Biglaw / Millenials

[Anonymous]

I sit on the prof. development committee of my firm. Over the last few years, there's been a ton of griping there (as well as on boards such as this one) about new associates - how they aren't willing to make the sacrifices we made, think they're all special snowflakes, etc.

As someone who has been through that, I can't help but think they've got it right. What exactly is the value proposition for new associates these days? Spend your 20s accumulating the best possible credentials you can (and paying through the nose for them), work your ass off for 3-6 years at a firm, and then scratch and claw for a new job (at often a 100k paycut) when the wrong partner makes your life unbearable or the firm tells you have to leave?

The problem, in my mind, is not that law firm life is hard - that's a given. It's more that most people don't get anything out of it that justifies the sacrifice demanded. You get paid a lot while you're here, but that paycheck only lasts for a trivial amount of time for most lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Are you just realizing this? That's been the model for the past 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Biglaw is broken. It's not the Millenials, it's the system.

[Anonymous]

It's unsustainable and awful.

You "win" at big law and your social life suffers. Or you find a spouse and your family loses. Or you do because you want to spend more time with them.

Or you lose at big law and come out a little ahead on student loans.

Any new big law associate who commits to a financial life that assumes this money is a constant is in for trouble. It's highly likely they'll be unable to make that much money forever, and it's very likely they'll decide they don't want to do the soul crushing work anymore.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Yes, it's been the model that it's been difficult/impossible to make partner. But before, if you were smart, had great credentials, and worked hard, you would be able to find something at the end that was interesting and let you have a middle-class life. You wouldn't have the riches of biglaw partnership - but that was OK.

Now, I see our best associates take their shot at USAOs, DOJ, ACLU, Innocence Project, etc. and miss -- and find themselves more or less adrift as they realize they can't do the work they want to do AND earn enough to live in a city like DC AND have some semblance of a family life. Which I don't think is unreasonable to ask for people as talented as they are.

[Anonymous]

I think the models in most industries need a shake up and I hope millennials will do it.

So many careers aren't family friendly and require 60+ hours. Most households going forward will be 2 dual income earners and that isn't feasible for 2 people to do.

[Anonymous]

I disagree that big law is a bad option but agree that millennials are largely useless. I have been at this for a decade or more and always lived within my means, saved money, bought a home, and built some security for my family. It is also a door opening credential if you want to leave.

It actually p*sses me off when I encounter someone like OP describes above. My first job out of college was 24k and these kids are making 160. If I need you to say late or work weekends then do it. There is a line at the door for people that want your job.

[Anonymous]

I read an article about how millenials value different things than previous generations. They are much more about work/life balance and doing something that has a social impact. Not to say that there aren't those that are in it just for the money or status, but a lot of millenials are different than previous generations.

This is why the newer, younger companies (esp. high tech) try to tout more work/life balance, and why these companies are much more appealing to that generation.

I'm gen x, and I prefer work/life balance over money and status, too.

[Anonymous]

I would never encourage my DC to go big law. Yes, there is the promise of $$$$ 30 years down the road, but is it worth giving up their life along the way? The millennials have it right in that regard. Work/life balance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that big law is a bad option but agree that millennials are largely useless. I have been at this for a decade or more and always lived within my means, saved money, bought a home, and built some security for my family. It is also a door opening credential if you want to leave.

It actually p*sses me off when I encounter someone like OP describes above. My first job out of college was 24k and these kids are making 160. If I need you to say late or work weekends then do it. There is a line at the door for people that want your job.

I agree that it USED to be a door-opening credential. I just don't think it's the case anymore.

If you've been at it for a decade, you're lucky. Not that you're not also talented, a hard worker, etc. But you've also been in good situations. We all have colleagues that churn through associates - and sometimes the best ones (and in fact the reward for being competent and efficient is getting stuck with these partners). It's a little surprising to me that someone who works in biglaw won't acknowledge the fact that even people that work late and weekends get screwed.

[Anonymous]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly works in Big Law has time to post on DCUM during the day on a Thursday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read an article about how millenials value different things than previous generations. They are much more about work/life balance and doing something that has a social impact. Not to say that there aren't those that are in it just for the money or status, but a lot of millenials are different than previous generations.

This is why the newer, younger companies (esp. high tech) try to tout more work/life balance, and why these companies are much more appealing to that generation.

I'm gen x, and I prefer work/life balance over money and status, too.

Maybe if BigLaw salaries were only 60K, then gov lawyers would earn less, and nonprofits even less, etc. The price of law school would also come down because no one would go to it. Then maybe everyone would have more work/life balance because they would feel "I'm not getting paid enough to work on weekends."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, it's been the model that it's been difficult/impossible to make partner. But before, if you were smart, had great credentials, and worked hard, you would be able to find something at the end that was interesting and let you have a middle-class life. You wouldn't have the riches of biglaw partnership - but that was OK.

Now, I see our best associates take their shot at USAOs, DOJ, ACLU, Innocence Project, etc. and miss -- and find themselves more or less adrift as they realize they can't do the work they want to do AND earn enough to live in a city like DC AND have some semblance of a family life. Which I don't think is unreasonable to ask for people as talented as they are.

I don't think this is actually true, the same jobs that were available 10 years ago are still there. If people don't want those options, and only want to work for super selective employers like the USAO or want to work for a nonprofit that pays poorly, that is a function of their choices. There are far fewer BigLaw associates today than 5 or 10 years ago, so they are competing with a smaller pool now. Yes,government hiring is tight, but that has been pretty much the case for lawyers since Bush took office.

[Anonymous]

Gone are the days that pulling a lever over and over again like an idiot for 20 years some how makes you senior and more qualified. If you are intelligent and competent you don't need to do that you will be rewarded right away or else go somewhere else. Thank god we are now more about quality not quantity. Thanks boomer idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, it's been the model that it's been difficult/impossible to make partner. But before, if you were smart, had great credentials, and worked hard, you would be able to find something at the end that was interesting and let you have a middle-class life. You wouldn't have the riches of biglaw partnership - but that was OK.

Now, I see our best associates take their shot at USAOs, DOJ, ACLU, Innocence Project, etc. and miss -- and find themselves more or less adrift as they realize they can't do the work they want to do AND earn enough to live in a city like DC AND have some semblance of a family life. Which I don't think is unreasonable to ask for people as talented as they are.

I don't think this is actually true, the same jobs that were available 10 years ago are still there. If people don't want those options, and only want to work for super selective employers like the USAO or want to work for a nonprofit that pays poorly, that is a function of their choices. [/b]There are far fewer BigLaw associates today than 5 or 10 years ago, so they are competing with a smaller pool now[b]. Yes,government hiring is tight, but that has been pretty much the case for lawyers since Bush took office.

Is it really your position that biglaw contracted but other desirable legal fields did not?