Litigation - What the Future Holds Forum

[GreenEggs]

If you want to get to AUSA or Federal Defenders, etc. aren't they predominately lit laterals? Or am I mistaken on that

No, you're not mistaken. But those jobs are kinda hard to get.

Cool, well I guess I'll just roll the dice

[rpupkin]

If you want to get to AUSA or Federal Defenders, etc. aren't they predominately lit laterals? Or am I mistaken on that

No, you're not mistaken. But those jobs are kinda hard to get.

Plus how fucked up is it to pay all this money for law school then kill yourself in biglaw to end up in these jobs. What was the point.

To work as a lawyer? Really, that's the reason to go to law school and fight for these jobs. If you don't want to be a lawyer--if your motivation for going to law school is to make money--then put on the brakes. There's likely tons of misery (and not that much money) ahead.

[Desert Fox]

I don't get how everyone who does Big Corp can find a job doing in house. That would mean there are like 5-10 in house bros for every corp associate. Doesn't compute. what am i missing.

[Sgtpeppernyc]

I don't get how everyone who does Big Corp can find a job doing in house. That would mean there are like 5-10 in house bros for every corp associate. Doesn't compute. what am i missing.

Companies handle the majority of their day-to-day legal needs in-house - general transactional practices at firms have been shrinking, other than for fields that are only occasionally necessary and require a huge # of unpredictable man hours. (M&A for example)

[A. Nony Mouse]

If you want to get to AUSA or Federal Defenders, etc. aren't they predominately lit laterals? Or am I mistaken on that

No, you're not mistaken. But those jobs are kinda hard to get.

Plus how fucked up is it to pay all this money for law school then kill yourself in biglaw to end up in these jobs. What was the point.

That these are jobs people actually like.

[dixiecupdrinking]

If you want to get to AUSA or Federal Defenders, etc. aren't they predominately lit laterals? Or am I mistaken on that

No, you're not mistaken. But those jobs are kinda hard to get.

Plus how fucked up is it to pay all this money for law school then kill yourself in biglaw to end up in these jobs. What was the point.

That these are jobs people actually like.

You know the golden handcuffs are real when you're like, why would anyone want to take this interesting, six-figure job that has reasonable work-life balance and basically lifetime tenure? (I have had similar thoughts to my chagrin.)

[Sgtpeppernyc]

If you want to get to AUSA or Federal Defenders, etc. aren't they predominately lit laterals? Or am I mistaken on that

No, you're not mistaken. But those jobs are kinda hard to get.

Plus how fucked up is it to pay all this money for law school then kill yourself in biglaw to end up in these jobs. What was the point.

That these are jobs people actually like.

You know the golden handcuffs are real when you're like, why would anyone want to take this interesting, six-figure job that has reasonable work-life balance and basically lifetime tenure? (I have had similar thoughts to my chagrin.)

FWIW, depending on where you are, being an AUSA isn't a much better lifestyle.

[rpupkin]

You know the golden handcuffs are real when you're like, why would anyone want to take this interesting, six-figure job that has reasonable work-life balance and basically lifetime tenure? (I have had similar thoughts to my chagrin.)

FWIW, depending on where you are, being an AUSA isn't a much better lifestyle.

It's one of those jobs you do because you love the work, not because of the pay and the hours.

Also, it's kinda odd to say you have "lifetime tenure" as an AUSA. It's generally not a job one does for an entire career.

[midlevel2016]

I am a corporate midlevel who used to sit between two senior litigation associates so I was exposed to their day to day activities and also occasionally some phone calls in which they complained about wanting to leave the firm but not being able to get good offers meanwhile in corporate you're constantly barraged by recruiters pretty much as soon as you start. As far as their day to day activities I noted a lot of phone calls where they seemed to be arguing with people (I suppose that makes sense but it isn't something that appeals to me) along with managing junior associate doc review. Now of course I couldn't hear them while they drafted their briefs or planned trial strategy or or during settlement negotiations or whatever so I got an overly negative view. Oh the other thing was of course they were defending companies which often put them in morally questionable roles (yes everyone needs representation but I would just rather not be defending a medical device company that made a device that killed a bunch of people). Altogether i became convinced that I had picked correctly between corporate and litigation (not that corporate is always great but lit seemed worse) even though I didn't have much clue what I was in for when I signed up for corporate. I actually do like a lot of what I do....I really like drafting, I like negotiating, I like legal analysis, but I don't like the crazy hours (who would?), chasing people for stuff, managing difficult juniors, office politics, crazy demanding clients, etc.

