"Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5456
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby rpupkin » Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:10 pm

nickelanddime wrote:What about starting the email with something like "I recognize that your firm doesn't have openings often, but I hope that you keep me in mind should one arise?"

I am not a partner, and I do not work at a small 10-attorney law firm, but your phrasing here seems appropriate to me.

run26.2
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:35 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby run26.2 » Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:08 pm

nickelanddime wrote:Now I need to poll the audience: I'm planning to spam some smaller (approx. 10 attorney) firms that don't have a "Careers" page. How can I tastefully acknowledge that mine is an unsolicited application when sending my materials to a partner? Is the "informational interview" dance the only way? What about starting the email with something like "I recognize that your firm doesn't have openings often, but I hope that you keep me in mind should one arise?"

Starting off the email like this sounds a bit obsequious to me. I just think it sounds like an invitation to be ignored.

Also, in using the "I recognize language," it risks sounding like you're trying to show you share some common knowledge with the reader, when the reader might not actually think that way. Why not just start off by saying you are applying and, at the end of the letter, put "If the firm does not currently have an opening, I hope you would consider me should one arise," or something similar?

lawschoolftw
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:34 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby lawschoolftw » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:49 pm

run26.2 wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:Now I need to poll the audience: I'm planning to spam some smaller (approx. 10 attorney) firms that don't have a "Careers" page. How can I tastefully acknowledge that mine is an unsolicited application when sending my materials to a partner? Is the "informational interview" dance the only way? What about starting the email with something like "I recognize that your firm doesn't have openings often, but I hope that you keep me in mind should one arise?"

Starting off the email like this sounds a bit obsequious to me. I just think it sounds like an invitation to be ignored.

Also, in using the "I recognize language," it risks sounding like you're trying to show you share some common knowledge with the reader, when the reader might not actually think that way. Why not just start off by saying you are applying and, at the end of the letter, put "If the firm does not currently have an opening, I hope you would consider me should one arise," or something similar?


I agree. I did this (with success, albeit at a slightly-larger than ten person firm) and I did not acknowledge in any way that the firm may not be hiring. What's more important, IMO, is to express a genuine in interest in what the firm does. If the firm is not hiring, the partner is not going to be insulted that you sent an unsolicited application. I found that about a third responded that they had no openings, the rest just ignored me, and a handful were interested.

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:12 pm

Mid-March update:

I'm sitting on a few big law offers in my hometown non-NYC major market (and also a different market than my first firm). In my estimation, there is one litigation boutique in my market that had the same reputation as my first firm, and they declined to interview me - which was sort of surprising, but like I said earlier, I was probably a marginal candidate for my first firm. None of the tiny firms wanted to hire me, although a few of the partners called me up and gave me advice that was mostly unhelpful (though still kind of them to care enough to do).

I'm also going through the process with two government jobs that I would be absolutely thrilled to get and could potentially be long-term landing spots for me. The problem is that my big firm offers expire soon, and there is no way I'll know about the government jobs by then. I'm not sure I have the stomach to roll the dice. On the other hand, I am very concerned about the constraints of working at a big firm and potentially having to go through this entire thing again in 2-3 years when they decide that I'm not partner material (I'm not).

Some interesting observations about my job search:
-People were impressed by the name of the previous firm, but were understandably more concerned about my particular experience and what I had done.
-Switching markets and not having taken my home-state bar was a serious (but not outcome determinative) concern for some firms.
-I had to answer questions about my ability to work in large teams, follow orders, etc. in almost every interview that I had.
-There are definitely some big firms that value clerkships more than others. I had some interviews where partners seemed truly puzzled by my decision to do one, let alone two, clerkships.
-Earlier I said that I believed that my exit opportunities were not better for having worked at an "elite" boutique instead of biglaw. I may have to walk back on that. I frankly am just not sure. Certainly nobody was willing to give me a job based on the name of my firm in the same way that people gave me jobs based on the name of my school. But I do think that my experience counted for something, and people liked that I could talk about strategy and big-picture issues more than a typical associate with just 1 year of law firm experience. I think the moral may be to seek out small cases even if you end up at a big firm.

One more general note about litigation boutiques from my experience last year and talking to my friends in similar positions:
I'm starting to think that it is a unique situation that such a firm successfully navigates a leadership transition and remains elite following the retirement of its founding partners. If you're looking for a place that you can get exceptional experience and a gold star on your resume before moving on to the government or academia, then this won't really affect you. But if you're looking for a place to practice forever, then you should recognize that it may not be the same place when you're up for partner that it is now.

