Top Law Schools

I know this has been asked before, but most of the older threads sort of petered out.

Currently clerking, was planning on rejoining firm where I summered, now considering heading to a plaintiff's firm (think respected, top 10-20, hotlist type plaintiff's firm as opposed to a smaller, regional shop.) My long term plan generally is put away a few years to pay down debt and save and then maybe try and hop over to a fed position. (Which I think is feasible either way I choose.) But I'm not really sure how much I'll be giving up by not having those 2-3 years biglaw on my resume. My partner is currently a first year at a peer firm and is honestly getting way more experience and training than I thought she would be based on reading TLS.

Anyway, the pros of the plaintiff side seem to be:

- more substantive experience early on
- no billable hours (though I think this is only half true)
- less of an up and out culture and better shot at partnership
- don't have to defend big corporations who do shitty things

Cons:

- lack of name brand recognition
- salary is less certain
- close off more doors by specializing early on
- hard to move back to the defense side down the road
- harder to go in house

Anyone have any advice? Am I missing something?

Anonymous User wrote:I know this has been asked before, but most of the older threads sort of petered out.

Currently clerking, was planning on rejoining firm where I summered, now considering heading to a plaintiff's firm (think respected, top 10-20, hotlist type plaintiff's firm as opposed to a smaller, regional shop.) My long term plan generally is put away a few years to pay down debt and save and then maybe try and hop over to a fed position. (Which I think is feasible either way I choose.) But I'm not really sure how much I'll be giving up by not having those 2-3 years biglaw on my resume. My partner is currently a first year at a peer firm and is honestly getting way more experience and training than I thought she would be based on reading TLS.

Anyway, the pros of the plaintiff side seem to be:

- more substantive experience early on
- no billable hours (though I think this is only half true)
- less of an up and out culture and better shot at partnership
- don't have to defend big corporations who do shitty things

Cons:

- lack of name brand recognition
- salary is less certain
- close off more doors by specializing early on
- hard to move back to the defense side down the road
- harder to go in house

Anyone have any advice? Am I missing something?

If Fedgov is goal, I think you’re likely better off in biglaw. I think a common view of plaintiffs work is that once you do it, it’s kind of just what you’ll be doing (ie no big exit options). but reasonable minds could differ here.

OP Here:

My understanding (based on admittedly very little) is that at least at the top plaintiffs firms moving to fed gov. isn't that much harder than from big law IF you target the relevant govt agency. I.E. anitrust plaintiffs work -> DoJ Antitrust, civil rights based plaintiffs work -> Civil Rights DoJ division, securities plaintiffs work -> SEC.

Is that just completely wrong?

Anonymous User wrote:OP Here:

My understanding (based on admittedly very little) is that at least at the top plaintiffs firms moving to fed gov. isn't that much harder than from big law IF you target the relevant govt agency. I.E. anitrust plaintiffs work -> DoJ Antitrust, civil rights based plaintiffs work -> Civil Rights DoJ division, securities plaintiffs work -> SEC.

Is that just completely wrong?

Okay that’s a good point so I suppose the caveat is that some of the top 3 or so plaintiffs firms are a category in and of themselves (susman for example is basically H or Y grads who all SDNY and then CoA2 clerked). Yes I mean if you have that option I almost feel like you can’t go wrong.

My impression, though maybe I missed something, is that you weren’t quite looking at a plaintiff firm option of that caliber.

OP again:

Sorry, probably being a bit confusing since I'm trying to be vague and also may just be straight up wrong on this.

Definitely not one of the tippy top Susman or its peer firms. Still thought something like Hausfeld -> DoJ Antitrust or Labaton -> SEC wouldnt be crazy to consider and would keep fed door open. Though it sounds like that may not be true.

Anonymous User wrote:OP again:

Sorry, probably being a bit confusing since I'm trying to be vague and also may just be straight up wrong on this.

Definitely not one of the tippy top Susman or its peer firms. Still thought something like Hausfeld -> DoJ Antitrust or Labaton -> SEC wouldnt be crazy to consider and would keep fed door open. Though it sounds like that may not be true.

My intuition would be no, and insofar as it would, market biglaw would be much better at keeping that door open.

That said, for that tier of plaintiffs firms, I just don’t have enough knowledge to comment about the viability of bigfed as an exit option.

Anonymous User wrote:OP again:

Sorry, probably being a bit confusing since I'm trying to be vague and also may just be straight up wrong on this.

