- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 86 Comments
- 314 Views
One of our readers has a question about taking a vacation. This second year associate only took a total of 3 days off in 2017 and has plans to take of a whopping 5 business days of vacation later this year for a honeymoon. Now, the associate is stressing about taking those days off. Do you have any advice? Are they right to be concerned? Anything you can say that will help them feel comfortable turning off their work email for a week and enjoying life?
Work to live, not live to work
Don't get married.
Take the time for yourself. If you don't, they can always hurt you more.
Your vacation days are part of your compensation. If you don't take them, you won't get paid for them when (not if) you get sick of working there and leave. Put your big boy pants on and stop leaving money on the table.
People who take vacations are seen as weak. Take any days off at your peril.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Relax dude. The most successful people I know take tons of vacation.
Would that be the partners in firms?
No. The partners, having won the pie-eating contest, are too busy eating more pie to take vacations.
If you have to worry about taking vacation days, I would find a new firm. I can’t believe people actually put up with this bs – what, for money?! Sad.
I think honeymoons are in a separate category from a regular vacation. Unless you have a case that is expected to go to trial at the same time, take the time and do not feel bad about it.
TAKE THE VACATION. Its just a job. Quality of work and dependability are what make you valued, not never missing a day. There is no reason to sacrifice your Honeymoon for a law firm.
Check your priorities….the powers that be are aware of your vacation. Make up the hours later in the year. The only time it really matters is if you are one of the members of the trial team. Other than that, your ego is over-inflated. In a job, we are all replaceable. I doubt your future wife thinks the same.
8:46 is right. If a young associate accepts a position with a competitive firm of solid reputation, and there are other young associates there all swimming in the same shark tank on the constant prowl for raw, red meat(more select assignments, promotions, raises, to be more favorably viewed by partners and senior associates, etc.), it's a fool's errand to accept employment with such firm while still being fixated on vacation time or honeymoon time to be taken the first year or two at the firm.
Some of these places want to see the young associates as frothing at the mouth, hyper-competitive billing machines and suck-up machines, willing and eager to enslave themselves to such firm for the first few years, and willing to rip their fellow junior associates to shreds in order to prove that they are the more worthy and loyal attack dog for the firm.
I realize I am engaging in hyperbole in order to emphasize a point, but when young and seeking the first job out of law school, there should be no dialogue at the employment interview or afterward about the need for extra time off during the first year. Questions of salary and compensation are even viewed as more acceptable because often it looks like the applicant is eager to advance in the firm. But wanting to take large chunks of time off from the tread mill during your rookie or sophomore season is always viewed as a negative.
And 8:20 is likewise correct. Don't get married. Everyone wants to think they can do it all, but they can't. Work a few years, establish a nest egg and some good will with the firm, and then take the honeymoon. Taking the honeymoon the first year, while the other young associates are all keeping their nose to the grind stone(and potentially undermining you and stabbing you in the back while you are gone)is not a good idea.
Also, although these firms can be really unreasonable with what they expect of young associates in terms and hours and devotion, I think they are right to take a dim view of the career commitment level of a new associate who insists that's it's a great idea to get married and take time off for a honeymoon the first year or two at the firm. When was the last time you heard of a really top-notch, well-performing first year associate, who was committed to make a great first impression, who insisted on being off to honeymoon the first year? This stuff about career/personal life balance is bullshit, at least the first year or two. You are there because you made a huge sacrifice of time and money(and usually huge student debt) to pursue a better career long term. There is no real career/personal life balance the first few years if one truly wants to get ahead. Career always wins out. If one wants all that time off, and this(admittedly) healthy career/personal life balance they insist they are entitled to, they can teach fourth grade, public school.
Now once someone practices for a few years, achieves some modicum of reputation and marketability, that can all change and concerns about time off will have a lot more resonance and viability(or should).
I was wrong, this is actually the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Yep. This person's view does not represent the majority view anymore. Take the vacation, get married, have a honeymoon. If you get push back from the firm or if they see you as "weak" because you took a whole week off one time, then you will know that they see you only as a profit center and not a person. Good firms will invest in their personnel, and that includes keeping them happy and refreshed. Its much better for the individual in the long term. If your firm cares about you, they will care about whether you burn out.