User avatar
quiver
Posts: 971
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby quiver » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:48 pm

nickelanddime wrote:I'm starting to think that it is a unique situation that such a firm successfully navigates a leadership transition and remains elite following the retirement of its founding partners. If you're looking for a place that you can get exceptional experience and a gold star on your resume before moving on to the government or academia, then this won't really affect you. But if you're looking for a place to practice forever, then you should recognize that it may not be the same place when you're up for partner that it is now.
Really interesting post. Do you mind elaborating on this aspect a bit?

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:17 pm

quiver wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:I'm starting to think that it is a unique situation that such a firm successfully navigates a leadership transition and remains elite following the retirement of its founding partners. If you're looking for a place that you can get exceptional experience and a gold star on your resume before moving on to the government or academia, then this won't really affect you. But if you're looking for a place to practice forever, then you should recognize that it may not be the same place when you're up for partner that it is now.
Really interesting post. Do you mind elaborating on this aspect a bit?


I should start out by saying that I think Susman Godfrey operates differently than my prior firm, and I don't fully understand its business model or vision for the future. So, my insight may or may not be applicable to SG.

At my firm, 3 partners were responsible for originating about 60% of the firm's business, including every single matter that has gotten press over the last half decade or so. My friends tell me that this pattern was not unique to just my firm. Will the firm continue to get those sorts of matters when those partners retire or step back? It's unclear.

I think there are a number of factors that contribute to these firms not being particularly sustainable--at least in their current incarnation--past one generation. First, in order to set up a boutique that competes with the big players, you need a few truly excellent lawyers. The types of lawyers that are among the five or so best lawyers in the city, and more importantly, are recognized as being among the very best. Even assuming that boutiques can transform people with elite credentials into elite lawyers, there's a lot of luck that does into gaining that sort of recognition.

Second, boutiques are more likely to have junior partners that are probably great lawyers, but are not great at drumming up business. (This is why, at least at one point in the boutique's history, partnership chances were relatively good.)

Third, biglaw lit departments have opportunities for junior partners to develop client relationships that boutiques do not - namely, internal referrals from other departments and relationships with institutional clients that are repeat customers.

Fourth, boutiques are unlikely to be able to attract big-name lateral partners because biglaw upside is higher (as I mentioned above, in general, lightly-leveraged litigation firms are probably less profitable than biglaw) and the downside is more limited. At one point in the not too distant past, the exception to this was white-collar crime because biglaw did not do white-collar crime and because prosecutors were more likely to seek out the boutique practice environment. But now biglaw is also getting every single big-name former regulator or prosecutor - Neal Barofsky, Khuzami, Pat Fitzgerald, Kathryn Kenneally. (As an aside, the fact that boutiques have been unable to get these attorneys--and trust me, they've tried--is a little surprising because my sense is prosecutors are culturally more likely to dislike the restraints of biglaw practice. But I suppose that money trumps all when you're talking about lawyers.)

Take a look at this list: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... RankID=276

Which of these firms has been elite for more than a generation? Which of these firms do you see staying elite past this one? KHHTE and Bancroft are relatively young, so I suppose we don't quite know yet. How many times in the recent past has KVN had a major, non-patent matter that didn't involve John Keker? How many times has Morvillo made the headlines for a matter that didn't involve Elkan Abramowitz?

User avatar
quiver
Posts: 971
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby quiver » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:36 pm

nickelanddime wrote:
quiver wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:I'm starting to think that it is a unique situation that such a firm successfully navigates a leadership transition and remains elite following the retirement of its founding partners. If you're looking for a place that you can get exceptional experience and a gold star on your resume before moving on to the government or academia, then this won't really affect you. But if you're looking for a place to practice forever, then you should recognize that it may not be the same place when you're up for partner that it is now.
Really interesting post. Do you mind elaborating on this aspect a bit?


I should start out by saying that I think Susman Godfrey operates differently than my prior firm, and I don't fully understand its business model or vision for the future. So, my insight may or may not be applicable to SG.

At my firm, 3 partners were responsible for originating about 60% of the firm's business, including every single matter that has gotten press over the last half decade or so. My friends tell me that this pattern was not unique to just my firm. Will the firm continue to get those sorts of matters when those partners retire or step back? It's unclear.

