By the way, thank you SO MUCH to everyone who has commented so far. The comments have been interesting, insightful, and civil. This is exactly the type of conversation I’ve been hoping to see in these pages, and it has been great to hear so many different perspectives. Thanks again!
Y'all seem a bit shy, so I'll start the conversation.
Reading this associate's message, I was struck by how the issues faced by associates today seem to be pretty much the same as the issues associates faced back when I was in Biglaw, some two decades ago.
If you had to pick, though, are things better today or in the past? I'm now engaged in a Twitter debate about this. I'd say that working in Biglaw is better today than it used to be, for a few reasons:
1. Technology has removed a lot of the worst Biglaw drudgery (e.g., reviewing documents in paper).
2. Remote working is now "a thing" -- the pandemic has accelerated it, but even before the pandemic, it was common at many firms.
3. Millennials won't put up with as much abuse as Gen Xers, and partners have been forced to adjust -- and become "nicer." As one partner at my former firm told me, "The millennials broke us."
Mostly Amen. I will note that this associate seems to be putting in his/her time, more than working towards a goal he or she seems to really want to reach. That could be because the culture has eroded any desire to be a partner and thereby join the ranks of the inconsiderate, or perhaps the associate just doesn't find the actual work of problem solving or working toward a good result for a client that motivating. Having worked through the apprenticeship myself, I know what kept me going was the challenge and rewards of the work, especially getting a good result for the client.
Late in my associateship, I confronted a partner who, having promised me that I could have my first Sunday off in weeks so that I could attend church with my children, reneged on that promise. He even started whining about not having been sailing for the last several years. I turned the whine on him and said, "You know, my worst fear is that I might grow up to be like you and never have any fun." It worked. I got to church that day, and also made partner a year or two later.
That said, some years later, I had to walk away from a full equity partnership when the culture became just too toxic. My non-sailing partner was addled from overwork. The few partners I admired for their integrity, work-life balance and consideration had left, or were shortly to leave, and those who ultimately remained fell into the camp of last-minute, weekend-ruining assigners who also were increasingly threatened by talent and rainmaking. That fear was evident when partnership started to be conferred on self-abasing lackeys and denied to client-attracting people of undeniable talent, likeable character and personal integrity. When you add erosion of quality of new partners to power devolving by attrition or freeze-out to the worst of the senior partners, it's a recipe for implosion. Which is exactly what happened several years after I walked away to start my own small firm.
When I left--at a time I had three children about to head into college, people thought I was crazy. A few years later, it was more like prophetic. I never made more money or had a better life-work balance than when I was on my own. I didn't take a single client with me, and built an appellate firm of distinction.
So my point? Don't shy away from the shingle. Make your own way, if the culture won't change. The worst job I ever had was as a young partner.
There is an alternative between big law and in-house -- elite boutiques. I'm biased as I left biglaw 20 years ago and have been able to practice at the same high level but in a more humane environment. Doesn't mean there aren't late nights and weekend work, but for the most part, I've been able to enjoy time with my family, work on exciting appeals, and make a good living. Of course, had I stayed at biglaw I would have made even more money, but as in anything, balance is important and I do not regret my move.
My response would be a combination of "amen" and "stop whining."
Thanks to David, I have been writing at ATL for more than six years, and I haven't seen a lot of change in law firm management in that time period. I blame the billable hour fee structure, the relentless pressure to get and keep clients, and the refusal to understand that life passes, whether you are billing or not, whether you are churning out endless discovery or not, whether you have any opportunity to advance, whether having a life outside of work is important to you.
Managing expectations is easier said than done. I had hoped that my generaion would have created a climate where the trite phrase of "work-life balance" was not just a platitude, but a reality. My bad. I see women leaving the profession and that saddens me. When I was admitted to the bar in 1976 (long ago), I was optimistic that women lawyers could change the profession for the better. Again, my bad.
I get emails from readers who ask, plaintively, if "this is all there is." No, it's not, but the reality is that not everyone can unshackle the golden handcutts that keep people where they are. Student loan debt (don't get me started), homes, kids can get in the way of making changes.
