Does a Regional School Seal Your future Forum

[kalvano]

Am I way off base with this guys?

No.

[RVP11]

I think the "sorta" answer is reasonable, but downplays just how devastating moving can be for private practice lawyers. Though it's possible, you really CAN'T move later in your career. The "it gets harder" threshold that has been mentioned falls off a cliff. In 10 years, even if you don't have a family, you'd be starting from ground zero. People don't do that. They can't.

If you're in big/mid-law, then it's different. Lateraling is much more of a possibility. Same for gov't/PI work.

yeah moving a private practice just does not work.

And unless you have some amazing reputation as a BSD/rainmaker, lateralling into a big firm partnership in a different region after ten years is going to be super difficult because your clients won't be coming with you, and I'm not sure how much big firms are looking for service partners via lateral.

[RVP11]

How do you know anything about me? I'm just a go-between, relaying the comments of others. I am therefore protected from anyone inferring something from my comments on TLS.

I don't know anything about you, I am just making unwarranted assumptions based off what you post.

And in your posts, you sound like an arrogant fuckbag douchenozzle.

Just my opinion, though.

Do you have a very weak sense for sarcasm?

[kalvano]

How do you know anything about me? I'm just a go-between, relaying the comments of others. I am therefore protected from anyone inferring something from my comments on TLS.

I don't know anything about you, I am just making unwarranted assumptions based off what you post.

And in your posts, you sound like an arrogant fuckbag douchenozzle.

Just my opinion, though.

Do you have a very weak sense for sarcasm?

Just a low tolerance for douchebags.

[RVP11]

It would seem to me that you can do this but 10 years is too long to remain in one area and then up and decide to move. If you were to go to Seattle and practice for 3-5 years you perhaps would have an easier time making a move back East.

I'm not an attorney so I can't speak with too much authority but from what I have read after 3-5 years you are still at the associate level. You have a lot of practical skills that are portable and, granted you have excelled, are in a position to be able to move without facing the kinds of challenges that a partner-level attorney would face.

So if you want the change of scenery, it would be best, I think, to practice for no more than 5 years. After that you would see the curve get drastically steeper in terms of the difficulty in moving across the country.

Am I way off base with this guys?

Yes, 3-5 years is about the right time; you're not yet being judged on your book of business, nor have you grown dependent on one. You probably don't have much of one, really.

[firebreathingliberal]

OP, if you are including your time in LS as part of that decade then I think maybe a lot of this discussion is moot. You can be there for 8 years, if you include law school, and then move without torpedoing your career. Not quite a decade.... but close.

[RVP11]

Just a low tolerance for douchebags.

Re-read this thread and note who's doing the namecalling.

[kalvano]

Just a low tolerance for douchebags.

Re-read this thread and note who's doing the namecalling.

That would be me, calling you a douchebag, for acting like one.

[firebreathingliberal]

Just a low tolerance for douchebags.

Re-read this thread and note who's doing the namecalling.

That would be me, calling you a douchebag, for acting like one.

I think this thread really devolved

[kalvano]

OP, if you are including your time in LS as part of that decade then I think maybe a lot of this discussion is moot. You can be there for 8 years, if you include law school, and then move without torpedoing your career. Not quite a decade.... but close.

He also never stated what his career goals are. Obviously it's easier to pack and up and move in some types of law than others.

[firebreathingliberal]

OP, if you are including your time in LS as part of that decade then I think maybe a lot of this discussion is moot. You can be there for 8 years, if you include law school, and then move without torpedoing your career. Not quite a decade.... but close.

He also never stated what his career goals are. Obviously it's easier to pack and up and move in some types of law than others.

+1

[ggocat]

Yes, 3-5 years is about the right time; you're not yet being judged on your book of business, nor have you grown dependent on one. You probably don't have much of one, really.

I think even 3-5 years would be tough if you're in a smaller firm (let's say less than 20-30 lawyers or so?). And given that OP is going to a regional school, he/she more likely than not won't be in a large firm.

[firebreathingliberal]

Yes, 3-5 years is about the right time; you're not yet being judged on your book of business, nor have you grown dependent on one. You probably don't have much of one, really.

I think even 3-5 years would be tough if you're in a smaller firm (let's say less than 20-30 lawyers or so?). And given that OP is going to a regional school, he/she more likely than not won't be in a large firm.

That's true, but being in a small firm vs a large firm might have little impact on your legal skills. I would make the argument that being in a smaller firm would help you in having marketable skills because you would likely be given a more substantial (in terms of substance not size) workload/more responsibility in a small firm. It has been argued here that after 3-5 years it is what you can do in terms of skills more so than the book of business.

