Top Law Schools

Hi all,

This sounds very Millennial -- I don't have intrinsic motivation to do the work, realizing even the mid-level work doesn't seem that interesting. I'm in emerging companies in NYC. I am thinking of switching practice groups, boutiques, or going for low-level in-house jobs.

Am I just being impatient and not "trusting the process" - ultimately creating a move that will severely limit my career?

I'm leaning towards listening to my gut.

Might have trouble fitting in, most firms want true believers in their M&A practice.

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all,

This sounds very Millennial -- I don't have intrinsic motivation to do the work, realizing even the mid-level work doesn't seem that interesting. I'm in emerging companies in NYC. I am thinking of switching practice groups, boutiques, or going for low-level in-house jobs.

Am I just being impatient and not "trusting the process" - ultimately creating a move that will severely limit my career?

I'm leaning towards listening to my gut.

I'd get out and never look back. Is there some area of law that interest you? Or did you just go to law school because you likely got into a good school and did not know what else to do? Not trying to be mean, there isn't a wrong answer. I would definitely try to find some area in the law that you like and really try to do that work. It's a hard life otherwise.

anon sequitur wrote:Might have trouble fitting in, most firms want true believers in their M&A practice.

I know this is meant as a joke, but the sad thing is... many firms do want this.

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all,

This sounds very Millennial -- I don't have intrinsic motivation to do the work, realizing even the mid-level work doesn't seem that interesting. I'm in emerging companies in NYC. I am thinking of switching practice groups, boutiques, or going for low-level in-house jobs.

Am I just being impatient and not "trusting the process" - ultimately creating a move that will severely limit my career?

I'm leaning towards listening to my gut.

What made you choose emerging companies?

It’d be a bit odd if you we’re instrically motivated to do junior level corporate work. What kind of person has. PASSION for checklists and signature pages? Personally I’m not “intrinsically motivated” to do any sort of work and I don’t absolutely hate my life so I’ll stick around for now as long as they’ll have me.

Feeling slightly triggered since the only people that ever have told me to follow my passions in the job market are boomers

If you have a passion for corporate grunt work you are per se flawed as a human being.

NoLongerALurker wrote:If you have a passion for corporate grunt work you are per se flawed as a human being.

This is accurate.

One thing that might not be clear from the phrasing of this post that I want to emphasize - it doesn't *really* get better as you get more senior.

Sure, you have more autonomy and you aren't doing the secretarial work the mid-levels don't want to do, but, at the end of the day, when you're revenue creation is tied to 6 minute increments, this is a volume game.

I didn't really appreciate that going into the profession. I knew lawyers worked a lot, but I thought great lawyers were getting paid the big bucks for their expertise and critical thinking skills. That's only kind of true.

It's always going to come down to how many hours you can grind out of a day. That's what makes the lifestyle so awful, IMO.

Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

THAT'S WHAT THE MONEY IS FOR!



But, yeah... It sucks. Some people seem pretty into it, but maybe they are just good at faking it. Others I think are just super type A and get off on the successful completion of a task, any task, particularly while working in a "prestigious environment".

You do you. Life's too short to be billing hours doing something you hate.

Betharl wrote:THAT'S WHAT THE MONEY IS FOR!



But, yeah... It sucks. Some people seem pretty into it, but maybe they are just good at faking it. Others I think are just super type A and get off on the successful completion of a task, any task, particularly while working in a "prestigious environment".

I agree with this. I think people bring a certain perception of the "sexiness" of closing a deal that makes them feel kinda like a corporate hotshot and allows them to reconcile the feeling of accomplishment against how menial and mindless a lot of the tasks were. To get at all excited about corporate work, I think you have to really focus on the bigger picture deal as opposed to your specific role in it, because it's hard to get excited about signature pages and the like. Then again, I found it hard to get excited about minor provisions in corporate documents that the seniors/partners would spend weeks arguing over, but maybe that's why I'm not in corporate anymore.

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

[quote="Betharl"]THAT'S WHAT THE MONEY IS FOR!



Is that a Mad Men quote from when Don was yelling at Peggy?

BayCat24 wrote:

NoLongerALurker wrote:If you have a passion for corporate grunt work you are per se flawed as a human being.

This is accurate.

One thing that might not be clear from the phrasing of this post that I want to emphasize - it doesn't *really* get better as you get more senior.

Sure, you have more autonomy and you aren't doing the secretarial work the mid-levels don't want to do, but, at the end of the day, when you're revenue creation is tied to 6 minute increments, this is a volume game.

I didn't really appreciate that going into the profession. I knew lawyers worked a lot, but I thought great lawyers were getting paid the big bucks for their expertise and critical thinking skills. That's only kind of true.

It's always going to come down to how many hours you can grind out of a day. That's what makes the lifestyle so awful, IMO.

Q
Cr. The firm's do not make money on critical thinking and advice. They make money on churning documents, issues lists, pointless calls, etc. Maybe 5-10% of the work is actual meaningful advice that the client really needs. The rest if just papering. The percentages change as you get more senior but only really senior people with lots of technical expertise ever get to that point. And they still have to review documents from people below them.