[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.

[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.

[Desert Fox]

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

[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 hate dickbags who throw that accusation around for every argument

"Plaintiff contends that Defendant's argument rests on bare, conclusory statements. But Plaintiff's characterization is itself nothing more than a bare, conclusory statement." #OpportunityToBeCreative

[Anonymous User]

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

And today on "spot the plaintiffs' attorney...."

[Anonymous User]

You know the golden handcuffs are real when you're like, why would anyone want to take this interesting, six-figure job that has reasonable work-life balance and basically lifetime tenure? (I have had similar thoughts to my chagrin.)

FWIW, depending on where you are, being an AUSA isn't a much better lifestyle.

It's one of those jobs you do because you love the work, not because of the pay and the hours.

Also, it's kinda odd to say you have "lifetime tenure" as an AUSA. It's generally not a job one does for an entire career.

This is really office- and individual dependent. There are plenty of people in my office who are career AUSAs.

[Desert Fox]

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

And today on "spot the plaintiffs' attorney...."

I primarily defend companies in patent litigation against trolls. That's pretty hardcore BIG DEFENSE creds.

[favabeansoup]

I am a corporate midlevel who used to sit between two senior litigation associates

You guys didn't have your own offices? If I had to overhear some of our litigation people arguing on the phone all day I would go more nuts than I already am

[zot1]

Transactional dominates lit for in-house at corporations. Lit positions that are in house are likely to be either niche (L&E is a big one, as is IP) or are only open to lit in the sense that the ideal candidate has both lit and transactional experience. That doesn't mean litigators don't go in house - many do - but the opportunities aren't there in the same volume, and if often takes a good bit of luck and time spent searching. There are far more in-house positions that simply want 3-4 years doing generic contracts, M&A, etc.

Gov positions do tend to be lit, but the most common biglaw exit op for lit is more biglaw, midlaw, or small law.

Outside DOJ and AUSA, most jobs within agencies is transactional in nature. Think of it as an in-house counsel: mostly corporate with some (or 1) attorneys doing litigation (which is usually in admin boards, not federal courts).

[84651846190]

Transactional dominates lit for in-house at corporations. Lit positions that are in house are likely to be either niche (L&E is a big one, as is IP) or are only open to lit in the sense that the ideal candidate has both lit and transactional experience. That doesn't mean litigators don't go in house - many do - but the opportunities aren't there in the same volume, and if often takes a good bit of luck and time spent searching. There are far more in-house positions that simply want 3-4 years doing generic contracts, M&A, etc.

Gov positions do tend to be lit, but the most common biglaw exit op for lit is more biglaw, midlaw, or small law.

Outside DOJ and AUSA, most jobs within agencies is transactional in nature. Think of it as an in-house counsel: mostly corporate with some (or 1) attorneys doing litigation (which is usually in admin boards, not federal courts).

I work for an agency that hires almost exclusively lit people, and I know of other agencies that do the same. It's really a big mix--hard to tell whether there are more trans than lit in BIGFED. I consider dispute resolution before admin boards to be litigation, not transactional. There are a shitload of staff attorneys who work on admin board stuff behind the scenes (again, I consider this lit work).

[zot1]

Transactional dominates lit for in-house at corporations. Lit positions that are in house are likely to be either niche (L&E is a big one, as is IP) or are only open to lit in the sense that the ideal candidate has both lit and transactional experience. That doesn't mean litigators don't go in house - many do - but the opportunities aren't there in the same volume, and if often takes a good bit of luck and time spent searching. There are far more in-house positions that simply want 3-4 years doing generic contracts, M&A, etc.

