Antitrust law - lack of substantive work as junior? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am currently summering at a firm that has a large antitrust practice. In my office, though, the practice is pretty small (4 partners; 3 associates) but they seem to have a good amount of work.

I am seeing that junior associates in huge antitrust cases usually do not get much substantive work. It seems to be the norm that even mid-level associates do a ton of doc review, simply because it is a document-intensive practice group. Since the practice is small, I have heard that the group often obtains help from associates in the general commercial litigation practice. However, it is possible to go straight into the antitrust group as a first year.

In this scenario, instead of jumping straight into the antitrust group, is it a better idea to go into commercial litigation and dabble in antitrust work while I gain more substantive experience like drafting motions and taking depositions? Then, as a senior associate or something, I can transition into full-time antitrust work? Hypothetically, of course, that I even make it that far... I don't know.

Jumping into the group with both feet sounds kind of risky because what if I want out as a mid-level associate? Not many exit options as an antitrust associate with not a whole lot of substantive experience. Please tell me if I am way off base.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a junior associate in an antitrust practice group, and I think you're right in a lot of ways. In deals and litigation, the number of documents collected will be massive, and associates have to spend a lot of time training and supervising contract attorneys and reviewing documents themselves. Because of how crucial the matters are to the client, the general counsel is likely to be involved, so important motions and such are typically handled by the partners and trusted senior associates (whereas a junior associate in an employment practice may get a lot of experience drafting motions in $300k individual discrimination suits). That said, there are usually a lot of depositions in antitrust cases, so the lower level associates often get to take or defend at least one early on.

From what I've observed, antitrust has better exit options than general lit, largely because it has a more transactional side (analyzing deals, helping push them through the agencies, etc.). So I wouldn't go general lit over antitrust if you're concerned about good exit options, assuming you can tolerate antitrust practice.

[Anonymous User]

From what I've observed, antitrust has better exit options than general lit, largely because it has a more transactional side (analyzing deals, helping push them through the agencies, etc.). So I wouldn't go general lit over antitrust if you're concerned about good exit options, assuming you can tolerate antitrust practice.

Thanks for your response. Can you expand on what you mean by "tolerate" the practice? What do you like/not like about it? Would you do differently now that you know what junior antitrust lawyers do?

[Anonymous User]

I'm a junior associate in an antitrust practice group, and I think you're right in a lot of ways. In deals and litigation, the number of documents collected will be massive, and associates have to spend a lot of time training and supervising contract attorneys and reviewing documents themselves. Because of how crucial the matters are to the client, the general counsel is likely to be involved, so important motions and such are typically handled by the partners and trusted senior associates (whereas a junior associate in an employment practice may get a lot of experience drafting motions in $300k individual discrimination suits). That said, there are usually a lot of depositions in antitrust cases, so the lower level associates often get to take or defend at least one early on.

From what I've observed, antitrust has better exit options than general lit, largely because it has a more transactional side (analyzing deals, helping push them through the agencies, etc.). So I wouldn't go general lit over antitrust if you're concerned about good exit options, assuming you can tolerate antitrust practice.

I've heard the opposite regarding exit options, but I think it depends on what your antitrust practice looks like, and what exit options you are looking for. Several of my friends went to top DC antitrust practices where they focused on antitrust litigation. Now they want to litigate in smaller mid-west states, and they're having trouble landing anything because their antitrust litigation experience from their first 4 years of practice doesn't translate well to the litigation work done in, e.g., Omaha. They're smart guys, and they'll do well when they inevitably land something, but they've voiced frustration about their belief that they're not getting jobs because their resume looks too specialized for the smaller markets where very little antitrust work is done.

As indicated by the above post, if you're looking for transactional exit options, and the antitrust group does a good amount of transactional work, your outlook will be much better than that of my friends'.

[bdubs]

I am currently summering at a firm that has a large antitrust practice. In my office, though, the practice is pretty small (4 partners; 3 associates) but they seem to have a good amount of work.

I am seeing that junior associates in huge antitrust cases usually do not get much substantive work. It seems to be the norm that even mid-level associates do a ton of doc review, simply because it is a document-intensive practice group. Since the practice is small, I have heard that the group often obtains help from associates in the general commercial litigation practice. However, it is possible to go straight into the antitrust group as a first year.

In this scenario, instead of jumping straight into the antitrust group, is it a better idea to go into commercial litigation and dabble in antitrust work while I gain more substantive experience like drafting motions and taking depositions? Then, as a senior associate or something, I can transition into full-time antitrust work? Hypothetically, of course, that I even make it that far... I don't know.

Jumping into the group with both feet sounds kind of risky because what if I want out as a mid-level associate? Not many exit options as an antitrust associate with not a whole lot of substantive experience. Please tell me if I am way off base.

I think this is very firm dependent. There is a variety of AT work that entails different work for juniors including class action defense, opt-out plaintiff work, governmental investigations, the odd unilateral conduct case or counterclaim, or merger challenge review/negotiation. Secondly, the other type of work that your firm's general lit group does will influence how different the work is for juniors. If you get staffed to another "mega" type case you might get just as little substantive work as a junior then what you're expecting in the AT practice.

It sounds like you want to eventually end up practicing antitrust law. If that is the case I would think hard about opting for general lit if you want to do antitrust as a specialty since it has some unique qualities that other kinds of litigation don't.

