Inside Big Law

Katya Valasek:

As of fall 2026, large firms are hiring law students earlier than ever before and increasingly outside the traditional on-campus interview process. Since large law firms are looking to interview earlier, it’s even more important to learn about legal careers earlier, whether you’ve yet to enroll or are already enrolled in law school. So, this episode is going to be a little different from our usual content and our usual special episode content.

Kyle McEntee:

This is not an episode telling you to pursue big law or telling you to avoid it. Career discovery is useful because it helps you learn what kind of work, clients, teams, pace, and trade-offs interest you. That's useful whether the answer is big law, government, a smaller firm, public interest, or something you haven't heard of yet.

Katya Valasek:

And because this is “I Am The Law,” you'll hear a ton of clips from our lawyer guests.

Rachel Frank is a good place to start because she came to law school without much of a pre-existing map of the large firm world. We spoke with Rachel in episode 131, released October 15th, 2025. She's a senior associate at Quinn Emanuel.

Rachel Frank:

There were no firms that were particularly on my radar before I went to law school. I did not grow up in a family of lawyers. You know, Covington and Burling, and Latham and Watkins were not household names. I was aware of who Kathleen Sullivan was, so I knew the firm through her. When I was applying to OCI, OCI is our on-campus interviewing. It's how students get connected with law firms. I cast a pretty broad net, and I actually struggled to find a firm that I felt like I was connecting with. I then cast a bit of a broader net. I did some online research on my own. At the time, Quinn was actually focused almost exclusively on hiring clerks, and so they weren't doing on-campus interviews, but I just sent off my resume to their recruiter and was brought down here for an interview and when I started talking to people, I had that click feeling almost instantly when I was talking to people about what I was working on in law school, what cases they were handling. The conversations just flowed easily, and I felt very quickly like this was a place that I could really do interesting work with people that I enjoyed working with.

Kyle McEntee:

Rachel was describing an exploration process that could play out over time. She cast a broad net, learned what different firms were all about, and could make a choice she was confident in.

Katya Valasek:

One of the organizations any listener to our show should get to know is NALP. NALP conducts research on the legal labor market and is especially active in research about large law firms. For summer 2026 positions at these firms, 80% of offers came through employer-sponsored recruiting rather than law school-sponsored programs like OCI, which Rachel was describing.

Kyle McEntee:

Employer-sponsored recruiting refers to a hiring process that firms run independently outside of formal law school interview programs. That can include direct applications, resume collects, and other recruiting activities that allow employers to connect with students on their own timeline. 56% of offers were made before June, before students had even finished their 1L year, and 85% were made before July.

Katya Valasek:

Recruiting moved even earlier for summer 2027 positions, with many large law firms opening their application portals during the first semester of law school, only a few months after students arrived on campus.

Kyle McEntee:

Those summer jobs matter because they are the main route into big law after graduation. But do a lot of people know the recruiting timelines when they get to law school? A summer 2026 research report that NALP produced with LSAC found an information gap among surveyed law students.

Katya Valasek:

By October of their first year, 88% of surveyed law students knew about the accelerated timeline. Before law school, only 25% did. I'm not implying that you need perfect knowledge before law school to have a chance at these jobs. Definitely not. I am saying that law students today feel some pressure from this changed process, and that the earlier exploration of practice areas and workplace settings may relieve some of that pressure.

Kyle McEntee:

Knowing the timeline helps, but information is only part of it. Networks can change what students know and what opportunities reach them. Juan Dawson described that in episode 108, released January 27th, 2025. At the time, he was an associate at Troutman Pepper Locke.

Juan Dawson:

So, I had worked my 2L summer at another energy firm, and for all intents and purposes, I was expecting to go back there. I happened to be at a networking opportunity with some alumni from my law school, and a partner at Troutman Pepper, now Troutman Pepper Locke, was there, and he and I struck up a good conversation in which he encouraged me to just apply to the firm to see where things go. And I did end up getting an interview and ultimately ended up accepting a job at Troutman Pepper.

