Biglaw lawyers’s lifestyles

[thrill]

1 minute ago, Rashabon said:

I do think it also largely depends on what you make time for. I'm in big law, in a busy area and have been on the top end of billing for most of my career. I have still found time for a lot of my hobbies and still do, but I have to make time for it and it became easier as I got more senior and more efficient and had more control over larger tasks.

I certainly don't think it is easy to do and in the early stages your schedule is going to be much tougher. But I play video games most nights a week with my partner and have for years, because that's the hobby we picked to share a lot of. I watch a lot less TV than I used to and I read less than I would like, but it's hard to do everything.

not a bad life at all

[Jaggers]

If your experience in biglaw is only the first four years of your career, your indelible memory will be having had no control over your life or your schedule. That's just what it's like for the first few years. I was pretty good at protecting myself and my personal time, but no matter how good you are at that, you are still the person who will get called to do work at the last second when that's necessary. It was getting better for me from years 3-5 for sure, and my friends who stuck it out saw it get better as well. Not necessarily total hours worked, but control and predictability.

The flip side of course is that you get paid a lot of money. It doesn't go as far as it used to in Toronto (I easily afforded buying a two bedroom condo in the Annex when I was a first year associate) but it's a lot more than most people make. In fact, Bay St salaries right out of school now probably put you in the top 3-5% of income earners in Canada (vs the top 10% when it was at $100K).

Edited March 24, 2022 by Jaggers

[t3ctonics]

26 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I do think it also largely depends on what you make time for. I'm in big law, in a busy area and have been on the top end of billing for most of my career. I have still found time for a lot of my hobbies and still do, but I have to make time for it and it became easier as I got more senior and more efficient and had more control over larger tasks.

I certainly don't think it is easy to do and in the early stages your schedule is going to be much tougher. But I play video games most nights a week with my partner and have for years, because that's the hobby we picked to share a lot of. I watch a lot less TV than I used to and I read less than I would like, but it's hard to do everything.

I agree with this and what @Jaggers said - you do get more control as you move up. Even as a 3rd or 4th year associate I had a lot more control than in my first two years. By then about half of my work was on my own files, mostly smaller insurance defence and commercial litigation matters. I found it a lot easier to work for clients directly as opposed to under other lawyers, because there was no delay or intermediary between the client and me, and I could manage client expectations myself. My schedule still got blown up fairly often - mostly because of the larger files I still worked on under partners - but there was a definite improvement.

[Jaggers]

I never really worked on my "own" files (I had quite a bit of independence and would run plenty of small claims court and human rights tribunal files myself, but they were always fed to me by a partner) but you just get better at knowing what is coming up, and you get replaced in the food chain by people who get called at the last minute.

[Lulu_spector]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:32 PM, happydude said:

This was closer to my reality in private practice. Not enough time to enjoy my money. All of my hobbies were had to be dropped as there simply was no time. Except the gym, which I did force myself to create time for on account of the health benefits, but I was spent and exhausted from work. so the workouts became a chore as opposed to enjoyable like they were before becoming a lawyer. I could take a vacation in the sense that the firm would have approved it and I had vacation days, but it would not be worth the stress of falling behind at work. Not to mention losing a week of billable hours. So I didn't. Savings grew at a very nice rate. But I was essentially a work robot and it led to pretty bad depression and irritability.

I am now in house and 10x happier despite a lesser current salary and future trajectory. I do not consider my "Bay Street training" worth the 2 miserable years I spent there and, if I could do it over again, would have targeted in house articling positions and avoided practice altogether. 

 

On 3/22/2022 at 10:32 PM, happydude said:

This was closer to my reality in private practice. Not enough time to enjoy my money. All of my hobbies were had to be dropped as there simply was no time. Except the gym, which I did force myself to create time for on account of the health benefits, but I was spent and exhausted from work. so the workouts became a chore as opposed to enjoyable like they were before becoming a lawyer. I could take a vacation in the sense that the firm would have approved it and I had vacation days, but it would not be worth the stress of falling behind at work. Not to mention losing a week of billable hours. So I didn't. Savings grew at a very nice rate. But I was essentially a work robot and it led to pretty bad depression and irritability.

I am now in house and 10x happier despite a lesser current salary and future trajectory. I do not consider my "Bay Street training" worth the 2 miserable years I spent there and, if I could do it over again, would have targeted in house articling positions and avoided practice altogether. 

