[deleted] Forum

[Anonymous User]

[deleted]

[Anonymous User]

Apologies for the anon if unnecessary; however, my past posts and some info in this post might be enough to out me, so treading carefully.

I'm in a bit of an existential crisis heading into OCI. I thought this whole time that I would get into litigation, to the point where I took primarily lit-/con-type classes for my electives 1L year. However, did a judicial externship this summer, and I kind of have been disillusioned by the whole practice. Essentially:

- It seems like your work product as a litigator has value only to the extent of the case and no further. All the hours and energy put into a motion is effectively in the trash bin as soon as your motion's decided (if you even get that far).
- I was doing lit because I thought I'd like to go into academia. However, now also doubting that route. (Slim chance of actual employment; even slimmer chance of actual success or impact).
- The endless adversialness for the sake of adversarialness in litigation is something I don't think I can do forever.
- I'm probably not as great a writer as I think I am.
- Concerned about the five- to seven-year mark. I've heard exit options for litigators are effectively either smaller firms or gov work, both of which I've kind of lost interest in.
- I'm sick of the prestige-chasing litigation work entails (top school -> top journal -> top clerkship -> top firms). The idea of doing transactional then in-house in a firm I'm interested in, perhaps tech-related (I'm T14, looking to hit up the Bay Area), sounds like it could be a good goal. (I understand Vault, perhaps the epitome of the prestige chase, is corporate-centric; however, I am not at all looking at anything in NY).

That said...I'm about one week away from OCI, and my resume screams absolutely nothing related to transactional work. I'm several years out of undergrad and all my experience is policy/gov related. Are these concerns valid? Is there any way to sell my interest in tech/transactional work without having done it?

Thanks in advance

If you come up with a successful strategy... let me know. Somewhat similarly, my job was in IP. When I interview with places that don't have IP, and even worse don't excel in litigation, they've pretty much just said like "I assume you're looking for IP... We really don't do that here..." One guy today even said like, "Well all else being equal, if you had an offer from us and another firm, you would probably take the one that also does IP." No matter how much I try to disavow this summer work, it seems to have sealed my fate. OTOH, firms that have a strength in my field love it...

[lawhopeful10]

Most of the places I have I interviewed at so far say their summer program allows people to try out a variety of assignments. There are always stories of people who thought they wanted X but then realized they wanted Y. I would just focus on getting an offer at places and then over the summer you can see what you like.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Assuming you're a rising 2L, it's not too late at all. In fact it isn't even a "switch," since no firm will really expect you to have any more than an educated guess about what you want to do. Try to land at a big firm with a variety of practice areas and you can almost certainly go into corp.

[franklyscarlet]

you're fine. People switch halfway through their SA. Just tell them you're interested in transactional.

[FSK]

Shitigation

[WhiskeynCoke]

Um, What?

Of course it's not "too late" to go transactional, you haven't even interviewed with a firm yet. You aren't locked into lit just because you worked for a judge and did "policy work." 1L's in general get almost no exposure to transactional shit, it's not expected. Just come up with a half-way decent reason you're interested in transactional work that isn't a red flag (i.e. don't say "I want to go in-house"). Here's an example:

"I've enjoyed all the lit stuff I've done, but I'd really like a chance to try some transactional work because I really like business because (*insert short anecdote that corroborates that assertion). We get so little exposure to it, that I really want to spend my summer learning about which practice area really fits me."

This sort of response is honest and firms appreciate that. They know you have no idea WTF transactional work is. Also, most firms expect their summer associates to rotate around a little bit. Obvious exceptions would be firms with no (or TINY) corporate practices like Quinn.

[Anonymous User]

OP here, thanks for the responses guys. I suppose the emphasis here (and should have indicated better) is less 'too late' but more whether these concerns are valid--or if it's a humble 1L's perspective that might just be inaccurate. (That said, I might equally hate transactional work...but at least it seems like there are more exit options down the road)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, if you're wondering whether your concerns are on point, I wondered a couple of things:

- It seems like your work product as a litigator has value only to the extent of the case and no further. All the hours and energy put into a motion is effectively in the trash bin as soon as your motion's decided (if you even get that far).