Katya Valasek:

Juan's story is also a reminder that students don't begin with the same network, the same information, or the same access based on where they go to law school.

Kyle McEntee:

And the outcomes are highly concentrated. So, a national average cannot tell you what access looks like from a particular school. Even though roughly one in five graduates in 2025 worked at large law firms with more than 500 lawyers, just 17 schools accounted for half of those jobs.

The other half was spread out, also unevenly, at 178 other law schools.

Katya Valasek:

In 2025, 14 law schools sent at least half of their graduating classes directly into firms with more than 500 lawyers. At 113 schools, less than 10% of graduates entered those firms. 21 schools sent no graduates to them at all.

Kyle McEntee:

That is why the law school transparency tools on Law Hub matter. You can look at school specific job outcomes, markets, and costs instead of relying on reputation or a national headline. You should also spend time with the reports NALP publishes each year to look at salary differences by the type of job and geography.

We've linked the class of 2025 national reports in the show notes.

Katya Valasek:

Those numbers tell us something about who gets these jobs and from where. They don't tell us why students want them in the first place.

Compensation is one reason, and so is what people think the experience might make possible later in their careers. Storm Lineberger spoke plainly about this. Storm is an associate at Haynes Boone. His episode number 158 was released July 22, 2026.

We asked him whether his interest in big law came first or his interest in his practice area.

Storm Lineberger:

Big law, insurance came after with a speech given by my now boss that I saw. Big law and the financial security afforded by big law was definitely what motivated me to go that route first. But along with that, the doors it opens up, even if you don't stick to it all the way through. It's in many ways a rite of passage.

It provides a certain level of credibility and that ultimately, yes, will help financially anyway. But there was a lot of benefits I saw in it. And if I could get a job in it and survive the grind, I thought I'd be setting myself up to have a pretty good 40s and 50s.

Kyle McEntee:

Financial security, the chance to open doors, those are powerful draws and they help explain why big law can loom so large in a law school.

Katya Valasek:

But its visibility can also make it feel more common than it really is.

Kyle McEntee:

Even if we expand the definition of big law to firms with more than 250 lawyers, 21.7% of the class of 2025 entered those jobs compared with 18.2% in firms with more than 500 lawyers. Another 3.2% entered federal clerkships, which are jobs where you work for a judge in their chambers for a year or two. For one big law access calculation, we often combine these categories because federal clerkships are also highly selective, strongly concentrated by school, and commonly lead directly to big law.

Katya Valasek:

But that combined 24.9% is not some sort of true big law employment rate. Not every federal clerk wants big law or goes there. Some people clerk in state or tribal courts for a year before directly entering big law.

Still, the calculation is a way to look at access to these jobs, even if imperfect.

Kyle McEntee:

And it leaves a larger point. About three quarters of the class entered neither category.

Katya Valasek:

There is a lot more to the legal profession. Early exploration should expand your options, not make one option feel inevitable.

Kyle McEntee:

And the choice is especially hard to make early because big law is not actually one job. Big law is a labor market label. It usually tells you something about firm size, clients, compensation, and hiring selectivity.

It does not tell you whether the lawyer is litigating, doing deals, advising on regulations, restructuring companies, or working in one of dozens of specialties.

Katya Valasek:

What large firms often share is scale. Complex issues, layered teams, institutional resources, and specialists whose work has to fit together.

Eric Lauria-Banta gives the clearest explanation of what that scale looks like. Eric was a corporate transactional lawyer at Foley & Lardner when we released episode 64 on October 30th, 2023.

Eric Lauria-Banta:

The corporate attorneys on deals, to use a sports analogy, kind of quarterback the deal. So, we run and organize the deal from start to finish. But there are anywhere from 5 to 30 people potentially staffed on a deal from one law firm.

