Research and Writing Focused Jobs? Forum

[Anonymous User]

So I'm a new litigation associate, and turns out... I hate litigation. I especially hate discovery and the constant squabbling. The idea of going to court or taking a deposition makes me want to throw up or faint or both. I love research and writing, and I'm a great writer, but the rest of it... not so much.

I think this is something I knew about myself already. When I was in law school, my original aim was to do transactional work. Those opportunities never materialized for me, and I needed a job, so... This.

I expressed my concerns to a senior person in my group and they said they would see what they could do about adjusting my practice or letting me switch to corporate. However, I'm not confident that anything will actually change for me here, and I'm miserable now.

What kind of attorney jobs are out there that would let me flex my research/writing/nitpicky detail talents, but without the catfighting parts (as much as possible)? Give me a goal to work toward/hope for, if you know of a position like this.

I'm in Texas, if that helps. I see some government jobs now and then that sound more advisory, but they all want more experience than I have, and I know the longer I stick with litigation the more stuck I'll be.

[username7283012341]

This may be obvious, but have you clerked/applied to clerkships? It sounds like you would enjoy the day-to-day work, and afterwards would be a natural time to transition to something else, like a government or policy job. If you love it, you might also consider a job as a career clerk.

[Anonymous User]

This may be obvious, but have you clerked/applied to clerkships? It sounds like you would enjoy the day-to-day work, and afterwards would be a natural time to transition to something else, like a government or policy job. If you love it, you might also consider a job as a career clerk.

I did clerk, as part of an effort to rehabilitate my job prospects, and I did love it. Unfortunately, I came off of that clerkship in the middle of COVID and was not seeing any government or policy roles that would consider me.
I would love to career clerk (it's my actual dream), but those jobs are few at the federal level (and often in weird locations), and want more experience than I have at the state level.

[2013]

A lot of firms are hiring corporate people now. If you really hate litigation that much, you should reach out to those firms. Kind of surprising your firm isn’t excited about your wanting to do corporate work...

[Anonymous User]

A lot of firms are hiring corporate people now. If you really hate litigation that much, you should reach out to those firms. Kind of surprising your firm isn’t excited about your wanting to do corporate work...

I see those postings, but they usually require two years of experience or more. I haven't seen any that would indicate they'd hire someone with zero experience.

[Anonymous User]

As others have said, if you really want corporate, it seems like it's an area people are needed in right now. I would take what people put in the listings with a huge grain of salt, apply and see what happens.

However, while you are in litigation, I'd advise you to try and volunteer for the parts of the job you seem to enjoy. I know you said you hate the fights of discovery, but most of it is all about the "nitpicky detail" you say you are talented at, reviewing the documents carefully, cross referencing what you requested with what you received, and finding precedent for whether your requests are reasonable (i.e. research). Similarly, deposition prep is also all about that nitpicky detail, and about building your story (i.e., writing). And of course, motion briefing is entirely research and writing.

I also don't mean to challenge you too much, but if you are a good writer, you can also be a good oral advocate. The fundamentals of both are the same—your job is to distil the facts and law down to only the essential elements, to allow the fact finder to understand your argument quickly. The only real difference is one involves saying it out loud, and the other involves typing it on a computer. If it is just a fear of public speaking (which is what it sounds like), you can overcome that if you want to. It can help to realize you often have an audience of exactly one, the Judge, so it’s more like talking on the phone with an important stranger. In fact, you are specifically not allowed (most of the time) to talk to the other side directly, so it's a lot more measured and controlled than it might feel before you do it.

Finally, I would advise you to try and make sure corporate is really going to fix what you don't like about your current job before you take the plunge. Changing practices once is not that weird, but changing twice in your first five years would make you an outlier. I’m a litigator, but from what I understand sometimes clients or deal partners in corporate can be contentious too—but you don't get to shrug it off as them just zealously advocating, they are on your team. Also I've heard corporate work is subject to weird, arbitrary deadlines. The deadlines in litigation can be arbitrary too, but you usually know them far in advance, and there is only so much the other side can try and do to screw with your schedule. And, from what I understand, corporate tends to involve even less writing and research, at least in the way you seem to mean. No job is going to give you the amount of time to examine legal issues academically the way you can when working on an appellate brief.

