corporate law Forum

[Anonymous User]

Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?

[nonprofit-prophet]

Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?

http://www.chambers-associate.com/Artic ... aSummaries

hth

[anon168]

Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?

Transaction law is anything where a lawyer puts together some sort of agreement, or deal, which can range from an M&A, a finance agreement, a purchase and sale, a trust or will, a divorce decree or prenup, etc.

When people say corporate law vis-a-vis biglaw, it typically means some sort of M&A or financial transaction (e.g. LBO, IPO, etc.)

For your purposes when talking to biglaw, there's basically no difference between Transactional Work vs. Corporate Work.

But the more important question is why interview with a firm that does primarily corporate work when you want to litigate?

[thesealocust]

If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.

[seespotrun]

If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.

DISCOBARRRRRRRED

[thesealocust]

If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.

DISCOBARRRRRRRED

Yo.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?

[seespotrun]

If you are interviewing with a firm that does primarily corporate work, it's fine to express an interest in litigation. There are literally 0 big name, obvious firms that don't have - and hire - litigators for a decently sized litigation department.

Even Wachtell, probably the best known corporate/transactional law firm, has a large litigation department. Other NYC firms with big corporate departments tend to be no more than 60-70% corporate.

DISCOBARRRRRRRED

Yo.

That's all I've got.

Side note: best of luck, OP.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks. I greatly approve of Louis CK

[seespotrun]

OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?

Only if you want a job. But you knew the answer to this question before you thread-questioned the internet.

[thesealocust]

That's all I've got.

Fair enough

[patrickd139]

Truthfully, I am much more interested in litigation. But when I'm interviewing with a firm at does a lot of corporate/transactional work, what is a good answer for why I am interested in corporate? Also, what is the difference between corporate and transaction. And more broadly, what the heck is transactional?

http://www.chambers-associate.com/Artic ... aSummaries

hth

Egregious lack of Employee Benefits/ERISA coverage.

[thesealocust]

Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults aged 25 to 30.

[seespotrun]

Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults children aged 25 to 30.

[patrickd139]

Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults aged 25 to 30.

Indeed. 436 is the fucking bane of my present existence.

[Anonymous User]

bump. any good stock answers?

[anon168]

bump. any good stock answers?

Because you want to create value as a lawyer. As a litigator, you are essentially playing a zero-sum game -- i.e., it's just matter how you divide the pie between the players, with the pie staying the same size.

In corporate work, everyone works to make a bigger pie, and then take their share. It can be a much more fulfilling way to practice law. You are creating value, not simply trying to divide it.

[Anonymous User]

thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?

[JusticeHarlan]

thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?

[anon168]

thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?

To take a very basic, kindergarten example. When two companies merge -- let's say Dell and Microsoft -- they do it not because they just want to be bigger (because 2+2=4 isn't really creating value), but because there is some sort of synergy in vertically integrating their different product lines.

Dell makes hardware (again a simplification) and Microsoft makes software (again a simplification), so one can imagine that if a hardware and software company merge they can eliminate some of the market inefficiencies that hardware manufacturers and software makers face when trying to integrate their products (again, assuming away and antitrust concerns).

So in the case of Microsoft merging with Dell you get 2+2+Synergy=5

[keg411]

OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?

I know someone at GT NY. NALP is wrong.

[beach_terror]

Only if you want a job.

Can you get me one of these?

[quakeroats]

OP here. What about Greenberg Traurig? According to NALP there isn't a litigation department in NY, its all transaction. When interviewing with them, would it be a good idea to reject litigation and just gush about transactional as much as possible?

I know someone at GT NY. NALP is wrong.

Why use NALP when you can search their website: http://www.gtlaw.com/People/Search-Resu ... fice=@5801