Top Law Schools

I'm a rising 3L summering at a V5. I came in leaning heavily towards transactional work solely because I believe - based upon what I've read and heard - exit options to be better from the transactional side as compared to the litigation side.

After spending about a month and a half doing both transactional and litigation assignments, a few things have become clear:

(1) I like the litigators more. The transactional people are great, but I really like the litigators, from the partners to the first years.

(2) I like the litigation work more. I don't dislike transactional work, but I'm finding myself more enthusiastic about my litigation assignments. No idea which I'm better at--after just 6 weeks, that's hard to figure out.

(3) The litigators clearly have better lives. Work/life balance is a laughable concept in biglaw, but it's noticeably worse for the transactional folks.

My question is what my primary concern should be at this point. Should I think about the next few years and what I think I'd enjoy more, or what I think might be better in the long run? I have zero idea of what I want to do after biglaw, so I suppose my question comes down to whether exit options are truly "better" for transactional attorneys, or if they're just different... I'm sure I'm not the first to be in this position, so if others have been here, please tell me how you handled it and whether you think you made the right choice.

Just pick something and fucking do it. God.

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Just pick something and fucking do it. God.

Do you recommend flipping a coin, pulling a piece of paper from a hat, or a magic 8 ball?

This is a decision that will have significant impacts on the direction of my career. I figure it deserves more than two seconds of consideration. Maybe I'm wrong and most attorneys just pick something and fucking do it--that'd explain why so many are depressed with their career choices.

Anonymous User wrote:

Biglaw_Associate_V20 wrote:Just pick something and fucking do it. God.

Do you recommend flipping a coin, pulling a piece of paper from a hat, or a magic 8 ball?

This is a decision that will have significant impacts on the direction of my career. I figure it deserves more than two seconds of consideration. Maybe I'm wrong and most attorneys just pick something and fucking do it--that'd explain why so many are depressed with their career choices.

Personally, I would take the higher quality of life while i'm at a law firm over the possibility of better exit options. Really, the only thing I read in your "pro-transactional column" is the exit options (which you haven't even identified specifically). You like working with the litigators more, you like the litigation work more, and the litigators, as far as you can tell, have better lives. If I were in your shoes, I would pick litigation. That said, I would be okay with being a lawyer for the rest of my life. If you aren't, and would rather have the opportunity to exit into business, then I would pick transactional.

Of course, it's much more complicated than this and i'm really just simplifying things so take it with as many grains of salt that you feel are appropriate.

Disclosure: I picked litigation.

If you don't like the idea of staying in a firm environment, think hard about going into litigation. There are not nearly the non-firm exit options for litigators as there are for non-litigators.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a rising 3L summering at a V5. I came in leaning heavily towards transactional work solely because I believe - based upon what I've read and heard - exit options to be better from the transactional side as compared to the litigation side.

After spending about a month and a half doing both transactional and litigation assignments, a few things have become clear:

(1) I like the litigators more. The transactional people are great, but I really like the litigators, from the partners to the first years.

(2) I like the litigation work more. I don't dislike transactional work, but I'm finding myself more enthusiastic about my litigation assignments. No idea which I'm better at--after just 6 weeks, that's hard to figure out.

(3) The litigators clearly have better lives. Work/life balance is a laughable concept in biglaw, but it's noticeably worse for the transactional folks.

My question is what my primary concern should be at this point. Should I think about the next few years and what I think I'd enjoy more, or what I think might be better in the long run? I have zero idea of what I want to do after biglaw, so I suppose my question comes down to whether exit options are truly "better" for transactional attorneys, or if they're just different... I'm sure I'm not the first to be in this position, so if others have been here, please tell me how you handled it and whether you think you made the right choice.

I was in this situation and picked litigation after my summer experience suggested that I would blow my brains out in a transactional environment. If you don't like the work, setting yourself to do the thing you don't like so you can continue to do the thing you don't like in house is actually insane.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a rising 3L summering at a V5. I came in leaning heavily towards transactional work solely because I believe - based upon what I've read and heard - exit options to be better from the transactional side as compared to the litigation side.

After spending about a month and a half doing both transactional and litigation assignments, a few things have become clear:

(1) I like the litigators more. The transactional people are great, but I really like the litigators, from the partners to the first years.

(2) I like the litigation work more. I don't dislike transactional work, but I'm finding myself more enthusiastic about my litigation assignments. No idea which I'm better at--after just 6 weeks, that's hard to figure out.

(3) The litigators clearly have better lives. Work/life balance is a laughable concept in biglaw, but it's noticeably worse for the transactional folks.

