Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=190987
http://www.chambers-associate.com/Artic ... aSummariesAnonymous User wrote: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.Anonymous User wrote: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?
DISCOBARRRRRRREDthesealocust wrote: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.
Yo.seespotrun wrote:DISCOBARRRRRRREDthesealocust wrote: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.
That's all I've got.thesealocust wrote:Yo.seespotrun wrote:DISCOBARRRRRRREDthesealocust wrote: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.
Only if you want a job. But you knew the answer to this question before you thread-questioned the internet.Anonymous User wrote: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?
Fair enoughseespotrun wrote:That's all I've got.
Egregious lack of Employee Benefits/ERISA coverage.nonprofit-prophet wrote:http://www.chambers-associate.com/Artic ... aSummariesAnonymous User wrote: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?
hth
thesealocust wrote:Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongstadultschildren aged 25 to 30.
Indeed. 436 is the fucking bane of my present existence.thesealocust wrote:Drafting qualified employee benefits plans is the leading cause of suicide amongst adults aged 25 to 30.
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.Anonymous User wrote:bump. any good stock answers?
Anonymous User wrote: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.Anonymous User wrote:thats a really good answer... could you explain further though. How do u make the pie bigger doing transactional?
I know someone at GT NY. NALP is wrong.Anonymous User wrote: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?
Can you get me one of these?seespotrun wrote: Only if you want a job.
Why use NALP when you can search their website: http://www.gtlaw.com/People/Search-Resu ... fice=@5801keg411 wrote:I know someone at GT NY. NALP is wrong.Anonymous User wrote: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?