Top Law Schools

Simply (perhaps naively) put, I want to use my JD to do as much total good as possible over my career -- either through public interest work itself, or through donating my money/the firm's resources in BigLaw. Given an offer to do BigLaw, or the chance to work for a public interest organization right after school, does it make sense to join a firm? Are the benefits of time at a firm worth the time spent if the goal is to do social justice work? Assume debt is not an issue, but no substantial savings.

I see three reasons why yes: (1) Buying the freedom/time to work at a nonprofit, in government, or another public interest placement more comfortably; (2) For "training" to make you a better public interest lawyer; (3) For a network to get into higher level PI work, and/or to ask for favors/money when they are helpful for public interest work.

Is this justification enough? Looking for advice from folks who tried to make the BigLaw --> PI jump and succeeded (or failed) as well as those who opted out of the firm life for this reason.

If you don't know what you want to do exactly, big law is great for that. You close no doors to yourself and you get directly applicable experience for every legal job (not really, but people will perceive this).

I'm a law student going into big law. So I can't give the perspective of someone who made the switch. But I can give the perspective of someone who worked in a public interest job before law school: you're not maximizing the good you could do at a big law firm.

I can already see the shock and guilt showering over students who have biglaw jobs in my corporations class (usually KJD who thought they'd be saving the world). They keep arguing with the prof over something they feel is unjust - They're clearly horrified that they will be doing such things next summer.

Whether you like it or not, corporations will maximize profits to the limits of the law and you will help them with that.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm a law student going into big law. So I can't give the perspective of someone who made the switch. But I can give the perspective of someone who worked in a public interest job before law school: you're not maximizing the good you could do at a big law firm.

I can already see the shock and guilt showering over students who have biglaw jobs in my corporations class (usually KJD who thought they'd be saving the world). They keep arguing with the prof over something they feel is unjust - They're clearly horrified that they will be doing such things next summer.

Whether you like it or not, corporations will maximize profits to the limits of the law and you will help them with that.

I'm a current associate and the above is generally true, but doesn't answer the question. I think it's very helpful to go to a biglaw firm for the experience even if you want to leave to do public interest. If you stay, the resources and talent we have are significantly above most PI orgs. I do a lot of pro bono work and take sophisticated cases that frankly the PI org referring it to us couldn't handle as well (or at all) on their own. (If we're filing something at a particular court, we may have attorneys that have clerked for nearly all of the judges. Stuff like that makes a big difference).
Public interest jobs need bodies, no doubt about it. But a lot of times they really just need replacement-level people. Some PI orgs I work with don't even really do legal work internally, they just supervise biglaw firms doing it pro bono and do admin and fundraising.

If you're qualified for big law you can do a lot more good doing pro bono and then something else later on than you could starting at a typical PI or gov't job.

The main point is that until you start practicing you can't fully understand what a large gulf there is between the talent and resources of a big law firm and most everyone else. You can use that to your advantage.

Can always jump the big law ship to that type of work (particularly if you maintain an active pro bono practice, make connections at local public interest orgs, etc.). The reverse is more or less impossible. And the poster above is right - these orgs rely heavily on big law firms to do the actual work in a lot of cases.

It actually can be pretty difficult to get certain public interest jobs if you're unable to demonstrate a commitment to public service. If you were to actually get an offer to join a public interest organization that is consistent with your interests then I'd go that route over going into biglaw with the intention is to leave. Biglaw doesn't necessarily groom you into the best lawyer that you can be--it CAN do that but it won't necessarily do that. If money isn't a factor then the best thing you can do is set yourself up to get the job that you ultimately want to have and sometimes biglaw isn't the best way to do that. I would try to talk to people who are doing what you think you want to do and learn about what makes an applicant competitive and who they typically hire.

worklifewhat wrote:It actually can be pretty difficult to get certain public interest jobs if you're unable to demonstrate a commitment to public service. If you were to actually get an offer to join a public interest organization that is consistent with your interests then I'd go that route over going into biglaw with the intention is to leave. Biglaw doesn't necessarily groom you into the best lawyer that you can be--it CAN do that but it won't necessarily do that. If money isn't a factor then the best thing you can do is set yourself up to get the job that you ultimately want to have and sometimes biglaw isn't the best way to do that. I would try to talk to people who are doing what you think you want to do and learn about what makes an applicant competitive and who they typically hire.

I agree with this. You can’t assume the PI organization(s) you want to join will be hiring an attorney at your level when you’re ready to leave biglaw.

