Crazy jealous of all these big law firm salaries!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big law associates make 160-300k, right?

Why the complaints for billing 40 hrs a week? (2000 per year)

Physicians work 80 hrs a week and make the same range - accountants work the same with half the range.

Because there is a lot of work time that is not billable and 2000 hours is more like a minimum. When I was in big law, I never left work before 8, frequently was there until 11 or later and worked at least one afternoon every weekend.

[Anonymous]

I only spent 1.5 years in BigLaw. I just couldn't take being in the office that many hours. And I didn't even come anywhere close to meeting my targeted billables.

The money was nice though - 16 years later, I think I will probably never earn as much again as I did my first year out of law school.

[Anonymous]

Former biglaw associate here who left for In-house: the quality of life is awful and the majority daydream abut getting out, so don't be jealous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former biglaw associate here who left for In-house: the quality of life is awful and the majority daydream abut getting out, so don't be jealous!

But take it in until 40, then 'retire' to some kind of lower ey career you like -- lsat tutor, whatever kind of job to get health insurance? You make 4-5x what I make as a government scientist, so you should be able to retire in at least half the time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former biglaw associate here who left for In-house: the quality of life is awful and the majority daydream abut getting out, so don't be jealous!

But take it in until 40, then 'retire' to some kind of lower ey career you like -- lsat tutor, whatever kind of job to get health insurance? You make 4-5x what I make as a government scientist, so you should be able to retire in at least half the time!

Don't be silly, your lifestyle ramps up because everyone around you is doing it, and law is status based so you can't lose face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former biglaw associate here who left for In-house: the quality of life is awful and the majority daydream abut getting out, so don't be jealous!

But take it in until 40, then 'retire' to some kind of lower ey career you like -- lsat tutor, whatever kind of job to get health insurance? You make 4-5x what I make as a government scientist, so you should be able to retire in at least half the time!

How much do you think you need to retire? The up and out policy has most associates out by year six or seven, the vast majority do not make it to year 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former biglaw associate here who left for In-house: the quality of life is awful and the majority daydream abut getting out, so don't be jealous!

But take it in until 40, then 'retire' to some kind of lower ey career you like -- lsat tutor, whatever kind of job to get health insurance? You make 4-5x what I make as a government scientist, so you should be able to retire in at least half the time!

Don't be silly, your lifestyle ramps up because everyone around you is doing it, and law is status based so you can't lose face.

So they fire you early if you dont buy crippling mortgage, private school, and s-class?

I mean if you earn $400k, and live like we do on $200k, in a decade over 1 million and then when 'retireed' mean keep working but in a less stressful career freelance writer it LSAT tutor or something with Starbucks on the side for health ins. Save up early and coast, many Goldman Sachs refugees do this.

[Anonymous]

I was with a bunch of friends talking about how the big law model is obsolete and could be dying. Anyone care to elaborate? I'm not that familiar with the industry but find that interesting. Sadly I was pulled away by a toddler and baby from any conversation at that party lasting more than 5 minutes!

[Anonymous]

A lot of people work just as long and hard for a lot less. I think the hours & stress are inhuman & hate it but my husband is a litigator & he loves his job. He definitely earns the salary but we still appreciate that there are ppl who work just as hard & don't get adequate compensation.
I do think it's crazy hard on family/married life. Our friends are mostly physicians & they earn more with a better quality of life so there is that. Not that the two occupations are comparable in how you spend your actual time.
Biglaw wife (I'd like to say widow but my mom lost my father in her 50's & it's no comparison)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're earned, to say the least.

Yes, the very least. I'd like it if he'd go in-house or government, or something, and would gladly accept the lower pay that would mean.

~wife of a big law firm partner

+1 could have written this myself. And OP I used to work at a big law firm. I wouldn't trade it for the world. You make $$ but don't have time to live your life. Even when living your life, your brain is on the problems (think about it, law is about conflicts...so it's hard to compartmentalize and turn off your brain on the weekend because somebody (client, or your boss, or your underling) is always upset about something, and someone (opposing counsel) is trying to undermine you.

My DH did a few years in DC working for the Feds, on banker's hours not private law firm hours, and it was worth the drop in salary, imo. It's easier to switch gears and do something else when you actually have more TIME in the day to switch gears and do something for yourself.

