Top Law Schools

There is a lot of discussion on here about exit options. From what I gather, if you have any desire to ever, ever, EVER open your own shop, then litigation is a must. However, I am wondering about going in-house: is transactional pretty much required for this to be a practical expectation? I know very little about it (obviously), but I wouldn't expect any but the very largest of corporations to keep an in-house litigation team.

Transactional is the way to go if you have in-house aspirations. There are litigators in-house but far fewer than transactional folks. In-house lawyers are doing the day-to-day legal advising which includes things like contracts and whatnot. This is not to say that if you are a litigator it is impossible for you to change the focus of your practice when you go in-house but it is simpler and you will be a more attractive in-house candidate if you have a transactional practice.

Somebody actually posted a study a while back that confirmed like 2/3+ of inhouse positions went to former corporate associates. Some litigators definitely do make the jump though.

As far as "owning your own shop" I have no idea what you're getting at. It's extraordinarily unlikely for you to "own your own shop" whatever practice you start in, it's not a lateral move to ownership. You could own your own firm as soon as you pass the bar by calling yourself a law firm.

Gracias to both of the above.

Here's the link, because I am a searching machine:

http://www.heidrick.com/PublicationsRep ... el2011.pdf

and also this:

http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecare ... -corp.html

Corporate probably increases your in-house marketability five- to tenfold.