The golden handcuffs of biglaw
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Did you always hate your job? What happened? |
Anonymous
Thanks. i tried to explain this before. I'll try again. I'm not saying I didn't work hard. I did. But the thing with Biglaw is that it's so all-consuming for so many of its participants that even when you're not being crushed with work, work will often still weigh on your mind. Am I measuring up? Am I slacking? Should I be doing more? Etc. You are more defined by your position as a biglaw lawyer than anything else, and after a while it just takes a toll. Beyond the work itself (and the pressure to feel like you should be working even when you're not), there's everything else involved. The competitiveness of so many of your colleagues and clients. The snobbery and elitism. The fuddy duddies. And then there's the work itself. Yes, there were times when the work was interesting and rewarding and intellectually challenging, but most of your time is spent on drudgery. And even when the work IS intellectually challenging, the primary reason for your existence is to assist in shifting large amounts of money from one huge corporate client to another. Some folks may find personal satisfaction in that, but I never did. I gave my firm and clients a couple months notice before leaving to "help ease the transition." Right after doing that I had a conference call with opposing counsel to deal with yet another discovery dispute. During the call it became clear to me -- with light at the end of the tunnel -- that not only was much of the work that I was doing in biglaw pretty meaningless, it was actually downright ludicrous. I just couldn't do it anymore. What a relief. |
Anonymous
People who think there’s only one way biglaw works and that it means never seeing your children and letting other people “raise” them. |
Anonymous
That doesn't answer the question. |
Anonymous
What a perfect description of so much of biglaw. That's what drove me crazy too -- the way the work seemed to be both painfully dull at times, combined with having little social value or meaning. It would be satisfying when a demanding client (and they are all demanding at those billing rates) was happy with my work. But yes, so much of it was just about moving money from one corporate entity to another, or saving a corporation or an individual an large sum of money that, in most cases, would be irrelevant to them within 6-12 months. To me, that was the soul sucking part, that feeling of "what is this all for?" I think that's when I realized I was not as money-motivated as many of my peers, because I think this doesn't bother everyone. The financial upside is large, but to me it was not enough. I make a lot less money now, but my work is much more intellectually engaging and, more importantly, I feel like the work I do is meaningful. I work mostly with small businesses and the work I do for them can be make or break for them. I get to know my clients, most of whom are entrepreneurs who have bet their life savings or their entire family on making a business work, very well and they become friends and partners. There's lots of mutual respect because I, too, am a small business owner. I also dedicate about 15% of my hours every year to pro bono work or work for a greatly reduced rate so that I can help out people who wouldn't normally be able to hire a lawyer. When I was in biglaw, I think I was always looking for an exit, trying to figure out when I'd finally be free. I could see doing my current job in some capacity for the rest of my life, even if I didn't need the money (which I won't -- I'll be in a comfortable place to retire by 55 or so) because I genuinely enjoy what I do. |
Anonymous
Ok, yea. I hear you. I agree that it's possible. In the end, though, I think so much of being successful in biglaw is luck and timing. There are so many lawyers who don't succeed in biglaw for no real reason at all. And they are justifiably bitter about it because there's so much money involved, so they go into attack mode once they start doing something else. I don't really blame them. |
Anonymous
He didn’t become a SAHP because he was also a career-oriented person enjoying great success at what he wanted to be doing. |
Anonymous
I know lots of people in biglaw (as well as a lot of people who have moved in house or to other high level legal jobs but no longer in biglaw) and I think you are simplifying the argument. Certainly many biglaw attorneys, including partners, see their kids and have good relationships with them. But one of the points on this thread that is absolutely true is that in most cases, they have a SAHP or a spouse with a very flexible, not demanding job, who can facilitate that. I don't know many families where both parents have highly demanding, time consuming jobs, and of those I know, I do not think they have the kind of quality relationship with their kids that other families do. I'm sorry, but it's true. It also very much matters how you structure your career over your kids lives. There are ways to stay in biglaw and still be very present at key times, and then dive back into work when your kids need you less. But again, this is best when facilitated by a spouse who can be present the entire time. But this is not possible at every firm, in every specialty, or for every individual attorney. Many of the stereotypes and assumptions about the impact of a biglaw career on family life are accurate. They don't come from nowhere. |
Anonymous
ok, so the bottom line is that you really have no right to be "frustrated" with your male colleagues because they and their spouses made different choices than you and yours. your frustration should be with your spouse, not your colleagues, because it was his choices and not theirs that have made your path more difficult. |
Anonymous
I don't think anyone is arguing about that. But whenever both parents have demanding jobs it's tough on kids. Not just biglaw. |
Anonymous
You keep saying this, but you're the only person on this thread saying it. No, it's absolutely not a requisite for a sahw to be a successful biglaw partner. This may have been necessary for your family, or you chose this path because it worked for you. But it's really, really not the case anymore that you need a sahw or that you need to work a million hours and be absent from your kids. Are there families with that set up (ie dad works a million hours, and has a sahw and kids he doens't see)? Sure. And are they likely to be the kind of partner who makes insane money and prestige - the kind that 80% of biglaw partners never achieve? Sure. Yes, being the $5m a year comp partner probably takes living and breathing your job and not seeing your kids and wife, and having a sahw. But 95% of partners will never achieve that. So many of them recognize this, never get caught up in the comp/materiality thing, and also learn to draw boundaries. Not all of those 95%, sure. But in DC, it's solidly 30% of partners who are drawing reasonable lines. Also, you just don't need that sahw anyone. Again, i think for those families who chose it, maybe you do - either because your DH won't draw boundaries, or because you didn't enjoy working and this is the narrative you're sticking with. But i look around my team of partners sort of in the height of their careers (40s through early 60s) and i'm a woman with high earning DH, my primary partner's wife is in house counsel, the partner i work next frequently with his a wife who is patent counsel for a global company, the partner i work next with has a wife who has a bonkers intense job at state dept. The one i work with next after that - his wife is a former OT therapist who doesn't work. And the head of our group has a Sahw (he's 65 - so more old school). But yeah, going through the list of partners i most frequently work with, and only 2 of 7 have sahws. Times have changed. |
Anonymous
Okay glad to hear you don’t feel I was entitled to my feelings. Especially your mistaken re-framing of my frustration as directed at my colleagues! And at any rate my post was in praise of SAHPs. They were painted as part of the problem of golden handcuffs. I disagree. I think they empower high earners and should be acknowledged for it. They make a lot of “big” careers possible that otherwise would not have been. |
Anonymous
I wasn’t frustrated *with them.* I reject the argument that SAHWs are a cause of golden handcuffs. I think without them many of these men would have sterling silver handcuffs at best. Reading is fundamental. |
Anonymous
You say I am “simplifying” the argument but go on to say that you just think I’m wrong. Well, I’m not. How’s that for simple? |
Anonymous
ok, so you're not frustrated with your colleagues, you're not frustrating with their wives, and you're not frustrated with your husband. you're just generally frustrated, but not with anyone in particular. got it. it was your word, btw, not mine. |