Tag: news

Law Students: Rachel Cohen’s Tookit

April 26th, 2025
Law Student Toolkit

Tools for Current Law Students Enrolled in ABA Accredited Law Schools for Harnessing Collective Power to Influence Firm Decision-Making

Join Your Peers in Shaping Our Future Profession & Upholding the Rule of Law

April 2, 2025

Toolkit Overview

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.

Purpose of This Toolkit
1. Empower: Offer law students the necessary information and context to understand the series of actions by the current administration that brought us to this point.
- Stand Up: Encourage law students to use their voice in an impactful way to respond to Big Law firms and make clear that the incoming generation of attorneys will not stand for the administration’s actions and expect firms to fight back.
- Provide Practical Tools: Equip students with a series of effective actions coupled with email templates, questions, and other tools necessary to impactfully make their opinions known in a Big Law context.
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.

Unpacking the Trump Administration’s Recent Actions Targeting the Legal Profession

February 25, 2025 – Memorandum: Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts
- The Trump administration issued a memorandum establishing a policy permitting the revocation of security clearances and the termination of federal contracts for law firms deemed adversarial to the Trump administration—specifically targeting Covington & Burling.
  - This measure set the stage for a broader campaign aimed not only at ideological differences but also at punishing firms that represent clients or pursue legal actions against the Trump administration.
March 6, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP
- Targets Perkins Coie for its representations in politically sensitive cases and for having attorneys who challenged the Trump administration’s policies.
  - Cancels federal contracts and revokes security clearances for all Perkins Coie attorneys.
● Perkins Coie promptly challenges the order in court, arguing that it is retaliatory and unconstitutional.

March 7, 2025 – Presidential Action: Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness
- Directs the Department of Education to reevaluate eligibility of certain organizations for Public Service Loan Forgiveness and exclude organizations engaging in activities “with a substantial[ly] illegal purpose.”
  - Provides examples of “illegal purpose” that include immigration work, free speech defense and support for the trans community.
March 11, 2025 – Executive Order: Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) – The White House
- Targets public interest organizations who challenge the administration and win by ordering the Department of Justice to seek massive security bonds, reversing long standing practice.
March 12, 2025 – Temporary Restraining Order in Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
- Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order in Perkins Coie’s favor, largely pausing enforcement against Perkins Coie while litigation proceeds.
March 14, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss
- Targets Paul Weiss for similar reasons as Perkins Coie—its attorneys have not shied away from litigating against Trump administration policies, and Paul Weiss employed an attorney who prosecuted Trump while a Manhattan ADA.
  - Federal contracts are canceled, and security clearances are revoked, punishing the firm for its legal positions.
March 17, 2025 – EEOC Acting Chair Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms
- The EEOC issues sweeping public letters to twenty law firms, demanding extensive data on diverse applicants and employees.
  - These letters, clearly sent to support the Trump administration’s retribution campaign against firms it disfavors, are without basis in the laws that the EEOC is charged to enforce.
  - As explained in a March 18, 2025, letter from several former EEOC Chairs, Commissioners, and Counsel, these letters violate longstanding EEOC policies and practices. They are not an honest attempt to enforce anti-discrimination laws but rather a transparent effort to bully and intimidate law firms into bowing to the administration.
  - The letters are widely regarded as inappropriate—indeed unlawful—and should be withdrawn.
March 21, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss
- In a dramatic reversal, Paul Weiss agrees to a host of concessions—including committing $40 million in pro bono work to causes favored by the President—in exchange for the lifting of the punitive order.
  - This capitulation highlights the Trump administration’s use of coercive loyalty tests to force compliance from law firms.
March 22, 2025 – Memorandum: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court
- Broadens the Trump administration’s retaliatory strategy by threatening any law firm or attorney that litigates against the Federal Government with the loss of security clearances and federal contracts.
  - Explicitly warns that the Trump administration will use Rule 11 sanctions to target any attorney or law firm that engages in “frivolous” litigation against the U.S., serving as a broad deterrent—even for legally meritorious challenges.
- Threatens to chill Big Law’s critical pro bono efforts, including immigration, election, pro-LGBTQ+, free speech and other public interest work, as well as support for non-profit organizations defending constitutional rights.
March 25, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block LLP
- Targets Jenner & Block by canceling contracts and suspending security clearances for its attorneys, continuing the pattern of targeting firms that have represented politically disfavored clients or challenged Trump administration actions in court.
March 27, 2025 – Executive Order: Addressing Risks from WilmerHale LLP
- The Trump administration issues a new executive order specifically targeting WilmerHale, citing the firm’s active role in representing clients and attorneys who have legally opposed Trump administration policies.
  - The order revokes security clearances and suspends federal contracts for WilmerHale attorneys involved in litigation against the Trump administration, reinforcing that firms challenging the President’s actions face severe repercussions.
March 28, 2025 – Jenner and Block Sues Administration for Unconstitutional Executive Order
- Jenner and Block sues the Trump administration for the unconstitutional executive order and filed a motion to enjoin the same.
March 28, 2025 – WilmerHale Sues Administration for Unconstitutional Executive Order
- WilmerHale sues the Trump administration for the unconstitutional executive order and filed a motion to enjoin the same.
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
- Entry of Temporary Restraining Orders in both Jenner and Wilmer’s favor, largely pausing enforcement against Perkins Coie while litigation proceeds.
March 28, 2025 – Skadden Arps Preemptively Caves to Trump Administration to Head Off Executive Order
- Prior to any publicly threatened or entered Executive Order, Skadden announces a deal with the Trump administration including a promised $100 million of pro bono hours to Trump’s preferred causes and donating Skadden Fellowship positions to Trump pet
projects. The Trump administration doesn’t even rescind the EEOC demand letter it sent to Skadden.

April 1, 2025 – Willkie Farr Preemptively Caves to Trump Administration to Head Off Executive Order
- Amidst rumors of an Executive Order, Willkie announces a deal with the Trump administration including $100 million worth of pro bono to Trump’s preferred causes.
April 2, 2025 – Milbank Preemptively Caves to Trump Administration to Head Off Executive Order
- Amidst rumors of an Executive Order, Milbank announces a deal with the Trump administration including $100 million worth of pro bono to Trump’s preferred causes.
Call to Action

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:
1. Leverage Our Collective Strength: Actions targeting law firms compound in strength the more law students stand up and choose to take them, especially when taken in conjunction with actions taken by Big Law associates. By coordinating on these actions we can demonstrate a widespread condemnation from the law school community, creating a shared impact that will encourage Big Law and other legal institutions to resist the Trump administration’s attacks. The firms and broader industry are not prepared for coordination across schools, public interest/private sector focused students and associates.
- Educate Our Peers and Connect with Mentors: Engage your peers as well as trusted professors and attorneys in conversation around these actions and their effects on the broader legal community. Provide peers with access to these and other resources that help them get informed and empower them to act. It is important that every law student, regardless of their career intentions, is fully informed about the legal climate they are entering. This is a pressure test and community-building exercise.
- Demand Our Schools Take a Stand: Challenge your deans and career services offices to make public statements and take decisive action condemning these intrusive administrative actions. Encourage them to leverage their voice and power in the legal community to reinforce positive action. This has worked before, and it can work again.
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.

Risk to Future Employment

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.

Why Are They Safe:,
- Largely Anonymous: These are actions a student can take without identifying themselves publicly on a larger stage. Therefore, while these actions will have impact, they will most likely not be traced back to any one law student. Thus from a recruitment perspective, there is no harm.
- Internal: Most of these actions are expressions of preference internally within your school or student organization instead of acts to frustrate or condemn law firms. Because these actions do not involve direct requests to law firms or ask you to publicly express a stance in your personal capacity, they should not harm your recruitment prospects.
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.

