To judge by the accoutrements of “the profession,” lawyers, as a group, maintain an inflated self-image. They think they’re all that. It’s easy to get sucked into this mind-set – especially fresh out of law school. Perhaps, when you’re not “thinking like a lawyer,” you’ve spent a few minutes admiring the little “Esq.” printed after your name on an envelope from school or a law firm – or some company in Parsippany trying to sell you a genuine mahogany and brass pen holder featuring a statue of “blind justice” for only $59.99 with free shipping.
Back when I passed the bar, I was offered the option by New York State to purchase a printed document – “suitable for hanging” – to memorialize the event. I figured what the heck and blew the twenty-five bucks. The “parchment” arrived in a cardboard tube, and it was huge – like a royal proclamation. I felt ridiculous, rolled it back up and stuck it in a closet, where it remains.
It’s hard to imagine accountants (who often make more than lawyers), or bankers (who always make more than lawyers) laying on the pretension to quite the degree lawyers take for granted.
My father was a physician, and in his early days, he fell for the professional ostentation thing, too. After he graduated from medical school, he ordered “MD” plates for his car. Sure enough, the next time he took the rusty old Mercury Marquis in for a repair, the mechanics charged him double. That was enough – he sent back the plates.
At least doctors are highly regarded in our society. My father was a psychiatrist, not a brain surgeon, but there was grudging respect for the fact of his MD. If you were in a car accident or had a heart attack on a plane, theoretically my dad could save your life. That meant something.
With lawyers, self-esteem outpaces public acclaim. That’s because, for the most part, non-lawyers view lawyers as worthless parasites – or at least, as existing on the more worthless, parasitical end of the esteem spectrum.
I’ll never forget the time I asked a Wall Street-er what he actually thought about lawyers.
I’d received the nudge from Sullivan & Cromwell, which meant I had six months to find another job. A head-hunter somehow or other set me up with an interview to be a bond trader at JP Morgan.
I considered the whole idea misguided – I was a lawyer from one of the top firms in the world, and far above working as a trader. I thought of bond traders as slick goombahs with Staten Island accents shouting into a phone all day. I was an attorney, with a degree from Hahvard. I showed up at Morgan as a courtesy to the headhunter. I radiated disdain.
For their part, the traders were patient and polite. I chatted briefly, answered some “brain-teaser” questions, and left. That was that.
During that weekend, by sheer coincidence, I read “Liar’s Poker,” and learned something about bond traders – specifically, the fact that they earn millions of dollars a year. Somehow, as that information sank in, I began to reconsider my attitude towards the opportunity.
Monday morning, I called up my contact at Morgan, the guy who interviewed me. He was Australian, and seemed distantly friendly. For whatever reason, I sensed I had nothing to lose, so I put it to him straight. I’d been reading “Liar’s Poker,” I said, and sensed I’d blown the interview. I wanted another chance to present myself.
There was a pause.
“I appreciate that mate. It took guts to make this call, and I’ll keep you in mind. Unfortunately, someone’s taken the job. You did show a typical lawyer attitude – I’m afraid it hurt your chances.”
I asked him to explain.
“That’s why I tell headhunters not to send me lawyers. You all act like you’re too good for the place. I’ll never understand it.”
I asked, flat out, what he really thought of lawyers.
Another pause, then, delivered in that charming Australian accent, with a chuckle: “Bend over and take it like a man.”
“That’s really what you think?”
“Seems like the worst job in the world to us. You work day and night, chasing your own tail. You’re like slaves, and all you do is the boring stuff.”
“Trading bonds is more fun, huh?”
“Fun and lucrative, thank you.”
That was the first honest conversation I’d ever had with a non-lawyer about lawyers – and it was an eye-opener. It led me to re-run through my head all the interactions I’d had at closings over the years with the other, non-lawyer participants at the table. The relaxed, friendly guys from the ratings agencies always showed up at the last minute like it was no big deal. The auditors from the big accounting firms smiled all the time, radiating contentment. The bright, perky bankers from Goldman, Sachs looked – well, like someone dropping by their lawyers’ office to sign documents, then take off for an early lunch. By comparison, we’d inevitably been up all night in our wool suits, and were sweaty, red-eyed and miserable.
Somehow or other, though… we thought we were hot stuff. Why?
I had a junior partner from a large law firm pose the same question to me in my office the other day. He was remarking in amazement at a senior partner who’d complained that things were getting so complex that he couldn’t trust “the really difficult stuff” to junior partners anymore – he had to do everything himself.
