I'm not a lawyer, but I worked to put one through law school, and have sat through ten years of biglaw from the sidelines... These are my stories.

Lawyers are recruited during law school to work as summer associates, which is paid. When I found out how much, I said, "a month?" But no, it was weekly. The ones the firm likes are hired as first years. The year my partner started this process there was like a 50k jump in the starting salary for first years. We, who had been living on ramen and a prayer, were thrilled.

What I wish I'd known then and know now is that while salaries do go up, they don't necessarily rise on that same curve.

My partner is a brilliant lawyer, but not a particularly successful one. They've managed to survive in biglaw by transitioning into an "of counsel" position, although like the poster above, it looks like their book may finally net them partnership. We have mixed feelings. There's a lot to be said for pulling in 250k and working about 50 hours a week, with a lot of those hours put in at home. They're not good at schmoozing, or sales, or acting like a shark. Equity partnership requires cash outlays and paying for our own health insurance (so I've been told). I don't think their group can function without them... But I don't think my partner wants to work more hours, or go to more conferences, or look for more business. They are very happy in their highly technical part of the law, doing what they do. It's not a bad life... But it's not untold riches, either. Have never seen a decent bonus. Haven't had a raise in three years, and before that it was another four. Have changed firms three times, twice due to firm mergers that has nothing to do with them. Still, they are very good at their job and their clients are very happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a biglaw lawyer and partner at a top DC firm for many years. I spent most of my time trying to hide from other partners and clients and get some breathing space. I was never interested even remotely in any work that I ever did and could not care less about any of my colleagues or clients. I hated every waking minute of myjob. But I did make a lot of money -- not by biglaw standards but certainly by every reasonable one -- which eased the pain somewhat. Still, I got out as soon as I could.

Did this only happen after you made partner and realized it was just more of the same along with the added pressure of bringing in business? Because you can’t very easily try to hide from partners as an associate and make partner. Instead you have to make them believe that being like them is your very reason for existing.

No, it was always the way for me. I didn't make partner right away. I was counsel for a while, then made a partner after I brought in a big client more through luck than anything else. My trajectory was fairly unusual, for my firm at least.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most accurate movie explaining biglaw ever is Clueless. The lawyers sat around in a conference room, organizing records by dates. (Done with paper back then, now fully electronically.) Cher mis-organized some papers, and the overworked, exhausted associate flipped his shit and ragequit.

This is not what big law lawyers do anymore. They have contract attorneys who do this for pennies on the dollar. It’s way too expensive to use big law lawyers for this now.

Sorry but you’re wrong. This is absolutely still a big part of my job as a litigator.

Anonymous wrote:This video series explains it best. This “typo” episode is my absolute favorite. https://vimeo.com/74411122

(I’m in biglaw too - I’m a partner in international arbitration and my days also mostly involve reading and writing. Sometimes hearings in interesting places around the world - that’s the only faintly glamorous part!)

I’m not the OP, but I found these videos extremely helpful and entertaining. I have a few family members in Big Law, and I have definitely had conversations like the one in the “typo” where he tells his date about his day .

Anonymous wrote:

Regulatory lawyer here. The contacts I have with my clients are often the in-house lawyers. They are not subject matter experts on everything they do, and if they had the answers they wouldn't be consulting us. And the advice we give often involves risk analysis. It is intended to achieve the right outcome or to help the client understand its obligations or the risks involved in different courses of action where there isn't a clear answer. It's not focused on CYA. I do find what I do interesting, FWIW.

I'm a regulatory lawyer in a different context, but very similar job to what's described above. There is either no clear answer, or the most conservative answer is infeasible / probably not what was intended. We do a lot of risk analysis on the law, and also I'm in a safety field so there is a safety risk analysis when deciding what to do. It's really interesting. I think it's a shame more law schools don't focus on regulatory practice -- most people take one really boring admin law class and that's it.

Is M&A advisory a less lucrative practice, or is law just less lucrative than banking? Because sellside banker fees absolutely dwarf (like on a 15-20x basis!) sellside legal fees.

