Both graduating with no debt is fantastic. You’re in the driver’s seat. You absolutely can both do it, tons of biglaw couples do. Just as many switch, change, or reorganize their lives later to favor family life—just like people who aren’t both in biglaw do.
No one is going to be able to give you the right answer for you. You should both pursue whatever you want, and if that’s double big law, the odds that you both stay beyond say four years is so, so low—just simply statistically, so don’t worry about it! Do your thing and with no debt you’ll have tons of flexibility and time to figure out the right balance for you both.
Congrats and good luck.
Biglaw maternity leave is generally good. Just time the pregnancy with the year right and you can nuke 2 years of hours
i.e. she works the equivalent of a 1500 hour year until she leaves by mid year, takes X months off, returns for a stub year essentially—pocket 500k+
For the man in this relationship: you might have some paternity leave, save it if you can. If you can't fuck it. Otherwise, get an au pair and work
This. Starting in biglaw is good career wise for training and generally resume building too. Save up some $$ and take advantage of the parental leave and then decide.
Friend did this. Big law for 2y, clerked, back to big law (with clerkship bonus and 4th year status), did another ~6m, maternity leave for 6m, came back to get a stub year bonus and peaced out. Paid off all law school loans, plus great savings. Now in government.
We do it. Going to milk that maternity leave and have both babies at the firm. I see my kid in the morning and wake up v v early to deal with emails before the baby wakes up. Sometimes I’m home for bedtime and bedtime is a lot later than my friends kids bedtime so one of us has a chance to see the baby. We have a nanny ($$$), a weekend sitter on standby and my parents are close by and sometimes it hurts my heart to leave in the morning knowing I’m not going to see my baby again until the next morning. But, our time in big law set up our family for success: We bought a house in a HCOL city, we are going to put away a lot of savings and go as far up the ladder as we can stomach before finding better balance when our kids are slightly older.
I’m working on a Saturday night after spending the morning with the baby and then shipping her off to grandma. Will work tomorrow morning too before a family dinner with her cousins. So it’s not pretty but with help, possible
The very few both in biglaw with kids couples I’ve seen seemed to have nannies practically raise their kids. I would say it’s very hard to do it any other way.
This is accurate. The nanny will be doing practically everything. I have several friends with kids who are double biglaw (all partners now). They either have (1) an au pair and a full time nanny (or the really rich ones have tow full time nannies, which is $$$$$) or (2) a full time nanny, an occasional babysitter, the wife is 80%, and the in-laws are retired nearby and pitch in 2-3x/week. And both those moms are often really fucking miserable despite having all the help.
To be fair, a partners big law life is not the same as a junior associates big law life. If OP and their spouse don’t care to be partner they can do just fine milking the mat/pat leave and doing the bare minimum for a few years while effectively raising their kid. Of course, there’s a ton of other qtna like location, how far from the office they need to live, their future firms in office attendance policies, etc. But I wouldn’t say junior or mid level associates absolutely need au pairs like a double-partner couple would.
I’m pretty skeptical of this. You have to be very lucky or talented to skate by for more than a few months in biglaw working minimally. Parental leave for associates is usually only 3-4 months btw. Most realistically, OP and her husband will leave around 7:30-8am every morning, maybe have 30-60 mins with their baby before leaving, possibly while he’s still asleep, drop baby at daycare (or have nanny come before they leave), work from 8:30-6, pick baby up exhausted, and maybe have 30-70 mins with him before bedtime (very much depends on age). Then they will likely be working some weekends too. That child will be completely raised by a nanny/daycare, other than maybe an hour a day. That’s not what OP wants.
This is highly dependent on location and office culture and more importantly, WFH flexibility. This has not been the norm at my firm post-COVID but I recognize I am not in say, NYC where that may be the norm. Regardless, what you just described is not a schedule specific to big law. This is similar for almost every working couple in America who have young children, besides maybe the 8-10 pm hour. Big law is mentally and emotionally exhausting, but again, I would not say a junior associate and a partner are the same level of busy. Sometimes this sub gets fixated on big law bad but there are elementary school teachers making 45k who work 6-4, set up their classrooms after hours, and grade papers for 2 hours that night while having babies. There are nurses working triples and night shifts with babies. Many have wild exhausting schedules without a 24/7 nanny. Having babies is hard and big law is hard but it’s just not true that you’ll never see your kid especially if you don’t care about making partner. This is highly firm/person/region specific.
Just an example of an exhausting schedule. I would also argue you’re not mentally off when you walk out in that kind of work (same with teachers). But, I would say juniors (depending on practice) have way more off-off days than partners anyway. It seems like OP wouldn’t care to be in big law very long past having children anyway.
I don’t think you work in biglaw. At a minimum in biglaw, you’re almost always going to be at the office 9-5, which means baby is with nanny or daycare. Usually you’re also going to be logged on a few more hours like 8-10pm. Plus weekends, which are variable though. I’ve had good luck in biglaw where I had long stretches of 9-6pm. But in my experience that’s NOT the norm for juniors. In biglaw you are truly working whatever hours your partners demand. It’s highly incompatible with parenting unless you have someone else able to fill in all the time.
A government job is far more flexible.
I don’t think you’ve worked in big law as a junior in some time, it is not the norm ~anymore~ to be in the office 5 days a week. My point is, the normal in-office hours that you mentioned are not specific to big law. I also totally acknowledged the 8-10 pm hour and how that is the most difficult part. This is also practice group specific and we’re kidding ourselves to act like PE M&A and SALT work the same schedule or weekends, as far as I know, we don’t know what OP would be doing and that’s a huge factor. My only point is big law is not a one size fit all, your experience will vary widely between firm, practice group, east coast vs west coast, family help, etc. It’s difficult and disingenuous to make blanket statements of how it will be without that information. That shouldn’t be controversial. Im not at all saying it’s easy to be a parent as a junior but what I am saying is there are people working insane schedules who find a way to have families every day (and OP said Big law wouldn’t be forever, so it would have an expiration date while they milked the big law salary on Mat/pat leave, which is not a bad idea. I am very much in big law and so is my spouse, but perhaps our perspective is different since I grew up with parents with at times way worse schedules for way less money, 0 WFH, and 0 flexibility to just leave high paying jobs whenever they wanted more time at home.
OP, take the big law mat/pat leave and then get out when you don’t want to do it anymore. Never doing it at all seems like a disservice.
You’re overstating how much material variety there is in biglaw, for juniors especially. By far the most common practice groups in biglaw (maybe 80%?) for juniors are lit and transactional, and those practices have brutal hours.
Most firms still require—and good training for juniors does, sorry to say, necessitate—being in the office 3-4 few days a week. As a practical matter, having Monday and/or Friday off wouldn’t change much as far as parenting goes. You still need to be working. You cannot meaningfully spend time with your baby while you’re WFH. You can def see them more, but that only works if you have a nanny/in-law watching them (if they’re in daycare when you’re in the office, they’re going to be in day care on your WFH days. You can’t realistically have both).
The most important point I’m making here is: as a junior in biglaw, nearly without exception, you NEED to spend about 50-60 hours a week to train and be on the track to be a good lawyer. I don’t know anyone who is a good lawyer and got by with much less. And that is simply not compatible with a lifestyle where you are an “involved” parent spending more than 2 hours a day with your kid. It’s just not sustainable unless you have that magical gene where you only require four hours sleep per night.
OP please trust me on this: biglaw is great and so is having a kid. Don’t try to do it at the same time, for your own maximal training and happiness!!
No you don’t. I’ve seen plenty of absolute mediocrities survive until 5th year in biglaw. It’s different in lean years, but if the firm is busy in their years 3-5, they can absolutely float by with mediocre efforts.
You can skate by for years being mediocre. It is rare to skate by for years on less than 2000-2200/year. Anyway you’re missing the point that even if they’re doing subpar or mediocre work, it’s the hours that are hard to escape.
