The Feeling of Missing Out on Biglaw Forum

[The Avatar]

I'm going to be starting my career as legal counsel in the federal government. The pay is good and it's a 9-5 job, but since I'm in my mid 20s, I'd be open to working long hours at this point in my career.

A lot of people are congratulating me, saying that I have it made, and that this will open a lot of doors for me in the future. But I just feel a lot of regret for not landing a Biglaw/corporate-commercial job in law school.

Hoping to get some feedback from others here who may have experienced the same.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it may depend on your agency, but as someone who suffered through biglaw before landing at an agency, I can tell you that you really do have it made. A lot of my agency’s honors attorneys end up leaving because they think they’ve missed out by not going into private practice. I have no anecdotal evidence as to whether they end up happy or not, but I can tell you that virtually all of the biglaw refugees at my agency will never go back to private practice.

The only time I’d advise someone to take a firm over the feds is if they’re considering a spot with maybe the VA or SSA that only allows attorneys to ladder to GS12 or 13. Any attorney gig with ladder to GS14, 15, or something better than the two is the dream.

[Anonymous User]

If it makes you feel better, I just declined a V10 biglaw offer to take an honors program opportunity similar to what you described!

[sparty99]

I'm going to be starting my career as legal counsel in the federal government. The pay is good and it's a 9-5 job, but since I'm in my mid 20s, I'd be open to working long hours at this point in my career.

A lot of people are congratulating me, saying that I have it made, and that this will open a lot of doors for me in the future. But I just feel a lot of regret for not landing a Biglaw/corporate-commercial job in law school.

Hoping to get some feedback from others here who may have experienced the same.

Pfft. You can still land big law, but why bother? 9-5 and good pay (especially six figures) beats big law any day. Big law is overrated.

[Anonymous User]

I'm going to be starting my career as legal counsel in the federal government. The pay is good and it's a 9-5 job, but since I'm in my mid 20s, I'd be open to working long hours at this point in my career.

A lot of people are congratulating me, saying that I have it made, and that this will open a lot of doors for me in the future. But I just feel a lot of regret for not landing a Biglaw/corporate-commercial job in law school.

Hoping to get some feedback from others here who may have experienced the same.

Pfft. You can still land big law, but why bother? 9-5 and good pay (especially six figures) beats big law any day. Big law is overrated.

I would say it is not overrated to be making 7 figures in my mid 30s.

[OutoftheWoods]

I mean, it really depends on what your ultimately career goal is and financial situation is. If you always wanted to work in gov and the pay is enough to pay off your loans over time, then I would be very happy if I was you. My personal interests are not in government and are in-house for like, a film studio, so that would be a disappointing outcome for me. Plus the six figure loan debt I have, i would be disappointed if I did not get big law/a private practice gig that pays close to market. Luckily, I have the latter currently, with my end career goal still a bit in reach.

But in simple terms of your worth as an attorney...big law is meaningless. I know plenty of smart people who don't get it, and quite frankly, some people who have no business getting big law over them. Offers are 50% luck of who gets assigned to you - you get stuck with just one interviewer of your 4-6 CB interviewers who is hard to talk to or you have nothing in common with, it can sink you. In the end unless you're top 10% at a T14 or HYS, big law is just a crapshoot.

[Anonymous User]

I work for the state government doing appellate work. Pay isn't great but it's more than enough for me (I grew up pretty poor)... and I'm not even making six-figures yet. I'm out of the office between 4:30 to 5:00 PM every day. I get along with everyone in the office. I couldn't be happier.

[Anonymous User]

When 3 years from now 3/4 of your biglaw friends will be asking you if your agency has any openings, you’ll feel differently. Also, depending on your agency it shouldn’t be that hard to lateral into a biglaw position if that’s what you want after a few years.

[Anonymous User]

I feel very similar to OP, though from a different direction: I'll be heading to a litigation boutique rather than Big Law after my clerkship. A significant part of me wonders whether I shouldn't instead have first gone into Big Law and then made a lateral move into a boutique a few years later, because you can't do it the other way around.

I know Big Law can be hierarchical and you can get lost in the shuffle of so many junior associates, but I think the experience can be interesting and beneficial -- even just working at a very large firm with big, headline-making institutional clients/matters. The lit boutique I'm going to is at the top of the market in NYC, but it still won't have the same feel as working on large teams in huge deals at a V10 in a big company where you have colleagues in offices all over the world. I don't know if it's a shallow "prestige" thing (my non-law school friends won't recognize the name of my boutique, but they definitely know the names of the V10 Big Law firms I passed up on), but there's definitely some FOMO.