Anonymous wrote:I was a biglaw lawyer and partner at a top DC firm for many years. I spent most of my time trying to hide from other partners and clients and get some breathing space. I was never interested even remotely in any work that I ever did and could not care less about any of my colleagues or clients. I hated every waking minute of myjob. But I did make a lot of money -- not by biglaw standards but certainly by every reasonable one -- which eased the pain somewhat. Still, I got out as soon as I could.

Did this only happen after you made partner and realized it was just more of the same along with the added pressure of bringing in business? Because you can’t very easily try to hide from partners as an associate and make partner. Instead you have to make them believe that being like them is your very reason for existing.

OP, click on the website of any big law firm and go to the link called "Practice Areas." Then click on some of the practice areas for a description of the type of work done in each area.

Here's one: https://www.cravath.com/practices/index.html

I was a biglaw lawyer and partner at a top DC firm for many years. I spent most of my time trying to hide from other partners and clients and get some breathing space. I was never interested even remotely in any work that I ever did and could not care less about any of my colleagues or clients. I hated every waking minute of myjob. But I did make a lot of money -- not by biglaw standards but certainly by every reasonable one -- which eased the pain somewhat. Still, I got out as soon as I could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this should be it own thread, but since we have the Lawyers of DCUM gathered, I’ll ask:

Why do personal injury lawyers have such intense personal rivalries with other personal injury law firms?

I am thinking specifically of the Detroit area where the heads of the law firms trash talk each other in ads. They also take their vendettas to court. For example, one personal injury lawyer (Lawyer A) set up a sexual harassment claim against another (Lawyer B) at a restaurant. LB got accused by the waitress of groping her. The waitress turned out to be on the payroll at LA’s firm. LB then turned around and represented women who claimed they had been sexually harassed while working at LA’s law firm. Like..how do they have to actually practice law?? Does personal injury just attract crazies or what?

I'd have to research specifics but I'd question the legal ethics of that situation.

When I was interning for a judge I saw this personal injury attorney attempt to do criminal defense in a murder case and it wasn't pretty.

You have to understand lawyers often get very very upset at sleazy lawyers. I have a family member who is a prosecutor and she got furious when she saw this lawyer file the exact same post conviction motion over and over (immigration consequences) even though there was binding precedent against his argument and he lost every time. He was charging clients hundreds of dollars a piece for these. She reported him.

I have friends who are PI attorneys - the kind with the billboards. The PI world is so down and dirty. There's a lot of sleezy attorneys and ambulance chaser types. At the end of the day, they're fighting over client base, fees, and money. That's it. Who can make more money. The big name ones in my hometown also have intense rivalries and constantly talking smack about each other so as to disparage the others' reputation. I wouldn't step foot in the PI arena. But for those that do and come out on top, you make serious bank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this should be it own thread, but since we have the Lawyers of DCUM gathered, I’ll ask:

Why do personal injury lawyers have such intense personal rivalries with other personal injury law firms?

I am thinking specifically of the Detroit area where the heads of the law firms trash talk each other in ads. They also take their vendettas to court. For example, one personal injury lawyer (Lawyer A) set up a sexual harassment claim against another (Lawyer B) at a restaurant. LB got accused by the waitress of groping her. The waitress turned out to be on the payroll at LA’s firm. LB then turned around and represented women who claimed they had been sexually harassed while working at LA’s law firm. Like..how do they have to actually practice law?? Does personal injury just attract crazies or what?

I'd have to research specifics but I'd question the legal ethics of that situation.

When I was interning for a judge I saw this personal injury attorney attempt to do criminal defense in a murder case and it wasn't pretty.

You have to understand lawyers often get very very upset at sleazy lawyers. I have a family member who is a prosecutor and she got furious when she saw this lawyer file the exact same post conviction motion over and over (immigration consequences) even though there was binding precedent against his argument and he lost every time. He was charging clients hundreds of dollars a piece for these. She reported him.

