ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- stitched video: www.tiktok.com...
📥 sign up for my newsletter: cecexie.substa...
🫶 support my work: / cecexie
🚨 share your biglaw horror and non-horror stories with me: cecexie.com/yo...
✍️ submit a question to ask cece: cecexie.com/as...
💕 f o l l o w m e 💞
@cecexie everywhere
instagram: / cecexie
tiktok: / cecexie
twitter: / cecexie
website: www.cecexie.com
❓ F A Q s ❓
how old are you? 31 ('91 baby)
which schools did you go to? yale (undergrad) and harvard (law school)
what did you major in? economics
what was your gpa and lsat score? 3.86/176
what sign/MBTI/enneagram are you? aries, ENFJ, 3w4
are you sure you're not a virgo? no part of my star chart is virgo or an earth sign, i swear
I agree. These are the reasons why I left my NYC big law firm: (1) I was told that wearing suits was off putting; (2) If I took a day off due to medical that I should expect to answer emails and calls AT ANY TIME, even on the highway (they made sure that I had hotspot at all times); (3) partner called me to her office and told me to not sit in empty chair and had me remove folders and books from occupied chair just because another partner was going to sit in empty chair; AND (4) I spoke to HR about this and they said SUCK IT UP. And therefore, I LEFT.
YIKES all around. glad you saw the light and left!!
@@CeceXie Thanks, Cece. To be honest, what I shared above was nothing. I was harassed by multiple partners, even my partner mentor. I only lasted 8 months at that firm.
Wait, why was wearing suits off-putting? What were you supposed to be wearing?
@@saltycrunch My firm's policy on attire was business casual, but as a newly admitted attorney I wanted to dress up and wear suits. Unfortunately, the managing partner came to my office and scolded me for it. Mind you, I'm a first generation college and law student, and wearing suits for me personally was a symbol of how proud I was to be a part of this profession. To be honest, I could write a book about the horrific experiences I had at this firm.
@@fcnyc952 sorry you had such a bad experience. Hope things are better now.
I’m not in law but the same goes for Big 4 Accounting firms for sure! They treat you like a toxic partner then when find another job they tell you how great you are and gaslight you.
i've definitely heard a lot about the similarities between biglaw and big 4 accounting!!
Ugh so true. So toxic.
I’m going into a big4 and all I see is how toxic it is TT and I was excited
big 4 is honestly the worst... worked saturdays, weekends, slept at the office, no boundaries, gaslighting when you try to leave or transfer
@@ForbiddenFruitGaming what office and sector were u in ?
Dang, the examples she gave is literally the relationship everyone has that are in the military (myself included)😂😂. But Big law at least pays you 2-7 times the salary lol. I’m hoping to get into law school by the time my contract ends, and if this is what Big Law is like, I might think twice about it regardless of the salary.
Interesting analogy. I wonder if one of the reasons why you are required to advise the firm about partnerships is to that they can evaluate the likelihood of possible negative exposure or controversy?
(undergrad student, not in law)
there are both legal ethics issues (e.g., taking payment from a company that your team is also suing on behalf of a client) and business issues (e.g., what you mentioned about potential negative exposure or controversy) at play. they're definitely both worth considering and setting up a process for associates to navigate!
@@CeceXie Thanks for discussing this! It seems like you have to sell a good chunk of your life when working in biglaw, haha.
I'm considering going into law school but I worry about whether I could truly see myself there or not and if I should go for a masters instead. Your shorts have been helping me learn more about the law profession and helping me gain critical insights. thank you and I look forward to seeing what else you post!
Watching these videos and reading the comments makes me question my life choices, haha! (I am currently waiting to hear back from potential law schools). I'm terrified! It is appearing more and more inevitable that I'll find myself in a firm that will not care about creating an environment that respects a work-life balance. Reading just how controlling it can be in big law is definitely concerning. Honestly, I am probably super naive for thinking it would be anything other than what you've described.
