No freakin way would I leave a federal job for this. It is like a rat trying to climb back on a sinking ship.

Anonymous wrote:Law student here - this board is scaring the heck out of me. So, if I have kids, I will never be able to work at firm? What about small firms? They supposedly have better culture? Or does everything hinge on the billable requirement?

I work at a large firm, have long hours, and enjoy it. I also have kids, who, by all accounts, are normal and appear to like me. So, I don't think you should conclude out-of-hand that it is not for you.

That being said, it is clearly the case that a large percentage of people (disproportionately women, but plenty of men) decide that firms are not the right place for them. Not all of them are making this decision because they think its incompatible with family life. Some are doing it because they don’t like the work, don’t feel like they’re being challenged enough, don’t feel like they’re making a big enough difference in the world, or any number of other reasons.

But given how many people decide it is not for them, you should certainly be wary of large firms and think about whether it is a good fit.

Here are a few characteristics I have that I think make a firm easier for me to enjoy. If you think “this isn’t me at all,” I would be careful before going the large firm route:

- If I had to choose between (1) a 40-hour-a-week job where I am staring at the clock from 4:30 PM to 5:00 PM desperately waiting to punch out; and (2) a 60-hour-a-week job where I am so focused I look up at the clock and am surprised it is 6:30 PM, I would choose job #2. If you would choose job #1, be careful with a firm.

- My spouse has a very close group of friends and is close to her family. We love spending time together, but I am not a critical cog in my spouse's social life and my spouse does not feel lonesome and alone in my absence.

- Although I need some “alone time,” I don’t need a ton of time just chilling, watching T.V. or reading a book. If the only things I achieved on a particular week were putting in a good effort at work, being a good parent, and spending some quality time with my spouse, I would consider that a decent week.

- I am relatively flexible about sudden changes in schedule. I care more about the total work on my plate than when I need to do it. I am roughly as comfortable working three late evenings in a row and then taking an impromptu day off as I am working four normal work days.

I think if I didn’t have several of these characteristics, I would like my job a lot less.

I am going to pass on answering your “are small firms better” question because I think it will quickly side track the conversation. The short answer is that I think that, on balance, the benefits of starting your career at a larger firm outweighs the benefits of starting your career at a smaller firm, if both are options for you.

Law student here - this board is scaring the heck out of me. So, if I have kids, I will never be able to work at firm? What about small firms? They supposedly have better culture? Or does everything hinge on the billable requirement?

Anonymous wrote:This thread has reaffirmed my life choices.

thinking the same thing

work
work
work

only to never see your family
and to perhaps drop dead at 60 from the stress

no thanks - I'll take my $100K salary, which makes me part of the "poors" on this board.

Depressing!!!!!

Don't do it.

-signed BigLaw lawyer mom

This thread has reaffirmed my life choices.

Every industry has changed dramatically since the '80s/'90s thanks to technology. I'm in IT, and I remember back then law firms were notorious for being technophobes--they had beautiful, expensive office furniture and the crappiest, slowest computers and servers, which they refused to pay to upgrade. We'd drop clients because their OS was so outdated, we couldn't find staff to maintain it anymore.

I don't work in consulting anymore, but my guess is that now law firms are as much or more reliant on email, Internet, etc., as any other industry. And having to be connected 24/7 dramatically changes the nature of any job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware people pad bills. But if you average a 60 hour work week, take a full four weeks of vacation, and bill only 75% of the time you're in the office (which you can do without padding), your billables for the year will be 2160. It is simply not true that you have to work a 60 hour work week to get to 1950.

(I agree though, that you often feel compelled to work above the minimum to advance at a law firm).

I realize you may be a lawyer and thus chronically argumentative, but you still miss the point I made which is NOT that you have to work a 60 hr. week every week to get to 1950. But you're going to work quite a few of them unless you're padding your time.

I'm sure you have a counterargument.

LOL I love the "I really need to get the last word in so I'll accuse the other person of being desperate to get the last word in" approach.

Was that the last word?

Re: the person whose Dad we're talking about ... there absolutely, positively is a very significant change today vs. 1980s/90s in law firm practice ... a massive shift really, as others outline in partnership expectations, the ability to leverage, a slew of issues.

