Big law vs litigation boutique

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:24 am

Thoughts on the benefits of big law vs prestigious litigation boutique (and vice versa) would be appreciated.

Specifically, I notice a lot of big law associates ending up at litigation boutiques, and I was curious as to which is the better place to start a career, assuming you have the option of choosing.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:44 pm

Exceptions aside (like, say, Bartlit Beck) your options across the board will likely be greater coming from biglaw than a litigation boutique. I would imagine fewer people go lit boutique-> biglaw than the other way around.

ETA: statistically, the litigation boutique you're considering is likely not as prestigious as you think.

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Big Shrimpin » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:59 pm

patrickd139 wrote:Exceptions aside (like, say, Bartlit Beck) your options across the board will likely be greater coming from biglaw than a litigation boutique. I would imagine fewer people go lit boutique-> biglaw than the other way around.

ETA: statistically, the litigation boutique you're considering is likely not as prestigious as you think.



This isn't always the case for IP, in general. To be sure, however, a top vault firm will have better exit options than a boutique in almost all instances.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:31 pm

patrickd139 wrote:Exceptions aside (like, say, Bartlit Beck) your options across the board will likely be greater coming from biglaw than a litigation boutique. I would imagine fewer people go lit boutique-> biglaw than the other way around.

ETA: statistically, the litigation boutique you're considering is likely not as prestigious as you think.


Why do people sing Bartlit Beck's praises so highly? Yes, there isn't a billable hours requirement - but they work just as hard as any biglaw gig. Yes, the people at Bartlit are amazingly accomplished, and maybe that is somehow a signal of the "quality" of work you get - but then, BArtlit is a trial firm, not an appellete firm, so I don't understand how they pull so many CoA/SCOTUS clerks. No information is available about Bartlit's pay, unlike some other lit boutiques. Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.

Is it just the presitge associated with the people who work there, combined with what seems like a shorter partnership track?

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:15 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:Exceptions aside (like, say, Bartlit Beck) your options across the board will likely be greater coming from biglaw than a litigation boutique. I would imagine fewer people go lit boutique-> biglaw than the other way around.

ETA: statistically, the litigation boutique you're considering is likely not as prestigious as you think.


Why do people sing Bartlit Beck's praises so highly? Yes, there isn't a billable hours requirement - but they work just as hard as any biglaw gig. Yes, the people at Bartlit are amazingly accomplished, and maybe that is somehow a signal of the "quality" of work you get - but then, BArtlit is a trial firm, not an appellete firm, so I don't understand how they pull so many CoA/SCOTUS clerks. No information is available about Bartlit's pay, unlike some other lit boutiques. Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.

Is it just the presitge associated with the people who work there, combined with what seems like a shorter partnership track?

As a non-SCOTUS-clerk-T2-2L, I obviously don't have much first-hand experience with the firm itself, but its track record in high-stakes commercial lit is superb and new hires are consistently (by just about any objective measurement) the best available. I think it's more of a "there's no weak link" thing. All of the things you mentioned (shorter partnership track, no billable hours requirement, etc.) can be coupled with legitimate prestige in the industry, immense exposure and responsibility almost immediately for associates, and massive PPP to create one kick-ass litigation boutique. Just my two cents.

In any event, I just picked it as an outlying example of to preempt the 'ZOMGYouCouldTotesGetBetterExitOptionsFromXFirmThanBigLaWL' that was sure to follow if I didn't acknowledge that such firms existed.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:Exceptions aside (like, say, Bartlit Beck) your options across the board will likely be greater coming from biglaw than a litigation boutique. I would imagine fewer people go lit boutique-> biglaw than the other way around.

ETA: statistically, the litigation boutique you're considering is likely not as prestigious as you think.


