Public Interest vs. BigLaw

(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.
User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Borhas » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:09 pm

Cato is not PI, well not really... the same way I wouldn't classify any random progressive non-profit policy group as PI... (though they would technically count as a non-profit)

"conservative" PI is probably more like working at the AG office defending the state from civil servants that are trying to skim the system through BS discrimination suits, BS early retirement, BS disability pay etc... I'd argue the ACLU is libertarian enough to count in the contexts they usually work in.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:17 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
Veyron wrote:Conservative and libertarian (CL) PI is so rare that I'm not suprised that you are unfamiliar with it. After all, we actually care about making money. Organizations like Cato do hire lawyers tho. The main thing that distinguishes cl PI from other types are the causes (preventing governmental infringment of personal, corporate, taxpayer rights rather than helping individuals get access to government benifits, trying to impose more restrictions on corps, etc.) On the really conservative end you may see some anti-gay marrage stuff. CL PI is often better funded than other sorts of PI and often pays better.

Looking at the provided links, and reading this, most of this sounds more like "policy" work, which is kind of a gray area for PI. Is it really "public interest" if you're doing things not to help individuals but only to further a political cause, and if you're well-funded? As you mentioned yourself, these organizations are often better funded than other PI. There are "liberal" PI orgs that do largely policy work, but this isn't where most PI jobs are even on that end of the political spectrum.

The bulk of actual PI jobs involve day-to-day work providing assistance to individuals in need, usually by enforcing regulations and statutory benefits. That's because there are more people needing such daily help than there are good ways to challenge policies in the courtroom. These aren't really things I would have typically thought of trying to label as any political party, but I guess (given what I said earlier) conservatives and libertarians would tend to look at these jobs as "liberal" jobs. After all, they're more likely to label such regulations and benefits a "governmental infringement on personal rights", so of course they wouldn't want to dedicate themselves to helping people get access to them.

It's not hard to see why, even with a broad definition of PI, there are far fewer "conservative" or "libertarian" PI jobs. Instead of trying to help every person in America get access to benefits, they're often trying to just eliminate the benefits, and whether you think that's right or wrong, it's just not as much work.


I'm suprised how little even a PI guy fronm HLS knows about his field. CL pi orgs do try to help individuals. For instance, they might fight an emenent domain proceeding that is trying to deprive someone of their home or buisness or litigate against infringements on free speech. Basically, the fundimental difference is that instead of trying to get the government to do things for people, these sorts of orgs try to get the government to stop doing things to people.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby AreJay711 » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:22 pm

vanwinkle wrote:It's not hard to see why, even with a broad definition of PI, there are far fewer "conservative" or "libertarian" PI jobs. Instead of trying to help every person in America get access to benefits, they're often trying to just eliminate the benefits, and whether you think that's right or wrong, it's just not as much work.

True. It seems like the libertarian ones I've seen (a cursory overveiw to say the least) tend to focus on libertarian issues that do affect those that can't afford legal services like anti-comptition licensing and eminent domain issues and the like. Of course those issues also affect people that can afford legal services so there is less need than other kinds of PI.

Also, I definaly hawked info on this from the Harvard Law website and they had a lot about conservative PI too.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:26 pm

AreJay711 wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:It's not hard to see why, even with a broad definition of PI, there are far fewer "conservative" or "libertarian" PI jobs. Instead of trying to help every person in America get access to benefits, they're often trying to just eliminate the benefits, and whether you think that's right or wrong, it's just not as much work.

True. It seems like the libertarian ones I've seen (a cursory overveiw to say the least) tend to focus on libertarian issues that do affect those that can't afford legal services like anti-comptition licensing and eminent domain issues and the like. Of course those issues also affect people that can afford legal services so there is less need than other kinds of PI.

Also, I definaly hawked info on this from the Harvard Law website and they had a lot about conservative PI too.


Yah. Personally, I'd rather litigate to expand rights that will benifit me in my own life. The added benifit is that unlike with liberal PI, CL clients are rarely terrible people.

seatown12
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:16 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby seatown12 » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:36 pm

Back to the OP:

coldshoulder wrote:I suppose the best question is this, what are the best types of public interest jobs, and what's the best way to reach them?


This is a subjective question. Only you can decide what job is best for you because only you know what causes you are passionate about or whom you most want to help. Answer that question for yourself and then try to determine the best way to reach your goal.

Or, just accept that what you really want is the money and prestige and stop feeling guilty about it.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:42 pm

seatown12 wrote:Back to the OP:

coldshoulder wrote:I suppose the best question is this, what are the best types of public interest jobs, and what's the best way to reach them?


