Clerked. Didn't get lit. Golden handcuffs? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Probably outing myself but here it goes.

CCN grad. District court clerkship right after law school. Nothing notable about judge or district.

Returned to my summer firm, a major office of a V10. Had positive summer reviews in litigation. Received clerkship bonus before learning practice area, put bonus entirely into my loans. Bonus had standard big law terms, including a one year term of employment.

Then learned I've been placed into a transactional group. Everyone in the group seems nice but not what I want to do. My (uninformed) impression is that litigation is very fully staffed, and that this wasn't (necessarily) anyone's fault or anything. Still would have preferred to hear about this in January, but what can you do.Yes, I agree that having a job is better than no job and that this is a first world problem.

Should I start applying elsewhere now? I am worried that applying to jobs now would be counter-productive, because it may signal that I don't take my contractual obligations seriously. On the other hand, perhaps employers will understand that I got the short end of the stick here. How long do you think I have to wait?

If I do leave early, do people think the firm would strongly insist on the full pro-rated repayment? Maybe I could leave scott free after, say, 9 months instead of 12, given the awkwardness of the situation?

When do they start hiring laterals, anyway? Will probably agree to not be credited for my non-lit experience.

Idk guys, I was really surprised by this whole thing. General thoughts appreciated.

[2013]

I think most firms are 50% after 1 year for clawback. And, no, I don’t think they’ll let you off the hook because of this. You probably signed a contract saying you will pay it back. But you didn’t sign a contract saying that you are to be a litigation associate.

Given how slow litigation has generally been at many firms, I doubt that you’ll have much success lateraling unless you’re willing to trade down (probably lower V100).

[Anonymous User]

I'm a litigation associate at a V10 firm. (I write that to explain why I may have some relevant insight and also to to note explicitly that I've included identifying personal information that merits anonymizing this post.)

I think you're right to look for a job now. The firm's behavior is unusual; I've never heard anything like it. Even assuming you haven't spoken to someone at the firm about this---if you haven't done so yet, you should reach out to litigation partners you worked with during the summer and tell them, tactfully, that although you're grateful to be back, you expected and want to be in the firm's litigation practice---your early departure will come as no surprise to the firm.

Once you have an offer in hand and you're ready to leave, you should first speak to the partner you trust most about your clerkship bonus concern. (That partner may be a litigation partner. And by trust most, I mean just that: As someone who only recently joined the firm full time, you probably don't know too many partners well, so speak to whoever you know best, even if you don't have a personal relationship with that partner.)

If the firm tries to make you repay the bonus, realize that the firm has chosen to screw you over a small amount of money (for the firm) and burn its relationship with you. Explain that (i) paying back the bonus will put you in a tough spot in terms of liquidity because you're repaying your loans and (ii) your law school's career services office, law school friends, judge, and clerkship network will be dismayed when they learn about the firm's pettiness. The firm won't want to develop that kind of reputation.

[notinbiglaw]

This happens pretty often actually.

You will have to repay the bonus but you probably can work out some kind of payment plan.

[cantdecide]

I haven't explicitly heard of any firms doing this before, but maybe, given the circumstances, your lateral firm would be willing to help you pay back the prorated amount?

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

If they're offering a decent transactional group [not something super niche or that no one wants] then at least consider taking it.

Lit is slow across the industry. You can go elsewhere for lit, but it might not even be a V20. How much are you willing to give up in order to do litigation versus corporate?

I disagree with the person who thinks this will kill the firm's rep. It's a V10 firm. Latham still finds warm bodies every year, and they ruined hundreds of careers. You really think employing someone in the group they didn't want is gonna affect their recruiting?

[Pulsar]

If you really want to litigate (as a litigator, I'm jealous of corporate exit options), then just sucking it up and being a corporate lawyer isn't really an option. You might be able to switch after just one year, and it could reasonable to just look while toughing it out that long. But after that the window will be closed, because nobody wants to pay 4th/5th/etc. year salary and rates to somebody who doesn't have much lit experience.