I think there are a number of factors that contribute to these firms not being particularly sustainable--at least in their current incarnation--past one generation. First, in order to set up a boutique that competes with the big players, you need a few truly excellent lawyers. The types of lawyers that are among the five or so best lawyers in the city, and more importantly, are recognized as being among the very best. Even assuming that boutiques can transform people with elite credentials into elite lawyers, there's a lot of luck that does into gaining that sort of recognition.

Second, boutiques are more likely to have junior partners that are probably great lawyers, but are not great at drumming up business. (This is why, at least at one point in the boutique's history, partnership chances were relatively good.)

Third, biglaw lit departments have opportunities for junior partners to develop client relationships that boutiques do not - namely, internal referrals from other departments and relationships with institutional clients that are repeat customers.

Fourth, boutiques are unlikely to be able to attract big-name lateral partners because biglaw upside is higher (as I mentioned above, in general, lightly-leveraged litigation firms are probably less profitable than biglaw) and the downside is more limited. At one point in the not too distant past, the exception to this was white-collar crime because biglaw did not do white-collar crime and because prosecutors were more likely to seek out the boutique practice environment. But now biglaw is also getting every single big-name former regulator or prosecutor - Neal Barofsky, Khuzami, Pat Fitzgerald, Kathryn Kenneally. (As an aside, the fact that boutiques have been unable to get these attorneys--and trust me, they've tried--is a little surprising because my sense is prosecutors are culturally more likely to dislike the restraints of biglaw practice. But I suppose that money trumps all when you're talking about lawyers.)

Take a look at this list: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... RankID=276

Which of these firms has been elite for more than a generation? Which of these firms do you see staying elite past this one? KHHTE and Bancroft are relatively young, so I suppose we don't quite know yet. How many times in the recent past has KVN had a major, non-patent matter that didn't involve John Keker? How many times has Morvillo made the headlines for a matter that didn't involve Elkan Abramowitz?

Interesting points. Much appreciated.

Jchance
Posts: 706
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:17 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby Jchance » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:50 pm

nickelanddime wrote:
quiver wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:I'm starting to think that it is a unique situation that such a firm successfully navigates a leadership transition and remains elite following the retirement of its founding partners. If you're looking for a place that you can get exceptional experience and a gold star on your resume before moving on to the government or academia, then this won't really affect you. But if you're looking for a place to practice forever, then you should recognize that it may not be the same place when you're up for partner that it is now.
Really interesting post. Do you mind elaborating on this aspect a bit?


I should start out by saying that I think Susman Godfrey operates differently than my prior firm, and I don't fully understand its business model or vision for the future. So, my insight may or may not be applicable to SG.

At my firm, 3 partners were responsible for originating about 60% of the firm's business, including every single matter that has gotten press over the last half decade or so. My friends tell me that this pattern was not unique to just my firm. Will the firm continue to get those sorts of matters when those partners retire or step back? It's unclear.

I think there are a number of factors that contribute to these firms not being particularly sustainable--at least in their current incarnation--past one generation. First, in order to set up a boutique that competes with the big players, you need a few truly excellent lawyers. The types of lawyers that are among the five or so best lawyers in the city, and more importantly, are recognized as being among the very best. Even assuming that boutiques can transform people with elite credentials into elite lawyers, there's a lot of luck that does into gaining that sort of recognition.

Second, boutiques are more likely to have junior partners that are probably great lawyers, but are not great at drumming up business. (This is why, at least at one point in the boutique's history, partnership chances were relatively good.)

Third, biglaw lit departments have opportunities for junior partners to develop client relationships that boutiques do not - namely, internal referrals from other departments and relationships with institutional clients that are repeat customers.

Fourth, boutiques are unlikely to be able to attract big-name lateral partners because biglaw upside is higher (as I mentioned above, in general, lightly-leveraged litigation firms are probably less profitable than biglaw) and the downside is more limited. At one point in the not too distant past, the exception to this was white-collar crime because biglaw did not do white-collar crime and because prosecutors were more likely to seek out the boutique practice environment. But now biglaw is also getting every single big-name former regulator or prosecutor - Neal Barofsky, Khuzami, Pat Fitzgerald, Kathryn Kenneally. (As an aside, the fact that boutiques have been unable to get these attorneys--and trust me, they've tried--is a little surprising because my sense is prosecutors are culturally more likely to dislike the restraints of biglaw practice. But I suppose that money trumps all when you're talking about lawyers.)