The amount of actual legal work you’ll do at a PI org varies greatly between each one, but regardless it’ll probably be more than the 50-200 pro bono hours each year you’ll be able to put in while working biglaw hours.

If you want money or to keep other career options alive, those are good reasons to work at a firm first. If the orgs you’re looking at don’t really hire entry level attorneys, that’s a good reason to go to a firm first. But if you can get in where you want doing what you want, without other considerations like money or career flexibility, going to a firm first is not the correct choice.

(anon was accidental)

Anonymous User wrote:I agree with this. You can’t assume the PI organization(s) you want to join will be hiring an attorney at your level when you’re ready to leave biglaw.

Absolutely true that PI hiring is highly idiosyncratic and unpredictable. But good thing is it's possible to wait for a desired position to open up - there's a range of several years during which a BigLaw -> PI transition is not uncommon.

Anonymous User wrote:The amount of actual legal work you’ll do at a PI org varies greatly between each one, but regardless it’ll probably be more than the 50-200 pro bono hours each year you’ll be able to put in while working biglaw hours.

Well, sure. I mean, in one case you're doing pro bono on top of paying client work. In the other case, you're doing 100% pro bono.

Anonymous User wrote:If you want money or to keep other career options alive, those are good reasons to work at a firm first. If the orgs you’re looking at don’t really hire entry level attorneys, that’s a good reason to go to a firm first. But if you can get in where you want doing what you want, without other considerations like money or career flexibility, going to a firm first is not the correct choice.

Agreed - I'd perhaps emphasize the point about certain PI orgs not really hiring entry-level attorneys.

If you want to be at a left-leaning "social justice" organization, being at a large law firm first may put you at a disadvantage. I don't think this is generally true of public sector/non-profit organizations. In particular, working at a firm probably makes it easier to jump to government, certain types of public interest impact litigation (particularly if you are right of center), and quasi-legal roles doing advocacy/policy/lobbying type work. I think it hurts for direct-representation legal services organizations and public defenders' offices - my impression is that they care more about their employees being true believers.

Iwork at a firm where it's not uncommon for lit associates to work primarily on pro bono for long stretches of time. Usually you do this by volunteering for a partner's big class action/impact litigation and being the only person on it (or others who are on it leave). Usually you do these cases in partnership with a public interest organization so it is a great way to make connections. There are fewer opportunities for corp, RE, tax associates to do pro bono. Firms sometimes partner with legal services organizations to do say, incorporations for small businesses or non-profits, IP work for artists, that sort of thing, but you'll need to be very targeted about what firm you select to make sure they have these kinds of programs. Also, sometimes firms serve as "outside general counsel" for public interest nonprofits that don't have a dedicated GC. Associates often get thrust into those roles with partner supervision. That can put you in the running for a similar slot at a non-profit down the line since you will understand issues specific to nonprofits.

If you have a resume tailored to public service work and really want to join one of the impact litigation organizations I'd try to do that out of law school. Otherwise, it sounds like you should join a firm. But you need to be very strategic about the firms you join. Pick firms with no hours requirement and unlimited pro bono that counts toward bonus. That is the best way to make sure you don't end up having to work an extra few hundred hours to make up the time you are spending on pro bono.

Also, I'm a biglaw senior litigation associate. I've never once been assigned to a case where I'm doing "bad" - in most of my cases I'm representing one huge corporation against another corporation. The few cases in which I'm representing the company against an individual are securities or antitrust class actions where either the case is being pushed by a lawyer (i.e. there are firms that file a shareholder complaint every time there is a merger) or if the case has legs there's going to be a settlement paid out to investors, most of which are massive institutions or pension funds.

People are overestimating how easy it is to do pure PI out of BigLaw. It's certainly easier to go BigLaw -> PI than PI -> BigLaw (nearly impossible). But the number one thing PI looks for is belief in mission. It's not easy getting paid like shit and living in NYC, especially when your friends make a ton of money. And if you're coming from some fancy law firm which paid for your dinners and gave you $200K a year, telling this public defense org that no, you're actually happy to work long hours for $70K and can't imagine ever leaving...you're gonna face a bit of skepticism.