[Anonymous User]

So I'm a new litigation associate, and turns out... I hate litigation. I especially hate discovery and the constant squabbling. The idea of going to court or taking a deposition makes me want to throw up or faint or both. I love research and writing, and I'm a great writer, but the rest of it... not so much.

I think this is something I knew about myself already. When I was in law school, my original aim was to do transactional work. Those opportunities never materialized for me, and I needed a job, so... This.

I expressed my concerns to a senior person in my group and they said they would see what they could do about adjusting my practice or letting me switch to corporate. However, I'm not confident that anything will actually change for me here, and I'm miserable now.

What kind of attorney jobs are out there that would let me flex my research/writing/nitpicky detail talents, but without the catfighting parts (as much as possible)? Give me a goal to work toward/hope for, if you know of a position like this.

I'm in Texas, if that helps. I see some government jobs now and then that sound more advisory, but they all want more experience than I have, and I know the longer I stick with litigation the more stuck I'll be.

It sounds like you would be a natural fit for appellate litigation. What type of clerkship did you do?

[jotarokujo]

if you like research and writing and would like to be a career clerk, i don't think litigation is fully off the table and you should go transactional. it's just discovery you don't like. So I would try to focus more on research/memo/motion work

as a lit junior in biglaw, it's really easy for like 90% of your time be spent on research and memos. that's what lit juniors complain about, in fact as doc review can be considered actually relaxing/unstressful in comparison.

[Anonymous User]

So I'm a new litigation associate, and turns out... I hate litigation. I especially hate discovery and the constant squabbling. The idea of going to court or taking a deposition makes me want to throw up or faint or both. I love research and writing, and I'm a great writer, but the rest of it... not so much.

I think this is something I knew about myself already. When I was in law school, my original aim was to do transactional work. Those opportunities never materialized for me, and I needed a job, so... This.

I expressed my concerns to a senior person in my group and they said they would see what they could do about adjusting my practice or letting me switch to corporate. However, I'm not confident that anything will actually change for me here, and I'm miserable now.

What kind of attorney jobs are out there that would let me flex my research/writing/nitpicky detail talents, but without the catfighting parts (as much as possible)? Give me a goal to work toward/hope for, if you know of a position like this.

I'm in Texas, if that helps. I see some government jobs now and then that sound more advisory, but they all want more experience than I have, and I know the longer I stick with litigation the more stuck I'll be.

It sounds like you would be a natural fit for appellate litigation. What type of clerkship did you do?

It was a federal district clerkship. I wouldn't have been opposed to doing an appellate clerkship afterward, but no luck with applications. Honestly, my stats were borderline for a district court.

I did hear from the person I talked to that I might like appellate work (if someone else did the oral arguments), but I don't know if or how much opportunity my firm has for me to do that.

[Anonymous User]

if you like research and writing and would like to be a career clerk, i don't think litigation is fully off the table and you should go transactional. it's just discovery you don't like. So I would try to focus more on research/memo/motion work

as a lit junior in biglaw, it's really easy for like 90% of your time be spent on research and memos. that's what lit juniors complain about, in fact as doc review can be considered actually relaxing/unstressful in comparison.

Okay, I'm not trying to be dense, but... How can I focus mostly on those things, exactly? I don't think I have that level of control over my work. I don't even mind doc review, it can be kind of relaxing, but I hate everything else about discovery.

And then what exit options might I have, or what would my future look like, if I do stick with litigation? Again, I don't ever want to take a deposition or argue before a court. Those ideas are terrifying. Ideally I'd eventually like a job where you don't have a billables goal, and I'm absolutely fine with taking a pay cut to find that.

[Internationalist]

So I'm a new litigation associate, and turns out... I hate litigation. I especially hate discovery and the constant squabbling. The idea of going to court or taking a deposition makes me want to throw up or faint or both. I love research and writing, and I'm a great writer, but the rest of it... not so much.

