching etc - you're an industry switcher anyway and no one is going to care if you left biglaw 6 months earlier or later or had a gap. However that 6 months of senior associate pay, if saved, can give you a lot of options.

There's a lot of fraternerizing in big law with almost brainwashing like stigma related to being laid off. Like its worse than death. Laid off associates are literally like untouchables. Noone wants to look at them, let alone interview them. That said, I was terrified of being laid off, but after it happened, life went on. The other 99.9999% of the universe could care less. I switched careers, went into a medical supplies business, and am making much more then I thought possible. Folks, it's good to be the boss.

W

I think this notion that a laid-off or paased over associate is "damaged goods" is wrong, although I understand why people in that position would feel this way. You simply have to recognize that no one is going to hire you just because you have a good resume and worked at a BigLaw firm. It's not like getting a job as a summer associate, where your resume and sunny personality mattered most. You have to demonstrate that you have specific skills that meet an unmet need of a specific employer at a particular time. In that regard, the legal profession has become more like other employers. Welcome to the real world. It can be tough.

Sorry but you're wrong. Most laidoff biglaw lawyers are very skilled and have a lot to offer. The reality is that a resume gap or other evidence of a layoff makes your resume DOA for most in-house or biglaw positions. It's just the attorney culture at that level. That said, opportunities exist at many other difference levels offering equal or better long-term prospects, job satisfaction and work-life balance. The key is to be resilient, patient, flexible and creative. I speak from experience.