And those people are generally subject matter experts that are helping advise throughout the transaction. The corporate attorneys basically have to organize this whole circus of attorneys. And so, it's really, it’s a lot of almost project management, I would say.

I mean, high-level project management because we're certainly doing legal work at the same time. But it's a lot of emailing people, getting on the phone with people, coordinating questions and comments. As a sixth-year associate, also overseeing the junior associates on the deals because the junior associates are mostly doing the diligence related tasks on the corporate side.

And that's just internal at the law firm. It's obviously also coordinating with the client to make sure that they're involved throughout the whole process. And then most importantly, negotiating with the law firm on the other side of the deal, getting on negotiation calls with them, emailing back and forth. It's a lot of interaction.

Kyle McEntee:

And it's not merely a bigger version of a small firm matter. The team structure changes what each lawyer needs to know and what each lawyer does.

Eric Lauria-Banta:

Having a firm with, I think we have a thousand attorneys with subject matter experts across the country is hugely valuable. Honestly, I can't imagine being at, let's say, a smaller firm where you are either expected to either just know that stuff, you just have to have a lot broader base of knowledge across the subject matters. Or if a client asks, you just have to look it up.

They can tell me in 10 seconds instead of me having to research it for two hours. Now, there's potential disadvantages or some people might not like that because some people at other firms might like to be involved in all the different subject matters and have a kind of broader base of knowledge. But I mean, I personally really like being at a bigger firm where if you have a question about the most obscure things, there's usually someone at the firm who can handle it.

Katya Valasek:

A highly specialized role and a broader one are different ways to practice, and neither is inherently better.

Kyle McEntee:

And lawyers are not always hired with that specialty already chosen. Audi Syarief described a gradual path into sanctions and export controls. Audi's episode number 129 was released October 1st, 2025.

He's at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Audi Syarief:

So, at my firm, we have a free market system where you get to try out lots of different practice areas. And I just happened to sit next to an attorney that was coming out of the treasury department and was working on a treatise on sanctions laws. And he sort of enlisted me to help draft a chapter of that treatise and do research for it.

That was my gateway into the practice. And then I started taking on small matters at first. And early on at the firm, I maybe did sanctions-related work 10% of the time.

90% of my time was doing white-collar criminal defense or government contracts or commercial litigation. And as my time at the firm continued, I shifted my focus to trade work, did more sanctions, started doing more export controls work, and then ended up doing it full-time. And so for me, it's been like a gradual evolution as opposed to being hired into a group that does international trade.

Katya Valasek:

That free market staffing system is specific to his firm. Other firms assign associates to practice groups earlier, use rotations, or give associates less control over staffing. Big law firms vary in their approaches.

How law firms staff associates shapes more than which specialty they find. It also shapes how they learn. Alexis Taitel uses the word apprenticeship to describe her firm's approach.

We spoke with Alexis in episode 121, released July 23rd, 2025. She is an associate at Dickinson Wright.

Alexis Taitel:

So, as a fourth year, I'm still in the, what I like to call apprenticeship phase of my career. The beauty of being at a big firm is that I can be an apprentice and shadow people who have been in this field and have a ton of experience so I can learn from the best. And so a lot of what I'm doing is behind the scenes right now, reading, researching, writing.

I love to write. So that's a benefit for me. I make occasional court appearances and on smaller matters, I will have direct client contact and kind of take the lead on managing that relationship.

And on the bigger matters, I'm more of a ghostwriter kind of behind the scenes. But as I progress in my career, my name is on pleadings more and more, and I will have the opportunity to appear in court more, which is exciting.

Kyle McEntee:

But just because you do a lot of behind the scenes work, it does not always mean waiting years to speak.

Katya Valasek:

Bola Adeniran described being sent to court herself. Bola is a complex litigator at Husch Blackwell, and we released her episode, number 96, on September 9th, 2024.

