Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

(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.
bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby bdubs » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
bdubs wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
funstuff wrote:Can anyone substantiate his claims? I've heard varying things on the predictability of work for corp/lit.


Litigation is way more predictable than corporate. Because you know the filing dates and hearing dates for your cases (or, at least, you SHOULD know them), you also know where the peaks and valleys are. In corporate, on the other hand, you could find yourself doing nothing for a week and then, suddenly, on Friday at 5pm, you lose your weekend because a client wants a deal closed on Monday.


Deadlines for litigation almost never hold in large cases. The pretrial conference schedule is set and then 2 days before a big deadline one side (or both) will request an extension. This means you work like crazy only to have to do it all again in 2 months. Judges also have great habits of changing the schedule when they don't like it, decide they want to take a vacation, or have a conflict with another case.

I would be very surprised if litigation were more predictable than corporate, but I haven't had involvement with the legal side of transactional work before.


Aren't you a 1L?


Lol @ calling me out as a 1L anonymously.

Yes, I am a 1L but I worked in a litigation environment for 5 years before I came to school. I am familiar enough with the fire drills to know that the hours can be awful.

I also did some banking work, but, like I said, I never had to deal with the legal side. Even though I never dealt with the closing itself, it never seemed like we needed to push it to a certain day unless it was known well in advance (closing before quarter or year end, etc...) The emphasis was always on getting it done ASAP though.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby romothesavior » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:28 pm

Corporate work is for losers who can't hack it in a courtroom.

HTH

headandshoulderos
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby headandshoulderos » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:32 pm

romothesavior wrote:Corporate work is for losers who can't hack it in a courtroom.

HTH


haha nice. except litigators/rixs never make it into court

kams
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby kams » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:36 pm

I was only at the firm for a summer, but from what people said, litigation seeemed to have more predictable hours because associates had a schedule for the cases they were working on. Corporate lawyers tend to have deals come up last minute, and they could work for a days getting only a few hours sleep, but then not have much to do for weeks at a time. Furthermore, litigation seemed to have a bit more job security, as most of the associates who were cut were from the corporate side.

On the other hand, I also heard that corporate associates tended to have better exit options, as there were more lucrative in-house opportunities, whereas litigation associates would go work for smaller firms or government. While there are apparently in-house opportunities available to litigation associates, they're not quite as numerous.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Bronte » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:40 pm

patrickd139 wrote:
Transferthrowaway wrote:I'll also take the opportunity to plug bankruptcy, especially debtor's side work.

In restructuring, you do a lot of deal work and also get to make court appearances for a little sprinkling of the lit side of things. Further, it's nice that instead of just being the lawyer told to go paper the deal, you're legitimately counseling the client through a situation they have (probably) never been through before.

My father is bankruptcy attorney (has represented individuals with no assets, done creditors rights collection for banks and everything in between).

While bankruptcy does blend transactional and litigation work nicely (as does tax controversy work, for that matter), I don't think young bankruptcy lawyers do what you think they do. If you're at a firm working on 'restructuring,' you're sure as hell not going to be meeting the client, much less 'counseling' them through a situation they've never been through before, because you've never been through it before either. You'll be papering the deal just like every other first year associate.

Now if you want actual client interaction, you'll probably be able to start representing individual debtors pretty soon out, in a smaller market, by hanging a shingle or small firm. In that case, you'll get the client counseling aspect, but you sure as hell won't be "restructuring" anything of significance.


This doesn't really make sense as a response to what transfer said for two reasons: First, the type of work your dad did does not sound like the type of work we're talking about. Consumer debtor work and creditor's work is not what large law firms do. There's basically only a handful of big law firms that frequently do debtor's work (i.e., Weil, Kirkland, Skadden, and a few others), and they handle multibillion dollar corporate bankruptcies, normally representing the debtor-company.