“Can you imagine?” My client said. “This guy was so arrogant he didn’t trust his fellow partners. That’s the level of ego we’re dealing with. He’s gotten to where he thinks he’s the only person who can do anything right. And between you and me, his writing is terrible – long-winded, pretentious, riddled with hyperbole. He thinks every sentence is a masterpiece. But he’s senior, so it’s not like anyone can say anything to him.”
Arrogance is a defense against insecurity. And it’s insecurity that drives many people to pursue law.
Lawyers often tell me they entered law because they needed to “be somebody” – to achieve status, power, a degree, a title, an office and a secretary. You go from being the guy who graduated from college and doesn’t know what he wants to do to…somebody. You are provided with a defense against the dreaded cocktail party question – so what do you do?
Many lawyers went into law to hide the fact that they don’t really know what they’re good at. All the pretense and pomposity surrounding the profession amounts to an attempt to hide the fact that many lawyers still feel like a bit of a fake – one member of a vast herd of the relatively uninspired, resolutely above-average.
Nobody’s fooling anyone.
========
This piece is part of a series of columns presented by The People’s Therapist in cooperation with AboveTheLaw.com. My thanks to ATL for their help with the creation of this series.
If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s new book, Way Worse Than Being A Dentist: The Lawyer’s Quest for Meaning
I also heartily recommend my first book, an introduction to the concepts behind psychotherapy, Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy
(Both books are also available on bn.com and the Apple iBookstore.)
I went into law to prove to Mom, Dad and self that I was somebody “successful” so I can’t argue. There are two views of law – those who know lawyers, and then our upwardly-aspiring non-professional families who saw MD and JD as guarantees of million-dollar salaries and glory (in their innocent ignorance). There may be two views of doctors as well.
I do think that lawyers think we’re “all that” because of the Abraham Lincoln/Attacus Finch syndrome – once upon a time, in a land far, far away (except for the current handful doing this) there were lawyers who actually did important stuff. Stuff about rights, justice, shaping the way things worked, fixing the way things worked, standing up for right….. and we still have some of those, and then a ginormous shitload of boring-paper-pushers. I’m a boring-paper-pusher myself, sometimes it is a real stretch to try to find a noble purpose behind any project (“hey, I’m helping a total dillweed get a better dea from another total dillweedl! Yay!”). That’s why pro bono is so popular……
So, was medicine just not your thing?
I had a lawyer and doctors (including an uncle neurosurgeon) in my family. We just never really talked to that side of the family for whatever reason.
My cousin did try to get out of law and become a doctor. He eventually gave up on that one.
I wasn’t encouraged to go into law or medicine. I was encouraged to go into engineering. Engineering still isn’t my thing, so I have zero interest in going into it.
Bankers and traders are currently benefiting from the outsized importance placed on the financial sector. Read Jeremy Grantham’s various letters (www.gmo.com) over the years for a look at this phenomon.
What has occurred is that finance has benefited from the financialization of the economy as finance has sucked up more and more of the nominal GDP. Finance probably peaked in 2007. We are now entering a long secular bear market in finance. And it’s only just begun. Granted, we could get to one final blow-off peak with the emerging markets, so we might have fun for a few more years. But I doubt it. The soverign debt crisis has begun.
One of my hobbies is amateur economic and financial analysis, with a generational-mass psychology bent.
I wouldn’t make a good trader, since I don’t tend to view things on a quarter by quarter basis, but it would truly be much more fun than practicing law.
By the time this is all over, meaning this secular cycle (secular meaning more than one business cycle), bankers will no longer be the Masters of the Universe.
So you had just been shown the door by S&C, and yet you still went into an interview with JPMorgan “radiating disdain”? That must have been some ego you were carrying around back then…
By the way, bankers don’t always make more than lawyers.
Will, I enjoy your column, but am always a little distressed when you include snippets of conversations from your therapy clients. Isn’t what they tell you confidential?
“The relaxed, friendly guys from the ratings agencies always showed up at the last minute like it was no big deal.”
The rating agencies are paid peanuts compared to you and the investment bankers. Peanuts. Also, they are now under serious investigation by regulatory agencies. Relaxed, indeed.
“The auditors from the big accounting firms smiled all the time, radiating contentment.”
Are you f’ing kidding me? Have you looked at the auditing profession lately? Auditors are under incredible pressures, ridiculous hours and don’t get paid half as much as lawyers. Also, they can’t invest in anything because of independence regulations. Ever hear of the PCAOB? Jesus, Will. Do some research.
“The bright, perky bankers from Goldman, Sachs looked – well, like someone dropping by their lawyers’ office to sign documents, then take off for an early lunch.”
