Being let go from BigLaw twice! What to do? Forum

[Internetdan]

"It may be that he just sees them as minor things that can be corrected in the next draft. But that isn't the case."

Oh senior associate logic. None of it makes sense, and is just wrong by any objective measure. But of course it can't be any other way. How could it?

[Tls2016]

"It may be that he just sees them as minor things that can be corrected in the next draft. But that isn't the case."

Oh senior associate logic. None of it makes sense, and is just wrong by any objective measure. But of course it can't be any other way. How could it?

I don't understand.

I'm suggesting reasons OPs husband might not have understood that his errors needed to be corrected. It appears that he calls failing to "mark up the document" a simple technical error. I'm trying to explain why it is actually a substantive error if your document doesn't match the term sheet. And clients know it's an error. A junior lawyer might see an incorrect number in an interest rate as a simple typo, a client sees it as the wrong deal term. Clients don't expect to proofread your work for you.

I'm trying to interpret what she is saying in a way that might be helpful. If you have other suggestions helpful to OP, go ahead and post. It's a tough time for them and I'm sure your help would be appreciated. This is my best guess of what happened from what she has explained.

[jimmythecatdied6]

Yeh I'm not sure I understand what the term "technical error" means when your job consists of proofreading.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

And if you do CS/engineering at Stanford/Berkeley/(insert other top engineering program), and even if you graduate with a 2.7 GPA, you can easily get a $100k or so starting job straight out of college in California. That's basically the average starting salary out of these programs.

Well. Saying "just major in engineering at Stanford/Berkeley/MIT and you can get a good job with mediocre grades" is like saying "just go to Harvard/Yale/Stanford for law school and you can get a good job with mediocre grades." It's good advice as far as it goes, but not everyone can get a degree in engineering from Stanford/Berkeley/MIT.

Yeah, but we're not talking about the general population - we're talking about people who get like 170+ on the LSAT and get biglaw... I know it's different skillsets (programming requires more thought and a different way of thinking) but I bet a bunch of people who score 170+ on the LSAT can get a 2.7 in engineering at a top school...lots of us did well in math/science. Not all of us are complete math/science retards.

[totesTheGoat]

Anyway, I don't know why you're even arguing with us practicing attorneys about the practice of law and the money, etc. If you have an engineering background, you should at least give it a try before you quit and flee to law. Some people just don't like engineering - that's fine, but I also know engineers who have quit law to go back to engineering because they found law a lot worse.

All I'm saying is:

TLS has a weird "tech is nirvana" bias. Tech is hard in its own rights, and the "coding bootcamp to 6-figures" BS is just as much flame as "T2 to biglaw." Working in tech was great, but the only place you could work chill hours and make $100k was in Palo Alto, and that was if you didn't mind being passed over for advancement and getting laid off at the first sign of trouble.

Evidently that's controversial. It should be obvious that there are some exceptions to the generalizations I made.

[ballouttacontrol]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

[84651846190]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

Upside earning potential doesn't mean much when your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle.

Not all of us who were engineers are happy with careers as lawyers. I am one who regrets leaving tech. I actually applied to a few programming jobs post-law school but got radio silence.

[nextstep2016]

First OP I'm sorry about your situation. Obviously your husband is probably best suited to really know what's going on but here are my thoughts. They may or may not apply...

I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that the mistakes he made were not minor - TBH they're pretty massive. It sounds like he is a midlevel or a senior and at my firm you're supposed to be handling the primary documents by then with some high level guidance from the partner. Drafting an agreement to match the terms of the deal is crucial and for the most part not that difficult. It is hard for anyone not in big law to understand it and what is expected.

At my firm i observe that we let people who are struggling stick around for awhile and they do get training and extra reviews and stuff. At a certain point though it may become apparent that big law and a particular person are not a good match. This has nothing to do with how smart someone is or where he went to law school. Seriously I have seen people all over the map in terms of law school, grades and performance as an associate. I think it is because big law requires a very nitpicky detail oriented type of intelligence (and a crazy paranoia about making mistakes)...and that is obviously not the only (or best) type of intelligence.

