Top Law Schools

What firms don't let you enter your preferred practice group? NY specifically...is this a common thing?

Its all about need of the group and your availability.

It varies. The narrower your interest (e.g., you want sports law, or T&E, or tax, or white collar, or arbitration) the higher the risk you won't get your preferred practice area. The broader your interest ("corporate" or "litigation"), the likelier you'll get your choice, barring a 2008 rerun where associates were shifted willy-nilly wherever there was work, if they weren't laid off or no-offered.

The exception, as usual, is if you have an advanced STEM degree and are targeting IP. You are pretty safe to land IP in that case. (If you don't have an advanced STEM degree this exception doesn't apply.)

QContinuum wrote:It varies. The narrower your interest (e.g., you want sports law, or T&E, or tax, or white collar, or arbitration) the higher the risk you won't get your preferred practice area. The broader your interest ("corporate" or "litigation"), the likelier you'll get your choice, barring a 2008 rerun where associates were shifted willy-nilly wherever there was work, if they weren't laid off or no-offered.

The exception, as usual, is if you have an advanced STEM degree and are targeting IP. You are pretty safe to land IP in that case. (If you don't have an advanced STEM degree this exception doesn't apply.)

I'm not sure this is a great rule of thumb. In the lit world, I think whether you are likely to get your practice area preference will depend a lot on whether that area presents an arbitrage opportunity with greater demand for associates than supply or the opposite. Part of this will also depend on where your firm finds itself in the market (much bread and butter general commercial lit has moved down market and much of the very top-end work is getting taking by a relatively small number of high-end litigation firms and boutiques). Appellate lit is a great example of low demand and high supply. Lots of people want to do it, but it's actually a relatively small and unprofitable corner of Biglaw practice. General lit is in the same boat, though the competition is less extreme. It isn't a growth area (at many firms it's shrinking or stagnant) but lots of people want to do it.

White collar, on the other hand, has a huge demand for bodies at lots of different firms because of the size and scope of investigations work. In lawyer-hours churned and money spent, it's a massive chunk of what passes for lit in BigLaw nowadays. IP is kinda in the same boat as white collar—far from being a niche (although it is a kind of substantive niche), it's also a large component of Biglaw lit practice today (this is why so many of the top lit firms have big practices in these areas). And if you're looking at a firm that doesn't require a STEM degree, these practices are often looking to add bodies as well (and cannot find enough sufficiently qualified STEM degree holders).

It also has to be said that certain "niche" practice areas experience a chronic mismatch but actually have a steady need for associates (depending on the firm and the size of the practice group). Tax, bankruptcy, ERISA/exec comp fall into this bucket . If you're interested in one of these and you're decently qualified, you're likely to get your choice. This is probably true of other transactional practices as well, but that isn't a world I know well.

[Edited to move a misplaced parenthetical remark.]

BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Appellate lit is a great example of low demand and high supply. Lots of people want to do it, but it's actually a relatively small and unprofitable corner of Biglaw practice. General lit is in the same boat, though the competition is less extreme. It isn't a growth area (at many firms it's shrinking or stagnant) but lots of people want to do it.

White collar, on the other hand, has a huge demand for bodies at lots of different firms because of the size and scope of investigations work. In lawyer-hours churned and money spent, it's a massive chunk of what passes for lit in BigLaw nowadays. IP is kinda in the same boat as white collar—far from being a niche (although it is a kind of substantive niche), it's also a large component of Biglaw lit practice today (this is why so many of the top lit firms have big practices in these areas). And if you're looking at a firm that doesn't require a STEM degree, these practices are often looking to add bodies as well (and cannot find enough sufficiently qualified STEM degree holders).

So basically you agree with me: General lit is easier to get than a niche practice like appellate. You disagree about white collar and IP lit. IMO you are half-right and half-wrong. I'm sure there are some firms that're starved for bodies in white collar and/or IP lit. At individual firms there's always going to be the odd mismatch between, as you say, supply and demand. At the firms with white collar practices I'm familiar with, though, white collar is absolutely not easy to get into; I have many friends who tried and failed. Maybe the demand is high, but the supply's even higher. At the very least, white collar seems to be tougher to get into than general lit.