What Are The Risks:
- Publicity: These actions are not guaranteed to be anonymous and may actively involve identifying yourself to a firm, several firms, or the broader public. That creates a signaling risk (see below point).
- Anti-Big-Law Signaling: Big Law firms are largely only interested in the students who are earnestly interested in recruiting at their firms. These actions may publicly signal that you have no interest in Big Law, which could cause a recruiter at any firm to ignore your application.
What You Can Do—Low Risk Actions

These low risk actions are safe for all law students, regardless of whether you are a Big Law applicant or not.

Action Item 1: Pressure Deans to Make a Statement.
- Demand A Response: Reach out in person or via email to ask your Dean to sign on to or write a public letter condemning the actions of the administration. A list of Deans that have already done so is available here. You can point your Dean to this letter as an example and ask them to sign. If your Dean has already done so, thank them personally to let them know you have seen their letter and appreciate their action. A template email asking your Dean to sign is available for you to start from here.
- What Makes This Effective: Dean letters and statements add to the number of respected legal voices pushing against these actions. Having community support brings public awareness and supports law firm decision makers in actions of defiance including lawsuits. These statements also demonstrate to firms how the academic community they are hiring from views these actions, one indication of how schools may view them. Most of all, they are a pressure test for you to identify whether or not your Dean is a potential ally in this fight.
Action Item 2: Pressure Career Services Offices to Make a Statement and/or Bar Certain Firms from On-Campus Recruiting.
- Block Access to Key Firms: Ask your Office of Career Services to block Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie, Milbank and any future firms that capitulate to Trump from participation in formal campus recruitment activities at your school such as OCI or career fairs. A template email to send to career services is available for you to start from here. Encourage them to make public statements on the same, and/or pressure your Dean to sign on to statements.
- What Makes This Effective: Access to law school recruitment activity is vitally important to firms, especially if you go to a traditional target school. Getting your school to privately block access to these firms is an effective way to signal that the law school community disapproves of their actions and hurts both actual recruiting and general prestige. A public statement sends a signal to the broader legal community, providing a strong counter-incentive to capitulating, and spurs similar action from other schools.
Action Item 3: Refuse to Rank Target Firms
- Boycott Applications: If recruiting for Big Law, do not rank Paul Weiss, Willkie, Skadden or Milbank in your on-campus interviews and do not direct apply to these firms. If you have already applied and are in the pipeline at other firms, withdraw your application. If you are withdrawing you do not have to say why. Email templates are available here, with options featuring intentionally vague language or more explicit reasoning.
- What Makes This Effective: Refusing to apply hurts recruitment pipelines. If numbers drop significantly, this may also demonstrate to the industry that talented candidates are choosing competitor firms who have not capitulated to the government. Active withdrawals following problematic actions hammers this home. Most importantly, fewer serious applicants leaves room for public interest students to direct apply as outlined below.
Action Item 4: Student Organization Letters*
- Share Your Voice: Publish a letter from a student organization at your school defending the rule of law and/or condemning the actions of the current administration. An example statement for general student organizations is available here. This is especially effective from law-oriented student organizations (e.g. Student Bar Associations). An example SBA/student government resolution is available here.
- What Makes This Effective: A letter from an organization allows the students of that organization to be more anonymous, and can be written in various ways to minimize risk.
- *A Note on Risk: We are concerned about the outsize risks a letter from affinity organizations may pose to members of those organizations, who are more easily identified, as well as unaffiliated students who are likely to be assumed members. We’re loath to encourage students already targeted by the admin to put themselves at more risk. Ultimately, we leave this decision to students, but encourage non-affinity organizations to step up and engage here.
What You Can Do—High Risk Actions

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.

Action Item 5: Email Blast Big Law Hiring Teams
- Email Blast: Adjust this template as needed and email as many of the contacts in this file as you can, either individually or bcc’d, from your school account. The email asks Big Law firms how they plan to respond to the recent actions of the current administration, whether they are going to support opposition actions, and how they are protecting their
at-risk associates.
- What Makes This Effective: Big Law firms care about the attitudes of potential candidates towards their firms, and they also have limited resources to allocate to recruiting. An influx of emails from potential candidates asking these questions demonstrates students are paying attention to how firms are responding to these actions, and shows that many students want Big Law firms to fight back. It also frustrates the recruitment process by taking up time, making sure the impact of this action is felt in a way that matters.
- Tips if Recruiting Big Law: If you are recruiting Big Law, we do NOT recommend sending these to any firm that you plan to apply to now or in the next few years, as you are likely burning a bridge with that firm at least in the short term. If you want to do this, consider a focus on firms that do not have a presence in target cities.
Action Item 6: Hijack Recruitment
- Submit Form Applications: Using these resources to streamline the application process, direct apply to Skadden, Paul Weiss, Willkie and Milbank. These are the 4 firms that have actively capitulated to the current administration by entering into settlement agreements. Please edit templates to avoid filtering out if recruiting offices catch on.
- Interrogative Screeners: If you are invited to a screener interview with Skadden, Paul Weiss, Willkie and/or Milbank, pepper your interviewer with some of these questions about how the firm plans to respond to the recent actions of the current administration,
whether they are going to support opposition actions, and how they are protecting their at-risk associates. Then withdraw your application.
- What Makes This Effective: On a base level, applications clog the recruitment funnel and time they spend looking at your application hampers their overall recruitment for the cycle. Even better, if you get a screener and use your time to ask these probing questions, it creates visibility to the firm that law students are not happy with the actions of the firm. Currently, many associates at these firms are on silent strikes and refusing to recruit, meaning there is a high likelihood you will be speaking to a partner with power to pressure or condemn the firm decision makers. More than anything else, this is new, and it wastes firms’ times and forces them to take law students seriously.
- If Recruiting Big Law: Do not do this. Due to the close-knit nature of this industry there is potential that doing so may get you blacklisted at Big Law firms beyond the target firms. There are plenty of public interest focused students willing to take this on, and future public interest employers will find it anywhere from hilarious to badass. They can handle it.
A Note About Student Letters in This Context
- Do Not Sign Your Name: We recommend students avoid publishing letters condemning Big Law actions in their personal capacity until after taking all other actions in this toolkit. We understand that deans, professors, and organizations are publishing letters that we encourage. However, because of the position students occupy in the legal landscape, student letters signed by individuals are generally not effective. They also undercut your ability to engage in other actions, because if a recruiting department can
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.
- Why This Is Not Effective: Big Law firms see students as largely fungible, meaning that the individual impact of one student or even a group of students’ opinion without other action is not important to them. If your name is signed on to a letter that directly condemns Big Law actions, the industry is likely to see you as being broadly
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.

