Accept Big Law Offer or Join a solo attorney earning seven figures with a 160K salary Forum

[gobears84]

So if you had to choose between accepting a big law offer as a first-year associate in the litigation department ($192k) or
starting your career by joining a solo criminal defense attorney that makes $2M/yr and pays a 160K salary
what would you choose? What are the Pros and Cons?

[corporate_regret]

So if you had to choose between accepting a big law offer as a first-year associate in the litigation department ($192k) or
starting your career by joining a solo criminal defense attorney that makes $2M/yr and pays a 160K salary
what would you choose? What are the Pros and Cons?

This is an interesting question. That is certainly a great salary for working with a solo. You have a couple things to consider:

First, you likely only have one chance to join BigLaw. Should things not work out with the solo, it would be tough to jump back. BigLaw is a pretty hefty resume booster.

However, you have to consider whether BigLaw is something you want. The lifestyle is hard, it's a lot of work, and chances are you won't get much substantive experience the first couple of years (this, of course, varies firm to firm). Of course, there is no guarantee that working with the solo will be LESS work, indeed, it may be harder.

The great thing about working with a solo is that you have hands on experience with a successful attorney. The bad news is that you're getting hands on experience with only one attorney. If you have a personality conflict, or this person ends up being a nightmare to work for, you're stuck - no changing practice groups, no switching to a different partner.

However, if your goal is to be on your own, you'll gain skills unlikely to be developed in BigLaw, namely, true business development skills (you'll likely gain meaningful interaction with clients, which is a skill you have to develop), insight into how to run a business, and providing meaningful, impactful legal representation.

The other downside is that you don't get the resources that BigLaw offers. You'll be responsible for EVERYTHING, both high level and menial.

I'd say your biggest consideration is how well do you know the solo? Has he had associates before? Did they turn over quickly? Are they successful now? Also keep in mind that a good personal relationship does not necessarily translate into a good professional one, good managers are very hard to come by, especially in law.

Going with the solo is high risk, high reward. If things work out well, you're set - but if not, you're boned.

Hope this helps!

[nixy]

Do you want to do biglaw litigation (presumably commercial) or do you want to do criminal defense? Those are going to be SUPER different experiences.

[QContinuum]

Do you want to do biglaw litigation (presumably commercial) or do you want to do criminal defense? Those are going to be SUPER different experiences.

TBF, it's possible that OP wants to do white-collar and that the solo is a former BigLawyer/BigFed fella with a roster of white-collar clients.

I agree with corporate_regret's thorough analysis. The solo is high risk, high reward. From a risk minimization perspective, BigLaw wins, but if things go well with the solo, OP could potentially end up doing much better than the average BigLaw litigator.

[Lacepiece23]

I'd take the solo and never look back. That salary and a chance to be a real lawyer off the bat? Sounds like the best deal ever.

[wishywashy]

Seems like an awfully high salary for a baby lawyer straight out of law school in criminal defense. I would ask around about how that compensation stacks up - my too good to be true warning bells are buzzing.

Outside of that, I would still go biglaw for much the same reasons mentioned above. Very hard to re-open that door, whereas you could go biglaw and exit out to a similar gig. Plus, if we hit recession I would think about who could stand it better - biglaw or a criminal practice. Also all your eggs are in the one basket at the solo shop with the one lawyer. Imagine: if your solo boss turns out to be (1) crazy (2) has some substance abuse problem (3) spends twice what they earn and goes into panic mode when revenue drops (4) gets sick (5) dies unexpectedly. All of 1-5 are very real issues with solo lawyers (good lawyers, bad business people) and you're swinging in the wind on all of these with limited exit options.

My two cents. Best of luck OP.

[nixy]

I agree with a lot of the concerns listed above, but it is clear that solo criminal defense is going to be more recession-sensitive than biglaw? The term “Lathaming” didn’t come out of small criminal firms.

[wishywashy]

I agree with a lot of the concerns listed above, but it is clear that solo criminal defense is going to be more recession-sensitive than biglaw? The term “Lathaming” didn’t come out of small criminal firms.

I honestly don't know how crim practices work. I should have been more clear in my post - I really would research that (local market research maybe as well as state or national trends for that practice area). All things being equal, a pink slip from Biglaw or a pink slip from a solo criminal practice I still lean towards the Biglaw pink slip (maybe even get a "severance" type deal). My anecdotal experience with solo firms is you get an instaboot or your earnings tank (eat what you kill and the only thing dying is you and your wallet).

