Biglaw Articling Hours

[boyo]

9 hours ago, OzLaw16 said:

I feel it's worth adding that the question of "when do you start working and when you do finish working" can be really misleading and unhelpful

Completely agree. That's why I was interested in knowing by the end of the month what do dockets look like. I've very often worked 8 am - 1:00-2:00 am, but for as many of those that I've pulled, I've also worked from 10:00 am - 3:00 pm.

28 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

I respectfully disagree. My experience, and the experience of most of my friends, was that we worked the hardest (longest hours) when we were students at big firms, and as associates (some of whom stayed, some of whom switched firms or went in house), we gained much more control and work life balance. It's a very short time in your life and basically a big job interview, plus you'll learn much more if you're putting in the hours and then start as an associate with a broader knowledge base. In terms of not being paid well enough....what?! Biglaw articling students are paid very well, and again, it's a job interview for a very high paying job over the rest of your career. If you're saying that articling students in smaller firms aren't paid well enough, then I would assume they are not working biglaw hours, but I would also assume that regardless of the place of your employment you are likely to work longer hours as a student than you will be as an associate because everything takes longer to complete as you learn how to do it.

I'd agree that you take out of articling what you put into it. For some, doing those 12 hours daily of pure work is worthwhile, but it shouldn't be a baseline. And I get the point about being underpaid. It's all so relative - if I do nothing but work in a day and have to miss out on things outside of work, the pay stops mattering. Gets even worse if you're doing that for 2+ weeks. It's also easy to see you're underpaid by peeking at the client invoices you're on and seeing the revenue beside your name. Of course you couldn't bring that money in for yourself without the firm, but the difference between your income and that revenue is (probably) made up in the experience you're gaining, but it is still jarring.

[BlockedQuebecois]

@KOMODO, you disagree that articling students are not paid well enough to spend 100% of their waking hours in the office? Seriously? 

I normally stay out of these discussions, because I’ve always worked fewer hours than my peers and received good reviews regardless, but the idea that articling students should be working 12-14 hour days regularly is absurd and antiquated. 

[Cool_name]

10 hours ago, OzLaw16 said:

I feel it's worth adding that the question of "when do you start working and when you do finish working" can be really misleading and unhelpful in the post-COVID world where working time is way more flexible. A time range can mean many different things depending on what someone's work style is and how they like to split up their day.

For a personal example, there have been many days lately where I start working at 9am and only finish working at 10pm. But that ignores the long gap I'll usually take between 6:30pm-8:30pm. I find that by the time I hit 6:30, my brain's ready for a proper break (not just 15-20 minutes of pacing around my apartment) and my focus is really recharged after that. If I left out all that context and just said "I start at 9am and finish at 10pm", that would lead people to think I'm working a 13-hour work day, which isn't true.

It seems like people are more hesitant to be open about what their billable hours tend to look like (or in the case of articling students, docketed hours since a lot of big firms assign articling students a sizeable amount of non-billable work), but that information is way more helpful than a vague time range.

Everyone mentally over estimates their hours. Especially in industries outside of law where hours aren’t tracked, but I digress.
 

People like talking about hours worked rather than billables because billables don’t lie (or at least shouldn’t lie). 
 

Hours in the office is an important metric though as different areas of practice, tasks, stages of careers affect how long you need to stay in the office for. Perhaps abnormally, my hours in the office were less during articling than currently, but I was, during normal periods, billing the same. 
 

Currently 8 to 7 for me typically means 8 billable (or equivalent) hours. 
 

I loath weekend work and avoid whenever possible (granted I haven’t done a good job at avoiding weekend work the last few months).

[Vitron]

For reference, I’ve heard from around that targets at most firms are generally 1700-1800 for associates. So work back from that depending on how you like to work. Certainly not 10-12 billable hours per day. 

[PzabbytheLawyer]

The idea that articling students should work 14 hour days at a minimum is antiquated.

The idea that articling students should be all hands on deck when the work requires it, is not.

I've found a change in culture in law, post pandemic, where people don't respond to real legal emergencies with dropping things and putting in the work.

It's a service profession. We work in a high stakes environment. When the work requires it, you make yourself available.

3 minutes ago, Vitron said:

For reference, I’ve heard from around that targets at most firms are generally 1700-1800 for associates. So work back from that depending on how you like to work. Certainly not 10-12 billable hours per day. 