My question is what my primary concern should be at this point. Should I think about the next few years and what I think I'd enjoy more, or what I think might be better in the long run? I have zero idea of what I want to do after biglaw, so I suppose my question comes down to whether exit options are truly "better" for transactional attorneys, or if they're just different... I'm sure I'm not the first to be in this position, so if others have been here, please tell me how you handled it and whether you think you made the right choice.

I was in this situation and picked litigation after my summer experience suggested that I would blow my brains out in a transactional environment. If you don't like the work, setting yourself to do the thing you don't like so you can continue to do the thing you don't like in house is actually insane.

In house work is generally nothing like being a transactional associate at a firm. The background you get as a transactional associate is generally a prerequisite for getting the job. If you love litigation and don't like transactional, do litigation -- but with the knowledge you are most likely to be at a firm for your career. If you just like the people better, but don't see yourself wanting to stay at a firm, I wouldn't choose lit.

Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

Outside of in house positions, are government exit opportunities also much better for those who do transactional over lit? I'm not yet in OP's position, but I imagine that I might be, my thought process on lit vs. transactional has been similar.

kckool7 wrote:Outside of in house positions, are government exit opportunities also much better for those who do transactional over lit? I'm not yet in OP's position, but I imagine that I might be, my thought process on lit vs. transactional has been similar.

I have consistently been told that in-house is easier from transactional and gov is easier from lit.

TLS is generally ignorant about litigation exit options. According to TLS common wisdom, Bob Dell just takes you out back after year 4 and puts you down. I don't really have much to add, except don't trust TLS.

Desert Fox wrote:TLS is generally ignorant about litigation exit options. According to TLS common wisdom, Bob Dell just takes you out back after year 4 and puts you down. I don't really have much to add, except don't trust TLS.

This is true for everything beyond "retake the LSAT". Every other common piece of TLS wisdom seems like shit.

First Offense wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:TLS is generally ignorant about litigation exit options. According to TLS common wisdom, Bob Dell just takes you out back after year 4 and puts you down. I don't really have much to add, except don't trust TLS.

This is true for everything beyond "retake the LSAT". Every other common piece of TLS wisdom seems like shit.

mass mailing is pretty legit.

smallfirmassociate wrote:Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

I think you commit yourself to short-term misery for long-term goals. Think of your stint in biglaw as a well-paid residency program. The point is to set you up for what you really want to do long-term.

Also, even if you hate it, time flies by if you're busy.

nouseforaname123 wrote:

smallfirmassociate wrote:Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

I think you commit yourself to short-term misery for long-term goals. Think of your stint in biglaw as a well-paid residency program. The point is to set you up for what you really want to do long-term.

Also, even if you hate it, time flies by if you're busy.

Big Law is so much better than residency, btw. Near 3 times the salary, less total hours, significantly fewer dead bodies & less disease.

nouseforaname123 wrote:

smallfirmassociate wrote:Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

I think you commit yourself to short-term misery for long-term goals. Think of your stint in biglaw as a well-paid residency program. The point is to set you up for what you really want to do long-term.

Also, even if you hate it, time flies by if you're busy.

^^^ This is usually the type of stuff that law students say. Biglawyers tend to say something different. Again, this is the difference between rationalizing a bit of an investment into your career (makes sense) versus actually being in the porta-john shit soup that is biglaw practice.

The reasons residencies are more tolerable are that they are required, and when you're done, you make a lot more money. Biglaw is not required, and when you're done, you make less money. And there's no nobility in it. In fact, it is precisely BECAUSE you make a lot of money that it is so terrible, as that creates the expectations and relationships that lead to misery.

People who haven't practiced think the worst part of a "bad" law job is the hours. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every friend I have in biglaw thinks it sucks, but the total number of hours worked is probably reason #4 at best.

nouseforaname123 wrote:

smallfirmassociate wrote:Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

I think you commit yourself to short-term misery for long-term goals. Think of your stint in biglaw as a well-paid residency program. The point is to set you up for what you really want to do long-term.

Also, even if you hate it, time flies by if you're busy.

I mean, that's fine if you have a really specific exit option in mind bedsides "more exit options" but it's not clear OP does. If his/her dream in life is to go in-house, that's one thing. But maybe he'd like to stay at a firm or go to the government (Feds or state) - I think lit works for that.

smallfirmassociate wrote:

nouseforaname123 wrote:

smallfirmassociate wrote:Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

I think you commit yourself to short-term misery for long-term goals. Think of your stint in biglaw as a well-paid residency program. The point is to set you up for what you really want to do long-term.

