Top Law Schools

Hey everyone. I'm a midlevel L&E associate at a biglaw firm (not in the NYC office), and I clerked for a district court judge before joining my current firm. Thought I'd create a thread and help out anyone who is interested in this practice area or wanted to ask some questions that might help during OCI.

Happy to answer any questions about clerking, firm life, etc.

I’ll jump in here to help out, too. Former associate at a major L&E firm turned federal government employment lawyer. I’m also on the hiring committee from time to time.

Anonymous User wrote:Hey everyone. I'm a midlevel L&E associate at a biglaw firm (not in the NYC office), and I clerked for a district court judge before joining my current firm. Thought I'd create a thread and help out anyone who is interested in this practice area or wanted to ask some questions that might help during OCI.

Happy to answer any questions about clerking, firm life, etc.

This is great! I'm a rising 3L working at an L&E mid-size this summer and clerking for state court after 3L. I would love to go to a big or mid-size firm after that.
What do you look for in hiring, specifically for L&E?
Are there any experiences or types of experiences in particular?
What is your lifestyle like as compared to other practices?
Do you mostly do litigation or advising/regulatory work?
Finally, how did you decide on L&E?

cayleystark wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hey everyone. I'm a midlevel L&E associate at a biglaw firm (not in the NYC office), and I clerked for a district court judge before joining my current firm. Thought I'd create a thread and help out anyone who is interested in this practice area or wanted to ask some questions that might help during OCI.

Happy to answer any questions about clerking, firm life, etc.

This is great! I'm a rising 3L working at an L&E mid-size this summer and clerking for state court after 3L. I would love to go to a big or mid-size firm after that.
What do you look for in hiring, specifically for L&E?
Are there any experiences or types of experiences in particular?
What is your lifestyle like as compared to other practices?
Do you mostly do litigation or advising/regulatory work?
Finally, how did you decide on L&E?

This is the OP.

What do you look for in hiring, specifically for L&E?

I've actually never done SA interviews--only lateral interviews. I fully confess that I am a super softball interviewer and say "use your time with me to ask the questions that you wouldn't ask a partner here." I try to be very honest about work styles, strengths, etc., because I want to know that someone will be happy here.

I'm also looking for examples of the candidate thinking out of the box. In L&E, some people can get stuck doing single-plaintiff discrimination cases all the time. That's all well and good, but I like to see some indication that the person can think of some novel ways to get rid of a case beyond doing normal discovery and filing an MSJ under McDonnell Douglas.

One thing I'm not easy on is the writing sample. If the person supplies a shitty writing sample, that's an auto DQ. A lot of the "bread and butter" L&E work is based on summary judgment, so good organization (for discovery) and solid writing is important.

I'd also be impressed if an applicant asked questions about the business part of law. For instance, how many of the cases you handle are insured? What percentage of your work is flat fee or phased pricing? Do you generally make productions through a review platform or PDF productions? Are associates assigned to "teams" that service large clients, or is the work assignment process less formal?

Are there any experiences or types of experiences in particular?[ /b]

Some work experience is helpful, but I went straight through. It's nice to show some degree of technical savvy. I'm not saying you have to have a CS degree, but basic Excel knowledge and familiarity with ESI is helpful. Excel skills are more important if you're part of the FLSA machine.

What is your lifestyle like as compared to other practices?

I do almost exclusively litigation (including investigations) and counseling. My wife was an M&A associate before she left for the promised land (in-house), and I felt like her lifestyle was way more terrible than mine, even though we worked about the same number of billable hours.

This depends in large part on what kind of L&E work you're doing. For instance, if you do trade secrets/non-compete work, you're gonna have fire drills and busy times that rival a closing on a big transaction. If you do traditional labor work, you better know how to work while traveling--those folks spend a ton of time on the road.

I'm very happy with my lifestyle. I make a stupid amount of money for someone my age, and I get to deal with and try to solve interesting problems. Sure, there are times when I'm ridiculously busy and wish I didn't have to work so much, but pretty much anyone in any job can say that.

Do you mostly do litigation or advising/regulatory work?

I do almost entirely litigation--some counseling. IMO, L&E groups that do primarily advisory work are service groups to the corporate side. That should factor into whether you want to go L&E at that firm. As you might know, lots of big firms have been paring down L&E because there's a lot of rate pressure and because companies are not willing to pay M&A rates for advice unless it's in the context of a transaction.

