If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tDesert Fox wrote:It doesn't intuitively make sense that old lit associates are washed up. I sort of see why corporate bros missed their exit in house. But lit bros are going to another firm. I don't see why firms wouldn't want someone who actually knows what they are doing.
But a lot of shit doesn't make sense about law.
However, I've never heard anyone reliable say that lit seniors are permafucked. Just XO bros. I'm not going to necessarily believe some idiot trolling litigators on Xo.
Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
- XxSpyKEx

- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
-
NorCalLaw

- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:33 pm
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
Sounds better than a hapless 3L.XxSpyKEx wrote:If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tDesert Fox wrote:It doesn't intuitively make sense that old lit associates are washed up. I sort of see why corporate bros missed their exit in house. But lit bros are going to another firm. I don't see why firms wouldn't want someone who actually knows what they are doing.
But a lot of shit doesn't make sense about law.
However, I've never heard anyone reliable say that lit seniors are permafucked. Just XO bros. I'm not going to necessarily believe some idiot trolling litigators on Xo.It's just doesn't make sense when you have a million other applications from good biglaw lit associates who want to willingly leave to work for your firm. And commercial litigation to shitlaw doesn't translate as well. I mean if you run a personal injury firm, why would you think that someone with 10 years of commercial litigation would be a good fit for your bog bite cases? I'd be heavily concerned about that person wasting my time and then leaving in a few months for something better. I don't think biglaw litigation associates with 10 years of permafucked, but it's not nearly as nice of a place to be as a corporate associate with 10 years of experience in that the exit options are much more limited (depending on your practice area in biglaw lit, of course).
-
runinthefront

- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:18 am
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
.
Last edited by runinthefront on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
I understand why shitlaw wouldn't want a commercial litigator, but there are small firms that too commercial lit.XxSpyKEx wrote:If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tDesert Fox wrote:It doesn't intuitively make sense that old lit associates are washed up. I sort of see why corporate bros missed their exit in house. But lit bros are going to another firm. I don't see why firms wouldn't want someone who actually knows what they are doing.
But a lot of shit doesn't make sense about law.
However, I've never heard anyone reliable say that lit seniors are permafucked. Just XO bros. I'm not going to necessarily believe some idiot trolling litigators on Xo.It's just doesn't make sense when you have a million other applications from good biglaw lit associates who want to willingly leave to work for your firm. And commercial litigation to shitlaw doesn't translate as well. I mean if you run a personal injury firm, why would you think that someone with 10 years of commercial litigation would be a good fit for your bog bite cases? I'd be heavily concerned about that person wasting my time and then leaving in a few months for something better. I don't think biglaw litigation associates with 10 years of permafucked, but it's not nearly as nice of a place to be as a corporate associate with 10 years of experience in that the exit options are much more limited (depending on your practice area in biglaw lit, of course).
- gk101

- Posts: 3854
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:22 pm
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
nah bro. Litigation in TLS world is only limited to BIGLAW or doing Personal injury/tort cases at shitlaw. Literally no middle ground for people doing commercial litigation etc.Desert Fox wrote:I understand why shitlaw wouldn't want a commercial litigator, but there are small firms that too commercial lit.XxSpyKEx wrote:If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tDesert Fox wrote:It doesn't intuitively make sense that old lit associates are washed up. I sort of see why corporate bros missed their exit in house. But lit bros are going to another firm. I don't see why firms wouldn't want someone who actually knows what they are doing.
But a lot of shit doesn't make sense about law.
However, I've never heard anyone reliable say that lit seniors are permafucked. Just XO bros. I'm not going to necessarily believe some idiot trolling litigators on Xo.It's just doesn't make sense when you have a million other applications from good biglaw lit associates who want to willingly leave to work for your firm. And commercial litigation to shitlaw doesn't translate as well. I mean if you run a personal injury firm, why would you think that someone with 10 years of commercial litigation would be a good fit for your bog bite cases? I'd be heavily concerned about that person wasting my time and then leaving in a few months for something better. I don't think biglaw litigation associates with 10 years of permafucked, but it's not nearly as nice of a place to be as a corporate associate with 10 years of experience in that the exit options are much more limited (depending on your practice area in biglaw lit, of course).
Edited for smallfirmassociate
Last edited by gk101 on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
smallfirmassociate