Second, to say that "as a young associate you won't be doing these things" is irrelevant. We're comparing large firm practice areas to other large firm practice areas. Young bankruptcy associates are no more or less errand boys than young litigation and corporate associates. In fact, because bankruptcy divisions usually outsource due diligence and doc review to their corporate and litigation departments, some will tell you bankruptcy work involves less menial work than the major practice areas (although I'm a bit skeptical of that claim).

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

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Renzo » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:58 pm

bdubs wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
funstuff wrote:Can anyone substantiate his claims? I've heard varying things on the predictability of work for corp/lit.


Litigation is way more predictable than corporate. Because you know the filing dates and hearing dates for your cases (or, at least, you SHOULD know them), you also know where the peaks and valleys are. In corporate, on the other hand, you could find yourself doing nothing for a week and then, suddenly, on Friday at 5pm, you lose your weekend because a client wants a deal closed on Monday.


Deadlines for litigation almost never hold in large cases. The pretrial conference schedule is set and then 2 days before a big deadline one side (or both) will request an extension. This means you work like crazy only to have to do it all again in 2 months. Judges also have great habits of changing the schedule when they don't like it, decide they want to take a vacation, or have a conflict with another case.

I would be very surprised if litigation were more predictable than corporate, but I haven't had involvement with the legal side of transactional work before.



You don't know what you are talking about. The worst, least predictable hours in the world are those worked by big-time M&A attorneys. I've seen corporate attorneys go from watching Hulu and talking about leaving early to sleeping in their office for an entire weekend in the course of one phone call; then, by Tuesday morning, they were back to having no work.

headandshoulderos
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby headandshoulderos » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:09 pm

Renzo wrote:
bdubs wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
funstuff wrote:Can anyone substantiate his claims? I've heard varying things on the predictability of work for corp/lit.


Litigation is way more predictable than corporate. Because you know the filing dates and hearing dates for your cases (or, at least, you SHOULD know them), you also know where the peaks and valleys are. In corporate, on the other hand, you could find yourself doing nothing for a week and then, suddenly, on Friday at 5pm, you lose your weekend because a client wants a deal closed on Monday.


Deadlines for litigation almost never hold in large cases. The pretrial conference schedule is set and then 2 days before a big deadline one side (or both) will request an extension. This means you work like crazy only to have to do it all again in 2 months. Judges also have great habits of changing the schedule when they don't like it, decide they want to take a vacation, or have a conflict with another case.

I would be very surprised if litigation were more predictable than corporate, but I haven't had involvement with the legal side of transactional work before.



You don't know what you are talking about. The worst, least predictable hours in the world are those worked by big-time M&A attorneys. I've seen corporate attorneys go from watching Hulu and talking about leaving early to sleeping in their office for an entire weekend in the course of one phone call; then, by Tuesday morning, they were back to having no work.


Ya it's not like litigation is 100% smooth sailing. No job is. But corporate is unique and susceptable to the whims of the bizdev people on the deal, and shit blows up at random - depending on whether guy A met guy B for coffee or not. Corporate lawyers are also always viewed with extreme skepticism by clients and treated like crap. With litigators, they may not like you, but at least they dont' think they can go on without you or do your job better.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Grizz » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:17 pm

kams wrote:On the other hand, I also heard that corporate associates tended to have better exit options, as there were more lucrative in-house opportunities, whereas litigation associates would go work for smaller firms or government. While there are apparently in-house opportunities available to litigation associates, they're not quite as numerous.

Read somewhere that 2/3 of in-house shit is transaction related, 1/3 is lit, companies need people to run large cases on the company side, handle discovery and document retention, etc.

Also smaller firms don't necessarily mean less money.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:19 pm

headandshoulderos wrote:Corporate lawyers are also always viewed with extreme skepticism by clients and treated like crap. With litigators, they may not like you, but at least they dont' think they can go on without you or do your job better.