There's a wonderful passage in Joseph Conrad's book, Lord Jim, in which Stein asks the ultimate question: how to be. So, how do you want to be? The answer is different for everyone, and David's recent career change reminds us that it can be done, but it's not easy.
I do wonder whether the focus on billable hours as the root of all evil (which is probably the majority view right now) is a bit of a red herring, but that’s a separate conversation.
While I agree the billable hour shares some blame due to setting forth certain incentives, you have to think about investment banking or other industries where people work just as hard, but aren't bound to the billable model. How do you explain long hours of bankers who are not compensated on the billable hour system?
They are absolutely correct. The issue is one of work culture and corporate greed vs mental health and, ultimately, more effective work habits.
The myth that you need to work 100+ hours in a law firm is just that - a myth perpetuated by partners, based on the same profit-driven greed that has millionaire CEOs pay their people $7.00 an hour while having the rest of their living needs be met by the taxpayers through food stamps.
I'm Canadian. When I got ready to article - I think USians call it "clerk"? - out of law school, I was recruited by some of the big Toronto firms (they had gotten hold of the Dean's list and decided I was Worthy - I had no interest in working there). One of them proudly told me that they had couches in their library, for when their articled clerks had to work really late. Like, by what stretch of the imagination is that an attractive offer?
I spent a couple of years in private practice, hated it, and headed into public service to practice international law for the Government. Yeah, there were a lot of late nights, some all-nighters and a number of weekends, but usually for good reason - genocide in Rwanda, NATO action in Yugoslavia, 9/11 fallout, Afghanistan. But if someone came at me with that work-cultural crap of sending midnight or 5 am emails, just to prove they were working harder than anyone else, I ignored them. Work-life balance isn't just a corporate checkbox; you have to actually claim it.
There were a lot of ridiculous things that people would do back when I was in Biglaw to show how hardworking they were.
For example, people would leave their lights on and their suit jackets on their chairs, so if anyone walked by, they'd think the person had just stepped away momentarily (e.g., to go to the bathroom). But this tactic fell apart after firms installed those environmentally friendly lights that automatically go off if there's no motion in the room for a certain time.
Another thing that some associates would do is schedule emails to go out in the middle of the night, e.g., 3 a.m. The main danger of this is that if the partner you were working with was still up, they might respond by email or call you upon receiving the 3 a.m. message, and if you didn't reply or pick up the phone, then you were busted.
that's crazy!!! People start stuff like that in high school, where they will take 5-6 AP classes about stuff they aren't even interested in. It makes me cynical about this big college game. I hope passion for a subject and hard work in the areas that matter will be more important than signaling to other people how "busy" and smart I am.
I confess that I'm a bit confused. I came to this after the intro expecting to nod along and write a righteous "hell yeah!" here, but... what is the point of this? What is your correspondent proposing? Just fewer after-hours emails? Schedule calls at slightly more reasonable hours? I mean sure, but I recently escaped after about nine years in the biglaw trenches and honestly there seems to be something of a trend in that direction already; at least my experience at the senior level was that a midnight email that was (1) a surprise and (2) required an immediate response was quite the rarity.
Now, if we want to have a bigger conversation about the toxic effects on the profession's culture of aggressive lateral partner poaching and clients' seemingly bottomless willingness to leave 85% of the team that was doing their work behind if their relationship contact jumps ship in search of a slightly larger Hamptons house that would be interesting, but it seems like we're probably not yet ready to have that conversation.
Actually, the second paragraph of your email sounds like a great topic for a future Notice and Comment! If you want to send me more detailed thoughts, feel free to email me. Thanks!
I did big law for fifteen years, half as an associate and half as an equity partner. In my opinion, the only reason to put up with what the author describes for more than a few years is the expectation of making partner. If you are not going to make partner, find a better job after you get the big law training. The money is nice, but life is too short. Learn to live on less money. Also, maybe choose a firm that doesn't let partners treat associates like dirt. I left to be a stay at home mom because I had saved a lot and could afford to take time off (being married to another lawyer helped.) Now my husband and I have our own firm. There are lots of things to do after big law that are much more fun.
