Serious q re: Lit exit options Forum

[Anonymous User]

So it's seen as somewhat of a joke, but are there high-paying litigation exit options for those who don't make partner in biglaw?

For those who are interested in litigation and actually like the idea of being a lawyer (even if that entails mostly research/writing and very little advocacy), but don't want to take a huge hit in compensation by exiting to gov. work, how realistic is it to continue making a reasonably high salary after you're out of your initial firm?

Say you've got good credentials (HYS, good grades, clerkship, good firm, etc.) and grind it out while doing decent-good work at your firm, do you have a good chance of lateraling to a lower-ranked firm, going to a midlaw firm, or going to a boutique, all while making a comparable salary? Or is it legitimately just shitlaw exit options, never to make anything close to what you were pulling in as a 5th, 6th, 7th year biglaw lit associate?

I'm leaning litigation, but long-term career options are definitely scaring me. Trying to weed out the truth from the hyperbole though, so definitely appreciate all responses.

[patogordo]

obviously all of those are possibilities, they just tend to be way fewer in number than comparable exit options for corp bros

[Anonymous User]

obviously all of those are possibilities, they just tend to be way fewer in number than comparable exit options for corp bros

I see, but I'm not really understanding a couple of things i guess

1. Corp exit options seem to inevitably entail a massive cut in compensation; is this perspective just wrong?
2. I know it's unlikely anyone has a definitive answer, but for anyone that has some insight, for those lit exit options i mentioned, are they "realistic" in the sense that a well-credentialed person who is willing to strive for it has a pretty good chance of getting them? Or for those of you at good lit shops, are you seeing the vast majority of your peers (who I'm assuming are all T14, good grades, etc.) getting poor exit options?

[84651846190]

obviously all of those are possibilities, they just tend to be way fewer in number than comparable exit options for corp bros

I see, but I'm not really understanding a couple of things i guess

1. Corp exit options seem to inevitably entail a massive cut in compensation; is this perspective just wrong?
2. I know it's unlikely anyone has a definitive answer, but for anyone that has some insight, for those lit exit options i mentioned, are they "realistic" in the sense that a well-credentialed person who is willing to strive for it has a pretty good chance of getting them? Or for those of you at good lit shops, are you seeing the vast majority of your peers (who I'm assuming are all T14, good grades, etc.) getting poor exit options?

There are just fewer litigation jobs because of the nature of litigation. Litigation requires armies of grunts doing doc review and rote discovery tasks and one or two rainmaker mastermen at the top directing everything. This is true at any level, whether it be firms, companies or government. The only difference with the latter two is that they almost always have a firm of some kind that they outsource the work to. I.e., in the case of government, firms are required to conduct internal investigations with armies of associates reviewing literally millions of documents to produce to maybe 2-3 government attorneys who review everything and decide whether to pwn the company in question. The bottom line is that it's hard to *not* end up being a doc review slave (or eDiscovery specialist, or service partner, or some other variation of person working for the big bosses) because the ratio of "big boss" positions to "worker bee" positions in litigation is like 1 to 1000.

In short, yes. It's hard for people even with top credentials to get top exit options. I have seen COA clerks with Coif from Stanford and magna from HLS take in house positions for much less money than they were making in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

obviously all of those are possibilities, they just tend to be way fewer in number than comparable exit options for corp bros

I see, but I'm not really understanding a couple of things i guess

1. Corp exit options seem to inevitably entail a massive cut in compensation; is this perspective just wrong?
2. I know it's unlikely anyone has a definitive answer, but for anyone that has some insight, for those lit exit options i mentioned, are they "realistic" in the sense that a well-credentialed person who is willing to strive for it has a pretty good chance of getting them? Or for those of you at good lit shops, are you seeing the vast majority of your peers (who I'm assuming are all T14, good grades, etc.) getting poor exit options?

