Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am ready to throw in the towel. And then feel bad that after wasting 10 yrs between school and work, top 10 law school, law review and all that nonsense, I will not be practicing. (And I don't have an interest in doing individual mortgage or will work - and am not even qualified to do it.) Is it insane to just stop and figure something else out? I feel like if I'm going to do it, it better be now - before there are kids to feed.

No, it isn't. I'm not in biglaw, but I don't like being an attorney and am considering doing the same, but IMO, it is not a good idea to make a change until you come to a decision regarding what you want to do instead.

Exactly.

Anyone find that they know more or less what they want to do but can't get it started while in biglaw? Obviously it's best to secure employment and then leave. However I'm at one of those fantastic firms that tells you to go, gives you a date, and still tells you you must bill 40 hrs/wk. I am finding it impossible to job search and network and about ready to tell my current firm to screw off, dumb as it would be to leave the money behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am ready to throw in the towel. And then feel bad that after wasting 10 yrs between school and work, top 10 law school, law review and all that nonsense, I will not be practicing. (And I don't have an interest in doing individual mortgage or will work - and am not even qualified to do it.) Is it insane to just stop and figure something else out? I feel like if I'm going to do it, it better be now - before there are kids to feed.

No, it isn't. I'm not in biglaw, but I don't like being an attorney and am considering doing the same, but IMO, it is not a good idea to make a change until you come to a decision regarding what you want to do instead.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walked and became an ER nurse. I love my job every day.

How long did that take?

Anonymous wrote:

I am ready to throw in the towel. And then feel bad that after wasting 10 yrs between school and work, top 10 law school, law review and all that nonsense, I will not be practicing. (And I don't have an interest in doing individual mortgage or will work - and am not even qualified to do it.) Is it insane to just stop and figure something else out? I feel like if I'm going to do it, it better be now - before there are kids to feed.

No, it isn't. I'm not in biglaw, but I don't like being an attorney and am considering doing the same, but IMO, it is not a good idea to make a change until you come to a decision regarding what you want to do instead.

I am ready to throw in the towel. And then feel bad that after wasting 10 yrs between school and work, top 10 law school, law review and all that nonsense, I will not be practicing. (And I don't have an interest in doing individual mortgage or will work - and am not even qualified to do it.) Is it insane to just stop and figure something else out? I feel like if I'm going to do it, it better be now - before there are kids to feed.

Anonymous wrote:I don't mean move from biglaw to in-house or gov't law or stay home parent, but just pick another track like pharma sales or nursing or education or mgmt. consulting, and just start over (including school if needed) even if it means a 50k job?

I am so sick of this field. Like many here -- worked like a dog to get to be a "respected" senior, not going to make partner bc the firm is pushing out existing partners and certainly not wanting to make new ones in the last yr or 2, am being pushed out despite having "top" reviews as this firm has gotten more strict on "up or out", and am absolutely sick of applying for every posted law, gov't or in-house job that every person I know applies for. There is no way to stand out when 5000 people apply for 2 spots at the SEC (even if you got your resume in through a contact), and where I am competitive, I get to the final round and lose out to someone else - internal candidates; candidates who have a decade more experience etc. I know lots of people are in this problem right now nationally, but law just seems to have it worse as big firms are reorganizing, which means everyone is trying to jump to a finite number of smaller firms, gov't spots etc.

I am ready to throw in the towel. And then feel bad that after wasting 10 yrs between school and work, top 10 law school, law review and all that nonsense, I will not be practicing. (And I don't have an interest in doing individual mortgage or will work - and am not even qualified to do it.) Is it insane to just stop and figure something else out? I feel like if I'm going to do it, it better be now - before there are kids to feed.

Anonymous wrote:

Why shouldn't their skills based on past experience be transferable to future matters? If someone has obsolete skills, this makes sense. But what's obsolete about a laid off litigator, m and a, capital markets or bankruptcy attorney. Why shouldn't they draw on recent past experience to market themselves? And if they have to retool to some extent, their resumes are supporting evidence of their ability to successfully manage scenarios?
And one other question. Are you part of a biglaw firm? If not, your interest in laid off attorneys is not relevant to the posters comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry but you're wrong. Most laidoff biglaw lawyers are very skilled and have a lot to offer. The reality is that a resume gap or other evidence of a layoff makes your resume DOA for most in-house or biglaw positions. It's just the attorney culture at that level. That said, opportunities exist at many other difference levels offering equal or better long-term prospects, job satisfaction and work-life balance. The key is to be resilient, patient, flexible and creative. I speak from experience.

I disagree with you, having hired associates passed over at other firms before when they met an existing need at our firm. There is no overarching "attorney culture at that level," but simply a market for legal services that may be less robust than you might like to acknowledge.

The problem that some associates in this unfortunate position have is that they assign more value to their skills and the matters that they have worked on in the past than to thinking about how they will help an employer generate revenues in the future. It is analogous to focusing on a company's historical financial statements when a prospective investor is more interested in a company's future earnings potential. It can be very difficult for people who are used to relying on theircresumes to break out of that mindset, but there are opportunities in the right circumstances.

Why shouldn't their skills based on past experience be transferable to future matters? If someone has obsolete skills, this makes sense. But what's obsolete about a laid off litigator, m and a, capital markets or bankruptcy attorney. Why shouldn't they draw on recent past experience to market themselves? And if they have to retool to some extent, aren't their resumes supporting evidence of their ability to successfully manage such scenarios?
And one other question. Are you part of a biglaw firm? If not, your interest in laid off attorneys is not relevant to the posters comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry but you're wrong. Most laidoff biglaw lawyers are very skilled and have a lot to offer. The reality is that a resume gap or other evidence of a layoff makes your resume DOA for most in-house or biglaw positions. It's just the attorney culture at that level. That said, opportunities exist at many other difference levels offering equal or better long-term prospects, job satisfaction and work-life balance. The key is to be resilient, patient, flexible and creative. I speak from experience.

I disagree with you, having hired associates passed over at other firms before when they met an existing need at our firm. There is no overarching "attorney culture at that level," but simply a market for legal services that may be less robust than you might like to acknowledge.

The problem that some associates in this unfortunate position have is that they assign more value to their skills and the matters that they have worked on in the past than to thinking about how they will help an employer generate revenues in the future. It is analogous to focusing on a company's historical financial statements when a prospective investor is more interested in a company's future earnings potential. It can be very difficult for people who are used to relying on theircresumes to break out of that mindset, but there are opportunities in the right circumstances.[/qu

Why shouldn't their skills based on past experience be transferable to future matters? If someone has obsolete skills, this makes sense. But what's obsolete about a laid off litigator, m and a, capital markets or bankruptcy attorney. Why shouldn't they draw on recent past experience to market themselves? And if they have to retool to some extent, their resumes are supporting evidence of their ability to successfully manage scenarios?
And one other question. Are you part of a biglaw firm? If not, your interest in laid off attorneys is not relevant to the posters comment.