Usually, at least for me, I bill around 70-75 percent of the time I'm working. It depends on the work I'm doing, the day, the changes in tasks, etc. But as a metric, that's usually what it translated to. 7 hours billed, 10 worked (or at work).

Edited April 20, 2023 by PzabbytheLawyer

[Vitron]

3 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

 

Usually, at least for me, I bill around 70-75 percent of the time I'm working. It depends on the work I'm doing, the day, the changes in tasks, etc. But as a metric, that's usually what it translated to. 7 hours billed, 10 worked (or at work).

Yeah, this is really a YMMV sort of thing. Are you doing doc review or due diligence all day? Can probably bill almost all your time. Switching around a lot or distracted that day? Will be different.

[123]

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

the idea that articling students should be working 12-14 hour days regularly is absurd and antiquated. 

I don't understand who these people are who can regularly do good work by their 12th or 14th hour of a day. I feel that the quality of my work starts to drop pretty sharply around that point. Unless I have a true need to finish something -- as in, it is the filing deadline or an emergency stay motion -- I usually pack it in after eleven or twelve hours. I am a sole though. I guess not everyone can do that.

[chaboywb]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

I respectfully disagree. My experience, and the experience of most of my friends, was that we worked the hardest (longest hours) when we were students at big firms, and as associates (some of whom stayed, some of whom switched firms or went in house), we gained much more control and work life balance. It's a very short time in your life and basically a big job interview, plus you'll learn much more if you're putting in the hours and then start as an associate with a broader knowledge base. In terms of not being paid well enough....what?! Biglaw articling students are paid very well, and again, it's a job interview for a very high paying job over the rest of your career. If you're saying that articling students in smaller firms aren't paid well enough, then I would assume they are not working biglaw hours, but I would also assume that regardless of the place of your employment you are likely to work longer hours as a student than you will be as an associate because everything takes longer to complete as you learn how to do it.

I also worked longer hours when I was articling (though much less productively), and I agree with everyone who says that it is the job of an articling student to be on call most, if not all, of the time.

But being on call is not the same as being in the office from 9-9 or 9-11 every day. If that's what someone wants to do, then by all means, they should. But it is not necessary and I don't want other big law students to think that is anywhere near an expectation. It is absolutely possible to burnout and be unable to recover after 10 months working at that "pace" - and the reason that is in quotes is because I am certain much of that in-office time is wasted.

If articling is a job interview, then it is one where the majority of interviewees will get the job, and the vast majority of those successful are not living in their office.

And again, there is no question that big law articling students and associates are paid well compared to the Canadian population. But we are paid way below our peers in the United States. I'm not saying we should work half as much as an American big law lawyer does, but this pay is not worth working 14 hour days as a baseline. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by chaboywb

[PzabbytheLawyer]

14 minutes ago, Vitron said:

Yeah, this is really a YMMV sort of thing. Are you doing doc review or due diligence all day? Can probably bill almost all your time. Switching around a lot or distracted that day? Will be different.

Usually yes. But personally, if I ever have to do something like that for a long period of time (thankfully I haven't had to do it much with the kind of practice I've built), I get distracted very easily and end up less efficient.

Drafting, I'm very efficient. Meetings, ditto. Mediations, ditto.

I can't wait for AI to replace the mundane parts of legal practice.

 

 

[Rashabon]

Past 5 I don't really care where people are at as long as they get their work done on time. I historically worked late because I am a night person and did better then, without the distractions of emails and calls coming in. I had a few partners joke about it that they'd know to wake up to an email from me with everything finished. I've gotten better at controlling my schedule (other than 2021 which was a shit show of a year).

I don't remember my articling year super well but I wasn't in the office for 12-14 hours a day. A solid day was 9 to 6-7 and if I had work I'd stay later if need be. Nowadays I leave the office around 530-6 at the latest and usually get in between 9 and 10. I'll typically take a break for a while between 730-1030 and then catch up if need be after that.

[chaboywb]

15 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

'll typically take a break for a while between 730-1030 and then catch up if need be after that.

This is the hardest part for me. I find it very hard to re-open my computer once I've gotten comfortable in the evening. Once I'm done, I'm done. But I often get that second burst of emails around 9ish, especially from people with kids.

[Rashabon]

Typically when I email at that hour I'm not expecting a response, but I've used Delay Delivery for years and have increased my usage of it. I send my email but delay it until 7:30 or 8 am so someone has it at the start of their day instead.