Bola Adeniran:

And traditionally, especially at law firms, it's really unheard of for a lot of associates to be doing anything by themselves, especially hearing or small claims. So, I'm really grateful to Husch Blackwell that they do allow their associates that in-court experience. Attorneys will send you, you got this hearing, you can do it! And I'm like, can I? Yes, I can. I can do that. You know why? Because when they ask who the lawyer is in the room, it is me. I am the attorney in the room.

I occupy the space in front of the judge to be able to talk to the judge, and other people can't do that. So, I recognize the power and privilege I hold in my voice.

Kyle McEntee:

That type of early responsibility is firm and matter specific, and perhaps not as uncommon as you might think. Nonetheless, you can't assume the same experience in the same timeline everywhere.

Katya Valasek:

Part of the reason is that the learning curve depends on what you're ready to handle, and that learning curve shows up in different ways. Ed Winkofsky is a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig and chairs its gaming practice. His episode, number 77, was released March 11th, 2024.

Ed Winkofsky:

The learning curve is steep. We had a young associate come over from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board a couple years back, and he brought that experience. But even he saw, in coming here to the Chicago office, working in private practice, there's a lot to learn about, not only the law, but client management and the resources of the firm.

Any one of those things is a full-time job, and you're trying to do all of them at once.

Kyle McEntee:

Juan Dawson gave a more practice-specific version of that learning curve.

Juan Dawson:

I think specifically in energy law, the biggest support that I've received thus far is patience. It's generally understood, and I was told this by a senior associate on day one, that it takes at least three years for an entry-level associate to understand the complexities of energy law.

Another way in which I have received a lot of support is by being allowed to take first pen on research and writing and receiving feedback on that. And over time, my writing and research methods continue to improve. And ultimately, it makes the life of the senior associates and partners a lot easier.

Katya Valasek:

There is an exchange underneath all of these accounts. Junior lawyers get supervision, feedback, specialist access, and complex work. Firms get associates who are willing to learn and do the work that makes a layered team function.

Kyle McEntee:

That can be an unusually strong training environment. It could also be a demanding one, which brings us to the most visible part of the bargain. At the top of the market, the first year base salary moved to $235,000 in July 2026, before bonuses.

Milbank announced the scale, and several other highly competitive firms matched it. At the time of this airing, many other firms were waiting on the large firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore to set their pay for next year.

Katya Valasek:

Those strange dynamics aside, not every large firm pays $235,000 or whatever the quote-unquote market rate is for a given year. Compensation varies by firm, office, market, and sometimes practice. We are using the number because it is the current market-leading benchmark, not because it is a universal big law salary.

Kyle McEntee:

And we are starting with pay because it is central to why many people pursue these jobs and central to what law firms expect in return.

Eric Lauria-Banta:

I mean, to be frank, it’s definitely not a stereotype. Big law attorneys work a lot. Honestly, there’s not a lot of work-life balance. Some firms, for example, like to style themselves as lifestyle firms where you can kind of have a life and work. But big law firms, they’re just not that. We get, we get paid, you know, really kind of obscene amounts of money, at least I think. The expectation is that you work for that. Not everyone is cut out for it, I guess.

That is why the turnover rate is so high among big law firms, but it just kind of is what it is. I think firms are getting better about trying to help associates set boundaries, offering more mental health resources. That said, you can't go overboard because you are expected to be available.

Katya Valasek:

That is unusually blunt. It is also one lawyer's description of a category with a lot of variation. The next question is what creates the pressure?

Stephanie Hurst is an M&A lawyer at Mayer Brown. We released episode 116 on May 21, 2025.

Stephanie Hurst:

I think the second point is just how busy a transaction can get. When you are in a large transaction, there could be days when you are working 15 hours a day to get the deal over the line. Often there are lots of drivers beyond what lawyers, law students would think of that drive timelines.

And it could be that they need to get the deal done before the end of the year for tax and accounting purposes. It could be that they need this particular asset to keep their business going by a certain time. Or there could be some other accounting or operational reason of why something has to be done so quick.