I'm glad the comments are back. I know why ATL stopped comments, but back in the day, I thought the comments were the best - including those of Partner Emeritus. And let's be honest - posts by Lat vs. ATL staff is a world of difference in quality. Glad to be able to read Lat's thoughts on a more consistent basis.
I am looking at this as a recruiter who started in the industry in the early 2000s (and I am dating myself). I would be curious as to what practice area this person is in and where this person is practicing. For the most part, I agree with what the person is saying. Millennials have changed things for the better (IMO), and I have a faith that the younger generations will help law firm cultures evolve into becoming less toxic and more respectful of personal time.
What's different from the early 2000s is more men are asking about parental leave (that never happened in my early days of recruiting), parental leave is longer, remote working is becoming widely accepted now and Millennials pushed for that even pre-pandemic, diversity and mental health are now widely discussed topics in law firms and technology is doing some of the more tedious work that associates typically performed.
While I appreciate this person is grateful, for what BigLaw has been able to provide financially and maybe intellectually, many still leave the practice to do something totally different. One of my friends ended his legal career at a large investment bank after working at two large firms in NYC and became an interior designer. Another friend of mine, a former equity partner in two Big Law firms who retired in his 50s, said to me that he was glad he moved to a mid-sized AmLaw 200 firm because he was able to have a better lifestyle, make a good living (this person had a good book of business) and still maintain a good legal practice. He even retained his Chambers ranking when he moved his practice to a less prestigious (by AmLaw standards) firm.
People can also have more fulfilling lawyer lives practicing law in smaller markets as opposed to larger cities like NYC, DC metro, etc. where people are not expected to be available 24/7 and pulling all-nighters. The work may not be as "sophisticated" and you likely won't be paid as much as your big city peers, but your time is more your own.
Biglaw life sucks—I don’t even do it, I just watch my wife live on that schedule and, obviously, feel it ripple into our family life. So I was expecting to cheer along with the author, but instead, wondered why this person is still at their firm. They hate their job and the culture. As demanding and challenging and outright insane as the hours and expectations can be, it’s also crystal clear to me that my wife loves what she does and is truly excellent at it. She gets so much out of absolutely nailing the work, *and* gets paid piles of money to do it. The fact that the author never once mentioned making partner, or being able to initiate a culture change as a partner, suggests to me that they are going to make their own career transition announcement sooner or later. At “seven to ten years” in, it’s up or out. (Another problem! There are solid attorneys whose skill set does not include “rainmaker” who find themselves outside of Biglaw right as they are reaching a new stage of competence and independence on that platform.)
Very true. When I was at a firm, I’d see the people who totally got a rush from the substance of the work — not just the pay or the perks of firm life, the work — and I thought to myself, “I need to find that for myself” (and in writing, I believe that I have).
I thought that too, but if these lawyers have families, they often stay because the money can help pay for their kids' college tuition. In fact, I have heard that come straight out of the mouth of partners. I can understand that as the cost of higher education is exorbitant compared to when I was in college. I have also seen instances where a spouse is not working outside the home in order to care for the kids (some of those kids could have special needs) and they want their spouse to keep making that good paycheck to support them. We don't know the person who wrote this, and maybe this person does feel "stuck" and does not know what they would do if they didn't practice law.
I agree with this as well. Some folks love Biglaw, and some have “golden handcuffs.” I warn law students and young lawyers to not get addicted to the nice lifestyle (unless they really do enjoy Biglaw, in which case, God bless).
I am 100% on the amen side. I am not a big law associate but I do work at a high profile plaintiff side firm. There is a lot of talk about mental health and work/life balance but in talking to a lot of my big law classmates I’ve found that a lot of the time it is just that, talk. Having a clear division of work time and personal/family time is essential to mental health in my opinion.
I am lucky that as a sabbath observant Jew I take off from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and all my co-workers know that they will not be able to reach me. Having that 24 hour period of complete disconnect from work allows me to put in all the additional hours the rest of the week without feeling like I’m burning out. I have actually thought that law firms (and other companies) would significantly benefit from mandating a 24 hour “off” period for all employees.