FWIW - I have many family and friends in the solo practice game. They all seem to go through cycles and it is their employee numbers that rise and fall (they never fire themselves).

[nixy]

Yeah, that makes sense. I feel like the economics of the two things are really different, but I don’t mean to ignore the advantages of biglaw.

I do go back to the first question I asked - even if someone has lined up a white-collar biglaw gig, the experiences are likely to be *so* different, I’m not sure they could both work to the same long term goal. So I wonder what the long term goal is. (If you ultimately wanted to run your own criminal defense firm I’m really not sure biglaw would help you in any way, except of course money, which is a big thing to be sure. But I’m less convinced someone can go from biglaw to a gig like this if they pass it up now.)

[RaceJudicata]

How old is the solo? That will make a difference because, as others have noted, you likely will not be able to go to big law if the solo retires in the near term.

[gobears84]

@corporate_regret Thank you for such a comprehensive response!

Do you want to do biglaw litigation (presumably commercial) or do you want to do criminal defense? Those are going to be SUPER different experiences.

Unfortunately, the only intelligent response I can give is that I don't even know what I don't know. Commercial litigation seems interesting but complicated. I worked biglaw as a summer associate for both summers which was fun, but everyone knows those are mostly recruiting and are unlikely to represent actual day to day life as a new associate. I also know that it will be many years before I ever see a client working at a large firm. This attorney, who I've known for several years, tells me he is hiring me largely due to my interpersonal skills and believes those skills will translate to client acquisition and retention. I think he is right in that my stronger skills set is dealing with people rather than paperwork. However, I am not unwilling or unable to do the paperwork.

Yeah, that makes sense. I feel like the economics of the two things are really different, but I don’t mean to ignore the advantages of biglaw.

I do go back to the first question I asked - even if someone has lined up a white-collar biglaw gig, the experiences are likely to be *so* different, I’m not sure they could both work to the same long term goal. So I wonder what the long term goal is. (If you ultimately wanted to run your own criminal defense firm I’m really not sure biglaw would help you in any way, except of course money, which is a big thing to be sure. But I’m less convinced someone can go from biglaw to a gig like this if they pass it up now.)

Again, I feel bad because I'm so naive about the actual practice of law so I don't know which I would like better. I definitely want to live comfortably, and I know (as the entire law community knows) the security and pay of a biglaw job come at the cost of a healthy work-life balance. Not to turn this business conversation into a personal one but this attorney is the guy that inspired me to go to law school and the plan was always to go work for him, however, my grades put me into a position to fortunately have additional opportunities. The attorney is ranked in a reputable publication as one of the top 100 criminal defense attorneys in the nation. Given the entirety of the situation, I'm sure we would remain friends if I decide to go to biglaw, but I would likely forfeit the position.

How old is the solo? That will make a difference because, as others have noted, you likely will not be able to go to big law if the solo retires in the near term.

The solo is mid to late thirties and loves their job so I don't think that would be much of a problem. However, I do realize that I am betting my life on that which is an inherent risk.

Thanks everyone for your help and input it is all very much appreciated!

[objctnyrhnr]

As somebody in biglaw commercial/white collar who really likes it, TCR to me is biglaw. Get that resume stamp then if you really want to do solo work do it later.

[yankees12345!]

I would say no-brainer, go with the solo. It’s the kind of opportunity you’ll be desperately looking for after a few years in the meat grinder. Big law kind of sucks, as everyone knows. With the solo you’ll likely get more substantive experience faster, a more enjoyable daily life (in the courtroom more, client contact, etc.), a similar salary, and a way better long term trajectory of eventually taking over the solo’s practice (or starting your own).

[objctnyrhnr]

For the reasons articulated above, the solo just seems like a high risk play. And I’m not saying it’s high risk in that it’s not a risk that’s potentially worth taking for you at some point, but when you look at what you’d be giving up to take that risk now—the coveted resume stamp of biglaw (which, at this point in your career, you might not appreciate the gravity of...I know I didn’t), it just does not seem worth it.

If this solo is as successful as you say he is, 1. He should understand this thought process if it’s the one that carriers the day for you and 2. He should be looking to hire again in a few years.

