Top Law Schools

Can anyone with any knowledge of litigation and/or transactional work give some incite into their general degree of satisfaction with their work?

I am coming to the end of my judicial clerkship and contemplating my next step. I'm desperately seeking a job before my clerkship ends in September, and have some interviews lined up, but that is a discussion for another post.

I have enjoyed clerking for a judge and being around litigation during my clerkship, even though it does get hectic at times. However, I also feel clerking for a judge is a pretty cushy job compared to an entry level litigator because all the attorneys kiss your ass only due to the fact that they want something from the judge. Also, it seems the judge's schedule is pretty light compared to the schedule of a junior associate litigator at a law firm.

On the other hand, I was a law clerk for a year at a firm that did transactional work in international trade law. While I found the subject matter interesting, I found the day to day work to be incredibly boring, but that may just have been because it was at a small firm and there was not much interaction that went on in the office.

I've heard that litigators make more money? Is this true, and if so it is worth it? Do litigators feel their work is doing some good in the world or are you just "dividing up the pie"? Do most transactional lawyers find the work to be as tedious and monotonous as I did? Does the erratic schedule of litigators get old?

The fact that you think litigators have a much more erratic schedule than transactional lawyers indicates you do not have a correct impression things. Also the fact that they are paid the same

5ky wrote:The fact that you think litigators have a much more erratic schedule than transactional lawyers indicates you do not have a correct impression things. Also the fact that they are paid the same

Please, enlighten me?

So litigators are going to take it?

This is kind of a pointless thread. What matters is what you enjoy more (or hate less). Just because someone else prefers one of them does't mean that you're going to feel the same way. Based on your post it seems like you would likely prefer litigation so I'd suggest you do that. Though at this point, considering your clerkship ends in 1-2 months I would be focused more on getting any job at all.

It is true that litigators can theoretically make more $ than transactional attorneys (see plaintiffs' attorneys) though I'd hazard that the average transactional attorney makes more (because transactional law tends to more heavily situated in large law firms whereas there are a lot of attorneys doing small litigation matters) but neither of those statistics is going to be particularly meaningful to you personally so it should't make a difference in your job search.

Transactional lawyers in large law firms tend to have more hectic schedules that their litigation counterparts because large law firm transactional practice often involves a lot of fire drills.

Transactional guys try to write shit contemplating what would happen if real lawyers had to use it.

Wow, pretty even split. I guess maybe it just comes down to what you like personally.

SDviaVA wrote:Wow, pretty even split. I guess maybe it just comes down to what you like personally.

Probably shouldn't be an immense surprise that the right job for you is the one that you like more personally...

Litigation easily. However, except for the top tier lit practices (your irells, Quinn's, gdcs, w+c), firms have been stealthing lit associates left and right, whereas transactional is on fire. Also there's a better chance of leaving the law entirely as transactional. Overall, glad I'm transactional but in short term lit people are by far happier.

What does stealthing mean? And what does on fire mean? Dying out?

Lit is generally more conducive to having a predictable life, the lack of which IME is the single biggest cause of associate dissatisfaction. That said, lit associates sometimes get shipped to BFE on no notice to supervise document collection or whatever. It's all a mixed bag.

The surest way to be really unhappy is choosing a practice area that you find dull.

IMO, the single biggest determinant of job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) is who you work with. This seems to be true across the board.

I do litigation (but in a gov't setting), and I love it. From what my friends at firms say, litigators seem happier. But that's just because they seem to be the more nerdy/intellectual type who enjoy what law practice entails. My friend recently went from clerking to big law transactional and loathes it because it's so mindnumbing. He's been there 3 months and is already planning on getting out.

So, I'll echo what everyone else says: it depends on you and your personality type.

lacrossebrother wrote:What does stealthing mean? And what does on fire mean? Dying out?

stealthing=bad
on fire=good

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

have you gone through recruiting yet? if not, avoid this question

Anonymous User wrote:which came first, the chicken or the egg?

have you gone through recruiting yet? if not, avoid this question

By recruiting, i guess you mean OCI? Yes, I have gone through OCI. Well, the joke of nothingness that my school calls OCI. That turned up nothing.

I'm asking because I am a judicial law clerk, which seems to be a requirement for a lot of entry level litigation jobs. But l worked for a year during law school in a transnational role. I'm trying to figure out where to focus my job search.

Transactional Attorneys take the lead!