Is big law worth it?

Avocado's Number wrote:

Mundus Vult wrote:

I will add that as you learn how to do your job, it takes less hours to do the same amount of work. Eventually--and this bugs people--you might even bill more hours than you work.

One might be able to do something in 20 minutes that takes a reasonable attorney 3 hours. You bill the client for 3 hours.

Of course it bugs people. It's criminal. No ethical lawyer does this, although many lawyers at big law firms do and -- instead of being fired and reported to disciplinary counsel -- get rewarded for it by the firm.

Just about every lawyer does this even if they won't admit it. If you are under pressure to bill a certain number of hours, you almost have to do this. Sometimes you can only bill the client 3 hours for something that might take you 5 hours, whereas other times if might only take you an hour to do something for which you can bill the client the same 3 hours. That is the nature of the game...

fwiw, my wife did big law for around 7 years, made a lot of money and then levered that into something more appropriate for her, where she has been for 25 years.

She basically used it as a path, in other words. And the money she made was invested and serves as the biggest part of our retirement savings. lots of crazy stories too.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

Of course it bugs people. It's criminal. No ethical lawyer does this, although many lawyers at big law firms do and -- instead of being fired and reported to disciplinary counsel -- get rewarded for it by the firm.

It is the way the business model works: fixed labor hours. You pay for the standard labor rate for the job. If it takes more time for the attorney, you don't pay more. If it takes less, you don't pay less. Show me the criminality in that?

Are you familiar with fraud? If the engagement agreement states that the client will pay on the basis of hourly rates, you don't get to submit false billing statements claiming (to use your example of three hours billed for twenty minutes of work) that you worked nine times as long as you actually did. You think $400/hour is too low for your extraordinary ability? Fine. Tell the client that you intend to lie about the amount of time that you spend on a task or matter, so you may actually be charging an effective rate of $3,600 or more, depending upon how much more efficient you think you are than that hypothetical "reasonable attorney."

Of course, engagement agreements can be structured in lots of different ways, including flat fees and contingent fees. But the "business model" that you describe is criminal and grounds for severe regulatory sanctions.

Double Dog wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

Of course it bugs people. It's criminal. No ethical lawyer does this, although many lawyers at big law firms do and -- instead of being fired and reported to disciplinary counsel -- get rewarded for it by the firm.

Just about every lawyer does this even if they won't admit it. If you are under pressure to bill a certain number of hours, you almost have to do this. Sometimes you can only bill the client 3 hours for something that might take you 5 hours, whereas other times if might only take you an hour to do something for which you can bill the client the same 3 hours. That is the nature of the game...

Although I believe that the majority of lawyers at big firms do it (despite various assertions by bar associations about the "few bad apples"), I've never billed a client for more hours than I've worked. I've certainly chosen not to bill for many hours that I've actually worked, but I'm not aware of any prohibitions against that.

I agree that there are huge pressures and incentives to lie about hours worked, particularly at firms with billable-hour requirements or incentives, like bonuses, that are based on billable hours. Most lawyers succumb. To me, one of the worst things about working at a big law firm is that the job is much harder and the hours much longer for the attorneys with higher ethical standards.

Mr. Doritos wrote:

Law is a sales position at the end of the day. If you cannot become a rainmaker, you will always be at the whim of a partner or other employer, regardless of what route you go. Big Law was built off the backs of those who are hard workers, but who cannot sell legal services to new or existing clients. If you can sell, you have permanent job security regardless of the size of your firm. If you cannot, you will always be a commodity.

---

This is fairly accurate, but does not tell the whole story. I joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in LA, which I think qualifies as Big Law, out of law school, eventually made full partner there, but later had an opportunity to join a business with a equity interest and move to a nicer place, and did it. Only a few of the associates joining a big firm out of law school will make partner, but what those firms tell you (and I think it true) is that while you will work your ass off as an associate there, you will get much better training and experience than if you went to a smaller firm, working on IPOs and big cases, and you will make big money while doing it. Around your second and third year at a big firm you will, now being big-firm trained, be getting headhunter calls constantly--not so at a smaller firm. So if you want to jump off at that point, you can. But if you can get a job at a big firm out of school, think seriously about taking it, you can always leave, you will be a hot commodity.

I was an associate at a top tier law firm for 5 years before taking a position in-house. Hear is an inside scoup.

Expectation at most big law firms is for associates to BILL approx 2000 hours per year. Many are higher, a few lower. Never seen lower than 1900 hours. This is the target associates must hit to receive yearly bonuses and advance year to year. 2000 billable hours a year breaks down to about 45 billable hours per week worked. Here is the math - 52 weeks in a year, you take your 4 weeks vacation and 2 weeks of holidays resulting in 46 weeks worked. Divide into 2000 hours and that equals approx 45 billable hours per week or 9 billable hours/day. That may not seem like much but nobody bills straight through 9 hours at a time. You eat lunch, go to the gym, talk to your friends, get a bunch of non-billable "extra circular" work given to you (recruiting, newsletters, committees, etc) and that easily adds anywhere from 2-3 hours extra per day resulting in a 55-60 hours work week most weeks. More efficient lawyers who don't socialize much, eat at their desk, and are not distracted easily can do it on less time. And this is generally a minimum. You may get to mid-level associate billing 2000 hours but will not make partner. Much more is asked of associates the more senior and better they become. And while 11-12 hour days is doable it's rare that you're consistently billing the same amount each week. Certain type of work like litigation and deal transactions is cyclical. You're often billing 12-20 hours a day - sometimes with allnighters - for a few weeks and then you're slow with only a few hours of billable work per day. These swings can really burn out a lot of associates. And when the economy is good and work is flowing in sometimes the crush lasts for months. There are certain areas of the law like tax, securities, and trusts and estates - more regulatory in nature - that have more consistent hours.

Is it worth it? I say yes. Salary is great and it's great to have prestigious law firm tenure on your resume. Much easier to move in house or into government jobs and you often have networking for life with current firm partners/associates and alumns. Any of my friends from law school would have gone if they had the chance. But it's very tough to get in. You generally need to be top 10-15% from a top 25 law school with a good undergrad school and solid resume. GPA standards can be a bit more lax if you're at an ivy caliber school.

Is it true that a bottom 10% student from HYS (harvard stanford yale) still has a great chance at BigLaw?

The common argument is the bottom 10% at Yale would be the top 10% at a T2 - T4 school.

Hard to say for certain but bottom 10% at Harvard/Stanford/Yale probably do have a good chance at big law. Last time I checked Yale students don't receive grades but grads from all three are highly marketable. Not so sure bottom 10% of these 3 schools would be better than top 10% at T2-T4. Probably more marketable than T3 or T4 but maybe not T2. Actual performance at BigLaw is an entirely different subject. All things being equal grads from better law schools may perform better as lawyers than grads from lesser schools but this is not universal. I've seen many ivy law grads get washed out of big law because they can't perform at a high level or lack necessary soft skills like client relations or time management.