There are just fewer litigation jobs because of the nature of litigation. Litigation requires armies of grunts doing doc review and rote discovery tasks and one or two rainmaker mastermen at the top directing everything. This is true at any level, whether it be firms, companies or government. The only difference with the latter two is that they almost always have a firm of some kind that they outsource the work to. I.e., in the case of government, firms are required to conduct internal investigations with armies of associates reviewing literally millions of documents to produce to maybe 2-3 government attorneys who review everything and decide whether to pwn the company in question. The bottom line is that it's hard to *not* end up being a doc review slave (or eDiscovery specialist, or service partner, or some other variation of person working for the big bosses) because the ratio of "big boss" positions to "worker bee" positions in litigation is like 1 to 1000.

In short, yes. It's hard for people even with top credentials to get top exit options. I have seen COA clerks with Coif from Stanford and magna from HLS take in house positions for much less money than they were making in biglaw.

this was my fear, but good to know this reality earlier rather than later. appreciate the responses!

[sublime]

..

[Doritos]

obviously all of those are possibilities, they just tend to be way fewer in number than comparable exit options for corp bros

I see, but I'm not really understanding a couple of things i guess

1. Corp exit options seem to inevitably entail a massive cut in compensation; is this perspective just wrong?
2. I know it's unlikely anyone has a definitive answer, but for anyone that has some insight, for those lit exit options i mentioned, are they "realistic" in the sense that a well-credentialed person who is willing to strive for it has a pretty good chance of getting them? Or for those of you at good lit shops, are you seeing the vast majority of your peers (who I'm assuming are all T14, good grades, etc.) getting poor exit options?

There are just fewer litigation jobs because of the nature of litigation. Litigation requires armies of grunts doing doc review and rote discovery tasks and one or two rainmaker mastermen at the top directing everything. This is true at any level, whether it be firms, companies or government. The only difference with the latter two is that they almost always have a firm of some kind that they outsource the work to. I.e., in the case of government, firms are required to conduct internal investigations with armies of associates reviewing literally millions of documents to produce to maybe 2-3 government attorneys who review everything and decide whether to pwn the company in question. The bottom line is that it's hard to *not* end up being a doc review slave (or eDiscovery specialist, or service partner, or some other variation of person working for the big bosses) because the ratio of "big boss" positions to "worker bee" positions in litigation is like 1 to 1000.

In short, yes. It's hard for people even with top credentials to get top exit options. I have seen COA clerks with Coif from Stanford and magna from HLS take in house positions for much less money than they were making in biglaw.

Are in house positions attainable from Lit, though? I thought for many that in-house was the goal, despite the lower pay?

A disproportionate number of in-house folks came from a corporate practice. Litigation skills like taking depos and writing motions are not really that applicable to what an in-house attorney does day to day. So my impression is that they are attainable but for every 3 in-house hires only 1 is going to be of a litigation bro/brodette. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Lacepiece23]

A disproportionate number of in-house folks came from a corporate practice. Litigation skills like taking depos and writing motions are not really that applicable to what an in-house attorney does day to day. So my impression is that they are attainable but for every 3 in-house hires only 1 is going to be of a litigation bro/brodette. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Sounds about right. My career services person told me that ITE companies are hiring more litigators because they want to be able to outsource less to firms. In my limited anecdotal experience thus far this seems accurate.

[badaboom61]

Also, there are A LOT of firms outside the biglaw world that do only litigation or way more litigation than corporate work, especially in smaller markets. As a litigator, you have a very good chance at becoming a partner or permanent associate at some law firm, even though you may not be making anywhere near biglaw money.

[Anonymous User]

Also, there are A LOT of firms outside the biglaw world that do only litigation or way more litigation than corporate work, especially in smaller markets. As a litigator, you have a very good chance at becoming a partner or permanent associate at some law firm, even though you may not be making anywhere near biglaw money.

What would compensation be for a perm associate or partner at one of these smaller firms though? I know it won't be comparable to biglaw partner pay, but is there ANY such thing as a 200-300k all-in exit option for litigators?

