lawman84 wrote:Danger Zone wrote:lawman84 wrote:Br3v wrote:lawman84 wrote:RParadela wrote:I want to be at the highest level for prestige, money, and knowing that I'm at the top of a very selective field. To be successful I guess. It might sound a little shallow, but that's what I want out of a career (again, in reasonable limits).
Not sure what I want to do in litigation.. I figured I'd get to law school and figure it out from there.
That's kind of the problem I'm getting at. Biglaw isn't really the top of a very selective field. It's simply a business model. There is a "top" of the lawyer field (to some degree). But it doesn't really revolve around the size of your firm. It's more based on ability, reputation, and perception.
But you have plenty of time to figure out what's right for you.
Idk, I don't think it's crazy to say the "top" lawyers are at a big law firm. That doesn't mean all big law lawyers are better than non big law lawyers, but to the extent some lawyers are at the "top," they are likely to be in big law. You just have bigger clients and deals/cases there.
In corporate, possibly. I don't know a lot about corporate. It would make sense because that's where the big deals are. I wouldn't agree that it's true for litigation.
Look at the thread title
This conversation wasn't limited to corporate work.RParadela wrote:I'm not disagreeing with you there, although the pay for partners in big law will almost certainly be higher than in other areas of law which suggests being at the top of the field even if the pay isn't necessarily related to how skilled you are.
I wouldn't go that far. If we're talking averages, sure. If we're talking top lawyers, I think there's likely potential earn more outside of biglaw.
Where would you say most of the top litigators in the country are, then? Top litigation boutiques?