Anonymous User wrote:People are overestimating how easy it is to do pure PI out of BigLaw. It's certainly easier to go BigLaw -> PI than PI -> BigLaw (nearly impossible). But the number one thing PI looks for is belief in mission. It's not easy getting paid like shit and living in NYC, especially when your friends make a ton of money. And if you're coming from some fancy law firm which paid for your dinners and gave you $200K a year, telling this public defense org that no, you're actually happy to work long hours for $70K and can't imagine ever leaving...you're gonna face a bit of skepticism.

I think it depends on the organization, but I do not know anyone who has had trouble exiting from biglaw into a direct services organization. Maybe it would be difficult to get a job at the ACLU or some super-selective human rights organization, but it is really hard to do that anyway. You do have to build some level of trust, the associates I know who did that worked with those organizations for a couple years or did externships. But I think that many PI lawyers totally understand why a biglawyer would want to transition to public interest.

Anonymous User wrote:Iwork at a firm where it's not uncommon for lit associates to work primarily on pro bono for long stretches of time. Usually you do this by volunteering for a partner's big class action/impact litigation and being the only person on it (or others who are on it leave). Usually you do these cases in partnership with a public interest organization so it is a great way to make connections. There are fewer opportunities for corp, RE, tax associates to do pro bono. Firms sometimes partner with legal services organizations to do say, incorporations for small businesses or non-profits, IP work for artists, that sort of thing, but you'll need to be very targeted about what firm you select to make sure they have these kinds of programs. Also, sometimes firms serve as "outside general counsel" for public interest nonprofits that don't have a dedicated GC. Associates often get thrust into those roles with partner supervision. That can put you in the running for a similar slot at a non-profit down the line since you will understand issues specific to nonprofits.

If you have a resume tailored to public service work and really want to join one of the impact litigation organizations I'd try to do that out of law school. Otherwise, it sounds like you should join a firm. But you need to be very strategic about the firms you join. Pick firms with no hours requirement and unlimited pro bono that counts toward bonus. That is the best way to make sure you don't end up having to work an extra few hundred hours to make up the time you are spending on pro bono.

Also, I'm a biglaw senior litigation associate. I've never once been assigned to a case where I'm doing "bad" - in most of my cases I'm representing one huge corporation against another corporation. The few cases in which I'm representing the company against an individual are securities or antitrust class actions where either the case is being pushed by a lawyer (i.e. there are firms that file a shareholder complaint every time there is a merger) or if the case has legs there's going to be a settlement paid out to investors, most of which are massive institutions or pension funds.

Eh, I think it depends. If you do securities/patent/entertainment/general business litigation (i.e. businesses suing each other, rich people suing businesses, or institutional investors suing businesses), I don't think anyone will think you are working for the "bad guys." It is a lot different if you do employment defense, products liability/mass tort defense, or various types of consumer class action defense. Some of this is because of the work, and some of this is become of the clients (e.g., tobacco companies, payday lenders, etc.).

I'm a c/o 2018 public defender at a relatively large PD office in the southeast. Well, technically I'm a law clerk right now--bar results aren't out yet--but you feel me. I spent my 1L summer working for a judge and my 2L at what I guess would be regional biglaw (one of the biggest dogs in town, paid near-NYC salary with similar work level and subjects, but like not in a particularly prominent city). Because it wasn't a big city but still had BL-like hours (stories abounded from paralegals I befriended of attorneys working straight through weekends, of having to come in and help at midnight on a sunday, etc), the summer experience wasn't "constant party" but more "actual glimpse of what associate life is like." I had a truthful and compelling narrative, supported by pre-LS resume, for why I was pursuing public defense after getting 'blown off course' like that. And obviously my own experience is a bit limited, so all I can share is relatively anecdotal (though what advice in this forum isn't, really?). For whatever it's worth, here's what I've gleaned on the subject from my own research, networking with partners & senior Public Interest attorneys, etc:

1. BigLaw --> Public Interest is... not really a done deal. I'm deeply skeptical of the notion that it is. As a 30-year veteran DA put it to me, an ex-biglaw associate has zero relevant lawyer skills to a public interest attorney's job, period. Even 'litigation' in biglaw is...just...not litigation. So there's no advantage in skill set relative to a fresh LS graduate. In fact, it can even be an impediment, both for lifestyle habits/perceived salary frustrations as well as obviously looking like you're not committed to the cause (more on that last one in a bit).

