2L interested only in lit--help with summer positions Forum

[Anonymous User]

I am a 2L at NYU/Columbia. I would love the perspective/experiences of anyone lit-focused but not motivated primarily by money.

I have no interest in transactional work whatsoever. I love law school and everything I have done lit-related so far. Career services recommended that I focus almost exclusively on non-NYC markets (I have extremely strong ties to DC and am potentially interesting in going into appellate lit). Making tons of money is not a motivator; I would rather have stimulating work. I find finance and corporate stuff boring, but researching legal standards and assessing the strength of, e.g., corporate breach-of-contract and fraud claims has been interesting.

Career services recommended firms like W&C, K&E, L&W, Gibson Dunn, SullCrom, Jones Day, etc. in the DC area. They also recommended boutiques like Kellogg, Wilkinson Walsh, and Susman. These firms are all just names to me, although I am in the process of researching them. I have no idea whether I am competitive or what hiring requirements are. I honestly probably look pretty good on paper--4.0, appellate clerkship lined up, and other stuff--but I expect some firms are Y/YSH-only.

If anyone has experience approaching 2L summer SA positions as a lit-focused person, I am all ears. I literally know nothing about anything as far as firms as concerned. I also am unwilling to work BL hours long term; most people upon hearing that recommend I move into or apply directly to government. I am hoping to split between a firm and fedgov next summer.

[The Lsat Airbender]

I honestly probably look pretty good on paper--4.0, appellate clerkship lined up, and other stuff--but I expect some firms are Y/YSH-only.

Lmao, why do people think this? You can Google a firm to find out where their attorneys went to law school. Magna at CCN can work basically anywhere.

[nixy]

I honestly probably look pretty good on paper--4.0, appellate clerkship lined up, and other stuff--but I expect some firms are Y/YSH-only.

Lmao, why do people think this? You can Google a firm to find out where their attorneys went to law school. Magna at CCN can work basically anywhere.

Yeah, Y/YSH-only isn’t a thing.

Look at DOJ SLIP for the government side.

As for firms, your career office should have information about bidding strategies/requirement and probably took that into account in their recommendations to you. The requirements are largely going to be excellent grades at a top school, and for some of the boutiques a clerkship, so you’re good as long as you can interview passably (and covid doesn’t bring the world to its knees in the meantime).

I guess it’s not clear to me exactly what you’re asking? You do what’s required to go through OCI and you’ll almost certainly be fine. OCI at Columbia/NYU is kind of a well-oiled machine that will get you to a good firm. DC is a tougher market than NYC, but you’re more than qualified. To the extent covid has changed things, no one knows what’s going to happen.

What did you do this summer?

[Anonymous User]

I had similar grades at a similar school last year and ended up at one of the firms on your list in the appellate group. Just research the firms and their practice area strengths and apply. For example, Gibson, Wilmer, L&W, Jones Day, and K&E all have fairly large appellate practices while W&C's is mostly Lisa Blatt I believe. Paul Weiss, Sidley Austin, Jenner & Block, and Hogan Loevells are other firms you should look at for appellate (there are probably others too). Susman isn't in DC and is a trial firm. Not sure that Wilkinson hires summers and it's a trial firm. You're competitive for anything.

Note that even if you summer in appellate, that's by no means a guarantee of getting meaningful work in an appellate group as an associate. Appellate is extraordinarily hard to break into in biglaw. Lots of SCOTUS clerks and not a lot of arguments to go around. Between your interest in appellate, your lack of interest in money, and your reluctance to work biglaw hours, working in federal government, state government (ideally a state SG's office), or a regional firm with a strong appellate practice would likely make more sense than biglaw for you. I also have those rough desires and am fairly decided on going to a boutique in a secondary market after clerking. For a split summer, maybe look specifically at DOJ Civil Appellate, I believe they take splits and my friends who did it enjoyed it a lot.

Also, having worked at both a trial firm and an appellate practice, I think appellate stuff is kinda boring in practice despite the prestige. It's worth trying out but understand that you will sit at a desk drafting briefs on arcane issues all day and rarely if ever see a courtroom.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it’s not clear to me exactly what you’re asking? You do what’s required to go through OCI and you’ll almost certainly be fine. OCI at Columbia/NYU is kind of a well-oiled machine that will get you to a good firm. DC is a tougher market than NYC, but you’re more than qualified. To the extent covid has changed things, no one knows what’s going to happen.

What did you do this summer?

OP here. I had a district court internship, and I loved it.

Let me try to clarify to give you a sense of my frame of mind. I worked in a job I liked before law school. I went to law school because I thought it would be interesting, I would be good at it, and I wanted to practice--and I did not take on debt. But 80+% of my classmates--regardless of prior career, regardless of college major, regardless of family situation, regardless of hobbies or interests--end up in BL positions doing corporate work or commercial lit in jobs that suck up all of their time and that are almost all in a single city. Most of the rest enter ideologically charged advocacy nonprofits that I would be unwilling to work for.

I am an arriviste and still do not get how this industry works at all. I want a job, but BL seems indistinguishable from contractual servitude to me. I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would voluntarily enter that industry, especially classmates who have seemingly no interest in business or finance. I feel extremely isolated and lost. When I have tried to get help, I have literally been told by classmates that they would be bored not working 10+ hours a day. Others have said they cannot help me because our career goals are too different. Career services has an extremely effective, efficient system--but takes participation in it for granted.

