Top Law Schools

My husband and I (recently married, and both 2 years out of law school) have started to think long term about career goals. I have been working comfortably in a small law office and have no plans to move. He graduated from a TTT (not cooley level, but still not an impressive name). He had “decent” grades, top 15%, and impressed enough people to have landed a clerkship (think flyover fed magistrate/state supreme court level) and then propelled himself into an attorney job with Fed Gov agency (FTC/FDIC/SEC/CFPB/IRS/Treasury). He has no plans to leave--but is aware of how much he overcame given the low ranked school and non-top5% grades.

My question: if he someday decides he wants to move into private practice, will his clerkship+multiple years in govt developing skills in a specialized area of the law negate the impact of his TTT law school? Is biglaw a possibility, even with the mediocre grades and low ranked school? (not aiming for super elite v10 or whatever, just trying to get a general idea if respected firms will take him seriously). His practice area lends itself well to niche legal areas (in other words, not general litigation).

Any anecdotes about this type of situation? Anyone who reads these forums knows how important school+class rank are for job search…but my impression is that after 5ish years in the job market, your work experiences and relevant skills also play in as large factors. It seems like the cycle of TTT=unemployment or underemployment is largely a result of TTT grads failing to get impressive work experience initially, which basically prevents you from going certain places later in your career...So, for example, can someone who was not competitive for biglaw at OCI (as TTT student with only mediocre grades) later move to biglaw/in house after clerking+BigGov for several years?

No, it will not negate it. It may mitigate it, but he will always be a TTT graduate.

That said, where you went to law school grows increasingly less important with more post-law school experience. I think he'll find, now that he's gotten his foot in the door in a solid job area, that his opportunities going forward are roughly comparable to his coworkers in his current position. For better or for worse, though, that probably doesn't include biglaw (for your husband OR for his coworkers). It's pretty easy to go from biglaw->big fed. It's much harder to make the reverse change. It's not impossible, but I would probably assume that although he's likely going to be "fine" in his career, that career probably isn't going to include biglaw.

..

he could probably get into biglaw if the market continues the way it does. but i dont know why hed want to leave the kushy govt after building up a nice salary for biglaw.

is BU/BC considered TTT for purpose of this post here, or are we talking about Syracuse. I've seen Syracuse guy in Williams Connolly, btw.

I'm just sad that even with top 15%, his grades are "mediocre".

I'm the OP. In terms of his school, we are talking far below BU/BC and also below Syracuse. Although I will say the school has a good reputation in its home market for producing public service attorneys. Definitely sad that top 15% is only "mediocre" but the nature of low ranked schools is that if you are not at a minimum in top 1/4, job search outlook is dismal.

Thanks for the input. He is very happy where he is now so we think he will stay, but always good to know where one stands in the market.

Anonymous User wrote:No, it will not negate it. It may mitigate it, but he will always be a TTT graduate.

That said, where you went to law school grows increasingly less important with more post-law school experience. I think he'll find, now that he's gotten his foot in the door in a solid job area, that his opportunities going forward are roughly comparable to his coworkers in his current position. For better or for worse, though, that probably doesn't include biglaw (for your husband OR for his coworkers). It's pretty easy to go from biglaw->big fed. It's much harder to make the reverse change. It's not impossible, but I would probably assume that although he's likely going to be "fine" in his career, that career probably isn't going to include biglaw.

i work at a financial regulator and in my experience this isn't true at all. the revolving door is alive and well. in fact i'm interested to hear where you're getting this information from and your current position (student? attorney? if so where?)

.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm the OP. In terms of his school, we are talking far below BU/BC and also below Syracuse. Although I will say the school has a good reputation in its home market for producing public service attorneys. Definitely sad that top 15% is only "mediocre" but the nature of low ranked schools is that if you are not at a minimum in top 1/4, job search outlook is dismal.

Thanks for the input. He is very happy where he is now so we think he will stay, but always good to know where one stands in the market.

Can you PM me? I have a feeling I go to this school.

I work at a V20 in a relatively niche area. Half my office meets this description - graduated from local, not-highly-ranked law schools, worked for the relevant agency for a few years, and then landed here. All of these people not only worked for federal agencies, they also know everything about the industry and everything there is to know about the agency's rules, policies, and procedures.

misterjames wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:No, it will not negate it. It may mitigate it, but he will always be a TTT graduate.

That said, where you went to law school grows increasingly less important with more post-law school experience. I think he'll find, now that he's gotten his foot in the door in a solid job area, that his opportunities going forward are roughly comparable to his coworkers in his current position. For better or for worse, though, that probably doesn't include biglaw (for your husband OR for his coworkers). It's pretty easy to go from biglaw->big fed. It's much harder to make the reverse change. It's not impossible, but I would probably assume that although he's likely going to be "fine" in his career, that career probably isn't going to include biglaw.

i work at a financial regulator and in my experience this isn't true at all. the revolving door is alive and well. in fact i'm interested to hear where you're getting this information from and your current position (student? attorney? if so where?)