You would have avoided practicing law all together? Also, what would be your advice for a newly accepted law student for fall 2022 (mother of 1 year old currently)? 

[happydude]

9 hours ago, Lulu_spector said:

 

You would have avoided practicing law all together? Also, what would be your advice for a newly accepted law student for fall 2022 (mother of 1 year old currently)? 

Sorry. Perhaps I was unclear. I would have avoided private practice, and just targeted in-house positions from the beginning. 

[QueensDenning]

On 3/29/2022 at 2:40 PM, happydude said:

Sorry. Perhaps I was unclear. I would have avoided private practice, and just targeted in-house positions from the beginning. 

Isn't in-house work still private practice (assuming you're not in government?). Or does private practice only refer to law firms? 

[easttowest]

22 hours ago, QueensDenning said:

Isn't in-house work still private practice (assuming you're not in government?). Or does private practice only refer to law firms? 

It means law firms. 

[Jaggers]

I suppose technically it's "private" in that it's not government, but "private practice" refers to people who represent clients other than their employer.

[Snails and Ales]

On 3/29/2022 at 2:40 PM, happydude said:

I would have avoided private practice, and just targeted in-house positions from the beginning. 

This is pretty interesting, and I’m curious to get your thoughts on something.

I've read about how taking in-house positions immediately after law school may not be the best choice. There is this point that is made suggesting that working in-house immediately after law school doesn't come close to the “skill development and experiences” that you'd get if working at a large firm. Plus, I always thought obtaining in-house positions immediately after law school was quite difficult since there’s a preference for individuals with some experience under their belt.

I mean, @t3ctonics pretty much talks about it when mentioning their 4 years in big law:

On 3/24/2022 at 1:20 PM, t3ctonics said:

Being so busy those four years meant I got substantially more experience than I would have at a 9-5 like my current in-house job. I don't know if I would have been able to get this job without that experience.

But you’ve been through both private practice and in-house, and say that you still would have targeted in-house positions from the beginning. Again, you’ve been through both experiences so I gotta ask, is this point about “skill development and experience” being better in large firms even true in your view?

If it is, then do you think that there are certain doors that open/close for those who choose to directly go in-house right after law school?

[t3ctonics]

11 hours ago, Snails and Ales said:

This is pretty interesting, and I’m curious to get your thoughts on something.

I've read about how taking in-house positions immediately after law school may not be the best choice. There is this point that is made suggesting that working in-house immediately after law school doesn't come close to the “skill development and experiences” that you'd get if working at a large firm. Plus, I always thought obtaining in-house positions immediately after law school was quite difficult since there’s a preference for individuals with some experience under their belt.

I mean, @t3ctonics pretty much talks about it when mentioning their 4 years in big law:

But you’ve been through both private practice and in-house, and say that you still would have targeted in-house positions from the beginning. Again, you’ve been through both experiences so I gotta ask, is this point about “skill development and experience” being better in large firms even true in your view?

If it is, then do you think that there are certain doors that open/close for those who choose to directly go in-house right after law school?

To clarify, I had applied for a posting that asked for more years of experience than I actually had. In my interview I argued that my 4 years of experience involved the same amount of work as 5 years at a less busy firm or an in-house job with a 40 hour work week. It wasn't BS either - I was billing in the range of 2000 hours and the mid-size firms in the area had targets of around 1400-1500 hours if they even had targets.

I think it would be great to start in-house of that's someone's long-term career goal, but there are just not that many articling or even first year positions. Most opportunities require at least a few years of experience. I do know people who started in-house and later switched to private practice, but it's a fair bit less common than the opposite. I'm sure that's in no small part due to the fact that there are just fewer opportunities to start in-house, but I also think that there can be a bit of an obstacle due to perceived experience and skills.

With a large in-house law department the lawyers can be fairly specialized and develop the kind of subject-matter expertise that lawyers in private practice require, but in smaller organizations the in-house lawyers have more varied practices with less opportunity to develop expertise in specific areas. Most in-house lawyers I know describe themselves as some kind of generalist. I myself am primarily a labour and employment lawyer, but that's still only around 60-70% of what I do. For a lawyer in private practice that will more often be 100%, especially at a big firm where highly specialized expertise is required in order to justify high hourly rates (and thereby support the high salaries, partner income, overhead, etc.).