Your Actions Matter

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
Timeline of Trump and Big Law

April 16th, 2025
February 25, 2025
- The Trump administration (“Trump”) publishes an Executive Order (“EO”) to revoke security clearances for Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) based on potential national security risks.[1]
- Covington had provided legal services to Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had previously prosecuted Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and refusing to return classified material at Mar-A-Lago.
March 6, 2025
- Trump publishes an EO imposing sanctions on Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins”) based on national security reasons and discriminatory hiring practices under Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”).[2]
- Perkins worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and former lawyers hired Fusion GPS (a research and strategic intelligence firm for businesses and political) that led to the alleged collusion between Donald Trump and Russia.
March 11, 2025
- Perkins (represented by Williams & Connolly LLP) sues Trump arguing that (inter alia) the EO violates free speech, due process and other protections under the U.S. Constitution.
- The next day, judge Beryl Howell temporary blocked part of the EO against Perkins.
- Subsequently, over 500 law firms have filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins.
March 14, 2025
- Trump publishes an EO imposing sanctions on Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (“Paul Weiss” [the writer has comma intentionally omitted the comma in protest]) based on undermining judicial integrity through ideologically motivated pro bono work.[3]
- Former Paul Weiss attorney, Mark Pomerantz, previously worked with the Manhattan District Attorney on Trump’s hush money trial where he was convicted of committing 34 felonies.
March 17, 2025
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issues letters to 20 law firms requesting documentation on DEI employment practices; the inquiry was framed as part of a broader Trump agenda to curtail DEI in hiring.[4]
March 20, 2025
- Paul Weiss reaches a deal with Trump to lift the EO in exchange for $40 million of pro bono services and Paul Weiss would no longer pursue DEI policies.
March 22, 2025
- Trump publishes an EO for the DOJ to monitor and report law firms filing “frivolous” or “abusive” lawsuits against Donald Trump, which purportedly aims to deter politically motivated litigation.[5]
March 25, 2025
- Trump publishes an EO against Jenner & Block LLP (“Jenner”) to revoke security clearance based on national security.[6]
- Jenner previously employed Andrew Weissmann who aided in Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference in the 2016 election.
March 27, 2025[7]
- Trump publishes an EO against Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”) based on national security concerns.
- Wilmer hired Robert Mueller and his colleagues after his investigation of Russian election interference.
March 28, 2025[8]
- Jenner (represented by Cooley LLP) sues Trump arguing that (inter alia) the EO violates free speech, free association, due process, and the attorney-client relationship.
- Judge John Bates blocks part of the EO against Jenner.
- WilmerHale (represented by Paul Clement) sues Trump arguing that (inter alia) the EO violates the first amendment, the right to counsel and due process, and the separation of powers.
- Judge Richard Leon blocks part of the EO against WilmerHale.
- In response to the March 17 EEOC letter, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”) reaches a deal with Trump to lift the EO in exchange for $100 million of pro bono services and to no longer pursue DEI policies.
April 1, 2025
- In response to the March 17 EEOC letter, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (“Wilkie”) reaches a deal with Trump to lift the EO in exchange for $100 million of pro bono services and to no longer pursue DEI policies.
April 2, 2025
- In response to the March 17 EEOC letter, Milbank LLP (“Milbank”) reaches a deal with Trump to lift the EO in exchange for $100 million of pro bono services and to no longer pursue DEI policies.
April 9, 2025
- Trump publishes an EO against Susman Godfrey LLP (“Susman”) based on national security concerns.
- Susman represents Dominion Voting Systems in defamation lawsuits related to Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election.
April 11, 2025
- Susman (represented by Donald Verrilli) sues Trump arguing that (inter alia) the EO is unconstitutional.
- In response to the March 17 EEOC letters, Kirkland & Ellis (“Kirland”), Latham & Watkins (“Latham”), A&O Shearman (“A&O”), and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (“Simpson”) jointly agree to a deal with Trump to lift the EO in exchange for $125 million of pro bono services and to no longer pursue DEI policies. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (“Cadwalader”) enter into a similar deal for $100 million of pro bono services.
April 15, 2025
- Judge Loren AliKhan blocks part of the EO against WilmerHale.
April 23, 2025
- Trump announces that he will “sue” Perkins.
May 2, 2025
- Judge Beryl Howell tosses out Trump’s EO against Perkins.
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
The Transformative Power of Being a Mentor in Big Law

July 31st, 2024

In the high-pressure world of Big Law, where billable hours often reign supreme and career advancement can seem like a solitary pursuit, the value of mentorship is frequently overlooked or underestimated. However, as revealed by the experiences shared in these interview notes, mentoring can be a transformative force not only for individual careers but also for the culture and success of law firms as a whole. This blog post explores the multifaceted benefits of mentorship in Big Law, challenges the prevailing wisdom that prioritizes billable work above all else, and examines how embracing mentorship can lead to more fulfilling and successful legal careers.

The Conventional Wisdom and Its Flaws

Traditionally, young associates in Big Law firms have been advised to focus exclusively on billable work, avoiding administrative tasks and mentorship roles that might detract from their billable hours. This advice stems from a narrow view of career advancement that equates success with the quantity of billable hours logged. However, as our interviewee’s experience demonstrates, this perspective fails to account for the numerous intangible benefits that mentorship can bring to both the mentor and the mentee.

The prevailing “prioritize billable hours over everything else” mentality not only limits personal growth but also perpetuates a culture of individualism that can be detrimental to firm cohesion and long-term success. By challenging this conventional wisdom, associates who embrace mentorship roles are not only enhancing their own careers but also contributing to a more collaborative and supportive work environment.

The Multifaceted Benefits of Mentorship

Skill Enhancement for Mentors

One of the most significant benefits of mentorship for the mentor is the enhancement of their own skills. As our interviewee noted, explaining complex legal and business concepts to juniors helped hone their communication skills, particularly in translating technical information into clear, understandable terms. This ability to effectively communicate complex ideas is invaluable in client interactions and has been recognized and appreciated by partners.

Reputation Building

By investing time in mentoring juniors, associates can build a reputation as a desirable colleague to work with. This reputation can lead to prioritized work from juniors and mid-level associates, who are likely to put extra effort into assignments for a supportive and helpful senior. Such a reputation can also extend to partners, who may view mentors as potential future leaders within the firm.

Leadership Development

Partners often view associates who take on mentorship roles as demonstrating leadership potential. This perception can be crucial for career advancement, particularly when considering promotion to partnership. Contrary to common belief, becoming a partner isn’t solely about bringing in business; it’s also about being someone partners trust to lead the firm and manage client relationships.

Enhanced Team Management

Through mentoring, associates gain valuable insights into the strengths, weaknesses, and motivations of their junior colleagues. This understanding allows for more effective team management, enabling mentors to assign tasks more efficiently and provide tailored support to each team member.

Networking and Relationship Building

Mentorship creates opportunities for building strong relationships within the firm. These relationships can evolve into close friendships, creating a more enjoyable work environment and potentially leading to long-term professional connections.

Positive Reputation Spread

Junior associates often speak highly of their mentors to others in the firm, which can enhance the mentor’s reputation beyond their immediate circle. This word-of-mouth promotion can be invaluable for career advancement and recognition within the firm.

Personal Fulfillment

Perhaps one of the most underrated benefits of mentorship is the personal satisfaction it brings. Watching mentees grow, develop confidence, and succeed in their careers can be incredibly rewarding, providing a sense of purpose beyond individual achievements.

Reciprocal Support

Mentors often find that their mentees are eager to support them when needed, whether by covering work during busy periods or accommodating personal needs. This reciprocal support creates a strong network of allies within the firm.

Challenges and Considerations

While the benefits of mentorship are numerous, it’s important to acknowledge the challenges that come with taking on this role:

Time Management

Mentoring requires a significant time investment, often leading to longer work hours to compensate for time spent with mentees. This can be particularly challenging in a profession already known for its demanding schedule.

Potential for Disappointment

Not all mentoring relationships will be successful or long-lasting. Some mentees may leave the firm or fail to reciprocate the mentor’s efforts, which can be demoralizing.

Lack of Immediate Recognition

The benefits of mentorship often accrue over time and may not be immediately apparent or recognized by firm leadership, particularly in environments that prioritize billable hours.

Uneven Distribution of Mentoring Responsibilities

Some associates may find themselves shouldering a disproportionate amount of mentoring work, while others avoid it entirely. This imbalance can lead to frustration, especially if those who avoid mentoring still benefit from the improved skills of mentored juniors.