Because they are. Law is a service profession. Their hard work was done when they put together the deal. You were not there for their sweating, late night hours. But trust me, they had them.
“By comparison, we’d inevitably been up all night in our wool suits, and were sweaty, red-eyed and miserable.”
Clearly, you were not cut out to be a corporate lawyer. We get that. My god, post after post, we get that. But there are other types of law – like, for example, the exciting and often rewarding world of litigation, where upon you get to help individuals navigate through an often unjust and complicate set of rules.
Sometimes the grass isn’t greener.
I have friends who work at ratings agencies. They have a good life. I know – they are my friends and we’ve talked about it.
I have spent time with auditors, too. Partners at the big accounting firms work less and get paid more than the partners at the big law firms. I’ve spoken to them about it. I’ve had law partners agree with me on the topic.
I know plenty of bankers, and they do the fun work. None of them would want to be a lawyer, because lawyers stay up late doing the un-fun work. Designing deals is fun – typing up the paperwork for deals is not. Corporate law partners have told me as much and some corporate partners do flee to banks – it happened at S&C when I was there.
I was clearly not cut out to be a corporate lawyer. I have told everyone as much. I have written about litigation – and I’m not sure doing a huge, document-heavy, endless commercial litigation is in fact “exciting and often rewarding.” Based on what I hear from the dozens and dozens of lawyers I work with each and every week, it’s often hellish and miserable.
Sometimes the grass is greener – but you refuse to accept that because you’re afraid.
I hope that’s “pithy” enough for you. I added extra pith because I know you like it that way.
I cannot believe I’m rising to this taunt, but here is my reply in any event: Perhaps you’re afraid that there are lawyers out there who enjoy practicing law (as I do, as an in-house litigator for a very large company). You were a lawyer for all of a few years, right? In a very small area of law. To take that tiny bit of experience, then take your few clients who, predictably are unhappy (how many people go to therapists who are happy?) and come up with the conclusion that being a lawyer is “often hellish and miserable” is short-sighted.
Also – the “un-fun work”? I would stab myself in the eye before being a tax lawyer, but my best friend lives for tax season. Generalizing which jobs are “fun” and which are not doesn’t seem very productive since it’s so individual, wouldn’t you, a therapist who should be focused on an individual client’s wants and needs, agree?
Since you rose to my taunt: the vast majority of lawyers go into it for the money. That’s depressing, but true. It might be “fun” for a few of them. Sure. But that’s almost incidental, because most people pursue law – not accounting or banking or a hundred other things that can be equally or more lucrative – because they want $$$. And they end up like a lot of my clients, $200k in debt and hating it. Which is a big part of why I write this blog – to wake people up and try to prevent further harm.
I’m intrigued by the fact that people write comments in to my blog in order to “taunt” me. There’s something so “lawyer” about that.
I appreciate your introspective take on the legal profession. Almost every attorney i’ve ever met (male attorneys) say they wish they could have been engineers or physicians or something other than an attorney. I think for the most part, the law just sucks. Just one thing I want to point out…
Those working for i-banks are not taking early lunches while big law attorneys put in the hours. Research, trading, M&A all put in some serious hours in the banking business.
You nailed it though about how bankers feel about lawyers. It’s true, we do not have respect for them in most cases.
My wife keeps asking me why I didn’t get into energy banking in the first place.
I told her than I had absolutely no idea it existed when I was starting out, but I would probably die if I had to put in I-banking hours.
Does anyone else have the distinct impression that The People’s Therapist is really, really bitter and unable to focus on much more than the negative’s of a career as a lawyer? Every article “radiates” the same smoldering anger, and bombastic 90-95% negative characterization of the profession–along with foisting that hell-hole worldview on every lawyer, top-to-bottom, small-city-to-big-city, solo-to-big-firm, mommy-didn’t-hug-me-enough-to-I-like-this-and-am-good-at-it, etc. Therapist, therapeutize thyself.
Esq. makes a lot of good points. I am really unsure who these accountants who make more money than firm lawyers are, but I’ve never met them. Maybe the top people at a major accounting firm, but at that point, you basically are senior management at a fortune 500 company so of course you’ll make a lot of money, just as you would if you were GC at a fortune 500 company. I think good evidence of this is that people who are CPAs with JDs disproportionately work in law.
Certainly lots of bankers and traders make a fortune, but there is some notion out there that it is easy money. It clearly isn’t. It is exhausting, stressful, soul crushing work much in the same way lawyering is ( I did it before I went to law school). And if you don’t like the partners at a law firm, you certainly are not going to like your new colleagues at the investment bank or the guys trading in the pits. They are a different animal than the typical nerdy guy or girl who goes to law school. I find it unlikely that many people who don’t navigate the law firm world successfully would do really well at Goldman Sachs.
