<p>I hear that most jobs ar corporate firms which law students get immediately after graduation pay you a lot of money ($125-160,000) but demand an enormous number of hours (80-90). My question is this: Assuming your salary is guaranteed and does not depend on your billable hours, is the reason that people put in so many hours is because they want to impress their firms and make them partners? I ask this because I have almost no interest in working in a large corporate firm nor do I wish to work for someone else for 80+ hours a week - I do want a life. However, I will need to pay of debt so I will probably have to work for such a salary in such an environment for 1 or 2 years. Since I don't want to make partner or even work there for a while - could I get away will working 50-60 hours a week at a firm that paid me $125-160,000? Or is this unrealistic.</p>
<p>Another way to put this: What is the absolute minimum number of hours I would need to work to make that salary or close to it - assuming I graduated from a top 5 law school? Thanks</p>
<p>Those large firms that pay starting salaries in that range have an expectation that you will work a lot of hours. Sometimes it is actually spelled out (like a minimum of 2200, or more, billable hours per year); at many there is no minimum set but long hours are just an expectation generated by the atmosphere you are in. They hire only high ranking students (like top 10% of a class) who mostly have a significant desire to prove their ability early and are willing to devote long hours. New associates are given assignments that very often require long hours (because it is a significant amount of work with a short deadline). There are often additional incentives to work long hours -- like an annual bonus that partly depends on hours worked. 80+ is more myth than reality although during real crunch times you can reach or exceed 80. Nevertheless, if you have no interest in working in such a large firm then don't do it -- partners are no dummies and it does not take them long to figure out who is just marking time and should be requested (told) to leave.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply. If, as you said, 80+ hours a weeks is a bit of a myth (except occasionally), what is a more realistic number - 60? Also, you mentioned that firms that pay that much only take the top 10%. However, I was under the impression that if you went to a top 5 or even top 10 school, did reasonably well (better than half the class, say) then you could expect to land such a job if you wanted it. Is this wrong?</p>
<p>The top 10% was a working example. Yes, many will dip down lower than top 10% from a top law school, although a number won't go much lower; down to the 50% level is questionable at most. At many, a typical associate will bill an average of 50 to 56 hours a week which means, along with non-billable hours, about an average 60 to 65 hour work week. Some firms average higher, some lower and there can be weeks at time where it is much higher and weeks where it is lower. There can also be a much different atmosphere among cities. In NYC, the pressure to bill huge numbers of hours is extreme at many firms. In Chicago and San Francisco, it is more of an atmosphere of dedicate yourself and devote long hours as needed but when there is some slower time (like a lull because some huge case just settled), just work less hours or take some time off.</p>
<p>thanks. You've eased my mind a lot quite a bit.</p>
<p>One potential qualification: At top schools like Harvard, there seems to be rampant grade inflation, making it virtually impossible for anyone to discern who is and is not a top student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At top schools like Harvard, there seems to be rampant grade inflation, making it virtually impossible for anyone to discern who is and is not a top student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not sure where you read or heard that, but that is a dubious claim. From what I have read, Harvard calculates the GPA to the third decimal place, which reflects the competitive atmosphere that engulfs its students. If grade inflation were rampant, I doubt the environment would be as vicious as it is.</p>
<p>I remember reading that Yale uses a different grading system (Honors/Pass/Fail), which is primarily used to negate the competitive atmosphere that precise grading schemes engender. I do not know, however, how rank and GPA are derived from these three categories - assuming they use this scheme.</p>
<p>Edit: I believe there are only two students in the history of HLS to attain the top position in every year; One of the students, Charles Nesson, is now teaching at HLS. There could have been additional students as such, but the mere fact that there are so few attests to the competitiveness of the institution.</p>
<p>well, that was another question I had. I had been hearing conflicting things about Harvard because if it is as competitive and cut- throat as you indicate, THAT is a huge turnoff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I remember reading that Yale uses a different grading system (Honors/Pass/Fail), which is primarily used to negate the competitive atmosphere that precise grading schemes engender. I do not know, however, how rank and GPA are derived from these three categories - assuming they use this scheme.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yale Law does not compute GPA nor does it compute class rank.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale Law does not compute GPA nor does it compute class rank.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Great, now I want to attend Yale:D </p>
<p>I could see myself gettting spoiled in such a system; perhaps the numbers will provide me with the impulse to work harder especially for those times when law school has burned me out - as it commonly happens to others - and new inspirational techniques are required.</p>