To:10:37. I agree that 9:46 over-sates matters, and is too dramatic with the language. But if it is truly the dumbest thing you ever read, that must mean you believe that none of the firms in Vegas exhibit any of these traits. Yet many of the firms in Vegas exhibit at least some of these traits, at least as to how some commercial law firms treat young associates.
If, without explanation, discussion or reasoning, you simply dismiss it as the dumbest thing you ever read, I would have to conclude that you have never practiced law in the community and know no one who has.
I do find 9:46 is to be verbose, pedantic, and wrong as to some matters. But anyone who simply dismisses everything 9:46 says as being the dumbest thing ever, simply cannot have any awareness of the reality that faces many young layers out of law school.
If someone points out the way things are, they should not be dismissed as really dumb simply on account that you wish to believe the ideal reality should be different. We probably all wish the ideal reality was different.
So, why is it the dumbest thing you ever heard? Do new associates face none of this?
I also note that it's easy for successful, middle-aged lawyers to say they would never work for such firms(even though some of them did early in their career), and it's easy for those who work in the public sector to insist they would never expose themselves to this indignity.
But these firms exist and many young attorneys go to work for them every year. We can say it's really dumb to do so, but we can't say it's really dumb if someone points out the reality that it exists.
So, 10:37, which is it? Is it that you have never practiced here, or you do practice here but insist that no such firms, and no such practices exist? Yes, 9:46 does sound like kind of an ass, but there is some real truth in the post
@ 11:02…@10:37 here – you admitted the post was wrong in "some matters" and that the poster sound like "a bit of an ass" so Im' not sure why you're questioning me. I was obviously being short and flippant (I'm working on a brief but it's Friday so I keep finding ways to distract from my stellar work). Maybe if the post was reworded as more of a warning – I might get it. I read it as – don't take a vacation and don't get married if you want to be successful (the poster literally said don't get married). To me, super dumb. Also, I have practiced in Vegas my entire career. Also, many firms in Vegas exhibit those traits. I do not believe in an "ideal reality" as if some legal fairy searching for utopia. I do believe that life is more than billable hours and big commercial law firms and the message I was trying to send was – a suggestion otherwise is no Bueno and the associate needs to take a vacation.
9:46 is spot on. 10:37, I hope you have a government job.
11:21 – "a government job"…what an arrogant and crap filled thing to say. Also, if I was at a government job would I be drafting a brief on a Friday? No, because that gov job would be working for the city and I would be happily playing golf or having lunch cocktails because I don't work Fridays. My gov. job friends are the happiest most well balanced people I know, with pensions and good benefits – and fancy houses and cars. I WISH I had a gov. job. I'd also have plenty of vacation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c
11:27 — When you are finished drafting your brief, start looking for that government job.
Sounds like 10:37 needs a vacation.
I think what's being lost here is that this isn't just a regular vacation. It's a friggin honeymoon. You've shown your dedication by only taking 3 days off in your first year. Go on your honeymoon then come back and get to work.
If anyone tries to ding you in your annual review then use your lawyering skills and point out that your honeymoon was (hopefully) a once-in-a-lifetime family event and show how little time you've taken off otherwise. If they still want to hold it over your head – well there are plenty of other firms out there.
Are things at some of these firms as bleak and Dickensian as 9:46 paints them as being?
Do these firms want healthy, happy, creative enthusiastic associates who have a proper psychological balance in life, or do they want mindless, ruthless billing machine automatons who are trained to be blindly, slavishly devoted to the firm and have no personal life or healthy psychological center?
Apparently, 9:46 believes these firms clearly want the former rather than the latter.
But if that be the case, this approach does not develop healthy future senior associates or partners, which requires the ability to make rain, attract clients, have well honed inter-personal skills, etc.
So, if some of these firms truly take the approach that 9:46 indicates some of them do, this can only work if the firm chews up, and spits out, these young billing machines after they drain them dry, and burn them out, for the first few years of their career.
Are there firms that care about the associates on a personal level as humans.. yes but they are a distinct minority.
For the law firm (and it's equity partners) it's a business. The associate is really only worth the spread between the receipts actually brought in through the door based on their billings less the cost (hard and soft costs) attributable to the associate. Unless the firm billing structure allows for greater recovery with higher experience, the associate quickly reaches a potential ceiling on receipts (greater efficiency only goes so far. There is a finite number of hours that the associate can bill in a month/year) yet the costs associated with that associate continues to grow every year they remain with the firm (salary, benefits, proportional share of (staff costs, rent, overhead, etc.)).