I love your content, Cece. Thanks for being so transparent about your experiences in law and everything else!
don't be too scared!! there are some really great and kind lawyers out there, too--i really loved my biglaw experience and found that the more senior i got there, the more agency i had. my point is always that all of these horror stories and fears about biglaw--it CAN be different. it SHOULD be different. the powers-that-be just need to wake up and actually take the motivations and desires of associates into account.
thank you for watching and for the kind words!! they keep me going :)
You don’t have to work in big law. Most lawyers don’t.
Thanks Cece! Very interesting breakdown. Would love to see more on this topic and how it differs from biglaw to those practicing elsewhere. Do you suspect any meaningful change is being made or can be made to improve in this regard?
TYSM for the last part: “arbitrarily enforced”!
That’s a pain in the neck that you can’t live your personal life freely at your own will.
Thanks for sharing, Cece. Do you mind sharing how many paid partnerships you brought to your firm and subsequently could not pursue?
none, because i didn't bring very many to them--i knew i was expending professional capital with every ask and didn't want to ask for too much. but for the few i did bring to them, they did OK!
Great analogy, you've just given me another plethora of reasons to never aim for big law.
I respectfully disagree. I wouldn't compare a relationship with a company which pays for my work with my relationship with a boyfriend. They are essentially different types of relationships and I wouldn't necessarily compare them. For example, a boyfriend paying me money, and only if I "satisfy standards" could be viewed as pretty toxic.
As a physician I personally signed a contract with my employer where I am not allowed to work elsewhere without a written consent (not from US so maybe the term is wrong), but I accepted that from the start and willingly signed it and I am now expected to go by it. I assume the same goes for the person at the beginning of the stitch.
I could see from the employers perspective how they may have concerns about my activity in professional capacity outside working with them, especially in professions such as law or medicine. If anything I would compare this situation to asking my boyfriend if it's ok if I have a romantic relationship with other people outside our relationship 🤷♀️
that's interesting because there certainly is a much larger rising class of med students who also are influencers, and there are tons of doctors who are influencers, as well (particularly dermatologists). i understand that what you're saying was the norm before but i really do think the norms are shifting and employers should try to understand that instead of giving ultimatums when workable solutions are certainly there
You're like the only one making sense here.
Non-compete laws are legally dubious at best in the US, and that's with some really well defined legal parameters. Ultimately it interacts with someone's pursuit of gainful employment here and the argument for it being unconstitutional is being made scattered though some spots but no case to my knowledge has ever been big enough where new laws were written in.
@@CeceXieI'm not citing sources but, what I am about to say is searchable.
*1. Those dermos are private practice*
Dr. Pimple-bad-plastic-surgery has an episode floating around where the under the policy of her private practice, patients who couldn't afford to pay could be filmed and then she'd do the procedures. HIPAA works only if damages can be proven. That part you should know. So, it's actually quite exploitative despite the informed consents. On paper? They signed the waiver so it'll never cross a firm's inbox.
*2. Hospitals terminate employees all the time for influencing.*
Usually for stupid reasons but two tend to be: *(1)* they did it on their property without expressed permission (which usually means they're filming on the clock) aaand *(2)* they spoke crap about the patients and got cancelled by the people they were ironically trying to influence (remember that L&D icks clip?) and by kicking up so much trouble, hospitals had to agree with the pitch-fork wielding locals to prevent backlash upon them because they're actually pillars of the physical realm's community. Problems of the court of public opinion. Usually these people work for right-to-work states and the termination paperwork is pretty iron clad because "making a public mockery out of a hospital" leaves a bad taste, to most normal people. But, remember about what I said about permission and when they're filming? That's what's filed. HIPAA absolutely applies here. The "what if some patient walked by?" rhetoric pushed by lawyers is what gets them fired for filming on campus.
For those who film off campus, it usually culminates to someone speaking crap about patients and the Reddit Bureau of Investigations (yes, I am serious) to basically doxx someone out of a job. Now with that avenue, I've no idea what the legals in and outs are like but, I can guess. They're anti-something and they're not just getting reported to their hospital, that person is getting reported to their state's licensing board. Consequences from the Medical Boards takes an egregious amount of things to happen. Usually swindling CMS/medicare out of a couple of million will do it, having the Grim Reaper on speed dial practically doesn't. Those cases typically go straight to jail. The victims are typically cancer patients whom would have stood a chance or survived if they stayed with modern treatment.