I think this is something I knew about myself already. When I was in law school, my original aim was to do transactional work. Those opportunities never materialized for me, and I needed a job, so... This.

I expressed my concerns to a senior person in my group and they said they would see what they could do about adjusting my practice or letting me switch to corporate. However, I'm not confident that anything will actually change for me here, and I'm miserable now.

What kind of attorney jobs are out there that would let me flex my research/writing/nitpicky detail talents, but without the catfighting parts (as much as possible)? Give me a goal to work toward/hope for, if you know of a position like this.

I'm in Texas, if that helps. I see some government jobs now and then that sound more advisory, but they all want more experience than I have, and I know the longer I stick with litigation the more stuck I'll be.

It sounds like you would be a natural fit for appellate litigation. What type of clerkship did you do?

It was a federal district clerkship. I wouldn't have been opposed to doing an appellate clerkship afterward, but no luck with applications. Honestly, my stats were borderline for a district court.

I did hear from the person I talked to that I might like appellate work (if someone else did the oral arguments), but I don't know if or how much opportunity my firm has for me to do that.

Did you apply to state appellate clerkships too? These might fit the bill too.

[Anonymous User]

So I'm a new litigation associate, and turns out... I hate litigation. I especially hate discovery and the constant squabbling. The idea of going to court or taking a deposition makes me want to throw up or faint or both. I love research and writing, and I'm a great writer, but the rest of it... not so much.

I think this is something I knew about myself already. When I was in law school, my original aim was to do transactional work. Those opportunities never materialized for me, and I needed a job, so... This.

I expressed my concerns to a senior person in my group and they said they would see what they could do about adjusting my practice or letting me switch to corporate. However, I'm not confident that anything will actually change for me here, and I'm miserable now.

What kind of attorney jobs are out there that would let me flex my research/writing/nitpicky detail talents, but without the catfighting parts (as much as possible)? Give me a goal to work toward/hope for, if you know of a position like this.

I'm in Texas, if that helps. I see some government jobs now and then that sound more advisory, but they all want more experience than I have, and I know the longer I stick with litigation the more stuck I'll be.

It sounds like you would be a natural fit for appellate litigation. What type of clerkship did you do?

It was a federal district clerkship. I wouldn't have been opposed to doing an appellate clerkship afterward, but no luck with applications. Honestly, my stats were borderline for a district court.

I did hear from the person I talked to that I might like appellate work (if someone else did the oral arguments), but I don't know if or how much opportunity my firm has for me to do that.

Did you apply to state appellate clerkships too? These might fit the bill too.

My concern there would be that those jobs are temporary, even if I enjoyed the work a lot. I'd be right back here again. I do see staff attorney positions at some courts occasionally, but not many and they (again) want more experience than I have.

[Anonymous User]

So I'm a new litigation associate, and turns out... I hate litigation. I especially hate discovery and the constant squabbling. The idea of going to court or taking a deposition makes me want to throw up or faint or both. I love research and writing, and I'm a great writer, but the rest of it... not so much.

I think this is something I knew about myself already. When I was in law school, my original aim was to do transactional work. Those opportunities never materialized for me, and I needed a job, so... This.

I expressed my concerns to a senior person in my group and they said they would see what they could do about adjusting my practice or letting me switch to corporate. However, I'm not confident that anything will actually change for me here, and I'm miserable now.

What kind of attorney jobs are out there that would let me flex my research/writing/nitpicky detail talents, but without the catfighting parts (as much as possible)? Give me a goal to work toward/hope for, if you know of a position like this.

I'm in Texas, if that helps. I see some government jobs now and then that sound more advisory, but they all want more experience than I have, and I know the longer I stick with litigation the more stuck I'll be.

It sounds like you would be a natural fit for appellate litigation. What type of clerkship did you do?

It was a federal district clerkship. I wouldn't have been opposed to doing an appellate clerkship afterward, but no luck with applications. Honestly, my stats were borderline for a district court.

I did hear from the person I talked to that I might like appellate work (if someone else did the oral arguments), but I don't know if or how much opportunity my firm has for me to do that.

Did you apply to state appellate clerkships too? These might fit the bill too.

