Anonymous wrote:

Well, since your husband is sitting right next to you, you can tell him from me that I know many lawyers who would say the same thing that he is saying to you right now, and all I can say in response is that he may very well truly believe that but it’s only because that’s all he knows.

I also have a deeper definition of “friendship” than you and I guess him. I “keep in touch” with a lot of people. “Friendship” to me isn’t a word that I throw around so lightly, though.

Oh, and one more thing: we also vacationed with law partners and their families. We don’t see them anymore either. When the ties that bind are law, business, careers, etc., those ties are fleeting.

I’m sure you think everything you have going is genuine, though. Enjoy your rose-colored glasses.

You know how I can tell you might have actually been a BigLaw partner? You think you are always right. Unbelievable that you are trying to deny someone else’s lived experience. I bet your DW regrets the day you retired - she is stuck listening to you mansplain all day.

DP. You know, your lashing out at him here makes me think he’s hit on a truth that you don’t want to acknowledge. What you wrote is so over-the-top reactive to what he said that I suspect he’s seen you and your life in a way that makes you very uncomfortable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the biglaw partner, DW is sahm. We have a nanny/housekeeper in 3-4 days per week.

I’m with the kids in the morning, having breakfast/coffee before school. I greet them when they get home (wfh at least 3 days a week, usually 4 or 5). We all eat dinner together. I very rarely work weekends and when I do it’s either a quick call or two, or mindless admin work I can do in front of the TV (entering time). I’ve never once missed or cut short a vacation; I’ve worked some on vacations but never enough where it’s noticeable.

This is not achievable in all practices or at all firms. I’ve been fortunate. But I was also strategic about what I wanted. I’ll probably never get to that 4-6MM range, but I’m 40 and just crossed the 1MM threshold which is fine for me.

If your schedule is so cozy, and your wife is a SAHM, then why the nanny? Seems excessive.

Because I don’t want a huge amount of my wife’s time devoted to cleaning, laundry, and dishes. Because our kids are at different schools, on different schedules, with different activities, and it’s helpful to have two caretakers available.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the biglaw partner, DW is sahm. We have a nanny/housekeeper in 3-4 days per week.

I’m with the kids in the morning, having breakfast/coffee before school. I greet them when they get home (wfh at least 3 days a week, usually 4 or 5). We all eat dinner together. I very rarely work weekends and when I do it’s either a quick call or two, or mindless admin work I can do in front of the TV (entering time). I’ve never once missed or cut short a vacation; I’ve worked some on vacations but never enough where it’s noticeable.

This is not achievable in all practices or at all firms. I’ve been fortunate. But I was also strategic about what I wanted. I’ll probably never get to that 4-6MM range, but I’m 40 and just crossed the 1MM threshold which is fine for me.

I'm another biglaw partner (one who already posted up thread) and my set up is very similar. Though I'm the DW and my DH works full time. I was extremely strategic about my path even when I was a summer associate - I looked at the mid-career partners at my firm and what their lives were like. Some of the practice areas I was interested in had zero women partners at the time (18 years ago). That was a huge red flag for me. The practice area I picked had a lot of women partners, a lot of whom worked part time. I recognized at the time that (1) the pay would never be as high as some other practice areas and (2) if the schedule was that much easier, my biggest challenge was likely making hours every year. But I figured I would rather get pushed out as a midyear associate for only billing 1600 hours a year, than quit as a midyear associate because I was burned out from billing 2500 hours a year. I observed even as a summer associate that by 5th year associate year, only around 20-30% of associates at my firm were still around. So if the odds were that I wouldn't be there in 5 years, I might as well try and make those years more bearable.

Anyhow, the strategy worked well; I'm the only person I know from my summer associate class who is still in biglaw (I changed firms at one point). I work primarily from home in a practice group with tons of flexibility, and where my partners (men and women mixed) mostly have working spouses, kids and want a lot of flexibility too. Several of the male partners with working spouses handle the daily school pick up at 4pm or whatever else. No one cares anymore if you're doing client calls from the soccer field at 4pm. I work an intense but predictable daily schedule from 9-6 or 7 every day. I do pick up and drop off daily (but DH handles maybe once a week if I have an important conflict). We always have dinner together every night. Maybe once a week after dinner I do 3 hours of work. I almost never work weekends. I don't have much of my own book of business so no non-billable admin work. So when I work those hours, I'm typically able to bill 9-10 hours 5 days a week. I don't take tons of vacation, but when I do I have to check email (like any white collar professional these days) but rarely have to do actually "work". So it's not that hard to hit 1900 hours a year - which is what my firm wants. I don't waste time on any nonbillable stuff other than client pitches. I haven't quite hit $1m, but I probably will in the next 3 years; but I took a few years off when my son was born, so my comp is slightly behind. Like the PP above, I'll never be a huge rainmaker, and it's even possible in five years that I'm told I'm not driven enough to get promoted - so that I get pushed out in an up-or-out model. But at that point, I'd have been working almost 25 years on this run, which I feel like is a success in any metric.

