Corp or Lit as a Junior Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm guessing there are threads on this already but I could use some advice. I summered at a V10 and kind of messed up. I asked for both corporate and litigation assignments because I didn't know which department to pick after law school. The firm tried to give me corporate assignments, but they weren't very real, it seemed kind of manufactured for summers. So now I really need to pick either lit or corp, and still don't have a good sense of real, day-to-day life as a corp associate. (I think I'd work in Big Law for at least 2-3 years.)

I know that various corp practice areas (M&A, Credit, Cap Markets, Restructuring) are different from one another, but really, how different are they from the POV of a junior associate? Isn't it all, essentially, either "turning comments" or "doing due diligence" or making sure documents are consistent with one another? If so, I'd prefer litigation, where you can use critical thinking skills to build a case, write briefs, decide which cases to use as precedent, get to use the skills developed in law school. (I'm not saying corporate associates don't have skills, just that it seems to me that you don't need to have gone to law school to read contracts and look at reps-and-warranties to copy-paste things on docs or any other corporate practice work.)

One thing to keep in mind is that my firm is large, so maybe I can do "pro bono" litigation work even as a corporate associate. Is that unrealistic?

Any thoughts?

[wwwcol]

my only comment is that NY lit as a junior is basically various types of doc review (reviewing for relevance, reviewing to prep a partner for a depo, reviewing for the summary judgment motion that someone else will write, etc) and other similar menial tasks like finding citations for proposition X. So don’t choose lit bc of the “critical thinking” and “writing” opportunities

[Anonymous User]

I know that various corp practice areas (M&A, Credit, Cap Markets, Restructuring) are different from one another, but really, how different are they from the POV of a junior associate? Isn't it all, essentially, either "turning comments" or "doing due diligence" or making sure documents are consistent with one another?

Yes. Junior corporate work is all just project management.

If so, I'd prefer litigation, where you can use critical thinking skills to build a case, write briefs, decide which cases to use as precedent, get to use the skills developed in law school.

Think more along the lines of legal research, writing long memos for partners/senior associates to read and ultimately scrap most of your writing, and dropping everything on a Friday evening because you now have 100 cases to read before Sunday (real story).

One thing to keep in mind is that my firm is large, so maybe I can do "pro bono" litigation work even as a corporate associate. Is that unrealistic?

Pro bono lit work will mostly be along the lines of things like housing court or Project Citizenship stuff.

I think if you're really looking for ownership, adding value, and ability to take lead on stuff, lit is not the group where you're going to be able to do that. I find corporate gives you more opportunities to take charge of a deal/project.

[Anonymous User]

I know that various corp practice areas (M&A, Credit, Cap Markets, Restructuring) are different from one another, but really, how different are they from the POV of a junior associate? Isn't it all, essentially, either "turning comments" or "doing due diligence" or making sure documents are consistent with one another?

Yes. Junior corporate work is all just project management.

If so, I'd prefer litigation, where you can use critical thinking skills to build a case, write briefs, decide which cases to use as precedent, get to use the skills developed in law school.

Think more along the lines of legal research, writing long memos for partners/senior associates to read and ultimately scrap most of your writing, and dropping everything on a Friday evening because you now have 100 cases to read before Sunday (real story).

One thing to keep in mind is that my firm is large, so maybe I can do "pro bono" litigation work even as a corporate associate. Is that unrealistic?

Pro bono lit work will mostly be along the lines of things like housing court or Project Citizenship stuff.

I think if you're really looking for ownership, adding value, and ability to take lead on stuff, lit is not the group where you're going to be able to do that. I find corporate gives you more opportunities to take charge of a deal/project.

This is helpful, thank you. A follow-up question: in terms of ownership, adding value, and ability to take lead, are there certain corporate areas that might actually allow that sooner? Or would that depend too heavily on the firm itself and how it organizes its various corp groups?

My worry is that, on the one hand, I don't know enough about corporate to say no to it now (I wouldn't be able to go back to it later in my career). so it's a fear of missing out. ON the other hand, the worry is that litigation at a big firm is also relatively menial work. Just a matter of which is less menial/deploys the skills you learn in law school, I guess.