My concern there would be that those jobs are temporary, even if I enjoyed the work a lot. I'd be right back here again. I do see staff attorney positions at some courts occasionally, but not many and they (again) want more experience than I have.

(Different anon) How do you expect to get staff attorney positions that require more experience without getting said experience? You don't move into your dream job that fits the bill in every way this early in your career. You *get* to your dream job. And no, you won't be "right back here" at the end of your limited-term clerkship; you'll have another year of clerkship experience under your belt.

[Anonymous User]

Some practice groups may be more suited to this (or at least to writing) because they focus on motion practice rather than trial. Securities law and product liability (which often involves procedural motions, e.g. jurisdiction or venue) may be worth checking out.

[Anonymous User]

As others have said, if you really want corporate, it seems like it's an area people are needed in right now. I would take what people put in the listings with a huge grain of salt, apply and see what happens.

However, while you are in litigation, I'd advise you to try and volunteer for the parts of the job you seem to enjoy. I know you said you hate the fights of discovery, but most of it is all about the "nitpicky detail" you say you are talented at, reviewing the documents carefully, cross referencing what you requested with what you received, and finding precedent for whether your requests are reasonable (i.e. research). Similarly, deposition prep is also all about that nitpicky detail, and about building your story (i.e., writing). And of course, motion briefing is entirely research and writing.

I also don't mean to challenge you too much, but if you are a good writer, you can also be a good oral advocate. The fundamentals of both are the same—your job is to distil the facts and law down to only the essential elements, to allow the fact finder to understand your argument quickly. The only real difference is one involves saying it out loud, and the other involves typing it on a computer. If it is just a fear of public speaking (which is what it sounds like), you can overcome that if you want to. It can help to realize you often have an audience of exactly one, the Judge, so it’s more like talking on the phone with an important stranger. In fact, you are specifically not allowed (most of the time) to talk to the other side directly, so it's a lot more measured and controlled than it might feel before you do it.

Finally, I would advise you to try and make sure corporate is really going to fix what you don't like about your current job before you take the plunge. Changing practices once is not that weird, but changing twice in your first five years would make you an outlier. I’m a litigator, but from what I understand sometimes clients or deal partners in corporate can be contentious too—but you don't get to shrug it off as them just zealously advocating, they are on your team. Also I've heard corporate work is subject to weird, arbitrary deadlines. The deadlines in litigation can be arbitrary too, but you usually know them far in advance, and there is only so much the other side can try and do to screw with your schedule. And, from what I understand, corporate tends to involve even less writing and research, at least in the way you seem to mean. No job is going to give you the amount of time to examine legal issues academically the way you can when working on an appellate brief.

I mean, I don't think there's necessarily a connection between being a good writer and being a good speaker, at least not without a ton of effort and screwing up. I'm not afraid of public speaking. I'm just not good at it. I stutter, stumble over words, forget what I was going to say, and completely draw a blank when faced with unexpected questions.

Similarly, maybe I could TAKE a deposition because you prepare your questions in advance, but I don't think I could defend one because that's more off the cuff. How the hell do I know when I'm supposed to object? And what if I do it wrong or don't do it when I need to? Then I've ruined everything.

I will admit part of what I hate most about my job is the person supervising me. There's zero mentorship and zero answers to questions, but when I inevitably fuck it up I that's a problem too. It's not exactly conducive to finding any confidence in doing anything. Getting out from under them would be a major benefit.

What I'm learning is that I should probably not have gone to law school, which I was already thinking was the case, and that I should maybe be looking for exits from the profession into other fields. I was hoping maybe there were jobs working for Westlaw or something, I don't know. Something more advisory, in any case.

I appreciate your input, anyway.

[Anonymous User]

As others have said, if you really want corporate, it seems like it's an area people are needed in right now. I would take what people put in the listings with a huge grain of salt, apply and see what happens.

However, while you are in litigation, I'd advise you to try and volunteer for the parts of the job you seem to enjoy. I know you said you hate the fights of discovery, but most of it is all about the "nitpicky detail" you say you are talented at, reviewing the documents carefully, cross referencing what you requested with what you received, and finding precedent for whether your requests are reasonable (i.e. research). Similarly, deposition prep is also all about that nitpicky detail, and about building your story (i.e., writing). And of course, motion briefing is entirely research and writing.