Why do people sing Bartlit Beck's praises so highly? Yes, there isn't a billable hours requirement - but they work just as hard as any biglaw gig. Yes, the people at Bartlit are amazingly accomplished, and maybe that is somehow a signal of the "quality" of work you get - but then, BArtlit is a trial firm, not an appellete firm, so I don't understand how they pull so many CoA/SCOTUS clerks. No information is available about Bartlit's pay, unlike some other lit boutiques. Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.

Is it just the presitge associated with the people who work there, combined with what seems like a shorter partnership track?


(1) Many COA/SCOTUS clerks don't do appellate work. Many do litigation work.

(2) I can assure you that, while I know nothing about the firm, they have very competitive pay based on the people they are recruiting.

(3) I think you are underselling the exit options provided to litigators.

(4) At a certain level, and this goes for firms as well, people don't focus solely on their 'exit options.' If you're competitive for the top (most selective) firms, then, there are many things that matter more than exit options. I would focus on things like: (a) the quality of the work, (b) the degree of responsibility, (c) how assignments are given, (d) the overall work environment, and (e) the type of peers you'll have. I'm more worried about finding the place that I will (a) like to work at and (b) excel while working for over the first few years of my career. You can 'plan' all the 'exit options' you want; however, the best opportunities are the ones that come across by chance.

User avatar
Bosque
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:14 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Bosque » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:05 pm

Personally, I have always thought focussing on exit options when you are applying is putting the cart before the horse. If all you can think about before you even get there is the wonderful time you are going to have leaving that damned place, I think you might want to step back consider why you would actually want to be there in the first place. If you are not happy working, then chances are you are not going to be good at what you do, and those great exit options wont be available when you get fired after 2 years for shoddy work. Not saying you should not even consider exit options, but they should be about midway down your list, not the ultimate factor. Personally, training, the work I will be doing, and the people I am doing it with are all more important factors.

Also, I don't think people are acknowledging that while fewer people tend to go from big law to a lit boutique than the other way around, that is not necessarily indicative of the lack of ability to do it the other way around. That could also be because people don't WANT to go the other way. From what I have seen, Boutiques in general tend to have a higher retention rate than Big Law.

And again, as Shrimpin mentioned, IP Boutiques are not the same as other lit boutiques. I think the exit options/prestige (or whatever you want to call it) at some IP firms is more like those exception Lit Boutiques or like Big Law.

All that said, for the ultimate question: which is the better place to start a career? Even though I know it is a bit of a cop out, it depends on the firm and depends on you. Some people will be better off in one or the other, and some firms will be better and some worse. I don't think you can draw a clear line between the categories.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby MrKappus » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.


I don't get this. Every Fortune 500 (most large companies for that matter) have litigation departments. Lit's exit options aren't just govt.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Renzo » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:21 pm

If you want to be a litigator, there will be very little meaningful difference. No one is going to be impressed by a resume line that shows you worked for a V10 firm that only nominally does litigation, and conversely, litigators will be aware of the big-name lit boutiques, and the kind of experience/cases you got there.

And, BTW, "exit options" is a term that has been disassociated from any useful meaning on this site. It's empty meaningless jargon at this point.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273479
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:41 pm

OP here. Lit botique is on par with Bartlit Beck, big law V100.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:31 pm

MrKappus wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.


I don't get this. Every Fortune 500 (most large companies for that matter) have litigation departments. Lit's exit options aren't just govt.


Here's the point (which you can agree or disagree with). If you do litigation, your exit options are pretty much limited to continuing to do litigation (in house, government, lower-stature firm, starting your own firm, whatever). In house is largely a dead end job (the only really plum in house jobs are near the top there's only one GC) and it is exceedingly rare for an in house litigator to rise to any sort of job actually leading the business. Lots of government work isn't that great either (though some certainly is).

Corporate associates, on the other hand, have greater ability to lateral directly into a business role (investment bank, M&A at a company, private equity firms/hedge funds in good times) or, even if they go in house, it's much more often people with corporate training that get promoted to GC-level positions.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Renzo » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:06 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.


