Anonymous wrote:I did this for 6 years at a DC law firm before leaving to the gov't. Then at the gov't I worked almost as hard and traveled constantly. Now I work in-house at a pharma company, working 9-5:30 and making $250k + stock incentives. My only regret is that I didn't leave sooner. In-house is really the only way to go.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that BigLaw partners (and I am including the women) lived through this type of indentured servitude and think that if they did it, everyone else should. It really IS a cult of martyrdom. And no, clients very rarely really NEED something overnight---but when you are charging first year associate time at over $500/hour you need to prove your value some way and law firms choose to do it by imposing bizarre deadlines on themselves. And if I am paying $900 for partner time, if I DO want it turned on a dime, then they better be able to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through the whole thread, but 2500 hours a year (which OP indicates includes pro bono, training, etc.) works out to 48 hour weeks 52 weeks a year. That allows for 2000 billable (which likely includes 50-100 pro bono hours) and 500 other hours. OP said she hasn't taken any time off so 52 is theoretically right. If you do it based on 48 weeks (2 weeks of holiday and 2 weeks of vacation) then it's 52 hours a week. A 50ish hour week may not be what the OP wants but it isn't impossible.

It sounds like you don't understand how billable hours work. A 48-hour billed week is not equal to a 48-hour work week.

No, I understand it. Read a little more carefully. A 48 hour week is based on 2500 hours which includes all the other stuff (this is what OP said).

Billing 52 hours a week (even if that includes pro bono and other non-billable work) regularly is unpleasant. And while practice areas vary, legal work doesn't usually flow so regularly. Even non-billable work often comes down unexpectedly, such as pitch preparation and pro bono representation. Realistically, what you're suggesting will require many weeks with much longer hours to average out to 52 billed per week. And OP's home life has to be able to accommodate that.

NP. "Unpleasant" is very different from the abject misery OP and some others are describing. 52 hours accounted for per week is a lot (especially since you are right about variability. But, it isn't that bad, especially given the money. Almost any job that pays that much is going to be unpleasant at least a decent chunk of the time. It is just a tradeoff you have to decide if you want to make or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through the whole thread, but 2500 hours a year (which OP indicates includes pro bono, training, etc.) works out to 48 hour weeks 52 weeks a year. That allows for 2000 billable (which likely includes 50-100 pro bono hours) and 500 other hours. OP said she hasn't taken any time off so 52 is theoretically right. If you do it based on 48 weeks (2 weeks of holiday and 2 weeks of vacation) then it's 52 hours a week. A 50ish hour week may not be what the OP wants but it isn't impossible.

It sounds like you don't understand how billable hours work. A 48-hour billed week is not equal to a 48-hour work week.

No, I understand it. Read a little more carefully. A 48 hour week is based on 2500 hours which includes all the other stuff (this is what OP said).

Billing 52 hours a week (even if that includes pro bono and other non-billable work) regularly is unpleasant. And while practice areas vary, legal work doesn't usually flow so regularly. Even non-billable work often comes down unexpectedly, such as pitch preparation and pro bono representation. Realistically, what you're suggesting will require many weeks with much longer hours to average out to 52 billed per week. And OP's home life has to be able to accommodate that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds just like 18th century indentured servitude. Someone loans you a tremendous amount of money to start a life and then you spend 7 years paying it back with your labor. The only difference is, back then you were free after 7 years.

It sounds that way because some of the posters are either exaggerating or else they're assuming their outlier experiences are the norm. I worked in biglaw litigation for 6 years, and I know lots of people in biglaw that this experience does not describe.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds just like 18th century indentured servitude. Someone loans you a tremendous amount of money to start a life and then you spend 7 years paying it back with your labor. The only difference is, back then you were free after 7 years.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that BigLaw partners (and I am including the women) lived through this type of indentured servitude and think that if they did it, everyone else should. It really IS a cult of martyrdom. And no, clients very rarely really NEED something overnight---but when you are charging first year associate time at over $500/hour you need to prove your value some way and law firms choose to do it by imposing bizarre deadlines on themselves. And if I am paying $900 for partner time, if I DO want it turned on a dime, then they better be able to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a SAHM to a successful big law attorney. There's lots of good advice on this thread, much better than I can give. But I do want to add that DH and I made the choice we did for our individual family, but we consider ourselves feminists and we OFTEN lament that there aren't more women with SAH husbands in big law. Or even women with husbands who work very part-time and take on the brunt of the work at home like a SAH parent would. They just don't exist. And it sucks. It sucks for women everywhere. SAHMs are not going away. What big law needs is more SAHDs.

So, without knowing anything about your personal situation, I would consider discussing it as an option with your DH, if he is so inclined. It makes a world of difference to have one spouse who takes care of everything else and one spouse who can focus on work. It makes the big law job really not so crazy.

No, what big law needs are more senior partners and decision-makers who are involved in the daily grind in their house and have actual daily responsibilities for their home and children. It's amazing how much inefficiency and self-generated crisis exist in big firms.

PP here. DH is involved in the daily grind and has actual daily responsibilities. He's also at an extremely family-friendly firm. I find it so offensive when people assume you can't be a higher-up unless you sacrifice your entire family life.

BUT if a work emergency comes up, if he needs to travel, if a call runs late - not a big deal. Things run just as smoothly in that situation.

Women need husbands who support their jobs the way men have women who support their jobs.

I disagree. Women and men need to be treated as equals. I don't want my DH to have to stay home to support my career. I want him to have his own professional fulfillment. For me, the best world would be one where work women and men are both supported as parents and employees. The alternative--make a spouse stay home--will strongly favor men's careers, and again does not permit both partners professional fulfillment, and will always be a race to the bottom of who is willing to put in the longest hours and disregard their personal life the most.

While your arrangement may be the best for your family, it is not one that supports the fight of women like me that are trying to succeed in BigLaw...and your suggestion of just have your husband stay home doesn't solve the problem.

Finally, I have a bit of axe to grind with these posts of "BigLaw wives." If you aren't in the trenches day-to-day, you just don't really know what it is like. I feel a lot of sympathy for OP because I have been where OP is at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds just like 18th century indentured servitude. Someone loans you a tremendous amount of money to start a life and then you spend 7 years paying it back with your labor. The only difference is, back then you were free after 7 years.

If it takes you 7 years of biglaw salary to pay back your loans you're doing something wrong.