Some people, particularly a certain kind of jockey white guy, succeed in the corporate world disproportionately. Many people at all levels of the game hate it tremendously.
Also, there is a lot of winner bias in that arena. It’s not like very first year analyst at a bulge bracket bank ends up a managing director there, and if they did, they married their job just like partners at S&C married their job. Also, I don’t get the sense that people think very highly of bankers these days.
Ultimately, unless you start your own business and get successful at it, if you work a salaried job, and you want to make a ton of money, you are hunting for a unicorn if you also want total job satisfaction.
Longwinded way of saying, I agree with Will that lawyering is a bad profession and not for most people, but the solution for those people is most likely not going into accounting or finance, etc. The solution is to either work a normal, less stressful job that pays less or go out on your own.
I’m also not sure about CPAs making more than lawyers either. Certainly the big partners with books – but law partners with books make money too.
Even if CPAs did make more than lawyers, I’d very seriously cut off my own head before I’d be an accountant. You really have to have a certain temperament for that work, and the talky/wordy/weird/possibly creative unhappy lawyers DO NOT have it. Apples and oranges.
Gretchen Rubin describes this phenomenon in her book, The Happiness Project. Essentially, her decision to become a lawyer was based on her desire for legitimacy. Yet, even after graduating from Yale law school and obtaining a prestigious clerkship, she still felt like a fraud.
I think the reason a lot of lawyers feel this way is because practicing law is a performance for us, not a calling. If “lawyer” is a costume you put on to impress your parents, your friends and yourself, of course you’ll never feel legitimate. And the legal industry reinforces this feeling, by so often evaluating people not by their present performance, but by their past achievements. You see it in the over-reliance on things like LSAT scores, law school grades and pedigrees, “prestige” rankings of law firms, lock-step advancement at law firms, etc. It is rare (and refreshing) to hear a lawyer talk about a sense of pride and accomplishment in the substance of his work, especially in corporate law where the substance is so often dry and unsatisfying. This only contributes to the feeling that one is simply playing at being a lawyer, and the desire to point to external signifiers (the suit, the Esquire, the diploma) as “proof” of one’s legitimacy.
Thank you for the reference to “The Happiness Project.” Just bought a copy – I’ve been looking for something just like that.
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of law as a performance. Law is not a calling for me. I have a lawyer job that I like well enough for now (and am extremely thankful for it), but I was so miserable in big law.
From the moment I started law school, I couldn’t believe the egos of my fellow students. Now, that I’ve been practicing law for 8 years, I still can’t figure out why lawyers think so highly of themselves. I certainly didn’t need three years of law school to understand the areas of law I practice in and have practiced in. Just about anybody could figure this stuff out with a little on the job training.
Ugh, that’s the sort of thing that makes me sweat at night. I’m desperately trying to get out of my little corner of hell/law and into another, ANY other, but I know very well that anyone with two brain cells to rub together could do my job right now. Thank god for the bar exam.
One of the straws that broke the law camel’s back for me was sitting at a corporate closing table, exactly as The People’s Therapist describes it – red faced, sleep deprived and riddled with anxiety and self doubt that (God forbid), there was some typo somewhere in the mountain of documents, and despite the fact that my blood, sweat and tears had gone into those documents, someone would find the typo at the closing table and everyone would think I was a complete idiot.
There was no typo… at least not one that was discovered that morning. But what happened was even more eye-opening for me. The deal we were closing was for a loyal client who had come to the firm as an entrepreneur, and the firm had stuck by them during the years where they couldn’t exactly pay their bills. Well, they were well on their way to making it big, and this particular deal was a huge step in that direction. As the deal closing wrapped up and I scurried around collecting sticky “sign here” tabs and extra blue pens, my supervising partner chatted with the client. The client was thanking her profusely for her loyalty, and they were laughing about the days when the client wasn’t making a penny. The client said the happiness he was feeling right then was worth the risk of it all. My supervising partner laughed and remarked, “Well, that’s why you’re on that side of the table and we’re on this side of the table. Lawyers are risk averse. We would never take that kind of risk unless we were guaranteed a return.”
I instantly realized that that was EXACTLY why I didn’t want to be a lawyer anymore. There was no risk. There was no belief in something bigger than yourself. There was no gut feeling that you could make your hopes and dreams come true. And because of this, there would never really be any “return on investment.” As attorneys, we hadn’t invested ourselves in anything worthwhile. The only thing we had invested in was our own entitlement.