If your point rests on the premise that large firms or even in the realm of Biglaw you have firms with multiple offices it would be easier to transfer within the same firm. Then it makes sense, but you conflict that argument by making the point, correctly I think, that Seattle wouldn't offer much in the way of Biglaw/large firms.

Of course I'm making some assumptions about your argument. Let me know if I'm way off base here.

[oberlin08]

For a little more clarity here - Im from and currently live in D.C. - from what I understand Richmond places alright in jobs in the DC area.

I'm interested in enviro law, public interest and possibly returning to do political stuff one day.

[oberlin08]

OP, if you are including your time in LS as part of that decade then I think maybe a lot of this discussion is moot. You can be there for 8 years, if you include law school, and then move without torpedoing your career. Not quite a decade.... but close.

And YES I was including the time actually spent in Law school as part of that decade and I sort of casually rounded up 8 to 10. Sorry for the confusion.

[NU_Jet55]

Christ, this is why this site irritates me sometime.

After 10 years of practicing, if you want to move, it will be about the friends you've made, not where you went to school.

Fixt

[ggocat]

Yes, 3-5 years is about the right time; you're not yet being judged on your book of business, nor have you grown dependent on one. You probably don't have much of one, really.

I think even 3-5 years would be tough if you're in a smaller firm (let's say less than 20-30 lawyers or so?). And given that OP is going to a regional school, he/she more likely than not won't be in a large firm.

That's true, but being in a small firm vs a large firm might have little impact on your legal skills. I would make the argument that being in a smaller firm would help you in having marketable skills because you would likely be given a more substantial (in terms of substance not size) workload/more responsibility in a small firm. It has been argued here that after 3-5 years it is what you can do in terms of skills more so than the book of business.

If your point rests on the premise that large firms or even in the realm of Biglaw you have firms with multiple offices it would be easier to transfer within the same firm. Then it makes sense, but you conflict that argument by making the point, correctly I think, that Seattle wouldn't offer much in the way of Biglaw/large firms.

Of course I'm making some assumptions about your argument. Let me know if I'm way off base here.

Hmm... You make a good point about having better skills in a small firm, but I was basing my opinion on the fact that associates in smaller firms do more client contact (at least from what I've seen) and seem to depend on their reputation/connections/relationships with people in the community more so than associates at larger firms.

[firebreathingliberal]

Yes, 3-5 years is about the right time; you're not yet being judged on your book of business, nor have you grown dependent on one. You probably don't have much of one, really.

I think even 3-5 years would be tough if you're in a smaller firm (let's say less than 20-30 lawyers or so?). And given that OP is going to a regional school, he/she more likely than not won't be in a large firm.

That's true, but being in a small firm vs a large firm might have little impact on your legal skills. I would make the argument that being in a smaller firm would help you in having marketable skills because you would likely be given a more substantial (in terms of substance not size) workload/more responsibility in a small firm. It has been argued here that after 3-5 years it is what you can do in terms of skills more so than the book of business.

If your point rests on the premise that large firms or even in the realm of Biglaw you have firms with multiple offices it would be easier to transfer within the same firm. Then it makes sense, but you conflict that argument by making the point, correctly I think, that Seattle wouldn't offer much in the way of Biglaw/large firms.

Of course I'm making some assumptions about your argument. Let me know if I'm way off base here.

Hmm... You make a good point about having better skills in a small firm, but I was basing my opinion on the fact that associates in smaller firms do more client contact (at least from what I've seen) and seem to depend on their reputation/connections/relationships with people in the community more so than associates at larger firms.

That seems to make sense, but again, client contact and being able to deal with clients could be construed as a skill. I can't see many associates at small firms having a significant book of business unless the small firm is REALLY small, like less than 10 attorneys small. Perhaps it would give him an edge over other competing applicants from larger firms who never spoke to a client in their 3-5 years at that firm.

[ggocat]

I can't see many associates at small firms having a significant book of business unless the small firm is REALLY small, like less than 10 attorneys small.

You have good points, but I wanted to point out that most lawyers work small firms of 10 or fewer attorneys, even in large markets. I just happen to have the Dallas and Houston info on hand (both of which are top 10 corporate legal markets according to number of Am Law 100 attorneys). In Dallas County (Dallas), 51% of all attorneys are in firms of 10 or fewer attorneys with 16% in firms of more than 100 attorneys. In Harris County (Houston), 62% are in firms of 10 or fewer attorneys with 13% in firms of more than 100 attorneys. Even in decent-sized cities that lack significant biglaw presence, most attorneys work in firms of 10 or fewer attorneys--for example, 79% in El Paso and 72% in San Antonio.

http://www.texasbar.com/template.cfm?section=reports