Serious q re: Lit exit options Forum

[Johann]

It's kinda scary but almost all of these positions are still people self selecting out. They are choosing where to go and almost all end up in alright spots. Once you make biglaw odds are you're gonna be alright.... I hope

[Anonnn]

Folks in this thread are being real dumb for the following reasons:

1) That bro who is a 12th year associate or whatever is pulling down probably closing in on 300k pre-tax AND living in fucking Colorado where the cost of living is whatever.

2) Litigation is about BUSINESS. Are you bringing it in or not? Private sector litigation AFAIK isn't about practicing law. It's about finding clients, getting them results and making money. If you want to solely practice law go become a DA or PD or gov't lawyer. At the end of the day the private sector doesn't care about your COA clerkship or white-shoe resume, it's about $$$$.

At least this is how I see it as a junior big law guy in a non-NYC market.

[Frayed Knot]

2) Litigation is about BUSINESS. Are you bringing it in or not? Private sector litigation AFAIK isn't about practicing law. It's about finding clients, getting them results and making money. If you want to solely practice law go become a DA or PD or gov't lawyer. At the end of the day the private sector doesn't care about your COA clerkship or white-shoe resume, it's about $$$$.

I both agree and disagree with this. On the one hand, yeah it's a business and it's about how much money you can bring in. On the other hand, we're pretty far past the point where being college buddies with someone in-house is enough to get business by itself. From what I've heard, these days a personal connection will (at best) get you invited to pitch to the client/GC.

From there, you'll still have to sell them that you are the right lawyer for the case. At that point, resumes, firm history, clerkships, relevant past cases can all matter. Of course, they matter only to the extent they matter to clients, which is almost certainly less than they matter to lawyers—and way less than they matter to prestige-obsessed TLS. But it's not zero, either.

[Cogburn87]

Once you make biglaw odds are you're gonna be alright.... I hope

lol

[Frayed Knot]

My impression is that midlaw/regional biglaw is only a good place to end up long-term insofar as you either:

a) find yourself working under some big-time rainmakers who will pass business down to you when they exit stage right
b) have the personality/connections/drive to hustle, network, and bring clients through the door

It is not easy to show up to a secondary market 2-4 years into a career and start bringing clients through the door within 2-3 years if you don't already have existing ties/connections.

I absolutely agree that you can't showing up as a 5th year with no connections isn't a good place to be. However, connections don't have to be local—out-of-region connections with people who might send you business when they don't know anyone else in that state can also be really helpful. Maybe even better than local connections, since not as many people in your midlaw firm will know those people.

b) have the personality/connections/drive to hustle, network, and bring clients through the door

Focusing just on this point, I agree but want to emphasize that it's not one-size-fits-all. Are there people who bring in crazy business because they can walk in to a cold room and walk out with 5 new best friends? Sure. But there are also people who bring home serious business by doing really great work, impressing their coworkers, co-counsel, and opposing counsel, and then keeping in touch with those people over the years.

[Anonymous User]

Once you make biglaw odds are you're gonna be alright.... I hope

lol

I read a number of other legal forums/blogs and I've noticed that the outlook on TLS tends to skew towards rosy/overly optimistic (see above). I'm not sure if it's because the majority of posters on here are law students/0-3 year grads but there seems to be a lack of reliable information/anecdotes about long-term career trajectory. There are many stories out there of T14/biglaw alums ending up stuck in doc review after doing biglaw for a few years or desperately trying to leave the profession. Some of the posts on this thread make it sound like you can just waltz into a secondary market mid law gig and become partner after a few years but I hesitate to think that transition is as easy as some of you are making it sound.

[Frayed Knot]

I read a number of other legal forums/blogs and I've noticed that the outlook on TLS tends to skew towards rosy/overly optimistic (see above). I'm not sure if it's because the majority of posters on here are law students/0-3 year grads but there seems to be a lack of reliable information/anecdotes about long-term career trajectory. There are many stories out there of T14/biglaw alums ending up stuck in doc review after doing biglaw for a few years or desperately trying to leave the profession. Some of the posts on this thread make it sound like you can just waltz into a secondary market mid law gig and become partner after a few years but I hesitate to think that transition is as easy as some of you are making it sound.