EXCELLENT post by Esq. I think he is spot on. It is also worth noting that Esq’s post is well-written and pithy whereas, Will, your posts seem to be rambling and filled with a certitude that is rather bewildering given your professional role and the ostensible purpose of this blog.
I guess I’m just one of those “certain” therapists. Should I be more uncertain? Are therapists habitually uncertain as a profession? I spent a few years at Sullivan & Cromwell and now work with dozens of lawyers all over the country each week. And what, pray tell, is “the ostensible purpose of this blog”? I’m dying to know – please, by all means enlighten me with the ostensible purpose of my blog. Guess I’m bewildered, too.
Pithy enough for you?
Lord, I was born a rambling man. And this bird you cannot change. I just gotta ramble. Ramble ramble ramble. I’m gonna keep ramblin’. Ramble on.
I believed, perhaps naively, that the purpose of this blog was to encourage discussion and provide a forum for the sharing of ideas. I did not believe the purpose of this blog was to provide a forum for the dissemination of one unwavering idea: WILL’s idea that BigLaw sucks repeated ad naseum post after post after post.
Yes, your reply was pithy but an unsurprisingly combative one ending in, of course, a witty cultural reference.
I wonder how Will may react to a patient’s disagreement with his worldview when an actual therapy session is occuring. Bewildering was the wrong word; disappointing is far more accurate.
I’m sorry – was this a therapy session? No – it’s my reply to a snarky comment on my website. If you’d like a therapy session, by all means, let’s set up a therapy session. I promise I’ll do my best not to bewilder or disappoint.
Does it get on my nerves that the lowest common denominator in these comments – the last-ditch Hail Mary pass – is to attack my qualifications and my ability as a psychotherapist? Yes, it does.
At very least, read my book on psychotherapy – Life is a Brief Opportunity for Joy – before getting in line to bash me as a therapist. I take my professional work seriously. Enough already.
What Will has achived here on this website is something that was heretofore unthinkable.
Somehow, he has combined the raw power and glory of the Above the Law comments with the healing power of psychotherapy.
Which is kind of like buying a farm, planting your seeds, and then connecting your irrigation system directly to raw sewage just to see what will happen.
There’s a difference between expressing disappointment at your comments on this blog (what I did) and lowering the discourse on here to the “lowest common denominator” to “bash” you as a therapist (not what I did). Criticism comes hand in hand with an internet blog, especially when the topic is as personal and heated as the subject of this blog. I never suggested you lacked seriousness in your professional work. I suggested you perform it in a surprisingly cavalier manner on this blog. Should people who disagree with you cease posting on here? If so, I will be glad to refrain from expressing a dissenting point of view.
Otherwise, I do admire your dedication to your craft and your willingness to speak up for many people suffering out there. I sincerely do. I was simply expressing a different point of view after reading your most recent post.
Excellent post by Esq. I think *she* is spot on.
Strong, invincible, woman.
One of my friends in accounting is stuck without a way to climb the ladder at a Big 4 firm at the moment. He’s been there for 10-12 years.
If he does make it up there, he will make more than your average Big Firm lawyer.
You make less money up front in accounting, but it seems to be a different kind of stress than Big Law.
I understand some people disagree with Will’s premise, but he nailed me. I always read these posts, and while many apply to me, this one in particular described me to a T.
A lot of my friends are in sales or work in corporate finance or advertising. Like me, they graduated from undergrad with no debt and no particular interests. But they make as much or more than I do for about a third of the work. And they seem happy. And they don’t work on weekends. Or even on Fridays for practical purposes.
I had to go into court on a motion yesterday and encountered a judge who denied it seemingly because he just didn’t like the way we have litigated the case, even though his decision was wrong. Then I got screamed at by the partner about it. Now we have to come up with a plan to work around it and will surely receive grief from our client. And this is all to avoid our client losing money (on top of what they pay us), not to do something that actually produces some gain for society. Remind again who would like doing this?
I agree with the basic thrust of Will’s post (most legal work is tedious; lawyers tend to be insecure and cover up that insecurity by relying on an overinflated image of themselves and their profession; lawyer arrogance is incredibly off-putting; many non-lawyers are wary of, or even despise, lawyers).
However, it’s worth pointing out that not all lawyers work in BigLaw or other soul-destroying firms, sweating away in expensive wool suits with oversized diplomas on their walls. I work for an NGO and and do challenging work that can make a difference in the lives of others. I have a cubicle, not a corner office, I have relatively normal hours, and I make a modest-but-decent salary. A lawyer friend works for an environmental charity, arguing cases and helping raise awareness about local issues like water quality.
