The golden handcuffs of biglaw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Don't you regret missing all that time with your family? I dunno, early retirement is great and I'm all a out it but it seems like you paid a heavy price for it.

NP. I second this, but I wonder if the truth is that PP probably came from a background where dad went out to work and provided resources for the family, and didn't get much more involved. I think a lot of guys of his generation and older were like that. So early retirement is more about himself and getting to do things he wants to do. So trading time with one's family when young for time for an early retirement that's probably focused on himself.

I think there is a generational shift happening where guys want to be much more involved with their kids. I know I do. Because I'm a government attorney, I get to WFH 4 days a week, eat lunch with my little girl at her school a couple of times a month, and I do things like Mystery Reader and chaperone. I spend all day Saturday and Sunday with her and my wife, and it's rare that either my wife and I have to work on weekends. Heaven on earth, my friends.

I'm the early retired partner. I guess you didn't read my response. I was not a "dad who went to work and didn't get much more involved." Far from it. One anecdote to illustrate the point: the very first day of my job as an associate happened to coincide with my oldest kid's first day of first grade. I told the firm I'd be late for new associate orientation because I wanted to be with my kid at the bus stop to see them off. That's the tone I set.

When my kids were growing up I did virtually everything that you describe yourself now doing with your kid -- except the WFH part -- and I had four of them and not just one. I made it work because it was important to me. You don't know me or how involved I was or wasn't in my family upbringing, your generalization about my "generation's" approach to fatherhood is both inaccurate and even if it were accurate it doesn't apply to me specifically. Bottom line: Your choices are fine, you should feel confident about them, and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle mine or anyone else's to justify them.

I'm the PP. I understand what you are saying, but it is not physically possible for you to have worked the kinds of hours you would have had to work in a firm and be really present for four children, plus a spouse. It's just not. I spend every Sat and Sunday with my family...there's no way you could do that. I'm sure you did the best you could and I don't doubt that you believe it was sufficient. What you're really saying is that you found the time with your kids sufficient enough for you, because you also had this personal goal of early retirement...to live a life you enjoy as an empty nester. I'm not judging you, I'm simply stating the facts. To each his own. Many in my generation, including myself, are just not choosing that road.

Respectfully, you’re stating the facts as you assume them to be, and your assumptions are largely inaccurate. Take weekends, for example. I rarely worked them. How was I able to pull that off, you might ask? In my case, I did it by taking on projects and clients and matters that were less desirable and harder to staff. I made lots of compromises over the years in order to free up time with the family. I also took every bit of vacation that I was entitled to, without exception, and made sure I was present when I was on it.

I’ve posted on here a lot, and have had lots to say about my time with Biglaw, but I’ve never suggested that the major issue for me was time taken away from family. I wouldn’t have tolerated that. In fact, the only reason why I was able to stand Biglaw for as long as I did was because somehow - maybe even miraculously? - by and large it didn’t destroy my ability to be a present parent.

Thinking about it, it might have simply been a matter of timing for me. I mentioned that we married young and had kids young. Three of my four kids were born before I even started working in Biglaw (one right after college, one in law school, one during my clerkship). My fourth was born when I was 29 and I was still a junior associate. So I was around my first three kids quite a bit in their formative years, and I wasn't about to do things differently with my fourth.

The typical associate gets through their education first, gets the Biglaw job, starts the grinds, then has kids and tries to fit them in. I did the opposite.

Finally, addressing your comment that I retired “for me.” I’m not sure what that means. If you’re suggesting that I only retired for selfish reasons after spending a lifetime neglecting my family, that’s pretty harsh and uncalled for. You’re honestly corresponding with someone who has always had the closest relationship with their family imaginable, and it didn’t happen by accident. I hope you’re just as lucky, and I’m sure you will be, but don’t count your chucked just yet. Your child is young and you still have a long way to go. Check back with us in 20 or 30 years, ok?

[Anonymous]

My kids go to public schools in Bethesda, and they have lots of classmates with a parent working in Big Law.

[Anonymous]

Ha ha I mean count your chickens!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids go to public schools in Bethesda, and they have lots of classmates with a parent working in Big Law.

