Big Law spouses - give me your tips and tricks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here - thanks for all the replies. More than I thought would come from this. Some helpful. I have no plans on quitting my job. I make good money - mid 6 figures and I actually like my job. I am also in the camp of needing financial security in case anything were to happen to my husbands job or god forbid we were to divorce.

I think planning my life and kids lives based on the idea that dh won’t be able to help or be around is the most doable. It stinks but is a lovely surprise when he can make it.

It is so different for all big law spouses. I think it's best for all of us to not assume he will be around for any one thing, but I have never felt like a military spouse or anything. My husband is around the vast majority of the time, and now that he has more seniority he can easily shuffle his schedule around to do things like take kids to doctor's appointments. He and I always chat a lot in the mornings before the kids wake up and he has never missed a big kid's activity. So plan for the worst but don't assume it's all doom and gloom. A lot depends on how much your husband values family time and the nature of his work in terms of flexibility.

And in case anyone is wondering, yes DH is in litigation and has billed anywhere from 1900-2700 hours a year. It's not a cushy situation.

It's rare, bordering on impossible, to *never* miss a big kid's activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tip: accept reality. Your DH will not be able to commit to things and the instability and travel will continue as long as he is in this job. They aren’t going to get better so accept this is his and your life. As other posters have said - you and the kids lives need to function whether he is there or not.

Second: build the team. You need more help. Either a nanny, au pair, housekeeper. Pay an agency if you need to find someone good.

Third: You may want to scale back at work, quit or switch to part time. I am considering this and only have 2 kids. I have the “team” and kind of hate it. I would rather do some things myself and my kids are at the ages where they really need a parent. Elem and middle.

Fourth: Do things to make yourself happy. This may or may not be the life you signed up for. It wasn’t what I signed up for. Yes I have money but I make very good money on my own and what I thought I was getting was a true partner in raising the kids. I didn’t get that. See tip 1. Then figure out how to make yourself happy and do that. It will help with resentment.

Fifth tip: read career and family by Claudia Goldin. She’s a Harvard economist who studies these issues. She won the Nobel prize.

When did you meet your spouse if it's not what you signed up for? I mean when you met, was he not a lawyer or studying to be one? You had to have known that being with an attorney who strives to be a partner or at least successful regardless of making partner, would entail huge, personal sacrifices.


Best of luck. Many people can’t relate so be careful who you confide in and whose advice you trust. You are fortunate but also have gaping holes and it’s a big weight and responsibility to do the career and family thing alone. Society isn’t setup for this and it falls on the woman typically.

Signed, btdt

Damn. Totally screwed up on formatting:

My comment: When did you meet your spouse if it's not what you signed up for? I mean when you met, was he not a lawyer or studying to be one? You had to have known that being with an attorney who strives to be a partner or at least successful regardless of making partner, would entail huge, personal sacrifices.

Not OP but this kind of comment is so unhelpful. I’ve been with my spouse since we were both in college. He always worked hard but so did I. But our lives always had balance- friends, sports, each other. The life style of work is the top priority and everything else fits in around it in second place is a toxic mindset that many lawyers get swept up in despite being unhappy. I’ve seen it in many of my husbands peers and if my husband hadn’t stepped back to a smaller firm I was seriously considering divorce. Some people are ok with that life but I am not.

[Anonymous]

Ask yourself this:

Is it really worth it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

+1. Plus, "Big Law" means different things to different people, apparently. Some people use the term more liberally than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

Just to note this is not from OP - I am OP and I didn’t write the previous post.

[Anonymous]

Yikes, my husband is an attorney who left big law about ten years ago because he hated chasing billable hours and not having a life. He had actually developed a nice niche business within his firm so he left and set up his own small business focused on the niche. Over time it became very M&A oriented and if likes the business he defers his cash comp for some equity. A few have blown up but he’s done fine and he has a life except prior to a deal closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

Are you an equity partner yourself? Please get some expensive therapy to work on your self esteem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tip: accept reality. Your DH will not be able to commit to things and the instability and travel will continue as long as he is in this job. They aren’t going to get better so accept this is his and your life. As other posters have said - you and the kids lives need to function whether he is there or not.

Second: build the team. You need more help. Either a nanny, au pair, housekeeper. Pay an agency if you need to find someone good.

Third: You may want to scale back at work, quit or switch to part time. I am considering this and only have 2 kids. I have the “team” and kind of hate it. I would rather do some things myself and my kids are at the ages where they really need a parent. Elem and middle.

Fourth: Do things to make yourself happy. This may or may not be the life you signed up for. It wasn’t what I signed up for. Yes I have money but I make very good money on my own and what I thought I was getting was a true partner in raising the kids. I didn’t get that. See tip 1. Then figure out how to make yourself happy and do that. It will help with resentment.

Fifth tip: read career and family by Claudia Goldin. She’s a Harvard economist who studies these issues. She won the Nobel prize.

When did you meet your spouse if it's not what you signed up for? I mean when you met, was he not a lawyer or studying to be one? You had to have known that being with an attorney who strives to be a partner or at least successful regardless of making partner, would entail huge, personal sacrifices.


