Top Law Schools

Can they go to biglaw? Or do they typically go to plainitff's firms? This is assuming they don't want to be government employees for life.

corporatelaw87 wrote:Can they go to biglaw? Or do they typically go to plainitff's firms? This is assuming they don't want to be government employees for life.

Depends on what city/market you are in.

Some biglaw firms will hire from local DAs, and some do go to plaintiffs' firms, but most likely exit career path is in a smaller boutique criminal defense firm.

What market are you looking at?

Anywhere that they can find gainful employment in the legal field.

There is a guy here at a state AG's office who was with the DA before.

anon168 wrote:

corporatelaw87 wrote:Can they go to biglaw? Or do they typically go to plainitff's firms? This is assuming they don't want to be government employees for life.

Depends on what city/market you are in.

Some biglaw firms will hire from local DAs, and some do go to plaintiffs' firms, but most likely exit career path is in a smaller boutique criminal defense firm.

What market are you looking at?

So does the office matter more than school credentials? Like does magna/LR --> Podunk DA have a worse shot at a nearby big firm than median/MC --> Manhattan DA?

nevdash wrote:

anon168 wrote:

corporatelaw87 wrote:Can they go to biglaw? Or do they typically go to plainitff's firms? This is assuming they don't want to be government employees for life.

Depends on what city/market you are in.

Some biglaw firms will hire from local DAs, and some do go to plaintiffs' firms, but most likely exit career path is in a smaller boutique criminal defense firm.

What market are you looking at?

So does the office matter more than school credentials? Like does magna/LR --> Podunk DA have a worse shot at a nearby big firm than median/MC --> Manhattan DA?

NYC biglaw is not hiring from DA. Firm of 75 odd people in Podunk is more likely.

Let's say exit opportunities from Manhattan DA

rad lulz wrote:

nevdash wrote:

anon168 wrote:

corporatelaw87 wrote:Can they go to biglaw? Or do they typically go to plainitff's firms? This is assuming they don't want to be government employees for life.

Depends on what city/market you are in.

Some biglaw firms will hire from local DAs, and some do go to plaintiffs' firms, but most likely exit career path is in a smaller boutique criminal defense firm.

What market are you looking at?

So does the office matter more than school credentials? Like does magna/LR --> Podunk DA have a worse shot at a nearby big firm than median/MC --> Manhattan DA?

NYC biglaw is not hiring from DA. Firm of 75 odd people in Podunk is more likely.

This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

spleenworship wrote:This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

The kind of litigation done at a DA's office is so radically different from the work a biglaw firm does, it's not all that helpful. There is some hiring from USAOs, but those people usually start at a firm and duck into fedgov for a bit for some trial experience and then return to biglaw.

Spoke to someone who was a ADA in Manhattan for six years before joining a prestigious biglaw firm in NYC 2 years ago. I'm not sure if he's the exception or the norm, but hopefully it shows you that biglaw is not entirely out of the question.

spleenworship wrote: This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

Those biglaw firms barely go to trial. Ever. Big firm litigation is largely a motions practice in federal court. This is entirely unlike state court prosecutions (in many jurisdictions you'd be lucky to have someone read the briefs). Plus the work is entirely different.

AUSA is valuable for the firms that have white collar obviously, but I don't know if any firms that don't have white collar actively target AUSAs.

spleenworship wrote: This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

AUSAs usually have good exit options for federal civil litigation practice of all flavors, and white collar as you can imagine. ADA/Defenders probably have some options if you are a really good notable trial lawyer. Personally I see many more AUSA than any ADAs.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

spleenworship wrote:This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

The kind of litigation done at a DA's office is so radically different from the work a biglaw firm does, it's not all that helpful. There is some hiring from USAOs, but those people usually start at a firm and duck into fedgov for a bit for some trial experience and then return to biglaw.

Yeah, I understand the litigation is wildly different. I was talking about actual trial experience though, not litigation experience. Like, thinking on your feet, how to not piss off the judge, how to work a jury... shit that an associate at biglaw basically never sees. I've spent my summer at both a private civil firm and working for government prosecution and I've seen the massive difference in how the two operate. Litigation games are HUGE at the civil firm and profoundly minor at a DA's office. But when the crap hits the fan and we actually have to go to trial at the civil firm, the partners' experience as trial attorneys as ADAs/PDs or in plaintiff's work is a huge factor.

