Top Law Schools

Hmmm, I guess my question is: Is it just biglaw firms that have the up-or-out model / Cravath system, or do all law firms have it?

shock259 wrote:

Jchance wrote:You may want to consider this--"The Dark Side of Going In-House"
http://www.bcgsearch.com/article/60637/ ... -In-House/

Interesting article. When was it written? Guessing in the early 2000's based on some of the content. Curious if anything has changed then. The difficulty of switching between in house positions is particularly depressing.

Comments from other blogs citing that link dated back to 2006, so i'm guessing its written before 2006.

Interesting, another comment to that article worth mentioning: "The real in house risk he didn't highlight is the lack of advancement potential - if you go in at a junior level you will stay at that level. Which is why you really need to be GC or one notch below when you move in house. "

Jchance wrote:"The real in house risk he didn't highlight is the lack of advancement potential - if you go in at a junior level you will stay at that level. Which is why you really need to be GC or one notch below when you move in house. "

I heard a friend who went in house express this exact same sentiment recently. He said the pyramid scheme with in house positions is even worse than in law firms.

Any of you who are practicing have experience or thoughts on jumping from one side of the V to the other? Know anyone who went to a plaintiffs' firm? There are lots of clowns out there working on P side cases that seem to make decent money. Can't help but think that would be a good option with a few years of experience doing BigLit.

rayiner wrote:

Elston Gunn wrote:

rayiner wrote:

trombalontana wrote:How do regulatory exit ops (telecom, antitrust, etc.) compare to those in litigation? Just as bleak?

Way better.

Anyone have any insight into what these jobs usually look like? In house? Are there a lot of regulatory boutiques in D.C.? I suppose the transition into Big Gov is probably a bit easier, as well.

Most regulatory work is handled by big law firms in DC. But teams are small, associate hiring is limited, and leverage is low. There is regulatory work in house. E.g. when I was at the FCC, the lawyers I worked with had come from regulatory practices at firms. One went firm, in house, then FCC, then partner at communications boutique. Another went firm then FCC then in house.

Is this true for antitrust as well? I always thought you were pretty much limited to biglaw and DOJ (and FTC?), which is why I crossed it off my list of potential legal fields.

suppy183 wrote:Is this true for antitrust as well? I always thought you were pretty much limited to biglaw and DOJ (and FTC?), which is why I crossed it off my list of potential legal fields.

There are plaintiffs' lawyers who do antitrust work, but I think they also do a lot of other class action-related work. If you're talking about people how only specialize in antitrust, then yeah, it's probably limited to biglaw, FTC and DOJ.

Would there be greater potential for becoming an equity partner if you opt to start at a lower ranked firm than you might otherwise be capable of getting into? Or would these firms also tend to be even more financially constrained, so moving up might be less likely for anyone?

BanjoCalhoun wrote:Would there be greater potential for becoming an equity partner if you opt to start at a lower ranked firm than you might otherwise be capable of getting into? Or would these firms also tend to be even more financially constrained, so moving up might be less likely for anyone?

Firm rank is meaningless.

Making partner is difficult everywhere, but it's obviously less difficult in firms that aren't as highly leveraged. Look at partner to associate ratios as a better indicator of whether you'll make partner or not. It's true that the more "highly ranked" firms are often more highly leveraged, but that's not always true.

In addition, you have to consider that lesser known firms are not going to have as many institutional clients for you to work with, so it will be more important for you to have your own clients and book of business at lesser known firms. This arguably makes it harder, not easier, to make partner (although the overall leverage at a firm probably trumps this as a consideration).

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote: Firm rank is meaningless.

Says the guy who references his firm's rank in his username... Thanks for the useful answer but I couldn't resist the irony.

beepboopbeep wrote: Also, Harrison seems to be his middle name. Why would you ditch the first name when middle+last = name of a pretty famous NBA player?

If the article dates from pre -'06, the NBA's Harrison Barnes was 14 at the time, so can't really hold it against this guy.