That's an important thing to keep in mind for long-term prospects. I'm not saying L&E has to be the rainmaking group, but I wouldn't want to join a biglaw L&E group that had just one equity partner for the full team in that office.

Finally, how did you decide on L&E?

I actually hated single-plaintiff cases when I clerked, but I loved the trade secrets stuff. When I went out and interviewed, I found an L&E team that had a lot of trade secret work, and I figured I could stomach some standard discrimination cases to supplement my caseload. What I found out in practice is that L&E work is a lot of fun (just not that fun when you're only reviewing MSJ materials). People do stupid stuff at work. The stories and facts are generally interesting, and there's a lot of flexibility about how you can structure things to try to advance a business interest. It's also cool to work with the full range of society, you know? Like, one day, I can be interviewing a bunch of folks making $13/hr, then have a meeting the next day with c-suite executives for a Fortune 500 company. That's a really cool mix that a lot of other practice areas don't necessarily have.

I was also drawn to L&E because almost all of my cases are in federal court. I love federal court and hate being in state court, so that was a big driver.

Anonymous User wrote:

cayleystark wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Hey everyone. I'm a midlevel L&E associate at a biglaw firm (not in the NYC office), and I clerked for a district court judge before joining my current firm. Thought I'd create a thread and help out anyone who is interested in this practice area or wanted to ask some questions that might help during OCI.

Happy to answer any questions about clerking, firm life, etc.

This is great! I'm a rising 3L working at an L&E mid-size this summer and clerking for state court after 3L. I would love to go to a big or mid-size firm after that.
What do you look for in hiring, specifically for L&E?
Are there any experiences or types of experiences in particular?
What is your lifestyle like as compared to other practices?
Do you mostly do litigation or advising/regulatory work?
Finally, how did you decide on L&E?

This is the OP.

What do you look for in hiring, specifically for L&E?

I've actually never done SA interviews--only lateral interviews. I fully confess that I am a super softball interviewer and say "use your time with me to ask the questions that you wouldn't ask a partner here." I try to be very honest about work styles, strengths, etc., because I want to know that someone will be happy here.

I'm also looking for examples of the candidate thinking out of the box. In L&E, some people can get stuck doing single-plaintiff discrimination cases all the time. That's all well and good, but I like to see some indication that the person can think of some novel ways to get rid of a case beyond doing normal discovery and filing an MSJ under McDonnell Douglas.

One thing I'm not easy on is the writing sample. If the person supplies a shitty writing sample, that's an auto DQ. A lot of the "bread and butter" L&E work is based on summary judgment, so good organization (for discovery) and solid writing is important.

I'd also be impressed if an applicant asked questions about the business part of law. For instance, how many of the cases you handle are insured? What percentage of your work is flat fee or phased pricing? Do you generally make productions through a review platform or PDF productions? Are associates assigned to "teams" that service large clients, or is the work assignment process less formal?

Are there any experiences or types of experiences in particular?[ /b]

Some work experience is helpful, but I went straight through. It's nice to show some degree of technical savvy. I'm not saying you have to have a CS degree, but basic Excel knowledge and familiarity with ESI is helpful. Excel skills are more important if you're part of the FLSA machine.

What is your lifestyle like as compared to other practices?

I do almost exclusively litigation (including investigations) and counseling. My wife was an M&A associate before she left for the promised land (in-house), and I felt like her lifestyle was way more terrible than mine, even though we worked about the same number of billable hours.

This depends in large part on what kind of L&E work you're doing. For instance, if you do trade secrets/non-compete work, you're gonna have fire drills and busy times that rival a closing on a big transaction. If you do traditional labor work, you better know how to work while traveling--those folks spend a ton of time on the road.

I'm very happy with my lifestyle. I make a stupid amount of money for someone my age, and I get to deal with and try to solve interesting problems. Sure, there are times when I'm ridiculously busy and wish I didn't have to work so much, but pretty much anyone in any job can say that.

Do you mostly do litigation or advising/regulatory work?

I do almost entirely litigation--some counseling. IMO, L&E groups that do primarily advisory work are service groups to the corporate side. That should factor into whether you want to go L&E at that firm. As you might know, lots of big firms have been paring down L&E because there's a lot of rate pressure and because companies are not willing to pay M&A rates for advice unless it's in the context of a transaction.

That's an important thing to keep in mind for long-term prospects. I'm not saying L&E has to be the rainmaking group, but I wouldn't want to join a biglaw L&E group that had just one equity partner for the full team in that office.

