If you could go back, what practice area would you choose hindsight 2020 instead of what you’re in right now? Forum

[giganto67]

Should’ve gone into something more regulatory or exec comp. litigation sucks

[Anonymous User]

Should’ve gone into something more regulatory or exec comp. litigation sucks

Could you share why you think that?

[Anonymous User]

General corporate or M&A, hands down. Hard to escape debt finance.

[theswisswereright]

Should’ve gone into something more regulatory or exec comp. litigation sucks

I wanted to be a transactional lawyer (probably real estate), and ended up shunted into litigation against my will. I knew I wouldn't like it, I don't like it, my firm is completely shutting me down on making any kind of change, and no other firm will hire me to do anything but litigation.

[NYto202.5]

I'm a 5th year in a corporate practice and am happy enough where I am, but I sometimes think that I would have been better suited to tax. When I see the people who get promoted to partner in tax, they're a bit more like me (less social, more intellectual, quirky) than the people who get promoted to partner in corporate. Also, a lot of what I do in corporate now is not at all intellectually challenging - I imagine that would be less the case in tax.

[AureliusCapital]

General corporate or M&A, hands down. Hard to escape debt finance.

Why do you want to escape

[Anonymous User]

Project Finance associate here who choose the practice group as it was interesting, dynamic and felt like I was contributing something to society by helping build a project. Those things are still true, but it's A LOT of project management which I don't love.

Wish I had chosen emerging companies/VC work.

[NoLongerALurker]

I'm a 5th year in a corporate practice and am happy enough where I am, but I sometimes think that I would have been better suited to tax. When I see the people who get promoted to partner in tax, they're a bit more like me (less social, more intellectual, quirky) than the people who get promoted to partner in corporate. Also, a lot of what I do in corporate now is not at all intellectually challenging - I imagine that would be less the case in tax.

+1, strong agree

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 5th year in a corporate practice and am happy enough where I am, but I sometimes think that I would have been better suited to tax. When I see the people who get promoted to partner in tax, they're a bit more like me (less social, more intellectual, quirky) than the people who get promoted to partner in corporate. Also, a lot of what I do in corporate now is not at all intellectually challenging - I imagine that would be less the case in tax.

Can you elaborate on this point? I am leaning corporate, but I've also noticed that partners in the corporate practice have a certain vibe. At least in my firm, most have been very charismatic people with an air of confidence. My personality is definitely not this.

[Anonymous User]

i chose tax after working in tax, lit, and another transactional group; definitely made the right choice. couldn't handle the intellectual dishonesty of lit or the roteness of most corporate work. tax is easily the most intellectually stimulating and the best lifestyle. i also consider less time dealing directly with dumb/greedy/psychotic clients to be a plus.

[Anonymous User]

i chose tax after working in tax, lit, and another transactional group; definitely made the right choice. couldn't handle the intellectual dishonesty of lit or the roteness of most corporate work. tax is easily the most intellectually stimulating and the best lifestyle. i also consider less time dealing directly with dumb/greedy/psychotic clients to be a plus.

As someone who practices tax, I disagree that it is the most intellectually stimulating.

If I had a choice and the grades, I would’ve wanted to do appellate lit.

[Anonymous User]

i chose tax after working in tax, lit, and another transactional group; definitely made the right choice. couldn't handle the intellectual dishonesty of lit or the roteness of most corporate work. tax is easily the most intellectually stimulating and the best lifestyle. i also consider less time dealing directly with dumb/greedy/psychotic clients to be a plus.

As someone who practices tax, I disagree that it is the most intellectually stimulating.

If I had a choice and the grades, I would’ve wanted to do appellate lit.

Maybe you can find very small niche areas that are more challenging, but the average tax person is going to have a much more intellectually demanding job than the average corporate or lit associate.

Even at the extremes, say high end tax structuring vs high end appellate lit, I’d guess that the tax stuff is more objectively difficult (meaning, the number or people who could do it well is smaller than the number of folks who could do appellate lit well - not that the tax folks are actually brighter than the appellate lit folks). Just the nature of having virtually unlimited complexity/rules (US, SALT, and non-US).

[Anonymous User]

I would do something related to private equity - M&A, fund formation or debt work. Seems like that is where all the new equity partners are being made these days.

[Anonymous User]

Project Finance associate here who choose the practice group as it was interesting, dynamic and felt like I was contributing something to society by helping build a project. Those things are still true, but it's A LOT of project management which I don't love.

Wish I had chosen emerging companies/VC work.

Why emerging companies/VC work?

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this thread as a summer who is lost and will need to pick a practice group soon.

[Anonymous User]

I'm happy with the route I chose. I've been doing appellate and impact litigation.

[Anonymous User]

Wish I had not done M&A. I like the work more, but the lifestyle is far worse than I could have imagined as a summer or first year. Litigation work (research, writing briefs) is less appealing to me, but man, after missing so many life events for people I love at the last minute, I would take work I like less in exchange for predictability.

[Anonymous User]

100%, my practice covers a couple of M&A specialist subpractices (think shit like enviro, tax, etc.) and I wish I would have just been general M&A or something more marketable for in-house roles, like employment. There's far too few opportunities to exit biglaw, the very few jobs that do come up are for businesses that have some specialized overlap and they're looking for people with 8-10 years experience which is far longer than I want to be here.

[Excellent117]

I would have never gone to law school/practiced law in the first place.

[LBJ's Hair]

I'm happy with the route I chose. I've been doing appellate and impact litigation.

lmao

[Auxilio]

I'm in M&A, I don't hate it but I think I would have preferred a specialist role (there are few I think I'd be fine with) or EC/VC work. Transactional was definitely the right choice though.

[CHEESEISLYFE]

All of it sucks.

Still litigation / investigations. I have reasonable reading comprehension, can write passably and feign opinions when needed. Basic social skills. That all helps a bit. Better hours / fewer deadlines / late hours than transactional areas.

I have no organisational skills and am a bit slow, and whilst that's bad being a litigator, it's really bad in M&A or finance where all the job is is attention to detail and organisation.

I cannot stand finance at all. Funds is probably the best transactional area.

People say litigation has poor exits - but that's not true. I never see litigation funders etc. mentioned on here - I reckon most people don't know or think about them.

[Anonymous User]

I'm happy with the route I chose. I've been doing appellate and impact litigation.

lmao

Just being honest.

[Wubbles]

I would have never gone to law school/practiced law in the first place.

TCR

[notinbiglaw]

I would have never gone to law school/practiced law in the first place.

This.