Law Firm or Legal Aid? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I live in New York and have two job offers to choose from. One is a foreclosure attorney position with a mid-sized law firm. I would be handling foreclosures all across the state and would get courtroom experience. However, I was told at the interview that the paralegals do most of the document drafting, so it seems I will not get much drafting experience. I would be representing the lenders, so this might seem morally reprehensible.

The second offer is a foreclosure attorney position with legal aid, where I would be representing underprivileged people whose homes are being foreclosed. I would get document drafting experience as well as court room experience, though perhaps not as much courtroom experience as my caseload would be less at legal aid than at the law firm. The pay is of course significantly less, but also less travel involved, which is a plus for me as I do not want to travel often.

The law firm job is in a big city in western New York. The legal aid job is in a smaller city in southern New York which has fewer law firms, but it is still a decent city with a university, hospitals, etc.

I am an entry-level attorney and my goal is to have a federal job in Washington DC. I'd like to make the move in a year or two after getting some trial experience. With this goal in mind, which job would be better for me to accept? Being a foreclosure attorney is not ideal, and it's certainly not what I envisioned I would be doing, but these are the only two options on the table and I cannot hold out for much longer due to my financial circumstances. I need to make a decision by early next week.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[zot1]

The following applies if you're saying federal job as in not necessarily DOJ:

Legal aid, hands down. It will give you more practical experience, which would be expected of you if you are being hired as an experienced attorney. In addition, most of us in the agencies like to see public interest commitment. Can't think of a better way to play that than by your experience in legal aid helping disadvantaged clients.

[Anonymous User]

The following applies if you're saying federal job as in not necessarily DOJ:

Legal aid, hands down. It will give you more practical experience, which would be expected of you if you are being hired as an experienced attorney. In addition, most of us in the agencies like to see public interest commitment. Can't think of a better way to play that than by your experience in legal aid helping disadvantaged clients.

That is what I thought, too, and my law school summer legal experience was also in the public sector. Appreciate your input!

[Anonymous User]

Both are probably going to pigeon-hole you in your future options (although not necessarily). Federal government from either is highly unlikely.

You have to realize that foreclosure is basically just a form of collections. So, in that sense, you will not do much in the realm of true legal work. You will learn a bit about secured transactions, lien priority, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and bankruptcy, but the complaints and other pleadings will just be standard forms you will basically fill in. This is not really uncommon in other areas of the law, either, but moreso in this area IMO.

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.

Now, at the legal aid place, since you will be representing the debtors and you are not constrained by what the client will pay on a particular case, you could file lots of pleadings and try lots of cases, but you will also probably lose a lot. There usually is no defense so you are basically just trying to be a pain to the plaintiff. I doubt they have many attorneys for guidance, though. Simply because the caseload is probably extremely high and the attorney staff is thin. So it will be trial by fire whereas at the firm you will probably get more of a mentor. That being said, you will probably have a very high volume of cases at the law firm as well (see above about creditors being cheap in foreclosures/collections).

I would not take federal government into account at all. Personally I would look at pay and where you want to be down the road. I would not worry about moral reprehensibility. No one speaks of BigLaw firms like Baker & McKenzie getting sued for unethical conflicts of interest or other massive firms representing oil companies, banks that rip us off (probably some of the same banks you will represent), etc.

(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

[Milksteak]

Both are probably going to pigeon-hole you in your future options (although not necessarily). Federal government from either is highly unlikely.

You have to realize that foreclosure is basically just a form of collections. So, in that sense, you will not do much in the realm of true legal work. You will learn a bit about secured transactions, lien priority, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and bankruptcy, but the complaints and other pleadings will just be standard forms you will basically fill in. This is not really uncommon in other areas of the law, either, but moreso in this area IMO.

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.

Now, at the legal aid place, since you will be representing the debtors and you are not constrained by what the client will pay on a particular case, you could file lots of pleadings and try lots of cases, but you will also probably lose a lot. There usually is no defense so you are basically just trying to be a pain to the plaintiff. I doubt they have many attorneys for guidance, though. Simply because the caseload is probably extremely high and the attorney staff is thin. So it will be trial by fire whereas at the firm you will probably get more of a mentor. That being said, you will probably have a very high volume of cases at the law firm as well (see above about creditors being cheap in foreclosures/collections).

