My Little Commentary on the Law Market (and non-Biglaw Jobs) Forum

[baal hadad]

I tend to agree with OP.

Based on the standard TLS mindset, I did this entirely wrong. Looking back, TLS would have told me to retake the LSAT and gone to a T14 (I ended up taking a full scholarship to a T1). After doing reasonably well my first year, TLS would have told me to participate in OCI (I completely blew off OCI, and ended up receiving seven offers for 2L summer).

Granted, I did some things right according to TLS: made law review, landed a federal clerkship, etc. However, I still feel like an outsider on here because I chose a different path.

I'm heading to a permanent position in BigFed after my clerkship, and I have zero debt. After reading on here about how miserable some people are in BigLaw but feel tied to it because of their student loan debt, I often ask why I still feel like TLS would frown upon my decisions.

It's weird.

No one on TLS frowns on Bigfed hth

[bruinfan10]

I tend to agree with OP.

Based on the standard TLS mindset, I did this entirely wrong. Looking back, TLS would have told me to retake the LSAT and gone to a T14 (I ended up taking a full scholarship to a T1). After doing reasonably well my first year, TLS would have told me to participate in OCI (I completely blew off OCI, and ended up receiving seven offers for 2L summer).

Granted, I did some things right according to TLS: made law review, landed a federal clerkship, etc. However, I still feel like an outsider on here because I chose a different path.

I'm heading to a permanent position in BigFed after my clerkship, and I have zero debt. After reading on here about how miserable some people are in BigLaw but feel tied to it because of their student loan debt, I often ask why I still feel like TLS would frown upon my decisions.

It's weird.

lol just lol. you landed an aiii clerkship from a T1--you're the definition of a unicorn outcome. TLS advice is geared to people preparing for realistic outcomes.

[catinthewall]

I tend to agree with OP.

Based on the standard TLS mindset, I did this entirely wrong. Looking back, TLS would have told me to retake the LSAT and gone to a T14 (I ended up taking a full scholarship to a T1). After doing reasonably well my first year, TLS would have told me to participate in OCI (I completely blew off OCI, and ended up receiving seven offers for 2L summer).

Granted, I did some things right according to TLS: made law review, landed a federal clerkship, etc. However, I still feel like an outsider on here because I chose a different path.

I'm heading to a permanent position in BigFed after my clerkship, and I have zero debt. After reading on here about how miserable some people are in BigLaw but feel tied to it because of their student loan debt, I often ask why I still feel like TLS would frown upon my decisions.

It's weird.

lol just lol. you landed an aiii clerkship from a T1--you're the definition of a unicorn outcome. TLS advice is geared to people preparing for realistic outcomes.

Really? I'm genuinely confused because most of the top students in my law school don't even apply for clerkships. They didn't want to leave the beautiful state in which my law school was located. When I came back 3L year with an AIII clerkship in a decent-sized city in the South, my classmates scoffed at me because I had to leave.

I don't know; maybe my law school was just weird. People weren't willing to move, not even for an AIII clerkship.

[Nomo]

OP here. Yeah, I know a lot of biglaw associates who come from wealthy families, have long work histories, or otherwise likely have other career options aside from biglaw. Let's face it, as much as the universities would love to claim otherwise, a hell of a lot of people who attend Ivy League law schools come from money. Another posted in another thread said he thinks about half of his biglaw colleagues are from very wealthy families, and that makes sense.

There's something else at work when it comes to figuring out why these people pick biglaw than money / student loans.

Plenty of other things. Wanting to do something that will make your rich parents proud. Wanting to earn as much money as the people you grew up with. Wanting to feel independent of your family wealth, while also living a wealthy lifestyle. Generally, just trying to meet the expectations that were thrust on you and trying to keep up with the Jones's.

I'm pretty sure those motivators are far more powerful than having debt to pay off.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Yeah, I know a lot of biglaw associates who come from wealthy families, have long work histories, or otherwise likely have other career options aside from biglaw. Let's face it, as much as the universities would love to claim otherwise, a hell of a lot of people who attend Ivy League law schools come from money. Another posted in another thread said he thinks about half of his biglaw colleagues are from very wealthy families, and that makes sense.

There's something else at work when it comes to figuring out why these people pick biglaw than money / student loans.

Plenty of other things. Wanting to do something that will make your rich parents proud. Wanting to earn as much money as the people you grew up with. Wanting to feel independent of your family wealth, while also living a wealthy lifestyle. Generally, just trying to meet the expectations that were thrust on you and trying to keep up with the Jones's.

I'm pretty sure those motivators are far more powerful than having debt to pay off.