The point is, I am asking for help here because I am hoping that there are some people somewhere who have (1) enjoyed law school and wanted an intellectually stimulating environment, (2) preferred lit to transaction, (3) were not interested in being consumed entirely by their jobs, if possible. I would be curious about how they approached the career search process both broadly (e.g. Should I even do BL?) and narrowly (e.g. What are major differentiators for DC firms?). I feel like those are not unreasonable preferences, but they have narrowed the pool of potential advice-givers in my environment to basically 0. I feel simultaneously like a crazy person and the only sane person at my school.

[Anonymous User]

I had similar grades at a similar school last year and ended up at one of the firms on your list in the appellate group. Just research the firms and their practice area strengths and apply. For example, Gibson, Wilmer, L&W, Jones Day, and K&E all have fairly large appellate practices while W&C's is mostly Lisa Blatt I believe. Paul Weiss, Sidley Austin, Jenner & Block, and Hogan Loevells are other firms you should look at for appellate (there are probably others too). Susman isn't in DC and is a trial firm. Not sure that Wilkinson hires summers and it's a trial firm. You're competitive for anything.

Note that even if you summer in appellate, that's by no means a guarantee of getting meaningful work in an appellate group as an associate. Appellate is extraordinarily hard to break into in biglaw. Lots of SCOTUS clerks and not a lot of arguments to go around. Between your interest in appellate, your lack of interest in money, and your reluctance to work biglaw hours, working in federal government, state government (ideally a state SG's office), or a regional firm with a strong appellate practice would likely make more sense than biglaw for you. I also have those rough desires and am fairly decided on going to a boutique in a secondary market after clerking. For a split summer, maybe look specifically at DOJ Civil Appellate, I believe they take splits and my friends who did it enjoyed it a lot.

Also, having worked at both a trial firm and an appellate practice, I think appellate stuff is kinda boring in practice despite the prestige. It's worth trying out but understand that you will sit at a desk drafting briefs on arcane issues all day and rarely if ever see a courtroom.

Thanks for your perspective! I am interested in trial-level lit, too, and I am okay with non-DC markets (Susman has offices in several cities were I have connections, for example).

When you say you "ended up" at one of the firms, do you mean as an associate or as a summer intern? Did you find that there were meaningful distinctions between most of the firms such that you strongly preferred some to others?

[Reese1]

Hey OP. Feel free to drop me a PM. I think I may be of some help.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it’s not clear to me exactly what you’re asking? You do what’s required to go through OCI and you’ll almost certainly be fine. OCI at Columbia/NYU is kind of a well-oiled machine that will get you to a good firm. DC is a tougher market than NYC, but you’re more than qualified. To the extent covid has changed things, no one knows what’s going to happen.

What did you do this summer?

OP here. I had a district court internship, and I loved it.

Let me try to clarify to give you a sense of my frame of mind. I worked in a job I liked before law school. I went to law school because I thought it would be interesting, I would be good at it, and I wanted to practice--and I did not take on debt. But 80+% of my classmates--regardless of prior career, regardless of college major, regardless of family situation, regardless of hobbies or interests--end up in BL positions doing corporate work or commercial lit in jobs that suck up all of their time and that are almost all in a single city. Most of the rest enter ideologically charged advocacy nonprofits that I would be unwilling to work for.

I am an arriviste and still do not get how this industry works at all. I want a job, but BL seems indistinguishable from contractual servitude to me. I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would voluntarily enter that industry, especially classmates who have seemingly no interest in business or finance. I feel extremely isolated and lost. When I have tried to get help, I have literally been told by classmates that they would be bored not working 10+ hours a day. Others have said they cannot help me because our career goals are too different. Career services has an extremely effective, efficient system--but takes participation in it for granted.

The point is, I am asking for help here because I am hoping that there are some people somewhere who have (1) enjoyed law school and wanted an intellectually stimulating environment, (2) preferred lit to transaction, (3) were not interested in being consumed entirely by their jobs, if possible. I would be curious about how they approached the career search process both broadly (e.g. Should I even do BL?) and narrowly (e.g. What are major differentiators for DC firms?). I feel like those are not unreasonable preferences, but they have narrowed the pool of potential advice-givers in my environment to basically 0. I feel simultaneously like a crazy person and the only sane person at my school.

Ok, this is a little melodramatic for a person that is in a position I would have killed to be in when I was approaching the job search. You have a clerkship and a 4.0 from one of the best schools in the country. You can write your own ticket to most jobs.

First, I would tell you to definitely go to BigLaw, or a Lit Boutique this summer, because it sounds like you have no experience with what BigLaw life entails, and a lot of your worries would be solved by getting this experience. You might find you like it, you might hate it. It doesn't really matter because you have a clerkship lined up anyway and you can always transition from there.

Nonetheless, I suspect you would be happier working for the government or in academia. That's fine, because you should still try and get some BigLaw experience this summer before transitioning post-clerkship. You can also split your summer between a BigLaw firm and a government job, like some other posters have suggested.

To answer your question about DC firms and approaching OCI, from my experience working with most of them, the ones you would be most interested in this summer are:

Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson & Jones Day (if you have a clerkship you are FedSoc aligned), WilmerHale, Sidley, and Paul Weiss. S&C's DC office is tiny, but it is very well connected to the Trump administration/FedSoc if you are interested. I could be missing some, but I think these fit your credentials very well, and you likely would not fit in at a place like Jenner. I can't speak to the culture of every office beyond what you can find on Vault and Chambers, but just shoot alumni working at the firms an email and ask for a quick chat. With your credentials, you will have options.