Take a look at this list: http://www.vault.com/company-rankings/l ... RankID=276

Which of these firms has been elite for more than a generation? Which of these firms do you see staying elite past this one? KHHTE and Bancroft are relatively young, so I suppose we don't quite know yet. How many times in the recent past has KVN had a major, non-patent matter that didn't involve John Keker? How many times has Morvillo made the headlines for a matter that didn't involve Elkan Abramowitz?


Assuming this is true (for the majority of boutiques) and with this in mind, in your opinion, can u predict when is the prime time to join a boutique and when is it "too late" to join an established boutique? An estimate number of years since the opening date would be great!

I'm thinking it is good to join a boutique when it's still small/recently opened with the top (five or so) lawyers in the city, and probably a bad time when these lawyers are about to pass away/passed away, is this correct?

User avatar
rpupkin
Posts: 5456
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby rpupkin » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:27 pm

Jchance wrote:I'm thinking it is good to join a boutique when it's still small/recently opened with the top (five or so) lawyers in the city, and probably a bad time when these lawyers are about to pass away/passed away, is this correct?

lol

User avatar
KD35
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:30 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby KD35 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:24 am

nickelanddime wrote:
daleearnhardt123 wrote:What are your thoughts on qualifications for an "elite lit boutique." Most of us assume that SCOTUS clerks can, more or less, walk right into one. But how far removed from that height may one fall and still be competitive?


You're probably better off looking at bios for the firms that interest you rather than relying on me. At my firm, honors at HYSCCN + COA or our district court clerkship would get you a serious look. We also loved people that did biglaw for a year and then clerked and came to us as 3rd years for two reasons: we perceived them as (1) actively rejecting biglaw (and therefore being more interested in what we had to offer) and (2) knowing how to function in a law firm environment.

Personality is huge. The most common reasons that we dinged people were arrogance and lack of assertiveness. (Even though I'm not sure the latter can really be accurately gauged through an interview)


Similar to this. I know each boutique is different, but in at least your former firm's case, what would it reasonably take to get a good look from a non-T6 grad? For example, someone from a top 50(ish) school: do they need to be basically the best at everything to even get a shot (#1 in the class, EIC, and COA clerkship?) or is it basically impossible or what? Obviously tough question to ask, but trying to determine how reasonable it ever is to think about getting an "elite lit boutique" jerb.

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:28 pm

KD35 wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:
daleearnhardt123 wrote:What are your thoughts on qualifications for an "elite lit boutique." Most of us assume that SCOTUS clerks can, more or less, walk right into one. But how far removed from that height may one fall and still be competitive?


You're probably better off looking at bios for the firms that interest you rather than relying on me. At my firm, honors at HYSCCN + COA or our district court clerkship would get you a serious look. We also loved people that did biglaw for a year and then clerked and came to us as 3rd years for two reasons: we perceived them as (1) actively rejecting biglaw (and therefore being more interested in what we had to offer) and (2) knowing how to function in a law firm environment.

Personality is huge. The most common reasons that we dinged people were arrogance and lack of assertiveness. (Even though I'm not sure the latter can really be accurately gauged through an interview)


Similar to this. I know each boutique is different, but in at least your former firm's case, what would it reasonably take to get a good look from a non-T6 grad? For example, someone from a top 50(ish) school: do they need to be basically the best at everything to even get a shot (#1 in the class, EIC, and COA clerkship?) or is it basically impossible or what? Obviously tough question to ask, but trying to determine how reasonable it ever is to think about getting an "elite lit boutique" jerb.


At my old firm, you would probably have to be valedictorian from a school that was past the top 20 or so. By way of example, I remember there being concerns about a candidate's academic record because she was "only" Chancellor's (i think it's top 15 students?) at UT.

This level of "pedigree" snobbishness was a relatively recent thing. There were partners that started a decade or two ago that were nowhere close to the level of academic achievement.

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:31 pm

Jchance wrote:I'm thinking it is good to join a boutique when it's still small/recently opened with the top (five or so) lawyers in the city, and probably a bad time when these lawyers are about to pass away/passed away, is this correct?


Depends on what you want - if you join right when the firm opens, the reputation and network that can allow you get into interesting non-law-firm jobs may not yet be in place.

LegalFiction
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:51 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby LegalFiction » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:10 pm

rpupkin wrote:
bruinfan10 wrote:I read it as mostly hype. Remember that Keker and Quinn weren't big names when they started their firms. It took 10-20 years before their firms reached first-tier status. And Hueston is a big name but he's not David Boies. I think nickelandime is right: Bird Marella and Caldwell Leslie Proctor are the best comparison points.

