Why don't lawyers retire early?

[racy]

I've been retired 3 years, but now work part time for a 73 yr old, private practice, lawyer. He was moaning one day about all the work he had to do. I jokingly suggested he needed to take more time off. (He already takes off Fridays). He thought a moment, then said, "Well, I guess I just like making money too much".

 

[Persn]

i am not a lawyer, but there are several generations of lawyers in my extended family. By far the happiest one was a woman a little younger than I am who worked for a large county public defender's office where staff were county employees. She was a 60s firebrand and criminal defense appealed to her lefty leanings.

She married one of their investigators, and they have a well funded attractive early retirement, part of their excellent package. Most of the lawyers I know struggle. I think a law office costs a lot to run.

Ha

My situation is almost exactly like your relative's, only in my case I married another attorney in my office. We're both a bit left politically but I would say really more contrarian than lefty. We had no kids and though we were hardly frugal, we did live below our means most of the time. We contributed to deferred comp accounts, and when eligibility for ER came along we jumped on it. It was a great job, the best I could imagine, but it was hard, the hours were long, and I could never really leave all that stress at the office.

Also, I must say that at least when it comes to trial work, it's better to be a young lawyer than an old one.

As to Talltim's categories, I am clearly in the third group - indifferent to the law but liking the intellectual challenge and the fast pace of high volume legal work. DH on the other hand is in the first group - it's a calling for him, to the extent that he often said he would do it for free. We have both worked in ER, me for my old office when they needed the help, a total of 12 -14 months out of the last 5 years, and DH taking a very few court appointed cases, and also helping friends and friends' kids when they need it.

At this point I am done with work and DH is almost there too. We recently moved to a city on the coast, only 30 miles from the old place. I think moving helped me break the habit of having my identity too dependent on my profession. I can't really speak for DH on that.

 

[athena53]

On the other side of that, however, legal skills improve over time with experience and usually hard-earned wisdom. It's often the 60-70+ y/o senior attorney who has seen it all before who can cut through a bunch of crap and get stuff done/resolved. They've seen it all and take no gruff from anyone, judges, peers, clients or regulators. That's one positive reason they stay if they enjoy it - they help their clients or employers and are well paid for it.

I think that's a big part of it; these seasoned lawyers probably also have a large client base and a great network so they can keep bringing in work. In fields where generating new business is crucial, there's less age discrimination if you're still good at rainmaking.

 

[Big_Hitter]

I think that's a big part of it; these seasoned lawyers probably also have a large client base and a great network so they can keep bringing in work. In fields where generating new business is crucial, there's less age discrimination if you're still good at rainmaking.

same in consulting

 

[SumDay]

In a former life I was a paralegal, and worked for the senior partners. Every one of them LBTM, and in this case the B meant BEYOND. Boats, lake houses, BMW's, minimum payments on their credit cards, late fees on credit cards & house payments (I used to get sent to their banks to make said payments) sending their kids to Ivy League schools, bad real estate investments, you name it. Just an observation.

It may just have been the particular firm I worked for (now out of business) but it sure was educational and formative for my future financial behavior and planning.

 

[Milton]

FWIW

Here is another blog of a FIRE'd lawyer.

https://anonlawyer.wordpress.com/

The author is in his 30's and practiced in big law (was an equity partner) and currently living in SF. It's a decent read.

His January 25, 2013 and April 30, 2016 blog entries make it clear that he was not an [-]real[/-] equity partner. Rather, he was an 'income partner' (a complete non sequitur!).

Nowadays everyone wants an impressive title, even if it makes no sense. Credulous clients may be fooled, and perhaps it gratifies the ego.

 

[Big_Hitter]

His January 25, 2013 and April 30, 2016 blog entries make it clear that he was not an [-]real[/-] equity partner. Rather, he was an 'income partner' (a complete non sequitur!).

