Jump to content

work-life balance difference between Toronto big law and NYC big law?


candles

Recommended Posts

candles
  • Law Student

i'm curious to know what the difference in work-life balance is between Toronto and New York big law for a junior associate in general corporate? I've heard general comments about how you do not have a life outside of work in new york and that the hours are crazy, but I'm trying to understand if it's that much worse than Toronto? I've only done a summer in big law in Toronto, but I've caught a glimpse of how hard the first year associates work and I want to know how much worse it would be in New York?

In particular, if anyone has worked in both and can speak to some of the differences they found between the two. thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C_Terror
  • Lawyer

Corporate M&A here.

To give you some numbers, most Toronto firms have a 1750 billable target, which equates to 145 hours a month, or roughly 36 hours a week or 7 hours a day. Most NY firms have a 2000 hour target, which equal to 167 hours a month, or 41 hours a week, or about 8 hours a day. It doesn't seem that much, just one more billable hour a day. 

However, you are not just sitting and working 9-5 and counting that as your billable target. As a junior, you'll often have days where you're twiddling your thumbs but are still on call (so no relaxing for you) and work gets dumped on you at 5PM from a mid/senior associate and you work until midnight +. Some days, you only get bill 3-4 hours a day and now you have to make up that 4-5 hours else where. This is true in both Toronto and New York. Over time though, that one extra hour per day to meet your target in NY starts to snowball, especially when you have some lighter days. 

In my experience, when you're working hard, you're working hard in NY. Not saying I haven't had bad months in Toronto - I've had a bunch of 200 hour months, but associates here will regularly bill 200+ hour months back to back to back and that's the norm. 400 hour billable months are not unheard of in my firm, and associates will regularly bill out 300+ hour months. Not saying it's never happened in Toronto, but I reckon it's much rarer.

For perspective, I'm wistful of my "chiller" Toronto big law days. 

Finally, a lot of firms in NY have no billable target. That's a trap. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StoneMason

I don't think anyone will deny that corporate associates work harder (i.e., more) in NY than in Toronto. The numbers are what they are. But it ultimately comes down to how much harder, and whether that incremental work is worth the benefits of going down to NY. If we go with @C_Terror's numbers from above, which are on the higher end (which need not be the case, for example, Skadden, Latham, and Gibson each have a <2000 target), I would argue the extra 1 hour billed per day is most definitely worth it for 2-3X the salary. 

"NY lawyers work way harder than Toronto lawyers" reeks of Toronto big law exaggerating the difference to justify 1/3 the salary. It's not technically wrong to say NY lawyers work harder; but let's stop pretending the 1 hour/day saved by picking Blakes over Simpson is anything more than that – 1 hour saved. 

Edited by StoneMason
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C_Terror
  • Lawyer
1 hour ago, StoneMason said:

I don't think anyone will deny that corporate associates work harder (i.e., more) in NY than in Toronto. The numbers are what they are. But it ultimately comes down to how much harder, and whether that incremental work is worth the benefits of going down to NY. If we go with @C_Terror's numbers from above, which are on the higher end (which need not be the case, for example, Skadden, Latham, and Gibson each have a <2000 target), I would argue the extra 1 hour billed per day is most definitely worth it for 2-3X the salary.

"NY lawyers work way harder than Toronto lawyers" reeks of Toronto big law exaggerating the difference to justify 1/3 the salary. It's not technically wrong to say NY lawyers work harder; but let's stop pretending the 1 hour/day saved by picking Blakes over Simpson is anything more than that – 1 hour saved.

OP wasn't asking about whether it was worth going down to NY but rather how much more work NY is vs Toronto. There's no exaggerating the difference to justify the 1/3 salary. Fact is, a handful of my colleagues and I who lateralled to NY work much more in NY than we did in Toronto. We did it with eyes wide open knowing that we're going to be paid 2-3x more. For us, the increased workload was worth the additional compensation, especially as mid levels.

I don't know if your tag is outdated or not, but I wouldn't really expect a law student to understand the subtle but very material difference between a 1750 billable annual target and a 2000 billable annual target, or even a 1900 billable annual target.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StoneMason
9 hours ago, C_Terror said:

OP wasn't asking about whether it was worth going down to NY but rather how much more work NY is vs Toronto. There's no exaggerating the difference to justify the 1/3 salary. Fact is, a handful of my colleagues and I who lateralled to NY work much more in NY than we did in Toronto. We did it with eyes wide open knowing that we're going to be paid 2-3x more. For us, the increased workload was worth the additional compensation, especially as mid levels.