I get the opposite impression. Hueston was reputedly the #1 pick for US Attorney in C.D. Cal, he was a lead Enron prosecutor (right alongside our almost-Attorney General Kathy Ruemmler), and his clients are insanely high powered. I'm sure the older Irell spin-offs are fine shops (if those are the firms nickel pointed out--I had never heard of them by name), but I have trouble believing their formation came with this big a splash.

Hueston is a huge WCC name, no doubt. But remember that Boies wasn't a specialist like Hueston is--Boies could attract clients (and other partners) in patent, antitrust, general commercial lit, etc. And that's what makes Keker and Quinn (and Susman and Bartlett Beck and Kellogg Huber) what they are: general lit boutiques doing high-level litigation across a variety of areas. I doubt Hueston is interested in that kind of thing. I mean, he just left it at Irell.


Not sure Quinn counts as a boutique anymore, given its size. Kendall Brill is another small shop that spun out of Irell that is up there with Caldwell Leslie and Bird Marella for LA boutiques. Like Hueston, the lead partners of all of these shops tend to be established personalities with big clients ready to move with them.

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:07 pm

I noticed a lot of money vs. prestige threads as people finalize their school choices, so I wanted to reiterate an issue that I briefly touched on earlier. My debt is career limiting. If you're coming off a circuit clerkship, as I am, you can plausibly tell stories about why you're interested in and well-suited for any number of pretty cool (but unfortunately very competitive) jobs.

I did a lot of informal networking with respect to these positions in the winter and spring, and believe that I would have a fairly good shot at some of them. But nobody was willing to commit to having an open spot when I spoke with them, so I accepted a biglaw offer. Some of these jobs have since posted openings and reached out to me. (The obvious question may be why I don't continue to explore these options anyway. My judge would be pissed if I did, which I understand is not an uncommon reaction.) If I did not have debt and could afford to miss a few paychecks, I would have been *much* more willing to roll the dice going into the summer and fall. If I want access to those opportunities at some later time, I'll have to work pretty hard at convincing them that I'm not a sell out.

As a general matter, people from my school who pursue non-standard career paths have significant family or spousal support. Is my debt more career limiting than not having gone to HYS? Who knows. I wasn't a star at my school, so it's difficult for me to say with confidence that I would have had the same opportunities from a different school. My point is only that you will face some limitations either way.

User avatar
TatteredDignity
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:06 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby TatteredDignity » Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:36 pm

nickelanddime wrote:If you're coming off a circuit clerkship, as I am, you can plausibly tell stories about why you're interested in and well-suited for any number of pretty cool (but unfortunately very competitive) jobs.


Would you mind expanding on what kind of jobs these might be? Since you've already done the elite lit boutique thing, and you presumably aren't eligible for any unicorny public interest job, what are you referring to? Maybe AUSA?

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Sun May 03, 2015 12:35 pm

TatteredDignity wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:If you're coming off a circuit clerkship, as I am, you can plausibly tell stories about why you're interested in and well-suited for any number of pretty cool (but unfortunately very competitive) jobs.


Would you mind expanding on what kind of jobs these might be? Since you've already done the elite lit boutique thing, and you presumably aren't eligible for any unicorny public interest job, what are you referring to? Maybe AUSA?



The two positions that I spent the most time looking into were my home state's solicitor general's office (a very small group within the AG's office) and an NGO. Prior to my clerkship, I had never done any work related to the NGO's work, but was involved in writing a few relevant decisions this year.

I suspect that I'm like a lot of young lawyers in that I'm not a "true believer" in any cause (at least that I know of). I'm just looking for an interesting job that will let me live a normal life in the city in which i grew up. Those are hard to come by.

User avatar
bruinfan10
Posts: 587
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:25 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby bruinfan10 » Mon May 04, 2015 2:05 pm

nickelanddime wrote:
TatteredDignity wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:If you're coming off a circuit clerkship, as I am, you can plausibly tell stories about why you're interested in and well-suited for any number of pretty cool (but unfortunately very competitive) jobs.


Would you mind expanding on what kind of jobs these might be? Since you've already done the elite lit boutique thing, and you presumably aren't eligible for any unicorny public interest job, what are you referring to? Maybe AUSA?



The two positions that I spent the most time looking into were my home state's solicitor general's office (a very small group within the AG's office) and an NGO. Prior to my clerkship, I had never done any work related to the NGO's work, but was involved in writing a few relevant decisions this year.