[JHP]

This is helpful, thank you. A follow-up question: in terms of ownership, adding value, and ability to take lead, are there certain corporate areas that might actually allow that sooner? Or would that depend too heavily on the firm itself and how it organizes its various corp groups?

My worry is that, on the one hand, I don't know enough about corporate to say no to it now (I wouldn't be able to go back to it later in my career). so it's a fear of missing out. ON the other hand, the worry is that litigation at a big firm is also relatively menial work. Just a matter of which is less menial/deploys the skills you learn in law school, I guess.

Definitely depends on the firm you're at, the way the group is structured and who you end up working with. M&A: some partners and mid/senior associates may be more willing for you to take ownership of diligence, schedules and minor communication with the client while others may want to have more control over the situation and will just dole out your assignments on an as-needed basis. Capital markets: same story here, though I do think there is room here for demonstration, on your part, of initiative and preparedness since you can always be uber prepared by having researched some of the relevant securities rules beforehand to answer/ask questions intelligently and have researched precedent public filings, if relevant.

You do need to ask yourself what your long-term goal is. It sounds like you don't want to stay in big law, so what do you envision for yourself in 5, 7, and 10 years? Are you working at the government? If so, what department/agency, and what are you doing? Are you in-house? If so, then are you interested in particular industries or types of companies? Lit has different exit options and different futures than corporate folks.

[Anonymous User]

You do need to ask yourself what your long-term goal is. It sounds like you don't want to stay in big law, so what do you envision for yourself in 5, 7, and 10 years? Are you working at the government? If so, what department/agency, and what are you doing? Are you in-house? If so, then are you interested in particular industries or types of companies? Lit has different exit options and different futures than corporate folks.

I think long-term the goal would be GC in-house, maybe in the tech sector, or maybe teaching. I'm kind of risk-averse, and I don't mind doing Big Law for a few years. I just can't see doing it long-term. I guess what I want to know if what I'd miss out on if I didn't do NY corporate law for 2-3 years out of law school, and if I'd regret that once it's too late. (That's why I'm thinking I should have pushed harder over the summer to get real corp assignments.)

[JHP]

You do need to ask yourself what your long-term goal is. It sounds like you don't want to stay in big law, so what do you envision for yourself in 5, 7, and 10 years? Are you working at the government? If so, what department/agency, and what are you doing? Are you in-house? If so, then are you interested in particular industries or types of companies? Lit has different exit options and different futures than corporate folks.

I think long-term the goal would be GC in-house, maybe in the tech sector, or maybe teaching. I'm kind of risk-averse, and I don't mind doing Big Law for a few years. I just can't see doing it long-term. I guess what I want to know if what I'd miss out on if I didn't do NY corporate law for 2-3 years out of law school, and if I'd regret that once it's too late. (That's why I'm thinking I should have pushed harder over the summer to get real corp assignments.)

If the goal is to be a GC, while being a litigator certainly does not discount you from being a GC, I don't think it's the easier or more commonly taken path to GC. GCs should be familiar with corporate governance at the very least, which you will get in the corporate side of things. Companies generally aren't hiring litigators to lead their legal departments--it happens, but I think you'll have to be sure to have the requisite business and corporate-legal fluencies to make you of value as a litigator entering the in-house environment. I"m also not sure what the litigator-->in-house market looks like for people who are only in big law for 3 years.

One thing to consider is whether your firm is big enough that, if after a year of doing lit work, you really hate it, you can ask to switch to the corporate side. I know people who have done so at my firm and I don't think it was a huge deal. They just had to go through the politics of making sure there was enough space/a need for them and that they communicated it respectfully to their groups, etc.

[Elston Gunn]

If you genuinely don’t have a preference, you should do corporate. Definitely a more marketable skill set. The reason not to do corporate is that you really like litigation and/or hate corporate work.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

I'm guessing there are threads on this already but I could use some advice. I summered at a V10 and kind of messed up. I asked for both corporate and litigation assignments because I didn't know which department to pick after law school. The firm tried to give me corporate assignments, but they weren't very real, it seemed kind of manufactured for summers. So now I really need to pick either lit or corp, and still don't have a good sense of real, day-to-day life as a corp associate. (I think I'd work in Big Law for at least 2-3 years.)