[2013]

I feel very similar to OP, though from a different direction: I'll be heading to a litigation boutique rather than Big Law after my clerkship. A significant part of me wonders whether I shouldn't instead have first gone into Big Law and then made a lateral move into a boutique a few years later, because you can't do it the other way around.

I know Big Law can be hierarchical and you can get lost in the shuffle of so many junior associates, but I think the experience can be interesting and beneficial -- even just working at a very large firm with big, headline-making institutional clients/matters. The lit boutique I'm going to is at the top of the market in NYC, but it still won't have the same feel as working on large teams in huge deals at a V10 in a big company where you have colleagues in offices all over the world. I don't know if it's a shallow "prestige" thing (my non-law school friends won't recognize the name of my boutique, but they definitely know the names of the V10 Big Law firms I passed up on), but there's definitely some FOMO.

Not sure who told you you can’t go from a top tier lit boutique to biglaw, but that’s false.

[objctnyrhnr]

Several years ago, I had the same view as many in this thread. People in govt seen happiest; I don’t need a ton of money; I’ll just do that. So I fedclerked after graduation (ie definitely qualified for biglaw) and went to govt.

Few years later it became clear that the biglaw resume stamp and experience was super important to get early career...to a degree I had not initially understood. After way more effort than it theoretically should have taken given the credentials I once had (likely due to my relative seniority together with lack of private sector experience), I got to market biglaw lit. Although I’m very happy where I am at, I always advise people to suck it up and go to biglaw early in their career then do govt later. In hindsight, I would have done it the other way around.

[Anonymous User]

I feel very similar to OP, though from a different direction: I'll be heading to a litigation boutique rather than Big Law after my clerkship. A significant part of me wonders whether I shouldn't instead have first gone into Big Law and then made a lateral move into a boutique a few years later, because you can't do it the other way around.

I know Big Law can be hierarchical and you can get lost in the shuffle of so many junior associates, but I think the experience can be interesting and beneficial -- even just working at a very large firm with big, headline-making institutional clients/matters. The lit boutique I'm going to is at the top of the market in NYC, but it still won't have the same feel as working on large teams in huge deals at a V10 in a big company where you have colleagues in offices all over the world. I don't know if it's a shallow "prestige" thing (my non-law school friends won't recognize the name of my boutique, but they definitely know the names of the V10 Big Law firms I passed up on), but there's definitely some FOMO.

Not sure who told you you can’t go from a top tier lit boutique to biglaw, but that’s false.

As someone who made a similar choice to the first anon poster, while its possible it really felt like something I couldn't count on when making the decision to not start in biglaw. Part of the problem is so few people start at a boutique in NYC that its hard to find precedent for what your options are if you decide to leave, so while biglaw -> boutique -> biglaw (often with some govt stop over thrown in) is common enough its harder to tell what your options are without that first biglaw stint. I personally got really used to having tons of examples from this site, alumni, coworkers, etc. that making a decision relatively blind really amped up my insecurities regarding skipping a few years in biglaw.

Also depends a bit on how you define "top lit boutique". Some people might throw the top-tier plaintiff firms in that category and crossing the v., especially without biglaw already on the resume, seems harder. Plus there are some great marketing paying really tiny boutiques that do cool work but might lack name recognition.

[nixy]

Several years ago, I had the same view as many in this thread. People in govt seen happiest; I don’t need a ton of money; I’ll just do that. So I fedclerked after graduation (ie definitely qualified for biglaw) and went to govt.

Few years later it became clear that the biglaw resume stamp and experience was super important to get early career...to a degree I had not initially understood. After way more effort than it theoretically should have taken given the credentials I once had (likely due to my relative seniority together with lack of private sector experience), I got to market biglaw lit. Although I’m very happy where I am at, I always advise people to suck it up and go to biglaw early in their career then do govt later. In hindsight, I would have done it the other way around.

I think the bolded is VERY career-path (and maybe market) specific. I’d never claim early biglaw isn’t important for any career path, but I don’t think it’s important for every career path.

[objctnyrhnr]

Several years ago, I had the same view as many in this thread. People in govt seen happiest; I don’t need a ton of money; I’ll just do that. So I fedclerked after graduation (ie definitely qualified for biglaw) and went to govt.

Few years later it became clear that the biglaw resume stamp and experience was super important to get early career...to a degree I had not initially understood. After way more effort than it theoretically should have taken given the credentials I once had (likely due to my relative seniority together with lack of private sector experience), I got to market biglaw lit. Although I’m very happy where I am at, I always advise people to suck it up and go to biglaw early in their career then do govt later. In hindsight, I would have done it the other way around.

I think the bolded is VERY career-path (and maybe market) specific. I’d never claim early biglaw isn’t important for any career path, but I don’t think it’s important for every career path.

