Top Law Schools

So I have good experience in lit, but think I want to do corp work. Did a corporate job my 1L summer.

Have a CB with a corporate firm in a week.

What is the best way to answer ''what practice area interests you?''

Is it fine to just say ''I'd really like to work on corporate governance or mergers''

But, I mean, what is a good justification for this? In litigation, there is the obvious "I enjoy advocating, the adversarial nature, etc" but for corporate, what is a good reason? "I think I'd be good at minimizing liability for businesses?'' Obviously, that's a terrible answer.

Can anyone shed some light on what their justifications were for these areas/corp in general?

Go the opposite. Say you don't enjoy the adversarial, zero-sum nature of litigation. (Try not to offend if you are interviewing with a litigation partner though - maybe avoid saying why you DON'T want litigation, focus on why you do want corporate.) Say that you would prefer to work in corporate because even though it is adversarial in the way that you advocate for your client's best interest in a negotiation, ultimately everyone is at the table because they want the deal to go through, and it is more constructive and win-win in that way.

bluthmodelhome wrote:Go the opposite. Say you don't enjoy the adversarial, zero-sum nature of litigation. Say that you would prefer to work in corporate because even though it is adversarial in the way that you advocate for your client's best interest in a negotiation, ultimately everyone is at the table because they want the deal to go through, and it is more constructive and win-win in that way.

great advice. thank you

You could also talk about specific things you liked about your 1L summer job, which might be more memorable and believable.

philosoraptor wrote:You could also talk about specific things you liked about your 1L summer job, which might be more memorable and believable.

Literally all I did was read contracts. I feel like I didn't get a real look into trans work since I never touched any mergers/acquisitions/sales/due diligence.

Anonymous User wrote:

philosoraptor wrote:You could also talk about specific things you liked about your 1L summer job, which might be more memorable and believable.

Literally all I did was read contracts. I feel like I didn't get a real look into trans work since I never touched any mergers/acquisitions/sales/due diligence.

Hahahah... What exactly do you think you'll be doing as a Corp junior?

bluthmodelhome wrote:Go the opposite. Say you don't enjoy the adversarial, zero-sum nature of litigation. (Try not to offend if you are interviewing with a litigation partner though - maybe avoid saying why you DON'T want litigation, focus on why you do want corporate.) Say that you would prefer to work in corporate because even though it is adversarial in the way that you advocate for your client's best interest in a negotiation, ultimately everyone is at the table because they want the deal to go through, and it is more constructive and win-win in that way.

I've been in this scenario multiple times. If your interviewer is a litigator, you don't want to say this, because the same is arguably true in litigation. Litigation isn't always adversarial since oftentimes both sides want to work together to settle. A good relationship with opposing counsel is important even though it might generally be adversarial. Transactional work can also be adversarial, though the general idea is to have a win-win situation.

Usually, from my experience, transactional lawyers will take your answer and nod their heads. However, litigators have usually put up a fight saying "well, you know, litigation also requires working together and transactional work can be adversarial... [see above]".

Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Anonymous User wrote:But, I mean, what is a good justification for this? In litigation, there is the obvious "I enjoy advocating, the adversarial nature, etc" but for corporate, what is a good reason? "I think I'd be good at minimizing liability for businesses?'' Obviously, that's a terrible answer.

Can anyone shed some light on what their justifications were for these areas/corp in general?

I've heard people justify this as they prefer to prevent problems ex ante than address problems ex post. I think part of this feeds into the win-win nature of transactional someone else mentioned.

If a firm's largest dept on NALP is "commercial transactions'' does that mean M&A? What other practice areas fall under comm trans?

Anonymous User wrote:If a firm's largest dept on NALP is "commercial transactions'' does that mean M&A? What other practice areas fall under comm trans?

Probably not M&A. Probably more like consumer sales contracts.

Going into my CBs I had only had lit jobs, so I basically just tied my interest in corporate to one job where we had the same clients & I was essentially the liaison between the attorneys and clients and I really enjoyed being in that advisory role & cultivating relationships with clients. Regardless of your prior experience you can always just find a way to tie it to something in your life that made you want to do corporate, it always helps to make it a little more personal rather than give the canned answer.

tyroneslothrop1 wrote:Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Getting paid $180k and a bonus to be a secretary is pretty sweet.

