I've been agonizing over this for a while and I would appreciate any input from fellow law students or graduates. I am a 3L graduating in 6 weeks, and I have applied to sit for the July Bar.
I have a couple of job leads lined up, 1 is for corporate counsel, but that's dependent on corporate approving funds to hire additional attorneys. The other which I'm currently applying for (and by no means have got the job) is for teaching law in France for 1 year as a visiting scholar.
My ultimate goal is to secure a job as a corporate attorney. I enjoy working in corporate/administrative/securities law, and I would like to make a career out of it. For whatever reason, the subjects just clicked with me, and I enjoy that type of work.
To be clear, both jobs are pending. But as a hypothetical, if I were to get either one, which one would be more beneficial to my career? The teaching job is in basic first year American courses: contracts, torts, constitutional law, writing, criminal law, advocacy, etc. I don't have discretion to choose my curriculum, so there's nothing corporate that I'll be touching upon.
On the other hand, the in-house counsel job is more business oriented and I know the experience will be good. The salary is not the best, but I don't have to bill hours or worry about developing a clientele.
My ultimate goal is to clerk for the Delaware chancery court (ambitious, I know). But, it would serve me well in my vocational development, and it looks great on the ol' resume.
So, if clerking is my ultimate goal, should I work for a couple of years as in-house counsel, or should I take the teaching job? Again, all of this is speculative at this point - perhaps I won't get offered either job (knock on wood), but for the sake of discussion, I'm curious as to what people think would help me the most.
Much thanks in advance for any insight or advice that anyone can offer me.
A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
1 post • Page 1 of 1