Definitely not one of the tippy top Susman or its peer firms. Still thought something like Hausfeld -> DoJ Antitrust or Labaton -> SEC wouldnt be crazy to consider and would keep fed door open. Though it sounds like that may not be true.

I know that as an absolute fact that is incorrect. Both DoJ and SEC are very prestige heavy. Also, they have a plethora of candidates from big law who have specialty in white collar/securities. I can almost guarantee that you will not have a chance at those agencies unless you do biglaw or lit boutiques like susman, wilkinson walsh, or hueston hennigan

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP again:

Sorry, probably being a bit confusing since I'm trying to be vague and also may just be straight up wrong on this.

Definitely not one of the tippy top Susman or its peer firms. Still thought something like Hausfeld -> DoJ Antitrust or Labaton -> SEC wouldnt be crazy to consider and would keep fed door open. Though it sounds like that may not be true.

I know that as an absolute fact that is incorrect. Both DoJ and SEC are very prestige heavy. Also, they have a plethora of candidates from big law who have specialty in white collar/securities. I can almost guarantee that you will not have a chance at those agencies unless you do biglaw or lit boutiques like susman, wilkinson walsh, or hueston hennigan

Yeah OP this is consistent with my initial intuition that I articulated above, as well.

Just go biglaw. It’ll be fine. The whole biglaw sucks train is overblown.

OP, why not search LinkedIn for the firms and agencies you are thinking about to see if you can find anyone who has made the move you are theorizing?

lawfan2012 wrote:OP, why not search LinkedIn for the firms and agencies you are thinking about to see if you can find anyone who has made the move you are theorizing?

OP here:

I tried this - apparently Linkedin caps how many contacts you can look through when searching a specific employer and just running through employees with a specific job title. You need like a business / recruiter account to get more. May just spring for the free trial though.

I fully expect that even if people do make the move I'm hypothesizing they're very much in the minority, but that could just a by product of numbers (Clearly probably has almost as much if not more summers in a single year in an up and out model than their are associates across all the firms I'm thinking about combined.)

I have a contact at the agency I'm thinking about, so I think if I'll probably at least check with them. But if anyone else has relevant feedback it would definitely be appreciated.

That being said, sounds like the biglaw is probably the safer choice overall.

Anonymous User wrote:

lawfan2012 wrote:OP, why not search LinkedIn for the firms and agencies you are thinking about to see if you can find anyone who has made the move you are theorizing?

OP here:

I tried this - apparently Linkedin caps how many contacts you can look through when searching a specific employer and just running through employees with a specific job title. You need like a business / recruiter account to get more. May just spring for the free trial though.

I fully expect that even if people do make the move I'm hypothesizing they're very much in the minority, but that could just a by product of numbers (Clearly probably has almost as much if not more summers in a single year in an up and out model than their are associates across all the firms I'm thinking about combined.)

I have a contact at the agency I'm thinking about, so I think if I'll probably at least check with them. But if anyone else has relevant feedback it would definitely be appreciated.

That being said, sounds like the biglaw is probably the safer choice overall.

Not "probably the safer choice." It's the only choice. The hiring managers at the SEC will not review your app unless you come from a known biglaw firm and graduated from a T14.

I know that as an absolute fact that is incorrect. Both DoJ and SEC are very prestige heavy. Also, they have a plethora of candidates from big law who have specialty in white collar/securities. I can almost guarantee that you will not have a chance at those agencies unless you do biglaw or lit boutiques like susman, wilkinson walsh, or hueston hennigan

Anonymous User wrote: Not "probably the safer choice." It's the only choice. The hiring managers at the SEC will not review your app unless you come from a known biglaw firm and graduated from a T14.

Can you say more about how you know this as an absolute fact? It may be that it varies by location or by division (I'm not up on all those distinctions) but searching through LinkedIn for both SEC and DOJ attorneys, this doesn't seem to be exclusively the case.

Anonymous User wrote:OP again:

Sorry, probably being a bit confusing since I'm trying to be vague and also may just be straight up wrong on this.

Definitely not one of the tippy top Susman or its peer firms. Still thought something like Hausfeld -> DoJ Antitrust or Labaton -> SEC wouldnt be crazy to consider and would keep fed door open. Though it sounds like that may not be true.