How is this different from transactional (all that time and energy put into, I don't know, deal paperwork of whatever kind, and then the deal is done)? The effect of the motion is lasting, which is what you're aiming for. Maybe if you think of work product more broadly as the overall result, rather than the specific motion?

- The endless adversialness for the sake of adversarialness in litigation is something I don't think I can do forever.

Any examples of why/how not? I mean, you're probably right on this one, given the nature of the system, I'm just curious.

- I'm probably not as great a writer as I think I am.

You can learn this. No one is born a great legal writer. And frankly, not being a great writer doesn't stop LOTS of people from being litigators.

- Concerned about the five- to seven-year mark. I've heard exit options for litigators are effectively either smaller firms or gov work, both of which I've kind of lost interest in.

Can't help on this one.

- I'm sick of the prestige-chasing litigation work entails (top school -> top journal -> top clerkship -> top firms). The idea of doing transactional then in-house in a firm I'm interested in, perhaps tech-related (I'm T14, looking to hit up the Bay Area), sounds like it could be a good goal. (I understand Vault, perhaps the epitome of the prestige chase, is corporate-centric; however, I am not at all looking at anything in NY).

I have never seen prestige-chasing striverism on this site as remotely specific to litigation.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Well, if you're wondering whether your concerns are on point, I wondered a couple of things:

- It seems like your work product as a litigator has value only to the extent of the case and no further. All the hours and energy put into a motion is effectively in the trash bin as soon as your motion's decided (if you even get that far).

How is this different from transactional (all that time and energy put into, I don't know, deal paperwork of whatever kind, and then the deal is done)? The effect of the motion is lasting, which is what you're aiming for. Maybe if you think of work product more broadly as the overall result, rather than the specific motion?

- The endless adversialness for the sake of adversarialness in litigation is something I don't think I can do forever.

Any examples of why/how not? I mean, you're probably right on this one, given the nature of the system, I'm just curious.

- I'm probably not as great a writer as I think I am.

You can learn this. No one is born a great legal writer. And frankly, not being a great writer doesn't stop LOTS of people from being litigators.

- Concerned about the five- to seven-year mark. I've heard exit options for litigators are effectively either smaller firms or gov work, both of which I've kind of lost interest in.

Can't help on this one.

- I'm sick of the prestige-chasing litigation work entails (top school -> top journal -> top clerkship -> top firms). The idea of doing transactional then in-house in a firm I'm interested in, perhaps tech-related (I'm T14, looking to hit up the Bay Area), sounds like it could be a good goal. (I understand Vault, perhaps the epitome of the prestige chase, is corporate-centric; however, I am not at all looking at anything in NY).

I have never seen prestige-chasing striverism on this site as remotely specific to litigation.

I dunno, I'm in biglaw litigation and I didn't think the OP's concerns are actually all that off-base. In particular, the prestige crap is a little more noxious in litigation; (some) people will ask you what judge you clerked for and then quietly judge you, even once you're senior (god help you with these people if you didn't clerk), while I've been told that in corporate, it tends to be more of a "once you're in, you're in" mindset. On the other hand, I could easily come up with a list of things about corporate that make it sound just as odious, and most people in lit are generally not actually hung up on that stuff.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I dunno, I'm in biglaw litigation and I didn't think the OP's concerns are actually all that off-base. In particular, the prestige crap is a little more noxious in litigation; (some) people will ask you what judge you clerked for and then quietly judge you, even once you're senior (god help you with these people if you didn't clerk), while I've been told that in corporate, it tends to be more of a "once you're in, you're in" mindset. On the other hand, I could easily come up with a list of things about corporate that make it sound just as odious, and most people in lit are generally not actually hung up on that stuff.

Oh, sure. Didn't mean to suggest my answers were definitive, I just wanted to offer a different perspective. I just think the legal profession generally is hugely focused on prestige.