I know that various corp practice areas (M&A, Credit, Cap Markets, Restructuring) are different from one another, but really, how different are they from the POV of a junior associate? Isn't it all, essentially, either "turning comments" or "doing due diligence" or making sure documents are consistent with one another? If so, I'd prefer litigation, where you can use critical thinking skills to build a case, write briefs, decide which cases to use as precedent, get to use the skills developed in law school. (I'm not saying corporate associates don't have skills, just that it seems to me that you don't need to have gone to law school to read contracts and look at reps-and-warranties to copy-paste things on docs or any other corporate practice work.)

One thing to keep in mind is that my firm is large, so maybe I can do "pro bono" litigation work even as a corporate associate. Is that unrealistic?

Any thoughts?

Just note that you've essentially described the worst parts of corporate work and the best parts of litigation. Seems other posts ITT are meant to disabuse you of that notion.

[PMan99]

I"m also not sure what the litigator-->in-house market looks like for people who are only in big law for 3 years.

Virtually nonexistent, particularly compared to the amount of corporate in-house opportunities that start to become available at that time. This holds less true for a practice like labor & employment generally or some IP work where you have a mix of litigation and counseling work.

[Samark45]

I'm guessing there are threads on this already but I could use some advice. I summered at a V10 and kind of messed up. I asked for both corporate and litigation assignments because I didn't know which department to pick after law school. The firm tried to give me corporate assignments, but they weren't very real, it seemed kind of manufactured for summers. So now I really need to pick either lit or corp, and still don't have a good sense of real, day-to-day life as a corp associate. (I think I'd work in Big Law for at least 2-3 years.)

I know that various corp practice areas (M&A, Credit, Cap Markets, Restructuring) are different from one another, but really, how different are they from the POV of a junior associate? Isn't it all, essentially, either "turning comments" or "doing due diligence" or making sure documents are consistent with one another? If so, I'd prefer litigation, where you can use critical thinking skills to build a case, write briefs, decide which cases to use as precedent, get to use the skills developed in law school. (I'm not saying corporate associates don't have skills, just that it seems to me that you don't need to have gone to law school to read contracts and look at reps-and-warranties to copy-paste things on docs or any other corporate practice work.)

One thing to keep in mind is that my firm is large, so maybe I can do "pro bono" litigation work even as a corporate associate. Is that unrealistic?

Any thoughts?

Just note that you've essentially described the worst parts of corporate work and the best parts of litigation. Seems other posts ITT are meant to disabuse you of that notion.

I'd love to hear about the best parts of corporate work, please!

[JHP]

I'm guessing there are threads on this already but I could use some advice. I summered at a V10 and kind of messed up. I asked for both corporate and litigation assignments because I didn't know which department to pick after law school. The firm tried to give me corporate assignments, but they weren't very real, it seemed kind of manufactured for summers. So now I really need to pick either lit or corp, and still don't have a good sense of real, day-to-day life as a corp associate. (I think I'd work in Big Law for at least 2-3 years.)

I know that various corp practice areas (M&A, Credit, Cap Markets, Restructuring) are different from one another, but really, how different are they from the POV of a junior associate? Isn't it all, essentially, either "turning comments" or "doing due diligence" or making sure documents are consistent with one another? If so, I'd prefer litigation, where you can use critical thinking skills to build a case, write briefs, decide which cases to use as precedent, get to use the skills developed in law school. (I'm not saying corporate associates don't have skills, just that it seems to me that you don't need to have gone to law school to read contracts and look at reps-and-warranties to copy-paste things on docs or any other corporate practice work.)

One thing to keep in mind is that my firm is large, so maybe I can do "pro bono" litigation work even as a corporate associate. Is that unrealistic?

Any thoughts?

Just note that you've essentially described the worst parts of corporate work and the best parts of litigation. Seems other posts ITT are meant to disabuse you of that notion.

I'd love to hear about the best parts of corporate work, please!

With the usual disclaimers of: depends on the firm, depends on the group, depends on your partners/team, depends on the market, depends on your client, and depends on your personality, etc.