I don't know if I was one of the posters making it sound too easy or not. I definitely don't mean to make it sound easy—just doable.

I guess I view job outcomes that people ask about on TLS as falling into three basic categories. 1) Don't worry about this/stop being neurotic (e.g., "I'm top-third at HYS and want to work in NY BigLaw. What do I need to do?"). 2)This is an achievable goal if you do everything right, but you need to really pay attention/work hard (e.g., "I'm below median at CCN and don't want to strike out at OCI"). 3)This is out of your control; nothing you can do would make this a likely outcome (e.g., "I want to make partner at a BigLaw firm").

I think that lateralling to midlaw is firmly in category 2: there's a lot you need to do to make it possible, but if you follow the right steps, work hard, and keep your eye on the end goal, you should be able to make it there. But that's not to say it's easy.

Edit: also, what are the more pessimistic forums/blogs you read? It's always great to see a different perspective.

[Anonymous User]

Once you make biglaw odds are you're gonna be alright.... I hope

lol

I read a number of other legal forums/blogs and I've noticed that the outlook on TLS tends to skew towards rosy/overly optimistic (see above). I'm not sure if it's because the majority of posters on here are law students/0-3 year grads but there seems to be a lack of reliable information/anecdotes about long-term career trajectory. There are many stories out there of T14/biglaw alums ending up stuck in doc review after doing biglaw for a few years or desperately trying to leave the profession. Some of the posts on this thread make it sound like you can just waltz into a secondary market mid law gig and become partner after a few years but I hesitate to think that transition is as easy as some of you are making it sound.

Please, link to stories of associates who left places like Boies, Paul Weiss, GDC etc or any other litigation powerhouse that have a hard time lateraling. I know a decent amount of people who have left firms like this and they all lateraled to other great places. AUSA, mid firm, other big law, fed gov etc.

Maybe limited exit ops are true for lit associates not coming from firms that are known for their litigation practice but that is just a matter of not playing at the top of your respective game, obviously exit ops are gonna be lesser. The Bigtime lit firms are feeders into great exit ops.

[thesealocust]

A disproportionate number of in-house folks came from a corporate practice. Litigation skills like taking depos and writing motions are not really that applicable to what an in-house attorney does day to day. So my impression is that they are attainable but for every 3 in-house hires only 1 is going to be of a litigation bro/brodette. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

This is exactly right, from my experience and a dataset I saw once way back when. The rough numbers I always have in my head is that large firm headcounts are 2/3 lit and 1/3 corp whereas inhouse lawyers hail 2/3 from corp and 1/3 from lit.

Also, on compensation, inhouse gigs can be fabulously remunerative. SOMEBODY winds up GC at every corporation, and plenty of inhouse lawyers move into business roles once within the organization. Obviously it's rare to see comp get that high in-house, but it's also rare to make partner, stay partner, and earn more than the average PPP at your firm as partner...

[84651846190]

A disproportionate number of in-house folks came from a corporate practice. Litigation skills like taking depos and writing motions are not really that applicable to what an in-house attorney does day to day. So my impression is that they are attainable but for every 3 in-house hires only 1 is going to be of a litigation bro/brodette. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

This is exactly right, from my experience and a dataset I saw once way back when. The rough numbers I always have in my head is that large firm headcounts are 2/3 lit and 1/3 corp whereas inhouse lawyers hail 2/3 from corp and 1/3 from lit.

Also, on compensation, inhouse gigs can be fabulously remunerative. SOMEBODY winds up GC at every corporation, and plenty of inhouse lawyers move into business roles once within the organization. Obviously it's rare to see comp get that high in-house, but it's also rare to make partner, stay partner, and earn more than the average PPP at your firm as partner...

More important: above average PPP or above average PP?

[Cogburn87]

Please, link to stories of associates who left places like Boies, Paul Weiss, GDC etc or any other litigation powerhouse that have a hard time lateraling. I know a decent amount of people who have left firms like this and they all lateraled to other great places. AUSA, mid firm, other big law, fed gov etc.

Maybe limited exit ops are true for lit associates not coming from firms that are known for their litigation practice but that is just a matter of not playing at the top of your respective game, obviously exit ops are gonna be lesser. The Bigtime lit firms are feeders into great exit ops.

