NYAssociate wrote: Anonymous Abuser wrote:
NYAssociate wrote:You're cute, but I don't reall care because I know you're wrong. You seem to be under the impression that biglaw associates do doc review for 8 years, and that the people who billed the most make partner. Cute, but finish 2L before you start talking so authoritatively about what biglaw associates actually do.
If you're a litigator at any firm -- boutique or big law -- you're going to be doing doc review.
I do believe -- and I think it's pretty damn accurate -- that the majority of your first 8 years will be writing memos, drafting briefs, and maybe sitting in on some depos. You'll probably be able to count on one hand how many times you put on or cross witnesses, and the # of motions, even minor, that you argue won't be that much higher.
It's probably not until the very latter part of that 8 years that you start getting first-chair responsibility on anything significant.
This is closer to the truth. But it really comes down to the specific big firm at that point. At more trial oriented defense firms, associates are given more opportunities at the mid- and senior levels to do the kind of stuff aspiring trial attorneys want to do.
Believe it or not, doc review probably doesn't last more than two years. I know, at many firms, if you're still "seeking refuge" in doc review by the end of year two, you will be given "the talk"... well maybe not "the" talk, but "a talk" for sure.
Aside from real world experience, many big firms have strong and reputable training programs that establish trial skills pretty well. And if not in-house, many associates are funded by their firms to attend stuff like NITA, another reputable training program for aspiring trial attorneys.
Sure, there are plenty of training programs and mock trial programs, but I don't think that's a substitute for the real thing.
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. I'm sure you get plenty of significant litigation experience relatively early on at Boies, Kasowitz, or Williams & Connolly. But, the stereotypical big law firm...not so much.
Doc review may actually last longer at boutiques (unless doc review is outsourced), but it's kind of a necessary skill.
Still, in your first year or two, you're doing things in boutiques that senior associates are just starting to do.
There are definitely benefits to big law, but I don't think significant trial experience in any reasonable time frame is one of them.
You are both very right and you are both, also, very wrong. Neither of you has any real experieince to draw upon, so this is sorta like pissing in the wind and arguing about which stream went further...
This is probably the case.
If you read some boutique-y threads here, you'd get the impression that you're chairing trials at year 3. Not happening.
Big, 9 figure cases? Probably not.
But quite a few of these firms allow you to chair smaller cases (or pro bono cases) within your first couple of years. I could have been lied to, but it also makes sense. They're incentivized to allow this, since they need to get you all the experience you can before you go and make a rookie mistake on a billion dollar securities case.
I am personally the type who would take first chairing $50,000 cases over being the 15th name on a brief submitted in a landmark SCOTUS case. Not everyone is like that, however.