Lateraling "down" isn't bad to a point. I wouldn't turn up my nose at V50ish firms (or boutiques) that will let you do what you want to do.

[UnfrozenCaveman]

Figure it out after you get an offer somewhere else doing what you want to do.

As someone mentioned, maybe other firm will pay, especially if you didn't go through a recruiter.

I would tend to think it would have some effect on the firm's rep, at least for firm's competing for outgoing federal clerks, which is a relatively small community.

[Anonymous User]

I was in a similar situation - wanted lit, got put in transactional. I ended up lateraling in order to do litigation, and wrote a bit about my experience here. Maybe you'll find this helpful (and I wasn't coming off a clerkship, which I imagine will make your lateral search easier, if that's what you decide to do).

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=296943

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

This thread is also a reminder to not pay down loans too aggressively. You can't get that money back, but you can always temporarily transition to lesser payments.

I've heard of people pumping 90% of their disposable biglaw income into loans, getting laid off, and then not even having enough to survive a job search on their own.

It's not dumb to sit on cash. That's liquidity, and you might need it.

[LBJ's Hair]

This thread is also a reminder to not pay down loans too aggressively. You can't get that money back, but you can always temporarily transition to lesser payments.

I've heard of people pumping 90% of their disposable biglaw income into loans, getting laid off, and then not even having enough to survive a job search on their own.

It's not dumb to sit on cash. That's liquidity, and you might need it.

Eh, I think the lesson to draw from that is "keep $10-$15K around for emergencies." Doesn't really go to the broader question of how quickly to pay down loans, which is kinda individualized.

[Anonymous User]

A colleague with a clerkship bonus left after 3 months at the firm. The firm never asked him to return the bonus. For reference, I am at a V15 in a major market (but not NYC).

[Anonymous User]

A colleague with a clerkship bonus left after 3 months at the firm. The firm never asked him to return the bonus. For reference, I am at a V15 in a major market (but not NYC).

On the flip side of this, I had a colleague who, after many years at a firm, burned out and resigned. The firm provided associates a modest tech allowance (like $1000 per year). When he quit the firm made him repay all of the reimbursements he'd received from the tech allowance during his last 3 months.

Without further info, I'd assume OP would be required to repay his clerkship bonus if he were to leave early, as specified in the contract he signed. The firm may let him off the hook but I wouldn't assume that at all. If I were in his shoes I'd stick out the year. (Very hard to lateral as a stub-year anyway.)

[whats an updog]

seems dumb and short sighted of the firm to put a clerk in transactional even if lit is full up or slow. unless clerks are a dime a dozen at the office (which maybe they are). aren't they basically just flushing the clerkship bonus by putting a former clerk in transactional?

idk just my impression, i don't have any advice really, but i would talk to a lit partner or counsel or someone about the placement if you haven't already

[Person1111]

If they're offering a decent transactional group [not something super niche or that no one wants] then at least consider taking it.

Lit is slow across the industry. You can go elsewhere for lit, but it might not even be a V20. How much are you willing to give up in order to do litigation versus corporate?

I disagree with the person who thinks this will kill the firm's rep. It's a V10 firm. Latham still finds warm bodies every year, and they ruined hundreds of careers. You really think employing someone in the group they didn't want is gonna affect their recruiting?

Super short-sighted. OP is going to be practicing for 30+ years. Going into corporate rather than litigation is a career-defining move and will be very difficult to reverse later. If this were "corporate or no job," that's one thing, but not being a litigator because your firm "might not even be a V20" or because litigation is currently slow is asinine.

OP, I would talk to someone internally at your firm and see if you can get placed in litigation. If you can't, then I would look to lateral ASAP. You may need to pay back your clerkship bonus but (a) you might be able to get your new firm to cover some/all of it and (b) it's likely you can work out a payment plan with your firm if you cannot do so.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Oh, my point is asinine? Ok, thanks for letting me know.