Same with IP lit. I'm pretty familiar with the IP world, and can attest that generally it is difficult for non-STEMmers to get into IP lit (and believe me, plenty try - folks realize general lit is kinda a shrinking area, but IP lit is doing - comparatively - much better). You get a leg up on the competition if you have a STEM B.S., and are almost a lock if you have engineering work experience or an advanced STEM degree. So, sure, it's possible to get IP lit without a STEM background, but it's going to be tougher than getting general lit. And I understand it gets tougher without a STEM background every year. Many of the IP litigators without STEM backgrounds got in years ago, back when the practice area was still establishing itself as a distinct niche.

BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Tax, bankruptcy, ERISA/exec comp fall into this bucket . If you're interested in one of these and you're decently qualified, you're likely to get your choice. This is probably true of other transactional practices as well, but that isn't a world I know well.

I don't think it's right to say that tax is easy to get into, but you're right to point out that exec comp in particular, and bankruptcy to a somewhat lesser extent, tend to be more understaffed (that's why 3L openings are often in those practice areas). Exec comp just doesn't sound "sexy" to many.

I would say, don't count on getting litigation. Your chances at corporate are much better, but even corporate isn't a guarantee: you may end up in finance.

Wild Card wrote:I would say, don't count on getting litigation. Your chances at corporate are much better, but even corporate isn't a guarantee: you may end up in finance.

Isn't finance a subset of corporate? Or do you mean "M&A" when you say "corporate"?

Anonymous User wrote:What firms don't let you enter your preferred practice group? NY specifically...is this a common thing?

This is very common in some surprisingly prestigious firms... you should ask this question to like every single attorney you meet once you have an offer in hand. I know people at V20 firms who wanted litigation and then got stuck in the worst corporate group culture wise. I know of firms who stuff all the attorneys of color who need H-1B visas into the most toxic group because they know 50% of them will not get it so they are disposable.

Shit like this can break you not only mentally, but set you back career wise. Be smart and look beyond the hype if any of this is important to you.

QContinuum wrote:

Wild Card wrote:I would say, don't count on getting litigation. Your chances at corporate are much better, but even corporate isn't a guarantee: you may end up in finance.

Isn't finance a subset of corporate? Or do you mean "M&A" when you say "corporate"?

Firms structure their practices differently. When I think of Corporate, I think of M&A and Capital Markets. When I think of Finance, I think of Bank Finance, Structured Finance, Real Estate Finance, Project Finance (i.e., finance).

M&A and Capital Markets are fancy, and lots of people want to do them. And there's a lot of money to be made for the firm from those groups. But those groups still can't hire everyone who wants to join.

QContinuum wrote: So basically you agree with me.

No. You made a broad statement that broad is better than narrow. That's not true. And don't miss the point with the appellate example—it's an example of mismatch, it hardly proves your rule (at best it's necessary but not sufficient). There are other unsexy niches that if someone showed interest in and summered at a firm with a decent sized practice group they would be easier to land than general lit (e.g., the kind of insurance coverage work that some Biglaw firms specialize in). That's enough to say that the broad>narrow advice is wrong and overly simplistic.

The rest is kind of a sideshow: I disagree that white collar is generally harder to get than general lit (thought it may be true at some firms), though I agree that the supply of associates is high for white collar since so many folks want to use it to get into government, demand remains high. For IP, I think it really depends on the firm—some (read: not the patent boutiques) are very open to having new lawyers join without tech backgrounds, there just aren't many who want to do IP work that don't have tech backgrounds.

Very real chance you don't get to try your preferred rotations at DPW. They try to give you at least 1 of the 2 but that's not really how it's advertised when you're going through summer recruiting. Most people want to try M&A and capital markets, usually only get one and are forced to do the other rotation in finance. The mentality there is "flourish where we plant you" (direct quote from orientation).

