Is lit actually harder to get than transactional Forum

[nixy]

OP here. Does this answer change at all if I'm not interested in NYC? I'm hoping to land in a v100 satellite office within the same region (think FL or AL) as my law school. Does this make lit easier to get?

FL is significantly harder to get than NY

[citation needed]

Not the person you replied to, but there was a post here the other day that counted all of the biglaw SAs in Florida and it totalled like 50 or something.

ETA: found it

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=312229

Yeah, this comes up here a lot, and the issue is just that there are way fewer biglaw jobs in Florida. Sounds like the OP is local (or at least their school is) which is a big help, but supply and demand make NY way easier.

[Anonymous User]

So lit is significantly harder to get into and has significantly worse exit options. I don't get it. Folks must really want to write papers for a living to do that to themselves

99% of it is that lit is actually interesting

yeah arguing that venue was improper so u gotta remove to sdny so that u can then spend 1000s of hours in discovery so that u can then trade mtds and then settle out pre-trial sure is fascinating shit.

"lit is interesting" is such a flame when you get into practice and understand 99% of what litigators do is equally as mindnumbing as what transactional people do.

even if ur representing an interesting client it's not like their controversy is all that interesting - ok we are representing some celeb in connection with some breach case for some brand. none of that is interesting, it's still just a K breach case that is a paintjob over the boring shit you outlined in 1L.

OP, you're at UF or Bama, just figure out whatever the biggest firms in your region do the best in that office and are hiring for and target that. and also target v100 NY, unless you actually have ties to florida or bama have fun watching the median guy who went to fsu for ug and uf for law and grew up in boca snap up all of the offers from the local firms bc they can relate to him.

[Anonymous User]

also are all types of litigation significantly harder to get than all transactional? is there variation between general, ip, white collar, etc

As a SA, you rarely get hired directly for any of those, with the notable exception of IP. The demand currently is for transactional work. Firms are desperate for bodies in M&A, finance, cap markets, etc. That's simply not the case for lit. There's regular recruiting but less demand.

There are some IP shops that are easier to get but IP is really its own game and you generally need to be patent eligible. And a lot of the IP shops are below market or compression.

[Anonymous User]

I don't have much experience with the rest of the V100, so others can weigh in, but probably depends on class size. Either way, doesn't change the advice. If OP were top 20% at a T6 then they could probably get away with saying they only want lit. But at a T25, most important thing is getting the SA in the first place.

This sounds wrong to me. It's definitely harder, but not "you need to be T20% at T6" hard. I was at an MVPB and if you were somewhat flexible on ranking and targeted DC/NYC, you could get a lit offer somewhere in the V100 at median or above. I know people below median who landed DC lit jobs, which tend to be a bit harder to get even if there are more of them.

I am not saying you can't get lit, of course plenty of ppl who are median at t14 get lit every year. I am just saying it is harder so not worth the risk to say I am only interested in lit. There is also a huge difference between T25 and MVPB

But OP is going to be in top 20%. I don't think that disqualifies lit is all I'm saying.

[Anonymous User]

I don't have much experience with the rest of the V100, so others can weigh in, but probably depends on class size. Either way, doesn't change the advice. If OP were top 20% at a T6 then they could probably get away with saying they only want lit. But at a T25, most important thing is getting the SA in the first place.

This sounds wrong to me. It's definitely harder, but not "you need to be T20% at T6" hard. I was at an MVPB and if you were somewhat flexible on ranking and targeted DC/NYC, you could get a lit offer somewhere in the V100 at median or above. I know people below median who landed DC lit jobs, which tend to be a bit harder to get even if there are more of them.

I am not saying you can't get lit, of course plenty of ppl who are median at t14 get lit every year. I am just saying it is harder so not worth the risk to say I am only interested in lit. There is also a huge difference between T25 and MVPB

But OP is going to be in top 20%. I don't think that disqualifies lit is all I'm saying.

at my v10, everyone outside the t14 was in corp unless they were top 5% of the class. the one person from a t70 or 80 was literally the #1 GPA in the class, graduated eic of LR, etc.

it's a risk to focus on lit @ top 20%, especially if OP is at UF or Bama. they need to feel out whatever it is their local firms do and target that, and for major markets it is corp all the way.

[Anonymous User]

yeah arguing that venue was improper so u gotta remove to sdny so that u can then spend 1000s of hours in discovery so that u can then trade mtds and then settle out pre-trial sure is fascinating shit.

I mean, yeah, it is.

[Anonymous User]

Lit exits are not worse if you want to exit into a lit position.