I'm her Dad's age and I'm one of those who would not go back into law today as the profession is currently structured, but fortunately I just retired and don't have to. I feel for those left stuck on the treadmill even if they are pulling down BigLaw salaries (partner or otherwise), that's just not a healthy way to live IMO. Cheers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm aware people pad bills. But if you average a 60 hour work week, take a full four weeks of vacation, and bill only 75% of the time you're in the office (which you can do without padding), your billables for the year will be 2160. It is simply not true that you have to work a 60 hour work week to get to 1950.

(I agree though, that you often feel compelled to work above the minimum to advance at a law firm).

I realize you may be a lawyer and thus chronically argumentative, but you still miss the point I made which is NOT that you have to work a 60 hr. week every week to get to 1950. But you're going to work quite a few of them unless you're padding your time.

I'm sure you have a counterargument.

LOL I love the "I really need to get the last word in so I'll accuse the other person of being desperate to get the last word in" approach.

I'm glad your dad recognized that you weren't going to be able to get into a good law school and get good enough grades. You are absolutely insane to think that the culture of law firms has not changed since the 80s and 90s. It is an entirely different world. I'm not saying your dad didn't work a lot, but the difference then was that you would work a lot and then make partner a few years later. Remember when he was working that hard to make partner? That is now the whole career as an associate, except you are now reachable 24 hours a day, you will never make partner, there is very little incentive to train you to make rain and get independance, and every partner is out to get every other partner because even partners lack job security so you may be used as an achilles heel.

Lol, my dad didn't discourage me from going into law because I wouldn't get into a good law school and get good enough grades. Rather, he realized the culture has gotten really terrible (basically what you describe) and the job security is lower than in the past, and that law as a field is not the guaranteed security it once was. He also thought it was a rat race. I work in a STEM field anyway and was not interested in going into law school. I don't think that NOTHING has changed since the '80s and '90s, however when my dad was going up for partner in the early 2000s, he was reachable 24/7 by internet/blackberry, so I don't understand why you think I don't get that. He also worked like mad when I was a baby. I was just objecting to the notion that it was more like the '60s/70's than now. I don't think so, from everything my mom tells me about the olden days when he was an associate--the job market and chances of making partner were better, but it wasn't work life balance '60s/70s style. I was also commenting that you work like mad, but it is more FLEXIBLE than some jobs. I recall going to Costa Rica and my dad was taking a conference call with a client from the beach. That lifestyle sucks, but it can also be compatible with having a baby. My mom worked in environmental science, and she needed to be in the field. If I was sick and couldn't go to daycare, it was easier for my dad to work from home on a conference call with a client that it was for her to miss a scheduled environmental testing site. From what it appears from his younger female colleagues with children who I have met, that aspect remains true.

I'm glad your dad recognized that you weren't going to be able to get into a good law school and get good enough grades. You are absolutely insane to think that the culture of law firms has not changed since the 80s and 90s. It is an entirely different world. I'm not saying your dad didn't work a lot, but the difference then was that you would work a lot and then make partner a few years later. Remember when he was working that hard to make partner? That is now the whole career as an associate, except you are now reachable 24 hours a day, you will never make partner, there is very little incentive to train you to make rain and get independance, and every partner is out to get every other partner because even partners lack job security so you may be used as an achilles heel.

Also, he has more contacts than that...he for about five years at another firm, then a little less than a decade for the federal government before working for the firm he currently works for. So his ability to take vacation also has to do with putting in the time years and years ago.

PP whose dad is a Big Law partner. I should have been clearer about the two weeks vacation thing. He has been a partner for over 15 years. The two weeks vacation thing started happening when he had been a partner about a decade. He's been a partner at this particular firm for over 15 years now.

My SO is a biglaw associate.

He bills in the high 2000s every year. I agree that he can work from home, take calls while we are driving, go away for a weekend but spend half the day working, etc.

Two week vacation? No way. But hes not a partner yet.

For those bickering over hours accrual, common rule of thumb is that it typically takes around eleven hours to bill eight hours, because you usually cant bill every second of your day.