Partners or associates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Early retired Biglaw partner here. It’s difficult to avoid the golden handcuffs but it absolutely can be done. Don’t buy a expensive house. Send your kids to public schools and good state colleges. Avoid extravagant vacations and luxury automobiles. In short, just live reasonably.

I distinctly recall the reaction of one of my partners when I told him I was checking out: “I’m so jealous. I could never afford that.” The guy was probably making double what I was at the time - if I had to guess, I’d say between $1.5 and $2 million - and after taxes, mandatory retirement and capital contributions, health insurance, etc. he probably took home half of that. He had a $4 million house, a beach house, three and kids enrolled in top DC privates since kindergarten. My understanding from social media is that the kids ended up in colleges of the Tulane/NYU/Emory variety. If that’s the life you’re going to choose, it’s going to cost you. It’s that simple.

Curious how old you were when you retired and what your finances looked like when you made the decision? I am in BL and am looking for an early retirement (still have a ways to go as 39), but interested in hearing stories!

I was 53. I had spent 27 years (!) in Biglaw before retiring, basically 1/3 of the time an an associate, 1/3 of the time as counsel, and 1/3 of the time as (equity) partner. I married and had kids young, and made the decision to walk away after my youngest of four kids graduated from college. At the time of my retirement (just shy of a decade ago), I had a net worth of $4.7 million, about half of which was my retirement account (invested entirely in stock index funds) and the other half a combination of my brokerage account (also all index funds), real estate equity, and the cash value of my capital account with my law firm. With all of the kids out of college, our low interest monthly mortgage payments on our DC rowhome fully covered by our basement rental, and the firm allowing us continued access to its group health care plan (with us paying the full premium, obviously), I was confident that we could make it work.

Fast forward nearly a decade, our net worth is now $7 million (down from a high of $8 million a year or so ago), so we're doing just fine. The one big change that I've made since retiring is hiring someone (a little too late, in retrospect) to manage my retirement accounts, so I'm now much more diversified than when I first retired.

I haven't regretted my decision ever. Not once. Not even for a nanosecond. In fact, I've never actually met anyone who has left biglaw and regretted it.

Thank you for your post. Is the participation in group health plan in retirement even offered anymore? Please forgive me my cynicism.

Early retired BL partner here. I don’t know the answer to your question. All I know is that in my firm it’s part of the partnership agreement that retired partners can participate in the firm’s health care plan for life so long as they continue to pay the full premium (which partners start paying as soon as they are made equity partners anyway). In my case, it’s currently around $1400 a month for my spouse and me. There’s always the ACA exchange, of course, but I’ve been sticking with the firm plan for a variety of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why dont lawyers pushback against the boomers and demand to get paid the same for 40 hours a week. Millennials are doing it for all other industries including tech

? Bc if they’re only working 40 hrs/wk that’s all they’ll be bringing in. Do you not understand how partnerships work?

Yes, clients are not going to pay double the rate so lawyers can work less and get paid the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Don't you regret missing all that time with your family? I dunno, early retirement is great and I'm all a out it but it seems like you paid a heavy price for it.

NP. I second this, but I wonder if the truth is that PP probably came from a background where dad went out to work and provided resources for the family, and didn't get much more involved. I think a lot of guys of his generation and older were like that. So early retirement is more about himself and getting to do things he wants to do. So trading time with one's family when young for time for an early retirement that's probably focused on himself.

I think there is a generational shift happening where guys want to be much more involved with their kids. I know I do. Because I'm a government attorney, I get to WFH 4 days a week, eat lunch with my little girl at her school a couple of times a month, and I do things like Mystery Reader and chaperone. I spend all day Saturday and Sunday with her and my wife, and it's rare that either my wife and I have to work on weekends. Heaven on earth, my friends.

I'm the early retired partner. I guess you didn't read my response. I was not a "dad who went to work and didn't get much more involved." Far from it. One anecdote to illustrate the point: the very first day of my job as an associate happened to coincide with my oldest kid's first day of first grade. I told the firm I'd be late for new associate orientation because I wanted to be with my kid at the bus stop to see them off. That's the tone I set.