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of people I know who've left Big Law are happy to get out. If you make partner, that has some perks, although fewer than you might assume, but the life of an average law firm associate is awful (expected to work long hours constantly, yet largely dependent on more senior lawyers to generate the work) and the vast majority of associates will never make partner.

If you do take a Big Law job, it's best to look for a firm that is HQ'd in DC or has a large DC presence. Except for Gibson Dunn and maybe 1-2 other firms, the big NYC and California-based firms look down on their DC outposts and treat the people there like crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're earned, to say the least.

Not really.

Not really? Lawyers at firms don't have to work hard? and a lot? Wonder what my dh is doing all the time at work and while he's up all hours of the night working in our home office. Hmmmm.....I'd better take a closer look.

I think the point is that attorneys are not the only ones working brutal hours, or working hard. I don't blame folks for taking what the market offers, but I'd love to see a bit of self-awareness.

/wife of Biglaw associate

Thanks for this. I swear people with high-paying professional degrees have their heads up their butts about what kinds of hours other people work. My parents are both MDs (and so is their social circle), and whenever I mentioned to anyone that I wasn't studying medicine the first response was, "Oh, you don't want to work as hard as your parents." Yeah, whatever. DH and I both have PhDs and work in the private sector. I won't even talk about some of the hours I worked while I was doing research, and while I have a better schedule now DH's is very grueling and involves a lot of last minute international travel as well. We earn good money because we are in the private sector, but I know a ton of people who work similar hours without anywhere near the same level of compensation.

Sure, Big Law lawyers work hard, but so do a lot of other people who don't have the financial renumeration to show for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

This is a good point. Many of the well paid legal positions require attorney to represent people or positions most of us would avoid. I think that is the reason that most of the big law attorneys I know are big drinkers. Most of them started out with a soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people I know who've left Big Law are happy to get out. If you make partner, that has some perks, although fewer than you might assume, but the life of an average law firm associate is awful (expected to work long hours constantly, yet largely dependent on more senior lawyers to generate the work) and the vast majority of associates will never make partner.

If you do take a Big Law job, it's best to look for a firm that is HQ'd in DC or has a large DC presence. Except for Gibson Dunn and maybe 1-2 other firms, the big NYC and California-based firms look down on their DC outposts and treat the people there like crap.

I work at the DC office of a CA firm and DH is at the DC office of a NY firm. Not sure I agree with your statement that DC offices are looked down upon. DH would not want to work in the NY office and thinks his life is (relatively speaking) better in the DC office. The only downside either of us see is that partnership might be slightly harder in a satellite office, but (a) it is a real longshot anyway and (b) it is hard to say if the branch office is really a disadvantage and will probably depend on numerous factors out of your control -- like everything in the partnership process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of people I know who've left Big Law are happy to get out. If you make partner, that has some perks, although fewer than you might assume, but the life of an average law firm associate is awful (expected to work long hours constantly, yet largely dependent on more senior lawyers to generate the work) and the vast majority of associates will never make partner.

If you do take a Big Law job, it's best to look for a firm that is HQ'd in DC or has a large DC presence. Except for Gibson Dunn and maybe 1-2 other firms, the big NYC and California-based firms look down on their DC outposts and treat the people there like crap.

I work at the DC office of a CA firm and DH is at the DC office of a NY firm. Not sure I agree with your statement that DC offices are looked down upon. DH would not want to work in the NY office and thinks his life is (relatively speaking) better in the DC office. The only downside either of us see is that partnership might be slightly harder in a satellite office, but (a) it is a real longshot anyway and (b) it is hard to say if the branch office is really a disadvantage and will probably depend on numerous factors out of your control -- like everything in the partnership process.

I doubt that, from your vantage point, you really know how you and DH are regarded by the higher-ups in CA and NY. The bottom-line is that the associates in CA and NY only have to prove themselves to the partners in the home offices. If you work in the branch office, you'll have to distinguishing yourself to the partners you work for in DC, as well as find a way to ingratiate yourself with the senior partners in the primary offices. But, yeah, maybe your husband has better hours than the NY associates, if that's all that really matters to him.