Man. I guess you're right. I suppose all the Biglaw litigation people know who jumped to 70k state gov't gigs (and were happy to get them) were just not at "litigation powerhouses." Should have bid on those "Bigtime" lit firms at OCI I guess.

[84651846190]

Please, link to stories of associates who left places like Boies, Paul Weiss, GDC etc or any other litigation powerhouse that have a hard time lateraling. I know a decent amount of people who have left firms like this and they all lateraled to other great places. AUSA, mid firm, other big law, fed gov etc.

Maybe limited exit ops are true for lit associates not coming from firms that are known for their litigation practice but that is just a matter of not playing at the top of your respective game, obviously exit ops are gonna be lesser. The Bigtime lit firms are feeders into great exit ops.

(person who has no idea what he/she is talking about)

[Frayed Knot]

Please, link to stories of associates who left places like Boies, Paul Weiss, GDC etc or any other litigation powerhouse that have a hard time lateraling. I know a decent amount of people who have left firms like this and they all lateraled to other great places. AUSA, mid firm, other big law, fed gov etc.

Maybe limited exit ops are true for lit associates not coming from firms that are known for their litigation practice but that is just a matter of not playing at the top of your respective game, obviously exit ops are gonna be lesser. The Bigtime lit firms are feeders into great exit ops.

(person who has no idea what he/she is talking about)

[Anonymous User]

A disproportionate number of in-house folks came from a corporate practice. Litigation skills like taking depos and writing motions are not really that applicable to what an in-house attorney does day to day. So my impression is that they are attainable but for every 3 in-house hires only 1 is going to be of a litigation bro/brodette. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

This is exactly right, from my experience and a dataset I saw once way back when. The rough numbers I always have in my head is that large firm headcounts are 2/3 lit and 1/3 corp whereas inhouse lawyers hail 2/3 from corp and 1/3 lit.

I asked this is another thread but didn't get an answer. Where does labor & employment fit into all this? It seems like its own practice, and I frequently see L&E in-house positions advertised on ACC. At the same time, I'm wondering if a chunk of the 1/3 lit jobs are really just L&E jobs, which makes me think there are even fewer in-house opportunities for general lit associates seeking to go in-house. Anyone have any thoughts?

Edit: didn't mean to post anon. -sherpaorlawschool

[sinfiery]

get your linkedin premium free trial, put firm as previous employer and start stalking

[los blancos]

My impression is that midlaw/regional biglaw is only a good place to end up long-term insofar as you either:

a) find yourself working under some big-time rainmakers who will pass business down to you when they exit stage right
b) have the personality/connections/drive to hustle, network, and bring clients through the door

It is not easy to show up to a secondary market 2-4 years into a career and start bringing clients through the door within 2-3 years if you don't already have existing ties/connections.

I absolutely agree that you can't showing up as a 5th year with no connections isn't a good place to be. However, connections don't have to be local—out-of-region connections with people who might send you business when they don't know anyone else in that state can also be really helpful. Maybe even better than local connections, since not as many people in your midlaw firm will know those people.

b) have the personality/connections/drive to hustle, network, and bring clients through the door

Focusing just on this point, I agree but want to emphasize that it's not one-size-fits-all. Are there people who bring in crazy business because they can walk in to a cold room and walk out with 5 new best friends? Sure. But there are also people who bring home serious business by doing really great work, impressing their coworkers, co-counsel, and opposing counsel, and then keeping in touch with those people over the years.

Completely agree with both points. On the former, though, I'm just not sure you can build a book of business sufficient to achieve partnership/maintain a remotely lucrative partnership based on out-of-region connections for any significant chunk of your bills. Like it's always nice to have friends in big cities at big firms serving as nat'l coordinating counsel that'll call you up when they need local help, but that hardly seems like something that'll get you the consistent flow you really want.

[KM2016]

Things I've learned from this thread:

1) Do transactional, not litigation. (Luckily my 2L SA firm is hugely transactional).

2) By year 5 if you're not partnership track, GTFO.

3) I should have never gone to law school.

[patogordo]

Things I've learned from this thread:

1) Do transactional, not litigation. (Luckily my 2L SA firm is hugely transactional).