For me, the most interesting law grads tend to be those who decide not to practice, or who practice for a while but exit the profession to do something more interesting or worthwhile. Or the rare few who practice but in an interesting niche area that allows them to add some genuine social / economic value.
I’ve been reading this for a while and have never posted, but felt like I should say something after reading this post.
Not all BigLaw is soul-crushing, mind-numbing work. I’ve spent the past 6 years at 2 of the biggest firms doing M&A and securities work, and although I do not love what I do, I genuinely like it – I like the technical nature of the work, and now that I’m more senior, I feel like I can finally offer strategic advice to my clients on how to structure deals and that does make a difference.
Do I feel under-appreciated generally? Certainly. Do I envy the I-Bankers or auditors? Absolutly not. Most bankers I know and work with have insane hours, and the pressure is exponentially higher. Of course it appears more “fun” to be the guy putting together the deals, but in order to get to that level, you have to put in years of “grunt work”, just as you would as a junior in BigLaw. It’s also a much more cut-throat business and it’s truly soul-crushing. My husband used to be an I-banker, and trust me, his hours were way worst than mine. They just don’t complain about it nearly as much as we lawyers do.
As for accountants, sure, some partners at the Big 4 get paid more than partners at BigLaw. But in a Big 4, the partnership track is 20 – 30 years (compare to your 7 – 10 in BigLaw) and even as a manager in a Big 4, you don’t make much compared to a senior associate or junior partner in BigLaw. When auditing season hits, their hours are brutal too. Oh, and no one likes them either. They are considered even less “valuable” than lawyers in terms of a deal.
I remember reading one of Will’s post a while back which said that he knew he wasn’t cut out for BigLaw when he was given the opportunity to “run” with a deal. I think that pretty much nails it. If you want to be happy in BigLaw (and it is possible!), you have to genuinely like the technical aspects of the work and also have the desire to “run” your own show. I “ran” my first big deal as a third year and although I pretty much didn’t go home for 6 weeks and lost 10% of my body weight due to stress, never once in that process did I think that it wasn’t worth it, although I complained non-stop to anyone who would listen during that time. Of course I also recognize that I’m extremely lucky in that my current firm consist of really nice people. Like genuinely nice human beings. Of course partners are still partners and they still expect you to put in maximum effort and get minimum return, but so do all business owners.
Anyways, long rambling aside, what I’m trying to say is that I believe all professions have their problems and challenges, BigLaw certainly isn’t for everyone. But it is possible to be happy in BigLaw.
“I “ran” my first big deal as a third year and although I pretty much didn’t go home for 6 weeks and lost 10% of my body weight due to stress, never once in that process did I think that it wasn’t worth it…”
Words cannot express how different you and I must be. If you don’t think losing 10% of your body weight due to stress from a deal that kept you in the office for 6 weeks straight “wasn’t worth it” then I cannot even begin to relate to you. You didn’t cure cancer, you didn’t save the world, and you probably didn’t even do anything that benefitted society or your community, and yet you subjected yourself to that kind of stress for a “business deal” that you weren’t even a principal in. To me, that’s sick….
I have seen Will comment before about accountants making more than lawyers. I call BS. I have worked at both big 4 accounting firms as a CPA and big law firms. I worked similar billables over a given year. The difference is in accounting those hours are crammed into 6 months of the year. And you get paid a third until you make partner. From where I sit now, it seems as if the partners have similar earning potential, at least in my city. It really comes down to whether you can enjoy what you do. Desk jobs suck, but as the above commenter pointed out, they don’t have to be all bad. My practice area (tax) is certainly more enjoyable in the law firm setting. Sometimes it helps to know that the grass is browner on the other side of a given fence.
Ditto on the inaccuracy regarding accountant pay. I was at a Big Six firm in the mid-90s and my starting pay was less than $30K (not including overtime, which would have made it $35K). After 4 years, this would have increased to $50K. After 8 years, maybe $80K. Partnership would be between years 12-15, depending on the firm. Starting pay for a junior partner was around $120K-150K. PPP for the Big Six ranged from $250K to $500K (for the 15 year firm, and that was in part due to subsidies from their lucrative consulting arm).
Keep in mind that the partnership track is longer in accounting (12-15 years vs. 8 (at the time)), and the leverage ratio is about 15:1 in accounting vs. 3:1 in law.
I think it’s safe to say that the median Big Six accountant in those days made about $40K, while the median biglaw attorney made about $120K-150K (starting biglaw salaries were in the $85-90K range at that time).