That’s a fair point. I’ll clarify and state that, I am referring to top echelon (whether public or private sector) of General lit (white collar, commercial, criminal prosecution, civil enforcement, internal investigation, etc.) in very or moderately competitive markets contained within major or semi-major cities.

[Anonymous User]

Also depends a bit on how you define "top lit boutique". Some people might throw the top-tier plaintiff firms in that category and crossing the v., especially without biglaw already on the resume, seems harder. Plus there are some great marketing paying really tiny boutiques that do cool work but might lack name recognition.

I am a biglaw lit mid/senior associate and on my firm's hiring committee and this is absolutely correct. We'd have no problem hiring someone from a boutique like Susman or Hueston that hires top talent and basically does biglaw work. Then there's a whole other set of "top boutiques" that hire good people but do work more akin to midlaw - lower rates, lower stakes, etc. These people would likely have a harder time.

Plaintiffs' work tends to be so specialized (and plaintiffs' associates tend to focus on such different things) that it would be unlikely that they'd receive serious consideration absent a decent prior stint on the defense side or a very specific need.

[Anonymous User]

The “biglaw stamp” on your resume is often times needed to get into a great federal agency. If you’ve already got in, though, there’s no need for the biglaw stamp, imo. I credit my biglaw firm with getting me into the feds in the first place (I didn’t get an honors spot), but I credit my actual time spent at one agency as the reason why I was able to lateral over to the DOJ so easily.

There are a few exceptions I think and those might be for the big financial regulatory agencies. It seems like those (SEC, FDIC, CFPB, etc.) actively look for experience you may only be able to get at a biglaw firm.

I should also note that having been on my agency’s hiring committee in the past (the one before the DOJ) we always put current federal attorneys at the top of our stack of potential candidates to interview—even above those with big firm experience.

[lawhopeful100]

The “biglaw stamp” on your resume is often times needed to get into a great federal agency. If you’ve already got in, though, there’s no need for the biglaw stamp, imo. I credit my biglaw firm with getting me into the feds in the first place (I didn’t get an honors spot), but I credit my actual time spent at one agency as the reason why I was able to lateral over to the DOJ so easily.

There are a few exceptions I think and those might be for the big financial regulatory agencies. It seems like those (SEC, FDIC, CFPB, etc.) actively look for experience you may only be able to get at a biglaw firm.

I should also note that having been on my agency’s hiring committee in the past (the one before the DOJ) we always put current federal attorneys at the top of our stack of potential candidates to interview—even above those with big firm experience.

Is the biglaw resume credential still useful for getting into the Feds even if its not in an area that many agencies specialize in? For example, I'm in a biglaw litigation group where the subject matter is not covered by federal agencies (as far as I'm aware), as opposed to a biglaw attorney practicing in white collar securities investigations or something. I think I would like to try and wind up with a fed agency down the road, but was not sure how much help, if any, just coming from a generic biglaw litigation group gives you. Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous User]

I can speak form my personal review of applicants (at my prior agency) that I looked favorably upon biglaw experience even if it wasn’t directly on point with my agency’s practice area. It might help you stick out enough to get an interview. Once I selected the candidates I wanted to interview, though, I already made a determination that they’re all qualified on paper. After that it’s just who I though would be the best fit. The biglaw credential is mostly signaling that the candidate can write well. Rarely do I (or anyone I know) take the time to actually read writing samples. Needless to say, writing well is a big deal in most federal jobs.

That being said, there are agencies that will only hire a specific skillset, but for everyone one of those there’s 10 other agencies that’ll be happy to give your application a solid look. I’m now working for the DOJ, which was always a dream of mine even before law school, but at the end of the day, GS14/15 at the DOJ pays the same as GS14/15 with any other agency.

[The Avatar]

Thank you everyone for the responses. To further contextualize, I'm at the DOJ and the bulk of my work right now is in national security, immigration, and administrative law. I am working on important national cases because immigration in particular is a hot topic. I suppose this is where I was meant to start my career as I was never a huge Biglaw or Bust guy anyways, but there in the back of my mind I do have the lingering feeling of "what if" regarding a career in corporate/commercial law.

[objctnyrhnr]

Thank you everyone for the responses. To further contextualize, I'm at the DOJ and the bulk of my work right now is in national security, immigration, and administrative law. I am working on important national cases because immigration in particular is a hot topic. I suppose this is where I was meant to start my career as I was never a huge Biglaw or Bust guy anyways, but there in the back of my mind I do have the lingering feeling of "what if" regarding a career in corporate/commercial law.

