Advice Needed - Tech Guy Considering Litigation Forum

[thebroteinshake]

Hi!

Thank you so much for your thoughts on this. I currently work in big tech (one of Amazon, FB, Google, Apple, Netflix) and plan to attend law school this fall, but I have been wrestling with the question as I approach enrollment. I am unsure if I should give up my current career to become a litigator, preferably in arbitration or boutique litigation to avoid heavy loads of discovery.

Two criteria are important to me in regards to my career: (1) interest/fulfillment in the work I do (2) autonomy over my time and the type of people I work with. I want to go to law school because I believe a career in law would give me more of (1) in exchange for less of (2), in comparison to my role in tech. Before committing my money and time into law school, I wanted to stress-test my reasons for believing a career in law would be more satisfying than my current one in tech with real practitioners. I also want to separate facts from myths about the hours of big law litigation.

Would you be able to answer these questions regarding the two issues mentioned above?

Interest/fulfillment in litigation

1. Context
a. I find the logical nature of law beautiful. For example, a defense attorney knows exactly what the allegations are being brought in the plaintiff’s pleading and is able to logically map out a strategy: submit a motion to dismiss based on the jurisdiction or the facts of the circumstances -> if unsuccessful, identify the requirements for the allegation to be true and prove as many of them as false as possible based on precedents, docs, and depos.
b. In comparison, formulating strategies in tech can be ambiguous. For example, there is no logical formula that tells an entrepreneur to build Facebook vs. Google - both are good ideas. There is no one source of truth that tells you how a business should be run. When an idea is chosen, we certainly try our best to think strategically for execution, but, even then, there is a lot more variance and guess work on what the correct answer is and what the future holds.
c. I know that there are ambiguities in litigation in regards to whether certain precedents are similar to the circumstances at hand, but the clear objectives of the litigation process and the formulaic nature at the big picture level are refreshing to me.

2. Questions
a. In practice, do you (the practicing litigators) also find fulfillment in the logical nature of the work? Does that fulfillment wear away after a couple of years?
b. I understand that many of the hours billed are to more procedural tasks, like privileged logs or document requests. Even as a senior associate, do you feel that these mundane tasks dominate the feeling you get from work, or do you feel that you are spending a lot of time thinking about the strategy and researching materials critical to the argument you are making?
c. Some of the matters you work on are probably in industries that you have no interest in (ie the subprime auto loan market). Does this affect how much enjoyment you get out of your work? If so, how much of these uninteresting cases do you work on?
d. (For the arbitration and boutique associates) Since there is no discovery, do you feel that you work on more substantive stuff? If you are but still billing a lot of hours, what makes up those times that you don’t do doc reviews? Is it the number of cases you handle?

Autonomy over time/people you work with

1. Context
a. If I pursue litigation, I think my optimal outcome is a partnership; the exit options for litigation do not seem great compared to corporate. To be on a partner track, I heard I should expect to bill 2400 hours a year, which probably means 3000 hours online. That’s roughly 12 hours a day, or 9am to 9pm. Even to meet the minimum billable requirement of 2000 hours, that’s probably 2500 hours online, or 9-to-7 days.
b. Litigation is adversarial in nature and requires precision, which probably heightens anxiety and tension when working with others.

2. Questions
a. To make partner, is the only way really to consistently work 9-to-9 days for eight years? Do you actually work these hours, or are these inflated in anyway? Does work taper off earlier on Fridays like other industries?
b. With the tough hours, do you feel in control of your own schedule? I know litigation is better than corporate in this nature, but I just don’t know what social life you can have when you are working 9-to-9.
c. Are people that you work with generally nice within your own team? If you hate someone you work with in one case, can you avoid them next time?

Fwiw, I currently make about what a 5-6th year would make on the Cravath scale (base and bonus), so I am leaving a lot on the table for law school. I don’t hate my work in tech, and I think I could add a logical nature to it by applying my own frameworks more frequently. But man, there’s something super cool about advocating for someone with your legal expertise, and if it’s at all possible, I would love to sit on a federal court bench. I am currently planning to attend a T6 with $$, and I have enough savings to be debt free.

Thanks so much for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you!

[CanadianWolf]

One of your two goals in law is to work in biglaw as a litigator with autonomy over your time & with respect to the type of people with whom you work.

Your brief post history indicates that you were initially headed to law school in Fall, 2016. You wrote that you had a "full ride" to Northwestern, but that you were not offered admission from the Harvard Law waitlist.

Your current earnings are in the $350,000 to $450,000 range in the tech industry (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, or Netflix).

I encourage you to remain in big tech because your earnings & hours seem to be superior to that of the typical biglaw tenure.

