Top Law Schools

I accepted an offer with a (GEICO/ALLSTATE/TRAVELERS/STATE FARM/ETC) car insurance company's captive law firm in my target market. They told me that if I do well in the summer, there may be a position for me, but this is not guaranteed, it is based on work load and their hiring needs. I will be the only intern in that captive office.

I got another offer for a midsized firm (100+ attorneys) in target market that pays associates six figures and they say that working as a summer associate here MAY lead to an offer. I will be one of five interns in this office.

RENEGE???? repercussions to consider?

T25; almost top third; litigation aspirations (both ID and midlaw are litigation firms)

Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

No question renege, only repercussions may be burning a bridge with the original firm and possibly getting some kind of nasty email from CSO. It doesn't sound like either job is a sure thing but the midlaw firm is better and would probably pay more for the summer and be more interesting overall. If you have to find another job for post-grad, that experience may transfer better too.

You have to back out, just call them or send an email and don't look back. They will have no trouble finding someone else.

Absolutely renege. More opportunities in the firm life. Just be professional: call or email will suffice. Like chiles said, they'll have no problem getting a new kid. Congrats.

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

Not if you want to be a PI trial lawyer.

I hate to tell anyone to renege but, OP, the midlaw position is definitely the better one.

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

As a 3L who is considering an offer for a small litigation firm that does a lot of ID and med-mal work, can I ask why it's so awful? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it.

MarkfromWI wrote:

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

As a 3L who is considering an offer for a small litigation firm that does a lot of ID and med-mal work, can I ask why it's so awful? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it.

I also would like to know why ID is so bad?

kellyfrost wrote:

MarkfromWI wrote:

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

As a 3L who is considering an offer for a small litigation firm that does a lot of ID and med-mal work, can I ask why it's so awful? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it.

I also would like to know why ID is so bad?

I summered and will be working next fall at a firm that does a lot of insurance coverage work. My understanding is that insurance defense, which is different than coverage, gets a bad rap because the insurance companies don't pay great rates and want to minimize costs. Coverage where you are representing the actual insurance company and their policies i think is generally an area that allows for larger rates to be charged and I think is an area larger firms also participate in. If this is wrong someone feel free to jump in and correct me.

lawhopeful10 wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:

MarkfromWI wrote:

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

As a 3L who is considering an offer for a small litigation firm that does a lot of ID and med-mal work, can I ask why it's so awful? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it.

I also would like to know why ID is so bad?

I summered and will be working next fall at a firm that does a lot of insurance coverage work. My understanding is that insurance defense, which is different than coverage, gets a bad rap because the insurance companies don't pay great rates and want to minimize costs. Coverage where you are representing the actual insurance company and their policies i think is generally an area that allows for larger rates to be charged and I think is an area larger firms also participate in. If this is wrong someone feel free to jump in and correct me.

My understanding is a little different than yours. Insurance defense attorneys represent the insurance companies in law suits.

Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

What you say about rates could be correct in some, if not all instances. Insurance companies didn't become the profitable giants they are today by handing out money. However, on the flip side, insurance companies are a client that typically needs frequent reprsentation on area that take some time to resolve. So while the hourly rate may be lower, doesn't mean there is no money in it.

You might have missed some things over the summer...

You should absolutely take the midlaw job.

For those of you wondering, ID gets a bad rap for low rates and uncreative, task-based work. Insurance companies often don't pay by the hour in the same way that normal clients do. Rather, they will pay within a certain range for the completion of specific tasks. This results in low rates. It also screws junior attorneys, as you often can't bill the client for things beyond a certain amount of time (this is generally true outside of biglaw, but seems to be particularly prevalent in ID). Additionally, the work seems to be rather repetitive and boring.

kellyfrost wrote:

lawhopeful10 wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:

MarkfromWI wrote:

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

As a 3L who is considering an offer for a small litigation firm that does a lot of ID and med-mal work, can I ask why it's so awful? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it.

I also would like to know why ID is so bad?

I summered and will be working next fall at a firm that does a lot of insurance coverage work. My understanding is that insurance defense, which is different than coverage, gets a bad rap because the insurance companies don't pay great rates and want to minimize costs. Coverage where you are representing the actual insurance company and their policies i think is generally an area that allows for larger rates to be charged and I think is an area larger firms also participate in. If this is wrong someone feel free to jump in and correct me.

