Updated as of April 28, 2025.
Law Student Toolkit
Tools for Current Law Students Enrolled in ABA Accredited Law Schools for Harnessing Collective Power to Influence Firm Decision-Making
April 2, 2025
The Trump administration has launched an unprecedented assault against the legal profession. Through a series of unconstitutional Executive Orders, the administration has sought to coerce Big Law firms to support its pet projects and curb representation of work it deems adverse to its own interests. By sending baseless requests from the EEOC that seek extensive personal information about applicants and associates who have participated in diversity-related initiatives, it has attempted to intimidate these firms to roll back the progress they have made over the years.
Some have fought back and won. Others have faltered. To date, four Big Law firms (Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Willkie Farr and Milbank) have entered into deals with the devil. For no apparent reason other than lining their partners’ pockets, they offered the administration a combined $340 million in free legal services, declared a war on diversity, and conflicted themselves out of critical representation needed by those the administration has laid its sight on.
This is not normal, and many current law students are worried that they are entering an environment that does not align with their values. But how to respond with impactful and effective action while avoiding jeopardizing our future careers? This toolkit provides a roadmap to do so, regardless of one’s risk appetite or future plans with Big Law. We offer clear strategies for making our collective voice heard. Together, we can push Big Law and the broader legal community to reject the administration’s advances and protect our profession.
This toolkit is meant to be one part of a larger response to the current administration, and we encourage you to adapt and share it, and tailor the templates to fit your school and your personal perspective. As we prepare to enter the legal profession, we are joining a legacy of standing up for justice and resisting executive overreach. We can and must use our own voices effectively in this current moment to help ensure that legacy continues—now and for the future.
February 25, 2025 – Memorandum: Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts
March 6, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP
March 7, 2025 – Presidential Action: Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness
March 11, 2025 – Executive Order: Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) – The White House
March 12, 2025 – Temporary Restraining Order in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
March 14, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss
March 17, 2025 – EEOC Acting Chair Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms
March 21, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss
March 22, 2025 – Memorandum: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court
March 25, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block LLP
March 27, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from WilmerHale LLP
March 28, 2025 – Jenner and Block Sues Administration for Unconstitutional Executive Order
March 28, 2025 – WilmerHale Sues Administration for Unconstitutional Executive Order
March 28, 2025 – Temporary Restraining Order in Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice; Temporary Restraining Order in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP v. Executive Office of the President
March 28, 2025 – Skadden Arps Preemptively Caves to Trump Administration to Head Off Executive Order
April 1, 2025 – Willkie Farr Preemptively Caves to Trump Administration to Head Off Executive Order
April 2, 2025 – Milbank Preemptively Caves to Trump Administration to Head Off Executive Order
Now is the time to stand up for the legal community we have all decided to enter, and affirm our future commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. We must make sure the industry we wish to enter still exists when we graduate.
The EEOC demands and executive orders and “fact sheets”, though distinct in their methods, both serve as tests of loyalty designed to pressure Big Law into compromising its foundational values. As students, we have a part to play in this larger conversation and must:
Together we can make our voices heard and signal to Big Law and the broader legal community that the incoming generation of attorneys is paying attention and plans to defend the rule of law, zealous advocacy, and our Constitution.
It is important to acknowledge that for valid reasons—whether financial, prestige, or impact driven—many law students want to go into Big Law. This does not mean that you cannot take action. Therefore, this Toolkit is organized into Low vs High Risk actions.
Low Risk Actions are actions we encourage ALL law students to take. These actions are designed to be safe, meaning they will not risk your personal prospects during Big Law recruitment. However, they are still designed to be effective, especially at mass.
High Risk Actions are actions that we ONLY encourage law students to take if you do not plan to recruit for Big Law now, nor in the near future. These actions are risky, because they may impact your future employment in Big Law to various degrees. However, they are also
high-impact and designed to quickly get the attention of Big Law firms.
These low risk actions are safe for all law students, regardless of whether you are a Big Law applicant or not.
These high risk actions are potentially very risky for anyone considering or actively recruiting for Big Law. They are recommended only for law students who are not planning to recruit for Big Law within the next few years, or those who are completely confident that their Big Law job is secured.
at-risk associates.
whether they are going to support opposition actions, and how they are protecting their at-risk associates. Then withdraw your application.
cross-reference your name against a letter promising a boycott or condemning firm actions, they will no longer feel the need to respond to you.
anti-Big-Law therefore not a potential hire. If you are not viewed as a potential hire, you will be blacklisted, and they will not care what you have to say. The greatest tool available to students is their capacity to waste Big Law firms’ time. Once they know you are not interested in working at their firm, they will not let you waste their time, no matter how strong of a candidate you are on paper.
