Biglaw 8th year. Three kids. Still billing. Still alive (barely).

I was a physics major before law school, so I tend to think in systems. Feedback loops, entropy, conservation laws—you get the idea. And one thing I’ve noticed in Biglaw: a ton of brilliant, capable women here are quietly opting out of reproduction. Not delaying. Opting out.

Yes, we make money. Yes, we’re “independent.” But are we winning?

Please read below—continuing in comments.

Personally, I’ve opted for no kids and no big law and it’s awesome.

I’m honestly appalled at the seeming insinuation that women without children don’t have the same level of meaning or joy in their lives as those who do and/or that they will regret their choices.

There were a few years in my early 20s when I thought I might procreate, but when I was truly introspective about it, I only wanted to have children because the message that I was getting from society was that it was what I was supposed to (I do not disregard that there’s a biological component to that, of course).

Fast forward: after years of exploring life and the world, relationships, college, law school, a couple of decades in Biglaw, when my gynecologist told me my hormone levels were such that I couldn’t get pregnant, the first words out of my mouth, truly impulsively, were “I made it!” So if I’d ever had any doubts…the look on my doctors face was priceless .

Physics, chemistry, and biology don’t change, but societal functions aren’t fixed. Perhaps more women, and at even younger ages, are taking a critical view of what has long been dictated as their role in society and saying “ no thanks!”

I’m in my early 50s now with a full life, the firm is my job, not my life, and no regrets. I may concede that I’m a bit of an outlier for women my age, many of whom thought they HAD TO have children, but I hear so many younger women these days saying out loud the things that I was only thinking when I was younger. The societal system can shift in spite of the immutable truths of physics, chemistry, and biology.

Might such a shift eventually lead to stagnation or devolution or extinction? If monumental enough, sure, but that’s definitely a question for another day. In the meantime, plenty of women can eschew the historical sociological patterns with full knowledge of the realities of science and lead happy and regret free lives.

Let’s say you have your first kid at 40 (IF it works out). That’s a completely different human experience than having one at 25. You’ve lost 15 years of shared life with that kid—plus you’re likely never going to be a grandparent who can chase toddlers without orthopedic shoes.

Meanwhile, law firms don’t actually reward loyalty. They push people out—gently, awkwardly, ruthlessly—by late 40s. So you’ve got no firm, no kid, no energy, and a frozen egg you never used because you were redlining a securities purchase agreement.

Are we actually making empowered choices? Or are we just following the most prestigious conveyor belt into a quiet kind of sterility—spiritual, emotional, and biological?

If you believe in energy, cycles, even recursion, reproduction isn’t just biology—it’s part of the larger design. Life begets life. And we keep pretending we’re not part of that system.

So:
• Should firms offer real part-time tracks (not “Mommy Track” purgatory)?
• Should more women avoid Biglaw entirely if they want a full personal life?
• Should we be brutally honest about what Biglaw costs, not just what it pays?

Not trying to judge. Just watching a lot of amazing people chase prestige, collect bonuses, and eventually get ghosted by the profession—no legacy, no lineage, no little weirdos to pass on their sharp minds to.

Thoughts?

You're in big law with 3 kids and you spent all your time on fighting random women in the legal field about your wildly off base ideas on the weekend? Sure Jan. Not everything can be reduced to a formula. Please find a different hobby than trying to repackage conservative views about women and what they want using math.

OMG, not only (former or not) physicists think logically and “in systems.” Some people don’t want kids, leave them be. Who are you to tell them what’s “optimal” for them? I say this as someone who plans to start trying in a year or so.

Personally, I know maybe two people who don’t have a long list of things they think their parents did wrong (and the things they list at least hint at neglect, if not “light” abuse). Not everyone should be a parent. And, as I already mentioned, not everyone wants to be.

I personally am not sure if I want to have kids because, to be honest, I’m just not sure raising children is the way I want to spend my limited time on this earth. But I’m all for more family-friendly policies in Biglaw and other workplaces. I think there is a backlash currently to the idea that workplaces should be more accommodating to parents, which confuses me.