Is this why little plaintiffs firms actually win against biglaw sometimes? Because biglaw just doesn't have any trial lawyers capable of reading a jury pool and then playing to them?

rad lulz wrote:

nevdash wrote:

anon168 wrote:

corporatelaw87 wrote:Can they go to biglaw? Or do they typically go to plainitff's firms? This is assuming they don't want to be government employees for life.

Depends on what city/market you are in.

Some biglaw firms will hire from local DAs, and some do go to plaintiffs' firms, but most likely exit career path is in a smaller boutique criminal defense firm.

What market are you looking at?

So does the office matter more than school credentials? Like does magna/LR --> Podunk DA have a worse shot at a nearby big firm than median/MC --> Manhattan DA?

NYC biglaw is not hiring from DA. Firm of 75 odd people in Podunk is more likely.

Not necessarily true across the board. Some ADAs do make it into NYC biglaw, but it's rare.

Although if it is any ADA that's going to make into biglaw, it'll most likely come from a big city like NYC, Chicago, LA, etc. But to go from DA's office to biglaw you generally have to be a pretty big-wig at the DA.

spleenworship wrote:
This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

As someone mentioned upthread, the trial experience an ADA has can sometimes not translate to biglaw. Let’s say you get stuck doing misdemeanors, and you’re basically churning ½ day jury trials, that’s not going to get much play at biglaw. Even if you did a bunch of major felonies, unless they are white collar or complex fraud cases (rare at the state/county/city level), it won’t get much play at biglaw either. Blue-collar felony cases just don’t translate.

Of course jury trials (and court experience in general) matter, but most biglaw clients do not go to biglaw to do trials, they go to biglaw for damage control and mitigate losses.

spleenworship wrote: Yeah, I understand the litigation is wildly different. I was talking about actual trial experience though, not litigation experience. Like, thinking on your feet, how to not piss off the judge, how to work a jury... shit that an associate at biglaw basically never sees. I've spent my summer at both a private civil firm and working for government prosecution and I've seen the massive difference in how the two operate. Litigation games are HUGE at the civil firm and profoundly minor at a DA's office. But when the crap hits the fan and we actually have to go to trial at the civil firm, the partners' experience as trial attorneys as ADAs/PDs or in plaintiff's work is a huge factor.

I know firms that are "biglaw" in secondary markets that hire ADAs sometimes, especially if they do a lot of state court practice. But Federal civil practice is an entirely different game. It's NOT about the trial. As I mentioned above, since about 1% of civil cases go to trial, and when they do, the motions practice beforehand is arguably much more important, why does they typical biglaw firm that does commercial litigation or securities lit need some dude who's done 5 years doing violent crimes (aka not looking at masses of docs like in a typical commercial case) in state court, where people don't read the briefs, judges don't follow the rules of civil procedure, etc.? Depending on your jx, the difference between state court and Federal court is like night and day. You can talk about trial, but being a litigator isn't about going to trial any more.

spleenworship wrote:

JusticeHarlan wrote:

spleenworship wrote:This seems odd to me. ADA's with 5 years experience have about 10 times the trial experience of the average biglaw partner with 15 years at the firm. You would think that would be useful, at least in small numbers, to a biglaw firm. Especially from Manhattan DA's office. Or do they generally go for AUSAs to get people with trial experience?

The kind of litigation done at a DA's office is so radically different from the work a biglaw firm does, it's not all that helpful. There is some hiring from USAOs, but those people usually start at a firm and duck into fedgov for a bit for some trial experience and then return to biglaw.

Yeah, I understand the litigation is wildly different. I was talking about actual trial experience though, not litigation experience. Like, thinking on your feet, how to not piss off the judge, how to work a jury... shit that an associate at biglaw basically never sees. I've spent my summer at both a private civil firm and working for government prosecution and I've seen the massive difference in how the two operate. Litigation games are HUGE at the civil firm and profoundly minor at a DA's office. But when the crap hits the fan and we actually have to go to trial at the civil firm, the partners' experience as trial attorneys as ADAs/PDs or in plaintiff's work is a huge factor.

Is this why little plaintiffs firms actually win against biglaw sometimes? Because biglaw just doesn't have any trial lawyers capable of reading a jury pool and then playing to them?