I don't get this. Every Fortune 500 (most large companies for that matter) have litigation departments. Lit's exit options aren't just govt.


Here's the point (which you can agree or disagree with). If you do litigation, your exit options are pretty much limited to continuing to do litigation (in house, government, lower-stature firm, starting your own firm, whatever). In house is largely a dead end job (the only really plum in house jobs are near the top there's only one GC) and it is exceedingly rare for an in house litigator to rise to any sort of job actually leading the business. Lots of government work isn't that great either (though some certainly is).

Corporate associates, on the other hand, have greater ability to lateral directly into a business role (investment bank, M&A at a company, private equity firms/hedge funds in good times) or, even if they go in house, it's much more often people with corporate training that get promoted to GC-level positions.


This is what I am talking about.

True; if your goal coming out of law school is is to best set yourself up to not be a lawyer for very long, then doing corporate transactional work is your best bet. But "exit options" doesn't always mean "exit the legal profession." Sometimes "exit options" means "exit this firm where I am not on partnership track for another firm where I will be" or "exit to a job in state government, where I work far less hours, so I can play golf" or "exit to be state attorney general, so I can run for Governor and then President.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:13 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.


I don't get this. Every Fortune 500 (most large companies for that matter) have litigation departments. Lit's exit options aren't just govt.


Here's the point (which you can agree or disagree with). If you do litigation, your exit options are pretty much limited to continuing to do litigation (in house, government, lower-stature firm, starting your own firm, whatever). In house is largely a dead end job (the only really plum in house jobs are near the top there's only one GC) and it is exceedingly rare for an in house litigator to rise to any sort of job actually leading the business. Lots of government work isn't that great either (though some certainly is).

Corporate associates, on the other hand, have greater ability to lateral directly into a business role (investment bank, M&A at a company, private equity firms/hedge funds in good times) or, even if they go in house, it's much more often people with corporate training that get promoted to GC-level positions.


These aren't firm exit options; rather, these are exit options out of the legal career. Honestly, if you're looking for exit options into the front office of i-banks, you're on the wrong career path.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby BeenDidThat » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:13 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.


I don't get this. Every Fortune 500 (most large companies for that matter) have litigation departments. Lit's exit options aren't just govt.


Here's the point (which you can agree or disagree with). If you do litigation, your exit options are pretty much limited to continuing to do litigation (in house, government, lower-stature firm, starting your own firm, whatever). In house is largely a dead end job (the only really plum in house jobs are near the top there's only one GC) and it is exceedingly rare for an in house litigator to rise to any sort of job actually leading the business. Lots of government work isn't that great either (though some certainly is).

Corporate associates, on the other hand, have greater ability to lateral directly into a business role (investment bank, M&A at a company, private equity firms/hedge funds in good times) or, even if they go in house, it's much more often people with corporate training that get promoted to GC-level positions.


Underlying your language (if you do litigation...limited to litigation versus corporate...greater ability to lateral...) is a value-judgment: transactional > litigation. Other than that, the only point you made is that litigation leads to other forms of litigation while transactional work leads to...other (non-legal) transactional work. I think you're generally right, but your characterization of the options leaves something to be desired.

@OP: Bigger firms with lit sections will largely have similar exit options. Boutiques will vary on a case-by-case basis. Folks at well-known lit boutiques who get to partner level will have similar options to those in bigger firms. Other than that, it's hard to say anything other than: it depends.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:22 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:
Underlying your language (if you do litigation...limited to litigation versus corporate...greater ability to lateral...) is a value-judgment: transactional > litigation. Other than that, the only point you made is that litigation leads to other forms of litigation while transactional work leads to...other (non-legal) transactional work. I think you're generally right, but your characterization of the options leaves something to be desired.


My point is not that people should plan on leaving law (even though a large percentage of our classmates will), but rather that, if you do transactional, you have to option to either continue practicing as a lawyer, or to go outside the profession and do something else where your experience will be valuable. For litigation, you only really have the first option because there are very few other careers where litigation skills are relevant. Yes, I realize every so often someone becomes a politician, but that is comparatively rare.