Finally, how did you decide on L&E?

I actually hated single-plaintiff cases when I clerked, but I loved the trade secrets stuff. When I went out and interviewed, I found an L&E team that had a lot of trade secret work, and I figured I could stomach some standard discrimination cases to supplement my caseload. What I found out in practice is that L&E work is a lot of fun (just not that fun when you're only reviewing MSJ materials). People do stupid stuff at work. The stories and facts are generally interesting, and there's a lot of flexibility about how you can structure things to try to advance a business interest. It's also cool to work with the full range of society, you know? Like, one day, I can be interviewing a bunch of folks making $13/hr, then have a meeting the next day with c-suite executives for a Fortune 500 company. That's a really cool mix that a lot of other practice areas don't necessarily have.

I was also drawn to L&E because almost all of my cases are in federal court. I love federal court and hate being in state court, so that was a big driver.

Anonymous User wrote:I’ll jump in here to help out, too. Former associate at a major L&E firm turned federal government employment lawyer. I’m also on the hiring committee from time to time.

If you don't mind saying, what agency? Do you think the EEOC is incompetent or completely incompetent?

Anonymous User wrote:If you don't mind saying, what agency? Do you think the EEOC is incompetent or completely incompetent?

Completely.

Tell me how you help companies sexually harass women, pay women less than men, discriminate against minorities and other sewer acts. Tell me again how you get off on reading all those juicy emails. How you get your voyeur kicks off some poor person's employment problems.

Thank God prestigious firms don't have heavy L&E practices. They farm that garbage out to sub-v20 trash firms like Proskauer, Paul Hastings or the L&E boutiques.

MOD NOTE: Anon abuser was Dixiecup, who is currently serving a 3-day ban for an unrelated post.

Did you feel beholden to the insurance companies that paid the bills?

Along the same lines, did you feel you were doing insurance defense?

Did your hours get slashed by an insurance company?

Did you have to go to "fly-over" markets and litigate? (It seems by the nature of L&E over true BigLaw that you would).

Thank you!

Do you ever consider how easy it would be to do employment plaintiffs work? Even the most frivolous claims are paid out at $20,000 to $40,000. Same thing for individual wage claims. Class actions easily net over $100,000 for class counsel with only a few hundred employees. Particularly bad harassment claims can settle north of $500,000. Any interest in ever switching teams?

Anonymous User wrote:Did you feel beholden to the insurance companies that paid the bills?

Along the same lines, did you feel you were doing insurance defense?

Did your hours get slashed by an insurance company?

Did you have to go to "fly-over" markets and litigate? (It seems by the nature of L&E over true BigLaw that you would).

Thank you!

I’m the anon that now works for an agency.

I hated EPLI with a passion. I never worked at an insurance defense firm, and from what I understand those firms typically have the insurance company as the only client unlike the EPLI-client-firm relationship. That being said, dealing with an insurance company was very annoying. They loved to cut hours or not let us bill for things that certainly required our time. The worst offenders required massive budget spredsheets that would take a few hours to compile. Some insurnace companies considered this to be administrative work and wouldn’t let you bill for it. Clients would also get frustrated with us because they didn’t understand how their insurance worked. Some of the rainmaker partners (partners with a book of $10m+) had tons of EPLI work to give out. I’d try to avoid working with them. For me, about 25-30% of my work was insured with EPLI. As an associate, though, collecting the bills and fighting with insurance companies over cutting hours wasn’t my problem; the partners dealt with that.

I had to go to “fly-over” markets for things like depositions and investigations when a client had an issue at one of its more remote locations that needed our attention. I never really minded the travel and it was infrequent.

I like L&E work overall. I’d imagine you get more client interaction than you would in more traditional corporate or litigation practices. I think L&E lends itself to lots of in-house opportunities, too, though they’re probably less lucrative than in-house corporate or financial jobs. I felt like almost every month someone was leaving my firm to go in-house somewhere.

This is OP.

Anonymous User wrote:Did you feel beholden to the insurance companies that paid the bills?

Along the same lines, did you feel you were doing insurance defense?

Did your hours get slashed by an insurance company?

Did you have to go to "fly-over" markets and litigate? (It seems by the nature of L&E over true BigLaw that you would).

Thank you!

These are all great questions!

