If you have been a biglaw partner for 10+ years, how much wealth have you accumulated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a lot less jealousy about Biglaw money now that it’s obvious no one seems to be saving any real money.

No, it's just that most people who know anything about it are not on DCUM.

Except for me, for some totally bizarre reason. I really should get off...

[Anonymous]

^^sorry, distribution of profits, I was typing too fast for my own good!

[Anonymous]

I think everyone gets (over and over and over and over) that Biglaw income is legitimately (super crazy and substantially MUCH much higher than others) high.

We know because the high income keeps being brought up as a response instead to how much wealth has been accumulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to stack coins until the line between oppressor and oppressed is crossed. Depending on the individual, that doesn't happen until late 40s (for those who went straight through) or 50s or later (for those who took a more circuitous route, such as spending a lot of time in government). Only senior partners, esp big rainmakers, make a lot more than they bring in. Many relationships are institutional, and only are inherited late in one's career. Biglaw is not a path to great riches. Don't get me wrong, it's plenty comfortable. But only a small handful get to one percent wealth (currently around $12m in net worth) through law.

This. It can be a good life, but not big money. Every law firm partner I know doesn’t want their kid to go into law.

Perhaps but I still think that biglaw is one of the best risk adjusted careers if financial success is the goal. We can all decide whether financial success is the right goal but let's compare biglaw to investment banking. Certainly a decade or two ago investment banking would have hands-down been the right career path to make a lot of money. These days a lot of bulge bracket Managing Directors are probably in the $1m-$3m range. However, the career risk they have is much greater than in biglaw. Biglaw firms while increasingly cut throat still doesn't compare to investment banking--most MD's careers are over by 50. If you're over 50 in investment banking you either made it to the very top (think top management of a major investment bank) or you've been pushed out working at a boutique where it's completely eat what you kill.

The chance of making MD is no better than making partner (perhaps worse), the time you get to stay MD vs stay partner is much worse, and then the market cycle driven layoffs are more intense than in law. A good typical biglaw partner can practice well into his/her 50s perhaps 60s and then collect on a pension payout for years. So the bankers might make a little more as associates, VPs, directors (% wise bigger difference but compared to making partner in biglaw or MD in investment banking the cumulative differences are probably not much more than a year or two of comp for an MD/partner), make MD in their mid 30s (perhaps a couple years earlier) and then flame out typically within 10 years or less.

Seems hard to believe. Would you rather be a senior banker at Goldman Sachs or a senior partner at Skadden, Cravath, etc? Do others really believe this?

[Anonymous]

OP here - would love some actual responses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - would love some actual responses!

No one who is a biglaw partner for real is going to put their $s out there. Sorry. These people who are putting it out there, mostly are NOT partners.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think the absence of responses is your response. Not many big law folks are accumulating a ton. Likely spending a lot so they can spend their time working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think the absence of responses is your response. Not many big law folks are accumulating a ton. Likely spending a lot so they can spend their time working.

It’d be easy to make around 1M a year the first 10 years, expecting it to climb quickly thereafter. So what’s wrong with 6 mil? When did 6 mil become “not a ton”?

My parents had a similar set up to this, to keep it vague, spent lavishly with one parent SAH, retired at 62, and they have a net worth now if almost 20 mil. I don’t think they wish they’d been more frugal when they were younger. And my parent made partner older, not younger, and not at a super high paying firm.

6 mil quickly grows.

[Anonymous]

I work for 3 partners at a law firm, they make between just under 1mil to about 2mil per year. They all pay a lot for health insurance though. They all complain about being broke and expense everything they can. I have done expense reports for as little at $3 with them pestering me to get it in by the cut off time so they can get their $ on the next pay out date. One of their wives calls all the time asking about when he will get reimbursed. Personally I don’t understand how you can make so much money and still be broke, worrying about money...I make a TINY fraction of what they make (their bonuses are more than my salary).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think the absence of responses is your response. Not many big law folks are accumulating a ton. Likely spending a lot so they can spend their time working.