This is a subjective question. Only you can decide what job is best for you because only you know what causes you are passionate about or whom you most want to help. Answer that question for yourself and then try to determine the best way to reach your goal.

Or, just accept that what you really want is the money and prestige and stop feeling guilty about it.


+1. Biglaw contributes more to humanity than most PI orgs anyway. Two birds, one stone.

curiousgeorges
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:15 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby curiousgeorges » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:44 pm

Veyron wrote:Personally, I'd rather litigate to expand rights that will benifit me in my own life.


You may be slightly conflating "public interest" and "private interest" there. ;) Of course, if you genuinely believe those rights are also in the general public interest, no reason that shouldn't qualify as public interest.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:47 pm

curiousgeorges wrote:
Veyron wrote:Personally, I'd rather litigate to expand rights that will benifit me in my own life.


You may be slightly conflating "public interest" and "private interest" there. ;) Of course, if you genuinely believe those rights are also in the general public interest, no reason that shouldn't qualify as public interest.


Most people of my political persuasion would tell you that what is in the individual's interest is in the public interest (or rather that we don't care about the "public" interest at all but about what is in the interest of individuals).

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18424
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby bk1 » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:49 pm

Veyron wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
Veyron wrote:Conservative and libertarian (CL) PI is so rare that I'm not suprised that you are unfamiliar with it. After all, we actually care about making money. Organizations like Cato do hire lawyers tho. The main thing that distinguishes cl PI from other types are the causes (preventing governmental infringment of personal, corporate, taxpayer rights rather than helping individuals get access to government benifits, trying to impose more restrictions on corps, etc.) On the really conservative end you may see some anti-gay marrage stuff. CL PI is often better funded than other sorts of PI and often pays better.

Looking at the provided links, and reading this, most of this sounds more like "policy" work, which is kind of a gray area for PI. Is it really "public interest" if you're doing things not to help individuals but only to further a political cause, and if you're well-funded? As you mentioned yourself, these organizations are often better funded than other PI. There are "liberal" PI orgs that do largely policy work, but this isn't where most PI jobs are even on that end of the political spectrum.

The bulk of actual PI jobs involve day-to-day work providing assistance to individuals in need, usually by enforcing regulations and statutory benefits. That's because there are more people needing such daily help than there are good ways to challenge policies in the courtroom. These aren't really things I would have typically thought of trying to label as any political party, but I guess (given what I said earlier) conservatives and libertarians would tend to look at these jobs as "liberal" jobs. After all, they're more likely to label such regulations and benefits a "governmental infringement on personal rights", so of course they wouldn't want to dedicate themselves to helping people get access to them.

It's not hard to see why, even with a broad definition of PI, there are far fewer "conservative" or "libertarian" PI jobs. Instead of trying to help every person in America get access to benefits, they're often trying to just eliminate the benefits, and whether you think that's right or wrong, it's just not as much work.


I'm suprised how little even a PI guy fronm HLS knows about his field. CL pi orgs do try to help individuals. For instance, they might fight an emenent domain proceeding that is trying to deprive someone of their home or buisness or litigate against infringements on free speech. Basically, the fundimental difference is that instead of trying to get the government to do things for people, these sorts of orgs try to get the government to stop doing things to people.


But these things are far far rarer than the "liberal" PI work that VW was referencing.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:51 pm

bk1 wrote:
Veyron wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
Veyron wrote:Conservative and libertarian (CL) PI is so rare that I'm not suprised that you are unfamiliar with it. After all, we actually care about making money. Organizations like Cato do hire lawyers tho. The main thing that distinguishes cl PI from other types are the causes (preventing governmental infringment of personal, corporate, taxpayer rights rather than helping individuals get access to government benifits, trying to impose more restrictions on corps, etc.) On the really conservative end you may see some anti-gay marrage stuff. CL PI is often better funded than other sorts of PI and often pays better.

Looking at the provided links, and reading this, most of this sounds more like "policy" work, which is kind of a gray area for PI. Is it really "public interest" if you're doing things not to help individuals but only to further a political cause, and if you're well-funded? As you mentioned yourself, these organizations are often better funded than other PI. There are "liberal" PI orgs that do largely policy work, but this isn't where most PI jobs are even on that end of the political spectrum.

