Top Law Schools

There are partners who don't argue motions or write important briefs.

Isn't that what doing pro bono shit is for?

Flips88 wrote:Isn't that what doing pro bono shit is for?

PB is where Big Lawyers practice malpractice.

Correct me if I'm wrong but pretty much nobody even gets to talk unless you're 1st chair and so even if you do get to do "substantive" work, chances are that you won't get to argue anything for most/all of your career?

yea that's his point

Big Law won't even trust you argue 100% losing argument motions.

Desert Fox wrote:

Flips88 wrote:Isn't that what doing pro bono shit is for?

PB is where Big Lawyers practice malpractice.

That's funny.

As an aside, Mid-law, while not as presthigious, seems to give practical legal experience to associates much earlier in their careers. For example, I work at a large Detroit firm, and within a month of getting my bar card I had filed a complaint against a city and municipal police department, appeared in court, negotiated with the opposing city attorney, spoke with a police detective, and made the defendants roll and give my client exactly what he wanted. That was cool, and I had no fucking idea what I was doing. I didn't even know which side of the podium to stand on in court. But I was the only attorney of record for my client, and I won. Fuck yeah. It seems strange, but there are probably 6th year Big Law attorneys I could destroy in court simply because all they've ever done is respond to discovery. But that's reality.

I've known one of these guys, but I think it's because sociopaths would rather do depos than write briefs. I read a depo where there was an objection to counsel (a partner) standing over the deponent.

NotMyRealName09 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Flips88 wrote:Isn't that what doing pro bono shit is for?

PB is where Big Lawyers practice malpractice.

That's funny.

As an aside, Mid-law, while not as presthigious, seems to give practical legal experience to associates much earlier in their careers. For example, I work at a large Detroit firm, and within a month of getting my bar card I had filed a complaint against a city and municipal police department, appeared in court, negotiated with the opposing city attorney, spoke with a police detective, and made the defendants roll and give my client exactly what he wanted. That was cool, and I had no fucking idea what I was doing. I didn't even know which side of the podium to stand on in court. But I was the only attorney of record for my client, and I won. Fuck yeah. It seems strange, but there are probably 6th year Big Law attorneys I could destroy in court simply because all they've ever done is respond to discovery. But that's reality.

And by that logic, some small town shitlaw attorney in a place like Bemidji, MN who spends four days a week in court would piss all over you in court. But that's reality.

yea but can he write passive-aggressive discovery letters? not like i can.

NotMyRealName09 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Flips88 wrote:Isn't that what doing pro bono shit is for?

PB is where Big Lawyers practice malpractice.

That's funny.

As an aside, Mid-law, while not as presthigious, seems to give practical legal experience to associates much earlier in their careers. For example, I work at a large Detroit firm, and within a month of getting my bar card I had filed a complaint against a city and municipal police department, appeared in court, negotiated with the opposing city attorney, spoke with a police detective, and made the defendants roll and give my client exactly what he wanted. That was cool, and I had no fucking idea what I was doing. I didn't even know which side of the podium to stand on in court. But I was the only attorney of record for my client, and I won. Fuck yeah. It seems strange, but there are probably 6th year Big Law attorneys I could destroy in court simply because all they've ever done is respond to discovery. But that's reality.

I think this is 100% true, even across the board.

People will say, "BUT they don't get the juicy work." But guess what, doing doc review on a prefstigious case does shit for your career. Even getting decent biglaw lit experience will be useless for your career UNLESS you make biglaw partner. Otherwise you are going to end up in midlaw or shitlaw. And nobody is making Lit partners anymore, and the few who do, almost always did a stint in a place that did trust them do actual work.

Can you say the same thing (in terms of substantive work) for Corporate?

Anonymous User wrote:Can you say the same thing (in terms of substantive work) for Corporate?

I don't have any real knowledge, but I think it's the opposite.

Associates do 100% of the substantive legal work, and the partners are just bringing in work, supervising, managing, and handling big negotiations.

People claim that midlevels will run entire deals.

Lit midlevels don't run their own cases. Not even close.

Litigation is a shitty practice area. Avoid.

In terms of getting actual, practical experience, small and midlaw blows away BIglaw because smaller firms don't have resources to waste.

In terms of getting to work on massively complex deals with huge clients, Biglaw wins.

kalvano wrote:In terms of getting actual, practical experience, small and midlaw blows away BIglaw because smaller firms don't have resources to waste.

In terms of getting to work on massively complex deals with huge clients, Biglaw wins.

What's the benefit of getting to work on complex cases if you don't get to actually do the complex work.

Desert Fox wrote:

kalvano wrote:In terms of getting actual, practical experience, small and midlaw blows away BIglaw because smaller firms don't have resources to waste.

In terms of getting to work on massively complex deals with huge clients, Biglaw wins.

What's the benefit of getting to work on complex cases if you don't get to actually do the complex work.

I didn't say there was one, unless it's being able to have that name on your resume. I've never worked on a huge case with big names before, so I don't know what benefit there may be. I just know that, between my friends in Biglaw and in small law, and in working for a small firm, smaller firms easily win for practical experience.

you get to write expert reports though. why don't you just lateral into expert witness, DF?

Anonymous User wrote:Can you say the same thing (in terms of substantive work) for Corporate?

Ditto real estate?

The whole notion of working in Biglaw to handle big clients cracks me up. Only lawyers are so prestige whorish not to immediately recognize how preposterous that "reason" sounds, considering that the work the associates are doing is the lowest on the totem pole. I enjoy imagining it in other contexts:

"I like to work at Wal-Mart because I get to stock shelves with products from hundreds or thousands of companies from all around the world!"

"I was trying to decide whether to work at Starbucks or my local coffee shop, but in the end, Starbucks brings in customers from everywhere, and our company is so well known. You can even buy our beans in grocery stores!"

"I'm from a tiny country, and I worked my way up to a Captain in the military after college. It was ok, the hours were good, and I had a lot of responsibilities, but ultimately Al-Queda offered me more money, better exit opportunities (more virgins), and a really high-profile position haplessly firing outdated RPGs at people from V5 countries. We're in the news on a daily basis, and I'm looking forward to this prestigious role, even though I have to start out on the low end and put in my time as a suicide bomber."

Desert Fox wrote:

kalvano wrote:In terms of getting actual, practical experience, small and midlaw blows away BIglaw because smaller firms don't have resources to waste.

In terms of getting to work on massively complex deals with huge clients, Biglaw wins.

What's the benefit of getting to work on complex cases if you don't get to actually do the complex work.

I've long been amazed at how many people dont seem to realize this.

Anonymous User wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

kalvano wrote:In terms of getting actual, practical experience, small and midlaw blows away BIglaw because smaller firms don't have resources to waste.

In terms of getting to work on massively complex deals with huge clients, Biglaw wins.

What's the benefit of getting to work on complex cases if you don't get to actually do the complex work.

I've long been amazed at how many people dont seem to realize this.

Thanks anon

So i shouldnt feel like shit for striking out?

$160,000 is the only reason I am choosing biglaw over small/midlaw. I know I will be pushing papers for the first few years. I'd rather push papers for $3000/wk than do substantive legal work for $1500/wk (or whatever).