2) By year 5 if you're not partnership track, GTFO.

3) I should have never gone to law school.

this guy gets it

[los blancos]

Bumping this thread just because.

eta: the thing I wish I had known before going into private practice is that getting to actually practice law is a privilege that is the sole province of people who bring in business. Whether or not you're in a place to actually practice law often has much less to do with how good you are at practicing law than what kind of professional network you have and how good you are at being a schmooze/bringing in business, to the extent that's even a skill that "should" be rewarded. It's true now more than it has ever been that this profession is more a business than a genteel craft. That works for some people, and I always knew it was part of the game, but I don't think I recognized the extent of it until I actually started working. It sucks.

[jd20132013]

Also, there are A LOT of firms outside the biglaw world that do only litigation or way more litigation than corporate work, especially in smaller markets. As a litigator, you have a very good chance at becoming a partner or permanent associate at some law firm, even though you may not be making anywhere near biglaw money.

What would compensation be for a perm associate or partner at one of these smaller firms though? I know it won't be comparable to biglaw partner pay, but is there ANY such thing as a 200-300k all-in exit option for litigators?

I've been scouring the web/TLS for data on this, but seems the consensus is that it's a black box...

I agree with badaboom61—my understanding is that a lot of (non-NY) midlaw firms have more openings for litigation associates. (After all, there's only so much public-company M&A, and much of that work is in NY. But companies get sued everywhere.) Many firms would prefer to staff cases with more profitable midlevels and fewer junior associates; the diamond model of law firm organization is pretty popular outside of BigLaw.

This sort of large-firm midlaw seems to pay somewhere between 100k (entry level) to 300k+ (non-rainmaker partner). But you can get some idea by looking at the PPP of AmLaw 200 firms.

As far as I understand it, there are three keys to getting that sort of job: 1)Get at least some substantive experience—no one is looking to hire someone with 3 years of doc review. 2)Be willing to take a big pay cut, including dropping class years because you don't have the same experience that a home-grown midlaw associate would have. 3)Have some connection to the firm so that you're not sending in a blind resume. That could be a classmate who works there, ties to the region, or having worked with them as local counsel.

*(I'm a 3L, so take everything above with a handful of salt. But it's a topic that's pretty relevant to me and one that I've asked a lot of people about both in BigLaw and midlaw.)

This guy might be an example of a best-case scenario: http://www.faegrebd.com/joel-sayres

He went from a top, white-shoe litigation boutique to a midlaw firm and still hasn't made partner (after 12 years of practice), despite a COA clerkship, YLS degree and tons of relevant experience. Like I said, this guy is one of the winners. He still gets to practice litigation after (presumably) not making partner. I've heard from recruiters that quite a few senior litigation associates are essentially unemployable after their 10th year because firms are generally awash with service partners and eager, striving midlevels who can do the same work.

*chuckles at fact this guy made partner since this post

[84651846190]

*chuckles at fact this guy made partner since this post

Well there you go. It really did turn out to be the best case scenario after all.

[Desert Fox]

just getting a partner label doesn't mean shit. I work with of counsels who definitely make more money than non-equity partners elsewhere. In fact, we've had people lateral from partner at other firms only make of counsel. They are essentially the same gig. You are some real partners bitch.

IMO the reason you should lateral down is because you have a better chance at building your own practice. Nobody is paying biglaw rates for novices.

[84651846190]

just getting a partner label doesn't mean shit. I work with of counsels who definitely make more money than non-equity partners elsewhere. In fact, we've had people lateral from partner at other firms only make of counsel. They are essentially the same gig. You are some real partners bitch.

IMO the reason you should lateral down is because you have a better chance at building your own practice. Nobody is paying biglaw rates for novices.

Truth. Lateraling down usually means fewer (and/or crappier) institutional clients, however, which ironically makes it harder to be a service partner with no book of business. I get that sense that there's more of a "everyone needs to pull their own weight" kind of mentality at firms with lower PPP and lower billing rates.

[Big Shrimpin]

let's keep these lit exit ops threads going

the depression factor is incredible

[los blancos]

^So given that exit opps suck and I'm not going to get gvmt, maybe I should just quit now?