Higher pay (and higher stress) or lower pay (and better quality of life)? Forum

[Anonymous User]

If you could do it all over again, would you take the higher paying but more stressful job? Or would you go the lower paying, government route with better quality of life?

I constantly find myself going back and forth between gunning for BigLaw for the money and exit options after a few years (because I would not want to stay), or a comfortable job with a NYC agency. The prospect of a 9-5, no weekends, and no evening work plus a pension and accrued holidays sounds so inviting. Plus, I have housing already paid for in NYC (I'm from here) so technically I don't *need* the high paying job just to live here.

If you could do it all over again would you still pick the high stress job? Or would I be making a mistake?

[nixy]

What do you want to do long term, and does it require biglaw experience?

Myself, I'd totally go for the NYC agency, but my long term goal is to hang out in a job I like and have a life. If you have different aspirations, you would need to weigh those a little more. But there's nothing wrong with working to live, not living to work.

[Anonymous User]

In my view, there is nothing, and i mean NOTHING, worse than money stress. So if you have loans, I'd go big law until you have no loans. If you don't have any savings, I'd go big law until you have savings.

I personally went to a regional firm as a third year because I thought I couldn't hack big law. Turns out I can hack big law more than I can hack several additional years of student debt. So I turned my ox around after less than two years went back to big law and am now a senior associate. My last student loan gets paid tomorrow (bonus gets paid).

Maybe I'll leave big law again some day, but not even considering it until I have $200k in savings. Never want to be vulnerable again.

[objctnyrhnr]

As somebody who fedclerked, decided QOL was more important than whatever I envisioned typical biglaw QOL to be, I initially pursued a position in the public sector (non-DOJ) for two years, only later realizing I had erred. I enjoyed the work but (in the most non-elitist possible way), I didn’t want to spend my life in a legal position/path where I was pretty hands-down a better and better-credentialed lawyer than my peers. I found myself getting periodically frustrated by issues relating to that. I realized that I needed more of an intellectual challenge and the money was of course a factor also (when you’re in your 20’s, it’s easy to not realize how much income you’ll want in your 30’s).

I hustled hard for my final year at that public sector position and the stars aligned for me to get a dream biglaw job in my target market. I enjoy it exponentially more than I thought I would, and I see it as much better aligned with my skills, intensity, intellectual curiosity, work-ethic, and credentials.

Ultimately, for me, everything happened to work out. I think about how thankful I am every day for that.

That said, given my experience (the aforementioned bustling part was very very difficult), I implore you to begin in Biglaw. It’s relatively easy to make a jump out of biglaw, but it’s almost impossible to make a jump from a non-DOJ public sector position into biglaw (litigation, that is).

You’ll also come to realize that the highest level Attorney’s almost all did a stint in biglaw. In my view, while it’s definitely not a prerequisite to achieving success in the litigation realm, having done a stint in biglaw is almost like a certifying credential for the upper echelons of litigation-related position.

[AVBucks4239]

If you have huge student loans or other debt, the shitty quality of life at Big Law might be worth it for 18-24 months and then the exit options.

But if you don't, the money isn't worth it because the per diem (the money) actually sucks. When you break it down, and assuming you aren't a contract PD, you probably make more hourly as a public defender than your actual hourly rate in big law.

So, if you didn't have any debt to take care of, I would go solo, small law, mid-law, or boutique all day over big law.

[gingerbread]

Uncle Sam takes such a large chunk of my biglaw salary that it hasn't been worth it for me.

[Anonymous User]

I paid off my student loan at BL and then lateraled to a chill firm (in the same market), with a $30k reduction in pay. Still deciding if this was a good move. Hours are much better but the work isn’t as interesting. Overall, with no student loan, financially, it's about the same (will miss the hefty bonus).

[Anonymous User]

I paid off my student loan at BL and then lateraled to a chill firm (in the same market), with a $30k reduction in pay. Still deciding if this was a good move. Hours are much better but the work isn’t as interesting. Overall, with no student loan, financially, it's about the same (will miss the hefty bonus).

