Dear Aunty,
My son is now on the verge of choosing a career and law is one of them. I went through many websites - both Indian and foreign - and learnt from young law firm lawyers’ discussions that in these firms there is no work life balance: lawyers have to work for insane hours and are overloaded with work. My questions are:
1. Are working conditions in firms stressful, negative and require very long hours? This is my top-most concern.
2. After spending five or six years in a firm or becoming a senior associate is it easy to get promotions? As in India most of the firms are owned by families.
Please give me your honest advice, as my son has to make a life-long career choice, and I would value your opinion.
Aunty responds:
Dear Concerned Mother, I can empathise, having kids of my own, though of course they all work with me in my firm.
I don’t hear them complain much but, honestly, thinking back to how things used to be when I first started out in the career, the new generation work harder than we ever did.
It’s simply what’s expected nowadays in the brave new business world of India.
Most bigger law firms that pay upwards of Rs 10 lakh per year to freshers, require their charges to work at least 10 hours a day, many on Saturdays, and attendance is even expected on quite a few holidays too, should the client or firm needs require it. So much for a happy Diwali when you’re dealing with a client in New York.
While I hate to admit it, some associates can end up working to clients’ or partners’ unrealistic deadlines, which means that time management can be out of their own hands.
And because nearly all firms prize quality, most foster a sense of healthy competition amongst associates, meaning associates end up fighting others to remain on the steep pyramid.
Making it to partnership is rather tough and unlikely for most, except the best. But it’s a meritocracy - at my firm, everyone will agree that my children have it twice as hard as any other associate to climb to the top.
That said, if your son doesn’t make it at the top, there are good career opportunities at companies as in-house counsel, or at mid- or lower-tier or - God forbid! – start-up law firms, who will be happy to take senior associates who can’t make the cut at the top firms.
At the end of the day you have to ask yourself this: do you think your son is tough enough for the cut and thrust of this kind of life? Or, preferably, why don’t you ask your son how he feels?
Uncle says:
Have no illusions, law firms (and the courts) chew up and spit out more youngsters than any other profession. As they should.
Law is a noble and intellectually challenging profession and clients’ demands are high, especially in the current economy. If you’re not good enough to rise to the top, you should get out – and most law firm partnership structures ensure just that.
Sure, if you want to come up at my firm, my children have an advantage but that’s entirely because I’ve trained them from a tender age in court craft and sharpened their legal minds like a seasoned court clerk’s pencil.
If your son is good enough to compete, bring him on and we’ll treat him right. But don’t expect him to get an easy ride or to be able to offer him any help beyond his daily dabba.
When I came up in the profession, I worked myself to the bone until I got to where I am, and so should the molly-coddled kids who think they’re the next Harish Specter or whoever it is they look up to these days.
-------
Do you agree with Aunty and Uncle?
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.
In the meantime, Careers Counsel’s Agony Aunty and Uncle are here to answer your legal career questions. Please email your queries anonymously to or or click here.
Photo by Sean MacEntee
Comments
Know this, in the current economic scenario, anyone who is young and earning more than 10 p.a, is reasonably expected to put in graveyard shifts, work on holidays and fight off some very serious competition. However, this is not just restricted to law, young graduates from medicine and MBA are subjected to the similar levels of supposition. The MBAs started it, corporate lawyers had to follow these new age CEO's/CFOs, and doctors weren't far behind. (Don't get me started on hotel management)
Its a sad fact of our lives. If you want your son to be young and rich at the same time, you need to quickly leave behind false notions of having a healthy work-life balance.
Not that every lawyer becomes a Partner or General Counsel or Harish Salve. It's not necessary either as the system can't handle so many Harish Salve's or Partners or GCs. Choose a path that you enjoy and you can make a mark of your own.
Shardul or Pallavi writing for LegallyIndia and removing time for this bullshit is anyway bullshit... Im still trying to figure out which firm could this be!! Bharuchas?
Shardul or Pallavi writing for LegallyIndia and removing time for this bullshit is anyway bullshit... Im still trying to figure out which firm could this be!! Bharuchas?[/quote]
Lexygen?
Associates (or even partners) should not be cribbing about long hours, loads of work, etc. In today's market, if you have 10 hours to bill a day, you are thriving.
Therefore, I really don't understand that why associates should crib about working long and late hours. No one will pay you if you are not working (in any profession - MBA, Doctors, Hotel Management).
If you are in business, or a shopkeeper, if no one buys/orders your wares/products that you are selling, you will have to pack up and close your business eventually. Its the same for lawyers (other than in-house counsels) - if you cant sell your skills, and no one is there to buy your knowledge/skills, you will suffer financially.
I have noticed that the increasing trend is that law firm associates expect full bonuses as they think that they are insulated from market factors - "the partners have to pay me, come what may". End of the day, the associate is as strong (or weak) as the Firm he/she is working for.
