Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Coming from someone who is well-connected with lawyers and non-lawyers alike across many sports, the advice in this thread is off-base. While transactional certainly won't bar you from getting into the industry, there are more litigators that successfully make the transition. For legal positions, it's a fairly even split, but clubs (and even the leagues when they consider JDs for executive spots) prefer the litigation skillset for whatever reason. That said, do what you like because if you get one of these positions it will be more of a right place/right time kind of thing than the speciality you chose.
Right; this is exactly what I've found. Do you have any reason why this is? Anecdotes? Or just knowledge that the current field has more litigators than not? How "well-connected" are you?
Private message me or respond anon; I would really appreciate a more specific answer!
Can't tell you for sure why this is, but my guess is that the litigation skill set comes in handy when so much in sports rests on arbitration. The people who make the jump from a transactional practice are usually filtered into licensing issues and such, which can pretty much be handled without interacting with clubs if you work for a league. In comparison, the litigators are the ones who are in contact with the clubs more often due to all the different kinds of arbitrations and lawsuits that are affecting their team. I would assume that these relationships (remember, the league offices work for the owners) allow them to segue into other non-legal roles if they so choose. Sports, more than any other industry, is built on relationships, and it's just a reality that litigators are given more opportunity to foster them. Doesn't mean you can't be as successful from the transactional side, it's just less likely.
Now, like I said, if you just want to get into a league and don't care about career advancement or holding a non-legal job down the road, a transactional background won't be a disadvantage. But, I don't see why you would close off your long-term options when you seem willing to go down either route. And I am very well-connected. Won't get more specific than that, but you don't have to trust me if you are so inclined.
Hm, all good points.
It doesn't really matter to me where in sports I end up; I love all the leagues, and every facet of it really interests me. I just like the dynamics of the industry.
I tend to like the idea of transactional over litigation, but I would probably enjoy both. I agree with you on the "fostering relationships" deal--I carry no misconceptions about the sports industry and what it takes to get there. I know there's a good chance I won't even make it.
I'll trust you on your thoughts; they're consistent with what I was thinking already, albeit a little more extreme. I think I'm more nervous about the idea of changing my mind away from transactional, because it's what I was planning for several years now. It's not like a switch to litigation is bad or anything haha.
Do you have any other thoughts in general? I would like to PM you with my specific situation (read: grades) to see if you have any advice for particular firms/career paths, etc. I just don't know many folks who actually ended up in this field, so I'm particularly void of good advice. PM me if you'd be willing to chat more.
Have you considered reaching out to Burbank and asking him about any of this? He's incredibly helpful/open to student questions (including 1Ls, he taught Civ Pro to section 2) and I believe he's a current special master of the NFL.
Totally forgot about this. Good call.