Not going to debate the general lit v transactional, as you say it's personal preference. I personally could have gone either way.

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

[Anonymous User]

I used to work at a V50, and all my corp classmates have lateralled up to Kirkland, Latham, etc., whereas all my lit classmates have lateralled down to midlaw lmfao.

Not even another V50, or a V100, straight to midlaw.

The Vault hierarchy doesn’t really exist in lit, plenty of “midlaw” lit jobs are steps up from V50s in lifestyle, associate work quality, and even sophistication (and I don’t just mean “elite boutiques” everyone’s heard of). It’s reasonably common for clerks who can work anywhere to skip biglaw entirely and go straight to smaller firms.

[Anonymous User]

Lit exits are not worse if you want to exit into a lit position.

Not going to debate the general lit v transactional, as you say it's personal preference. I personally could have gone either way.

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

…yes, lit exits are to lit work, you’re just repeating what the post you’re quoting said. And most litigators only want to do lit work.

[trebekismyhero]

I don't have much experience with the rest of the V100, so others can weigh in, but probably depends on class size. Either way, doesn't change the advice. If OP were top 20% at a T6 then they could probably get away with saying they only want lit. But at a T25, most important thing is getting the SA in the first place.

This sounds wrong to me. It's definitely harder, but not "you need to be T20% at T6" hard. I was at an MVPB and if you were somewhat flexible on ranking and targeted DC/NYC, you could get a lit offer somewhere in the V100 at median or above. I know people below median who landed DC lit jobs, which tend to be a bit harder to get even if there are more of them.

I am not saying you can't get lit, of course plenty of ppl who are median at t14 get lit every year. I am just saying it is harder so not worth the risk to say I am only interested in lit. There is also a huge difference between T25 and MVPB

But OP is going to be in top 20%. I don't think that disqualifies lit is all I'm saying.

Again, where did I saying anything like that? I said it is dumb to only say you're interested in lit during OCI cause that might disqualify them. I said once they get their SA they can probably get lit

[j01]

yeah arguing that venue was improper so u gotta remove to sdny so that u can then spend 1000s of hours in discovery so that u can then trade mtds and then settle out pre-trial sure is fascinating shit.

I mean, yeah, it is.

Yeah, this is typical TLS. Many litigators do find this sort of thing interesting. I do. Some transactional lawyers presumably find their work interesting too. But if you find fighting over venue, discovery, motions to dismiss, and settlement conferences inherently boring, you are probably a transactional lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

also are all types of litigation significantly harder to get than all transactional? is there variation between general, ip, white collar, etc

As a SA, you rarely get hired directly for any of those, with the notable exception of IP. The demand currently is for transactional work. Firms are desperate for bodies in M&A, finance, cap markets, etc. That's simply not the case for lit. There's regular recruiting but less demand.

There are some IP shops that are easier to get but IP is really its own game and you generally need to be patent eligible. And a lot of the IP shops are below market or compression.

IP lit does not, in fact, generally require patent bar eligibility, and it’s very profitable. You’re thinking patent prosecution, which is closer to a regulatory or transactional practice.

To the original question, I don’t think that there’s a general rule, and selectivity will differ more by market than by group, except that appellate is the most selective practice in all of law. The lit groups with a particular emphasis on true trial practice, which are mostly in boutiques, also tend to be very selective.

[Anonymous User]

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

No, they are not. If I want to do lit, then the lit exits you (correctly) list are the only ones in your whole comment I would consider anyway. In which case lit exits are better for me as someone who wants to continue to practice lit.

[Anonymous User]

I was enlisted to explain some transactional documents relevant to a litigation, and lol no litigation is not more interesting. YMMV so if you enjoy it, well, enjoy! But the actual work is a grind either way and being involved in sophisticated transactions is pretty interesting to some of us. Again, YMMV, I'm not trying to bash lit just pushing back on lit folks who like to crap on us.

From a career advice perspective, lit is 1) harder to get, 2) worse exits (by a lot, just look around this website is full of 5th yr lit ppl talking about applying to 100 jobs with no offers), and 3) lit partners make less money. If it's really that important to you then do it, but do it with your eyes open.

Lit is also a much better life. Signed, a litigator who didn't pull a single all-nighter in 10 years of practice.

[Anonymous User]

Lit exits are not worse if you want to exit into a lit position.

Not going to debate the general lit v transactional, as you say it's personal preference. I personally could have gone either way.

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

…yes, lit exits are to lit work, you’re just repeating what the post you’re quoting said. And most litigators only want to do lit work.