How competitive is it to get a civil litigation job in state or big city governments as a law firm exit option? Something like a State Attorney General's Office, NYC Law Department, etc.? I'd imagine these jobs would have shorter hours and more job security than firms with the downside being lower pay, but not bad either, depending on the office. Everyone on TLS talks about bigfed as being somewhat of a long shot exit option but state/city gov seems like a reasonable and more attainable second career for litigators. Thoughts?

BanjoCalhoun wrote:How competitive is it to get a civil litigation job in state or big city governments as a law firm exit option? Something like a State Attorney General's Office, NYC Law Department, etc.? I'd imagine these jobs would have shorter hours and more job security than firms with the downside being lower pay, but not bad either, depending on the office. Everyone on TLS talks about bigfed as being somewhat of a long shot exit option but state/city gov seems like a reasonable and more attainable second career for litigators. Thoughts?

IME you're right on. Good work good hours decent pay and they absolutely take firm refugees.

sighsigh wrote:Hmmm, I guess my question is: Is it just biglaw firms that have the up-or-out model / Cravath system, or do all law firms have it?

Can someone answer my question please? It may be stupid but I am a clueless 0L.

The Cravath System seems to be something quite specific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath_System), so to me it doesn't intuitively follow that all law firms institute it.

sighsigh wrote:

sighsigh wrote:Hmmm, I guess my question is: Is it just biglaw firms that have the up-or-out model / Cravath system, or do all law firms have it?

Can someone answer my question please? It may be stupid but I am a clueless 0L.

The Cravath System seems to be something quite specific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cravath_System), so to me it doesn't intuitively follow that all law firms institute it.

Its the defining feature of Biglaw. Not all firms have as steep a pyramid (i.e. fewer associates per partner, so more can move up at a time), as fixed a timeline (some firms have percentage culls per year, others just have general goals), or as few conciliation prizes (of counsel, staff attorney, etc.). However, for the overwhelming number of biglaw lawyers, if you don't become partner after a period of time, you are going to have to leave. Its the only way the business model "works".

Obviously an 8 lawyer firm doesn't work like that, but pretty much all midsize+ firm have some sort of up or out system.

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Any transactional side attorneys have input on the subject?

One thing to remember is that "transactional" is really a collection of different practice areas. Real estate associates and private equity associates are both "transactional" but their career paths leaving big law will tend to be pretty different.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Any transactional side attorneys have input on the subject?

One thing to remember is that "transactional" is really a collection of different practice areas. Real estate associates and private equity associates are both "transactional" but their career paths leaving big law will tend to be pretty different.

Mind running through some types and what kind of career trajectories they have? I know some of the broad subtypes (M&A, Bankruptcy, etc) but not so much the nuances.

beepboopbeep wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Any transactional side attorneys have input on the subject?

One thing to remember is that "transactional" is really a collection of different practice areas. Real estate associates and private equity associates are both "transactional" but their career paths leaving big law will tend to be pretty different.

Mind running through some types and what kind of career trajectories they have? I know some of the broad subtypes (M&A, Bankruptcy, etc) but not so much the nuances.

I don't know enough nuance to speak intelligently, to be honest. Just that some paths are, generally speaking, open to some practice areas and closed to others. For example, there exist boutique real estate firms that will take big law real estate associate cast-offs, but I've not heard of such things for PE, who are more likely to go in-house at a portfolio company (though, again, I'm not knowledge enough to say how likely each option is, even if you're in the right practice group).

What I was getting at was that "transactional" or "corporate" is a large umbrella covering many fields, and it's not just a simple dichotomy between litigation and corporate.

beepboopbeep wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Any transactional side attorneys have input on the subject?

One thing to remember is that "transactional" is really a collection of different practice areas. Real estate associates and private equity associates are both "transactional" but their career paths leaving big law will tend to be pretty different.

Mind running through some types and what kind of career trajectories they have? I know some of the broad subtypes (M&A, Bankruptcy, etc) but not so much the nuances.