[dabigchina]

people who had chill jobs and hated it: can you explain why? is it just the finances?

[objctnyrhnr]

people who had chill jobs and hated it: can you explain why? is it just the finances?

It’s a little hard to articulate but it stems from the basic premise that the top level work goes to top level firms (generally). If you’re in litigation cause you love it (as many high level litigators do), there’s just something inherently less fulfilling about being at a lower level firm doing lower level work with lower level impact, even if the QOL is somewhat better and the pay isn’t that much lower.

Just my two cents.

[Anonymous User]

As somebody who fedclerked, decided QOL was more important than whatever I envisioned typical biglaw QOL to be, I initially pursued a position in the public sector (non-DOJ) for two years, only later realizing I had erred. I enjoyed the work but (in the most non-elitist possible way), I didn’t want to spend my life in a legal position/path where I was pretty hands-down a better and better-credentialed lawyer than my peers. I found myself getting periodically frustrated by issues relating to that. I realized that I needed more of an intellectual challenge and the money was of course a factor also (when you’re in your 20’s, it’s easy to not realize how much income you’ll want in your 30’s).

I hustled hard for my final year at that public sector position and the stars aligned for me to get a dream biglaw job in my target market. I enjoy it exponentially more than I thought I would, and I see it as much better aligned with my skills, intensity, intellectual curiosity, work-ethic, and credentials.

Ultimately, for me, everything happened to work out. I think about how thankful I am every day for that.

That said, given my experience (the aforementioned bustling part was very very difficult), I implore you to begin in Biglaw. It’s relatively easy to make a jump out of biglaw, but it’s almost impossible to make a jump from a non-DOJ public sector position into biglaw (litigation, that is).

You’ll also come to realize that the highest level Attorney’s almost all did a stint in biglaw. In my view, while it’s definitely not a prerequisite to achieving success in the litigation realm, having done a stint in biglaw is almost like a certifying credential for the upper echelons of litigation-related position.

If your job was with a litigating DOJ component, do you think you would have had the same outlook? Are there particular gov agencies where you think your experience is more likely to occur? Your thoughts seem totally reasonable and as someone who is leaning toward DOJ honors over biglaw, I kind of fear of falling into the same situation.

[dabigchina]

people who had chill jobs and hated it: can you explain why? is it just the finances?

It’s a little hard to articulate but it stems from the basic premise that the top level work goes to top level firms (generally). If you’re in litigation cause you love it (as many high level litigators do), there’s just something inherently less fulfilling about being at a lower level firm doing lower level work with lower level impact, even if the QOL is somewhat better and the pay isn’t that much lower.

Just my two cents.

Huh, I guess it's a personality thing. I've never been one to feel super fulfilled by work, no matter how interesting or substantive it is.

[objctnyrhnr]

As somebody who fedclerked, decided QOL was more important than whatever I envisioned typical biglaw QOL to be, I initially pursued a position in the public sector (non-DOJ) for two years, only later realizing I had erred. I enjoyed the work but (in the most non-elitist possible way), I didn’t want to spend my life in a legal position/path where I was pretty hands-down a better and better-credentialed lawyer than my peers. I found myself getting periodically frustrated by issues relating to that. I realized that I needed more of an intellectual challenge and the money was of course a factor also (when you’re in your 20’s, it’s easy to not realize how much income you’ll want in your 30’s).

I hustled hard for my final year at that public sector position and the stars aligned for me to get a dream biglaw job in my target market. I enjoy it exponentially more than I thought I would, and I see it as much better aligned with my skills, intensity, intellectual curiosity, work-ethic, and credentials.

Ultimately, for me, everything happened to work out. I think about how thankful I am every day for that.

That said, given my experience (the aforementioned bustling part was very very difficult), I implore you to begin in Biglaw. It’s relatively easy to make a jump out of biglaw, but it’s almost impossible to make a jump from a non-DOJ public sector position into biglaw (litigation, that is).