I am not sure what to make of the idea that one partner was out to get him. At both of the firms he got fired from? Seems like very bad luck. Seems more likely that one partner wrote an honest review and the others wrote nicer reviews but who knows? FWIW I have found big law to be fairly meritocratic (certainly compared to other jobs I've had). I'm sure politics comes into play esp where it comes to partnership, but I'm betting that 9 times out of 10 the firm will fire a poor associate they like over a good associate they don't like as much. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I'm reporting what I've seen.

Good luck!

[20160810]

I worked in tech. It was a much healthier labor market than law. You'd have to be willfully blind to objective reality to think otherwise.

Absolutely. I'm not saying that tech's labor market is as bad as law's. I'm saying that the idea that you can spend $2000 and 6 weeks learning Ruby on Rails and get dat $100k is on par with saying you can go to a T2 and get a biglaw job.

I don't know how flame coding bootcamps are, but i think they only cost a couple thousand and last 9 weeks or so.

They're not flame. They teach some decent skills, and they are churning out single purpose app/website developers. What is flame is the "JD sucks, go spend 6 weeks in a bootcamp and make biglaw money in tech" bullshit. The only place that is true is in silicon valley, where they're throwing money around like drunken sailors (and where $100k isn't all that much).

And if you do CS/engineering at Stanford/Berkeley/(insert other top engineering program), and even if you graduate with a 2.7 GPA, you can easily get a $100k or so starting job straight out of college in California. That's basically the average starting salary out of these programs.

There are really only 3 schools where a 2.7 will get you $100k, (Stanford, Caltech, and MIT) and that's primarily because they place so disproportionately in SV and Seattle. Even so, you're not going to be getting many raises. There are very few developers making a quarter million.

Berkeley Class of 2014 EECS major - Average starting salary is $105k. Berkeley EECS curves to a 2.7.

https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/departmen ... tics.shtml

Yeah but most EECS kids waste their precious time at Cal not raging

[20160810]

Just to clarify, yes of course I have asked my husband - we have spoken multiple countless times about it. He knows I posted this and I just wanted to see what other peoples opinions were in the event that maybe it could shed some light on this seemingly weird situation.

He hasn't seen his individual reviews just a conglomerate review that they delivered orally - he said he wasn't sure if they would even give the individual ones but is going to ask.

I do get a sense, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that these big law firms not only require great attention to detail/hard work but perhaps some serious political saviness but I don't know what the distribution is. From a technical perspective here are some of the things he said he was criticized for "not marking up the document enough for the terms of the deal", when discussing working capital adjustments with the partner making a mistake on the direction the element to cause the calculation to go in. He said he was told he needed to spend more time marking up documents but he was having trouble managing all the emails and being on calls constantly. Then another instance there was a client that complained that his negotiation over the phone of a the indemnification provisions of a supply agreement (which was a non-m&a document that he didn't have experience with) that his thought process was scattered.

They said in his review that he was excellent with clients in general, had good deal management skills, but that overall the technical skills were lacking. I just overall don't know how big of mistakes these are (since this is totally not my field) and whether people are cut so easily like this for these mistakes. And if they are, how easy is it to correct these mistakes and find a new job.

Again what you're describing is someone who is literally bad at this job. So bad that a client complained about him. You need to get out of denial right now. You posted this thread for an honest take and you're getting it. Your husbands grades don't mean shit. He isn't law firm material and needs to work somewhere else doing something else.

[TheoO]

Don't associates have paras who can check the work for things like "technical errors" (do I take these to mean grammatical/spelling)?

[rpupkin]

Don't associates have paras who can check the work for things like "technical errors" (do I take these to mean grammatical/spelling)?

You certainly can ask a para or a secretary to proofread something, but the attorney is ultimately responsible for the quality of the work product.

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

Upside earning potential doesn't mean much when your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle.

Not all of us who were engineers are happy with careers as lawyers. I am one who regrets leaving tech. I actually applied to a few programming jobs post-law school but got radio silence.

+1

It is possible to go back to tech though - just have to keep looking. I know a CS guy from one of these top schools, ended up graduating top 10% at T-14, clerked for a federal judge, then did law firm thing, and is now an engineer again....guess law just sucked way bigger balls for him. He took online courses to get a refresher on coding - he was out of CS for a few years.

Plus honestly, a lot of lawyers are just mentally ill, prestige obsessed psychopaths. The average engineer is a lot cooler to talk to than the average lawyer.