It’d be easy to make around 1M a year the first 10 years, expecting it to climb quickly thereafter. So what’s wrong with 6 mil? When did 6 mil become “not a ton”?

My parents had a similar set up to this, to keep it vague, spent lavishly with one parent SAH, retired at 62, and they have a net worth now if almost 20 mil. I don’t think they wish they’d been more frugal when they were younger. And my parent made partner older, not younger, and not at a super high paying firm.

6 mil quickly grows.

Exactly! I believe this is actually the typical biglaw partner profile. I think there's a lot of schadenfreude about divorce, not seeing kids, spending too much, etc. My guess is this profile is what represents the majority of outcomes. Wealthy enough to afford any typical expense but certainly not living the jetset lifestyle. A relatively low risk but hard working career with a high probability weighted expected outcome versus trying to hit the "home run" to end up with jets & yachts.

[Anonymous]

We've built a $6M nest egg in our mid-50s despite *only* having a HHI of $250-300k. 2 kids, 1 just graduated from college and the other is in college now. I believe if we had biglaw partner salaries we'd easily be in the $10-20M range by now. But we're very happy where we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've built a $6M nest egg in our mid-50s despite *only* having a HHI of $250-300k. 2 kids, 1 just graduated from college and the other is in college now. I believe if we had biglaw partner salaries we'd easily be in the $10-20M range by now. But we're very happy where we are.

Do you eat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me feel a lot better about our dual engineer salaries (one FT, one PT WAH) and our Millionaire Next Door investing perspectives.

We're beating a lot of BigLaw partners in terms of wealth accumulation, and we're working a hell of a lot less.

Sorry I don't believe it...how do two engineers end up accumulating $5m+ in net worth by 45 without perhaps some big option scores?

How much can W-2 HHI be without stock options/RSUs for both of you? $400k combined? After tax that's $250k? Perhaps you spend less than $100k annually? Do you have children? If not, that's not a fair comparison. Let's say you save $150k annually but you didn't start your careers out making $400k combined--perhaps more like $200k combined initially--after tax $120k saving $75k annually. So on average saving $100k annually for the last 20 years?

Also you're comparing yourself to the big law partner where one spouse stays at home the entire time--both of you work. If you have two big law partner spouses you're talking about net worths of $10m+.

Im an engineer, 51. HHI is about $400K. Net worth is about $6m. Both kids already completed private college. I actually should be worth more...about $20m or so....lost big $$ at Worldcom (was a ten year senior mgr/dir there) and a couple of start up companies. I lost most of my financial net worth around 2002, but earned back some of it. Not to boast, but don't underestimate folks with engineering degrees. They are usually the sharpest knives in the drawer, with excellent analytical and problem solving skills. Making big $$ has never been a problem for me and some of my contemporaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me feel a lot better about our dual engineer salaries (one FT, one PT WAH) and our Millionaire Next Door investing perspectives.

We're beating a lot of BigLaw partners in terms of wealth accumulation, and we're working a hell of a lot less.

Sorry I don't believe it...how do two engineers end up accumulating $5m+ in net worth by 45 without perhaps some big option scores?

How much can W-2 HHI be without stock options/RSUs for both of you? $400k combined? After tax that's $250k? Perhaps you spend less than $100k annually? Do you have children? If not, that's not a fair comparison. Let's say you save $150k annually but you didn't start your careers out making $400k combined--perhaps more like $200k combined initially--after tax $120k saving $75k annually. So on average saving $100k annually for the last 20 years?

Also you're comparing yourself to the big law partner where one spouse stays at home the entire time--both of you work. If you have two big law partner spouses you're talking about net worths of $10m+.

We'll have $5M by 50, probably not 45. We have three children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've built a $6M nest egg in our mid-50s despite *only* having a HHI of $250-300k. 2 kids, 1 just graduated from college and the other is in college now. I believe if we had biglaw partner salaries we'd easily be in the $10-20M range by now. But we're very happy where we are.

Do you eat?

Quite well