You’ll also come to realize that the highest level Attorney’s almost all did a stint in biglaw. In my view, while it’s definitely not a prerequisite to achieving success in the litigation realm, having done a stint in biglaw is almost like a certifying credential for the upper echelons of litigation-related position.

If your job was with a litigating DOJ component, do you think you would have had the same outlook? Are there particular gov agencies where you think your experience is more likely to occur? Your thoughts seem totally reasonable and as someone who is leaning toward DOJ honors over biglaw, I kind of fear of falling into the same situation.

That’s a very valid question that I’m not sure that I’m qualified to answer. I suppose the short answer is that if you can land a competitive DOJ component (particularly after a clerkship), you’ll do well no matter what.

The more nuanced answer might be this: almost everybody high up (public sector, academia, you name it) does biglaw at some point. It’s much easier to get into biglaw when you’re younger. In my view, let’s say you do DOJ honors and end up at a usao in Atlanta and you’re 7 years out of law school. You’re not geographically flexible. All of a sudden, the administration changes and you get pushed out, or you suddenly have a family and want money. Now you’re trying to lateral into a somewhat competitive market as a senior associate with no prior biglaw experience and no book of business. This wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be much easier if you had 2-3 years of top amlaw lit experience to fall back on.

The concern with spending too much time in the public sector is that you pigeon hole yourself as somebody who only can hack it in the public sector. Even with ausa credentials, with no biglaw experience, it’d be very tough to exit public sector after say 15 years into a top amlaw firm.

Just my opinion. Careers are long though. Sounds like you have great credentials. I wouldn’t stress about it that much. As long as you continue to keep your head on a swivel (hustle/network/lateral op wise), you’ll be fine.

[Anonymous User]

As somebody who fedclerked, decided QOL was more important than whatever I envisioned typical biglaw QOL to be, I initially pursued a position in the public sector (non-DOJ) for two years, only later realizing I had erred. I enjoyed the work but (in the most non-elitist possible way), I didn’t want to spend my life in a legal position/path where I was pretty hands-down a better and better-credentialed lawyer than my peers. I found myself getting periodically frustrated by issues relating to that. I realized that I needed more of an intellectual challenge and the money was of course a factor also (when you’re in your 20’s, it’s easy to not realize how much income you’ll want in your 30’s).

I hustled hard for my final year at that public sector position and the stars aligned for me to get a dream biglaw job in my target market. I enjoy it exponentially more than I thought I would, and I see it as much better aligned with my skills, intensity, intellectual curiosity, work-ethic, and credentials.

Ultimately, for me, everything happened to work out. I think about how thankful I am every day for that.

That said, given my experience (the aforementioned bustling part was very very difficult), I implore you to begin in Biglaw. It’s relatively easy to make a jump out of biglaw, but it’s almost impossible to make a jump from a non-DOJ public sector position into biglaw (litigation, that is).

You’ll also come to realize that the highest level Attorney’s almost all did a stint in biglaw. In my view, while it’s definitely not a prerequisite to achieving success in the litigation realm, having done a stint in biglaw is almost like a certifying credential for the upper echelons of litigation-related position.

If your job was with a litigating DOJ component, do you think you would have had the same outlook? Are there particular gov agencies where you think your experience is more likely to occur? Your thoughts seem totally reasonable and as someone who is leaning toward DOJ honors over biglaw, I kind of fear of falling into the same situation.

That’s a very valid question that I’m not sure that I’m qualified to answer. I suppose the short answer is that if you can land a competitive DOJ component (particularly after a clerkship), you’ll do well no matter what.