My break often involves PC gaming so I just switch back over to my work station at home if I need to. My days now are filled with too many discussions and BD activities to be able to focus until it's later at night anyway.

[WhoKnows]

47 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

I can't wait for AI to replace the mundane parts of legal practice.

I'm here to a point, but I'm also getting to where I'm actively against AI use for students and first-years. I'm finding it's really stunting some growth, because they're overreliant on the tool and not applying critical thinking to the outputs. It's a super delicate balancing act. One I'm glad I didn't encounter when I was articling just 4 years ago. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by WhoKnows

[PzabbytheLawyer]

4 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

I'm here to a point, but I'm also getting to where I'm actively against AI use for students and first-years. I'm finding it's really stunting some growth, because they're overreliant on the tool and not applying critical thinking to the outputs. It's a super delicate balancing act. One I'm glad I didn't encounter when I was articling just 4 years ago. 

I'm amazed. I didn't know biglaw is already using AI. For what exactly?

I agree with you. I've actively spoken about how AI can hinder a lot of good development for students and juniors.

In the same way we shouldn't let kids use calculators when learning the fundamentals of math.

[WhoKnows]

4 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Typically when I email at that hour I'm not expecting a response, but I've used Delay Delivery for years and have increased my usage of it. I send my email but delay it until 7:30 or 8 am so someone has it at the start of their day instead.

I can't remember where you're at call wise...5 or 6 years in-ish? Please know that your juniors appreciate the hell out of this. 

I do the same, or if I know I'm gonna be travelling into the office and don't want the risk of things stuck in the outbox, I throw the ole "DO NOT OPEN UNTIL TOMORROW" in the subject line. 

 

[WhoKnows]

25 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

I'm amazed. I didn't know biglaw is already using AI. For what exactly?

I agree with you. I've actively spoken about how AI can hinder a lot of good development for students and juniors.

In the same way we shouldn't let kids use calculators when learning the fundamentals of math.

We use some AI for contract drafting. Contract Companion by Litera is pretty amazing. Being able to get flags on "used but not defined" terms, or "defined by not used" or "reference out of date", etc. is pretty spectacular, especially when you're talking about the documents I am working with (purchase agreements and credit agreements that easily stretch into the 100's of pages and get turned a lot). It seems most of the big tax groups are using Blue J. I know a few lawyers who, if they encounter a really niche piece they need to draft around and aren't quite sure how to structure, will ask Chat GPT to create a clause that they'll edit. 

The ones that concern me most about stunted growth, though, are the AI contract review programs that are being used for diligence. I should say, they're super helpful tools, and they save a lot of time if used well, especially on report-writing, but a lot of students over-rely on their outputs. The system spits out that it's an assignment clause, so into the reporting table it goes, but if you really read the clause, it's about capital-A, "Assignment", and that definition specifically excludes assignments pursuant to an agreement to purchase all or substantially all of the assets of the corporation by a third-party, so now we're not talking about an actual red flag for the client. 

So if you're not on top of that, you end up with students clicking buttons and flagging items without a real understanding of what they're looking for, why it matters, and how it fits into the overall structure of the transaction. They aren't getting experience reading and actually understanding how contracts are structured, and the work product suffers. It also horribly slows their drafting skills, as reading 1000's of contracts and actually soaking in the different ways to construct them (and how not to) is a major part of developing your own style of drafting. Finally, it means they're behind on learning the sort of macro business sense that good deal-lawyers have. They are thinking about the types of contracts they're seeing, how those fit into the broader business being acquired/sold, what may or may not be important or not important, etc. 

But I've also been told I expect a lot of our students, so maybe that's all too much to ask. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by WhoKnows

[chaboywb]

4 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

We use some AI for contract drafting. Contract Companion by Litera is pretty amazing. Being able to get flags on "used but not defined" terms, or "defined by not used" or "reference out of date", etc. is pretty spectacular, especially when you're talking about the documents I am working with (purchase agreements and credit agreements that easily stretch into the 100's of pages and get turned a lot).

The ones that concern me most about stunted growth, though, are the AI contract review programs that are being used for diligence. I should say, they're super helpful tools, and they save a lot of time if used well, especially on report-writing, but a lot of students over-rely on their outputs. The system spits out that it's an assignment clause, so into the reporting table it goes, but if you really read the clause, it's about capital-A, "Assignment", and that definition specifically excludes assignments pursuant to an agreement to purchase all or substantially all of the assets of the corporation by a third-party, so now we're not talking about an actual red flag for the client. 