Taking these steps can make your presence felt within the legal profession and tip the scale towards a broad Big Law response standing up to overreach and intimidation. By using the tools that are available to us, we can demonstrate our dedication to upholding the rule of law as well as to ethical principles and the constitutional values that underpin legal work.
By coordinating efforts to push firms away from giving in to politically motivated tests of loyalty, we preserve the independence, diversity, and integrity that make this profession a cornerstone of democracy.
See more resources: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14CNZozCrjCTs_e06fSoldZYaReJPqNWe
February 25, 2025
March 6, 2025
March 11, 2025
March 14, 2025
March 17, 2025
March 20, 2025
March 22, 2025
March 25, 2025
March 27, 2025[7]
March 28, 2025[8]
April 1, 2025
April 2, 2025
April 9, 2025
April 11, 2025
April 15, 2025
April 23, 2025
May 2, 2025
Updated: May 5, 2025. Feedback welcome.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/suspension-of-security-clearances-and-evaluation-of-government-contracts/
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/
[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-paul-weiss/
[4] https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/Law_Firm_Letters_-_03.17.2025.pdf
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/
[6] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-jenner-block/
[7] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/03/2025-05845/addressing-risks-from-wilmerhale
[8] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/15/2025-06458/addressing-risks-from-susman-godfrey
In the high-stakes world of big law, where billable hours reign supreme and client demands never cease, law firms have developed intricate and often controversial strategies for identifying and cultivating the most productive associates. This essay delves into the various methods and criteria that some big law firms employ in their quest to recruit and retain hard-working attorneys. While these practices may yield results in terms of productivity, they also raise significant ethical concerns and questions about the long-term sustainability of the legal profession.
The Ideal Candidate Profile
Big law firms have developed a specific profile of the ideal candidate – one who is not only academically accomplished but also financially vulnerable and culturally malleable. This profile is built on several key factors:
One senior partner’s comment about the “power to move witness a junior/subordinate get a new car, house or clothes and then use it as leverage” reveals a disturbing perspective on employee relations. The idea that an associate “quite literally cannot afford not to take on every matter and project” speaks to a culture of exploitation that prioritizes billable hours over work-life balance and personal well-being.
This preference challenges the traditional notion that attendance at a T14 law school is the primary path to big law success. As one observer noted, “being from a ‘better’ school rarely correlates to more success at a firm.” This shift in perspective opens doors for talented individuals who may have chosen less prestigious schools due to financial constraints or personal circumstances.
Military veterans and former college athletes are also favored for their discipline and work ethic. This preference for individuals with diverse work experiences suggests that firms recognize the value of real-world skills alongside academic achievements.
The Screening Process
The recruitment process in some big law firms goes far beyond reviewing resumes and conducting standard interviews. Some firms employ sophisticated screening methods that border on invasive and potentially discriminatory:
The quality and cost of a candidate’s accessories – watches, glasses, shoes – are scrutinized. Items that are too expensive may suggest a candidate doesn’t need the job badly enough, while those that are too cheap might indicate an unwillingness to take on the high-spending lifestyle often associated with big law success.
The Culture of Control
Once hired, associates are subjected to a culture designed to maximize their productivity and commitment to the firm. This culture is characterized by several key elements:
Ethical Concerns and Long-term Consequences
While these practices may succeed in identifying and cultivating hard-working associates in the short term, they raise serious ethical concerns and potential long-term problems for both individuals and the legal profession as a whole:
Conclusion
The hiring and management practices described in these notes reveal a troubling aspect of big law culture – one that prioritizes short-term productivity over long-term sustainability, ethical considerations, and the well-being of individual lawyers. While the desire for hard-working, committed associates is understandable, the methods employed by some firms to achieve this goal are deeply problematic.
As the legal profession continues to evolve, it is crucial for firms to reconsider these practices and develop more ethical, sustainable approaches to recruitment and retention. This might include:
Ultimately, the most successful law firms of the future will likely be those that can balance productivity with ethical treatment of their employees, creating an environment where lawyers can thrive professionally without sacrificing their personal lives and values. The current model, as described in these notes, is not only ethically questionable but also unsustainable in the long term. It is time for the legal profession to reexamine its priorities and work towards a more balanced, equitable, and fulfilling future for all its members.
