Honestly wanna know why do people want biglaw? Is it for the money? The career prospects?

[wannabestacysmom]

I obviously know biglaw is a popular career path for many lawyers but then at the same time I hear about people complaining about the lack of work life balance and the toll it has on mental health and everyone I meet in biglaw always says negative things etc so I just wanna know apart from the great salary/pressure to pay off student loans, what is the appeal of biglaw?

Sorry if this sounds like a rude question!! I’m not trying to say anything negative about biglaw, there is a career path for everybody- no such thing as right or wrong, just whats right for you ❤️ I was just surprised by how many grads want to pursue biglaw vs other legal jobs and I just want insight from different people. I cannot imagine everyone in biglaw was always interested in biglaw, what about the people that wanted to do family law or criminal law?

Edited April 2, 2022 by wannabestacysmom

[LMP]

A few points: 

1. Money is money. People like being well compensated for their work. Never underestimate the draw of a hefty salary (especially once you realize that a lot of non big law legal work isn't exactly a fun stroll in the park). 

2. A more direct recuritment pipeline. I think this gets overlooked a lot. Your law school will likely walk you through the recurit timeline. The formal recurits are dominated by biglaw firms and so this is the most straightforward way for many candidates to find employment. Of course you can seek out your own job, but the structured route is bound to be more popular. 

3. Interest. Biglaw firms have cool work sometimes! I work for a more botique firm and we get some interesting cases, but the really exciting stuff (both in my field and other) always seems to go to the big firms. Maybe that's not the case but it is the perception I have. This is especially true if you're intrests lay in corporate law. 

4. Support. At smaller firms you have less support. You don't have the security and adminstrative support that comes from a larger firm. You also don't have to worry so much about brining in business like you would in a sole practice or smaller firms. 

5. Interest redux. In regards to the question on criminal of family law, some people just don't like it. I find criminal law boring, I've never had much of an interest in it. I've never understood the sentiment that it is naturally more exciting. 

[wannabestacysmom]

Thank you for the well thought out answer 😊 

[Panda]

For me, it is almost purely interest. I went to law school with the intention of trying to work in a niche area of law. There are only 10 firms in the country that even have groups that do this kind of work and only about 5 or so where you can make a career doing only that work. “Big law” is the only way to practice this kind of law without going to the government side.

It doesn’t hurt that the money is a nice bonus.

As a side note, I’m just finishing articling now, and have very much enjoyed my time so far. There are days I can’t help but wonder why anyone wants to be part of a bought deal, but the same is likely also true of what I find incredibly interesting.

[GGrievous]

2 hours ago, LMP said:

5. Interest redux. In regards to the question on criminal of family law, some people just don't like it. I find criminal law boring,

In addition to potentially finding it boring, the cases can be very difficult and emotionally draining. The clients can also be difficult for some people to work with.

[CleanHands]

I have to quarrel with your thread title.

"People" don't want BigLaw.

Those that want BigLaw are subhuman.

[QueensDenning]

Law schools - right or wrong - make it seem like it's the best legal training a junior lawyer or summer student can get. A lot of students (the vast majority according to my anecdotal experience) aren't really set on any practice area by the time the 1L/2L recruit comes, and that recruit has mainly "big law" firms participating. When you have a bunch of debt, and the recruit is the first realistic option of obtaining any full time legal experience at a firm over the summer, and considering that these firms pay $1900 a week, it seems like a no brainer to a lot of students. 

[wannabestacysmom]

3 hours ago, Barry said:

In addition to potentially finding it boring, the cases can be very difficult and emotionally draining. The clients can also be difficult for some people to work with.

What is it that makes some clients difficult to work with? And why are cases emotionally draining compared to biglaw? Does biglaw pretty much only refer to big corporate law firms? 

[Ramesses]

3L student perspective - I had no idea what big law was until law school. I went to networking events because other people went to them. I did recruit because I had FOMO.  Like others mentioned before, big law was easier. There was a "clear" path on how to get a job and what comes next. You are guaranteed decent pay and opportunities to learn from some of the best practitioners with a lot of resources at your disposal. It also provided variety and opportunities to try out different practice areas and learn about different areas of law. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

I think it is probably worth noting that there is a distinction between the question OP asked (why do people want to work in big law) and the question a lot of posters are answering (why do people end up working in big law).

I raise that distinction for two reasons.

First, it's not helpful for OP to be left with the impression that everyone working in big law is doing so because they didn't want to deal with emotionally difficult clients/cases or because it was the path of least resistance. There are people (myself included), who chose to pursue big law because it is their preferred career path (or at least, one of their preferred career paths). 

