Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Jesus only 600k NW for a biglaw partner? Yikes, what have you been doing the last decade?

Read much? PP is a 1st year partner (typically 8-9 years in practice). I think this is about the norm in terms of NW at that stage if you exclude people with family money, people with no loans, double biglaw families, etc. Fortunately the numbers (particularly investments) start to accelerate pretty rapidly at that point.

I was in the same spot at same stage of my career. We “under-saved” during associate years—had massive loans, had kids relatively early, huge mortgage, and frankly wanted to live a nice life given the work I was putting in. Turned out more than OK financially and I wouldn’t change a thing. My kids got to grow up in the neighborhood we wanted, our lifestyle was always nice. Would I have an extra million if I lived in a studio apartment eating canned tuna for ten years, and put off having kids until I was one of these geriatrics at the Kindergarten? Sure. But that sounds miserable.

Yeah I understood he has been a partner for 1 year, and was adding in 8+ years as an associate and calling it roughly a "decade" in biglaw.

I would think a decade in biglaw would lead to greater than $600k networth. Especially with the incredible bull market we've enjoyed for the last 9 years.

NP. I've spent a decade in biglaw and my net worth is $700. I still have student loans left to pay, too (low interest). You know biglaw provides no 401k match, right? I swear, most people in this site are so out of touch. Not all of us had mommy and daddy pay for college and grad school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Jesus only 600k NW for a biglaw partner? Yikes, what have you been doing the last decade?

Read much? PP is a 1st year partner (typically 8-9 years in practice). I think this is about the norm in terms of NW at that stage if you exclude people with family money, people with no loans, double biglaw families, etc. Fortunately the numbers (particularly investments) start to accelerate pretty rapidly at that point.

I was in the same spot at same stage of my career. We “under-saved” during associate years—had massive loans, had kids relatively early, huge mortgage, and frankly wanted to live a nice life given the work I was putting in. Turned out more than OK financially and I wouldn’t change a thing. My kids got to grow up in the neighborhood we wanted, our lifestyle was always nice. Would I have an extra million if I lived in a studio apartment eating canned tuna for ten years, and put off having kids until I was one of these geriatrics at the Kindergarten? Sure. But that sounds miserable.

Yeah I understood he has been a partner for 1 year, and was adding in 8+ years as an associate and calling it roughly a "decade" in biglaw.

I would think a decade in biglaw would lead to greater than $600k networth. Especially with the incredible bull market we've enjoyed for the last 9 years.

NP. I've spent a decade in biglaw and my net worth is $700. I still have student loans left to pay, too (low interest). You know biglaw provides no 401k match, right? I swear, most people in this site are so out of touch. Not all of us had mommy and daddy pay for college and grad school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Jesus only 600k NW for a biglaw partner? Yikes, what have you been doing the last decade?

Read much? PP is a 1st year partner (typically 8-9 years in practice). I think this is about the norm in terms of NW at that stage if you exclude people with family money, people with no loans, double biglaw families, etc. Fortunately the numbers (particularly investments) start to accelerate pretty rapidly at that point.

I was in the same spot at same stage of my career. We “under-saved” during associate years—had massive loans, had kids relatively early, huge mortgage, and frankly wanted to live a nice life given the work I was putting in. Turned out more than OK financially and I wouldn’t change a thing. My kids got to grow up in the neighborhood we wanted, our lifestyle was always nice. Would I have an extra million if I lived in a studio apartment eating canned tuna for ten years, and put off having kids until I was one of these geriatrics at the Kindergarten? Sure. But that sounds miserable.

Yeah I understood he has been a partner for 1 year, and was adding in 8+ years as an associate and calling it roughly a "decade" in biglaw.

I would think a decade in biglaw would lead to greater than $600k networth. Especially with the incredible bull market we've enjoyed for the last 9 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Jesus only 600k NW for a biglaw partner? Yikes, what have you been doing the last decade?

Read much? PP is a 1st year partner (typically 8-9 years in practice). I think this is about the norm in terms of NW at that stage if you exclude people with family money, people with no loans, double biglaw families, etc. Fortunately the numbers (particularly investments) start to accelerate pretty rapidly at that point.

I was in the same spot at same stage of my career. We “under-saved” during associate years—had massive loans, had kids relatively early, huge mortgage, and frankly wanted to live a nice life given the work I was putting in. Turned out more than OK financially and I wouldn’t change a thing. My kids got to grow up in the neighborhood we wanted, our lifestyle was always nice. Would I have an extra million if I lived in a studio apartment eating canned tuna for ten years, and put off having kids until I was one of these geriatrics at the Kindergarten? Sure. But that sounds miserable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Jesus only 600k NW for a biglaw partner? Yikes, what have you been doing the last decade?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Jesus only 600k NW for a biglaw partner? Yikes, what have you been doing the last decade?

Anonymous wrote:My experience in my firm is similar to those that have been posted here. It really does vary partner to partner, substantially. We are a one-lawyer non-equity biglaw partner family, and I would say our net worth is somewhere in the 600-750 range, one year in. These days, student loans are a bear, and it is difficult to really start putting away money until you are able to buy a home, and decent homes around here are all in the 700-800 range - a big pill to swallow if you don't have parental help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to stack coins until the line between oppressor and oppressed is crossed. Depending on the individual, that doesn't happen until late 40s (for those who went straight through) or 50s or later (for those who took a more circuitous route, such as spending a lot of time in government). Only senior partners, esp big rainmakers, make a lot more than they bring in. Many relationships are institutional, and only are inherited late in one's career. Biglaw is not a path to great riches. Don't get me wrong, it's plenty comfortable. But only a small handful get to one percent wealth (currently around $12m in net worth) through law.