The Broader Impact on Firm Culture

Beyond individual benefits, embracing mentorship can have a profound impact on overall firm culture:

Improved Retention

Strong mentorship programs can increase associate retention by creating a more supportive work environment and helping juniors navigate the challenges of Big Law.

Enhanced Skill Development

Firms with robust mentoring cultures tend to develop more well-rounded associates with better communication and leadership skills.

Stronger Firm Cohesion

Mentorship fosters connections across different levels of the firm, creating a more cohesive and collaborative work environment.

Diversity and Inclusion

Mentorship is particularly crucial for women, minorities, and first-generation attorneys, who may face additional challenges in navigating Big Law environments. Strong mentorship programs can help create a more inclusive workplace.

Long-term Firm Success

By developing future leaders through mentorship, firms invest in their long-term success and continuity.

Implementing Effective Mentorship Programs

To maximize the benefits of mentorship, firms should consider the following strategies:

Formal Mentorship Programs

Establish structured mentorship programs that pair junior associates with both senior associates and partners.

Recognition and Incentives

Create systems to recognize and reward effective mentoring, potentially including mentorship efforts in performance evaluations and partnership considerations.

Time Allocation

Acknowledge the time investment required for mentoring by providing billable hour credit or adjusting workload expectations for active mentors.

Diverse Mentorship Opportunities

Offer various types of mentoring, including general career guidance, specialized skill development (e.g., writing mentors), and identity-based mentoring for diverse associates.

Training for Mentors

Provide training and resources to help associates develop effective mentoring skills.

Regular Evaluation

Continuously assess and refine mentorship programs based on feedback from both mentors and mentees.

The Future of Mentorship in Big Law

As the legal profession evolves, the importance of mentorship is likely to grow. Future trends may include:

Technology-Enhanced Mentoring

Utilizing digital platforms to facilitate mentoring relationships and track progress.

Cross-Firm Mentoring Networks

Exploring mentorship opportunities beyond individual firms to provide broader perspectives and experiences.

Integration with Well-being Initiatives

Incorporating mentorship into broader well-being programs to support associate mental health and work-life balance.

Client Involvement

Engaging clients in mentorship programs to provide associates with broader industry perspectives and networking opportunities.

Conclusion

The experiences shared in these interview notes highlight the transformative power of mentorship in Big Law. Far from being a distraction from billable work, mentorship can be a catalyst for personal growth, career advancement, and firm success. By challenging the narrow focus on billable hours and embracing a culture of mentorship, associates and firms alike can create a more fulfilling, productive, and sustainable legal profession.

As our interviewee wisely concluded, “Mentor the sh*t out of those juniors!” This enthusiastic endorsement of mentorship reflects a growing recognition of its value. While the challenges of time management and potential disappointments are real, the benefits – both tangible and intangible – far outweigh the costs.

For individual associates, mentorship offers a path to developing crucial skills, building a strong professional network, and finding greater satisfaction in their work. For firms, it presents an opportunity to nurture talent, improve retention, and cultivate the next generation of leaders.

As the legal profession continues to evolve, those who recognize and harness the power of mentorship will be better positioned to thrive in an increasingly complex and competitive landscape. By investing in mentorship, Big Law firms can create a more collaborative, supportive, and ultimately successful environment for all their members.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and in the world of Big Law, that step might just be grabbing a coffee with a junior associate and offering guidance, support, and encouragement. In doing so, mentors not only shape individual careers but also contribute to the broader transformation of the legal profession into a more nurturing and fulfilling field for all who choose to pursue it.
Substance Abuse in Big Law: Unveiling the Hidden Crisis

July 30th, 2024

The world of big law is often portrayed as a realm of prestige, high salaries, and intellectual challenge. However, beneath the surface of polished boardrooms and meticulously crafted legal documents lies a darker reality that is rarely discussed openly: the prevalence of substance abuse among attorneys. This essay delves into the complex and often hidden issue of drug and alcohol abuse in big law firms, exploring its causes, manifestations, and impact on both individual lawyers and the legal profession as a whole.

Drawing from candid discussions and anonymous accounts, we will examine the factors that contribute to substance abuse in this high-pressure environment, the various forms it takes, and the challenges in addressing the problem. By shedding light on this rarely discussed aspect of legal careers, we aim to foster a more open dialogue about mental health and well-being in the legal profession and explore potential solutions to this pervasive issue.

The Myth vs. Reality of Substance Abuse in Big Law

There’s a common perception that substance abuse is rampant in big law firms, conjuring images of hard-partying lawyers indulging in cocaine-fueled all-nighters to meet impossible deadlines. However, the reality is far more nuanced and, in many ways, more insidious. As one lawyer humorously noted, “I was told substance abuse was rampant in biglaw. But judging from my office, I guess attorneys are actually addicted to raising traditional nuclear families in the suburbs?”

This observation highlights an important point: the stereotypical image of drug abuse in big law often doesn’t match the day-to-day reality in most firms. The era of openly indulging in hard drugs in the office, reminiscent of 1980s Wall Street, is largely a thing of the past. As one commenter pointed out, “No one is going to casually mention shooting up or doing lines to a co-worker. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.”

Indeed, the nature of substance abuse in big law has evolved. It’s become more hidden, more subtle, and often intertwined with prescription medications and socially acceptable substances like alcohol. This shift makes the problem harder to detect and, consequently, more challenging to address.

The Perfect Storm: Factors Contributing to Substance Abuse

Several factors converge to create an environment in big law that is particularly conducive to substance abuse:

Intense Workload and Pressure

The demanding nature of big law practice is well-documented. Lawyers often work incredibly long hours, facing constant pressure to meet deadlines, deliver exceptional work, and climb the career ladder. This relentless grind can lead to burnout, exhaustion, and a desperate search for coping mechanisms.

As one lawyer candidly shared, “When work weeks are seven days long and your only me time is taking a shower and going to the toilet, I understand now. Energy drinks are my jam right now and that is sufficient, but I know it’s not healthy. There is really something wrong with the profession’s expectations.”

This experience highlights how the intense workload can push lawyers towards substance use, even if it starts with seemingly innocuous choices like excessive caffeine consumption.

High-Achiever Culture

The legal profession, particularly in big law, attracts high-achievers who are accustomed to excelling in everything they do. This perfectionist mindset, while beneficial in many ways, can also create intense pressure and anxiety. When faced with the realities of big law practice, where perfection is often unattainable due to time constraints and the sheer volume of work, some lawyers may turn to substances to maintain their perceived edge or cope with feelings of inadequacy.

Accessibility and Normalization

Certain substances are easily accessible to lawyers, either through prescription or social channels. For instance, medications like Adderall, often prescribed for ADHD, are sometimes misused by lawyers seeking to enhance focus and productivity. As one lawyer observed, “I would be shocked if there isn’t at least one person in your Big Law orbit with an Adderall problem.”

Moreover, the social culture in many firms can normalize excessive alcohol consumption. Client dinners, networking events, and office celebrations often revolve around drinking, making it easy for problematic alcohol use to fly under the radar.

Stigma and Fear of Career Repercussions

Perhaps one of the most significant factors contributing to the persistence of substance abuse in big law is the stigma surrounding mental health issues and addiction. Lawyers may fear that seeking help will be seen as a sign of weakness or inability to handle the pressures of the job, potentially jeopardizing their career prospects.

This fear can lead to a dangerous cycle where lawyers suffer in silence, allowing their substance use to escalate unchecked. As one commenter noted, “If they made it to biglaw abusing drugs, then chances are they’re pretty good at keeping it under wraps.”