Bk isn't trans. Bk isn't litigation. Bk probs isn't constitutional. But is also in the constitution. And I think that actually sums up everything about Bk.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

beepboopbeep wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

oblig.lawl.ref wrote:Any transactional side attorneys have input on the subject?

One thing to remember is that "transactional" is really a collection of different practice areas. Real estate associates and private equity associates are both "transactional" but their career paths leaving big law will tend to be pretty different.

Mind running through some types and what kind of career trajectories they have? I know some of the broad subtypes (M&A, Bankruptcy, etc) but not so much the nuances.

I don't know enough nuance to speak intelligently, to be honest. Just that some paths are, generally speaking, open to some practice areas and closed to others. For example, there exist boutique real estate firms that will take big law real estate associate cast-offs, but I've not heard of such things for PE, who are more likely to go in-house at a portfolio company (though, again, I'm not knowledge enough to say how likely each option is, even if you're in the right practice group).

What I was getting at was that "transactional" or "corporate" is a large umbrella covering many fields, and it's not just a simple dichotomy between litigation and corporate.

Sure. I mean it seems like that's true of both broad categories. Just trying to sniff out practice area differences w/r/t post-biglaw/mid-career. But I also get that not many on this board are at that stage yet.

IAFG wrote: Bk isn't trans. Bk isn't litigation. Bk probs isn't constitutional. But is also in the constitution. And I think that actually sums up everything about Bk.

Enigmatic and intriguing.

beepboopbeep wrote:Sure. I mean it seems like that's true of both broad categories. Just trying to sniff out practice area differences w/r/t post-biglaw/mid-career. But I also get that not many on this board are at that stage yet.

That's fair; there are subsets of litigation too, and as mentioned there are probably differences in exit options between, say, IP lit and construction lit. I do think the variance will be greater between corporate practice areas than litigation practice areas, but that's pretty anecdotal on my part.

IAFG wrote:

BanjoCalhoun wrote:How competitive is it to get a civil litigation job in state or big city governments as a law firm exit option? Something like a State Attorney General's Office, NYC Law Department, etc.? I'd imagine these jobs would have shorter hours and more job security than firms with the downside being lower pay, but not bad either, depending on the office. Everyone on TLS talks about bigfed as being somewhat of a long shot exit option but state/city gov seems like a reasonable and more attainable second career for litigators. Thoughts?

IME you're right on. Good work good hours decent pay and they absolutely take firm refugees.

Maybe I'm golden handcuffed already, but 50k/year is decent pay with a 3 year graduate degree?

My law school state's AG starts people at $66k (one year of experience required) up to $97K (in theory, anyway - not sure how much experience you'd need for that, but it's the salary range). Not NY/CA/IL, a semi-flyover state.

bdubs wrote:Any of you who are practicing have experience or thoughts on jumping from one side of the V to the other? Know anyone who went to a plaintiffs' firm? There are lots of clowns out there working on P side cases that seem to make decent money. Can't help but think that would be a good option with a few years of experience doing BigLit.

We had a former NU student come talk to my clinic (guy was also a clinic alum) who started his own gig when he wanted to switch sides. He'd done Commercial lit at a series of firms, including Novak and Macey and Howrey before it crashed. He had tried to do P's work at those firms but was usually voted down when he presented any possible cases b/c of potential conflicts. When he realized he had at least a few cases he could probably work up into decent settlements, he bailed.

His firm link: http://www.siprut.com/index.html

I'm not sure it's a viable model for everyone, but if you could really bring in decent P-side work, starting your own thing seems way more reasonable.

IAFG wrote:Obviously an 8 lawyer firm doesn't work like that, but pretty much all midsize+ firm have some sort of up or out system.

Hmmm--maybe should be nuanced a bit. Many midsize firms, and even some biglaw firms, will promote you to counsel, and let you stay there indefinitely, if you can be profitably billed out and do good work, but are not good at bringing in business. It's basically like being a service partner w/o the title.