Top Law Schools

So I am generally interested in employment law (worked for a judge this summer who had previously worked in this area). But as a 1L did not have an opportunity to take any employment related classes. If asked in an interview why employment law what are some good answers to this question? What is the best way to address it in an interview?

gmr189 wrote:So I am generally interested in employment law (worked for a judge this summer who had previously worked in this area). But as a 1L did not have an opportunity to take any employment related classes. If asked in an interview why employment law what are some good answers to this question? What is the best way to address it in an interview?

Don't sweat it. Most 1Ls do not have a chance to take any non-core courses anyways, much less anything employment focused.

anon168 wrote:

gmr189 wrote:So I am generally interested in employment law (worked for a judge this summer who had previously worked in this area). But as a 1L did not have an opportunity to take any employment related classes. If asked in an interview why employment law what are some good answers to this question? What is the best way to address it in an interview?

Don't sweat it. Most 1Ls do not have a chance to take any non-core courses anyways, much less anything employment focused.

Thanks, part of my reasoning is that I've worked with people with disabilities so thats one of the reasons I want to work in employment law, for the advocacy aspect. But the firms I'm interviewing with represent/counsel employers so I'm having trouble figuring out how to work that in to working for employers on these issues

The answer that I give as a 3L who's done a lot of work in employment discrimination is that it's one of the few areas of law (along with criminal law) where the cases revolve around real life stories from people about important events that affect their lives greatly (and it's probably the only area of law that you can practice at a big firm where that's true). That makes it much easier to become engaged in and care about your work than if you were doing, say, corporate law. I've given that answer to a bunch of employment law partners, and all of them seem to agree and say that they chose employment law for the same reason.

nevdash wrote:The answer that I give as a 3L who's done a lot of work in employment discrimination is that it's one of the few areas of law (along with criminal law) where the cases revolve around real life stories from people about important events that affect their lives greatly (and it's probably the only area of law that you can practice at a big firm where that's true). That makes it much easier to become engaged in and care about your work than if you were doing, say, corporate law. I've given that answer to a bunch of employment law partners, and all of them seem to agree and say that they chose employment law for the same reason.

Thanks! very helpful!

Not OP here. Since we're on the topic of employment law, figured I'd ask a question of my own. One of the firms I'm interviewing with is Littler. I hear different things from different people about whether or not choosing Littler would permanently kill prospects of lateraling into a plaintiff-side office. Thoughts?

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP here. Since we're on the topic of employment law, figured I'd ask a question of my own. One of the firms I'm interviewing with is Littler. I hear different things from different people about whether or not choosing Littler would permanently kill prospects of lateraling into a plaintiff-side office. Thoughts?

Plaintiff's side for employees? Or just plaintiff's work in general?

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP here. Since we're on the topic of employment law, figured I'd ask a question of my own. One of the firms I'm interviewing with is Littler. I hear different things from different people about whether or not choosing Littler would permanently kill prospects of lateraling into a plaintiff-side office. Thoughts?

Plaintiff's side for employees? Or just plaintiff's work in general?

Either I suppose. I have some legit employment stuff on my resume, but in the end I just want a job with lots of litigation in the courtroom. Littler seems to do a lot of that but it doesn't look like they keep people on board for partner tracks almost ever, and if I could eventually swing plaintiff then that would be cool.

Anonymous User wrote:

anon168 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP here. Since we're on the topic of employment law, figured I'd ask a question of my own. One of the firms I'm interviewing with is Littler. I hear different things from different people about whether or not choosing Littler would permanently kill prospects of lateraling into a plaintiff-side office. Thoughts?

Plaintiff's side for employees? Or just plaintiff's work in general?

Either I suppose. I have some legit employment stuff on my resume, but in the end I just want a job with lots of litigation in the courtroom. Littler seems to do a lot of that but it doesn't look like they keep people on board for partner tracks almost ever, and if I could eventually swing plaintiff then that would be cool.

It won't foreclose it. It's harder to go the other way (employer to employee), then it is to go from defending employers and then switching to suing them.