When my kids were growing up I did virtually everything that you describe yourself now doing with your kid -- except the WFH part -- and I had four of them and not just one. I made it work because it was important to me. You don't know me or how involved I was or wasn't in my family upbringing, your generalization about my "generation's" approach to fatherhood is both inaccurate and even if it were accurate it doesn't apply to me specifically. Bottom line: Your choices are fine, you should feel confident about them, and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle mine or anyone else's to justify them.

I'm the PP. I understand what you are saying, but it is not physically possible for you to have worked the kinds of hours you would have had to work in a firm and be really present for four children, plus a spouse. It's just not. I spend every Sat and Sunday with my family...there's no way you could do that. I'm sure you did the best you could and I don't doubt that you believe it was sufficient. What you're really saying is that you found the time with your kids sufficient enough for you, because you also had this personal goal of early retirement...to live a life you enjoy as an empty nester. I'm not judging you, I'm simply stating the facts. To each his own. Many in my generation, including myself, are just not choosing that road.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but another big law partner. I never work weekends. Ever. Like never. Well I guess once or twice a year some random call comes up requested by a client that lasts ten minutes. But my husbands non legal job has that too. I’m not saying that’s all biglaw jobs, but it’s not an anomole. Im aware that with that kind of schedule im unlikely to be a super start rainmaker that beaks $2m or whatever. But im 17 years out and still doing this, and the messaging im getting from the firm is nothing but good - so I definitely have at least five more years.

I think dcum is populated by a lot of women who either are sahm married to biglaw partners who are the types who do work a lot of hours, or are women who left biglaw and are defensive about it. So both those categories are likely to paint a narrative about it being an unbearable horrible place, because they need to believe that to rationalize where their life landed. But their picture only describes a part of biglaw.

Early retired Biglaw partner here. I agree that the one thing that really surprises folks about my Biglaw experience is that I typically didn’t work weekends. Maybe it’s like estimating your commute - everybody says it’s 20 minutes when it’s really 30 or 40, ha ha - but I can count on one hand the number of weekends per year where I worked more than, say, an hour or two. It really didn’t happen for me. I left Biglaw for so, so many reasons, but a crushing workload wasn’t one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why dont lawyers pushback against the boomers and demand to get paid the same for 40 hours a week. Millennials are doing it for all other industries including tech

? Bc if they’re only working 40 hrs/wk that’s all they’ll be bringing in. Do you not understand how partnerships work?

Yes, clients are not going to pay double the rate so lawyers can work less and get paid the same.

This. You need to understand that it’s not the partners dishing out the work. It’s the clients. They’re paying lots and lots of money for a law firm’s services, and for that money their expectation is that you’ll get the work done pronto and with no questions asked. They don’t care about your personal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of biglaw partners tells themselves they’ll retire at 50 after saving up enough to be comfortable. Then 50 rolls around and they are hooked on the cash and they decide they can hang in there a few more years. Then they get upset when their firms start forcing them out at around age 60.

You have no idea what you're talking about. No biglaw firm is "forcing out" partners at 60. Many do at 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Don't you regret missing all that time with your family? I dunno, early retirement is great and I'm all a out it but it seems like you paid a heavy price for it.

NP. I second this, but I wonder if the truth is that PP probably came from a background where dad went out to work and provided resources for the family, and didn't get much more involved. I think a lot of guys of his generation and older were like that. So early retirement is more about himself and getting to do things he wants to do. So trading time with one's family when young for time for an early retirement that's probably focused on himself.

I think there is a generational shift happening where guys want to be much more involved with their kids. I know I do. Because I'm a government attorney, I get to WFH 4 days a week, eat lunch with my little girl at her school a couple of times a month, and I do things like Mystery Reader and chaperone. I spend all day Saturday and Sunday with her and my wife, and it's rare that either my wife and I have to work on weekends. Heaven on earth, my friends.

I'm the early retired partner. I guess you didn't read my response. I was not a "dad who went to work and didn't get much more involved." Far from it. One anecdote to illustrate the point: the very first day of my job as an associate happened to coincide with my oldest kid's first day of first grade. I told the firm I'd be late for new associate orientation because I wanted to be with my kid at the bus stop to see them off. That's the tone I set.