This is the exact opposite of both my experience (V5 NYC) and what I've heard from others. Somebody hates hiring and paying a litigator, because it means something is screwed up. Corporate lawyers tend to be process oriented and are the ones who actually get shit done / tend to all the details.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:20 pm

Re this:

kams wrote:On the other hand, I also heard that corporate associates tended to have better exit options, as there were more lucrative in-house opportunities, whereas litigation associates would go work for smaller firms or government. While there are apparently in-house opportunities available to litigation associates, they're not quite as numerous.


Check out page 5, figure 1:

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

I assume that these statistics remain rather consistent for entire in-house counsel groups, if not just slightly less in favor of corporate, but still telling.

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

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Renzo » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:21 pm

headandshoulderos wrote:Ya it's not like litigation is 100% smooth sailing. No job is. But corporate is unique and susceptable to the whims of the bizdev people on the deal, and shit blows up at random


Not just that, but it's axiomatic that the 'lawyers never slow down a deal.' So if a client decides to make a gigantic purchase before markets open on monday, the lawyers might find out Friday at 5:00, and as many as need to will work nonstop to make sure by early Monday it's done.

In, contrast, litigation, one of the reasons you might hire a lawyer is his or her ability to grind the litigation to a halt and make the other side bleed money until they settle. Hell, I worked on a case that was still in discovery and the complaint had been filed in the early 1990's. Even aside from that, you never need your client's permission to stipulate to an adjournment, and the lawyers for the respective parties--not the clients--generally set the schedule. You might still have a capricious jerk of a boss who will spring shit on you last minute, but the clients won't do that so often.

If you really want stable scheduling, regulatory work is where it's at. Broker/dealer work, FDA work, environmental law, etc. While you might not leave by 5:00, you can be very confident that your clients, as well as the regulators, all do, so the phone will not be ringing after that.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby keg411 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:26 pm

kams wrote:Furthermore, litigation seemed to have a bit more job security, as most of the associates who were cut were from the corporate side.


If someone could shine some light on the "lit has better job security" or what the most "secure" BigLaw practice areas are, it would be greatly appreciated. I have competing nightmares of "corporate is slow = layoffs" vs. "all I do is doc review = lit". I've heard Tax is overall the safest/has the best hours, but you have to "get it", and I'm not taking the class until next semester.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Bronte » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:38 pm

keg411 wrote:
kams wrote:Furthermore, litigation seemed to have a bit more job security, as most of the associates who were cut were from the corporate side.


If someone could shine some light on the "lit has better job security" or what the most "secure" BigLaw practice areas are, it would be greatly appreciated. I have competing nightmares of "corporate is slow = layoffs" vs. "all I do is doc review = lit". I've heard Tax is overall the safest/has the best hours, but you have to "get it", and I'm not taking the class until next semester.


I would suspect that harder than "getting" tax is "not hating" tax. The subject matter is widely disliked. (Although I wouldn't want to practice tax, I do see where people could enjoy it. It's definitely my favorite class this semester.)

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby JamMasterJ » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:39 pm

headandshoulderos wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Corporate work is for losers who can't hack it in a courtroom.

HTH


haha nice. except litigators/rixs never make it into court

whoosh

Omerta
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:47 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Omerta » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:14 pm

Bronte wrote:
keg411 wrote:
kams wrote:Furthermore, litigation seemed to have a bit more job security, as most of the associates who were cut were from the corporate side.


If someone could shine some light on the "lit has better job security" or what the most "secure" BigLaw practice areas are, it would be greatly appreciated. I have competing nightmares of "corporate is slow = layoffs" vs. "all I do is doc review = lit". I've heard Tax is overall the safest/has the best hours, but you have to "get it", and I'm not taking the class until next semester.


I would suspect that harder than "getting" tax is "not hating" tax. The subject matter is widely disliked. (Although I wouldn't want to practice tax, I do see where people could enjoy it. It's definitely my favorite class this semester.)


