Top Law Schools

Anonymous User wrote: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

Anonymous User wrote:- 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).

- 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).

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

Anonymous User wrote:- 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 wrote: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.