Photo by Allison Browning on Pexels
By Murray Gottheil | May 20, 2025
Sometimes I meet a young lawyer whose career goal is to work in Big Law. That might not be my first choice, but they should go for it as long as they know what they are getting into. This article is not about those folks.
Instead, I am writing about the young lawyers who plan to work at Big Law for a few years, make some good money, pay off their student debt, buy a house, and then move on to a smaller firm. I am not a great fan of this type of plan, but I do understand why it is attractive to some.
I have been thinking about the pros and cons of this approach, and here is what I have come up with:
Pros
- The money;
- The prestige;
- The perks;
- The opportunity to work on sophisticated matters;
- Big Law looks good on your resume and can open doors for you in the future; and
- Sometimes the training can be superb and pave the way for an easy move to a boutique firm, a medium-sized firm, or even a specialized solo practice.
Cons
- Often, experience in Big Law is not that easily transferable to a smaller firm;
- It may be difficult to develop a client base in Big Law that is portable to a smaller firm;
- After a few years, it may be problematic to transfer to a smaller firm without a client base. At the same time, learning business development skills at Big Law may have been sacrificed to billable hours; and
- It is hard to adjust to a pay cut, which might happen when you move out of Big Law. It may be particularly difficult if you have bought into the big lifestyle instead of saving your Big Law salary.
It is even difficult for Big Law partners to move to a medium-sized firm. Jim was typical of a Big Law partner who approached my medium-sized firm to explore moving his practice to us. Jim had a significant client base and made a great deal of money. He wanted to work fewer hours and was willing to take a pay cut.
As much as we would have loved to have Jim join us, we just could not make the math work. When we adjusted Jim’s numbers to reflect (i) those of his clients who were unlikely to follow him to a smaller firm; (ii) the fewer hours that he wanted to work; (iii) the lower hourly rate that his clients would expect to pay at a smaller firm; and (iv) some of the work that our firm would not be able to handle, Jim found that the pay cut was greater than he had contemplated and his compensation would likely not be sufficient to cover his lifestyle. Even if Jim had been willing to cut back on his lifestyle, he did not think that his spouse would be agreeable. Jim was trapped where he was.
These days, you hear a great deal about the importance of being able to “pivot” to address and overcome adversity, and I am all for that. On the other hand, I do wonder whether planning to pivot makes a great deal of sense. I kind of like the philosophy of Charles H. Spurgeon, who said, “Begin as you mean to go on”.
Murray is a happily retired lawyer who lives in the country, drives a pick-up truck, writes, teaches and mentors. You can reach him at murray@murraygottheil.com or see what he is up to at lawanddisorderinc.com.
RELATED ARTICLES
“Ashamed” of “greedy” Big Law, lawyer leaves profession
Does Size Matter? Big Law, Small Law, La La La