A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What about looking for positions in non-litigation practice groups? How flexible have firms been if you don't want to commit to litigation?
I'm concerned that taking a litigation job is going to pigeonhole me for the rest of my career. My experience doing a SSC clerkship has been amazing, but I'm not quite sure I want to do lit for the rest of my life. Doing trials doesn't really interest me. I enjoy the aspect of the job that involves thinking dynamically about what the law should be, especially the broader implications of a rule or holding. That doesn't appear to be the focus of what litigants are doing, even at the appellate level.
I know it's tough to get anything right now, so if my only prospects to make decent $ are in litigation I might just have to take it.
I mean this in a nice way, but what practice groups do you think involve this kind of work (besides being a clerk/judge)? I mean, I would imagine there's legislative work out there that might involve this, but that's not something firms do.
I think my original statement was broad and unclear. Generally, the aspects of my current job I like best are being an advisor rather than an advocate. Regulatory practice groups seem to be the most like what I want, like DPW or S+Cs Financial Institutions Group or similar groups in DC. A regulatory group might be more likely to hire me (since we do review agency regulations even if they aren't dealing with federal law) as opposed to antitrust and bankruptcy which would probably only hire federal clerks.
Obviously, at a firm nobody's going to be asking me to do anything like what I do now for many years. But I'm also considering exit options. There seems to be a wider range of stuff you can do from a non-litigation group, like going into consulting or industry, whereas being a good litigator just means more options within litigation, like becoming a prosecutor or plaintiff's side attorney.