<p>For those of you already lawyers and those who aspire to be a lawyer what do you think you'd rather prefer. Being a associate in a big firm or a parter/owner in a small/mid size firm?</p>
<p>Well I for one would probably opt to be a partner at a smaller, less intense firm, since it would mean more time for family...but then again I am only a high school junior so it'll be a long time until then.</p>
<p>For me, it's a no-brainer. I quit my job as a BIG(f?)LAW litigation associate 5 years ago in order to hang out a shingle. My big complaint about BIG(f?)LAW was the lack of autonomy and responsibility. This issue has been debated in other threads. Just search for the word "autonomy."</p>
<p>I've been both. Each has its own issues, but given the choice I'd rather be a partner at a small/mid-sized firm. But being a partner can be a pain too if you have clients who are a pain in the rear and/or manic-depressive partners (both of which I had at my last law firm gig).</p>
<p>I'm in-house now, and life is much more pleasant.</p>
<p>The choice does not really exist in the real world. You can't stay as an associate for very long at a large firm, although being a "counsel" bears some similarity to being a permanent associate. A small firm can mean a lot of things. Some are even more intense than big firms. There can be even more pressure in smaller firms that exist on an "eat what you kill" basis, while sometimes you can forge a reasonably mellow existence making yourself useful to existing "firm clients" at large firms. Ultimately, the pressure or pleasure in the law is a function of what you are doing individually in your office with your clients, and whether that office is in a small or large firm is a secondary consideration.</p>