Fall Recruiting Open Thread: 'Lifestyle' Law Firms?
Is there such a thing as a "lifestyle" law firm? We've previously expressed skepticism: "[I]n every law school class, some people believe in kinder, gentler law firms. And lavender unicorns."
Interestingly enough, we've been hearing that this recruiting season, New York's top Biglaw shops aren't placing much emphasis on "lifestyle." While firms continue to talk about "collegiality" and say things like "there are no screamers here," recruits report being told, even at the kinder / gentler firms, "You WILL work hard here." Perhaps certain firms don't want to get criticized for pulling the old bait-and-switch: brag about the "lifestyle" to 2Ls, show them a great time as summer associates, and then sling them over a barrel and have your way with them, once they show up full time.
But that's at the largest law firms, in major markets like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Could smaller firms, especially in other markets, offer more options?
More discussion, built around the case study of a 10-lawyer boutique in Atlanta, after the jump.
Last month, an interesting article appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The two lawyers reminisced when they were associates at a silk-stocking Atlanta firm, a time when they were young, aspiring and miserable.Weekends, when they weren't working, were a brief respite from the endless chase of billable hours. But Sunday evening rolled around with a pending dread. "We called it 'Sunday stomach,' " said Kevin Broyles as his friend, James Fisher, laughed in agreement. "It was that feeling of 'Aww, I have to go back to work tomorrow.' "
It was back to the treadmill, back to churning out 2,000-plus billable hours a year and 60-hour workweeks.
Their stomachs are just fine now. In 2002, they left the big firms and started out on their own, eventually building FSB Corporate Counsel, a firm made up of 10 young lawyers who say there's more to life than billing clients. It's a business model one client calls "the wave of the future" as more attorneys leave the prestige firms for more flexibility.
At the recent press conference for Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession, Cynthia Calvert spoke about smaller firms that manage to combine lifestyle considerations and economic ones. Is this the type of firm she had in mind?
Perhaps. Consider this idyllic picture:
Life now moves at a different pace. Fisher picks up his daughter from preschool at 4:30 p.m. Broyles drops off his son at school at 8:30 a.m. and coaches Pee Wee football at 6:30 p.m."It's a matter of getting your priorities in order," said Broyles, 36. "I rarely have to work past 5 or 6 o'clock."
It's an odd boast from a Harvard-educated lawyer who once longed to be a partner at a big-time firm. It's an industry built on a macho work-ethic model where well-paid young serfs (also called associates) toil long hours to prove their mettle and fund the partners' generous compensation packages.
"Once you get rid of the middlemen, the guys making a million dollars on the hours you work," said Fisher, 42, "then you're not working for the Man anymore."
A light went off in Broyles' head in 2002 after leaving Morris, Manning and Martin, an Atlanta-based firm with 175 attorneys. He got three clients, with a monthly total of 48 billable hours, and "replaced 70 percent of my income."
Could the declining appeal of Biglaw partnership be a generational thing?
Kimberly Verska, an FSB lawyer, said the willingness to more quickly jump off the partner track is "a Generation X thing.""If you want to succeed, you have to do it on their terms," she said. "The flexibility [at big firms] is not there. Also, you have the guilt. You're always thinking of your [billing] quotas.''
Verska, 38, came to her decision three years ago after the birth of her second child. She was an associate at Alston & Bird working part-time, meaning she billed 1,500 hours a year and worked 40-hour weeks.
"Their policy at the time [now changed] didn't allow part-timers to make partner, even though I was profitable," Verska said. She now bills 15 hours a week and keeps more of the money she generates. "Fifty to 60 hours a month allows me to replace my former salary." And she sees her daughters every afternoon. "I'm their car pooler. I don't have to hire someone to do that."
So how exactly does FSB do it? Cheaply, for one thing:
FSB's top rate is $225 an hour — at least $100 an hour less than those lawyers charged just a few years ago.But, in lawyer parlance, they can "eat more of what they kill" — they keep a larger percentage of their billable hours, letting them equal or better what they earned as associates. FSB attorneys retain about 85 percent of what they bill, Broyles said. Associates at big firms — about a third.
They say low overhead lets them do it: No high-paid rookie lawyers, no expensive office artwork, mahogany walls or teams of support staff and no top layer of partners sopping up revenue.
The attorneys practice general commercial law and technology law. They work at clients' offices or at home. They rent out conference rooms and share the costs of technology systems that let them pool their resources and act like independent contractors, working as much, or as little, as they choose.