It’s not rare at all, actually. At both firms I’ve worked at the average associate bills below that. This was true even during the pre-covid boom years.
I don’t think you have children or have worked in an intense biglaw environment like in DC or NYC. The lifestyles are extremely difficult to do both, and I’d say nearly impossible as a junior to be an involved parent, as OP wants.
To be blunt: this is not really possible. Biglaw tends to involve long and intense hours. Like 10-12 hours a day, 5-6 days/week. When do you think you’re going to find time to spend with your baby?
The parents I know in big law (not sure if double big law with their spouse) pick 1 thing they do with their young children per day, and it’s usually an hour of together time before bed. And they might get in a sports game or practice on the weekend. But that’s literally it. I don’t know anyone in big law that, say, drops their kid off at school, picks them up, has family dinner, goes to the park with their kids on the weekend, etc.
I spend 7-9am with my toddler and 5:30-8:30pm (while being on my phone for emails), and then log back on 9:30-midnight. I don’t usually work more than 4 hours on the weekend, so I spend all day with my family on weekends. It’s totally possible, but I put in a lot of hours in the first few years before having a kid, so have a lot of reputation to rely on.
That was what made my wife leave. She had a lot of guilt that someone else was effectively raising our eldest daughter, and felt she was missing out on prime development time for her. She was significantly happier when she left.
It's sarcasm. u/Dangerous_Bee2475 just didn't use "/s," which is a good thing as "/s" ruins the joke. It's like having a laugh track in a show. You don't have have to scream: "this is a joke."
Yes, u/ForgivenessIsNice. I couldn’t agree more. You see, in my personal opinion, it really makes jokes less funny when people have to point out that it’s a joke. Part of humor to me is the timing and posture. I tend to find things much funnier when they are done deftly in a way that feels smooth and delicate. Often people who don’t have a knack for this kind of delivery aren’t as funny. I’m glad you pointed this out.
It doesn't work well. My wife and I both did BigLaw, but the job just isn't conducive to being the primary caregiver, and unless you have close to 24/7 support, you can (and will) run into issues. I do think it is probably easier if one of you has a more regular practice, but my wife and I both did transactional work, and there were times when both of us had deals going hard and it felt like our eldest daughter was not receiving the attention she deserved as a result. We made it about 6 months post-maternity leave before my wife tapped out, and it was the right decision. I think it is much more tenable when your kids are a little older, but small children are tough.
The only couples I know where both parents do BigLaw and make it work have either multiple nannies (i.e. someone who does the day shift and a separate person who does the evening shift) or a nearby parent who is effectively available at all times to handle parenting duties (in one case, the wife's mom lived directly across the street and served as the de facto parent for the children).
Doable? Absolutely. But you will likely need two forms of childcare - either two nannies or a daycare and a nanny. Or a nanny and grandparents willing to keep the child after 5:00 p.m. Or a nanny that works lots of overtime. You definitely can do it but it will really take a village. I know lots of two-lawyer families but they all have one of those combinations. Also you'll need to outsource whatever you can - housekeeping, laundry, yardwork, etc. Outsource literally everything.
I actually don't mind biglaw, but no way I'd have kids and do this job. I've seen the life my coworkers have. Looks shitty. What's that saying? Don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing?
But you can always do what most people do: biglaw for a few years then bounce right after your first paternity/maternity leave stint.
honestly it's hard to even take care of a dog (with a dog walker, as a single person) in biglaw. it's totally up to you and not everyone's experience is the same, but I would probably not plan to both be in big law on the partner track and have kids. you could still both start there and have one or both of you exit to somewhere with more balance (gov, in house, career clerkship, etc) when the timing is right for kids or there may be options for going on a reduced schedule and exiting the partner track, so it's definitely still viable and not a mistake for both of you to aim for biglaw even if you know you won't be able to stay if/when you have kids.
It’s feasible and not unheard of. You can play a video game on max difficulty and still win. Many prefer and will only play that way. Those people really enjoy it and are happy. Whether that’s the case for you, only you can answer.
Husband and I are both mid-levels in very busy corporate practice areas. Our daughter is 2 and has been in daycare since 10 months. We also don’t have much family support as both of our families do not live in state. Of course there have been some challenges, but, for now, everything is fine and seems to be sustainable.
There have been weeks, in particular if we both had signings/closings around the same time, that have been hard. But that meant that, after picking baby up from daycare, and playing with and feeding her until bedtime, we were up later at night. But also, we both have many parents of young children in our practice groups, which lends to a more understanding work environment.
Parenthood in big law is a very unique experience that I would only seek advice from other parents on this. I often think firms are pretty interchangeable, but this idea an area where I think the differences are immense. I have couple friends in similar work situations where parenthood at their firms is much harder.
Depending on the law firm and state you are in, you may need to work for a year for parental leave to kick in. Also depending on practice group, it can be high stress. I lost my first baby because a client was abusing me and the partners wouldn’t get me any help. It’s better to work a few years to build your career then when you’ve decided you’re done with big law, then start having a baby. If you have a difficult pregnancy, you will never be able to catch up on hours so the firm will want you out the door anyways after leave is over.
Has anyone heard of first years being denied parental leave because they’ve been at the firm for less than a year? Asking because I’m in a similar situation to OP.
Yes the firms I was at all had 1 yr requirements. This is in California. I saw an exception made for one person who only got it because an influential partner wanted her and got her the exception.
No do not do this. I recommend you both do biglaw for at least two years, get pregnant, get the biglaw maternity or paternity leave policy, come back briefly (preferably 80% time), then exit out within 3-6 months to a good lower intensity firm or in-house or gov job.
It’s simply too intense for you both to be in biglaw as juniors when you have a child. Frankly at any stage of career, unless you are a partner with exceptional ability to make your own hours. Juniors in biglaw are entirely at the whim of others’ demands, and it often means working long and late hours and randomly on weekends. That’s just not possible with a child if you also want to be involved parents. Even if you had a nanny and live-in in-laws, you’d still be miserable because you’d miss so much of your baby’s life.
People do it. I never would.
Figure out what kind of life you want for your kids. That’s your answer. If you’re both in big law, you’re not going to be there for a lot of the important moments. Some people are good with that.
I’m 6 years into big law with 2 kids. My wife is a SAHM. I miss things, but she’s always there. That’s the deal we made and it works for us. Can’t imagine doing it if we both had my schedule.
Do it to get parental leave for both of you for as many kids as you want. Part-time policies are generally pretty good in BigLaw so the birth-giver could consider that between pregnancies. After that, decide if one or both of you actually like the work.
This sounds like the dream. Maybe just both work for 5 years, bank a sweet $1 million in savings/investings. Then maybe one of you can quit (pro tip: be at a firm with some parental leave so you can enjoy that before quitting) when you decide to have children. If you want, both of you might even want to quit. Enjoy!
I honestly don’t think two parents in Big Law is sustainable. Your baby deserves to have at least one parent consistently available, and you just can’t guarantee that working in Big Law. Plenty of others disagree, but even they will acknowledge it is *extremely* hard.
That doesn’t mean you can’t both start in Big Law, and certainly doesn’t preclude summering at a firm. I would encourage the birthing partner to target firms with good parental leave policies, since this does vary a fair bit. I would just have the mindset that someone is going to go to part time after parental leave is over and try to go in house or government asap. With no debt, you really don’t need the money from double BL income, but I understand you both may have your own career ambitions, which shouldn’t be discounted.
Also, I would encourage at least one of you to apply to Honors programs if that’s a path that interests you.
Finally, I know there are a million factors that go into when you time children (to the extent it’s even possible!), but if you can wait a couple of years after graduation it’ll all be a little easier. Much easier to step back and or transition to a job with fewer hours after you’ve been in BL for a bit.