This. It can be a good life, but not big money. Every law firm partner I know doesn’t want their kid to go into law.

Perhaps but I still think that biglaw is one of the best risk adjusted careers if financial success is the goal. We can all decide whether financial success is the right goal but let's compare biglaw to investment banking. Certainly a decade or two ago investment banking would have hands-down been the right career path to make a lot of money. These days a lot of bulge bracket Managing Directors are probably in the $1m-$3m range. However, the career risk they have is much greater than in biglaw. Biglaw firms while increasingly cut throat still doesn't compare to investment banking--most MD's careers are over by 50. If you're over 50 in investment banking you either made it to the very top (think top management of a major investment bank) or you've been pushed out working at a boutique where it's completely eat what you kill.

The chance of making MD is no better than making partner (perhaps worse), the time you get to stay MD vs stay partner is much worse, and then the market cycle driven layoffs are more intense than in law. A good typical biglaw partner can practice well into his/her 50s perhaps 60s and then collect on a pension payout for years. So the bankers might make a little more as associates, VPs, directors (% wise bigger difference but compared to making partner in biglaw or MD in investment banking the cumulative differences are probably not much more than a year or two of comp for an MD/partner), make MD in their mid 30s (perhaps a couple years earlier) and then flame out typically within 10 years or less.

Seems hard to believe. Would you rather be a senior banker at Goldman Sachs or a senior partner at Skadden, Cravath, etc? Do others really believe this?

I know, I thought that was weird too.

In terms of wealth, you're talking 10-20M (law) vs. 100 millions (GS).

Anonymous wrote:One factor that may inhibit the accumulation of wealth by biglaw partners is that top lawyers tend to send their kids to private schools (in greater proportions than people in other professions and lines of work). I think it's probably because, for the top lawyers, they made their success through top performance in school, and in many cases at a top-5 law school.

When you are spending approximating $80,000 per year (for 2 kids) for grades K-12, that limits your wealth accumulation. (I speak from experience when I say this.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to stack coins until the line between oppressor and oppressed is crossed. Depending on the individual, that doesn't happen until late 40s (for those who went straight through) or 50s or later (for those who took a more circuitous route, such as spending a lot of time in government). Only senior partners, esp big rainmakers, make a lot more than they bring in. Many relationships are institutional, and only are inherited late in one's career. Biglaw is not a path to great riches. Don't get me wrong, it's plenty comfortable. But only a small handful get to one percent wealth (currently around $12m in net worth) through law.

This. It can be a good life, but not big money. Every law firm partner I know doesn’t want their kid to go into law.

Perhaps but I still think that biglaw is one of the best risk adjusted careers if financial success is the goal. We can all decide whether financial success is the right goal but let's compare biglaw to investment banking. Certainly a decade or two ago investment banking would have hands-down been the right career path to make a lot of money. These days a lot of bulge bracket Managing Directors are probably in the $1m-$3m range. However, the career risk they have is much greater than in biglaw. Biglaw firms while increasingly cut throat still doesn't compare to investment banking--most MD's careers are over by 50. If you're over 50 in investment banking you either made it to the very top (think top management of a major investment bank) or you've been pushed out working at a boutique where it's completely eat what you kill.

The chance of making MD is no better than making partner (perhaps worse), the time you get to stay MD vs stay partner is much worse, and then the market cycle driven layoffs are more intense than in law. A good typical biglaw partner can practice well into his/her 50s perhaps 60s and then collect on a pension payout for years. So the bankers might make a little more as associates, VPs, directors (% wise bigger difference but compared to making partner in biglaw or MD in investment banking the cumulative differences are probably not much more than a year or two of comp for an MD/partner), make MD in their mid 30s (perhaps a couple years earlier) and then flame out typically within 10 years or less.

Seems hard to believe. Would you rather be a senior banker at Goldman Sachs or a senior partner at Skadden, Cravath, etc? Do others really believe this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think the absence of responses is your response. Not many big law folks are accumulating a ton. Likely spending a lot so they can spend their time working.

It’d be easy to make around 1M a year the first 10 years, expecting it to climb quickly thereafter. So what’s wrong with 6 mil? When did 6 mil become “not a ton”?

My parents had a similar set up to this, to keep it vague, spent lavishly with one parent SAH, retired at 62, and they have a net worth now if almost 20 mil. I don’t think they wish they’d been more frugal when they were younger. And my parent made partner older, not younger, and not at a super high paying firm.

6 mil quickly grows.

Exactly! I believe this is actually the typical biglaw partner profile. I think there's a lot of schadenfreude about divorce, not seeing kids, spending too much, etc. My guess is this profile is what represents the majority of outcomes. Wealthy enough to afford any typical expense but certainly not living the jetset lifestyle. A relatively low risk but hard working career with a high probability weighted expected outcome versus trying to hit the "home run" to end up with jets & yachts.