When my kids were growing up I did virtually everything that you describe yourself now doing with your kid -- except the WFH part -- and I had four of them and not just one. I made it work because it was important to me. You don't know me or how involved I was or wasn't in my family upbringing, your generalization about my "generation's" approach to fatherhood is both inaccurate and even if it were accurate it doesn't apply to me specifically. Bottom line: Your choices are fine, you should feel confident about them, and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle mine or anyone else's to justify them.

I'm the PP. I understand what you are saying, but it is not physically possible for you to have worked the kinds of hours you would have had to work in a firm and be really present for four children, plus a spouse. It's just not. I spend every Sat and Sunday with my family...there's no way you could do that. I'm sure you did the best you could and I don't doubt that you believe it was sufficient. What you're really saying is that you found the time with your kids sufficient enough for you, because you also had this personal goal of early retirement...to live a life you enjoy as an empty nester. I'm not judging you, I'm simply stating the facts. To each his own. Many in my generation, including myself, are just not choosing that road.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but another big law partner. I never work weekends. Ever. Like never. Well I guess once or twice a year some random call comes up requested by a client that lasts ten minutes. But my husbands non legal job has that too. I’m not saying that’s all biglaw jobs, but it’s not an anomole. Im aware that with that kind of schedule im unlikely to be a super start rainmaker that beaks $2m or whatever. But im 17 years out and still doing this, and the messaging im getting from the firm is nothing but good - so I definitely have at least five more years.

I think dcum is populated by a lot of women who either are sahm married to biglaw partners who are the types who do work a lot of hours, or are women who left biglaw and are defensive about it. So both those categories are likely to paint a narrative about it being an unbearable horrible place, because they need to believe that to rationalize where their life landed. But their picture only describes a part of biglaw.

It describes their personal experience. It's OK if your practice involves fewer hours and more control over deadlines, but that doesn't make them liars. Many practice areas are incompatible with having the flexibility with your time that parenting can sometimes require.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of biglaw partners tells themselves they’ll retire at 50 after saving up enough to be comfortable. Then 50 rolls around and they are hooked on the cash and they decide they can hang in there a few more years. Then they get upset when their firms start forcing them out at around age 60.

You have no idea what you're talking about. No biglaw firm is "forcing out" partners at 60. Many do at 65.

Yes, they are. I can name 5 people off the top of my head who aren't even 60 yet. Restructuring happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Don't you regret missing all that time with your family? I dunno, early retirement is great and I'm all a out it but it seems like you paid a heavy price for it.

NP. I second this, but I wonder if the truth is that PP probably came from a background where dad went out to work and provided resources for the family, and didn't get much more involved. I think a lot of guys of his generation and older were like that. So early retirement is more about himself and getting to do things he wants to do. So trading time with one's family when young for time for an early retirement that's probably focused on himself.

I think there is a generational shift happening where guys want to be much more involved with their kids. I know I do. Because I'm a government attorney, I get to WFH 4 days a week, eat lunch with my little girl at her school a couple of times a month, and I do things like Mystery Reader and chaperone. I spend all day Saturday and Sunday with her and my wife, and it's rare that either my wife and I have to work on weekends. Heaven on earth, my friends.

I'm the early retired partner. I guess you didn't read my response. I was not a "dad who went to work and didn't get much more involved." Far from it. One anecdote to illustrate the point: the very first day of my job as an associate happened to coincide with my oldest kid's first day of first grade. I told the firm I'd be late for new associate orientation because I wanted to be with my kid at the bus stop to see them off. That's the tone I set.

When my kids were growing up I did virtually everything that you describe yourself now doing with your kid -- except the WFH part -- and I had four of them and not just one. I made it work because it was important to me. You don't know me or how involved I was or wasn't in my family upbringing, your generalization about my "generation's" approach to fatherhood is both inaccurate and even if it were accurate it doesn't apply to me specifically. Bottom line: Your choices are fine, you should feel confident about them, and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle mine or anyone else's to justify them.