My understanding is a little different than yours. Insurance defense attorneys represent the insurance companies in law suits.

Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

What you say about rates could be correct in some, if not all instances. Insurance companies didn't become the profitable giants they are today by handing out money. However, on the flip side, insurance companies are a client that typically needs frequent reprsentation on area that take some time to resolve. So while the hourly rate may be lower, doesn't mean there is no money in it.

You might have missed some things over the summer...

Yea the firm I was at represents lloyds syndicates in coverage disputes. A separate attorney would represent the actual policyholder and we would attempt to deny coverage under the policy so for example I would write a coverage report on whether I thought a pollution exclusion applied or something lol. I'm sure I definitely did miss stuff though.

Edit: Pretty sure most situations (if not all) it would not be okay for the same counsel to represent the policy holder and the insurance company. Their interests can and often do diverge in the context of third party lawsuits.

lawhopeful10 wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:

lawhopeful10 wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:

MarkfromWI wrote:

JCougar wrote:Jesus Christ....absolutely renege.

Taking a job in insurance defense, for the most part, is ending your career before it even begins. It's a terrible area of law in which to practice.

As a 3L who is considering an offer for a small litigation firm that does a lot of ID and med-mal work, can I ask why it's so awful? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it.

I also would like to know why ID is so bad?

I summered and will be working next fall at a firm that does a lot of insurance coverage work. My understanding is that insurance defense, which is different than coverage, gets a bad rap because the insurance companies don't pay great rates and want to minimize costs. Coverage where you are representing the actual insurance company and their policies i think is generally an area that allows for larger rates to be charged and I think is an area larger firms also participate in. If this is wrong someone feel free to jump in and correct me.

My understanding is a little different than yours. Insurance defense attorneys represent the insurance companies in law suits.

Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

What you say about rates could be correct in some, if not all instances. Insurance companies didn't become the profitable giants they are today by handing out money. However, on the flip side, insurance companies are a client that typically needs frequent reprsentation on area that take some time to resolve. So while the hourly rate may be lower, doesn't mean there is no money in it.

You might have missed some things over the summer...

Yea the firm I was at represents lloyds syndicates in coverage disputes. A separate attorney would represent the actual policyholder and we would attempt to deny coverage under the policy so for example I would write a coverage report on whether I thought a pollution exclusion applied or something lol. I'm sure I definitely did miss stuff though.

Edit: Pretty sure most situations (if not all) it would not be okay for the same counsel to represent the policy holder and the insurance company. Their interests can and often do diverge in the context of third party lawsuits.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you have a different experience and understanding of coverage practice than I do. It's entirely possible though, insurance is such a vast subject and practice.

does anyone know how much captive law firms for car insurance companies such as Geico, Progressive, State Farm pay their staff attorneys? glass door seems inaccurate because I believe I am seeing general counsel salaries.

kellyfrost wrote:
Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

I worked at an Insurance Defense/Coverage firm and the above is absolutely false. Coverage attorneys represent the Carrier and try to find ways to deny coverage. Remember that the Carrier is the client so it would be bad business practice to represent policy holders attempting to "enforce" coverage.

MurdockLLP wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:
Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

I worked at an Insurance Defense/Coverage firm and the above is absolutely false. Coverage attorneys represent the Carrier and try to find ways to deny coverage. Remember that the Carrier is the client so it would be bad business practice to represent policy holders attempting to "enforce" coverage.

I am under the impression that insurance coverage practice could involve representation of either the insurance company or the party seeing to "enforce" coverage. It would depend on who your client was.
Insurance coverage lawyers often try to negotiate with the other party, whether it’s the policy holder or insurance company, to resolve the matter. If both sides cannot reach a resolution, then the attorney represents her client in court, either providing litigation defense to the insurance company or litigation representation to policy holders who initiate the lawsuit. The attorneys on both sides have to review the insurance policy and prepare their case to argue that the policy holder’s rights should be protected in the case of the plaintiff’s attorney, or that the insurance company is not liable for coverage payments in the case of the Insurance Defense Attorney.