[ballouttacontrol]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

Upside earning potential doesn't mean much when your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle.

Not all of us who were engineers are happy with careers as lawyers. I am one who regrets leaving tech. I actually applied to a few programming jobs post-law school but got radio silence.

+1

It is possible to go back to tech though - just have to keep looking. I know a CS guy from one of these top schools, ended up graduating top 10% at T-14, clerked for a federal judge, then did law firm thing, and is now an engineer again....guess law just sucked way bigger balls for him. He took online courses to get a refresher on coding - he was out of CS for a few years.

Plus honestly, a lot of lawyers are just mentally ill, prestige obsessed psychopaths. The average engineer is a lot cooler to talk to than the average lawyer.

Go do PAYE and be an engineer then cuz

[Anonymous User]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

Upside earning potential doesn't mean much when your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle.

Not all of us who were engineers are happy with careers as lawyers. I am one who regrets leaving tech. I actually applied to a few programming jobs post-law school but got radio silence.

If you're fine with less money and you want less stress, go in-house. Better hours, one client, and no billable hours. And you'll still get paid the same or more than an engineer your age.

And as for in-house being harder to get from lit, (1) it's not impossible, all the big tech companies have in house lit counsel; and (2) you knew what you were getting into when you decided not to do pros. Also, if you could have gotten a good tech job it means you have an EE/CS degree which means you can lateral to pros, assuming you're less than ~ a fifth year. And it's really easy to scale pros jobs down to the same QOL and same salary as a tech job. And unlike a tech job, in pros you don't have to deal with (as much) political bullshit.

Law + engineering is a ridiculously niche expertise, and it's invulnerable to foreign competition. It's easy to say the grass is greener, but have some perspective: you have far more diverse and good options than a random Java programmer.

[84651846190]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

Upside earning potential doesn't mean much when your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle.

Not all of us who were engineers are happy with careers as lawyers. I am one who regrets leaving tech. I actually applied to a few programming jobs post-law school but got radio silence.

If you're fine with less money and you want less stress, go in-house. Better hours, one client, and no billable hours. And you'll still get paid the same or more than an engineer your age.

And as for in-house being harder to get from lit, (1) it's not impossible, all the big tech companies have in house lit counsel; and (2) you knew what you were getting into when you decided not to do pros. Also, if you could have gotten a good tech job it means you have an EE/CS degree which means you can lateral to pros, assuming you're less than ~ a fifth year. And it's really easy to scale pros jobs down to the same QOL and same salary as a tech job. And unlike a tech job, in pros you don't have to deal with (as much) political bullshit.

Law + engineering is a ridiculously niche expertise, and it's invulnerable to foreign competition. It's easy to say the grass is greener, but have some perspective: you have far more diverse and good options than a random Java programmer.

Regarding (2), I really DIDN'T know what I was getting into.

I've applied to pros jobs before and gotten rejected, though I haven't tried particularly hard.

[Anonymous User]

why does every multi-page thread on TLS end up being a "tech is so amazing don't go to lawschool" circlejerk?

A LOT of us were former engineers, many are happy with careers as lawyers because of, e.g., upside earning potential

Upside earning potential doesn't mean much when your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle.

Not all of us who were engineers are happy with careers as lawyers. I am one who regrets leaving tech. I actually applied to a few programming jobs post-law school but got radio silence.

If you're fine with less money and you want less stress, go in-house. Better hours, one client, and no billable hours. And you'll still get paid the same or more than an engineer your age.

And as for in-house being harder to get from lit, (1) it's not impossible, all the big tech companies have in house lit counsel; and (2) you knew what you were getting into when you decided not to do pros. Also, if you could have gotten a good tech job it means you have an EE/CS degree which means you can lateral to pros, assuming you're less than ~ a fifth year. And it's really easy to scale pros jobs down to the same QOL and same salary as a tech job. And unlike a tech job, in pros you don't have to deal with (as much) political bullshit.

Law + engineering is a ridiculously niche expertise, and it's invulnerable to foreign competition. It's easy to say the grass is greener, but have some perspective: you have far more diverse and good options than a random Java programmer.

Regarding (2), I really DIDN'T know what I was getting into.

I've applied to pros jobs before and gotten rejected, though I haven't tried particularly hard.