Here's a news article about the warring personal injury attorneys if you are curious. I got some of the details wrong in my retelling, but still, it's pretty wild tale: https://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/05/31/mike-morse-sexual-harassment-fieger/357708001/

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this should be it own thread, but since we have the Lawyers of DCUM gathered, I’ll ask:

Why do personal injury lawyers have such intense personal rivalries with other personal injury law firms?

I am thinking specifically of the Detroit area where the heads of the law firms trash talk each other in ads. They also take their vendettas to court. For example, one personal injury lawyer (Lawyer A) set up a sexual harassment claim against another (Lawyer B) at a restaurant. LB got accused by the waitress of groping her. The waitress turned out to be on the payroll at LA’s firm. LB then turned around and represented women who claimed they had been sexually harassed while working at LA’s law firm. Like..how do they have to actually practice law?? Does personal injury just attract crazies or what?

I'd have to research specifics but I'd question the legal ethics of that situation.

When I was interning for a judge I saw this personal injury attorney attempt to do criminal defense in a murder case and it wasn't pretty.

You have to understand lawyers often get very very upset at sleazy lawyers. I have a family member who is a prosecutor and she got furious when she saw this lawyer file the exact same post conviction motion over and over (immigration consequences) even though there was binding precedent against his argument and he lost every time. He was charging clients hundreds of dollars a piece for these. She reported him.

Anonymous wrote:When large cooperations hire a law firm, how often do they penny pinch?

For example, how much thought is given to …eh, let’s go another round of patent prosecution for these 100 patent pending applications.

They penny pinch a ton. First, on the actual bills. There are whole companies devoted to examining big law firm invoices on behalf of clients in exchange for a portion of the savings. Coming to you like, "these bills show that three people attended a status conference at the court on August 19 and billed for it. But our contract says that only two people can attend a court hearing. We won't pay any of this invoice until the whole thing is revised." More subtly, they just push back. "Did it really take 40 hours to write that motion?" and the partner dutifully knocks off a few thousand.

Second, they penny pinch on the up-front rates. Huge clients don't pay the "rack" hourly rate and get frequent discounts backed into their engagement letters. "Thanks for pitching to handle that case for us. But if you want to work for Amazon, we'll need 15% off." And the big firms give those discounts regularly. Some engagements even stipulate that the attorneys' rates will be frozen at current-year levels through the length of the engagement. In litigation, that could be years, even though the firms are trying to raise everyone's hourly rate every year.

Third, they penny pinch by not paying on time. Big law partners are frequently having to hound clients -- 30, 60, 90 days after invoices -- to get a check. That's from top-tier, Fortune 500 clients. It's not because the clients don't have the money, it's because they have all the leverage with the firms doing their work. And even if it says otherwise in the contract, don't think that you can act like a slumlord and start charging them a penalty for late payments. You try that and you aren't getting the next matter from them.

Anonymous wrote:Dumb question: are the big 4 accounting firms BigAccounting? And MBB are bigConsulting?

The accounting industry is much more concentrated than the legal industry. The "Big Four" have large global networks and audit most public companies (and the companies that have the highest market capitalizations), whereas the legal industry is less concentrated, which is why people refer to the "AmLaw 100" (which meant the 100 law firms that the American Lawyer tracks as having the highest gross revenues).

I think of "Big Law" as being an acronym for any large law firm, not necessarily limited to the AmLaw 100, that follows a traditional practice model (junior associates reporting to mid-level and senior associates who in turn report to partners) with hourly billing (which tends to mean younger attorneys demonstrate their worth by working many hours and sacrificing their personal lives) and relatively few associates making partner (which means that even associates who are talented will never make partner and may be forced to leave their firms at a time when job security otherwise might be particularly important to them).

There is a lot of cynicism, some real and some induced as a defense mechanism. It can be interesting if you like the work and very lucrative if you make partner. It can also be soul-sucking. I've known a lot of associates who didn't thrive in a law firm setting who went on to do great things in their later careers. Big law firms traditionally have not been very good at developing talent or training their associates, but some are getting better.