"Technology allows us to do this — laptops, voice-over IP, video conferencing," said Broyles. "You couldn't do this 20 years ago."
ATL readers: Is this type of practice the wave of the future? Or is it just too good to be true?
Life less hectic at laid-back law firm [Atlanta Journal-Constitution via Google Cache]
Polish Those Portfolios! Legal Eaglets Seek Their Nests [New York Observer]
(101) Comments
first
Kinder firms come FIRST!
Go to hell, troll.
Too good to be true.
I've said it before and I'll says it again - ITS BIGLAW OR BUST, BITC*#S!
I wish, but sincerely doubt it.
Hanson Bridgett in San Francisco is a lifestyle firm. It doesn't pay market, however.
This is exactly what my firm does though on a full-time basis. You start at 60k + bonus (in a market with the top is 100k including bonus). By your third year, you make about 40% of your gross revenue. By contrast, people at the larger firms make only about 20-25%. This translates to about 120% of the salary, but generally only requires about 50 hours a week. Thus, you work less and make more.
There is a trade-off of sorts in making partner though as this scheme really doesn't leave much revenue to go into the partners pockets above what they bring in themselves. Nonetheless, most of them have revenues pushing 600k themselves so they are still making 300+ which is at least market if not above here (where the highest PPP of any firm is 540k with a HUGE gap between the lowest and highest paid partners).
To make things even better in my mind is our rates are half (if not lower) than that of our bigger competitors. We raise as needed but I like the idea of making respectable money and still delivering a service with a good cost/benefit ratio.
If you want to build a sophisticated, international-caliber practice of high-profile deals and litigation, this isn't for you. Companies are still going to turn to big firms for their important litigation and transactional work.
If you want a comfortable, fairly pleasant (if slightly mundane) practice, then this might be a better match. For these less sophisticated practices, though, you have to worry that you're competing on cost, and there's almost always someone willing to do your work for less money.
I have some friends who used to work at Biglaw firms, moved to different cities, but work on a contract basis for their former firms.
They are "contract attorneys," but they are paid hundreds of dollars an hour (not like underemployed Tier 2 grads reviewing documents for $20 an hour). They work from home and have more control over their hours.
It's a sweet deal.
I work for a firm that is a lifestyle firm (few attorneys bill over 1800 each year), but is still prestigious in its field.
I'm willing to take less money to work less hours each year. It doesn't mean I can go home at 6 pm everyday (though it is a ghost town in a 100+ attorney office by then), but it means that after working a few 50 hour weeks in a row I can take a 4 day weekend if I have a clear desk and no one cares.
I realize how good it is every time I'm in a deposition and the 7th year associate across the table looks like he should be on suicide watch because he's working 2400 hours hoping he'll be making partner.
Ah, the old 1/3 of what you bill.. I was under 1/5 last year.
That said, I don't have to drum up business and making my boss rich is where job security comes from. It's all good.
One day while walking down the street a biglaw hiring partner was tragically hit by a bus and she died. Her soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter himself. "Welcome to Heaven ," said St. Peter. "Before you get settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely enough, we've never once had a biglaw partner make it this far and we're not really sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in," said the woman. "Well, I'd like to, but I have higher orders. What we're going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an eternity in." "Actually, I think I've made up my mind, I prefer to stay in Heaven", said the woman "Sorry, we have rules..." And with that St. Peter put the partner in an elevator and it went down-down-down to hell.
The doors opened and she found herself stepping out onto the putting green of a beautiful golf course. In the distance was a country club and standing in front of her were all her friends - fellow lawyers that she had worked with and they were well dressed in evening gowns and cheering for her. They ran up and kissed her on both cheeks and they talked about old times. They played an excellent round of golf and at night went to the country club where she enjoyed an excellent steak and lobster dinner. She met the Devil who was actually a really nice guy (kind of cute) and she had a great time telling jokes and dancing. She was having such a good time that before she knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved goodbye as she got on the elevator. The elevator went up-up-up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates and found St. Peter waiting for her.
"Now it's time to spend a day in heaven," he said. So she spent the next 24 hours lounging around on clouds and playing the harp and singing. She had great time and before she knew it her 24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got her. "So, you've spent a day in hell and you've spent a day in heaven. Now you must choose your eternity." The woman paused for a second and then replied, "Well, I never thought I'd say this, I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time in Hell." So St. Peter escorted her to the elevator and again she went down-down-down back to Hell.