OP again. That's my instinct too. Of course, a lot of rich kids go off and work for a non-profit or something. Or any other job in the world that requires a bachelor's degree or M.B.A.

Either way, your post isn't too far off of some of the comments in the OP, that a lot of people going to biglaw seek "prestige" and safety and aren't willing to take the risk of doing something else, having to be good at it, and risk your parents being disappointed that you're not at Cravath.

In that case, aren't they getting the legal market that they deserve?

[FlightoftheEarls]

OP here. Yeah, I know a lot of biglaw associates who come from wealthy families, have long work histories, or otherwise likely have other career options aside from biglaw. Let's face it, as much as the universities would love to claim otherwise, a hell of a lot of people who attend Ivy League law schools come from money. Another posted in another thread said he thinks about half of his biglaw colleagues are from very wealthy families, and that makes sense.

There's something else at work when it comes to figuring out why these people pick biglaw than money / student loans.

Plenty of other things. Wanting to do something that will make your rich parents proud. Wanting to earn as much money as the people you grew up with. Wanting to feel independent of your family wealth, while also living a wealthy lifestyle. Generally, just trying to meet the expectations that were thrust on you and trying to keep up with the Jones's.

I'm pretty sure those motivators are far more powerful than having debt to pay off.

OP again. That's my instinct too. Of course, a lot of rich kids go off and work for a non-profit or something. Or any other job in the world that requires a bachelor's degree or M.B.A.

Either way, your post isn't too far off of some of the comments in the OP, that a lot of people going to biglaw seek "prestige" and safety and aren't willing to take the risk of doing something else, having to be good at it, and risk your parents being disappointed that you're not at Cravath.

In that case, aren't they getting the legal market that they deserve?

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

[Omerta]

OP here. Yeah, I know a lot of biglaw associates who come from wealthy families, have long work histories, or otherwise likely have other career options aside from biglaw. Let's face it, as much as the universities would love to claim otherwise, a hell of a lot of people who attend Ivy League law schools come from money. Another posted in another thread said he thinks about half of his biglaw colleagues are from very wealthy families, and that makes sense.

There's something else at work when it comes to figuring out why these people pick biglaw than money / student loans.

Plenty of other things. Wanting to do something that will make your rich parents proud. Wanting to earn as much money as the people you grew up with. Wanting to feel independent of your family wealth, while also living a wealthy lifestyle. Generally, just trying to meet the expectations that were thrust on you and trying to keep up with the Jones's.

I'm pretty sure those motivators are far more powerful than having debt to pay off.

OP again. That's my instinct too. Of course, a lot of rich kids go off and work for a non-profit or something. Or any other job in the world that requires a bachelor's degree or M.B.A.

Either way, your post isn't too far off of some of the comments in the OP, that a lot of people going to biglaw seek "prestige" and safety and aren't willing to take the risk of doing something else, having to be good at it, and risk your parents being disappointed that you're not at Cravath.

In that case, aren't they getting the legal market that they deserve?

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

IME, the difference between cases run by biglaw (vault/amlaw) and non-trash law firms isn't very large. Challenging and sophisticated work isn't limited to biglaw, and I don't think the proportion of challenging to routine work significantly changes if you're at a decent firm instead of a biglaw firm.

[Anonymous User]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

IME, the difference between cases run by biglaw (vault/amlaw) and non-trash law firms isn't very large. Challenging and sophisticated work isn't limited to biglaw, and I don't think the proportion of challenging to routine work significantly changes if you're at a decent firm instead of a biglaw firm.

This wasn't my experience. I was at a well-respected regional NLJ250 firm and yes, there was some challenging/sophisticated work, but it really ebbed and flowed. I had 1.5 years where I had really awesome complex work that was the same stuff biglaw attorneys in my field do, and then a year where most of my work was more local unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff (and it wasn't just me, no one in our department had complex work at that time). And then when things got really bad I did some insurance defense. So yes, midlaw/regional biglaw gets some of the same stuff, but in my experience the supply of that kind of work isn't nearly as reliable as it is in biglaw.

[Omerta]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

IME, the difference between cases run by biglaw (vault/amlaw) and non-trash law firms isn't very large. Challenging and sophisticated work isn't limited to biglaw, and I don't think the proportion of challenging to routine work significantly changes if you're at a decent firm instead of a biglaw firm.

This wasn't my experience. I was at a well-respected regional NLJ250 firm and yes, there was some challenging/sophisticated work, but it really ebbed and flowed. I had 1.5 years where I had really awesome complex work that was the same stuff biglaw attorneys in my field do, and then a year where most of my work was more local unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff (and it wasn't just me, no one in our department had complex work at that time). And then when things got really bad I did some insurance defense. So yes, midlaw/regional biglaw gets some of the same stuff, but in my experience the supply of that kind of work isn't nearly as reliable as it is in biglaw.