I think observing the Sabbath is quite healthy in many ways. The challenge for many of us would be going without technology for the day!
When I was at Wachtell Lipton, there were many observant Jews at the firm (and I believe there still are). As soon as the sun would go down on Saturday, my BlackBerry would start vibrating like crazy. But it was nice even for those of us who were not observant to have that 24-hour period when things would generally be a little more mellow.
As a Jew (and David’s husband), I can’t say I’m in any way offended by the use of the word “Jews”. My understanding is that this is also the general consensus (as much as one can say such a consensus exists here). Saying “the Jews” on the other hand — less kosher.
Those of us non-lawyers in management and administrative positions at biglaw firms often suffer the same abuse as the lawyers, but without the high compensation and with no possibility of partnership. So why have I stayed for 23 years? Because I love the challenge and non-law firm jobs just look boring to me.
P.S. Be kind to your administrative staff. They are not lawyers, but they are still human.
Amen and Hallelujah. It’s not normal to live like this, it’s not healthy and it’s not good. It also tends to turn you into a total asshole. I did my time in BigLaw - just under 10 years - and it took me a couple of years after leaving the profession to de-program. Specifically, I lost the pathological need to check emails every 5 minutes, the physical “fight or flight” response to getting a message, the habit of reading communications in the most uncharitable light possible and an unhealthy obsession with money as a status marker instead of a useful thing one can exchange for goods and services. I do not regret losing any of these things.
Same here. But money and prestige is all that matters to ambitious singles and it is a great place to learn how the world operates. It all changed for me when I became a father. I'm OK with work being more important than my life, but not my family. I used to live to work, but now I work to live. Yet, I would still recommend those up-and-coming to experience the profession at its highest level; there's nothing like growing up in the crucible of biglaw to give you the training and discipline to succeed in later life.
By the way, thank you SO MUCH to everyone who has commented so far. The comments have been interesting, insightful, and civil. This is exactly the type of conversation I’ve been hoping to see in these pages, and it has been great to hear so many different perspectives. Thanks again!
Y'all seem a bit shy, so I'll start the conversation.
Reading this associate's message, I was struck by how the issues faced by associates today seem to be pretty much the same as the issues associates faced back when I was in Biglaw, some two decades ago.
If you had to pick, though, are things better today or in the past? I'm now engaged in a Twitter debate about this. I'd say that working in Biglaw is better today than it used to be, for a few reasons:
1. Technology has removed a lot of the worst Biglaw drudgery (e.g., reviewing documents in paper).
2. Remote working is now "a thing" -- the pandemic has accelerated it, but even before the pandemic, it was common at many firms.
3. Millennials won't put up with as much abuse as Gen Xers, and partners have been forced to adjust -- and become "nicer." As one partner at my former firm told me, "The millennials broke us."
I'm not a lawyer - what is drudgery about reviewing documents in paper? Does it depend how long they are?
Mostly Amen. I will note that this associate seems to be putting in his/her time, more than working towards a goal he or she seems to really want to reach. That could be because the culture has eroded any desire to be a partner and thereby join the ranks of the inconsiderate, or perhaps the associate just doesn't find the actual work of problem solving or working toward a good result for a client that motivating. Having worked through the apprenticeship myself, I know what kept me going was the challenge and rewards of the work, especially getting a good result for the client.
Late in my associateship, I confronted a partner who, having promised me that I could have my first Sunday off in weeks so that I could attend church with my children, reneged on that promise. He even started whining about not having been sailing for the last several years. I turned the whine on him and said, "You know, my worst fear is that I might grow up to be like you and never have any fun." It worked. I got to church that day, and also made partner a year or two later.