Also, even if you hate it, time flies by if you're busy.

^^^ This is usually the type of stuff that law students say. Biglawyers tend to say something different. Again, this is the difference between rationalizing a bit of an investment into your career (makes sense) versus actually being in the porta-john shit soup that is biglaw practice.

The reasons residencies are more tolerable are that they are required, and when you're done, you make a lot more money. Biglaw is not required, and when you're done, you make less money. And there's no nobility in it. In fact, it is precisely BECAUSE you make a lot of money that it is so terrible, as that creates the expectations and relationships that lead to misery.

People who haven't practiced think the worst part of a "bad" law job is the hours. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every friend I have in biglaw thinks it sucks, but the total number of hours worked is probably reason #4 at best.

Sorry to disappoint you. I am an actual licensed big law lawyer who slept an average of three hours per night last week. I also had between five and ten years of professional work experience before law school, and that certainly plays into my opinion on this issue.

I don't think any general consensus exists about lit vs transactional or what makes big law miserable.

Most big law lawyers recognize there is no objective right answer to this eternal debate. The issue boils down to tradeoffs that can only be valued in a subjective manner. Personally, I'm the kind of guy who can grind away at a five- or ten-year goal and endure the misery if I am reasonably comfortable that there is a decent chance of a good outcome at the end. Other people are different.

And yes, there are differences between a residency program and a stint in biglaw. Note that I said one should think of a stint in big law like a well paid residency: the point is to set yourself up for the future. I concede that beyond my general point, a stint in biglaw and a residency program may be materially different.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

nouseforaname123 wrote:

smallfirmassociate wrote:Do whatever you can tolerate in the short term. I know it's hard to understand when you're still in law school, and I hear students throw out comments like "just four to six years at a firm," but that's a really long time if you dislike your job. If you hate your work, it's an eternity. Hell, if you hate your work, a month is an eternity. You're going to kick yourself for the "exit options" justification if you want to eat cyanide crackers after eight months in your new job, or if the misery causes you to leave biglaw quickly, thus limiting your exit options.

I think you commit yourself to short-term misery for long-term goals. Think of your stint in biglaw as a well-paid residency program. The point is to set you up for what you really want to do long-term.

Also, even if you hate it, time flies by if you're busy.

I mean, that's fine if you have a really specific exit option in mind bedsides "more exit options" but it's not clear OP does. If his/her dream in life is to go in-house, that's one thing. But maybe he'd like to stay at a firm or go to the government (Feds or state) - I think lit works for that.

I don't disagree with you. I only offer a differing POV from "do what you can tolerate in the short term."

nouseforaname123 wrote: Sorry to disappoint you. I am an actual licensed big law lawyer who slept an average of three hours per night last week. I also had between five and ten years of professional work experience before law school, and that certainly plays into my opinion on this issue.

I don't think any general consensus exists about lit vs transactional or what makes big law miserable.

Most big law lawyers recognize there is no objective right answer to this eternal debate. The issue boils down to tradeoffs that can only be valued in a subjective manner. Personally, I'm the kind of guy who can grind away at a five- or ten-year goal and endure the misery if I am reasonably comfortable that there is a decent chance of a good outcome at the end. Other people are different.

And yes, there are differences between a residency program and a stint in biglaw. Note that I said one should think of a stint in big law like a well paid residency: the point is to set yourself up for the future. I concede that beyond my general point, a stint in biglaw and a residency program may be materially different.

I have no reason to question that you are who you say you are; I'll just say that I find your take on it to be different from the norm, or at least what is the norm in my little world consisting of my network and other anecdotal evidence that is easy to dispute.

I understand your comparison to a residency and think, in theory, that it makes for a reasonable analogue. Misery, however, is not always rational. It's a psychological result, and you cannot control the inputs. Your brain takes all information it has and will do whatever it wants with it. So you can tell your brain that biglaw is like a residency, but if your brain knows that you can leave at any time, that you're not going to get a pay raise in the future, that maybe your work isn't noble (if this happens to be how you feel, not saying it has to be), and that there are a lot of reasons why biglaw is NOT like a residency, then it's going to reject the analogy and you're going to be miserable.

tl;dr - Logical internal dialogue that you should be happy may not actually affect your level of happiness.

smallfirmassociate wrote:

nouseforaname123 wrote: Sorry to disappoint you. I am an actual licensed big law lawyer who slept an average of three hours per night last week. I also had between five and ten years of professional work experience before law school, and that certainly plays into my opinion on this issue.

