We know many big career households - surgeons, bankers, lawyers, executives. I would say most have one parent who puts their all into their careers while one supports the higher earning spouse. I recommend you get a nanny, OP. Some families have nanny plus school, au pairs, grandparents. It sounds your DH is very hands on. You have a lot to work with. You just have to realize your are the head earner and shouldn’t feel guilty working. Your child has a parent who is putting her to bed when you are working late.

When DH and I both worked, DH never felt guilt if he worked late but it crushed me when I missed bedtime. I missed my baby so much. I hated that I couldn’t even find time to pump. Being a working mom with a demanding job is hard.

We knew another 2 law partner couple family. They weren’t big law, maybe mid law? The dad was cool but the mom was the most self important woman I have ever met. She always stressed how she didn’t need to be at kids schools. They had a live in grandparent plus a full time nanny even when kids were in school full time.

Anonymous wrote:OP I’m in biglaw with two kids. I had my first in law school so I’ve never known it any other way.

A nanny won’t necessarily make it better especially since your baby is doing well. Nannies have sick days, vacations, and also a quitting time just like a closing daycare.

I personally can’t leave at 5 so I don’t do pickup. My workflow just would never allow that. I have an au pair but it sounds like your DH can do it.

IME law firms are relatively chill about you coming in late. I’d keep using your mornings like you do but stay later so you’re not up til midnight every night.

Juniors should not be giving you shit. Not all firms have that kind of defective culture. I have moved firms twice making sure my culture is working for me. Just because you want to leave your firm doesn’t mean you need to leave biglaw and the paycheck.

The problem for the more junior associates is they have no practical ability to leave at 5 and have to start dealing with OP’s requests and demands again starting at 7. They lose two hours waiting for her to re-engage. So of course they will throw her some shade.

DS has a friend whose mom is in big law and dad is a SAHD. I have never met the mom but dad is very involved at school. They only have one child.

We know another mom who is also a big law partner. Dad works part time and grandparents help take care of the kids. Big law mom is the bossiest person I have ever met. She came to a class party last year and took over bossing everyone around. DH and I feel sorry for the husband.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move to a lower cost of living city.

Ideas:
Cincinnati
Omaha
Tucson
Minneapolis
Des Moines
Fargo

Okay, you got me: some things are worse than biglaw. -OP

Wow, OP. You had my sympathy until now. If you really feel this way, then yea -- your suffering is on you.

Right?? Like what’s so horrible about Minneapolis? Or Omaha? There are other nice places besides DC, places where you can-gasp-afford a home, pay off loans, take a vacation, have a career, and still see your children.

To be fair, Minneapolis really does suck.

DP, who also lost all sympathy for the OP after she outed herself as a snob, and I think Minneapolis is the best of those mentioned! I'd live there in a hot second if we could make it work with our jobs.

I haven't gone through all posts in the thread, but I think quite a lot of helpful advice has been given.

My wife and I are DINK, I am still in biglaw while she bailed to an inhouse role as a second year. The first 5-7 years are brutal - you are learning the ropes and working horrible hours for (sometimes) horrible clients and partners. To be honest, I am not sure how I made it through those years. I have moved two firms in my 12+ years in biglaw (both at V5 firms) in the naive expectation that culture would make a difference. I would say that the long hours on the job are absolutely essential to becoming a great lawyer - it was once explained to me that the reason why Wachtell partners were made up so early was because they had much more experience than an equivalent associate at another biglaw firm, by virtue of billing 3500 hrs year in and year out every year (close to double the usual 1800hrs requirement at a "normal" biglaw firm) - whether or not this is true, I don't know.

When the prior posters said things get better as you get more senior, that is true in some ways. Things are better now in the sense that I know what I am doing and I have a reasonably good estimate of how long the work is going to take me and I can better manage my time. I can now delegate work to juniors but many times I will need to amend and correct drafts to ensure that they are "client ready". The aggressive deadlines and the unreasonable requests haven't gone away, and probably have gotten worse - the only thing that has changed is that I am now better equipped to handle them (for example, I generally have a sense of what the "right" answer would be, and most times clients would be happy with a preliminary answer followed up by advice in writing at a later stage). I also have my own clients now who trust me to deliver work product on time and on point, which makes it easier to manage the workload of the associates that work with me, since I can tell the client that we do need just that extra bit of time to make sure our advice is correct. The biglaw firm I am at now requires each partner to generate enough work to keep their team busy - which means that the pressure has changed from being an associate (and it is probably more intense). Instead of constantly worrying about meeting deadlines, whether I would need to cancel my plans or whether I had drafted a document correctly or missed out a major point, I worry about where my next transaction is going to come from, and whether I would have enough work to keep the team busy throughout the year.