QContinuum wrote:

BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Appellate lit is a great example of low demand and high supply. Lots of people want to do it, but it's actually a relatively small and unprofitable corner of Biglaw practice. General lit is in the same boat, though the competition is less extreme. It isn't a growth area (at many firms it's shrinking or stagnant) but lots of people want to do it.

White collar, on the other hand, has a huge demand for bodies at lots of different firms because of the size and scope of investigations work. In lawyer-hours churned and money spent, it's a massive chunk of what passes for lit in BigLaw nowadays. IP is kinda in the same boat as white collar—far from being a niche (although it is a kind of substantive niche), it's also a large component of Biglaw lit practice today (this is why so many of the top lit firms have big practices in these areas). And if you're looking at a firm that doesn't require a STEM degree, these practices are often looking to add bodies as well (and cannot find enough sufficiently qualified STEM degree holders).

So basically you agree with me: General lit is easier to get than a niche practice like appellate. You disagree about white collar and IP lit. IMO you are half-right and half-wrong. I'm sure there are some firms that're starved for bodies in white collar and/or IP lit. At individual firms there's always going to be the odd mismatch between, as you say, supply and demand. At the firms with white collar practices I'm familiar with, though, white collar is absolutely not easy to get into; I have many friends who tried and failed. Maybe the demand is high, but the supply's even higher. At the very least, white collar seems to be tougher to get into than general lit.

Same with IP lit. I'm pretty familiar with the IP world, and can attest that generally it is difficult for non-STEMmers to get into IP lit (and believe me, plenty try - folks realize general lit is kinda a shrinking area, but IP lit is doing - comparatively - much better). You get a leg up on the competition if you have a STEM B.S., and are almost a lock if you have engineering work experience or an advanced STEM degree. So, sure, it's possible to get IP lit without a STEM background, but it's going to be tougher than getting general lit. And I understand it gets tougher without a STEM background every year. Many of the IP litigators without STEM backgrounds got in years ago, back when the practice area was still establishing itself as a distinct niche.

BlackAndOrange84 wrote:Tax, bankruptcy, ERISA/exec comp fall into this bucket . If you're interested in one of these and you're decently qualified, you're likely to get your choice. This is probably true of other transactional practices as well, but that isn't a world I know well.

I don't think it's right to say that tax is easy to get into, but you're right to point out that exec comp in particular, and bankruptcy to a somewhat lesser extent, tend to be more understaffed (that's why 3L openings are often in those practice areas). Exec comp just doesn't sound "sexy" to many.

But isn’t it true that not all STEM Bachelors are made equal in IP? Like, if you’re targeting a life sciences heavy practice with a B.S in Bio, the leg up won’t be huge. But as someone who majored in Physics in college I got a lot of interest and offers at my CCN from firms for 1L summer associate positions who had solid, broad IP lit practices. Eventually lost interest in the field but I always felt that I had a huge leg up over non-STEM and even my softer STEM peers,(the bio, bio-chem majors etc.).

I think a lot of the “narrow” fields are also very specialized. I know some tax and exec comp partners are very protective of their associates’ time even when business is slow. To a lesser extent, some anti trust groups too.

They just don’t want to get into a situation where their associates are busy with someone else when business picks up. And lol god forbid an exec comp associate just “volunteers” to stay on M&A team forever.

Wild Card wrote:I would say, don't count on getting litigation. Your chances at corporate are much better, but even corporate isn't a guarantee: you may end up in finance.

Your hatred of finance is a bit odd

It is impossible to answer this in the abstract since it will always come down to availability, workflows, staffing issues, recent departures, and a number of other factors. As a general matter, firms with high associate attrition have less of an incentive to get associates into their preferred practice groups. In the very large firms where 75% of the entering associate class is expected to be gone within 3-4 years, the firm inherently has a more short-term horizon in how they utilize associates. And that can manifest itself in simply assigning associates where hands are needed. Of course, being in a firm with low attrition and associate-friendly culture doesn't inherently mean you will end up in your preferred group. But the chances are much higher.