I doubt any of these places would give you appellate litigation work over the summer, but you would get a feel for BigLaw and what the hours entail. I think you might find that working litigation is not the soul-crushing grind other types of BigLaw can be. Interviewing with the firms, and taking second looks at them will give you a sense for the culture, and if you can see yourself working there.

[Anonymous User]

I think you might find that working litigation is not the soul-crushing grind other types of BigLaw can be. Interviewing with the firms, and taking second looks at them will give you a sense for the culture, and if you can see yourself working there.

OP here. Melodramatic, sure. But OCI is not really my main issue--I am sure that I can get an offer somewhere for someone. The main issue is QoL: I am absolutely unwilling to be forced to work more than 8-9 hours a day (weekdays only) after 2-3 years out of law school. That already seems to knock off every BL firm and all of the other lit boutiques in my OP. So my real concern is figuring out what my exit strategy is before I even get into BL, because I tend to neglect personal stuff and that will definitely happen as soon as I start at BL. So I am trying to approach this process with the sole goal of maximizing lit opportunities (primarily income) within my two major constraints--not pure commercial, not BL hours. I would rather go back to my old job than do transactional work (or pure commercial lit or anything too financial) or be working 10 hours, 6 days a week 5 years out. Going by the vibe and patterns at my school, it is not even clear to me that there is any place in the legal industry for me. Hence this thread: getting more perspectives and more voices.

[Anonymous User]

I had similar grades at a similar school last year and ended up at one of the firms on your list in the appellate group. Just research the firms and their practice area strengths and apply. For example, Gibson, Wilmer, L&W, Jones Day, and K&E all have fairly large appellate practices while W&C's is mostly Lisa Blatt I believe. Paul Weiss, Sidley Austin, Jenner & Block, and Hogan Loevells are other firms you should look at for appellate (there are probably others too). Susman isn't in DC and is a trial firm. Not sure that Wilkinson hires summers and it's a trial firm. You're competitive for anything.

Note that even if you summer in appellate, that's by no means a guarantee of getting meaningful work in an appellate group as an associate. Appellate is extraordinarily hard to break into in biglaw. Lots of SCOTUS clerks and not a lot of arguments to go around. Between your interest in appellate, your lack of interest in money, and your reluctance to work biglaw hours, working in federal government, state government (ideally a state SG's office), or a regional firm with a strong appellate practice would likely make more sense than biglaw for you. I also have those rough desires and am fairly decided on going to a boutique in a secondary market after clerking. For a split summer, maybe look specifically at DOJ Civil Appellate, I believe they take splits and my friends who did it enjoyed it a lot.

Also, having worked at both a trial firm and an appellate practice, I think appellate stuff is kinda boring in practice despite the prestige. It's worth trying out but understand that you will sit at a desk drafting briefs on arcane issues all day and rarely if ever see a courtroom.

Thanks for your perspective! I am interested in trial-level lit, too, and I am okay with non-DC markets (Susman has offices in several cities were I have connections, for example).

When you say you "ended up" at one of the firms, do you mean as an associate or as a summer intern? Did you find that there were meaningful distinctions between most of the firms such that you strongly preferred some to others?

The boutique I worked at wasn't much like the biglaw firm at all. The big differences were (1) much lower leverage (associates per partner), (2) hours close to 8-6 or so except for trials, (3) better prospects for partnership, (4) more trials and appeals per lawyer, (5) much smaller in general and less support staff, (6) had a mix of "prestigious" lit (e.g. breach of contract or securities stuff for brand-name companies) and less prestigious stuff (e.g. construction lit) rather than solely mega-cases/clients, which is part of why there were more trials, (7) lower pay (though also lower COL), (8) a much less national practice. The similarities were that it's litigation, had a good amount of high-profile cases/clients, and that the attorneys were very well-qualified (a mix of T14 students and the very top students from local schools, mostly federal appellate clerks).

Examples of regional lit boutiques (or similar): Bondurant Mixson & Elmore (Atlanta), Belin McCormick (Des Moines), Lightfoot Franklin & Wright (Birmingham), Peifer Hanson Mullins Baker (Albuquerque), Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell (Denver), lots of firms in Texas. Firms like this are generally very picky on both ties and grades.

Fwiw Susman and Wilkinson will work you to death even though they're super cool; think Wachtell hours.

I summered at one of the firms on your list and turned it down. Among biglaw firms, they're pretty opaque from the outside, but you can tell some differences. For example, some primarily built their DC reputations on regulatory work rather than litigation. Different sizes of appellate practices and accessibility of appellate work. Different sizes of offices. Hours and partnership prospects, to the extent you can tell. Talking to people who have worked there before. Who you like when interviewing. Pro bono programs. Asking associates things like if they ever expect to take a depo.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks! That was really helpful!

[Anonymous User]

I guess it’s not clear to me exactly what you’re asking? You do what’s required to go through OCI and you’ll almost certainly be fine. OCI at Columbia/NYU is kind of a well-oiled machine that will get you to a good firm. DC is a tougher market than NYC, but you’re more than qualified. To the extent covid has changed things, no one knows what’s going to happen.

What did you do this summer?

OP here. I had a district court internship, and I loved it.

Let me try to clarify to give you a sense of my frame of mind. I worked in a job I liked before law school. I went to law school because I thought it would be interesting, I would be good at it, and I wanted to practice--and I did not take on debt. But 80+% of my classmates--regardless of prior career, regardless of college major, regardless of family situation, regardless of hobbies or interests--end up in BL positions doing corporate work or commercial lit in jobs that suck up all of their time and that are almost all in a single city. Most of the rest enter ideologically charged advocacy nonprofits that I would be unwilling to work for.