I imagine there's a bigger gap between "getting" a tax class and being good enough to practice tax. Tax is also the biggest malpractice minefield. Unless you do something really awful in litigation or corporate work, you're not going to jail. On the other hand, the IRS might say you're engaging in a conspiracy to commit tax evasion by offering advice to clients and put you in prison for 4 years or so.

To the OP:
Corporate: you get pegged by your client
Lit: you get pegged by opposing counsel
Tax: you get pegged by the IRS (or worse)

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby bdubs » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:27 pm

Renzo wrote:You don't know what you are talking about. The worst, least predictable hours in the world are those worked by big-time M&A attorneys. I've seen corporate attorneys go from watching Hulu and talking about leaving early to sleeping in their office for an entire weekend in the course of one phone call; then, by Tuesday morning, they were back to having no work.


I never claimed to know the first thing about what the demands of corporate lawyers are. From the perspective of working on deals at a bank, what was important was 1) when the deal was announced 2) when we got paid (usually when the deal closed, but monday morning vs. tuesday was inconsequential)

If you care to fill me in on why a client would suddenly decide they needed a deal to close on Friday night, i'd be interested to hear it.


Renzo wrote:
headandshoulderos wrote:Ya it's not like litigation is 100% smooth sailing. No job is. But corporate is unique and susceptable to the whims of the bizdev people on the deal, and shit blows up at random


Not just that, but it's axiomatic that the 'lawyers never slow down a deal.' So if a client decides to make a gigantic purchase before markets open on monday, the lawyers might find out Friday at 5:00, and as many as need to will work nonstop to make sure by early Monday it's done.

In, contrast, litigation, one of the reasons you might hire a lawyer is his or her ability to grind the litigation to a halt and make the other side bleed money until they settle. Hell, I worked on a case that was still in discovery and the complaint had been filed in the early 1990's. Even aside from that, you never need your client's permission to stipulate to an adjournment, and the lawyers for the respective parties--not the clients--generally set the schedule. You might still have a capricious jerk of a boss who will spring shit on you last minute, but the clients won't do that so often.

If you really want stable scheduling, regulatory work is where it's at. Broker/dealer work, FDA work, environmental law, etc. While you might not leave by 5:00, you can be very confident that your clients, as well as the regulators, all do, so the phone will not be ringing after that.


You're discounting the adversarial nature of litigation a bit too much. A lot of procedural tactics I encountered to "bleed a client dry" regarded schedule changes and foot dragging. Ultimately this means that litigators can't work just one case at a time, but they need to be on multiple cases, any one of which could go crazy if the judge finally decides to rule on a motion or schedule a hearing. The schedule tends to be highly unpredictable, and when you've got 3-4 cases that you're working on the chance that they heat up at the same time increases rapidly.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby keg411 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Omerta wrote:
Bronte wrote:
keg411 wrote:
kams wrote:Furthermore, litigation seemed to have a bit more job security, as most of the associates who were cut were from the corporate side.


If someone could shine some light on the "lit has better job security" or what the most "secure" BigLaw practice areas are, it would be greatly appreciated. I have competing nightmares of "corporate is slow = layoffs" vs. "all I do is doc review = lit". I've heard Tax is overall the safest/has the best hours, but you have to "get it", and I'm not taking the class until next semester.


I would suspect that harder than "getting" tax is "not hating" tax. The subject matter is widely disliked. (Although I wouldn't want to practice tax, I do see where people could enjoy it. It's definitely my favorite class this semester.)


I imagine there's a bigger gap between "getting" a tax class and being good enough to practice tax. Tax is also the biggest malpractice minefield. Unless you do something really awful in litigation or corporate work, you're not going to jail. On the other hand, the IRS might say you're engaging in a conspiracy to commit tax evasion by offering advice to clients and put you in prison for 4 years or so.


I don't care that much about tax. I just want to hear about which practice areas are good for "not getting fired" and are generally a "safer" bet for a 2L with a SA.

ruski
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby ruski » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:34 pm

Omerta wrote:
Bronte wrote:
keg411 wrote:
kams wrote:Furthermore, litigation seemed to have a bit more job security, as most of the associates who were cut were from the corporate side.