2. "pro bono in biglaw" is ... not really comparable experience, like at all. It's too much to really dig into here, but doing a couple housing and/or criminal defense cases in the context of a BL pro bono project is just so not the same thing as actual P.I. practice that it doesn't really impart any meaningful skills for a transition. I *could* see it helping put muscle behind the claim that this is what you really care about, just be wary that you don't inadvertently pitch it as "I totally get it!" because it could come off like trying to say you "get" homelessness cause you went camping once.
To be honest, maybe it could be relevant if your interest in P.I. is on the Impact Litigation side of things--I have zero interest in that kind of work so i never explored it much--but I wouldn't be too optimistic. Especially because Impact Lit is so competitive that you run right into the resume issue above.

3. That being said, if you're not yet in law school or still in law school, it's not the kiss of death to get biglaw on your resume to some degree, so long as you can counterbalance it with clinic/externship work at your preferred kind of P.I. organization and get strong letters of rec from the folks you worked with there, and have a good reason for why you're leaving behind the $$$. The biggest advantage is personal, of course, and you can't put a price tag on it--by actually trying out all the types of law you're thinking about, you'll find out what you could actually stand to do for a living. Sure, sure, it can make a resume a little less coherent, but ffs this is the majority of the rest of your career you're talking about, that's gotta be a price worth paying for the peace of mind of knowing you've tried the 'other paths' and you know they're not for you. This was exactly how I presented my time in BL, and having spent all of my third year working at the PD office in the city where I went to school plus settling into work now, I know for my priorities the grass is not at all greener in the corporate law world. And I can back that up with direct experience. One of the things I was advised PD offices worry about is that because nobody gets trial and courtroom experience like a PD, some folks who get fed up with the workload, the clients, and the low pay end up jumping ship to litigation firms eager to have their trial skills. Tbh that sounds fairly self-serving so I don't put much stock into the idea that there's big demand for PDs, but to the extent it's a concern interviewers really do have, I was 100% able to set myself apart by saying I knew exactly what I was leaving behind and had zero desire to return. For the reasons mentioned above, this probably gets harder and harder to overcome the resume and skill deficit with the more time spent in BL, but it's absolutely a winning way to present it, and you'll have no trouble presenting it that way if it's also completely honest.

4. A friend of mine is starting as a PD specifically because she later wants to do impact litigation. I haven't pried much further because I have no interest in that path, but I trust that she's done her homework on the best ways to get to where she wants to go, so if impact lit is your goal, even non-impact lit P.I. (probably more easily from PD than DA just given the way that the overall political beliefs of impact lit overlap more with the fundamentally libertarian principles in public defense) could be a good starting point out of law school.

All of my closest friends in LS are in Biglaw, they love it, and none of us would ever trade our jobs with each other. You'll find out for yourself what kinds of stresses you can and can't live with, what kind of folks you like being around, what level of income you can comfortably live on, and so on. I know what works for me, so I've tried to keep my own preferences absent from this post--any snobbishness or the like is completely unintentional.

Anonymous User wrote:1. BigLaw --> Public Interest is... not really a done deal. I'm deeply skeptical of the notion that it is. As a 30-year veteran DA put it to me, an ex-biglaw associate has zero relevant lawyer skills to a public interest attorney's job, period. Even 'litigation' in biglaw is...just...not litigation. So there's no advantage in skill set relative to a fresh LS graduate. In fact, it can even be an impediment, both for lifestyle habits/perceived salary frustrations as well as obviously looking like you're not committed to the cause (more on that last one in a bit).

I don't want to go as far as saying that BigLaw --> PI is a "done deal," but I think the above overstates the difficulty of the transition. Yes, as others ITT have pointed out, it's hard to go from BIgLaw --> PD office (BigLaw --> prosecutor far more common). But PD isn't the entirety of PI.

QContinuum wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1. BigLaw --> Public Interest is... not really a done deal. I'm deeply skeptical of the notion that it is. As a 30-year veteran DA put it to me, an ex-biglaw associate has zero relevant lawyer skills to a public interest attorney's job, period. Even 'litigation' in biglaw is...just...not litigation. So there's no advantage in skill set relative to a fresh LS graduate. In fact, it can even be an impediment, both for lifestyle habits/perceived salary frustrations as well as obviously looking like you're not committed to the cause (more on that last one in a bit).

I don't want to go as far as saying that BigLaw --> PI is a "done deal," but I think the above overstates the difficulty of the transition. Yes, as others ITT have pointed out, it's hard to go from BIgLaw --> PD office (BigLaw --> prosecutor far more common). But PD isn't the entirety of PI.

