Accept Big Law Offer or Join a solo attorney earning seven figures with a 160K salary Forum

[lavarman84]

@corporate_regret Thank you for such a comprehensive response!

Do you want to do biglaw litigation (presumably commercial) or do you want to do criminal defense? Those are going to be SUPER different experiences.

Unfortunately, the only intelligent response I can give is that I don't even know what I don't know. Commercial litigation seems interesting but complicated. I worked biglaw as a summer associate for both summers which was fun, but everyone knows those are mostly recruiting and are unlikely to represent actual day to day life as a new associate. I also know that it will be many years before I ever see a client working at a large firm. This attorney, who I've known for several years, tells me he is hiring me largely due to my interpersonal skills and believes those skills will translate to client acquisition and retention. I think he is right in that my stronger skills set is dealing with people rather than paperwork. However, I am not unwilling or unable to do the paperwork.

Yeah, that makes sense. I feel like the economics of the two things are really different, but I don’t mean to ignore the advantages of biglaw.

I do go back to the first question I asked - even if someone has lined up a white-collar biglaw gig, the experiences are likely to be *so* different, I’m not sure they could both work to the same long term goal. So I wonder what the long term goal is. (If you ultimately wanted to run your own criminal defense firm I’m really not sure biglaw would help you in any way, except of course money, which is a big thing to be sure. But I’m less convinced someone can go from biglaw to a gig like this if they pass it up now.)

Again, I feel bad because I'm so naive about the actual practice of law so I don't know which I would like better. I definitely want to live comfortably, and I know (as the entire law community knows) the security and pay of a biglaw job come at the cost of a healthy work-life balance. Not to turn this business conversation into a personal one but this attorney is the guy that inspired me to go to law school and the plan was always to go work for him, however, my grades put me into a position to fortunately have additional opportunities. The attorney is ranked in a reputable publication as one of the top 100 criminal defense attorneys in the nation. Given the entirety of the situation, I'm sure we would remain friends if I decide to go to biglaw, but I would likely forfeit the position.

How old is the solo? That will make a difference because, as others have noted, you likely will not be able to go to big law if the solo retires in the near term.

The solo is mid to late thirties and loves their job so I don't think that would be much of a problem. However, I do realize that I am betting my life on that which is an inherent risk.

Thanks everyone for your help and input it is all very much appreciated!

Take the solo job. Most people hate working in biglaw. You have an elite attorney who wants to mentor you. You already know this attorney. Go for it. Don't go for the gold star on the resume bullshit (i.e., biglaw). You're going to get less substantive experience and will be lucky if you can find an elite lawyer willing to take you under his or her wing.

[lavarman84]

Given my experience (which I won’t rehash here), asking whether you should effectively be a solo criminal defense attorney or go to market biglaw right out is like asking if you should go to a tttt or a t14. I know that sounds like an oversimplification and I realize you have heard from a number of anecdotal happy small firm experiences but when you’ve skied on both sides of the mountain, factoring in of course the timing and relative portability of both options, the fact that this appears up for debate seems laughable. Obviously you start in biglaw and get the stamp and the money and figure it out from there. You can go one way; you can’t go the other.

What you're saying simply isn't accurate.

[QContinuum]

Take the solo job. Most people hate working in biglaw. You have an elite attorney who wants to mentor you. You already know this attorney. Go for it. Don't go for the gold star on the resume bullshit (i.e., biglaw). You're going to get less substantive experience and will be lucky if you can find an elite lawyer willing to take you under his or her wing.

BigLaw isn't forever. It's an entree to decent-paying in-house, midlaw, fed gov, and public interest roles. All of those roles are going to be much more difficult (if not effectively impossible) to get if one starts out working for a solo. It's easy to go down any number of paths if you start in BigLaw. But if you start out in a two-man shop and hate it, you're screwed. There's no turning back the clock.