When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. She saw her friends were dressed in rags and were picking up the garbage and putting it in sacks. The Devil came up to her and put his arm around her. "I don't understand," stammered the woman, "yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate lobster and we danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland of garbage and all my friends look miserable." The Devil looked at her smiled and said "Yesterday we were recruiting you. Today you are an employee."
"Lifestyle" is the brand of condom they use when they f**k me every day at BigLaw
1:44, long, but LOL...
1:45, my firm uses a Trojan Magnum.
A lawyer told me a variant of that joke at a call back interview; I did not get the job.
Contract work for "hundreds of dollars an hour" sounds amazing. If you do the math, a first year at BigLaw only gets $80/billable hour (160K/2000). Even if you count the perks, insurance, and bonus, it would not ever approach "hundreds of dollars an hour." Work smarter, not harder!
I am very concerned about the dumbening of the commenters on ATL. Almost every comment today has been dumberer than the last. Stupefying.
Contract work for "hundreds of dollars an hour" sounds amazing. If you do the math, a first year at BigLaw only gets $80/billable hour (160K/2000). Even if you count the perks, insurance, and bonus, it would not ever approach "hundreds of dollars an hour." Work smarter, not harder!
There is no such thing as a "lifestyle" firm, unless it is a 20-attorney firm in Jeb's Elbow, TX. Anywhere else, and with more attorneys, you're screwed, whether you're being paid market or not. You WILL work insane hours, you WILL work with supervising attorneys who are stubborn/stupid/cruel, you WILL wish you'd gone into another profession, and you WILL leave your beiglaw practice for a slightly smaller place only to find...the same exact shit.
Quit now.
I'm also curious about what 1:38(2) said. Is is really true that you can do contract work for "hundreds of dollars an hour"?
If so, then why would anyone want to work for a firm full-time?
i know a few associates at biglaw firms in Charlotte whp have great quality of life as well as sophisticated finance work. most are former new yorkers who moved to have a family, and now have great pay considering the low cost of living down there, and are out by 7 each day.
Life at a 20-attorney firm in Jeb's elbow, TX (or Idaho, for me) isn't so bad, to tell you the truth. Sure you're paid less, but you have a life and the cost of living is dirt cheap. Why work so much if you can't enjoy what you have?
Dear Partners,
I hate your guts. I really hate you. I am a 4th year at BigLaw and I really really can't think of the day I will finally quit this god-damn job.
Yes, it was all for the money. I will go in-house soon and I stole from you money and experience. Guess what, all this time I have been woring really hard, it was just for the money, being a partner was never my intention -and will never be.
I hate your stupid clients, in fact, I have no empathy for them. I don't care if they get sued or they go bankrupt after I am gone. I just don't care anymore. I just do my job, bill my time and collect my check and my big fat bonus.
My feeling towards you and your firm is shared among my lawschool classmates at BigLaw and my co-workers at your firm. We just don't care anymore because you have done NOTHING to keep me here. You just keep paying what your promissed and what is market. Fair trade. At the end of the year I'll take my money and run as far as I can, move with my wife and my newly-born child (whom, btw I have not seen in a week) and get a life, not like you with your beer belly, balding hair and hart problems. Oh, you do have a gorgeous wife. One of your fellow partners (yeah, the one from Environmental who does not work as much as you do) has been having a great time with her lately.
Burn in hell, I don't envy you.
Associate who sits right next to you.
(1) Is Jeb's Elbow hiring?
(2) We have one senior attorney (18 years?) working contract for $150/hour plus she get 1.5 for over-time. They've tried to hire her full-time, but she refuses, making more as a contractor. She makes more than her boss and her boss's boss in the end.... She was hired originally to cover maternity leave for someone and then got inextricably intertwined in cases and it's always, "As soon as THIS case is over, we'll terminate her..." and then there's always another case she's intertwined in. Pisses me off. She works half the hours and is half as good and makes twice as much.
The "eat-what-you-kill" approach sounds wonderful in theory. There is one assumption the theory makes, however, that is not always a guarantee -- you have to actually be able to "make the kill."
I work at a small firm in NYC (12 attys total), am given a great deal of responsibility, and have a good incentive to bring in business in the form of a percentage of any income I originate (even if I don't actually work on it). The hard part is originating the work. No one ever taught me how to be a "rainmaker" and I don't have a lot of connections to people at businesses who are in a position to forward work to my firm.
