Is lit actually harder to get than transactional Forum

[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.

Is that V50 Shearman? I also used to work there until a few years ago. All my corp friends from Shearman lateraled to DPW, STB, K&E, Latham, Skadden. Lit friends either stayed there or moved to midlaw as you said. This is because of much greater hiring needs in transactional practice groups than lit in this current economy. The M&A market has been crazy hot since 2021.

[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.

Lit exits are worse but not as bad as some people think. There's a bunch of different lit exits within the spheres of "government" and "firms."

The ideal exit IMO is to a firm that will pay you ~$250k as a midlevel, make you an equity partner in a few years, and expect ~1700 billables. There are firm exits on either side of that - more money and higher hours; less money and a more chill lifestyle. There are just a lot of firms out there. They do all sorts of law. If there's an area that you are actually interested in (since litigators take real interest in fields of the law, which surprises some paper pushers on the corp side), you can find that niche and practice it forever.

Government pays less but can come with more prestige, more of an opportunity to go back into biglaw later, better lifestyle, more sophisticated/interesting work, more responsibility to enforce the law, or any combination of those, depending on what the gig is.

Since the median TLS poster is a New York transactional associate who dreams of going in house to work 35 hours a week for good money (nothing wrong with that), the median TLS poster is going to perceive lit exits as much worse, because there are very very few of those jobs for litigators. But the exits are still pretty good for a biglaw litigator.

[Anonymous User]

Rising 2L at a T25, hoping for biglaw. My GPA is currently top 20%.

How much harder will my SA search be if I express a preference for litigation? I really want to do lit, but it’s more important that I get biglaw to pay off my loans.

You've had one year of law school. 1L is inherently litigation-based, as most 1L classes are case-based. Except in extremely rare cases, you have no idea whether you would actually prefer litigation over transactional work, especially biglaw versions of each. Have an open mind and try different areas of the law. You might find that you like something.

Yes, exactly this. It is harder to get litigation as an SA, so just say you're open to trying both during OCI. If you get an SA at most V50s, they'll usually accommodate your preference if you say litigation. Most important thing is getting your foot in the door with an offer.

Is this true for the rest of the v100, or just v50s?

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.

Would just like to bring this back to highlight to readers this is incredibly wrong. Top 20% at T6 is significantly overestimating the difficulty of getting biglaw lit from T6. Even assuming you're not a URM/no other interesting softs, you can be below median and feel comfortable focusing on lit in NYC if you're a good interviewer. Make sure to practice interviews and prepare answers.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Would just like to bring this back to highlight to readers this is incredibly wrong. Top 20% at T6 is significantly overestimating the difficulty of getting biglaw lit from T6. Even assuming you're not a URM/no other interesting softs, you can be below median and feel comfortable focusing on lit in NYC if you're a good interviewer. Make sure to practice interviews and prepare answers.

Nobody's saying you need those credentials to get a litigation job, but you probably do need those credentials to have >95% confidence that you'll get an offer, and I'd therefore only tell firms "I want litigation and am uninterested in corporate" if you have credentials like that (although I think top 20% and LR at any T13 should be fine).

"I'm most interested in [type of litigation] but looking forward to explore what the summer has to offer" is a much safer strategy for people who don't have that kind of credential-based confidence that they'll get the specific kind of job they want in the market that they want.

[Anonymous User]

Would just like to bring this back to highlight to readers this is incredibly wrong. Top 20% at T6 is significantly overestimating the difficulty of getting biglaw lit from T6. Even assuming you're not a URM/no other interesting softs, you can be below median and feel comfortable focusing on lit in NYC if you're a good interviewer. Make sure to practice interviews and prepare answers.

Nobody's saying you need those credentials to get a litigation job, but you probably do need those credentials to have >95% confidence that you'll get an offer, and I'd therefore only tell firms "I want litigation and am uninterested in corporate" if you have credentials like that (although I think top 20% and LR at any T13 should be fine).

"I'm most interested in [type of litigation] but looking forward to explore what the summer has to offer" is a much safer strategy for people who don't have that kind of credential-based confidence that they'll get the specific kind of job they want in the market that they want.

Or to do it on extra-extra-hard mode, "I'm only interested in appellate," an incredibly risky, foolish strategy but one I've nevertheless seen pay off more than once

[Anonymous User]

This is an entirely anecdotal example, but I went through OCI with similar stats as OP (also at a T25) and somehow landed a litigation SA.