Next lecture we explain Hospice and DNRs or something idk.
Just don’t have social media. Just be anonymous online.
Being a solo practitioner is bliss compared to the tyranny of big law life.
Thank you for explaining this concept in an easy to understand way.
True-- people give up a lot of autonomy when working for big law & trying to make partner.
Not just associates! Applies to the partners too! And I’d say probably almost all law firms, not just big law.
Hi Cece, it doesn't seem like you've addressed the ChatGPT / grim reaper that seems to be coming for lawyers, I wonder if you think that's worth talking about. Meanwhile, seeing these facts about the toxicity of law firms, I think of the coming LLM apocalypse and I wonder how big law will use it to squeeze humans even more toxically. I'm not a lawyer and I may not be at the top of the AI's hit list, which lawyers supposedly are, but I am also sweating it these days wondering how to stay ahead of that grim reaper.
i wrote about it in my substack! cecexie.substack.com/p/the-simplicity-vacuum
tbh, i'm not that worried. all professions have had to adapt to emergent technologies, and yes, it might be challenging, but we should try to see all of these changes as opportunities. we used to have to know the dewey decimal system to do any research; then we had to learn google search operators; next, i suspect we'll have to learn chatGPT prompts. law itself has changed significantly in the past twenty years due to tech--some of the partners i used to work with didn't even use computers when they practiced--so i see chatGPT as more of an opportunity than a grim reaper
@@CeceXie I'm afraid I can't be as sanguine about it, because the change is coming very fast relative to any of those other shifts, and I think it may be categorically different. This is the first time that a tool can effectively replace a mind-working human being's entire output. Including hallucinations, haha. I suppose I also come from a place of ideological objection to replacing people or our ability to do our own thinking. However, if we're lucky then you'll turn out to be right. We can only hope.
Talk about NO WORK/LIFE BALANCE !
Except for the wedding on the weekend, those sound like reasonable requests to me. In fact, I’m surprised that you believe that they probably would agree you could attend the classes on Wednesday, I would assume that’s dependent on your acceptance that you would not attend when work doesn’t permit (likely often not possible). In terms of pre-clearing involvement in a nonprofit, this seems like basic risk management at any firm. Most people would like to be an influencer, but I hope my lawyer is able to work Wednesday night on something that is very important to me, if they can dance well too, it’s just a bonus but not essential.
good lawyers would be able to complete tasks to meet client deadlines, regardless of whether or not they have outside hobbies. expecting your attorney to wait around in case you contact them and respond immediately just isn't reasonable unless you alerted them prior of that possibility. biglaw workflow is unique in that there are no set hours; therefore, associates should be given agency to arrange their own time provided that they get their work done. i'm not advocating for associates to not be available; i'm saying that the old ways in which "availability" was enforced are anachronistic and unnecessary
What would be a law firm's objection to a wedding a month away on a Saturday and a dance class on Wednesdays from 7-8:30? Are they checking for conflicts of interest? What kind of details would the law firm ask for - the dance studio's name, the married couple' names, venue names, etc.?
Last winter, Radio City denied entry to a woman who was there to see a performance with her daughter because she was an attorney at a firm who was suing Radio City's parent company. I wonder if this is what the rules and "level of control" are getting at. (Would also love to hear your thoughts on this case because facial recognitionn software was used to identify the woman.)
