Top Law Schools

I'm a junior associate in the litigation group at a V100 in New York. The office is busy, and I'm generally well regarded, but I'm wondering what the career prospects are for the future (esp for someone who doesn't want to do government work). Is it true that the exit opportunities as a litigator are dismal?

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a junior associate in the litigation group at a V100 in New York. The office is busy, and I'm generally well regarded, but I'm wondering what the career prospects are for the future (esp for someone who doesn't want to do government work). Is it true that the exit opportunities as a litigator are dismal?

very much so

yes get out asap

corp associate thread makes biglaw lit sound x100000 better than biglaw corp. he said lit has better exit ops. so maybe lit being dead-end is a TLS flame?

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:corp associate thread makes biglaw lit sound x100000 better than biglaw corp. he said lit has better exit ops. so maybe lit being dead-end is a TLS flame?

I'm not sure he said that lit had better exit options. But he did say that QOL for lit associates is better, on balance, than QOL for corp associates. He also said that—at the associate level—litigation work is more interesting than corporate work.

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?

stannis wrote: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?

OP here. QOL is I think in some ways better for litigators, in the sense that your hours are more predictable - I often bill all nighters, through the weekend, etc, but I can usually see it coming. I also do find the work interesting.

Problem is that, at least at my firm, the litigation partners tend to service other partners' clients, and it's difficult to bring in clients for pure litigators. Because this is fairy common, senior level litigation associates or counsels seem to be a dime a dozen, and other tha going to a smaller boutique law firm (or the government) it's not clear to me what my future would hold in the (likely) case I get dinged for partnership.

ballouttacontrol wrote:

stannis wrote: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?

Work in similarly sized market - it definitely happens. Not sure what the economics of it are, but I'm guessing there's a big equity/nonequity pay gap.

rpupkin wrote:

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:corp associate thread makes biglaw lit sound x100000 better than biglaw corp. he said lit has better exit ops. so maybe lit being dead-end is a TLS flame?

I'm not sure he said that lit had better exit options. But he did say that QOL for lit associates is better, on balance, than QOL for corp associates. He also said that—at the associate level—litigation work is more interesting than corporate work.

All of which is 100% true.

Big law definitely sucks for everyone at times, but a lot of the worst shit corp people complain about is totally foreign to me.

I'm not gonna get an in-house gig probably, but I don't think I'd want one either if I'd just have to do the same boring corp shit for slightly less hours.

JohannDeMann wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a junior associate in the litigation group at a V100 in New York. The office is busy, and I'm generally well regarded, but I'm wondering what the career prospects are for the future (esp for someone who doesn't want to do government work). Is it true that the exit opportunities as a litigator are dismal?

very much so

El Pollito wrote:yes get out asap

Can you guys elaborate? Any experiences to share?

Anonymous User wrote:Problem is that, at least at my firm, the litigation partners tend to service other partners' clients, and it's difficult to bring in clients for pure litigators.

This is something that I think is definitely true. A great point that's often overlooked IMO. However, I do know that the practice group I interned with during law school primarily saw its business come in laterally from the corp department of the same firm. "Oh, you need to be incorporated? How about we do ____ for you, as well?" Unless you're QE or a well-known lit boutique, or in a well-regarded lit group for a specific practice group (real estate, IP, etc.), I presume that it is difficult to get new business in the door.

That being said, I do not believe that good litigators are a dime a dozen. If you have superior writing skills, you are likely to be considered a commodity, at least in my NYC market. You could leverage your writing skills to open new doors or have your current firm fight to get you to stay.

Anonymous User wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a junior associate in the litigation group at a V100 in New York. The office is busy, and I'm generally well regarded, but I'm wondering what the career prospects are for the future (esp for someone who doesn't want to do government work). Is it true that the exit opportunities as a litigator are dismal?

very much so

El Pollito wrote:yes get out asap

Can you guys elaborate? Any experiences to share?

Unless you want to litigate forever and for less money you best escape.