Yes, I'm the anon above who was talking about the potential benefits of biglaw and I should have specifically noted that PD seems completely different to me and I would assume biglaw won't help for that. For me, public defender would be low on the list of PI jobs I would take to have significant, positive impact on society. I'm grateful for people that do it though and that opinion of mine may well be completely wrong.

My goal doing pro bono in biglaw is always to handle cases that normal nonprofits (and typically other private attorneys) can't and to ideally do so in a way that creates precedent or continuing influence beyond the individual client (which can include building a base of knowledge in my firm and/or city). I'm not talking about like the housing cases referred to above. Anyone can do that, you just need *an* attorney.

Anonymous User wrote:

QContinuum wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:1. BigLaw --> Public Interest is... not really a done deal. I'm deeply skeptical of the notion that it is. As a 30-year veteran DA put it to me, an ex-biglaw associate has zero relevant lawyer skills to a public interest attorney's job, period. Even 'litigation' in biglaw is...just...not litigation. So there's no advantage in skill set relative to a fresh LS graduate. In fact, it can even be an impediment, both for lifestyle habits/perceived salary frustrations as well as obviously looking like you're not committed to the cause (more on that last one in a bit).

I don't want to go as far as saying that BigLaw --> PI is a "done deal," but I think the above overstates the difficulty of the transition. Yes, as others ITT have pointed out, it's hard to go from BIgLaw --> PD office (BigLaw --> prosecutor far more common). But PD isn't the entirety of PI.

Yes, I'm the anon above who was talking about the potential benefits of biglaw and I should have specifically noted that PD seems completely different to me and I would assume biglaw won't help for that. For me, public defender would be low on the list of PI jobs I would take to have significant, positive impact on society. I'm grateful for people that do it though and that opinion of mine may well be completely wrong.

My goal doing pro bono in biglaw is always to handle cases that normal nonprofits (and typically other private attorneys) can't and to ideally do so in a way that creates precedent or continuing influence beyond the individual client (which can include building a base of knowledge in my firm and/or city). I'm not talking about like the housing cases referred to above. Anyone can do that, you just need *an* attorney.

Anon initially quoted here.
Fair nuff. I’d just note that the advice I got for points one and two were from a career DA who had no love lost for PD work; there’s a universality to those maxims.

It sounds like what you want to do is impact lot. For what it’s worth, every single impact lit attorney I’ve met either started as straight PI or went PD —> ACLU or whatever organization you want to fund your impact lit. In law school, one of the former heads of the ACLU straight up declared “we do not hire anyone with corporate law on their resume.” Whether he was being dramatic or not, your dice to roll. I do think ultimately it’s still worth sampling various positions to determine what you want to do with your life, but if the only kind of PI you really really want to do is impact lit instead of DA/PD...all signs I have suggest you should tread really, really carefully.

I second the anon above. From what I've seen it's easiest for associates to transition to direct legal services organizations, rather than impact litigation. Impact lit organizations will definitely partner with biglaw firms to bring cases but it is really hard to get hired there without a demonstrated interest and work history.

I mean, if we're actually seeking to maximize the good you do, you should do biglaw for 30 years. Become equity partner, live off of 50k, and donate the rest to the Malaria No More foundation.

Peter Singer FTW

My plan is to endure 2 years of biglaw and then use a clerkship to transition to something I actually want to do.

Anonymous User wrote:I second the anon above. From what I've seen it's easiest for associates to transition to direct legal services organizations, rather than impact litigation. Impact lit organizations will definitely partner with biglaw firms to bring cases but it is really hard to get hired there without a demonstrated interest and work history.

I don't know how true the above is. I know that the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation as two notable examples regularly hire second or third year litigations from top firms. Maybe at other organizations they are looking for true believers or whatever but other impact litigation organizations will definitely hire you out of a law firm.

This is OP. Thanks for a helpful thread so far. Given the framework below, I’m interested in advice on the BigLaw or Not BigLaw decision:

I see a few ways to make serious change as a lawyer: (1) succeed in impact lit, requiring sterling credentials, (2) run for office and win, requiring guts and luck, (3) join the bench, requiring sterling credentials and luck. Pursing (1) (2) and (3) are less likely but have higher social payoffs.

I see other ways to make marginal change as a lawyer: (A) PD work, requiring guts but average credentials, (B) staff attorney for a nonprofit, requiring somewhat less guts and somewhat better credentials, (C) donate BigLaw $$, requiring that you survive BigLaw. Pursuing (A) (B) and (C) are highly feasible but lower impact.

