Starting career at midsize plaintiff's firm? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi,

I just wanted to solicit some opinions about the wisdom of beginning one's career at a midsize plaintiff's firm. I'm a recent law school graduate. I have been looking for a private sector job since my 2L year and nothing has panned out until now. I received an offer from a midsize firm specializing in "catastrophic personal injury" such as asbestos exposure etc. The compensation offered is significantly less than market compensation paid at "biglaw" firms. I have also read on this forum that "exit" options--to transition to a better paying job on the defense side for example, are more limited for someone coming out of a plaintiff's side firm and I am concerned that this could be a career-limiting move down the line. I would like to try a different practice area such as complex commercial litigation later on, and I don't want to be pigeonholed. But at the same time, it is a tough legal market and I have also been advised that at the outset of one's legal career, one may have to settle for something that is less than ideal as a stepping stone to something better. Would I get the kind of civil litigation experience at the plaintiff's firm that would enable me to lateral to a more lucrative position later on, such as on defense side/different practice area? One of the firm's selling points was that associates get lots of substantive hands-on litigation experience in the first few years. It also seems that there is a much better market for associates with 2-5 years of experience than for entry level positions. Obviously, this plaintiff's gig will be my first post-bar position. I appreciate whatever thoughts others can contribute as to their own experiences or anecdotes. Thanks.

[smallfirmassociate]

It definitely could be a career-limiting move for you, but not as limiting as unemployment.

Good luck. Just keep your head down and do asbestos you can.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for the advice smallfirmassociate. I agree with you--employment beats unemployment by a long shot.

But, I'm currently in a four month "public interest fellowship" -- a program sponsored by my school where I receive a monthly $ stipend while I volunteer with a government agency. So from a financial vantage point, and experience, in theory I could perhaps hold out a little longer to find something better than the plaintiff's job. What I'm doing right this moment is a half-step up from unemployment I guess. My fellowship continues through June 30 and maybe I could keep looking. But maybe getting a "real job" is enough of a step up from being a school-sponsored "fellow" that it's worth it. Would welcome further input from yourself, smallfirmassociate, or others.

[treeey86]

If you want a career in litigation then you need to start working and litigation matters. You will get much better litigation experience at the firm than at the current government agency. In this job market for new lawyers its expected you will hop around your first couple of years until you land where you want to be. Just make sure every hop is to a place that gives you an opportunity to practice, get substantive experience, increase your knowledge base, and put you in a position for your next move.

I think you take the job, the money (which likely pays a lot more than the fellowship), and the actual litigation experience and run with it. 6 months - 1 year later if you are not satisfied you start looking for the next jump. This early in your career you will not be pigeonholed, and you will be much more marketable with actual litigation experience at a firm.

[jchiles]

Good luck. Just keep your head down and do asbestos you can.

[lavarman84]

What are your career goals? What sort of exit options do you want? What sort of law do you want to practice?(I saw complex commercial litigation...is that what you want to do?)

I think this is a pretty good option for you. You'll likely get opportunities to do substantive work, have client interaction (albeit a different type of client interaction than you would have at a defense firm), and possibly get into court. All of which would be major selling points if you wanted to lateral down the line to another litigation job.

Plus, practicing personal injury law at the right firm can be pretty lucrative once you work your way up the ladder a bit.

[Anonymous User]

Is the firm a settlement mill or a legit plaintiffs' firm? If your job will be spent churning through hundreds of nearly identical cases, well, you're probably not going to end up with the right experience or resume line to do a whole lot else. If your job includes a lot of variation, court appearances, substantive brief writing, etc, then the fact that it's at a plaintiffs firm will likely not hold you back (especially since the sorts of plaintiffs firms that give associates real work are generally known and respected).

My understanding of these things is that most firms that handle asbestos work are, for better or for worse, of the former variety: they've perfected what they do down to a model that doesn't allow for a ton of variation. But you know better than we do the specifics of this firm.

[smallfirmassociate]

OP here. Thanks for the advice smallfirmassociate. I agree with you--employment beats unemployment by a long shot.

But, I'm currently in a four month "public interest fellowship" -- a program sponsored by my school where I receive a monthly $ stipend while I volunteer with a government agency. So from a financial vantage point, and experience, in theory I could perhaps hold out a little longer to find something better than the plaintiff's job. What I'm doing right this moment is a half-step up from unemployment I guess. My fellowship continues through June 30 and maybe I could keep looking. But maybe getting a "real job" is enough of a step up from being a school-sponsored "fellow" that it's worth it. Would welcome further input from yourself, smallfirmassociate, or others.