Also, the private practice of law is a business, so an entrepreneurial drive and business development skills are valued. Equity partners are business owners, and associates are supposed to want to be partners. This is changing a bit with non-equity partners and "of Counsel" roles being used more widely, but the mindset is still there. In-house lawyers are rarely involved in business development for their companies, while even associates are regularly involved in different kinds of firm marketing and client development activities at law firms. 

Another difference is that as you become more senior in an in-house role your work often starts to become less legal and more business management and strategy. I'm only an 8th year call and about halfway in the hierarchy of my legal department, but I'd say about a quarter of my work is organizational strategy work rather than legal work.

[Snails and Ales]

On 4/6/2022 at 12:08 PM, t3ctonics said:

To clarify, I had applied for a posting that asked for more years of experience than I actually had. In my interview I argued that my 4 years of experience involved the same amount of work as 5 years at a less busy firm or an in-house job with a 40 hour work week. It wasn't BS either - I was billing in the range of 2000 hours and the mid-size firms in the area had targets of around 1400-1500 hours if they even had targets.

I think it would be great to start in-house of that's someone's long-term career goal, but there are just not that many articling or even first year positions. Most opportunities require at least a few years of experience. I do know people who started in-house and later switched to private practice, but it's a fair bit less common than the opposite. I'm sure that's in no small part due to the fact that there are just fewer opportunities to start in-house, but I also think that there can be a bit of an obstacle due to perceived experience and skills.

With a large in-house law department the lawyers can be fairly specialized and develop the kind of subject-matter expertise that lawyers in private practice require, but in smaller organizations the in-house lawyers have more varied practices with less opportunity to develop expertise in specific areas. Most in-house lawyers I know describe themselves as some kind of generalist. I myself am primarily a labour and employment lawyer, but that's still only around 60-70% of what I do. For a lawyer in private practice that will more often be 100%, especially at a big firm where highly specialized expertise is required in order to justify high hourly rates (and thereby support the high salaries, partner income, overhead, etc.).

Also, the private practice of law is a business, so an entrepreneurial drive and business development skills are valued. Equity partners are business owners, and associates are supposed to want to be partners. This is changing a bit with non-equity partners and "of Counsel" roles being used more widely, but the mindset is still there. In-house lawyers are rarely involved in business development for their companies, while even associates are regularly involved in different kinds of firm marketing and client development activities at law firms. 

Another difference is that as you become more senior in an in-house role your work often starts to become less legal and more business management and strategy. I'm only an 8th year call and about halfway in the hierarchy of my legal department, but I'd say about a quarter of my work is organizational strategy work rather than legal work.

I’m extremely grateful for your insight, thank you.

 

 

On 4/6/2022 at 12:08 PM, t3ctonics said:

Also, the private practice of law is a business, so an entrepreneurial drive and business development skills are valued.

I want to ask you about what kinds of skills you think are valued in-house, or would allow one to work well within in-house environments? One common skill that I hear is very important are strong communication skills (and by association, teamwork skills). I’ve been told that this is crucial since in-house counsel aren’t just working with the legal department, but instead they work with individuals of different backgrounds and expertise in the business. To work effectively with such a diverse group, strong communication skills are needed.

Are there any other skills that you think are very important?  

Edited April 7, 2022 by Snails and Ales

[Aureliuse]

I used to practice family law on Bay St. I wanted my life back so I quit.

I didn't stay on Bay St for too long (under 3 years) due to the difficult billable hours (Range from 150 to 220 per months, or 1,800 to 2,000 per year). My firm was short staffed all the time. The hours weren't a target. They were what I actually billed.

My lifestyle was non-existent. I worked from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30/8:30 p.m. on most weekdays. My firm did cater lunch or dinner - we had a firm credit card. I got gifts from my boss on birthday and Christmas. We can order whatever we wanted at lunch or dinner.

Weekends - I probably did not do any work on only one weekend each month. On all the other weekends, I did work another 5-10 hours or so. So yes, basically, wake up, eat, work, eat, work, eat, work, sleep. 