The more nuanced answer might be this: almost everybody high up (public sector, academia, you name it) does biglaw at some point. It’s much easier to get into biglaw when you’re younger. In my view, let’s say you do DOJ honors and end up at a usao in Atlanta and you’re 7 years out of law school. You’re not geographically flexible. All of a sudden, the administration changes and you get pushed out, or you suddenly have a family and want money. Now you’re trying to lateral into a somewhat competitive market as a senior associate with no prior biglaw experience and no book of business. This wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be much easier if you had 2-3 years of top amlaw lit experience to fall back on.

The concern with spending too much time in the public sector is that you pigeon hole yourself as somebody who only can hack it in the public sector. Even with ausa credentials, with no biglaw experience, it’d be very tough to exit public sector after say 15 years into a top amlaw firm.

Just my opinion. Careers are long though. Sounds like you have great credentials. I wouldn’t stress about it that much. As long as you continue to keep your head on a swivel (hustle/network/lateral op wise), you’ll be fine.

Good points. Thanks for the input, appreciated!

[Anonymous User]

Interesting to see different perspectives (I think it makes a huge difference whether you are in lit or corp). As a corp lawyer, I’m counting down the days till I can leave biglaw for a more lifestyle job - the stress and unpredictability is just not worth the money (as long as loans are paid off and enough money is saved)

[nixy]

Interesting to see different perspectives (I think it makes a huge difference whether you are in lit or corp). As a corp lawyer, I’m counting down the days till I can leave biglaw for a more lifestyle job - the stress and unpredictability is just not worth the money (as long as loans are paid off and enough money is saved)

From reading around this site for a while, I think a ton of people, including litigators, feel this way. For many people, doing significant things work on important cases just doesn’t make up for the quality of life trade off. If it does for a given person, that’s great, but I think it doesn’t for a lot.

(I am a little baffled by the references to credentials. I’ve worked with a ton of excellent excellent lawyers who’ve taught me loads who have very ordinary credentials. Working with bad lawyers is one thing but I don’t care what someone’s credentials are beyond that.)

[objctnyrhnr]

Interesting to see different perspectives (I think it makes a huge difference whether you are in lit or corp). As a corp lawyer, I’m counting down the days till I can leave biglaw for a more lifestyle job - the stress and unpredictability is just not worth the money (as long as loans are paid off and enough money is saved)

From reading around this site for a while, I think a ton of people, including litigators, feel this way. For many people, doing significant things work on important cases just doesn’t make up for the quality of life trade off. If it does for a given person, that’s great, but I think it doesn’t for a lot.

(I am a little baffled by the references to credentials. I’ve worked with a ton of excellent excellent lawyers who’ve taught me loads who have very ordinary credentials. Working with bad lawyers is one thing but I don’t care what someone’s credentials are beyond that.)

To the last comment, my market has multiple TTs and TTTs and TTTTs around. Between the private and public sector, I have worked closely with a lot of attorneys thus far, and I’m telling you that in the aggregate (though there are exceptions), the tiering of litigation skill/work ethic/intellectual ability generally corresponds with the level of school that person attended. And moreover, I’ve never met a former fedclerk or ssc clerk whose work I wasn’t at least somewhat impressed by. Not saying others’ experiences wouldn’t differ, but that’s what I’ve personally seen.

[AVBucks4239]

To the last comment, my market has multiple TTs and TTTs and TTTTs around. Between the private and public sector, I have worked closely with a lot of attorneys thus far, and I’m telling you that in the aggregate (though there are exceptions), the tiering of litigation skill/work ethic/intellectual ability generally corresponds with the level of school that person attended. And moreover, I’ve never met a former fedclerk or ssc clerk whose work I wasn’t at least somewhat impressed by. Not saying others’ experiences wouldn’t differ, but that’s what I’ve personally seen.

I agree that most clerks are pretty darn impressive and intelligent.

But, as a litigator, I've generally found that lawyers from the Top 14 generally have their head so far up their ass that they have no idea or concern about the practical consequences of their decisions. Its churn, churn, churn with no regard for the client or realization that the battle they are fighting is a completely worthless hill to die on.