While on a human level the partners may care about the happiness of the associate, on a business level, unless they are generating their own business, they become less valuable over time as the spread makes the turn from greater profitability to less profitability. At that point they are simply fungible billing machines (FBU). The law schools mint thousands of fresh FBU's each and every year, with any one FBU not that much different from another.
I'm aware that some snowflakes are going to be offended reading this, but better to understand this business early in your career.
Some of these firms are far worse than Dickensian, They are actually Draconian.
@9:46 is insane. Never work at a firm like that. This is a miserable profession. Some days the only thing keeping you going will be your friends/family. Go on your honeymoon. And if it's a problem, start looking for a new job now. Or steal their clients and hang your own shingle.
January 5, 2018 at 9:46 AM had best be given his due. I've been a recruiter for 15 years and this is as sound a set of advice as any I've ever given myself. Rough? Yes, but someone needs to say it. This is not unlike the lecture I used to give every year at Boyd (before I became persona non grata).
I will perhaps somewhat qualify this by saying this advice is most appropriate when referring to a general commercial law firm. My knowledge of high volume and consumer firms is somewhat limited and it's entirely possible that the work environment is different in those venues, but for the top billing firms, believe it.
The only other advice I would offer is how I used to end my annual pizza parties at Boyd: The Ultimate Truth: Nothing will be a greater predictor of your potential success as a commercial law partner than your ability to sell. It's more important than how good a lawyer you are and it's more important than how good a person you are.
Remember that it's cold in the shark pool.
What did you do to become persona non grata at Boyd? Did you disparage Harry Reid? Or ????
Elissa Cadish, who is an undeserving darling over there as well? You don't get my money because of her.
January 6, 2018 at 11:00 AM – A truly awesome story – for a slow news day.
January 6, 2018 at 12:12 PM – I'm a GOP state official and even I think Cadish is an outstanding jurist Nevada should be proud of. Grow up.
Jordan, way to show the maturity.
I want to have a Harry Reid pizza party.
11:00, your slow news day is here: https://lasvegaslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/state-of-market-july-2014.html?showComment=1405015866258#c5511108200663446813
I agree with Ross on Cadish and I never agree with him.
Me either, and I still continue to disagree with him on Cadish. No Elissa Cadish for me.
Be considerate with your vacation time. Clear your calendar, and go to the trouble of moving motion dates and response dates to minimize the hassle of you being gone. But go, definitely go. And only look at your phone during a short specified period each day.
I personally think it's a little bit of both.
I wouldn't take a long vacation year 1, but I wouldn't have done that at any job pre-law school either. At some point, you need to sit down and put in the time. Take a couple long weekends instead.
After year 1, I think you can start making reasonable requests for time off, including a 2 week vacation or honeymoon, as long as you plan well and don't leave anyone hanging while you're gone.
I don't know whether 9:46 is clinically insane or not(that's a separate, tangential issue), but I know they are largely correct as to how some of these firms operate( I said some,not most, not all, but some).
In fact, a firm comes to mind that is a favorite whipping boy on this blog that some appear to claim operates somewhat in such fashion as to new associates.
I'm not convinced that 9:46 is advocating an unhealthy, career-obsessed life style. I think they are simply emphasizing that you can't have it both ways–you can't work for this type of firm right out of law school while still insisting on a great deal of time off your first few years.
Also, I'm not certain they are insane for pointing out that this healthy career/personal life balance they discuss usually comes along much later when we have all paid our dues. After all, most successful attorneys will tell you that there was not a lot of free time their first few years in practice, if they were working for a firm. Now if someone hangs a shingle right out of school and starts their own firm, they can take all the time off they want. But that is usually not practical or effective.
Usually, the trajectory of most attorneys is that they get over-worked, and under-paid, by some firm the first few years, before they make their next career move(moving to a different firm, starting a partnership with another attorney, flying solo, etc).
Now,what hasn't been discussed is those who avoid the private law practice rat race altogether by going to work for a public entity.
Reading these responses makes me happy that I got the hell out of that environment after a few years, and even happier that I'm hoping to ease into semi-retirement in another 3-4.