The Many Faces of Substance Abuse in Big Law

Substance abuse in big law takes various forms, some more visible than others. Understanding these different manifestations is crucial for identifying and addressing the problem:

Alcohol Abuse

Alcohol remains the most commonly abused substance in the legal profession. Its social acceptability and prevalence in professional settings make it easy for problematic drinking to go unnoticed or be dismissed as “normal” behavior. As one lawyer with 15 years of experience in BigLaw noted, “Alcohol was rampant.”

Prescription Drug Misuse

The misuse of prescription medications, particularly stimulants like Adderall and anti-anxiety medications like Xanax, is a growing concern. These drugs are often seen as “performance enhancers” or stress relievers, blurring the line between medical use and abuse.

One lawyer shared a concerning anecdote about a colleague: “We also had an associate with what I considered to be an Adderall problem. I was pretty good friends with this associate and he told me more than once that he didn’t have the stamina to do the work without it. There was more than one morning when he had pulled an all-nighter and was excitedly talking about how focused he was.”

Illicit Drug Use

While perhaps less common or at least less visible than alcohol or prescription drug abuse, the use of illicit drugs like cocaine does occur in big law settings. However, it’s typically much more discreet than in previous decades. As one commenter noted, “a lot of lawyers have gotten good at not walking around with powder on their noses.”

Marijuana Use

With the increasing legalization and social acceptance of marijuana, its use among lawyers has become more commonplace. While less harmful than many other substances, regular marijuana use can still impact cognitive function and job performance.

Poly-substance Abuse

It’s not uncommon for individuals struggling with substance abuse to use multiple substances, either simultaneously or alternating between them. This can make identification and treatment more complex.

Identifying the Signs: A Hidden Problem

One of the challenges in addressing substance abuse in big law is that it often goes undetected. However, there are subtle signs that colleagues and supervisors can look out for:

Changes in Work Patterns

Substance abuse can manifest in erratic work patterns. This might include sudden bursts of productivity followed by periods of decreased output, missed deadlines, or a decline in the quality of work.

Behavioral Changes

A former nurse turned lawyer provided insightful observations on behavioral changes that might indicate substance use:

“A big one is speech patterns. You can notice when someone suddenly speaks faster and sometimes a little erratically. I’ve got one coworker who sometimes speaks a bit faster, but he also interjects to laugh at his own jokes and keeps speaking without a pause.”

“Another one is focus. The average person gets up from their desk every hour or at least looks around or stretches or glances at their phone. If you office next to someone or have offices with windows, sometimes you’ll notice these folks will not look away from their computers for hours, and they won’t be distracted by hallway conversations or noises.”

Physical Signs

While many lawyers have become adept at hiding physical signs of substance use, some indicators might still be noticeable:

“Then obviously, you have the more obvious telltales (pupils stuttering, pinpoint, sniffing, nasal spray use, etc), but a lot of lawyers have gotten good at not walking around with powder on their noses lol. It’s the behavioral ones I notice most.”

Withdrawal from Social Interactions

Lawyers struggling with substance abuse may withdraw from social interactions with colleagues, avoiding lunches, after-work gatherings, or other social events.

Frequent “Sick Days” or Unexplained Absences

While the demanding nature of big law can make it difficult to discern patterns, frequent absences or a pattern of calling in sick, particularly after weekends or firm social events, may be a red flag.

The Impact of Substance Abuse in Big Law

The consequences of substance abuse in the legal profession are far-reaching, affecting not only the individuals struggling with addiction but also their colleagues, clients, and the broader legal system:

Impaired Professional Performance

Substance abuse can significantly impact a lawyer’s ability to perform their duties effectively. This may manifest as decreased productivity, errors in legal work, missed deadlines, or poor client interactions.

Ethical Violations and Malpractice

Impaired judgment due to substance abuse can lead to ethical lapses, potentially resulting in malpractice claims, disciplinary actions, or even disbarment. The legal profession’s high ethical standards make substance abuse particularly dangerous in this context.

Personal and Professional Relationships

Addiction can strain relationships both in and out of the office. Colleagues may find themselves covering for an impaired lawyer, leading to resentment and decreased morale. Personal relationships often suffer as well, with substance abuse taking a toll on families and friendships.

Mental and Physical Health

The toll of substance abuse on an individual’s mental and physical health can be severe. The high-stress environment of big law, combined with substance abuse, can exacerbate existing mental health issues or lead to new ones.

Addressing the Crisis: Challenges and Solutions

Tackling the issue of substance abuse in big law is complex, requiring a multi-faceted approach that addresses both individual needs and systemic issues:

Destigmatizing Mental Health and Addiction

One of the most crucial steps is breaking down the stigma surrounding mental health issues and addiction in the legal profession. This involves creating a culture where seeking help is seen as a sign of strength rather than weakness. Firms can lead by example, encouraging open discussions about mental health and implementing policies that support employees in seeking help without fear of career repercussions.

Comprehensive Wellness Programs

Law firms should implement robust wellness programs that go beyond surface-level initiatives. These programs should include confidential counseling services, substance abuse resources, and education on stress management and healthy coping mechanisms. Providing access to mental health professionals who understand the unique pressures of the legal profession can make a significant difference.

Addressing Systemic Issues

The legal profession needs to grapple with the systemic issues that contribute to substance abuse, including unrealistic billable hour requirements, lack of work-life balance, and intense competition. While these are deeply ingrained aspects of big law culture, addressing them is crucial for long-term change. Firms could consider reevaluating performance metrics, promoting flexible work arrangements, and fostering a more supportive and collaborative work environment.

Peer Support Networks

Creating peer support networks within firms or the broader legal community can provide a safe space for lawyers to discuss their struggles and seek advice from others who have faced similar challenges. These networks can offer camaraderie, understanding, and practical advice, helping individuals feel less isolated in their experiences.

Mandatory Education and Training

Implementing mandatory education on substance abuse and mental health for all lawyers, from new associates to senior partners, can help raise awareness and provide tools for identifying and addressing these issues. Regular training sessions can keep mental health and substance abuse awareness at the forefront of firm culture.

Rethinking Work Structures

Exploring alternative work structures, such as flexible hours or remote work options, can help alleviate some of the pressure that drives lawyers towards substance abuse. By providing more control over their schedules, lawyers can better manage their workloads and personal lives, reducing the need for unhealthy coping mechanisms.

Ethical Guidelines and Reporting Mechanisms

Bar associations and law firms should develop clear ethical guidelines for addressing substance abuse among colleagues, including confidential reporting mechanisms and support for those who come forward. Creating an environment where lawyers feel safe to report concerns can help identify issues early and provide the necessary support before problems escalate.

Conclusion

The issue of substance abuse in big law is a complex and multifaceted problem that defies simple solutions. It’s a hidden crisis that lurks beneath the surface of an outwardly successful and prestigious profession, affecting individuals, firms, and the legal system as a whole.

Addressing this issue requires a collective effort from individual lawyers, law firms, bar associations, and the broader legal community. It demands a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the culture and practices of big law, and a commitment to creating environments that prioritize mental health and well-being alongside professional success.

By fostering open dialogue, implementing comprehensive support systems, and challenging the systemic issues that contribute to substance abuse, the legal profession can work towards a future where lawyers can thrive both personally and professionally without resorting to harmful coping mechanisms.