Instead of "not even a V20" -- I should have said "it might be a much worse firm." I mentioned Vault since OP said he's going to a V10 and therefore seems to be prestige conscious.

So I stand by my comment. Does OP really need to be a litigator? Most people don't last in biglaw, and corporate has a bigger universe of high paying exit opps.

In reality, law students want lit for the same reason they do clerkships or take HLS over substantial CCN money: because they think it's more prestigious. They're likely not going to court at a huge V10 and the work isn't any more interesting.

[Anonymous User]

Oh, my point is asinine? Ok, thanks for letting me know.

Instead of "not even a V20" -- I should have said "it might be a much worse firm." I mentioned Vault since OP said he's going to a V10 and therefore seems to be prestige conscious.

So I stand by my comment. Does OP really need to be a litigator? Most people don't last in biglaw, and corporate has a bigger universe of high paying exit opps.

In reality, law students want lit for the same reason they do clerkships or take HLS over substantial CCN money: because they think it's more prestigious. They're likely not going to court at a huge V10 and the work isn't any more interesting.

I'm the anon above who lateraled from corporate to litigation, so I've worked in both types of law and can confidently say that prestige is hardly the only reason why people choose litigation over corporate. They're almost two entirely different jobs. I can see why certain people may be drawn to each depending on their strengths, personality traits, and what their long-term goals are, but the idea that litigation is just corporate with prestige is incredibly off-the-mark.

OP, if you know you want to do litigation, don't settle for transactional. At my old firm, a number of us got put in transactional when we wanted litigation, and some found it not so bad and they stuck it out, and seem reasonably happy. If you find that you actually don't mind corporate work and can see yourself doing it for the entirety of your career, then by all means stay. But being a lawyer, especially at a V10, means putting in a ton of hours. You're going to spend a lot of the time of your life in this field, so you should at least not hate what you do. And yeah, you might not go to court a ton at a V10, and some of the early work might be boring, but it makes a huge difference whether you're working on a case or a deal. Even when I'm doing doc review, I'm so much more engaged with the cases that I'm on than I was on any of the deals I worked on, because I'm much more interested in litigation. These mundane or uninteresting tasks are still much better for me than the mundane corporate tasks, and I'm very glad I didn't settle for something that made me unhappy. I recommend you take the same approach.

Finally, as someone mentioned above, your career is gonna span multiple decades. The work you're doing at a V10 might not reflect the work you're doing 5 years from now, so I definitely wouldn't take the "all tasks at a V10 are boring so who cares what group you're in" approach.

[Anonymous User]

We should make a running list of firms that pull this nonsense.

Mine does NOT have a clawback policy w/r/t clerkship bonuses...

but after clerkships and even secondments, associates are placed in random groups for months or even a year or two, before they get pissed off and lateral--always "up," so IDK WTF my firm is thinking.

[LBJ's Hair]

We should make a running list of firms that pull this nonsense.

Mine does NOT have a clawback policy w/r/t clerkship bonuses...

but after clerkships and even secondments, associates are placed in random groups for months or even a year or two, before they get pissed off and lateral--always "up," so IDK WTF my firm is thinking.

Maybe they don't need more litigators?

Totally understand why OP's pissed. Also understand why a law firm that doesn't have 2,000 hours worth of billable litigation hours doesn't want to pay someone $200,000 a year to do pro bono work and write articles.

Best for both parties for him/her to move on

[Wild Card]

We should make a running list of firms that pull this nonsense.

Mine does NOT have a clawback policy w/r/t clerkship bonuses...

but after clerkships and even secondments, associates are placed in random groups for months or even a year or two, before they get pissed off and lateral--always "up," so IDK WTF my firm is thinking.

Maybe they don't need more litigators?

Totally understand why OP's pissed. Also understand why a law firm that doesn't have 2,000 hours worth of billable litigation hours doesn't want to pay someone $200,000 a year to do pro bono work and write articles.