I've been scouring the web/TLS for data on this, but seems the consensus is that it's a black box...

[wert3813]

A disproportionate number of in-house folks came from a corporate practice. Litigation skills like taking depos and writing motions are not really that applicable to what an in-house attorney does day to day. So my impression is that they are attainable but for every 3 in-house hires only 1 is going to be of a litigation bro/brodette. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Sounds about right. My career services person told me that ITE companies are hiring more litigators because they want to be able to outsource less to firms. In my limited anecdotal experience thus far this seems accurate.

Not all lit is created equal either. L&E, if you consider that lit, has way better in house options than random litigator at GloboFirm (TM).

[Frayed Knot]

Also, there are A LOT of firms outside the biglaw world that do only litigation or way more litigation than corporate work, especially in smaller markets. As a litigator, you have a very good chance at becoming a partner or permanent associate at some law firm, even though you may not be making anywhere near biglaw money.

What would compensation be for a perm associate or partner at one of these smaller firms though? I know it won't be comparable to biglaw partner pay, but is there ANY such thing as a 200-300k all-in exit option for litigators?

I've been scouring the web/TLS for data on this, but seems the consensus is that it's a black box...

I agree with badaboom61—my understanding is that a lot of (non-NY) midlaw firms have more openings for litigation associates. (After all, there's only so much public-company M&A, and much of that work is in NY. But companies get sued everywhere.) Many firms would prefer to staff cases with more profitable midlevels and fewer junior associates; the diamond model of law firm organization is pretty popular outside of BigLaw.

This sort of large-firm midlaw seems to pay somewhere between 100k (entry level) to 300k+ (non-rainmaker partner). But you can get some idea by looking at the PPP of AmLaw 200 firms.

As far as I understand it, there are three keys to getting that sort of job: 1)Get at least some substantive experience—no one is looking to hire someone with 3 years of doc review. 2)Be willing to take a big pay cut, including dropping class years because you don't have the same experience that a home-grown midlaw associate would have. 3)Have some connection to the firm so that you're not sending in a blind resume. That could be a classmate who works there, ties to the region, or having worked with them as local counsel.

*(I'm a 3L, so take everything above with a handful of salt. But it's a topic that's pretty relevant to me and one that I've asked a lot of people about both in BigLaw and midlaw.)

[Anonymous User]

Also, there are A LOT of firms outside the biglaw world that do only litigation or way more litigation than corporate work, especially in smaller markets. As a litigator, you have a very good chance at becoming a partner or permanent associate at some law firm, even though you may not be making anywhere near biglaw money.

What would compensation be for a perm associate or partner at one of these smaller firms though? I know it won't be comparable to biglaw partner pay, but is there ANY such thing as a 200-300k all-in exit option for litigators?

I've been scouring the web/TLS for data on this, but seems the consensus is that it's a black box...

I agree with badaboom61—my understanding is that a lot of (non-NY) midlaw firms have more openings for litigation associates. (After all, there's only so much public-company M&A, and much of that work is in NY. But companies get sued everywhere.) Many firms would prefer to staff cases with more profitable midlevels and fewer junior associates; the diamond model of law firm organization is pretty popular outside of BigLaw.

This sort of large-firm midlaw seems to pay somewhere between 100k (entry level) to 300k+ (non-rainmaker partner). But you can get some idea by looking at the PPP of AmLaw 200 firms.

As far as I understand it, there are three keys to getting that sort of job: 1)Get at least some substantive experience—no one is looking to hire someone with 3 years of doc review. 2)Be willing to take a big pay cut, including dropping class years because you don't have the same experience that a home-grown midlaw associate would have. 3)Have some connection to the firm so that you're not sending in a blind resume. That could be a classmate who works there, ties to the region, or having worked with them as local counsel.