That said, some years later, I had to walk away from a full equity partnership when the culture became just too toxic. My non-sailing partner was addled from overwork. The few partners I admired for their integrity, work-life balance and consideration had left, or were shortly to leave, and those who ultimately remained fell into the camp of last-minute, weekend-ruining assigners who also were increasingly threatened by talent and rainmaking. That fear was evident when partnership started to be conferred on self-abasing lackeys and denied to client-attracting people of undeniable talent, likeable character and personal integrity. When you add erosion of quality of new partners to power devolving by attrition or freeze-out to the worst of the senior partners, it's a recipe for implosion. Which is exactly what happened several years after I walked away to start my own small firm.
When I left--at a time I had three children about to head into college, people thought I was crazy. A few years later, it was more like prophetic. I never made more money or had a better life-work balance than when I was on my own. I didn't take a single client with me, and built an appellate firm of distinction.
So my point? Don't shy away from the shingle. Make your own way, if the culture won't change. The worst job I ever had was as a young partner.
There is an alternative between big law and in-house -- elite boutiques. I'm biased as I left biglaw 20 years ago and have been able to practice at the same high level but in a more humane environment. Doesn't mean there aren't late nights and weekend work, but for the most part, I've been able to enjoy time with my family, work on exciting appeals, and make a good living. Of course, had I stayed at biglaw I would have made even more money, but as in anything, balance is important and I do not regret my move.
My response would be a combination of "amen" and "stop whining."
Thanks to David, I have been writing at ATL for more than six years, and I haven't seen a lot of change in law firm management in that time period. I blame the billable hour fee structure, the relentless pressure to get and keep clients, and the refusal to understand that life passes, whether you are billing or not, whether you are churning out endless discovery or not, whether you have any opportunity to advance, whether having a life outside of work is important to you.
Managing expectations is easier said than done. I had hoped that my generaion would have created a climate where the trite phrase of "work-life balance" was not just a platitude, but a reality. My bad. I see women leaving the profession and that saddens me. When I was admitted to the bar in 1976 (long ago), I was optimistic that women lawyers could change the profession for the better. Again, my bad.
I get emails from readers who ask, plaintively, if "this is all there is." No, it's not, but the reality is that not everyone can unshackle the golden handcutts that keep people where they are. Student loan debt (don't get me started), homes, kids can get in the way of making changes.
There's a wonderful passage in Joseph Conrad's book, Lord Jim, in which Stein asks the ultimate question: how to be. So, how do you want to be? The answer is different for everyone, and David's recent career change reminds us that it can be done, but it's not easy.
I do wonder whether the focus on billable hours as the root of all evil (which is probably the majority view right now) is a bit of a red herring, but that’s a separate conversation.
While I agree the billable hour shares some blame due to setting forth certain incentives, you have to think about investment banking or other industries where people work just as hard, but aren't bound to the billable model. How do you explain long hours of bankers who are not compensated on the billable hour system?
They are absolutely correct. The issue is one of work culture and corporate greed vs mental health and, ultimately, more effective work habits.
The myth that you need to work 100+ hours in a law firm is just that - a myth perpetuated by partners, based on the same profit-driven greed that has millionaire CEOs pay their people $7.00 an hour while having the rest of their living needs be met by the taxpayers through food stamps.
I'm Canadian. When I got ready to article - I think USians call it "clerk"? - out of law school, I was recruited by some of the big Toronto firms (they had gotten hold of the Dean's list and decided I was Worthy - I had no interest in working there). One of them proudly told me that they had couches in their library, for when their articled clerks had to work really late. Like, by what stretch of the imagination is that an attractive offer?
I spent a couple of years in private practice, hated it, and headed into public service to practice international law for the Government. Yeah, there were a lot of late nights, some all-nighters and a number of weekends, but usually for good reason - genocide in Rwanda, NATO action in Yugoslavia, 9/11 fallout, Afghanistan. But if someone came at me with that work-cultural crap of sending midnight or 5 am emails, just to prove they were working harder than anyone else, I ignored them. Work-life balance isn't just a corporate checkbox; you have to actually claim it.
There were a lot of ridiculous things that people would do back when I was in Biglaw to show how hardworking they were.
For example, people would leave their lights on and their suit jackets on their chairs, so if anyone walked by, they'd think the person had just stepped away momentarily (e.g., to go to the bathroom). But this tactic fell apart after firms installed those environmentally friendly lights that automatically go off if there's no motion in the room for a certain time.