Yeah, I wouldn't pass up this job with the idea that you can find something else by June 30 or on reliance of extending your fellowship. The market is decent at best, and I feel like the longer you stay in "legal-lite" employment like you are now, the more you tend toward being damaged goods. I don't think your brief stint is a bad thing, but if it turns into two years then it would be an issue if I were looking at your resume.

I have a friend who did secondary market asbestos work out of law school. He was on the defense side. Got to do a lot of depositions and motions practice, so it wasn't bad experience. Never went to trial in five years, though, then transferred to another mid-sized firm where it's still kind of, for lack of a better way to put it, second-tier legal work doing insurance defense and things. He's made a solid career out of being a lawyer, though, and aside from a lot of travel, the asbestos gig didn't seem terrible.

[DELG]

Learn how to be a p lawyer, then do that well. You may make more than biglawyers anyway.

[Anonymous User]

What are your career goals? What sort of exit options do you want? What sort of law do you want to practice?(I saw complex commercial litigation...is that what you want to do?)

I think this is a pretty good option for you. You'll likely get opportunities to do substantive work, have client interaction (albeit a different type of client interaction than you would have at a defense firm), and possibly get into court. All of which would be major selling points if you wanted to lateral down the line to another litigation job.

Plus, practicing personal injury law at the right firm can be pretty lucrative once you work your way up the ladder a bit.

OP here. Thanks for all the extremely useful replies.

lawman84, in terms of my career goals, I have always wanted to be involved in civil litigation. I have wanted to get some private sector experience and then, depending on how that pans out, maybe transition into a public sector position also doing civil lit. Complex commercial litigation just seemed to me like the bread-and-butter type of work that gives you the most transferable skills and encompasses the widest diversity of clients, cases, and legal issues. I thought it would be a good fit for me and it still might be. In terms of exit options, I want to be able to transition to a better paying job if the advancement opportunities are limited in the place that I am in. I want to be able to experiment with biglaw to see if it suits me and to be able to try different practice areas, like antitrust, bankruptcy, probate, contract cases, since it's still early on and I want to know what I really like. Appreciate your comments as to the opportunities for substantive work and client interaction. They did say that I would be doing depos, writing pleadings, and possibly find my way into court to argue motions. Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

If you want a career in litigation then you need to start working and litigation matters. You will get much better litigation experience at the firm than at the current government agency. In this job market for new lawyers its expected you will hop around your first couple of years until you land where you want to be. Just make sure every hop is to a place that gives you an opportunity to practice, get substantive experience, increase your knowledge base, and put you in a position for your next move.

I think you take the job, the money (which likely pays a lot more than the fellowship), and the actual litigation experience and run with it. 6 months - 1 year later if you are not satisfied you start looking for the next jump. This early in your career you will not be pigeonholed, and you will be much more marketable with actual litigation experience at a firm.

treeey86, I appreciate knowing that getting the experience will be valuable at this stage and that I will still have the flexibility to move around in the first few years. The money is better than the fellowship but it's still only a fraction of the six figure salaries at the big firms. But your advice seems sound and--it's probably good enough for now.

[Anonymous User]

Is the firm a settlement mill or a legit plaintiffs' firm? If your job will be spent churning through hundreds of nearly identical cases, well, you're probably not going to end up with the right experience or resume line to do a whole lot else. If your job includes a lot of variation, court appearances, substantive brief writing, etc, then the fact that it's at a plaintiffs firm will likely not hold you back (especially since the sorts of plaintiffs firms that give associates real work are generally known and respected).

My understanding of these things is that most firms that handle asbestos work are, for better or for worse, of the former variety: they've perfected what they do down to a model that doesn't allow for a ton of variation. But you know better than we do the specifics of this firm.

These are good questions. The firm does some other types of cases--it's not just asbestos work. It includes qui tam cases and other types of "catastrophic" personal injury without elaborating too much. I guess it's the kind of thing you just have to go in and find out for yourself. They promised to give me substantive experience--and the firm seems to have a solid national reputation i.e. legit. I guess you gotta start somewhere.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks for the advice smallfirmassociate. I agree with you--employment beats unemployment by a long shot.

But, I'm currently in a four month "public interest fellowship" -- a program sponsored by my school where I receive a monthly $ stipend while I volunteer with a government agency. So from a financial vantage point, and experience, in theory I could perhaps hold out a little longer to find something better than the plaintiff's job. What I'm doing right this moment is a half-step up from unemployment I guess. My fellowship continues through June 30 and maybe I could keep looking. But maybe getting a "real job" is enough of a step up from being a school-sponsored "fellow" that it's worth it. Would welcome further input from yourself, smallfirmassociate, or others.