So what good is a system that pays 40% of gross if you are not generating work? Or am I misunderstanding the system -- do you get 40% of any case you do work on, regardless of who brought in the client?
Seconded, 2:07
Don't mind me, I just have a wide stance.
Yes, we'd all like to work for ourselves and have no overhead and leave at 5 every day (no weekends) but...
1. Debt. First out of law school, we have 100K+ in debt. Clearing that debt as quickly as possible is many persons highest concern. Big firm gives you that option to be debt-free in 2 years. Small firms can't promise that quick a turn around.
2. Start-up costs. Starting up your own business, or even joining a small one or the government, entails sacrificing early on and perhaps not seeing black for 3+ years.
3. Prestige. Work for a large firm, you get noticed. Work for a small one, and you might never get known, even though good.
4. Large, important matters/exposure. Sure, its an ego thing, but for many, we became lawyers partly for ego. We can say "I worked on a CBS/ABC copyright infringement" even if you just pulled 2 cases off Westlaw and organized the document room.
5. Training/green from law school. Law school, as we all know, doesn't teach you anything about actual practice. So your greenness makes you prey to the protection and vaunted "training" a big firm might give you. Mess up early in a big firm, and its only on one paragraph of a deal that someone else corrects. Mess up on your own/ in small firm, the repercussions are mightier.
6. The Chance to Do it Later. Ah, the unspoken canard. Work for a Big Firm, and then you know you can always start your own/move on/join smaller/work for Government if Big Firm doesn't work out. But if you start out on your own/move on/join smaller/work for Government, its very improbable to go the other way.
However, if your taste for risk is a bit higher, if you have start-up gumption, if you can't stand the hours/people/issues, if the low-level grunt work is bad for your health, then the other way is for you. It's a question of tradeoffs, like any decision.
and #7, echoed above---you have to go drum up A LOT more business. If you're not confident in that or can't do that, big Firm is more appealing.
Dear Anon @ 2:07,
I don't give a tiny rat's ass.
Thanks for your time,
Partner.
1:52 -- It was I who told you that joke at a callback interview. You didn't get an offer because you're a wanker.
I work for a botique litigation firm as a second year. I make less than market but only bill 1800 a year. It is relaxed...my boss, who was leaving for a trip, looked at my hours and told me that if I hit X hours this month to take a day off while he was gone. If I decide I want to bill 2000 in a year they jack my pay up big time. Raises are very large, I will soon be making more than Biglaw. I have a nice windowed office, my own secretary, a paralegal and a law clerk, plus 401(k) with contributions, dental, vision, health (so good that I could get one of the top orthopods in the country), life, disability and supplemental.
That is what I call quality of life. I make enough so that I can do everything I want, and I actually have the time to spend that money and have fun. The work is very sophisticated, I represent Fortune 500 companies all the time and frequently wind up in trial against Biglaw. Plus, I actually get to do something more than just research and write memos...I actually get to argue the motions and briefs I write.
Botique law is the way to go if you can land a spot. My firm does OCI every year, but doesn't necessarily extend any offers.
FSB Corporate Counsel to $190K!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2:29,
What is a "botique" firm? Does your firm normally hire people who can't spell "boutique" correctly?
What's so great about biglaw? What's so great about a place that sends you packing because you're as replaceable and interchangeable as the next one? What's so prestigious about being an associate in biglaw doing doc review and/or working on huge billion dollar cases where they're never gonna give you real lawyering responsibility? I don't get what's so great about being a peon to partners who don't care about you or your professional development and are gonna kick you to the curb in a couple years and replace with you someone else. The money's great, don't get me wrong, but is it worth being single and the wrinkles/beer gut? If it's about the money, then you can make more money per hour as a skilled contract attorney apparently. I'm missing why it is that working for a top biglaw firm is supposedly so much better than working at a smaller firm with better hours where I might actually learn how to practice law, i.e., develop strategy, work with clients, go to court, negotiate and settle cases, etc.
2:36 yes they do. Sorry that I don't spellcheck my comments on ATL. I'll do that next time, just for you, OK?
Agreed, 2:20.
If you start out in a small firm, its unlikely you'll ever be able to go to a larger firm, so why not go to BIGLAW? If you dont like it, leave and go down.