If someone could shine some light on the "lit has better job security" or what the most "secure" BigLaw practice areas are, it would be greatly appreciated. I have competing nightmares of "corporate is slow = layoffs" vs. "all I do is doc review = lit". I've heard Tax is overall the safest/has the best hours, but you have to "get it", and I'm not taking the class until next semester.


I would suspect that harder than "getting" tax is "not hating" tax. The subject matter is widely disliked. (Although I wouldn't want to practice tax, I do see where people could enjoy it. It's definitely my favorite class this semester.)


I imagine there's a bigger gap between "getting" a tax class and being good enough to practice tax. Tax is also the biggest malpractice minefield. Unless you do something really awful in litigation or corporate work, you're not going to jail. On the other hand, the IRS might say you're engaging in a conspiracy to commit tax evasion by offering advice to clients and put you in prison for 4 years or so.

To the OP:
Corporate: you get pegged by your client
Lit: you get pegged by opposing counsel
Tax: you get pegged by the IRS (or worse)


yea that's not really true regarding tax. at worst you will battle it out with the IRS in tax court to see who is right if it's unclear. no biglaw tax attorney would ever advise anything close to tax fraud.

also tax is notorious for giving no responsibility to young associates until really they are partner or close to it. there are just too many variables and too many complicated issues to trust a 2nd or even 3rd year with. everything has to be reviewed by a partner

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:53 pm

ruski wrote:
Omerta wrote:
Bronte wrote:
keg411 wrote:
If someone could shine some light on the "lit has better job security" or what the most "secure" BigLaw practice areas are, it would be greatly appreciated. I have competing nightmares of "corporate is slow = layoffs" vs. "all I do is doc review = lit". I've heard Tax is overall the safest/has the best hours, but you have to "get it", and I'm not taking the class until next semester.


I would suspect that harder than "getting" tax is "not hating" tax. The subject matter is widely disliked. (Although I wouldn't want to practice tax, I do see where people could enjoy it. It's definitely my favorite class this semester.)


I imagine there's a bigger gap between "getting" a tax class and being good enough to practice tax. Tax is also the biggest malpractice minefield. Unless you do something really awful in litigation or corporate work, you're not going to jail. On the other hand, the IRS might say you're engaging in a conspiracy to commit tax evasion by offering advice to clients and put you in prison for 4 years or so.

To the OP:
Corporate: you get pegged by your client
Lit: you get pegged by opposing counsel
Tax: you get pegged by the IRS (or worse)


yea that's not really true regarding tax. at worst you will battle it out with the IRS in tax court to see who is right if it's unclear. no biglaw tax attorney would ever advise anything close to tax fraud.

also tax is notorious for giving no responsibility to young associates until really they are partner or close to it. there are just too many variables and too many complicated issues to trust a 2nd or even 3rd year with. everything has to be reviewed by a partner


Every tax attorney I met from 2nd year to 5th year within the V50(about 20 total) all had significant client contact and worked in small groups. One told me they pretty much do their work and go home at 6 every night but they really enjoy their work and most seemed to specialize in one particular area.

Others confirmed what the tax attorneys said. There were some other specific transactional jobs that looked awesome though.

Transferthrowaway
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Transferthrowaway » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:39 pm

keg411 wrote:I don't care that much about tax. I just want to hear about which practice areas are good for "not getting fired" and are generally a "safer" bet for a 2L with a SA.


Restructuring/BK. Counter-cyclical, baby! With no upturn in sight!

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

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Renzo » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:01 pm

bdubs wrote:You're discounting the adversarial nature of litigation a bit too much. A lot of procedural tactics I encountered to "bleed a client dry" regarded schedule changes and foot dragging. Ultimately this means that litigators can't work just one case at a time, but they need to be on multiple cases, any one of which could go crazy if the judge finally decides to rule on a motion or schedule a hearing. The schedule tends to be highly unpredictable, and when you've got 3-4 cases that you're working on the chance that they heat up at the same time increases rapidly.