I am not going to call out my specific firm, but it was a large firm with a large 1st year class. And while some nominal effort was made to get folks into their preferred groups, it was largely just assigned based on which groups had big cases going in. In other words, it was a very short-term consideration. And rightly so, since almost all of my 1st year class was gone by the 4-year mark.

I lateraled to a firm that approaches things very differently and makes much more of an effort to get associates into their preferred groups. But that is because the 2nd firm was the kind of place where people actually stay long term for various reasons. And that typically starts with getting people into their preferred groups to set associates on the best track possible.

Many people (in some class years, most people) do not manage to get placed into their preferred practice groups at Shearman. Few even got placed into niche groups they were not interested in at all.

I'm interested in the discussion about the decline in general lit (and rise in IP lit). (I assume people mean "complex" commercial and securities litigation when they say general lit.)

I'm a mid-level associate at a V10 in New York, and we seem to be overwhelmed by the volume of general lit work. (That's generally something I'm happy about because I like general lit, but the hours have been punishing since I've started.) That is true across the litigation department: All associates complain loudly about being slammed and are constantly being staffed to new matters over their objections. A good share of those matters are investigations, but most are some variety of civil litigation.

So anyway: Are we an aberration, and is general lit in decline?

At my firm, the litigation associates claim to be consistently billing 40-50 hours a week. I hope it's true. Good for you. Better to be busy. That way, they can't fire you. Or rather, you can leave on your own terms.

Incidentally, I applied for entry-level lit positions at two V10s known for their exceptional litigation capabilities, and got dinged by both today.

At my firm (secondary market office of a NY-based firm), we have about 10-15 summers a year. We know pretty well going into summer recruiting about how many full-time associates each group will probably need (for example, 4 in corporate, 4 in litigation, 2 in finance, 2 in tax, etc.). We let summers rotate through 2-3 groups then ask their preference at the end of the summer.

I've noticed that if you express a strong interest in a particular practice group during your SA interview, you have a better chance of ending up in the that group. Probably a combination of you'll have a longer rotation with that group and people on the hiring committee will in the back of their mind informally slot you into that group (as long as you are otherwise a good fit and the work product checks out). The downside to this approach is that if your practice group preference doesn't line up with what we are looking for or we have other great candidates only interested in the same group, then you might not even get an SA offer.

Same principle seems to apply more broadly. The less picky you are on the front end, the more likely you will at least get an SA (for example, targeting specific markets) but you risk not getting the practice group or office location that you'd really like if you don't express your interest up front.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm interested in the discussion about the decline in general lit (and rise in IP lit). (I assume people mean "complex" commercial and securities litigation when they say general lit.)

I'm a mid-level associate at a V10 in New York, and we seem to be overwhelmed by the volume of general lit work. (That's generally something I'm happy about because I like general lit, but the hours have been punishing since I've started.) That is true across the litigation department: All associates complain loudly about being slammed and are constantly being staffed to new matters over their objections. A good share of those matters are investigations, but most are some variety of civil litigation.

So anyway: Are we an aberration, and is general lit in decline?

No and no. I don't think there's a general decline of lit, just that the available lit work is not being distributed the same way it was even 10 years ago. I'd think of it as a hollowing out of the middle rather than an general decline. Firms at the top of the litigation market (top Vault firms with strong lit practices and boutiques) are feasting on an increasing share of complex, high-end work, and lower ranked, regional midlaw firms are capturing an increasing amount of more routine commercial lit (folks I know in this situation are drowning in work, like you and your firm). It's the soft underbelly of biglaw, the 30–50 or so firms that aren't particularly distinguishable from one another but who charge biglaw rates who are really hurting. Clients find they get about the same quality of lawyering for much lower prices by engaging midlaw and regional firms for routine work.