Lit exits are to lit work. Corp exits are to either more corp work or in house work. This forum is full of lit ppl talking about how hard it is for them to get in house, so obviously there's a population of lit ppl that want that.

Again, if you only want to litigate then do that. But be aware of the long term options, that's all.

[Anonymous User]

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

No, they are not. If I want to do lit, then the lit exits you (correctly) list are the only ones in your whole comment I would consider anyway. In which case lit exits are better for me as someone who wants to continue to practice lit.

I think, in all seriousness, the idea of wanting to basically do your job for the remainder of your career is inconceivable to transactional attorneys. But if an "exit" is defined as a job that is nothing like your original job that you hated, it's probably true that transactional attorneys have better exits.

[Anonymous User]

Lit exits are to lit work. Corp exits are to either more corp work or in house work. This forum is full of lit ppl talking about how hard it is for them to get in house, so obviously there's a population of lit ppl that want that.

I mean, sure, but I would guess that this forum includes a vast overrepresentation lawyers trying to pursue unusual/counterintuitive/challenging career changes, since they are the ones who want guidance/help.

[Anonymous User]

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

No, they are not. If I want to do lit, then the lit exits you (correctly) list are the only ones in your whole comment I would consider anyway. In which case lit exits are better for me as someone who wants to continue to practice lit.

"I'm OK with fewer career options because I really really wanna do x" is a perfectly fine position to take. Doesn't change the fact that it's indeed fewer career options.

[Anonymous User]

"I'm OK with fewer career options because I really really wanna do x" is a perfectly fine position to take. Doesn't change the fact that it's indeed fewer career options.

No one is disputing that. But that is different than saying exit options in one field are "better" or "worse," which was the original claim.

[jotarokujo]

also are all types of litigation significantly harder to get than all transactional? is there variation between general, ip, white collar, etc

As a SA, you rarely get hired directly for any of those, with the notable exception of IP. The demand currently is for transactional work. Firms are desperate for bodies in M&A, finance, cap markets, etc. That's simply not the case for lit. There's regular recruiting but less demand.

There are some IP shops that are easier to get but IP is really its own game and you generally need to be patent eligible. And a lot of the IP shops are below market or compression.

IP lit does not, in fact, generally require patent bar eligibility, and it’s very profitable. You’re thinking patent prosecution, which is closer to a regulatory or transactional practice.

To the original question, I don’t think that there’s a general rule, and selectivity will differ more by market than by group, except that appellate is the most selective practice in all of law. The lit groups with a particular emphasis on true trial practice, which are mostly in boutiques, also tend to be very selective.

makes sense to me. I think it's fair to say then that all other things equal, all lit, including white collar, ip, and general commercial is significantly harder to get than transactional. this is then even more so if it's a trial boutique

[existentialcrisis]

"I'm OK with fewer career options because I really really wanna do x" is a perfectly fine position to take. Doesn't change the fact that it's indeed fewer career options.

No one is disputing that. But that is different than saying exit options in one field are "better" or "worse," which was the original claim.

Obviously people have different preferences. But it's also objectively true that getting exits (i.e. in-house jobs) that combine humane hours and relatively high pay is much for feasible for transactional lawyers.

I suppose corporate exits generally offer "better" ratio of hours/compensation.

[Anonymous User]

Lit exits are not worse if you want to exit into a lit position.

Not going to debate the general lit v transactional, as you say it's personal preference. I personally could have gone either way.

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

People have already weighed in, but I’ll note that there are far fewer exit options in government for corp people. Not none, but it’s probably the flip side of lit people going to in house - it’s not impossible, but it’s a lot tougher. Corp people never seem to bring this up, and I get that it’s probably because they don’t want these jobs, but it’s still a really skewed perspective. I think the government jobs for lit tend to balance out the in-house jobs for corp - government is often the reasonable pay/chill work-life balance for lit people that corp people want out of in-house jobs.

And I get that corp biglaw people will look down on government jobs because of the pay cut, but that doesn’t mean they’re not good exit options, especially for people coming out of biglaw, who are going to be more competitive for well-paid fedgov. Certainly lots of in-house jobs are a decent paycut from biglaw, which people take because the lifestyle is so much better and they’re still good salaries, just not obscenely good ones. (And government benefits make up for a lot.)

Like, corp people are always like, “lit has no exit options, it’s just other firms or government” as if there aren’t shitloads of various government jobs out there (not just fedgov, I see a lot of biglaw people in secondary markets especially go to higher up local government jobs).

[jotarokujo]

Lit exits are not worse if you want to exit into a lit position.

Not going to debate the general lit v transactional, as you say it's personal preference. I personally could have gone either way.