I'm the PP. I understand what you are saying, but it is not physically possible for you to have worked the kinds of hours you would have had to work in a firm and be really present for four children, plus a spouse. It's just not. I spend every Sat and Sunday with my family...there's no way you could do that. I'm sure you did the best you could and I don't doubt that you believe it was sufficient. What you're really saying is that you found the time with your kids sufficient enough for you, because you also had this personal goal of early retirement...to live a life you enjoy as an empty nester. I'm not judging you, I'm simply stating the facts. To each his own. Many in my generation, including myself, are just not choosing that road.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but another big law partner. I never work weekends. Ever. Like never. Well I guess once or twice a year some random call comes up requested by a client that lasts ten minutes. But my husbands non legal job has that too. I’m not saying that’s all biglaw jobs, but it’s not an anomole. Im aware that with that kind of schedule im unlikely to be a super start rainmaker that beaks $2m or whatever. But im 17 years out and still doing this, and the messaging im getting from the firm is nothing but good - so I definitely have at least five more years.

I think dcum is populated by a lot of women who either are sahm married to biglaw partners who are the types who do work a lot of hours, or are women who left biglaw and are defensive about it. So both those categories are likely to paint a narrative about it being an unbearable horrible place, because they need to believe that to rationalize where their life landed. But their picture only describes a part of biglaw.

It describes their personal experience. It's OK if your practice involves fewer hours and more control over deadlines, but that doesn't make them liars. Many practice areas are incompatible with having the flexibility with your time that parenting can sometimes require.

This. I’m one of the women you’re disparaging and honestly, biglaw looked very different for me than white men. I saw that early on, and my husband and I (we are both lawyers) decided early on he’d be the one with the shot at partner without eating shit 24/7, which I am for better or worse not particularly good at. I know he wishes it were the opposite because biglaw is stressful and hard, but part of the reason he made partner is because he doesn’t want a less prestigious position. I on the other hand could not care less; I know I’m pretty much the smartest person in the room so why do I need to prove that to anyone or correct their assumptions? Honestly my job doesn’t come up much in real life - both my husband and I answer lawyers to what do you do and everyone’s eyes glaze over and we move on.

You could have a different experience but that doesn’t invalidate anyone else’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Don't you regret missing all that time with your family? I dunno, early retirement is great and I'm all a out it but it seems like you paid a heavy price for it.

NP. I second this, but I wonder if the truth is that PP probably came from a background where dad went out to work and provided resources for the family, and didn't get much more involved. I think a lot of guys of his generation and older were like that. So early retirement is more about himself and getting to do things he wants to do. So trading time with one's family when young for time for an early retirement that's probably focused on himself.

I think there is a generational shift happening where guys want to be much more involved with their kids. I know I do. Because I'm a government attorney, I get to WFH 4 days a week, eat lunch with my little girl at her school a couple of times a month, and I do things like Mystery Reader and chaperone. I spend all day Saturday and Sunday with her and my wife, and it's rare that either my wife and I have to work on weekends. Heaven on earth, my friends.

I'm the early retired partner. I guess you didn't read my response. I was not a "dad who went to work and didn't get much more involved." Far from it. One anecdote to illustrate the point: the very first day of my job as an associate happened to coincide with my oldest kid's first day of first grade. I told the firm I'd be late for new associate orientation because I wanted to be with my kid at the bus stop to see them off. That's the tone I set.

When my kids were growing up I did virtually everything that you describe yourself now doing with your kid -- except the WFH part -- and I had four of them and not just one. I made it work because it was important to me. You don't know me or how involved I was or wasn't in my family upbringing, your generalization about my "generation's" approach to fatherhood is both inaccurate and even if it were accurate it doesn't apply to me specifically. Bottom line: Your choices are fine, you should feel confident about them, and you shouldn't feel the need to belittle mine or anyone else's to justify them.

