Good stock answers for “Why litigation?” or Forum

[Anonymous User]

“Why transactional?" Or clever answers for those who aren’t sure what practice area they want and are open to anything?

[buckilaw]

relevant to my interests.

I've heard that when talking about transactional to highlight that you work well in less adversarial team driven environments. Not sure if it interviewers actually buy that line though.

[marlo45]

Why litigation?

Because this one time, i actually won an argument with my wife.

[Bronck]

Search function:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p4061387

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p5554698

[Julio_El_Chavo]

"I'm kind of an asshole and I like sticking it to people."

[ruski]

for trans, i would not say you like working in less adversarial contexts. it sounds like you dont know how to handle conflict. instead of saying why you DONT want litigation, focus on why you DO want corporate. so instead of saying you want less adversarial working conditions, say you like the idea of working in a collaborative group to get a deal closed, with each person doing a vital part and in the end there is something to show for it. its a process of building something and that appeals to you. and that you like the fact that deals have much quicker turn around times and that you could be working on several matters at once and this is exciting to you etc.

[dingbat]

Why litigation?

Because this one time, i actually won an argument with my wife.

I don't believe you

[marlo45]

Why litigation?

Because this one time, i actually won an argument with my wife.

I don't believe you

[r6_philly]

"I'm kind of an asshole and I like sticking it to people."

I should use this at least once in OCI.

[r6_philly]

Why litigation?

Because this one time, i actually won an argument with my wife.

I don't believe you

Prove it.

[NotMyRealName09]

This is a weird topic. The answer to that question should be some variation on how it is personally interesting to you. This topic asks for a canned bullshit answer when the right answer should be genuine. You are asking how to fake it.

If you cannot come up with an answer for "why litigation" or "why transactional," then you shouldn't go into that field - or you need to think harder about the trajectory of your life. And if the answer is "I don't know," be genuine with that answer rather than blowing smoke up my ass. I'll smell you coming a mile away, and disingenuous people are not likable.

[Anonymous User]

After doing a mock interview, my interviewer said that my answer for why litigation came off as canned - but it's actually not canned. I do have a passion for it, i guess i'm just not as good at expressing that passion.

what are some ways to get that across in the short interview context?

[rad lulz]

"I have a passion for discoverable documents."

[NewHere]

Nobody expects a 2L to be sure that they want to do one or the other, and saying you're not sure is perfectly acceptable. Of course there are better ways of saying you're not sure and worse ways. Bad: "Oh, dunno." Better: "I am hoping to find out during the summer program by working on different matters." Pretty good: "I am leaning toward litigation, but based on law school classes alone I don't think I have enough of a sense of what it would be like to do transactional work to know for sure. I am hoping to work on different matters over the summer to learn more about the work that is typically done on a deal or a case."

Obviously, if you're interviewing with a firm that does only litigation work, or only transactional work, don't say you'd like to try both.

[Zeile]

I'd like to see more input on this as well.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if stock answers will do. I interviewed with both transactional and litigation groups. No one really asked me the "why" question straight up, but I crafted what I said around my different strength that are applicable for each group. At the end, I got offers at both, and both said I was "perfect" for each side of the practice. So the best answers are those that reflects what you have done previously, rather than just stock answers that reflect simple desires.

[Resolve]

I don't know if stock answers will do. I interviewed with both transactional and litigation groups. No one really asked me the "why" question straight up, but I crafted what I said around my different strength that are applicable for each group. At the end, I got offers at both, and both said I was "perfect" for each side of the practice. So the best answers are those that reflects what you have done previously, rather than just stock answers that reflect simple desires.

More specifics, please? Ur anon, so what sort of things that you've done previously did you highlight? Many people are straight-through from UG and haven't done anything.

[happy187]

why would you want a canned answer?

[Zeile]

tagged

[Richie Tenenbaum]

After doing a mock interview, my interviewer said that my answer for why litigation came off as canned - but it's actually not canned. I do have a passion for it, i guess i'm just not as good at expressing that passion.

what are some ways to get that across in the short interview context?

I think expressing such certainty about how much you have a passion for something you've never really done comes off as fake (assuming you weren't a paralegal for a few years before law school). Maybe describe some of the reasons why you think you would enjoy it and ask the lawyer for feedback on whether your perception of how things are is accurate.

[Anonymous User]

This is that anon.

I've had experience working in a law firm before (this summer, 1L, is my 4th summer working at a firm).

So I do have some basis for it.

[nouseforaname123]

why would you want a canned answer?

Because biglaw attorneys who have probably interviewed hundreds of law students won't be able to see right through a canned answer, right?

Edit to contribute something: OP, just be sincere and honest. If you don't know what you're interested in just be upfront about it. Tell them what you think you might be interested in and why. You *might* be able to bullshit your way through a screening interview, but you'll struggle to pull it off in a cb. The people interviewing you have a significant advantage in that they get to interview a lot of applicants and have more experience dealing with this process.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know if stock answers will do. I interviewed with both transactional and litigation groups. No one really asked me the "why" question straight up, but I crafted what I said around my different strength that are applicable for each group. At the end, I got offers at both, and both said I was "perfect" for each side of the practice. So the best answers are those that reflects what you have done previously, rather than just stock answers that reflect simple desires.

More specifics, please? Ur anon, so what sort of things that you've done previously did you highlight? Many people are straight-through from UG and haven't done anything.

I have WE that allowed me to build skills for both practices. I actually also have the personality for both. Instead of highlighting all my experiences and skills, I look up the people I interview with, and focus on the relevant stuff that will most likely impress them. It helps that I have worked on contracts and litigation matters as a client.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

This is that anon.

I've had experience working in a law firm before (this summer, 1L, is my 4th summer working at a firm).

So I do have some basis for it.

Not saying you don't, but it might induce some eye-rolling for an associate or a partner to have someone who's been a summer associate (or summer college intern) talk about how passionate they are about litigation because of their summer work. I'm completely clueless as a 2L summer associate--the only thing I know is that what I'm doing during the summer is not very representative of what it is like to be an actual associate. (I sincerely doubt even the firms with the reps of having the more realistic summer program experiences are very like actual real life practice.)

[mvpforme]

.