Switching from Corporate Midlevel to Litigation Forum

[Anonymous User]

As the title says, I'm a rising 7th year working in bank finance at a v10. The money has been good, but for the most part, I've absolutely hated my job. I'm trying to change to something else that I'm interested in, and my sights are set on litigation for now. Has anyone heard of people making such a change? I know the opposite is rather common (lit to corporate), but I've never heard of someone in my shoes switching from corporate to lit. Very much interested to hear your perspectives, including comments as to why this is a terrible idea.

The current plan is to clerk and switch to litigation once I hopefully show some willingness to commit to litigation work. Oh, and if it matters, I graduated from T14 in the top 25%.

[Anonymous User]

Personally I think it's a terrible idea. Lit is harder to get, you'd be taking a huge haircut, fewer partner prospects etc. Feels almost like when ppl making 6 figures in tech ask if they should go to law school, it almost never makes sense to. How do you know the grass is greener?

But if you want to, a bankruptcy clerkship is probably the best ramp. You'd be highly valued by bankruptcy judges with your finance background. And after the bk clerkship you can go back to finance if you can't find lit.

Actually maybe just try to lateral into bk in general? Might give you whatever you want to get out of lit and you might retain your seniority. Some firm have finance and bk as one practice group (mine does).

[Anonymous User]

As a litigator, litigation is almost objectively easier in biglaw than transactional is. So I can't say I'm surprised you want to switch, given that both are paid basically the same.

But when people making six figure in tech want to switch to law, it's usually because they find tech boring and they hope law will be more interesting. Perhaps you will find litigating more interesting.

Either way, I agree with the earlier poster who suggested getting into bankruptcy through your current job, and seeing if you like it. And then, yes, you'll need a high-flying clerkship (A3 or bankruptcy in particular) in your area to make the switch worthwhile.

[Anonymous User]

As a litigator, litigation is almost objectively easier in biglaw than transactional is. So I can't say I'm surprised you want to switch, given that both are paid basically the same.

Not OP, but can I ask why? I'm in transactional, but have always wondered what it's actually like as a litigator. I always figured it was harder.

[Anonymous User]

I guess it's easier for people who would enjoy litigation, if that makes sense. I am usually working on something I find substantively interesting. I like the challenge of constructing an argument, and I often find myself in a rabbit hole of analysis for a while without realizing how long it's been. I also have a significantly more predictable schedule, unless a judge schedules a sudden hearing or demands additional briefing or something.

My (ignorant, second-hand) perception of transactional suggests more emphasis on attention to detail and late nights without the ability to predict them. Also, it's easier to be "wrong" in transactional (i.e., it's rare for a litigator to make a truly incorrect argument, more often it's just not a great argument), so the stress is there to be perfect.

Exit options for transactional are certainly better, but I'm just talking about the BL experience.

[Anonymous User]

I switched practice areas at around that time, but it was as part of a move in house. I don’t regret it at all, and like you had spent a long time doing something I disliked (in my case, litigation).

That said, starting over as a first year sounds insane and I doubt you will get any traction from good biglaw firms. Litigation is less in demand than transactional is right now, and an incoming first year is going to have first dibs on whatever lit spots are available before you will. There are already reports here of incoming wannabe litigators being forced into transactional roles due to the demand imbalance, and they don’t have the flight risk tag you will (and firms will rightly wonder why it took you 7 years to figure out transactional wasn’t a good fit). The paycut is huge and I doubt any will really think you will last through the immense drudgery of the first two years of biglaw lit, even if a spot were open. In fact, the premise is crazy enough that I highly suspect it is a flame thread.

To the other anons: as a former litigator who now focuses mostly on non-lit items (albeit in different environments), I disagree litigation is easier than transactional. The dominant factor is probably what you like to do more, or in many cases dislike to do less. The thing that makes litigation difficult (or one of them) is that you have opposing counsel who are getting paid to make your life difficult and magnify each and every quasi-mistake you make. I think that makes it much more necessary to be perfect with your work on a day-by-day and hour-by-hour basis in litigation compared to transactional.

[Anonymous User]

Anon who prefers litigation: Yeah, I think it really helped that I clerked three times and it became very clear to me that small mistakes are really not a huge deal—they can usually get stipulated away, or if it seems clear to the Court that opposing counsel is being difficult, you'll wind up getting the benefit of the doubt. However, those same judges would apply strict constructionism to a mistake a transactional attorney makes in a contract, so it seemed more stressful to be working on those underlying documents.

But YMMV, OP.

[Anonymous User]

As the title says, I'm a rising 7th year working in bank finance at a v10. The money has been good, but for the most part, I've absolutely hated my job. I'm trying to change to something else that I'm interested in, and my sights are set on litigation for now. Has anyone heard of people making such a change? I know the opposite is rather common (lit to corporate), but I've never heard of someone in my shoes switching from corporate to lit. Very much interested to hear your perspectives, including comments as to why this is a terrible idea.

The current plan is to clerk and switch to litigation once I hopefully show some willingness to commit to litigation work. Oh, and if it matters, I graduated from T14 in the top 25%.

I clerked COA and am in transactional. My S/O is a litigator. I think this is gonna be...a really hard sell to people, and I don't really get why you wanna do it.

You haven't written briefs, and likely haven't even read briefs, in many years. (Ever?) You don't know anything about discovery. You haven't taken or second-chaired deposition. You don't know the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..

Like, you have the skill-set of a second year---familiar with project management, attention to detail, basic law firm professionalism, etc. But everything is basically brand new.

Someone mentioned bankruptcy, which is more transferable, but if you hate bank finance work at your V10...why would you wanna do bankruptcy?

Honestly I think an MBA would be a better move?

[Anonymous User]

You should try reaching out to Raffi Melkonian, who had this career path--Cravath M&A midlevel --> COA clerk --> lit --> high-profile appellate practitioner. He regularly broadcasts that he's willing to talk to anyone considering that type of change. He also says that absolutely everyone said he was nuts and you just have to be prepared for that.