You wrote: "I find the logical nature of law beautiful." You then share your impression of the nature of biglaw litigation. You like that it is unambiguous in comparison to formulating strategies in technology. You seek fulfillment as a litigator, but have concerns about possible heightened anxiety and tension when working with others. You then want to understand how to become a partner in a major law firm. Eventually you would like to become a federal judge.

You conclude that you are headed to a top 6 law school with $$--which rules out Harvard, Yale, & Stanford.

Do I understand your thoughts correctly ?

While I encourage you to remain in your current position, it might be helpful to some readers to know whether you are headed to Chicago or to Columbia law school.

As an aside: Are any of these courses of interest to you ? https://www.law.uw.edu/academics/llm/ip
Then hit "See Full Curriculum"


P.S. I feel compelled to share with you that sometimes opposing litigators might be a touch less than honest or ethical than one unacquainted with the profession might suspect.

[Definitely Not North]

Please, please do not quit your multi-six-figure FAANG job to go to law school. You currently have the job most actual practicing lawyers wish they could have (and indeed most biglaw lawyers would kill to be your in-house counsel making half or less of what you currently do).

You are hugely over-idealizing and romanticizing the legal profession. The work is not inherently interesting. You have no autonomy over your time or the people you work with. You will not find more satisfaction than you do in your current job.

If you're really convinced you'd just love it, you should keep working your current job until you have FatFIRE money in the market, and then retire (should take, what, just a few more years?). Then go to a good school on a full ride and have fun. Once you start practicing, you'll see what I'm talking about and will thank yourself for not declining the lottery payout you're currently receiving in order to pursue it.

[Anonymous User]

If you're really convinced you'd just love it, you should keep working your current job until you have FatFIRE money in the market, and then retire (should take, what, just a few more years?). Then go to a good school on a full ride and have fun.

This. Like actually.

[Anonymous User]

You're going to get a lot of responses from people saying you're crazy. But without knowing where they're coming from, take them with some grain of salt, especially if they're corporate/transactional people. I suspect most people unhappy with law are people who did it because they saw it as their best option to level up their perceived useless degrees. If you like business, corporate law is a rather oblique way to be in it. The people who loved law school and nerd out about the law seem to be happier.

I left big tech (FAANG) for law school, and I know of a couple others that did too. I made great money for awesome hours compared to biglaw. I wanted to be a litigator. I don't care that much about money either (gov exit later on seems great). Tech was fun and the lifestyle was great. But I like the law. If you think you really like law for the law, then do it--but get a full-ride or close to it. Don't pay anywhere near sticker. I'm in biglaw and will clerk (dct and coa). I love reading cases, keeping up with recent opinions, legal blogs. I even like the discovery work of a junior associate, or having more autonomy on pro bono matters. I get to write a good amount, even email summaries of issues are chances to show your writing and thinking. It's fun for me. I also found something beautiful about the analytical nature of the law. Tech was fun for the years I did it. But I didn't see myself in it long term or as a career.

[xoxoBlairWaldorf]

Hi!

Thank you so much for your thoughts on this. I currently work in big tech (one of Amazon, FB, Google, Apple, Netflix) and plan to attend law school this fall, but I have been wrestling with the question as I approach enrollment. I am unsure if I should give up my current career to become a litigator, preferably in arbitration or boutique litigation to avoid heavy loads of discovery.

Two criteria are important to me in regards to my career: (1) interest/fulfillment in the work I do (2) autonomy over my time and the type of people I work with. I want to go to law school because I believe a career in law would give me more of (1) in exchange for less of (2), in comparison to my role in tech. Before committing my money and time into law school, I wanted to stress-test my reasons for believing a career in law would be more satisfying than my current one in tech with real practitioners. I also want to separate facts from myths about the hours of big law litigation.

Would you be able to answer these questions regarding the two issues mentioned above?

Interest/fulfillment in litigation

1. Context
a. I find the logical nature of law beautiful. For example, a defense attorney knows exactly what the allegations are being brought in the plaintiff’s pleading and is able to logically map out a strategy: submit a motion to dismiss based on the jurisdiction or the facts of the circumstances -> if unsuccessful, identify the requirements for the allegation to be true and prove as many of them as false as possible based on precedents, docs, and depos.
b. In comparison, formulating strategies in tech can be ambiguous. For example, there is no logical formula that tells an entrepreneur to build Facebook vs. Google - both are good ideas. There is no one source of truth that tells you how a business should be run. When an idea is chosen, we certainly try our best to think strategically for execution, but, even then, there is a lot more variance and guess work on what the correct answer is and what the future holds.
c. I know that there are ambiguities in litigation in regards to whether certain precedents are similar to the circumstances at hand, but the clear objectives of the litigation process and the formulaic nature at the big picture level are refreshing to me.