Ok, fair enough. But my point is that going into law with an engineering background doesn't have to mean that "your life is forever shitty and keeping a job (or clients) is a struggle."

[whysoseriousbiglaw]

Go do PAYE and be an engineer then cuz

I don't have any loans - that's not the issue. It's more like I'm out of the market for a ton of years now, would probably have to go back and take courses, etc. (I'm not a fresh out of law grad or whatever.)

Anyway, like the other guy, I didn't know what i was getting into when I went to law school either. This profession and the people in it in general are awful.

[run26.2]

Just to clarify, yes of course I have asked my husband - we have spoken multiple countless times about it. He knows I posted this and I just wanted to see what other peoples opinions were in the event that maybe it could shed some light on this seemingly weird situation.

He hasn't seen his individual reviews just a conglomerate review that they delivered orally - he said he wasn't sure if they would even give the individual ones but is going to ask.

I do get a sense, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that these big law firms not only require great attention to detail/hard work but perhaps some serious political saviness but I don't know what the distribution is. From a technical perspective here are some of the things he said he was criticized for "not marking up the document enough for the terms of the deal", when discussing working capital adjustments with the partner making a mistake on the direction the element to cause the calculation to go in. He said he was told he needed to spend more time marking up documents but he was having trouble managing all the emails and being on calls constantly. Then another instance there was a client that complained that his negotiation over the phone of a the indemnification provisions of a supply agreement (which was a non-m&a document that he didn't have experience with) that his thought process was scattered.

They said in his review that he was excellent with clients in general, had good deal management skills, but that overall the technical skills were lacking. I just overall don't know how big of mistakes these are (since this is totally not my field) and whether people are cut so easily like this for these mistakes. And if they are, how easy is it to correct these mistakes and find a new job.

Again what you're describing is someone who is literally bad at this job. So bad that a client complained about him. You need to get out of denial right now. You posted this thread for an honest take and you're getting it. Your husbands grades don't mean shit. He isn't law firm material and needs to work somewhere else doing something else.

This. You can survive a mistake here or there, and even a major mistake. But you can't keep doing it. And you have to have something else that keeps you there, such as the rest of your work is really good or partners or clients really like you. If you keep making minor mistakes, you're probably not going to get very far, especially if you're not savvy (i.e., good at getting people to like you). If you make a major mistake, such that a client complains, and somebody doesn't like you, that's the kiss of death.

Also, what are these "technical skills" that you are referencing. Nobody talks in these terms in biglaw, at least not anyone I know. Sounds like they're basically telling him he doesn't have the basic skills, such as attention to detail, good communication or interpersonal skills.

BTW - sorry about this. Someone who is not a good attorney (not actually saying he is not, as my assessment may be off) does not imply that you aren't smart, aren't capable, etc. Some people are great at other things and simply don't have the set of skills that makes for a good attorney.

[20160810]

Also keep in mind that pretty much any mistake that causes a client to complain about you will be regarded as a major one

[run26.2]

That's probably safe to say, generally. But how much it effects you will depend on the client (this could be par for the course), who complains (could be someone with lots of clout or less), and the nature of the complaint.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for all the honest advice.

The question is where to go from here. They give a 3 month severance and we are having a very hard time finding another position. No hits so far and time is running out. He is working with a few recruiters and has a few biglaw interviews. It has come up why he has had to switch and I'm wondering if that is a redflag and what to do.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[smallfirmassociate]

I'm hoping that if he were a mid-level or senior, that you guys have a sizable nest egg saved up. In most cases there is no reason why someone can't save a lot of money after his first couple years in. Of course, everyone's situation is different and some people aren't able to save because life happens. I'm just adding this as a cautionary tale to anyone else reading -- SAVE SOME MONEY!

In any event, he'll want to get back into the workforce as quickly as possible, but if he wants to keep biglaw hopes alive, there are certain jobs he really can't take. TBH, his biglaw career might just be over and he might have to try to find something he is better at. If he's smart and good with clients but prone to be absent-minded, maybe he can go to a smaller general practice firm with some experienced legal assistants. It's ok to make an error here or there in some state court motion for summary judgment in a foreclosure case or whatever. And besides, small law firm attorneys are happier and work less, at the aggregate, although it varies widely by firm.

[Anonymous User]

What is the best way to find new law job opportunities?
Through a recruiter? Websites??