[nixy]

I think this boils down to a personal choice. If you want ultimately to be a solo doing criminal defense, I really don’t see any value to the biglaw gig (again, other than money, which is fair), and wouldn’t see any reason to pass on the solo opportunity. If you aren’t sure what you want to do or think you might want to do something else where biglaw would be useful (in-house or more business-related work), biglaw makes sense. I’m not saying this because biglaw is awful or terrible or the like, I just don’t think it’s work that’s really pertinent/helpful to going solo in criminal defense, and it sounds like a pretty great solo opportunity. (I don’t agree that the stamp of biglaw on your resume is necessary for all legal paths.)

[LBJ's Hair]

I would never in a million years take this solo job first thing out of law school. solo guy may be the best guy in the world, he's just one guy---what if you two don't click ? or you're bad, and he decides you're not worth keeping around? he's been running this gig by himself for awhile now and doing well, could fire you tomorrow.

there are like new 5 threads a week on this board about people who don't click with some senior associate or partner or w/e, it happens all the time. lawyers are shitty managers. the uniform advice people give is "it won't get better, find a new job." that isn't too difficult from a brand-name BigLaw firm, but you're not gonna be at Latham or something. you're at Joe Schmo LLP, and the only reference you have is the guy you're running away from.

the value of BigLaw isn't just the money. that's probably least important tbh. it's the training and credential it provides.

this is a no brainer to me. if you end up hating BigLaw, call this guy a year from now. He'll still be there, you'll be more useful to him, and I'm sure you can work something out. but the reverse likely isn't true--you likely can't go to BigLaw after spending a year with a solo

[Tenzen]

Already in biglaw, but would take solo in a heartbeat if my relationship with the person was solid. A firm will fuck you without remorse, while someone you're close to and have a solid relationship is less likely to do so.

[clshopeful]

Assuming the solo is not a nightmare to work for, which he probably isn't, I'd do the solo no doubt.

The hours in biglaw are not worth it; if you are making 160 alongside someone who is pulling in 2M, I'd expect your raises/bonuses, reputation, etc, will soar than compared to working in biglaw.

[objctnyrhnr]

Just making the observation that it’s rare to see such an even divide on an OP question like this on TLS, where both sides’ positions are relatively equally well-founded and supported and come from places of knowledge and experience.

For that, I commend OP. Just a good thread.

OP keep us posted on what you decide.

[QContinuum]

Assuming the solo is not a nightmare to work for, which he probably isn't, I'd do the solo no doubt.

The hours in biglaw are not worth it; if you are making 160 alongside someone who is pulling in 2M, I'd expect your raises/bonuses, reputation, etc, will soar than compared to working in biglaw.

To be fair, I don't think we can confidently assume that OP would be getting ginormous raises/bonuses with the solo. While a $160k salary from a solo is (extremely) generous, clearly the solo feels no pressure to pay OP on the Cravath scale in terms of starting salary, so I'm not sure there's any basis for expecting the solo to match (let alone exceed) the Cravath scale in terms of raises or bonuses.

In fact, I don't even think we can take any raises/bonuses for granted. The solo could conceivably keep OP at $160k until/unless OP starts bringing in their own business. Again, this isn't a knock on the solo - a $160k salary for a new grad from a solo practitioner is basically unheard of. I just think it's dangerous to be overly optimistic.

[icansortofmath]

This depends soooooo much on the solo practitioner himself. If the 160k is solid and he's really using the salary to lure great candidates, then I suspect he also has connections with biglaw and your lateral opportunities aren't as bad as some of the other posters are making it out to be.

If we're talking about some pretty shady solo practitioner in the veins of Michael Cohen, obviously not. But if it's a solo practitioner that has a respectable list of clients (possibly taken from his former biglaw job), things look way better.

A big opportunity is you can start bringing your own business much earlier if you got that type of hustle in you. If you aren't compensated for your efforts, you can go to biglaw (broadly defined as firms paying Cravath or close) and make partner earlier than most associates on traditional track.

Again, pointing out the obvious but it can't be stressed enough that the solo practitioner job is both a bet on the solo and yourself. It has the potential for very high rewards but you really need to do your due diligence well beyond information you've given us and look at yourself to see if you got the kind of hustle to get the most out of a non-traditional track.

[AVBucks4239]

I'm a solo practitioner and as anti-big law as it gets, but this is complicated.

FWIW, I left my law firm to join a solo (thinking I could use that as a learning experience until I opened my own firm). This attorney bragged about making $500-600k a year. I met with four attorneys beforehand and none of them really knew her, and with nothing bad to say, I took the plunge. And it was an absolute and unmitigated disaster.