The other point is that comparable transactional exit options are generally more plentiful and higher paying. So in-house litigators generally get paid less than in-house transactional lawyers. There are generally many more in-house transactional lawyers than in-house litigators. Is money everything? No, but when people talk about exit options, that's usually a consideration.

Finally, if you look at most firms, leverage in litigation is considerably higher than leverage in transactional departments. For whatever exit you want (inside or outside the legal profession), there will be more litigators competing for a given job than transactional lawyers.

I am not just making this up based on what I think - I have quite a few friends/family friends who are mid-levels or partners at large firms (both litigation and transactional), and I work at a term-time internship in house with both transactional lawyers and litigators. Almost without fail they say that corporate exit options are better than litigation exit options. I realize that "better" is subjective, and certainly wouldn't argue that someone should do transactional just for the exit options even if they preferred litigation, but I'm surprised there's so much argument here - my understanding was that this was pretty much consensus, at least in the big firm world.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:27 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
These aren't firm exit options; rather, these are exit options out of the legal career. Honestly, if you're looking for exit options into the front office of i-banks, you're on the wrong career path.


Exiting in house isn't an exit out of a legal career. And transactional associates also have the option to exit to another firm or otherwise stay within a legal career. My point is it is pareto superior - you can either choose all of the same career types you can choose as a litigator (another firm, government, etc), or you can also choose other options outside the legal profession. Two options are better than one.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby BeenDidThat » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:30 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
These aren't firm exit options; rather, these are exit options out of the legal career. Honestly, if you're looking for exit options into the front office of i-banks, you're on the wrong career path.


Exiting in house isn't an exit out of a legal career. And transactional associates also have the option to exit to another firm or otherwise stay within a legal career. My point is it is pareto superior - you can either choose all of the same career types you can choose as a litigator (another firm, government, etc), or you can also choose other options outside the legal profession. Two options are better than one.


We were all operating on a different definition of exit options. You meant exit as in exit out of legal career. Both myself and vamedic03 were operating on exit as exit out of first job. Yes, corporate work has better options if you define exit as you did. I thought such a narrow definition wasn't what was being talked about here.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:32 pm

And sorry to sidetrack to the discussion. To OP's question, it really depends, here are the pros and cons that are often mentioned (all these are general, it will obviously vary by firm):

Advantages of a big firm:
-Greater volume of very high profile matters
-Greater brand name strength, especially outside your region, in case you decide to switch jobs
-Wider variety of work (i.e., across multiple different practice areas)

Advantages of a boutique:
-More opportunities to do meaningful work (i.e., not doc review) earlier.
-Leaner teams (goes along with the above)
-Easier to develop mentoring relationships with partners.
-Ability to focus intensely on one or a couple of practice areas

It also is a preference thing akin to the big school/small school debate. Would you rather know everyone in your office pretty well, or constantly be able to meet and work with new people? Would you rather have a firm that puts on large social events?

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:36 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:We were all operating on a different definition of exit options. You meant exit as in exit out of legal career. Both myself and vamedic03 were operating on exit as exit out of first job. Yes, corporate work has better options if you define exit as you did. I thought such a narrow definition wasn't what was being talked about here.


That is not the definition of exit options I am operating on. My definition is:

-Other firms
-In house/government legal roles
-Non-law jobs

You can argue that in almost each case transactional options are equivalent or better:

-Other firms: More opportunities for partner-track transactional lateraling because of lower leverage.
-In house: Higher paying and more plentiful transactional-type roles.
-Government: Both transactional and litigation, but litigation probably has the edge by a little.
-Non-law jobs: Largely does not exist for litigators.

UCLAtransfer
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby UCLAtransfer » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:07 pm

All of this talk of whether exit options are "better" out of a transactional or litigation practice are really putting the cart before the horse.