I don't know if your tag is outdated or not, but I wouldn't really expect a law student to understand the subtle but very material difference between a 1750 billable annual target and a 2000 billable annual target, or even a 1900 billable annual target.

I should’ve been more clear. While I acknowledge OP was not directly asking about whether it is worth it to go down, that is at the heart of many of these types of discussions so I brought it up. You may not be exaggerating the hard work, but many of the Toronto big law folks do.

My comment was to avoid having this thread turn into another Toronto big law sobfest. You’re not working 2-3x more in NY - not even close. Maybe 1.25x more at best, and that is simply what the numbers say.

All that to say I think @BlockedQuebecois has summed it up pretty perfectly.

Edited by StoneMason
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghalm
  • Lawyer
4 hours ago, StoneMason said:

I should’ve been more clear. While I acknowledge OP was not directly asking about whether it is worth it to go down, that is at the heart of many of these types of discussions so I brought it up. You may not be exaggerating the hard work, but many of the Toronto big law folks do.

My comment was to avoid having this thread turn into another Toronto big law sobfest. You’re not working 2-3x more in NY - not even close. Maybe 1.25x more at best, and that is simply what the numbers say.

All that to say I think @BlockedQuebecois has summed it up pretty perfectly.

I think @C_Terror's point is that the "1.25x more" (but I'd say 1.25 up to 2x more) you may be working in NY depending on your firm and practice area is a subtle but material difference and I agree with him that you have to work big law to understand why 1.25x more hours billed is a material difference despite seeming otherwise. I think C-Terror is also noting that, in his opinion, the trade off is worth it. As someone who works Tor Big law (albeit litigation not corp), I am usually overworked and miserable if I work one 200 hour month or near 200 hour month, let alone back to back 200 hour months as the norm (which has never happened to me in 4 years), or god forbid a 300 hour month. Maybe I am a softie or maybe its the nature of my practice or both.

Sounds like optimal situation is NYC salary and less than 200 hour per month as the norm, which is probably doable somewhere down there! 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StoneMason
3 hours ago, Ghalm said:

Sounds like optimal situation is NYC salary and less than 200 hour per month 

Sign me up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JackoMcSnacko
  • Lawyer
12 hours ago, StoneMason said:

My comment was to avoid having this thread turn into another Toronto big law sobfest. You’re not working 2-3x more in NY - not even close. Maybe 1.25x more at best, and that is simply what the numbers say.

I don't know why you think you should steer the conversation, especially if you don't have actual experience in the subject vs people who actually do?  What's in it for you to spread your feelings around anyways?

Your conclusions are all pretty terrible and highlight your lack of experience.  For example, citing Skadden, Latham and Gibson as firms with lower billable req shops shows a lack of understanding in the practical realities at these firms beyond the written policies.  The above quote is also an absurd argument - don't know what you're even trying to say but a linear scale is not it.  Try thinking about time not worked (rather than time worked) as a start.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C_Terror
  • Lawyer
22 minutes ago, JackoMcSnacko said:

The above quote is also an absurd argument - don't know what you're even trying to say but a linear scale is not it.  Try thinking about time not worked (rather than time worked) as a start.

That's a good point. 

To put it simply, if you look at it in a 24 hour day context, an additional hour a day may not seem bad. That's just an additional 4% a day. But if you take out an average 8 hours for sleep, that gives you 16 hours. To hit 1750 with 4 weeks off for vacation and holidays is about 8 hour billables per weekday, but associates don't bill 100% of their time - admin, standby, traditionally office interactions, waiting for comments etc are not billable. Assuming 70-80% efficiency in my experience, that translates to about 10-12 hours of what somebody would traditionally consider "work". Now you're left with 4-6 hours of your own personal time (unless you (i) choose to sacrifice sleep or (ii) choose not to hit your billable target) to eat, cook, de-compress, go to the gym, spend time with friends/family etc.

If your billable target is 2000 hours then your "free time" drops to 3-4 hours a day.  

