corporate law

(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: 273316
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

corporate law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:27 am

Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: corporate law

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:28 am

Anonymous User wrote:Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?


http://www.chambers-associate.com/Artic ... aSummaries

hth

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby anon168 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:37 am

Anonymous User wrote:Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?


Transaction law is anything where a lawyer puts together some sort of agreement, or deal, which can range from an M&A, a finance agreement, a purchase and sale, a trust or will, a divorce decree or prenup, etc.

When people say corporate law vis-a-vis biglaw, it typically means some sort of M&A or financial transaction (e.g. LBO, IPO, etc.)

For your purposes when talking to biglaw, there's basically no difference between Transactional Work vs. Corporate Work.

But the more important question is why interview with a firm that does primarily corporate work when you want to litigate?

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8446
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby thesealocust » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:47 am

If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: corporate law

Postby seespotrun » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:48 am

thesealocust wrote:If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.


DISCOBARRRRRRRED

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8446
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby thesealocust » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:50 am

seespotrun wrote:
thesealocust wrote:If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.


DISCOBARRRRRRRED


Yo.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273316
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: corporate law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:52 am

OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: corporate law

Postby seespotrun » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:53 am

thesealocust wrote:
seespotrun wrote:
thesealocust wrote:If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.


DISCOBARRRRRRRED


Yo.


That's all I've got.

Side note: best of luck, OP.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273316
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: corporate law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:54 am

Thanks. I greatly approve of Louis CK

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: corporate law

Postby seespotrun » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:54 am

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?


Only if you want a job. But you knew the answer to this question before you thread-questioned the internet.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8446
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby thesealocust » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:54 am

seespotrun wrote:That's all I've got.


Fair enough :lol:

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

Re: corporate law

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:04 am

nonprofit-prophet wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?


http://www.chambers-associate.com/Artic ... aSummaries

hth

Egregious lack of Employee Benefits/ERISA coverage.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8446
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby thesealocust » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:05 am

Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults aged 25 to 30.

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: corporate law

Postby seespotrun » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:06 am

thesealocust wrote:Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults children aged 25 to 30.

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

Re: corporate law

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:07 am

thesealocust wrote:Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults aged 25 to 30.

Indeed. 436 is the fucking bane of my present existence.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273316
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: corporate law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:40 am

bump. any good stock answers?

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby anon168 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:47 am

Anonymous User wrote:bump. any good stock answers?


Because you want to create value as a lawyer. As a litigator, you are essentially playing a zero-sum game -- i.e., it's just matter how you divide the pie between the players, with the pie staying the same size.

In corporate work, everyone works to make a bigger pie, and then take their share. It can be a much more fulfilling way to practice law. You are creating value, not simply trying to divide it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273316
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: corporate law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:53 am

thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby JusticeHarlan » Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:25 am

Anonymous User wrote:thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?

Image

anon168
Posts: 920
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:36 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby anon168 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?


To take a very basic, kindergarten example. When two companies merge -- let's say Dell and Microsoft -- they do it not because they just want to be bigger (because 2+2=4 isn't really creating value), but because there is some sort of synergy in vertically integrating their different product lines.

Dell makes hardware (again a simplification) and Microsoft makes software (again a simplification), so one can imagine that if a hardware and software company merge they can eliminate some of the market inefficiencies that hardware manufacturers and software makers face when trying to integrate their products (again, assuming away and antitrust concerns).

So in the case of Microsoft merging with Dell you get 2+2+Synergy=5

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

Re: corporate law

Postby keg411 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:58 am

Anonymous User wrote:OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?


I know someone at GT NY. NALP is wrong.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: corporate law

Postby beach_terror » Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:58 am

seespotrun wrote:Only if you want a job.

Can you get me one of these?

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: corporate law

Postby quakeroats » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:07 am

keg411 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?


I know someone at GT NY. NALP is wrong.


Why use NALP when you can search their website: http://www.gtlaw.com/People/Search-Resu ... fice=@5801




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.