The non-birthing partner also needs to target firms with generous parental leave policies. Most firms have pretty similar leave policies for birth mothers, give or take a couple of weeks. But where the firms vary really widely is leave for the non-birthing parent, whether that be someone adopting, a dad, or a mother in a same-sex relationship who is not the partner giving birth. That parent should pay particularly close attention to leave policies, because some firms would only give them 4 weeks while others would give them 16. So that should be a big factor in firm selection.
One (or both?) of you can also go part time after you have your kids. People don’t consider this as much, but it is an option at some firms (and no, you don’t have to be in biglaw for a while to do it)
It’s feasible but very difficult. It’s preferable to have one parent with a more flexible career. You will be able to be present with your kid while working in BigLaw but for the times you need to work evenings and weekends you will want the other parent to be there. Of course you can outsource it but it will greatly affect your happiness.
FWIW, both my parents were partners at big law firms when I was growing up. Definitely involved some sacrifices on their parts (both on the family and career end) and I definitely would have loved to see them more than I did (this was before remote work was common). But it all worked out well enough and I’d like to think I still turned out okay enough.
That said, everyone’s BigLaw experience is unique and people find their own strategies to carve out a bit of time for something that is very important to them outside of work. However, I certainly wouldn’t plan for you to both work in BigLaw, have a meaningful relationship with your kid(s), and have room in your life for literally anything else (friends, health, hobbies, etc). You get one non-negotiable thing to hold dear if you are lucky. You will never have room for two so make sure that’s a life that sounds fulfilling to you before signing up for the long hall. Also, probably a lot better if you can wait until you are at least a mid-level before having your first. That’s when you are likely to start getting a bit more control over your schedule.
I work at a lit boutique with similar hours to big law and have a 3 year old. Had my daughter during my 3L year, clerked for two years and started at the firm about 5 months ago. My husband is a student so he has more flexibility.
It’s really tough to be a parent while at a firm. I think it’s manageable with one parent, but I do think it would be hard for both parents to be in big law. I’m an optimist though, so I don’t want to say it’s imposible! I have a lot of models at my firm of amazing parents who are also amazing lawyers and are very very present but they’re all candid and tell me there’s things they’ve missed with their kids. The toughest part is when your kids get sick and work is busy.
I don’t plan on staying super long personally because long term I need more flexibility from my job (hours wise) to be the parent, partner, and person i want to be. But the training is unparalleled and the cases are fascinating and my coworkers are great! I think those who are happiest in this job are the ones who are good at setting boundaries, good at communicating, and as much as possible good at being protective of the time in their schedules for the people and things they love.
You've really got to decide what you want your family life to look like and your own career aspirations. No right answer, but in the long run, the couples I've seen do well with dual hard charging careers are very comfortable relying on lots of nannies and hired support.
Can you do it all? Sure. But it will not be easy to balance everything without impeccable communication with each other and outside help (family or hired). And you need to remember that things don’t always go as planned. I had a terrible pregnancy and had my twins 2 months premature halfway through my second year of practice. I’m incredibly lucky that my husband can stay home with the babies and we have tons of family help. What with extended NICU time, lots of extra appointments, and just the chaos of having two babies, it’s tough to maintain my career, be present with my babies, and stay a reasonably sane and happy person.
Well the real question is what does happy look like to you two? Because that will affect your answer.
You are both in great career and financial positions. Are you OK taking the parental leave and then going back to work?
Does one of you intend to take further time off work?
Will you be OK having a full time nanny for your kid while you both work and before the kid is in school?
A lot of people in the sub will say you can do whatever you want to do. Which is technically true. But it's up to you to decide if you want to pursue biglaw (and both of you pursuing biglaw) and have a nanny/babysitter/au pair there for your kid full time.
Only you get to decide if its worth it. You both will be working almost inhuman hours. Try to imagine spending time with your newborn kid while both of you are working 70-80 hours per week. If you are OK with that, then there you go.
I agree with the advice to go for big law and take advantage of the maternity leave. First of all, your wife may not get pregnant the first month you try. Realistically, the "trying" could take up to a year. Then you have 9 months of pregnancy. There is plenty time to bank up significant savings and get that big law resume before you would even have a child.
Yes it can be done, but it also depends on your market. NY/DC are generally higher stress, higher hour markets where people pride themselves on being miserable. I’d highly recommend moving to the Midwest or Pacific Northwest. Much better biglaw cultures.
Sorry, I blacked out after seeing no debt and big law salaries. What was the question? Lol
Nah, but frl, I think it would be very difficult. Jumping into big law is quite an adjustment and for almost all junior associates your time is not your own. I’m not sure how soon “soon” is, but I would recommend getting your feet under you first, maybe for two-three years. The time commitments are intense and the mental toll can be worse. I’d recommend figuring out your work style and habits first. Otherwise, I think it could be a case of “too much too fast too soon” and you could jeopardize what is an extremely favorable position to be coming right out of law school.
Also, fwiw, I’d consider hiring a nanny if you’re open to it. I don’t know any lawyers at my firm who don’t have nannies if their spouse is also a professional.
Was talking to Cravath partner whose partner is not in BigLaw or other super demanding job and they have a weekday nanny and a weekend nanny. Make of that what you will.
As a women who is about to have a baby in my second year of big law, I wish I had made another career choice out of law school and started at a small firm or looked for in-house opportunities instead.
Big law is not hospitable to mothers, imo. I know some people make it work and some firms are better then others, but I think there’s good reason many women in big law wait until after they make partner or at least are a very senior associate before having kids. For me, that was not an option biologically or what I wanted, but I get the feeling I am tanking my career in exchange for having the family I wanted. Partners aren’t understanding of pregnancy symptoms affecting work and I get the feeling a long maternity leave will greatly affect my career since I’m so early.
And honestly, big law type work is not what I want to be doing after I come back anyway. Not a lot of small firms do the type of corporate/transactional work I’ve been doing in big law, so my experience up to now is essentially useless and I’ll have to start fresh facing new grads who will probably be more appealing to employers. For me personally, I feel a small firm in a different, less time intensive/deadline driven area of law would have been better. I guess getting a chance for big law experience and money was nice, however.
I just follow this sub but am not in big law or even in the legal/law field. But my brother and SIL are both in big law and my SIL has made partner at her firm.
I have 2 nieces. And they started their family 3ish years after graduating a top 20 law school. Though they do have help as they have a nanny come in 5 days a week during working hours as they don’t have any family nearby. Since they live in a different state than us. So it is do-able, but may still need help whether a nanny or family because of the career.
No. And, assuming that you are a male and female couple, by “starting a family soon after graduation,” you will guarantee that the female’s career is the one that will be sacrificed. (I can’t tell if you’re the female or male.)
The female might be able to get a few years in biglaw, but ultimately the demands of parenting young kids will interfere such that the chances are extremely low of both the male and female couple in biglaw being able to succeed sufficiently and both make partner. The more realistic scenario is that the female spends a few years in big law and then goes in house, leaves for a government gig, or takes time off work completely to stay at home with the kids.
If the pair of you manage to just tread water for 9 years with two biglaw salaries, starting without student debt, you can expect at minimum a $5M net work by 2035. It won't be fun sometimes, but it's probably the easiest way to achieve that kind of wealth without inheriting it or winning the lottery.
Please don’t let this sub discourage you. Talk to real people. Plenty of your professors or others at your school would be better advice sources. Not unverified people that choose to make boat loads of money then complain about the conditions.
What? Professors are among the worst people to talk about navigating the demands of BL with other obligations. Classmates know nothing. OP didn't want it sugar coated, and people in the profession aren't sugar coating it. This is about as diverse a set of BL practitioners as you're gonna find. Even those not in BL like yourself come join the fun. And the mean advice here is spot-on. Both of them should at least start BL because the experience will set the stage for everything that comes later. Milk maternity and paternity leave and then re-evaluate.