The path forward is challenging, but the stakes are too high to ignore. The health, well-being, and integrity of the legal profession depend on confronting this hidden crisis head-on. Only by acknowledging the problem and taking concrete steps to address it can big law firms truly live up to their potential as bastions of excellence and ethical practice in the legal world. By embracing these challenges, the legal profession can transform itself into a healthier, more supportive environment for its practitioners, ensuring long-term success and sustainability.
Navigating Termination in Big Law: Insights and Paths Forward

July 30th, 2024
The world of big law is often seen as a realm of prestige, high salaries, and career success. However, beneath the surface lies a high-pressure environment where even the most talented attorneys can face unexpected challenges and setbacks. This essay explores the often-overlooked reality of termination in big law firms, examining the psychological impact, practical considerations, and potential paths forward for those who find themselves suddenly unemployed in this competitive field.

Drawing from personal experiences and insights shared by attorneys who have faced termination, we will delve into the emotional toll of losing a prestigious position, the practical steps to take in the aftermath, and the valuable lessons that can be learned from such a difficult experience. By shedding light on this rarely discussed aspect of legal careers, we aim to provide support, guidance, and hope to those navigating similar challenges in their professional lives.

The Shock of Termination

For many attorneys working in big law firms, the news of termination comes as a profound shock, even if there were subtle signs of trouble on the horizon. One attorney described the experience as “one of the scariest and hardest days of my life,” highlighting the intense emotional impact of losing a position in a highly competitive and prestigious environment.

The initial reaction to termination often involves a complex mix of emotions, including disbelief, fear, shame, and anxiety. As one attorney shared, “I’m currently curled in a ball laying in bed just trying not to have a panic attack.” This visceral response underscores the deep psychological impact of job loss, particularly in a field where professional identity is often closely tied to one’s position and firm.

The fear of an uncertain future can be overwhelming, as evidenced by the concern: “I’m so scared I won’t be able to find another job.” This anxiety is compounded by the pressure to maintain a certain lifestyle and meet financial obligations, which are often significant for those in big law careers.

Moreover, the shame and embarrassment associated with termination can be paralyzing. Many attorneys struggle with the prospect of sharing the news with family, friends, and colleagues, fearing judgment and a loss of status. As one individual expressed, “The feeling of shame and failure is all-encompassing right now, and I feel so, so alone.”

Understanding the Reasons

While the emotional impact of termination can be overwhelming, it’s crucial to step back and analyze the reasons behind the decision. In the case shared, the attorney recognized that there were signs of trouble: “I guess I saw the writing on the walls, was getting iced out.” This self-awareness is an important first step in processing the situation and moving forward.

Common reasons for termination in big law firms include performance issues, economic downturns, firm restructuring, or a misalignment between an attorney’s skills and interests and the firm’s needs. In this particular case, the attorney noted, “I was in a group where I loved the people but truly did not click with the subject matter, and it was lowkey destroying my mental health, which I’m sure was reflected in the quality of my work.”

It’s important to recognize that termination is not always a reflection of an attorney’s overall capabilities or potential. As one commenter pointed out, “If you were bright enough and good enough to get a job there, you’re bright enough and good enough to get a job at a lot of other places where you might feel like you fit in more.” This perspective helps to reframe the situation as an opportunity for growth and finding a better fit, rather than a definitive judgment on one’s abilities.

The Aftermath: Practical Steps

After the initial shock of termination, it’s crucial to take practical steps to secure one’s financial and professional future. Here are some key actions to consider:
1. Review severance packages and benefits: Understand the terms of any severance offered and ensure all entitled benefits are received.
2. Apply for unemployment benefits: As one commenter advised, “Do apply for unemployment and COBRA health insurance extension.”
3. Financial planning: Assess your financial situation and create a budget to determine how long you can sustain yourself while job searching.
4. Update your resume and professional materials: Reflect on your experiences and accomplishments to present yourself effectively to potential employers.
5. Network and seek support: Reach out to colleagues, mentors, and friends in the legal industry for advice and potential opportunities.
6. Consider working with a recruiter: Many commenters suggested engaging with recruiters who specialize in legal placements.
7. Explore various career options: Look beyond big law firms to consider smaller firms, in-house positions, government roles, or even alternative careers that leverage legal skills.
One commenter provided a structured approach: “Give yourself the time you need to properly grieve, and then I’d suggest contacting a recruiter. There are tons of opportunities out there, and just because this one might not have been the right one doesn’t mean there aren’t others that may end up being perfect for you.”

Emotional Well-being and Self-Care

While addressing practical concerns is essential, it’s equally important to prioritize emotional well-being and mental health during this challenging time. The psychological impact of job loss can be significant, and taking care of oneself is crucial for bouncing back and moving forward effectively.

Several commenters emphasized the importance of allowing time to process emotions and engage in self-care activities. One advised, “Take a day to work through it, call a friend, go for a walk, do something you enjoy, etc. Losing a job can impact the same way as a death of a loved one, so don’t overlook your own mental health.”

Another suggested, “Take a couple days to relax – do something fun, stay in your PJs and play video games/watch movies all day, take your dog for a walk, go for a hike, get shitty drunk at noon, whatever works for you.”

These recommendations highlight the importance of giving oneself permission to grieve and process the loss before jumping into job search activities. Engaging in activities that bring joy, relaxation, or a sense of accomplishment can help rebuild confidence and maintain a positive outlook during a challenging time.

Additionally, seeking professional support through therapy or counseling can be beneficial for those struggling with anxiety, depression, or self-doubt in the wake of termination. Many law firms offer outplacement services that include career counseling, which can be valuable for both emotional support and practical guidance.

Reframing the Experience and Moving Forward

One of the most challenging aspects of termination is overcoming the sense of shame and failure that often accompanies it. However, reframing the experience can be a powerful tool for moving forward and finding new opportunities.

Several commenters emphasized the importance of perspective. One noted, “Getting fired is a part of life. If you’ve never been fired, you’ve never tried.” This viewpoint helps to normalize the experience and frame it as a natural part of professional growth and risk-taking.

Another insightful comment pointed out, “Really, getting fired is a failure on both parts – your employer should have either helped you get into something that you could be successful at or worked with you to off-board in a more productive way.” This perspective shifts some of the responsibility back to the employer and recognizes that termination is not always solely the result of an individual’s shortcomings.

Reframing the experience also involves recognizing the potential for growth and new opportunities. As one commenter shared from personal experience, “Twenty years ago, I was you, only a 3rd year in the Corporate Tax section. I was so devastated and freaked out I actually listened to other, wiser colleagues and wound up getting a job at a boutique family law firm… and I just love it, like am a complete nerd about it in the best way and have been more successful than I EVER would have been if I’d stayed in the ‘right job’ I had out of law school.”

This anecdote illustrates how termination can sometimes lead to unexpected career paths that ultimately prove more fulfilling and successful than the original trajectory. It encourages openness to new possibilities and a willingness to explore areas of law or career paths that may not have been previously considered.

Lessons Learned and Future Outlook

Reflecting on the experience of termination and identifying lessons learned is a crucial step in personal and professional growth. Some key takeaways from the shared experiences include:
1. The importance of finding work that aligns with one’s interests and strengths: As the terminated attorney noted, working in an area that didn’t resonate with them ultimately affected their performance and well-being.
2. Recognizing and addressing challenges early: Being proactive about addressing performance issues or seeking a better fit within a firm or practice area can potentially prevent termination or lead to a more positive transition.
3. The value of resilience and adaptability: The legal profession, particularly in big law, can be unpredictable. Developing resilience and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances is crucial for long-term success.
4. The power of networking and maintaining professional relationships: Many commenters emphasized the importance of networking and leveraging professional connections when seeking new opportunities.
5. The potential for personal growth through adversity: While challenging, the experience of termination can lead to valuable self-reflection and personal development.
Looking to the future, it’s important to remember that a single setback does not define one’s entire career. As one commenter noted, “I know folks who were fired/laid off from one place and went on to become partners, senior counsel, or go in-house elsewhere with time. This is a stumbling block, but it will not define your career or your potential.”