Litigation isn't any different in this regard. Biglaw is inherently profitable based off churning documents. Although your role in litigation is definitely different and less depressing (you're not just some total bitch for the business guys)

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

lol this is exactly what I'm scared about im k-jd starting v10 this fall. all i wanted was getting there, now i'm there, i have no intrinsic motivation to actually engage in the shit work. i REALLY dont trust my work ethics cuz im a k-jd

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

boredtodeath wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

I think for many people, including myself, the choice to do corporate is to maximize the chances of getting out of a law firm and/or law entirely.

I have to shake my head and laugh at how perverse and foolish that line of thinking is for someone forking over the time and money for law school...but here I am.

boredtodeath wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

I think for many people, including myself, the choice to do corporate is to maximize the chances of getting out of a law firm and/or law entirely.

I have to shake my head and laugh at how perverse and foolish that line of thinking is for someone forking over the time and money for law school...but here I am.

BayCat24 wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

I think for many people, including myself, the choice to do corporate is to maximize the chances of getting out of a law firm and/or law entirely.

I have to shake my head and laugh at how perverse and foolish that line of thinking is for someone forking over the time and money for law school...but here I am.

For me it was a no brainer. I made under $40K before law school, went to Law School on a full ride, worked hard for a year and then basically just lived on easy street for two. 7 and a half months into biglaw I have a little over $5K in debt and my net worth is around $40,000 after taking into account future taxes owed on a 401K. If this leads me to an in house position in 3-5 years with solid pay then I’d say things worked out tremendously.

Anonymous User wrote:

BayCat24 wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

I think for many people, including myself, the choice to do corporate is to maximize the chances of getting out of a law firm and/or law entirely.

I have to shake my head and laugh at how perverse and foolish that line of thinking is for someone forking over the time and money for law school...but here I am.

For me it was a no brainer. I made under $40K before law school, went to Law School on a full ride, worked hard for a year and then basically just lived on easy street for two. 7 and a half months into biglaw I have a little over $5K in debt and my net worth is around $40,000 after taking into account future taxes owed on a 401K. If this leads me to an in house position in 3-5 years with solid pay then I’d say things worked out tremendously.

Why do you have 5k in debt when you have a net worth of 40k? Why not just pay off the debt? Or are you taking into consideration the growth of your 401k investments?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

BayCat24 wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

I think for many people, including myself, the choice to do corporate is to maximize the chances of getting out of a law firm and/or law entirely.

I have to shake my head and laugh at how perverse and foolish that line of thinking is for someone forking over the time and money for law school...but here I am.

For me it was a no brainer. I made under $40K before law school, went to Law School on a full ride, worked hard for a year and then basically just lived on easy street for two. 7 and a half months into biglaw I have a little over $5K in debt and my net worth is around $40,000 after taking into account future taxes owed on a 401K. If this leads me to an in house position in 3-5 years with solid pay then I’d say things worked out tremendously.

Why do you have 5k in debt when you have a net worth of 40k? Why not just pay off the debt? Or are you taking into consideration the growth of your 401k investments?

Same anon. I am including 401K value in net worth with a rough and dirty tax estimate subtracted. I have the cash on hand to pay off the rest of my loans but for now I’ve just been making my payments and building up liquidity. At some point I may just pay off the rest of the loans but I am not worried about it. The interest that accrues each month is very small because of the low balance and I like having cash on hand in case of an emergency and for investments.

Anonymous User wrote:

BayCat24 wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

whats an updog wrote:

boredtodeath wrote:Don't think this is being impatient or anything. I've felt the same way across multiple corporate practice groups. And it isn't just being dissatisfied with the junior grunt work (which anyone would hate). I look at the mid-levels and think "god, I do not want to do what they have to do." We probably don't want to be lawyers.

I really don't understand people who (at least marginally) enjoyed the stuff they did in law school and didn't really have a strong reason to do transactional, but chose it anyway just because it seems more BUSINESS ORIENTED. For most people, especially K-JD, it's like throwing the dice on a complete start over, blank slate, without any real idea of what you're going to do. Your law education becomes almost completely meaningless except to whatever extent you took useful transactional-oriented courses in 2/3L.

I think the major reason people go into transactional law is just because they see it as a better shot to make more money. A big, big chunk of people in law school in my experience just wanted a low-risk way to make money.

The thing is I didn't enjoy the stuff I did in law school. I didn't enjoy researching case law and writing up briefs, etc. (although I found the intellectual exercise in some classes like Con Law enjoyable). Same with a lot of my law school friends. Most of us didn't "choose" transactional per se, we just didn't want to do litigation. So yeah, when you waste three years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a professional degree in a subject you realize you don't enjoy, you "roll the dice" on the "start over" of transactional and hope you like it. Like I said, a lot of people who chose transactional really don't want to be lawyers. But sunk cost fallacy and all that...

I think for many people, including myself, the choice to do corporate is to maximize the chances of getting out of a law firm and/or law entirely.

I have to shake my head and laugh at how perverse and foolish that line of thinking is for someone forking over the time and money for law school...but here I am.

For me it was a no brainer. I made under $40K before law school, went to Law School on a full ride, worked hard for a year and then basically just lived on easy street for two. 7 and a half months into biglaw I have a little over $5K in debt and my net worth is around $40,000 after taking into account future taxes owed on a 401K. If this leads me to an in house position in 3-5 years with solid pay then I’d say things worked out tremendously.

It’s funny because pretty much no 0L has “in house counsel” as their long term career goal. Yeah I wanna work at a cost center and review documents to cover some evil banks ass! But in terms of pay and hours it’s probably one of the best outcomes