Any other biglaw associates not do pro bono?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer at a boutique here with two kids, including one 7 month old.

I find OP's concern perplexing. There are plenty of pro bono opportunities that don't take up hundreds of hours. You can volunteer to do 4 hours at a clinic. You can do one single immigration case for 70 hours for the whole year. How are you not finding something that is less than 50 hours a year? I assume you can manage 50 hours no?

A lot of people have pointed out that litigators can get good experience (depo, arg) experience from pro bono, which is a big pull and looked favorably upon. Cases like that take time. What, by contrast, is the point of doing 4-hour shifts at some clinic?

LGA of course.

??

Liberal Guilt Assuagement. Hello?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. DH felt like his pro bono is what got him chosen as part of the 2009 layoff.

Not if he otherwise made his commercial hours.

I did project financing at Biglaw in 2008. There were no hours b/c the economy dove off a cliff. Our shitty firm laid off 20 out of 22 associates. And it wasn't the genteel "indefinite time to find a new job" layoff. It was a "two weeks notice" layoff. It took a lot of us a year+ to find another position and some people never recovered their careers.

Do you not remember how terrible the legal job market was in 20008-2010?

I remember. But I am saying it’s not that someone spent their time on pro bono. It’s that they didn’t have hours that lead to the layoff.

I’m the PP with the DH. What the other PP is saying is that there were no hours to be had. DH went door to door daily asking for work - there was very little to go around. He was a 2nd year so couldn’t engage clients himself - not that there were any to engage. I think he scraped up 1900 hours in 2008, but 200 of those were pro bono. He didn’t neglect any paid work - there wasn’t any. He also took 2 weeks paternity leave so he was (unwittingly) dead man walking. How naive we were back then! This was supposedly a “family friendly firm.” We bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Your DH didn't get laid off because of pro bono or paternity leave, he was laid off because there wasn't enough work to keep him on. If he'd only scraped together 1700 hours by doing no pro bono and did it without taking those two weeks or leave, he most likely would have been laid off anyway.

Perhaps. They spared the class behind him, keeping them all. At the time (and even now) it felt like a betrayal. Yes, it was a tough time but PPP was still over $1.320M and less than one year later they were hiring laterals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on the firm. Not doing any at Arnold & Porter while hoping to last in the litigation group would be... an error.

In comparison I don't think Quinn gives a single eff.

Really? Arnold & Porter?? I don't know the DC market as well as NYC but I've always thought the bigger/more reputable the firm was, the less time they wanted wasted on non billable work.

Wrong.

Baker McKenzie and DLA Piper are big on pro bono. Same with Skadden. Greenberg Traurig and Jones Day, too.

How hard is it to pick up a few PB cases?

They’re boring af if you’re someone who actually likes the financial litigation. And I just don’t need to hear about how baby daddy #3 left and is demanding visitation but is a junkie. I didn’t go to law school or biglaw for that.

Not any of the PPs but apparently you didn't go to law school to work for your biglaw firm either if you won't march to their tune. It is their band. Either play along or don't. When you don't, though, I hope you aren't surprised if you are not moved forward. It seems like there have been two types of observations posted here from DC and NY firms. If you are at a DC firm then it would behoove you to figure out whether it is big on PB or not.

At an NYC firm not DC. And it’s a firm where senior partners scoff at pro bono so I’m good. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. DH felt like his pro bono is what got him chosen as part of the 2009 layoff.

Not if he otherwise made his commercial hours.

I did project financing at Biglaw in 2008. There were no hours b/c the economy dove off a cliff. Our shitty firm laid off 20 out of 22 associates. And it wasn't the genteel "indefinite time to find a new job" layoff. It was a "two weeks notice" layoff. It took a lot of us a year+ to find another position and some people never recovered their careers.

Do you not remember how terrible the legal job market was in 20008-2010?

I remember. But I am saying it’s not that someone spent their time on pro bono. It’s that they didn’t have hours that lead to the layoff.

I’m the PP with the DH. What the other PP is saying is that there were no hours to be had. DH went door to door daily asking for work - there was very little to go around. He was a 2nd year so couldn’t engage clients himself - not that there were any to engage. I think he scraped up 1900 hours in 2008, but 200 of those were pro bono. He didn’t neglect any paid work - there wasn’t any. He also took 2 weeks paternity leave so he was (unwittingly) dead man walking. How naive we were back then! This was supposedly a “family friendly firm.” We bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Your DH didn't get laid off because of pro bono or paternity leave, he was laid off because there wasn't enough work to keep him on. If he'd only scraped together 1700 hours by doing no pro bono and did it without taking those two weeks or leave, he most likely would have been laid off anyway.

Perhaps. They spared the class behind him, keeping them all. At the time (and even now) it felt like a betrayal. Yes, it was a tough time but PPP was still over $1.320M and less than one year later they were hiring laterals.

They hate to lay off first years b/c it really hurts recruiting. Second and third years were massacred in 2008-2009.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. DH felt like his pro bono is what got him chosen as part of the 2009 layoff.

Not if he otherwise made his commercial hours.

I did project financing at Biglaw in 2008. There were no hours b/c the economy dove off a cliff. Our shitty firm laid off 20 out of 22 associates. And it wasn't the genteel "indefinite time to find a new job" layoff. It was a "two weeks notice" layoff. It took a lot of us a year+ to find another position and some people never recovered their careers.

Do you not remember how terrible the legal job market was in 20008-2010?

I remember. But I am saying it’s not that someone spent their time on pro bono. It’s that they didn’t have hours that lead to the layoff.

I’m the PP with the DH. What the other PP is saying is that there were no hours to be had. DH went door to door daily asking for work - there was very little to go around. He was a 2nd year so couldn’t engage clients himself - not that there were any to engage. I think he scraped up 1900 hours in 2008, but 200 of those were pro bono. He didn’t neglect any paid work - there wasn’t any. He also took 2 weeks paternity leave so he was (unwittingly) dead man walking. How naive we were back then! This was supposedly a “family friendly firm.” We bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Your DH didn't get laid off because of pro bono or paternity leave, he was laid off because there wasn't enough work to keep him on. If he'd only scraped together 1700 hours by doing no pro bono and did it without taking those two weeks or leave, he most likely would have been laid off anyway.

Perhaps. They spared the class behind him, keeping them all. At the time (and even now) it felt like a betrayal. Yes, it was a tough time but PPP was still over $1.320M and less than one year later they were hiring laterals.

They hate to lay off first years b/c it really hurts recruiting. Second and third years were massacred in 2008-2009.

Wow, I'm so glad my somewhat terrible firm wasn't this terrible. Laying off second years? Jesus. I hardly think of Skadden as family friendly or warm and fuzzy, but I billed less than 1100 hours in 2009 as a second year associate and Skadden didn't lay me off. (Only 2 of 12ish associates in our office/practice area made bonus hours; 1 was a 1st year who got sent on a super shitty out-of-town doc review-esque assignment for 10 weeks where she billed over 1000 hours and 1 was a 4thish year who they actually helped make hours by giving him admin hours that counted because he was so close.) In fact, no one got laid off, though 1 person took a voluntary "spend a year doing pro bono for 50% of your pay" type package and never came back. The next year I hit 1100 hours the first week in April; bankruptcy-driven business poured in and everyone was working their asses off.