For those considering their next steps, it’s worth exploring various options within and outside of traditional legal practice. This might include:
1. Moving to a different size or type of law firm
2. Exploring in-house counsel positions
3. Considering government or public interest law
4. Investigating alternative legal careers or JD-advantaged positions
5. Entrepreneurship or solo practice
The key is to remain open to possibilities.
You Deserve to be in Big Law: Insights for Early-Career Attorneys

July 24th, 2024
As a legal professional who has spent years researching the dynamics of large law firms, I recently had the opportunity to speak with several early-career attorneys about their experiences in Big Law. Their candid insights reveal both the pressures and potential strategies for success in this high-stakes environment. Here’s what I learned:

The Pressure Cooker of Big Law

One second-year associate shared a heartbreaking story of being essentially blacklisted by a partner for a mistake on a non-billable assignment. This highlights the intense pressure and sometimes unforgiving nature of Big Law culture.

Key Takeaways:
- Mistakes Can Have Outsized Consequences: Even minor errors can impact your reputation and career trajectory significantly.
- The Emphasis on Billable Hours: The constant pressure to meet high billable hour requirements adds to the stress for new associates.
- The Emotional Toll: The fear of failure and the high stakes can take a significant emotional toll on attorneys.
Strategies for Survival and Success

Despite these challenges, several attorneys offered valuable advice for navigating the Big Law landscape:

1. Seek Mentorship

While not all partners are willing to mentor, finding a supportive senior attorney can be crucial for professional development. A good mentor can provide guidance, support, and advocacy within the firm.

2. Focus on Attention to Detail

Develop systems to double-check work, such as printing documents for review rather than relying solely on screen-based proofreading. Meticulousness can help prevent errors that could have significant consequences.

3. Communicate Proactively

After making a mistake, follow up with partners to explain how you plan to prevent similar errors in the future. Taking ownership and showing a commitment to improvement can help rebuild trust.

4. Understand the Political Landscape

Reading resources like “Games Mother Never Taught You: Corporate Gamesmanship for Women” can provide insight into office politics, especially for women and minorities. Being aware of the firm’s dynamics can help you navigate them more effectively.

5. Consider Lateral Moves

If a firm’s culture is toxic, moving to a different firm can offer a fresh start and potentially better mentorship opportunities. Don’t hesitate to seek a more supportive environment if necessary.

The Bigger Picture

It’s important to remember that Big Law experiences aren’t universal. Several attorneys with decades of experience shared that mistakes are a normal part of the learning process. The key is finding an environment that supports growth rather than punishes imperfection.

Research Insights

Research has shown that supportive work environments lead to better job satisfaction and performance. A study published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior found that perceived organizational support significantly impacts employee commitment and job performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Looking Beyond Big Law

For some, the pressures of Big Law may ultimately prove unsustainable. Many attorneys reported finding greater job satisfaction and work-life balance in other legal settings, such as mid-size firms, in-house positions, or government roles.

Industry Trends

A 2021 survey by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) found that associate attrition rates in large law firms reached 23.2% in 2021, highlighting the challenges of retention in this high-pressure environment.

Conclusion

While Big Law offers prestige and high salaries, it also comes with unique challenges, especially for early-career attorneys. Success in this environment requires not only legal acumen but also political savvy, resilience, and a support network. For those struggling, it’s important to remember that there are multiple paths to a fulfilling legal career, both within and outside of Big Law.

By understanding these dynamics and employing strategic approaches to professional development, early-career attorneys can better navigate the complexities of Big Law and make informed decisions about their long-term career paths.
Big Law, Free Speech, and Israel-Palestine Complexity

July 23rd, 2024

“As a Palestinian, I’m deeply affected by the ongoing conflict, even though my immediate family is in the West Bank rather than Gaza. Many of my friends have loved ones in Gaza, and the situation is heartbreaking.

I want to speak up for a ceasefire and for humanitarian aid to reach Gaza. Most Palestinians are just ordinary people who don’t deserve to be caught in this violence. The widespread destruction feels like collective punishment, and it’s devastating to witness. While I absolutely condemn Hamas’s actions against Israeli civilians and hostage-taking, and stand firmly against antisemitism, I also believe the scale of Palestinian suffering is immense and often overlooked.

These aren’t just statistics; they’re real people with hopes and dreams, just like anyone else.

What’s also painful is feeling like I can’t express these thoughts at work or in many spaces without risking being labeled as extremist, when really all I want is for the violence to stop on all sides. The legal field’s stance often feels one-sided, and that hurts.

I’m losing sleep, haunted by images I’ve seen. I just want people to understand that Palestinians are human beings deserving of safety and dignity too. I wish there was a way to have these conversations without fear, and to work towards a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace.” -Big Law Associate

The Israel-Palestine conflict has reignited global discussions about human rights, warfare, and geopolitics. However, within the halls of Big Law firms, a troubling trend has emerged: the suppression of nuanced dialogue and the fear of expressing certain viewpoints.

The One-Sided Debate

Many law firms have issued unequivocally pro-Israel statements, often neglecting to mention the humanitarian crisis affecting Palestinians. This one-sided approach has left many employees feeling silenced and unable to voice their concerns or offer alternative perspectives. This lack of balance in addressing the conflict reflects a broader issue within the legal industry, where the complexity of global events is often oversimplified.

The Irony of Diversity Claims

Big Law firms often pride themselves on their commitment to diversity. Yet, when it comes to complex geopolitical issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict, there seems to be little room for diverse opinions. This contradiction has left many questioning the authenticity of these firms’ diversity initiatives. For an industry that champions diversity in race, gender, and sexual orientation, the exclusion of diverse political and ideological perspectives is particularly glaring.

The Risk of Speaking Out

Employees, particularly those with personal connections to the conflict, find themselves in a precarious position. The fear of being labeled antisemitic for expressing concern about Palestinian civilians has created a chilling effect on free speech. This atmosphere of fear is reminiscent of post-9/11 America, where dissenting voices were often silenced or marginalized. The stakes are high: reputational damage, professional setbacks, and social ostracism are real consequences for those who dare to deviate from the dominant narrative.

The Need for Nuance

The complexity of the Israel-Palestine conflict demands nuanced discussion. However, the current climate in many law firms seems to discourage critical thinking and open dialogue. This lack of nuance not only stifles important conversations but also hinders the development of comprehensive understanding among legal professionals. In an environment where legal minds are trained to consider all angles, the suppression of such discourse is a disservice to the profession and its values.

Moving Forward

While the current situation is disheartening, there is a growing recognition of the need for change. Some employees are cautiously pushing back against the expected silence, recognizing that solidarity and collective action are crucial for fostering a more open and inclusive work environment. Initiatives like internal discussion forums, anonymous surveys, and third-party mediation can help create safer spaces for dialogue.

Conclusion

The legal profession, which should be at the forefront of protecting free speech and promoting justice, finds itself grappling with internal censorship and fear. As we move forward, it’s crucial that Big Law firms create spaces for respectful, nuanced discussions about complex global issues, living up to their claims of valuing diversity in all its forms – including diversity of thought and experience. By fostering an environment where all voices can be heard, Big Law firms can truly embody the principles of justice and equality they uphold in their practice.
Big Law Survival Guide: Toxic Culture

July 15th, 2024

Big Law firms operate on a complex business model that has evolved over decades to maximize profitability while meeting the demands of high-stakes corporate clients. Unfortunately this means many sleepless nights for associates. At its core, this model is built on a foundation of high-pressure work environments, military-like hierarchies, and a unique economic structure that shapes the daily lives of thousands of worker drones being paid two hundred grand fresh out of school.