I'm a fourth-year attorney at an elite lit boutique. Maybe things are different in transactional practices.

Anonymous User wrote:

misterjames wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:No, it will not negate it. It may mitigate it, but he will always be a TTT graduate.

That said, where you went to law school grows increasingly less important with more post-law school experience. I think he'll find, now that he's gotten his foot in the door in a solid job area, that his opportunities going forward are roughly comparable to his coworkers in his current position. For better or for worse, though, that probably doesn't include biglaw (for your husband OR for his coworkers). It's pretty easy to go from biglaw->big fed. It's much harder to make the reverse change. It's not impossible, but I would probably assume that although he's likely going to be "fine" in his career, that career probably isn't going to include biglaw.

i work at a financial regulator and in my experience this isn't true at all. the revolving door is alive and well. in fact i'm interested to hear where you're getting this information from and your current position (student? attorney? if so where?)

I'm a fourth-year attorney at an elite lit boutique. Maybe things are different in transactional practices.

i'm fairly certain OP is talking about regulatory practice, which is what most federal agencies deal with, especially the ones they listed.

misterjames wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

misterjames wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:No, it will not negate it. It may mitigate it, but he will always be a TTT graduate.

That said, where you went to law school grows increasingly less important with more post-law school experience. I think he'll find, now that he's gotten his foot in the door in a solid job area, that his opportunities going forward are roughly comparable to his coworkers in his current position. For better or for worse, though, that probably doesn't include biglaw (for your husband OR for his coworkers). It's pretty easy to go from biglaw->big fed. It's much harder to make the reverse change. It's not impossible, but I would probably assume that although he's likely going to be "fine" in his career, that career probably isn't going to include biglaw.

i work at a financial regulator and in my experience this isn't true at all. the revolving door is alive and well. in fact i'm interested to hear where you're getting this information from and your current position (student? attorney? if so where?)

I'm a fourth-year attorney at an elite lit boutique. Maybe things are different in transactional practices.

i'm fairly certain OP is talking about regulatory practice, which is what most federal agencies deal with, especially the ones they listed.

OP here- yes, my husband is in financial regulatory practice. I understand that biglaw litigation departments are much more concerned with grades, and working for the govt in a lit position does not easily translate to elite private practice (unless DOJ or AUSA experience)...

We have been doing some research, just looking at firm bios and it seems there are a fair amount of TTT grads in biglaw who worked for the big regulators for a number of years before transitioning to private practice. my husband's practice area translates fairly well to corporate/transactional work--does that change the advice at all? does the revolving door exist even for someone who didn't go to a t14? Also, is there a set number of years he should aim to stay with the govt before thinking about transitioning? Obviously, 1 or 2 years would be too short but it seems like staying 10 years could prevent you from moving to a firm as a lateral associate. Thanks to all for the insight.

Anonymous User wrote:

misterjames wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

misterjames wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:No, it will not negate it. It may mitigate it, but he will always be a TTT graduate.

That said, where you went to law school grows increasingly less important with more post-law school experience. I think he'll find, now that he's gotten his foot in the door in a solid job area, that his opportunities going forward are roughly comparable to his coworkers in his current position. For better or for worse, though, that probably doesn't include biglaw (for your husband OR for his coworkers). It's pretty easy to go from biglaw->big fed. It's much harder to make the reverse change. It's not impossible, but I would probably assume that although he's likely going to be "fine" in his career, that career probably isn't going to include biglaw.

i work at a financial regulator and in my experience this isn't true at all. the revolving door is alive and well. in fact i'm interested to hear where you're getting this information from and your current position (student? attorney? if so where?)

I'm a fourth-year attorney at an elite lit boutique. Maybe things are different in transactional practices.

i'm fairly certain OP is talking about regulatory practice, which is what most federal agencies deal with, especially the ones they listed.

OP here- yes, my husband is in financial regulatory practice. I understand that biglaw litigation departments are much more concerned with grades, and working for the govt in a lit position does not easily translate to elite private practice (unless DOJ or AUSA experience)...

We have been doing some research, just looking at firm bios and it seems there are a fair amount of TTT grads in biglaw who worked for the big regulators for a number of years before transitioning to private practice. my husband's practice area translates fairly well to corporate/transactional work--does that change the advice at all? does the revolving door exist even for someone who didn't go to a t14? Also, is there a set number of years he should aim to stay with the govt before thinking about transitioning? Obviously, 1 or 2 years would be too short but it seems like staying 10 years could prevent you from moving to a firm as a lateral associate. Thanks to all for the insight.

Wouldn't it translate more to regulatory practice then? not that transactional work is out of the question, but many firms have actual regulatory groups.

Yes the revolving door exists for non t-14, it seems like you answered that with your own research. For number of years, my understanding is that in the current market 3-5 years is the sweet spot as midlevel hiring is strong now. I'm hesitant to agree that 2 years is too short, but 1 might be. Perhaps your husband should look into recruiters if and when he's ready, if anything just to get a sense of whether he'd be competitive.