Plaintiff's Side vs Midlaw Forum

[Anonymous User]

I have gotten burned by Covid, and it looks like I only have two options for post-grad employment. One is a small plaintiff's side firm specializing in Employment Law. The other is a midsized firm where I would do general litigation (a lot of Insurance Defense) and maybe some defense-side Employment Law if I am lucky and there is need. Ultimately, I really only want to practice Employment Law at a large firm on the defense side. I likely would have had that lined up had it not been for Covid, and I have a lot of connections in the practice area. If I plan to lateral to one of these firms within a year or two, would it be better to go to the midsized firm or the plaintiffs firm? Obviously, the midsized firm will look better on paper as far as name recognition goes and keeps me on the defense side. On the other hand, the Plaintiff's firm would allow me to practice solely Employment Law, albeit from the plaintiff's side. I have asked partners in this area of practice and have gotten nearly split answers. Some say they would like a candidate with a firm grasp on the law even if it is from the other side. Others say that there is a negative connotation about attorneys that end up on the plaintiff's side at the start of their careers and worry about the skills they are actually getting there. Anyone have any advice on what they recommend? If it matters, this is in one of the plain states (think Nebraska, Oklahoma). Thanks.

[Jchance]

plaintiff's firm.

imo, it's better to be in the same field (employment law) than being in a different field. Law is a revolving-door, so it does not matter much whether you worked on plaintiff or defense side in the past; people make the switch all the time.

[Lacepiece23]

plaintiff's firm.

imo, it's better to be in the same field (employment law) than being in a different field. Law is a revolving-door, so it does not matter much whether you worked on plaintiff or defense side in the past; people make the switch all the time.

I agree with this especially with employment work. Although the defense side can be snobs and there may be conflict issues. YMMV.

But I’d you have any inclining of entrepreneurship. Go employment and start your own shop. I just did this after being in biglaw. I love it and it can be just as lucrative or more than being a biglaw associate.

Just some food for thought. It’s also not that hard to get clients. So much employment work and not too many employment lawyers.

[Anonymous User]

I actually think this is more or less a wash, since plaintiff's side employment work can come with negative connotations to some people (a lot of people?) in the biglaw world, so in that regard I think midlaw is the better opportunity. I've worked with L&E and lit attorneys who generally viewed the plaintiff's side folks as comparatively worse attorneys (whether fairly or unfairly, I cannot say).

But here plaintiff's side is definitely better from a substance perspective... But if you're in NE/OK, is there even biglaw there? Wouldn't firms there be midlaw?

[Anonymous User]

I’m a senior associate in BigLaw L&E in a major market. I would go for midlaw over the plaintiffs’ firm (unless it’s a highly regarded plaintiffs’ firm). I started out at a regional firm doing general lit for 2 years with a touch of employment law. What was important in the BigLaw hiring process was that I had litigation skills (because I was a junior associate at the time, the partners knew I could learn the L&E issues quickly enough to not be behind my peers).

I agree that many BigLaw attorneys will have a stigma against plaintiffs’ attorneys. A lot of BigLaw litigation focuses on wage and hour class and collective actions, so you may have better luck making the switch if you’re doing wage and hour cases. Because our rates are so high in BigLaw, we do not do a ton of single-plaintiff discrimination cases (firms like Littler, Jackson Lewis, etc. do more of these cases, although maybe this is different in your market).

[Itcamefromthesea]

In my anecdotal experience, plaintiff-side employment work was functionally an autopass but we did hire litigation associates from midlaw.

[Iowahawk]

I’m a senior associate in BigLaw L&E in a major market. I would go for midlaw over the plaintiffs’ firm (unless it’s a highly regarded plaintiffs’ firm). I started out at a regional firm doing general lit for 2 years with a touch of employment law. What was important in the BigLaw hiring process was that I had litigation skills (because I was a junior associate at the time, the partners knew I could learn the L&E issues quickly enough to not be behind my peers).

I agree that many BigLaw attorneys will have a stigma against plaintiffs’ attorneys. A lot of BigLaw litigation focuses on wage and hour class and collective actions, so you may have better luck making the switch if you’re doing wage and hour cases. Because our rates are so high in BigLaw, we do not do a ton of single-plaintiff discrimination cases (firms like Littler, Jackson Lewis, etc. do more of these cases, although maybe this is different in your market).

OP's market is almost certainly small enough that their biglaw equivalents do single-plaintiff cases fwiw

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Sorry for the confusion, but I do not plan to stay in the NE/OK market by the time I try lateraling to a bigger firm. At that point, my partner and I would be looking to move closer to family in Milwaukee or Minneapolis which are much bigger legal markets. It sounds like this may be a big factor for the calculus.

[Iowahawk]

OP here. Sorry for the confusion, but I do not plan to stay in the NE/OK market by the time I try lateraling to a bigger firm. At that point, my partner and I would be looking to move closer to family in Milwaukee or Minneapolis which are much bigger legal markets. It sounds like this may be a big factor for the calculus.

If you're going to lateral across markets, sooner is always better than later if you can manage it. My hunch is midlaw > plaintiff for trying to lateral cross-market to Dorsey, Faegre, Foley, etc., especially if by midlaw you mean a firm that's actually quite strong in its market like Baird Holm, Foulston, Nyemaster, etc. I know the Great Plains firms to some extent--I'm a native of the area as you can probably tell from my username--and may have an opinion on the specific firm you're talking about if you PM me.

[objctnyrhnr]

I am a biglaw lit associate. We’d mayyyybe consider somebody trying to make a move “up” from midlaw, but once you go to the plaintiffs side (in anything for that matter—not just L&E), you’d probably all but entirely preclude yourself from making a real biglaw move.

[Anonymous User]

Although it's not directly relevant to OPs position, I want to chine in to say that you can quite easily go from a plaintiff side employment position to biglaw if you're at a one of the more well-respected plaintiff side employment firms with a national footprint and you don't have any major conflicts from your previous work (e.g. places like Outten & Golden or Sanford Heisler). This is true generally of the top-flight plaintiff firms, and people reading this shouldn't avoid working at such a firm just because it might preclude them from moving into biglaw in the future. That being said, if you're at one of those firms you probably could have gotten a biglaw job of some sort in the first place, so it's not a common move.

OP: If you actually have connections in the employment law world and you have the background to land a biglaw job in "normal times" (in particular, you went to a school that will get your name pulled from the application slush pile) then my advice, as somebody involved in hiring at a biglaw firm, would be to work at the plaintiff side firm. Neither will be a guaranteed ramp, but you'll probably get more and better litigation experience at the p. side firm and you can tell a much more compelling story about why you want to switch sides than you can about switching practice areas. Also, insurance defense sucks.