Top Law Schools

I see that being thrown around a lot here. What practice areas are considered as such? And why are they shit?

I believe the classic practice area meeting the definition of shitlaw would be personal injury. I don't think the term "shitlaw" has much to do with attorneys' relative earning potential, however, because many rainmaker partners in shitlaw make more than biglaw partners.

Other practice areas that might be considered shitlaw include insurance defense (but only for very simple cases), foreclosure appearance, and family law.

Aside from money, I always thought it meant the type of firm with an open door public policy where people could walk in looking for help with their car wreak, divorce, dog bite, etc. At my firm you best make friends with security in case you misplace your keycard.

Shitlaw is very relative. Some might even say it's anything not biglaw, but I don't think that's true.

but seriously, I think classically, it's the small firm areas that are not boutique related. PI (and it's adversary, ID), mill work (foreclosure, bankruptcy), criminal (of the small variety - dui, petty stuff), anything that requires high volume, asbestos, SSD, civil rights stuff.

There's country club shitlaw too - workers comp, employment, and probably SSD again. The practice isn't particularly stimulating, but the money can be good if you're a decent networker.

I'm missing some, but you get the idea.

Edited to add: family - duh...

It's all relative, I suppose. As a small firm practitioner, I'd divide up the type of work I do as follows.

Non-Shit
Appellate work
.
Commercial civil litigation
Municipal representation
Estate planning / Trusts
.
.
Business formation
.
Non-commercial civil litigation (non-PI, non-contingency)
.
Felony criminal defense
.
.
Particularly good PI cases

Borderline shit
Divorces (these run the gamut from really good work down to total shit)
.
.
Contingency (e.g. plaintiffs') suits

Shit
Administrative Law Appeals
.
Low-level criminal defense
.
Personal Injury (the majority, minus particularly good cases)
.
.
Creditors' rights litigation / bill collecting

That being said, some of the non-shit stuff can actually suck to do (like writing appellate briefs and forming business entities), whereas some of the shit stuff can be great (low-level crim defense work can get really interesting), so it's a bit of a misnomer to label this as "shit" vs. "non-shit." It's just that the more sophisticated firms / attorneys tend to do more work at the higher end of the scale, whereas it can be a struggle to get steady revenue on the shit end.

lol civil rights is shit law now?

Not the cause-based stuff, or stuff good attorneys do. But there are a lot of shitty plaintiffs trying to make a buck off suing the police department. Of course, there are also a lot of shitty police departments that totally deserve to get sued. So civil rights work definitely isn't shitlaw per se, but there are shitlaw-like civil rights attorneys who operate very much like shady personal injury attorneys (high volume, little investigation).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Not the cause-based stuff, or stuff good attorneys do. But there are a lot of shitty plaintiffs trying to make a buck off suing the police department. Of course, there are also a lot of shitty police departments that totally deserve to get sued. So civil rights work definitely isn't shitlaw per se, but there are shitlaw-like civil rights attorneys who operate very much like shady personal injury attorneys (high volume, little investigation).

Thanks - I should have been more clear. That's the exact shit I was talking about. Also, as noted above, I forgot collections. That is true shit law.

And I agree, low level criminal is generally shitty, but is a) a good learning opportunity/court room time and b) can be a fun criminal practice.

From what I'm hearing, sounds like a pretty decent amount of the stereotypical "scumbag lawyers" work in shitlaw. Ambulance chasers, family vultures, sleazy defense lawyers that would defend the worst scum on the planet to make a decent buck, etc.

It's the pay, hours, and growth potential in addition to what you do. Insurance defense for instance forces you to resort to disgusting behavior (trying to shortchange someone who is paralyzed by being rear ended on the highway, and trying to argue it's their fault). If you earn 600/week for this with no upwards potential, it's hard to argue that it's better than being a janitor. Also, janitors don't take student loans. Shit law is like joining the dark side if the dark side had a piece of shit space ship, and required to wear ripped old clothes.

Young Marino wrote:From what I'm hearing, sounds like a pretty decent amount of the stereotypical "scumbag lawyers" work in shitlaw. Ambulance chasers, family vultures, sleazy defense lawyers that would defend the worst scum on the planet to make a decent buck, etc.

Lawyers who are willing to defend the worst scum on the planet are also the lawyers who protect all of our civil rights from overzealous prosecution and shoddy police work. I'd say they're less scumbags than the dude who squeezes $40k in attorney fees out of corporate shareholders to pad the billing on his merger diligence, or the chick who writes in arbitration clauses into nursing home agreements, so the executor can't sue when the facility kills his grandma, or any other person who churns out borderline unconscionable provisions in contracts of adhesion for large companies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of scummy biglaw lawyering. But opinions may vary on that, I suppose.

smallfirmassociate wrote:

Young Marino wrote:From what I'm hearing, sounds like a pretty decent amount of the stereotypical "scumbag lawyers" work in shitlaw. Ambulance chasers, family vultures, sleazy defense lawyers that would defend the worst scum on the planet to make a decent buck, etc.

Lawyers who are willing to defend the worst scum on the planet are also the lawyers who protect all of our civil rights from overzealous prosecution and shoddy police work. I'd say they're less scumbags than the dude who squeezes $40k in attorney fees out of corporate shareholders to pad the billing on his merger diligence, or the chick who writes in arbitration clauses into nursing home agreements, so the executor can't sue when the facility kills his grandma, or any other person who churns out borderline unconscionable provisions in contracts of adhesion for large companies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of scummy biglaw lawyering. But opinions may vary on that, I suppose.

But....but.....but...what about prestige? And that academic rigor?

smallfirmassociate wrote:

Young Marino wrote:From what I'm hearing, sounds like a pretty decent amount of the stereotypical "scumbag lawyers" work in shitlaw. Ambulance chasers, family vultures, sleazy defense lawyers that would defend the worst scum on the planet to make a decent buck, etc.

Lawyers who are willing to defend the worst scum on the planet are also the lawyers who protect all of our civil rights from overzealous prosecution and shoddy police work. I'd say they're less scumbags than the dude who squeezes $40k in attorney fees out of corporate shareholders to pad the billing on his merger diligence, or the chick who writes in arbitration clauses into nursing home agreements, so the executor can't sue when the facility kills his grandma, or any other person who churns out borderline unconscionable provisions in contracts of adhesion for large companies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of scummy biglaw lawyering. But opinions may vary on that, I suppose.

Corporate shareholders: the real victims. But really, your experiences may vary, but what I typically see is merger diligence being dramatically under billed. When I actually read materials from the data room rather than just scrolling through aimlessly, people look at me like I'm crazy. I can't imagine what the bills would look like if people actually went through things at more than a cursory level consistently.

KidStuddi wrote:Corporate shareholders: the real victims. But really, your experiences may vary, but what I typically see is merger diligence being dramatically under billed. When I actually read materials from the data room rather than just scrolling through aimlessly, people look at me like I'm crazy. I can't imagine what the bills would look like if people actually went through things at more than a cursory level consistently.

You think corporate shareholders need white shoe firms in Manhattan to peruse their insurance agreements? Some dude in a basement in India could do it for one-fourth the price. Some dudes in cubicles in Manhattan, Kansas could do it for less than half. The shareholders are paying for overhead and high hourly rates because execs and lawyers like to play this Don Draper wannabe bullshit game. They, not the shareholders, are the ones who benefit from this cozy incestuous relationship.

And so of course they perpetuate the myth that the clients "need" this alleged "top-tier" legal service. Paying someone $400 - $1000 per hour to review supplier contracts is like paying someone $1500 to change your oil.

And then there are shrinkwrap agreements. Scummy scummy scummy.