I don't think any general consensus exists about lit vs transactional or what makes big law miserable.

Most big law lawyers recognize there is no objective right answer to this eternal debate. The issue boils down to tradeoffs that can only be valued in a subjective manner. Personally, I'm the kind of guy who can grind away at a five- or ten-year goal and endure the misery if I am reasonably comfortable that there is a decent chance of a good outcome at the end. Other people are different.

And yes, there are differences between a residency program and a stint in biglaw. Note that I said one should think of a stint in big law like a well paid residency: the point is to set yourself up for the future. I concede that beyond my general point, a stint in biglaw and a residency program may be materially different.

I have no reason to question that you are who you say you are; I'll just say that I find your take on it to be different from the norm, or at least what is the norm in my little world consisting of my network and other anecdotal evidence that is easy to dispute.

I understand your comparison to a residency and think, in theory, that it makes for a reasonable analogue. Misery, however, is not always rational. It's a psychological result, and you cannot control the inputs. Your brain takes all information it has and will do whatever it wants with it. So you can tell your brain that biglaw is like a residency, but if your brain knows that you can leave at any time, that you're not going to get a pay raise in the future, that maybe your work isn't noble (if this happens to be how you feel, not saying it has to be), and that there are a lot of reasons why biglaw is NOT like a residency, then it's going to reject the analogy and you're going to be miserable.

tl;dr - Logical internal dialogue that you should be happy may not actually affect your level of happiness.

If I understand what you're saying, I tend to agree that big law is not a good place for people prone to existential crises.

Being unable to convince yourself to be happy when you're in an unhappy situation doesn't have to rise to the level of an "existential crisis" or however else one would label something so it could be easily dismissed. I actually find it less healthy when a person rationalizes being miserable in order to convince himself to be happy.

I almost went into corporate at a V5 precisely because I was worried about exit options. But man, if you don't like the work itself, grinding for 5-7 years to land a $200k/year in-house job at a bank sounds terrible. My brother is a trader, and has to call some guy if he has any doubt as to the law prior to a trade. I realize that this is probably a lower-level compliance role, and not what you'd get if you exit as a more senior person, but if you really hate your job and burn out after a couple of years, then that's what you're looking at!

I went with litigation and two years post-graduation, I'm still happy with it. I don't know if I'll still be happy with it if I end up at a small firm making $70k as my exit option, but I think I'd be quite happy if I can get some sort of government gig in that range, or a private practice gig at $100k.

smallfirmassociate wrote:Being unable to convince yourself to be happy when you're in an unhappy situation doesn't have to rise to the level of an "existential crisis" or however else one would label something so it could be easily dismissed. I actually find it less healthy when a person rationalizes being miserable in order to convince himself to be happy.

Enduring misery for an end-result and being miserable are two different things, right?

You tried to dismiss my opinion earlier as that of an inexperienced law student; it's a little late to play the "don't be dismissive of other's opinions" card.

My serious answer to you is that I don't think of happiness while at work. I work because I have young children and a spouse to take care of. Most of the time, I do what I have to do, the rest of the time, I do what I want to do. When doing what I have to do, I'm not worried about my personal happiness or satisfaction. It just doesn't enter into the equation for me.

nouseforaname123 wrote:Enduring misery for an end-result and being miserable are two different things, right?

You tried to dismiss my opinion earlier as that of an inexperienced law student; it's a little late to play the "don't be dismissive of other's opinions" card.

My serious answer to you is that I don't think of happiness while at work. I work because I have young children and a spouse to take care of. Most of the time, I do what I have to do, the rest of the time, I do what I want to do. When doing what I have to do, I'm not worried about my personal happiness or satisfaction. It just doesn't enter into the equation for me.

I simply stated that the whole approach of "do it for a while for something better in the future -- you'll be fine!" is something I hear a hell of a lot more from law students than people actually practicing. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings or you found it dismissive, but it's simply true and something law student readers may want to know.

Of course misery can be mitigated by a light at the end of the tunnel. I've stated that isn't always the case, however, and there is no guarantee that a rational thought process leading to a conscious decision to be miserable for a final result will help mitigate the misery as it actually occurs. You implied that people who can't control their happiness with rational internal dialogues are somehow suffering from an "existential crisis." I found that a remarkably ignorant thing to say about people, and now we're here. I think we're at an impasse--I certainly don't have anything I want to add--but I think it's important to properly portray the conversation to this point so that any poor bastard law student who might be relying on this board to any extent isn't swayed by the veiled, passive-aggressive nature of lobbing insults by way of a remarkably senseless misconstruction of the conversation.