I also don't mean to challenge you too much, but if you are a good writer, you can also be a good oral advocate. The fundamentals of both are the same—your job is to distil the facts and law down to only the essential elements, to allow the fact finder to understand your argument quickly. The only real difference is one involves saying it out loud, and the other involves typing it on a computer. If it is just a fear of public speaking (which is what it sounds like), you can overcome that if you want to. It can help to realize you often have an audience of exactly one, the Judge, so it’s more like talking on the phone with an important stranger. In fact, you are specifically not allowed (most of the time) to talk to the other side directly, so it's a lot more measured and controlled than it might feel before you do it.

Finally, I would advise you to try and make sure corporate is really going to fix what you don't like about your current job before you take the plunge. Changing practices once is not that weird, but changing twice in your first five years would make you an outlier. I’m a litigator, but from what I understand sometimes clients or deal partners in corporate can be contentious too—but you don't get to shrug it off as them just zealously advocating, they are on your team. Also I've heard corporate work is subject to weird, arbitrary deadlines. The deadlines in litigation can be arbitrary too, but you usually know them far in advance, and there is only so much the other side can try and do to screw with your schedule. And, from what I understand, corporate tends to involve even less writing and research, at least in the way you seem to mean. No job is going to give you the amount of time to examine legal issues academically the way you can when working on an appellate brief.

I mean, I don't think there's necessarily a connection between being a good writer and being a good speaker, at least not without a ton of effort and screwing up. I'm not afraid of public speaking. I'm just not good at it. I stutter, stumble over words, forget what I was going to say, and completely draw a blank when faced with unexpected questions.

Similarly, maybe I could TAKE a deposition because you prepare your questions in advance, but I don't think I could defend one because that's more off the cuff. How the hell do I know when I'm supposed to object? And what if I do it wrong or don't do it when I need to? Then I've ruined everything.

I will admit part of what I hate most about my job is the person supervising me. There's zero mentorship and zero answers to questions, but when I inevitably fuck it up I that's a problem too. It's not exactly conducive to finding any confidence in doing anything. Getting out from under them would be a major benefit.

What I'm learning is that I should probably not have gone to law school, which I was already thinking was the case, and that I should maybe be looking for exits from the profession into other fields. I was hoping maybe there were jobs working for Westlaw or something, I don't know. Something more advisory, in any case.

I appreciate your input, anyway.

You actually have defending and taking depositions completely flipped, which is ok given your seniority.

Defending depositions is 97% about preparing your witness before you even get in the room. Once the depo has started, your job is pretty much done. In fact, you cant even really talk to your witness anymore. Depo objections by the defending attorney usually amount to nothing, and making or not making them will likely have little to no impact (other than privilege, which is usually pretty obvious). You are basically watching a rocket launch.

Conversely, taking a depo is only half prep. Yes you can write out some points you want to hit, but you have to listen to the answers and react, changing or creating new questions depending on what the witness says. Taking requires much more adaptive thinking.

And also, yes, there is a lot of overlap between being a good oral advocate and a good writer.

[szumo]

I'm in a similar boat and realized gradually that I absolutely do not want to be a litigator. I hate the constant bickering. I'm good doing legal research and writing, but if I never have to worry about discovery or oral argument, I will be happy. That being said, I did really enjoy my internships at DOJ and FAA, where I was essentially a baby attorney-advisor. There are plenty of attorney-advisor positions that only require 1-3 years of experience to lateral. Of course the majority will be in D.C., so if you won't want to live there that narrows your options. But that is definitely an area to look into. Postings for DOJ are here (and sometimes also on USAJobs): https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/a ... -vacancies

The federal circuit courts also have staff attorneys throughout the country. I've only seen a couple of circuits listed on OSCAR so you probably have to scour their websites to find the positions.

