Specialized Lit v. Biglaw Forum

[Anonymous User]

I realize this is an iteration of the Plaintiff v. Biglaw thread but I think it is distinct enough to be worth asking. The smaller firm I'm considering wouldn't really be an "elite" firm in that it doesn't really have a national presence. It is very focused in one area and has a lot of big clients in within that field.

What are the downsides to going to a small, specialized litigation firm over going to a more generalized Biglaw litigation group? The smaller firm deals almost exclusively with the industry I'm interested in but I don't know how the choice would play out long term.

If the eventual goal is in-house, would working for a smaller firm where much more client contact would be available and where you'd get more and quicker real experience be better than Biglaw? Would the "prestige" of a Biglaw firm trump all of that when it comes to making the transition?

Any other major upsides or downsides to either option?

[84651846190]

Don't do lit if you want in house.

[Anonymous User]

Don't do lit if you want in house.

At least, not general lit. Things like employment litigation will lead to in-house options, but thats partly because labor & employment practice has a big counseling aspect to it that goes along with the litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Is it that bad for lit to go in house? Maybe it is industry specific but I know that in the industry I'm looking at, every major company has a decently sized in house litigation group. They use them both to direct regular litigation and for international arbitration/dispute resolution.