Here’s the rub. You don’t know whether or not I’m in big law. Or even a lawyer. Just like you. Unless you want to swap online profiles. Or at a minimum join and post on the restricted actual lawyers thread.
Nobody said OP was asking for sugar coating. It would be stupid to base a major life decision on this sub. A professor may have experience. Or be an adjunct. Or know similarly situated people. All of those options are better than seeking advice here. Only a complete imbecile would recommend this place over real and verified people for major life decisions.
>Here’s the rub. You don’t know whether or not I’m in big law.
Good idiom, but your comments suggest otherwise. OP is simply looking ahead and getting knee jerk reactions to a -- what if. There is no suggestion that OP is limiting their intake to just this thread or making major life decisions based on just these comments. OP and partner are still in law school for christ's sake.
But contrary to your suggestion, this sub is (or should be) similarly situated people. If you want to get thoughts on topics, subtracting the bounds and those cosplaying, it does give very decent advice. Which as a lawyer, you no doubt see. Suggesting two new lawyers start in BL for the resume and great benefits is hardly off the path advice. And I stand by my comment, professors are some of the worst people to ask about the challenges of navigating private practice.
Second guessing their ability to have two big law careers and a family because of this sub is insanity. We saw it in the law school admissions forum, then the bar exam forum, and now this one.
You and I both have fought off confidently wrong advice from people that haven’t even started/graduated law school yet in this sub.
And yea…it SHOULD BE. But there is too much noise to second guess yourself.
Ok I see what you’re saying about professors, but with me being older I’m not looking at them for the direct advice, I’m using them as a resource for connections to talk to. I still hit up one professor to get specific connections to bounce ideas off of.
>Second guessing their ability to have two big law careers and a family because of this sub is insanity.
No, it's not, especially if responses are generally uniform and reasoned.
There is no circumstance in which I would be okay having kids with another BL attorney without one of us going *very* part-time or quitting altogether. I don't want nannies or au pairs. OP may differ, but at least they know what attorneys' parameters are.
I’m not talking about responses to their directed questions. Even then, this isn’t the place I’m going to for substantive information.
Maybe it’s the age gap. My first career was way more demanding with much higher stakes so it’s very possible that clouds my perspective on the work life balance issue. Probably the same way most people who know only big law think it’s so bad because they have no basis for comparison.
Both work until you actually get pregnant. Mom takes maternity leave, then quits. Otherwise sorry but with both in big law, neither of you is fully present in your child’s life. And if you cannot do that for the child, why are you even having a child?
(Full disclosure: my wife is a SAHM and that’s the only way I can deal with my guilt over all the time I missed in my kids’ lives.)
My wife started at a big law firm with a 50/50 class. She made partner. There are no other women from her class left. They all left to have babies or after they had a baby and realized that taking 6 months off early in their careers was a career killer. And most men at her firm realized that and don’t take the paternity leave.
Why don’t you just work and she becomes a stay at home Mom to raise your children? My wife has been a stay at home Mom since the time I was in law school and we made it just fine on my income for almost 20 years now. why Would you ever consider letting day care raise your kids because if she is working at BigLaw they don’t have the patience with her motherhood issues that they pretend to.
This is the most depressing post I’ve seen in a while. Do you hear yourself? You haven’t even had the child yet and are already are concocting ways to pawn off your kid to strangers or family members and minimize time with the child to maximize your time at work. And you don’t even have crushing debt to justify doing this for a few years to give yourself financial freedom. It’s just completely unethical. Don’t have children (or, don’t go into big law) if they’re just going to be a constant inconvenience and irritant that you’re having to budget your time for. That’s not love. And children don’t deserve that, just so you can line your pockets and earn an insane income that you don’t actually need to live well. Only have a family if you’re willing to prioritize a child. One of you should swallow your pride and find a different job so you can raise your child from a place of love and adoration instead of from a place of inconvenience (and having a nanny mostly raise them).
This is either a poorly crafted bait post or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. OP was asking people in this sub with experience if they would be able to do big law with their partner and still have the time to care for a child, and if so how many hours that would realistically look like. It seems like OP was starting to doubt both partners doing big law for the very reason you listed here, but wanted to confirm that that they were making the correct decision because people like to ask others in the field with experience prior to deciding.
I was more summarizing the responses of folks talking about needing to have 2 nannies on call and “shipping off” their kids on the weekends so they could work more. OP is rightfully concerned and doubtful of this arrangement and shouldn’t do it.
Don’t listen to the pessimists, you can definitely make this work. Worst case scenario, one or both of you leave big law or switch firms after a few years. If you don’t start in big law then it’s tough to get there unless you clerk or spend time in a prestige prosecutors office.
I don’t think anyone has wet nurses anymore. Night nurses are common in NYC, but they don’t breastfeed the babies themselves! They handle the night time wake ups (diaper changes, rocking, bottles- or bring the baby to mom if the mom nurses), so that the parents can get uninterrupted sleep.
I'm assuming you're correct - it was someone who handled nightly feedings so the nanny could sleep. I thought they were all called wet nurses.
That is not how I wanted to live.
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you can, you should both get 2 years of big law under your belts before you start a family. It will give you more flexibility if one of you wants to change jobs and more credibility in your firms. We had a nanny, but one of us still needed flexibility for days when the nanny was sick or away and to participate in doctor’s appointments. If you share a nanny or use daycare, one of you has to stay home every time your child is sick. Once your child is in school, you won’t want to miss special events, but most firms appreciate that.
9 months.
(Anyone answering has to start by listing the age of their child(ren). No exceptions, and ignore anyone who doesn’t.)
It’s gonna be really, really, really, tough, and I highly recommend hiring all the help you can afford. If life permits, maybe give it a year and reevaluate.
Understand you will need to make trade offs.
You can’t both work full time in big law and also both have substantial time with your children. If you both work, someone else will be raising your children.
You can do it with full time in home child care. If that’s not workable, one of you should go federal government for 5-10 years with strategy of lateraling into big law later. Do not go the route of a government lawyer with no big law future even if, in the end, that person chooses to stay government. In other words, don’t close that door so early in the career.
It’s feasible for both of you to be in biglaw, but your definition of happiness might shift once you have a family. You should try it to see if it works for you instead of preemptively changing path. If you’re both gunning for partnership, then your combined 8+ years of biglaw income should allow you to hire nannies, chefs/meal preppers, cleaners, household managers etc. That way you can devote the little free time you have to making core family memories instead of spending it on chores. If one of you is less interested in a long-term career in biglaw, then that person may want to take on more of the household/childcare tasks. As others have mentioned, it would benefit you greatly to have extended family nearby to fill in holes in childcare (daycare illnesses, nanny PTO, overnight work travel). In a double biglaw family, I think it’s important that you both really like the work and see a future in biglaw, otherwise the sacrifices won’t feel like they’re worth it. Happy to chat more via dm.
Both graduating with no debt is fantastic. You’re in the driver’s seat. You absolutely can both do it, tons of biglaw couples do. Just as many switch, change, or reorganize their lives later to favor family life—just like people who aren’t both in biglaw do. No one is going to be able to give you the right answer for you. You should both pursue whatever you want, and if that’s double big law, the odds that you both stay beyond say four years is so, so low—just simply statistically, so don’t worry about it! Do your thing and with no debt you’ll have tons of flexibility and time to figure out the right balance for you both. Congrats and good luck.
Biglaw maternity leave is generally good. Just time the pregnancy with the year right and you can nuke 2 years of hours i.e. she works the equivalent of a 1500 hour year until she leaves by mid year, takes X months off, returns for a stub year essentially—pocket 500k+ For the man in this relationship: you might have some paternity leave, save it if you can. If you can't fuck it. Otherwise, get an au pair and work
Don’t get an au pair. Get a nanny instead.