I may be a first year now but up until August I was a recruiter and I am sure I talked to some of you. Without hesitation the vast majority of you told me the same thing "I want lifestyle". It's a choice, big money, big hours, no life or less money, less hours and a life outside the office. Some BigLaw firms do value their attorneys having a life, most don't. More over there is a huge difference in the type work, I'd guess most of you would rather bill 2500 hours while doing interesting, complex work as opposed to 1800 doing doc review?
I personally came to law school knowing exactly which BigLaw and which "Lifestyle" firms I would consider because, contrary to popular belief, there are huge differences between firms it is not the cookie cutter so many seem to assume it is. I can't wait to sell out, it's why I came to law school and I'm using this three year job interview each and every day to get where I want to be. Don't kid yourselves, BigLaw and Lifestyle both have major upsides and major downsides, but if you aren't willing to bust your tuchas it won't matter which road you take, you'll end up miserable either way.
I hear MoFo in San Diego is closed all week because of the fires. While I cannot attest to whether or not they are truly a "lifestyle firm" year-round, as they so claim - the fact that they are giving people time off to clean up and move back in is awesome. I wish my firm gave me that time, because I sure need it.
Actually Roberts & Holland in NYC is very much a lifestyle firm. The expectation is to bill 1700. They pay 160k to start. The only thing is you have to want to do tax law, because that's all they do.
What is the attraction in doing "complex" work? Doesn't complex mean hard? I'd rather do simple stuff.
2:36 -
The great thing is that it gives you options. You can do all of those things you talked about at a small firm, but the fact of life in the law is that its highly competitive and working for a Vault firm gives you many more options and gets your resume in the door far better than a small firm that no one outside of the local region knows about.
Simple as that (and of course, the $ is nice).
2:43 - "More over there is a huge difference in the type work, I'd guess most of you would rather bill 2500 hours while doing interesting, complex work as opposed to 1800 doing doc review?"
WTF are you talking about?
Answer, I agree completely, this whole game is about options and leaving one's self with the most choices possible at the end of the day. It is for that reason alone that I am still flabergasted more of you don't take calls from head-hunters to at least see what information they have to share, there is no harm in listening, and you may provide the recruiter with valuable information on what they should/should not call you back about in the future.
As for what I am talking about with regard to interesting/complex work? Cases that challenge you, push you, whether it is in preparing a brief for the court or providing counseling advice to a client, wouldn't you rather do 2500 hours of that then 1800 hours of doc review? I know I would.
Wish I could get a job at a bo-tique law firm. Unfortunately I know how to spell boutique, so they'd never hire me.
2:07 -- John?!
It's funny that biglaw gives you "more options" considering many biglaw associates I know do doc review and associates at smaller firms do actual lawyering. I don't know many biglaw associates who actually get to settle and negotiate cases, serve as first chair on a trial, etc. No prestigious client is gonna allow an associate to take an important depo or argue an important motion. Why is biglaw doc review so prestigious?
work to live my friends, dont live to work
why don't some of you douchebags anonymously list the names of your firms when you are talking good/bad about them so that those of us out here in the job market might actually learn something useful?
"wouldn't you rather do 2500 hours of that then 1800 hours of doc review?"
Not if the money is the same (or even close). Really, I wouldn't want to do anything for 2500 hours a year unless it involves orgasms or intoxicants.
2:36,
You're missing the point exactly. There are lifestyle firms where you will get much more exposure to the interesting work and work fewer hours, but there are also smaller firms where you will work fewer hours and do less interesting work than some BigLaw counterparts, other BigLaw folks will bill 2900 hours doing little more than doc review. It completely depends upon the firm.
But it is generally true that being a BigLaw associate affords one many more options for career advancement than the alternative. That might mean BigLaw partner, might mean in-house, might mean deciding later on to prioritize lifestyle and going smaller, it could mean a myriad things but the point is that those options coming from BigLaw will almost always be there, not so for boutique firms unforunately, there are exceptions to both but that is the general case.
3:05 - because even anonymous posts can be traced.
"You can do all of those things you talked about at a small firm, but the fact of life in the law is that its highly competitive and working for a Vault firm gives you many more options and gets your resume in the door far better than a small firm that no one outside of the local region knows about."
Until, of course, you're senior and nobody can afford to hire somebody with relatively few skills. This is a common scenario in BIGLAW - your marketability decreases as time goes on.