Given my experience (which I won’t rehash here), asking whether you should effectively be a solo criminal defense attorney or go to market biglaw right out is like asking if you should go to a tttt or a t14. I know that sounds like an oversimplification and I realize you have heard from a number of anecdotal happy small firm experiences but when you’ve skied on both sides of the mountain, factoring in of course the timing and relative portability of both options, the fact that this appears up for debate seems laughable. Obviously you start in biglaw and get the stamp and the money and figure it out from there. You can go one way; you can’t go the other.

My fellow mod is right. The choice is effectively like going to a T4 vs. a T14. You can solo out of either, but only the T14 will give you access to other career options.

[lavarman84]

Take the solo job. Most people hate working in biglaw. You have an elite attorney who wants to mentor you. You already know this attorney. Go for it. Don't go for the gold star on the resume bullshit (i.e., biglaw). You're going to get less substantive experience and will be lucky if you can find an elite lawyer willing to take you under his or her wing.

BigLaw isn't forever. It's an entree to decent-paying in-house, midlaw, fed gov, and public interest roles. All of those roles are going to be much more difficult (if not effectively impossible) to get if one starts out working for a solo. It's easy to go down any number of paths if you start in BigLaw. But if you start out in a two-man shop and hate it, you're screwed. There's no turning back the clock.

Yeah, that's not accurate. People love to pretend that biglaw is some golden ticket. It's your best path to in-house jobs, but OP sounds like a litigator. Thus, in-house doesn't seem like a likely path. With fed gov and public interest, biglaw is far from the sure thing that people pretend it to be. Moreover, some of y'all are glossing over what OP said about the solo. If OP is shooting straight with us, this solo is an elite attorney. That means a lot. All this crap about OP being screwed if he or she decides not to stick around with the solo is beyond hyperbole. I'd recommend OP know that he or she is willing to make a career of criminal defense before making that leap, but assuming that is what he or she wants to do, I'd take that path without thinking twice.

My father is an elite attorney in his niche. Even associates he pushed out (because he felt they couldn't hack it) landed in great positions because they had his name attached to theirs. When I'm done clerking, I'm not returning to biglaw. I'm not passionate about the work they do there. I will go one of the three directions: government, PI, or work for an elite attorney at a small shop. I actually know an elite attorney (and would love to work for said attorney) who has argued before SCOTUS (and won). Working with and being mentored by that attorney will do far more for my career than generic biglaw experience. Thus, it is possible that I will soon have to make a choice like OP's, and I know exactly what choice I am making.

This isn't even a hard question for me, but I'm also not risk averse or a fan of biglaw. I'd rather go work for one of the best in the business and learn under that person than do grunt work for some large, generic firm.

[objctnyrhnr]

Take the solo job. Most people hate working in biglaw. You have an elite attorney who wants to mentor you. You already know this attorney. Go for it. Don't go for the gold star on the resume bullshit (i.e., biglaw). You're going to get less substantive experience and will be lucky if you can find an elite lawyer willing to take you under his or her wing.

BigLaw isn't forever. It's an entree to decent-paying in-house, midlaw, fed gov, and public interest roles. All of those roles are going to be much more difficult (if not effectively impossible) to get if one starts out working for a solo. It's easy to go down any number of paths if you start in BigLaw. But if you start out in a two-man shop and hate it, you're screwed. There's no turning back the clock.

Yeah, that's not accurate. People love to pretend that biglaw is some golden ticket. It's your best path to in-house jobs, but OP sounds like a litigator. Thus, in-house doesn't seem like a likely path. With fed gov and public interest, biglaw is far from the sure thing that people pretend it to be. Moreover, some of y'all are glossing over what OP said about the solo. If OP is shooting straight with us, this solo is an elite attorney. That means a lot. All this crap about OP being screwed if he or she decides not to stick around with the solo is beyond hyperbole. I'd recommend OP know that he or she is willing to make a career of criminal defense before making that leap, but assuming that is what he or she wants to do, I'd take that path without thinking twice.