In short, *some* biglaw partners have totally manageable lives and make excellent comp for what they do. It's all about strategy, plus luck and timing. But I'd say any success in big law is about those things - so might as well choose the easier path than the harder one and enjoy the ride.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the biglaw partner, DW is sahm. We have a nanny/housekeeper in 3-4 days per week.

I’m with the kids in the morning, having breakfast/coffee before school. I greet them when they get home (wfh at least 3 days a week, usually 4 or 5). We all eat dinner together. I very rarely work weekends and when I do it’s either a quick call or two, or mindless admin work I can do in front of the TV (entering time). I’ve never once missed or cut short a vacation; I’ve worked some on vacations but never enough where it’s noticeable.

This is not achievable in all practices or at all firms. I’ve been fortunate. But I was also strategic about what I wanted. I’ll probably never get to that 4-6MM range, but I’m 40 and just crossed the 1MM threshold which is fine for me.

If your schedule is so cozy, and your wife is a SAHM, then why the nanny? Seems excessive.

DP. No, it doesn’t. Kids is plural. So if one kid needs to be at soccer and one is supposed to be at cello and there’s one parent home, are they supposed to teleport? Does dinner appear from replicators now? Should the SAHM be scrubbing toilets just so Internet Dude doesn’t feel inferior?

Well, since your husband is sitting right next to you, you can tell him from me that I know many lawyers who would say the same thing that he is saying to you right now, and all I can say in response is that he may very well truly believe that but it’s only because that’s all he knows.

I also have a deeper definition of “friendship” than you and I guess him. I “keep in touch” with a lot of people. “Friendship” to me isn’t a word that I throw around so lightly, though.

Oh, and one more thing: we also vacationed with law partners and their families. We don’t see them anymore either. When the ties that bind are law, business, careers, etc., those ties are fleeting.

I’m sure you think everything you have going is genuine, though. Enjoy your rose-colored glasses.

You know how I can tell you might have actually been a BigLaw partner? You think you are always right. Unbelievable that you are trying to deny someone else’s lived experience. I bet your DW regrets the day you retired - she is stuck listening to you mansplain all day.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the biglaw partner, DW is sahm. We have a nanny/housekeeper in 3-4 days per week.

I’m with the kids in the morning, having breakfast/coffee before school. I greet them when they get home (wfh at least 3 days a week, usually 4 or 5). We all eat dinner together. I very rarely work weekends and when I do it’s either a quick call or two, or mindless admin work I can do in front of the TV (entering time). I’ve never once missed or cut short a vacation; I’ve worked some on vacations but never enough where it’s noticeable.

This is not achievable in all practices or at all firms. I’ve been fortunate. But I was also strategic about what I wanted. I’ll probably never get to that 4-6MM range, but I’m 40 and just crossed the 1MM threshold which is fine for me.

If your schedule is so cozy, and your wife is a SAHM, then why the nanny? Seems excessive.

I’m the biglaw partner, DW is sahm. We have a nanny/housekeeper in 3-4 days per week.

I’m with the kids in the morning, having breakfast/coffee before school. I greet them when they get home (wfh at least 3 days a week, usually 4 or 5). We all eat dinner together. I very rarely work weekends and when I do it’s either a quick call or two, or mindless admin work I can do in front of the TV (entering time). I’ve never once missed or cut short a vacation; I’ve worked some on vacations but never enough where it’s noticeable.

This is not achievable in all practices or at all firms. I’ve been fortunate. But I was also strategic about what I wanted. I’ll probably never get to that 4-6MM range, but I’m 40 and just crossed the 1MM threshold which is fine for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a biglaw partner in the house and you're NOT farming out cleaning, errands, and low-quality time with kids (however you define that - maybe carting to sports practices through rush hour traffic), you're doing it wrong. Your time is far more valuable than the time of whoever you could hire. So use the money to buy their time and protect the time you want for the activities you want.