I am an arriviste and still do not get how this industry works at all. I want a job, but BL seems indistinguishable from contractual servitude to me. I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would voluntarily enter that industry, especially classmates who have seemingly no interest in business or finance. I feel extremely isolated and lost. When I have tried to get help, I have literally been told by classmates that they would be bored not working 10+ hours a day. Others have said they cannot help me because our career goals are too different. Career services has an extremely effective, efficient system--but takes participation in it for granted.

The point is, I am asking for help here because I am hoping that there are some people somewhere who have (1) enjoyed law school and wanted an intellectually stimulating environment, (2) preferred lit to transaction, (3) were not interested in being consumed entirely by their jobs, if possible. I would be curious about how they approached the career search process both broadly (e.g. Should I even do BL?) and narrowly (e.g. What are major differentiators for DC firms?). I feel like those are not unreasonable preferences, but they have narrowed the pool of potential advice-givers in my environment to basically 0. I feel simultaneously like a crazy person and the only sane person at my school.

Ok, this is a little melodramatic for a person that is in a position I would have killed to be in when I was approaching the job search. You have a clerkship and a 4.0 from one of the best schools in the country. You can write your own ticket to most jobs.

First, I would tell you to definitely go to BigLaw, or a Lit Boutique this summer, because it sounds like you have no experience with what BigLaw life entails, and a lot of your worries would be solved by getting this experience. You might find you like it, you might hate it. It doesn't really matter because you have a clerkship lined up anyway and you can always transition from there.

Nonetheless, I suspect you would be happier working for the government or in academia. That's fine, because you should still try and get some BigLaw experience this summer before transitioning post-clerkship. You can also split your summer between a BigLaw firm and a government job, like some other posters have suggested.

To answer your question about DC firms and approaching OCI, from my experience working with most of them, the ones you would be most interested in this summer are:

Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson & Jones Day (if you have a clerkship you are FedSoc aligned), WilmerHale, Sidley, and Paul Weiss. S&C's DC office is tiny, but it is very well connected to the Trump administration/FedSoc if you are interested. I could be missing some, but I think these fit your credentials very well, and you likely would not fit in at a place like Jenner. I can't speak to the culture of every office beyond what you can find on Vault and Chambers, but just shoot alumni working at the firms an email and ask for a quick chat. With your credentials, you will have options.

I doubt any of these places would give you appellate litigation work over the summer, but you would get a feel for BigLaw and what the hours entail. I think you might find that working litigation is not the soul-crushing grind other types of BigLaw can be. Interviewing with the firms, and taking second looks at them will give you a sense for the culture, and if you can see yourself working there.

Jones Day DC is much more FedSocy than GDC DC from my experience. Latham and Hogan are must-bids for DC OCI with an appellate focus imo, they're big offices with prestigious appellate/SC groups (Greg Garre, Neal Katyal).

Summers with top credentials and clerkships can get appellate work, or even do exclusively appellate work, at at least some of the top DC firms. That's a good thing to ask 3Ls about. Interviewing with an explicit appellate focus may make hiring harder, though, and there's probably not a good reason to do it.

Also if you're conservative and interested in appellate you should consider Consovoy McCarthy and Cooper & Kirk. I know the former takes summers/splits, not sure on the latter.

Also for other 2Ls reading this thread besides OP, the "you won't like Jenner" comment is because Jenner DC is a very lefty place, which will make it great for some and not so great for others. For people who don't mind working at a very liberal firm, or who would like it, it's an extremely selective office that's likely very attractive. If you're very liberal, you might also consider Gupta Wessler.

[Anonymous User]

I work at one of the firms mentioned ITT. (I'm not in the DC office and am not an appellate specialist, but I've worked with the appellate folks in DC on appeals from cases I handled at the trial court level.)

These firms vary a lot in culture, in client base/industry focus, in the type of appellate work they handle, and even in terms of hours. At some firms, you will find yourself billing 2500+ hours year in, year out, will find yourself surrounded by assholes, and will be trapped doing doc review or litigating stupid discovery issues or getting stuck on some investigation or massive trial court case team because there's not enough appellate work to keep you busy. At other firms (including my firm), you can consistently bill 2000-2200 hours a year, work with lovely people, and generally focus your energies on substantive, challenging, skills-building work.

What you cannot do - certainly not at any firm worth its salt - is consistently work 9-5 or even 8-6 on high-end, intellectually stimulating work. There are a lot of very smart, very well-credentialed people out there who are willing to work themselves to the bone, and partners prefer to work with people who are willing to work very hard as opposed to those who are not. And while you might be able to exit to some sort of intellectually stimulating and relatively relaxed litigation role in-house, at a nonprofit/industry group/trade association, or with the government, you're still not going to be working 8 hours a day in those roles. You cannot succeed in this profession if you're not willing to work a lot, particularly in the early stages of your career. You just can't.

[polareagle]

The main issue is QoL: I am absolutely unwilling to be forced to work more than 8-9 hours a day (weekdays only) after 2-3 years out of law school. That already seems to knock off every BL firm and all of the other lit boutiques in my OP. So my real concern is figuring out what my exit strategy is before I even get into BL, because I tend to neglect personal stuff and that will definitely happen as soon as I start at BL. So I am trying to approach this process with the sole goal of maximizing lit opportunities (primarily income) within my two major constraints--not pure commercial, not BL hours. I would rather go back to my old job than do transactional work (or pure commercial lit or anything too financial) or be working 10 hours, 6 days a week 5 years out. Going by the vibe and patterns at my school, it is not even clear to me that there is any place in the legal industry for me. Hence this thread: getting more perspectives and more voices.

You've chosen the wrong profession if you are looking to make a lot of money while minimizing hours. Law firms bill *by the hour* and are also the biggest payers in the profession,* so in order to pay you big bucks, they will work you hard. After all, what we are selling is our time, not some sort of commodity that we produce. That's not to say you can't be comfortable with good hours as a lawyer--some federal and state (and even city) government jobs provide good pay with good benefits and low hours expectations [note that DOJ litigating divisions are not necessarily like this, US Attorneys offices certainly aren't]--but you you'll max out at GS15 in six-ish years.** It sounds like you might really enjoy your clerkship--if so, consider becoming a career clerk. Especially with a magistrate or district court judge in a lower-COL market on a not-too-busy court, you'd be close to the beating heart of litigation, working on legal issues, making fine money (the GS scale, mentioned above and detailed below), and able to work 9-6ish. Those jobs aren't easy to get, but you have the grades, and if you're geographically flexible, you might be able to snag one. Non-litigation roles in advocacy organizations and trade associations can also pay well with low hours, but it sounds like these don't appeal to you, and you usually have to work biglaw first anyway. If you made more at your previous job than you would on the GS scale and had the quality of life you are looking for, then perhaps you should go back (recognizing that you probably should've figured out what job you wanted before you went to law school in the first place).

*The lawyers who actually make the most money are plaintiffs attorneys who win/settle massive cases and GCs/lawyer CEOs of big corporations. There is a narrow and fraught path to the former and it requires a lot more pounding pavement than it sounds like you'd want to do. The latter is by definition corporate work, which does not appeal to you.

**If you have no idea what this means, go here, pick the locality where you will live, check the annual rate table, look at Row 11, column 1, that's what you'll make during your judicial clerkship right out of law school. Your next federal job, you'll bump up to 12, 1 and then 13,1 pretty quickly. 14 and 15 take a few more years. You advance along the columns in years you don't advance along the rows. (It's a bit more nuanced than this, but this should give you a general idea of federal pay.)

[Anonymous User]

So based on everything here, I think it might be worth you trying biglaw, for the resume line and the experience (if you have as little experience in the profession as you suggest, it's good just to know how the different parts of it work), but I would strongly suggest aiming for government work. It's true that a lot of the more complex/interesting government jobs aren't exactly cushy wrt hours/work-life balance, but my understanding is that they're much better than biglaw (not billing hours is a big plus and from my own experience, vacations and family commitments are much more respected. Plus, it is psychologically very different to run your own cases compared to being at a partner or client's beck and call).

Unfortunately law is 1) a service profession (even in government, where you serve the public), and 2) populated by a ton of strivers, so there is a pretty strong pressure toward long hours. And there is often an inverse relationship between how interesting the work is and how many hours it requires, as well as a period where you have to put in long hours to get the experience that will get you to the job where you don't have to put in such long hours.

[Anonymous User]

OP here; thank you for the responses! They have been really helpful.

What you cannot do - certainly not at any firm worth its salt - is consistently work 9-5 or even 8-6 on high-end, intellectually stimulating work. There are a lot of very smart, very well-credentialed people out there who are willing to work themselves to the bone, and partners prefer to work with people who are willing to work very hard as opposed to those who are not. And while you might be able to exit to some sort of intellectually stimulating and relatively relaxed litigation role in-house, at a nonprofit/industry group/trade association, or with the government, you're still not going to be working 8 hours a day in those roles. You cannot succeed in this profession if you're not willing to work a lot, particularly in the early stages of your career. You just can't.

Could you elaborate on the bolded? Is that restricted to particular types of gov't positions? While I am absolutely okay occasionally sacrificing a weekend or working 60-80 hours one week to meet a deadline, doing that regularly is a no-go. And the BigFed people across DOJ divisions and other departments that I have talked to have consistently said they generally work 40-50 hours a week.

You've chosen the wrong profession if you are looking to make a lot of money while minimizing hours. . . . (recognizing that you probably should've figured out what job you wanted before you went to law school in the first place)

To be clear, I said "maximize income," not "make a lot of money." The minimum salary I would make for gov't given the tables you sent is still a decent amount more than I made before law school, and anything over $100k is pretty good in my book. I also do want to be a lawyer. I do not think it is unreasonable for someone who enjoys law and enjoys practicing law to believe before law school that there are some positions somewhere in the country that provide a wage above starvation level for something less than 120 hours per week. I had no knowledge of the legal industry; I am not quite sure how I would decide on an exact job before I even set foot on campus.

I would strongly suggest aiming for government work. It's true that a lot of the more complex/interesting government jobs aren't exactly cushy wrt hours/work-life balance, but my understanding is that they're much better than biglaw

Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

I do not think it is unreasonable for someone who enjoys law and enjoys practicing law to believe before law school that there are some positions somewhere in the country that provide a wage above starvation level for something less than 120 hours per week.

I had no knowledge of the legal industry; I am not quite sure how I would decide on an exact job before I even set foot on campus.

No disrespect meant, but there's sort of a disconnect between these two statements. It's not unreasonable to believe a lot of things but when you don't actually know anything about the industry, you can't rely on what you believe (nor can you know if you enjoy practicing law before you do it, really). I mean, of course there are jobs with above-starvation-level wages for less than 120 hours a week (people are not work ing 17+ hours a day 7 days a week); but legal salaries tend to fall along a bimodal curve, where big law is a hump at one end of the graph, and then there's a significant hump along the sort of $50-60-70k range (I don't remember exactly; you should probably look for the most recent version of this).

In any case, I would say that my average week working for the feds is probably 50 hrs or so, except that when I'm prepping for trial (or in trial of course) that goes out the window. Personally I tend to do longer days rather than work on the weekends; others probably arrange that differently.

[Anonymous User]

OP. I would be fine with $60-70k depending on the job.

[Iowahawk]

Just some random misconception/biglaw-supremacy correcting:

"What you cannot do - certainly not at any firm worth its salt - is consistently work 9-5 or even 8-6 on high-end, intellectually stimulating work. There are a lot of very smart, very well-credentialed people out there who are willing to work themselves to the bone, and partners prefer to work with people who are willing to work very hard as opposed to those who are not."

This is about biglaw. The vast majority of American attorneys, including the vast majority of those doing "high-end, intellectually stimulating work," do not work and have never worked in biglaw. Unless you define "intellectually stimulating" as just meaning "biglaw work," which is circular.

"Law firms bill *by the hour* and are also the biggest payers in the profession,* so in order to pay you big bucks, they will work you hard."

Again, this conflates biglaw with all law firms. The vast majority of firms neither pay biglaw bucks nor work their attorneys as hard as biglaw.

"legal salaries tend to fall along a bimodal curve, where big law is a hump at one end of the graph, and then there's a significant hump along the sort of $50-60-70k range (I don't remember exactly; you should probably look for the most recent version of this)."

This is the *nominal starting salary* curve, not the *legal salary* curve. It doesn't adjust for COL and only looks at starting salary. Most attorneys in the first hump, especially at firms, will make six figures before long. Lots of partners from TTTs at random five-atty firms you've never heard of that do estate planning or whatever make a lot more than 70k. There are only a few states in the country where the average attorney salary is below six figures and the median American attorney makes 130k. And whatever route OP choses, they're not likely to be median given their credentials.

OP, it will indeed be impossible to find biglaw money at a 9-5 for the reasons these people are giving. But since you don't seem to want or need biglaw money, and you have sterling credentials (so far), you will have no shortage of options that make a comfortable upper middle class income with lower hours if that's what you want, including at firms (though I agree that you seem like a good candidate for a govt job). You'll have to follow a different path from most of your peers who want or need the money, though.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, I'm the anon who referenced the bimodal salary curve, and you're right, I should have specified starting salary. No, that's not where people end up long term. It's still something to consider. My point was more that if the OP passes on biglaw (which is totally fine), the distribution of (starting) salaries outside biglaw isn't equal - it's not so easy to go, "I don't need $180k, I'm fine with $110k or 100k." I agree that the OP doesn't seem to be super income-motivated, but it's something that people who aren't familiar with law don't generally know.

Re: high-end and intellectually stimulating, I think one of the issues a lot of people find with big law is that what is "high end" isn't actually intellectually stimulating at all - it's high-end (and high stress) because it's major companies and high-stakes, and not necessarily because of the nature of the issues involved. But intellectually stimulating is also extraordinarily subjective. I find criminal law much more intellectually stimulating than finance/corporate, no matter how theoretically complex the latter is (though of course there can be lots of rote, non-stimulating issues in criminal law, and one factor that goes towards intellectually stimulating is variety - your garden variety DUI trial is way more intellectually stimulating the first time you do one, after the 25th you're probably not intellectually stimulated any more).

Re: hours - I do know plenty of people who work for small firms who work a LOT - maybe not quite work biglaw hours, but more than what many would consider good work-life balance. The service nature of private sector work, and the billable hour, do contribute to long hours in many parts of the profession (though no, of course not all), and I think it's important to keep that in mind, too.

[polareagle]

Just some random misconception/biglaw-supremacy correcting:

"Law firms bill *by the hour* and are also the biggest payers in the profession,* so in order to pay you big bucks, they will work you hard."

Again, this conflates biglaw with all law firms. The vast majority of firms neither pay biglaw bucks nor work their attorneys as hard as biglaw.

Yeah, I don't think I actually conflated anything. It's not inaccurate to say that law firms, nearly all of them, at all levels, of all sizes, that do litigation at any sort of high level bill by the hour. There are of course some tiny, super-high-end firms that are trying alternative models, there are very routine small dollar matters that may be billed per matter, and insurance defense is often capped at a certain dollar figure. But in private practice, my understanding is that you're still billing by the hour, especially for anything OP would consider interesting. (Plaintiffs attorneys operate a bit differently, although they should still track hours. But see my caveat in my initial post.)

It is also objectively true that law firms are the biggest payers in the profession (again with the caveat in my initial post). As you point out, most law firms do not pay biglaw money or work people biglaw hours. Totally fair, and I didn't say anything contrary to that in my post. My point was and remains that making the biggest bucks in the profession requires working long hours, and I think we agree on that.

Now, as it turns out, OP would actually be fine with 60-70k for the right job. That's important info that would've helped earlier. Given that and OP's expressed interests and aversions, OP should run, not walk, away from biglaw. I think the answer here is obviously government, and I definitely wouldn't discount state or city government work as well. State AGs offices can be super interesting places that work on a whole panoply of interesting issues, provide good benefits and decent salaries (certainly in your range), and have reasonable hours expectations.

I think the question for you, OP, is if you really want to go to trial ever (or, to a lesser extent, be in any practice that is ultimately responsive to or controlled by a judge). If so, you have to be prepared to work long hours to get stuff done on tight timelines. Not all the time, not even necessarily often, but sometimes. That I think is the issue with finding a litigation position that will have uniform hours across all days, weeks, months, and years. Litigation is controlled by a set of procedural rules that impose timelines often out of whack with reality. Litigation is controlled by judges who will get around to your case when they get around to your case and then put it on their schedule, not yours.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it’s not clear to me exactly what you’re asking? You do what’s required to go through OCI and you’ll almost certainly be fine. OCI at Columbia/NYU is kind of a well-oiled machine that will get you to a good firm. DC is a tougher market than NYC, but you’re more than qualified. To the extent covid has changed things, no one knows what’s going to happen.

What did you do this summer?

OP here. I had a district court internship, and I loved it.

Let me try to clarify to give you a sense of my frame of mind. I worked in a job I liked before law school. I went to law school because I thought it would be interesting, I would be good at it, and I wanted to practice--and I did not take on debt. But 80+% of my classmates--regardless of prior career, regardless of college major, regardless of family situation, regardless of hobbies or interests--end up in BL positions doing corporate work or commercial lit in jobs that suck up all of their time and that are almost all in a single city. Most of the rest enter ideologically charged advocacy nonprofits that I would be unwilling to work for.

I am an arriviste and still do not get how this industry works at all. I want a job, but BL seems indistinguishable from contractual servitude to me. I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would voluntarily enter that industry, especially classmates who have seemingly no interest in business or finance. I feel extremely isolated and lost. When I have tried to get help, I have literally been told by classmates that they would be bored not working 10+ hours a day. Others have said they cannot help me because our career goals are too different. Career services has an extremely effective, efficient system--but takes participation in it for granted.

The point is, I am asking for help here because I am hoping that there are some people somewhere who have (1) enjoyed law school and wanted an intellectually stimulating environment, (2) preferred lit to transaction, (3) were not interested in being consumed entirely by their jobs, if possible. I would be curious about how they approached the career search process both broadly (e.g. Should I even do BL?) and narrowly (e.g. What are major differentiators for DC firms?). I feel like those are not unreasonable preferences, but they have narrowed the pool of potential advice-givers in my environment to basically 0. I feel simultaneously like a crazy person and the only sane person at my school.

Ok, this is a little melodramatic for a person that is in a position I would have killed to be in when I was approaching the job search. You have a clerkship and a 4.0 from one of the best schools in the country. You can write your own ticket to most jobs.

First, I would tell you to definitely go to BigLaw, or a Lit Boutique this summer, because it sounds like you have no experience with what BigLaw life entails, and a lot of your worries would be solved by getting this experience. You might find you like it, you might hate it. It doesn't really matter because you have a clerkship lined up anyway and you can always transition from there.

Nonetheless, I suspect you would be happier working for the government or in academia. That's fine, because you should still try and get some BigLaw experience this summer before transitioning post-clerkship. You can also split your summer between a BigLaw firm and a government job, like some other posters have suggested.

To answer your question about DC firms and approaching OCI, from my experience working with most of them, the ones you would be most interested in this summer are:

Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson & Jones Day (if you have a clerkship you are FedSoc aligned), WilmerHale, Sidley, and Paul Weiss. S&C's DC office is tiny, but it is very well connected to the Trump administration/FedSoc if you are interested. I could be missing some, but I think these fit your credentials very well, and you likely would not fit in at a place like Jenner. I can't speak to the culture of every office beyond what you can find on Vault and Chambers, but just shoot alumni working at the firms an email and ask for a quick chat. With your credentials, you will have options.

I doubt any of these places would give you appellate litigation work over the summer, but you would get a feel for BigLaw and what the hours entail. I think you might find that working litigation is not the soul-crushing grind other types of BigLaw can be. Interviewing with the firms, and taking second looks at them will give you a sense for the culture, and if you can see yourself working there.

Jones Day DC is much more FedSocy than GDC DC from my experience. Latham and Hogan are must-bids for DC OCI with an appellate focus imo, they're big offices with prestigious appellate/SC groups (Greg Garre, Neal Katyal).

Summers with top credentials and clerkships can get appellate work, or even do exclusively appellate work, at at least some of the top DC firms. That's a good thing to ask 3Ls about. Interviewing with an explicit appellate focus may make hiring harder, though, and there's probably not a good reason to do it.

Also if you're conservative and interested in appellate you should consider Consovoy McCarthy and Cooper & Kirk. I know the former takes summers/splits, not sure on the latter.

Also for other 2Ls reading this thread besides OP, the "you won't like Jenner" comment is because Jenner DC is a very lefty place, which will make it great for some and not so great for others. For people who don't mind working at a very liberal firm, or who would like it, it's an extremely selective office that's likely very attractive. If you're very liberal, you might also consider Gupta Wessler.

I have grades similar to OP's and I will soon have to make a similar choice. For those who have kindly weighed in on this discussion so far, how would you choose one appellate group over another? What factors would you consider? Are there any articles comparing and contrasting the work they do? Does lifestyle vary between the appellate groups at different firms?

[Anonymous User]

I guess it’s not clear to me exactly what you’re asking? You do what’s required to go through OCI and you’ll almost certainly be fine. OCI at Columbia/NYU is kind of a well-oiled machine that will get you to a good firm. DC is a tougher market than NYC, but you’re more than qualified. To the extent covid has changed things, no one knows what’s going to happen.

