and another thing
I have been thinking about it and I don't know why it never occurred to me before how nonsensical the terms "full time" and "part time" are in the legal field. Because firms don't work on the 40 hour work week. They go by billable hour requirements. And those can be radically different from firm to firm.
I didn't have a 40-hr/week requirement at FirstFirm. I had to bill 1750 hours per year. Meanwhile, at RK firm the requirement is 1900 hours/yr. So is 1750 billable annually (35 hrs/week average with two weeks "off") not full time? It wouldn't be at RK firm. There are firms in chicago and NYC that have 2200 hours/yr requirements (INSANE). 1900 hrs/year would not be "full time" at those firms. Smaller firms have like 1600 hr/yr requirements. if that's "full time", what on earth is the Chicago firm requiring?
So if I have 1000 hrs/yr requirement, which is 20 hrs/week with two "weeks off", is that part time? it's 2/3 of what you'd work at Small Firm, and less than half what you'd work at ChicagoFirm. Is it 2/3 time or 1/2 time?
Or maybe we should just not worry about the title, and just think about what makes sense financially if I'm working 1000 hrs/year billable?
I think the "full time" idea is ridiculous in all contexts - I'm pretty sure G-d never came down and personally declared 40 hrs/week the Gold Full Time Standard. There is nothing magic about that number. But it's especially ridiculous in the firm context, where there IS no 40 hr workweek. We are making up our own time-based prison because we are so scared of being taken advantage of. I do not love this for me. I'm over it.
I didn't have a 40-hr/week requirement at FirstFirm. I had to bill 1750 hours per year. Meanwhile, at RK firm the requirement is 1900 hours/yr. So is 1750 billable annually (35 hrs/week average with two weeks "off") not full time? It wouldn't be at RK firm. There are firms in chicago and NYC that have 2200 hours/yr requirements (INSANE). 1900 hrs/year would not be "full time" at those firms. Smaller firms have like 1600 hr/yr requirements. if that's "full time", what on earth is the Chicago firm requiring?
So if I have 1000 hrs/yr requirement, which is 20 hrs/week with two "weeks off", is that part time? it's 2/3 of what you'd work at Small Firm, and less than half what you'd work at ChicagoFirm. Is it 2/3 time or 1/2 time?
Or maybe we should just not worry about the title, and just think about what makes sense financially if I'm working 1000 hrs/year billable?
I think the "full time" idea is ridiculous in all contexts - I'm pretty sure G-d never came down and personally declared 40 hrs/week the Gold Full Time Standard. There is nothing magic about that number. But it's especially ridiculous in the firm context, where there IS no 40 hr workweek. We are making up our own time-based prison because we are so scared of being taken advantage of. I do not love this for me. I'm over it.