Big Law firms typically employ a pyramid-like structure consisting of junior associates, mid-level associates, senior associates, and partners. This hierarchy isn’t just about billing rates; it’s a carefully crafted ecosystem that drives the firm’s entire business model. The billing structure, while designed to maximize revenue, also serves to obscure the true source of value. Partners, with their wealth of experience and expertise, provide the highest value to clients. However, directly billing clients at extreme hourly rates for partner time would be unpalatable. Instead, firms use a distribution of labor:

1. Junior associates, often bright-eyed law school graduates, perform much of the grunt work at lower (but still substantial) hourly rates.

2. Mid-level and senior associates, having survived the initial years, bill at higher rates and handle more complex tasks.

3. Partners oversee and provide high-level expertise, their time rationed like a precious commodity.

This structure allows firms to distribute costs and maintain high overall billings while presenting a more palatable fee structure to clients. It’s a delicate balancing act that has proven highly profitable over the years.

A key feature of the Big Law business model is the notorious “up or out” policy. This system, which typically gives associates an 8-10 year window to make partner, serves multiple purposes:

1. It creates constant competition, theoretically driving productivity to fever-pitch levels.

2. It ensures a steady influx of new talent at the bottom of the pyramid, keeping labor costs manageable.

3. It limits the number of highly-paid, non-partner attorneys at the firm, preserving the allure of partnership.

4. It creates a natural exit point for those who don’t make partner, helping to manage long-term costs.

High attrition rates are not just expected; they’re built into the firms’ financial and staffing models. This Darwinian approach to career progression creates a pressure-cooker environment that shapes the very culture of big law.

Only the strong survive. And by “strong”, I mean capable of borderline abusive behavior, having no social life, and being able to churn hours of mundane work. All the rest either quit or jump ship in-house. As the sane are weeded out, the ones running the deals and eventually running the firms are self-selected to be fastidious, pedantic, and highly devoted lawyers. They create the culture.

Working in Big Law is often compared to being a firefighter perpetually on call, but with less public admiration and more paperwork. Key aspects of this high-octane lifestyle include:

1. Constant Availability: Attorneys are expected to be available 24/7, with client demands and urgent deadlines dictating the rhythm of life.

2. High-Stakes Environment: While physical risks are low, the emotional and mental toll can be significant. The constant pressure to perform flawlessly while managing enormous workloads often leads to burnout and stress-related health issues.

3. Unforgiving Scrutiny: The environment is often highly critical, with mistakes being highly visible and potentially consequential. This fosters a culture of perfectionism and an ever-present fear of error.

This is a deal with the devil, a Faustian bargain, but better the devil you know. This arrangement demands accepting unpredictable hours and being prepared to miss personal events and occasions over the years. Birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays become negotiable when a major deal is on the line. Big Law is not for everyone. It’s a lifestyle that requires adjusting your personal life to accommodate work demands. Most people eventually leave, as the field tends to self-select for a specific type of individual who can thrive under chronic stress, sleep deprivation, and limited personal time. The question many face is: How long can you sustain this lifestyle before the costs outweigh the benefits?

The personal costs associated with the Big Law career path should be clear to you:

1. Partnership, once the holy grail of legal careers, is becoming less popular and harder to achieve.

2. Many are questioning whether the sacrifices required for success in Big Law are worth the rewards, especially as other career paths offer better work-life balance and potentially comparable earnings.

3. The risks to personal relationships, mental and physical health, and overall life satisfaction are becoming increasingly apparent and harder to ignore.

Moreover, the economics of Big Law firms are further complicated by the increasing sophistication of corporate clients and the emergence of alternative legal service providers and artificial intelligence. These changes are forcing firms to reconsider their traditional models and adapt to a changing legal landscape.

While the Big Law model continues to be highly profitable for those at the top of the pyramid, it comes at a significant personal cost to many of the attorneys working within the system. As the legal industry evolves, Big Law firms may need to adapt their business models to address changing perspectives and growing dissatisfaction among their workforce.

For those considering or currently navigating a career in Big Law, it’s crucial to carefully weigh the trade-offs and understand the lifestyle implications of this demanding field. The allure of high salaries and prestigious work must be balanced against the potential costs to personal life, health, and long-term satisfaction.

As the legal profession continues to evolve, it will be fascinating to see how Big Law adapts to changing expectations and values among both clients and attorneys. Will the traditional model persist, or will we see a fundamental shift in how high-stakes legal work is structured and delivered? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the culture of Big Law will continue to be a topic of intense debate and scrutiny in the years to come.

Tag: news

Join Your Peers in Shaping Our Future Profession & Upholding the Rule of Law

Toolkit Overview

Purpose of This Toolkit

Unpacking the Trump Administration’s Recent Actions Targeting the Legal Profession

● Perkins Coie promptly challenges the order in court, arguing that it is retaliatory and unconstitutional.

projects. The Trump administration doesn’t even rescind the EEOC demand letter it sent to Skadden.

Call to Action

Risk to Future Employment

Why Are They Safe:,

What Are The Risks:

What You Can Do—Low Risk Actions

Action Item 1: Pressure Deans to Make a Statement.

Action Item 2: Pressure Career Services Offices to Make a Statement and/or Bar Certain Firms from On-Campus Recruiting.

Action Item 3: Refuse to Rank Target Firms

Action Item 4: Student Organization Letters*

What You Can Do—High Risk Actions

Action Item 5: Email Blast Big Law Hiring Teams

Action Item 6: Hijack Recruitment

A Note About Student Letters in This Context

Your Actions Matter

The Conventional Wisdom and Its Flaws

The Multifaceted Benefits of Mentorship

Skill Enhancement for Mentors

Reputation Building

Leadership Development

Enhanced Team Management

Networking and Relationship Building

Positive Reputation Spread

Personal Fulfillment

Reciprocal Support

Challenges and Considerations

Time Management

Potential for Disappointment

Lack of Immediate Recognition

Uneven Distribution of Mentoring Responsibilities

The Broader Impact on Firm Culture

Improved Retention

Enhanced Skill Development

Stronger Firm Cohesion

Diversity and Inclusion

Long-term Firm Success

Implementing Effective Mentorship Programs

Formal Mentorship Programs

Recognition and Incentives

Time Allocation

Diverse Mentorship Opportunities

Training for Mentors

Regular Evaluation

The Future of Mentorship in Big Law

Technology-Enhanced Mentoring

Cross-Firm Mentoring Networks

Integration with Well-being Initiatives

Client Involvement

Conclusion

The Myth vs. Reality of Substance Abuse in Big Law

The Perfect Storm: Factors Contributing to Substance Abuse

Intense Workload and Pressure

High-Achiever Culture

Accessibility and Normalization

Stigma and Fear of Career Repercussions

The Many Faces of Substance Abuse in Big Law

Alcohol Abuse

Prescription Drug Misuse

Illicit Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Poly-substance Abuse

Identifying the Signs: A Hidden Problem

Changes in Work Patterns

Behavioral Changes

Physical Signs

Withdrawal from Social Interactions

Frequent “Sick Days” or Unexplained Absences

The Impact of Substance Abuse in Big Law

Impaired Professional Performance

Ethical Violations and Malpractice

Personal and Professional Relationships

Mental and Physical Health

Addressing the Crisis: Challenges and Solutions

Destigmatizing Mental Health and Addiction