2500 - 1800 = 700
700/48 (assuming 4 weeks off) = 15
15 hours a week less work where you can do "fun" things = priceless
interesting sucks compared to fun
if your firm traces down anonymous internet posts that criticize it, I definitely need to know where you work so i don't go work there.
this is useful information any job hunter needs to know. you have an obligation to reveal.
Small firm to Biglaw transition is quite possible. I worked at a 20-lawyer boutique out of law school for two years before lateraling to a 1,000-lawyer, V20 firm. Getting the accelerated responsibility at the smaller firm out of law school has actually helped me vis-a-vis my fellow associates who have never put a complete brief together, argued a motion, or taken a deposition. It was also a selling point during the interview. It helped that the boutique handled fairly sophisticated cases, but the dollar amounts at stake did not begin to approach what I am working on now.
2:57 - I'll make sure to spellcheck for you in the future as well...sorry that I don't bother to proofread my ATL comments.
3:15--
ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S HOPE FOR LOYOLA 2L AND THAT YOUR FIRST JOB OUT OF LAW SCHOOL DOESN'T DEFINE YOUR ENTIRE CAREER?????
BLASPHEMY!
Don't you know its "BIGLAW or bust?"
I want the lifestyle that 2500 hours can buy. The rest of you can take your spare time and watch Melrose Place (that was the last tv show I remember watching - is it still on?)
Got it. Guess I haven't worked in a biglaw firm where I've seen associates develop real skills, so it has seemed silly to me that they're supposedly so much better than lawyers who have real skills. Seems like you can put Biglaw Firm #10 on your resume, do doc review and support partners but not do anything yourself, and get a better next job than someone who is at a much lower ranked firm who does substantive work.
2:07 hart problems?
I agree with 3:11. Firms aren't knocking down the doors for senior associates at biglaw firms who've taken a depo or two and never argued anything outside of possibly pro bono work.
3:15
I am happy to hear that. I am currently working for a 50+ atty firm but am thinking about moving to biglaw b/c my student loan repayment is killing me; wife and kids too. I did well at a good school, any pointers for my next move? If I am looking at another state, should I take the bar first? Anyone?
2:36
Do you practice Insurance defense?
3:31 -- Hart problems. Clearly referring to H. L. A. Hart, famed jurisprudential philosopher and proponent of Positivism.
no, I was referring to Gary Hart problems, i.e., a mistress.
3:13 - Assuming 4 weeks OFF...?!?!?!? Hello...!?!?!?
Fat Greedy - The irony, of course, is that you buy the lifestyle, but don't have the time off-work to enjoy it...so what's the point?
Those who work 2500 hour years are the same people who didn't think it was OK to say "pass" when called on in law school.
"The law is a demanding mistress. She's cost me three wives."
- Statement by Name Partner, age 55-60, at a 10-attorney shop in my home town (small city w/ pop. under 50k).
There is no such thing as a lifestyle firm.
I'm not sure which 2:36 you're referring to, but if you're referring to me I don't do insurance work; I've worked in litigation in two top amlaw firms and am still working in one.
"The law is a demanding mistress. She's cost me three wives."
- Named Partner at small, 10 attorney firm in my hometown (under 40,000 people)
Lesson? If you want "lifestyle", don't become a lawyer.
farella braun
skanks!
Jealous mistress, jealous mistress!
Re: 4:06 -- Yeah, lesson is...become the lawyer's wife and then ex-wife and cash out.
(Okay, that's gender-steroetyping...and I am actually a female attorney...which brings me to another irrelevant point...of my female attorney colleagues, I'd say at least 40%...maybe 60%?...have spouses that don't work...that is, the man stays home while the woman works...that has to be significantly statistically higher than in other professions.)
4:59: Interesting. Where I am, all of the female lawyers' husbands work, more often than not as lawyers themselves.
3:55 - yeah, three weeks off...im not talking all at once, but between sick days/personal days/vacation, most firms offer 20 days a year......4 work weeks...... why is that so crazy
5:29 -- Because it's practically impossible to bill 2500 hours a year and take four weeks off.
My BigLaw firm told me they were lifestyle when they were recruiting me, when I was a summer and then also for my 1st and 2nd year as an associate.
Then, the managing partner put together a presentation for the whole firm and announced "This is not a lifestyle firm, This is a WORKSTYLE firm."
I work for an IP boutique in Mass. that requires 1600 billable hours per year (and most people don't do much more than that). Yes, I am making about 75% of what I used to get at big law, but I have to work about 800 hours less per year (the equivalent of about 53 less 15 hour days per year).