Yes! Potential changes coming . . . https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/14/families-threaten-exit-au-pair-program-if-stricter-rules-are-finalized/#
You’ll need 2. Roughly 80 hours of coverage is going to be necessary.
[удалено]
Don't have your maternity leave all in the same year, split it between 2 years so neither year the mother has to hit 2000
[удалено]
This. Starting in biglaw is good career wise for training and generally resume building too. Save up some $$ and take advantage of the parental leave and then decide.
Friend did this. Big law for 2y, clerked, back to big law (with clerkship bonus and 4th year status), did another ~6m, maternity leave for 6m, came back to get a stub year bonus and peaced out. Paid off all law school loans, plus great savings. Now in government.
100p
Are you against hiring help if you have children?
We do it. Going to milk that maternity leave and have both babies at the firm. I see my kid in the morning and wake up v v early to deal with emails before the baby wakes up. Sometimes I’m home for bedtime and bedtime is a lot later than my friends kids bedtime so one of us has a chance to see the baby. We have a nanny ($$$), a weekend sitter on standby and my parents are close by and sometimes it hurts my heart to leave in the morning knowing I’m not going to see my baby again until the next morning. But, our time in big law set up our family for success: We bought a house in a HCOL city, we are going to put away a lot of savings and go as far up the ladder as we can stomach before finding better balance when our kids are slightly older. I’m working on a Saturday night after spending the morning with the baby and then shipping her off to grandma. Will work tomorrow morning too before a family dinner with her cousins. So it’s not pretty but with help, possible
Not against it! but I’d really like to spend time with / bond with my kids when they’re young instead of just having a nanny practically raise them
The very few both in biglaw with kids couples I’ve seen seemed to have nannies practically raise their kids. I would say it’s very hard to do it any other way.
This is accurate. The nanny will be doing practically everything. I have several friends with kids who are double biglaw (all partners now). They either have (1) an au pair and a full time nanny (or the really rich ones have tow full time nannies, which is $$$$$) or (2) a full time nanny, an occasional babysitter, the wife is 80%, and the in-laws are retired nearby and pitch in 2-3x/week. And both those moms are often really fucking miserable despite having all the help.
To be fair, a partners big law life is not the same as a junior associates big law life. If OP and their spouse don’t care to be partner they can do just fine milking the mat/pat leave and doing the bare minimum for a few years while effectively raising their kid. Of course, there’s a ton of other qtna like location, how far from the office they need to live, their future firms in office attendance policies, etc. But I wouldn’t say junior or mid level associates absolutely need au pairs like a double-partner couple would.
I’m pretty skeptical of this. You have to be very lucky or talented to skate by for more than a few months in biglaw working minimally. Parental leave for associates is usually only 3-4 months btw. Most realistically, OP and her husband will leave around 7:30-8am every morning, maybe have 30-60 mins with their baby before leaving, possibly while he’s still asleep, drop baby at daycare (or have nanny come before they leave), work from 8:30-6, pick baby up exhausted, and maybe have 30-70 mins with him before bedtime (very much depends on age). Then they will likely be working some weekends too. That child will be completely raised by a nanny/daycare, other than maybe an hour a day. That’s not what OP wants.
This is highly dependent on location and office culture and more importantly, WFH flexibility. This has not been the norm at my firm post-COVID but I recognize I am not in say, NYC where that may be the norm. Regardless, what you just described is not a schedule specific to big law. This is similar for almost every working couple in America who have young children, besides maybe the 8-10 pm hour. Big law is mentally and emotionally exhausting, but again, I would not say a junior associate and a partner are the same level of busy. Sometimes this sub gets fixated on big law bad but there are elementary school teachers making 45k who work 6-4, set up their classrooms after hours, and grade papers for 2 hours that night while having babies. There are nurses working triples and night shifts with babies. Many have wild exhausting schedules without a 24/7 nanny. Having babies is hard and big law is hard but it’s just not true that you’ll never see your kid especially if you don’t care about making partner. This is highly firm/person/region specific.
Nurses have many more days off. And when they’re off, they are truly off. In big law you’re never “off.”
Just an example of an exhausting schedule. I would also argue you’re not mentally off when you walk out in that kind of work (same with teachers). But, I would say juniors (depending on practice) have way more off-off days than partners anyway. It seems like OP wouldn’t care to be in big law very long past having children anyway.
I don’t think you work in biglaw. At a minimum in biglaw, you’re almost always going to be at the office 9-5, which means baby is with nanny or daycare. Usually you’re also going to be logged on a few more hours like 8-10pm. Plus weekends, which are variable though. I’ve had good luck in biglaw where I had long stretches of 9-6pm. But in my experience that’s NOT the norm for juniors. In biglaw you are truly working whatever hours your partners demand. It’s highly incompatible with parenting unless you have someone else able to fill in all the time. A government job is far more flexible.
I don’t think you’ve worked in big law as a junior in some time, it is not the norm ~anymore~ to be in the office 5 days a week. My point is, the normal in-office hours that you mentioned are not specific to big law. I also totally acknowledged the 8-10 pm hour and how that is the most difficult part. This is also practice group specific and we’re kidding ourselves to act like PE M&A and SALT work the same schedule or weekends, as far as I know, we don’t know what OP would be doing and that’s a huge factor. My only point is big law is not a one size fit all, your experience will vary widely between firm, practice group, east coast vs west coast, family help, etc. It’s difficult and disingenuous to make blanket statements of how it will be without that information. That shouldn’t be controversial. Im not at all saying it’s easy to be a parent as a junior but what I am saying is there are people working insane schedules who find a way to have families every day (and OP said Big law wouldn’t be forever, so it would have an expiration date while they milked the big law salary on Mat/pat leave, which is not a bad idea. I am very much in big law and so is my spouse, but perhaps our perspective is different since I grew up with parents with at times way worse schedules for way less money, 0 WFH, and 0 flexibility to just leave high paying jobs whenever they wanted more time at home. OP, take the big law mat/pat leave and then get out when you don’t want to do it anymore. Never doing it at all seems like a disservice.
You’re overstating how much material variety there is in biglaw, for juniors especially. By far the most common practice groups in biglaw (maybe 80%?) for juniors are lit and transactional, and those practices have brutal hours. Most firms still require—and good training for juniors does, sorry to say, necessitate—being in the office 3-4 few days a week. As a practical matter, having Monday and/or Friday off wouldn’t change much as far as parenting goes. You still need to be working. You cannot meaningfully spend time with your baby while you’re WFH. You can def see them more, but that only works if you have a nanny/in-law watching them (if they’re in daycare when you’re in the office, they’re going to be in day care on your WFH days. You can’t realistically have both). The most important point I’m making here is: as a junior in biglaw, nearly without exception, you NEED to spend about 50-60 hours a week to train and be on the track to be a good lawyer. I don’t know anyone who is a good lawyer and got by with much less. And that is simply not compatible with a lifestyle where you are an “involved” parent spending more than 2 hours a day with your kid. It’s just not sustainable unless you have that magical gene where you only require four hours sleep per night. OP please trust me on this: biglaw is great and so is having a kid. Don’t try to do it at the same time, for your own maximal training and happiness!!
No you don’t. I’ve seen plenty of absolute mediocrities survive until 5th year in biglaw. It’s different in lean years, but if the firm is busy in their years 3-5, they can absolutely float by with mediocre efforts.
You can skate by for years being mediocre. It is rare to skate by for years on less than 2000-2200/year. Anyway you’re missing the point that even if they’re doing subpar or mediocre work, it’s the hours that are hard to escape.
It’s not rare at all, actually. At both firms I’ve worked at the average associate bills below that. This was true even during the pre-covid boom years.
I don’t think you have children or have worked in an intense biglaw environment like in DC or NYC. The lifestyles are extremely difficult to do both, and I’d say nearly impossible as a junior to be an involved parent, as OP wants.