By the tone of these comments, only miserable people read this blog (aside from me). Telling someone not to take a vacation in this high stress field is equivalent to telling them to put a bullet in their mouth or just pack it in and go do something else. Person asking about taking vacations – take the advise of Bill Gates, Marissa Mayer & Richard Branson – take the vacation! You should take a minimum of two weeks a year and you don't have to totally shut down, work from home some, do some calls, whatever you feel you need to do to balance the stress of being out of the office but also trying to center yourself to what is important. Science and medical professionals would tell you – if you don't take vacations you'll end up being a miserable jackass with no desires other than to make money. People who don't take vacations are less productive as well because they're miserable. They are also more likely to be drunks and burn out. I'm just in shock that people would actually tell this poor associate not to take a well earned and deserved vacation. It proves my point that most of the lawyers in this town are horrible people. It's sad.
No one is saying not to take the vacation. They're saying to take it at the person's peril. If the vacation outweighs any actual or perceived hit to the associate's progression at the firm, go for it. If not, wait. It's not rocket science.
The real question is whether you are making your billables. If you aren't, you should be stressing about taking vacation. if you are, you should be fine.
Just don't be like the typical associate these days that thinks you're still entitled to the big bonus and to become partner even when you haven't made your minimum billables.
@10:51 I was about to post something entirely different when I read your comment. "Hitting billables" are (some of) the two most douchest words a lawyer can say. Also I'm going on 20 years of practice and have worked with many associates 1 to 5 years out in the last 5 years and literally none of them have the attitude you deem typical. They're all freaking out to hit those billables in spite of the fact that shady partners steal their hours or write down their time, or receipts. The "billable hour" needs to go away. It never will, but if it did a lot of scum would float to the surface of the legal pond and struggle for air. clients should pay value for service, not by the hour. To the vacation question – the fact that you're worried tells me you're responsible enough and likely doing a great job so take the damn vacation. You'll know when it's not appropriate to take a vacation or not.
The lesson I've learned is that if you take a vacation and your case blows up, then expect to have a shitty vacation. I used to look for deals and try to avoid crowds when I planned my vacation. Now I do the opposite. Now I only miss work if my main bosses are out or it's a holiday season like 4th of July week or the week after Christmas where everyone expects shit to move slow. This approach has made my vacations much more enjoyable.
10:44 and others are correct that firms should not be this way, and that they should invest in having healthy, happy, refreshed, well-adjusted associates.
But 9:46, and others, are being condemned as retards merely for pointing out the reality. They are not claiming to support the reality. They are simply pointing out how things are.
In other words, the firms don't want what 10:44(and others, including myself) suggest what the firm should want– the healthy, happy, refreshed attorneys, who have sufficient free time to be well-rested and well-centered.
Many firms(including commercial firms and others) don't want that at all. Instead, there are some firms that want billing slaves they can chew up and spit out after two years, and then hire a new billing slave to replace them. And the cycle repeats itself every two years.
We should focus on how such practices can be eradicated–whether that is to discourage young attorneys from falling prey to be hired by such firms, or any advice which may be appropriate. But we don't do anyone a service if we simply dismiss someone as an idiot for pointing out that these firms exist, and they are often as described.
How about a maximum billable hour law. Now that a majority of attorneys are firmly in the working class, they might as well have wage and hour protections.
That would certainly raise all sorts of interesting issues.
Having been in this industry well over 20 years, I have always chuckled when firms talk in terms of vacation time in their benefit package. What they conveniently fail to mention is that the employee attorney is still expected to meet their minimum billable hour requirement despite taking the vacation time.
Effectively, the attorney must now bill even more hours in a shorter time in order to take a "vacation". If the firm really sought to allow an effective respite for the employee, they would not only give the paid time off, but also a corresponding credit against the billable hours requirement for the vacation time taken.
Most yearly billable requirements I've seen are calculated with vacation in mind. For example, a 1920 billing requirement is based on 50 weeks of work (i.e., 2 weeks vacation a year).
"Now that a majority of attorneys are firmly in the working class"
This is a dumb comment. Almost every attorney that's been practicing at least four years makes six figures. Sure, there are things about practicing law that sucks. But don't equate your plight with people who physically bust their ass, make $15/hour and really do struggle to get by.
"Almost every attorney that's been practicing at least four years makes six figures"
Um, no.
This is always the problem with working in an hourly-billing environment. There is no such thing as "vacation," only a rearrangement of the same number of hours that you would be working anyway. Want to take a week "off?" No problem, just work time and a half for two weeks before you leave.
And even if they are making six figures after four years, they are still paying down their six figure student loans.