MurdockLLP wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:
Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

I worked at an Insurance Defense/Coverage firm and the above is absolutely false. Coverage attorneys represent the Carrier and try to find ways to deny coverage. Remember that the Carrier is the client so it would be bad business practice to represent policy holders attempting to "enforce" coverage.

Also, it is my understanding that the insurance adjuster or another customer representative actually "denies" the coverage first, then the law suit or negotiations begin. If the claim is not first denied, what would the litigation be about? Why would the insurance company need the services of a law firm if the claim was not first denied and the contested by the policyholder?

kellyfrost wrote:

MurdockLLP wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:
Insurance coverage attorneys represent policyholders or other parties who are seeking to enforce or find "coverage." Coverage attorneys represent the plaintiffs typically.

I worked at an Insurance Defense/Coverage firm and the above is absolutely false. Coverage attorneys represent the Carrier and try to find ways to deny coverage. Remember that the Carrier is the client so it would be bad business practice to represent policy holders attempting to "enforce" coverage.

Also, it is my understanding that the insurance adjuster or another customer representative actually "denies" the coverage first, then the law suit or negotiations begin. If the claim is not first denied, what would the litigation be about? Why would the insurance company need the services of a law firm if the claim was not first denied and the contested by the policyholder?

In close calls with high stakes the adjuster / insurance company contacts the law firm to help them decide whether to deny the claim or not. This is what coverage reports are for. An adjuster does not know how a certain circuit interprets pollution exclusions so they will have an attorney advise them on that.

Agree with most of the discussion that has followed. Coverage is seen as at least one step above pure insurance defense, but neither are Biglaw or even midlaw-level prestigious. With coverage, in big cities, you might be able to creep into the six-figure area, but it's long, long, Biglaw-type hours for half the pay.

ID is bad because there's no future and it pays low and the hours are long to begin with. Mid-market ID starts out at anywhere from $35K/year to $65K/year with long hours, insane bosses, and extremely mundane and repetitive copy 'n paste work. You might be able to swing $80K in a major city. Although if you work in-house for an insurance company as OP seems to be talking about, the hours probably aren't bad--but it's still a dead-end on your resume.

ID is rote work that has a very, very low skill ceiling, and thus there's little value in having experience in the field. It fucks over juniors because there's no reason to pay an associate much more than an entry-level salary. Therefore, you get too expensive to employ very early in the process, and you get shit-canned. And within the absurdly prestige-oriented legal industry, this work is seen to have little value. So you absolutely will not be able to use this experience to lateral into any job worth going to law school to get.

Someone mentioned that you can use this experience to lateral into plaintiffs' PI--which is true. But plaintiffs' PI is probably one step below even ID. There are a handful of people that can make a comfortable living doing this for a relatively small amount of work, but for the most part, it's an overly-saturated field with a lot of TTT-grad-turned-used-car-salesmen attorneys duking it out for $5000 "I slipped in a puddle of pee in the Burger King bathroom and sprained my ankle" type clients who are usually ex-convicts, and you lose your case half the time because you find out your client was totally lying at trial when videotape contradicts their story.

FYI, these are the cases you'll be defending in ID, except with worse hours and no upside for that rare million-dollar wrongful death case where you have a 33% contingency fee.

OP here:

the midlaw firm does a lot of insurance litigation as well, Idk if this is considered one of those midlaw ID firms, but they do other litigation as well (corporate, family law, etc).

the car insurance captive firm does PIP litigation (they said it involved a lot of contract law)

does this change anything?

Anonymous User wrote:OP here:

the midlaw firm does a lot of insurance litigation as well, Idk if this is considered one of those midlaw ID firms, but they do other litigation as well (corporate, family law, etc).

the car insurance captive firm does PIP litigation (they said it involved a lot of contract law)

does this change anything?

I don't know enough details about the ID market to answer this any more specifically...haven't heard about PIP litigation.

But the fact that this firm pays its new associates six figures means it's a few steps above even a coverage firm--and leagues above ID.

In my experience, ID firms are places where careers go to die. Low end work, low rates, and typically not very wel credentialed attorney's.