The world of Big Law is often glamorized in popular media, with images of high-powered attorneys in sleek offices making million-dollar deals. However, the reality of working in a large law firm is far more complex and challenging than most outsiders realize. In this blog post, we’ll dive deep into the experiences of various attorneys who have navigated the tumultuous waters of Big Law, exploring the most difficult years, personal struggles, and valuable lessons learned along the way.
The Crucible of the First Year:
For many attorneys, the first year in Big Law is a baptism by fire. One associate shared a particularly poignant story about starting their career while dealing with profound personal loss:
“My first year was incredibly challenging. My father passed away just before I started my role as a 1st year associate, and I was grief-stricken. To cope, I threw myself into work, putting in long hours to numb and escape the pain. I’d have episodes where my hand would twitch and shake, and I’d tear up uncontrollably, sometimes zoning out for hours. I rarely spoke to anyone, hardly ate, and took on as many tasks as possible to avoid going home.”
This experience highlights the intense pressure that new associates face, often compounded by personal struggles. The demanding nature of Big Law can exacerbate existing emotional issues, leading to unhealthy coping mechanisms and potential burnout.
However, this story also demonstrates the importance of supportive colleagues. The associate went on to describe how a senior associate recognized their struggle and stepped in to help:
“Over time, the Senior Associate would call weekly to check on me. He realized I was numbing my pain and suggested he’d handle most of my workload while I took better care of myself. He even challenged me, saying things like, ‘Being a good associate doesn’t change what happened in your life or make you a better person. You’re just here to do a job and get paid for it. You can’t honestly believe this is all your life from now on.’”
This intervention likely prevented a complete breakdown and serves as a reminder of the vital role that empathetic leadership can play in supporting junior attorneys.
The Midlevel Grind: Third and Fourth Year Challenges:
As attorneys progress in their careers, the nature of their challenges evolves. Many respondents pointed to the third and fourth years as particularly difficult periods:
“My third year sucked. I still caution third and fourth years that those years can be really tough. You’re still expected to get everything done, but you’re also involved in strategy and client relations. You often spend huge parts of your day in meetings and have only the evenings to complete the actual work that comes from those meetings.”
Another attorney shared a similar experience about their fourth year:
“I was working my ass off to make the transition to being a senior associate and was taking on all senior responsibilities, but still doing all the work of a midlevel. And if I got staffed with a shitty junior, I was doing the work of a junior as well. I remember spending 15-hour days on deals, having to turn a merger agreement and then review sig packets. I ended up billing 2,700 hours that year, including a 330-hour December after I was already like 500 hours past target.”
These accounts highlight the challenging transition period where attorneys are expected to take on more strategic roles while still managing a heavy workload of substantive legal tasks. This dual responsibility can lead to extreme working hours and heightened stress levels.
The Senior Associate Squeeze:
As attorneys progress to senior associate roles, they face a new set of challenges. One respondent described this transition:
“The transition to a senior associate was definitely hard. There’s a lot of being asked to drive things forward without direction (i.e., senior lawyer tasks) yet also being available to simply execute on a lot of things (junior lawyer tasks).”
This period requires attorneys to juggle multiple responsibilities, often without clear guidance. They must demonstrate leadership and strategic thinking while still being available for more routine tasks, creating a constant balancing act.
Personal Life and Big Law: A Difficult Juggling Act:
Many attorneys find that the demands of Big Law can significantly impact their personal lives. One respondent shared their experience of becoming a parent while working in a large firm:
“The second period that was hard for me was when I became a parent, especially with the second kid. Staying up all night to meet a deadline, or working all weekend to catch up, just weren’t options or either the house or my marriage wouldn’t be standing. My billable hours dropped by 500+ the year after my second was born, yet I felt as overwhelmed and burned out as ever.”
This account underscores the challenges of maintaining a work-life balance in Big Law, particularly for those with family responsibilities. The pressure to meet billable hour targets can conflict sharply with personal obligations, leading to difficult choices and potential burnout.
The Toll of Overwork:
Several respondents shared stories of extreme overwork, highlighting the physical and mental toll of Big Law’s demanding culture:
“Right now, I’m knocking on 1300 hours for the year… with no end in sight. I’ve worked almost every day in 2024, projecting over 2500 hours. I’ve had two all-nighters this week and worked 14 hours on a holiday. I’m just miserable. Things are happening in my real life, but I can’t even engage with it because I am so busy the only thing I am is work.”
This level of overwork can lead to severe burnout, health issues, and a complete disconnection from one’s personal life. It raises important questions about the sustainability of such work practices and their long-term impact on attorneys’ wellbeing.