This explains a lot, but sometimes the facts are just against biglaw. Take a products liability case. If grandma died from ingesting a bad drug, any decent plaintiff’s lawyer can have field day with those facts and play them to the heartstrings of th jury. Those same facts for a biglaw defense firm usu. runs something like this “all drugs have potential side effects, and sometimes those side effects have unintended consequences, blah blah.”

rad lulz wrote:

spleenworship wrote: Yeah, I understand the litigation is wildly different. I was talking about actual trial experience though, not litigation experience. Like, thinking on your feet, how to not piss off the judge, how to work a jury... shit that an associate at biglaw basically never sees. I've spent my summer at both a private civil firm and working for government prosecution and I've seen the massive difference in how the two operate. Litigation games are HUGE at the civil firm and profoundly minor at a DA's office. But when the crap hits the fan and we actually have to go to trial at the civil firm, the partners' experience as trial attorneys as ADAs/PDs or in plaintiff's work is a huge factor.

I know firms that are "biglaw" in secondary markets that hire ADAs sometimes, especially if they do a lot of state court practice. But Federal civil practice is an entirely different game. It's NOT about the trial. As I mentioned above, since about 1% of civil cases go to trial, and when they do, the motions practice beforehand is arguably much more important, why does they typical biglaw firm that does commercial litigation or securities lit need some dude who's done 5 years doing violent crimes (aka not looking at masses of docs like in a typical commercial case) in state court, where people don't read the briefs, judges don't follow the rules of civil procedure, etc.? Depending on your jx, the difference between state court and Federal court is like night and day. You can talk about trial, but being a litigator isn't about going to trial any more.

I'm sorry, but much of what you say just isn't all that accurate.

anon168 wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

spleenworship wrote: Yeah, I understand the litigation is wildly different. I was talking about actual trial experience though, not litigation experience. Like, thinking on your feet, how to not piss off the judge, how to work a jury... shit that an associate at biglaw basically never sees. I've spent my summer at both a private civil firm and working for government prosecution and I've seen the massive difference in how the two operate. Litigation games are HUGE at the civil firm and profoundly minor at a DA's office. But when the crap hits the fan and we actually have to go to trial at the civil firm, the partners' experience as trial attorneys as ADAs/PDs or in plaintiff's work is a huge factor.

I know firms that are "biglaw" in secondary markets that hire ADAs sometimes, especially if they do a lot of state court practice. But Federal civil practice is an entirely different game. It's NOT about the trial. As I mentioned above, since about 1% of civil cases go to trial, and when they do, the motions practice beforehand is arguably much more important, why does they typical biglaw firm that does commercial litigation or securities lit need some dude who's done 5 years doing violent crimes (aka not looking at masses of docs like in a typical commercial case) in state court, where people don't read the briefs, judges don't follow the rules of civil procedure, etc.? Depending on your jx, the difference between state court and Federal court is like night and day. You can talk about trial, but being a litigator isn't about going to trial any more.

I'm sorry, but much of what you say just isn't all that accurate.

Whatever you say brahhh.

Also what I said isn't that different from what you said like 4 poasts above lil breh.

Civil litigation is primarily about discovery, not motions. To be blunt, civil litigation is primarily about resources & then about discovery. How much justice can you afford ?

ADAs are a dime a dozen and their trial experience is very different from civil litigation. Also, representing the government usually gives credibility to ADAs that they do not get in the world of private law firm civil litigation.

rad lulz wrote:

spleenworship wrote: Yeah, I understand the litigation is wildly different. I was talking about actual trial experience though, not litigation experience. Like, thinking on your feet, how to not piss off the judge, how to work a jury... shit that an associate at biglaw basically never sees. I've spent my summer at both a private civil firm and working for government prosecution and I've seen the massive difference in how the two operate. Litigation games are HUGE at the civil firm and profoundly minor at a DA's office. But when the crap hits the fan and we actually have to go to trial at the civil firm, the partners' experience as trial attorneys as ADAs/PDs or in plaintiff's work is a huge factor.

I know firms that are "biglaw" in secondary markets that hire ADAs sometimes, especially if they do a lot of state court practice. But Federal civil practice is an entirely different game. It's NOT about the trial. As I mentioned above, since about 1% of civil cases go to trial, and when they do, the motions practice beforehand is arguably much more important, why does they typical biglaw firm that does commercial litigation or securities lit need some dude who's done 5 years doing violent crimes (aka not looking at masses of docs like in a typical commercial case) in state court, where people don't read the briefs, judges don't follow the rules of civil procedure, etc.? Depending on your jx, the difference between state court and Federal court is like night and day. You can talk about trial, but being a litigator isn't about going to trial any more.

Interesting. I see what you're saying about federal cases not actually going to trial. All the same I would assume from my time working at a plaintiff's firm this summer that biglaw clients are frequently hailed into state courts.... then again, most of those seem to use local counsel here, so maybe that's the difference.

Sorry for derailing, OP.