There are also advisory roles at city attorney's and state AG offices. They have different names in different locations so it will require a bit of research to find the positions, but they definitely exist. Try looking for roles with "advisor" or "counsel" in the name. I have seen several postings for both the CA AG and San Diego City Attorney in the past six months, and I was only casually checking my school's Symplicity page. They usually want someone with several years of experience, but some of the postings are open to someone with one year of experience (which a clerkship usually counts towards).

[Anonymous User]

I also passionately hate civil litigation, in large part because of the bickering and intentionally dicking the other party around as part of your strategy. But I enjoy litigation and have found the perfect fit with white collar defense at a boutique. For one, the government is a much more rational opposing party (in part because they hold all the cards and they know it) so you don't get bullshit motions filed at 5pm on a Friday requiring weekend work. Also, I do a lot of writing and research -- depending on my cases as much as 75% of my time -- and I find criminal law way more interesting so the research is fun. I also interact a lot with clients which breaks the monotony and reminds me of the stakes. I rarely spend much time with discovery, and often when I do, it has already been digested first by associates at a biglaw firm who have winnowed their initial 10 million docs down to the 2k docs most relevant to our client. Something you might want to consider.

[jotarokujo]

(Different anon) How do you expect to get staff attorney positions that require more experience without getting said experience? You don't move into your dream job that fits the bill in every way this early in your career. You *get* to your dream job. And no, you won't be "right back here" at the end of your limited-term clerkship; you'll have another year of clerkship experience under your belt.

it's been a while but in case this helps anyone: yes this is correct. you wouldn't just be "right back there" after doing a state appellate clerkship, you would have another credential

[Lawyers&Commissary]

I also passionately hate civil litigation, in large part because of the bickering and intentionally dicking the other party around as part of your strategy. But I enjoy litigation and have found the perfect fit with white collar defense at a boutique. For one, the government is a much more rational opposing party (in part because they hold all the cards and they know it) so you don't get bullshit motions filed at 5pm on a Friday requiring weekend work. Also, I do a lot of writing and research -- depending on my cases as much as 75% of my time -- and I find criminal law way more interesting so the research is fun. I also interact a lot with clients which breaks the monotony and reminds me of the stakes. I rarely spend much time with discovery, and often when I do, it has already been digested first by associates at a biglaw firm who have winnowed their initial 10 million docs down to the 2k docs most relevant to our client. Something you might want to consider.

Would you be able to share more about the nature of your writing-heavy white collar practice and what sort of writing you produce? My impression had been that white collar was less writing-intensive than civil.

[Anonymous User]

As others have said, if you really want corporate, it seems like it's an area people are needed in right now. I would take what people put in the listings with a huge grain of salt, apply and see what happens.

However, while you are in litigation, I'd advise you to try and volunteer for the parts of the job you seem to enjoy. I know you said you hate the fights of discovery, but most of it is all about the "nitpicky detail" you say you are talented at, reviewing the documents carefully, cross referencing what you requested with what you received, and finding precedent for whether your requests are reasonable (i.e. research). Similarly, deposition prep is also all about that nitpicky detail, and about building your story (i.e., writing). And of course, motion briefing is entirely research and writing.

I also don't mean to challenge you too much, but if you are a good writer, you can also be a good oral advocate. The fundamentals of both are the same—your job is to distil the facts and law down to only the essential elements, to allow the fact finder to understand your argument quickly. The only real difference is one involves saying it out loud, and the other involves typing it on a computer. If it is just a fear of public speaking (which is what it sounds like), you can overcome that if you want to. It can help to realize you often have an audience of exactly one, the Judge, so it’s more like talking on the phone with an important stranger. In fact, you are specifically not allowed (most of the time) to talk to the other side directly, so it's a lot more measured and controlled than it might feel before you do it.

Finally, I would advise you to try and make sure corporate is really going to fix what you don't like about your current job before you take the plunge. Changing practices once is not that weird, but changing twice in your first five years would make you an outlier. I’m a litigator, but from what I understand sometimes clients or deal partners in corporate can be contentious too—but you don't get to shrug it off as them just zealously advocating, they are on your team. Also I've heard corporate work is subject to weird, arbitrary deadlines. The deadlines in litigation can be arbitrary too, but you usually know them far in advance, and there is only so much the other side can try and do to screw with your schedule. And, from what I understand, corporate tends to involve even less writing and research, at least in the way you seem to mean. No job is going to give you the amount of time to examine legal issues academically the way you can when working on an appellate brief.