Unexpected Challenges: The Stress of Underwork:
Interestingly, not all stress in Big Law comes from overwork. One respondent shared a different kind of challenge:
“My low point was kind of the opposite experience of many in here. I had virtually no work for a 1-year period. Like, I had some days where I’d have to battle to find 1.5 hours to bill to somebody. Even though my partners I worked for never made me feel like I was about to get laid off, the lack of work + the economic environment 12-13 years ago was an extremely stressful combination.”
This account highlights how the feast-or-famine nature of legal work can be stressful in both directions. The pressure to meet billable hour targets can be just as intense when work is scarce, leading to anxiety about job security and career progression.
The Path to Partnership: A Different Kind of Pressure:
For those aiming for partnership, the pressure intensifies in the years leading up to consideration. One partner shared insights into this phase:
“If you don’t like being a midlevel, the odds of you enjoying being a partner are exceedingly low. And you’ve spent enough time around partners by that time you should know if that’s the life you want. Being an EP at a big firm isn’t easy and never will be. Firms aren’t corporations. There’s not a point where your job devolves into 30 hours of make-work and maybe 15-20 hours of real work or where you’re promoted into a role that’s less demanding.”
This perspective serves as a reality check for those aspiring to partnership, emphasizing that the demands of Big Law don’t necessarily decrease with seniority.
Finding a Way Out: Alternative Paths:
Many of the respondents shared stories of leaving Big Law to pursue alternative career paths. One attorney described their transition:
“After I got fired, I decided to ‘quit’ Big Law by declining job interviews from other firms. I moved to a smaller market and opened up a solo PLLC where I do IP litigation, startup finance counsel, and general business law. I make a little less than before, but still do well with significantly less time commitment. I work a 35-hour week most weeks, with big deals or litigation phases being the rare exception. My life is 10x better than the year in Big Law.”
This account, along with others, suggests that many attorneys find greater satisfaction and work-life balance by leaving Big Law and pursuing alternative legal careers or starting their own practices.
Lessons Learned and Advice for Navigating Big Law:
Based on the experiences shared, several key pieces of advice emerge for those navigating a career in Big Law:
Conclusion:
The world of Big Law is undoubtedly challenging, with each phase of an attorney’s career presenting unique obstacles. From the intense pressure of the first year to the complex responsibilities of senior associates and partners, the path is fraught with potential for burnout, stress, and personal sacrifice.
However, the experiences shared also reveal moments of growth, support from colleagues, and opportunities for career pivots. Many attorneys find ways to navigate these challenges, whether by developing coping strategies within Big Law or by charting new paths outside of it.
Ultimately, success in Big Law – or in leaving it – seems to come down to self-awareness, strategic planning, and a willingness to prioritize personal wellbeing alongside professional achievement. By sharing these experiences and insights, we hope to provide a realistic picture of life in Big Law and empower attorneys to make informed decisions about their careers.
Whether you choose to climb the partnership ladder, transition to a different area of law, or forge your own path, remember that your legal career should serve your life goals, not the other way around. In the words of one respondent, “We’ve only got one life. Don’t lose your best years.”
Are you a corporate lawyer or finance enthusiast looking to deepen your understanding of the business world? Look no further! We’ve compiled a list of must-read books that offer both entertainment and education, perfect for those who enjoyed “Barbarians at the Gate.”
Finance and Corporate Drama:
Tech Industry Insights:
For a deeper dive into M&A history, don’t miss “The Predators’ Ball” by Connie Bruck. This book explores the rise and fall of Mike Milken and Drexel Burnham Lambert, offering fascinating case studies of deals that shaped modern corporate finance.
For aspiring corporate lawyers:
Bonus recommendation: Check out the “Business Wars” podcast for more engaging corporate stories.
Whether you’re a seasoned professional or just starting your career, these resources offer valuable insights into the world of finance, technology, and corporate law. Happy reading!
In the high-stakes world of Big Law, where billable hours and client development reign supreme, it’s easy to lose sight of the broader context in which legal professionals operate. The experiences shared by lawyers in various stages of their careers reveal a complex tapestry of emotions, challenges, and existential questions that often go unspoken in the corridors of prestigious law firms. This essay explores the multifaceted nature of life in Big Law, from the initial shock of entry-level associates to the ongoing struggles of seasoned partners, all set against the backdrop of a world grappling with significant global challenges.