Using the lit v. trans. distinction as your criteria for a career is like choosing between being a doctor and being a police officer based on the "exit options" you think you will have.

The types of work you do in litigation v. transactional are SO different that it seems ludicrous to me to consider choosing one over the other based on perceived "exit options." There are very few people who are going to be able to put in the required number of years and work at a high enough level in either type of practice if they don't already want to do that type of work. If you want to do litigation-type work, you are not choosing that based on your exit options regardless of whether you ultimately want to work for a firm, the government, or in-house. Same thing applies for transactional.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:17 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
These aren't firm exit options; rather, these are exit options out of the legal career. Honestly, if you're looking for exit options into the front office of i-banks, you're on the wrong career path.


Exiting in house isn't an exit out of a legal career. And transactional associates also have the option to exit to another firm or otherwise stay within a legal career. My point is it is pareto superior - you can either choose all of the same career types you can choose as a litigator (another firm, government, etc), or you can also choose other options outside the legal profession. Two options are better than one.


I know that in-house counsel positions are still within the legal realm. Your earlier post, however, specifically referenced lateralling
directly into a business role.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby MrKappus » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:32 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:In house is largely a dead end job (the only really plum in house jobs are near the top there's only one GC) and it is exceedingly rare for an in house litigator to rise to any sort of job actually leading the business.


Some of what you said makes sense, but the above is completely false. The GC's at tons of top companies either lateraled directly from firm lit groups (a pretty sweet "exit option," IMO) or started at their companies as in-house litigators [edit: I mean started their in-house careers at their companies]. Some litigator GCs: Pfizer, GM, Oracle...the list is long.

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:20 pm

MrKappus wrote:
imchuckbass58 wrote:In house is largely a dead end job (the only really plum in house jobs are near the top there's only one GC) and it is exceedingly rare for an in house litigator to rise to any sort of job actually leading the business.


Some of what you said makes sense, but the above is completely false. The GC's at tons of top companies either lateraled directly from firm lit groups (a pretty sweet "exit option," IMO) or started at their companies as in-house litigators [edit: I mean started their in-house careers at their companies]. Some litigator GCs: Pfizer, GM, Oracle...the list is long.


Exceedingly rare may have been an exaggeration, but the ratio is roughly 2:1 transactional to litigation.

See here: http://www.heidrick.com/PublicationsRep ... el2011.pdf

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby MrKappus » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:24 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:Exceedingly rare may have been an exaggeration, but the ratio is roughly 2:1 transactional to litigation.

See here: http://www.heidrick.com/PublicationsRep ... el2011.pdf


That's a great report, thanks for the cite. I'd be curious to know what the industry-wide breakdown of transactional attorneys vs. litigators is. If it's 50-50, or even litigator heavy, then your argument makes sense is stronger (edit). If transactional attorneys outnumber litigators, then the results in that report make a bit more sense. All in all though, I was mainly just reacting to the "exceedingly rare," so thanks for responding.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: Big law vs litigation boutique

Postby Veyron » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:Exceptions aside (like, say, Bartlit Beck) your options across the board will likely be greater coming from biglaw than a litigation boutique. I would imagine fewer people go lit boutique-> biglaw than the other way around.

ETA: statistically, the litigation boutique you're considering is likely not as prestigious as you think.


Why do people sing Bartlit Beck's praises so highly? Yes, there isn't a billable hours requirement - but they work just as hard as any biglaw gig. Yes, the people at Bartlit are amazingly accomplished, and maybe that is somehow a signal of the "quality" of work you get - but then, BArtlit is a trial firm, not an appellete firm, so I don't understand how they pull so many CoA/SCOTUS clerks. No information is available about Bartlit's pay, unlike some other lit boutiques. Lit in general doesn't provide many exit options outside of government.

Is it just the presitge associated with the people who work there, combined with what seems like a shorter partnership track?


Because trials >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appellate lit.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.