- Posts: 400
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
You're wrong. Not subjectively, but objectively. I work for a firm that is about as far away from BIGLAW as you can get, and my firm routinely handles commercial and municipal litigation for clients whose pockets are more than deep enough to pay the bills. I'm not handling multi-billion dollar suits, but I'm not putzing around with five-figure suits either, and the stake of the litigation is irrelevant to me: I have an hourly rate, they pay it, the end. For example, I am working on two cases for bank clients that each have me so far into the UCC that I might as well be back in some insufferable law school seminar. I'm handling a suit for a solvent food distributor third-party plaintiff for ~$75 mil. Sure, it's not Fortune 100 stuff, but it pays the bills nicely and I go home at 5 p.m.gk101 wrote:nah bro. Litigation is only limited to BIGLAW or doing Personal injury/tort cases at shitlaw. Literally no middle ground for people doing commercial litigation etc.Desert Fox wrote:I understand why shitlaw wouldn't want a commercial litigator, but there are small firms that too commercial lit.XxSpyKEx wrote:If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tDesert Fox wrote:It doesn't intuitively make sense that old lit associates are washed up. I sort of see why corporate bros missed their exit in house. But lit bros are going to another firm. I don't see why firms wouldn't want someone who actually knows what they are doing.
But a lot of shit doesn't make sense about law.
However, I've never heard anyone reliable say that lit seniors are permafucked. Just XO bros. I'm not going to necessarily believe some idiot trolling litigators on Xo.It's just doesn't make sense when you have a million other applications from good biglaw lit associates who want to willingly leave to work for your firm. And commercial litigation to shitlaw doesn't translate as well. I mean if you run a personal injury firm, why would you think that someone with 10 years of commercial litigation would be a good fit for your bog bite cases? I'd be heavily concerned about that person wasting my time and then leaving in a few months for something better. I don't think biglaw litigation associates with 10 years of permafucked, but it's not nearly as nice of a place to be as a corporate associate with 10 years of experience in that the exit options are much more limited (depending on your practice area in biglaw lit, of course).
Now if you were being sarcastic, I would apologize except that you weren't very good at it.
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
clearly sarcasm lil brosmallfirmassociate wrote:You're wrong. Not subjectively, but objectively. I work for a firm that is about as far away from BIGLAW as you can get, and my firm routinely handles commercial and municipal litigation for clients whose pockets are more than deep enough to pay the bills. I'm not handling multi-billion dollar suits, but I'm not putzing around with five-figure suits either, and the stake of the litigation is irrelevant to me: I have an hourly rate, they pay it, the end. For example, I am working on two cases for bank clients that each have me so far into the UCC that I might as well be back in some insufferable law school seminar. I'm handling a suit for a solvent food distributor third-party plaintiff for ~$75 mil. Sure, it's not Fortune 100 stuff, but it pays the bills nicely and I go home at 5 p.m.gk101 wrote:nah bro. Litigation is only limited to BIGLAW or doing Personal injury/tort cases at shitlaw. Literally no middle ground for people doing commercial litigation etc.Desert Fox wrote:I understand why shitlaw wouldn't want a commercial litigator, but there are small firms that too commercial lit.XxSpyKEx wrote: If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tIt's just doesn't make sense when you have a million other applications from good biglaw lit associates who want to willingly leave to work for your firm. And commercial litigation to shitlaw doesn't translate as well. I mean if you run a personal injury firm, why would you think that someone with 10 years of commercial litigation would be a good fit for your bog bite cases? I'd be heavily concerned about that person wasting my time and then leaving in a few months for something better. I don't think biglaw litigation associates with 10 years of permafucked, but it's not nearly as nice of a place to be as a corporate associate with 10 years of experience in that the exit options are much more limited (depending on your practice area in biglaw lit, of course).
Now if you were being sarcastic, I would apologize except that you weren't very good at it.
-
smallfirmassociate

- Posts: 400
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:47 pm
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
I haven't been called lil' since fifty pounds ago, so ... thanks.Desert Fox wrote: clearly sarcasm lil bro
- XxSpyKEx

- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am
Re: Long-term Career Outlook - Having "Too Much" Experience?
They're pretty much all litigation boutiques where a partner or partners from a biglaw firm left. Odds aren't great there if you got shit canned/forced to leave be used you couldn't generate the business to make partner and also weren't good enough at you're job to make "of counsel." Litigation is a difficult market for biglaw rejects right now because there are a lot of good biglaw lit associates looking to lateral, so why would a boutique hire a reject that got canned/forced to leave?Desert Fox wrote:I understand why shitlaw wouldn't want a commercial litigator, but there are small firms that too commercial lit.XxSpyKEx wrote:If you managed a 25-50 attorney boutique firm, would you hire someone who got shitcanned/forced to leave biglaw because they couldn't generate enough business to make partner and also weren't good enough at their job to stay as "of counsel"? I sure as shit wouldn'tDesert Fox wrote:It doesn't intuitively make sense that old lit associates are washed up. I sort of see why corporate bros missed their exit in house. But lit bros are going to another firm. I don't see why firms wouldn't want someone who actually knows what they are doing.
But a lot of shit doesn't make sense about law.
However, I've never heard anyone reliable say that lit seniors are permafucked. Just XO bros. I'm not going to necessarily believe some idiot trolling litigators on Xo.It's just doesn't make sense when you have a million other applications from good biglaw lit associates who want to willingly leave to work for your firm. And commercial litigation to shitlaw doesn't translate as well. I mean if you run a personal injury firm, why would you think that someone with 10 years of commercial litigation would be a good fit for your bog bite cases? I'd be heavily concerned about that person wasting my time and then leaving in a few months for something better. I don't think biglaw litigation associates with 10 years of permafucked, but it's not nearly as nice of a place to be as a corporate associate with 10 years of experience in that the exit options are much more limited (depending on your practice area in biglaw lit, of course).