One lawyer’s poignant reflection encapsulates a sentiment shared by many in the profession: “You’ve got mind-blowing levels of violence going on in Israel/Gaza. I pass dozens and dozens of homeless folks every day, many of whom are either drug addicts and/or downright insane. Everyone’s paying 30-40% more for everything than they were 3 years ago… AI is coming for everyone who isn’t within 15-20 years of retirement.”
This stark juxtaposition between the often insular world of Big Law and the pressing global issues of our time creates a cognitive dissonance that many lawyers struggle to reconcile. The lawyer continues, “Meanwhile, here I am every day, focused on hitting billables and client development (just landed a whale, yay for me I guess?).” This sentiment highlights the internal conflict many legal professionals face as they navigate their careers in a world that often seems to be in crisis.
The feeling of disconnection from broader societal issues is not unique to the legal profession, but it can be particularly acute in Big Law, where the pressure to perform and meet billable targets can create a tunnel vision that blocks out the wider world. As another lawyer puts it, “Yeah, the world is absurd. War, hunger, the rise of fascism, climate change, etc. It feels like the world is on fire but here I am at my desk billing hours.”
This disconnect can lead to feelings of guilt, helplessness, and a sense that one’s work lacks meaning or purpose in the grand scheme of things. However, it’s important to recognize that these feelings are normal and shared by many in the profession. As one respondent notes, “What you feel is normal. I had the exact same thoughts and feelings during the pandemic. We are going through stressful, sometimes traumatic, events. Yet we are expected to continue to bill.”
The recent conflict in Israel and Gaza serves as a stark example of how global events can profoundly impact the personal and professional lives of lawyers. One attorney shares a raw account of their struggle: “I haven’t gotten shit done all week. I am not hitting my billable targets and there’s nothing I can do about it anymore. I am not sleeping at night, not productive in the day, obsessively checking news and checking in on people in Israel and barely attending to anything work-related that isn’t an emergency.”
This experience underscores the human element often overlooked in the high-pressure environment of Big Law. Lawyers are not immune to the emotional toll of world events, and the expectation to maintain peak performance in the face of personal distress can be overwhelming. The same lawyer concludes, “It’s just not realistic to expect yourself to be operating at capacity when this kind of shit is going on and weighing on your psyche, and I’m not going to punish myself for being human.”
In the face of these challenges, some lawyers have found ways to reconcile their professional lives with their desire to make a positive impact on the world. One attorney suggests, “You have to use the money for good. You have to treat it as a gift, donate to homeless programs in your city, volunteer if you have free time. Be in community and give back. Don’t treat it as an island.”
This approach of leveraging one’s position and resources to effect positive change can provide a sense of purpose and help alleviate some of the cognitive dissonance experienced by many in the profession. It’s a reminder that while the day-to-day work of a Big Law attorney may seem disconnected from global issues, the fruits of that labor can be channeled into meaningful action.
For many lawyers, the first year in Big Law is a shocking introduction to the realities of the profession. One junior associate shares, “I knew work would be stressful and have a lot of long days, but I have to admit I underestimated how difficult it would be as I found the stress of law school and the bar exam to be greatly exaggerated by my peers.”
The transition from the structured environment of law school to the fast-paced, high-stakes world of Big Law can be jarring. The same associate continues, “Balancing multiple matters, every task feeling urgent, and having no agency over my schedule has led to high stress levels and poor sleep quality.”
This experience is echoed by many first-year associates who find themselves struggling to adapt to the demands of their new roles. The steep learning curve, combined with the pressure to perform and the fear of making mistakes, can create a perfect storm of stress and anxiety.
However, experienced lawyers offer hope that this initial period of struggle is temporary. As one attorney explains, “The first 9 months of first year just really really really really suck in a way that like the middle of third year doesn’t. You have NO clue what you’re doing, you have no clue if you’re doing a good job. You don’t know when you can say no to stuff, which deadlines are real, where the line for a fireable mistake is, etc.”
The journey from a fumbling first-year associate to a competent legal professional is a process that requires time, patience, and resilience. One lawyer offers an insightful analogy: “It’s like not knowing anything about tennis, grabbing a tennis racket for the first time, and trying to return serves from a pro player when you don’t even know why they are hitting balls at you.”
This metaphor aptly captures the overwhelming nature of the first year in Big Law. However, the same lawyer offers reassurance that things do improve with time and experience: “The next time you hear, ‘we need the blah, blah, blah riders’ you’ll know what that is and what is involved. You’ll also know that this means you’ll also need the third amended cross-indemnification subrogation blah blah blah, you’ll anticipate it, and you’ll know how to create one.”
