Anonymous User wrote: Omerta wrote:
FlightoftheEarls wrote:Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.
IME, the difference between cases run by biglaw (vault/amlaw) and non-trash law firms isn't very large. Challenging and sophisticated work isn't limited to biglaw, and I don't think the proportion of challenging to routine work significantly changes if you're at a decent firm instead of a biglaw firm.
This wasn't my experience. I was at a well-respected regional NLJ250 firm and yes, there was some challenging/sophisticated work, but it really ebbed and flowed. I had 1.5 years where I had really awesome complex work that was the same stuff biglaw attorneys in my field do, and then a year where most of my work was more local unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff (and it wasn't just me, no one in our department had complex work at that time). And then when things got really bad I did some insurance defense. So yes, midlaw/regional biglaw gets some of the same stuff, but in my experience the supply of that kind of work isn't nearly as reliable as it is in biglaw.
Have you also worked at a traditional biglaw firm? Just curious because I'm a district court clerk and can't really see a difference between the two in that both well-respected regional firms and biglaw firms have some vanilla stuff. I don't doubt there's a difference in proportion to some degree, though I'm not sure it's as binary as people suggest.
Also, my experience is limited to secondary/tertiary markets. Maybe there is that much of a difference in the big markets, but everyone takes some unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff around here (for the billables, to train junior associates, and to keep relationships with clients fresh).
Thank you for your view. Again, I'm not looking at it from a practitioner's perspective, so I'd be interested to hear how the work differed from associates who went from biglaw to a firm like the one you described (respectable NALP firm or the like).