Picking a job - experience vs. location vs.money Forum

[DepressedWorkerBee]

Tried looking for some answers but didn't find anything that really come to any realizations - mostly just because I need a life coach......but anyway.

Graduating from a Tier 2 school with "minimal debt" I.e. less than 100k, single, car paid off - basically no MASSIVE financial constraints.

So like most law grads - I don't really know what I want to do. And it's looking like I'll be fortunate enough to have a few options come graduation and I was hoping to hear input/insight from any others on here.

A) You have an entry level litigation position that pays pretty damn well - not quite six figures - but it'll be enough to make sizable payments towards loans, and not keep eating hot pockets all day/every day. Sizable firm >50 attorneys, and mostly young (which is enticing). But the firm is notorious for not having many attorney's stick around for many years - and since you get depo, discovery, trial, case management, etc. experience very early on - the idea is that you get great experience, make some good money, and then leave after a year or two to greener pastures. In a city that I enjoy, living costs aren't terrible. I haven't really enjoyed litigation in my work experience so far - but beggars can't be choosers. NO responsibility to bring in business or clients.

B) Family law firm in a city that I actually want to live in badly. Smaller firm <12 attorneys, but everyone seems extremely nice and outgoing and the environment is great. Everyone gets along, new attorneys that have joined over the past few years have stayed on, and it "sounds" like after a year or so that associates end-up making close to six figures. NO responsibility to bring in business or clients. But I'm concerned about investing a few years in family law and possibly ending up pigeon-holed in family law. Seems like the litigation experience in option A is a lot more marketable.

C) Doing contractual work/coming on as an associate for a not "great" amount of money - but for someone I've been working with for a few months now and enjoy our interactions and her guidance/insight. It's corporate transactional work (which I've done for two summers now and THINK I enjoy it) and it's in a city that I badly want to live in. Again - NO requirement to generate new business for the firm. But I'm worried that doing that work for a small/solo operation and getting damn good experience - won't exactly help me advance too much if it's not a strongly recognized name on the resume.

D) Move away after graduation, start a new life, hide from my debt, and open some sort of dog farm.



Any input on options A, B, and C would be really appreciated! You can ignore D, I know it's the best option.

[beeoBoop]

A easily. Your first job matters more than almost anything else. If you start on contract work or family law you'll never get out.

You don't need to find a place you'll work for the rest of your life. Take the experience and money

[objctnyrhnr]

A easily. Your first job matters more than almost anything else. If you start on contract work or family law you'll never get out.

You don't need to find a place you'll work for the rest of your life. Take the experience and money

Seconded. A is clearly TCR. If that firm is sufficiently legit, you could maybe even jump to biglaw and/or a clerkship. The rest sound like they’ll severely limit your options down the line.

[albanach]

Seconded. A is clearly TCR. If that firm is sufficiently legit, you could maybe even jump to biglaw and/or a clerkship. The rest sound like they’ll severely limit your options down the line.

OP doesn't mention what their quality of life expectations are. That should have some weighting here.

That final comment about running away and opening a dog farm might be in jest, but if it offers any insight into OP's personality, I'm not sure biglaw in three years time is necessarily high on their agenda.

A still seems like a good option. Experience with a sizable firm is very valuable and makes future opportunities easier. That said, option B means living in a city OP wants to be in, still working in an established but smaller firm.

I think OP needs to clarify what they want to be doing in 5-10 years time. If family law in a 9-6 office environment, still earning low six figures seems desirable, then option B has a lot more merit. If, on the other hand, they want to go as far as they can in law, and BigLaw is a serious interest, then I agree that Option A is the best route forwards.

Option C makes little sense to me unless your friend (a) is on an upward trajectory; (b) you can agree a route to partnership before joining; and (c) you're not risk adverse.

[gaddockteeg]

To echo all the above: the answer is A.

This is your first job, unless you know 100% what you want to do for the rest of your career, pick the job that keeps the most doors open. A.

FWIW, I'm dealing with something similar too. I'm a midlevel lit attorney and I have two options: (1) AUSA in a flyover district that I have no ties to. This would open doors for me but I have to commit to a 3 year term and move my spouse too. Mediocre pay. (2) State AG in the city that both me and my wife want to live in. Incredibly cushy, 9-5, really solid pay for a government job (25% more than the USAO job that I'm considering), but a much less fulfilling area of law. Also way worse exit options compared to USAO, though I've considered just staying with the state agency for life because it's THAT cushy. Just not sure if I want to give up the rate race/dream already.

[objctnyrhnr]

To echo all the above: the answer is A.

This is your first job, unless you know 100% what you want to do for the rest of your career, pick the job that keeps the most doors open. A.