Kyle McEntee:

The deadline is not always invented by a partner who enjoys late night emails or makes you feel like hurry up and wait is your default state. That does not make a 15-hour day easier, but it does highlight how external factors affect your time. Litigation creates a different kind of unpredictability.

Samm Tillotson is a litigator at Baker Hostetler. Her episode, number 115, was released May 7, 2025.

Samm Tillotson:

As a litigator, I am very deadline focused. My professional life revolves around the deadlines in my cases. I would say I come to work every day.

I go through my case list. I color code. I am reorganizing the list and shooting the alligators closest to the boat every single day.

For better or for worse, I think in litigation, the deadlines drive your life and then sometimes they just disappear. You are not really sure which ones are actually going to come to fruition. I think that it is one of the more frustrating things as a litigator is that you do not have certainty and you never know when you might get hit with a motion from the other side that blows up your schedule and it just so happens to be Thanksgiving or whatever.

And then sometimes you think that you are going to be slammed for weeks and weeks and then the case settles and all of a sudden your schedule clears up.

Katya Valasek:

Transactional lawyers can lose control of their time when a deal accelerates. Litigators can lose it when an opponent files something, a court sets a deadline, or a case that seems settled suddenly is not. Kiran Vakamudi gives us a concrete version of the schedule.

Kiran is a restructuring associate in the bankruptcy space at Vinson & Elkins. We released episode 94 on August 12th, 2024.

Kiran Vakamudi:

Yeah, working hours are typically for me about 9 in the morning until about 6 at night. And then I'll typically turn on the laptop again around 9:30 or 10 and just work until I can get things done. If you're in the middle of a deal, sometimes those hours get extended in both directions and it can be tough, but it's something you just kind of get used to.

Kyle McEntee:

There isn't one universal big law schedule. Practice, team, partner, client, office, and firm all matter. But Kiran’s description shows why the compensation conversation can't really be separated from the time conversation.

Katya Valasek:

Kiran was equally direct about the limits of compensation.

Kiran Vakamudi:

I mean, the money is great, but I think if you're here just to get money, you're going to wash out pretty quick. Because like I said, the hours are intense and you are expected as a professional to be on call and to get your job done, regardless of what the time commitments are and things like that. And so, if it's something you're just in it for the money for, it probably isn't going to be worth it in the long run.

Kyle McEntee:

That doesn't mean that money is an illegitimate reason to take the job. Paying off debt, supporting family, building savings, or buying yourself future flexibility are real goals. But Kiran’s point is that money alone may not be enough to sustain you through the demands of the work.

Katya Valasek:

So if money alone isn't enough, what else can make the work worth it? For Eric, part of the answer was the intensity itself.

Eric Lauria-Banta:

Honestly, I really like the fast pace of an M&A deal. For example, I just closed a deal where from the beginning LOI stage all the way to closing, I think it was 40 days. And maybe without context, that doesn't mean much, but deals sometimes can last six months.

So, 40 days is extremely fast. We were working a lot, had a lot of extremely busy nights, weekends. But there's something about working with your team, the associates you're working with, just grinding in the trenches that it can just, it's exhilarating.

Maybe that's the sleep deprivation, but it's something about working towards, I guess, just working towards a common goal and just getting something done and accomplished. It's just fun. Not that there's anything particularly noble or anything like special about being a lawyer and in M&A, because in the end, we're just buying and selling companies for people.

I mean, it just kind of is what it is. And when you have a team kind of firing on all cylinders, kind of operating at the highest level, it's fun. It's fun.

Kyle McEntee:

That's the tension running through a lot of these conversations. The work can be exhausting and satisfying at the same time. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

Katya Valasek:

The harder question is whether you can make that intensity sustainable. And not everyone has the same room to do that. Work-life balance is a phrase that can hide the useful questions.

