New York Lawyer
October 29, 2002

Q:
Where can I find information about transitioning out of big firm life? Associates from my firm who won't or don't make partner seem to vanish without a trace -- where do they all go? What are some realistically achievable, low-stress, decent-paying alternatives to big firm life?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

I'm going to pick on this question a bit, because exhibits a good bit of what might be called "Magical Thinking." The question suggests that there are simple and standard recipes, one-size-fits-all career solutions, and ex-lawyer Nirvanas where all of life's needs and desiderata are met. If it were really thus, there would be no need for this column or for career consultants and coaches.

First, "they" don't "all" transition out of big firm life for the same reasons and then go to the same place or places. Lawyers making career shifts go where they go and end up where they end up -- and the variety of career paths is nearly infinite. Some continue as lawyers, but in a different capacity or setting that's more congenial [e.g., a lawyer moving in-house from a firm has decided to change from being a profit-center to being a cost-center, perhaps while utilizing exactly the same subject-matter expertise]. Some move into "law-related" roles that explicitly value legal training or expertise. Many "un-become" lawyers altogether, eschewing a life in the profession and throwing themselves into the general career paths and job marketplace of "normal" people. You just can't generalize -- except to say that lawyers who enter the general job market supposedly have something extra to offer -- the analytical, communication and persuasive skills that one learns in law school -- and something extra to explain -- why they are leaving a profession or setting they worked so hard to achieve. Such overgeneralizations, however, have little practical utility either in making career choices or marketing oneself. Even the phrase "big firm life" -- which most people infer to mean competitive, pressured, politicized and highly-remunerative -- means very different things to different people. And how shall we define the terms you use to describe what you want?

"Realistically achievable" means that one has to be able to explain credibly to a skeptical potential employer 1) what immediate or later value you can add, and 2) your motivation/incentives for pursuing this particular job. But I've had clients successfully make transitions others said were not realistically achievable. They were harder, longer, more frustrating. But where the absolute determination was matched by perseverance, there was a "successful" outcome. So in your thinking, does "realistically achievable" simply mean "easy?" Or are you willing to go back to school or relocate or start again at the bottom or otherwise pay hard dues and put in hard time?

"Low stress" is a hopelessly vague phrase. Peoples' stressors and satisfiers are so diverse that your question makes sense only if couched in terms of what stresses (or low-stresses) you: Fewer or more manageable hours? More stability? Less responsibility? More/less autonomy?

And what is "decent-paying?" Is that compared with US general population norms (where $100,000 is in the top 5 percent) or relative to your compensation as a lawyer? And are we talking about "decent-paying" on Day One, or "decent-paying" in the course of a subsequent career path?

The main teaching point your question allows us to make is this: Anyone entertaining a career shift -- at any point in their career -- must undertake a rational and thorough self-assessment. No one else can or should tell you what to do with your life or make your choices. To make meaningful choices, you must have thought through, articulated and prioritized a lot of different variables:

* What I value and what kind of satisfactions I want to derive from work.

* How I see myself as a person and on what factors I ground my self-esteem.

* What I am capable of doing and what I am temperamentally suited to do.

* The kind of setting in which I work best and most happily.

* The kind of work that is both doable and stimulating.

* The kind of role that plays best to my strengths/aptitudes and leans least on my blind spots or shortcomings.

* What my immediate, mid- and long-term compensation expectations are.

* What options each career step either opens or forecloses.

* How my choices impact the choices of others -- my spouse, family, children, social class, etc.

* The external forces to which I must respond in addition to my internal drives.

For lawyers, the best and most practical vehicle I know is a book written by the late Deborah Arron called What Can You Do with a Law Degree? (Niche Press, ISBN 0-940675-44-7).

I'm sure there are many other excellent self-assessment aids out there, but I think this book does the best job of showing that you should not be looking for answers (particularly simple answers); you should be trying to figure out the right questions. A sound, sequenced, systematic approach like Deborah's is mother's milk for lawyers. This particular book understands the way we lawyers think, categorize and prioritize.

My own experience tells me that many (but not all) people who self-select into the study and practice of law possess certain characteristics that are career-relevant:

* They tend to be wired as "individual contributors," i.e., they prefer to do things themselves, rather than manage others. They often are autonomous and have high "ownership needs."

* They tend to be conceptual thinkers who don't like to do the same thing twice -- so they are natural designers, strategists, project managers.

* They are verbal (even if psychologically they are introverts).

* They are comfortable working to and through other people, but tend to be more task and achievement oriented than relationship-oriented; they're not especially affiliative.

To the extent these descriptors are accurate, they suggest certain career paths: consultants, project managers, advocates, persuaders, professors, trainers, subject-matter experts, PR/advertising experts, marketers, innovators. And yes, a lot of career-shifting lawyers move into these sorts (and they are broad sorts) of careers. But as you read the bullets above, surely you exclaimed: "But that's not me!" or "What a minute! I know a lot of lawyers who aren't like that!"

Exactly my point. People are happy for different reasons, unhappy for different reasons, good at different things, mobilized by different satisfactions, stressed by different things, reactive to different forms of leadership and authority, motivated by different internal and external drivers. It does little good, therefore, to ask what everyone else is doing -- even if there were a simple answer to that question. The key is to examine what you should or could be doing. In short, you have to define the product before you discuss the market.

Sincerely,
Douglas B. Richardson
President, The Richardson Group