This progression from confusion to competence is a crucial part of the Big Law experience. As lawyers gain experience, they not only become more efficient at their tasks but also develop a better understanding of the broader context of their work. This growing competence can help alleviate some of the stress and anxiety that characterizes the early years of practice.
While the initial shock of entering Big Law may subside as lawyers gain experience, the nature of stress in the profession evolves rather than disappears. As one senior lawyer notes, “When you get more senior in the ranks, you gain responsibility and are also required to be a workhorse. That’s why the attrition level is so high. Most people burn out a few years in for a reason.”
This observation highlights the ongoing challenges faced by lawyers as they progress in their careers. The pressure to bill hours remains constant, but it’s compounded by increased responsibilities, client management, and leadership expectations. The cumulative effect of these demands can lead to burnout, even among those who successfully navigated the early years of their careers.
A partner’s candid reflection captures this reality: “I killed myself to make partner.. and I made it. And the day I did, a senior partner congratulated me by saying I won a pie contest, and the prize was more pie. That’s truth.” This stark assessment underscores the relentless nature of Big Law, where success often leads to even greater demands rather than respite.
Despite the challenges, many lawyers find ways to cope with the demands of Big Law and even find personal growth in the process. One attorney advises, “The best thing you can do at your level is embrace what the job requires of you. Either you love it, and are willing to dedicate your life to it.. or you decide life is too precious and look elsewhere.”
This perspective emphasizes the importance of self-reflection and honest assessment of one’s compatibility with the demands of Big Law. For some, the intellectual challenges, high stakes, and potential for financial reward make the sacrifices worthwhile. For others, the cost to personal life, mental health, and overall well-being may be too high.
Lawyers who choose to stay in Big Law often develop strategies to manage stress and maintain a sense of balance. These may include:
While much of the responsibility for managing stress and maintaining well-being falls on individual lawyers, there is a growing recognition that law firms have a role to play in supporting their attorneys. Progressive firms are implementing initiatives such as:
These efforts reflect an understanding that lawyer well-being is not just a personal issue but also a professional one that impacts the quality of work, client satisfaction, and long-term retention of talent.
The experiences shared by lawyers at various stages of their careers paint a complex picture of life in Big Law. From the initial shock and steep learning curve faced by first-year associates to the evolving challenges encountered by senior lawyers and partners, the profession demands resilience, adaptability, and a willingness to grapple with both personal and global issues.
The disconnect between the often insular world of Big Law and the pressing global challenges of our time creates a unique set of psychological and emotional challenges for many lawyers. Reconciling the drive for professional success with a desire to make a meaningful impact on the world is an ongoing process that requires self-reflection, intentional action, and sometimes difficult choices.
Despite the challenges, many lawyers find ways to thrive in Big Law, leveraging their positions to effect positive change, finding personal growth in the face of adversity, and developing strategies to maintain balance and well-being. The key lies in approaching the profession with open eyes, realistic expectations, and a commitment to ongoing self-assessment and growth.
The journey to becoming a successful attorney in a prestigious BigLaw firm is often portrayed as a straightforward path: excel in undergraduate studies, attend a top-tier law school, and secure a coveted position at a large law firm. However, a growing debate within the legal community centers around the value of work experience prior to embarking on this journey. This essay explores the advantages and challenges faced by “K-JD” candidates – those who progress directly from kindergarten through law school without significant work experience – compared to their peers who have spent time in the workforce before pursuing a legal career.
The K-JD route has long been a traditional path to law school and subsequently to BigLaw careers. Proponents argue that this direct approach allows ambitious students to capitalize on their academic momentum and enter the legal profession at a younger age. Many top law schools and BigLaw firms continue to recruit and hire successful K-JD candidates, recognizing their academic achievements and potential.
However, the legal landscape is evolving, and there is a growing recognition of the potential benefits that work experience can bring to aspiring lawyers. As one commentator notes, “KJD (Kindergarten to JD) candidates can certainly succeed in Big Law, but there are some important considerations.”
One of the most compelling arguments for gaining work experience before entering BigLaw comes from those who have lived through the transition from academia to high-pressure legal environments. As one early 20-something BigLaw associate shares:
“I went ‘straight through’ and this job has grabbed me by the ankles and shaken the lunch money out of my pant pockets. I’ll be out of BigLaw within the year (very junior associate) and am a cautionary tale to those folks who think they can handle the job just because they wrote a good answer to the negligence question on their 1L torts exam.”