Nowadays everyone wants an impressive title, even if it makes no sense. Credulous clients may be fooled, and perhaps it gratifies the ego.

you must have been out of the game for some time - I know of two large, international law firms that have had income partners for years - they operate just like equity partners, get to vote, etc. but don't get profit shares. Friend of mine moved here from Houston where she was an income partner for several years with Weil Gotschall, for example.

 

[Milton]

you must have been out of the game for some time.

Coming up on four years. I can honestly say that I don't miss it at all. Dealing with the occasional obnoxious opposing counsel, trying to satisfy unrealistic client expectations, managing secretarial laziness, etc.: what a grind.

I know of two large, international law firms that have had income partners for years - they operate just like equity partners, get to vote, etc. but don't get profit shares. Friend of mine moved here from Houston where she was an income partner for several years with Weil Gotschall, for example.

Technically a "non-equity partner" is not a partner at all, but rather an employed lawyer with a fancy title and perhaps a few other perquisites.

But really, I don't care about any of this. When in practice I always formed my own opinion of other lawyers' competence/experience/general professionalism based upon my actual dealings with them, and wasn't particularly impressed by whether their respective firms had anointed them as partners or not.

FWIW, I've dealt with very savvy lawyers who for whatever reasons were not partners. And I've dealt with partners who were insecure and frankly incompetent. YMMV.

 

[Big_Hitter]

Coming up on four years. I can honestly say that I don't miss it at all. Dealing with the occasional obnoxious opposing counsel, trying to satisfy unrealistic client expectations, managing secretarial laziness, etc.: what a grind.

FWIW, I've dealt with very savvy lawyers who for whatever reasons were not partners. And I've dealt with partners who were insecure and frankly incompetent. YMMV.

do you miss arguing about invoices?

I've also seen the same, brilliant associates/counsel and.....not so smart partners.

 

[traineeinvestor]

FWIW, at the two big law firms I worked at, an "income partner" was someone who met all the technical and other requirements for partnership but who was not expected to achieve the same revenues as an equity partner - often because they worked in a niche practice area or in a market where US/UK billing rates could not be charged.

 

[traineeinvestor]

do you miss arguing about invoices?

Let me think about that ..... no I don't.

 

[Big_Hitter]

FWIW, at the two big law firms I worked at, an "income partner" was someone who met all the technical and other requirements for partnership but who was not expected to achieve the same revenues as an equity partner - often because they worked in a niche practice area or in a market where US/UK billing rates could not be charged.

also some attorneys want guaranteed income versus the cut sheet

 

[CaliKid]

do you miss arguing about invoices?

I've also seen the same, brilliant associates/counsel and.....not so smart partners.

So true about invoices. I have a simple rule. A client questions it I ask them what they think is fair. On the rare occasion that there suggestion is too low I tell the that is fine but I will close their file and they can find a new attorney. It's only a couple times a year that a client questions a bill and almost always it's a very low dollar amount. it's simply not worth arguing about.

As to the second the issue of a person becoming a true equity partner is generally reserved for people that bring in business. That is not always the smartest or best lawyer. It's actually a rare attorney who is thrives on bringing in business AND doing the legal work. I guarantee some of my associate attorneys are better attorneys than I am but they need me to give them work to do.

 

[FinleyG]

Good Thread!

I posted a couple of years ago on this thread, still working, but only about 30 hours a week. My Qui Tam practice has been lucrative and I enjoy ferreting out fraud. However, the stress levels remain high, despite my attempts to lighten my load.
I have tried to get on the bench a few times (long time goal) and am going to make one last effort as our local municipal judge is retiring. I have always enjoyed the atmosphere in municipal court and oddly, still love dealing with people after 20 years of law practice and 5 years as a on the road sales rep (go figure). Anybody have a lawyer friend who successfully and happily moved to the bench as their transition to retirement some day in the future?

 

[2017ish]

...