So if you're not on top of that, you end up with students clicking buttons and flagging items without a real understanding of what they're looking for, why it matters, and how it fits into the overall structure of the transaction. They aren't getting experience reading and actually understanding how contracts are structured, and the work product suffers. It also horribly slows their drafting skills, as reading 1000's of contracts and actually soaking in the different ways to construct them (and how not to) is a major part of developing your own style of drafting. Finally, it means they're behind on learning the sort of macro business sense that good deal-lawyers have. They are thinking about the types of contracts they're seeing, how those fit into the broader business being acquired/sold, what may or may not be important or not important, etc. 

But I've also been told I expect a lot of our students, so maybe that's all too much to ask. 

Even though both are AI, I feel like these uses are distinct from the AI that's been all the rage over the past few months. I'm thinking something like "draft me a target-friendly clause that says abc" or "write me a legal argument that xyz does not apply to this set of facts", which we're on the verge of but (to my knowledge) is not yet happening.

I agree with you that overreliance on tools can be a risk, and the new range of AI products is only going to accelerate that. Even Litera makes a lot of mistakes.

[WhoKnows]

Just now, chaboywb said:

Even though both are AI, I feel like these uses are distinct from the AI that's been all the rage over the past few months. I'm thinking something like "draft me a target-friendly clause that says abc" or "write me a legal argument that xyz does not apply to this set of facts", which we're on the verge of but (to my knowledge) is not yet happening.

I agree with you that overreliance on tools can be a risk, and the new range of AI products is only going to accelerate that. Even Litera makes a lot of mistakes.

A few of the "all the rage" AI tools are surprisingly good at getting you 50 or 60 percent of the way there on those use cases, but I hear you. And as soon as those drafting AI's and the like do get a bit better, you can bet that we'll be using them. For all the slack that Big Law gets for being behind the times, it has not been my experience at the tech level. Uptake at the partner level can be challenging, but use by juniors is pretty swift, and the firms seem to shell out big if there's a better, more efficient way. This is especially true for some of the more piecemeal, project based stuff, where big clients are getting full scope quotes and it's a race to the bottom (see: small size commercial lending files). 

[Pantalaimon]

41 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

My break often involves PC gaming so I just switch back over to my work station at home if I need to.

I knew I liked you for a reason.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

Amazing stuff. Thanks for that input.

[Rashabon]

Yeah my experience with AI maps with @WhoKnows and I have the same concerns regarding not quite understanding clauses/drafting/contracts by relying too much on tools. Contract Companion and Definely however are good for what they are. But also, overreliance on anything is a big issue because they don't capture it all. We've had Kira Systems AI for a long time on contract review and AI/ML has been used forever in document review by most major shops to cut down on having to review everything. As with everything, people will adapt and it's just learning to use tools properly.

Years ago there was no blacklining software so you had to compare by hand. Now you push a button and you're mostly done, unless it glitches out. It makes things go much faster as long as you use the tools properly.

[KOMODO]

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

@KOMODO, you disagree that articling students are not paid well enough to spend 100% of their waking hours in the office? Seriously? 

I normally stay out of these discussions, because I’ve always worked fewer hours than my peers and received good reviews regardless, but the idea that articling students should be working 12-14 hour days regularly is absurd and antiquated. 

I disagree that it's "ridiculous" or "completely abnormal" for there to be articling students who stay past 9, or even one who is consistently in the office until 11. That was the comment I was replying to. Obviously things have changed since the pandemic and many people choose to work from home in the evening, which might be fine, but I don't think it's ridiculous at all that an articling student would choose to work at the office late if they have the work to keep them busy. If their supervising lawyers are there too, it would make even more sense. I also don't think that working until 9, or even 11, is "spending 100% of your waking hours" in the office. I personally did this all the time in articling because I wanted to work less on the weekends, and I still tend to work late during the week to not work on the weekend . Also everyone seems to be missing that this is a very short time in your life, less than a year - I'm not saying this is necessary or normal long term, but if it happens during articling, I don't think it's absurd either. And if it's antiquated, that's a shame, because we learned a lot from each other when we (as articling students) all tended to stay late and work on stuff together.