For those of us poors reading here who have to cart our kids to practices in rush hour ourselves, instead of outsourcing - I have learned to really value and take advantage of that time. Being the driver in rush hour traffic STINKS. But, it means my child has no one to talk to but me and we have really good conversations and that time has helped me to get to know my kid better. Carting their friends too means also I know many of their friends quite well. One of our recent favorite car pastimes has been the rediscovery of my old car cd collection from college. So the kids love to play CD roulette and pick a random disc and I have to play it, whatever it may be, and tell them about whatever the artist/song is. The Napster burned CDs from the early aughts are one kid's current faves. We also call the grandparents, godparents, elderly relatives and friends during this time and it is a fantastic way to stay connected to them and so much less stressful than when the grands call during dinner, or other times when we're busy. So, there are silver linings to the awful bits like rush hour kid shuttling.

Yea I agree. What a stupid comment. That poster is going to have to define “low quality time with the kids” more specifically.

Um, that poster did say, "however you define it."

What I mean is what, exactly? Because I can’t think of any “low quality time with the kids” that I would hire out. Now you understand my point smart ass?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a biglaw partner in the house and you're NOT farming out cleaning, errands, and low-quality time with kids (however you define that - maybe carting to sports practices through rush hour traffic), you're doing it wrong. Your time is far more valuable than the time of whoever you could hire. So use the money to buy their time and protect the time you want for the activities you want.

For those of us poors reading here who have to cart our kids to practices in rush hour ourselves, instead of outsourcing - I have learned to really value and take advantage of that time. Being the driver in rush hour traffic STINKS. But, it means my child has no one to talk to but me and we have really good conversations and that time has helped me to get to know my kid better. Carting their friends too means also I know many of their friends quite well. One of our recent favorite car pastimes has been the rediscovery of my old car cd collection from college. So the kids love to play CD roulette and pick a random disc and I have to play it, whatever it may be, and tell them about whatever the artist/song is. The Napster burned CDs from the early aughts are one kid's current faves. We also call the grandparents, godparents, elderly relatives and friends during this time and it is a fantastic way to stay connected to them and so much less stressful than when the grands call during dinner, or other times when we're busy. So, there are silver linings to the awful bits like rush hour kid shuttling.

Yea I agree. What a stupid comment. That poster is going to have to define “low quality time with the kids” more specifically.

Um, that poster did say, "however you define it."

DH partner at a V10 with a large book of business.

We have 4 kids and I just switched from working 40 to 30 hrs per week. It’s a lot to manage the kid and household stuff.

That being said, DH and I eat dinner together every night and I talk through things for the kids with him all the time. But I’m definitely doing all the planning and running the kids around.

I think we actually have a good balance - I work as hard at home, kid, and my work stuff as DH does with his work stuff. We both feel like we are contributing a lot to our family and future.

DH also really likes his job. He was a government lawyer for a bit and hated it - came back to big law. Some people really are happy, and it’s not just the money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I met my DH in law school and we both started out as newleyweds in BigLaw. After a time working as an attorney and then consulting, I ended up a SAHM. We've been married 24 years, and now have one in college and one senior in HS.

No, he's not very involved in the home life--even though he's been working at home since March 2020. He's working all the time. Although I left my firm before I was senior enough to become a partner, I remember it well and as a result I don't give my DH much crap about it/am not resentful.

But I will say that I wouldn't really do this again, because after decades here, the work-comes-first patterns are entrenched. He's not really too clear about what's going on in our DC's lives. Our older DC is resentful of that and she says she has "Daddy issues." I have to say, if I were to give him a grade on fatherhood (AFTER you take out the really horrible fathers like absent or abusive ones)--just looking at a subset of stereotypical good fathers--I'd give him a B- which is a big disappointment for me to think, or say.

He got a huge health scare last year, and still made his hours even while in chemo. Then after he was "cured," he went away for a month to visit his elderly mom and his sister and her family. All the while, working. I don't begrudge him that at all, it wasn't like he went to Vegas; he was overdue to see his family. But, here is my point--the household ran just fine without him. I can't even imagine leaving for a few days, let alone a month, and not having the household fall apart. It just underscored his disconnect with the rest of the family. Our remaining DC said it was sort of relaxing not having him around.

ugh. This was really sad to type. And at the same time, he is a wonderful guy in so many ways. These situations are never black and white.