Have you also worked at a traditional biglaw firm? Just curious because I'm a district court clerk and can't really see a difference between the two in that both well-respected regional firms and biglaw firms have some vanilla stuff. I don't doubt there's a difference in proportion to some degree, though I'm not sure it's as binary as people suggest.

Also, my experience is limited to secondary/tertiary markets. Maybe there is that much of a difference in the big markets, but everyone takes some unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff around here (for the billables, to train junior associates, and to keep relationships with clients fresh).

Thank you for your view. Again, I'm not looking at it from a practitioner's perspective, so I'd be interested to hear how the work differed from associates who went from biglaw to a firm like the one you described (respectable NALP firm or the like).

[Anonymous User]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

OP here. That actually does sound crazy to me. For example, I had a conversation with a friend in biglaw two days ago, and he said he spent the whole day researching a very mundane pretrial procedural issue in a flyover jurisdiction. It was the type of thing a firm does just to drag out a case and add expense to the plaintiff. I asked if he's stuck doing stuff like that very often and he said, "All.the.time."

Sure, in that case he represents a large company involved in complex civil litigation, but that doesn't mean his slice of the work pie is "challenging and sophisticated." Other than one friend who deals with certain public financing issues, I don't think any of my biglaw friends do much sophisticated work. But my perspective is just as anecdotal as yours; not sure what others think.

[AreJay711]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

OP here. That actually does sound crazy to me. For example, I had a conversation with a friend in biglaw two days ago, and he said he spent the whole day researching a very mundane pretrial procedural issue in a flyover jurisdiction. It was the type of thing a firm does just to drag out a case and add expense to the plaintiff. I asked if he's stuck doing stuff like that very often and he said, "All.the.time."

Sure, in that case he represents a large company involved in complex civil litigation, but that doesn't mean his slice of the work pie is "challenging and sophisticated." Other than one friend who deals with certain public financing issues, I don't think any of my biglaw friends do much sophisticated work. But my perspective is just as anecdotal as yours; not sure what others think.

Actually, that sounds pretty challenging and sophisticated.

[Lexaholik]

The problem with TLS isn't that it gives bad advice, but that it gives good advice that is tailored to a specific type of audience. Roughly speaking, the type is introverted, conservative, and analytical. This makes sense to some extent because after all, do you think extroverted and risk-seeking types congregate in online forums?

Advice makes sense only if it's tailored to your personal situation, which depends on your personality and life circumstances. The standard advice to go T14 and get biglaw probably makes sense for most people here, but not for someone who is unusually extroverted and risk seeking but is weak on analytical ability. Good advice for someone like them might be something like "you should go solo" which would be horrifying advice to someone introverted and conservative.

So really what you gotta do is know yourself, what you're good at or bad at, and see if the standard TLS advice works for you.

[dgroom951]

If you can crack the code of nepotism and navigate your way through which firms are good and which are shitlaw sweatshops (granted, that's at least 80% of them) . . . .

Can you give us a little more on that?

(Great post, btw. Thanks.)

Anybody on this?

[Lexaholik]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

IME, the difference between cases run by biglaw (vault/amlaw) and non-trash law firms isn't very large. Challenging and sophisticated work isn't limited to biglaw, and I don't think the proportion of challenging to routine work significantly changes if you're at a decent firm instead of a biglaw firm.

This wasn't my experience. I was at a well-respected regional NLJ250 firm and yes, there was some challenging/sophisticated work, but it really ebbed and flowed. I had 1.5 years where I had really awesome complex work that was the same stuff biglaw attorneys in my field do, and then a year where most of my work was more local unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff (and it wasn't just me, no one in our department had complex work at that time). And then when things got really bad I did some insurance defense. So yes, midlaw/regional biglaw gets some of the same stuff, but in my experience the supply of that kind of work isn't nearly as reliable as it is in biglaw.

Have you also worked at a traditional biglaw firm? Just curious because I'm a district court clerk and can't really see a difference between the two in that both well-respected regional firms and biglaw firms have some vanilla stuff. I don't doubt there's a difference in proportion to some degree, though I'm not sure it's as binary as people suggest.

Also, my experience is limited to secondary/tertiary markets. Maybe there is that much of a difference in the big markets, but everyone takes some unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff around here (for the billables, to train junior associates, and to keep relationships with clients fresh).