Second, it's not helpful for students considering their options to have more experienced people acting as if the question of "why do people want to do X" and "why do people do X" are the same. That leads students to conclude the answers to question 2—which include it being the path of least resistance—are acceptable answers to question 1. They're not, and if you approach your career from the perspective that they are, you're likely to end up deeply unsatisfied in your career. 

[SlytherinLLP]

I didn't necessarily fixate on BigLaw during the recruit, my goal was to land with a firm doing interesting work, with opportunities to learn from great lawyers. You will generally find that in BigLaw.

The outpouring of negative opinions stems from the fact that the lifestyle involves substantial personal sacrifices, and while many associates will make the calculus that it is worth it (for the reasons outlined above), there is a compulsion to voice the equivalent of a giant warning label on this career path. This is also why the attrition rate is so high with many going in for a few years, and then leaving for in-house jobs, often their former clients. 

I would wager that many BigLaw lawyers genuinely enjoy the work. The problem is the volume coupled with the extreme requirements of servicing sophisticated clients. But that's the nature of the practice and it's not changing anytime soon. 

I would characterize my articling experience as generally positive, but there were many "fuck this, why" moments throughout. 

I also loved criminal law in law school but was intimately aware that the practice generally doesn't engage with the interesting aspects of criminal law - unless you are working at Henein Hutchison or something. Conversely in BigLaw you will routinely grapple with complex legal issues. 

 

[easttowest]

I like money. I like securities litigation. I like shareholder disputes. I like reading about my work in the paper. 

[GGrievous]

48 minutes ago, easttowest said:

I like shareholder disputes.

What do you like about it because it sounds pretty awful. 

[WhoKnows]

10 minutes ago, Barry said:

What do you like about it because it sounds pretty awful. 

Not east, but deal with it a bit in my work on the corporate side. They're often big, messy, and complex. There's a blend of legal, business, and internal political considerations to be made. There's heavy strategy and you get to give strategic advice.

[GGrievous]

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

Not east, but deal with it a bit in my work on the corporate side. They're often big, messy, and complex. There's a blend of legal, business, and internal political considerations to be made. There's heavy strategy and you get to give strategic advice.

Sorry if this is a dumb question because I'm just a 1L and it probably is, but is it at all comparable to disputes in divorce? I've heard parties can take things very personally and no longer follow reason or even the advice of their counsel just to win. I’m imagining bigger egos and deeper pockets in corporate. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Barry

[Ghalm]

I had an interest in business, corporations, corporate behaviour, and how commerce "happens." I wanted to be a litigator. I was attracted to Big Law because I thought i would get: 1) exposure to complex, high-stakes, and varied commercial litigation; 2) the benefit of working for (and learning from) senior associates and partners with that kind of commercial litigation experience; 3) the benefit of having resources and supports to assist me in my practice.

So far, my experience has met my expectations. I get to be a part of a team that thinks through and crafts the legal analysis / court documents for some really interesting commercial disputes. I also feel like my input is taken seriously - I often see much of my words and my analysis stay in the final deliverable for the client / court, and that continues to excite me. An added benefit is being able to work on a variety of files ranging from the complex high-stakes matters to the simple straight forward matters, and in between. Though, not all of the associates and partners at my firm are the *best* to work for, but I can and do learn from all of them (even if I prefer working for some over others).

I'd say the hours can be all-consuming. The expectation for work product is very high. So, the pressure (whether self-imposed or not) is ever present. But, I am having fun, I am learning, I feel like its sharpening my analytical / strategic skills and - for now - I am going to ride the wave until I decide otherwise! 

I do, however, suffer from "is the grass greener" syndrome, where my mind regularly wanders off and thinks about whether a different job, doing a different kind of litigation, would be more interesting / fulfilling for me - and that is why I think I probably won't last too long at my current gig...

Edited April 3, 2022 by Ghalm

[123]

8 hours ago, CleanHands said:

And just because accused people are rich people don't somehow mean their legal cases are more complex or interesting or challenging or satisfying.

Also, just my personal experience. But I find novelty, rather than complexity, tends to be intellectually stimulating.

Complexity alone tends to be a bit of a slog. I've had cases with tens of thousands of pages of documents, containing multiple competing narratives and raising a bunch of evidentiary questions. I've had cases where the statute has a lot of parts, and the jurisprudence is pretty well developed. In those cases, document management and organizing the case law was a bit of a challenge, because there was so much of it. But I didn't really apply a lot of my own insight or thought to it. It was an organizational challenge, rather than an intellectual one. It was hard. But also pretty boring. 