This candid admission highlights the stark contrast between academic success and the realities of BigLaw practice. The demanding nature of the work, long hours, and high-pressure environment can be a shock to those who have never experienced a professional workplace.
Another commenter observes: “People that worked before BL don’t have delusions about what working is actually like and know that there are worse jobs out there that pay much less.” This perspective suggests that prior work experience, even in unrelated fields, can provide valuable context and resilience when facing the challenges of BigLaw.
While much of the discussion focuses on the benefits of work experience for adapting to BigLaw culture, it’s important to note that not all pre-law work experiences are equal. One respondent shares:
“During college, I worked at a hospital. I cleaned medical waste (blood, feces, urine, vomit) for $6.15 an hour and did 12 hour shifts.”
This type of experience, while not directly related to legal practice, can instill a strong work ethic, resilience, and appreciation for the opportunities presented by a BigLaw career. It also provides a valuable perspective on the diverse backgrounds and experiences of clients and colleagues.
Interestingly, some argue that work experience can lead to a more critical view of BigLaw practices. One commenter notes:
“But working before BL also showed me how fucked up a lot of BL is. Training is on-the-job in a way that is often inefficient and not useful, management is often poor because lawyers are not trained managers, etc. And there are also expectations and conduct in BL (at least at some firms) that I am less willing to put up with because I know it’s not normal and would absolutely not be tolerated in almost any other work environment.”
This perspective highlights that work experience can lead to higher expectations for professional environments and management practices. It suggests that while prior work experience may help individuals adapt to the demands of BigLaw, it may also make them less tolerant of perceived inefficiencies or poor management practices.
Another commenter, coming from a management consulting background, reinforces this point:
“I used to work in MBB consulting before law school and the main thing that stuck out to me during my summer is just how terrible most BL people are at project and people management. And it doesn’t seem like there’s much incentive baked in to get better or get training on the subject.”
These observations raise important questions about the structure and practices of BigLaw firms and suggest that the influx of associates with diverse work experiences could potentially drive positive changes in the industry.
The lack of prior work experience can have significant psychological impacts on K-JD associates entering BigLaw. One associate shares a poignant experience:
“I went straight through like OP, and I was suffering inside because I thought the fact that I was miserable and couldn’t seem to make any partner happy no matter how much effort I put in (I was working until 3am at least two times a week) as a sign that I ‘couldn’t handle’ it.”
This account highlights the vulnerability of K-JD associates who may lack the context to differentiate between normal workplace challenges and toxic or unreasonable expectations. The associate continues:
“I confided in a more senior associate who worked as a teacher before going to law school and she told me how fucked up and toxic big law is and that it very much preys on the naïvety of young associates like me who went straight through and have no prior experience to base the job off of so we’ll do anything.”
This insight underscores the importance of mentorship and support systems within BigLaw firms, particularly for K-JD associates who may be more susceptible to exploitation or burnout due to their limited professional experience.
Beyond the specific challenges of BigLaw, some argue that K-JD candidates face a more fundamental hurdle: adjusting to adult professional life. As one commenter observes:
“They have the added shock of needing to adjust to ‘office culture’, working all day Monday through Friday, and being required to take orders from someone who isn’t a teacher for the first time in their lives.”
This perspective suggests that the challenges faced by K-JD associates in BigLaw are not unique to the legal profession but are part of a broader transition to professional adult life. The commenter adds:
“As stressful as they think school was, they had a lot more free time and opportunities for socializing and fun than they’ll have in just about any job. Making it into your mid-20s without being exposed to the professional world is a recipe for disaster.”
This view emphasizes the importance of developing professional skills and adapting to workplace norms, which may be more challenging for those who have spent their entire lives in academic settings.
While much of the discussion focuses on the potential drawbacks of the K-JD path, it’s important to consider successful examples of K-JD careers. One BigLaw partner who followed the K-JD route offers a nuanced perspective:
“I think the K-JD stereotype is truest for those coming from an upper middle class background, especially where they never had a federal work study job in college, never worked full-time grunt jobs in high school or college summers, and never had to worry about affording rent or food or expenses.”
This observation highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances and experiences, even within the K-JD category. The partner continues:
“Almost 2 decades hence, I’m still glad I went straight through. It would have been hard to make ends meet in the type of entry level job I would have had access to in my field of study from undergrad, especially in a HCOL city and with my student loans from college. I had no safety net until Biglaw income allowed me to build one.”
This perspective underscores the potential financial benefits of the K-JD path, particularly for students from lower-income backgrounds who may not have the luxury of taking time off for work experience before law school.
