The golden handcuffs of biglaw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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is in the cheaper area of bethesda (oxymoron) and mostly live like UMC people — nothing designer, our house is super outdated, our cars are heaters, kids don’t go to those expensive sleepaway camps, etc.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.

Why didn’t your husband stay at home then? It’s not against the law.

[Anonymous]

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.

These days (esp since covid), law firm partnership generally means a LOT of flexibility on when and where you work. You still work a lot of hours, but partners today are with their kids ALOT. It's not like 2004.

Depends on the definition of "with". Being in the same house is not the same as actually paying attention to them and developing a deep relationship with them.

Why are there so many people on DCUM who not only believe this, but NEED to believe this?

[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.

These days (esp since covid), law firm partnership generally means a LOT of flexibility on when and where you work. You still work a lot of hours, but partners today are with their kids ALOT. It's not like 2004.

Depends on the definition of "with". Being in the same house is not the same as actually paying attention to them and developing a deep relationship with them.

Why are there so many people on DCUM who not only believe this, but NEED to believe this?

You’ll need to elaborate. It’s not clear which group of people you’re taking shots at / feeling superior to.

[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.

I think your post illustrated the PPP's post perfectly (about the posters on here being women who left biglaw and/or are sahws of biglaw partners - you apparently fit both categories - and believing certain things about biglaw because that's the narrative they need to justify how things ended up). I mean, your post has a lot of baggage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Haha I will try and answer.

1. Husband and prestige: I think he knows his field really well, and is considered an authority as a partner. If he wanted to practice law at the same level he is now, he would have to take an in-house or government position that was high level enough that in our experience would require nearly as much work to do well. Some might pay as well and the work will be challenging and interesting, but essentially, you're taking a pay cut but still going to be working a ton without as much flexibility. I think what he's missing from his life is time?

2. Being smart: There are a few questions in here but most importantly I absolutely do not think how smart you are is correlated with how good of a person you are. I think it's probably just correlated with how much you drink. By being smart, I just mean from an academic and job performance perspective, grasping concepts faster and more accurately than anyone else in the room, acing every test, etc. Frankly, you know if you are. And it really just results in getting more work - in real life, your whole team needs to get something and you don't get a cookie because you got it faster, it's perfectly acceptable for people to take their time, and you just get more fire drill work because people know you can get it done.

My point was that some people want to prove they are the smartest person in the room because they for some reason think being smart does make you better than other people, so taking being purposely underemployed would not be a choice they would make. I am not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Early retired BL partner, read lots of your posts. You're insightful and have helped me a lot. Seems you had a manageable situation, but left. If not for the crushing workload, then why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Haha I will try and answer.

1. Husband and prestige: I think he knows his field really well, and is considered an authority as a partner. If he wanted to practice law at the same level he is now, he would have to take an in-house or government position that was high level enough that in our experience would require nearly as much work to do well. Some might pay as well and the work will be challenging and interesting, but essentially, you're taking a pay cut but still going to be working a ton without as much flexibility. I think what he's missing from his life is time?

2. Being smart: There are a few questions in here but most importantly I absolutely do not think how smart you are is correlated with how good of a person you are. I think it's probably just correlated with how much you drink. By being smart, I just mean from an academic and job performance perspective, grasping concepts faster and more accurately than anyone else in the room, acing every test, etc. Frankly, you know if you are. And it really just results in getting more work - in real life, your whole team needs to get something and you don't get a cookie because you got it faster, it's perfectly acceptable for people to take their time, and you just get more fire drill work because people know you can get it done.

My point was that some people want to prove they are the smartest person in the room because they for some reason think being smart does make you better than other people, so taking being purposely underemployed would not be a choice they would make. I am not one of them.

PP here. Also, one point about biglaw partners - some of the really good ones work a lot just because clients have so much work and there aren't enough qualified people to do it. They'd happily pass it around but there isn't anyone to pass it to.

[Anonymous]

You don't create a lifestyle that requires that income.

I have zero sympathy for people who go into biglaw, buy expensive homes and cars and enroll their kids in private school, and then lament that they cannot "afford" to quit.

Grow up.

[Anonymous]

You plan an exit strategy. So break it down and make small changes like downsizing, putting away more savings, etc. Start networking to find new job.

[Anonymous]

You should start living now like you have a job that pays far less. If you do that I bet you may find that psychologically your job is less soul crushing because you know you can leave if you have to or if you want to.

[Anonymous]

Downsize the house and send the kids to public school. Find a new job.

[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.

These days (esp since covid), law firm partnership generally means a LOT of flexibility on when and where you work. You still work a lot of hours, but partners today are with their kids ALOT. It's not like 2004.

Depends on the definition of "with". Being in the same house is not the same as actually paying attention to them and developing a deep relationship with them.

Why are there so many people on DCUM who not only believe this, but NEED to believe this?

This isn't a DCUM thing. People just have different ideas of what family togetherness looks like. I've had this conversation with people who have never been on DCUM.

[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.

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?

+1. Entirely possible to be a very present parent in biglaw. You make your own choices and have to draw your own boundaries. I work on weekends sometimes, but only when the kids are napping or sleeping.

[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.

These days (esp since covid), law firm partnership generally means a LOT of flexibility on when and where you work. You still work a lot of hours, but partners today are with their kids ALOT. It's not like 2004.

Depends on the definition of "with". Being in the same house is not the same as actually paying attention to them and developing a deep relationship with them.

Why are there so many people on DCUM who not only believe this, but NEED to believe this?

This isn't a DCUM thing. People just have different ideas of what family togetherness looks like. I've had this conversation with people who have never been on DCUM.

Why do you think you know how my family’s “togetherness” works just because of what I do for a living?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why didn’t your husband stay at home then? It’s not against the law.

He’s a partner at another firm.