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

People have already weighed in, but I’ll note that there are far fewer exit options in government for corp people. Not none, but it’s probably the flip side of lit people going to in house - it’s not impossible, but it’s a lot tougher. Corp people never seem to bring this up, and I get that it’s probably because they don’t want these jobs, but it’s still a really skewed perspective. I think the government jobs for lit tend to balance out the in-house jobs for corp - government is often the reasonable pay/chill work-life balance for lit people that corp people want out of in-house jobs.

And I get that corp biglaw people will look down on government jobs because of the pay cut, but that doesn’t mean they’re not good exit options, especially for people coming out of biglaw, who are going to be more competitive for well-paid fedgov. Certainly lots of in-house jobs are a decent paycut from biglaw, which people take because the lifestyle is so much better and they’re still good salaries, just not obscenely good ones. (And government benefits make up for a lot.)

Like, corp people are always like, “lit has no exit options, it’s just other firms or government” as if there aren’t shitloads of various government jobs out there (not just fedgov, I see a lot of biglaw people in secondary markets especially go to higher up local government jobs).

yeah the narrative is definitely way oversold. there are pretty damn good paying gov jobs at DOJ, financial regulators, etc and they have better work life balance than a lot of in house jobs

[Anonymous User]

Lit exits are not worse if you want to exit into a lit position.

Not going to debate the general lit v transactional, as you say it's personal preference. I personally could have gone either way.

But the quoted part is simply not true. Transactional have options for either more firm work (big, mid, etc) or in house. Lit "exits" are largely restricted to other lit work, either firms or government. The whole in house path is very limited for them, nearly nonexistent. So yes, lit exits are worse.

People have already weighed in, but I’ll note that there are far fewer exit options in government for corp people. Not none, but it’s probably the flip side of lit people going to in house - it’s not impossible, but it’s a lot tougher. Corp people never seem to bring this up, and I get that it’s probably because they don’t want these jobs, but it’s still a really skewed perspective. I think the government jobs for lit tend to balance out the in-house jobs for corp - government is often the reasonable pay/chill work-life balance for lit people that corp people want out of in-house jobs.

And I get that corp biglaw people will look down on government jobs because of the pay cut, but that doesn’t mean they’re not good exit options, especially for people coming out of biglaw, who are going to be more competitive for well-paid fedgov. Certainly lots of in-house jobs are a decent paycut from biglaw, which people take because the lifestyle is so much better and they’re still good salaries, just not obscenely good ones. (And government benefits make up for a lot.)

Like, corp people are always like, “lit has no exit options, it’s just other firms or government” as if there aren’t shitloads of various government jobs out there (not just fedgov, I see a lot of biglaw people in secondary markets especially go to higher up local government jobs).

people don't hype up the gov gigs because there are far fewer of them, total pain in the ass to interview for, take forever to exit into, and pay a lot less. also, if you're a 4th/5th year in biglaw, you're making something close to half a mil depending on bonus structure, so while inhouse is already a hefty paycut (~$200kish+equity), gov will be an even deeper paycut. maybe that's worth it for the lifestyle or other intangibles, but if you've got children, the house, whatever else that you've become accustomed to, it's going to be a belt-tightening in a big way, and healthcare doesn't really make that back.

yeah it's cool to go into the doj or something but gov jobs are no picnic as an exit.

[Anonymous User]

people don't hype up the gov gigs because there are far fewer of them, total pain in the ass to interview for, take forever to exit into, and pay a lot less.

I don't think this is that different from going in-house, based on a lot of people's reports about trying to go in-house. Again, there are actually a lot of government jobs for litigators. And what on earth makes them a total pain in the ass to interview for compared to in-house jobs? I've done government interviews, they're totally normal. Nothing like trying to go to FAANG or something.

also, if you're a 4th/5th year in biglaw, you're making something close to half a mil depending on bonus structure, so while inhouse is already a hefty paycut (~$200kish+equity), gov will be an even deeper paycut. maybe that's worth it for the lifestyle or other intangibles, but if you've got children, the house, whatever else that you've become accustomed to, it's going to be a belt-tightening in a big way, and healthcare doesn't really make that back.

yeah it's cool to go into the doj or something but gov jobs are no picnic as an exit.

Benefits aren't just healthcare but also the retirement benefits. Anyway, sure, golden handcuffs are real, but 1) in-house jobs have a range of salaries also and 2) many people can live comfortably on government salaries, especially if you build up investments etc while in biglaw. I'm not claiming government work is for everyone, just that it's overly dismissive to say that lit exit options are "only" government.