I mean, I don't think there's necessarily a connection between being a good writer and being a good speaker, at least not without a ton of effort and screwing up. I'm not afraid of public speaking. I'm just not good at it. I stutter, stumble over words, forget what I was going to say, and completely draw a blank when faced with unexpected questions.

Similarly, maybe I could TAKE a deposition because you prepare your questions in advance, but I don't think I could defend one because that's more off the cuff. How the hell do I know when I'm supposed to object? And what if I do it wrong or don't do it when I need to? Then I've ruined everything.

I will admit part of what I hate most about my job is the person supervising me. There's zero mentorship and zero answers to questions, but when I inevitably fuck it up I that's a problem too. It's not exactly conducive to finding any confidence in doing anything. Getting out from under them would be a major benefit.

What I'm learning is that I should probably not have gone to law school, which I was already thinking was the case, and that I should maybe be looking for exits from the profession into other fields. I was hoping maybe there were jobs working for Westlaw or something, I don't know. Something more advisory, in any case.

I appreciate your input, anyway.

You actually have defending and taking depositions completely flipped, which is ok given your seniority.

Defending depositions is 97% about preparing your witness before you even get in the room. Once the depo has started, your job is pretty much done. In fact, you cant even really talk to your witness anymore. Depo objections by the defending attorney usually amount to nothing, and making or not making them will likely have little to no impact (other than privilege, which is usually pretty obvious). You are basically watching a rocket launch.

Conversely, taking a depo is only half prep. Yes you can write out some points you want to hit, but you have to listen to the answers and react, changing or creating new questions depending on what the witness says. Taking requires much more adaptive thinking.

And also, yes, there is a lot of overlap between being a good oral advocate and a good writer.

OP, I could've written your initial post when I was a first-year litigation associate. I hated everything about litigation except for research and writing. I also tried to find a job that focused on research & writing like a Westlaw gig. I ultimately did a few years of biglaw lit and then moved to an advisory/regulatory in-house role before I ended up in a role that involved managing litigation.

You know what a lot of managing litigation entails? Reading and distilling things to their essentials to share with management and business clients, basically the corollary to research and writing at a law firm.

The poster who I quoted above offers fantastic advice. I agree that being a lit associate is stressful but remember, you are expected to feel this way. You're new to the job and litigation by nature is adversarial.

Signed,

Someone who was in your shoes 10 years ago and totally gets where you're coming from, but is grateful I never found that Westlaw research & writing gig

[Anonymous User]

I also passionately hate civil litigation, in large part because of the bickering and intentionally dicking the other party around as part of your strategy. But I enjoy litigation and have found the perfect fit with white collar defense at a boutique. For one, the government is a much more rational opposing party (in part because they hold all the cards and they know it) so you don't get bullshit motions filed at 5pm on a Friday requiring weekend work. Also, I do a lot of writing and research -- depending on my cases as much as 75% of my time -- and I find criminal law way more interesting so the research is fun. I also interact a lot with clients which breaks the monotony and reminds me of the stakes. I rarely spend much time with discovery, and often when I do, it has already been digested first by associates at a biglaw firm who have winnowed their initial 10 million docs down to the 2k docs most relevant to our client. Something you might want to consider.

Would you be able to share more about the nature of your writing-heavy white collar practice and what sort of writing you produce? My impression had been that white collar was less writing-intensive than civil.