What did you do this summer?

OP here. I had a district court internship, and I loved it.

Let me try to clarify to give you a sense of my frame of mind. I worked in a job I liked before law school. I went to law school because I thought it would be interesting, I would be good at it, and I wanted to practice--and I did not take on debt. But 80+% of my classmates--regardless of prior career, regardless of college major, regardless of family situation, regardless of hobbies or interests--end up in BL positions doing corporate work or commercial lit in jobs that suck up all of their time and that are almost all in a single city. Most of the rest enter ideologically charged advocacy nonprofits that I would be unwilling to work for.

I am an arriviste and still do not get how this industry works at all. I want a job, but BL seems indistinguishable from contractual servitude to me. I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would voluntarily enter that industry, especially classmates who have seemingly no interest in business or finance. I feel extremely isolated and lost. When I have tried to get help, I have literally been told by classmates that they would be bored not working 10+ hours a day. Others have said they cannot help me because our career goals are too different. Career services has an extremely effective, efficient system--but takes participation in it for granted.

The point is, I am asking for help here because I am hoping that there are some people somewhere who have (1) enjoyed law school and wanted an intellectually stimulating environment, (2) preferred lit to transaction, (3) were not interested in being consumed entirely by their jobs, if possible. I would be curious about how they approached the career search process both broadly (e.g. Should I even do BL?) and narrowly (e.g. What are major differentiators for DC firms?). I feel like those are not unreasonable preferences, but they have narrowed the pool of potential advice-givers in my environment to basically 0. I feel simultaneously like a crazy person and the only sane person at my school.

Ok, this is a little melodramatic for a person that is in a position I would have killed to be in when I was approaching the job search. You have a clerkship and a 4.0 from one of the best schools in the country. You can write your own ticket to most jobs.

First, I would tell you to definitely go to BigLaw, or a Lit Boutique this summer, because it sounds like you have no experience with what BigLaw life entails, and a lot of your worries would be solved by getting this experience. You might find you like it, you might hate it. It doesn't really matter because you have a clerkship lined up anyway and you can always transition from there.

Nonetheless, I suspect you would be happier working for the government or in academia. That's fine, because you should still try and get some BigLaw experience this summer before transitioning post-clerkship. You can also split your summer between a BigLaw firm and a government job, like some other posters have suggested.

To answer your question about DC firms and approaching OCI, from my experience working with most of them, the ones you would be most interested in this summer are:

Kellogg, Williams & Connolly, Covington, Gibson & Jones Day (if you have a clerkship you are FedSoc aligned), WilmerHale, Sidley, and Paul Weiss. S&C's DC office is tiny, but it is very well connected to the Trump administration/FedSoc if you are interested. I could be missing some, but I think these fit your credentials very well, and you likely would not fit in at a place like Jenner. I can't speak to the culture of every office beyond what you can find on Vault and Chambers, but just shoot alumni working at the firms an email and ask for a quick chat. With your credentials, you will have options.

I doubt any of these places would give you appellate litigation work over the summer, but you would get a feel for BigLaw and what the hours entail. I think you might find that working litigation is not the soul-crushing grind other types of BigLaw can be. Interviewing with the firms, and taking second looks at them will give you a sense for the culture, and if you can see yourself working there.

Jones Day DC is much more FedSocy than GDC DC from my experience. Latham and Hogan are must-bids for DC OCI with an appellate focus imo, they're big offices with prestigious appellate/SC groups (Greg Garre, Neal Katyal).

Summers with top credentials and clerkships can get appellate work, or even do exclusively appellate work, at at least some of the top DC firms. That's a good thing to ask 3Ls about. Interviewing with an explicit appellate focus may make hiring harder, though, and there's probably not a good reason to do it.

Also if you're conservative and interested in appellate you should consider Consovoy McCarthy and Cooper & Kirk. I know the former takes summers/splits, not sure on the latter.

Also for other 2Ls reading this thread besides OP, the "you won't like Jenner" comment is because Jenner DC is a very lefty place, which will make it great for some and not so great for others. For people who don't mind working at a very liberal firm, or who would like it, it's an extremely selective office that's likely very attractive. If you're very liberal, you might also consider Gupta Wessler.

I have grades similar to OP's and I will soon have to make a similar choice. For those who have kindly weighed in on this discussion so far, how would you choose one appellate group over another? What factors would you consider? Are there any articles comparing and contrasting the work they do? Does lifestyle vary between the appellate groups at different firms?

Appellate is a niche practice and these are good questions that I don't know the answer to for the most part, but one important consideration that's fairly visible from the outside is the size of the practice, which is correlated with the size of the book of business and thus at least somewhat correlated with whether appellate work is actually accessible to associates.* For example, I know that at Latham (22 appellate partners in DC) and GDC (25 appellate partners in DC) you (1) do not need to be a SCOTUS or feeder clerk to be a successful appellate associate and (2) you can do 100% appellate as a summer if you show an interest (granted people I know who successfully did that had exceptional, SCOTUS-plausible credentials). That may not be true at a more niche practice like Munger (3 appellate partners in DC; not that a summer is getting hired at Munger DC anyway).

*This isn't a perfect proxy and, for example, JD DC has a huge issues & appeals group but it might be fairly inaccessible for "normal" associates (I don't know for sure) because of the ludicrous number of SCOTUS clerks there. In a high-profile employment discrimination suit a couple of the SCOTUS clerks there claimed that even they couldn't break into I&A.