Putting aside the actual and opportunity cost of three extra years of education, biglawyering is absolutely more lucrative, on the whole, than bigaccounting. By a factor of three or more. Of course a generic 25-year local (i.e., not a bigwig, not in firm management) partner at an accounting firm makes more than a junior associate at a law firm, but that partner almost surely makes much less than a generic 25-year partner at a V25 law firm. Again, I would guess that by a factor of 3 to 4 is still a good estimate.
Hours are somewhat worse in biglaw, maybe 15% more hours on average through a whole year.
I also agree that the accountants were usually looked upon as the least important members of a deal team, maybe slightly behind the printers.
So…accountants have a lower starting salary, but better hours, and they aren’t crippled with massive law school loans, and once they make partner they earn more…Accountants have a longer partner track, but the law partner track is getting longer and more uncertain with each passing week and most lawyers burn out well before they even get close to partnership… Accountants don’t get much respect, but it’s hard to imagine receiving less respect than corporate lawyers – I saw clients at closings treat partners like they were messenger boys…
Might make sense to get a CPA…Might make sense to choose a profession based on what you actually enjoy instead of picking law because you think it’s going to bring you status and money when it will probably put you in debt and under a cloud of near-universal disapprobation. I wonder if accountants have lower rates of depression and suicide – it’s hard to imagine they don’t, given the reality of lawyers’ lives.
My post is only targeted at correcting the financial inaccuracies, as the statement that accountants make more than lawyers is not credible. On Going Concern, there is an *optimistic* projection of compensation at PwC, which shows a 14th year accountant making around $200k — and the comments indicate that the spreadsheet is unrealistically rosy.
I would agree that lawyering is, for many — even most — people, not a fun walk in the park. However, neither is being an accountant. In fact, as a 4th year auditor, you are looking at the same dozen or so clients with 90% the same issues, year after year after year. It is *far* more routine than the practice of law, both from engagement to engagement, and from year to year.
I will also say that my colleagues in law are much brighter than those in accounting. Perhaps as one consequence, partnership prospects are probably poorer in law than in accounting, largely because someone of slightly above-average calibre and a good work ethic in a biglaw firm is going to be a superstar in an accounting firm, provided that person is sufficiently numerate. The talent differential is that huge. But most accountants also leave long before they are up for partner.
However, my point, again, is not to say whether accounting is better or law is better or both are equally good or bad. Nor is it to say whether the people in law are better or worse people than those in accounting. I’m just correcting some glaring misinformation that has now appeared in a couple of posts.
Well, obviously, the dream in both careers is to achieve zero net worth. Whoever can hit zero net worth first, the accountant or the lawyer, wins. Most of the young lawyers I’ve seen are, after 2 or 3 years, either unemployed with $200k in debt or working as contract attorneys doing doc review for a low hourly wage. Zero net worth – actually not owing money, is essentially unachievable for most young lawyers. Do accountants face a similar reality?
I think there are a lot of things wrong with the way you saw the world (and maybe still see it).
Your perspective is obviously informed by spending too much time in New York. The idea that worth or value is equated to dollars is the result of living in a place where 99% of the population lives in nearly uninhabitable, shitty apartments. People in the city are obsessed with money because, unless you’re extremely rich, you feel like you’re constantly living on the verge of utter poverty. Everyone is trying to climb to the top of the enormous pile of rats so that they can get a little sunlight. Go ANYWHERE other than the Northeast and you’ll find that cost of living is much more reasonable and, as a result, money simply isn’t as important to people. Yeah everyone thinks it’s nice to be rich, but people don’t insatiably pursue it money like they do in New York. The fact that you think any of these people should rightfully be considered “hot stuff” because of the money they make indicates a really messed up perspective. It’s not your fault, everyone in New York uses money as a proxy, but it’s unique to that city. Wealth is much less meaningful once you get out of the hell of white Manhattan.
I agree with you that ego leads to some awful career choices. No one actually wants to practice mergers and acquisitions at a huge law firm. It’s boring, tedious, and your clients are impossible to care about. People do it because they are taught that prestigious lawyers work on prestigious deals and at the end of their lives they get very prestigious burial plots. I’m glad you see now that you shouldn’t have been so worried about what these other guys in the room thought of you. The best thing to do is just to think about what you think of yourself and chase the things that are inspiring in life.