Where is the person who said they would file to challenge Cadish?
Still plenty of time to file left. It's far more fun, if playing spoiler, to file at the last possible minute.
They chickened out.
The announced opponent is Atticus Finch.
1:19–that was corny, but kind of funny.
Denton….Denton….Denton
Wth is Mark Hutchinson supporting Cadish? He is a Republican. He loses my support.
Cadish is Repubs. She is pro gun.
LOL. Cadish is a well known Democrat.
I think it was a joke. Made me laugh.
Who runs things in Cadish's department, her or Tim? Serious question.
Ask Tim, he will tell you.
Tim does.
The only person I remember who said she was going to draw an opponent said the RJ reported it. The only thing on the RJ I see that even comes close to that is good ol' Joecks' stellar and insightful "predictions" for the coming year.
It was not that. It was another piece in the RJ. There is over a week for someone to file against Cadish. They will.
There is no other piece.
You are reading the wrong paper.
They don't exist. That was just b.s. for entertainment purposes on this blog to keep a thread of dialogue going. No one will run against her. If they do, it will be someone of no real viability.
I think she will draw an opponent. The only positive is we get rid of her in The Eighth along with Tim.
Tim a/k/a Kelley C. Mayweather (pen name).
I was busted for taking a Friday off that I got approved in advance. Came up during a review that I wasn't committed enough. I'd say don't take the trip.
I'd say get a new job. That sounds horrible.
Thing is, this is reality.
Just be happy they didn't give your office away on the day you missed — saying "We thought you had quit."
It really depends on the firm culture. I am a mid-level associate at a firm that is large-ish for Nevada (let's say >40 attorneys in-state). This would never happen at my firm. Vacation is encouraged at my firm and, to the extent possible in this industry, respected.
1:29, and many other comments, really puts something in full focus. 9:46 was explaining how awful things could for first and second year associates in these billing mill commercial litigation firms(and,in fairness,firms practicing in other area of law as well).
9:46 explained that the one person was taking a risk to take a couple weeks off in his first year with such a firm, for the purpose of a honeymoon, and made other observations about what to watch out for with such firms.
9:46 was not stating they agreed with the approach of such firms, but was merely indicating the reality of the situation. But then 10:37 condemned the observations of 9:46 as being "the dumbest things I ever heard." And other blogs were similar in condemning 9:46,emphasizing that firms should instead want happy, healthy, very refreshed associates, and therefore should be very generous with vacation time, etc.
The disconnect here is that 9;46, and other similar posters, were not being supportive of the draconian approach toward young associates exhibited by some firms, and were agreeing that associates should be treated a lot better, and provided sufficient vacation time, etc. They were merely pointing out the way it if one insists on working for one of these firms.
If one does want the healthy career/personal life balance that was mentioned,they can seek that elsewhere. They cannot impose that view on these awful firms and compel them to improve the way they treat people. You will be nothing but an abused, billing machine for the first couple years. Going to work for such a place, and then wondering if it is fine to take a two week honeymoon the first year, is a bad idea as 9;46 suggests.
Now 10:37 can insist that such advice and observations are the dumbest thing they ever hear, but just look at some of the material people are weighing in with.
Look what 11:22, and others, have said about what happens when a younger associate takes a vacation when working at such places. And look at what 1:29 says. All 1:29 did was take off a pre-approved Friday and it blew up in their face. And read all the other comments about people who worked, or still work, for firms with such an emphasis on hourly billing for their entry level associates.
After all that, if 10:37 still believes these stories are pure fiction and the dumbest things they ever heard, I must question whether 10:37 ever practiced law in Nevada, or even whether they know anyone who ever did.
A few bloggers have gotten quite upset about what 10:37 said.But 10:37 should simply be ignored as they have no analytical or reasoning abilities. They dismiss a thoughtful, detailed post by simply saying it is the "the dumbest thing I ever heard" without offering any explanation, is quite startling. I don't agree with everything 9:46 posted, but some of it I do. And the parts I don't agree with are definitely worthy of generating a response from me and others as to why we don't agree.
But the main core of what 9:46 said, as to how these young associates are treated at certain billing mill firms, is basically spot on. I would pay no attention to someone who simply dismisses those observations as "the dumbest thing I ever heard."