I might be in the minority here but if I were you, I’d be looking for a clerkship to begin after you log two years there then I’d look to lateral to junior-ish biglaw position after the clerkship. Easier said than done of course, but if you succeed, after a couple years in biglaw you’ll be the whole package (and have some money in your wallet). Can likely write your ticket back to govt after that, if that’s what you wanna do. In a slightly different order, that’s been my path and I’m very happy with it. If you stay out of biglaw for too long (4-5 years), no matter how legit your govt position is, it’ll be considerably more difficult to ever get in.

[Anonymous User]

(One of the previous anons who also opted out of biglaw)

Given the work you are doing at the DoJ, it really seems to me that the answer here hinges on your long term plans. My sense is a few years in big law are going to be less impactful if you specialize in national security issues or federal immigration work. If you like those fields and are happy making a career out of them, I'm just skeptical that 2-3 years of general lit in a V10 somewhere is going to really make much of a difference in your career. (This is probably less true for just general admin law where there are practice groups in biglaw, and a few years in one of those groups would probably be a nice resume item.)

I think what objctnyrhnr is describing is the best way to maintain flexibility in your career for longer. If that's important to you, then you might want to consider grabbing a few years of biglaw.

At least that was how I thought about my decision after talking with people who had more experience / mentors. I weighed that flexibility against just starting at some place where I could build a long term career doing something I felt more comfortable with than biglaw. (Of course if I hate it I'm going to have to hustle and probably try to get back on the biglaw track, but that was a risk I was comfortable with.)

Do you have a sense of where you want to be in 5-10 years careerwise?

[The Avatar]

(One of the previous anons who also opted out of biglaw)

Given the work you are doing at the DoJ, it really seems to me that the answer here hinges on your long term plans. My sense is a few years in big law are going to be less impactful if you specialize in national security issues or federal immigration work. If you like those fields and are happy making a career out of them, I'm just skeptical that 2-3 years of general lit in a V10 somewhere is going to really make much of a difference in your career. (This is probably less true for just general admin law where there are practice groups in biglaw, and a few years in one of those groups would probably be a nice resume item.)

I think what objctnyrhnr is describing is the best way to maintain flexibility in your career for longer. If that's important to you, then you might want to consider grabbing a few years of biglaw.

At least that was how I thought about my decision after talking with people who had more experience / mentors. I weighed that flexibility against just starting at some place where I could build a long term career doing something I felt more comfortable with than biglaw. (Of course if I hate it I'm going to have to hustle and probably try to get back on the biglaw track, but that was a risk I was comfortable with.)

Do you have a sense of where you want to be in 5-10 years careerwise?

I'm open to working in the public sector long-term, whether that is in my current role in the feds or elsewhere (working for the UN or World Bank is a dream of mine).

I would also try to make the transition into corporate immigration and labour and employment in the private sector (at least for a few years to get the experience). I've interviewed at Fragomen, which is the largest corporate immigration firm in the world. I'd look to work there or the Big 4 accounting firms that specialize in tax and corporate immigration law. In the long-term, I have plans to do an MBA or MPP at a top school and move into management consulting at the MBB firms (McKinsey, BCG, Bain).

[nealric]

The only time I’d advise someone to take a firm over the feds is if they’re considering a spot with maybe the VA or SSA that only allows attorneys to ladder to GS12 or 13. Any attorney gig with ladder to GS14, 15, or something better than the two is the dream.

I have a friend from school who made it to GS14 at the VA after about 8 years.

[Anonymous User]

The only time I’d advise someone to take a firm over the feds is if they’re considering a spot with maybe the VA or SSA that only allows attorneys to ladder to GS12 or 13. Any attorney gig with ladder to GS14, 15, or something better than the two is the dream.

I have a friend from school who made it to GS14 at the VA after about 8 years.

I guess that’s possible but at my prior agency I was GS14 when I was 4 years out from law school. The VA (board of veteran appeals, not OGC) and the SSA are notoriously low paying compared to other agencies. Most 0905 attorney positions get you to GS14 very quickly (3-4 years) and then there are even better ones that ladder to GS15 non-supervisory spots.

[Anonymous User]

The only time I’d advise someone to take a firm over the feds is if they’re considering a spot with maybe the VA or SSA that only allows attorneys to ladder to GS12 or 13. Any attorney gig with ladder to GS14, 15, or something better than the two is the dream.

I have a friend from school who made it to GS14 at the VA after about 8 years.

I guess that’s possible but at my prior agency I was GS14 when I was 4 years out from law school. The VA (board of veteran appeals, not OGC) and the SSA are notoriously low paying compared to other agencies. Most 0905 attorney positions get you to GS14 very quickly (3-4 years) and then there are even better ones that ladder to GS15 non-supervisory spots.

Just stepping in to correct the last point as I am at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. We start attorneys at 11 and they reach 14 in 4 years. (11 to 12, 12 to 13-1, 13-1 to 13-2, 13-2 to 14).