Of course we're living in the fantasy land above where you consistently get work during the working hours of the weekday and weekends are off limits . Once you factor in (i) the feast/famine nature of corporate deals (or I assume trial periods for litigators ), (ii) twiddling your thumbs from 9-5PM in the office as a junior while you get 8 hours of work dumped on you at 6PM by mid/senior levels (due tomorrow morning of course), or (iii) Friday night emergencies completely destroying your weekends (happens in both Toronto and New York), you start realizing that merely one more hour per day is quite significant. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohshmagoda
  • Lawyer

My hypothesis (untested) is that the kind of person that pursues NY biglaw (and has it as as an option) is probably the kind of person that would bill more than 1,700 hours if they were working in Canada. Undoubtedly the billable hour expectations in NY are higher than they are in Canada, but my gut is that a person choosing between the two options is likely to experience less of a delta in hours worked than the billable hour target would suggest. Admittedly this hypothesis is strained for the COVID era when heading south required much less initiative and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that many more Canadians ended up in the USA than would typically be the case.

If you’re at all inclined, I would encourage you to try your shot at NY. It is very easy to end up being an overworked Canadian biglaw lawyer that is working NY-acceptable hours and making a Canadian salary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StoneMason
15 hours ago, JackoMcSnacko said:

I don't know why you think you should steer the conversation, especially if you don't have actual experience in the subject vs people who actually do?  What's in it for you to spread your feelings around anyways?

Your conclusions are all pretty terrible and highlight your lack of experience.  For example, citing Skadden, Latham and Gibson as firms with lower billable req shops shows a lack of understanding in the practical realities at these firms beyond the written policies.  The above quote is also an absurd argument - don't know what you're even trying to say but a linear scale is not it.  Try thinking about time not worked (rather than time worked) as a start.

Your comment adds no value to this thread. It's already been mentioned that the extra hours worked may have a material difference to one's life –– and that ultimately comes down to whether one sees it as a worthwhile sacrifice for the added benefits. As for what's in it for me to contribute to this thread –– what's in it for anyone to contribute to any thread here? It's an online forum for discussion. If you disagree with my points then go ahead, but there's no need to get personal or be a dick about it. 

Edited by StoneMason
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

chaboywb
  • Lawyer
16 hours ago, JackoMcSnacko said:

For example, citing Skadden, Latham and Gibson as firms with lower billable req shops shows a lack of understanding in the practical realities at these firms beyond the written policies. 

Not sure what you mean. Davies doesn't have a billable target so I understand their associates don't even bother working.

  • Like 1
  • LOL 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghalm
  • Lawyer
48 minutes ago, chaboywb said:

Not sure what you mean. Davies doesn't have a billable target so I understand their associates don't even bother working.

Lax O'Sullivan has no firm target either based on what recruiters tell me, yet associates are dropping out of that shop like rats leaving a sinking ship because its quite well known its an insane work mill for associates. I am sure you won't be surprised if I tell you some of their top litigators are former Davies partners 😛

1 hour ago, StoneMason said:

Your comment adds no value to this thread. It's already been mentioned that the extra hours worked may have a material difference to one's life –– and that ultimately comes down to whether one sees it as a worthwhile sacrifice for the added benefits. As for what's in it for me to contribute to this thread –– what's in it for anyone to contribute to any thread here? It's an online forum for discussion. If you disagree with my points then go ahead, but there's no need to get personal or be a dick about it. 

While I agree that there is no need to be a dick/get personal, I think @JackoMcSnacko is giving you a verbal slap because, well, you sort of offered strong opinions on a topic that it seems like you do not have the experience to opine on -- and while its routine for folks to opine on topics they have no experience in on online forums, its also routine for folks to verbally slap in response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

carlill
  • Lawyer

A really interesting observation @Ghalm that I agree with. The firm you mention is not the only commercial litigation boutique in the top 10/15 that is now demonstrating a “churn-rate” that is perhaps close to Big Law litigation departments. From what I understand this is happening at boutiques with either no target or the Canadian 1750 level (which illustrates your point that target is quite immaterial).

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned for those litigators thinking of moving from Big Law to certain litigation boutiques…sometimes these firms are simply set up to run like a Bay St litigation department with the consequence that working conditions are close to being the same, and in a number of cases somewhat worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JackoMcSnacko
  • Lawyer
On 10/4/2024 at 12:05 PM, StoneMason said:

Your comment adds no value to this thread. It's already been mentioned that the extra hours worked may have a material difference to one's life –– and that ultimately comes down to whether one sees it as a worthwhile sacrifice for the added benefits. As for what's in it for me to contribute to this thread –– what's in it for anyone to contribute to any thread here? It's an online forum for discussion. If you disagree with my points then go ahead, but there's no need to get personal or be a dick about it. 