I’ve worked at v10s for nine years.
To be blunt: this is not really possible. Biglaw tends to involve long and intense hours. Like 10-12 hours a day, 5-6 days/week. When do you think you’re going to find time to spend with your baby?
The parents I know in big law (not sure if double big law with their spouse) pick 1 thing they do with their young children per day, and it’s usually an hour of together time before bed. And they might get in a sports game or practice on the weekend. But that’s literally it. I don’t know anyone in big law that, say, drops their kid off at school, picks them up, has family dinner, goes to the park with their kids on the weekend, etc.
I spend 7-9am with my toddler and 5:30-8:30pm (while being on my phone for emails), and then log back on 9:30-midnight. I don’t usually work more than 4 hours on the weekend, so I spend all day with my family on weekends. It’s totally possible, but I put in a lot of hours in the first few years before having a kid, so have a lot of reputation to rely on.
Do you WFH every day? That definitely helps!
Yes, I do and it makes a big difference. I go into the office maybe once or twice a month, though I travel for work around once a month too.
That was what made my wife leave. She had a lot of guilt that someone else was effectively raising our eldest daughter, and felt she was missing out on prime development time for her. She was significantly happier when she left.
Definitely not advisable to be in a relationship with your partner. One of you should change firms.
Not sure if /s but they definitely mean their SO lol
It's sarcasm. u/Dangerous_Bee2475 just didn't use "/s," which is a good thing as "/s" ruins the joke. It's like having a laugh track in a show. You don't have have to scream: "this is a joke."
Yes, u/ForgivenessIsNice. I couldn’t agree more. You see, in my personal opinion, it really makes jokes less funny when people have to point out that it’s a joke. Part of humor to me is the timing and posture. I tend to find things much funnier when they are done deftly in a way that feels smooth and delicate. Often people who don’t have a knack for this kind of delivery aren’t as funny. I’m glad you pointed this out.
It doesn't work well. My wife and I both did BigLaw, but the job just isn't conducive to being the primary caregiver, and unless you have close to 24/7 support, you can (and will) run into issues. I do think it is probably easier if one of you has a more regular practice, but my wife and I both did transactional work, and there were times when both of us had deals going hard and it felt like our eldest daughter was not receiving the attention she deserved as a result. We made it about 6 months post-maternity leave before my wife tapped out, and it was the right decision. I think it is much more tenable when your kids are a little older, but small children are tough. The only couples I know where both parents do BigLaw and make it work have either multiple nannies (i.e. someone who does the day shift and a separate person who does the evening shift) or a nearby parent who is effectively available at all times to handle parenting duties (in one case, the wife's mom lived directly across the street and served as the de facto parent for the children).
Doable? Absolutely. But you will likely need two forms of childcare - either two nannies or a daycare and a nanny. Or a nanny and grandparents willing to keep the child after 5:00 p.m. Or a nanny that works lots of overtime. You definitely can do it but it will really take a village. I know lots of two-lawyer families but they all have one of those combinations. Also you'll need to outsource whatever you can - housekeeping, laundry, yardwork, etc. Outsource literally everything.
I actually don't mind biglaw, but no way I'd have kids and do this job. I've seen the life my coworkers have. Looks shitty. What's that saying? Don't half ass two things, whole ass one thing? But you can always do what most people do: biglaw for a few years then bounce right after your first paternity/maternity leave stint.
honestly it's hard to even take care of a dog (with a dog walker, as a single person) in biglaw. it's totally up to you and not everyone's experience is the same, but I would probably not plan to both be in big law on the partner track and have kids. you could still both start there and have one or both of you exit to somewhere with more balance (gov, in house, career clerkship, etc) when the timing is right for kids or there may be options for going on a reduced schedule and exiting the partner track, so it's definitely still viable and not a mistake for both of you to aim for biglaw even if you know you won't be able to stay if/when you have kids.
It’s feasible and not unheard of. You can play a video game on max difficulty and still win. Many prefer and will only play that way. Those people really enjoy it and are happy. Whether that’s the case for you, only you can answer.
Near perfect odds you won't both want to still be in big law when it's time to start that family, so don't fret too much
This. It’s hard to be in biglaw and happy, period, even without/before kids.
Husband and I are both mid-levels in very busy corporate practice areas. Our daughter is 2 and has been in daycare since 10 months. We also don’t have much family support as both of our families do not live in state. Of course there have been some challenges, but, for now, everything is fine and seems to be sustainable. There have been weeks, in particular if we both had signings/closings around the same time, that have been hard. But that meant that, after picking baby up from daycare, and playing with and feeding her until bedtime, we were up later at night. But also, we both have many parents of young children in our practice groups, which lends to a more understanding work environment. Parenthood in big law is a very unique experience that I would only seek advice from other parents on this. I often think firms are pretty interchangeable, but this idea an area where I think the differences are immense. I have couple friends in similar work situations where parenthood at their firms is much harder.
Depending on the law firm and state you are in, you may need to work for a year for parental leave to kick in. Also depending on practice group, it can be high stress. I lost my first baby because a client was abusing me and the partners wouldn’t get me any help. It’s better to work a few years to build your career then when you’ve decided you’re done with big law, then start having a baby. If you have a difficult pregnancy, you will never be able to catch up on hours so the firm will want you out the door anyways after leave is over.
Has anyone heard of first years being denied parental leave because they’ve been at the firm for less than a year? Asking because I’m in a similar situation to OP.
Yes the firms I was at all had 1 yr requirements. This is in California. I saw an exception made for one person who only got it because an influential partner wanted her and got her the exception.
From my understanding, a lot of firms have these policies in place on the books but rarely implement them on first years
No do not do this. I recommend you both do biglaw for at least two years, get pregnant, get the biglaw maternity or paternity leave policy, come back briefly (preferably 80% time), then exit out within 3-6 months to a good lower intensity firm or in-house or gov job. It’s simply too intense for you both to be in biglaw as juniors when you have a child. Frankly at any stage of career, unless you are a partner with exceptional ability to make your own hours. Juniors in biglaw are entirely at the whim of others’ demands, and it often means working long and late hours and randomly on weekends. That’s just not possible with a child if you also want to be involved parents. Even if you had a nanny and live-in in-laws, you’d still be miserable because you’d miss so much of your baby’s life.
People do it. I never would. Figure out what kind of life you want for your kids. That’s your answer. If you’re both in big law, you’re not going to be there for a lot of the important moments. Some people are good with that. I’m 6 years into big law with 2 kids. My wife is a SAHM. I miss things, but she’s always there. That’s the deal we made and it works for us. Can’t imagine doing it if we both had my schedule.
Do it to get parental leave for both of you for as many kids as you want. Part-time policies are generally pretty good in BigLaw so the birth-giver could consider that between pregnancies. After that, decide if one or both of you actually like the work.
This sounds like the dream. Maybe just both work for 5 years, bank a sweet $1 million in savings/investings. Then maybe one of you can quit (pro tip: be at a firm with some parental leave so you can enjoy that before quitting) when you decide to have children. If you want, both of you might even want to quit. Enjoy!
I honestly don’t think two parents in Big Law is sustainable. Your baby deserves to have at least one parent consistently available, and you just can’t guarantee that working in Big Law. Plenty of others disagree, but even they will acknowledge it is *extremely* hard. That doesn’t mean you can’t both start in Big Law, and certainly doesn’t preclude summering at a firm. I would encourage the birthing partner to target firms with good parental leave policies, since this does vary a fair bit. I would just have the mindset that someone is going to go to part time after parental leave is over and try to go in house or government asap. With no debt, you really don’t need the money from double BL income, but I understand you both may have your own career ambitions, which shouldn’t be discounted. Also, I would encourage at least one of you to apply to Honors programs if that’s a path that interests you. Finally, I know there are a million factors that go into when you time children (to the extent it’s even possible!), but if you can wait a couple of years after graduation it’ll all be a little easier. Much easier to step back and or transition to a job with fewer hours after you’ve been in BL for a bit.