The debate surrounding the K-JD path to BigLaw careers reveals a complex landscape of advantages, challenges, and individual circumstances. While work experience prior to law school can provide valuable context, resilience, and professional skills, the K-JD route remains a viable path for many aspiring lawyers.
The legal profession has experienced a notable shift in the dynamics of summer associate programs at large law firms, commonly referred to as Big Law. These programs have traditionally served as a crucial pathway for law students to secure full-time employment post-graduation. However, a growing trend of “no-offers” – where summer associates are not extended full-time positions after their internships – has emerged, sparking concern and prompting discussion within the legal community.
No-offers have always been a part of the summer associate landscape, but their frequency has increased in recent years. This rise can be attributed to several factors, including economic conditions and evolving attitudes towards summer associate performance. The National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reported a significant 19% decrease in offer rates for Big Law summer programs compared to the previous year. Despite this decline, the overall offer rate remains high, with 96% of second-year law students still receiving offers for full-time employment after graduation.
While no-offers are becoming more common, they are still relatively rare. The vast majority of summer associates continue to secure full-time positions. However, the increase in no-offers is substantial enough to warrant attention and analysis.
Several factors contribute to no-offers in Big Law summer associate programs:
Examining specific examples helps illustrate the reality of no-offers:
These examples highlight that even prestigious firms are not immune to the trend of increasing no-offers. Factors specific to each firm, such as economic conditions and internal standards, play a significant role in these decisions.
The increase in no-offers presents a delicate balancing act for law firms. On one hand, maintaining high offer rates is crucial for protecting reputation and rankings among law students. A high no-offer rate can damage a firm’s standing and make it less attractive to top candidates. On the other hand, firms must uphold high standards to ensure they bring in associates who can contribute to the firm’s success.
Interestingly, the stigma associated with no-offers may be decreasing as they become more common. This shift could lead to a greater emphasis on mutual fit rather than an expectation of near-automatic offers.
Despite the rise in no-offers, acceptance rates for summer associate positions have increased. NALP reported an acceptance rate of 47%, the highest ever recorded. This paradox can be explained by several factors:
This high acceptance rate, coupled with the increase in no-offers, suggests a shifting power dynamic in the legal recruiting process. Firms appear to be gaining more leverage, while students face increased pressure to perform well during their summer programs.
Receiving a no-offer can be devastating for students, but it’s crucial to approach the situation strategically and professionally:
Pursuing clerkships after a no-offer offers several advantages:
This approach allows candidates to “reset” their career trajectory and potentially secure Big Law positions without the no-offer being a significant factor.
No-offer dynamics can vary significantly between large offices in major markets and smaller offices or satellite locations. Smaller offices often operate more like boutique firms, with more precise hiring needs and greater susceptibility to budget constraints. Understanding these dynamics can help summer associates navigate their internships more effectively.
When faced with a no-offer, seeking detailed feedback is natural, but it’s crucial to approach this feedback with skepticism. Firms may not be fully candid in their reasons for not extending an offer, as they have no obligation or incentive to provide constructive feedback. This lack of transparency can be frustrating but understanding this reality helps in processing the no-offer and moving forward productively.
The importance of “fit” within the firm culture encompasses work style, communication skills, social dynamics, and personal interactions. Comments about a summer associate’s “ability to cultivate client relationships” or concerns about their habit of “dropping by without pinging” can be coded ways of expressing discomfort with interpersonal skills or social awareness. Recognizing that fit is subjective can help candidates who have faced a no-offer remain confident and optimistic.
A no-offer can feel like a devastating setback, but it’s crucial to maintain a long-term perspective. Many successful lawyers have faced early career setbacks, including no-offers, only to go on to flourishing careers in Big Law or other areas of the legal profession.
Looking ahead, several key considerations for the future include:
The rise of no-offers in Big Law summer associate programs represents a significant shift in the legal recruiting landscape. While still relatively rare, these no-offers are becoming more common, reflecting changes in economic conditions, firm attitudes, and hiring practices.
For law students and young lawyers, understanding this changing landscape is crucial. Maintaining professionalism, seeking alternative paths like clerkships, and focusing on finding the right fit are key strategies for navigating this new reality successfully.
For law firms, the increase in no-offers presents both challenges and opportunities. Firms must balance maintaining a positive reputation with upholding high standards. Adaptability is essential for both firms and candidates as the legal industry continues to evolve. Those who can navigate these changes with resilience, strategic thinking, and a long-term perspective will be best positioned for success.
Big Law Anonymous 