As to the second the issue of a person becoming a true equity partner is generally reserved for people that bring in business. That is not always the smartest or best lawyer. It's actually a rare attorney who is thrives on bringing in business AND doing the legal work. I guarantee some of my associate attorneys are better attorneys than I am but they need me to give them work to do.

This was one of the keys to my decisionmaking over the years. I didn't (and don't) want to deal with the rainmaking. Quite happy as a well compensated, quasi-academic worker bee in private practice. (Granted, the semi-opt out was assisted by having a high earning DW...)

Plus, because of my relative lack of entanglements with clients, I'll be able to make a clean break next year--depending upon trial/appeal schedules. (Work has already been getting shifted around a bit in anticipation of my departure, which was the plan.)

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

Well, looks like he may not shed his golden handcuffs. He is now having doubts as to his decision to retire early. I am curious to see where it goes...

https://anonlawyer.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/seeds-of-doubt/

I’ve been thinking more about buying a house when we get back. But it starts to feel more and more like a financial stretch possibly indicating that we are not as FI as we need to be…

 

[gcgang]

I agree most lawyers work longer than most of us.

Reminds me of a friend who worked at the prestigious law firm, Duey, Cheatham and Howe, who worked until he died. As he entered the pearly gates, St Peter said he was quite impressed that my friend had worked until he was over 120 years old. The lawyer said, but I'm only 75. St Pete said sorry, I was looking at your billable hours.

 

[Milton]

It's actually a rare attorney who is thrives on bringing in business AND doing the legal work. I guarantee some of my associate attorneys are better attorneys than I am but they need me to give them work to do.

Have to say that I have known some partners who, in addition to being 'rainmakers', have been very skilled and hardworking lawyers.

While I don't consider partnership to be a reliable indicator of legal merit, neither does it necessarily mean that the person is no more than a talented salesperson. It all depends on the individual.

 

[Milton]

Well, looks like he may not shed his golden handcuffs. He is now having doubts as to his decision to retire early. I am curious to see where it goes.https://anonlawyer.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/seeds-of-doubt/

Many of his previous blog entries were ambivalent about quitting, so I'm not particularly surprised. Nor do I think a $1.75 million net worth is a particularly large FIRE nest egg for a couple in their mid-30s who have some expensive habits (especially travel), so he's probably right to second guess himself.

Would have been better to run the analysis prior to quitting, though. Quite often it is easier to keep a job than to regain it, even if one left on the best of terms: no one is irreplaceable, and employers move on.

Some of his blog entries seem a bit strange. E.g., when he became engaged he prepared a prenuptial agreement and then hired someone to provide his fiancée with independent legal advice. July 1, 2012:

[W]e still have to finalize our premarital agreement. I prepared a draft with a lot of input from her, but we still need to retain independent counsel.

That makes sense, but look what he wound up paying in related legal fees. October 11, 2012:

[W]e’ve also spent a lot on wedding expenses. I’m a little embarrassed to say we might be spending as much as the “average” American, although perhaps we allocated our funds a little differently:

$8K engagement ring (I’m a sucker for shiny things)
$7K attorney fees (more on this later)
$9K actual wedding stuff (rings, suit, dress, flowers, wedding, 2 receptions, etc.)
$10K honeymoon (more on this later)

The premarital agreement is a big chunk of our expenses, but IMO a small price to pay for peace of mind (fortunately, we both agree on this). I felt a little lost looking for an attorney so I asked my buddy for a referral and somehow I ended up with a really high-powered attorney. My friend went through so much trouble to get the referral with a discount that I felt bad saying no, even though I felt it was still too expensive. Part of me didn’t want to pay anything because I was the one who wrote the draft — a damned good one at that!

What world does he live in? There's no need for a "really high-powered attorney" to provide ILA; and $7,000 is just ridiculous for such a limited service.

BTW, neither he nor his buddy should have had any involvement in selecting or paying the independent (sic) lawyer: that should have been left entirely up to his fiancée.