Rashabon

This isn't legal advice. Don't share revenge porn. https://www.airdberlis.com/insights/blogs/thespotlight/post/ts-item/legal-update-new-civil-and-criminal-consequences-for-revenge-porn

Yes. They'd think very poorly of whoever tried to show them those photographs.

People who complain about big law hours largely haven't gone from big law to another private practice firm (so big law is all they know when they complain), or never worked in big law (so its all hearsay). I work at a big firm. Friends and colleagues at small firms work similarly shitty hours. That's being a service provider that spends a chunk of the working day fielding calls and emails and needing to find time after people go home to do drafting and other similar work.

Yes, it can happen. I can't speak to how to get there, but I know of people who have accomplished exactly what you're describing. Not all are partners or anything like that either.

Agreed. I've hit max bonus before and it's not often worth it. Some level of bonus is nice though.

Yes. Some groups with better "work/life balance" won't see a bonus compared to an M&A/corporate lawyer that hits 2000 hours. At my firm, at least for the first number of years, bonus is tied pretty directly to hours, subject to some discretion.

If you're saying that because you choose not to spend your free time watching TV, that's one thing. If you're saying you don't even have that free time, what the fuck.

I think some people need to work harder in law school than others. But I also think law students still suffer from martyr-syndrome, where they like to make their lives seem tougher than they are. Prospective law students are reading this, and this is how you get to OP's post, where someone thinks they need to sacrifice a 40 minute a day hobby to succeed in law school, let alone practice. These are dangerous and destructive notions. Law school is not as hard as people make it seem. But some people either need to or get off on making it seem like it's climbing Everest or curing cancer. I honestly think that if there is a law student or prospective law student reading this, and you have a hobby that you absolutely adore that you spend an hour a day on, doing that hobby regularly will pay far greater dividends than studying than extra hour. It'll also make you a better candidate for employment down the line and a more interesting/well-rounded person over all.

"I don't mean to make you sigh but I did mean to make you concede." Better toughen up there, Mr. Pot.

A perfectionist can cook a steak medium-rare with minimum fuss. You're describing someone who cooks a steak to Donald Trumpian texture. Perfectionist is a cover for "overdoes it".

Why should anyone agree with this? Your premise states the conclusion you're trying to get to. There's no basis, logical or otherwise, to make this claim. This is a tortured use of logic. Why should there be a continuum rather than a mole hill, once surpassed, where nothing further is of benefit? Just because you say so? I actually think English has evolved enough that begs the question doesn't mean what it initially meant, but I thought it was worth mentioning in a post that tries to structure itself as a Spockian exhibition of logic. Your post is actually the textbook definition of begging the question, which is a delicious bit of irony. Absolutely do no need that level of work week-in, week-out to do well in law school, unless you just aren't naturally good at this or require an insane amount of work to grasp the basics necessary for law school. Sure, but there's a reason why 99% of cases can be summed up in a ratio. Most of every decision is a judge showing their work. You don't need to read that a billion times. Best break these habits soon when someone is paying you to do the work. It's no longer personal when a client spends twice as much because you like to overcook a document. It's interesting how you move from definitive to being more flexible on the one part of the post where being definitive was actually warranted.

Holy shit this thread has some lunatics in it. I graduated with honours from U of T and spent more time playing video games than reading (lectures were the biggest time sink) and as a practicing Bay street lawyer, I still find time to enjoy my hobbies most of the time. Drawing 40 minutes a day is quite possibly the single easiest thing to fit into a schedule. Absolutely that is accomplished. Someone putting 70 hours a week into law school tells me one thing: they do not have a natural aptitude for this shit.

Yeah, because nobody makes partner in NY and then they'd have to admit you're just a warm body to them.

I can't speak for other firms but my firm spends a lot of resources trying to eradicate systemic discrimination. Speakers were brought in (including Hadiya Roderique), sessions on implicit and other forms of bias, diversity, inclusion, etc. Our review panel is more diverse and the student classes we hire tend to be pretty diverse. We're not where we need to be but our firm is taking concrete steps to improve the situation.

That's correct. People leave, 99% of the time for no fault of the firm. I'm sure Jaggers (without meaning to put words in his mouth) would say he left of his own accord. Two superstars who were absolute, sure thing partners down the line had they stayed went in house in their 4th/5th years. Even still, lots of firms are upping their lateral hiring because of attrition, but lateral hiring can be difficult. In certain specialized areas, finding a good lateral is tough because you're often selling them on leaving a similar firm or a boutique. So many firms prefer to just hire and retain as many candidates as they think makes sense.