Related Posts
NYC peeps, come join the CF meetup groups!
Additional Posts in Law
Thoughts on Paul Weiss - corporate?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
NYC peeps, come join the CF meetup groups!
Thoughts on Paul Weiss - corporate?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Send download link to your phone
OR
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
No comment on the amount, but autonomy is about who you work for/with and your seniority more than where you work. Plenty of big law lawyers have autonomy. Trust me, I love when I have a junior that can operate on their own and I don’t have time to be all over them.
Operating on your own is different autonomy to me than being the “principal” on the case. Operating on your own is being free to get the work done when you want to get it done in the way you want to do it.
Pro
Sliding scale.
I’d give up $100k for it if I was at $600k.
I probably wouldn’t give up a penny of it if I was at $200k.
Pro
I disagree with this. I’m not in BigLaw but I’ve been at two relatively large firms (one with about 100+ attorneys and I’m currently at one with 500+ attorneys.) In between the two, I worked at a smaller firm with about 30-40 attorneys. I had/have way more autonomy at the larger firms than the smaller firm. I was heavily micromanaged and couldn’t draft a simple motion without someone wanting to review it first. I’m not sure the size of the firm dictates whether you have autonomy. Maybe if you’re a first year, its good to start at a smaller place to build up experience but I’ve had way better luck at larger firms.
That being said, the lack of autonomy at the smaller firm (and the lack of work in general) is what caused me to leave. I’d much rather feel useful than have a bunch of money. But I genuinely think both are possible. It’s really dependent upon the firm and the specific partners you work for.
I'll clarify that for my market, practice area, and level I know that moving to one of the higher paying firms would mean losing some autonomy. I'd have to deal with less desirable cases and clients, and I would be more at the mercy of the whims of those above me.
Point of my post isn't to say that biglaw always means no autonomy. Just asking what you'd value your autonomy at when weighing job options.
Beyond $250k in comp, would value autonomy much more than additional comp. I see my counterparts at bigger firms who are getting crushed by client and partner demands and have little to no control over their schedule and how they work with their teams and can’t imagine going back to that, unless I had to in order to support my family.
Will also echo the others in this thread - autonomy isn’t always inversely correlated to compensation and in fact it should be the other way around, but your specific decision may reflect a different tradeoff. FWIW, if you end up choosing this job and end up reducing your autonomy, my guess is that you’d start looking around again in a couple years.
I have always assigned a lot of value to autonomy. I would not even put a dollar value on it-to me it is priceless. I’ve been at a boutique, a top 15 in size international firm, and an Am Law 200 firm. Obviously had a lot less autonomy as an associate than as a partner. The grass is not always greener.
Chief
I would not pay extra money for autonomy, work at a v10 (so top of market pay already) and my main problem is too much autonomy when overworked partners go completely MIA and I’m trying to figure everything out on my own. I’m pretty senior but I see this for juniors too, they get more autonomy than they want and they often come ask seniors like me, who are not staffed on their matters, for help because partners don’t have any time to teach and train. Not having adequate supervision also means I sometimes find my midlevels have gaps in their knowledge they didn’t even know existed because no one taught them to look out for XYZ. Not throwing every partner at my firm under the bus here but it’s a lot of them. And the problem is that culture rolls downhill. I lateraled as a senior so I’m big on training but home grown seniors and mid levels here sometimes seem to think because no one had time to train them, they have no time to train their juniors now.
There needs to be some happy medium between autonomy and supervision.
But here to add to the voices saying you can get plenty of autonomy with top of market pay, if that’s what you want and you work at certain places. At any firm, it of course depends on which partners you work with. At my firm the power is more with the associates, we’re understaffed so we can be more picky about who we choose to work with, and the difficult partners have trouble finding staffing.
Pro
Also, in-house puts a totally different spin on this issue.
In some ways, as a result of being in-house it would seem I have very little autonomy. Certain face time hours are expected (well, were pretty-Covid). I can’t choose my clients. I can’t choose my deals. I don’t really have a subordinate to whom I can delegate grunt work.
But I feel so much more liberated than when I was running deals for clients as outside counsel.
Part of that is that there’s a layer removed - I no longer have the in-house lawyer who was usually my client contact with ultimate decision-making power over how things go on the legal side - that’s all me, as long as it doesn’t ping one of my GC’s hot button issues.
Part of it is that I’m fortunate to be in one of those law departments that are viewed as a business partner rather than a barrier to be overcome (at least with respect to my specialty), so even my in-house clients don’t get to make the call on legal issues - they recognize that I get to make legal decisions and I’ll make those in the best interest of the organization even if it isn’t what they always want. That’s in part because I’m deal oriented, and it’s in part because my GC is well respected and probably third in command (after CEO and CFO, but before COO).
So I really just do deals with my internal clients, whom I consider colleagues more than clients in most ways. Even though I still need(ed) to be in between 9-5 (at least (except Friday afternoons)), and have my clients and deals dictated to me, I feel completely almost autonomous when it comes to the substance of my job.
P1, the nature of BigLaw professional services puts a ceiling on the amount of autonomy achievable vis-a-vis some other work opportunities. But I agree there’s a range of autonomy within BigLaw and a lot depends on who you work for and have to answer to.
I would need at least $75k more
I lateraled to a larger firm, got a significant pay increase, and now work with a micromanager who mansplains everything to me. Not worth it, in my opinion. If they paid me an extra $100k? Maybe, but probably not. I want to feel like a valuable part of the team, and I can’t if others aren’t willing to give up some control.
I sought autonomy by starting a solo practice right out of law school. I didn't apply for one post-law school job because I caught a glimpse of what life was like in a firm. It wasn't for me.
1.5 years into my solo practice and i live what i do. I work 40-50 hours per week, much less than my buddies from school and make much more money than them. My autonomy allows me to make all the business decisions. 2020, first full year, I had over $200k in sales. Last month was my best month ever where i grossed over $30k in sales. I'm now looking to hire another attorney to help with the case load.
My law school friends work themselves to death as slaves to partners. Not one enjoy their jobs and almost all regret going to law school.
I guess my response to a dollar amount is that there isn't one that would make me give up my autonomy.
For a pay increase of about $110k, I am making the jump from a role where I had a very high degree of autonomy to one where, I assume, I will have less autonomy.
I wouldn’t give up my autonomy for a pay bump. Mid-level associate at regional firm - I’m underpaid by market standards (I make ~115k), but my billable hours req is lower and I have lots of control over my time / who I work with. I’ve turned down offers for giant salaries - for me, not worth the sacrifices.
I just took at $25k paycut to get autonomy back. #1 reason I left. Sure the partners I worked for let me do my work on my own, but I had zero guidance, got assigned weekend work every week (was hired on the promise of weekends were mine but for catastrophic emergencies) and once I did my work I was cut out of the courtroom phase which to me meant I was nothing more than a cog