2. Questions
a. In practice, do you (the practicing litigators) also find fulfillment in the logical nature of the work? Does that fulfillment wear away after a couple of years?
b. I understand that many of the hours billed are to more procedural tasks, like privileged logs or document requests. Even as a senior associate, do you feel that these mundane tasks dominate the feeling you get from work, or do you feel that you are spending a lot of time thinking about the strategy and researching materials critical to the argument you are making?
c. Some of the matters you work on are probably in industries that you have no interest in (ie the subprime auto loan market). Does this affect how much enjoyment you get out of your work? If so, how much of these uninteresting cases do you work on?
d. (For the arbitration and boutique associates) Since there is no discovery, do you feel that you work on more substantive stuff? If you are but still billing a lot of hours, what makes up those times that you don’t do doc reviews? Is it the number of cases you handle?

Autonomy over time/people you work with

1. Context
a. If I pursue litigation, I think my optimal outcome is a partnership; the exit options for litigation do not seem great compared to corporate. To be on a partner track, I heard I should expect to bill 2400 hours a year, which probably means 3000 hours online. That’s roughly 12 hours a day, or 9am to 9pm. Even to meet the minimum billable requirement of 2000 hours, that’s probably 2500 hours online, or 9-to-7 days.
b. Litigation is adversarial in nature and requires precision, which probably heightens anxiety and tension when working with others.

2. Questions
a. To make partner, is the only way really to consistently work 9-to-9 days for eight years? Do you actually work these hours, or are these inflated in anyway? Does work taper off earlier on Fridays like other industries?
b. With the tough hours, do you feel in control of your own schedule? I know litigation is better than corporate in this nature, but I just don’t know what social life you can have when you are working 9-to-9.
c. Are people that you work with generally nice within your own team? If you hate someone you work with in one case, can you avoid them next time?

Fwiw, I currently make about what a 5-6th year would make on the Cravath scale (base and bonus), so I am leaving a lot on the table for law school. I don’t hate my work in tech, and I think I could add a logical nature to it by applying my own frameworks more frequently. But man, there’s something super cool about advocating for someone with your legal expertise, and if it’s at all possible, I would love to sit on a federal court bench. I am currently planning to attend a T6 with $$, and I have enough savings to be debt free.

Thanks so much for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you!

10% of big law associates become partner. You want the job of senior/counsel but you will most certainly need to pay your dues of mundane doc review. Honestly, I think you are insane. Most of us became lawyers because we studied political science/history/IR and had no other path to a 6 figure job. My spouse has a STEM degree and finds the practice of law interesting (for the same reasons as you) but seeing what my day-to-day is like would absolutely not want my job. Yes, I write motions and briefs but I also act as a glorified secretary.

You can probably avoid more mundane tasks if you go to a boutique or V5. However, that usually comes with higher hour requirements (significantly more than 9-9).

[CanadianWolf]

I agree with an above poster's assertion that you are viewing the legal profession in an idealistic and overly romantic fashion.

Our legal system is imperfect. Litigation can be, and often is, messy. It is not really the orderly, logical process that you envision. Yes there are guidelines, boundaries, parameters, limits or whatever else you may prefer to call them, but a lot of uncertainty and messiness occurs in between the boundaries.

Lawsuits are not always precise in stating the allegations. Quite often lawsuits are drafted in broad terms with the hope that the response will include revelations or errors.

Discovery may be more of a poker game than an orderly well defined process; for example, counsel often go to extreme measures in order to shield clients from making statements under oath.

Discovery is often used as a means to wear down the opposition rather than as a process to refine issues.

Litigants hide and destroy documents and other forms of evidence. Sometimes folks are not truthful. Sometimes clients will be less than forthcoming with their own counsel.

Judges make mistakes. Juries sometimes get it right, and sometimes they don't.

There is no certainty in the appellate process.

In short, what you are seeking is not there. And, if it is, it is rare.

[Anonymous User]

Anon who left tech. Agree with the people who say you may be romanticizing it. My main point is that it can be a good decision, and it’s good you’re getting input. Don’t switch for the money. Hours will be worse. Switch because you really really want to be a lawyer. That’s the main thing you have to know

[2013]

No advice here, but what do you do at a FAANG to earn that much? And how many years out are you? Some people I know in FAANG make like low $300ks 7 or so years out (software engineers and stuff), and I’m assuming you’re much junior than them.