Who can reduce hours? Who can absorb the pay cut? Who feels able to say no?

Kyle McEntee:

And also, who has some senior protecting their development? What happens when care responsibilities or health needs do not fit the billing model? Here's Samm Tillotson again.

Samm Tillotson:

My hours started at 2,250. Now, I am at 80% time. And that came about because I am a mom. I have three small children. I have two-and-a-half-year-old twins. And I have a four-and-a-half-year-old. And they're all girls. I had them all while I was at the firm. I took maternity leave, came back. And this happened probably about a year ago. But I was like, my life isn't making sense. Because I felt like I was working from 5:30 in the morning until 8:30 at night. Just between taking care of everything and working. And the firm has a pretty robust program that allows anyone, but in particular, parents to reduce hours. So, I went down to 80%. I took a commiserate hit of pay.

But it was the best thing for me. I think my life makes so much sense at 80%. So I work 80% of my 1,950 billable hour. I try to take every Friday off as much as possible. I think as a litigator, it's harder to kind of be in and out. So, I just try to just completely block a day of the week. It just makes more sense for me.

Kyle McEntee:

Samm took less pay to make the job fit her family more closely. Not every firm offers the option. Not every lawyer can afford it.

And an 80% schedule does not guarantee that every Friday stays protected.

Katya Valasek:

Stephanie described a different boundary that she, even as a partner, is still learning. Not accepting so much work that the quality collapses.

Stephanie Hurst:

I'm still learning this, right? So, I can talk a big game and say, oh, you know, I've learned to say no. And I do, I have gotten better.

But I had a great mentor that kind of guided me on certain things. And especially when you're a junior associate, you don't want to say no. You want to say yes to all these opportunities. You want to say yes to working with different partners or taking on new matters. And you don't want to be seen as that person that's saying no. However, if you always say yes, and you're working on, say, for example, seven deals, and they're all full on at that time, there is no way that you are going to be able to do a good job. And there's no way that you are going to be able to ensure you're serving your clients the best that you can. And that ultimately ends up hurting you going forward. And as a junior associate, I think one thing that I will tell my mentees as well is, if you're asked to join a deal and you're already working on five transactions, talk to the partner that asked you. And oftentimes the partners will work together to ensure that associates have the ability to take on different types of things. But it's really about communication and understanding some of the key drivers, some of the key timelines, and ensuring that you're being responsive, but also ensuring that your quality of work doesn't fall apart and that you can sleep and you can take care of yourself at the exact same time.

Katya Valasek:

That is not just say no advice. A junior associate may not know what can be declined, how to say it, or whether the people assigning work will coordinate. Stephanie is describing communication as part of client service and professional judgment, and a mentor who helped her learn it.

Kyle McEntee:

Junior associates have to learn to navigate that self-advocacy in a high-stakes environment. Rachel Frank spoke about the pressure from the perspective of a first-year associate doing high-stakes work.

Rachel Frank:

There's no hiding that as a first-year associate, adapting to firm life is tough, right? It's all, our cases are high stakes. They matter a lot to our clients, and small mistakes can have a big impact, and that can be very stressful.

But I think something that you learn over time is that everyone makes mistakes, and you need to show up every day and do your best. And if something goes wrong, you do what you can to fix it, and then you move forward. You move on to doing the next thing the best that you can.

And making time for yourself is important. Burnout is absolutely real, and I like to go to yoga, and for me, that does involve turning my phone off. So, I'm cognizant about I'm not going to do that on a filing day, right?

Or you sort of, you choose your moments, and you manage. But I would say, you know, I've seen associates struggle where they just put off all things personal, all things for them, and just do the work, and that can't last. So, you need to figure out how you're going to manage things in a way that works for you, and that works for your teams.

Katya Valasek:

There is useful personal advice in these clips. Communicate, choose moments to disconnect, take rest when it is available, but personal discipline does not solve a structural workload problem.