If you're taking it personally or think I'm a dick for pointing out that your views come from a place of ignorance than that's a you problem.  And if you think that's adding no value then I hope you're not one of the dozens (maybe hundreds at this point) of law students that's reached out asking to chat about practicing in NY as a Canadian law grad, since nuances in the messaging don't seem to get through to you.  Inevitably my chats with Canadian law students involves dispelling myths about aspects of practicing in the US that law students pick up from other law students, or, more increasingly, from somewhere they read online.  That, among other reasons, is what's in it for me to contribute here (as an example since you asked).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

happydude
  • Lawyer
On 10/3/2024 at 10:08 PM, Ohshmagoda said:

My hypothesis (untested) is that the kind of person that pursues NY biglaw (and has it as as an option) is probably the kind of person that would bill more than 1,700 hours if they were working in Canada. Undoubtedly the billable hour expectations in NY are higher than they are in Canada, but my gut is that a person choosing between the two options is likely to experience less of a delta in hours worked than the billable hour target would suggest. Admittedly this hypothesis is strained for the COVID era when heading south required much less initiative and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that many more Canadians ended up in the USA than would typically be the case.

If you’re at all inclined, I would encourage you to try your shot at NY. It is very easy to end up being an overworked Canadian biglaw lawyer that is working NY-acceptable hours and making a Canadian salary.

From my time in Toronto big law, I can 100% say this is the case, and what it should come down to IMO. Plenty of lawyers in Toronto are working just as hard as lawyers in NYC. Many lawyers in Toronto also work a lot less hours than their NYC counterparts and enjoy (comparably) good work-life balance. But it is far too case-by-case to even worry with these market comparisons. Hours worked are way too dependent on your particular firm, practice area, the specific partners assigning you work, the specific mid-level and senior-level associates feeding you work, etc. You will never know until you get there. So, if you have a shot at NYC, you would be very wise to take it IMO. Even if you don't want to practice law in the USA long-term, when you are fresh out of law school, which often (but certainly not always!) means young with no dependents, even if you want to be in Canada long term you can just bank money and USDs and then come back later. 

 

Edited by happydude
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AHappyLawyer
  • Lawyer
On 10/3/2024 at 7:08 PM, Ohshmagoda said:

My hypothesis (untested) is that the kind of person that pursues NY biglaw (and has it as as an option) is probably the kind of person that would bill more than 1,700 hours if they were working in Canada. Undoubtedly the billable hour expectations in NY are higher than they are in Canada, but my gut is that a person choosing between the two options is likely to experience less of a delta in hours worked than the billable hour target would suggest.

I this this is right.

Yes, on balance, you'll work probably work harder in NY. To generalize (why not, this is Canlawforum), the personalities in New York are 10% more abrasive, the turnaround times 10% more demanding, the deals are  10% higher velocity, so yes you'll work harder than your average Bay St Associate (assuming a corporate transactional practice btw). Your median client at a V20 firm in NY is a 27 year old VP in Private Equity or ex Big-law in-house GC who pulled as many hours as you did in Big Law. If they want to jump on a quick call on Saturday, then that's what happens. Yeah, you have those types of clients in Toronto too, but it's not the median client on Bay St. 

However, for most Bay St corporate associates that want to go to NY for higher pay and bigger "deals", I don't think the workload is all that different. That same guy or gal that is raiding the firm fridge in Toronto at 2AM for snacks is ordering DoorDash to their office at 2AM in midtown Manhattan. And if you're not that person, you go back to Canada or churn out and go-house in the States after your 2 years here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

StoneMason
21 hours ago, JackoMcSnacko said:

 And if you think that's adding no value then I hope you're not one of the dozens (maybe hundreds at this point) of law students that's reached out asking to chat about practicing in NY as a Canadian law grad, since nuances in the messaging don't seem to get through to you. 

Wow, you're so cool that students reach out to you. Enjoy flexing over your coffee chats, buddy. 

Edited by StoneMason
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

happydude
  • Lawyer
On 10/4/2024 at 2:25 PM, carlill said:

A really interesting observation @Ghalm that I agree with. The firm you mention is not the only commercial litigation boutique in the top 10/15 that is now demonstrating a “churn-rate” that is perhaps close to Big Law litigation departments. From what I understand this is happening at boutiques with either no target or the Canadian 1750 level (which illustrates your point that target is quite immaterial).

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned for those litigators thinking of moving from Big Law to certain litigation boutiques…sometimes these firms are simply set up to run like a Bay St litigation department with the consequence that working conditions are close to being the same, and in a number of cases somewhat worse.

High level boutiques often have worse work life balance than full service firms. Same demanding clients but less hands on deck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.