<p>Like any rational aspiring lawyer reading these posts, I've gotten nervous about the hellish conditions first-year associates seem to be put through at large, high-paying firms. I had read that some large banking and investment firms were recuriting graduates of T-10 law schools, but could anyone say what type of work this is, how it compares to corporate law work in intensity and compensation, etc?</p>
<p>If you want the big bucks, you are going to have to put in the big hours. That's just the way it goes. If you are willing to settle for less money, you may have additional job options available to you that require fewer hours. Keep in mind though, that less money typically means that you will make six figures, if ever, only after practicing law for several years. </p>
<p>Please keep in mind that once a "big firm" attorney has worked for five or six years, for many, many hours during those years, that fifth or sixth year associate will have a multitude of options open to them. He or she can join a smaller practice, go to work for the government or perhaps go in house, to work for a corporation (though that is far from the utopia that it was once widely acknowledged to be). All of these options typically require a large salary cut -- in many cases as much as 50%. However, 50% of $200k or more is still a lot of money. You just have to be willing to make the sacrifices to pay off your loans and to get the experience to have those doors open to you. </p>
<p>I understand that work/life balance is important, but why does no one seem to be willing to work hard and make sacrifices to get there?</p>
<p>I'll give you some of my career as an example -- just so that you understand. I worked at a big law firm in NYC for six years, working 80+ hours a week, working on holidays, missing family get-togethers, leaving weddings early to get back to the office and sometimes really questioning my choices. However, I made a nice salary, paid off all of my undergraduate and law school student loans (and missed out on living large as a result) and put a down payment on a home by saving up a couple of nice bonuses I received. Then, I found a terrific job in house in a Fortune 100 company, where I made a lot less money, and initially worked only about 50-60 hours a week on average -- definitely doable. I basically had my weekends free and worked ten to twelve-hour days. Unfortunately, things got a bit crazy in my business and corporate America is loathe to hire additional staff (especially attorneys, since we're considered to be pure cost), and my hours jumped to 80+ per week again. For less money, it just wasn't worth it. I took my time and found another in house counsel job, where I am right now. This job is really wonderful, and though I work hard during the week, I usually have my weekends free (or I can do a few hours of work from home) -- quite an accomplishment for an M&A and securities attorney. Yes, there are times when weekend or evening/night work are required to do the job right, and I have to be flexible. That's fine. I make nice money, get stock options, will get a generous pension (something you will never get from a law firm or from most of corporate America these days) and I am genuinely happy and challenged by my work. My clients make sure that I know that my hard work is appreciated. Almost everyone with whom I work is a working parent and they make it work out. </p>
<p>I'm sure that some of the other lawyers on this board can chime in with some other anecdotes about possible career paths, but I think that the moral of my story is you have to be willing to put in several years of hard work in order to reap the rewards down the line. (Note, though, that if you plan to be a partner in a law firm making millions of dollars, your hours will just never get better -- and, in fact, often get worse. Count on it.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
why does no one seem to be willing to work hard and make sacrifices to get there?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i think the problem we are repeatedly seeing reflected here is that there are many prospective lawyers who simply have never really stopped to investigate and think about why it is they think they want to go to law school -- it is hard to decide you are willing to put in the hard work and sacrifice if you really don't have a clear idea of why you want to being doing that.</p>
<p>Thanks for responding Sally. By pointing to the "hellish conditions" I didn't mean to imply that I, or any other rational person, did not expect to work hard for a large salary. But there is a difference between working long hours in a gruelling, and at times nasty, environment where first-year associates are treated like dirt (the impression I got of many city firms from this forum), and working similar hours in less trying and more respectful conditions. I wanted to know how closely the banking and investment firms that recruit new JDs resembled this more work-friendly alternative, if at all. In both cases, of course, employees will be expected to put in their time if their employers are to put out the bucks.</p>
<p>So, does anyone know anything about lawyers who took these jobs, what sort of work they did, how the working conditions to compared to corporate work, and what sort of salaries they offered?</p>