My father is an elite attorney in his niche. Even associates he pushed out (because he felt they couldn't hack it) landed in great positions because they had his name attached to theirs. When I'm done clerking, I'm not returning to biglaw. I'm not passionate about the work they do there. I will go one of the three directions: government, PI, or work for an elite attorney at a small shop. I actually know an elite attorney (and would love to work for said attorney) who has argued before SCOTUS (and won). Working with and being mentored by that attorney will do far more for my career than generic biglaw experience. Thus, it is possible that I will soon have to make a choice like OP's, and I know exactly what choice I am making.

This isn't even a hard question for me, but I'm also not risk averse or a fan of biglaw. I'd rather go work for one of the best in the business and learn under that person than do grunt work for some large, generic firm.

“I know a guy/girl who ________ (insert unicorn outcome here) therefore tls logic is wrong and go do your own thing.”

Dear OP, you are smarter than that. That’s why you sought TLS as a resource to begin with. Don’t ruin your future because one individual told you that they can procure the world for you.

[lavarman84]

Take the solo job. Most people hate working in biglaw. You have an elite attorney who wants to mentor you. You already know this attorney. Go for it. Don't go for the gold star on the resume bullshit (i.e., biglaw). You're going to get less substantive experience and will be lucky if you can find an elite lawyer willing to take you under his or her wing.

BigLaw isn't forever. It's an entree to decent-paying in-house, midlaw, fed gov, and public interest roles. All of those roles are going to be much more difficult (if not effectively impossible) to get if one starts out working for a solo. It's easy to go down any number of paths if you start in BigLaw. But if you start out in a two-man shop and hate it, you're screwed. There's no turning back the clock.

Yeah, that's not accurate. People love to pretend that biglaw is some golden ticket. It's your best path to in-house jobs, but OP sounds like a litigator. Thus, in-house doesn't seem like a likely path. With fed gov and public interest, biglaw is far from the sure thing that people pretend it to be. Moreover, some of y'all are glossing over what OP said about the solo. If OP is shooting straight with us, this solo is an elite attorney. That means a lot. All this crap about OP being screwed if he or she decides not to stick around with the solo is beyond hyperbole. I'd recommend OP know that he or she is willing to make a career of criminal defense before making that leap, but assuming that is what he or she wants to do, I'd take that path without thinking twice.

My father is an elite attorney in his niche. Even associates he pushed out (because he felt they couldn't hack it) landed in great positions because they had his name attached to theirs. When I'm done clerking, I'm not returning to biglaw. I'm not passionate about the work they do there. I will go one of the three directions: government, PI, or work for an elite attorney at a small shop. I actually know an elite attorney (and would love to work for said attorney) who has argued before SCOTUS (and won). Working with and being mentored by that attorney will do far more for my career than generic biglaw experience. Thus, it is possible that I will soon have to make a choice like OP's, and I know exactly what choice I am making.

This isn't even a hard question for me, but I'm also not risk averse or a fan of biglaw. I'd rather go work for one of the best in the business and learn under that person than do grunt work for some large, generic firm.

“I know a guy/girl who ________ (insert unicorn outcome here) therefore tls logic is wrong and go do your own thing.”

Dear OP, you are smarter than that. That’s why you sought TLS as a resource to begin with. Don’t ruin your future because one individual told you that they can procure the world for you.

Except this isn't TLS logic, it's your logic. The opinions are split here. OP is faced with a unicorn outcome. OP will be making a biglaw-esque salary while presumably getting to do substantive work and being mentored by an elite attorney whom OP already knows. Simply put, you're the one offering misguided advice. You're trying to compare biglaw with a top law school and OP's other option with a terrible law school. That's the laughable opinion here. If OP were talking about a run-of-the-mill criminal defense solo offering $50,000 per year, you would be in the right to make that argument. However, that's not the case here.

I don't imagine you'd make the silly argument you are now if OP was comparing biglaw to Goldstein & Russell. Why? Because Goldstein & Russell is far more selective, far more prestigious, and far superior in terms of the work and opportunities offered. We obviously don't know whom the solo is. But I'm taking OP at his or her word that this solo is an elite criminal defense attorney. In that scenario, it's not comparable to a run-of-the-mill criminal defense job with a solo. The compensation and the prestige of the attorney makes it a comparable option to biglaw. And if OP wants to do criminal defense, I think it's an easy choice.