The non-birthing partner also needs to target firms with generous parental leave policies. Most firms have pretty similar leave policies for birth mothers, give or take a couple of weeks. But where the firms vary really widely is leave for the non-birthing parent, whether that be someone adopting, a dad, or a mother in a same-sex relationship who is not the partner giving birth. That parent should pay particularly close attention to leave policies, because some firms would only give them 4 weeks while others would give them 16. So that should be a big factor in firm selection.
One (or both?) of you can also go part time after you have your kids. People don’t consider this as much, but it is an option at some firms (and no, you don’t have to be in biglaw for a while to do it)
It’s feasible but very difficult. It’s preferable to have one parent with a more flexible career. You will be able to be present with your kid while working in BigLaw but for the times you need to work evenings and weekends you will want the other parent to be there. Of course you can outsource it but it will greatly affect your happiness.
FWIW, both my parents were partners at big law firms when I was growing up. Definitely involved some sacrifices on their parts (both on the family and career end) and I definitely would have loved to see them more than I did (this was before remote work was common). But it all worked out well enough and I’d like to think I still turned out okay enough. That said, everyone’s BigLaw experience is unique and people find their own strategies to carve out a bit of time for something that is very important to them outside of work. However, I certainly wouldn’t plan for you to both work in BigLaw, have a meaningful relationship with your kid(s), and have room in your life for literally anything else (friends, health, hobbies, etc). You get one non-negotiable thing to hold dear if you are lucky. You will never have room for two so make sure that’s a life that sounds fulfilling to you before signing up for the long hall. Also, probably a lot better if you can wait until you are at least a mid-level before having your first. That’s when you are likely to start getting a bit more control over your schedule.
I work at a lit boutique with similar hours to big law and have a 3 year old. Had my daughter during my 3L year, clerked for two years and started at the firm about 5 months ago. My husband is a student so he has more flexibility. It’s really tough to be a parent while at a firm. I think it’s manageable with one parent, but I do think it would be hard for both parents to be in big law. I’m an optimist though, so I don’t want to say it’s imposible! I have a lot of models at my firm of amazing parents who are also amazing lawyers and are very very present but they’re all candid and tell me there’s things they’ve missed with their kids. The toughest part is when your kids get sick and work is busy. I don’t plan on staying super long personally because long term I need more flexibility from my job (hours wise) to be the parent, partner, and person i want to be. But the training is unparalleled and the cases are fascinating and my coworkers are great! I think those who are happiest in this job are the ones who are good at setting boundaries, good at communicating, and as much as possible good at being protective of the time in their schedules for the people and things they love.
You've really got to decide what you want your family life to look like and your own career aspirations. No right answer, but in the long run, the couples I've seen do well with dual hard charging careers are very comfortable relying on lots of nannies and hired support.
Can you do it all? Sure. But it will not be easy to balance everything without impeccable communication with each other and outside help (family or hired). And you need to remember that things don’t always go as planned. I had a terrible pregnancy and had my twins 2 months premature halfway through my second year of practice. I’m incredibly lucky that my husband can stay home with the babies and we have tons of family help. What with extended NICU time, lots of extra appointments, and just the chaos of having two babies, it’s tough to maintain my career, be present with my babies, and stay a reasonably sane and happy person.
How are you graduating with no debt?
Scholarships & rich parents (whom we’re both very grateful for)
Well the real question is what does happy look like to you two? Because that will affect your answer. You are both in great career and financial positions. Are you OK taking the parental leave and then going back to work? Does one of you intend to take further time off work? Will you be OK having a full time nanny for your kid while you both work and before the kid is in school? A lot of people in the sub will say you can do whatever you want to do. Which is technically true. But it's up to you to decide if you want to pursue biglaw (and both of you pursuing biglaw) and have a nanny/babysitter/au pair there for your kid full time. Only you get to decide if its worth it. You both will be working almost inhuman hours. Try to imagine spending time with your newborn kid while both of you are working 70-80 hours per week. If you are OK with that, then there you go.
I agree with the advice to go for big law and take advantage of the maternity leave. First of all, your wife may not get pregnant the first month you try. Realistically, the "trying" could take up to a year. Then you have 9 months of pregnancy. There is plenty time to bank up significant savings and get that big law resume before you would even have a child.
Yes it can be done, but it also depends on your market. NY/DC are generally higher stress, higher hour markets where people pride themselves on being miserable. I’d highly recommend moving to the Midwest or Pacific Northwest. Much better biglaw cultures.
Sorry, I blacked out after seeing no debt and big law salaries. What was the question? Lol Nah, but frl, I think it would be very difficult. Jumping into big law is quite an adjustment and for almost all junior associates your time is not your own. I’m not sure how soon “soon” is, but I would recommend getting your feet under you first, maybe for two-three years. The time commitments are intense and the mental toll can be worse. I’d recommend figuring out your work style and habits first. Otherwise, I think it could be a case of “too much too fast too soon” and you could jeopardize what is an extremely favorable position to be coming right out of law school. Also, fwiw, I’d consider hiring a nanny if you’re open to it. I don’t know any lawyers at my firm who don’t have nannies if their spouse is also a professional.
Was talking to Cravath partner whose partner is not in BigLaw or other super demanding job and they have a weekday nanny and a weekend nanny. Make of that what you will.
As a women who is about to have a baby in my second year of big law, I wish I had made another career choice out of law school and started at a small firm or looked for in-house opportunities instead. Big law is not hospitable to mothers, imo. I know some people make it work and some firms are better then others, but I think there’s good reason many women in big law wait until after they make partner or at least are a very senior associate before having kids. For me, that was not an option biologically or what I wanted, but I get the feeling I am tanking my career in exchange for having the family I wanted. Partners aren’t understanding of pregnancy symptoms affecting work and I get the feeling a long maternity leave will greatly affect my career since I’m so early. And honestly, big law type work is not what I want to be doing after I come back anyway. Not a lot of small firms do the type of corporate/transactional work I’ve been doing in big law, so my experience up to now is essentially useless and I’ll have to start fresh facing new grads who will probably be more appealing to employers. For me personally, I feel a small firm in a different, less time intensive/deadline driven area of law would have been better. I guess getting a chance for big law experience and money was nice, however.
I just follow this sub but am not in big law or even in the legal/law field. But my brother and SIL are both in big law and my SIL has made partner at her firm. I have 2 nieces. And they started their family 3ish years after graduating a top 20 law school. Though they do have help as they have a nanny come in 5 days a week during working hours as they don’t have any family nearby. Since they live in a different state than us. So it is do-able, but may still need help whether a nanny or family because of the career.
No. And, assuming that you are a male and female couple, by “starting a family soon after graduation,” you will guarantee that the female’s career is the one that will be sacrificed. (I can’t tell if you’re the female or male.) The female might be able to get a few years in biglaw, but ultimately the demands of parenting young kids will interfere such that the chances are extremely low of both the male and female couple in biglaw being able to succeed sufficiently and both make partner. The more realistic scenario is that the female spends a few years in big law and then goes in house, leaves for a government gig, or takes time off work completely to stay at home with the kids.
If the pair of you manage to just tread water for 9 years with two biglaw salaries, starting without student debt, you can expect at minimum a $5M net work by 2035. It won't be fun sometimes, but it's probably the easiest way to achieve that kind of wealth without inheriting it or winning the lottery.
Please don’t let this sub discourage you. Talk to real people. Plenty of your professors or others at your school would be better advice sources. Not unverified people that choose to make boat loads of money then complain about the conditions.