*(I'm a 3L, so take everything above with a handful of salt. But it's a topic that's pretty relevant to me and one that I've asked a lot of people about both in BigLaw and midlaw.)

Thanks for this response, really helpful.

[englawyer]

As part of the recession and the increase in the size and scope of document reviews, most first-level document review has been outsourced to contract attorneys. That has partly lead to firms cutting back on litigation associate hiring for junior associates, since there is not as much work available at that tier that clients will pay for anymore. These two links discuss the drastic decline in summer associate classes (although neither is clear on corporate vs. lit):

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/08/the-incr ... lass-size/
http://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/decisio ... echart.pdf

Hypothetically, once the boomers actually retire from cushy in-house positions, etc., there may be an uptake in demand for experienced litigators both in-house and at other firms. If there are a fixed number of "good" exit option jobs from lit, it will be much easier to obtain them in the post-recession environment as a biglaw litigator because the supply of litigation veterans will be much smaller. None of the "would have been" associates will be in competition because they either had to leave law or took a contract attorney job, which more or less closes off exit options. So in summary, by drastically cutting the overall number of junior litigation associates, law firms might have incidentally increased the job opportunities and exit options for the lower number that still get hired through the summer program and/or clerkships.

[patogordo]

boomers are never retiring bro

[FSK]

http://www.jameslove.com/Baby_Boomer_Death_Counter.html

[glitter178]

http://www.jameslove.com/Baby_Boomer_Death_Counter.html

ice cold

[84651846190]

Also, there are A LOT of firms outside the biglaw world that do only litigation or way more litigation than corporate work, especially in smaller markets. As a litigator, you have a very good chance at becoming a partner or permanent associate at some law firm, even though you may not be making anywhere near biglaw money.

What would compensation be for a perm associate or partner at one of these smaller firms though? I know it won't be comparable to biglaw partner pay, but is there ANY such thing as a 200-300k all-in exit option for litigators?

I've been scouring the web/TLS for data on this, but seems the consensus is that it's a black box...

I agree with badaboom61—my understanding is that a lot of (non-NY) midlaw firms have more openings for litigation associates. (After all, there's only so much public-company M&A, and much of that work is in NY. But companies get sued everywhere.) Many firms would prefer to staff cases with more profitable midlevels and fewer junior associates; the diamond model of law firm organization is pretty popular outside of BigLaw.

This sort of large-firm midlaw seems to pay somewhere between 100k (entry level) to 300k+ (non-rainmaker partner). But you can get some idea by looking at the PPP of AmLaw 200 firms.

As far as I understand it, there are three keys to getting that sort of job: 1)Get at least some substantive experience—no one is looking to hire someone with 3 years of doc review. 2)Be willing to take a big pay cut, including dropping class years because you don't have the same experience that a home-grown midlaw associate would have. 3)Have some connection to the firm so that you're not sending in a blind resume. That could be a classmate who works there, ties to the region, or having worked with them as local counsel.

*(I'm a 3L, so take everything above with a handful of salt. But it's a topic that's pretty relevant to me and one that I've asked a lot of people about both in BigLaw and midlaw.)

This guy might be an example of a best-case scenario: http://www.faegrebd.com/joel-sayres

He went from a top, white-shoe litigation boutique to a midlaw firm and still hasn't made partner (after 12 years of practice), despite a COA clerkship, YLS degree and tons of relevant experience. Like I said, this guy is one of the winners. He still gets to practice litigation after (presumably) not making partner. I've heard from recruiters that quite a few senior litigation associates are essentially unemployable after their 10th year because firms are generally awash with service partners and eager, striving midlevels who can do the same work.

[Anonymous User]

This guy might be an example of a best-case scenario: http://www.faegrebd.com/joel-sayres

He went from a top, white-shoe litigation boutique to a midlaw firm and still hasn't made partner (after 12 years of practice), despite a COA clerkship, YLS degree and tons of relevant experience. Like I said, this guy is one of the winners. He still gets to practice litigation after (presumably) not making partner. I've heard from recruiters that quite a few senior litigation associates are essentially unemployable after their 10th year because firms are generally awash with service partners and eager, striving midlevels who can do the same work.

