Litigation exit options Forum

[09042014]

Discuss

[goden]

I take it the lack of response here is a bad sign

[ymmv]

I take it the lack of response here is a bad sign

Clearly litigators love their jobs so much they never leave.

[84651846190]

moar litigation

[09042014]

moar litigation

Sure, but how much do smaller firms pay? How much career stability do you have?

[gk101]

The "litigation exit option = government only" is a huge flame.

[09042014]

The "litigation exit option = government only" is a huge flame.

Of course, nearly all common TLS wisdom on the matter is pure shit. People seem to define "exit option" as exit from private practice.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[Anonymous User]

moar litigation

Sure, but how much do smaller firms pay? How much career stability do you have?

Does career stability even exist in the legal market? Associates can get canned at any second, partners have to worry that their firm stays afloat, hanging your own shingle is dicey, etc. Ironic, given that lawyers are seen as risk-averse.

This instability isn't unique to the legal market in this economy. I was in my gym the other day and overheard stories from two guys, one in mid-30s and one in mid-50s. Both had been working in tech sales/sales management for their respective companies for at least 5-10 years and were fired in the past year. They were complaining about being unemployed for months.

[ymmv]

moar litigation

Sure, but how much do smaller firms pay? How much career stability do you have?

Does career stability even exist in the legal market? Associates can get canned at any second, partners have to worry that their firm stays afloat, hanging your own shingle is dicey, etc. Ironic, given that lawyers are seen as risk-averse.

This instability isn't unique to the legal market in this economy. I was in my gym the other day and overheard stories from two guys, one in mid-30s and one in mid-50s. Both had been working in tech sales/sales management for their respective companies for at least 5-10 years and were fired in the past year. They were complaining about being unemployed for months.

This is universal for basically all non-medical professions these days - and even for certain shit medical specialties like pediatrics and primary care - but the key difference is that people don't spend an additional 3 years and $300,000 to become e.g. a software engineer.

[gk101]

The "litigation exit option = government only" is a huge flame.

Please elaborate.

You have the option to go work for a smaller firm/start your own firm (your salary will depend on the amount of work you bring in but that's the same in biglaw to a certain extent). Contrary to popular TLS wisdom, litigation associated in biglaw also can go in-house. IP may be a little unique in this respect, but I have seen or heard of a lot of available positions in companies looking to bring in mid level associates that have a litigation background. It's not just government or nothing

ETA: starting your own firm is incredibly difficult. I just know a few people who have gone down this path and that's why I listed that as an option

[ymmv]

The "litigation exit option = government only" is a huge flame.

Please elaborate.

You have the option to go work for a smaller firm/start your own firm

Now THAT is a huge flame. Thanks for clearing away any impression of your credibility.

[84651846190]

moar litigation

Sure, but how much do smaller firms pay? How much career stability do you have?

depends on the firm

[gk101]

You have the option to go work for a smaller firm/start your own firm

Now THAT is a huge flame.

I only threw that in here because I know a few associates who recently got a client, and promptly left to start their own firm. It happens but I agree that it is incredibly difficult to do so. At my firm, transitioning to smaller firms is way more common than government

[84651846190]

The "litigation exit option = government only" is a huge flame.

Of course, nearly all common TLS wisdom on the matter is pure shit. People seem to define "exit option" as exit from private practice.

Okay, but let's be clear about what you are most likely NOT going to be able to do after a few years of litigation:

1) It's HIGHLY unlikely that you'll be able to switch to transactional work.
2) It's unlikely you'll get an in house position where you're doing or overseeing litigation work.
3) Government jobs are few and far between.

That leaves moar biglaw and small firm jobs. There's a wide variety of small firms specializing in litigation. Some are better than biglaw; some are worse. My impression is that almost all small firm jobs pay less than biglaw. You usually work fewer hours, but not as few as in house dorks.

Starting your own firm is almost always harder than people expect it will be. (I have two family members who have done it. They're smart guys but nevertheless struggled mightily, especially when first starting out.)

[Anonymous User]

An attorney at my firm doing antitrust told me he's had in house offers on the transactional side but antitrust seems to be a mix of both lit and corp.

[09042014]

The issue is that "less than biglaw" is pretty meaningless. A fifth year is pulling down 264k a year in big law. Dropping down to 200k is a big drop but still good money. Even a 40% drop leaves you at 160k.

[84651846190]

The issue is that "less than biglaw" is pretty meaningless. A fifth year is pulling down 264k a year in big law. Dropping down to 200k is a big drop but still good money. Even a 40% drop leaves you at 160k.

I know NYC biglaw midlevel litigators who have left for small firm jobs paying 80k in fly-over country.

[09042014]

The issue is that "less than biglaw" is pretty meaningless. A fifth year is pulling down 264k a year in big law. Dropping down to 200k is a big drop but still good money. Even a 40% drop leaves you at 160k.

I know NYC biglaw midlevel litigators who have left for small firm jobs paying 80k in fly-over country.

How flyover? If you are talking about Milwaukee that really really sucks. If you are talking about smalltown Iowa, that's probably as good as that market gets.

[84651846190]

The issue is that "less than biglaw" is pretty meaningless. A fifth year is pulling down 264k a year in big law. Dropping down to 200k is a big drop but still good money. Even a 40% drop leaves you at 160k.

I know NYC biglaw midlevel litigators who have left for small firm jobs paying 80k in fly-over country.

How flyover? If you are talking about Milwaukee that really really sucks. If you are talking about smalltown Iowa, that's probably as good as that market gets.

Think Denver.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But they get to live in Denver.

[Anonymous User]

An attorney at my firm doing antitrust told me he's had in house offers on the transactional side but antitrust seems to be a mix of both lit and corp.

I practice antitrust and this has been my experience as well. It offers comparatively good exit options for litigators, because you can mostly litigate as an associate (assuming your firm puts you in litigation matters instead of deals) and then you can play up whatever deal experience you have when trying to go in-house. I've seen a few associates go in-house on the transactional side. The downside is you have to practice antitrust.

[dixiecupdrinking]

The "litigation exit option = government only" is a huge flame.

Of course, nearly all common TLS wisdom on the matter is pure shit. People seem to define "exit option" as exit from private practice.

Okay, but let's be clear about what you are most likely NOT going to be able to do after a few years of litigation:

1) It's HIGHLY unlikely that you'll be able to switch to transactional work.
2) It's unlikely you'll get an in house position where you're doing or overseeing litigation work.
3) Government jobs are few and far between.

That leaves moar biglaw and small firm jobs. There's a wide variety of small firms specializing in litigation. Some are better than biglaw; some are worse. My impression is that almost all small firm jobs pay less than biglaw. You usually work fewer hours, but not as few as in house dorks.

Starting your own firm is almost always harder than people expect it will be. (I have two family members who have done it. They're smart guys but nevertheless struggled mightily, especially when first starting out.)

So this seems identical to transactional options except harder to go in house? It's not like a mid level corp associate can go become an AUSA. Either way you close some doors.

[Georgia Avenue]

is there greater in-house potential for someone whose litigation practice focuses more on specialized regulatory agency work, be it communications, financial services, securities, etc?