There are currently practicing attorneys who made this jump (Labaton to sec/usao, for example) and are currently in those roles so its not impossible. That being said, those attorneys did have prior biglaw experience.

nixy wrote:

I know that as an absolute fact that is incorrect. Both DoJ and SEC are very prestige heavy. Also, they have a plethora of candidates from big law who have specialty in white collar/securities. I can almost guarantee that you will not have a chance at those agencies unless you do biglaw or lit boutiques like susman, wilkinson walsh, or hueston hennigan

Anonymous User wrote: Not "probably the safer choice." It's the only choice. The hiring managers at the SEC will not review your app unless you come from a known biglaw firm and graduated from a T14.

Can you say more about how you know this as an absolute fact? It may be that it varies by location or by division (I'm not up on all those distinctions) but searching through LinkedIn for both SEC and DOJ attorneys, this doesn't seem to be exclusively the case.

So I worked at a non-DC, relatively big SEC office that had 100+ attorneys. While there were some non-big law and non top law school people, those were old veterans or employees that have been at the SEC since the 90s.

When I was there, I knew several people on the hiring committees. The way that hiring happens is they get a ton of applications from HR (submitted via their online website). The first thing they look for is a top law school. Then they look for "recognizable" firm experience. That means (1) big law or (2) regional heavy hitter. That usually narrows the pool of applicants to 100-200 people. Then they go through that with a really discerning eye.

So while it is possible that OP can go to a "good plaintiffs firm" and end up at the SEC, it will be very difficult compared to going to big law. The SEC pays handsomely, has great benefits, and has work-life balance. Basically all the qualities that would attract overworked biglaw associates. I don't see the hiring attorneys choosing a 3-7th year at a plaintiffs firm over a 2-5th year associate at biglaw who dealt with higher profile cases.

I guess overall, if OP has the choice, I would say go with biglaw. It is undisputed that it will give you better exit ops.

Anonymous User wrote:OP again:

Sorry, probably being a bit confusing since I'm trying to be vague and also may just be straight up wrong on this.

Definitely not one of the tippy top Susman or its peer firms. Still thought something like Hausfeld -> DoJ Antitrust or Labaton -> SEC wouldnt be crazy to consider and would keep fed door open. Though it sounds like that may not be true.

BigLaw will open more doors if your end goal is practicing antitrust at a federal agency. The antitrust work at a plaintiff's firm is all conduct, whereas BigLaw will have a mix of conduct and merger work. Experience with merger work should put you in a better position for either the FTC or DOJ (the only real options). The FTC doesn't do much conduct work, and actually can't even bring criminal conduct cases, so the bulk of their work and hiring is on the merger side. The DOJ has both merger and conduct work, but I assume the bulk of their work is also on the merger side.

Purely anecdotally, I only know people who made the jump from DOJ to a plaintiff's firm and do not know of anyone who has done the opposite. The lateral process for the FTC is really tough and pulls almost exclusively from BigLaw associates with 2-5 years of experience.

Not OP, but considering a legit plaintiff's firm (but not Susman level) as well. Currently a biglaw junior in non-NYC major market.

What if you were in biglaw for 1-3 years, then went Plaintiff's then wanted Big Fed? Would that be less limiting? Honestly, I have done some Plaintiff's work and just enjoy it much more than general biglaw lit.

Anonymous User wrote: The way that hiring happens is they get a ton of applications from HR (submitted via their online website). The first thing they look for is a top law school. Then they look for "recognizable" firm experience. That means (1) big law or (2) regional heavy hitter. That usually narrows the pool of applicants to 100-200 people. Then they go through that with a really discerning eye.

OP here: Just to clarify, the firm is well known and the relevant agency would 100% 1) know who they are and 2) know what type of experience an attorney with 2-4 years experience at the firm has. My concern is more how that experience would be perceived - although much of the feedback seems to be "worse than biglaw experience". So I'll take that as the credited response. The firm had popped up on a bunch of "lit boutique firms in X city" type lists on TLS, so I thought the perception might be slightly different, but I think that was a misinterpretation on my part.

I think the only thing I'm grappling with now is that my initial plan was clerk -> Big Law -> Fed Agency -> ???, basically just a plan to make sure I could work in litigation without ending up as a 10th year associate with no hopes of partnership unable to land anywhere, royally fucked. Part of me feels like just hoping straight to a firm with decent partnership prospects (even if its almost definitely still nonequity) and less pressure to get out of the way for each new class of attorneys would simplify that process. However I also feel reallllyyyy uncomfortable with the idea of closing off so many doors right of the bat.

Thanks for the help guys! I think I know my answer, but always welcome more feedback for others and for future readers.