Top Law Schools

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

giganto67 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:37 pm

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

Could you share why you think that?

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

giganto67 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:37 pm

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.

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.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:09 pm

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

Why do you want to escape

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.

NYto202.5 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:38 pm

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

NYto202.5 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:38 pm

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.

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 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:46 am

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 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:33 am

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:46 am

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).

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 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:58 pm

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:48 am

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

lmao

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.

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.

LBJ's Hair wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:48 am

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

lmao

Just being honest.

Excellent117 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:55 pm

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

TCR

Excellent117 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:55 pm

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

This.