I Miss Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

About 3 months ago, I left my associate position in the litigation group of a biglaw firm for a smaller firm, where I focus on advertising, media, and entertainment.

While some of my job is awesome and so much fun, I find a decent portion of it (especially contracts / purely transnational) to be terribly boring. However, I also remember that I easily spent half of my time in litigation doing discovery, and that brief writing was a minority of my time spent.

Maybe I'm just bored today and overthinking, but I'm curious if anyone has felt the same way after leaving a lit role, and if so, whether transactional work grew on you.

[smallfirmassociate]

I do a decent amount of lit and a lot of criminal defense. Whenever I get a new trust client or business client, I just kind of dread doing all of the paperwork. Even if my paralegal can do like 85% of it, I just absolutely dread the other couple hours I might have to put into a project.

I put off drafting a contract for a really good client for like two months. These are all good-money projects, but that's not enough to motivate me.

So no, you're not alone. And no, it probably doesn't get better. Deep down inside, you probably feel like I feel and think that you don't actually have to be a lawyer to do most transactional work and the legal industry should just train paralegals to do it and allow them to do so under the ethical rules. Then the title of lawyer can be reserved for people who actually do advocacy in court, mediation, etc. instead of just pushing paper.

[philosoraptor]

you probably feel like I feel and think that you don't actually have to be a lawyer to do most transactional work and the legal industry should just train paralegals to do it and allow them to do so under the ethical rules. Then the title of lawyer can be reserved for people who actually do advocacy in court, mediation, etc. instead of just pushing paper.

If this is the way you feel about transactional work, you should probably refer it out.

[smallfirmassociate]

you probably feel like I feel and think that you don't actually have to be a lawyer to do most transactional work and the legal industry should just train paralegals to do it and allow them to do so under the ethical rules. Then the title of lawyer can be reserved for people who actually do advocacy in court, mediation, etc. instead of just pushing paper.

If this is the way you feel about transactional work, you should probably refer it out.

I have my partners do most of it.

Every once in a while I'll get a trust client who wants some weird shit that is kind of fun, but overall it's pretty goddamned boring compared to criminal defense and commercial litigation (a lot of people would definitely disagree with me on the latter point). IMO of course. Just responding to OP's question here; I think your response to my post is nonresponsive to his post and kind of pointless.

[philosoraptor]

I have my partners do most of it.

Every once in a while I'll get a trust client who wants some weird shit that is kind of fun, but overall it's pretty goddamned boring compared to criminal defense and commercial litigation (a lot of people would definitely disagree with me on the latter point). IMO of course. Just responding to OP's question here; I think your response to my post is nonresponsive to his post and kind of pointless.

Fair enough. Couldn't help but think that equating something you think is boring to paralegal work is insulting to a bunch of people on this forum who work hard (and creatively) for their clients in small firms and big firms and everything in between.

In an effort to be constructive: OP, have you tried approaching parts of your transactional work from a litigation perspective when you get bored? Sometimes I think it's really useful to consult litigators about how certain language might be interpreted by a judge, or what is likely to hold up if it gets tested, or whether we have any footing in case law for taking an aggressive position with a provision. As an easy example, if you are drafting a noncompete clause, do you draw on your litigation background to figure out what time period or geographic scope has the best chance of being upheld for different types of activities? Or if you are drafting an arbitration provision, do you check the recent cases to see if the other side might have a chance of overturning it and getting into court? Maybe staying up to date on how your local courts handle NDA breaches will help you draft airtight confidentiality clauses. Make a habit of questioning your forms and precedent and ask yourself, if you were a litigator on the other side, how could you attack this provision or this agreement?

[tyroneslothrop1]

I have my partners do most of it.

Every once in a while I'll get a trust client who wants some weird shit that is kind of fun, but overall it's pretty goddamned boring compared to criminal defense and commercial litigation (a lot of people would definitely disagree with me on the latter point). IMO of course. Just responding to OP's question here; I think your response to my post is nonresponsive to his post and kind of pointless.

Fair enough. Couldn't help but think that equating something you think is boring to paralegal work is insulting to a bunch of people on this forum who work hard (and creatively) for their clients in small firms and big firms and everything in between.

In an effort to be constructive: OP, have you tried approaching parts of your transactional work from a litigation perspective when you get bored? Sometimes I think it's really useful to consult litigators about how certain language might be interpreted by a judge, or what is likely to hold up if it gets tested, or whether we have any footing in case law for taking an aggressive position with a provision. As an easy example, if you are drafting a noncompete clause, do you draw on your litigation background to figure out what time period or geographic scope has the best chance of being upheld for different types of activities? Or if you are drafting an arbitration provision, do you check the recent cases to see if the other side might have a chance of overturning it and getting into court? Maybe staying up to date on how your local courts handle NDA breaches will help you draft airtight confidentiality clauses. Make a habit of questioning your forms and precedent and ask yourself, if you were a litigator on the other side, how could you attack this provision or this agreement?

Transactional lawyers are glorified secretaries, only capable of pushing paper. If you've never set foot inside a courtroom you should be ashamed to call yourself an attorney . . .