FWIW, I'm dealing with something similar too. I'm a midlevel lit attorney and I have two options: (1) AUSA in a flyover district that I have no ties to. This would open doors for me but I have to commit to a 3 year term and move my spouse too. Mediocre pay. (2) State AG in the city that both me and my wife want to live in. Incredibly cushy, 9-5, really solid pay for a government job (25% more than the USAO job that I'm considering), but a much less fulfilling area of law. Also way worse exit options compared to USAO, though I've considered just staying with the state agency for life because it's THAT cushy. Just not sure if I want to give up the rate race/dream already.

Man that’s tough. Given the specific component of the state ag, would you be effectively cutting off a bunch of future exit options (including ausa in more desirable district)?

[nixy]

I would totally give up the rat race and take the AG position, but really it’s just a personal call. I am much more about making a life for myself outside of work right now, for reasons that aren’t going to apply to everyone else.

Do you think it would be possible to go to the AG’a office and move to something more fulfilling in that office shirt a bit? I feel like if you’re committed to a particular location/community the AG’s office is a good option long term, but again, a very personal choice.

[nixy]

I would totally give up the rat race and take the AG position, but really it’s just a personal call. I am much more about making a life for myself outside of work right now, for reasons that aren’t going to apply to everyone else.

Do you think it would be possible to go to the AG’a office and move to something more fulfilling in that office shirt a bit? I feel like if you’re committed to a particular location/community the AG’s office is a good option long term, but again, a very personal choice.

[gaddockteeg]

I would totally give up the rat race and take the AG position, but really it’s just a personal call. I am much more about making a life for myself outside of work right now, for reasons that aren’t going to apply to everyone else.

Do you think it would be possible to go to the AG’a office and move to something more fulfilling in that office shirt a bit? I feel like if you’re committed to a particular location/community the AG’s office is a good option long term, but again, a very personal choice.

It's possible but not probable. While I'd have the advantage of being a known commodity, it'd be tough to do still because I'd be doing work in an area of law that just isn't applicable to anything else. I could sell litigation experience, but that would basically be my only hook. I do think that after 5-10 years, I could make the jump though if I kept at it.

Other consideration is that my resume is actually fairly mediocre. I'm a t25 grad, top third, no LR. Low amlaw 200 firm. Non market bonus paying. Got lucky to get onto two trials and work with former AUSAs and thats how I was able to sell myself to USAO offices and manage to get an offer from one. Accepting a USAO position and finally getting a gold star on my resume seems like something I should take advantage of, given that I don't have t14 or clerkship or prestigious vault firm or anything.

To echo all the above: the answer is A.

This is your first job, unless you know 100% what you want to do for the rest of your career, pick the job that keeps the most doors open. A.

FWIW, I'm dealing with something similar too. I'm a midlevel lit attorney and I have two options: (1) AUSA in a flyover district that I have no ties to. This would open doors for me but I have to commit to a 3 year term and move my spouse too. Mediocre pay. (2) State AG in the city that both me and my wife want to live in. Incredibly cushy, 9-5, really solid pay for a government job (25% more than the USAO job that I'm considering), but a much less fulfilling area of law. Also way worse exit options compared to USAO, though I've considered just staying with the state agency for life because it's THAT cushy. Just not sure if I want to give up the rate race/dream already.

Man that’s tough. Given the specific component of the state ag, would you be effectively cutting off a bunch of future exit options (including ausa in more desirable district)?

Yeah, I would. The AG office position is really niche litigation. I think I could move around within the State AG office to a different branch but I would basically be walking into interviews saying, "I have no expertise at all in your area of law, but I have unrelated litigation experience" so I wouldn't be a priority candidate or anything. From what I know, I'd have effectively zero shot at going to an AUSA office or big law or anything else if I take the state AG job.

I'm also only a midlevel, not senior at all, so it's not like I have a clear idea of what exactly I want to do in 10 years.

[deadpanic]

OP: I think you should do option A. Are these actually offers on the table? These are amazing options for your credentials--no offense intended.

Is Option A insurance defense?

Other consideration is that my resume is actually fairly mediocre. I'm a t25 grad, top third, no LR. Low amlaw 200 firm. Non market bonus paying. Got lucky to get onto two trials and work with former AUSAs and thats how I was able to sell myself to USAO offices and manage to get an offer from one. Accepting a USAO position and finally getting a gold star on my resume seems like something I should take advantage of, given that I don't have t14 or clerkship or prestigious vault firm or anything.

I get the enticement of USAO, but I'm not sure how prestigious or a "gold star" it would be to get an AUSA gig in flyover country. Because if you want to go to Atlanta afterwards, or anywhere else NOT in the flyover district, I don't think many Big Law firms are going to be interested because you can't bring in any business and they don't want to pay an older grad a bunch of $ as an associate or even counsel. I would also think an AUSA in flyover country is going to just be mostly doing gun/drug crimes as well, which is great for trial experience, but not great for private practice later to bring in business. Maybe this is obvious, but just thinking out loud here.

So, if you are thinking down the road, I actually think the state AG where you want to be to make political connections is going to be more beneficial than going to flyover county and prosecuting gang members then returning expecting some great job because you were an AUSA.