I find corporate work valuable because it makes me feel valuable and (usually) needed by the client. I've been fortunate to work with mostly grateful and helpful clients who really look to us to reassure them and help them get something done. When a deal closes, especially a really Big Deal, I feel like I've brought value to the client at the end of the day to help them grow their business (vs. help them avoid paying out millions in litigation, which is also rewarding, but corporate deals do not have the same looming shadow that litigation does, even in the light of a grateful client in the event of a favorable decision/settlement). Corporate is more about the schmoozing and client relationship, which can lend itself to feeling more collaborative and outside GC-ish. There is tremendous learning and long-term benefit to being on a team that gets to know an ongoing client very well--you get to know their execs, their business, their industry, etc.

There are more perks for corporate folks. I don't think (as many, if any) lit folks get holiday thank you gifts from clients or escrow agents/other intermediaries, we can charge late evening food and Ubers more readily to clients than lit folks, and other little things like that.

I can't speak for lit, but corporate-wise, I think that even when the deal market is slow, you can generally still find other work to do in other groups who need help (i.e. ongoing company work), so I don't think being stressed about making hours is as much of an issue. I imagine it's not as easy to just "jump onto" an ongoing lit team and help out so that you can get some hours (cost to the client, more people involved in the litigation, practical difficulties in onboarding onto an ongoing lit team, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

^^^ This is very helpful, thank you! But it also makes my decision a little harder because I had been leaning towards litigation! I am by nature not an extrovert who enjoys "schmoozing" with clients or lots of calls or meetings (I'd rather tackle a complex legal issue and write about it). But it seems both in terms of safety net and meaningful work earlier on, corporate may be the way to go. Ugh, tough choice!

[Anonymous User]

The responses here have been good, I'll only add that the exit options for corporate shouldn't be the main reason you'd choose that practice. The reason being that sure, you have a better chance to go in-house, only to continue disliking what you do for a living (if that turns out to be the case). My advice is to follow the group that matches best what interests you in the law in the first place. Here, it seems to be reading cases, and perhaps cite-checking/writing, whereas corporate is more organizational (but still law -- just making sure terms are market or negotiating over specific terms/items). If you like the idea of pro bono opportunities bc it'd let you research and write, I'd suggest just going into litigation in the first place.

It's not the end of the world if you choose something you end up not liking. I'd pay attention your first year to what the senior associates and partners do, as well as what folks that leave your group go on to do. If you don't like that future, or you hate the work, switch. It seems easier to switch from lit to corporate as a first year. It is harder, from what I've seen, to go from corporate to lit. If it is difficult, then I've known folks who left to clerk for a year, which made that transition a lot easier. My biggest advice is to switch as early as possible if you've realized you made the wrong call.

My two cents is that it seems like you like litigation, so I'm not sure why you are trying to convince yourself to do corporate.

[Anonymous User]

My two cents is that it seems like you like litigation, so I'm not sure why you are trying to convince yourself to do corporate.

Thanks, your post was helpful. The short answer to this last Q is: I'm not sure I've got an accurate sense of what doing corp work actually involves, so I'm worried I'll miss out on something I won't have the chance to do, and might actually like/will be better for me. But, as I'm gathering, there's a chance to switch up from lit to corp even after making an initial decision, and anyway, I guess there's not much I can learn about corp at this point beyond the 40,000-foot perspective.

[Anonymous User]

Do what you want. You're going to have a long career; you shouldn't waste it doing something you don't enjoy. If you're completely unbiased, I would go to corporate.

[gregfootball2001]

When a deal closes, especially a really Big Deal, I feel like I've brought value to the client at the end of the day to help them grow their business (vs. help them avoid paying out millions in litigation, which is also rewarding, but corporate deals do not have the same looming shadow that litigation does, even in the light of a grateful client in the event of a favorable decision/settlement).

I'd like to emphasize this part of JHP's response. I've done both litigation and corporate, and the atmosphere is just different. At the end of the day, no one wins from litigation. The options are (1) to win your case and pay out a ton of money (and time, and energy) to do so, (2) to lose, or (3) to come to a settlement that both sides kinda hate (again paying in time, money, and energy). Except in rare circumstances, no one is truly happy with any of those outcomes. In corporate (depending on the group, of course), the parties want to come together and get something done. They're excited to come to an agreement. The client is happier to hear from you, and opposing counsel at least tries to be collaborative instead of enemies. It's just a different feeling, and frankly, I prefer it.