Choosing between General Litigation and Antitrust Forum

[TheCure]

Summered at v50 firm in secondary market and received an offer. For background, the firm does not have a rotational system when we come back. We have to choose practice groups in a few months.

At the moment, I'm torn between general lit and antitrust. I was able to work with both practice groups over the summer. My enjoyment in each was fairly equal, perhaps antitrust won by a nose. I liked the people in each evenly. If I'm going to be hypercritical, I hit it off better with the partners in general lit, yet the associates in antitrust.

I'm also interested in choosing a practice area based on quality of life as an associate and exit options thereafter. The firm's antitrust group has a stronger reputation than their general lit; however, both are solid. Would it be right to believe exit options for a mid-level general lit associate are better than a mid-level antitrust associate? What kind of exit options are there for antitrust associates?

Both groups have a steady flow of work. From what I saw over the summer, general lit may be a bit more constant.

I'd appreciate you letting me know if I'm missing additional considerations. Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous User]

I am interested in this as well, as I am in a similar position. Antitrust exit options seem pretty limited to DOJ/FTC since smaller firms do not do a lot of antitrust work. Associates at my V20 doing antitrust seem to be doing doc review well into their senior years. General lit associates definitely have more opportunities for substantive work.

[Anonymous User]

I am interested in this as well, as I am in a similar position. Antitrust exit options seem pretty limited to DOJ/FTC since smaller firms do not do a lot of antitrust work. Associates at my V20 doing antitrust seem to be doing doc review well into their senior years. General lit associates definitely have more opportunities for substantive work.

There are many antitrust exit possibilities to in-house positions at large companies as well. In fact, it's probably one of the best practice areas to go in-house.

[Anonymous User]

There are many antitrust exit possibilities to in-house positions at large companies as well. In fact, it's probably one of the best practice areas to go in-house.

Is that really true? You're the first person I've heard say that. I've spoken to many antitrust associates and partners at my firm (major antitrust presence in DC/Chi) and what you said does not seem to be an accurate statement. There aren't many companies that need an in-house antitrust attorney aside from the likes of Google and Facebook that frequently gobble up other companies. The rest of the companies get help from outside counsel for their antitrust problems.

[Anonymous User]

There are many antitrust exit possibilities to in-house positions at large companies as well. In fact, it's probably one of the best practice areas to go in-house.

Is that really true? You're the first person I've heard say that. I've spoken to many antitrust associates and partners at my firm (major antitrust presence in DC/Chi) and what you said does not seem to be an accurate statement. There aren't many companies that need an in-house antitrust attorney aside from the likes of Google and Facebook that frequently gobble up other companies. The rest of the companies get help from outside counsel for their antitrust problems.

I used to work at the FTC. Of the lawyers who were there when I was, one is now at Microsoft, one is at Apple, one is at a major food company, another is at a major retailer, and several others are at pharmaceutical companies. And those are far from the only people who have exited to in-house. In fact, more seem to have gone in house than to firms. So from my experience, there's plenty of in house opportunities. Maybe it's different if you're coming from a firm and not the government, but I don't see why it would be.

[Anonymous User]

There are many antitrust exit possibilities to in-house positions at large companies as well. In fact, it's probably one of the best practice areas to go in-house.

Is that really true? You're the first person I've heard say that. I've spoken to many antitrust associates and partners at my firm (major antitrust presence in DC/Chi) and what you said does not seem to be an accurate statement. There aren't many companies that need an in-house antitrust attorney aside from the likes of Google and Facebook that frequently gobble up other companies. The rest of the companies get help from outside counsel for their antitrust problems.

I used to work at the FTC. Of the lawyers who were there when I was, one is now at Microsoft, one is at Apple, one is at a major food company, another is at a major retailer, and several others are at pharmaceutical companies. And those are far from the only people who have exited to in-house. In fact, more seem to have gone in house than to firms. So from my experience, there's plenty of in house opportunities. Maybe it's different if you're coming from a firm and not the government, but I don't see why it would be.

Interesting. That is good to know. What did you do before FTC?