Thank you for your view. Again, I'm not looking at it from a practitioner's perspective, so I'd be interested to hear how the work differed from associates who went from biglaw to a firm like the one you described (respectable NALP firm or the like).

And here's the crazy part: even when there is a major difference between the quality of the briefs, in most cases it won't affect the outcome. (There are a few exceptions but those are rare.) As a clerk you probably know that if the briefing is inadequate, law clerks will do all the necessary research.

[Omerta]

And here's the crazy part: even when there is a major difference between the quality of the briefs, in most cases it won't affect the outcome. (There are a few exceptions but those are rare.) As a clerk you probably know that if the briefing is inadequate, law clerks will do all the necessary research.

I think that's a judge-by-judge thing. True, clerks will bring up egregious misses by counsel and suggest a better argument if there's one to be made, but whether that ultimately affects the outcome depends on the judge.

To get back on topic, here's a difference between biglaw and non-biglaw firms. We just got off a conference call dealing with a consent motion for an extension of time. Judge wanted to ask a few questions about why they asked for the amount of time that they did. The plaintiff was represented by a respectable midlaw firm; they had a mid or senior associate on the call. The defendants were represented by a biglaw firm; they had two partners and four associates on the call. So there's one difference. Maybe the big firm thought their consent motion presented some very sophisticated/interesting issues haha.

[Anonymous User]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

IME, the difference between cases run by biglaw (vault/amlaw) and non-trash law firms isn't very large. Challenging and sophisticated work isn't limited to biglaw, and I don't think the proportion of challenging to routine work significantly changes if you're at a decent firm instead of a biglaw firm.

This wasn't my experience. I was at a well-respected regional NLJ250 firm and yes, there was some challenging/sophisticated work, but it really ebbed and flowed. I had 1.5 years where I had really awesome complex work that was the same stuff biglaw attorneys in my field do, and then a year where most of my work was more local unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff (and it wasn't just me, no one in our department had complex work at that time). And then when things got really bad I did some insurance defense. So yes, midlaw/regional biglaw gets some of the same stuff, but in my experience the supply of that kind of work isn't nearly as reliable as it is in biglaw.

Have you also worked at a traditional biglaw firm? Just curious because I'm a district court clerk and can't really see a difference between the two in that both well-respected regional firms and biglaw firms have some vanilla stuff. I don't doubt there's a difference in proportion to some degree, though I'm not sure it's as binary as people suggest.

Also, my experience is limited to secondary/tertiary markets. Maybe there is that much of a difference in the big markets, but everyone takes some unsophisticated/uninteresting stuff around here (for the billables, to train junior associates, and to keep relationships with clients fresh).

Thank you for your view. Again, I'm not looking at it from a practitioner's perspective, so I'd be interested to hear how the work differed from associates who went from biglaw to a firm like the one you described (respectable NALP firm or the like).

I haven't, but most of my friends work in biglaw in the same practice area I do (litigation). But as you note, they are all in major markets (NYC and DC) so that might really be the determining factor. Biglaw firms do get some vanilla stuff, but from what I hear from friends they might have one team doing vanilla stuff while several other teams are doing very complex stuff. Whereas at my firm we've had long stretches where literally not a single person in my department had anything complex/interesting to work on.

My old firm had two associates join our department from NYC V5s while I was there, and one said he/she preferred the variety of work we got (he/she really liked state court kerfuffles and getting into court on smaller matters) while the other found the work dreadfully boring after doing complex litigation at a V5. I personally prefer complex stuff, and ended up leaving to move to a major market for a job that involves strictly complex litigation.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Believe it or not, a substantial number of attorneys in biglaw aren't just there because they come from wealth and don't want to disappoint their fathers, but actually enjoy the challenge and sophistication of the work and -- crazy though this may sound to you -- are actually quite good at it.

OP here. That actually does sound crazy to me. For example, I had a conversation with a friend in biglaw two days ago, and he said he spent the whole day researching a very mundane pretrial procedural issue in a flyover jurisdiction. It was the type of thing a firm does just to drag out a case and add expense to the plaintiff. I asked if he's stuck doing stuff like that very often and he said, "All.the.time."

Sure, in that case he represents a large company involved in complex civil litigation, but that doesn't mean his slice of the work pie is "challenging and sophisticated." Other than one friend who deals with certain public financing issues, I don't think any of my biglaw friends do much sophisticated work. But my perspective is just as anecdotal as yours; not sure what others think.

Perhaps our experience largely differs due to our litigation vs. transactional divide. From my experience as a corporate/M&A attorney, I can tell you that there's a very broad spectrum of sophistication when it comes to those deals. From what I've seen, it's largely much the same story with credit financings and capital markets work, too.