<p>Unbelievable, I can certainly see how one could get that impression from my post or other entries that express the same anxeity about life in a corporate law firm. I'm sure many prospective lawyers, as you say, do not really consider why they want to attend law school before sending in their deposit. But the questions and concerns that I and many prospectives raise do not necessarily stem from lack of forethought.</p>
<p>As anyone on this forum can tell you, law school opens many doors to a variety of careers with an equally diverse range of salaries. But while students may send in their applications dreaming of jobs in anything from public defense, finance, and corporate law to human rights, art law, and environmental activism, the reality, as you know, is that law school is expensive. Barring independent wealth or a generous scholarship, students realize that may have to take a corporate job for at least a year or two to pay off their debt, some of which may even remain from undergrad. Faced with the prospect of delaying their original ambitions (whether these be a clearly articulated area of law or business, or a more ambiguous interest in a flexible, multi-purpose degree) students are not being unreasonable, nor necessarily naive, in looking for a high-paying job that doesn't treat them like dirt. Sure, some people are naive enough to believe someone will pay an inexperienced newly minted JD six figures for 40 hours of work, but that doesn't mean that everyone looking for that salary doesn't expect to work hard. For me at least, it is the conditions that are a concern, not the work load.</p>
<p>I'm interested in knowing if there are non-corporate jobs available to graduates of top laws schools that pay very well (though not necessarily the same $145,000 salary), but treat their new employees better than their law firm counterparts. I thought that the banks and investment firms that I had heard were increasingly turning to law school graduates might represent this alternative, and I wanted to know more about these jobs. Can anyone help me?</p>
<p>Banks and Investment firms only recruit from the top of the class anyways and they only recruit from top law schools. Average students at Harvard Law are not recruited by McKinsey or Goldman Sachs.</p>
<p>As such, the work is not much easier at all, and if you are offered such a job, its often a much more lucrative proposition to work at Watchtell rather than at a consulting firm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wanted to know how closely the banking and investment firms that recruit new JDs resembled this more work-friendly alternative
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The investment banks that recruit JDs from the top law schools are usually sending them to be IBD Associates, these guys are going to be working hours that will probably be a bit worse than lawyers at a big firm but they'll be paid more too. Banking's pay ends up dwarfing the pay of a lawyer but again they probably work more hours too. </p>
<p>Here's a good page regarding JDs in banking <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/career/fallcolumn4.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.georgetown.edu/career/fallcolumn4.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The starting salary for entry-level associates is approximately $125,000 per year. Investment banking salaries start higher and increase more steeply than salaries for the equivalent experience curve in the legal profession.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many lawyers-turned-investment bankers mention that the key attraction to the field is being "close to the action," working with CFOs and CEOs, and being in the center of the decision-making and strategic business planning. One alumnus commented that in investment banking, "you are able to drive the process, whereas in law, the process drives you." Investment bankers are there at the origination of the project; they put together the deal, whereas lawyers are typically brought in later in the process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The one place I could see you working less hours with great pay would be at a risk arbitrage fund, but I'm not sure that you can get that job right out of law school, you might need a little experience before.</p>
<p>Being a lawyer is basically the ONLY way to make money coming out of law school. Those that have other high-paying options coming out of law school have to be at the top of their class anyways and from a top, top law school. In those cases, these are people that will likely want to work for law firms anyways because that's the only way to make really big bucks with a law degree.</p>
<p>Sally answered your question very well. You need at least a few years of associate experience if you want to have access to other options. Top law schools don't teach you any practical skills. Without associate experience, most companies will not hire you.</p>
<p>Thanks Shiboing boing. Do you (or does anyone else) know what sort of work these first-year employees do at firms like Mckinsey or Goldman Sachs? And if the work is similar, why is the compensation lower?</p>
<p>dcfca, you're awesome! That link is very helpful. Are there any lawyers here who went into investment banking after law firm work and could compare them? Any other thoughts about the comparison?</p>
<p>Sally,</p>
