This might be a stupid question, but does the hour count include all hours you work on a case or only the hours for which a client ends up paying? If the former, 2000 a year (assuming five days off during the year) comes out to less than 8 hours a workday, even before accounting for the presumably inevitable weekend work. If you went into work early (say, 7:45) and focused on billable work (except for a 30-min lunch break and maybe 15 minutes' worth of bathroom breaks, etc.), you could (theoretically) stop doing billable stuff for the rest of the day by 4:30. Is that untenable for a reason I'm overlooking? (It may be, so apologies if this is off-base/somehow insensitive.) Just seems to me that having your mornings freed up for work, perhaps through your husband's assistance, might make things more manageable.

I get that there's non-billable stuff to do, but it sounds like you're spending 700 hours per year on that. Assuming 51 working weeks during the year, that's almost 14 hours a week. Is that amount really necessary? I obviously don't know, but that sounds like a lot to me, for an industry famously driven by the billable hour, which makes me half-suspect your firm could be comfortable with you doing a bit less there.

Anonymous wrote:Op back. I don't think I can go.to government. Opportunities are sparse on usajobs and I've applied for 6 months without a bite.

I also can't hire another nanny -- as a 3rd year with a lot of debt, we are barely making ends meet with one full time nanny.

Yes, I did think my firm would be more family friendly. I chose this firm because during the interview, every single MALE partner told me that he either did drop off or pick up every single day and that I'd be fine with two young children. I now see that they were less than honest -- they do drop off or pick-up WHEN they have time which is not the normal.

This is because their HR people and outside labor lawyers counsel them against being honest or saying anything that could be construed as discriminatory towards women with children.

But all the women partners at my BigLaw firm were childless or waited until they were at least senior associates before having kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did you have two kids in/right after law school? That was stupid.

Having kids in law school is actually a decent idea.

Not if you want to be a big law attorney.

Eh, I know biglaw attorneys who did that and are thriving. They’re done with the difficult baby stages once they’re mid levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did you have two kids in/right after law school? That was stupid.

Having kids in law school is actually a decent idea.

Not if you want to be a big law attorney.

Anonymous wrote:Why did you have two kids in/right after law school? That was stupid.

Having kids in law school is actually a decent idea.

Why did you have two kids in/right after law school? That was stupid.

Anonymous wrote:Op back. I don't think I can go.to government. Opportunities are sparse on usajobs and I've applied for 6 months without a bite.

I also can't hire another nanny -- as a 3rd year with a lot of debt, we are barely making ends meet with one full time nanny.

Yes, I did think my firm would be more family friendly. I chose this firm because during the interview, every single MALE partner told me that he either did drop off or pick up every single day and that I'd be fine with two young children. I now see that they were less than honest -- they do drop off or pick-up WHEN they have time which is not the normal.

I did BigLaw with kids. I billed at least three hours every night after bedtime (9 PM - midnight), including all weekends. I was up at 6 AM every morning and left for work by 7 AM. During those years I had a 4 month - 3 year old and was also up with the baby 2-3 times a night. I also tried to bill at least 4 hours over weekend naptimes and got up early on weekend mornings to bill until the kids woke up. You have to give up sleeping to make it work. I billed about 2200 hours a year with a 45 hour a week nanny and a supportive, but working FT, spouse.

Op back. I don't think I can go.to government. Opportunities are sparse on usajobs and I've applied for 6 months without a bite.

I also can't hire another nanny -- as a 3rd year with a lot of debt, we are barely making ends meet with one full time nanny.

Yes, I did think my firm would be more family friendly. I chose this firm because during the interview, every single MALE partner told me that he either did drop off or pick up every single day and that I'd be fine with two young children. I now see that they were less than honest -- they do drop off or pick-up WHEN they have time which is not the normal.

The problem, OP, is that these are really your prime years for your career development. If you can put in 3-5 years at your firm you will have so many more options. Right now you aren't very valuable to any employer because you don't know much. If you leave now you risk stunting your career growth long term. If you can stick it out, you can lay the foundation for longer term career growth. Can your husband lean out for a few years?

Get out. At least you are in the right city to make the move to gov't (assuming you are in DC). In-house might be hard with only one year at a firm and some in-house jobs are also going to be long hours.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, OP. I don't know how anyone does it - or even wants to! - with young kids. I moved to the government, so my advice is to get out.

Same. Get out. You will not miss it, especially if you get gone before you tie yourself to that salary.

You need more child care. Do you have a nanny? Pay her overtime or have someone else available once she needs to leave.

Anonymous wrote:Harsh question: Why did you think your experience in Big Law would be different than those you've read about in Above the Law, etc.? Nothing that you've described is remotely outside the norm of expectations. It was foolish for you to try to attempt the impossible with young children. You need to get out now - or wait until you are given the boot with 3 months severance to find something more realistic for your stage in life.

I know this sounds mean, but I get so tired of my associates thinking the rules/expectations don't apply to them. I guarantee your partners feel the same about you.

It is mean. You’re probably a partner everyone avoids.

You aren't very marketable in-house as a rising third year with only one year at a firm under your belt. You should try to stick it out one more year.

Get out before the “difficult” conversation has to occur. You are on a path to nowhere there.