I gave up most of my hobbies. I used to play video games, collect card/board games, hike, and read high fantasy/historical novels a lot. I also volunteered a lot back in the day. Well, all that mostly ended. My only exercise was moving heavy boxes in the office lol. During those years, my hobby was limited to watching other people play video games - I was so tired coming home each night that I had no energy or interest left. I slept in late on the weekends. My vacation days were spread out, 1 day here, 1 day there. It was non-consecutive because I could not be away from the senior partner I supported for too long. Things would have gotten crazy when I returned.

Basically, the expectation was that I could work at "any time" upon request by my boss.

On the plus side, I got some good experience. I managed to pay off all my student debts. I saved a bit of money which helped purchase a detached house with some help from my parents. Oh, I also got into the stock market because I had disposable income and nearly doubled my investments years later. 

The biggest sacrifice was that I had no time to find my significant other (she is still out there somewhere, like alien life). I didn't date during law school, then spent another 3-4 years after law school working hard and ignored that part of life. Maybe it's for the best, I am a divorce lawyer after all lol.

So yes, 404 error, child not found either. This does leave me with a lot of disposable income at the end of each month.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Aureliuse

[Spreckles]

On 4/5/2022 at 12:03 AM, Snails and Ales said:

This is pretty interesting, and I’m curious to get your thoughts on something.

I've read about how taking in-house positions immediately after law school may not be the best choice. There is this point that is made suggesting that working in-house immediately after law school doesn't come close to the “skill development and experiences” that you'd get if working at a large firm. Plus, I always thought obtaining in-house positions immediately after law school was quite difficult since there’s a preference for individuals with some experience under their belt.

I mean, @t3ctonics pretty much talks about it when mentioning their 4 years in big law:

But you’ve been through both private practice and in-house, and say that you still would have targeted in-house positions from the beginning. Again, you’ve been through both experiences so I gotta ask, is this point about “skill development and experience” being better in large firms even true in your view?

If it is, then do you think that there are certain doors that open/close for those who choose to directly go in-house right after law school?

Hello. Speaking from experience here, I think it really depends where you go in house. It’s not all equal. One in house job I had very early on was extremely busy and the workload was insane. As a result you had no choice but to work on complex files you wouldn’t be able to sneeze at as a junior lawyer at a law firm. I remember meeting up with a big law former classmate in our third year of practice and they didn’t know what a limitation of liability clause was, whereas I was negotiating entire contracts for years at that point. I haven’t had an in house job that intense since though.  

However I do agree that, especially given that there are few in house jobs that really train juniors well, it’s still better to work in a firm first and move in house later. 

The plus side is I can count on one hand how many times I’ve had to work on weekends in my entire career. The comp is getting better too, as I understand it with a firm the bonus structure is based on billable hours and it’s a set amount, like $10,000? Someone correct me. Whereas at a corporation it’s a percentage of salary regardless of hours and can be into the tens of thousands. 

[Cool_name]

1 hour ago, Spreckles said:

I remember meeting up with a big law former classmate in our third year of practice and they didn’t know what a limitation of liability clause was

… how is that even possible? Aren’t they covered in 1l contracts? 

[Jaggers]

Isn't there some sort of London Drugs case they cover?

[Professor Lupin]

Definitely covered in 1L Contracts lol

[Spreckles]

I dunno man. I was shocked they didn’t know. 

[Rashabon]

2 hours ago, Spreckles said:

The plus side is I can count on one hand how many times I’ve had to work on weekends in my entire career. The comp is getting better too, as I understand it with a firm the bonus structure is based on billable hours and it’s a set amount, like $10,000? Someone correct me. Whereas at a corporation it’s a percentage of salary regardless of hours and can be into the tens of thousands. 

Most of the big firms pay a bonus that is a percentage of salary. Billable hours are the primary factor (at the associate level) for determining whether you've achieved the requisite performance threshold for various levels of bonus.

[Spreckles]

8 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Most of the big firms pay a bonus that is a percentage of salary. Billable hours are the primary factor (at the associate level) for determining whether you've achieved the requisite performance threshold for various levels of bonus.

Ah thanks for the clarification. Generally what is the bonus range for a mid level associate? Was I way off the mark with $10,000?

[Rashabon]

51 minutes ago, Spreckles said:

Ah thanks for the clarification. Generally what is the bonus range for a mid level associate? Was I way off the mark with $10,000?

That's less than the minimum bonus at most shops. It's usually anywhere from 10-30% of salary, with last year being higher at some shops.