Stuck on Repeats

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

How many hourly billers can you name who are retired? As in, no longer practice law, and just live off what they earned while working? Of those, how many of them made that decision for him/herself?

I'm sure Sidd and Hank and others can name a name or two, but in my father's generation of lawyers, the only ones who are retired were in-house private or public sector. The ones in firms are dead or still working at 68, claiming they love it too much to quit.

I know a small number who have retired, but many more who easily could. The "I love it too much to quit" thing can actually be real -- with the "it" being the work, the firm they built, the feeling of supporting a bunch of people who helped make them rich, or just avoiding staring at the interior walls of their house all day long.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

I am in house. I love being in house.

I get to email a document to my lawyers at my firms at 5:00 and say "I need this when I get in in the morning" and then go home, have dinner and a cocktail, and go to bed. Sometime around 3:30 am, a document will be emailed to me. I may or may not open it when I arrive at work in the morning.

I am the client.

"I went in house so I could be an asshole" sounds strange to me, but I guess there are people who would say that's why I stuck it out to make partner.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I know a small number who have retired, but many more who easily could. The "I love it too much to quit" thing can actually be real -- with the "it" being the work, the firm they built, the feeling of supporting a bunch of people who helped make them rich, or just avoiding staring at the interior walls of their house all day long.

Many such firms have mandatory retirement rules -- formal or informal.

65 and you're out.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I really see that as a reason not to go in house. Do you really want to stop working at 65? I suspect I'll be pretty useless by 70, but having something to do every day will be nice. Unless, maybe I should buy a vineyard?

No. You spend your years between 40 and 68 telling people your hour is worth $550 in 2012 dollars, eventually you start to believe it. Staying home means an opportunity cost of $4,400 a day. No pastime, however rewarding, can overcome the gnawing belief that you're worthless at home but valuable at work.

Plenty of rich businessmen retire. Because the inventories of assets they built between 40 and 68 continue to make money whether they work or not. Only hourly billers work as they do, because their inventory is time, and God ain't making any more of that.

Do as you will, of course. We're fortunate to have choices. I've given up on the idea I can project my values on the world with money -- I'm jealous of the people who've ordered their lives so they can. But in the legal profession at least, there's a one-to-one correlation between every $500 bucks and an hour of your life, and that's if you're lucky.

ETA I'm excluding the possibility of firms that allow partners to run associates on files as originators, because I think those firms are inherently unstable because they are vulnerable to bloodless revolutions where junior partners eventually force the originators out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No. You spend your years between 40 and 68 telling people your hour is worth $550 in 2012 dollars, eventually you start to believe it. Staying home means an opportunity cost of $4,400 a day. No pastime, however rewarding, can overcome the gnawing belief that you're worthless at home but valuable at work.

.

You spent 2 hours with me and think I'm worth $550 an hour?

Hank Chinaski

457-28

[Adder]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

I am in house. I love being in house.

I get to email a document to my lawyers at my firms at 5:00 and say "I need this when I get in in the morning" and then go home, have dinner and a cocktail, and go to bed. Sometime around 3:30 am, a document will be emailed to me. I may or may not open it when I arrive at work in the morning.

I am the client.

U sux.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

How many hourly billers can you name who are retired? As in, no longer practice law, and just live off what they earned while working? Of those, how many of them made that decision for him/herself?

I'm sure Sidd and Hank and others can name a name or two, but in my father's generation of lawyers, the only ones who are retired were in-house private or public sector. The ones in firms are dead or still working at 68, claiming they love it too much to quit.

Does that mean they can't restrain their consumption enough that they can, or that they are the sort if miserable fuck who won't ( hi, Hank!).

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

"...the ultimate fashion climax."

I get the feeling you aren't even reading the copy any more, you're just going for the cheap and easy visual gag.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Assuming it would result in a minor haircut on compensation, what are other reasons to NOT go in house?

• red tape;
• can't grab assistant's ass;
• $$ potential capped much lower.

Other thoughts?

Imagine a firm with only one partner. Forever.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No. You spend your years between 40 and 68 telling people your hour is worth $550 in 2012 dollars, eventually you start to believe it. Staying home means an opportunity cost of $4,400 a day. No pastime, however rewarding, can overcome the gnawing belief that you're worthless at home but valuable at work.

Plenty of rich businessmen retire. Because the inventories of assets they built between 40 and 68 continue to make money whether they work or not. Only hourly billers work as they do, because their inventory is time, and God ain't making any more of that.

Do as you will, of course. We're fortunate to have choices. I've given up on the idea I can project my values on the world with money -- I'm jealous of the people who've ordered their lives so they can. But in the legal profession at least, there's a one-to-one correlation between every $500 bucks and an hour of your life, and that's if you're lucky.

ETA I'm excluding the possibility of firms that allow partners to run associates on files as originators, because I think those firms are inherently unstable because they are vulnerable to bloodless revolutions where junior partners eventually force the originators out.

To the extent you're arguing that becoming a lawyer in the first place was a bad idea because we don't build up assets or businesses with inherent lasting value, I understand your argument and feel your pain.

To the extent you are arguing that this is a reason to give up a life of billing time at a fancy rate so as to have the possibility of retiring on paltry savings from a lesser salary at age 65 (unless you take the early retirement incentive plan at 62) and then enjoy retirement working part-time as a walmart greeter in a lakes community in Florida, I don't get it.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by robustpuppy

Word.

Hey! Welcome home! Or is this just a drive by visit?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

To the extent you're arguing that becoming a lawyer in the first place was a bad idea because we don't build up assets or businesses with inherent lasting value, I understand your argument and feel your pain.

To the extent you are arguing that this is a reason to give up a life of billing time at a fancy rate so as to have the possibility of retiring on paltry savings from a lesser salary at age 65 (unless you take the early retirement incentive plan at 62) and then enjoy retirement working part-time as a walmart greeter in a lakes community in Florida, I don't get it.

I don't feel the choice I made was quite on those terms, but okay. Coltrane asked whether there was other info to consider on whether to go in-house. My input was merely that a full lifetime of hourly billing seems to break people's brains in such a way that they never feel full. In-house as I've seen it offers a kind of professional satisfaction that RT summarized quite well. But I don't claim to know how to live your life; only mine.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't feel the choice I made was quite on those terms, but okay. Coltrane asked whether there was other info to consider on whether to go in-house. My input was merely that a full lifetime of hourly billing seems to break people's brains in such a way that they never feel full. In-house as I've seen it offers a kind of professional satisfaction that RT summarized quite well. But I don't claim to know how to live your life; only mine.

I don't think we should be fighting when notbob stops by.

[LessinSF]

https://www.google.com/search?num=10...ac.qA9ZXrwUOE4

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't feel the choice I made was quite on those terms, but okay. Coltrane asked whether there was other info to consider on whether to go in-house. My input was merely that a full lifetime of hourly billing seems to break people's brains in such a way that they never feel full. In-house as I've seen it offers a kind of professional satisfaction that RT summarized quite well. But I don't claim to know how to live your life; only mine.

I understand the RT professional satisfaction argument, and the BnB hand it to outside counsel on Friday and enjoy your weekend getting premium billed argument, but thought you were making some different "you'll be happier in retirement" or "you'll actually retire" argument, which I just don't get.

As to pickled brains, well, Hank seems happy despite them.