The bulk of actual PI jobs involve day-to-day work providing assistance to individuals in need, usually by enforcing regulations and statutory benefits. That's because there are more people needing such daily help than there are good ways to challenge policies in the courtroom. These aren't really things I would have typically thought of trying to label as any political party, but I guess (given what I said earlier) conservatives and libertarians would tend to look at these jobs as "liberal" jobs. After all, they're more likely to label such regulations and benefits a "governmental infringement on personal rights", so of course they wouldn't want to dedicate themselves to helping people get access to them.

It's not hard to see why, even with a broad definition of PI, there are far fewer "conservative" or "libertarian" PI jobs. Instead of trying to help every person in America get access to benefits, they're often trying to just eliminate the benefits, and whether you think that's right or wrong, it's just not as much work.


I'm suprised how little even a PI guy fronm HLS knows about his field. CL pi orgs do try to help individuals. For instance, they might fight an emenent domain proceeding that is trying to deprive someone of their home or buisness or litigate against infringements on free speech. Basically, the fundimental difference is that instead of trying to get the government to do things for people, these sorts of orgs try to get the government to stop doing things to people.


But these things are far far rarer than the "liberal" PI work that VW was referencing.


Yes. Although he is right that the ACLU does have some l elements so I guess it would depend somewhat on how you would classify orgs like them.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:19 am

Reading this with some interest, as a 2L happily heading for my second summer in PI work. To add to what VW said, I think many people are indeed discussing advocacy positions, as opposed to legal services positions. VW may have been thinking of PI (as I often think of it) as legal services provided directly to the poor, generally dealing with issues such as eviction, foreclosure, employment discrimination, civil rights violations, disability law issues, and a big one right now, helping people identify and apply for benefits for which they qualify. This is the type of work done by the largest of the direct services organizations, typically the type the OP may want to work for after graduation. (Note that there is no perfect definition of "public interest," so I am not claiming anyone is "right," just attempting to clarify.)

I also want to address the whole "horrible people" issue, because I believe there are many innocent individuals who get caught up in our justice system, and even those who are guilty of a crime deserve to have competent representation if our system is to function at all and mean anything. Obviously, not everyone in PI work is in criminal defense or even in a courtroom of any kind doing civil litigation-- there is community economic development work, which is essentially nonprofit transactional work, and providing free legal services to other nonprofit organizations.

I'm not an expert, though this is something I want to do, and my organization falls under this general umbrella. I credit that there are organizations who assist people in eminent domain issues, and similar causes conservatives support, but I should note that the vast majority of people at legal services organizations are politically progressive-- sometimes to my left, and I am pretty damn progressive, so that is saying something.

It does suck that people have to choose and they get pigeonholed-- I can empathize with that. I was starting a career about a zillion lightyears from PI before I came to law school, and plenty of employers never let me forget it. In every interview, I had to show that I'm committed to this work, and I'm sure now and I won't change my mind. After two years, I am finally getting some people to believe that I'm serious, but it took two years. I can well believe it might be hard to transition post graduation, even if it isn't fair.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:44 am

I also want to address the whole "horrible people" issue, because I believe there are many innocent individuals who get caught up in our justice system, and even those who are guilty of a crime deserve to have competent representation if our system is to function at all and mean anything. Obviously, not everyone in PI work is in criminal defense or even in a courtroom of any kind doing civil litigation-- there is community economic development work, which is essentially nonprofit transactional work, and providing free legal services to other nonprofit organizations.


Oh, I agree that lots of people get unfairly caught up in our criminal justice system. Keeping the system honest is worthy work. That doesn't change the fact tho that many of your clients are guilty (or if you are doing the whole benefit thing, welfare queens, etc.). I have some interst in criminal defense work myself (of the white collar variety, but same concept) and, to be honest, I'd sleep much better at night doing that than any of the other stuff you mentioned.

I think you are far less likely to meet a small business owner or homeowner that is a drain on society or an axe murderer tho and some people care about that.

It does suck that people have to choose and they get pigeonholed


I haven't experienced this. I told my summer employer that, with a few exceptions (like that employer), I'm not particularly interested in being a public interest lawyer. Still got the job. To be sure, I still had to show commitment but we have other ways of doing that.

Anyway, quite glad that I'm a regressive. Business and PI can live in harmony with rainbows and unicorns in my world. I could totally see myself working at a firm for a few years and then, if partnership doesn't look likely, moving to PI.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:11 am

Veyron wrote:
I also want to address the whole "horrible people" issue, because I believe there are many innocent individuals who get caught up in our justice system, and even those who are guilty of a crime deserve to have competent representation if our system is to function at all and mean anything. Obviously, not everyone in PI work is in criminal defense or even in a courtroom of any kind doing civil litigation-- there is community economic development work, which is essentially nonprofit transactional work, and providing free legal services to other nonprofit organizations.


