Corporate or litigation for lateraling/career prospects Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm starting soon in biglaw in NY and have the opportunity to choose between corporate work and litigation. The firm has a solid reputation for both, though is perhaps more well known for the corporate work. I'm a good legal writer, but I absolutely hate the process of legal research. I did some corporate work over the summer, and I got by fine. It didn't exactly thrill me either. But many of my peers in corporate have business or finance backgrounds, which could put me at somewhat of a disadvantage as time wears on.

I highly doubt I'm going to stay at my firm for more than 3-4 years, but I'd like to keep my options as open as possible when I start looking for exit options. I'm not an ardent lover of the law and don't see myself being in law in 20 years. And I really don't care if I do corporate or litigation. But while I'm in law, I'd like to have as many options as I possibly can.

Thoughts?

[AllDangle]

Interested in this also

[rad lulz]

Well what do you want to lateral/exit to

[Bronte]

Lateral options are presumably equal between corporate and litigation. In-house exits are said to be easier from corporate. For this reason, corporate is thought to have better exit options. From the sound of it, OP, you should probably do corporate. I say this because you say you don't like research or, for that matter, the law. Corporate gets you further from those things than litigation.

[Lincoln]

I'm starting soon in biglaw in NY and have the opportunity to choose between corporate work and litigation. The firm has a solid reputation for both, though is perhaps more well known for the corporate work. I'm a good legal writer, but I absolutely hate the process of legal research. I did some corporate work over the summer, and I got by fine. It didn't exactly thrill me either. But many of my peers in corporate have business or finance backgrounds, which could put me at somewhat of a disadvantage as time wears on.

I highly doubt I'm going to stay at my firm for more than 3-4 years, but I'd like to keep my options as open as possible when I start looking for exit options. I'm not an ardent lover of the law and don't see myself being in law in 20 years. And I really don't care if I do corporate or litigation. But while I'm in law, I'd like to have as many options as I possibly can.

Thoughts?

Corporate

[t-14orbust]

Lateral options are presumably equal between corporate and litigation. In-house exits are said to be easier from corporate. For this reason, corporate is thought to have better exit options. From the sound of it, OP, you should probably do corporate. I say this because you say you don't like research or, for that matter, the law. Corporate gets you further from those things than litigation.

What kinds of exit options are there for lit? Also, why are these necessarily(said to be) worse than in-house exits? Thanks!

[Bronte]

Lateral options are presumably equal between corporate and litigation. In-house exits are said to be easier from corporate. For this reason, corporate is thought to have better exit options. From the sound of it, OP, you should probably do corporate. I say this because you say you don't like research or, for that matter, the law. Corporate gets you further from those things than litigation.

What kinds of exit options are there for lit? Also, why are these necessarily(said to be) worse than in-house exits? Thanks!

The theory is that all but the very largest companies do not have in-house litigation departments. The role of their in-house guys is more focused on advising on transactions and managing outside counsel. Thus, they prefer to hire corporate attorneys.

The primary option of litigators is to lateral to another big law firm or a smaller firm. Government jobs are probably the second most popular option, and in my opinion this is a very appealing aspect of litigation. But with government hiring the way it is this might not be something to rely on.

Keep in mind that I'm essentially in echo chamber mode here. Exit options are kind of a black box.

[t-14orbust]

Lateral options are presumably equal between corporate and litigation. In-house exits are said to be easier from corporate. For this reason, corporate is thought to have better exit options. From the sound of it, OP, you should probably do corporate. I say this because you say you don't like research or, for that matter, the law. Corporate gets you further from those things than litigation.

What kinds of exit options are there for lit? Also, why are these necessarily(said to be) worse than in-house exits? Thanks!

The theory is that all but the very largest companies do not have in-house litigation departments. The role of their in-house guys is more focused on advising on transactions and managing outside counsel. Thus, they prefer to hire corporate attorneys.

The primary option of litigators is to lateral to another big law firm or a smaller firm. Government jobs are probably the second most popular option, and in my opinion this is a very appealing aspect of litigation. But with government hiring the way it is this might not be something to rely on.

Keep in mind that I'm essentially in echo chamber mode here. Exit options are kind of a black box.

I appreciate the response. I've been interested in corporate, but as a 0L I probably have no clue about anything. I'm on the fence as of now because I've heard there's a certain rush to litigation, if you get to see a courtroom that is. Also, being a judge is one of my dreams lol. Thanks again!