<p>Karlaspice-
I have to be honest - I have a little trouble with the idea that you are contemplating going to work somewhere with the expectation of not living up to the expectations of your employer. Do you believe the high salary offered justifies doing this? If anything, I think the opposite is true.</p>
<p>The high salaries are offered in the expectation that associates will earn them. Work isn't given just for the sake of giving work and seeing which associates last to make partner - law firm life isn't a reality game (whether or not it may make you feel that way sometimes). Clients at these firms pay a lot of money to have work done for them on a timely basis. Law firms pay large salaries to their associates because they expect them to do the work necessary to meet the clients needs and expectations, as determined by the partner. If you accept a job at a firm like this, you have an obligation to your clients to do the work and not try to see what you can get away with in terms of hours. If that sounds harsh and something that you don't like - you don't belong at one of those firms.</p>
<p>And one thing to remember -- when talking about "hours." Billable hours is not the same as hours physically present at the job. It can depend on the firm and how they have you account for your hours. At some firms there will be professional obligations that are not "billable" in the sense that no client is charged for that time - at some firms they'll still count those hours in evaluating an associate's hours, at others they will look separately at the "billable" ones. When you look at a firm, don't just ask about hours - ask about billable hours, and then also ask about the number of hours attorneys are physically present in an average week.</p>
<p>First of all, let me thank everyone for their responses. I really don't know at all how these large firms operate so all the info you've provided is great. It never ceases to amaze me how far you can go in the law admissions process without knowing a thing about post-JD life.</p>
<p>Now, let me clear a few things up. I think I might have kidded around a little too much in my posts. Of course I realize that making a large salary requires a large investment of time. I was wondering a few things. For one, can a person reasonably expect to make a $125,000+ salary at a large firm and work roughly 50-60 hours a week (with of course some peaks in hours depending on the time of year)? I ask this not because I'm lazy, but I want to better understand how difficult it will be for me to balance paying off my law school debt as quickly as possible with my desire to have a bit of a life outside work.</p>
<p>Another related question was that is the amount of hours first year associates put somewhat dependent on their desire to make partner?</p>
<p>Here's another: When firms hire first years, are they expecting them to want to stay at the firm for more than 1-2 years? Would they be less likely to hire them if they knew they only planned on working for them for that amount of time?</p>
<p>oh, and here's a completely unrelated question about Yale, since it's been brought up here: does Yale seem to take pride in its non-competitive environment? Does it take its environment into account when selecting students?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale seem to take pride in its non-competitive environment? Does it take its environment into account when selecting students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not sure; however, since the majority of Top 10 schools suffer from this problem, I am sure Yale is pleased that they do not fall in the norm, as it is a unique selling factor for students who are vacillating between it and another competing institution.</p>
<p>It is plausible that Yale takes its environment into account when selecting students. On the undergraduate level, Yale fosters a communal atmosphere through the unique residential college system and it looks for students who can contribute to this intellectual and communal ambience. I am unsure if this implication can be extended to the Law School, substituting 'lack of competition' for 'residential college', but it is not impossible. </p>
<p>Given that they accept so few, it seems as if Yale does take into account whether the student is suitable for the unique atmosphere they strive to, and already, maintain.</p>
<p>"Here's another: When firms hire first years, are they expecting them to want to stay at the firm for more than 1-2 years? Would they be less likely to hire them if they knew they only planned on working for them for that amount of time?"</p>
<p>Depends entirely on the firm. When I was in law school many years ago, some firms were very upfront about not expecting most associates to make partner - but that didn't mean they didn't expect all associates to work their tales off. Others would at least claim that they hoped all associates would end up making partner, though often as a practical matter that simply wasn't the case.</p>
<p>Something that has also crept into the law firm world since I was in law school - the idea that an attorney could stay at a firm long term without making partner. When I was in law school, the common practice was up or out - if someone didn't make partner, they were gone (and many would be gone before the actual partnership decision time arrived). Now more firms have created a new category - not sure what they call them - but basically senior attoneys who didn't make partner, but still are kept on (and still expected to work their tales off).</p>
<p>I've heard that many firms will look for geographical connections to the area - largely because they don't want someone to try it out for a few years and then run away. In some ways, training a new associate is a huge investment of time and money (on the part of senior attorneys).</p>