Yeah, I wouldn't pass up this job with the idea that you can find something else by June 30 or on reliance of extending your fellowship. The market is decent at best, and I feel like the longer you stay in "legal-lite" employment like you are now, the more you tend toward being damaged goods. I don't think your brief stint is a bad thing, but if it turns into two years then it would be an issue if I were looking at your resume.

I have a friend who did secondary market asbestos work out of law school. He was on the defense side. Got to do a lot of depositions and motions practice, so it wasn't bad experience. Never went to trial in five years, though, then transferred to another mid-sized firm where it's still kind of, for lack of a better way to put it, second-tier legal work doing insurance defense and things. He's made a solid career out of being a lawyer, though, and aside from a lot of travel, the asbestos gig didn't seem terrible.

Thanks, smallfirmassociate. The government gig does have a built-in glass ceiling in that you can't actually assume full-on responsibility for the cases you work on, and the magnitude of your responsibility is less. But there are folks who have been here 6 months or more on their (year-long) fellowships and it hasn't seemed to hurt them too much. But good insight regarding the market, and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they always say. Feeling better.

[tyroneslothrop1]

Take it. The job will be limiting in the sense that you are not going to lateral to a V10 afterward but at this juncture that ain't happening anyway. Work there for a year or two and then move on.

[lavarman84]

What are your career goals? What sort of exit options do you want? What sort of law do you want to practice?(I saw complex commercial litigation...is that what you want to do?)

I think this is a pretty good option for you. You'll likely get opportunities to do substantive work, have client interaction (albeit a different type of client interaction than you would have at a defense firm), and possibly get into court. All of which would be major selling points if you wanted to lateral down the line to another litigation job.

Plus, practicing personal injury law at the right firm can be pretty lucrative once you work your way up the ladder a bit.

OP here. Thanks for all the extremely useful replies.

lawman84, in terms of my career goals, I have always wanted to be involved in civil litigation. I have wanted to get some private sector experience and then, depending on how that pans out, maybe transition into a public sector position also doing civil lit. Complex commercial litigation just seemed to me like the bread-and-butter type of work that gives you the most transferable skills and encompasses the widest diversity of clients, cases, and legal issues. I thought it would be a good fit for me and it still might be. In terms of exit options, I want to be able to transition to a better paying job if the advancement opportunities are limited in the place that I am in. I want to be able to experiment with biglaw to see if it suits me and to be able to try different practice areas, like antitrust, bankruptcy, probate, contract cases, since it's still early on and I want to know what I really like. Appreciate your comments as to the opportunities for substantive work and client interaction. They did say that I would be doing depos, writing pleadings, and possibly find my way into court to argue motions. Thanks.

Yea, if you decide not to make a career out of it with that firm, you should be able to get useful litigation experience for when you look to move on if the problems that the other anon spoke on (settlement mill) aren't an issue.

However, I think that biglaw door will be tough to get your foot into. Especially if you go down this route. But I don't know what your biglaw chances are where you're currently at.

[Anonymous User]

What are your career goals? What sort of exit options do you want? What sort of law do you want to practice?(I saw complex commercial litigation...is that what you want to do?)

I think this is a pretty good option for you. You'll likely get opportunities to do substantive work, have client interaction (albeit a different type of client interaction than you would have at a defense firm), and possibly get into court. All of which would be major selling points if you wanted to lateral down the line to another litigation job.

Plus, practicing personal injury law at the right firm can be pretty lucrative once you work your way up the ladder a bit.

OP here. Thanks for all the extremely useful replies.

lawman84, in terms of my career goals, I have always wanted to be involved in civil litigation. I have wanted to get some private sector experience and then, depending on how that pans out, maybe transition into a public sector position also doing civil lit. Complex commercial litigation just seemed to me like the bread-and-butter type of work that gives you the most transferable skills and encompasses the widest diversity of clients, cases, and legal issues. I thought it would be a good fit for me and it still might be. In terms of exit options, I want to be able to transition to a better paying job if the advancement opportunities are limited in the place that I am in. I want to be able to experiment with biglaw to see if it suits me and to be able to try different practice areas, like antitrust, bankruptcy, probate, contract cases, since it's still early on and I want to know what I really like. Appreciate your comments as to the opportunities for substantive work and client interaction. They did say that I would be doing depos, writing pleadings, and possibly find my way into court to argue motions. Thanks.

Yea, if you decide not to make a career out of it with that firm, you should be able to get useful litigation experience for when you look to move on if the problems that the other anon spoke on (settlement mill) aren't an issue.