This is really insightful. I think helping out at home and with kids makes you feel like you have a stake in your family life since you expended effort in those spheres of life. How do these men feel that connection to their family/kids life if they aren’t engaged in their life?

Top PP here. I agree with you. Two more quick examples. To celebrate that DH was home after this month-long absence where he saw family (while still working like crazy), we were going to dinner last night. He had a call with a client until 6:30 so we made reservations for 7pm. At 6:50 I'm like, hello...and he's typing away furiously trying to get done. He says "pull the car out of the driveway and I'll hop in."
Okay, seriously, think about this. I have do do everything else...take out the dog, close the curtains, etc and when the kids were little, get them all ready etc etc. I have to literally pull out the car and wait for him to go from computer to car. There is just NO effort by him expended on the family, the house, or even arranging this date. Then at dinner his watch is buzzing him. ugh.

Second example. Our senior in high school DC is (like a recruited athlete) and now is not the time for DC to get injured, but DC got injured. I took DC to the doctor today and the short story is all is well and DC can continue to do their sport. DH walks out of his office at 7:15pm and wonders why the car is gone. I said that DC went to their sport and flips out, furious. "DC is going to get more injured WTF is DC doing going to their sport?" etc. I explain that we went to the doctor, got an x-ray, what the diagnosis was, etc etc and DC is fine to continue their sport. DH says "that's BS, that doctor must be used to giving patients what they want."

I said nicely, "Look, you weren't there. If you were there, you could discuss it with the doctor, but...you weren't there, so you can have your opinion but it's not going to change the outcome. If you wanted something different, you would have had to have come."

And I'm sick of that because the format is that he just parachutes in, has a HUGE opinion, and then says something along the lines of "Fine. Don't listen to me." and retreats back to his work.

That wasn't the case when the kids were little because they were little kid problems. But when the kids are older and have their own opinions and ideas, and issues are more complicated, he just doesn't have any credibility. It's then a vicious circle, because then he retreats.

Since OP was asking about her DH, I'll say this: It really is an unusual man that can successfully navigate the pressures of big law firm culture and family life. It's not really set up to have eggs in more than one basket, and the $$ compensation for eggs all in the BigLaw basket often psychologically justifies keeping eggs out of the family basket.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a biglaw partner in the house and you're NOT farming out cleaning, errands, and low-quality time with kids (however you define that - maybe carting to sports practices through rush hour traffic), you're doing it wrong. Your time is far more valuable than the time of whoever you could hire. So use the money to buy their time and protect the time you want for the activities you want.

For those of us poors reading here who have to cart our kids to practices in rush hour ourselves, instead of outsourcing - I have learned to really value and take advantage of that time. Being the driver in rush hour traffic STINKS. But, it means my child has no one to talk to but me and we have really good conversations and that time has helped me to get to know my kid better. Carting their friends too means also I know many of their friends quite well. One of our recent favorite car pastimes has been the rediscovery of my old car cd collection from college. So the kids love to play CD roulette and pick a random disc and I have to play it, whatever it may be, and tell them about whatever the artist/song is. The Napster burned CDs from the early aughts are one kid's current faves. We also call the grandparents, godparents, elderly relatives and friends during this time and it is a fantastic way to stay connected to them and so much less stressful than when the grands call during dinner, or other times when we're busy. So, there are silver linings to the awful bits like rush hour kid shuttling.

Yea I agree. What a stupid comment. That poster is going to have to define “low quality time with the kids” more specifically.

Anonymous wrote:If there's a biglaw partner in the house and you're NOT farming out cleaning, errands, and low-quality time with kids (however you define that - maybe carting to sports practices through rush hour traffic), you're doing it wrong. Your time is far more valuable than the time of whoever you could hire. So use the money to buy their time and protect the time you want for the activities you want.