Fortunately, a lot of the work I do isn't covered by insurance companies. Like the gov lawyer, I hate dealing with insurance. They exacerbate the "get summary judgment or settle" dynamic in some cases. There have been a couple cases where we really wanted to take the case to trial, but the insurer would rather pay out x and have certain liability than risk getting popped at trial. Insurance reporting requirements can also be awful, and having a bad insurance contact can make your life really terrible. I remember one case where we pegged SJ at 85% on a federal claim, 25% on a state claim, and recommended a settlement value of like $75k (the reason being that the person had some events after that stopped damage accrual.) SJ got denied, and we revised our settlement recommendation to the cost of defense at trial, and this insurance adjuster just constantly bitched from that point out about why we didn't pursue settlement earlier, why our settlement value was so low, etc. It was such a stupid position; if the default is going to be "settle for the cost of defense at trial," then insurance companies should just write a $250k check for every L&E claim.

Some of my work feels a little like insurance defense, but, as my initial response mentioned, I try to do more "high value" work that is not subject to rate pressure. It also has the benefit of being more interesting and complex. Ultimately, we still have conversations with our direct client about what we recommend, and the client can work out what it wants to do with the insurance company.

I have never had significant write-offs to my work on a case, insured or otherwise. I'm 100% sure about this because I'm participating in a pilot program where I get a notification any time I have time written off. (The default is that associates aren't provided with realtime stats on realization to encourage associates to focus on quality of work. Once you get more senior, of course, realization starts to become more important.) But there have definitely been times where the insurer rejects our bills and I had to go back through 2-3 months of bills and explain why the work is justified.

I have cases all over the place, but the standard single-plaintiff cases are not usually that travel-intensive. You're in federal court, you take the plaintiff's deposition, defend the 30(b)(6) deposition, maybe have one or two others, then get summary judgment on file. Being in federal court helps a lot, because there's no requirement to have a hearing any time you want to file a motion, which is how a lot of state courts are set up.

Anonymous User wrote:Do you ever consider how easy it would be to do employment plaintiffs work? Even the most frivolous claims are paid out at $20,000 to $40,000. Same thing for individual wage claims. Class actions easily net over $100,000 for class counsel with only a few hundred employees. Particularly bad harassment claims can settle north of $500,000. Any interest in ever switching teams?

I've definitely considered doing plaintiff's work. My experience with non-compete litigation has allowed me to get in some cases as the plaintiff, and it's amazing. Most plaintiff's lawyers are lazy, stupid, or both, and I always have a few cases a year that are damn good cases that get fucked up because the plaintiff's lawyer is too lazy to do any discovery.

I think it heavily depends on what JX you're in. For instance, the easiest job in the world has to be a plaintiff's L&E lawyer in California. Very plaintiff-friendly procedural rules (a denial of class certification is immediately appealable, but certifying a class isn't?!?!), lots of statutory damages, and no need to prove injury in fact (fun fact: California state courts do not require an injury in fact or something analogous to standing in Article III courts) means that you can rack up some massive liability on really technical issues.

There are niches in L&E that are better suited for plaintiffs' work. In jurisdictions where the federal statutes are still the primary claims, single-plaintiff litigation is hard. The fact that someone's manager is an asshole isn't discrimination. It's amazing how often a plaintiff will say "I don't think [company] discriminated against me. I just think [manager] treated me unfairly by [insert reason totally unrelated to any protected category]."

On the other hand, the FLSA, EPA, and FCRA are borderline strict liability statutes that are well suited for certification. But a non-class claim generally isn't clearing $1mm unless it's something truly horrific, like sexual assault.

I'm seriously considering switching sides, but I want to make a run at partnership. I really enjoy working at my firm, I have great colleagues, and my responsibilities/autonomy go up every year. As long as that continues, there's no real reason to rush into plaintiff's work. I would want to start my own firm. A good friend of mine is an L&E associate at another firm, and we've talked about starting a firm after we get a couple more years of experience.

Anonymous User wrote:Tell me how you help companies sexually harass women, pay women less than men, discriminate against minorities and other sewer acts. Tell me again how you get off on reading all those juicy emails. How you get your voyeur kicks off some poor person's employment problems.

Thank God prestigious firms don't have heavy L&E practices. They farm that garbage out to sub-v20 trash firms like Proskauer, Paul Hastings or the L&E boutiques.

If you lose the anon and post under your real username, I won't post anon and will have a legit conversation with you about this. Otherwise, disappear.