Your definition of unpredictable and mine differ. I think unpredictable is something in the neighborhood of an hour's notice; so far, in 1.5 years of working in the litigation departments of three firms, I've yet to see anyone get less than two weeks notice for anything. It's conceivable that someone could get a TRO or something, and you'd have to rush to the courthouse, but that shit basically never happens.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby bdubs » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:14 pm

Renzo wrote:
bdubs wrote:You're discounting the adversarial nature of litigation a bit too much. A lot of procedural tactics I encountered to "bleed a client dry" regarded schedule changes and foot dragging. Ultimately this means that litigators can't work just one case at a time, but they need to be on multiple cases, any one of which could go crazy if the judge finally decides to rule on a motion or schedule a hearing. The schedule tends to be highly unpredictable, and when you've got 3-4 cases that you're working on the chance that they heat up at the same time increases rapidly.


Your definition of unpredictable and mine differ. I think unpredictable is something in the neighborhood of an hour's notice; so far, in 1.5 years of working in the litigation departments of three firms, I've yet to see anyone get less than two weeks notice for anything. It's conceivable that someone could get a TRO or something, and you'd have to rush to the courthouse, but that shit basically never happens.


Yeah, I meant unpredictability month to month, not hour to hour. An attorney I spoke with recently in a corporate law department at a V10 told me that he regularly loads up on projects and hours early in the year so that he can get enough hours in to take a long vacation later in the year. That is a kind of schedule flexibility that is just not possible for a lot of litigators.

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

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby patrickd139 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:41 pm

Transferthrowaway wrote:
keg411 wrote:I don't care that much about tax. I just want to hear about which practice areas are good for "not getting fired" and are generally a "safer" bet for a 2L with a SA.


Restructuring/BK. Counter-cyclical, baby! With no upturn in sight!

Under-appreciated comment.

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

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby Renzo » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:04 pm

patrickd139 wrote:
Transferthrowaway wrote:
keg411 wrote:I don't care that much about tax. I just want to hear about which practice areas are good for "not getting fired" and are generally a "safer" bet for a 2L with a SA.


Restructuring/BK. Counter-cyclical, baby! With no upturn in sight!

Under-appreciated comment.


It's true, and interesting work.

kams
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Litigation vs Corporate quick run-through?

Postby kams » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:35 pm

bdubs wrote:
Renzo wrote:
bdubs wrote:You're discounting the adversarial nature of litigation a bit too much. A lot of procedural tactics I encountered to "bleed a client dry" regarded schedule changes and foot dragging. Ultimately this means that litigators can't work just one case at a time, but they need to be on multiple cases, any one of which could go crazy if the judge finally decides to rule on a motion or schedule a hearing. The schedule tends to be highly unpredictable, and when you've got 3-4 cases that you're working on the chance that they heat up at the same time increases rapidly.


Your definition of unpredictable and mine differ. I think unpredictable is something in the neighborhood of an hour's notice; so far, in 1.5 years of working in the litigation departments of three firms, I've yet to see anyone get less than two weeks notice for anything. It's conceivable that someone could get a TRO or something, and you'd have to rush to the courthouse, but that shit basically never happens.


Yeah, I meant unpredictability month to month, not hour to hour. An attorney I spoke with recently in a corporate law department at a V10 told me that he regularly loads up on projects and hours early in the year so that he can get enough hours in to take a long vacation later in the year. That is a kind of schedule flexibility that is just not possible for a lot of litigators.


Beg to differ. I know a lot of litigation associates who load up early as well.

I always felt like the corporate side was more unpredictable, especially with the economy the way it was the last couple years. If there weren't enough deals going on, it's not like there were a lot of projects to load up on, know what I mean?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.