Corporate (NYC) after clerkship? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hey everyone, I'm currently clerking at a well-respected district court, but can no longer stand litigation and want to do corporate post-clerkship at a firm in NYC.

Can anyone speak to this move? Without outing myself, I have lots of resume gold stars and had a good amount of offers from strong corporate shops in New York at OCI, but I'm wondering if I will have damaged my options by doing a year of firm litigation and a year of clerking before deciding to make the switch. Advice on which firms might be particularly amenable to facilitating the switch and thoughts on what I might be looking at compensation-wise upon moving (e.g., is a clerkship bonus out the window if I'm not doing lit? would I be expected to drop a class year because I have no corp experience?) would be very helpful.

Appreciate the discussion!

[Anonymous User]

Hey everyone, I'm currently clerking at a well-respected district court, but can no longer stand litigation and want to do corporate post-clerkship at a firm in NYC.

Can anyone speak to this move? Without outing myself, I have lots of resume gold stars and had a good amount of offers from strong corporate shops in New York at OCI, but I'm wondering if I will have damaged my options by doing a year of firm litigation and a year of clerking before deciding to make the switch. Advice on which firms might be particularly amenable to facilitating the switch and thoughts on what I might be looking at compensation-wise upon moving (e.g., is a clerkship bonus out the window if I'm not doing lit? would I be expected to drop a class year because I have no corp experience?) would be very helpful.

Appreciate the discussion!

While clerking and then going to a corporate practice group isn't super common, it's definitely not unheard of by any means. It might actually make you an even more interesting candidate for corporate positions.

I've never heard of a clerkship bonus being contingent on a practice group selection. I also doubt you would be expected to drop a class year.

[breadlaw]

I made a similar move, and I’m happy to talk more in depth over PM. Just have a good reason for why you want to do corporate because that’s your biggest hurdle. Corporate is still super hectic in most practice groups and needs bodies.

[attorney589753]

I made a similar move, and I’m happy to talk more in depth over PM. Just have a good reason for why you want to do corporate because that’s your biggest hurdle. Corporate is still super hectic in most practice groups and needs bodies.

Same here

[Anonymous User]

I made a similar move, and I’m happy to talk more in depth over PM. Just have a good reason for why you want to do corporate because that’s your biggest hurdle. Corporate is still super hectic in most practice groups and needs bodies.

Same here

OP here -- thank you and I've PM'd you both!

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity, why did you stop liking litigation, and why do you think corporate will be an improvement?

[Anonymous User]

Just apply broadly and see what happens. Market is red hot. I clerked for two years and got plenty of options in corp roles recently. The job for any lawyer is the same the first 2 years—read, write, work hard, communicate well, take initiative, and project manage.

[Anonymous User]

Out of curiosity, why did you stop liking litigation, and why do you think corporate will be an improvement?

OP here. I think my reasons are mostly me-specific, but happy to share. I've tried both lit and corp work and think they're about equally interesting (or uninteresting) to me, especially when working intense biglaw hours (i.e., when you're working 80 hour weeks, the work sucks no matter what it is). I've never had a big desire to stand up in court (quite the opposite, actually), but thought other aspects of litigation would be more appealing (e.g., researching, brief writing, etc.) -- after doing some months in a lit department and a few months now of clerking, I've decided they're not more appealing.
I really do not want to end up 20 years from now like the middle-aged litigators that are appearing in my court each day and doing the same researching, brief writing, scheduling, motion arguing over and over again. Again, though, that's me-specific -- surely some folks dream of doing just that.

These days I'm more concerned about the work I'll be doing years from now after my big firm life ends. The exit options from corporate just seem much more interesting to me (and more lucrative) than those in litigation, and I think a few years in corporate at a big firm provides a young person with a more expansive skill set that can be reasonably leveraged for a wider variety of roles than the litigation skill set can. For biglaw litigators, it really seems like the most realistic options are (1) government, (2) a smaller firm doing basically the same work but for less money, or (3) the much less common/available path of in-house at a place that does some litigation work in-house (e.g., insurance company) or doing a very specific role where litigation skills somewhat translate (e.g., AML or compliance at a bank). For a lot of people, (1), (2) or (3) might be very appealing, but for me I would much rather work in-house at a company in a role that's more intertwined with managing legal concerns of the company from a business-first or day-to-day operational perspective. I think pivoting to corporate now will better prepare me for that role.