Another thing that some associates would do is schedule emails to go out in the middle of the night, e.g., 3 a.m. The main danger of this is that if the partner you were working with was still up, they might respond by email or call you upon receiving the 3 a.m. message, and if you didn't reply or pick up the phone, then you were busted.
that's crazy!!! People start stuff like that in high school, where they will take 5-6 AP classes about stuff they aren't even interested in. It makes me cynical about this big college game. I hope passion for a subject and hard work in the areas that matter will be more important than signaling to other people how "busy" and smart I am.
I confess that I'm a bit confused. I came to this after the intro expecting to nod along and write a righteous "hell yeah!" here, but... what is the point of this? What is your correspondent proposing? Just fewer after-hours emails? Schedule calls at slightly more reasonable hours? I mean sure, but I recently escaped after about nine years in the biglaw trenches and honestly there seems to be something of a trend in that direction already; at least my experience at the senior level was that a midnight email that was (1) a surprise and (2) required an immediate response was quite the rarity.
Now, if we want to have a bigger conversation about the toxic effects on the profession's culture of aggressive lateral partner poaching and clients' seemingly bottomless willingness to leave 85% of the team that was doing their work behind if their relationship contact jumps ship in search of a slightly larger Hamptons house that would be interesting, but it seems like we're probably not yet ready to have that conversation.
Actually, the second paragraph of your email sounds like a great topic for a future Notice and Comment! If you want to send me more detailed thoughts, feel free to email me. Thanks!
I did big law for fifteen years, half as an associate and half as an equity partner. In my opinion, the only reason to put up with what the author describes for more than a few years is the expectation of making partner. If you are not going to make partner, find a better job after you get the big law training. The money is nice, but life is too short. Learn to live on less money. Also, maybe choose a firm that doesn't let partners treat associates like dirt. I left to be a stay at home mom because I had saved a lot and could afford to take time off (being married to another lawyer helped.) Now my husband and I have our own firm. There are lots of things to do after big law that are much more fun.
I'm glad the comments are back. I know why ATL stopped comments, but back in the day, I thought the comments were the best - including those of Partner Emeritus. And let's be honest - posts by Lat vs. ATL staff is a world of difference in quality. Glad to be able to read Lat's thoughts on a more consistent basis.
I am looking at this as a recruiter who started in the industry in the early 2000s (and I am dating myself). I would be curious as to what practice area this person is in and where this person is practicing. For the most part, I agree with what the person is saying. Millennials have changed things for the better (IMO), and I have a faith that the younger generations will help law firm cultures evolve into becoming less toxic and more respectful of personal time.
What's different from the early 2000s is more men are asking about parental leave (that never happened in my early days of recruiting), parental leave is longer, remote working is becoming widely accepted now and Millennials pushed for that even pre-pandemic, diversity and mental health are now widely discussed topics in law firms and technology is doing some of the more tedious work that associates typically performed.
While I appreciate this person is grateful, for what BigLaw has been able to provide financially and maybe intellectually, many still leave the practice to do something totally different. One of my friends ended his legal career at a large investment bank after working at two large firms in NYC and became an interior designer. Another friend of mine, a former equity partner in two Big Law firms who retired in his 50s, said to me that he was glad he moved to a mid-sized AmLaw 200 firm because he was able to have a better lifestyle, make a good living (this person had a good book of business) and still maintain a good legal practice. He even retained his Chambers ranking when he moved his practice to a less prestigious (by AmLaw standards) firm.
People can also have more fulfilling lawyer lives practicing law in smaller markets as opposed to larger cities like NYC, DC metro, etc. where people are not expected to be available 24/7 and pulling all-nighters. The work may not be as "sophisticated" and you likely won't be paid as much as your big city peers, but your time is more your own.