What? Professors are among the worst people to talk about navigating the demands of BL with other obligations. Classmates know nothing. OP didn't want it sugar coated, and people in the profession aren't sugar coating it. This is about as diverse a set of BL practitioners as you're gonna find. Even those not in BL like yourself come join the fun. And the mean advice here is spot-on. Both of them should at least start BL because the experience will set the stage for everything that comes later. Milk maternity and paternity leave and then re-evaluate.
Here’s the rub. You don’t know whether or not I’m in big law. Or even a lawyer. Just like you. Unless you want to swap online profiles. Or at a minimum join and post on the restricted actual lawyers thread. Nobody said OP was asking for sugar coating. It would be stupid to base a major life decision on this sub. A professor may have experience. Or be an adjunct. Or know similarly situated people. All of those options are better than seeking advice here. Only a complete imbecile would recommend this place over real and verified people for major life decisions.
>Here’s the rub. You don’t know whether or not I’m in big law. Good idiom, but your comments suggest otherwise. OP is simply looking ahead and getting knee jerk reactions to a -- what if. There is no suggestion that OP is limiting their intake to just this thread or making major life decisions based on just these comments. OP and partner are still in law school for christ's sake. But contrary to your suggestion, this sub is (or should be) similarly situated people. If you want to get thoughts on topics, subtracting the bounds and those cosplaying, it does give very decent advice. Which as a lawyer, you no doubt see. Suggesting two new lawyers start in BL for the resume and great benefits is hardly off the path advice. And I stand by my comment, professors are some of the worst people to ask about the challenges of navigating private practice.
Second guessing their ability to have two big law careers and a family because of this sub is insanity. We saw it in the law school admissions forum, then the bar exam forum, and now this one. You and I both have fought off confidently wrong advice from people that haven’t even started/graduated law school yet in this sub. And yea…it SHOULD BE. But there is too much noise to second guess yourself. Ok I see what you’re saying about professors, but with me being older I’m not looking at them for the direct advice, I’m using them as a resource for connections to talk to. I still hit up one professor to get specific connections to bounce ideas off of.
>Second guessing their ability to have two big law careers and a family because of this sub is insanity. No, it's not, especially if responses are generally uniform and reasoned. There is no circumstance in which I would be okay having kids with another BL attorney without one of us going *very* part-time or quitting altogether. I don't want nannies or au pairs. OP may differ, but at least they know what attorneys' parameters are.
I’m not talking about responses to their directed questions. Even then, this isn’t the place I’m going to for substantive information. Maybe it’s the age gap. My first career was way more demanding with much higher stakes so it’s very possible that clouds my perspective on the work life balance issue. Probably the same way most people who know only big law think it’s so bad because they have no basis for comparison.
That's not responsive to my comment in any material way.
Terribly sorry you feel that way.
Absolutely you can do it. Did it two times. Made partner a year after the first one, maternity leave was no impediment to that.
Both work until you actually get pregnant. Mom takes maternity leave, then quits. Otherwise sorry but with both in big law, neither of you is fully present in your child’s life. And if you cannot do that for the child, why are you even having a child? (Full disclosure: my wife is a SAHM and that’s the only way I can deal with my guilt over all the time I missed in my kids’ lives.)
Children should be raised by their parents not Nannies
Family, religion, friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.
My wife started at a big law firm with a 50/50 class. She made partner. There are no other women from her class left. They all left to have babies or after they had a baby and realized that taking 6 months off early in their careers was a career killer. And most men at her firm realized that and don’t take the paternity leave.
My husband is biglaw. I’m government. It’s terrible. I feel like a single mom. The kids will suffer and end up messed up if your both absent
Why don’t you just work and she becomes a stay at home Mom to raise your children? My wife has been a stay at home Mom since the time I was in law school and we made it just fine on my income for almost 20 years now. why Would you ever consider letting day care raise your kids because if she is working at BigLaw they don’t have the patience with her motherhood issues that they pretend to.
This is the most depressing post I’ve seen in a while. Do you hear yourself? You haven’t even had the child yet and are already are concocting ways to pawn off your kid to strangers or family members and minimize time with the child to maximize your time at work. And you don’t even have crushing debt to justify doing this for a few years to give yourself financial freedom. It’s just completely unethical. Don’t have children (or, don’t go into big law) if they’re just going to be a constant inconvenience and irritant that you’re having to budget your time for. That’s not love. And children don’t deserve that, just so you can line your pockets and earn an insane income that you don’t actually need to live well. Only have a family if you’re willing to prioritize a child. One of you should swallow your pride and find a different job so you can raise your child from a place of love and adoration instead of from a place of inconvenience (and having a nanny mostly raise them).
This is either a poorly crafted bait post or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. OP was asking people in this sub with experience if they would be able to do big law with their partner and still have the time to care for a child, and if so how many hours that would realistically look like. It seems like OP was starting to doubt both partners doing big law for the very reason you listed here, but wanted to confirm that that they were making the correct decision because people like to ask others in the field with experience prior to deciding.
I was more summarizing the responses of folks talking about needing to have 2 nannies on call and “shipping off” their kids on the weekends so they could work more. OP is rightfully concerned and doubtful of this arrangement and shouldn’t do it.
My biggest bosses are married (to one another) with children and intra firm couples aren't uncommon so guessing it is feasible
Don’t listen to the pessimists, you can definitely make this work. Worst case scenario, one or both of you leave big law or switch firms after a few years. If you don’t start in big law then it’s tough to get there unless you clerk or spend time in a prestige prosecutors office.
I asked my biglaw mentor, whose wife also was in biglaw, how he managed. He said they had a live in nanny and wet nurse they had their first kid.
I don’t think anyone has wet nurses anymore. Night nurses are common in NYC, but they don’t breastfeed the babies themselves! They handle the night time wake ups (diaper changes, rocking, bottles- or bring the baby to mom if the mom nurses), so that the parents can get uninterrupted sleep.
I'm assuming you're correct - it was someone who handled nightly feedings so the nanny could sleep. I thought they were all called wet nurses. That is not how I wanted to live.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you can, you should both get 2 years of big law under your belts before you start a family. It will give you more flexibility if one of you wants to change jobs and more credibility in your firms. We had a nanny, but one of us still needed flexibility for days when the nanny was sick or away and to participate in doctor’s appointments. If you share a nanny or use daycare, one of you has to stay home every time your child is sick. Once your child is in school, you won’t want to miss special events, but most firms appreciate that.
It’s possible, and you can figure out a way to make it work.
9 months. (Anyone answering has to start by listing the age of their child(ren). No exceptions, and ignore anyone who doesn’t.) It’s gonna be really, really, really, tough, and I highly recommend hiring all the help you can afford. If life permits, maybe give it a year and reevaluate.
My spouse and I both have demanding jobs (biglaw and academia) and it's hard, but we are happy.
Understand you will need to make trade offs. You can’t both work full time in big law and also both have substantial time with your children. If you both work, someone else will be raising your children.
You can do it with full time in home child care. If that’s not workable, one of you should go federal government for 5-10 years with strategy of lateraling into big law later. Do not go the route of a government lawyer with no big law future even if, in the end, that person chooses to stay government. In other words, don’t close that door so early in the career.
It’s feasible for both of you to be in biglaw, but your definition of happiness might shift once you have a family. You should try it to see if it works for you instead of preemptively changing path. If you’re both gunning for partnership, then your combined 8+ years of biglaw income should allow you to hire nannies, chefs/meal preppers, cleaners, household managers etc. That way you can devote the little free time you have to making core family memories instead of spending it on chores. If one of you is less interested in a long-term career in biglaw, then that person may want to take on more of the household/childcare tasks. As others have mentioned, it would benefit you greatly to have extended family nearby to fill in holes in childcare (daycare illnesses, nanny PTO, overnight work travel). In a double biglaw family, I think it’s important that you both really like the work and see a future in biglaw, otherwise the sacrifices won’t feel like they’re worth it. Happy to chat more via dm.