[gaddockteeg]

OP: I think you should do option A. Are these actually offers on the table? These are amazing options for your credentials--no offense intended.

Is Option A insurance defense?

Other consideration is that my resume is actually fairly mediocre. I'm a t25 grad, top third, no LR. Low amlaw 200 firm. Non market bonus paying. Got lucky to get onto two trials and work with former AUSAs and thats how I was able to sell myself to USAO offices and manage to get an offer from one. Accepting a USAO position and finally getting a gold star on my resume seems like something I should take advantage of, given that I don't have t14 or clerkship or prestigious vault firm or anything.

I get the enticement of USAO, but I'm not sure how prestigious or a "gold star" it would be to get an AUSA gig in flyover country. Because if you want to go to Atlanta afterwards, or anywhere else NOT in the flyover district, I don't think many Big Law firms are going to be interested because you can't bring in any business and they don't want to pay an older grad a bunch of $ as an associate or even counsel. I would also think an AUSA in flyover country is going to just be mostly doing gun/drug crimes as well, which is great for trial experience, but not great for private practice later to bring in business. Maybe this is obvious, but just thinking out loud here.

So, if you are thinking down the road, I actually think the state AG where you want to be to make political connections is going to be more beneficial than going to flyover county and prosecuting gang members then returning expecting some great job because you were an AUSA.

I appreciate this. It's nice having someone to talk through these things with. Let me throw in some more factors: The flyover district is flyover but geographically speaking, it's actually somewhat close to my target city (and where the state AG position is) and isn't something completely dearth of civilization either. It is something like a 4 hour drive and consequently less than a 1 hour flight. My immediate family, wife's immediate family, and most of our friends/family are in said target city as well (think Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Chicago). I raise this because I think I do have a fair amount of friends in the target city (e.g., Chicago) legal scene who would be able to push my resume, as long as I was somewhat qualified. Similarly, I do envision myself being in target city somewhat often still given all of my friends/family being there.

I don't have any delusions of going to firm as a partner or counsel in the future but the paths that I fantasize about are transferring to NDIL USAO, transferring to SEC or main justice branch offices, or going to the State AGs office (but in a more interesting/fulfilling division).

Curious, why do you raise the political connections point? How does that help me at the State AG? I'm not familiar with politics at all so sorry if this question is stupid.

[Anonymous User]

I don't have any delusions of going to firm as a partner or counsel in the future but the paths that I fantasize about are transferring to NDIL USAO, transferring to SEC or main justice branch offices, or going to the State AGs office (but in a more interesting/fulfilling division).

I agree that going from flyover USAO to biglaw is unlikely (I know a bunch of flyover AUSAs and they have seen that happen only very very rarely), but another USAO or main justice are more realistic exit options. If you get the trial experience in the flyover USAO, and the basic experience running your own cases, that transfers well (though not sure about the SEC).

[DepressedWorkerBee]

Thanks for the feedback - really appreciate it.

Main concern with Option A is that I really just am not interested in litigation. It's plaintiff's PI (so I'm not on the dark side at least). But after I put in my time there to get the experience needed to make a move - are my applications all going to be seen as a "litigator" or will I be able to move over to the transactional side of things down the road? Biglaw isn't a goal of mine - I'm pretty sure I wouldn't last a month. Honestly after working before law school and with the internships I've done so far - the "dream" scenario is to do corporate transactional work for a while before moving in-house somewhere.

For clarification - option C is the main attorney who founded/manages the firm (HYS grad/ex-big law) and another young attorney with 2-3 years experience. I've been helping draft different contracts for her for the past few months and really dig it. But just wanted to clarify - it's not a friend trying to get a firm up off the ground or something like that. She's got a pretty well-established office and continued growth (just moved into a new office closer to downtown). But again, it's not a big firm, not going to pay as much as option A, and I'm really not sure if I would be classified as an "associate" or a "contract attorney" if I joined.

Option B - if a new attorney starts in family law - is it pretty likely that's where they're going to end? Seems like a lot of the sentiment I hear is that if you start in family law and do that for a few years (even though this firm does divorce, adoption, estates/probate, CPS, and randomly a bit of immigration......) then you're likely going to be staying in family law. Please correct me/tell me I'm an idiot if I'm wrong on anything here.




@gaddockteeg - I've obviously got my own issues so take my advice with a grain of salt - but I worked in government before coming to law school - and I still of am the opinion that if you have the patience to wait a few years (with a bit of luck), you can end up making damn good money, with a low-stress career, along with the beauty that is government benefits in a State AG office. Also, side-note, confirmed by a buddy -T25- who's working in a State AG office after doing Crim Law for a few years - he thinks it's the perfect combination of a cushy paycheck, low-stress environment, and fulfilling gig that he could possibly get. But biglaw was never what he wanted to do - so take that for what it's worth.