Over a 10 year period, I basically get 530 extra 15 hour days to myself and my family. No amount of money can replace that. To each his own.
Is it true Wachtell is a lifestyle firm? Any advice appreciated.
MMWR in Philly. Where it's at, baby.
hahaha....retards...my firm requires 1850 hours....enjoy working your life away! I'll enjoy my vacation!
623...what firm....is this typical of IP boutiques? other boutiques?
I all I want is to be rich
7:09...this is not typical of IP boutiques. There are many out there in Boston and elsewhere that require their people to put in 2000 minimum (which translates to 2200 or more if you ever want to think of even being considered for partner).
IP Boutiques I know of with 1600 hours include Klarquist Sparkman, LL&A, ORT and some firms in RTP, NC.
We of course have issues getting first years because first year base pay is about 25% less than big law. But to be honest, you wouldn't appreciate the 1600 hours unless you have been abused for a few years by big law. Which is why I advocate for hiring only 3rd years and up.
7:15 - Do you have trouble getting first years because of the 25% less salary or the fact that you advocate for hiring only 3rd yrs and up...
Do you do prosecution or litigation or both?
It's always going to be a trade-off: more hours means more money, unless you're well-regarded in a niche area without much local competition.
That said, I believe that this is generation where we can put an end to the long commutes, endless file-cabinets full of documents, and long, unproductive hours. With modern technology, a small firm can invest in a back-end server, several computers, and a high speed scanner, and put every document that arrives into a "virtual file cabinet". Also, with the advent of VOIP and vide-conferencing as a consumer phenomenon, there is no reason for lawyers who rarely (or never) meet with clients to work in an office far from home.
I only wish that we were at that point right now. Traffic is killing me!
Does anyone have any experience at Knobbe, IP boutique "lifestyle" firm in CA?
I work at a great lifestyle firm. I'm a 6th year, and the most I've billed is 1970 hours. And that was my first year. Since then, I've averaged about 1850.
I get paid a great salary, and have gotten the same bonus as my classmates every year.
It's in New York.
It's in the Vault 5.
Will I make partner? Probably not. Counsel is good enough for me.
The moral of the story is that people bill 2500 hours because they WANT to bill 2500 hours. They're over-achievers, plain and simple.
I, on the other hand, want to bill about 1800 hours. And I do. The partners I work for could care less, because I'm still profitable, and I do good work.
No matter where you are, this job is what you make of it.
7:23...I do about 60% patent prosecution, 25% opinion work/due diligence and about 15% litigation (when they make me).
2000 hours doing patent prosecution is quite a bit of work. Keep in mind that a lot of prosecution matters are not high dollars/lots of hours (e.g., 4-6 hours per office action response). So, you have to do a lot of prosecution maters to get in 2000 or more.
We have hired 1st years and I have supported this and even trained them. It is just tough to convince them that they have it really good without them having experiences how hellish life can be at big law. Those who have experienced it first hand have a much better understanding and appreciation of the firm.
I think we have trouble getting first years because of the salary. It is hard to pass up $40k or so more when you owe so much in loans from law school. I wish them luck and fully expect to see their resumes in about 2-3 years.
8:34--lemme guess, you're at Skadden?
Beyer Weaver - patent prosecution boutique in the bay area, 1500 minimum, 125K starting salary. If I wanted to do prosecution, I would totally go there.
For associates, working at Biglaw is always worthwhile if you are getting good experience and making contacts in your specialty. You can trade on it later.
But on the original question, there is a problem with the Biglaw business model. It is extremely high overhead, and high turnover. With high expenses, you need more attorneys working high hours at high rates to pay the bills and still keep PPP up. And in the short term, making fewer partners, and maybe demoting a few, keeps PPP up as well. A very short-term solution. And the higher hours and lower partner chances leads to more turnover. And turnover equals less cash coming in the door because fewer high paid associates billing 2400 a year. That is why the NALP hourly averages used for recruiting look so low -out of every three associates, one has one foot out the door, and another is just coming in the door.
The ones to watch would be the prominent boutiques. Low expense plus low turnover plus NY rates equals PPP in excess of many biglaw firms. But you won't read about them because they are not big enough to hit AmLaw's radar. Which is a good thing.
I used to work for a "Lifestyle" IP boutique in the Silicon Valley. I could come and go as I pleased, and work as much or as little as I wanted.