Oh, I agree that lots of people get unfairly caught up in our criminal justice system. Keeping the system honest is worthy work. That doesn't change the fact tho that many of your clients are guilty (or if you are doing the whole benefit thing, welfare queens, etc.). I have some interst in criminal defense work myself (of the white collar variety, but same concept) and, to be honest, I'd sleep much better at night doing that than any of the other stuff you mentioned.

I think you are far less likely to meet a small business owner or homeowner that is a drain on society or an axe murderer tho and some people care about that.

It does suck that people have to choose and they get pigeonholed


I haven't experienced this. I told my summer employer that, with a few exceptions (like that employer), I'm not particularly interested in being a public interest lawyer. Still got the job. To be sure, I still had to show commitment but we have other ways of doing that.

Anyway, quite glad that I'm a regressive. Business and PI can live in harmony with rainbows and unicorns in my world. I could totally see myself working at a firm for a few years and then, if partnership doesn't look likely, moving to PI.


I agree that everyone, regardless of the type of crime they are accused of, should have access to decent representation, and I am very glad people are doing that work (though it's not precisely what I'm doing, since I am on the civil side).

I do need to point out that people with small businesses and homeowners can still lose them, and bankruptcy happens even to prudent people (it often happens because of medical bills and/or job loss.) My organization serves a lot of tenants, but also homeowners who are facing foreclosure. I have tremendous sympathy for small businesses, since I'm starting a small business of my own (another reason I could not do biglaw-- the hours!) Wall Street's interests, however, are frequently at odds with those that serve small business owners.

I should also point out that no one receiving public benefits is living like a queen-- certainly not here. Their income has to be quite low to receive that kind of aid, and the type of housing they can afford even if they can manage to get a voucher is usually in a far flung part of the city that has escaped gentrification. Many of my organization's clients have incomes under $15k a year, and are just working to get back on their feet, so a lot of the aid they get is temporary in nature. Because of their housing situation (this is NYC, rent is insane), there is every incentive to earn more if they possibly can. No current government program is enough to really alleviate that kind of poverty. I've seen a lot of this, and people want to work, if they are physically well enough and not burdened by caring for elderly relatives. They are also often working full time while in school, which comes with its own challenges.

As far as working goes, I'm glad you were not pigeonholed. To be fair, I used to work in fashion, so any legal employer would have questions and want to know why I switched and be sure I am serious. I do think you still have to show commitment to that particular cause, at a bare minimum. They want to know why you are there, and that it means something to you. That is what I found, anyway.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:44 am

^ But what would NYC DO without wall street. . . why it would practically be CHICAGO.

I'm sure that's in no ones best interests.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:13 am

Veyron wrote:^ But what would NYC DO without wall street. . . why it would practically be CHICAGO.

I'm sure that's in no ones best interests.


:lol: I love my city pretty much unconditionally, though I certainly know where its wealth is coming from. I don't believe Wall Street shouldn't exist, just that investment vehicles need proper oversight to prevent another meltdown. Deregulation is the big problem IMO, and the historical approach to risk. I know you probably will disagree if you are conservative, and I don't want to derail the thread too much. I am glad we've shown the OP there are different avenues to PI work, and we've given OP a range of perspectives on the issue. Whatever the position in question, s/he'll need to show commitment to that cause, and be able to show connection/genuine interest in the work. There are a lot of rewards to this, from the satisfaction of a career you care about, to having time to pursue other interests/spend time with family. There is great respect for work/life balance, and in surveys, PI and government lawyers are constantly the happiest.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Veyron » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:34 am

OperaSoprano wrote:
Veyron wrote:^ But what would NYC DO without wall street. . . why it would practically be CHICAGO.

I'm sure that's in no ones best interests.


:lol: I love my city pretty much unconditionally, though I certainly know where its wealth is coming from. I don't believe Wall Street shouldn't exist, just that investment vehicles need proper oversight to prevent another meltdown. Deregulation is the big problem IMO, and the historical approach to risk. I know you probably will disagree if you are conservative, and I don't want to derail the thread too much. I am glad we've shown the OP there are different avenues to PI work, and we've given OP a range of perspectives on the issue. Whatever the position in question, s/he'll need to show commitment to that cause, and be able to show connection/genuine interest in the work. There are a lot of rewards to this, from the satisfaction of a career you care about, to having time to pursue other interests/spend time with family. There is great respect for work/life balance, and in surveys, PI and government lawyers are constantly the happiest.


