Reply to The golden handcuffs of biglaw

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "The golden handcuffs of biglaw"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]^ 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.  [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics