Entertainment Lawyer taking Q’s Forum

[EntmntAttny]

Hi all - I got a lot of value out of this site when I was a law student and am slow on paternity leave at the moment so thought I’d offer to answer questions. As someone who always wanted to get into entertainment law I wish someone had answered related questions when I was a law student, so hopefully this can be helpful to some.

Some info:
- Top 10 law school
- big law 2L summer gig
- 4ish years at entertainment firm.
- 2ish years in house at entertainment company.

At this point in my career I also have a lot of connections in the industry so feel I’m able to answer questions about entertainment legal careers that aren’t directly related to my experience.

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

I've always been curious about entertainment work.

How is the compensation generally, and for you specifically?

What is the legal practice area you work most in, or are you required to specialize? I'd assume L&E, copyright/trademark are big ones?

[EntmntAttny]

I've always been curious about entertainment work.

How is the compensation generally, and for you specifically?

What is the legal practice area you work most in, or are you required to specialize? I'd assume L&E, copyright/trademark are big ones?

I guess it would be helpful to define some terms.

First off, when I refer to myself as an entertainment lawyer, I really mean that my work is directly related to the creation or dissemination of content.

That is distinct from say, a privacy or labor and employment lawyer who works at a an entertainment company, because their work and job functions are less directly tied to the content element.

That said, entertainment law careers can vary wildly, and so necessary skill sets can too. For example:

- A content acquisition or distribution lawyer will need a background in tech transactions, ideally supporting M&A deals.
- A content production lawyer will need a background in the breadth of soft IP, and experience with releases, IP licensing and talent agreements, plus first amendment.
- A marketing and advertising lawyer will need a background in the same as a content production lawyer plus knowledge of FTC and right of publicity, but not really first amendment.
- A media litigator will need litigation experience and first amendment experience.

So, depending on your ultimate goal, specialization will vary. But in short, you can for the most part spin most broad practice experience into entertainment, with the exception of bankruptcy, corporate finance, and real estate experience.

In terms of comp, it will vary wildly like any practice area. If you’re in big law it will be good, and if you’re in house at a company where your work is crucial (film studio, etc), you’ll make good money. On the lower end of the spectrum are business affairs attorneys at entertainment companies or ad agencies.

[EntmntAttny]

Also, because when I was a law student I probably wouldn't have even known what kinds of questions to ask, here are some things I can weigh in on if anyone is interested in:

- pros and cons of different types of entertainment practices
- recommendations for classes and career paths
- opinions on firms and companies
- difference between firm side and in house entertainment

[lockin54]

This is great. Thanks for doing this. I'm curious on the career path. How easy is it to transfer from a standard technology transaction practice to direct entertainment work? Also any tips for setting that transition up? Thanks!

[EntmntAttny]

This is great. Thanks for doing this. I'm curious on the career path. How easy is it to transfer from a standard technology transaction practice to direct entertainment work? Also any tips for setting that transition up? Thanks!

IP transactions at a top firm sets you up well to transition into entertainment. My recommendation is to move earlier rather than later, however. So, 2-3 years in rather than 5-6. The reason for that is because while entertainment jobs will definitely value IP transactions work, at the end of the day entertainment jobs are highly specialized so you want to start specializing as soon as possible. My experience with entertainment jobs (both firms and in house) is that tenure and amount of direct experience trumps class year or general seniority. So if you come in to a position as a 6th year straight from big law IP trans, you're ostensibly going to be "junior" to people who graduated after you but have spent more time in that role. Some boutique firms don't even have class years so that may mean someone technically junior to you would make partner way before you. Similarly, most non-big law entertainment firms I know of don't hire straight out of law school, but for the very few people who manage to get in there super early, they tend to advance very very quickly, so that they're basically "senior" associates by the time they're 4th or 5th years.

[smokeylarue]

I've always been curious about entertainment work.

How is the compensation generally, and for you specifically?

What is the legal practice area you work most in, or are you required to specialize? I'd assume L&E, copyright/trademark are big ones?

I guess it would be helpful to define some terms.

First off, when I refer to myself as an entertainment lawyer, I really mean that my work is directly related to the creation or dissemination of content.

That is distinct from say, a privacy or labor and employment lawyer who works at a an entertainment company, because their work and job functions are less directly tied to the content element.

That said, entertainment law careers can vary wildly, and so necessary skill sets can too. For example:

- A content acquisition or distribution lawyer will need a background in tech transactions, ideally supporting M&A deals.
- A content production lawyer will need a background in the breadth of soft IP, and experience with releases, IP licensing and talent agreements, plus first amendment.
- A marketing and advertising lawyer will need a background in the same as a content production lawyer plus knowledge of FTC and right of publicity, but not really first amendment.
- A media litigator will need litigation experience and first amendment experience.

So, depending on your ultimate goal, specialization will vary. But in short, you can for the most part spin most broad practice experience into entertainment, with the exception of bankruptcy, corporate finance, and real estate experience.

In terms of comp, it will vary wildly like any practice area. If you’re in big law it will be good, and if you’re in house at a company where your work is crucial (film studio, etc), you’ll make good money. On the lower end of the spectrum are business affairs attorneys at entertainment companies or ad agencies.

What's a midlevel (call it around 5 years) at a Biglaw firm going to make when he or she goes in-house at say NBC Universal or HBO?

[EntmntAttny]

I've always been curious about entertainment work.

How is the compensation generally, and for you specifically?

What is the legal practice area you work most in, or are you required to specialize? I'd assume L&E, copyright/trademark are big ones?

I guess it would be helpful to define some terms.

First off, when I refer to myself as an entertainment lawyer, I really mean that my work is directly related to the creation or dissemination of content.

That is distinct from say, a privacy or labor and employment lawyer who works at a an entertainment company, because their work and job functions are less directly tied to the content element.

That said, entertainment law careers can vary wildly, and so necessary skill sets can too. For example:

- A content acquisition or distribution lawyer will need a background in tech transactions, ideally supporting M&A deals.
- A content production lawyer will need a background in the breadth of soft IP, and experience with releases, IP licensing and talent agreements, plus first amendment.
- A marketing and advertising lawyer will need a background in the same as a content production lawyer plus knowledge of FTC and right of publicity, but not really first amendment.
- A media litigator will need litigation experience and first amendment experience.

So, depending on your ultimate goal, specialization will vary. But in short, you can for the most part spin most broad practice experience into entertainment, with the exception of bankruptcy, corporate finance, and real estate experience.

In terms of comp, it will vary wildly like any practice area. If you’re in big law it will be good, and if you’re in house at a company where your work is crucial (film studio, etc), you’ll make good money. On the lower end of the spectrum are business affairs attorneys at entertainment companies or ad agencies.

What's a midlevel (call it around 5 years) at a Biglaw firm going to make when he or she goes in-house at say NBC Universal or HBO?

At NBC you're looking at 170-200 all in (including bonus), HBO more like 190-220. That’s not including equity which is pretty worthless at those places. Netflix pays a lot more, more like 250. Plus their equity is way more valuable.

This is based on actual data points.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have any information on music labels (I.e., Sony, Warner and Universal)? Work environment, comp, etc.? Obviously department dependent but would appreciate any information you have (even if it’s anecdotal or secondhand)

[EntmntAttny]

Do you have any information on music labels (I.e., Sony, Warner and Universal)? Work environment, comp, etc.? Obviously department dependent but would appreciate any information you have (even if it’s anecdotal or secondhand)

The big three labels are having a renaissance because revenue from streaming is finally consistent. Warner and Universal are based in New York, Sony in LA.

There are really three buckets of legal roles at the labels: label business affairs, A&R legal, and digital legal affairs. A&R legal are the attorneys who do the record contracts for new artists and associated agreements. digital legal affairs are the team that help license the catalogs to third parties (i.e. to Spotify), and label business affairs are the attorneys who do the remainder of day to day legal work that may not be directly related to music (vendor agreements, privacy, marketing, etc).

Digital legal affairs team pays the most, with a 5th year making around 200k.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have any information on music labels (I.e., Sony, Warner and Universal)? Work environment, comp, etc.? Obviously department dependent but would appreciate any information you have (even if it’s anecdotal or secondhand)

The big three labels are having a renaissance because revenue from streaming is finally consistent. Warner and Universal are based in New York, Sony in LA.

There are really three buckets of legal roles at the labels: label business affairs, A&R legal, and digital legal affairs. A&R legal are the attorneys who do the record contracts for new artists and associated agreements. digital legal affairs are the team that help license the catalogs to third parties (i.e. to Spotify), and label business affairs are the attorneys who do the remainder of day to day legal work that may not be directly related to music (vendor agreements, privacy, marketing, etc).

Digital legal affairs team pays the most, with a 5th year making around 200k.

Thanks! This is quite helpful - any idea what the lifestyle is like across three departments? Also can you weigh in on which department offers/helps develop the most portable skillset or is otherwise desirable? Thanks again!

[EntmntAttny]

Do you have any information on music labels (I.e., Sony, Warner and Universal)? Work environment, comp, etc.? Obviously department dependent but would appreciate any information you have (even if it’s anecdotal or secondhand)

The big three labels are having a renaissance because revenue from streaming is finally consistent. Warner and Universal are based in New York, Sony in LA.

There are really three buckets of legal roles at the labels: label business affairs, A&R legal, and digital legal affairs. A&R legal are the attorneys who do the record contracts for new artists and associated agreements. digital legal affairs are the team that help license the catalogs to third parties (i.e. to Spotify), and label business affairs are the attorneys who do the remainder of day to day legal work that may not be directly related to music (vendor agreements, privacy, marketing, etc).

Digital legal affairs team pays the most, with a 5th year making around 200k.

Thanks! This is quite helpful - any idea what the lifestyle is like across three departments? Also can you weigh in on which department offers/helps develop the most portable skillset or is otherwise desirable? Thanks again!

Can't really speak to lifestyle. The digital legal affairs and A&R legal teams are the groups you'd want to be in if you're trying to get music industry-specific skills. Then its really just a matter of what you find more interesting: music industry deal making or artist-related agreements. Some like the "sexiness" of working on the A&R side because you're closer to the artists, and there is more variety in the work. The digital legal affairs teams are closer to the c-suite execs and are connected to the deals that actually drive revenue. If your goal is to ultimately move to the business side, digital legal affairs is the way to go. If your dream is to be the next Don Passman, A&R legal is where to go.

[Anonymous User]

Also, because when I was a law student I probably wouldn't have even known what kinds of questions to ask, here are some things I can weigh in on if anyone is interested in:

- pros and cons of different types of entertainment practices
- recommendations for classes and career paths
- opinions on firms and companies
- difference between firm side and in house entertainment

Would love to hear about all of the above. Specifically, pros and cons of types of deals (talent vs. production vs. distribution vs. underlying rights acquisition) and industries (television vs. film vs. theater)? Is a position at an NY entertainment boutique an obtainable goal for a V10 corporate associate 2-3 years in? Any thoughts on the best/most likely NY firms to accept laterals from Biglaw? Is it necessary/advisable to work an entertainment before in house? Much appreciated!

[LitBoutiqueAssociate]

Is there any room typically for litigators in-house at large entertainment companies? How often does hiring occur? Does the in-house candidate's experience have to focus primarily on copyright/trademark, or can it be broader? For example, if a litigator has done one, maybe two copyright/trademark trials, a a lot more other (antitrust, hard IP, class action) trials, would that be a problem?

[EntmntAttny]

Also, because when I was a law student I probably wouldn't have even known what kinds of questions to ask, here are some things I can weigh in on if anyone is interested in:

- pros and cons of different types of entertainment practices
- recommendations for classes and career paths
- opinions on firms and companies
- difference between firm side and in house entertainment

Would love to hear about all of the above. Specifically, pros and cons of types of deals (talent vs. production vs. distribution vs. underlying rights acquisition) and industries (television vs. film vs. theater)? Is a position at an NY entertainment boutique an obtainable goal for a V10 corporate associate 2-3 years in? Any thoughts on the best/most likely NY firms to accept laterals from Biglaw? Is it necessary/advisable to work an entertainment before in house? Much appreciated!

I'll answer each one at a time. I'll start with recommendations for classes and career paths.

Every career path is different, and I'm a firm believer in the ability for people to be masters of their own destiny and forge their own path, but on a more general, simpler level, I do see entertainment careers for the most part take one of two paths: biglaw and non-biglaw.

The biglaw path is 2-5 years in an IP heavy practice. On the corporate side that's IP/tech transactions, or maybe M&A for IP-focused clients (media, tech). On the lit side that should be self explanatory, anything heavy on copyright, right of publicity or first amendment. Its really not too hard to get started on this path, and vault firm ranks are relatively irrelevant since the specific practice group is what matters. (For example, a junior or midlevel in either lit or corporate entertainment at Davis Wright is going to be better off than someone at, say, STB, because the former is known for clients in media/entertainment/IP and the latter isn't.)

The non-biglaw path is doubling down on entertainment from the outset. This usually will mean going straight to an in house position. What I want to emphasize here - something that I wouldn't have been able to get my head around in law school - is that this is not at all considered a "second-tier" path for entertainment. Of course, for almost any other practice, skipping biglaw and going in house is perceived as a failure, but it really isn't in entertainment, PROVIDED you are 100% sure you want to do entertainment and provided you start at a reputable company. It is VERY common to see people with successful entertainment jobs who took this route, because it shows an early and strong commitment to this area.

In terms of classes, this should be self explanatory, but just in case: copyright, first amendment, trademark.

[EntmntAttny]

Is there any room typically for litigators in-house at large entertainment companies?

Absolutely, but your role will be more counseling and case management rather than actual trial practice. So consider what part of litigation you prefer. If you really like the substance of entertainment litigation issues but hate motion practice and the nitty gritty of trials, then you would very much like an in house litigation role. But if actually being an oral advocate and getting into court is what you like, stay on the firm side. Consider, for example, I believe HBO is at the 9th circuit right now for the Michael Jackson doc. They have a powerhouse outside litigation team in court for them, but likely have various litigators in house who are managing the case and helping formulate arguments and strategy.

How often does hiring occur?

This will depend on the specific needs of each company.

Does the in-house candidate's experience have to focus primarily on copyright/trademark, or can it be broader? For example, if a litigator has done one, maybe two copyright/trademark trials, a a lot more other (antitrust, hard IP, class action) trials, would that be a problem?

Your candidacy will be evaluated by other litigators, so while relevant experience is important, they will also value and respect the overall litigation experience. And generally, the more complex and high profile experience you've had, the better it looks, even if its not exactly on point. IMO the best candidate for entertainment lit in house is someone who has broad, high profile lit experience, but who can express a specific interest and passion about the IP cases they have worked on.

[cburto10]

This is great! Any other thoughts on the best (reputation or otherwise) "entertainment" big law firms? (i.e. Latham, OMM, Manatt, DWT, etc) Also, curious on the differences in type of work at a firm versus in-house?

[EntmntAttny]

Also, because when I was a law student I probably wouldn't have even known what kinds of questions to ask, here are some things I can weigh in on if anyone is interested in:

- pros and cons of different types of entertainment practices
- recommendations for classes and career paths
- opinions on firms and companies
- difference between firm side and in house entertainment

Would love to hear about all of the above. Specifically, pros and cons of types of deals (talent vs. production vs. distribution vs. underlying rights acquisition) and industries (television vs. film vs. theater)? Is a position at an NY entertainment boutique an obtainable goal for a V10 corporate associate 2-3 years in? Any thoughts on the best/most likely NY firms to accept laterals from Biglaw? Is it necessary/advisable to work an entertainment before in house? Much appreciated!

Thought I'd address your specific questions too:

[ pros and cons of types of deals (talent vs. production vs. distribution vs. underlying rights acquisition) and industries (television vs. film vs. theater)

I could go on and on about this so I'll try and keep it short. I think the two MOST important things to think about are (1) how much variety do you want in your work and (2) what type of client you'd work best with.

For the latter, a very broad way of thinking about entertainment deals is that you're either on the corporate side or the talent side. For example: for film projects, you could represent the actors/directors/producers or the film studio. For music, you could represent the songwriter/performer or the label/publisher. Etc etc. So do you want your client to be the creative? Or do feel more comfortable being on the corporate side?

Some people like the talent side because they find it exciting representing artists and celebrities and being their trusted partner. The downsides to that side is that the client is less "sophisticated" and there may be a lot of hand holding, difficult schedules (creatives keep weird hours), and a lot of administrative stuff. Your client is unable to handle any of the legal work themselves so even as a very senior practitioner you will be handling very basic agreements.

On the former issue, consider how much variety is important in your work life. This is really important to think about, because everyone's work style is different. Some people love having 10 small things to work on a day rather than working on 1 deal for a month. Its really a personality match. There are a lot of entertainment practices that have a lot of variety day-to-day (content production, artist representation, advertising/marketing), and others that tend to be more focused (content licensing and acquisition). Consider what appeals to you more and steer yourself appropriately.

Is a position at an NY entertainment boutique an obtainable goal for a V10 corporate associate 2-3 years in? Any thoughts on the best/most likely NY firms to accept laterals from Biglaw? Is it necessary/advisable to work an entertainment before in house? Much appreciated!

For New York, 1000%. That's the perfect time to lateral. NY boutique firms that I know accept biglaw laterals in that class range include: Loeb (not boutique but not biglaw), Schreck Rose, Grubman Shire, Franklin Weinrib, Frankfurt Kurnit, Davis Gilbert. There are more.

See other posts for comments about entertainment experience before in house.

[EntmntAttny]

This is great! Any other thoughts on the best (reputation or otherwise) "entertainment" big law firms? (i.e. Latham, OMM, Manatt, DWT, etc)

There are some firms that have a pretty consistently strong reputation in this area: OMM (LA), Latham (LA), DWT (LA and New York), gonna add Loeb even though i'm not sure if they count as big law.

Consider that other firms that may obtain a reputation in this area could have fleeting representation. For example, Paul Weiss was known as big in corporate entertainment, but it was really just one rainmaker partner in NY, and very few associates were able to touch those deals. So not a good option for getting relevant experience. Similarly, Cravath used to do all the Time Warner work but now that company doesn't exist anymore. All that to say my recommendation is to go to a firm that has a wider array of both partners and clients and representation in entertainment and steer clear of the firms that may have one partner or one major entertainment client.

Also, curious on the differences in type of work at a firm versus in-house?

This is a really broad question. To narrow it down I'll say that (1) it is absolutely true that in house legal teams are growing and that use of outside counsel is decreasing, but also (2) that there is some work that by its nature isn't going to be brought in house. So, what I am getting at is that in house work may not be that different than firm side to the extent you're working in a practice area that can easily be transitioned in house. Types of practices that generally AREN'T taken in house include M&A and trial work, for example.

In house work tends to be much lower stress. People keep more regular hours, and there isn't as much pressure to be working all hours of the day. That doesn't mean there aren't late nights or intense deals, but part of being outside counsel is being paid to stress out on someone else's behalf. I once had a document turn come back to me on a Friday afternoon in my in house role, and there was a lot of pressure from our team to get it done. So did that ruin my weekend? No, but it ruined the weekend of the Latham associate we dumped it on. That's what they get paid for.

[EntmntAttny]

Also, because when I was a law student I probably wouldn't have even known what kinds of questions to ask, here are some things I can weigh in on if anyone is interested in:

- pros and cons of different types of entertainment practices
- recommendations for classes and career paths
- opinions on firms and companies
- difference between firm side and in house entertainment

Would love to hear about all of the above.

Thought I'd address pros/cons of different types of entertainment practices. I'm going to list the practice areas I'm aware of on a very broad level, along with some of my subjective opinions. Obviously this is going to be largely colored by my own experience mixed with second hand information from colleagues and friends in the industry. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am focused on roles that assist with the creation and dissemination of creative content, so you not ancillary legal work in the entertainment industry such as M&A, labor/employment, etc, as opposed to coming up with novel legal solutions to anything.

Talent Side:

Talent Representation - Talent representation encompasses a broad array of legal work that is related to their services as a creative. If they're a musician, that means record label agreements, publishing agreements, side performer agreements, production agreements, etc. If they're an actor it means talent agreements, appearance releases, on-set riders (nudity, etc), and the like. Can also be on behalf of writers, producers, directors, etc. And if they're one of the former but also a celebrity, it means spokesperson agreements, promotion agreements, merchandising agreements, etc. Pros of this work is that people find it exciting, and it is very varied, especially if you're at a firm that represents a lot of top level talent. Cons is that these types of clients can (at times) be difficult to work for. Oftentimes your primary contact is actually their management teams and not the talent themselves. Deadlines can be tight, and much of the work may be repetitive or simple. I would also say if you like complex, cutting-edge legal work, this is not that. A lot of these agreements are primarily about haggling over business points (compensation/royalties, on-set requirements, timelines, etc). Even negotiating things like morals clauses or force majeure provisions, which are more legal-specific, can become pretty rote.

Company Side:

Content production - The entertainment industry is about the creation of content. Content production lawyers assist with all legal matters to assist in that creation. In film/TV that means talent agreements, script review and IP clearance, among other things. In music that means record deals, production deals, etc. This is very much the other side of the coin of talent representation, so if you like being close to talent but prefer your client to be the entertainment company, this is the position to go for. You will lose out on some of the variety being on this side, since different deals are handled by different teams. Also, in this era of massive content production, these roles can be hyper-focused (think, "assistant counsel for scripted series 14 and under, latin america").

Content acquisition/distribution - After content is created, entertainment companies want to acquire it and/or distribute it. Content acquisition / distribution lawyers are farther from the direct creative services, but these are the revenue driving groups. So the deals are more complex, and primarily business-to-business. The work is much less varied, as you're really focusing on certain types of agreements. But you're much closer to c-suite executive and the business development and strategy teams. This is the way to go if you're more about complex deal making and negotiating, and if you're more interested in the business part of entertainment than the flashy talent part. There are way fewer of these roles, and because they drive revenue they tend to pay better. High stakes/complex deal or IP transnational work is a prereq.

Business affairs - Business affairs teams are sort of unique to the entertainment industry, in my view. And while their role may vary company to company, the best way I can describe them on a general level is they are the teams that serve as the legal support for INTERNAL teams/matters. So if your company has an internal production team or an internal marketing team, the business affairs team will help them with their legal work. That's in contrast to hiring third parties (celebrity talent, directors, etc) to produce content. Some people very much like these roles because they tend to be more business than legal. Less papering deals and more advising the internal client on how to get things done. For that reason, in a lot of places they may not even be lawyers, but they tend to be just so that when things do need to get papered that can be handled by the same person. In my experience, the con with this type of role is that sometimes the substance of the work can be taken up by non-entertainment-related work, such as vedor agreements, privacy work, SAAS agreements, etc - basically stuff that helps the company run but may not be directly related to content creation. Again, this will vary wildly company to company but that is my very broad take. If you're interested in this type of role I would just try and get as much info about the specific function at a particular company.

Advertising/marketing - This area is not often considered within the scope of traditional entertainment work, but I'm including it here because (1) the work often is very similar, (2) its often overlooked by law students, and (3) the advertising lawyers I know are some of the happiest I've met. Keeping with my overall theme of this post, advertising and marketing lawyers are involved with the creation of COMMERCIAL content. So their work will involve some elements overlapping with content production lawyers (e.g. talent agreements, rights clearance, content review), some elements overlapping with content distribution (e.g. media buying/selling agreements), and some elements overlapping with business affairs (e.g. SAAS, privacy, tech agreements), but it also involves advertising-specific expertise such as false advertising review, regulatory compliance and claim substantiation. This role is probably one of the most varied roles you can have as a lawyer, because advertising and marketing is so diverse these days. It's not just TV or print advertising. Marketers create real-time experiences, video games, websites, contests, etc, and they also make product claims and have to comply with product-specific regulations. And this work can also entail major sponsorship deals, cross-promotions, product placement, etc. So the work is really all over the place, and that's why I think people tend to like it. Cons: this work will vary significantly depending on who the client is. Consider the types of brands that spend a lot of money on advertising and do interesting types of advertising, vs those that might do very traditional stuff, and little of it. That's why I think this type of role is going to be better if you're on the firm side or in house at an ad agency rather than working directly for a brand, unless that brand spends a LOT of money on advertising. And even if it does, you better really like that brand. Something about marketing legal for a bank, for example, doesn't sound very exciting at all. I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head the kinds of brands that do really interesting, cutting-edge marketing, but they're out there.

[loislanejd]

Thank you for doing this and for your informative answers!

I'm a first-year student and I'm very interested in the entertainment industry, but I'm not sure I'd like to start out in LA directly after graduating. Would you say that one has to start working in LA to end up in LA or is it feasible to try to lateral there down the line (especially if you're in a practice group like M&A or IP transactions)?

[meat tornado]

Is it safe to assume that in-house entertainment law positions will be nonexistent due to COVID-19?

[Anonymous User]

Is it safe to assume that in-house entertainment law positions will be nonexistent due to COVID-19?

Similar question to the above, if you were offered an in-house entertainment law position at this point, would you turn it down due to job security? (Understand it’s company-specific to an extent, but any advice would be appreciated)

[PeanutsNJam]

wouldn't be surprised if digital media companies are booming rn

[Anonymous User]

Can you speak to the likelihood of fed. clerkship ----> immediate media/entertainment lit. associate? Which of the firms discussed so far actively hire fed. clerks, and which ones allow them to go directly into an entertainment/media practice group?