Top Law Schools

Have an offer from a firm that's strong in these fields, especially international arbitration.

I'd like to learn what the lifestyle/day-to-day is like as compared to more traditional/general/domestic litigation practices.

The repercussions of frequent travel/cross-time zone work would be pretty obvious. How else might someone contrast these niche-ish practices as compared to general lit work for junior associates (average hours billed/volatility of hours/typical exit options/skills developed, etc.)

Thanks a lot.

Investigations is one of the very worst lit practices (FCPA is a subset of investigations). As a junior, you will do doc review and your moments of relative glamor will be to take notes while others interview people who hate you and think, rightly, that you're there to fuck them over. In fact, everyone at the client hates you and wishes they hadn't been forced by circumstance to hire you.

This sounds like debevoise. If if is, I would ask about the experiences of juniors at debevoise, which, I will add, does not hire into a specialized litigation group.

Makes sense re: investigations/FCPA.

What are the pluses (if any) of international arbitration esp. with regard to lifestyle/substance of the work/future opportunities, etc. Am I right in that discovery/doc review plays a much smaller part in your week to week?

Anonymous User wrote:This sounds like debevoise. If if is, I would ask about the experiences of juniors at debevoise, which, I will add, does not hire into a specialized litigation group.

Could also be Cleary, which also has a general lit group.

IA is a very good practice but isn't for everyone. Pluses are less document work and relatively little discovery practice (doc review is not the only bad thing about discovery--strategic discovery squabbles make you question your very existence). Main minus is that it's a niche, and many popular exit options for litigators in the US may not make much sense from an IA practice. Many don't care about that, but you might, I don't know. Also there can be a lot of travel, which many anticipate to be a plus but is almost always a minus past a relatively low threshold.

ozymandius wrote:IA is a very good practice but isn't for everyone. Pluses are less document work and relatively little discovery practice (doc review is not the only bad thing about discovery--strategic discovery squabbles make you question your very existence). Main minus is that it's a niche, and many popular exit options for litigators in the US may not make much sense from an IA practice. Many don't care about that, but you might, I don't know. Also there can be a lot of travel, which many anticipate to be a plus but is almost always a minus past a relatively low threshold.

This is pretty accurate. The day-to-day work is pretty great. But the trade-off is that exit options are less obvious, but still are there: other big-law firm, IA boutique, work for an arbitral institution, State Department, or very few in-house options.

Agreed, Mr. Brooks. As I said, the issue with exit options is just that some of the stuff people typically imagine (eg, AUSA, a popular fantasy for some reason) would be quite difficult to get after spending five years doing pure IA. I don't mean that IA has bad or no exit options, of course. For example, an interesting exit option available to IA lawyers (if you get relatively senior) is to join a third party funder (many of whom are very active in funding arbitrations and therefore need specialists to run those files). So long as you don't have any archaic ethical qualms about champerty, it's nice work if you can get it.

OP here.

Ozymandius, your insight was really helpful - thanks.

For the few in-house positions that do exist, do they typically fall within a certain field?
Also, other than DC/London/Paris/Hong Kong, what are the other main cities of residence for IA practitioners?

Thank you again.

Anonymous User wrote:OP here.

Ozymandius, your insight was really helpful - thanks.

For the few in-house positions that do exist, do they typically fall within a certain field?
Also, other than DC/London/Paris/Hong Kong, what are the other main cities of residence for IA practitioners?

Thank you again.

Singapore, Miami, NY, Geneva.

Ozymandius's suggestion about third-party funders as an exit option is very innovative and interesting too.

Anonymous User wrote:Have an offer from a firm that's strong in these fields, especially international arbitration.

I'd like to learn what the lifestyle/day-to-day is like as compared to more traditional/general/domestic litigation practices.

The repercussions of frequent travel/cross-time zone work would be pretty obvious. How else might someone contrast these niche-ish practices as compared to general lit work for junior associates (average hours billed/volatility of hours/typical exit options/skills developed, etc.)

Thanks a lot.

It will also depend on the market/office....In which market is the firm? For example, I know people that work/ed at freshfields NY and DC and the offices are VERY different.

Ozymandius + Brooks = fantastic info.
To the extent that either of you would be willing to share your typical day/week, would be great.

International arbitration is a completely different practice from investigations/FCPA, to be clear.

I agree investigations work can be fairly brutal early on - a lot of doc review, interview preparation, and note taking. But in the right situation, with a partner who gives a shit about your career, it can also get you in the room for a lot of fascinating, high level meetings with people at clients and in the government.