"Yes. Biglaw is broken. It's not the Millenials, it's the system."

No, its the Boomers who hold the managing positions in the firms and have created and retained a structure where they maximum their profit while cutting opportunities for others to advance and share.

Anonymous wrote:High salary - work/life balance - rewarding work that feeds your soul.

Pick any two.

Biglaw is only 1 of the 3, and if you're in debt, you don't even get to enjoy that. Many biglaw associates, on exiting, are choosing between jobs that offer none of the three.

High salary - work/life balance - rewarding work that feeds your soul.

Pick any two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, it's been the model that it's been difficult/impossible to make partner. But before, if you were smart, had great credentials, and worked hard, you would be able to find something at the end that was interesting and let you have a middle-class life. You wouldn't have the riches of biglaw partnership - but that was OK.

Now, I see our best associates take their shot at USAOs, DOJ, ACLU, Innocence Project, etc. and miss -- and find themselves more or less adrift as they realize they can't do the work they want to do AND earn enough to live in a city like DC AND have some semblance of a family life. Which I don't think is unreasonable to ask for people as talented as they are.

What? They don't consider other government legal work or in house?

That surprises me too (speaking as a millenial who left Biglaw after 4 years for a position with a non-prestigious government agency). But then again, it doesn't really surprise me that much, because a lot of people can't see past the prestige factor. If they can't do something fantastic like USAO or DOJ or ACLU, they don't want to accept anything less. They deserve better, dammit. Or they are not willing to try something new. I left a general trial litigation practice in Biglaw to go to a specialized government appellate practice. I knew little about the practice area and so took a drastic pay cut because the government wouldn't credit all of my experience. It was worth it, but a lot of people can't envision going to a place their colleagues have never heard of, especially if they're going to take a 50% or more pay cut.

One of the things that I find interesting is the for many who take the law school, big law, next role track, that next role rarely involves actualizing what that person really wants to do in life. It seems that many get into a client service cognitive trap where they are thinking about adding value to what someone else is trying to do.

I feel that in ny and ca, there is more self actualization at the end of the road. Commenters here sometimes say it is because in this profession, people tend to be risk averse. I disagree. I think it's more about developing a client service skillset and becoming what you've trained to do. Well, i suppose the big law exit options are better in ny and ca.

I wish there was more discussion about becoming a novelist, or screenwriter or something that really connects with who they are. People seem to find it really difficult to depart from actualizing someone else's dreams.

Anonymous wrote:I'm an attorney in my early 30s and sorry, but I'm having a tough time feeling sorry for these poor big law associates you speak of. They have been given the opportunity to make a big chuck of money for a certain period of time and should shut up and be happy about it. Yes they may not have much of a chance to make partner, but having big law on your resume is still an awesome credential. Trust me, a big law associate will always beat out the hoards of unemployed lawyers trying to get by on document review temp work. Many of these lawyers never got jobs out of school at all, let alone a position that starts out at $150k a year!

I've been practicing law for six years and I still don't make that much!

This is the reality of going to law school now. Yet many still come willingly to play the lottery and then, if they're lucky, move on to play the pyramid game.

I'm an attorney in my early 30s and sorry, but I'm having a tough time feeling sorry for these poor big law associates you speak of. They have been given the opportunity to make a big chuck of money for a certain period of time and should shut up and be happy about it. Yes they may not have much of a chance to make partner, but having big law on your resume is still an awesome credential. Trust me, a big law associate will always beat out the hoards of unemployed lawyers trying to get by on document review temp work. Many of these lawyers never got jobs out of school at all, let alone a position that starts out at $150k a year!

I've been practicing law for six years and I still don't make that much!

Women have been graduating from law school in equal or greater numbers of men since the 1990's. None of this is unique to the millennials much as they might like to think.

Sure, but 1) it usually takes a while for changes to take place. You can see the start of them, but we're not there yet. 2) The debt burden has never been as high as it is for millennials compared to wages. It's pretty hard to quit the work force when you take out 300K in debt.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, it's been the model that it's been difficult/impossible to make partner. But before, if you were smart, had great credentials, and worked hard, you would be able to find something at the end that was interesting and let you have a middle-class life. You wouldn't have the riches of biglaw partnership - but that was OK.

Now, I see our best associates take their shot at USAOs, DOJ, ACLU, Innocence Project, etc. and miss -- and find themselves more or less adrift as they realize they can't do the work they want to do AND earn enough to live in a city like DC AND have some semblance of a family life. Which I don't think is unreasonable to ask for people as talented as they are.

I tend to agree. When I was an associate 20 years ago this was the norm. I realized by my fourth year at a big law firm that I wasn't going to be happy there longer term. I bailed and found a job in-house with a large company and had a very nice life. I didn't make boatloads but the rewards were there. I had choices. I had work life balance and a decent compensation and benefits package. Many of my friends at my level stayed with the firm and the majority of them either made partner or non-equity/counsel status. The paid their dues but they have pretty decent lives now. I'm not sure the younger associates now feel like there's a reason to sacrifice for their firm. It is the rare ones in the bunch who will be rewarded for this at review time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's been there, done that, I can say that one thing I understood that many new associates don't is that there's a reason they're paying you the big bucks--you are a tool, to be paid handsomely, so whether it's short term or long term, you should do your best to earn that salary while you have the job.

Part the bargain was that you were a highly paid tool with a miserable life for a few years, and then you went off and did something else. I think OP is saying that the "something else" aint what it used to be.

That isn't biglaw's issue. Big law didn't create our economic woes, the glut of too many lawyers, etc. Parntership has never been a given. People in all kinds of industries are struggling now with finding/changing jobs--except most of those individuals didn't start out with the benefit of a biglaw salary.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who's been there, done that, I can say that one thing I understood that many new associates don't is that there's a reason they're paying you the big bucks--you are a tool, to be paid handsomely, so whether it's short term or long term, you should do your best to earn that salary while you have the job.

Part the bargain was that you were a highly paid tool with a miserable life for a few years, and then you went off and did something else. I think OP is saying that the "something else" aint what it used to be.

As someone who's been there, done that, I can say that one thing I understood that many new associates don't is that there's a reason they're paying you the big bucks--you are a tool, to be paid handsomely, so whether it's short term or long term, you should do your best to earn that salary while you have the job.

It's impossible with two working spouses. Unfair to the kids.

Anonymous wrote:What? I'm at the private school carpool line right now. I'd bet there's not a mom or dad here without a college degree.

You bety wrongs

Anonymous wrote:I read an article about how millenials value different things than previous generations. They are much more about work/life balance and doing something that has a social impact. Not to say that there aren't those that are in it just for the money or status, but a lot of millenials are different than previous generations.

This is why the newer, younger companies (esp. high tech) try to tout more work/life balance, and why these companies are much more appealing to that generation.

I'm gen x, and I prefer work/life balance over money and status, too.

If you prefer work/life balance, you wouldn't go to work as a biglaw associate, would you?