Best of luck. Many people can’t relate so be careful who you confide in and whose advice you trust. You are fortunate but also have gaping holes and it’s a big weight and responsibility to do the career and family thing alone. Society isn’t setup for this and it falls on the woman typically.

Signed, btdt

Damn. Totally screwed up on formatting:

My comment: When did you meet your spouse if it's not what you signed up for? I mean when you met, was he not a lawyer or studying to be one? You had to have known that being with an attorney who strives to be a partner or at least successful regardless of making partner, would entail huge, personal sacrifices.

Not OP but this kind of comment is so unhelpful. I’ve been with my spouse since we were both in college. He always worked hard but so did I. But our lives always had balance- friends, sports, each other. The life style of work is the top priority and everything else fits in around it in second place is a toxic mindset that many lawyers get swept up in despite being unhappy. I’ve seen it in many of my husbands peers and if my husband hadn’t stepped back to a smaller firm I was seriously considering divorce. Some people are ok with that life but I am not.

I didn't mean for my comment to be unhelpful, just pointing out the reality of what the situation will more than likely be if married to an attorney, esp., one looking to become a partner. I mean you yourself state that the fact that your spouse is at a smaller firm, is more conducive to a happy home life. I'm not married to one, but I'd be happier in your situation. A financial gain is not worth sacrificing family time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tip: accept reality. Your DH will not be able to commit to things and the instability and travel will continue as long as he is in this job. They aren’t going to get better so accept this is his and your life. As other posters have said - you and the kids lives need to function whether he is there or not.

Second: build the team. You need more help. Either a nanny, au pair, housekeeper. Pay an agency if you need to find someone good.

Third: You may want to scale back at work, quit or switch to part time. I am considering this and only have 2 kids. I have the “team” and kind of hate it. I would rather do some things myself and my kids are at the ages where they really need a parent. Elem and middle.

Fourth: Do things to make yourself happy. This may or may not be the life you signed up for. It wasn’t what I signed up for. Yes I have money but I make very good money on my own and what I thought I was getting was a true partner in raising the kids. I didn’t get that. See tip 1. Then figure out how to make yourself happy and do that. It will help with resentment.

Fifth tip: read career and family by Claudia Goldin. She’s a Harvard economist who studies these issues. She won the Nobel prize.

When did you meet your spouse if it's not what you signed up for? I mean when you met, was he not a lawyer or studying to be one? You had to have known that being with an attorney who strives to be a partner or at least successful regardless of making partner, would entail huge, personal sacrifices.


Best of luck. Many people can’t relate so be careful who you confide in and whose advice you trust. You are fortunate but also have gaping holes and it’s a big weight and responsibility to do the career and family thing alone. Society isn’t setup for this and it falls on the woman typically.

Signed, btdt

Damn. Totally screwed up on formatting:

My comment: When did you meet your spouse if it's not what you signed up for? I mean when you met, was he not a lawyer or studying to be one? You had to have known that being with an attorney who strives to be a partner or at least successful regardless of making partner, would entail huge, personal sacrifices.

Not OP but this kind of comment is so unhelpful. I’ve been with my spouse since we were both in college. He always worked hard but so did I. But our lives always had balance- friends, sports, each other. The life style of work is the top priority and everything else fits in around it in second place is a toxic mindset that many lawyers get swept up in despite being unhappy. I’ve seen it in many of my husbands peers and if my husband hadn’t stepped back to a smaller firm I was seriously considering divorce. Some people are ok with that life but I am not.

I didn't mean for my comment to be unhelpful, just pointing out the reality of what the situation will more than likely be if married to an attorney, esp., one looking to become a partner. I mean you yourself state that the fact that your spouse is at a smaller firm, is more conducive to a happy home life. I'm not married to one, but I'd be happier in your situation. A financial gain is not worth sacrificing family time.

Well yes, if you marry someone who says “I aim to become a big law partner,” then yes it’s what you signed up for. But if that or some other intense job wasn’t their goal, then no it wouldn’t really be what you signed up for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

Not PP. Lol -- what are you? Not an equity partner, not a non-equity partner, not an associate, not a lawyer at all ... not anything. Right? I thought so. But by all means, keep on with your blah, blah, blah...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

Honestly, past 300k, there was no significant impact to our quality of life.

Nearly all associates earn that much. That's called doing really well. Making partner isn't worth the misery for most people. Or their spouses.

And you can be an amazing lawyer and not make partner because of a million factors, even if you bill plenty. Don't crucify yourself on the cross of being an equity partner.

I am a pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

Honestly, past 300k, there was no significant impact to our quality of life.

Nearly all associates earn that much. That's called doing really well. Making partner isn't worth the misery for most people. Or their spouses.

And you can be an amazing lawyer and not make partner because of a million factors, even if you bill plenty. Don't crucify yourself on the cross of being an equity partner.

I am a pp.