I love the organization I'm going to this summer but I can't help but wonder if, by some miracle they made me an offer and I accepted, I could ever get over the idea in the back of my mind that I'm not a "real" lawyer because my work isn't valuable to anyone (in the sense that my salary doesn't really represent anything more than a mitzvot). I think that after going to a firm and delivering value for paying clients for a while, I would feel much less guilty about moving to PI. At least I would know that my services are valuable.

I guess it is true that PI lawyers are the "happiest," but deep down I think that a lot of law students would feel kinda let down by not getting the big-law hazing experience.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:04 am

Veyron wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:
Veyron wrote:^ But what would NYC DO without wall street. . . why it would practically be CHICAGO.

I'm sure that's in no ones best interests.


:lol: I love my city pretty much unconditionally, though I certainly know where its wealth is coming from. I don't believe Wall Street shouldn't exist, just that investment vehicles need proper oversight to prevent another meltdown. Deregulation is the big problem IMO, and the historical approach to risk. I know you probably will disagree if you are conservative, and I don't want to derail the thread too much. I am glad we've shown the OP there are different avenues to PI work, and we've given OP a range of perspectives on the issue. Whatever the position in question, s/he'll need to show commitment to that cause, and be able to show connection/genuine interest in the work. There are a lot of rewards to this, from the satisfaction of a career you care about, to having time to pursue other interests/spend time with family. There is great respect for work/life balance, and in surveys, PI and government lawyers are constantly the happiest.


I love the organization I'm going to this summer but I can't help but wonder if, by some miracle they made me an offer and I accepted, I could ever get over the idea in the back of my mind that I'm not a "real" lawyer because my work isn't valuable to anyone (in the sense that my salary doesn't really represent anything more than a mitzvot). I think that after going to a firm and delivering value for paying clients for a while, I would feel much less guilty about moving to PI. At least I would know that my services are valuable.

I guess it is true that PI lawyers are the "happiest," but deep down I think that a lot of law students would feel kinda let down by not getting the big-law hazing experience.


I think your work in PI is valuable to a lot of people-- you are serving your clients every bit as zealously, and services are so badly needed-- over 60% of Americans' needs for legal representation go unmet due to lack of ability to pay. That is a major problem and something I really want to address with my career. The value you can bring goes far beyond how your compensation is calculated, since you are serving people who would otherwise have to go without.

As far as biglaw hazing goes, there are pluses and minuses to it. I would guess the majority of my classmates wanted it, whether or not they're likely to enjoy it once they get there! Biglaw provides good training and good pay, so I don't mean to demonize it. I just want people to know they have a choice, and they don't have to feel guilty for stepping off the firm path if public interest work is what they want to do.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273567
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:48 am

[edit]
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby vamedic03 » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:00 am

Anonymous User wrote:I had to read Veyron's post a couple of times to be sure I'd read it right. You think Biglaw is delivering "valuable" services to clients because you bill those services out at a lot per hour, and that PI means your work isn't valuable to anyone?

The first half of that is spoken like someone with no serious experience in BigLaw. Come back after your third month clicking through documents in Concordance looking for all documents containing one of six words and share with us how valuable you think your services are. Spend a couple of weeks searching for a case that doesn't exist (but the partner is SURE that she came across ten years ago!) that, if you found it, would be put in a footnote of page 45 of the summary judgment brief to prove an inane point of law. Enjoy running up a client's bill when your firm is in an ego match with opposing counsel over whether proper service was made. And be sure to come back to tell us how "valuable" your work has been.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but only a fraction of the work you'll do in biglaw, especially as a junior/midlevel associate, will generate value to anyone but the firm.

And, when you're ready to leave your firm after years of delivering this sort of value to society, be sure to explain to the public interest or government organizations with which you're interviewing that you now feel ready to be "not a real lawyer" and do work that "isn't valuable to anyone" without feeling guilty. Explain that now that you have the ratification of having "billed" $400/hour to do very high-end legal research and write discovery motions, you now feel that you can stoop to the level of [prosecuting criminals, defending criminals, keeping tenants from being evicted, fighting the city's eminent domain efforts, preserving the death penalty, abolishing the death penalty, fighting for or against same-sex marriage, keeping immigrants from deportation, or whatever your pet cause is.] They'll love your dedication, and the PI offers will come rolling in!


