Top Law Schools

Hi All,

I'm primarily interested in transactional work upon graduation. My school, however, doesn't really have a transactional clinic. Currently I'm registered for a full-year criminal clinic that I'm very excited about, because the professors and the experience are supposedly phenomenal.

So, given that I'm hoping to score a transactional SA position next summer (corporate, m&a, private equity, vc, t&e, or exec. comp. would be my dreams), do you think I should put the criminal clinic on my resume as an "activity" for OCI?

Thanks!

Bump? I need to submit my resumes by tomorrow at noon...

Wait, your school doesn't have a corporate tax or mergers & acquisitions clinic? That's really bizarre, what a TTT. Firms really expect you to have had your hands on a major deal prior to OCI these days.

Hah hah. Yes. I understand that it's not unusual for a law student to have very little transactional experience. However, I'm curious whether putting too much litigation experience will look odd when I tell them I'm primarily interested in the transactional practice areas.

Anonymous User wrote:Hah hah. Yes. I understand that it's not unusual for a law student to have very little transactional experience. However, I'm curious whether putting too much litigation experience will look odd when I tell them I'm primarily interested in the transactional practice areas.

Not a problem at all. There's almost nothing a 1L can do to touch transactional work prior to OCI, and firms understand that. Looking engaged and involved is going to be helpful no matter what. It'll be your school + GPA + prior experience that make or break your run for corporate law. No harm will befall you for taking advantage of such opportunities as were actually available to you while in law school.

Thanks for your insight!

disco_barred wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hah hah. Yes. I understand that it's not unusual for a law student to have very little transactional experience. However, I'm curious whether putting too much litigation experience will look odd when I tell them I'm primarily interested in the transactional practice areas.

Not a problem at all. There's almost nothing a 1L can do to touch transactional work prior to OCI, and firms understand that. Looking engaged and involved is going to be helpful no matter what. It'll be your school + GPA + prior experience that make or break your run for corporate law. No harm will befall you for taking advantage of such opportunities as were actually available to you while in law school.

i don't think there is an expectation that you have done transactional work but you should take classes that demonstrate your interest in corporate law. So if you really want to be a corporate/m&a type attorney then make sure you have tax, securities, etc. on your transcript. If this clinic means you cannot take those classes then I would forgo taking the clinic.

Anonymous User wrote:

disco_barred wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hah hah. Yes. I understand that it's not unusual for a law student to have very little transactional experience. However, I'm curious whether putting too much litigation experience will look odd when I tell them I'm primarily interested in the transactional practice areas.

Not a problem at all. There's almost nothing a 1L can do to touch transactional work prior to OCI, and firms understand that. Looking engaged and involved is going to be helpful no matter what. It'll be your school + GPA + prior experience that make or break your run for corporate law. No harm will befall you for taking advantage of such opportunities as were actually available to you while in law school.

i don't think there is an expectation that you have done transactional work but you should take classes that demonstrate your interest in corporate law. So if you really want to be a corporate/m&a type attorney then make sure you have tax, securities, etc. on your transcript. If this clinic means you cannot take those classes then I would forgo taking the clinic.

Huh. Never heard this advice before. That said, no one, including me, should really make broad sweeping generalizations about what firms are looking for right now, and I wouldn't take even what a hiring partner says at one firm as being representative of what real lawyers. I do know that every conversation I've had about classes more or less ends up with "take what you're interested in," "take classes from the best professors," and "if you can do a clinic and it seems like fun, 100% go for it, regardless of what area it's in."

My spin on this personally is that the litigation v. transactional, or what "area of law" issue is really about you, not the firm -- you should be focusing bids on firms that are strong in areas that you feel good about, or, if you decide you don't care and just want to go with a strong firm, then I think if you have the option, you should choose to do whatever the firm is best at -- because that way you will have the best chances of having a successful career. Besides that, I wouldn't worry about it.

sbalive wrote:
Huh. Never heard this advice before. That said, no one, including me, should really make broad sweeping generalizations about what firms are looking for right now, and I wouldn't take even what a hiring partner says at one firm as being representative of what real lawyers. I do know that every conversation I've had about classes more or less ends up with "take what you're interested in," "take classes from the best professors," and "if you can do a clinic and it seems like fun, 100% go for it, regardless of what area it's in."

This is advice from my career services. And I personally I think it makes sense. If the advice you get is take what you are interested in - which is great advice - and so you take public interest type classes and avoid tax and securities, etc. like the plague don't you think that sends a signal to employers?

Anonymous User wrote:

sbalive wrote:
Huh. Never heard this advice before. That said, no one, including me, should really make broad sweeping generalizations about what firms are looking for right now, and I wouldn't take even what a hiring partner says at one firm as being representative of what real lawyers. I do know that every conversation I've had about classes more or less ends up with "take what you're interested in," "take classes from the best professors," and "if you can do a clinic and it seems like fun, 100% go for it, regardless of what area it's in."

This is advice from my career services. And I personally I think it makes sense. If the advice you get is take what you are interested in - which is great advice - and so you take public interest type classes and avoid tax and securities, etc. like the plague don't you think that sends a signal to employers?

Well, potential 2LSAs employers will only really know what you're taking in the Fall of your 2L year. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Public Interest" class would be, but I guess it would probably not be good to take just "Law and X" classes that aren't substantive at all.

Oh, I should point out that there may be an issue if you do have to get a job as a 3L -- in that case, based on anecdotal evidence, what classes students took can impact employment chances. And, ITE, no guarantees, etc. Also, for getting on cases once you're a junior associate, I've heard that it helps to be able to say that you took classes in the area.