Actually there is a big difference in quality of life between 300K and 2 million. I say this as someone that shops bargains, wears cheaply clothes, has never stayed at a four seasons or mayakoha rosewood or anything like that. But when my kid crashes the car, it’s not a big deal. All my kids college educations are fully funded. We live in a nice neighborhood. We paid for therapy weekly for my kids when they needed it, out of pocket. We don’t bargain-shop for the cheaper weeks/flights for vacations. If the kids need a tutor, we get it. I have friends making 300K and it’s actually tough for them to have that level of comfort — we each had our basement floor and it was stressful for them to cover the repair and mitigation whereas it was not for us. We don’t spend most of the money because we grew up cheap middle class and just don’t care about most rich people stuff. But we never worry about money which is very nice.

Obviously 300K is a lot of money and can allow for a really comfortable life. But to say it’s the same as 2M is just inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I sorry reality isn't something you want to recognize. As a non-equity partner you are at the whims of the partnership and can be fired for any legitimate reason. Is it going in the right track? Sure. I didn't argue that but OP's husband is basically still being reviewed as to whether he wins the pie eating contest to win his prize of more pie.

Until he moves over to the K1 side of the ledger he's no different than a senior associate beyond he's farther along the track. Only when he gets the offer to buys in (and depwnding on the firm that could be 7 figures) does getting that title of "partner" really matter..

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

OP, there are definitely firms where this isn’t true and being a non-eq partner is valued and viewed as another level towards full partner. Ignore the people minimizing your DH’s accomplishment and trying to scare you.

FWIW, when our kids were young we had childcare and about the other level of help you described - and we both worked. It was manageable, even if not always easy or ideal.

Sigh. Maybe read the entire thread before spouting off. The OP wrote

Anonymous wrote:

Op - because I don’t care if he is equity or non-equity?

Because there is a huge difference between two and your post doesn't refute my point. Being a non-equity partner means you are still an employee. Being an equity partner means you are an owner - talk to any of the equity partners of the now collapse Dewey if want to understand the distinction.

If you don't know the difference, I am not sure what I can tell you. As a non-equity partner, your goal is to develop business, not only for yourself and the firm. If you don't do that, you might be able to remain as a non-equity partner but you could also as easily be shown the door. Being named non-equity partner just means you are on the right track instead of being shown the door under the up or out system most firms employ.

It sort of sounds like the OP's husband is on the right track in developing business but what matters is bringing in $$$$ into the firm. Given he is traveling to do business development, he's likely been given a budget to assist him in doing that. Billables are important but business development is just as important, if not more. If a partner bills 2000 hours at $1000. That is $2.0 million. Compare that to partner B that bills 1,500 hours at the same rate of $1000 but brings in $10, million in business. Who is more valuable to the firm?

Here's another lesson in Big Law economics. Just because your listed billing rate is $1000 doesn't mean a client is paying that rate. Lots of clients have all kinds of discounts on bills depending on the client, matter, etc. Further, just because an attorney brings in $2.0 million in billing doesn't mean that is all profit. If that billing attorney is at the NYC rate of compensation and was just paid $540K last year, in comp and benefit analysis, you roughly 3X a persons salary to determine what the expenses are for said employee to said employer. In other words, $540K costs the firm in expenses, overhead, rent, taxes, insurance, discounts, salary flowed down to junior attorneys, etc. equals $1.62 million. So in other words, that 2000 billing attorney brought in about $400K in profit. Doesn't seem as much as before.

Literally everybody commenting on this thread is aware of all this. It's just not really relevant to the OP. OP's husband's job is no less secure than jobs in almost any other industry except government. Obviously if a company or a division in a company has an abrupt drop i in business somebody is going to lose their jobs. Do you feel the need to remind everyone of this fact? Or just non-equity big law partners and their spouses?

IF you read this entire thread, I'd dispute your 1st sentence that people are aware of law firm economics/finances. Sorry your husband is only a non-equity partner and are taking offense to reality.

Honestly, past 300k, there was no significant impact to our quality of life.

Nearly all associates earn that much. That's called doing really well. Making partner isn't worth the misery for most people. Or their spouses.

And you can be an amazing lawyer and not make partner because of a million factors, even if you bill plenty. Don't crucify yourself on the cross of being an equity partner.

I am a pp.

Actually there is a big difference in quality of life between 300K and 2 million. I say this as someone that shops bargains, wears cheaply clothes, has never stayed at a four seasons or mayakoha rosewood or anything like that. But when my kid crashes the car, it’s not a big deal. All my kids college educations are fully funded. We live in a nice neighborhood. We paid for therapy weekly for my kids when they needed it, out of pocket. We don’t bargain-shop for the cheaper weeks/flights for vacations. If the kids need a tutor, we get it. I have friends making 300K and it’s actually tough for them to have that level of comfort — we each had our basement floor and it was stressful for them to cover the repair and mitigation whereas it was not for us. We don’t spend most of the money because we grew up cheap middle class and just don’t care about most rich people stuff. But we never worry about money which is very nice.

Obviously 300K is a lot of money and can allow for a really comfortable life. But to say it’s the same as 2M is just inaccurate.

God you are insufferable. And I promise you my dh is a partner at a better firm than yours. (Equity, obvi, since it matters.)