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

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.

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

This is definitely true - I think that if you want to go into the government, litigation is the best way to do so. But if you want to stay in the private sector, it's somewhat more challenging.

ballouttacontrol wrote:

stannis wrote: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?

They almost never lateral in as partners. They start as senior or sometimes midlevel associates. Many of them also grew up/went to college in the area and do have ties. Many of these firms service large, institutional clients (banks, insurance companies, airlines, etc) so there are room for partners to service these clients without bringing in their own business. These clients are also likely impressed by someone who went to a T14 school and spent a few years at a top NYC firm.

Again, I'm not claiming this is a common thing. I just recognized that it does happen and was curious about attainable such an outcome is for a biglaw litigator.

DCfilterDC wrote: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.

rpupkin wrote:

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:corp associate thread makes biglaw lit sound x100000 better than biglaw corp. he said lit has better exit ops. so maybe lit being dead-end is a TLS flame?

I'm not sure he said that lit had better exit options. But he did say that QOL for lit associates is better, on balance, than QOL for corp associates. He also said that—at the associate level—litigation work is more interesting than corporate work.

When does corp work get more interesting? Senior/partner level? Or likely never?

Londonbear wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:corp associate thread makes biglaw lit sound x100000 better than biglaw corp. he said lit has better exit ops. so maybe lit being dead-end is a TLS flame?

I'm not sure he said that lit had better exit options. But he did say that QOL for lit associates is better, on balance, than QOL for corp associates. He also said that—at the associate level—litigation work is more interesting than corporate work.

When does corp work get more interesting? Senior/partner level? Or likely never?

No idea. All I know is that whenever I ask my big-law-corp-associate friends what their work entails, it sounds like shit I would give my secretary to do in lit.

I have a vague sense that corporate partners are involved in making interesting strategic decisions. But I don't understand that world at all, so someone else should weigh in.

Kali the Annihilator wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a junior associate in the litigation group at a V100 in New York. The office is busy, and I'm generally well regarded, but I'm wondering what the career prospects are for the future (esp for someone who doesn't want to do government work). Is it true that the exit opportunities as a litigator are dismal?

very much so

El Pollito wrote:yes get out asap

Can you guys elaborate? Any experiences to share?

A close friend in law school who was happy and in shape during the time I knew him is now really fat and covered in food stains whenever I see him on snapchat. Pm Desert Fox to understand why this happened.

Honestly, 9 months into my clerkship I am convinced the best litigation outcome is career clerk for a nice, laid-back judge. They make six figures and can work 9-5. No need to bill time, and the only person you have to make happy is the judge.

emkay625 wrote:Honestly, 9 months into my clerkship I am convinced the best litigation outcome is career clerk for a nice, laid-back judge. They make six figures and can work 9-5. No need to bill time, and the only person you have to make happy is the judge.

It's a decent plan until your judge retires or dies, at which point you basically have no marketable skills.

rpupkin wrote:

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:corp associate thread makes biglaw lit sound x100000 better than biglaw corp. he said lit has better exit ops. so maybe lit being dead-end is a TLS flame?

I'm not sure he said that lit had better exit options. But he did say that QOL for lit associates is better, on balance, than QOL for corp associates. He also said that—at the associate level—litigation work is more interesting than corporate work.

From what I remember (not going back to that depression of a thread) the OP there never said he didn't have exit options, he just didn't have any really that weren't substantial pay cuts + similar biglaw hours + not on a GC track. Could be wrong but pretty sure that was the case where he just wasn't satisfied with the opportunities presented to him.

I still firmly believe Corp associates on whole have much easier time going to an in house gig than litigators. I mean it happens and I know in house lawyers who used to be litigators, but it's just harder. Lit people usually just go government or smaller firms.

I would think though that more senior lit associates probably do more interesting work than senior corp, but it all probably depends on the particular practice area.

rpupkin wrote:

DCfilterDC wrote: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.