Kyle McEntee:

The room a lawyer has to maneuver depends on practice, seniority, team, firm policy, financial circumstances, and whether senior lawyers support the boundary. Two people can hear identical advice and have a very different ability to follow it.

Katya Valasek:

And support from senior lawyers isn't only about advice. Sometimes the difference is whether someone is willing to use their influence on your behalf.

Bola Adeniran:

I will say that there is a difference between mentors and sponsors, and I think sometimes people conflate the two, but they're very different things. I think mentors are people who can usually advise you. Sponsors actually help you get there.

Sponsors will say, hey, I know you're not in the room where it happens, but I am, and I'm going to use my power in the room where it happens to lift you up, to put your name in that room so that one day, hopefully very soon, you can walk into that room as well with me.

Kyle McEntee:

A mentor can help someone understand the system. A sponsor can use influence inside it. Work quality matters, but assignments, visibility, feedback, and advancement are also shaped by who says a lawyer's name when that lawyer is not in the room.

One place sponsorship, visibility, and firm structure eventually matter is advancement. Titles vary, but the traditional big law path moves from associate towards partnership, with firms offering different roles and off-ramps along the way. And not every lawyer wants the same endpoint. When we recorded Sam, she was a senior associate thinking about what came next.

Samm Tillotson:

They haven't happened yet, but I think in the coming months, I'll start checking in with my managing partner. You kind of evaluate what your stats are, meaning dollars in the door, what your billable hours are going to be. There is a three-year runway, is what we call it.

So a three-year look back. For me, one of those years was a year that I had twins. So it wasn't a high billing year for me.

And the firm certainly does give credit for maternity leave and tries to make everything kind of apples to apples, but that's part of my runway. Those are the things that I'll be talking about with my managing partner. Like what do the stats look like?

Does it make sense to be going counsel or to be going partner? There's a lot of different conversations that happen too about the need. I know that it kind of is group dependent too for advancement.

So for me, I haven't been through it. It's a little bit of a black box still.

Katya Valasek:

Samm ultimately made partner after the episode aired. So her answer was to stay, but staying doesn't necessarily mean wanting the same job on the same terms forever. Lana Kuchinski reached a different answer than Sam.

We spoke with Lana in episode 99, released October 14th, 2024. She's a partner at a small intellectual property boutique today, and that's where she was when we interviewed her. But before moving to the smaller firm, she was at a much larger firm thinking about promotion and flexibility and how both affected her personal life.

Lana Kuchinski:

There was a combination of items, both in my personal life and at my work, that kind of nudged me to make the transition. Our firm is becoming very top heavy and there wasn't a lot of upward movement. Among the associates, there was a lot of fuss about people not being promoted and pay ceilings.

I was okay with that. I kind of was really happy with what I was doing. I love my partners.

I love my clients. But it was also my work was impacting my home life. I'd recently given birth to a little dude and he had a lot of health problems.

So I was in and out of the hospital a lot and juggling a lot of doctor's appointments. So, I just needed a lot more flexibility than I was able to get there. And then remarkably, I kind of ran into the managing partner of this boutique firm at a local conference and he offered me a partnership role.

Kyle McEntee:

Lana didn't have to decide that Big Law had been a mistake in order to decide that something else fit better. Big Law can be a destination, a financial strategy, a platform for specialized work, or one stage in a longer career. Those are just some of the ways Big Law can fit into a career and some of the reasons people enter, stay, or leave.

None of them, however, makes Big Law the default measure of success. But here we are with very early Big Law recruiting timelines affecting the law student experience. And that timeline has an outsized influence because summer associate jobs are the primary entry point to many Big Law jobs after graduation.

Students are being asked to make consequential decisions about firms and career paths before they've had much time to learn what lawyers actually do. Maybe the process will change, but law firms are not currently betting on that. Wherever you are in the process, keep exploring.

It'll help you ask better questions of yourself and others when decision time arrives.