[Anonymous User]

From what I've observed, antitrust has better exit options than general lit, largely because it has a more transactional side (analyzing deals, helping push them through the agencies, etc.). So I wouldn't go general lit over antitrust if you're concerned about good exit options, assuming you can tolerate antitrust practice.

Thanks for your response. Can you expand on what you mean by "tolerate" the practice? What do you like/not like about it? Would you do differently now that you know what junior antitrust lawyers do?

I think what distinguishes antitrust is that the cases typically involve a lot of documents (so do cases in many other fields, of course), some rudimentary understanding of economics is required, and a lot of the intellectual work at the trial stage is delegated to economists. If you are bored out of your mind by economics, or if you don't think you can handle hundreds of hours of doc review as a junior associate, there are probably better options for you. I'm not sure I'd do anything differently. I enjoy drafting substantive motions and it would be nice to be in a practice where I got to do that frequently, but on the other hand, it's also exciting to work on cases of enormous importance. It's a trade-off.

I'm a junior associate in an antitrust practice group, and I think you're right in a lot of ways. In deals and litigation, the number of documents collected will be massive, and associates have to spend a lot of time training and supervising contract attorneys and reviewing documents themselves. Because of how crucial the matters are to the client, the general counsel is likely to be involved, so important motions and such are typically handled by the partners and trusted senior associates (whereas a junior associate in an employment practice may get a lot of experience drafting motions in $300k individual discrimination suits). That said, there are usually a lot of depositions in antitrust cases, so the lower level associates often get to take or defend at least one early on.

From what I've observed, antitrust has better exit options than general lit, largely because it has a more transactional side (analyzing deals, helping push them through the agencies, etc.). So I wouldn't go general lit over antitrust if you're concerned about good exit options, assuming you can tolerate antitrust practice.

I've heard the opposite regarding exit options, but I think it depends on what your antitrust practice looks like, and what exit options you are looking for. Several of my friends went to top DC antitrust practices where they focused on antitrust litigation. Now they want to litigate in smaller mid-west states, and they're having trouble landing anything because their antitrust litigation experience from their first 4 years of practice doesn't translate well to the litigation work done in, e.g., Omaha. They're smart guys, and they'll do well when they inevitably land something, but they've voiced frustration about their belief that they're not getting jobs because their resume looks too specialized for the smaller markets where very little antitrust work is done.

As indicated by the above post, if you're looking for transactional exit options, and the antitrust group does a good amount of transactional work, your outlook will be much better than that of my friends'.

If you want to exit to a smaller litigation practice, then yes, it's probably better to go into commercial lit. If you're hoping to go in-house then I think antitrust is a much better option. There isn't much of a need for litigators in in-house positions. It's also not too difficult to get a federal government job (DOJ antitrust or FTC), from what I've seen.

[Anonymous User]

About to start OCI and interested in antitrust. Do the in-house exit ops you speak of tend to be limited to antitrust-specific positions (e.g., Antitrust Counsel at a huge company that often creates competitive concerns) or are they broader positions? I.e., is it way better to go into something purely transactional like M&A if you want to keep the corporate counsel route open?

[bdubs]

About to start OCI and interested in antitrust. Do the in-house exit ops you speak of tend to be limited to antitrust-specific positions (e.g., Antitrust Counsel at a huge company that often creates competitive concerns) or are they broader positions? I.e., is it way better to go into something purely transactional like M&A if you want to keep the corporate counsel route open?

The corporate side of M&A is much more likely to lead to an in-house/GC type position than antitrust. There are a very limited number of companies that have in-house antitrust counsel and they usually only have one person in that role. The people who get those jobs are already very high level people (biglaw partners, high level government attorneys, academics).

[PMan99]

From my understanding, in today's legal world if you want to have a career in antitrust then going to the DOJ/FTC at some point is a necessity. In that case, I imagine it'd probably better to get 3-4 years of antitrust "experience," go to the gov., then go back to private practice instead of doing general commercial first and somehow switching into antitrust as a senior associate.

[Anonymous User]

From my understanding, in today's legal world if you want to have a career in antitrust then going to the DOJ/FTC at some point is a necessity. In that case, I imagine it'd probably better to get 3-4 years of antitrust "experience," go to the gov., then go back to private practice instead of doing general commercial first and somehow switching into antitrust as a senior associate.

I think this might depend heavily on the firm. Most of the antitrust partners at my firm (Band 1 AT practice) are homegrown. Yeah, there're some lateral partners, but because our M&A practice feeds the AT group so many high profile deals, you end up building a pretty ridiculous resume just growing up on the private practice side. When you can point to 5-6 front page deals you worked on in the last 3-4 years, that's going to carry you further than being a junior antitrust attorney on the enforcement side unless you're there for a good while.

Obviously if you rise to a position of seniority at the DOJ / FTC, you'll probably be able to do pretty well for yourself lateraling back into BigLaw, but the people I see making that move are in their late thirties / early forties, and they're coming in at of counsel / non-equity partner level (with varying prospects for advancement). I've seen a lot more of that in AT than people doing a mini tour in gov't lateraling back into BigLaw on a partnership track (unless they're going to much smaller firms). Some firms might have more of a revolving door mentality, but that's definitely not the case here; people at my firm view going to DOJ/FTC as an exit strategy, not a move to improve their chance of making partner.