A. Nony Mouse wrote:Veil of Ignorance wrote:Nebby wrote:Alexandros wrote:- I've gathered that it's easier to go from BL/private sector to PI than the reverse (veterans ITT - please correct me if I'm wrong)
It's actually not easy. You have to strategically position yourself from day one of law school in order to go biglaw -> PI. It's equally difficult to go from PI to biglaw and biglaw to PI.
Are you including government work in this? I thought going (biglaw litigation --> ADA or public defender) wasn't too hard.
Biglaw litigation to ADA/PD would actually be kind of unusual. To AUSA/federal PD, not really (it's competitive, but a career path that makes sense), but for state, it would be unusual. I'm not saying it would be impossible or never happens, but the longer you're in biglaw the weirder it would be. It would be weird to take a midlevel biglaw person as an entry level lawyer, and you wouldn't have enough trial experience to come in as a lateral. DA/PD's offices would also be suspicious that you really wanted to give up the biglaw salary to go work as an ADA/PD; you normally need to show commitment/dedication through experience. Also you can get ADA/PD jobs out of law school (not usually the case for AUSA/FPD) so employers would wonder why you just didn't do that.
And I agree with Nebby (to the extent that I understand this) that the people who go from biglaw --> impact lit PI tend to have been angling for a specific path. You probably *can* figure it out as you go along (because there's a lot more serendipity in career paths than TLS sometimes acknowledges), but it will make a big difference to lay a foundation early.
Very good to know. I didn't realize that years in biglaw wouldn't allow one to lateral to a higher ADA level. But why does a lateral move to a AUSA officer make any more sense? Isn't it just trial work in a different level of jurisdiction?