Is the lit vs transactional decision a permanent one? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm starting my 2L summer at a firm and found that the firm really only wants me to do transactional work when I start here after graduation. I really want to do lit. Is is possible to switch from one field to the other? Presumably I would have to work in the transactional department for a year or two before switching.

[sayan]

I know someone who did transactional then switched to lit. The unfortunate thing is that you come into lit as a second-year or third-year, but have the knowledge of a first-year. This knowledge deficit then persists throughout your time as an associate, and you are at a persistent disadvantage to your peers with respect to reviews and quality/substance of work offered. Unfortunately you may end up doing more grunt work than otherwise expected (two years of diligence in transactional, then two more of doc review in lit) of someone at your year, so if you're a fourth year and all you've done is grunt work then your lateral options are terrible since you're evaluated as a mid-level but have the knowledge of a junior.

If you're a quick learner and are willing to self-study in off time, though, the knowledge gap can be narrowed or even eliminated, and if you show enough initiative as a lit associate then your period of doc review may be shortened significantly.

This all assumes you can even switch. They may not let you because you are needed in transactional, and that's what matters more with respect to staffing decisions than what you want.

[malleus discentium]

How should we know whether this is possible at your unnamed firm?

[TLSModBot]

The decision isn't permanent at most V20 firms until the second-year blood oath.

[Sgtpeppernyc]

I did the opposite. Went to a firm and ranked transactional first but got put into litigation on day 1. Did it for about a year and a half and then decided it wasn't for me, so ended up lateralling to a different firm to do transactional. You really need to make a move that drastic within the first 2 years of practice. I imagine that lateralling to litigation is harder, since there are so many litigators already and they are always transitory.

I think your best bet is to summer at the firm and then apply for clerkships (ideally federal, but high state courts could help too) during your first year out. A lot of people clerk and then get offers at new firms, and as an added bonus clerking is super prestigious and helpful in your career as a litigator. If you can pull it off, and really want to litigate, this is by far your best option.

[Anonymous User]

Someone at my firm made the transition as a first year. Here, at least, it depends entirely on relative group need. You aren't going to make the jump if the other group is slow.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Someone at my firm did lit for 2 years, hated it, and lateralled to a transactional group with us. It seems like it's easier to go in that direction than the other way.

[Anonymous User]

I did the opposite. Went to a firm and ranked transactional first but got put into litigation on day 1. Did it for about a year and a half and then decided it wasn't for me, so ended up lateralling to a different firm to do transactional. You really need to make a move that drastic within the first 2 years of practice. I imagine that lateralling to litigation is harder, since there are so many litigators already and they are always transitory.

I think your best bet is to summer at the firm and then apply for clerkships (ideally federal, but high state courts could help too) during your first year out. A lot of people clerk and then get offers at new firms, and as an added bonus clerking is super prestigious and helpful in your career as a litigator. If you can pull it off, and really want to litigate, this is by far your best option.

I have to ask since you have done both, are you happy you made the move? All the posts lately have been about how bad the transactional practice is, and litigation is better/more interesting/more consistent (less late nights)/etc. I am in a transactional practice - it doesn't seem that bad (though I have billed 250+ every month). I am curious if the grass is actually greener - I have always told myself it can't be and seeing people move the other direction makes me think I am right.

Thoughts on your exp. in each?

[Sgtpeppernyc]

I did the opposite. Went to a firm and ranked transactional first but got put into litigation on day 1. Did it for about a year and a half and then decided it wasn't for me, so ended up lateralling to a different firm to do transactional. You really need to make a move that drastic within the first 2 years of practice. I imagine that lateralling to litigation is harder, since there are so many litigators already and they are always transitory.

I think your best bet is to summer at the firm and then apply for clerkships (ideally federal, but high state courts could help too) during your first year out. A lot of people clerk and then get offers at new firms, and as an added bonus clerking is super prestigious and helpful in your career as a litigator. If you can pull it off, and really want to litigate, this is by far your best option.

I have to ask since you have done both, are you happy you made the move? All the posts lately have been about how bad the transactional practice is, and litigation is better/more interesting/more consistent (less late nights)/etc. I am in a transactional practice - it doesn't seem that bad (though I have billed 250+ every month). I am curious if the grass is actually greener - I have always told myself it can't be and seeing people move the other direction makes me think I am right.

Thoughts on your exp. in each?

I'm actually in the midst of the move right now, so I can't say much about transactional yet. And I'm going into an advertising practice group, which is a bit different (there's a hodgepodge of different tasks that advertising attorneys do).

That said, the biggest reason to leave was that the career prospects are pretty dismal - litigators seldom make partner at my firm (or many), and it's hard to establish a practice that way. Workwise, I would say 20% of the work I really enjoy, 30% of the work I tolerate, and 50% of the work I really don't like. On the good days, you're drafting briefs on interesting legal issues. On the meh days, you're still doing brief writing and substantive work (albeit on more mundane issues like attorney / client privilege and other procedural stuff). On the bad days, you're reviewing documents for hours on end, QC'ing the same work from others, etc. There was also some stuff that litigators like that I hate (preparing for depositions, for example, which is a classic litigator task that I have 0 interest in). My sense is that every practice has some things that people like and people don't like, and you'll have to take some bad days no matter what you're doing. My decision was that, since I'm fairly meh on litigation and don't like the career prospects, I was better off making a move (though, again, keep in mind that advertising is a specific practice that I have a specific interest in).

[1styearlateral]

Is it at all common to do a little of both (e.g., IP litigation + IP transactions like TMs, copyright, etc.)?