Top Law Schools

seems like the trend is to stay 3-5 years in a firm? and then what do ppl do?
what's it like to go in-house?
what does the lateral process entail?

in choosing a practice area for my first job, i should keep in mind future mobility?

just want to get a feel for what i can do with this JD... haha

I'm finishing up my first year at a firm and I intend to leave around year four or five and hopefully get a spot litigating for the government...either as an AUSA, with JAG, or at the DOJ somewhere. Of course all of this will depend on the state of federal hiring at that point, which is anybody's guess. From what I've heard, you are most marketable in your fourth year or so, and if you stay at a firm much past five years, the government starts to think that you view government work as a fall-back option because you're not making partner. Leaving on/before the five-year mark communicates the message that government work is your first choice, which is what I think they want to hear.

This has always been my plan (I want to be a trial attorney, and the best place to get respectable trial experience is with government) and I was up-front about that in my EIP interviews. (I also mentioned that my long-term goal would be to come BACK to the firm after working in government with my newfound trial experience, so it didn't seem like I was looking ONLY for a stepping-stone to government.) My attitude was that I didn't want to end up at a place that would not be on board with my leaving eventually. I wound up at a V20 firm with lots of substantive trial work but terrible partnership prospects---so basically the entire model of the firm depends on associates leaving. This works out great if you PLAN to leave, because I have found that partners are very on-board with helping associates find work elsewhere. I'm glad I talked about wanting to go to government as part of my career plan in job interviews, because I think it filtered out places that would have considered that to be a negative career move. Particularly in litigation, I think it's viewed as a positive to seek that kind of trial experience. Not sure about how it would be viewed in corporate departments or if you want to go in-house, though.

Loose Seal wrote:I wound up at a V20 firm with lots of substantive trial work but terrible partnership prospects---so basically the entire model of the firm depends on associates leaving. This works out great if you PLAN to leave, because I have found that partners are very on-board with helping associates find work elsewhere. I'm glad I talked about wanting to go to government as part of my career plan in job interviews, because I think it filtered out places that would have considered that to be a negative career move. Particularly in litigation, I think it's viewed as a positive to seek that kind of trial experience. Not sure about how it would be viewed in corporate departments or if you want to go in-house, though.

this is pretty interesting and i'm really curious what firm this is

fatduck wrote:

Loose Seal wrote:I wound up at a V20 firm with lots of substantive trial work but terrible partnership prospects---so basically the entire model of the firm depends on associates leaving. This works out great if you PLAN to leave, because I have found that partners are very on-board with helping associates find work elsewhere. I'm glad I talked about wanting to go to government as part of my career plan in job interviews, because I think it filtered out places that would have considered that to be a negative career move. Particularly in litigation, I think it's viewed as a positive to seek that kind of trial experience. Not sure about how it would be viewed in corporate departments or if you want to go in-house, though.

this is pretty interesting and i'm really curious what firm this is

Paul Weiss?

fatduck wrote:

Loose Seal wrote:I wound up at a V20 firm with lots of substantive trial work but terrible partnership prospects---so basically the entire model of the firm depends on associates leaving. This works out great if you PLAN to leave, because I have found that partners are very on-board with helping associates find work elsewhere. I'm glad I talked about wanting to go to government as part of my career plan in job interviews, because I think it filtered out places that would have considered that to be a negative career move. Particularly in litigation, I think it's viewed as a positive to seek that kind of trial experience. Not sure about how it would be viewed in corporate departments or if you want to go in-house, though.

this is pretty interesting and i'm really curious what firm this is

NVM just looked at your extremely short post history and it ruled out a lot of firms

Anonymous User wrote:

fatduck wrote:

Loose Seal wrote:I wound up at a V20 firm with lots of substantive trial work but terrible partnership prospects---so basically the entire model of the firm depends on associates leaving. This works out great if you PLAN to leave, because I have found that partners are very on-board with helping associates find work elsewhere. I'm glad I talked about wanting to go to government as part of my career plan in job interviews, because I think it filtered out places that would have considered that to be a negative career move. Particularly in litigation, I think it's viewed as a positive to seek that kind of trial experience. Not sure about how it would be viewed in corporate departments or if you want to go in-house, though.

this is pretty interesting and i'm really curious what firm this is

NVM just looked at your extremely short post history and it ruled out a lot of firms

Haha. I just joined to look around the employment boards. I'm helping with interviewing this year so I thought it would be a good idea to get the temperature of the room.

fatduck wrote:this is pretty interesting and i'm really curious what firm this is

This isn't uncommon at all. In fact there are many firms that will not promote you to partner, if you are in their government investigations etc. group, if you don't spend some time working for the federal government.

OP if you want to do something other than firm work then this is something that you should consider. But also consider that if you do want to stay in a firm long term and become a partner there are firms where that path is realistic. If you are interested in working in a firm long term you should look int secondary markets.

Oh, you go to a lower ranked firm and make equity partner, or you go in-house where you make almost as much money and work 40 hours a week, it's just that easy!

RVP11 wrote:Oh, you go to a lower ranked firm and make equity partner, or you go in-house where you make almost as much money and work 40 hours a week, it's just that easy!

hahahhaha like

Anonymous User wrote:

fatduck wrote:this is pretty interesting and i'm really curious what firm this is

This isn't uncommon at all. In fact there are many firms that will not promote you to partner, if you are in their government investigations etc. group, if you don't spend some time working for the federal government.

OP if you want to do something other than firm work then this is something that you should consider. But also consider that if you do want to stay in a firm long term and become a partner there are firms where that path is realistic. If you are interested in working in a firm long term you should look int secondary markets.

Agreed completely.

I think it helps a lot with the initial selection, to the degree to which you have a choice, if you know what you want to get out of the experience. A person who wants to stay for X years and make partner will have several different considerations than someone looking to leave within five years.