PP here. I think that white collar being less writing intensive is true if you are at a big firm where you are mostly dealing with investigations and the clients are big companies, but at boutiques (at least in my experience), where the clients are individuals and many have actually been indicted (as opposed to being merely caught up in some way in an investigation), there is a lot of writing. In the past several months I have written appellate briefs, a Wells submission, a white paper, a motion to suppress, and motions in limine. There have been times where my job feels very similar to my COA clerkship in the amount of research and writing I do. Because it is a boutique with lean staffing ratios, an associate has primary responsibility for all initial drafting and attendant research, so there is a significant sense of ownership over the material and the work product that friends at big firms don't seem to have in the same way (of course with that comes the pressure of realizing that if you make a research error it's completely on you). Of course there is still some more mundane work, including discovery and client management, but that takes up a fraction of my time. But if you like writing and research and enjoy criminal law, at least for me, a white collar boutique has proven to be a good fit.

[Prudent_Jurist]

Not sure about your state, OP. I’m familiar with California, though. There are no state appellate court clerkships because the volume is so high. But staff attorney positions abound due to the backlog. Plenty of research and writing to go around.

Top of the pay scale is approximately $150-180k, I believe, depending on the court (e.g., First District in the Bay Area is going to pay more than Fifth District in Fresno). Plus you can max out a great pension if you stay long enough. Pay is salary, obviously, so no billables. Friends I know in these positions have a very flexible work schedule, especially since most are able to work from home now.

Can’t speak to your exact situation, but that’s my data point.

[AllAboutTheBasis]

This is pretty much the reason I got into tax. I like research and writing but don’t like the adversarial nature and discovery squabbles of litigation. Give tax a thought.

[szumo]

I also passionately hate civil litigation, in large part because of the bickering and intentionally dicking the other party around as part of your strategy. But I enjoy litigation and have found the perfect fit with white collar defense at a boutique. For one, the government is a much more rational opposing party (in part because they hold all the cards and they know it) so you don't get bullshit motions filed at 5pm on a Friday requiring weekend work. Also, I do a lot of writing and research -- depending on my cases as much as 75% of my time -- and I find criminal law way more interesting so the research is fun. I also interact a lot with clients which breaks the monotony and reminds me of the stakes. I rarely spend much time with discovery, and often when I do, it has already been digested first by associates at a biglaw firm who have winnowed their initial 10 million docs down to the 2k docs most relevant to our client. Something you might want to consider.

Would you be able to share more about the nature of your writing-heavy white collar practice and what sort of writing you produce? My impression had been that white collar was less writing-intensive than civil.

PP here. I think that white collar being less writing intensive is true if you are at a big firm where you are mostly dealing with investigations and the clients are big companies, but at boutiques (at least in my experience), where the clients are individuals and many have actually been indicted (as opposed to being merely caught up in some way in an investigation), there is a lot of writing. In the past several months I have written appellate briefs, a Wells submission, a white paper, a motion to suppress, and motions in limine. There have been times where my job feels very similar to my COA clerkship in the amount of research and writing I do. Because it is a boutique with lean staffing ratios, an associate has primary responsibility for all initial drafting and attendant research, so there is a significant sense of ownership over the material and the work product that friends at big firms don't seem to have in the same way (of course with that comes the pressure of realizing that if you make a research error it's completely on you). Of course there is still some more mundane work, including discovery and client management, but that takes up a fraction of my time. But if you like writing and research and enjoy criminal law, at least for me, a white collar boutique has proven to be a good fit.

I would love to do white collar defense, but I want to stick with public interest/government for the next 8 years so I can get my loans forgiven. If I were to clerk for a few more years (I'm only in my first year now at a state trial court, and am currently planning on staying in my position for a second year unless something better comes along, then I might apply to a federal district clerkship), and then work in a research/writing heavy position, such as an advisory role at the city attorney or for the state AG (or if I am very lucky an attorney-advisor position for DOJ or another federal agency), what do you think my odds are of being able to get a job similar to yours? What kind of work experience/practice area expertise/etc. would a white-collar boutique firm expect from someone 10 years out of law school? I would obviously love to work as an attorney-advisor for the criminal division at DOJ but it is so competitive, I'm not sure I have much of a shot (I have really good stats but from a TTTT school). If I don't find something good in the next 8 months, I was planning on applying to DOJ and various other honors programs next application cycle, as well.. but I'm not sure I want to "waste" one of my three DOJ slots on crim when I'm not likely to get it.. not to mention they are almost all trial attorney positions.