Let's use an analogy. You were a top student in your class at a top law school. You are finishing up a clerkship at the COA level. Paul Clement has decided to leave Kirkland to go out on his own and wants to hire you as his only associate. Would you choose working in biglaw over working with Paul Clement (if you wanted to be a litigator who specializes in appellate work)?

[objctnyrhnr]

Take the solo job. Most people hate working in biglaw. You have an elite attorney who wants to mentor you. You already know this attorney. Go for it. Don't go for the gold star on the resume bullshit (i.e., biglaw). You're going to get less substantive experience and will be lucky if you can find an elite lawyer willing to take you under his or her wing.

BigLaw isn't forever. It's an entree to decent-paying in-house, midlaw, fed gov, and public interest roles. All of those roles are going to be much more difficult (if not effectively impossible) to get if one starts out working for a solo. It's easy to go down any number of paths if you start in BigLaw. But if you start out in a two-man shop and hate it, you're screwed. There's no turning back the clock.

Yeah, that's not accurate. People love to pretend that biglaw is some golden ticket. It's your best path to in-house jobs, but OP sounds like a litigator. Thus, in-house doesn't seem like a likely path. With fed gov and public interest, biglaw is far from the sure thing that people pretend it to be. Moreover, some of y'all are glossing over what OP said about the solo. If OP is shooting straight with us, this solo is an elite attorney. That means a lot. All this crap about OP being screwed if he or she decides not to stick around with the solo is beyond hyperbole. I'd recommend OP know that he or she is willing to make a career of criminal defense before making that leap, but assuming that is what he or she wants to do, I'd take that path without thinking twice.

My father is an elite attorney in his niche. Even associates he pushed out (because he felt they couldn't hack it) landed in great positions because they had his name attached to theirs. When I'm done clerking, I'm not returning to biglaw. I'm not passionate about the work they do there. I will go one of the three directions: government, PI, or work for an elite attorney at a small shop. I actually know an elite attorney (and would love to work for said attorney) who has argued before SCOTUS (and won). Working with and being mentored by that attorney will do far more for my career than generic biglaw experience. Thus, it is possible that I will soon have to make a choice like OP's, and I know exactly what choice I am making.

This isn't even a hard question for me, but I'm also not risk averse or a fan of biglaw. I'd rather go work for one of the best in the business and learn under that person than do grunt work for some large, generic firm.

“I know a guy/girl who ________ (insert unicorn outcome here) therefore tls logic is wrong and go do your own thing.”

Dear OP, you are smarter than that. That’s why you sought TLS as a resource to begin with. Don’t ruin your future because one individual told you that they can procure the world for you.

Except this isn't TLS logic, it's your logic. The opinions are split here. OP is faced with a unicorn outcome. OP will be making a biglaw-esque salary while presumably getting to do substantive work and being mentored by an elite attorney whom OP already knows. Simply put, you're the one offering misguided advice. You're trying to compare biglaw with a top law school and OP's other option with a terrible law school. That's the laughable opinion here. If OP were talking about a run-of-the-mill criminal defense solo offering $50,000 per year, you would be in the right to make that argument. However, that's not the case here.

I don't imagine you'd make the silly argument you are now if OP was comparing biglaw to Goldstein & Russell. Why? Because Goldstein & Russell is far more selective, far more prestigious, and far superior in terms of the work and opportunities offered. We obviously don't know whom the solo is. But I'm taking OP at his or her word that this solo is an elite criminal defense attorney. In that scenario, it's not comparable to a run-of-the-mill criminal defense job with a solo. The compensation and the prestige of the attorney makes it a comparable option to biglaw. And if OP wants to do criminal defense, I think it's an easy choice.

Let's use an analogy. You were a top student in your class at a top law school. You are finishing up a clerkship at the COA level. Paul Clement has decided to leave Kirkland to go out on his own and wants to hire you as his only associate. Would you choose working in biglaw over working with Paul Clement (if you wanted to be a litigator who specializes in appellate work)?