I would not take federal government into account at all. Personally I would look at pay and where you want to be down the road. I would not worry about moral reprehensibility. No one speaks of BigLaw firms like Baker & McKenzie getting sued for unethical conflicts of interest or other massive firms representing oil companies, banks that rip us off (probably some of the same banks you will represent), etc.

(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

I would definitely worry about moral reprehensibility. The fact that few people in top schools or on TLS want to talk about the horrible injustices many big law firms help reify is a terrible reason not to consider the morality of a job.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Legal aid sounds like a good job that will have a positive impact. Law firm sounds like scummy work. Even if it's not, public interest oriented attorneys will think it sounds that way. So to the extent you want to do government work that should be a major concern.

[zot1]

So, in that sense, you will not do much in the realm of true legal work.

Are you saying this is true for Legal Aid too? I really don't think the Legal Aid job will keep people from FedGov. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous User]

At the risk of simplifying the difference between your options:

Legal Aid:
[youtube]y8tj44W50A0[/youtube]

Foreclosure attorney, uhhhhh:
[youtube]wCrXy-1XXZc[/youtube]

[Anonymous User]

Previous poster.

So, in that sense, you will not do much in the realm of true legal work.

Are you saying this is true for Legal Aid too? I really don't think the Legal Aid job will keep people from FedGov. That doesn't make sense to me.

No, I am not saying that for Legal Aid. I think he would get more true legal experience there.

And clarifying on the Fed Gov't deal, I am not trying to imply Legal Aid would keep him out, as some sort of black mark on his resume. I agree with you that public service in any form would be good towards that end. It just seems to be that, with OP's options, he does not really have the resume for competitive Fed Gov't jobs that like candidates with not only strong public service resumes, but good grades, top schools, and relevant experience. Experience in foreclosure defense is also probably not going to translate well over to many departments IMO. Maybe CFPB, but I doubt he will get to do much there. My experience with Legal Aid places are the resources are so limited you cannot really go on the offensive and incur say, filing fees to sue in federal court, deposition costs, and other expenses. You just try to minimize the damage once your client is sued.

But I could be completely wrong and will defer to you on this one since you are experienced and in Fed Gov't from what I recall.

[Anonymous User]

Both are probably going to pigeon-hole you in your future options (although not necessarily). Federal government from either is highly unlikely.

You have to realize that foreclosure is basically just a form of collections. So, in that sense, you will not do much in the realm of true legal work. You will learn a bit about secured transactions, lien priority, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and bankruptcy, but the complaints and other pleadings will just be standard forms you will basically fill in. This is not really uncommon in other areas of the law, either, but moreso in this area IMO.

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.

Now, at the legal aid place, since you will be representing the debtors and you are not constrained by what the client will pay on a particular case, you could file lots of pleadings and try lots of cases, but you will also probably lose a lot. There usually is no defense so you are basically just trying to be a pain to the plaintiff. I doubt they have many attorneys for guidance, though. Simply because the caseload is probably extremely high and the attorney staff is thin. So it will be trial by fire whereas at the firm you will probably get more of a mentor. That being said, you will probably have a very high volume of cases at the law firm as well (see above about creditors being cheap in foreclosures/collections).

I would not take federal government into account at all. Personally I would look at pay and where you want to be down the road. I would not worry about moral reprehensibility. No one speaks of BigLaw firms like Baker & McKenzie getting sued for unethical conflicts of interest or other massive firms representing oil companies, banks that rip us off (probably some of the same banks you will represent), etc.

(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

I would definitely worry about moral reprehensibility. The fact that few people in top schools or on TLS want to talk about the horrible injustices many big law firms help reify is a terrible reason not to consider the morality of a job.

Well, I mean, yeah, it is personal preference. And you're right, for someone wanting to possibly go into Legal Aid, that should be taken into account even moreso.

I should not have oversimplified that. I guess what I was getting at is that, moral reprehensibility while being a lawyer is part of most parts of law whether it is low-level criminal defense, personal injury (defense or plaintiff, whatever your view may be), and even BigLaw, which actually represents a lot of reprehensible clients (including lobbying on behalf of really shitty people/countries), but gets a pass here because it is considered prestigious.