She was unprofessional, unethical, unorganized, and a total disaster. I could write a book about how bad that experience was. She was billing clients almost two years after doing work; she forgot to record deeds she drafted from 6-7 years ago; her litigation was comically unorganized and deadlines were long gone; etc. She treated staff like shit (a huge pet peeve of mine). She treated clients like dollar bills. I actively despised her.

I left after three months.

***

Moral of the above story -- you better do a ton of due diligence on this guy before joining. "I don't really know him" is not a good enough answer. You need to talk to people who know him, his practice, his reputation, etc.

You also need to know if any other associates have worked for him. Little did I know that I was the 5th associate with my former boss in two years.

A huge, huge, huge tip -- get his bar number and check your local dockets (you should be able to do a docket search with his license number). See what type of cases he is actually on. See if he has co-counsel (contact them). See who he has prosecuted against (contact them). See if he is accurately representing his practice to you.

***

One last word of caution -- when you're a solo, more than ever, your time is your money. I'm in my office on a Sunday filling out half a dozen criminal fee slips from the past month (and watching the Manchester United v. Liverpool game). I'm not making any money doing this. Granted, I'm finally growing to the point that I'm expanding my technology and bringing on help this summer when I move to a bigger office. Before then, I am developing a pretty thorough policies and procedures manual so I don't have to train the lady that I'm hiring.

What I'm getting at is that investing time in you, a brand new lawyer, will cost this lawyer a lot of time and money if you don't know what you're doing. You should have your state's civil and criminal rules mastered. You need to have access to the form bank applicable to those rules. You need to know whether this solo has a policy and procedure book for matters.

You need to be efficient. If you're not efficient and costing this guy more time than money, he will fire you (and I'm saying that because I would).

[Ohiobumpkin]

I think this boils down to a personal choice. If you want ultimately to be a solo doing criminal defense, I really don’t see any value to the biglaw gig (again, other than money, which is fair), and wouldn’t see any reason to pass on the solo opportunity. If you aren’t sure what you want to do or think you might want to do something else where biglaw would be useful (in-house or more business-related work), biglaw makes sense. I’m not saying this because biglaw is awful or terrible or the like, I just don’t think it’s work that’s really pertinent/helpful to going solo in criminal defense, and it sounds like a pretty great solo opportunity. (I don’t agree that the stamp of biglaw on your resume is necessary for all legal paths.)

This. If you want to practice criminal defense law, go with the solo. If you are unsure, then go biglaw. Also, do not listen to the people here saying working in a solo or small law firm is necessarily a ticket to work-life balance. Some of the hardest working attorneys are solos and attorneys in busy small law firms. It really boils down to what you want to do long term in terms of practice and what kind of lawyer you want to be. If this lawyer inspired you to go into law, it sounds like you want to emulate him/her. That to me sounds like you would do better practicing with the solo than as a cog in the biglaw machine.

Also, what is the pay rate for the biglaw gig? Are we talking primary market with $190K, or secondary market at $145-160K?

[tbaker757]

I am 5 years out of of law school. I hung a shingle and did solo straight out. So obviously I have a solo bias. However, I love my solo life of criminal defense. While not on the scale that you suggest your opportunity is on I do mid 7's. For what its worth I have a biglaw friend who is now jumping ship to come work for me. This is not to say that solo is any easier than biglaw. I work many hours doing legal work and then more hours on top of that for the business side of things. But those hours are for my own benefit not someone else. I think that this is an interesting and good opportunity for you and unless you dream of biglaw I would take the solo option. The money is decent and at the age that he is you can establish yourself independently of him. You most likely will have more control over your life. I don't agree with people who say that you can always solo later. While this might be true, not with someone as established as this guy is. As someone who does criminal, working for someone who is well respected will impart that respect to you whether you deserve it or not. I wish I had that kind of option when I came out of law school where there could be a safety net and still do what I wanted.

[objctnyrhnr]

Given my experience (which I won’t rehash here), asking whether you should effectively be a solo criminal defense attorney or go to market biglaw right out is like asking if you should go to a tttt or a t14. I know that sounds like an oversimplification and I realize you have heard from a number of anecdotal happy small firm experiences but when you’ve skied on both sides of the mountain, factoring in of course the timing and relative portability of both options, the fact that this appears up for debate seems laughable. Obviously you start in biglaw and get the stamp and the money and figure it out from there. You can go one way; you can’t go the other.