[CanadianWolf]

Several years ago, I knew 2 computer engineers in their late 20s who worked in big tech (FAANG) whose total taxable comp for one year was about $700,000 and over $800,000.(Base salary was under $200,000 for both.)

[Anonymous User]

Autonomy is a funny word to use - law is inherently a client-service business. Juniors are accountable to partners who are accountable to the client. At least in biglaw, you have very little choice over who you get to work with, especially as an associate - the team just gets staffed with who the partner likes and who is available.

I hear what you are saying about the logic or strategy of law at a macro-level, but the actual practice actually involves a ton of ambiguity and judgment/discretion. The reason you are in litigation is because things are not black and white. Even if opposing parties logically should settle because of the strength of claims or business reasons, they might just be mad at each other and want to fight. There is no rule book for how to deal with opposing counsel in a discovery dispute. While the rules and precedents exist, judges care more or less about certain rules or precedents. Your client could tell you one thing but the documents show another, and that blows up your whole strategy. Also, as you get more senior you are a manager as much as you are a lawyer. While at a very big picture level you are still dealing within the framework of law (precedents, rules), these very human elements are also a big part of the practice. So while in my view liking the law is necessary to a sustainable career, it's not sufficient. I would not go into law if you are looking to escape ambiguity. (Also fwiw, the answer to every law school exam is "it depends, here's why." If you try to come up with the single right answer, you won't do well.)

[2013]

Several years ago, I knew 2 computer engineers in their late 20s who worked in big tech (FAANG) whose total taxable comp for one year was about $700,000 and over $800,000.(Base salary was under $200,000 for both.)

I’m assuming this is when everything vested. Just asked my question because I’m curious.

[Iowahawk]

You don't seem like you're in it for the money, which you have plenty of already presumably, so I don't know why someone with your goals would want to do biglawish litigation. I think you want to look for shops that don't look much like conventional biglaw--decent hours, good partnership prospects, heavy early responsibility. Those things are hard to find in high-end law--MTO and Keker are maybe two examples in your neck of the woods, and as a result they're incredibly selective--but more common in mid-market firms. At a T6 school with your background I wouldn't be surprised if you did very well with IP lit boutiques, though, which provide what you want (minus good hours).

Fwiw you seem reasonably financially independent and I don't see liking law as a nuts reason to choose to go to law school. You have some misconceptions, as others have pointed out, but so do pretty much all 0Ls. You'll quite possibly never hit your current earnings again if you end up moving into government or something, but as long as you're good with that, a T6 school with $$+ is a good deal.

[thebroteinshake]

Incredible responses, thank you all. I tried posting this in another forum and was only ridiculed for being naive and/or insufferable (I think I came off as a tone deaf millennial about my income etc), so thank you for your kindness and looking past that. I am stressing a lot over this decision, so I really appreciate your thoughts on this. Let me post some responses here to questions that were asked:

- Going to T6 in NYC; haven't heard back from HYS.
- I am an older applicant (+7 yrs out of UG), so my comp rose with through laterals and such. For money, it is a good time to be in tech.

It's been a tough decision for me because my situation seems a bit Catch-22:
(1) I should go to law school only if I really want to be a lawyer.
(2) BUT law is not what it looks like from the outside, and I won't know what being a lawyer is like until I practice.

I totally buy that I have a overly simplistic view of the litigation process. I just finished reading 25 pages worth of "typical day as an attorney" posts, and some parts of it really does sound like a drag - discovery related disputes, partners asking for shitty/unimportant research tasks, etc.

To further dispel my overly idealistic version of a legal career, could you give me examples (maybe 5 if you are feeling generous) of research tasks you've done recently? Something like "Look up NJ regulations on subprime auto loans". I realize you all practice in different areas and that your examples aren't representative of the profession, but it would help me just paint a detailed snapshot on what I could be expected to read about deeply before writing, etc..

Just as an example, here are research tasks that I did during the past week. These would then become memos or presentations I make to the broader org, which is probably similar to the writing part of litigation:

- Find out why our key metric X dropped in the last two months.
- What is the demographic composition of our customers?
- What is a north star goal that is both measurable and representative of our progress next year?

[CanadianWolf]

A common research assignment in litigation is "how do I get this admitted as evidence during trial ?" regarding something that has not been agreed upon in the pre-trial order.

Often research is about a procedural matter rather than about substantive law.

Another issue might deal with "standing" in a multi-party action. Essentially asking who has a right to sue.

[Anonymous User]

"Research tasks" is a very narrow swath of what happens in litigation. Also what you do very much depends on your seniority. Partners rarely do their own research; that's an associate (and commonly junior associate) task. By contrast, partners are thinking about strategy.