We were paid a low base salary (85k) but were also paid quarterly "bonuses" (i.e., deferred compensation) based on our quarterly billing. In the end, base+bonus worked out to about $80 per hour.
Beyond that, the billing was 90% flat-rate. So, if a job that is billable for 12 hours only takes you 5, you still get paid for the full 12. In other words, the efficient workers were rewarded.
I made $127k in my first year, which at the time was par for the course for a first year associate at BigLaw. I was on pace to make about $185 in my second year. I rarely worked more than 7 hours in a day, few weekends. I took probably six weeks worth of vacation in my first year. Another more ambitious first year associate that started at the same time as I did made well over $200k his first year.
I recently transitioned to a BigLaw firm in Chicago - not because I didn't like the old one, but because I wanted to move to Chicago. I had no problem getting the job because I had written more patents in my two years at the boutique than most 5th years at BigLaw firms.
My point is:
1. There is such a thing as a "lifestyle" firm; and
2. Moving from small to large firm is by no means impossible.
2:43, do you think the associates at MoFo San Diego who got "time off" for the fires will have it taken out of their billing quotas? No - they will be making it up on nights and weekends, the few they weren't working already. Wake up and smell the K-Y, this is BigLaw.
Knobbe Martens requires 1700 billed. Stoel Rives requires 1800 billable.
At both firms, the average associate hours are just above these minimums.
11:48: Good question.
I heard K&S just announced salaries.
There is such a thing as a lifestyle firm and we have created it. Unfortunately, however, there is a catch. In order to work with us, you have to have at least 6-7 years experience at BigLaw or Big In-house. The reason for that is because of what we are marketing to our clients (e.g., We have the same or better quality attorneys you would be hiring at BigLaw, but our rates are less that what you would pay for a first or second year at BigLaw). Because of this standard, we have been able to attract a lot of large, sophisticated clients, which may not be the case for most small firms.
The reason our model works is because there is so much waste and unecessary overhead in BigLaw. Once you cut out the fancy, expensive office space, redundant support staff, young attorney salaries/benefits, etc., there is a lot of savings that can be passed on to the client in the form of lower fees and still make a bunch of money for working a lot less hours. At the end of the day, clients only want to pay for what's between your ears. They don't want to pay for ivory towers, mahogany desks, expensive art work, and yes, training young lawyers.
We have no billing quotas. We are a modified "eat-what-you-kill", more of a "eat-what-you kill (or what someone else in your firm kills)" model. To address one of the previous comments, with billing rates approaching $1000/hr, first year salaries exceeding $180k/yr., and considering the client roster we have accumulated, as long as we maintain our standards of excellence with our attorneys, getting clients is the easy part. Finding high quality attorneys to join our "modified eat-what-you-kill" is more difficult, although becoming easier after all of the recent publicity our firm has been receiving.
Regarding all of you young attorneys out there, all I can say is I feel your pain (actually, I felt your pain my first 8 years after law school). Yes, I went to work for BigLaw (at the time, BiggestLaw) and I was put through the grinder. I look at it as sort of an initiation process. On the bright side, I learned a lot, made a bunch of friends and contacts (i.e., future kills ), I paid off my student loans, and it didn't suck the whole time.
The debate over choosing BigLaw or small firms really boils down to client perception. For better or worse, clients feel more comfortable with attorneys from (or having been from) BigLaw, period. Are lawyers from BigLaw any better than lawyers from small firms? Generally, no, but in the client's eyes, there is a quality difference.
If there is one piece of advice I could give to any young lawyer it would be this: How much success you have as an attorney depends directly on how many clients you control. The more clients you control, the more control/choices you have. You achieve client control by bringing in clients and/or doing good work for existing clients and establishing a relationship. It's better to bring in clients yourself. It's easier to bring in clients yourself if you not only do good work, but you have great resume. Now here is the bad medicine: To get the great resume, you need to get the experience in your early years at the most reputable BigLaw law firm you can. My advice is to go to BigLaw for your first 6-7 years, learn all you can, make all the contacts you can, get as many clients as you can... and then you will be in position to choose to (1) stay at BigLaw and try and make partner (continuing the grind), (2) go in-house (generally not a lifestyle choice either), or (3) contact us.
We are always looking for quality attorneys and our long term goals are to have offices in every major market. We are currently in the process of opening offices in Dallas. Next will be NYC and/or DC.
If anyone has any questions, please let me know.
Best regards,