I don't know how I would have handled having a baby and biglaw during the early years. It is tough, and I am truly impressed by all who manage it. DW and I made a conscious decision not to have kids until my career was more "settled", so that we would not have the additional stress or pressure while trying to make partner (if I didn't, I would have just gone to an in-house role). It is doable, though, and I have seen some associates manage it, but of course as the pp have mentioned, the key is to outsource the various housekeeping chores as much as you can. It is very easy to tell from work product whether an associate has put in 100% or has done a sloppy job (and you do not want to have the reputation of being the associate that no one is able to rely on). Don't think otherwise, but many people that biglaw firms hire are ambitious, driven and have big aspirations (at least in the early years). Work product from an ambitious, driven associate that spends hours making sure every last typo has been picked up reads vastly different to an associate who does "just enough" and seems to be distracted by life outside the office. I am not saying that this is bad, but merely just a fact, and that is why there is so much attrition over the years. Leaving biglaw is a personal choice and many people do not want this lifestyle which is entirely fair enough. I don't know of any career (other than big tech, which attracts similar personalities) which pays a graduate with no experience $190k plus a $15k bonus in their first year out, so I guess commitment to the job should be expected. I could think of other jobs that require the same or similar amount of time commitment, which pays much less (single mom having to work two minimum wage jobs perhaps)? So I think in some ways, biglaw attorneys do have it "easy".

My only advice is that whatever you decide, do it soon. Any decision to leave biglaw should be made in the early years (years 1-3). Grinding it out for 8-10 years in biglaw and then realizing you do not want to be in private practice for the long haul feels to me like a waste of time - you would have sacrificed so much personal time with family (particularly a young family) and friends that it is just not worth it. And I have seen it happen. Senior associates who have billed 2500 hours a year for years suddenly lifting their heads up from their desk and suddenly realizing, this is not what I want. They spent the past few years chasing deadlines, churning work product constantly that it has become the "norm" and they never really had the time to think about what they wanted to do in life. Being in biglaw was just a rite of passage, just like getting good grades at school, getting into law school, getting a biglaw job...

I know this may not be helpful, but just my 2 cents as a fellow biglaw attorney. I wish you the very best of luck OP, and I hope it all works out!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

Wrong, boomer. Not a troll. Just a curious poster with an opinion who has looked on with amusement at some of the Big Law threads.

Np but you’re playing in the wrong sandbox. We all understood what very top law firm means. It went over your head but you chose to ridicule anyway.

Not sure who “we all” is. Did you poll all the posters? And by definition, isn’t “top” the highest point of something? I thought lawyers were trained to be precise when choosing their words.

Trying so hard to look smart is making you look ridiculous.

That’s the best you’ve got?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

That’s outdated thinking. Rainmaker partner has to consider the optics.

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Let me know how it works out for you.

Better than it will for any man in my cohort.

Why is that? How is it that you’re set up better to succeed than “any man” associate and better than 90% of the women lawyers posting here? I think lots of pps would like to know.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chambers-associate.com/where-to-start/commercial-awareness/parenting-and-biglaw
Long article about being a woman parent in Big Law. I can’t find a stat on how many woman partners have children. Sadly all the ones I know do not have children.

But they have robust practices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

That’s outdated thinking. Rainmaker partner has to consider the optics.

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Let me know how it works out for you.

Better than it will for any man in my cohort.

Best of luck to you.

You too.

https://www.chambers-associate.com/where-to-start/commercial-awareness/parenting-and-biglaw
Long article about being a woman parent in Big Law. I can’t find a stat on how many woman partners have children. Sadly all the ones I know do not have children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

That’s outdated thinking. Rainmaker partner has to consider the optics.

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Let me know how it works out for you.

Better than it will for any man in my cohort.

Best of luck to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had two babies in big law because I was determined to squeeze to maternity leaves out. But I knew after the first I couldn’t carry on like that. I started working my network and let clients know I was interested in in-house opportunities. I got an email during my second maternity leave and started the interview process. I went back for one week and gave notice.

Male partners see this so much and it reflects poorly on every female associate behind you.
But glad it worked out for you.

Not a damn thing male associates can do about it. Next female associate up!

What are you talking about? Not a single mention was made of male associates.

Male partners are well aware of the reality of many female associates jetting early. But they have to replace them with other female associates. Honestly, regardless of gender, 98 percent of these lawyers are fungible. Magna Cum Laude Katie from T14 and Magna Cum Laude Connor from T14 will be the same .... And why is that? Because law is easy.

Of course they don’t replace then with other female associates. They stick with the male associate who worked crazy long hours, didn’t fuss about childcare and didn’t leave after 2 three month long maternity leaves in 24 months (with low hours in between the mat leaves).

Uh...no...incoming associate classes are more and more female.

And rainmaker partner will pick the male over her because less chance the guy will take 6 months of maternity leave in 24 month’s time and unofficially with 80% when she is “working.”

That’s outdated thinking. Rainmaker partner has to consider the optics.

Let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Let me know how it works out for you.

Better than it will for any man in my cohort.

Good luck, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single DC biglaw form has moms as senior partners. PP must mean her husband is in midlaw.

I was a partner in a (very) top DC Biglaw firm. Yes, we and other top firms had senior partner women with kids. But a very large percentage of women partners in our firm (compared to the population in general) did not. I can't tell you the exact percentage, but it's shocking. You are sugarcoating reality.

Very top? Not the very, very top? Or even the tippity top?

Probably all three. Sorry you're not.

Not a lawyer? Nope, Not sorry at all. What’s sorry is the constant and pathetic need to rank this or that, even by old fart attorneys. That’s because anyone can be a lawyer, I guess.

Ok, troll.

Wrong, boomer. Not a troll. Just a curious poster with an opinion who has looked on with amusement at some of the Big Law threads.

Np but you’re playing in the wrong sandbox. We all understood what very top law firm means. It went over your head but you chose to ridicule anyway.

Dechert it is then.