Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to stack coins until the line between oppressor and oppressed is crossed. Depending on the individual, that doesn't happen until late 40s (for those who went straight through) or 50s or later (for those who took a more circuitous route, such as spending a lot of time in government). Only senior partners, esp big rainmakers, make a lot more than they bring in. Many relationships are institutional, and only are inherited late in one's career. Biglaw is not a path to great riches. Don't get me wrong, it's plenty comfortable. But only a small handful get to one percent wealth (currently around $12m in net worth) through law.

This. It can be a good life, but not big money. Every law firm partner I know doesn’t want their kid to go into law.

Perhaps but I still think that biglaw is one of the best risk adjusted careers if financial success is the goal. We can all decide whether financial success is the right goal but let's compare biglaw to investment banking. Certainly a decade or two ago investment banking would have hands-down been the right career path to make a lot of money. These days a lot of bulge bracket Managing Directors are probably in the $1m-$3m range. However, the career risk they have is much greater than in biglaw. Biglaw firms while increasingly cut throat still doesn't compare to investment banking--most MD's careers are over by 50. If you're over 50 in investment banking you either made it to the very top (think top management of a major investment bank) or you've been pushed out working at a boutique where it's completely eat what you kill.

The chance of making MD is no better than making partner (perhaps worse), the time you get to stay MD vs stay partner is much worse, and then the market cycle driven layoffs are more intense than in law. A good typical biglaw partner can practice well into his/her 50s perhaps 60s and then collect on a pension payout for years. So the bankers might make a little more as associates, VPs, directors (% wise bigger difference but compared to making partner in biglaw or MD in investment banking the cumulative differences are probably not much more than a year or two of comp for an MD/partner), make MD in their mid 30s (perhaps a couple years earlier) and then flame out typically within 10 years or less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Lawers typically have low rate of saving compared to a certain type of wage slaves.

I know people who didn't save a dollar outside of retirement for the first 3-5 years to pay off loans. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Yes but the OP is about the big law partners, who should be past that phase by then.

Of course, but the PP I was responding to is referencing a stat that is not limited to partners. The majority don't make partner, and don't save much when they're associates, not necessarily because they're spendthrifts but because they're risk averse and the debt is the most pressing thing for them.

For the OP's question, I'd imagine that it's years 4-10 that really count (you must have some clients if you haven't been pushed out, you're probably equity by then), so if you can save about half a mill a year for those 7 years you're probably doing well. $3.5 or above (outside of retirement) is respectable for someone who's been partner for 10 years, I think.

The point is those people tend to be big spenders and poor savers, so the ratio of their saving is much lower than others.

Who is "those people" in this post? Because my point is that it is the opposite -- BigLaw lawyers make great salaries but have very high starting debt. Paying that off instead of saving might be the less financially astute move, but it's not "big spender" behavior. Partners make less than people realize in the beginning, and expecting them to accrue $1M per year of partnership (including the first years) or be called out as financially illiterate spendthrifts is not a good read of the situation IME.

Why are you getting so angry? Are you swimming in school debt? If you are frugal, you will get there.

Those people who cannot, which is most, cannot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Lawers typically have low rate of saving compared to a certain type of wage slaves.

I know people who didn't save a dollar outside of retirement for the first 3-5 years to pay off loans. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Yes but the OP is about the big law partners, who should be past that phase by then.

Of course, but the PP I was responding to is referencing a stat that is not limited to partners. The majority don't make partner, and don't save much when they're associates, not necessarily because they're spendthrifts but because they're risk averse and the debt is the most pressing thing for them.

For the OP's question, I'd imagine that it's years 4-10 that really count (you must have some clients if you haven't been pushed out, you're probably equity by then), so if you can save about half a mill a year for those 7 years you're probably doing well. $3.5 or above (outside of retirement) is respectable for someone who's been partner for 10 years, I think.

The point is those people tend to be big spenders and poor savers, so the ratio of their saving is much lower than others.

Who is "those people" in this post? Because my point is that it is the opposite -- BigLaw lawyers make great salaries but have very high starting debt. Paying that off instead of saving might be the less financially astute move, but it's not "big spender" behavior. Partners make less than people realize in the beginning, and expecting them to accrue $1M per year of partnership (including the first years) or be called out as financially illiterate spendthrifts is not a good read of the situation IME.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Lawers typically have low rate of saving compared to a certain type of wage slaves.

I know people who didn't save a dollar outside of retirement for the first 3-5 years to pay off loans. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Yes but the OP is about the big law partners, who should be past that phase by then.

Of course, but the PP I was responding to is referencing a stat that is not limited to partners. The majority don't make partner, and don't save much when they're associates, not necessarily because they're spendthrifts but because they're risk averse and the debt is the most pressing thing for them.

For the OP's question, I'd imagine that it's years 4-10 that really count (you must have some clients if you haven't been pushed out, you're probably equity by then), so if you can save about half a mill a year for those 7 years you're probably doing well. $3.5 or above (outside of retirement) is respectable for someone who's been partner for 10 years, I think.

The point is those people tend to be big spenders and poor savers, so the ratio of their saving is much lower than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

What would you estimate the networth of people with those background?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some people, lifestyle expands with income. In particular, you get the big house --- but mostly on the idea that you'll be making big bucks for years to come. So you've got a big house, but perhaps still not a big pile in the bank in the early years after making partner.