To answer the commenter "Patronising" above, in-house counsels have it comparatively easier as they are sort of assured of their income. They do not have to do business development, they do not have to focus on recoveries. They are expected to only provide sound legal advice to the board/colleagues. In other words, they do not have the kind of additional stress (such as marketing/selling your skills/billings/recoveries, and I may add, not under the stress of ensuring that the client does not go somewhere else - in house counsel always get repeat work - from his employer) which a law firm partner would have to bear.
So, to sum it, a lot extra is expected from a law firm fee earner.
Of course, ultimately, its a choice that a fresh lawyer has to make - to sweat it out in a law firm or to join a company's legal department.
Marketing in litigation is very hard compared to law firms or companies. Ultimately most of them have left / are leaving to law firms or companies as they are much open-minded. Fortunately there are new breed of law firms who are very professional and focus on performance rather than nepotism. Hence a career in litigation would definitely be much tougher and harder compared to the rest.
Please note that neither I am undermining the struggle of a lawyer in a law firm or as an in-house nor dissuading anyone from litigating. Unfortunately the path to a successful ligation practice is very broken and hard.
In fact I am from a NLS who has worked in all streams. From my experience, I finally decided on litigation as I felt that it is much more rewarding personally than anything else. The joy of winning a case in the Court is limitless and indescribable. But surely this rule would not apply to everyone.
By the way even lawyers from NLSs dont have a cake walk into litigation! In fact the NLSs leave litigation sooner compared to the other major chunk of lawyers who are/get trained to withstand the pressure of time/money/politics!
And when we compare law firms with in house please remember that do not compare a Tier 1 law firm with a small company. If you analyze with an open mind the role and nature of work in a MNC Bank and the complexities, pressure and issues involved in the transaction is equal or more than what you expect in a Tier one Law Firm. Before comparing one should consider what is being compared.
While the majority of companies' in-house departments do tend to outsource a lot of work and simply do not do much work as I gather from speaking to peers, there are a few companies in India where the in-house work can be pretty top notch. For example, in my company which is a multi-business conglomerate, right from drafting and negotiating agreements to drafting pleadings to arguing before lower levels for say, Indirect Tax matters (Tribunals or Commissionerate levels), everything is done in-house. There have been several M&A transactions where no law firm has been engaged, whether for executing a due diligence or for drafting and negotiating agreements etc or for carrying out share transfers etc. Even for litigation, the participation is enormous and although counsels and lawyers are engaged to argue the matters, all the research, drafting or vetting of drafts and strategising are done by the in-house team and the counsels are briefed at length. Then on a regular basis, there are sundry opinions that have to be given at the drop of a hat to facilitate the business managers to progress speedily with their plans. Partly this is because of the GC's leadership and partly because the company's board expects the legal department to be accountable for all legal decisions, advises and legal matters, even when law firms are engaged.
In-house work, (assuming you find a company where a lot of work is executed in-house), can also be very good for getting a breadth of knowledge or a broad perspective on law since in the same day, you could be clearing labels for packaged products to arguing an indirect tax matter to drafting an agreement for development of a product with a scientist to rushing to getting an arrest warrant quashed against a senior manager or briefing a top bracket senior counsel of the Supreme Court on some matter. This breadth of experience seems to be missing in the ultra specialised silos of law firms, although the very specialisation makes them supergood in their specific areas.
The hours are definitely better in in-house departments and although on one occasion, I have gone 8 months at a stretch without a single day off including Sat/Sun and had to work till 1am everyday, they are rare occurrences and depend on exigencies. Be warned though, there is a lot more travel involved in in-house work which can eat into your weekends often. But generally it is a less vicious and stressful atmosphere. In a company like mine where the business managers do not budge on almost anything (including press releases) without Legal's approval, there is a bit of a fight that happens whenever Legal blocks business from implementing something, but the fight never gets dirty. Further, after having looked at the salaries posted on this website, I can say quite positively that at slightly more senior levels, the pay seems to be much better in-house because of ESOPs if you are in a good company or MNC, unless I am missing something about the pay figures posted here. On an average year (and I am not the GC but the second next lower tier), I can clear between 1 to 1.5 Cr per annum and I know many in-house lawyers in other companies or MNCs who make similar money. But the associates in a law firm would possibly be making much more than an in-house newbie.
Hence I reconfirm that where in-house work is concerned, the trick is to find the right company. Hope I have offered some helpful perspective from my own experience.
In-house counsel who get recruited right out of college - Ouch!
Slightly flawed, since pursuing the career of a Legal Manager/Corporate Finance Consultant in a Company (nicely coupled with a Masters in Business Administration) is easier when transitioning from an 'in-house' team, rather than a Law Firm. The approach in either job is very, very different.
That said, it's flawed to assume that 'in-house' is a choice for those who can't make the cut at big (not 'top') firms. It just happens that the former also placates the parent's worrisome question, while providing a different career course as well that many students with multiple choices opt for.