You’ve made an erroneous assumption that women who delayed or completely opted out of children would remain financially stable without their biglaw jobs.

I know plenty of women who do not have children and do not have financial stability. The economic system as a whole makes it difficult to impossible to comfortably raise children.

I say this as a single mother living pay check to pay check WITH my mid-law salary. The women you’re observing are making logical choices that work for them. They don’t need you to condescend to them or remind them about orthopedic shoes.

Agree with Attorney 1. No female senior associate in Big Law with three kids has this much free time.

And the timing of the post on a Sunday—to try to maximize responses—seems a bit too deliberate and professional.

OP, Associate 2, and Associate 5 appear to be working together, possibly orchestrated and funded by an organization seeding manipulation on social media.

I wouldn’t engage further.

Real part time tracks should definitely be an option

I left big law recently after 8 years and it’s been amazing, but scary. I do agree I find it surprising so many curious brilliant minds are in big law doing something I know (because they told me) they don’t find interesting. Ultimately I think lawyers are very risk averse people - we just got on the treadmill and it seems crazy to let go of a job that pays so well. We tend to overvalue what we have (good salary, prestige, clear career path) over what we don’t have( freedom, ability to be creative, less stress, more time etc ). But I think the failure to follow our actual dreams, or at least do a job which allows us to have side hobbies, is going to weigh heavily as the years go by and it gets harder and harder to make a change.

If I had to reduce it to functions:

1 kid:
f(t) = log(t + 1)
Slow climb. Some volatility. But stabilizes into something rich.

2+ kids:
f(t) = e^t
Looks brutal at first. Then it takes off. Exponential payoff—time, joy, meaning.

0 kids:
f(t) = -x² + c
Looks like success. Peeks early. Then drifts quietly downward.

No shame in any curve.

But only two of them keep rising.
Only two build something that compounds beyond the self.

Choose your function wisely.

Brilliant. You’ve figured it out.

Big law should offer 50% pay for 50% hours (and 50% everything else), with whatever gradations in between that make business sense.

They should also allow maximum flexibility wrt RTO/WFH. I’m good seeing colleagues on the first and third Monday of the month, or whatever alternative.

— 5 kiddos

Let’s spell it out.

Marriage isn’t just a “capstone” to your already perfect, curated life. It’s not a sentimental accessory to throw on once you’ve secured the resume, the condo, the solo trip to Morocco. It’s the foundation—the structure that helps you build something bigger than yourself. Stability. Loyalty. Shared vision. Division of labor. Emotional and economic resilience. You don’t “outgrow” needing those things just because you make six figures.

Same with kids.

They’re not a lifestyle upgrade. They’re not a reward for surviving Biglaw. They’re not even about you. They are the continuation of everything you are. Literally and spiritually. They anchor you to time, to purpose, to legacy. They force you to mature, to serve, to stop making yourself the center of the universe. And in return, they hand you the deepest kind of joy and meaning—and yes, pain—you’ll ever know.

No, they don’t “complete” you. But they refine you. Forge you.

And here’s the real kicker: you don’t get an unlimited window to figure this out. You can negotiate a billion-dollar deal, but you cannot negotiate with your biology. You cannot freeze your 30s. You cannot outrun time.

So yes, you should be thinking about marriage early. You should be vetting for long-term character, not just LinkedIn stats. You should be imagining what kind of father a man would be—not just what kind of dinner party guest.

And yes, you should be having kids sooner than later—if you want them. Because if you wait until life is “calm,” you’ll be waiting forever.

This isn’t about submission. It’s about wisdom.

So let’s get clear:
• Marriage isn’t a trap. It’s a multiplier.
• Kids aren’t an inconvenience. They’re the point.
• Time isn’t your servant. It’s your test.

Figure it out before you’re 47 with a corner office, a Peloton, a frozen egg, and no one to hand your last name to.

I mean, sure! Same with men. Of course people can have it all, but you can’t do two things at the same time.