Hi Will,
Sorry that this isn’t on the topic of your post, but I’m a summer associate at a law firm at the moment and I have a question for you. I know that you harbor very bitter feelings toward the legal profession, especially BigLaw, and I know your time at S&C was something you describe as a nightmare. What I’m wondering is, did you feel that way as a summer at all (assuming you were a summer)? Or were all of the dinners and recruiting events enough to make you think things would be OK once you started full-time?
You might take a look at this piece – https://thepeoplestherapist.com/2010/06/08/bizarro-world/ – and this one – https://thepeoplestherapist.com/2010/10/20/no-longer-in-kansas/.
This quick answer is that, at least in the old days, the summer associate program bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual experience of being at a big law firm. Nowadays I work with plenty of associates who are bracing themselves for the arrival of the summers. It’s tough for the seniors because the word is generally out that you aren’t supposed to use summers for any real work (they don’t know how to do anything yet anyway), and you can’t really talk to them and tell them the truth about your situation because first, they wouldn’t believe it anyway (they are desperately clinging to the belief that everything will be unicorns and rainbows) and second, you don’t want it getting back to the partners that you’re bad-mouthing the firm. So you shut up and smile and maybe go to a lunch with them.
There’s an old joke where Satan offers incredible wealth to a guy if he sells his soul. The guy refuses because he says he’d have to go to hell. Satan says, c’mon, hell isn’t that bad – here, take a look. And it’s rather nice, fancy lunches and a relaxed atmosphere. So he sells his soul, and later, when he dies, he goes to hell, and sure enough, it’s all pitchforks and boiling lava. He protests to Satan, who replies – oh, that was our summer program.
That about sums it up.
As another lawyer, I found many truths about your article, particularly the reasons for going to law school… achievement, B.A., and then some. I went straight to law school after college and sacrificed my early 20s to dive deep into a profession. It wasnt to do good for society. It was to be somebody and make my middle-class family proud.
Instead, I learned about the white-shoe firms and the ivy-league grads. They look at my middle class, average school background, and I see the condescension in their eyes. They always have a sense of entitlement. It strengthens my resolve when I face them as adversaries or across the conference room table.
I’m glad you left the profession, because it sounds like it would have torn you apart. By your overgeneralizations of the industry, I see that your ego is as large as the senior partners at S&C. Most of the attorneys I know are not at the top firms: they work in-house, at smaller firms, or for the govt. They are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families.
Partners in big 4 accounting firms make as much as big firm lawyers. The big partners make many times more than the big partners at law firms. Like big law, the business model is one of leverage, and they have many more juniors to leverage off of, at higher margins for lesser work.
However, the veiw that accountants just have a better life is erroneous. Partners at big 4 accounting firms put in just as many hours as lawyers to become partners. In fact some girl literally got worked to death at a big 4 in China recently. You probably see the happy partners at closings; you don’t see the worker bee. I won’t be surprised if the same is true for ibankers. As for starting a business, that is just as tough (read the first chapter of “the E*Myth” where the author goes through the day of the owner of a pie bakery. Made me want to vomit with sorrow.)
I generally like this blog, despite its one sidedness. Yes, you had a tough time in law. But your world view lack perspective. Everyone – accountants, i-bankers, traders, entrepeneurs – all have it tough in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. Only teachers have it easy, which explains why so many lawyers want to be teachers.
And for ablog about having too much ego, you seem to have a lot of it. (In general, I completely agree that lawyers have an inflated sense of self, I was at a small firm that had a partner who thought house closing were too complicated to explain to recent grads; I get the ego problem. I shake my head thinking about those guys.)
For example, you can’t see past your own success bias. 100% of the lawyers you see professionally have problems, by definition. And their issues just confirm your bias that law sucks, and you are happier to be out.
But for some of us, law (or quasi law in my case) is where we are, and may be right for us now. Maybe we never had an expectation of a 9-6 job. Maybe hard work is simply the way the world is for us, and we take pride in our accomplishments, without an inflated sense of self. Maybe we don’t want to change the world, but merely hope to live semi-comfortably in it.
I wouldn’t be so hard on your bias if you allowed for the fact that even the lowest of grunts (in law, accounting, banking, or pie baking) needs to be able to find a certain pride in their work. And no matter how idiotic it may seem to produce a typo free document or collate 100 documents, it is something of an accomplishment. It is no different than being able to throw a ball to 1st base 98 out of 100 times.
now you are speaking my language
In my opinion, it starts with parents. If they are demanding in a way that they project an ideal of their son or daughter and then try to make that (their!) ideal out of the real person then it is very likely that said son or daughter will not develop necessary self-awareness and healthy self-confidence.
In my case, it led into three “quests” – law, bodybuilding and substance abuse. And chronic depression.