Let's assume I have the credentials and gumption for (1) (2) and (3). Let’s also consider the counterfactuals (If I wasn’t in this role, would the alternative person be worse? Am I doing something that wouldn’t get done otherwise?) Would pursuing (1) (2) or (3), given lower likelihood of success, be a better gamble on average than just sticking with (C)?

lnjbt wrote:This is OP. Thanks for a helpful thread so far. Given the framework below, I’m interested in advice on the BigLaw or Not BigLaw decision:

I see a few ways to make serious change as a lawyer: (1) succeed in impact lit, requiring sterling credentials, (2) run for office and win, requiring guts and luck, (3) join the bench, requiring sterling credentials and luck. Pursing (1) (2) and (3) are less likely but have higher social payoffs.

I see other ways to make marginal change as a lawyer: (A) PD work, requiring guts but average credentials, (B) staff attorney for a nonprofit, requiring somewhat less guts and somewhat better credentials, (C) donate BigLaw $$, requiring that you survive BigLaw. Pursuing (A) (B) and (C) are highly feasible but lower impact.

Let's assume I have the credentials and gumption for (1) (2) and (3). Let’s also consider the counterfactuals (If I wasn’t in this role, would the alternative person be worse? Am I doing something that wouldn’t get done otherwise?) Would pursuing (1) (2) or (3), given lower likelihood of success, be a better gamble on average than just sticking with (C)?

lol, what is the point of this exercise?

lnjbt wrote:This is OP. Thanks for a helpful thread so far. Given the framework below, I’m interested in advice on the BigLaw or Not BigLaw decision:

I see a few ways to make serious change as a lawyer: (1) succeed in impact lit, requiring sterling credentials, (2) run for office and win, requiring guts and luck, (3) join the bench, requiring sterling credentials and luck. Pursing (1) (2) and (3) are less likely but have higher social payoffs.

I see other ways to make marginal change as a lawyer: (A) PD work, requiring guts but average credentials, (B) staff attorney for a nonprofit, requiring somewhat less guts and somewhat better credentials, (C) donate BigLaw $$, requiring that you survive BigLaw. Pursuing (A) (B) and (C) are highly feasible but lower impact.

Let's assume I have the credentials and gumption for (1) (2) and (3). Let’s also consider the counterfactuals (If I wasn’t in this role, would the alternative person be worse? Am I doing something that wouldn’t get done otherwise?) Would pursuing (1) (2) or (3), given lower likelihood of success, be a better gamble on average than just sticking with (C)?

Yeah, this is a really confusing scenario. If your goal really is to effect social change, as you’ve defined it, why wouldn’t you go for 1, 2, or 3? (Admittedly I think you’d have to start with 1 as 2 and 3 aren’t early career options.) It sounds a little like you’re trying to justify to yourself going into biglaw?

lnjbt wrote:This is OP. Thanks for a helpful thread so far. Given the framework below, I’m interested in advice on the BigLaw or Not BigLaw decision:

I see a few ways to make serious change as a lawyer: (1) succeed in impact lit, requiring sterling credentials, (2) run for office and win, requiring guts and luck, (3) join the bench, requiring sterling credentials and luck. Pursing (1) (2) and (3) are less likely but have higher social payoffs.

I see other ways to make marginal change as a lawyer: (A) PD work, requiring guts but average credentials, (B) staff attorney for a nonprofit, requiring somewhat less guts and somewhat better credentials, (C) donate BigLaw $$, requiring that you survive BigLaw. Pursuing (A) (B) and (C) are highly feasible but lower impact.

Let's assume I have the credentials and gumption for (1) (2) and (3). Let’s also consider the counterfactuals (If I wasn’t in this role, would the alternative person be worse? Am I doing something that wouldn’t get done otherwise?) Would pursuing (1) (2) or (3), given lower likelihood of success, be a better gamble on average than just sticking with (C)?

Donating biglaw money is not on the same level as being a PD or a non-profit staff attorney when it comes to effecting change. If you’re really the type of person who wants to change the world or whatnot, I don’t think you will survive in biglaw for more than 2 years. At that point, it may be harder for you go to do PD or non-profit because it’d be harder to turn down the $. Also, 2 years in biglaw isn’t enough to donate $ to causes when you’re trying to sustain yourself and save up an emergency fund.

As one of the previous posters said, it seems like you’re trying to justify biglaw so that you can sleep at night. If you want biglaw, that’s fine. No need to justify it. Money talks.