And for 10:37, a bit of advice. Yes, you are anonymous and therefore can use this blog to post simple smart ass responses which totally condemn someone who says something you may not completely agree with. But if you are in fact an attorney,and considering that most who post here are attorneys, why not use this as an opportunity to hone your legal skills by offering constructive discussion and analysis as to why you disagree with something?
9:46, and others, raised issues that most of us believe have really substantial arguable merit. If you are in court and a judge seems reasonably impressed with the extensive briefing and argument of the opposing side, when it is your turn to respond you would certainly not simply say "that is the dumbest thing I ever heard."
Or, perhaps you would.
If 1:29,who worked(or still works) for such a firm was condemned for taking off a pre-approved Friday as not being committed enough, advises not to take the honeymoon, that sounds like sound advice.
So, perhaps the hopeful honeymooner should quit the firm, honeymoon to his heart's content, and then go work for a public agency.
Some people on this blog seem miserable. It's taking the fun out of it for me. @ 4:30 – I'm the "dumbest thing…" poster. When I made the comments that the posts were the dumbest thing I've ever heard, I was referencing The Cosby Show….Bill to Theo…."Theo, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard…." after Theo went on a rant. Google it – it's pretty funny. I was busy at work, read for entertainment and didn't have time to go through point by point as to why I thought it was dumb. Your criteria that before I post I treat it like I prepare for court is really exhausting to think about – and no one wants to read that. Other posters here talk about brevity – I tend to agree. My comment was short, intended as a joke and also intended to get my point across which I do not expect everyone will get. My point was that it is stupid to suggest someone not take a vacation simply to placate abusive firm culture. I didn't say the poster was stupid, I didn't insult the posters intellect or "analytical" skills – unlike you. I was being a smart ass and flippant with a joke to make a very clear and simple point utilizing my favorite principle – K.I.S.S. – if the associate was reading the blog I would not want them to think that we all agree with that post – thus I used my approach. Which I can see some of you pent up lawyers on here did not like. [And yes, I'm a lawyer. I've never had a government job. I've worked in billable hour firms as large as world wide and as small as 10 lawyers.] Have a great Monday people of the blog.
Fair enough, but before you dismiss something as being really dumb, at least make some minimal effort to understand what the poster was saying. And in this case, you didn't even need to make an effort on account that they were telling you exactly what they meant. Yet you still chose to pretend to misunderstand what they were clearly saying, so that you could dismiss it as stupid.
The post in question never suggested that someone should prioritize working for one of these oppressive sweatshops to the exclusion of their honeymoon. In fact, the post would agree totally with what you said–that it was really stupid to have that priority system.
The disconnect may be as follows. The post then said that if someone was in fact ill-advised enough to work for one of these hell holes, they should understand the consequences if they take off for a couple weeks the first year.
These places will never give a tinker's damn about the human element. You're going on a honeymoon? F**k you! Keep your billings up. You're in the hospital? F**k you! Keep your billings fully up! You're in an iron lung? F**k You! Keep your billings up! You're dead?…well, you get the point.
So, the advise remains sound: Take your honeymoon. Work in a place that has some balance. You are not in the slave trade. But if one is greedy enough, stupid enough, ill-informed enough, or desperate enough to subject themselves to the slave trade,then it is foolish to attempt a honeymoon at the same time.
I remember Cosby saying that "dumbest thing" line to Theo from time-to-time, but I don't know if the reruns are ever broadcast anymore due to Cosby's problems.
Unfortunately, yes, this healthy career/personal balance cannot be achieved at one of these billing mill places. And people do know, or should know, what they are getting into.
If you were living in the Soviet Union in the middle of last century, and you were planning a honeymoon, but then got tossed into the gulag for dispersing ant-Stalin propaganda, you would need to abandon the honeymoon plans rather than insisting on maintaining a healthy gulag/personal life balance.
Interesting, that on some days several timely, news worthy legal issues are offered for discussion, and it does not generate the number, or intensity, of responses that this solitary question did as to whether someone should take the honeymoon while working at one of these hell holes.
It's clearly a sore spot for a lot of folks and has real resonance. But things will never change as long as these firms continue with the billable hour as the core revenue method, and young lawyers continue to sell their souls for two years or so to this draconian process.
I used to work at LSC, and am now at a smaller firm. Neither place cared if I took vacation. Go on your honeymoon. If they have a problem with it, find a new job.
Malcolm is suing Cosmo for OJ, bc Cosmo tried to squeeze the juice. Sorry, could not help it.