Remaining a lit generalist Forum

[Anonymous User]

What level of generality across subject area can a litigator maintain as they rise up the ranks and still be successful?

I'm a junior associate 5 months into biglaw litigation. I'm most excited about legal analysis and writing. I haven't gotten to do depositions, motion practice, or be in trial (obviously), but they sound like what I want to do. Appellate work also seems really interesting (research, writing, deeper thinking).

I see firm bios of people who mention they specialize in labor and employment, construction, commercial, life sciences, etc. I'm not really interested in any one particular area. They all seem fun enough. But I don't like the idea of doing one type of law or feeling pigeonholed. So what's the best route to have variability in subject matter or clients? Can you find that in biglaw (if so how?) or is the answer to go to boutiques, gov, solo-small practice? On the government side, I'm thinking a wide range of criminal matters and civil enforcement. For private litigation, getting to work on cases across constitutional issues, private contracts, white collar defense, trademark, etc. (i.e. pick your favorite law school classes). I'm t14 and will double clerk soon (dct and coa).

[12YrsAnAssociate]

I'm a double clerk (d.ct. and coa) and I'm a trillionth year associate. I think that outside of appellate, it's hard to advance very far as a litigator without a carved out niche.

There are lots of reasons for this. If you're a generalist, and you're trying to get work from clients, you're pitching against lots of other generalists. That drives your rates down, and low rates makes it harder to justify promoting you. If you're a generalist, it's harder to make the pitch to the partner committee that they really need to split their pie to make you partner, since there are tons of generalists that'll take your place if you leave. If you're a generalist as an 8th year, it's harder to justify bringing you in on a case because you'll need to do a ton of background research at an expensive rate just to figure out the basics of the particular area of law. On the other hand, if you're one of 8 lawyers in the world that has tons of experience dealing with a specialty regulatory body, which deals with big money cases, and has hearings off the public record, and relies on its closed-door precedent on an ongoing basis, you can justify top rates from clients, make the case to partnership that they should split their firm equity, and can jump right into a matter in the area without handholding.

I personally stayed a generalist for far too long, and it definitely hurt my career advancement. If I had to do it over again, I'd look for some super niche regulatory scheme, that's super high dollar, and has high barriers of entry, I'd go work for the relevant regulatory body for a few years, and then I'd lateral to one of the few firms that does work in the area, and has a clear path to advancement to partnership. If my current job doesn't work out, this is precisely what I'll look to do.

[Anonymous User]

I'm assuming you want to do something like commercial lit and white collar, not to literally have no specialty and take whatever comes in the door from personal injury to probate (if that is what you want, small-firm practice is for you). The prospects for being a general commercial litigator are much better outside of major-market biglaw. In top regional firms generalists are the norm and specialists (beyond common, broad specialties like L&E or insurance) are the exception. The pressure described doesn't exist because PPP is lower, partnership prospects are much better, and they do more and smaller cases at lower rates. Your barrier to entry is your jurisdiction--you're one of the few firms that regularly handles complex cases in your market for major companies--not subject-matter. Of course, specialists still probably have it better, and if you're e.g. the guy for dealing with the utilities board in your state, you'll do very, very well.

For example, one partner I know went to HYS, was a COA clerk, spent time at a big firm, etc. and now works as mostly an L&E class action lawyer in a midsized market, but he also does a good amount of other random stuff--quite a bit of patent lit, other types of class cert, breach of contract, appeals. Another partner at the same firm has a similar background and does mostly breach of contract but also a good amount of white collar, appeals, and political law (he's the go-to guy for a major party in the state). They don't make biglaw money but they make plenty and their practices are very varied. Their value to their clients is that unlike local firms, they regularly do reasonably big and complex cases, and unlike big-market biglaw firms, they have local relationships and don't have crazy rates.

[Anonymous User]

The posts above are right. It’s not very helpful but I’ll also add that if you/your firm has a great relationship with a big client that litigates varied issues and trusts your firm to handle everything, you can sometimes work on their matters across issue areas.

[Anonymous User]

It's also slightly easier to be more of a generalist at a boutique than it is in BigLaw. A lot of boutiques market themselves as trial specialists who are generalists by choice. That usually isn't exactly the case, but it is a little bit easier to generalize in a smaller firm that is taking some cases on contingency, even though most people focus on a few specific areas to develop expertise.

[Anonymous User]

If I had to do it over again, I'd look for some super niche regulatory scheme, that's super high dollar, and has high barriers of entry, I'd go work for the relevant regulatory body for a few years, and then I'd lateral to one of the few firms that does work in the area, and has a clear path to advancement to partnership.

Thanks for the great replies in this thread! Could people give some examples of niche regulatory schemes?

[12YrsAnAssociate]

Thanks for the great replies in this thread! Could people give some examples of niche regulatory schemes?

I can't off the top of my head. I know several people that are gurus at gaming regulations, trade regulations for certain specific countries, insurance payment regulations, and hospital payment regulations. But I would drill even deeper than that to specific sub-agency decision-making processes. I think what I'm looking for is an area where there's lots of money at stake in a very regulated industry, and where the decisions are made through an opaque process by a fairly static body. But look, it's your career man. What would you be interested in and happy doing?

[Anonymous User]

If I had to do it over again, I'd look for some super niche regulatory scheme, that's super high dollar, and has high barriers of entry, I'd go work for the relevant regulatory body for a few years, and then I'd lateral to one of the few firms that does work in the area, and has a clear path to advancement to partnership.

Thanks for the great replies in this thread! Could people give some examples of niche regulatory schemes?

Digital currency
FDA
CFIUS

[papercutter]

Adding to what others have said: I think it's fine to spend a few years as a junior being a generalist and figuring out what specialties interest you. As you move up into the midyear ranks, you want to start developing some core areas where you can at least market yourself as a specialist. Most sophisticated clients aren't going to want to hire you just because they like your smile--they want someone who knows their area of law, or their industry, or has some other hook.

You also want your specialties to be ones you can grow in. For example, I think you will generally be at a disadvantage for white collar/investigations work unless you eventually do a tour as an AUSA.

Also keep in mind you can cultivate a few different specialties (preferably overlapping or with some relation to each other). That gives you some flexibility, at the cost of a tight focus.