It's usually where I'm forced to think outside the box that I'm intellectually stimulated. Like where the law doesn't contemplate my facts, so I end up making novel arguments on policy, Charter values, etc. Or like in @Diplock's example, where a bail plan gave me nothing really to work with, so I had to get creative with coming up with new conditions, surety prep, and argument. Those are the cases I find engaging. Where I have to throw away any templates, and figure out something on my own. Sometimes that arises in the course of complexity, because sheer volume and the interplay between different factors does increase the likelihood that counsel will need to a clever solution at some point. But, IMO, it doesn't necessarily follow from complexity.

[Hegdis]

As promised, spliced the thread: 

 

[PzabbytheLawyer]

11 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Also, just my personal experience. But I find novelty, rather than complexity, tends to be intellectually stimulating.

Complexity alone tends to be a bit of a slog. I've had cases with tens of thousands of pages of documents, containing multiple competing narratives and raising a bunch of evidentiary questions. I've had cases where the statute has a lot of parts, and the jurisprudence is pretty well developed. In those cases, document management and organizing the case law was a bit of a challenge, because there was so much of it. But I didn't really apply a lot of my own insight or thought to it. It was an organizational challenge, rather than an intellectual one. It was hard. But also pretty boring. 

It's usually where I'm forced to think outside the box that I'm intellectually stimulated. Like where the law doesn't contemplate my facts, so I end up making novel arguments on policy, Charter values, etc. Or like in @Diplock's example, where a bail plan gave me nothing really to work with, so I had to get creative with coming up with new conditions, surety prep, and argument. Those are the cases I find engaging. Where I have to throw away any templates, and figure out something on my own. Sometimes that arises in the course of complexity, because sheer volume and the interplay between different factors does increase the likelihood that counsel will need to a clever solution at some point. But, IMO, it doesn't necessarily follow from complexity.

Really great post. Agreed entirely. 

[wannabestacysmom]

22 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Also, just my personal experience. But I find novelty, rather than complexity, tends to be intellectually stimulating.

Complexity alone tends to be a bit of a slog. I've had cases with tens of thousands of pages of documents, containing multiple competing narratives and raising a bunch of evidentiary questions. I've had cases where the statute has a lot of parts, and the jurisprudence is pretty well developed. In those cases, document management and organizing the case law was a bit of a challenge, because there was so much of it. But I didn't really apply a lot of my own insight or thought to it. It was an organizational challenge, rather than an intellectual one. It was hard. But also pretty boring. 

It's usually where I'm forced to think outside the box that I'm intellectually stimulated. Like where the law doesn't contemplate my facts, so I end up making novel arguments on policy, Charter values, etc. Or like in @Diplock's example, where a bail plan gave me nothing really to work with, so I had to get creative with coming up with new conditions, surety prep, and argument. Those are the cases I find engaging. Where I have to throw away any templates, and figure out something on my own. Sometimes that arises in the course of complexity, because sheer volume and the interplay between different factors does increase the likelihood that counsel will need to a clever solution at some point. But, IMO, it doesn't necessarily follow from complexity.

Sounds really interesting. If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of law firm do you work at? Is it a “bay st” firm/large firm or smaller etc? I think I’m personally interested in litigation (so far) but I know that’s a huge field in itself hahaha

[123]

1 hour ago, wannabestacysmom said:

Sounds really interesting. If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of law firm do you work at? Is it a “bay st” firm/large firm or smaller etc? I think I’m personally interested in litigation (so far) but I know that’s a huge field in itself hahaha

I'm a sole practitioner, so the opposite of big law. It's small law. 

[wannabestacysmom]

8 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

I'm a sole practitioner, so the opposite of big law. It's small law. 

The way you described your work sounded really interesting. I want that eventually hahaha

[Zarathustra]

Got student debt to pay off.

[Ruthless4Life]

9 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

I'm a sole practitioner, so the opposite of big law. It's small law. 

Better call Saul comes to mind.

On 4/4/2022 at 1:37 AM, WhoKnows said:

Not east, but deal with it a bit in my work on the corporate side. They're often big, messy, and complex. There's a blend of legal, business, and internal political considerations to be made. There's heavy strategy and you get to give strategic advice.

Shareholders disputes are fun… for me it’s like dealing with a divorce but without the “moral ramifications”…

[GGrievous]

3 minutes ago, Ruthless4Life said:

 

Shareholders disputes are fun… for me it’s like dealing with a divorce but without the “moral ramifications”…

 

On 4/3/2022 at 12:19 PM, Barry said:

is it at all comparable to disputes in divorce?

I thought so!