<p>I just want to add how helpful descriptions like yours are to propsective lawyers like myself and thank you again for posting them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks Shiboing boing. Do you (or does anyone else) know what sort of work these first-year employees do at firms like Mckinsey or Goldman Sachs? And if the work is similar, why is the compensation lower?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The lawyers are paid less because their work is secondary to the process. It's the bankers who are selling a service to the company and the lawyers who are supporting the process that the bankers are selling.</p>
<p>also try reading about Bruce Wasserstein if you're interested in lawyers who have made the switch later on, he went from working at Cravath to banking. He's now head of Lazard and has books out on M&A. </p>
<p>generally, I might be wrong but it's the lawyers who work on and have experience with M&A deals and bankruptcy/restructuring that would have the best bet with switching to banking.</p>
<p>wonderful. I'll definitely check it out. Thanks so much everyone!</p>
<p>Just to be clear, working a lot of hours means missing out on dinners with friends, family get-togethers, anniversaries, birthdays, etc. At no time during my years as an attorney have I been treated with anything other than complete respect and professionalism (with the caveat that women are in many cases treated differently, though not disrespectfully, than men in subtle and obvious ways). The people with whom and for whom I was working were working just as long and as hard as I was working -- everyone from the paralegals up to the most senior partner (though a very senior partner's responsibilities relate more to developing and managing client relationships than to drafting, and to managing the process rather than negotiating the details). </p>
<p>I'm not trying to paint a bleak picture here. If it wasn't for the long hours that I put in while I was a junior and midlevel associate, I wouldn't know half of what I thoroughly understand today. It's part of the process. I don't hesitate to say that I am a very good lawyer, and I serve my clients needs extraordinarily well, but I am thoroughly convinced that that just wouldn't be the case if I hadn't worked on complex, cutting edge transactions, which often require many late nights and all-nighters to accomplish, early on in my career. Keep in mind, too, that there is a steep learning curve as a junior associate and you work longer hours than many others because it simply takes you longer to get the same work done. That's why firms bill their clients less for (and often write off a portion of) the work done by their most junior associates.</p>
<p>Being treated with courtesy and respect is a wholly different subject than being required to work long, demanding hours that require personal sacrifices.</p>
<p>Thanks Sally, that's a great point and comforting to hear. Some of the posters on this forum have implied that first-year associates are often treated poorly by their corporate employers and it is good to know at least that this is not the norm.</p>
<p>Well, and that brings up another point which is that you need to have a thick skin. You will hear constructive criticism often, especially at the beginning when absolutely everything is new to you. Like any other job, too, some colleagues or "bosses" will mentor you and be more understanding than others.</p>
<p>how first year associates are treated varies both among firms and can even vary within firms -- a lot depends on such simple human factors as who the supervising attorney is. </p>
<p>some firms will have the approach that they are grooming their associates for partnership -- some will have the approach that they know most aren't going to be around that long and that they will get what they can from them while they can -- now that still shouldn't be interpretted as them treating associates "as dirt" - ie it doesn't impy a disrespect -- just merely the fact that there are very high expectations in terms of work level and hours. but the tone and work atmosphere of different firms will vary -- this was often a criterion people tried to use in deciding which firm they wanted to work at (though it was not always easy to determine ahead of time).</p>
<p>if an associate goes to the partner and says, i'd like to have this weekend free for the following personal reason and the partner says, i'm sorry, but your role in the XYZ deal necessitates that you be here at least this amount of time -- is that treating the associate like dirt? does your answer depend on what the associate's reason is or how nicely the partner says it or how often the associate has previously been turned down for similar requests? now how would you feel if when evaluation time comes around, the associate is told that the firm question his/her commitment because they often seem to have other priorities even though the associate is putting in the hours? this isn't really an area with black and whites for the most part -- there is a lot of gray mostly determined by how much an associate is willing to accept from the firm and give to the firm -- each individual has to determine what they are willing to tolerate. realize that for the most part the partners got where they are because of where they were willing to draw that line -- and that in turn colors their expectations of others.</p>
<p>That's an excellent illustration!</p>
<p>"partners got where they are because of where they were willing to draw that line -- and that in turn colors their expectations of others."</p>
<p>What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that they eagerly followed the expectations of the firm, or that they protested being "treated like dirt"?</p>