I just have to laugh when big firms from New York and even Cleveland get involved in my county. The judge, magistrate, and even secretaries just roll their eyes before the inevitably irrelevant and excessive discovery are served and, consequently, the worthless motions to compel are filed. The righteous indignation at these compel hearings is always pretty comical.

people who had chill jobs and hated it: can you explain why? is it just the finances?

It’s a little hard to articulate but it stems from the basic premise that the top level work goes to top level firms (generally). If you’re in litigation cause you love it (as many high level litigators do), there’s just something inherently less fulfilling about being at a lower level firm doing lower level work with lower level impact, even if the QOL is somewhat better and the pay isn’t that much lower.

Just my two cents.

I know it's different strokes for different folks, so I'll just provide the other side to this coin. A guy just paid me $1,500 to sue some other dude in small claims for unpaid wages. Who cares that it's not Google vs. Apple?

I much prefer dealing with these people rather than suits.

[albanach]

In my view, there is nothing, and i mean NOTHING, worse than money stress. So if you have loans, I'd go big law until you have no loans. If you don't have any savings, I'd go big law until you have savings.

I personally went to a regional firm as a third year because I thought I couldn't hack big law. Turns out I can hack big law more than I can hack several additional years of student debt. So I turned my ox around after less than two years went back to big law and am now a senior associate. My last student loan gets paid tomorrow (bonus gets paid).

Maybe I'll leave big law again some day, but not even considering it until I have $200k in savings. Never want to be vulnerable again.

Bear in mind, that NY Agency gig, likely makes PSLF available. Admittedly, it would be foolish to discount the risk that PSLF could be abolished, even for current participants. Given the number of lawyers who have built a career on the promise their loans will be forgiven, it's reasonable to have some expectation the government will live up to its promises.

[nixy]

Interesting to see different perspectives (I think it makes a huge difference whether you are in lit or corp). As a corp lawyer, I’m counting down the days till I can leave biglaw for a more lifestyle job - the stress and unpredictability is just not worth the money (as long as loans are paid off and enough money is saved)

From reading around this site for a while, I think a ton of people, including litigators, feel this way. For many people, doing significant things work on important cases just doesn’t make up for the quality of life trade off. If it does for a given person, that’s great, but I think it doesn’t for a lot.

(I am a little baffled by the references to credentials. I’ve worked with a ton of excellent excellent lawyers who’ve taught me loads who have very ordinary credentials. Working with bad lawyers is one thing but I don’t care what someone’s credentials are beyond that.)

To the last comment, my market has multiple TTs and TTTs and TTTTs around. Between the private and public sector, I have worked closely with a lot of attorneys thus far, and I’m telling you that in the aggregate (though there are exceptions), the tiering of litigation skill/work ethic/intellectual ability generally corresponds with the level of school that person attended. And moreover, I’ve never met a former fedclerk or ssc clerk whose work I wasn’t at least somewhat impressed by. Not saying others’ experiences wouldn’t differ, but that’s what I’ve personally seen.

That’s fair if that’s your experience (it hasn’t been mine), but I’m not sure why the credentials matter beyond “this person sucks/doesn’t suck.” The issue isn’t what school they went to but their ability. Even if there is a correspondence between ability and school, the issue (to me) shouldn’t be “I had to work with a lot of non-clerks who went to crappy schools,” it’s that “I had to work with a lot of crappy/less good attorneys.”

[ClubberLang]

But if you don't, the money isn't worth it because the per diem (the money) actually sucks. When you break it down, and assuming you aren't a contract PD, you probably make more hourly as a public defender than your actual hourly rate in big law.

Uh, no.

[objctnyrhnr]

Interesting to see different perspectives (I think it makes a huge difference whether you are in lit or corp). As a corp lawyer, I’m counting down the days till I can leave biglaw for a more lifestyle job - the stress and unpredictability is just not worth the money (as long as loans are paid off and enough money is saved)

From reading around this site for a while, I think a ton of people, including litigators, feel this way. For many people, doing significant things work on important cases just doesn’t make up for the quality of life trade off. If it does for a given person, that’s great, but I think it doesn’t for a lot.