However, I think that biglaw door will be tough to get your foot into. Especially if you go down this route. But I don't know what your biglaw chances are where you're currently at.

For whatever it's worth, I went to a T10 school and I have what I believe were above-median grades. No law review or moot court. Does that change anything?

[Anonymous User]

Take it if there is nothing else panning out. Plus all of the discovery / motion practice you will learn is the same thing that is done in more complex commercial litigation; difference being perhaps on a smaller or even larger scale, and the obviously the subject matter.

[baal hadad]

Take it. Seems like a legit P firm and not some sort of settlement mill or slip and fall deal. Qui tam is hot right now especially. Don't hold out til the end of your fellowship. This firm if it's like most good p firms will give you lots of litigation responsibility early which is good for you.

No even with your creds your probably not going to get a big law jerb especially working on the p side. You're not going to get to try out all those disparate areas you mentioned like antitrust, probate, etc. That might not even happen at a large firm either; specialization is the name of the game even for younger attorneys. Being a "general commercial litigator" is overrated and not very marketable.

In a year or two you can reevaluate and see what the options are. Hell you may even want to stay P side. That's where the real money is honestly

Ps as a litigator it seems "complex commercial litigation" is a term for litigators to pat themselves on the back. Usually means you just do large $ cases, if that. Everyone and their mother does "complex commercial litigation." This is coming from someone who did "complex commercial litigation"

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Plaintiff's firms can be real black holes IMO. I worked at one before law school and I saw a lot of trapped associates. It wasn't a bad one either. Most seemed to have trouble moving out of plaintiff's work despite really wanting to and often the "substantive" work they sold wasn't all that substantive, from what I could see. Turnover was high. Many people exited to become solos.

I realize it's hard to turn down an offer and I don't know that I would in your case but above median from a T10 with a fellowship is not the worst place to be in this legal market, IMO. I went to a T14 too (possibly the same one as you, I'm guessing), class of 2015, and a lot of my unemployed 3L friends that did fellowships are starting to get jobs. One guy got biglaw lit but that was somewhat surprising, a couple others got offers at the DA/PD offices they were working at. One got midlaw. All those options seem much better to me than plaintiff's work, esp in asbestos.

I would recommend seeing if you can string them a long for a little, really hustle on the job front and accept it if you feel you really need it but don't stop looking. I realize a lot of ppl think that's bad form and everything but I don't think burning a plaintiff's side asbestos firm is gonna hurt your career prospects unless you really want to do that kind of work.

[Anonymous User]

Plaintiff's firms can be real black holes IMO. I worked at one before law school and I saw a lot of trapped associates. It wasn't a bad one either. Most seemed to have trouble moving out of plaintiff's work despite really wanting to and often the "substantive" work they sold wasn't all that substantive, from what I could see. Turnover was high. Many people exited to become solos.

I realize it's hard to turn down an offer and I don't know that I would in your case but above median from a T10 with a fellowship is not the worst place to be in this legal market, IMO. I went to a T14 too (possibly the same one as you, I'm guessing), class of 2015, and a lot of my unemployed 3L friends that did fellowships are starting to get jobs. One guy got biglaw lit but that was somewhat surprising, a couple others got offers at the DA/PD offices they were working at. One got midlaw. All those options seem much better to me than plaintiff's work, esp in asbestos.

I would recommend seeing if you can string them a long for a little, really hustle on the job front and accept it if you feel you really need it but don't stop looking. I realize a lot of ppl think that's bad form and everything but I don't think burning a plaintiff's side asbestos firm is gonna hurt your career prospects unless you really want to do that kind of work.

OP here. oblig.lawl.ref: your opinions give me some serious pause. To address your comment, I think I can definitely keep looking for something better. I don't see any harm in that. I don't think I will be particularly tied down in this position if something better comes along, because the job won't transition into a salaried position until after 2-4 months--in the meantime I'm a "staff attorney" and so I don't think there's a long term commitment. Precisely my big fear is becoming "trapped," as you say, but as you say, it is hard to turn down an offer.

However, most of the people in this thread are suggesting the experience is worth getting at this stage and that it's better than waiting around. Plus, I have been scouring the internet for opportunities and there's not a lot out there. It's not a buyer's market. There are some jobs at plaintiff's side firms, employment law, insurance defense, and not much else, it seems.