So...what happens to these unemployable 10th years if they don't have business/don't make partner? It's amazing how this profession can have a 10-year window to make or break a career, and even if you are a capable attorney, the chances are good that you still get screwed...

[84651846190]

This guy might be an example of a best-case scenario: http://www.faegrebd.com/joel-sayres

He went from a top, white-shoe litigation boutique to a midlaw firm and still hasn't made partner (after 12 years of practice), despite a COA clerkship, YLS degree and tons of relevant experience. Like I said, this guy is one of the winners. He still gets to practice litigation after (presumably) not making partner. I've heard from recruiters that quite a few senior litigation associates are essentially unemployable after their 10th year because firms are generally awash with service partners and eager, striving midlevels who can do the same work.

So...what happens to these unemployable 10th years if they don't have business/don't make partner? It's amazing how this profession can have a 10-year window to make or break a career, and even if you are a capable attorney, the chances are good that you still get screwed...

From what I've seen, some go into shitlaw (for relatively meager pay, I assume). The lucky ones find some kind of government job (that probably pays even less than what the shitlawyers make but has better job security and hours). A lucky few get nice, cushy in house jobs. Some go out on their own and hang a shingle. Some become stay-at-home moms. Some leave law altogether and open up restaurants or other random stuff (but these people often have more professionally stable spouses who are, for example, doctors). One person became a pre-law adviser at her UG. Others take on various forms of staff attorney positions in eDiscovery, "professional development," practice group coordination, etc. In short, it's a mix.

Basically, there is no blueprint for you to follow if you don't make partner and can't get a career associate/of counsel position. You have to reinvent yourself. Aren't you glad you paid 300k for this wonderful opportunity?

[DELG]

This guy might be an example of a best-case scenario: http://www.faegrebd.com/joel-sayres

He went from a top, white-shoe litigation boutique to a midlaw firm and still hasn't made partner (after 12 years of practice), despite a COA clerkship, YLS degree and tons of relevant experience. Like I said, this guy is one of the winners. He still gets to practice litigation after (presumably) not making partner. I've heard from recruiters that quite a few senior litigation associates are essentially unemployable after their 10th year because firms are generally awash with service partners and eager, striving midlevels who can do the same work.

So...what happens to these unemployable 10th years if they don't have business/don't make partner? It's amazing how this profession can have a 10-year window to make or break a career, and even if you are a capable attorney, the chances are good that you still get screwed...

i've found myself working across from a TON of 10+ yr associates, which seems a little odd, but apparently all kinds of firms don't kick you out at yr 10

[84651846190]

This guy might be an example of a best-case scenario: http://www.faegrebd.com/joel-sayres

He went from a top, white-shoe litigation boutique to a midlaw firm and still hasn't made partner (after 12 years of practice), despite a COA clerkship, YLS degree and tons of relevant experience. Like I said, this guy is one of the winners. He still gets to practice litigation after (presumably) not making partner. I've heard from recruiters that quite a few senior litigation associates are essentially unemployable after their 10th year because firms are generally awash with service partners and eager, striving midlevels who can do the same work.

So...what happens to these unemployable 10th years if they don't have business/don't make partner? It's amazing how this profession can have a 10-year window to make or break a career, and even if you are a capable attorney, the chances are good that you still get screwed...

i've found myself working across from a TON of 10+ yr associates, which seems a little odd, but apparently all kinds of firms don't kick you out at yr 10

This is true. It's very firm-dependent, however. Some firms will "counsel you out" at some point. Others might let you stay indefinitely.

[sublime]

..

[Anonymous User]

Wow. This profession is unbelievable.

[patogordo]

definitely don't kill yourselves though