In terms of pay, articling students are well paid, and the whole point is that their current pay isn't all they're getting out of the work - they're also getting trained and getting an opportunity to be hired into a permanently very high paying job. I don't think lack of pay is any reason for articling students to complain about their hours.

 

6 hours ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

The idea that articling students should work 14 hour days at a minimum is antiquated.

The idea that articling students should be all hands on deck when the work requires it, is not.

I've found a change in culture in law, post pandemic, where people don't respond to real legal emergencies with dropping things and putting in the work.

It's a service profession. We work in a high stakes environment. When the work requires it, you make yourself available.

Usually, at least for me, I bill around 70-75 percent of the time I'm working. It depends on the work I'm doing, the day, the changes in tasks, etc. But as a metric, that's usually what it translated to. 7 hours billed, 10 worked (or at work).

I agree with this. I'm not saying every student should work 14 hour days all the time. But I don't think that's crazy if they're learning and the work requires it. I also think a conversion rate of 3 worked hours = 2 billable is reasonably normal (obviously depends on how much NB you're doing), so clearly not every hour is billable, especially when someone is starting out. 

 

6 hours ago, chaboywb said:

...

And again, there is no question that big law articling students and associates are paid well compared to the Canadian population. But we are paid way below our peers in the United States. I'm not saying we should work half as much as an American big law lawyer does, but this pay is not worth working 14 hour days as a baseline. 

As we've debated a hundred times here, the pay etc. in the States is kind of irrelevant. This is a smaller market with different benefits and drawbacks. Articling student pay should not be an argument against the work required of articling students, in my opinion.

 

[Vitron]

45 minutes ago, KOMODO said:

I disagree that it's "ridiculous" or "completely abnormal" for there to be articling students who stay past 9, or even one who is consistently in the office until 11. That was the comment I was replying to. Obviously things have changed since the pandemic and many people choose to work from home in the evening, which might be fine, but I don't think it's ridiculous at all that an articling student would choose to work at the office late if they have the work to keep them busy. If their supervising lawyers are there too, it would make even more sense. I also don't think that working until 9, or even 11, is "spending 100% of your waking hours" in the office. I personally did this all the time in articling because I wanted to work less on the weekends, and I still tend to work late during the week to not work on the weekend . Also everyone seems to be missing that this is a very short time in your life, less than a year - I'm not saying this is necessary or normal long term, but if it happens during articling, I don't think it's absurd either. And if it's antiquated, that's a shame, because we learned a lot from each other when we (as articling students) all tended to stay late and work on stuff together.

In terms of pay, articling students are well paid, and the whole point is that their current pay isn't all they're getting out of the work - they're also getting trained and getting an opportunity to be hired into a permanently very high paying job. I don't think lack of pay is any reason for articling students to complain about their hours.

 

I agree with this. I'm not saying every student should work 14 hour days all the time. But I don't think that's crazy if they're learning and the work requires it. I also think a conversion rate of 3 worked hours = 2 billable is reasonably normal (obviously depends on how much NB you're doing), so clearly not every hour is billable, especially when someone is starting out. 

 

As we've debated a hundred times here, the pay etc. in the States is kind of irrelevant. This is a smaller market with different benefits and drawbacks. Articling student pay should not be an argument against the work required of articling students, in my opinion.

 

I don’t think the pay in the States is irrelevant, especially for practice areas like transactional law that are extremely similar between Big Law TO and NYC. I could see a different argument being made for litigation.

A lot of big law TO students were competitive for the NY recruit and many chose to not do it because NY has a reputation of grinding associates much harder than TO. 

So it’s totally a fair comparison when you’re comparing similar workloads with vastly different salary structures.

[helloall]

Dangling a hireback as a carrot and pretending as if ~$80K is a substantial articling salary for being in the office ~70 hours a week is wild. Also, I agree with others that a comparison to NY is fair. Not only is there the supposed advantage of a more lenient schedule, but it renders the "training" argument moot for transactional law.

[LMP]

56 minutes ago, helloall said:

Dangling a hireback as a carrot and pretending as if ~$80K is a substantial articling salary for being in the office ~70 hours a week is wild. Also, I agree with others that a comparison to NY is fair. Not only is there the supposed advantage of a more lenient schedule, but it renders the "training" argument moot for transactional law.

In fairness the pay is closer to $100k in Toronto. Unless my math is off. That still might not be worth it given the hours, but an extra 15k - 20k isn't nothing!