But that is a debate for another thread I suppose.

[Anonymous User]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

[Anonymous User]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

[Anonymous User]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

The former paralegal brings up a good point: you will also run into your fair share of low-level debtor attorneys who will file for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, etc. just to try to get the bank to modify the loan or back off that has absolutely no basis. It definitely works both ways.

[Anonymous User]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

The former paralegal brings up a good point: you will also run into your fair share of low-level debtor attorneys who will file for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, etc. just to try to get the bank to modify the loan or back off that has absolutely no basis. It definitely works both ways.

shocked that people do desperate things to avoid homelessness?

[Anonymous User]

OP here. A lot of assumptions have been made about me. I have a decent GPA and went to an out-of-state school that ranks in the 50s. Yes, not the best school, but not the worst either.

I will take the legal aid job. Thanks.

[Anonymous User]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

The former paralegal brings up a good point: you will also run into your fair share of low-level debtor attorneys who will file for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, etc. just to try to get the bank to modify the loan or back off that has absolutely no basis. It definitely works both ways.

shocked that people do desperate things to avoid homelessness?

Brave use of anonymous.......because most people that buy homes had no choice except for homelessness. It'd be interesting to see your data to back that up.

[Wipfelder]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

The former paralegal brings up a good point: you will also run into your fair share of low-level debtor attorneys who will file for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, etc. just to try to get the bank to modify the loan or back off that has absolutely no basis. It definitely works both ways.

shocked that people do desperate things to avoid homelessness?

Brave use of anonymous.......because most people that buy homes had no choice except for homelessness. It'd be interesting to see your data to back that up.

Hahahah....of course I accidentally post as anonymous.

[Anonymous User]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

The former paralegal brings up a good point: you will also run into your fair share of low-level debtor attorneys who will file for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, etc. just to try to get the bank to modify the loan or back off that has absolutely no basis. It definitely works both ways.

shocked that people do desperate things to avoid homelessness?

Brave use of anonymous.......because most people that buy homes had no choice except for homelessness. It'd be interesting to see your data to back that up.

As if banks and their attorneys make litigation decisions based on whether the people they're foreclosing upon have a backup option

[Wipfelder]

If the debtors get a lawyer and challenge the foreclosure, has the firm specified that you would be litigating those cases? That would be decent work, but I am not sure that is happening. Creditors/mortgagers are also cheap when it comes to collections/foreclosures. They do not want to spend a bunch of money or time litigating. They want you more like a case manager to hopefully go and get a judgment.
(Anon because I have experience in somewhat similar law firm)

This is a critical thing to figure out. I was a paralegal at a foreclosure firm before law school and we had two teams of attorneys: those who ferried the garden-variety foreclosures to default judgment and the attorneys who over the cases that became contested. The default attorneys did almost no substantive legal work--they were essentially there to avoid a UPL violation for submitting complaints drafted by paralegals at volume. You can guess which team we put new attorneys on.

I'll also add that the "reprehensibility" argument is pretty interesting. I came away from my stint there a real believer in the perspective that everyone deserves representation of their interests, even when they're banks. A lot of times the banks were shitty with how they dealt with borrowers, but at the same time they can't just forgive loans anytime someone goes through a rough patch. That's how you get lenders considering withdrawing or scaling back their business in a particular state (a real thing some of our clients considered because of deeply adverse judges and laws in my state) which means prices go up and fewer people can get homes in the first place. You will probably start looking at the world the same way if you work at this place. If that scares you, stay away

Seems like you're arguing for a right to counsel in foreclosure proceedings. More power to you!

The former paralegal brings up a good point: you will also run into your fair share of low-level debtor attorneys who will file for violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, etc. just to try to get the bank to modify the loan or back off that has absolutely no basis. It definitely works both ways.

shocked that people do desperate things to avoid homelessness?

Brave use of anonymous.......because most people that buy homes had no choice except for homelessness. It'd be interesting to see your data to back that up.

As if banks and their attorneys make litigation decisions based on whether the people they're foreclosing upon have a backup option

The inference on the above posters comment was that many people who foreclosed only got the loan because it was either accept a mortgage or face homelessness....not that banks make decisions on litigation based on that.