I suspect that I'm like a lot of young lawyers in that I'm not a "true believer" in any cause (at least that I know of). I'm just looking for an interesting job that will let me live a normal life in the city in which i grew up. Those are hard to come by.

This is 100% how I feel. I always assumed that if I did everything right in law school these options would become available, but now I'm starting to think that's not the case. This is a weird profession.

User avatar
zhenders
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:21 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby zhenders » Fri May 15, 2015 11:08 pm

I just want to echo the thanks others have expressed; awesome of you to take as much time as you have to run this. Best of luck in life.

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:56 pm

Friends,

I'm in need of some more advice. I started working as a biglaw associate last week in my home market. I recently got a call about a USAO opening that I applied to several months ago, while I was still a clerk. The opening is in a different, but relatively nearby city. I plan on addressing both of these issues honestly: (1) it's not my hometown, but I'm willing to move there for the job, and (2) I'm absolutely willing to leave my new job within a few months of starting. Is there anything else I need to consider in addressing my availability?


(BTW I'll write more about my switch once I have a better sense of how biglaw works.)

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby Emma. » Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:51 pm

nickelanddime wrote:Friends,

I'm in need of some more advice. I started working as a biglaw associate last week in my home market. I recently got a call about a USAO opening that I applied to several months ago, while I was still a clerk. The opening is in a different, but relatively nearby city. I plan on addressing both of these issues honestly: (1) it's not my hometown, but I'm willing to move there for the job, and (2) I'm absolutely willing to leave my new job within a few months of starting. Is there anything else I need to consider in addressing my availability?


(BTW I'll write more about my switch once I have a better sense of how biglaw works.)


Jump on that shit and don't look back.

User avatar
quiver
Posts: 971
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby quiver » Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:37 pm

Emma. wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:Friends,

I'm in need of some more advice. I started working as a biglaw associate last week in my home market. I recently got a call about a USAO opening that I applied to several months ago, while I was still a clerk. The opening is in a different, but relatively nearby city. I plan on addressing both of these issues honestly: (1) it's not my hometown, but I'm willing to move there for the job, and (2) I'm absolutely willing to leave my new job within a few months of starting. Is there anything else I need to consider in addressing my availability?


(BTW I'll write more about my switch once I have a better sense of how biglaw works.)


Jump on that shit and don't look back.
I concur.

nickelanddime
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby nickelanddime » Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:48 pm

quiver wrote:
Emma. wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:Friends,

I'm in need of some more advice. I started working as a biglaw associate last week in my home market. I recently got a call about a USAO opening that I applied to several months ago, while I was still a clerk. The opening is in a different, but relatively nearby city. I plan on addressing both of these issues honestly: (1) it's not my hometown, but I'm willing to move there for the job, and (2) I'm absolutely willing to leave my new job within a few months of starting. Is there anything else I need to consider in addressing my availability?


(BTW I'll write more about my switch once I have a better sense of how biglaw works.)


Jump on that shit and don't look back.
I concur.


I'm certainly going to do my best. Does anyone think I'm going to get any grief on those two points?

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby Emma. » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:39 pm

nickelanddime wrote:
quiver wrote:
Emma. wrote:
nickelanddime wrote:Friends,

I'm in need of some more advice. I started working as a biglaw associate last week in my home market. I recently got a call about a USAO opening that I applied to several months ago, while I was still a clerk. The opening is in a different, but relatively nearby city. I plan on addressing both of these issues honestly: (1) it's not my hometown, but I'm willing to move there for the job, and (2) I'm absolutely willing to leave my new job within a few months of starting. Is there anything else I need to consider in addressing my availability?


(BTW I'll write more about my switch once I have a better sense of how biglaw works.)


Jump on that shit and don't look back.
I concur.


I'm certainly going to do my best. Does anyone think I'm going to get any grief on those two points?


I can't imagine the timeframe would be an issue, since if you are offered the job it'll take a while (months, probably) for your clearance to be processed.

User avatar
UnicornHunter
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby UnicornHunter » Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:32 am

Shouldn't get much pushback on the hometown issue either. The AUSAs I've spoken with are very aware of how lucky they are to have their jobs and always encouraged me to apply to offices in every city I'd even be mildly interested in. Once you're on the inside for a few years they claim it's easier to move around.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Posts: 7893
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: "Elite Litigation Boutique" burnout taking questions

Postby Danger Zone » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:42 am

Thanks for keeping this thread updated, its been a great read




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: neverland and 2 guests