(I am a little baffled by the references to credentials. I’ve worked with a ton of excellent excellent lawyers who’ve taught me loads who have very ordinary credentials. Working with bad lawyers is one thing but I don’t care what someone’s credentials are beyond that.)

To the last comment, my market has multiple TTs and TTTs and TTTTs around. Between the private and public sector, I have worked closely with a lot of attorneys thus far, and I’m telling you that in the aggregate (though there are exceptions), the tiering of litigation skill/work ethic/intellectual ability generally corresponds with the level of school that person attended. And moreover, I’ve never met a former fedclerk or ssc clerk whose work I wasn’t at least somewhat impressed by. Not saying others’ experiences wouldn’t differ, but that’s what I’ve personally seen.

That’s fair if that’s your experience (it hasn’t been mine), but I’m not sure why the credentials matter beyond “this person sucks/doesn’t suck.” The issue isn’t what school they went to but their ability. Even if there is a correspondence between ability and school, the issue (to me) shouldn’t be “I had to work with a lot of non-clerks who went to crappy schools,” it’s that “I had to work with a lot of crappy/less good attorneys.”

Id be surprised if, in any jurisdiction, the HYS law review folk were interchangeable with grads from the local TTT. Sure maybe the TTT grads might take a more practical approach to things, but at least 9/10 times attorneys with credentials on one end of the spectrum are going to be better than attorneys with credentials on the other end of the spectrum. In the initial post with which you found issue, I suppose I just figured that was a given. I’d say sorry for the bad assumption, but I frankly just think it was not bad and further that your experience might be a bit of an anomaly.

[nixy]

I'm not trying to contest your experience. What I wonder is why you care what school they went to, though, rather than that they were bad attorneys? Is the point that you want to work with good attorneys, or prestigious attorneys?

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

So what I take from this thread is:

• It's easier to go BigLaw --> Public Interest

• There are better BigLaw exit options even outside the public realm, like going in hour

• Public Interest has a better quality of life, but if you're someone who is fulfilled by work you might be bored

It seems I'm just as torn as I was before!

Maybe I can explain more of what I like to do:

I am non-adversarial (lol, great trait if you want to be an attorney, right?). I like working with clients; in my current job I am in contact with high net worth clients daily and I love it. I think my personality would be well-suited for tax or trusts and estates. Even though I am non-adversarial, I would not be against litigating if it didn't make up a huge part of my day to day, every day. I'm mostly interested in protecting and counseling clients, and/or performing research, writing lots of contracts, looking up statutes and applying them etc. I have a good attention to detail. Definitely want to make a good living but am okay with sacrificing "cachet," though exit opportunities are also important.

Is there any practice that would be right for me?

[Elston Gunn]

OP here.

So what I take from this thread is:

• It's easier to go BigLaw --> Public Interest

• There are better BigLaw exit options even outside the public realm, like going in hour

• Public Interest has a better quality of life, but if you're someone who is fulfilled by work you might be bored

It seems I'm just as torn as I was before!

Maybe I can explain more of what I like to do:

I am non-adversarial (lol, great trait if you want to be an attorney, right?). I like working with clients; in my current job I am in contact with high net worth clients daily and I love it. I think my personality would be well-suited for tax or trusts and estates. Even though I am non-adversarial, I would not be against litigating if it didn't make up a huge part of my day to day, every day. I'm mostly interested in protecting and counseling clients, and/or performing research, writing lots of contracts, looking up statutes and applying them etc. I have a good attention to detail. Definitely want to make a good living but am okay with sacrificing "cachet," though exit opportunities are also important.

Is there any practice that would be right for me?

A niche and/or regulatory practice would probably be a good fit. Like Benefits, Healthcare, Privacy/Data Security, Financial Services Regulatory etc