I followed the advice in this thread, though—went into every interview saying some form of “I think I’d like to litigate, but I’m open.” Every time, my interviewer responded by telling me that I seem like a litigator / that I have a “litigator personality.”

I still have no idea what that means, but it was consistently the response I received and I ended up with multiple litigation-specific SA offers.

[jotarokujo]

This is an entirely anecdotal example, but I went through OCI with similar stats as OP (also at a T25) and somehow landed a litigation SA.

I followed the advice in this thread, though—went into every interview saying some form of “I think I’d like to litigate, but I’m open.” Every time, my interviewer responded by telling me that I seem like a litigator / that I have a “litigator personality.”

I still have no idea what that means, but it was consistently the response I received and I ended up with multiple litigation-specific SA offers.

yeah i have no idea what "litigator personality" means. for example, i still can't tell whether extroversion lends itself more to lit or to transactional. on the one hand, i feel like some who go transactional are closer to finance-bro type, which seems like it would be more extroverted, whereas litigation has more people interested in law in a nerdy way, possibly associated with introversion. on the other hand, maybe litigation's work actually involves more interaction with others? no idea

[Anonymous User]

This is an entirely anecdotal example, but I went through OCI with similar stats as OP (also at a T25) and somehow landed a litigation SA.

I followed the advice in this thread, though—went into every interview saying some form of “I think I’d like to litigate, but I’m open.” Every time, my interviewer responded by telling me that I seem like a litigator / that I have a “litigator personality.”

I still have no idea what that means, but it was consistently the response I received and I ended up with multiple litigation-specific SA offers.

yeah i have no idea what "litigator personality" means. for example, i still can't tell whether extroversion lends itself more to lit or to transactional. on the one hand, i feel like some who go transactional are closer to finance-bro type, which seems like it would be more extroverted, whereas litigation has more people interested in law in a nerdy way, possibly associated with introversion. on the other hand, maybe litigation's work actually involves more interaction with others? no idea

I also tried to sell myself as open to litigation or transactional during OCI (T6, median grades). Everyone seemed to immediately peg me as a litigator type. Struck out in NYC, got a SA at a well-respected regional midlaw firm and spent half of that summer in litigation practice at that firm and half in a transactional practice. It was clear to me that everyone who said I was a litigator was right. I love diving into a research question and crafting arguments in briefs. I also love being nosy and reading through spicy emails in discovery and finding key docs. Now that I am a senior associate, I have to deal with the more stressful stuff like oral arguments and depositions, but I would never call that boring. After about 3 years at my first firm, I managed to make the switch to a V50 firm in litigation. Lateral interviewing was much better for me than OCI (only interviewed at two places and both made offers). Maybe I'm not the most socially charming person ever, but I know how to do my area of litigation and that seems to be what matters for a lateral midlevel job.

The litigator partners at my old firm were all introverts who wanted you to send a memo and the cases by email and they would digest it by themselves and would say hello and thanks in the elevator. My new firm has more of a mixed bag of introverts like that and partners that want to talk things out.

[Anonymous User]

This is an entirely anecdotal example, but I went through OCI with similar stats as OP (also at a T25) and somehow landed a litigation SA.

I followed the advice in this thread, though—went into every interview saying some form of “I think I’d like to litigate, but I’m open.” Every time, my interviewer responded by telling me that I seem like a litigator / that I have a “litigator personality.”

I still have no idea what that means, but it was consistently the response I received and I ended up with multiple litigation-specific SA offers.

yeah i have no idea what "litigator personality" means. for example, i still can't tell whether extroversion lends itself more to lit or to transactional. on the one hand, i feel like some who go transactional are closer to finance-bro type, which seems like it would be more extroverted, whereas litigation has more people interested in law in a nerdy way, possibly associated with introversion. on the other hand, maybe litigation's work actually involves more interaction with others? no idea

In my opinion, you can tell how antagonistic someone is. Somebody who loves coming to an agreement? Probably transactional. Somebody who is looking for that W/a good debate? Lit.

I got caught in the transactional net, but definitely a lit type. Have to corral myself in every day to not get one over on other counsels. After all, we are all basically on the same team, but it's incredibly hard to motivate myself if I don't have some competition in there.