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

tyroneslothrop1 wrote:Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Getting paid $180k and a bonus to be a secretary is pretty sweet.

Get out 0l

FSK wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

tyroneslothrop1 wrote:Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Getting paid $180k and a bonus to be a secretary is pretty sweet.

Get out 0l

I'm not a 0L you schlub

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

FSK wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

tyroneslothrop1 wrote:Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Getting paid $180k and a bonus to be a secretary is pretty sweet.

Get out 0l

I'm not a 0L you schlub

Yeah I verified in your poasting, but still a dumb comment.

FSK wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

FSK wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

tyroneslothrop1 wrote:Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Getting paid $180k and a bonus to be a secretary is pretty sweet.

Get out 0l

I'm not a 0L you schlub

Yeah I verified in your poasting, but still a dumb comment.

No it's not. You're seriously lacking in perspective if you don't think getting paid six figures to copy/paste and make signature blocks isn't pretty sweet.

I don't know about you, but I didn't go to law school wanting to change the world. I didn't go because I thought the work was intellectually challenging. I went because I was making $36k a year as a paralegal doing glorified secretarial work, doing serious overtime, and saw what the attorneys did on a day-to-day basis. I knew I could do it, and it came with a pay increase, so why not? Three years later with manageable debt I'm making five times as much as I did prior to law school. At the end of the day I'm a glorified secretary but fuck it, it's a job and it pays well. It's a sweet gig.

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

FSK wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

FSK wrote:

LaLiLuLeLo wrote:

tyroneslothrop1 wrote:Just tell them you're really looking forward to pushing paper and being a glorified secretary.

Getting paid $180k and a bonus to be a secretary is pretty sweet.

Get out 0l

I'm not a 0L you schlub

Yeah I verified in your poasting, but still a dumb comment.

No it's not. You're seriously lacking in perspective if you don't think getting paid six figures to copy/paste and make signature blocks isn't pretty sweet.

I don't know about you, but I didn't go to law school wanting to change the world. I didn't go because I thought the work was intellectually challenging. I went because I was making $36k a year as a paralegal doing glorified secretarial work, doing serious overtime, and saw what the attorneys did on a day-to-day basis. I knew I could do it, and it came with a pay increase, so why not? Three years later with manageable debt I'm making five times as much as I did prior to law school. At the end of the day I'm a glorified secretary but fuck it, it's a job and it pays well. It's a sweet gig.

Oh im a world changer, so yeah, theres that

iliketurtles123 wrote:

bluthmodelhome wrote:Go the opposite. Say you don't enjoy the adversarial, zero-sum nature of litigation. (Try not to offend if you are interviewing with a litigation partner though - maybe avoid saying why you DON'T want litigation, focus on why you do want corporate.) Say that you would prefer to work in corporate because even though it is adversarial in the way that you advocate for your client's best interest in a negotiation, ultimately everyone is at the table because they want the deal to go through, and it is more constructive and win-win in that way.

I've been in this scenario multiple times. If your interviewer is a litigator, you don't want to say this, because the same is arguably true in litigation. Litigation isn't always adversarial since oftentimes both sides want to work together to settle. A good relationship with opposing counsel is important even though it might generally be adversarial. Transactional work can also be adversarial, though the general idea is to have a win-win situation.

Usually, from my experience, transactional lawyers will take your answer and nod their heads. However, litigators have usually put up a fight saying "well, you know, litigation also requires working together and transactional work can be adversarial... [see above]".

I've only had pushback from something like 10 percent of litigators to whom I've given this line. A lot of them really embrace it and go into how much they enjoy beating the opposition. Even the ones who have disagreed haven't seemed at all put off by the description.

I would say that I believed I had more of a temperament for corp work than for litigation for reasons similar to what people have said above. I stressed I'd rather work on a deal that everyone wanted to get done as opposed to claw-your-eyes-out lit (put more delicately).

As for particular practice areas I straight up said that while I've researched and read about practice groups on chambers/online I'm not going to pretend that I have much of an idea what actually working in, say, M&A or cap markets is really like, so I want to try to get exposure to a couple different groups this summer. Most firms have summer programs that would let you do that. Unless you really know what you want to do because you have some real experience that points you in that direction that you can articulate (and thus would never need to consult TLS), your interviewer is going to know you're bullshitting them, though most probably won't care.

.