Gov positions do tend to be lit, but the most common biglaw exit op for lit is more biglaw, midlaw, or small law.

Outside DOJ and AUSA, most jobs within agencies is transactional in nature. Think of it as an in-house counsel: mostly corporate with some (or 1) attorneys doing litigation (which is usually in admin boards, not federal courts).

I work for an agency that hires almost exclusively lit people, and I know of other agencies that do the same. It's really a big mix--hard to tell whether there are more trans than lit in BIGFED. I consider dispute resolution before admin boards to be litigation, not transactional. There are a shitload of staff attorneys who work on admin board stuff behind the scenes (again, I consider this lit work).

I'm sure there are. My point is more against the mentality that you only do lit in government.

[Johann]

in my market (population about a little under a million, no firm larger than 80 lawyers), many of the top firms have younger partners and senior associates that came out of biglaw, almost exclusively in lit/L&E. bill 1800-2100, run your own cases, take home $150k as a senior, $200k as a partner (obviously varies a lot by firm). is that such a bad outcome if you actually like being a lawyer? more importantly, is that a unicorn outcome? or fairly attainable?

Why would a firm like that would make someone a partner who has no presence in the community and no portable business just because they worked for some massive new York firm?

Why in the world would you want to Bill 2100 for 200k? Fuck is wrong you idiots.

[stannis]

in my market (population about a little under a million, no firm larger than 80 lawyers), many of the top firms have younger partners and senior associates that came out of biglaw, almost exclusively in lit/L&E. bill 1800-2100, run your own cases, take home $150k as a senior, $200k as a partner (obviously varies a lot by firm). is that such a bad outcome if you actually like being a lawyer? more importantly, is that a unicorn outcome? or fairly attainable?

Why would a firm like that would make someone a partner who has no presence in the community and no portable business just because they worked for some massive new York firm?

Why in the world would you want to Bill 2100 for 200k? Fuck is wrong you idiots.

200k is a lot of money. law is the only career that would allow me to make that much money, and i'm sure i'm not alone. i'm a 2L so i'm not gonna speak about hours/quality of work, but there are people that like it. i can't really think of any other career that is appealing, and definitely not one that pays as well.

[zot1]

in my market (population about a little under a million, no firm larger than 80 lawyers), many of the top firms have younger partners and senior associates that came out of biglaw, almost exclusively in lit/L&E. bill 1800-2100, run your own cases, take home $150k as a senior, $200k as a partner (obviously varies a lot by firm). is that such a bad outcome if you actually like being a lawyer? more importantly, is that a unicorn outcome? or fairly attainable?

Why would a firm like that would make someone a partner who has no presence in the community and no portable business just because they worked for some massive new York firm?

Why in the world would you want to Bill 2100 for 200k? Fuck is wrong you idiots.

200k is a lot of money. law is the only career that would allow me to make that much money, and i'm sure i'm not alone. i'm a 2L so i'm not gonna speak about hours/quality of work, but there are people that like it. i can't really think of any other career that is appealing, and definitely not one that pays as well.

200k is a lot of money until you make 200k. It goes away quick.

[stannis]

in my market (population about a little under a million, no firm larger than 80 lawyers), many of the top firms have younger partners and senior associates that came out of biglaw, almost exclusively in lit/L&E. bill 1800-2100, run your own cases, take home $150k as a senior, $200k as a partner (obviously varies a lot by firm). is that such a bad outcome if you actually like being a lawyer? more importantly, is that a unicorn outcome? or fairly attainable?

Why would a firm like that would make someone a partner who has no presence in the community and no portable business just because they worked for some massive new York firm?

Why in the world would you want to Bill 2100 for 200k? Fuck is wrong you idiots.

200k is a lot of money. law is the only career that would allow me to make that much money, and i'm sure i'm not alone. i'm a 2L so i'm not gonna speak about hours/quality of work, but there are people that like it. i can't really think of any other career that is appealing, and definitely not one that pays as well.

200k is a lot of money until you make 200k. It goes away quick.

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

[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.