For those of us poors reading here who have to cart our kids to practices in rush hour ourselves, instead of outsourcing - I have learned to really value and take advantage of that time. Being the driver in rush hour traffic STINKS. But, it means my child has no one to talk to but me and we have really good conversations and that time has helped me to get to know my kid better. Carting their friends too means also I know many of their friends quite well. One of our recent favorite car pastimes has been the rediscovery of my old car cd collection from college. So the kids love to play CD roulette and pick a random disc and I have to play it, whatever it may be, and tell them about whatever the artist/song is. The Napster burned CDs from the early aughts are one kid's current faves. We also call the grandparents, godparents, elderly relatives and friends during this time and it is a fantastic way to stay connected to them and so much less stressful than when the grands call during dinner, or other times when we're busy. So, there are silver linings to the awful bits like rush hour kid shuttling.

Anonymous wrote:

No one’s experience is universal, but you’re kidding yourself if you think you really “know” the “many” Biglaw partners you think you do. You don’t know what they’re really thinking at all. You may not even know what your husband is really thinking, but I’ll let that one be.

As for your husband being “friends” with his clients, they are “friendships” of convenience and necessity. Who else is he supposed to be friends with when he’s so busy with work and family? There’s no room for friends other than clients and colleagues.

When I was a Biglaw partner, I too had a social life largely based around clients and colleagues. But I also left room for real froends. And when I left my firm - and the practice of law entirely - what I can’t believe has already been almost a decade ago, I literally never heard from any of them ever again almost overnight. Everything about Biglaw is shallow and artificial.

Well, my DH is sitting next to me right now confirming that what I wrote is accurate. We vacation with three of his partners and their families, and regularly meet with them in our beach town. One is older (69) and starting to ramp down towards retirement, so it’s a topic we discuss fairly frequently. As for his clients, the friendships may have started out of necessity or convenience, but since we go out with some when we are visiting their city and he keeps in touch with others who have left their jobs and are no longer in a position to send him business, I think those qualify as true friendships. He also has another group of friends that he plays tennis with, meets for beers and travels with to Big10 football games, so he clearly has room for others.

Sounds like you hated your job. I hated BigLaw, too. My DH does not and never has, and neither do the guys ge practices with. Why are you so invested in insisting this can’t be right? It’s comical, and your sweeping absolutes (“Everything about BigLaw is shallow and artificial”) make ever you say less credible, because you leave no room fir anyone to have an experience different than your own.

Well, since your husband is sitting right next to you, you can tell him from me that I know many lawyers who would say the same thing that he is saying to you right now, and all I can say in response is that he may very well truly believe that but it’s only because that’s all he knows.

I also have a deeper definition of “friendship” than you and I guess him. I “keep in touch” with a lot of people. “Friendship” to me isn’t a word that I throw around so lightly, though.

Oh, and one more thing: we also vacationed with law partners and their families. We don’t see them anymore either. When the ties that bind are law, business, careers, etc., those ties are fleeting.

I’m sure you think everything you have going is genuine, though. Enjoy your rose-colored glasses.

No one’s experience is universal, but you’re kidding yourself if you think you really “know” the “many” Biglaw partners you think you do. You don’t know what they’re really thinking at all. You may not even know what your husband is really thinking, but I’ll let that one be.

As for your husband being “friends” with his clients, they are “friendships” of convenience and necessity. Who else is he supposed to be friends with when he’s so busy with work and family? There’s no room for friends other than clients and colleagues.

When I was a Biglaw partner, I too had a social life largely based around clients and colleagues. But I also left room for real froends. And when I left my firm - and the practice of law entirely - what I can’t believe has already been almost a decade ago, I literally never heard from any of them ever again almost overnight. Everything about Biglaw is shallow and artificial.

Well, my DH is sitting next to me right now confirming that what I wrote is accurate. We vacation with three of his partners and their families, and regularly meet with them in our beach town. One is older (69) and starting to ramp down towards retirement, so it’s a topic we discuss fairly frequently. As for his clients, the friendships may have started out of necessity or convenience, but since we go out with some when we are visiting their city and he keeps in touch with others who have left their jobs and are no longer in a position to send him business, I think those qualify as true friendships. He also has another group of friends that he plays tennis with, meets for beers and travels with to Big10 football games, so he clearly has room for others.

Sounds like you hated your job. I hated BigLaw, too. My DH does not and never has, and neither do the guys ge practices with. Why are you so invested in insisting this can’t be right? It’s comical, and your sweeping absolutes (“Everything about BigLaw is shallow and artificial”) make ever you say less credible, because you leave no room fir anyone to have an experience different than your own.