Biglaw life sucks—I don’t even do it, I just watch my wife live on that schedule and, obviously, feel it ripple into our family life. So I was expecting to cheer along with the author, but instead, wondered why this person is still at their firm. They hate their job and the culture. As demanding and challenging and outright insane as the hours and expectations can be, it’s also crystal clear to me that my wife loves what she does and is truly excellent at it. She gets so much out of absolutely nailing the work, *and* gets paid piles of money to do it. The fact that the author never once mentioned making partner, or being able to initiate a culture change as a partner, suggests to me that they are going to make their own career transition announcement sooner or later. At “seven to ten years” in, it’s up or out. (Another problem! There are solid attorneys whose skill set does not include “rainmaker” who find themselves outside of Biglaw right as they are reaching a new stage of competence and independence on that platform.)
Very true. When I was at a firm, I’d see the people who totally got a rush from the substance of the work — not just the pay or the perks of firm life, the work — and I thought to myself, “I need to find that for myself” (and in writing, I believe that I have).
I thought that too, but if these lawyers have families, they often stay because the money can help pay for their kids' college tuition. In fact, I have heard that come straight out of the mouth of partners. I can understand that as the cost of higher education is exorbitant compared to when I was in college. I have also seen instances where a spouse is not working outside the home in order to care for the kids (some of those kids could have special needs) and they want their spouse to keep making that good paycheck to support them. We don't know the person who wrote this, and maybe this person does feel "stuck" and does not know what they would do if they didn't practice law.
I agree with this as well. Some folks love Biglaw, and some have “golden handcuffs.” I warn law students and young lawyers to not get addicted to the nice lifestyle (unless they really do enjoy Biglaw, in which case, God bless).
I am 100% on the amen side. I am not a big law associate but I do work at a high profile plaintiff side firm. There is a lot of talk about mental health and work/life balance but in talking to a lot of my big law classmates I’ve found that a lot of the time it is just that, talk. Having a clear division of work time and personal/family time is essential to mental health in my opinion.
I am lucky that as a sabbath observant Jew I take off from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and all my co-workers know that they will not be able to reach me. Having that 24 hour period of complete disconnect from work allows me to put in all the additional hours the rest of the week without feeling like I’m burning out. I have actually thought that law firms (and other companies) would significantly benefit from mandating a 24 hour “off” period for all employees.
I think observing the Sabbath is quite healthy in many ways. The challenge for many of us would be going without technology for the day!
When I was at Wachtell Lipton, there were many observant Jews at the firm (and I believe there still are). As soon as the sun would go down on Saturday, my BlackBerry would start vibrating like crazy. But it was nice even for those of us who were not observant to have that 24-hour period when things would generally be a little more mellow.
Nowadays I think you have to say the words "Jewish people" rather than just "Jews" to be respectful... Curious about others' thoughts on that
As a Jew (and David’s husband), I can’t say I’m in any way offended by the use of the word “Jews”. My understanding is that this is also the general consensus (as much as one can say such a consensus exists here). Saying “the Jews” on the other hand — less kosher.
Those of us non-lawyers in management and administrative positions at biglaw firms often suffer the same abuse as the lawyers, but without the high compensation and with no possibility of partnership. So why have I stayed for 23 years? Because I love the challenge and non-law firm jobs just look boring to me.
P.S. Be kind to your administrative staff. They are not lawyers, but they are still human.
Amen and Hallelujah. It’s not normal to live like this, it’s not healthy and it’s not good. It also tends to turn you into a total asshole. I did my time in BigLaw - just under 10 years - and it took me a couple of years after leaving the profession to de-program. Specifically, I lost the pathological need to check emails every 5 minutes, the physical “fight or flight” response to getting a message, the habit of reading communications in the most uncharitable light possible and an unhealthy obsession with money as a status marker instead of a useful thing one can exchange for goods and services. I do not regret losing any of these things.
Same here. But money and prestige is all that matters to ambitious singles and it is a great place to learn how the world operates. It all changed for me when I became a father. I'm OK with work being more important than my life, but not my family. I used to live to work, but now I work to live. Yet, I would still recommend those up-and-coming to experience the profession at its highest level; there's nothing like growing up in the crucible of biglaw to give you the training and discipline to succeed in later life.