Best for both parties for him/her to move on

I don't know whether you are a boomer or a Gen-X boomer bootlicker. It's a given that corporations can treat their employees however they want because they are all at will. The issue is firms giving employees adequate notice so that these employees can order their lives and also make as much profit for the firms as possible.

It makes no sense for a firm to hire back someone, assign that person to a random practice, pay that person a high salary, and then have the person leave after a few months out of dissatisfaction.

[LBJ's Hair]

We should make a running list of firms that pull this nonsense.

Mine does NOT have a clawback policy w/r/t clerkship bonuses...

but after clerkships and even secondments, associates are placed in random groups for months or even a year or two, before they get pissed off and lateral--always "up," so IDK WTF my firm is thinking.

Maybe they don't need more litigators?

Totally understand why OP's pissed. Also understand why a law firm that doesn't have 2,000 hours worth of billable litigation hours doesn't want to pay someone $200,000 a year to do pro bono work and write articles.

Best for both parties for him/her to move on

I don't know whether you are a boomer or a Gen-X boomer bootlicker. It's a given that corporations can treat their employees however they want because they are all at will. The issue is firms giving employees adequate notice so that these employees can order their lives and also make as much profit for the firms as possible.

It makes no sense for a firm to hire back someone, assign that person to a random practice, pay that person a high salary, and then have the person leave after a few months out of dissatisfaction.

"bootlicker"?

[Anonymous User]

This is Simpson Thacher most likely - they have pressured lit associates to go into funds in recent times

[Anonymous User]

For most of the large firms, the 1st years are little more than cogs that they expect to leave within a few years. So while being in your chosen group may be best for your long-term satisfaction and trajectory, it may not be what helps the firm most in the short-term. And their short-term needs are going to trump your long-term career development. Some firms are much better about this than others. Usually, its the firms with lower leverage (i.e. fewer associates per partner). In those firms, the turnover is usually lower, people get more substance earlier, etc. so the firm has more incentive to think about your long-term satisfaction as well. So they tend to put more effort into slotting you into your chosen group (assuming there is an opening, assuming it makes sense for the firm, etc.)

As for what you should do now, I was sort of in your situation. I wanted to do a specific niche group within litigation, but was placed into general lit instead. I had no desire to do general lit, though I at least gave it a fair shot. The key is to make a switch as soon as you can. You will find that, in the legal industry, you get 1 early mulligan to get yourself onto the right track. But once the substantive gap builds up too much, your ability to switch tracks is over. Its one thing to switch within litigation groups. But going from corporate to lit means it needs to be done very soon. Honestly, from a long-term perspective, the bonus should be a non-issue here since it would be silly to accept a career path you don't want just to retain a 1st year bonus. If they try and claw it back, its petty of them, and should merely be confirmation that you weren't in a good firm to begin with.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This sucks and if I were in your shoes I would be speaking with a recruiter ASAP. For what it’s worth, I’m at a big firm in NYC and here (and at other firms) the attorneys choose what group they want to join rather than the other way around. I think this is an important thing to keep in mind when you choose a firm. A friend of mine had the same thing happen—she was put in a group she didn’t want to be in. So she lateraled with less than a year’s experience.

[Idontwanttomakeaname]

This sucks and if I were in your shoes I would be speaking with a recruiter ASAP. For what it’s worth, I’m at a big firm in NYC and here (and at other firms) the attorneys choose what group they want to join rather than the other way around. I think this is an important thing to keep in mind when you choose a firm. A friend of mine had the same thing happen—she was put in a group she didn’t want to be in. So she lateraled with less than a year’s experience.

I agree that you should be looking into lateral options but I don't think you should be talking to a recruiter. When you go into a firm via a recruiter, the firm has to pay the recruiter, which makes you more expensive to hire, and you only see positions that have been posted.

I have a friend who was in a similar-ish situation (wanted to do RE, got put into securities right out of law school) and what he did was talk to friends at other firms, who helped him line up interviews. So what I would do is talk to law school friends who are in lit at firms you would consider joining and ask them to help you out. I would talk to a recruiter if that doesn't get you anywhere.