I'm the PP. I understand what you are saying, but it is not physically possible for you to have worked the kinds of hours you would have had to work in a firm and be really present for four children, plus a spouse. It's just not. I spend every Sat and Sunday with my family...there's no way you could do that. I'm sure you did the best you could and I don't doubt that you believe it was sufficient. What you're really saying is that you found the time with your kids sufficient enough for you, because you also had this personal goal of early retirement...to live a life you enjoy as an empty nester. I'm not judging you, I'm simply stating the facts. To each his own. Many in my generation, including myself, are just not choosing that road.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but another big law partner. I never work weekends. Ever. Like never. Well I guess once or twice a year some random call comes up requested by a client that lasts ten minutes. But my husbands non legal job has that too. I’m not saying that’s all biglaw jobs, but it’s not an anomole. Im aware that with that kind of schedule im unlikely to be a super start rainmaker that beaks $2m or whatever. But im 17 years out and still doing this, and the messaging im getting from the firm is nothing but good - so I definitely have at least five more years.

I think dcum is populated by a lot of women who either are sahm married to biglaw partners who are the types who do work a lot of hours, or are women who left biglaw and are defensive about it. So both those categories are likely to paint a narrative about it being an unbearable horrible place, because they need to believe that to rationalize where their life landed. But their picture only describes a part of biglaw.

It describes their personal experience. It's OK if your practice involves fewer hours and more control over deadlines, but that doesn't make them liars. Many practice areas are incompatible with having the flexibility with your time that parenting can sometimes require.

This. I’m one of the women you’re disparaging and honestly, biglaw looked very different for me than white men. I saw that early on, and my husband and I (we are both lawyers) decided early on he’d be the one with the shot at partner without eating shit 24/7, which I am for better or worse not particularly good at. I know he wishes it were the opposite because biglaw is stressful and hard, but part of the reason he made partner is because he doesn’t want a less prestigious position. I on the other hand could not care less; I know I’m pretty much the smartest person in the room so why do I need to prove that to anyone or correct their assumptions? Honestly my job doesn’t come up much in real life - both my husband and I answer lawyers to what do you do and everyone’s eyes glaze over and we move on.

You could have a different experience but that doesn’t invalidate anyone else’s.

Why does your husband care so much about “prestige?” What do you think he is missing in his life? And why do you think it’s important that you be the “smartest person in the room?” Do you think the smarter you are, the better the person that you are?

These are serious questions. I’m genuinely curious in a nonjudgmental way why you and your husband feel this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse is a big law partner. We send our kids to public school and have a house that is in the cheaper area of bethesda (oxymoron) and mostly live like UMC people — nothing designer, our house is super outdated, our cars are heaters, kids don’t go to those expensive sleepaway camps, etc. we do splurge on vacations because he is so overworked that he wants vacations just to be as easy as possible. I think you need to make decisions about where to spend your money to keep your sanity.

We have a ton saved up because he has always wanted to quit but for him the golden handcuffs has really been finding something that is equally prestigious and would not require moving cross country. At a certain point it becomes hard to off ramp because you are so senior no one wants to hire you for a regular old job. He now has sort of a plan of trying to retire at 55 and get a job with a non-profit. We’ll see if that happens.

In this scenario do you have a job?

SAHWs are a big part of the golden handcuff problem. Them not working, and having lots of expensive nice stuff, beach houses on the coast, etc. are a reason the men often have to keep working.

While that’s true, it’s much MUCH harder to make partner and then later become a rainmaker if your spouse has a demanding job. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m saying a SAH spouse is a cheat code for doing it and doing it well. I was so frustrated by how much better my male peers at it at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to realize that your life does not actually require that income. If you don't believe it, create an artificial experiment and live on your alternative salary for a year while socking away the rest in investments. You may be surprised.

Also, when you look at salaries for in house positions, what you don't see are the bonuses and value of stock options and that you aren't paying self-employment and benefits. In house, we have a base salary in the 300 range, but pay taxes on over 800. That may sound like 'not enough' to you, but we have kids full pay in private schools and colleges too. We have more than anyone needs. If you cannot accept that as truth, then the problem is your relationship with money, not your golden handcuffs. You hold the key to those cuffs.

That's not even remotely close to typical in-house comp.

True - more likely that OP will make around 200-250k. 800k sounds like GC level compensation, which OP won't get until at least 10 years learning the ropes of the in house job, which is very different form being a good law firm attorney. Even then, it's questionable whether OP will get to GC level, there is a lot of competition and many excellent attorneys that know how to manage/lead, vying for those opportunities.