Junior legal research tasks can be really varied. It could be as simple as find me the standard on X or another procedural matter. It could also be - go spend 10 hours and see what you can find that would support the principle Y (and you may or may not understand why Y is important depending on your supervisor/team/firm). Or it could be go find me factually analogous cases on A issue in B jurisdiction. What all these variables are depends on what kind of case it is and what the particular issues are. If you join a particular group, that could narrow what you do (e.g., if you are in securities lit, then you will be primarily researching securities issues, probably class action issues, procedural issues). But juniors can be researching anything from choice of law, to personal jurisdiction, to statute of limitations, to substantive claim/defense elements, to very discrete applications of a principle under certain circumstances, to discovery rules. Also you can get what feel like repeat questions because caselaw varies by jurisdiction, so you might be repeatedly asked to research what the law on standing is or the standard for a motion to dismiss because it's for different cases in different places, but it can feel similar.

There's also whole swath of litigation tasks that you're not asking about, even at boutique firms, like depositions. So you could be asked to go review John Doe's documents and identify a set of potential deposition documents. Or review the entire document database for a particular issue, or review Q set of documents for Z issue. Then you might be asked to help put together a deposition outline. Plus there's all of the document review and production and search terms fights and priv log issues that happens before that (and even if you're at a boutique, you will likely still have to engage in discovery to some extent). Obtaining and learning the facts is a core associate function in litigation.

And then if you're doing briefs, you're coordinating cite checks and putting together exhibits and doing sealing papers and all of that.

As you get more senior, you get to do more strategy and talking to the client/witnesses and writing and less of the grunt work, but you'll have to manage all of the above tasks. And it takes years to get there, and you will likely have some period of years where you don't really have a great window into the big picture and are just doing random sets of litigation tasks as you build skills.

[johndhi]

interesting thread.

I have to say, the reasons you explain in the OP seem like good reasons to go to law school. One thing I'd suggest considering is, rather than doing one or the other -- could you possibly take night school law classes while keeping your job? I imagine there's a legal team at your company that would absolutely love to have a former engineer or product manager or whatever you are get a law degree and help them with their work. Or, at least, you wouldn't be giving up big $ to pursue the legal stuff.

If you go through all that and decide you still really want to litigate, you can do that then. FAANG all have shitloads of litigation, so why don't you go talk to one of the litigators at your company and see if they could use you/you could get involved with helping them somehow?

Also -- I think the key to liking law school and litigation is enjoying *writing*, not just logic generally. You seem like a good writer so maybe it's a good fit. Discovery, IMO, isn't just "blah" work, it's actually important to do well, and is undoubtedly logic-based, so I might rethink the common notion on this site that it's unimportant.

ps: feel free to DM me if you want to talk about how to approach in-house lawyers, since I am one.

[Anonymous User]

Also -- I think the key to liking law school and litigation is enjoying *writing*, not just logic generally. You seem like a good writer so maybe it's a good fit

This. Former tech-ish (not FAANG or $$$) -> biglaw. The amount and quality of writing you have to produce to be a successful lit associate is much more than I would have ever imagined.

A few more disorganized musings:

I always go by the 80-20 rule: 80% of all jobs is boring or worse, so it's the 20% that matters. If you truly love 20% of your job then you can put up with the other 80%, so don't let the other 80% people mention ITT dissuade you. I guess the question is will the 20% in biglaw be better than the 20% you have at your current job?

I know others ITT have mentioned IP law, but I'll throw it into the mix one more time. If you want to make partner you're going to need to find something that differentiates you from the rest of the pack. If you snagged a FAANG job you must be good with tech, and you seem like a decent writer which is a leg up over most of the other tech/science folks that go to law school. IP is a small pond, so it's easier to be a big fish there. If you can write half as well as your peers in lit and also present well to clients, you'll do great.

I happen to love IP law. Whatever litigation you do, you're going to spend a lot of time dealing with the "facts"--it's not just a bunch of legal research. The difference between IP lit and general lit is that the "facts" in IP are technology. I happen to like technology, so put this into my 20% category. If I had to spend every day fighting over some boring contract gone wrong, I'd put the "facts" in the 80% instead. I tried a pro bono general lit assignment and lost all of my motivation.

FWIW, I also enjoyed engaging with the law in law school. It exercised a different part of my brain from what I developed in undergrad. But what I enjoyed about law school is totally different from what I enjoy now, so take that with a grain of salt. These days, the most fulfilling parts of my job are learning about new technologies, working with really smart people that teach me something new every day, engaging with experts, and taking on responsibilities that are above my skill/experience level but still within reach. I think I'd have to have shot to be an appellate lawyer to get the same thing out of biglaw as I did from law school.