Isn't it true that most openings for laterals merely require only "2-5" years of "litigation" experience? They don't usually seem to be more particular than that in terms of qualifications, so why should it really matter which side you're coming from? And everything I've heard about plaintiff's work being limiting is only anecdotal.

oblig.lawl.ref: Can you comment on why exactly the associates at your former firm were so "trapped"? Were they getting passed over for interviews at other firms because of the kind of work they were doing? BTW, I haven't exactly been flooded with interviews myself. I only received two invitations to interview out of all the positions I applied to, both with plaintiff's side firms. I felt lucky to get an offer; I've been applying to everything I could find.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Good points, it's tough out there. Getting the experience may be the best course of action. I guess I would just advise to keep hustling while you are getting the experience at the plaintiffs' firm.

Some lawyers made it out of the firm I was at. Some were happy there. Most, again this was a good shop by plaintiffs' standards, wanted to get out but found it difficult to get looked at anywhere, often even other plaintiffs' firms. That's why many ended up going solo or joining very small, very unappealing practices when they couldn't take it anymore. I'm not sure exactly why that is beyond the fact that I think there are a lot of biglaw lit refugees vying for positions in commercial litigation in government and midlaw. But maybe you have your shit together more than the people I knew at this firm. Maybe if you keep applying to places while working the plaintiffs' firm you can land something sweet in gov't or midlaw.

That being said from my perspective it wasn't the worst place in the world but I don't know that I could have stuck it out for too long. The clients are really probably what makes it the worst.

[anon168]

You need to be very careful before making a career move like this.

It's one thing if you're a true believer (i.e. a plaintiff's lawyer who really believes they are fighting for the little guys against the big, bad corporation), but it's an entirely another thing if you want to leverage a job at a plaintiff's firm -- esp. a midsize one -- to bigger and better things (read: biglaw or V200 firm).

While it's true that bad employment is generally better than unemployment, many times the exceptions swallow up the rule (sort like the Hearsay Rule in Evidence). Unless you are completely hard-up for income many times looking for a job with a clean-slate (notwithstanding your fellowship) will be a better platform than looking for a job while employed as a plaintiff-side lawyer at a midsize firm.

[Anonymous User]

You need to be very careful before making a career move like this.

It's one thing if you're a true believer (i.e. a plaintiff's lawyer who really believes they are fighting for the little guys against the big, bad corporation), but it's an entirely another thing if you want to leverage a job at a plaintiff's firm -- esp. a midsize one -- to bigger and better things (read: biglaw or V200 firm).

While it's true that bad employment is generally better than unemployment, many times the exceptions swallow up the rule (sort like the Hearsay Rule in Evidence). Unless you are completely hard-up for income many times looking for a job with a clean-slate (notwithstanding your fellowship) will be a better platform than looking for a job while employed as a plaintiff-side lawyer at a midsize firm.

Anon168,

Tbh I have already accepted the offer at this point. I don't know how feasible or wise it would be to back out now. But can you please explain why leveraging ones litigation experience at a plaintiffs firm to a different place is so categorically worse than starting from a blank slate? In my mind, it doesn't make much sense. Why shouldn't I be more marketable with a few years of litigation experience? Do big firms or defense side firms really actively discriminate against people with a plaintiffs side background? I'm finding this all hard to swallow, and besides, I don't know what to do about it at this point. May be too late.

[anon168]

You need to be very careful before making a career move like this.

It's one thing if you're a true believer (i.e. a plaintiff's lawyer who really believes they are fighting for the little guys against the big, bad corporation), but it's an entirely another thing if you want to leverage a job at a plaintiff's firm -- esp. a midsize one -- to bigger and better things (read: biglaw or V200 firm).

While it's true that bad employment is generally better than unemployment, many times the exceptions swallow up the rule (sort like the Hearsay Rule in Evidence). Unless you are completely hard-up for income many times looking for a job with a clean-slate (notwithstanding your fellowship) will be a better platform than looking for a job while employed as a plaintiff-side lawyer at a midsize firm.

Anon168,

Tbh I have already accepted the offer at this point. I don't know how feasible or wise it would be to back out now. But can you please explain why leveraging ones litigation experience at a plaintiffs firm to a different place is so categorically worse than starting from a blank slate? In my mind, it doesn't make much sense. Why shouldn't I be more marketable with a few years of litigation experience? Do big firms or defense side firms really actively discriminate against people with a plaintiffs side background? I'm finding this all hard to swallow, and besides, I don't know what to do about it at this point. May be too late.

Biglaw firms just don't like Plaintiff-side contingency lawyers. They think of them as scum.

The converse is true as well. Most plaintiff-side contingency lawyers think of biglaw, white shoe firms, as the evil empire.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the bio of biglaw associates (or even partners for that matter), and count how many come from Plaintiff-side contingency firms.

Irrational or not, it is what it is. The irony is that it's the classic symbiotic relationship. One really could not survive without the other.