Thanks for sharing this rarely discussed side of working in big law.
the default expectation in biglaw is constant availability, so any lack of availability needs to be communicated to your teams. it's not a conflict of interest issue there--it's really about knowing that they can reach you at all times should they need to. as for what information a firm will ask for, that will depend on the particular partner(s) in charge--some partners really do create a more relaxed environment, where the baseline expectation is you don't need to respond immediately, but other partners will do stuff like ask where the wedding is, whether it's a first/second/third marriage, etc.
the radio city situation isn't a control levied by the firm that the attorney was employed at; that was more radio city being paranoid about attorneys at firms that they are litigating against and exercising their right of refusal of admission (which they can do, as the location is a private premises). facial recognition is permitted in new york as long as certain requirements are met, and radio city fulfilled those requirements by posting a conspicuous notice about the use of facial recognition. (THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, BTW, AND WE'RE NOT FORMING AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP HERE. THIS IS JUST GENERAL LEGAL INFORMATION.)
I was about to say... that boyfriend sounds toxic!
As much as I love your videos, your eloquence and boldness, I think this one is misleading. Most Fortune 500 Companies have those policies to varying degrees. The only point that stands out to me is BigLaw's demand on your weekend availability. Other companies mostly demand weekend time only for the occasional business trip.
I agree that companies exert control over their associates (or non-managerial positions in industry), but it is warranted. Junior employees have to earn trust first. That is why managers and partners are allowed to independently control their work time flexibly in contrast.
I mean... one's boyfriend wouldn't be giving her partner a base salary of at least $200,000+ every year. Big firms literally bought your time ;; don't think its the right analogy.
This is pretty much basic professionalism. If you intend to be a professional, then your image will preceed you. That's how life works as a human. It's the same as a military member, or a public figure, or a government employee, etc etc etc. If you haven't noticed, social media is narcissism on steroids. Since the image you construct can create impressions about who you are, your work value diminishes by default of the public image you project about who you are. Since having a profession requires you to behave like you are a professional and you can profess your skills and knowledge as a beholder of skills and knowledge, your public display of narcissism erodes the effectiveness of your work by tainting how you are perceived. This is basic reality. It's always been this way. Social media has brainwashed an entire generation, it is not normal and it's never going to work. Social media is toxic in all ways. It's not even a good idea to stay constantly connected to others like the main excuse of having social media maintains, that was a sham presented by Facebook in the late 2000s. Social media has poisoned brains and it is continuing to make it's users irrational.
i think that's a tad bit alarmist. social media is like any other tool--it can help or harm, depending on how it is used. i agree that many use it in harmful ways, and the corporations themselves encourage harmful use even, but to say that it is entirely "narcissism on steroids" or "toxic in all ways" is too broad a stroke
@Cece Xie it's not alarmist at all. I'm a recovered user. I've helped users recover. I'm watching users like you try to rationalize its use while sacrificing logic and rationale at the altar of its use. I actively watch society slide into chaos because of how social media is doing that to every individual using it. As a military veteran, a collegiate business person, and an active participant in the professional development of myself and clients, I can confirm I'm making very standard observations about actual reality. Being alarmed has no use to me as a pragmatic person that works with reality. So, im describing the reality I work with on a daily basis.
Edit: PS, I commented because I see how intelligent you are. If you want to truly excel and pass up a vast majority of your peers, consider my observations as a priceless advantage I have given to you sans a consulting fee. This particular problem is so widespread in generation Z and millennials that it's pretty much par for the course when it comes to how everyone is actively tainting their own image and sacrificing personal/professional growth in exchange for digital self obsession. The opportunity to accelerate beyond the madness while most people linger in it is ripe for the picking. It's the difference between being an asset to an organization vs being a liability. I wish you the best of luck on your life journey.
I disagree. A working partnership is not comparable to a romantic partnership.
Thanks Cece! Very interesting breakdown. Would love to see more on this topic and how it differs from biglaw to those practicing elsewhere. Do you suspect any meaningful change is being made or can be made to improve in this regard?
generally, legal employers outside of biglaw *tend* to be more relaxed when it comes to how much control they expect to have over employees, but it will really depend on the particular company and who you're working under. i absolutely believe meaningful change can be made--many partners and practice groups have fostered truly wonderful environments even in biglaw where associates feel like they have agency and can flourish--but such change requires biglaw firms generally to wake up and make a concerted effort to change
@@CeceXie Thanks for sharing!