I do appreciate your opinion and your alternative viewpoint. But this is so ridiculous “If partner x from top biglaw firm y decided he wants to mentor me, what should i do?!?!?” Clearly these are not the options here

[lavarman84]

I do appreciate your opinion and your alternative viewpoint. But this is so ridiculous “If partner x from top biglaw firm y decided he wants to mentor me, what should i do?!?!?” Clearly these are not the options here

On the contrary, that is basically the option here:

The attorney is ranked in a reputable publication as one of the top 100 criminal defense attorneys in the nation.

Paul Clement isn't a big deal because he's a biglaw partner. He's a big deal because he's widely recognized as one of the best appellate attorneys in the country. As I said, if OP wants to be a criminal defense attorney, it's hard to do much better.

[objctnyrhnr]

I do appreciate your opinion and your alternative viewpoint. But this is so ridiculous “If partner x from top biglaw firm y decided he wants to mentor me, what should i do?!?!?” Clearly these are not the options here

On the contrary, that is basically the option here:

The attorney is ranked in a reputable publication as one of the top 100 criminal defense attorneys in the nation.

Paul Clement isn't a big deal because he's a biglaw partner. He's a big deal because he's widely recognized as one of the best appellate attorneys in the country. As I said, if OP wants to be a criminal defense attorney, it's hard to do much better.

Sooo now all of a sudden it’s Paul clement (as opposed to a random solo defense attorney) ? Well done OP. In this scenario I agree with the misguided poster who is quoted above.

[lavarman84]

I do appreciate your opinion and your alternative viewpoint. But this is so ridiculous “If partner x from top biglaw firm y decided he wants to mentor me, what should i do?!?!?” Clearly these are not the options here

On the contrary, that is basically the option here:

The attorney is ranked in a reputable publication as one of the top 100 criminal defense attorneys in the nation.

Paul Clement isn't a big deal because he's a biglaw partner. He's a big deal because he's widely recognized as one of the best appellate attorneys in the country. As I said, if OP wants to be a criminal defense attorney, it's hard to do much better.

Sooo now all of a sudden it’s Paul clement (as opposed to a random solo defense attorney) ? Well done OP. In this scenario I agree with the misguided poster who is quoted above.

Well, it's telling that you have no rebuttal. At least you aren't continuing to push your original intellectually dishonest argument.
(And I hope your question is rhetorical, because the answer is in the post you quoted.)

[nixy]

I tend to agree with lavarman, honestly. I don’t think people are giving the solo option the credit it deserves. There is a whole universe of people who never go biglaw who work and thrive as attorneys out there, and if the OP actually wants to be a solo criminal defense attorney, the solo is going to give him much better experience for that purpose than biglaw will. (I also disagree with the idea that this path = tttt.)

People here *frequently* talk about biglaw as a means to an end. Here, the end that the OP appears to want is in front of them already. Keep in mind, too, that the OP knows this solo, so less risk of disaster. If the solo job doesn’t end up working out the OP will still have the experience to go on and do other criminal defense type things. I also don’t think being a biglaw refugee actually positions you well for something like solo criminal defense in the future, as much as people are claiming you can do this work in the future after biglaw.

In any case, I think the legitimate reasons for biglaw are if the OP doesn’t actually know what they want and wants to explore biglaw and biglaw adjacent paths, or for the money (though it sounds like that’s less of an advantage here given the solo salary). If they do want to do criminal defense, the solo makes perfect sense - and is not like turning down a T14 for a tttt. It’s more like turning down training in welding so you can go get training as a plumber instead.

[Ohiobumpkin]

Look, comparing Biglaw with another job opportunity means nothing (apples to oranges) without a clear career goal. If OP wants to be a criminal defense attorney, go with the elite solo. If OP is unsure about what he wants to do or if he wants to work in-house, then go Biglaw and find a niche. It’s that simple.

[Miss-Bubbled]

OP, just curious what you decided to do?