Is your screed against biglaw based on your personal work experience? Were you a junior/midlevel associate? Why post anonymous?

curiousgeorges
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:15 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby curiousgeorges » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:10 am

Same anonymous as above: yes, it is based on personal experience. I worked as a junior and midlevel Biglaw litigation associate, and I have spent time at two firms in the V25. I am on good terms with both firms. As for why I am posting anonymously: I'm not a "known" poster on this site, and attaching my comments to the fairly-recent account I created is not going to add credibility. However, I don't wish to establish a generally-viewable posting trail because I want to minimize the chance (however small) that my comments could be identified by any current or former employer. If it would be useful to give more details about what shaped my (negative, obviously) view of my Biglaw litigation experience, I can do so. My feelings are based on the substance of the work involved, which I found to be very unrewarding. I had good relationships with my colleagues and received strong evaluations and merit bonuses. I don't have any "grudge" about the way I was treated - I never even worked for a "screamer" partner!

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:As for why I am posting anonymously: I'm not a "known" poster on this site, and attaching my comments to the fairly-recent account I created is not going to add credibility.

Attaching comments to your account is about more than building up your credibility. It's also about users being able to know who you are so they can easily know if you're someone who shouldn't have credibility.

You had 0 public posts outside of this thread, meaning there's nothing to link your comments in this thread to any other comments you've made here. So, I removed the anon.

Just making broad generalizations and telling other people they're incorrect isn't what the anon feature is for, especially not for someone who has no identity here to protect.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:07 pm

Veyron wrote:I'm suprised how little even a PI guy fronm HLS knows about his field.

I seem to understand it pretty well. I particularly seem to understand that most "conservative" political advocacy isn't about a "public interest" at all, as you concede yourself:

Veyron wrote:Most people of my political persuasion would tell you that what is in the individual's interest is in the public interest (or rather that we don't care about the "public" interest at all but about what is in the interest of individuals).

If you don't care about the public interest, then why am I so wrong in saying that actual conservative PI work is rare? I guess because of this:

Veyron wrote:CL pi orgs do try to help individuals. For instance, they might fight an emenent domain proceeding that is trying to deprive someone of their home or buisness or litigate against infringements on free speech.

I didn't contest that any of this happens, I just said it happens a lot less often than what you'd consider "liberal" PI action does. There's far fewer wrongful eminent domain proceedings in this country than, say, wrongfully denied unemployment claims. I seriously hope you won't argue on this, it's pretty obvious. There are millions of people on unemployment right now, many of them needing assistance in making or preserving their unemployment claim. There aren't millions of landowners facing eminent domain this year.

Veyron wrote:Basically, the fundimental difference is that instead of trying to get the government to do things for people, these sorts of orgs try to get the government to stop doing things to people.

I love these blatant mischaracterizations. You do realize that in most cases, the "liberal" PI organization's most frequent foe is the government, right? The government unfairly denying benefits to someone is the government doing something wrong to them. Unfairly denying someone unemployment, or welfare, or social security is the same kind of thing as unfairly denying someone their property rights. Trying to draw it as some kind of line where conservatives oppose an evil government while liberals wholly support it is just absurd. You can do better than that.

curiousgeorges
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:15 pm

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby curiousgeorges » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:11 pm

vanwinkle wrote:You had 0 public posts outside of this thread, meaning there's nothing to link your comments in this thread to any other comments you've made here,


...unless the anonymous status of my previous posts or future posts is suddenly removed.

and you posted a number of long screeds while still being really general and not identifying yourself. So, I removed the anon.
Just making broad generalizations and telling other people they're incorrect isn't what the anon feature is for, especially not for someone who has no identity here to protect.


...and at least the first of those "long screeds" made specific remarks about my background and recent interview experiences. If it is not possible to make posts like my first one in this thread without being confident that a moderator will suddenly out me, I think I'll refrain from further screeds on this site, long or otherwise. Good day.

freddie11
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:43 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby freddie11 » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:17 pm

how hard is it to go from pi to biglaw?

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Public Interest vs. BigLaw

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:38 pm

curiousgeorges wrote:...and at least the first of those "long screeds" made specific remarks about my background and recent interview experiences.

To be fair, I removed a few words from your first post to make your remarks about your background even less specific than they already were. The anon feature is meant to be a limited function of the site to protect established posters who share information. If established posters need to use the anon feature to disclose things without linking it to their identity, that's what the anon feature is there for.

If you have 0 posts, you have no identity to protect.

It's not appropriate for this discussion to continue here. Anyone who wishes to to continue discussing it can read this, and then follow its instructions for continuing the discussion: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=130748




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.