Some people want to bill 2200 hours a year, and that lifestyle is much more compatible with not being a parent, because you don’t have the need to allocate certain hours in a day for parenting.

I think at the end of the day, though, the choice to have or not have kids has very little to do with choice of career. Some people choose not to have children because they don’t want them, even though they might have a career choice that is very compatible with parenting. If you have a career that is not conducive to having kids, you figure it out and might make some pretty big decisions to make sure that you can have kids.

The fact that the people who bill the most time and earn the most money at law firms often do not have kids, or have a stay at home spouse, and are very clearly not the default parent in their homes, does not bother me. There are only so many hours in a day. It is impossible to bill 12 hour days and be the default parent, unless you’ve figured out a way to not sleep.

To me, the task for our generation is to make space for valued part-time contributors. You can be an absolutely top notch lawyer part time. You can be very available for a small number of projects, and not bill a huge amount of time. You can be a parent, and an amazing lawyer, you just can’t expect to practice law and parent at the same time.

I’ve long believed that corporate America should offer women with kids part time accommodations because society as a whole would benefit from women with kids not being deterred from competitive careers. That would solve the problem. All the effort and funds throw into DEI and literally no one thought about working moms and their offspring. I am not bashing DEI, but it would be nice if working moms were somehow included. Instead of arguing here, perhaps let’s write to Congress?

Interesting. I was a chemist before law school. I don’t practice in anything science-related now, not a patent lawyer, but your post really stood out. You strike me as one of the sharper ladies on here. Do you have a graduate physics background? Just curious. Your perspective on systems and entropy reads like someone who does.

I once had a quirky graduate chemistry professor who had four kids while finishing her degree. Mostly male class, but she encouraged people to have kids in college. Got a lot of flak for it, but she wasn’t wrong. Biologically, early twenties is peak time for mitochondrial health and DNA replication fidelity. Some people were partying. They should’ve been passing on their genes.

Just DM’d you. Would love to start a Women in Law group for folks with grad-level science backgrounds. Let me know if you’re interested.

Without getting too deep, how do you account for non-biological children? I’ve already helped raise a kiddo who is now out on her own, and while I absolutely understand the biological imperative, the reward of having helped shape a human being into a full fledged member of society is still present.

God this thread is like a walking advertisement for why the humanities/social sciences matter. Science "systems" don't map well onto a society that has irrational actors. I won't have a kid in this country until this country proves it cares about my kids and Trump cutting funding to the DoE amongst others, is not it.

So many people in biglaw seem to have kids because they feel like they should, without considering the context of the world or their career and my god it's tragic.

I don’t have a solution, but I hear you. I’m in my 30s, not very into children and in a biglaw firm (but billing ~2000/year which I understand is low by industry standard). I know I will have children, but the plan keeps getting pushed back. It’s really getting me to think that my best fertility window will pass before I pull the trigger. I am aware that this job, or my firm, is not worth of my putting off life plans (and on the flip side, a job or firm worth of such sacrifice will not expect you to do that). My fear is really that I can’t afford losing my job for quite a few years, and it really sucks.

As I get older, I often think about these questions and also in general what I actually want in life. Hypothetically, if I got hit by a truck now, I would regret that I didn’t spend more time with loved ones, I spent too much time online but not in person interactions with people, I never got a chance to try running my own business (which could be running or building my own practice, but NOT going above and beyond for someone else’s), and I didn’t believe in myself more and let others in my job have too much leverage on me. What I will not regret is that I could have worked harder at my job or be more dedicated to the firm. They are non-factors in grand scheme of things, and if anything, I wish I had more guts to just ignore them from time to time.

Totally with you, Associate 7. If I had to map it:

The Job:
f(t) = sin(t)
Feels intense, looks like motion, but goes in circles. Peaks don’t last. Neither do the lows.

Fertility Window:
f(t) = 1 / (t - 35)
Slow decline, then a cliff. Most don’t see it until they’re falling.

Time With Loved Ones:
f(t) = ∫ meaning dt
The only function that grows in value the more you give to it.

The fear is real. But so is the loss if you don’t act.