Lawyers aren't the best with money generally. IDK anyone who has made partner who hasn't upgraded right away from a perfectly nice house to a full on mansion in Bethesda or Westchester (NYC partners). And then there's the private school. Then there's the sudden 4 vacations a year where only the Ritz Carlton is acceptable. And a lot of this happens on the "promise" of -- I made partner, my income will just keep going up and up forever. At my firm there was a LOT of shock when in 2008-09 people who had been partner for 10 yrs and were STILL only service partners were asked to go -- bc honestly the work they were doing could be done by a 7th yr. And that practice has kept up even now (pushing people out who can't produce) -- and yet it STILL doesn't stop people from really really upgrading lifestyles in the first 5 yrs after partnership. IDK why they don't wait until they're more established though maybe it's the fear that they'll never make money like this again so get all the goods you want now.

This. Terrible investors too. Kid you not I had a conversation with a junior partner who fancies himself really really financially savvy -- cut above the rest. We're talking about the market and he literally says "oh I don't invest in the S&P -- any peon can do that, MY GUY gets me private placements and the best sector investments" and then proceeded to brag about how he has the BEST financial advisor in ALL the land and the two of them are geniuses at cooking up awesome investments. Turns out he hasn't beat the S&P in TWO years -- despite 19% and 11% gains for the broader market in the last 2 yrs; turns out his guy had him almost completely in energy last yr and in solar the yr before -- the worst performing sectors in each yr. And genius partner had no idea until the end of the yr. SMDH. My older partners aren't much different but far less braggy about it . . . .

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to stack coins until the line between oppressor and oppressed is crossed. Depending on the individual, that doesn't happen until late 40s (for those who went straight through) or 50s or later (for those who took a more circuitous route, such as spending a lot of time in government). Only senior partners, esp big rainmakers, make a lot more than they bring in. Many relationships are institutional, and only are inherited late in one's career. Biglaw is not a path to great riches. Don't get me wrong, it's plenty comfortable. But only a small handful get to one percent wealth (currently around $12m in net worth) through law.

This. It can be a good life, but not big money. Every law firm partner I know doesn’t want their kid to go into law.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinks a 10+ year biglaw equity partner hits $10m+?

So...say you are 24 when you graduate law school...associate for 8 years? Non-equity for 3 years? Equity partner for 10 years...at 45 I would think if you save & invest you could have $10m+.

Pipe dream. Maybe if you have a two big law partner spouses for ten years and are relatively frugal but otherwise no way based solely on the big law salaries. I know those PPP look really nice, but the majority of equity partners won't be getting that average PPP ten years in. And don't forget you need to pay for housing and stuff, you can't just put every penny into investments unless you live in your parents' basement.

Anonymous wrote:For some people, lifestyle expands with income. In particular, you get the big house --- but mostly on the idea that you'll be making big bucks for years to come. So you've got a big house, but perhaps still not a big pile in the bank in the early years after making partner.

Lawyers aren't the best with money generally. IDK anyone who has made partner who hasn't upgraded right away from a perfectly nice house to a full on mansion in Bethesda or Westchester (NYC partners). And then there's the private school. Then there's the sudden 4 vacations a year where only the Ritz Carlton is acceptable. And a lot of this happens on the "promise" of -- I made partner, my income will just keep going up and up forever. At my firm there was a LOT of shock when in 2008-09 people who had been partner for 10 yrs and were STILL only service partners were asked to go -- bc honestly the work they were doing could be done by a 7th yr. And that practice has kept up even now (pushing people out who can't produce) -- and yet it STILL doesn't stop people from really really upgrading lifestyles in the first 5 yrs after partnership. IDK why they don't wait until they're more established though maybe it's the fear that they'll never make money like this again so get all the goods you want now.

Anonymous wrote:Biglaw people regularly post salaries here. People don’t seem too shy about it

lol such a good point. Lawyers are big spenders.

Biglaw people regularly post salaries here. People don’t seem too shy about it

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Why would anyone want to put their exact net worth numbers out there? To impress a stranger?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Lawers typically have low rate of saving compared to a certain type of wage slaves.

I know people who didn't save a dollar outside of retirement for the first 3-5 years to pay off loans. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Yes but the OP is about the big law partners, who should be past that phase by then.

Of course, but the PP I was responding to is referencing a stat that is not limited to partners. The majority don't make partner, and don't save much when they're associates, not necessarily because they're spendthrifts but because they're risk averse and the debt is the most pressing thing for them.

For the OP's question, I'd imagine that it's years 4-10 that really count (you must have some clients if you haven't been pushed out, you're probably equity by then), so if you can save about half a mill a year for those 7 years you're probably doing well. $3.5 or above (outside of retirement) is respectable for someone who's been partner for 10 years, I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Lawers typically have low rate of saving compared to a certain type of wage slaves.

I know people who didn't save a dollar outside of retirement for the first 3-5 years to pay off loans. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Yes but the OP is about the big law partners, who should be past that phase by then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, one multi-millionaire and two kinda-sorta? Isn’t DC loaded with Biglaw people? I thought this thread would be filled with moneybag responses.

Lawers typically have low rate of saving compared to a certain type of wage slaves.

I know people who didn't save a dollar outside of retirement for the first 3-5 years to pay off loans. Sucks, but it is what it is.