Litigation - What the Future Holds Forum

[stannis]

still probably beats making 100k (or 50k, which is probably the best i could do outside of law).

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

[zot1]

still probably beats making 100k (or 50k, which is probably the best i could do outside of law).

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

In-house.

[rpupkin]

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

In-house.

Market pay for a senior associate is over $350k/yr. Where are all the in-house positions that pay "tons more" than that?

[stannis]

still probably beats making 100k (or 50k, which is probably the best i could do outside of law).

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

In-house.

keep in mind we are talking about midlaw in mid-sized cities, not biglaw. so while there are in-house opportunities, they are hard to come by--the biggest companies here have very small legal departments. i doubt the AGC at those companies make $200k, let alone "tons more." i also doubt these jobs are going to litigators.

i wish i could speak from experience, but the job description of a midlaw litigator sounds a hell of a lot better to me than being an AGC at a company.

idk, you just seem to have this mentality that working at a firm is the worst thing in the world and any other option is way better. for you, that may be true, and that's great, but some people go to firms for good reasons.

[zot1]

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

In-house.

Market pay for a senior associate is over $350k/yr. Where are all the in-house positions that pay "tons more" than that?

If you go back, this was about some firm that pays 200k to senior people to bill 2k hours.

[rpupkin]

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

In-house.

Market pay for a senior associate is over $350k/yr. Where are all the in-house positions that pay "tons more" than that?

If you go back, this was about some firm that pays 200k to senior people to bill 2k hours.

And you think mid-law folks generally have the option to exit to in-house jobs that pay "tons more" than $200k/yr? C'mon, dude.

[zot1]

200k beats anything under 200k so you have 199,999 options to convince yourself. The difference is that you'd be working a TON of hours to make that kind of money as a senior associate (in that firm). A senior associate could make tons more somewhere else working less hours.

like what? it seems like the one thing everyone itt agrees on is that the opposite of that is true.

In-house.

Market pay for a senior associate is over $350k/yr. Where are all the in-house positions that pay "tons more" than that?

If you go back, this was about some firm that pays 200k to senior people to bill 2k hours.

And you think mid-law folks generally have the option to exit to in-house jobs that pay "tons more" than $200k/yr? C'mon, dude.

...... No. The point was that some dude was offering this firm as an option for a biglaw lit dude. Then Johann was like why would anyone do that. Then this kid was like because 200k is a lot. And I'm like, doing in-house makes more sense. So I'm not saying midlaw person will go in-house. Rather, no biglaw person should go to a firm making 200k and still billing 2k when they have years of experience that could translate to an in-house position. This is what I get for not quoting the whole crap, I guess.

[rpupkin]

...... No. The point was that some dude was offering this firm as an option for a biglaw lit dude. Then Johann was like why would anyone do that. Then this kid was like because 200k is a lot. And I'm like, doing in-house makes more sense. So I'm not saying midlaw person will go in-house. Rather, no biglaw person should go to a firm making 200k and still billing 2k when they have years of experience that could translate to an in-house position. This is what I get for not quoting the whole crap, I guess.

Gotcha, I misunderstood the context. I still think you're exaggerating a bit (there aren't that many in-house options out there that pay significantly more than $200k), but I get your point.

[zot1]

...... No. The point was that some dude was offering this firm as an option for a biglaw lit dude. Then Johann was like why would anyone do that. Then this kid was like because 200k is a lot. And I'm like, doing in-house makes more sense. So I'm not saying midlaw person will go in-house. Rather, no biglaw person should go to a firm making 200k and still billing 2k when they have years of experience that could translate to an in-house position. This is what I get for not quoting the whole crap, I guess.

Gotcha, I misunderstood the context. I still think you're exaggerating a bit (there aren't that many in-house options out there that pay significantly more than $200k), but I get your point.

Yeah it'd definitely depend on the company.

[Johann]

still probably beats making 100k (or 50k, which is probably the best i could do outside of law).

if you aren't smart enough to make 100k outside of law, you probably wont do it in law.

[ballouttacontrol]

If he wants to live in that smaller town though, what jobs there realistically pay more? Probably not very many. 200k+bonus probably puts you in the uber elite in a place like that. Only way I can think of to beat it is opening your own firm/other business. Or maybe a surgeon or something.

[El Pollito]

Most of the time litigation "strategy" is not all that interesting. You're confined by shitty case law, mind numbing and insanely wasteful procedures, and whatever shitty arguments the other side forces you to address.

IMO, litigation is the only opportunity to be creative.

Sometimes arguments can be won simply by pointing out the other side's bare, conclusory statements or misguided analysis, which happens more often than you'd think.

You can be plenty creative when you work in corporate and other client-facing groups. Clients have problems that come up all the time and you actually get to try to address them as a junior.

Also, does your username make you a first year?

[1styearlateral]

Most of the time litigation "strategy" is not all that interesting. You're confined by shitty case law, mind numbing and insanely wasteful procedures, and whatever shitty arguments the other side forces you to address.

IMO, litigation is the only opportunity to be creative.

Sometimes arguments can be won simply by pointing out the other side's bare, conclusory statements or misguided analysis, which happens more often than you'd think.

i hate dickbags who throw that accusation around for every argument

If they're not going to support their arguments, fight fire with fire amirite. As if we're gonna just except what they're saying as true and play along.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Most of the time litigation "strategy" is not all that interesting. You're confined by shitty case law, mind numbing and insanely wasteful procedures, and whatever shitty arguments the other side forces you to address.

IMO, litigation is the only opportunity to be creative.

Sometimes arguments can be won simply by pointing out the other side's bare, conclusory statements or misguided analysis, which happens more often than you'd think.

I love litigation, but how is it being creative to point out that the other side has fucked up when they really have fucked up? That's more like pointing out the obvious.

[rpupkin]

Most of the time litigation "strategy" is not all that interesting. You're confined by shitty case law, mind numbing and insanely wasteful procedures, and whatever shitty arguments the other side forces you to address.

IMO, litigation is the only opportunity to be creative.

Sometimes arguments can be won simply by pointing out the other side's bare, conclusory statements or misguided analysis, which happens more often than you'd think.

I love litigation, but how is it being creative to point out that the other side has fucked up when they really have fucked up? That's more like pointing out the obvious.

Agreed. Creativity comes into play when the other side has more than conclusory statements. What do you do when the law is stacked against you?

[gregfootball2001]

So really, what we're talking about, for litigation exit options in order of likelihood, are:

Biglaw -> Midlaw -> Smallaw (plaintiff, solo, you and a buddy, that kind of thing)

or

Gov't (AUSA/Fed Defender, city attorney, random government lawyer)

or

In-house (though this is easier for corporate, so find a place that does a ton of litigation. Easier for L&E/Patent).


So in the end, build a book of business, keep on networking, and get used to motions practice.