TheHill5 wrote:In my experience, ID firms are places where careers go to die. Low end work, low rates, and typically not very wel credentialed attorney's.

About half the people on my last document review project had worked at an ID firm at some point in the past. Almost every single one of them had horror stories about sexual harassment, sociopath partners screaming at them for coming in at 8:32am instead of 8:30am, the FBI coming in and arresting people, and even one partner murdering another one.

You guys think I'm making this shit up, but I'm not. Lots of former associates that worked here:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... 78124.html

are in doc review now.

JCougar wrote:Agree with most of the discussion that has followed. Coverage is seen as at least one step above pure insurance defense, but neither are Biglaw or even midlaw-level prestigious. With coverage, in big cities, you might be able to creep into the six-figure area, but it's long, long, Biglaw-type hours for half the pay.

ID is bad because there's no future and it pays low and the hours are long to begin with. Mid-market ID starts out at anywhere from $35K/year to $65K/year with long hours, insane bosses, and extremely mundane and repetitive copy 'n paste work. You might be able to swing $80K in a major city. Although if you work in-house for an insurance company as OP seems to be talking about, the hours probably aren't bad--but it's still a dead-end on your resume.

ID is rote work that has a very, very low skill ceiling, and thus there's little value in having experience in the field. It fucks over juniors because there's no reason to pay an associate much more than an entry-level salary. Therefore, you get too expensive to employ very early in the process, and you get shit-canned. And within the absurdly prestige-oriented legal industry, this work is seen to have little value. So you absolutely will not be able to use this experience to lateral into any job worth going to law school to get.

Someone mentioned that you can use this experience to lateral into plaintiffs' PI--which is true. But plaintiffs' PI is probably one step below even ID. There are a handful of people that can make a comfortable living doing this for a relatively small amount of work, but for the most part, it's an overly-saturated field with a lot of TTT-grad-turned-used-car-salesmen attorneys duking it out for $5000 "I slipped in a puddle of pee in the Burger King bathroom and sprained my ankle" type clients who are usually ex-convicts, and you lose your case half the time because you find out your client was totally lying at trial when videotape contradicts their story.

FYI, these are the cases you'll be defending in ID, except with worse hours and no upside for that rare million-dollar wrongful death case where you have a 33% contingency fee.

Pretty insightful stuff here and thank you for sharing. Does ID change at all when you move away from auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, and commercial general liability policies and move on to bigger things like private risk insurance (for wealthy, think yachts, huge umbrella policies), directors and officers liability insurance, excess liability, excess casualty, environmental liability, specialty casualty, commercial marine, cyber liability, ect? Those areas seem like they are more specialized and may pay higher rates/wages. Do you know if this is true or just speculation?

JCougar wrote:

TheHill5 wrote:In my experience, ID firms are places where careers go to die. Low end work, low rates, and typically not very wel credentialed attorney's.

About half the people on my last document review project had worked at an ID firm at some point in the past. Almost every single one of them had horror stories about sexual harassment, sociopath partners screaming at them for coming in at 8:32am instead of 8:30am, the FBI coming in and arresting people, and even one partner murdering another one.

You guys think I'm making this shit up, but I'm not. Lots of former associates that worked here:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... 78124.html

are in doc review now.

All very true as I can second all of the above. Bottom line, stay away from ID. The only winners there are the guys with their name in the firm's title, and even they are like bought a $1 scratch off lottery ticket and won $3 type winners.

JCougar wrote:Someone mentioned that you can use this experience to lateral into plaintiffs' PI--which is true. But plaintiffs' PI is probably one step below even ID. There are a handful of people that can make a comfortable living doing this for a relatively small amount of work, but for the most part, it's an overly-saturated field with a lot of TTT-grad-turned-used-car-salesmen attorneys duking it out for $5000 "I slipped in a puddle of pee in the Burger King bathroom and sprained my ankle" type clients who are usually ex-convicts, and you lose your case half the time because you find out your client was totally lying at trial when videotape contradicts their story.

Like anything else in this profession, it depends on the firm. There are some great firms where you can make a great living. And there are some terrible firms. With the good/great firms, I think it's one of the best jobs you can find (as a lawyer in private practice) if you enjoy litigation and trials.